I Wanna Be A Bomb Ammo Placement?

[Scotty]

So you would defend the idea that randomly placing ammo in empty torso locations is a good idea, both in a tactical sense and in a game design sense, given that there is nothing in the rules that indicates that doing such a thing is necessary or in any way beneficial? And that it is in no way silly that some mech designs are randomly cursed with suicide bomb ammo placement while others aren't, with no logic or reason behind it?

You're thinking far too binary.  It's not necessarily a good idea, but neither is it a bad one.

In fact, I would say that, considering how often I run out of AC/5 ammo on my Marauders, I would actually much rather prefer having the ammo in that torso than anywhere else.  If the Left Torso were completely empty, any of those crits would immediately transfer to the Center Torso, and suddenly I have no engine or no gyro.

You're also totally ignoring how the rules have changed since the introduction to today, and how there is reason behind it.  You just don't like it.

[bakija]

You're also totally ignoring how the rules have changed since the introduction to today, and how there is reason behind it.  You just don't like it.

How am I *possibly* ignoring how the rules have changed? The whole *premise* of this thread started with "Did this happen 'cause the rules changed? Can we find concrete examples in old rules to see how things evolved in this direction?"

Clearly, you disagree with the basic thesis of this discussion (i.e. that it is not a good plan to have ammo in otherwise empty torso locations). There is nothing more that this conversation is going to provide you. Why not just ignore it and move on?

[bakija]

IIRC, the answer had some more info in it. The production of record sheets is the single most time consuming task facing CGL, and redoing all of them was prohibitive. (As in, CGL could either assign their layout guys [all 2 of them] to new products that bring in money to pay bills, or assign them to recreate each and every record sheet.)

Ok, so in the end, the practical answer from the designers essentially is not "we like seeing things blow up, so we arbitrarily design mechs to get hosed by ammo placement", but it is actually, as suspected "it is too much of a pain to go back and fix these things now, so just deal with it".

Fair enough.

[MadCapellan]

Three things:

1. Back in the 3025 days a lot of us, myself included, never thought about trying to crit-pad ammo.  Ammo explosions were just the way the game worked, and there were rarely enough crit slots being used to adequately crit-pack a design, anyway. 
Obviously, in real life, these designs were created by designers who didn't think about crit packing.  In universe, they were designed by designers who....didn't think about crit packing.  From a fluff perspective, that makes perfect sense: the presence of heat sinks or weapon systems internally are not going to protect your ammo bins from damage, even if they do through the lens of abstract game mechanics.
2. FASA, Fanpro, and Catalyst all deliberately design sub-optimal designs to make for a challenging, interesting game experience and provide in-universe character for designs.  Anybody can design an optimized 'Mech.  Most players go through a phase where they do.  There's really no need for Catalyst to publish yet another medium laser or Gauss boat unless it can be made interesting in some way.
3. Catalyst does its utmost to maintain continuity.  "Design X sucks" is not a justification for changing it.  Plenty of designs suck.  Plenty of real-world fighting machines have sucked.  That's how things work.  If you can't stand them, run a campaign where your techs can modify them or don't use them. 

[massey]

Ok, so in the end, the practical answer from the designers essentially is not "we like seeing things blow up, so we arbitrarily design mechs to get hosed by ammo placement", but it is actually, as suspected "it is too much of a pain to go back and fix these things now, so just deal with it".

Fair enough.

Ammo explosions are part of the game.  I like them.  I like hitting an enemy with a good shot and blowing him sky high.  I like knowing that I've got to be careful with that Crusader because if my torso armor gets too thin I could go up in a big boom.

The problem is in players' desire for a totally optimized battlemech.  When you have a choice of ammo bomb mech and ammo bomb mech's clone, with ammo protected, you'll pick the clone every time.  It's the same argument every time.  It's why people hate the AC-5.  It's why people pick mechs that operate within a certain heat envelope over others.  They want the most efficient mechs possible.

