Author Topic: Mech design decisions that make no sense  (Read 146418 times)

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25920
  • It's just my goth phase
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #960 on: 30 May 2019, 23:32:29 »
That is, I believe, allowed.
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

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40860
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #961 on: 30 May 2019, 23:46:24 »
Yup, that's allowed.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13709
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #962 on: 31 May 2019, 00:37:25 »
In Battletech, you can shoot at lots of things that aren't even units.  You can shoot at trees, bridges, buildings, and hexes.  And there's never a restriction on whose units you can shoot at.  By the letter of the law, I think you can friendly fire to your heart's content.

Since apparently Weirdo and I being ironclad certain that Friendly Fire is not possible is not enough, please take a moment to review the official stance on the subject.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37424
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #963 on: 31 May 2019, 03:52:38 »
I think Weirdo let that one go WAY too easily back in the day.  And I think Chunga used a wrong word there.  If he'd said "Tournament" instead of "Official", I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #964 on: 31 May 2019, 04:55:31 »
Since apparently Weirdo and I being ironclad certain that Friendly Fire is not possible is not enough, please take a moment to review the official stance on the subject.
Sorry, reading that thread kicked some gears lose in my brain, but are you telling me that friendly units aren't valid targets for coolant and water ammo for Flamers/Fluid Guns/Sprayers? Because that seems like the ENTIRE purpose of those ammo types and the coolant truck rules.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13709
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #965 on: 31 May 2019, 07:43:12 »
I think Weirdo let that one go WAY too easily back in the day.  And I think Chunga used a wrong word there.  If he'd said "Tournament" instead of "Official", I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

There is no difference between those words in this context.  If you want to shoot friendlies, it's a house rule.  House rules are absolutely encouraged in your games.

For what I hope are obvious reasons, I'm not going to include that paragraph and an asterisk every time a rules question comes up.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #966 on: 31 May 2019, 08:20:04 »
Since apparently Weirdo and I being ironclad certain that Friendly Fire is not possible is not enough, please take a moment to review the official stance on the subject.

I don't care what their official stance is.  I'm saying the rules don't actually say that.  There is no restriction against friendly fire in the rulebook.  You simply pick a target, and then you fire.  There is nothing that restricts what qualifies as a "target".

Catalyst is free to publish some errata.  But the text in the rulebook does not support that ruling.  They pulled it out of nowhere.

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10407
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #967 on: 31 May 2019, 08:36:28 »
Sorry, reading that thread kicked some gears lose in my brain, but are you telling me that friendly units aren't valid targets for coolant and water ammo for Flamers/Fluid Guns/Sprayers? Because that seems like the ENTIRE purpose of those ammo types and the coolant truck rules.

It's been mentioned in this thread that coolant is the exception. But you don't roll to hit, you just need to be close enough and it does it's thing.
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

RifleMech

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4491
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #968 on: 31 May 2019, 08:39:45 »
Scorpion? As in, the quad ´Mech? I picture something like wing membranes spread between the legs, like a flying squirrel.

How'd the AirMech mode be different from BattleMech mode?

Oh, brother.  :bang:

The airmech mode is fairly easy to see.  I'm having a bit of trouble seeing seeing the fighter mode, but the art LAM art in TRO 3085 is a bit funky.  On the other hand, without seeing it in motion, holding a toy or having these handy-dandy and color coded charts from this Macross fan site, picturing some of those transformations would be hard too. The only reason the Unseen LAM's seem reasonable to us is that most of us either saw it on Robotech, or had the old G1 Jetfire. 

Not saying it wouldn't work, just saying I don't see it.

 ;D

You can picture the Scorpion in AirMech Mode? Were the front legs become arms? I can see a couple different ways Fighter Mode can look but I'm stuck on AirMech.


Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40860
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #969 on: 31 May 2019, 08:47:10 »
Sorry, reading that thread kicked some gears lose in my brain, but are you telling me that friendly units aren't valid targets for coolant and water ammo for Flamers/Fluid Guns/Sprayers? Because that seems like the ENTIRE purpose of those ammo types and the coolant truck rules.

