Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
I wonder how long before the Dragon Liz and the Kowloon Liz get together?
2
Did they ever correct the scaling / size issues with the Premium Phoenix Hawk and Rifleman?
3
BattleMechs / Re: Design Challenge: Robotic mech bonanza
« Last post by idea weenie on Today at 22:50:52 »
Are there any existing rules to try a reverse cyborg route? Play with Manei Dominei Tech?
Think Drone/Robot Core, but with Grafted Biological Components such as, Animal or Human Brain Tissue. Think Brain in Jar or Cube of Brainmeat like the Robotic 790 Drones use from the Sci Fi TV Series LEXX.

Would you be able to use multiple conventional Robot/Drone Systems in a Tripod and Stack the Piloting Bonuses?

Or use Dual Cockpit and use 2 Robot/Drone Systems?

That way you can integrate Pilot Bonuses via Neurohelm or DNI etc.

If not, then only AES to enhance PSR seems viable.

This would be really tricky.  You are basically having to connect the computer to the various nerves in the living body, all sorts of microscopic connections, and trying to keep the living body from dying in the process.

Contrast that with connecting a computer to a mechanical body.  You can test each component, the connections are labeled, and you can do some of the connections in the afternoon, put it away at 5pm, then continue the next morning.
4
Weak Top Armor
This quirk can only be applied to ground-based support vehicles. The point value of this quirk is equal to the BAR reduction from receiving high-angle attacks. High angle attacks are those from attackers whose total height advantage in levels matches or exceeds the distance to the target in hexes. For example, a BattleMech attacks a tracked support vehicle in an adjacent hex of the same level, in which the height difference is one level, and the distance is one hex. Units of equal height, such as conventional infantry, can also qualify if they are in a high enough building or hex level. While airborne units always qualify by default. This BAR reduction is not applied to AE damage.

Weak top armor would also be weak vs artillery, Mortars, indirect fire, and similar plunging attacks.

Center-line Weaponry
Mounted weaponry has a more restricted firing arc, having been reduced to a single line of hexes. Guided missiles are excepted from this quirk.

Can the unit use a Movement point to turn the hull to bring the weapon to bear?  I.e. if the enemy is 5 hexes out but 2 hexes over, the mounting unit would spend 1 MP to turn the hull so it could fire the gun at the enemy unit that is off-center.  This would be restricted to if the unit could make a turn at the end of its current movement.  A fun idea is if the unit has to remain semi-stationary while rotating, so enemy units have an easier time shooting at it.


There are other missile launcher types. Damage per missile can also change with ammo types. The only consistent is that the bigger the launcher the bigger the potential damage.

The key is that if you base pts off tonnage, you provide an advantage to LRM-5 users.  By making cost proportional to damage, people are less likely to cheese their designs to use lots of a single launcher.

Bigger launchers do more damage, but you can mount more than one small launcher for the same tonnage.  I'll compare four LRM-5 vs LRM-20:
A single LRM-5 masses 2 tons
A single LRM-20 masses 10 tons

Four LRM-5 will mass 8 tons and as a result will cost 8 pts.
One LRM-20 will mass 10 tons and as a result will cost 10 pts.

On average four LRM-5 will do the same damage as a single LRM-20, but if you price it per tonnage then the LRM-5 user gets a 25% discount.


If there are other missile launcher types, then compare those missile launcher types while keeping as few variations as possible (i.e. regular LRM-10 vs Streak LRM-10).

If damage per missile changes per ammo type, then compare identical ammo types across different-sized launchers (i.e. Artemis LRM-5 vs Artemis LRM-15).


Otherwise you get the battle test for the Mackie that had new weapons and new armor only on the Battlemech, and the test result concluded that the humanoid form was what allowed the Mackie to win.
5
Ground Combat / Re: Elemental (Fire) or Elemental III?
« Last post by worktroll on Today at 22:36:26 »
FR armour protects against one class of weaponry only. Stealth helps against all classes except AE (which FR doesn't help with either), and the advanced SRMs get that extra tick of range. Elemental III for me!
6
The Premium Miniature line is such a waste.
7
Ground Combat / Elemental (Fire) or Elemental III?
« Last post by MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on Today at 22:12:09 »
Just thought I'd see what people's thoughts were between the two.  It's fire-resistant armor and a one-shot SRM 2 vs basic stealth armor and a one-shot Advanced SRM 2.
8
Fan Articles / Re: Mech of the Week: P1 Perseus
« Last post by MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on Today at 22:09:25 »
I believe that large pulse lasers are one of the few Clan weapon systems that we have yet to see an IS power produce natively, but that would make for some fantastic upgrade potential.
9
Tried Mazinger Edition Z.

I forgot how bad the racist caricatures could be in some of those old animes.
10
Fan Articles / Re: Mech of the Week: P1 Perseus
« Last post by glitterboy2098 on Today at 21:51:30 »
I could see a B2 now that Clan weapons are mainstream.
yeah, but you'd also potentially have access to clan ERLL and CLPL, which are an even better boost.

i'd argue that a proper B2 would switch to a Silver Bullet gauss. which given the cluster damage effect, would work even better as a secondary weapon backing up a brace of hard hitting lasers. even if you don't have clan weapons used.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10