I understand that if you're playing a competitive tournament game.  I understand it if you've got a million mech designs to choose from.  But I don't play that way.  I've always seen playing this game as partially a narrative exercise.  You are taking part in some historical battle.  It might be a meaningless fight over planet Dirtball VII back in the depths of the Third Succession War.  But I'm Jack McCready, pilot of a Marauder, taking on two Marik Centurions.  And I've got an ammo bomb, because Marauders have ammo bombs.  And I have heat troubles, because Marauders have heat troubles.  If they didn't have them, I wouldn't be playing a Marauder.  Playing within the limitations of the mechs is just as much a part of the game as getting a +2 movement modifier for going 5 hexes.

[Death by Zeus]

+1 that Massey, it's the difference between "I only have fun if I win" and "I love the game so I have fun no matter what".  O0

[CrossfirePilot]

As the Davion Crusader walks into battle you hear over the Kurita radios "someone set us up the bomb"

[bakija]

1. Back in the 3025 days a lot of us, myself included, never thought about trying to crit-pad ammo.  Ammo explosions were just the way the game worked, and there were rarely enough crit slots being used to adequately crit-pack a design, anyway.

I find that really difficult to fathom. If you are filling out a mech sheet, it takes zero effort to, say, put the ammo in the same torso location as the auto-cannon that is using it. No more effort than it does to put it in the empty other torso location. But putting it in one place is obviously bad, while putting it in the other place is obviously less bad. I was playing this game back in the 3025 days. And doing that was just a good idea. Or not obviously a bad idea. No one here is talking about "crit packing". Something as simple as putting the ammo in the same spot as the gun that is using it as as complicated as one needs to go to significantly increase the likelihood of survival. If the Marauder put its ammo with the AC? It would live a lot longer much of the time.
 

Obviously, in real life, these designs were created by designers who didn't think about crit packing.  In universe, they were designed by designers who....didn't think about crit packing.

Well, except that indications are that they *did* think about putting ammo places that weren't obviously a bad idea. The Marauder, at the very least, originally had heat sinks along with the ammo in that torso location. When the Crusader was designed all those many years ago, apparently you didn't put 10 heat sinks in the engine, so the default assumption was that there were going to be heat sinks in the torso locations with the ammo (there is apparently a demonstration mech sheet in one of the earliest editions of the game that shows a Crusader filled out with heat sinks in the torso with the ammo). And they still *do* think about putting ammo in less dumb places--in going through the entirety of the 3085 record sheets, for example, the vast majority of mechs have ammo put in places that isn't just dumb. And the very small number of mechs that *do* have unprotected ammo come with CASE. And, as noted, indications are that the reason for *not* fixing the mech designs has far more to do with simple practicality (i.e. they have better stuff to do then open the can of worms that is endlessly tweaking mech record sheets) than intention. Which is, at least, understandable.

From a fluff perspective, that makes perfect sense: the presence of heat sinks or weapon systems internally are not going to protect your ammo bins from damage, even if they do through the lens of abstract game mechanics.

While I am generally loathe to try and justify anything with "game world" logic, why does that make any more sense than simple analysis of what happens to mechs in combat? If you have a mech design that has ammo held in an area with a bunch of heat sinks, and it blows up a lot less often than a mech design that doesn't, why wouldn't engineers notice that? I mean, like, contemporary automobile engineers keep track of stuff like that all the time ("Huh. That Pinto with the gas tank in that particular location. It tends to light on fire a lot. Perhaps we should change where we put gas tanks...").

[Orin J.]

I find that really difficult to fathom. If you are filling out a mech sheet, it takes zero effort to, say, put the ammo in the same torso location as the auto-cannon that is using it.

but there's a big empty space in the side torso that'd make the thing much more balanced if we put the ammo there instead.......i mean sure, a full ammo crit is bad, but an empty ammo crit? thank you for not transferring into the CT and damaging something i still needed!