It's a bit obscure, but I recommend reading through this thread, it explains that coolant is an exception.

It's been mentioned in this thread that coolant is the exception. But you don't roll to hit, you just need to be close enough and it does it's thing.

You do roll to hit. But nonetheless, coolant is the explicit exception.

I don't care what their official stance is.  I'm saying the rules don't actually say that.  There is no restriction against friendly fire in the rulebook.

The restriction is the same one as the restriction against turning enemies to your side by exiting your mech and offering them autographed animation cels. If the rules do not say you can do a thing and tell you how to do the thing, you cannot do the thing. It's that simple.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #970 on: 31 May 2019, 09:10:47 »
The restriction is the same one as the restriction against turning enemies to your side by exiting your mech and offering them autographed animation cels. If the rules do not say you can do a thing and tell you how to do the thing, you cannot do the thing. It's that simple.

I had started writing a response, and now I'm going to have to correct myself.

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #971 on: 31 May 2019, 09:15:06 »
So, Total Warfare does actually have an explicit restriction against friendly fire.  I've been looking through it during the course of this discussion.  It's on page 42 in the definitions section.

Quote
Target
A target is defined as anything a unit may attack, whether
with a weapon or physically. This can be another enemy unit (a
friendly can never be the target of a direct attack, though it can
be damaged through the effects of another attack),

This is exactly what I had been looking for.  So I'll retract my earlier statement.  As of Total Warfare, you can't intentionally friendly fire.  Previous to this (all the way back to Battledroids and all the way forward to BMR) there wasn't such a restriction.  But it doesn't have anything to do with a lack of specific restriction.  Under the combat rules, if a target is in LOS and in your firing arc, you can shoot at it.  Except for that parenthetical statement I quoted, there is nothing restricting this to enemy targets.  If something is in LOS and your firing arc, it's a target.
« Last Edit: 31 May 2019, 09:18:54 by massey »

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13709
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #972 on: 31 May 2019, 09:54:43 »
So, Total Warfare does actually have an explicit restriction against friendly fire.  I've been looking through it during the course of this discussion.  It's on page 42 in the definitions section.

This is exactly what I had been looking for.  So I'll retract my earlier statement.  As of Total Warfare, you can't intentionally friendly fire.  Previous to this (all the way back to Battledroids and all the way forward to BMR) there wasn't such a restriction.  But it doesn't have anything to do with a lack of specific restriction.  Under the combat rules, if a target is in LOS and in your firing arc, you can shoot at it.  Except for that parenthetical statement I quoted, there is nothing restricting this to enemy targets.  If something is in LOS and your firing arc, it's a target.

While I'm glad you got to the right conclusion, what Weirdo and I have been trying to impress is that "there is no restriction against..." is a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of any possible rule in BattleTech.  Or at the very least way of approaching rules questions.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #973 on: 31 May 2019, 10:40:10 »
While I'm glad you got to the right conclusion, what Weirdo and I have been trying to impress is that "there is no restriction against..." is a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of any possible rule in BattleTech.  Or at the very least way of approaching rules questions.

And we have a fundamental disagreement on that.  I'm not trying to make my mech use the Care Bear Stare on you ("the rules don't say I can't do it!").  I am simply reading the literal language of the rules.

Let's take a look at the original Battletech Manual: The Rules of Warfare (with the Atlas on the cover).  I picked this one at random, but it doesn't really matter, because most versions of the rules are virtually copy/pasted from it.  In the section "Playing The Game", Combat, page 17.

Quote
After completing the Movement Phase of the turn, the players begin to engage in combat.  There are two forms of combat: Weapon Attacks and Physical Attacks.  Weapon Attacks are attacks using the unit's armaments, such as missiles, lasers, and autocannons.  In Physical Attacks, the 'Mechs use their weight to inflict damage on targets.

