Register Register

Author Topic: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?  (Read 2304 times)

Hominid Mk II

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 511
  • Unofficial, sure. But better than nothing, right?
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #60 on: 27 November 2020, 05:04:07 »
Ok, it's interesting but I have other stuff to do, too, so unless the OP want it for whatever reason, I'm done here.  Lying well takes time and effort, after all.

You've made a very worthwhile contribution already, Red Pins. You're more than entitled to step back and focus on fun things like going sledding with your kids.

Edit: And since you have such an... interesting definition of lying, it seems somehow appropriate to bid you farewell with a popular paradoxical quote:

The following statement is true.

The previous statement is false.


 ;)
« Last Edit: 27 November 2020, 05:07:19 by Hominid Mk II »
Ever felt that The Powers That Were at FASA, WizKids and FanPro never gave Victor Steiner-Davion and the Federated Commonwealth a fair shake in the canon timeline? Then you might be interested in my Victor Victorious AU at

https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=65976.0

.

Red Pins

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2985
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #61 on: 27 November 2020, 08:38:33 »
Fun?

No.  Take the roof, clean garage...  In a family of 6, just sorting the socks is an hour and a a half.  later.
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
Glitter - the herpes of the craft supply world.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2108
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #62 on: 27 November 2020, 10:10:04 »
Why they can't?

I'm going to go with Engine Shielding. It gets in the way of the heat sinks. You'd think they could have fixed that but that's the best idea I can think of. Everything else I can think of can be countered.

Why they can?
Combat Vehicles have been re-eingineered. They're now a cross between Combat Vehicles and Support Vehicles. They're built using the Combat Vehicle rules, except they have critical space like Support Vehicles. Also like mechs, any heat sink that doesn't fit in the engine not takes up critical slots.

Addition, the engines no longer need the extra shielding.





« Last Edit: 28 November 2020, 15:49:39 by RifleMech »

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 852
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #63 on: 27 November 2020, 11:16:08 »
The real problem on no DHS on CV is, aerospace fighters are allowed to use DHS despite they have no legs and arms. So not only battlemech-shaped vehicles that is tank-sized are able to use DHS.

Also I don't understand why more shielding for the fusion is ever required for the CVs. All they needs is just makes the crew quarter more durable, actually.

And it is better to reduce the crew by 1 to 2, and 3 must be the maximum, instead of one crew per each 15 tons. A battlemech is runned by only a single crew, then why not for the CVs? I think that all they needs is a commander with a neurohelmet, as same as battlemech and aerospace fighter. Perhaps it would be easier to run if it have a driver, so two crew vehicle(commander and driver) seems not that bad. And... for some complex systems(or units with two turrets) it may have an extra gunner as the third crew. But I don't think that any CVs are actually needs more than that or it is just waste too much resource.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5368
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #64 on: 27 November 2020, 11:43:52 »
The real problem on no DHS on CV is, aerospace fighters are allowed to use DHS despite they have no legs and arms. So not only battlemech-shaped vehicles that is tank-sized are able to use DHS.

Also I don't understand why more shielding for the fusion is ever required for the CVs. All they needs is just makes the crew quarter more durable, actually.

And it is better to reduce the crew by 1 to 2, and 3 must be the maximum, instead of one crew per each 15 tons. A battlemech is runned by only a single crew, then why not for the CVs? I think that all they needs is a commander with a neurohelmet, as same as battlemech and aerospace fighter. Perhaps it would be easier to run if it have a driver, so two crew vehicle(commander and driver) seems not that bad. And... for some complex systems(or units with two turrets) it may have an extra gunner as the third crew. But I don't think that any CVs are actually needs more than that or it is just waste too much resource.

Surface AREA.  A fighter has wings.  I know that doesn't sound like much, but hear me out:

Combat Vehicle design since at least the 1940s have focused on getting the most shit into the smallest box you can put on tracks in order to do two things:

1. minimize target profile.  This is why Soviet tanks had a height limit for crew, and why they went to the carousel autoloader to reduce crew requirements, and why they use the low silhouette  'frying pan' turret instead of a nice, big, roomy boxy one.

Aircraft and Aerospace craft try this too-but they have a basic limit in needing wings for atmosphere, and a wing is a big radiating area because of how aerodynamic lift works.  (basically, a wing in atmosphere creates a pressure differential-low pressure above, higher pressure below, if your difference is high enough, the body lifts. if it isn't, it's stuck on the ground.)

most of that area isn't crammed with other things, because you have to have a high surface area for your mass (low total density).  This is inverse of a ground combat vehicle, which you're cramming as much mass and function into the smallest footprint you can manage for a high density.

Thus, like Battlemechs, ASF can actually MAKE USE of a double heat's capabilities, because it's a low-density mass with a high surface area.

The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2108
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #65 on: 28 November 2020, 15:58:10 »
Surface AREA.  A fighter has wings.  I know that doesn't sound like much, but hear me out:

(snip)

Thus, like Battlemechs, ASF can actually MAKE USE of a double heat's capabilities, because it's a low-density mass with a high surface area.

Part of me wonders why ASFs can use DHS is because way back in Aerotech 1 they had more locations. Another part of me wonders if ASF's use of DHS was to make them even more superior to CFs.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5368
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #66 on: 28 November 2020, 16:16:23 »
Part of me wonders why ASFs can use DHS is because way back in Aerotech 1 they had more locations. Another part of me wonders if ASF's use of DHS was to make them even more superior to CFs.