And they still *do* think about putting ammo in less dumb places--in going through the entirety of the 3085 record sheets, for example, the vast majority of mechs have ammo put in places that isn't just dumb. And the very small number of mechs that *do* have unprotected ammo come with CASE. And, as noted, indications are that the reason for *not* fixing the mech designs has far more to do with simple practicality (i.e. they have better stuff to do then open the can of worms that is endlessly tweaking mech record sheets) than intention. Which is, at least, understandable.

sometimes, sometimes....the ammo bomb is just not a big enough issue. if you think it'll blow, well you should have shot more. (MG ammo users: you know what you were getting into, don't look at me like that with your less than 20 MGs)

While I am generally loathe to try and justify anything with "game world" logic, why does that make any more sense than simple analysis of what happens to mechs in combat? If you have a mech design that has ammo held in an area with a bunch of heat sinks, and it blows up a lot less often than a mech design that doesn't, why wouldn't engineers notice that? I mean, like, contemporary automobile engineers keep track of stuff like that all the time ("Huh. That Pinto with the gas tank in that particular location. It tends to light on fire a lot. Perhaps we should change where we put gas tanks...").

if a shot hits frequently a heat sink, it's more likely the tech's are going to think "dang, i guess that's a little exposed over there" than "well it kept the round for going in, ricocheting, and then straight down into that LRM ammo bay!" i doubt most of the heatsinks are mounted directly between the armor and ammo, it's just a simplification for the rule set that happens to arbitrarily reward cramming a lot of other things in there.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Jagers were always the last off the bench when sides were chosen.  ;D

And that was because the bench was chosen first.

Frankly I admit I like the idea of placing heat sinks independently; it'd REALLY change the way they're handled and make compact ones competitive...

[SCC]

If that single ammo bin is the only thing that's stopping crits from migrating to the CT you're doing things wrong, an AC-5 can have ten 2 shot ammo bins for a single ton if you play around with fractional accounting rules a bit, great for specialty ammo

[MadCapellan]

I find that really difficult to fathom. If you are filling out a mech sheet, it takes zero effort to, say, put the ammo in the same torso location as the auto-cannon that is using it. No more effort than it does to put it in the empty other torso location. But putting it in one place is obviously bad, while putting it in the other place is obviously less bad. I was playing this game back in the 3025 days. And doing that was just a good idea. Or not obviously a bad idea. No one here is talking about "crit packing". Something as simple as putting the ammo in the same spot as the gun that is using it as as complicated as one needs to go to significantly increase the likelihood of survival. If the Marauder put its ammo with the AC? It would live a lot longer much of the time.

Back then, and to some extent even today I don't really consider ammo in the same location as the gun "logical".  The thought process I had back in the day was that sticking ammo in an arm was asking for an early ammo explosion that'd take out your entire 'Mech, because arms are the most easily breached part of a 'Mech.  The deeper you could bury it in the torso and its thick armor, the better, particularly for bins with fewer shots.  I get the feeling the original designers thought the same way.  Yes, I do question why sometimes the gun is in the right torso and the ammo in the left, but often funny little fluff pieces followed that.

Well, except that indications are that they *did* think about putting ammo places that weren't obviously a bad idea. The Marauder, at the very least, originally had heat sinks along with the ammo in that torso location. When the Crusader was designed all those many years ago, apparently you didn't put 10 heat sinks in the engine, so the default assumption was that there were going to be heat sinks in the torso locations with the ammo (there is apparently a demonstration mech sheet in one of the earliest editions of the game that shows a Crusader filled out with heat sinks in the torso with the ammo).

I'm not sure about the specifics of those things, but the rules changed a lot from Battledroids to the following edition.  The way they are now is the way they've been for over two decades, and are very unlikely to change.

And they still *do* think about putting ammo in less dumb places--in going through the entirety of the 3085 record sheets, for example, the vast majority of mechs have ammo put in places that isn't just dumb.