(skip description of how damage works)

During the Weapons Fire Phase, players use the armaments of their units to inflict damage on targets.  For one unit to fire at another, it must have a clear line-of-sight to the target, and the target must be within the range and firing arc of the weapons that player wishes to use.  The likelihood of a shot hitting a target is then calculated based on the range, movement of the target and firer, intervening terrain, and other factors.

Hmm, well, it appears to shoot at a target you have to have line of sight, be within range, and the target has to be within your firing arc.  But it doesn't say anything about who or what you can target.  According to that, "units" can fire at "units".

Maybe it says something in Line of Sight?  I'm not going to quote the whole section, but it doesn't.  What about the section on Firing Arcs?  No, it doesn't say anything there either.  What about in the "Firing Weapons" section on page 19?

Quote
FIRING WEAPONS
After a player has determined that a target is within the firing arc of his weapons and there is a clear line-of-sight to the target, his unit may fire.

The phrases "enemy unit" or "friendly unit" never appear in the book, not that I've found.  The phrasing is either 'mechs shooting at 'mechs, units shooting at units, or attacker shooting at target.  And that's the case with Battledroids, Battletech Third Edition, Battletech Fourth Edition, The Rules of Warfare, Battletech Master Rules, and Battletech Master Rules Revised.  Even Total Warfare uses those same terms except for the definition of "target" that I found on page 42 (posted above).

The game allows a unit to shoot at another unit.  It makes no distinction as to who controls either one.  Saying "well obviously you can't shoot your own guys" is you reading something into the rules that (until Total Warfare page 42) was not there.  The game also allows you to make facing changes, but it doesn't use the terminology "left" or "right".  I don't think anyone would argue that you can't turn left.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13709
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #974 on: 31 May 2019, 11:04:51 »
I'm struggling to figure out what your point is here.  Referencing a rulebook written before I was born means nothing for the rules now.  If you're fishing for an admission that friendly fire used to be possible (however pointless that  admission might be) it certainly was.

That said: you're still getting to the right place the wrong way.  "It doesn't say I can't target friendlies!" is a backwards justification and forms a seriously bad habit for interpreting other rules.  For example: under that body of text you quoted, you can't shoot at a hex,  only another unit.  Does that make sense?  No, of course not.  Is that the literal reading of the text?  Yes, it is.  It is imperative to approach from a perspective of "this is what the rules say I can do".  The (old, obsolete) rules say I can fire at a unit.  What kind of unit?  Any kind.  The current rules say I can fire at a target.  What kind of target?  Any kind that isn't friendly.  Similarly, the rules say I can make a facing change.  What kind of facing change?  Any kind, as long as I pat the costs for it.  What kinds are there?  Left and right.

Part of that evolution is the improvement in technical writing standards across the industry, part of it is experience.  Holding up an old book and saying it wasn't a rule until recently is completely irrelevant.

EDIT: "It used to be possible" is a fun fact, not an argument.
« Last Edit: 31 May 2019, 11:15:34 by Scotty »
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #975 on: 31 May 2019, 11:47:45 »
I'm struggling to figure out what your point is here.  Referencing a rulebook written before I was born means nothing for the rules now.  If you're fishing for an admission that friendly fire used to be possible (however pointless that  admission might be) it certainly was.

That said: you're still getting to the right place the wrong way.  "It doesn't say I can't target friendlies!" is a backwards justification and forms a seriously bad habit for interpreting other rules.  For example: under that body of text you quoted, you can't shoot at a hex,  only another unit.  Does that make sense?  No, of course not.  Is that the literal reading of the text?  Yes, it is.  It is imperative to approach from a perspective of "this is what the rules say I can do".  The (old, obsolete) rules say I can fire at a unit.  What kind of unit?  Any kind.  The current rules say I can fire at a target.  What kind of target?  Any kind that isn't friendly.  Similarly, the rules say I can make a facing change.  What kind of facing change?  Any kind, as long as I pat the costs for it.  What kinds are there?  Left and right.