I think a lot of the in-universe reason boils down to:

"Well, we can make an in-atmosphere fighter that matches your XF-20000 wonderfighter in an earth atmosphere, but it'll cost as much as building XF-20000 fighters, so we'll put the resources there." 

a few generations later:  Conventional aircraft haven't advanced because everyone is building descendants of the XF-20000 which can be deployed in thinner, thicker, or even no atmosphere pretty evenly, while conventional air-breather fighters aren't as versatile.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

RifleMech

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2108
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #67 on: 28 November 2020, 18:47:37 »
I think a lot of the in-universe reason boils down to:

"Well, we can make an in-atmosphere fighter that matches your XF-20000 wonderfighter in an earth atmosphere, but it'll cost as much as building XF-20000 fighters, so we'll put the resources there." 

a few generations later:  Conventional aircraft haven't advanced because everyone is building descendants of the XF-20000 which can be deployed in thinner, thicker, or even no atmosphere pretty evenly, while conventional air-breather fighters aren't as versatile.


probably. I was referring to the game though. In universe sounds like a good reason.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2435
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #68 on: 01 January 2021, 10:30:15 »
Combat vehicles are a completely different tool in the game.  It has advantages that mechs don't.  Those who complain the loudest uses these advantages the least . Advantage 1 any artillery use ( Shitron Prime you try to get a mech to carry  2 Arrow IV launchers and a C 3 master computer ) . Advantage 2 multi target penalty starts at number of gunners + 1 not as with mechs with the first secondary target. Advantage  3 the trailer hitch  .  4 not tracking heat from non . Energy  weapons  tied with the use of trailers.  In a hidden unit double blind city fight you turn a corner you have a tank hitched to a trailer with 12 improved One shot SRM 6 launchers  that are fire in you face in addition to what is on the tank . Then  revealed unit then disconnects trailer and operates normally.  Use your tools correctly and they become conditionally better than mechs .

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 852
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #69 on: 01 January 2021, 10:39:12 »
An another idea on this. You know, when DHS were extinct, both CV and mechs are stick with inferior single heat sink. And while mechs are stick with single heat sink and have to track heat, vehicles are stick with single heat and suffered by ridiculous +50% weight on fusion engine.

Then, after DHS is revived, isn't nothing wrong to simply allow DHS on CVs with fusion engine, while leaves the trait to ignore non-energy heats? So mechs still need to track all the hits, and vehicles suffers +50% engine weight.

Col Toda

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2435
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #70 on: 02 January 2021, 01:06:48 »
Combat Vehicles are already competitive and get a BV discount for motive crits . The can carry a heavy Gauss rifle in the front without making pilot checks when fired . All the cannon mechs I see with heavy Gauss rifles have 2 crit slots in the center torso occupied by part of it . Again it is just a different tool giving them double HS would eliminate mechs as a go to combat unit .

Talen5000

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 840
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #71 on: 02 January 2021, 04:49:12 »
Then, after DHS is revived, isn't nothing wrong to simply allow DHS on CVs with fusion engine, while leaves the trait to ignore non-energy heats? So mechs still need to track all the hits, and vehicles suffers +50% engine weight.

To be honest, if you want to change things that much, it'd be better to remove the 50% engine penalty entirely, AND remove heat sinks as equipment CVs can carry.

Instead, just say vehicle engines cannot power energy or gauss weapons and, instead of heat sinks, CVs carry batteries instead. You'd need some sort of conversion system...so 1 ton of batteries takes up x slots and provides power for 10 heat points so a small laser would mass 0.5 tons, but a 1 ton power pack provides 10 shots, while a medium laser gets just 3.

Or you could work off of damage. Or develop a separate Power stat.

But the main issue with DHS remains...the need to keep Mechs as supreme and allowing CVs to use DHS removes one of the main limitations of CVs. Vehicles are already quite resilient in game compared with the BTU so removing any more of their limitations, justified or not, risks altering the feel and focus of the game. Vehicles can already carry a huge amount of firepower and with the addition of systems like Jump Jets aren't as limited in mobility as they should be
« Last Edit: 02 January 2021, 13:46:57 by Talen5000 »
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Red Pins

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2985
  • Inspiration+Creativity=Insanity
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #72 on: 02 January 2021, 09:45:18 »
To be honest, if you want to change things that much, it'd be better to remove the 50% engine penalty entirely, AND remove heat sinks as equipment CVs can carry.

Hmm.  Always forgetting that 50% mass penalty.  ...You know, that would be equal to or improve on Endo-steel IS for vees.  What excuse for it do they use in canon, again?
...Visit the Legacy Cluster...
The New Clans:Volume One
Clan Devil Wasp * Clan Carnoraptor * Clan Frost Ape * Clan Surf Dragon * Clan Tundra Leopard
Now with MORE GROGNARD!  ...I think I'm done.  I've played long enough to earn a pension, fer cryin' out loud!  IlClan and out in <REDACTED>!
Glitter - the herpes of the craft supply world.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19079
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Heresy time: DHS for Vehicles?
« Reply #73 on: 02 January 2021, 19:07:17 »
Combat Vehicles are already competitive and get a BV discount for motive crits . The can carry a heavy Gauss rifle in the front without making pilot checks when fired . All the cannon mechs I see with heavy Gauss rifles have 2 crit slots in the center torso occupied by part of it . Again it is just a different tool giving them double HS would eliminate mechs as a go to combat unit .

You only need to make a PSR after firing a heavy Gauss if you expended movement points in the same round.  And there are plenty of mechs that have a heavy Gauss and don't have it in any crit locations in the front: the Hauptmann and Fafnir, for example.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

 

Register