Targe Mechwarriors would like to have a word with you....

With the modern design rules full of double-heat sinks and crit-for-weight saving items, unit that have only a single slot of anything are rare as hell.  I don't know that has anything to do with a deliberate design choice so much as it does with the fact that 'Mechs are being designed with every slot being considered now.  That said, authors might just be more sophisticated now.

While I am generally loathe to try and justify anything with "game world" logic,

Well, there's your problem right there.  Catalyst's authors and developers, which is to say the people who also design the majority of the canon 'Mechs, are trying to create a cohesive game world that doesn't conform exactly to the game's abstract rules. In the interest of advancing this integrated view of the storyline and universe, there are a lot of concepts relating to 'Mechs, their uses, and their development that have no bearing on the table-top.  Ignoring the canon storyline means ignoring the entire basis around which canon 'Mechs are designed.  If you don't care about the "fluff', you don't need to use canon 'Mechs at all!

why does that make any more sense than simple analysis of what happens to mechs in combat? If you have a mech design that has ammo held in an area with a bunch of heat sinks, and it blows up a lot less often than a mech design that doesn't, why wouldn't engineers notice that?

Just because that's how it works with our abstract rules set doesn't mean that's how it works "in universe".  Using a different abstraction system - Battleforce - ammo is no more likely to blow up if it's by itself in a location than in a location packed with heat sinks.  The game is a simplification of the fictional universe.  How things work on your table is not how they work in the 31st Century Inner Sphere.

[Light Brigade]

#2. Allowing MG ammo to be used in half ton lots .

If that doesn't sound like a significant change as well ,
then try playing the Phoenix Hawk or Stinger with 8 more
armor points .

A Stinger that can take a PPC hit to the leg is almost a different mech .

A Stinger cannot carry more than 8 armor points on its legs  ;)

[GhostCat]

A Stinger cannot carry more than 8 armor points on its legs  ;)

I think his point was that ten points would not completely remove the leg, giving the Stinger a chance to run away and escape.

GC

[massey]

I find that really difficult to fathom. If you are filling out a mech sheet, it takes zero effort to, say, put the ammo in the same torso location as the auto-cannon that is using it. No more effort than it does to put it in the empty other torso location. But putting it in one place is obviously bad, while putting it in the other place is obviously less bad. I was playing this game back in the 3025 days. And doing that was just a good idea. Or not obviously a bad idea. No one here is talking about "crit packing". Something as simple as putting the ammo in the same spot as the gun that is using it as as complicated as one needs to go to significantly increase the likelihood of survival. If the Marauder put its ammo with the AC? It would live a lot longer much of the time.
 
Well, except that indications are that they *did* think about putting ammo places that weren't obviously a bad idea. The Marauder, at the very least, originally had heat sinks along with the ammo in that torso location. When the Crusader was designed all those many years ago, apparently you didn't put 10 heat sinks in the engine, so the default assumption was that there were going to be heat sinks in the torso locations with the ammo (there is apparently a demonstration mech sheet in one of the earliest editions of the game that shows a Crusader filled out with heat sinks in the torso with the ammo). And they still *do* think about putting ammo in less dumb places--in going through the entirety of the 3085 record sheets, for example, the vast majority of mechs have ammo put in places that isn't just dumb. And the very small number of mechs that *do* have unprotected ammo come with CASE. And, as noted, indications are that the reason for *not* fixing the mech designs has far more to do with simple practicality (i.e. they have better stuff to do then open the can of worms that is endlessly tweaking mech record sheets) than intention. Which is, at least, understandable.

While I am generally loathe to try and justify anything with "game world" logic, why does that make any more sense than simple analysis of what happens to mechs in combat? If you have a mech design that has ammo held in an area with a bunch of heat sinks, and it blows up a lot less often than a mech design that doesn't, why wouldn't engineers notice that? I mean, like, contemporary automobile engineers keep track of stuff like that all the time ("Huh. That Pinto with the gas tank in that particular location. It tends to light on fire a lot. Perhaps we should change where we put gas tanks...").