Part of that evolution is the improvement in technical writing standards across the industry, part of it is experience.  Holding up an old book and saying it wasn't a rule until recently is completely irrelevant.

EDIT: "It used to be possible" is a fun fact, not an argument.

Edit:  I think we are talking in circles around each other.  But I think we are agreeing at this point.


I'm not going to quote from Total Warfare, because the book is too damn long.  The one I quoted from is the one I had at hand while I was typing the post.  But as I said, the language is virtually identical in the other books.  Last night I looked at a copy of every major rulebook, except for Battletech Second Edition (which I don't have) and the Compendium with the MadCat and Elemental on the cover (which I just forgot to look at).  In every version, you shoot at "units" or "targets", with no restriction on ownership.  Other sections allow you to shoot at hexes, trees, buildings, etc.  To shoot at a target, it has to be a unit (or building, hex, trees, etc) in LOS, in your firing arc, and in range.  That's it.

Even Total Warfare uses the same language, just with a lot more words.  In fact it was the first book I checked.  The restriction on friendly fire comes in the definitions section, separate from the "how to play the game" instructions.  That's why I didn't find it initially, and probably why Weirdo was going with the "permissive rules" argument instead of just telling me to look at page 42.  We both missed it in the language of the rules the first time.

Weirdo was taking the position that because it doesn't say I can shoot at "friendly units" that I can't.  But the only place the game makes any distinction between friendly and enemy units is in that one parenthetical on page 42 of TW.  Absent that specific restriction, I can shoot at any unit I want.  Just like it doesn't have to specifically tell me that I can shoot at a Wasp or a Warhammer, just like it doesn't have to tell me that I can turn left and right, the general rule is that I can shoot at something in range, in LOS, and in my firing arc.  As long as those three things are true, it's a target and I can shoot at it.  I don't need special permission to shoot at a friendly, because under the general rule I can shoot at anything.

It's only when there's a specific restriction that friendly fire becomes against the rules.  Absent that one sentence on page 42, it's allowed.
« Last Edit: 31 May 2019, 11:51:20 by massey »

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28998
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #976 on: 31 May 2019, 12:00:17 »
If that rabbit is dead . . .

What about Missile Fire Support mechs that only have a few shots?  I am specifically talking about things like the Bombardier which has a single ton per launcher.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

grimlock1

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2087
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #977 on: 31 May 2019, 12:07:32 »
If that rabbit is dead . . .

What about Missile Fire Support mechs that only have a few shots?  I am specifically talking about things like the Bombardier which has a single ton per launcher.
At the risk of going too general, ANYTHING that brings an LRM-20 to the field without at least 9 shots is a product of the Good Idea Fairy.


Speaking of missiles, WTF is up with the Dire Wolf X?  ATM 6, streak 2, SRM 4 and LRM 15? The lasers run the gamut of pulse, ER and heavy flavors.  The Ultra and LB AC's are represented.  The only thing I can think of is this is a config designed by Jaguar or Falcon merchant, trying to one-up a Diamond Shark.
« Last Edit: 31 May 2019, 12:33:54 by grimlock1 »
I'm rarely right... Except when I am.  ---  Idle question.  What is the BV2 of dread?
Apollo's Law- if it needs Clan tech to make it useable, It doesn't deserve those resources in the first place.
Sure it isn't the most practical 'mech ever designed, but it's a hundred ton axe-murderer. If loving that is wrong I don't wanna be right.

The_Caveman

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1246
  • A Living Fossil
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #978 on: 31 May 2019, 12:22:06 »
120 missiles is 120 missiles, it doesn't matter what size launcher you're using. The size of the launchers you're using should really be dictated by the amount of ammo you're carrying, not the other way around.

