Recent Posts

1

Strategic Combat / Re: SBF Aerospace combat phase puzzlement

« Last post by Zematus737 on Today at 11:14:30 »

The wording alternate of defense squadron in place of the traditional use of "target" and "attacker" seems like a trifle, or making a mountain out of a mole hill. 

You can wait until the proposed ideas of higher scales (as all these schemes are really a smorgasbord of ideas one can freely pick and choose from) or you can figure how they can all play well together.  I shared some of my ideas on how to do that in the post on Player Aids.  You're most welcome to pick up the ideas there or use some of them to form your own system.

It's clear that Battletech is the Eve Online of table top board games.  There are so many players that love to TALK about the game, but most of the hardly understanding or even playing it.  Speaking for myself, I see enough information in these guides to formulate some coherent framework that can be fruitful in future battalion or regiment sized confrontations.

2

Strategic Combat / Re: Spheroid dropships landing damage in SBF

« Last post by Zematus737 on Today at 11:05:01 »

A spheroid can drop or land almost anywhere, but if that terrain is not of the recommended type it will lead to damage.  It doesn't restrict it from landing, you just prepare the ship to take a hit for an unconventional landing.

3

Off Topic / Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles VI: Eye of the Tiger

« Last post by PsihoKekec on Today at 11:04:51 »

I think it's the more common ISU-152

4

General BattleTech Discussion / Re: Mechacide?

« Last post by Agathos on Today at 11:02:03 »

And only once as far as I can tell and in that circumstances you had:

3: That mech had a second person in the cockpit to pull out the relevant circuits at the exact right moment becuase they were not located for easy mid-combat access.

And 3.1: The 'Mech had a full-head ejection system so the second person wasn't left behind.

5

General BattleTech Discussion / Re: Mechacide?

« Last post by SteelRaven on Today at 11:01:48 »

Ideally, you wouldn't want to be in any situation where you're options includes blowing up your ride. It's only appealing in the tt because most matches turn into death match grinders. If you are playing objectives, you lose more than you gain in a act of desperation.

6

Strategic Combat / Re: Air formations engagements - how they really work?

« Last post by Zematus737 on Today at 11:00:50 »

Engagements are completely optional and not forced if both sides do not want to commit to hostilities.  see type in bold from page 164: A Formation may freely move into and out of hexes occupied by
friendly Formations, but they may not exceed the hex capacity at the
end of the turn. Formations may enter the hex of an enemy Formation,
but only if it would not break the friendly stacking limit. It may not leave
the hex of an enemy Formation if the enemy Formation chooses to
oppose the friendly Formation’s movement (see Engagement Control,
p. 167), unless they conduct a successful overrun or evade (see p. 70) A
Formation that starts the turn in the same hex as an enemy Formation
may attempt to leave, but the presence of the enemy may prevent this
(see Engagement Control, p. 167)

And on page 166 for Hostile Formations in the same Hex: If a Formation’s hex contains an enemy Formation at the beginning of its movement phase, the Formation must pay an additional +1 MP to
move out of the hex and movement may be opposed (see Engagement
Control, p. 167).

And finally, on page 167 of the Engagement Control portion itself: If neither Formation wishes to engage with the other Formation,
then both Formations may continue to move normally, paying
an additional +1 MP to move through the hostile occupied hex.
Formations with a Morale of Shaken, Broken or Routed (see Morale,
pp. 172-174) or suffering from Forced Withdrawal (see p. 172) must
choose to not engage

The Engagement Control wording can sometimes make it seem like it is forced.  It is not.  But once two forces become engaged, an EngCR must happen each turn and also to end that engagement.

7

General BattleTech Discussion / Re: Mechacide?

« Last post by Gray_Noton_4lfe on Today at 10:53:48 »

It would (in my opinion) be better to risk exploding the Mech, then let the enemy salvage your Mech for their purposes after you're dead. But like BrianDavion said before, the engine is expensive, so guess it depends on how you look at it. 

8

General BattleTech Discussion / Re: Mechacide?

« Last post by Gray_Noton_4lfe on Today at 10:49:05 »

But like I said before what if you're trapped by three Mechs and they are in melee range, you know you're going to be destroyed either way.

9

General BattleTech Discussion / Re: Mechacide?

« Last post by Gray_Noton_4lfe on Today at 10:44:57 »

Also in universe fusion engines are expensive and rare. not something you throw away with a sucide attack

It's not a suicide attack, it's a Mechacide attack The MechWarrior would hopefully eject.

10

General BattleTech Discussion / Re: Upcoming Releases XXIX: First Annual 29th Birthday

« Last post by MarauderD on Today at 10:44:49 »

The agenda for today's Newsday:

Interested in hearing about the KS update.  What time is this slated to kick off?