It makes game sense to give mechs maximum armor.  It makes game sense to give them heat neutral bracket fire.  It makes game sense to pad vulnerable crits.

In the story it makes sense for a Stinger to lose a leg to a PPC.  The PPC was the Gauss Rifle of its day.  A mech carrying twin PPCs was a very powerful opponent.  The Awesome was just, well, awesome.  It induced awe.  It makes sense because the Stinger isn't designed to get shot by a PPC.  In the story you run from mechs with PPCs.  In the story maximum armor is the amount you could theoretically cram onto a mech chassis. but nobody actually expected you to do that.  Very few early mech designs maxed out their armor.  Nobody padded crits.  The ammo was in the left torso because that's where the ammo was.

With the introduction of the Clans, with newer and higher powered weapons, mechs like the Marauder and Crusader began to see more ammo explosions.  Realize that the Crusader has very thick torsos.  It's hard to do 24 points of damage to one location with 4/5 pilots and 3025 tech.  And if you start doing that, the Crusader can relatively quickly deplete that ammo bin.  It wasn't that bad of a problem.

[evilauthor]

Three things:

1. Back in the 3025 days a lot of us, myself included, never thought about trying to crit-pad ammo.  Ammo explosions were just the way the game worked, and there were rarely enough crit slots being used to adequately crit-pack a design, anyway. 
Obviously, in real life, these designs were created by designers who didn't think about crit packing.  In universe, they were designed by designers who....didn't think about crit packing.  From a fluff perspective, that makes perfect sense: the presence of heat sinks or weapon systems internally are not going to protect your ammo bins from damage, even if they do through the lens of abstract game mechanics.

Even if crit packing isn't a consideration, in-universe complexity would be. An in-universe (and consequently, out-of-universe) designer really should be trying to locate ammo as close to the weapons using it as possible. Which means space permitting, ammo should ALWAYS be located in the same section as weapon using it. If the weapon is too bulky for this to be practical, the ammo bin should be at most one section over. This is to minimize the distance the ammo has to travel from bin to weapon.

That this practice would result in the weapon crit soaking for the ammo bin under game rules is purely coincidental of course. O:-)

In short, the Marauder's AC ammo should have been co-located with the AC. The Crusader's LRM and MG ammo should have been in the arms. Etc etc and so on.

[CrossfirePilot]

The Crusader's LRM and MG ammo should have been in the arms. Etc etc and so on.

or the Crusader should have never had MGs.  I don't know what the deal was with the original designers to feel that they needed MGs on just about every original design! (yeah we need a 400 pt ammo bomb for a weapon rarely gets used)

[Sabelkatten]

Even if crit packing isn't a consideration, in-universe complexity would be. An in-universe (and consequently, out-of-universe) designer really should be trying to locate ammo as close to the weapons using it as possible. Which means space permitting, ammo should ALWAYS be located in the same section as weapon using it. If the weapon is too bulky for this to be practical, the ammo bin should be at most one section over. This is to minimize the distance the ammo has to travel from bin to weapon.

That this practice would result in the weapon crit soaking for the ammo bin under game rules is purely coincidental of course. O:-)

In short, the Marauder's AC ammo should have been co-located with the AC. The Crusader's LRM and MG ammo should have been in the arms. Etc etc and so on.

Agreed, with the exception of the Crud's MG ammo - it's rather hard to place one ammo bin in two locations... ;)

[evilauthor]

Agreed, with the exception of the Crud's MG ammo - it's rather hard to place one ammo bin in two locations... ;)

That's another thing! Why can't I have half ton ammo bins for anything except MG ammo?