That said, if you can't carry the ammo yourself, you can always have somebody else carry it. The Bombardier and Catapult are probably meant to unload quickly and then scoot back to where the J-27s are hanging out for a quick reload, rather than hanging out in the combat zone for prolonged periods and taking hits.
Half the fun of BattleTech is the mental gymnastics required to scientifically rationalize design choices made decades ago entirely based on the Rule of Cool.

The other half is a first-turn AC/2 shot TAC to your gyro that causes your Atlas to fall and smash its own cockpit... wait, I said fun didn't I?

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19858
  • Cap’n-Generalissimost
    • Master Unit List
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #979 on: 31 May 2019, 13:01:09 »
If that rabbit is dead . . .

What about Missile Fire Support mechs that only have a few shots?  I am specifically talking about things like the Bombardier which has a single ton per launcher.

when you have to provide fire support but be back to pick up the kids from school by 3pm

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12035
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #980 on: 31 May 2019, 13:16:19 »
IIRC the Bombardier was meant to operate 'artillery style' with support crews, including reloader vehicles. so the small bins shouldn't have been a big deal in such a use.

of course i'm not sure the rules actually allow that to work as intended.

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28998
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #981 on: 31 May 2019, 13:23:15 »
That said, if you can't carry the ammo yourself, you can always have somebody else carry it. The Bombardier and Catapult are probably meant to unload quickly and then scoot back to where the J-27s are hanging out for a quick reload, rather than hanging out in the combat zone for prolonged periods and taking hits.

I get that, I worked with MLRS & HiMARS . . . one has 12 rockets and the other has 6 though both reload quickly (oddly perhaps, the heavier system is faster) but when it comes to fire support and mission tasking the MLRS is/was easier to plan just b/c each launcher had more shots before reload.  Probably easier at higher levels to work up fire plans too.  The Bombardier and Catapult C1 are different IMO b/c the Cat actually has a solid secondary weapons array and thicker skin.  The Bombardier just has that single SRM for back up . . . and as a mech, it can be expect to go places the ammo trucks do not (or get to easily, movement through terrain in a combat turn vs strategic movement is different IMO).  No trucks are going to be falling with you out a dropship . . . or at least not useful ones.  Does raise the question if the SLDF had IndiMech support forces that jumped too (Sure that Bombardier only has 6 rounds for its main weapons, but you see that LoaderMech over there?  Its jumping too and it has four reload packs for the Bombardier.)
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #982 on: 31 May 2019, 13:38:51 »
I can't speak to the Bombardier, but looking at the 3025 drawing of the Wolverine, I got the impression that the ammo was stored in a detachable magazine.  It looks like it should be able to fire its 20 rounds, eject a mag, and manually insert another one with its hands.  Now the rules don't allow for that, but that's how it looks visually.

If you had a weapon system something like that, basically a one turn reload, then that opens up a lot of design possibilities. 

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28998
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #983 on: 31 May 2019, 13:40:21 »
I want to say there was some fluff about that sort of thing but it never made it past lore.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #984 on: 31 May 2019, 13:45:40 »
Looking again at the mech, I think the perceived value of the Bombardier is the 5/8 movement profile of the Star League design.  Since they had more units than anybody else, that's a pretty nice machine.  You've got a 25% faster top speed than an Archer, carry the same firepower, and the only downside is you have to bring more of them to sustain fire for a long time.  Oh darn, however will the Star League cope?

It sort of reminds me of the M1 Abrams.  Fast and powerful, but it guzzles fuel.  That'd be a huge issue for many militaries, but the US Army already has huge fleets of fuel vehicles.  As it is intended and expected to be used, it's not a big deal for them.

The Bombardier would e able to provide fire support for mechs like the Champion and Lancelot much better than the slower Archer or the lighter Trebuchet.