[Jim1701]

Even if crit packing isn't a consideration, in-universe complexity would be. An in-universe (and consequently, out-of-universe) designer really should be trying to locate ammo as close to the weapons using it as possible. Which means space permitting, ammo should ALWAYS be located in the same section as weapon using it. If the weapon is too bulky for this to be practical, the ammo bin should be at most one section over. This is to minimize the distance the ammo has to travel from bin to weapon.

That this practice would result in the weapon crit soaking for the ammo bin under game rules is purely coincidental of course. O:-)

In short, the Marauder's AC ammo should have been co-located with the AC. The Crusader's LRM and MG ammo should have been in the arms. Etc etc and so on.

In game terms there would be plenty of room because all mechs get 12 slots regardless of weight or shape.  In universe there just may not have been enough room to squeeze the ammo bin into the same side as the AC. 

[bakija]

Back then, and to some extent even today I don't really consider ammo in the same location as the gun "logical".  The thought process I had back in the day was that sticking ammo in an arm was asking for an early ammo explosion that'd take out your entire 'Mech, because arms are the most easily breached part of a 'Mech.  The deeper you could bury it in the torso and its thick armor, the better, particularly for bins with fewer shots.  I get the feeling the original designers thought the same way.  Yes, I do question why sometimes the gun is in the right torso and the ammo in the left, but often funny little fluff pieces followed that.

But if you are willing to go with the thought process of "sticking ammo in the arm was asking for an early ammo explosion that'd take out the entire mech because arms are most easily breached location", why is it that far of a leap to "sticking ammo in the otherwise empty torso is asking for an early ammo explosion that'd take out the entire mech, as torso locations are hit more often than arms are. And then the ammo is by itself and blows up."

Indications are that the original designers thought that they should protect ammo with things like heat sinks. And so they did that. And then when the rules to the game changed (i.e. heat sinks disappeared into the engine), they decided that they didn't want to change all the mech descriptions (i.e. the Marauder had its ammo in the LT which at some point had heat sinks in it; after the extra heat sinks vanished, they apparently didn't want to go and rewrite the mech description to have the ammo in the RT instead). The issue here is primarily a practical one, not one of design intention.

I'm not sure about the specifics of those things, but the rules changed a lot from Battledroids to the following edition.  The way they are now is the way they've been for over two decades, and are very unlikely to change.

The first two pages of this discussion generally revolved around what these mechs were like in the earliest editions of the game. And from records folks could find, the Marauder originally had heat sinks in with its ammo. And the one example of a Crusader record sheet being filled out as an example in the first edition of the game showed the Crusader with heat sinks in with it's torso ammo as well.

I realize that things, at this point, are unlikely to change. Especially given that apparently when this was discussed with the game designers on this forum, their response was "It'd take too much work to go and fix all the mechs that need fixing at this point. We have more important stuff to do." Which indicates that they realize that it could use some fixing. But that also it would be opening a huge can of worms that probably is best left alone.

With the modern design rules full of double-heat sinks and crit-for-weight saving items, unit that have only a single slot of anything are rare as hell.  I don't know that has anything to do with a deliberate design choice so much as it does with the fact that 'Mechs are being designed with every slot being considered now.  That said, authors might just be more sophisticated now.

Sure, but again, even the mechs that are retroactively applied to the earliest time frames that are put together in later editions of the game (Merlin, Lineholder, whatever) are designed to avoid obviously blowing up when they could have been designed to obviously blow up.

Well, there's your problem right there.  Catalyst's authors and developers, which is to say the people who also design the majority of the canon 'Mechs, are trying to create a cohesive game world that doesn't conform exactly to the game's abstract rules. In the interest of advancing this integrated view of the storyline and universe, there are a lot of concepts relating to 'Mechs, their uses, and their development that have no bearing on the table-top.  Ignoring the canon storyline means ignoring the entire basis around which canon 'Mechs are designed.  If you don't care about the "fluff', you don't need to use canon 'Mechs at all!

Here's the thing at this point in the discussion. From my point of view, no, this isn't a *huge* problem. Mostly, I was interested in the early half of this discussion, where folks dug through all their old edition, archived game materials, and discovered things like that the Marauder used to have heat sinks in with its ammo, and that in the first (or second) edition rulebook that didn't come with pre-made record sheets, the Crusader example listed it as having 5 heat sinks in each torso location along with its ammo. As I was curious as to whether this was all an intentional arbitrary decision to do these things, or if it was just the result of the evolution of the game. And all indications are that, in fact, it is just a result of the evolution of the game. And, say, that the poor Marauder having that LT suicide bomb is just an artifact of the Marauder being one of the first mechs designed in the history of the game, the game evolving around it, and the game designers being more concerned with consistency with mech listings, "game history", and the pure practical reality that going and changing everything would be a pain and not the result of some game designer saying "Yes, I realize that putting this ammo here is an obviously stupid idea, but I'm going to do it anyway as I like seeing things blow up!"

At this point in the discussion, however, what I'm most baffled by is that folks are bending over backwards to *defend* this sort of thing. Which I'm completely confused by. Like, yes, it isn't *that* big of a deal. You can avoid it by just not using these legacy mechs. Or, ya know, just thinking it is funny when you are forced to use one for whatever reason and it blows up (as noted, in my recent games with a Marauder vs an Archer, my Marauder blew up twice from an unfortunate ammo shot. Which was just funny and entertaining, as I was using the Marauder to test out the theories discussed in the "Archer vs Marauder: Fight!" thread, and the end result was "Well, the Marauder is likely to do worse than hoped. As it's ammo blows up a lot." But if I'm playing a game to be competitive, I'm going to leave the Marauder in the box...). But the response to this issue that I understand is:

"Yeah, it is, in fact, silly that those mechs have that ammo placed like that. But, ya know, you do what you can and either don't use them, work around it, or don't worry about it and hope they don't have blasters."

The response I don't understand is:

"It isn't a silly bug! It is a feature! The game *wants* those mechs to blow up! And you should want them to!"

But I guess people do things that I don't understand all the time.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Why is it so important to second guess what the initial designers wanted, especially since the record sheets aren't going to get changed?

[MadCapellan]

But if you are willing to go with the thought process of "sticking ammo in the arm was asking for an early ammo explosion that'd take out the entire mech because arms are most easily breached location", why is it that far of a leap to "sticking ammo in the otherwise empty torso is asking for an early ammo explosion that'd take out the entire mech, as torso locations are hit more often than arms are. And then the ammo is by itself and blows up."

I don't know, but I know that I myself never took that step, and I'd assume the same could be said for others.

Indications are that the original designers thought that they should protect ammo with things like heat sinks. And so they did that. And then when the rules to the game changed (i.e. heat sinks disappeared into the engine), they decided that they didn't want to change all the mech descriptions (i.e. the Marauder had its ammo in the LT which at some point had heat sinks in it; after the extra heat sinks vanished, they apparently didn't want to go and rewrite the mech description to have the ammo in the RT instead). The issue here is primarily a practical one, not one of design intention.

I'm not so sure the original heat sink rules were ever really spelled out like they should have been in the first place.  It's very likely that everyone was doing it their own way, it was a very early part of the game's history.  In any case, it's water under the bridge now, they've been that way for decades.

The response I don't understand is:

"It isn't a silly bug! It is a feature! The game *wants* those mechs to blow up! And you should want them to!"

But I guess people do things that I don't understand all the time.

Well, to some extent, yes, 'Mechs are designed to be flawed, all in different ways.  One way is being explosive.  It is possible it was intended that way.  Or it's possible it wasn't.  Either way, that's how it is.