Edit:  Basically the slower, crappier 3025 version would have just downgraded the engine without changing much else.  It's a way to keep a mech in service (or make use of existing spare parts) to get more bodies in the field.  At that point just having a mech out there is more important than whether the design is great or not.
« Last Edit: 31 May 2019, 13:47:54 by massey »

dgorsman

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1987
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #985 on: 31 May 2019, 13:48:18 »
Consider that the Bombardier is intended to support more mobile forces, that would not be sticking around to slug it out.  They can still make use of the limited endurance firepower.
Think about it.  It's what we do.
- The Society

Thunder LRMs: the gift that keeps on giving.  They're the glitter of the BattleTech universe.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40860
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #986 on: 31 May 2019, 13:52:07 »
Does raise the question if the SLDF had IndiMech support forces that jumped too (Sure that Bombardier only has 6 rounds for its main weapons, but you see that LoaderMech over there?  Its jumping too and it has four reload packs for the Bombardier.)

I always liked the idea of a battery composed of 3 Helepolis and one Daedalus, with the Daedalus going anywhere the artillery mechs could go, hiding during a firefight, and reloading them whenever needed. I could see the same or similar working with Bombardiers. Unless you go with a different design your loader won't be able to match their tactical speed, but I'll bet their strategic speed(especially over rough ground) will still be a lot better than a force with a conventional supply train.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Colt Ward

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28998
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #987 on: 31 May 2019, 14:21:08 »
Its the artillery mech with the big tube from the shoulder, a heavy?  Yeah, I have to tell you the ammo trucks are not too far behind the SP arty . . . like the reload points are supposed to be about 100 meters, usually behind terrain from the firing points if it can be arranged.  And the ammo truck will be in its own hide location, parked a little bit away from the actual reload point (b/c of clearances for machinery) since it tends to be a open area.

The lance is not bad, but typically its organized at the battery so . . . 1st Lance/4 Helepolis, 2nd Lance/4 Helepolis, 3rd Lance/ammo platoon.  Btw, those Indi drivers are going to be your back up ArtyMech drivers.
Colt Ward
Clan Invasion Backer #149, Leviathans #104

"We come in peace, please ignore the bloodstains."

"Greetings, Mechwarrior. You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Daoshen and the Capellan armada."

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40860
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #988 on: 31 May 2019, 14:33:22 »
Oh, absolutely. I just reduced the size so it could actually fit in a typical Battletech game without being the entire force.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
Re: Mech design decisions that make no sense
« Reply #989 on: 31 May 2019, 16:55:31 »
I get that, I worked with MLRS & HiMARS . . . one has 12 rockets and the other has 6 though both reload quickly (oddly perhaps, the heavier system is faster) but when it comes to fire support and mission tasking the MLRS is/was easier to plan just b/c each launcher had more shots before reload.  Probably easier at higher levels to work up fire plans too.  The Bombardier and Catapult C1 are different IMO b/c the Cat actually has a solid secondary weapons array and thicker skin.  The Bombardier just has that single SRM for back up . . . and as a mech, it can be expect to go places the ammo trucks do not (or get to easily, movement through terrain in a combat turn vs strategic movement is different IMO).  No trucks are going to be falling with you out a dropship . . . or at least not useful ones.  Does raise the question if the SLDF had IndiMech support forces that jumped too (Sure that Bombardier only has 6 rounds for its main weapons, but you see that LoaderMech over there?  Its jumping too and it has four reload packs for the Bombardier.)
The Bombardier is basically an Archer variant, so I have to wonder why they just didn't make it an Archer variant.

As for reloading that's possible under the rules, but I don't know how you can get extra ammo onto the field.

I always liked the idea of a battery composed of 3 Helepolis and one Daedalus, with the Daedalus going anywhere the artillery mechs could go, hiding during a firefight, and reloading them whenever needed. I could see the same or similar working with Bombardiers. Unless you go with a different design your loader won't be able to match their tactical speed, but I'll bet their strategic speed(especially over rough ground) will still be a lot better than a force with a conventional supply train.
I was going to say that this wouldn't work because the Daedalus doesn't have Jump Jets, but it turns out that the Helepolis doesn't have Jump Jets, I just thought it did.

 

Register