[Greywind]

Even if crit packing isn't a consideration, in-universe complexity would be. An in-universe (and consequently, out-of-universe) designer really should be trying to locate ammo as close to the weapons using it as possible. Which means space permitting, ammo should ALWAYS be located in the same section as weapon using it. If the weapon is too bulky for this to be practical, the ammo bin should be at most one section over. This is to minimize the distance the ammo has to travel from bin to weapon.

That this practice would result in the weapon crit soaking for the ammo bin under game rules is purely coincidental of course. O:-)

In short, the Marauder's AC ammo should have been co-located with the AC. The Crusader's LRM and MG ammo should have been in the arms. Etc etc and so on.

And we know exactly what a 'Mech looks like internally from the record sheet, how?

There are a number of reasons, in universe, as to why something was done. Maybe the weight of the ammo bin was placed on the opposite side to help balance the machine. All this is just metagaming the record sheets.

[bakija]

Why is it so important to second guess what the initial designers wanted, especially since the record sheets aren't going to get changed?

It is, for my money, interesting analysis of game design. This is an issue that is, to folks who are not particularly invested in the background of the game universe and just looking at Battletech as a fun tactical combat game with giant fighty robots, a strange phenomenon (i.e. the questionable ammo placement is something that is obviously a bad idea, easily avoided as the rules are presented, and has no immediate explanation). It is interesting to figure out why it is the way it is. And interesting try and figure out how it got that way.

[Acolyte]

Funny thing is, in most of my pick up games (not a lot, admittedly) I've simply asked my opponent, before the game, if I could move the ammo. The universal responce - never had a different one - is "Sure, do you mind if I move my ammo?" I say yes, and we pull out the old Maraders. It's not that big a deal. As for leaving models in the box, why not just call it a MAD 3D with the laser instead?

It is an interesting discussion about rules changes, but I see no reason that the players themselves can't solve it.

   - Shane

[MadCapellan]

It is an interesting discussion about rules changes, but I see no reason that the players themselves can't solve it.

   - Shane

I agree 100%.  The game universe is full of flawed designs, but nothing requires you to play with canon designs.  There are dozens of local solutions to this perceived issue if it's a major hangup for you, including:

1. Having your technicians modify your 'Mech in a campaign game.
2. Agreeing to allow such mods beforehand in a pickup game
3. Playing in an alternate universe with agreed to differences in their designs
4. Playing with one of the hundreds of 'Mech variants that don't have the perceived problem.

I don't really see why this is a "problem" Catalyst has to "solve" anymore than the PNT-10K Panther having single heat sinks is a "problem".  Some designs just aren't as good as others.

[bakija]

I don't really see why this is a "problem" Catalyst has to "solve" anymore than the PNT-10K Panther having single heat sinks is a "problem".  Some designs just aren't as good as others.

I'm not asking anyone to solve anything.

As noted, the initial thesis of this thread was "Why is this the way it is"? I'm pretty sure I figured it out (see: mostly it pertains to the originally designed mechs for whom it wasn't originally the problem that it is now, the game changed around them, the game designers felt that consistency and not opening that particular can of worms was more important than keeping the Marauder from blowing up once and a while). And again, the best answer to all of this (and the one I subscribe to) is:

"Yeah, it is, in fact, silly that those mechs have that ammo placed like that. But, ya know, you do what you can and either don't use them, work around it, or don't worry about it and hope they don't have blasters."

But still, if looked at in a vacuum, these issues smack of "Wha"?

[Acolyte]

It is a very interesting look at the evolution of rules systems and how the originals were kind of left behind.

I, for one, would prefer Interstellar Operations to be released than a revised 3025 unseen record sheet supplement, especially since I can solve those problems myself within the rules presented. So, I'm OK with these designs staying untouched, officially. I mean, raise your hand if you have already used a 'mech generation software program to move the ammo of your favorites. [rockon]

On another note, seeing those ancient sheets was blast from the past! Ahh... the Cameleon, best 'mech in Crescent Hawks Inception.....

Thank You
   - Shane