Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
81
Aerospace Combat / Re: CD DCA
« Last post by Alan Grant on Today at 14:56:28 »
I'm starting to feel like these need to be preceded by the question: "Would you like to play a game?"

Because that's what this is. Here's the game, here's the AU, here's the setup, here's the conditions, here's the goal/objective/challenge. Knowing all that..players.. declare your move.

Which is fine. If you're into it, have fun. But what everyone else is doing when I've encountered stuff like this, is this kind of information is just being communicated to those players who have agreed to play the game, off on their own slice of the internet where they have set up a group. That isn't going to be everyone on this forum.

I'm just seeing that it's way too far off into a specific AU's tastes for me. Too many deviations from canon, too many things specific to this AU and it's setting, vast changes in the universe. I'm ok with a little speculative discussion but I usually want it to have bearing on the canon game/universe. Most of the value-add of any discussion based on this is almost purely limited to this specific AU and may have little to no relevance to the canon game. Others are welcome to have fun. But I'm good.
82
Q: What if we didn't have to worry about canon production?
A: I’d be free…
83
Serious one here: A month after the disappearance, Marthe Pryde announces that the Jade Falcons had captured both Vlad and KSD. 

Without wasting time, she shows battlerom footage of her killing Vlad in a Trial of Grievance that he challenged her to, and KSD does laundry now when she's lucky.
84
Novel and Sourcebook Reviews / Re: Without Question
« Last post by Arkansas Warrior on Today at 14:47:03 »
Got it, thanks.  It didn’t occur to me to check back in A Question of Survival (which I also enjoyed, btw).
85
Fan Designs and Rules / Re: Vehicle Crew Recovery System
« Last post by Charistoph on Today at 14:31:39 »
For C, I don't think that it's required. Else at least it does not needs to be same as the mechanized battle armor rule. They are not the battle armor troopers in the first place(unless you want to give them a suit each) and remember that up to 36 conventional infantry are able to swarming a mech. I think that it's safe to say that about six crews are able to stay on a location. Still if the attack hits the location it would be dangerous, though.

30 Conventional Infantry, actually.  Any ConvInf Platoon/Squad that is larger than that has to be split in to groups that are 30 or less.

Also, Attacks against a Swarmed unit also have a chance of Damaging the Swarming unit.  This is in recognition of that as well as normal Mechanized Battle Armor rule.

Still, for such organization purposes, a Crew could be assigned a location like a Battle Armor.

Limitations to firing would also apply.

For E, since they are not the battle armor and are not so heavy enough, I don't think that it does needs to be slower. Although, with their limited training and lack of pure mechanical might to keep grab the mech it could be said that the unit should reduce the speed to allows them to be ride safely.

And if we were talking Omnimechs, I would agree.  However, the consideration comes from how standard Battlemechs carrying Mag-Clamp Battle Armor work as well as care to not jostle/crush that many people while moving.  And 10 people can weigh in as much as 4 PA(L).

For F, if you did you should treat them as fighting off swarm attack by jump but how to resolve this is somewhat complicated - for the default check for this is to get rid of those infantry rather than keep them intact despite of accept the risk but it's hard to represent if you did otherwise. Perhaps it's better to rule that you simply cannot, as the others does.

That's why the rule is in place.  Still doing a PSR +4 to indicate the care they are taking could work pretty pretty well, too.  It presents a risk, especially if they aren't among the most perfect pilots.  Even a really good pilot has a risk of knocking them off at that point.

I don't think that you need anything to spend for try this. It's not attacking the unwilling enemy armor. It's grab the WILLING, allied armor and retreat by ride that armor. Perhaps you need to add some handles on your mechs, or use some ropes and attach it on the torso in a pinch? That's all you need to do that, I think.

Part of the training is how to use the equipment to mount the willing unit quickly, as well as the cost to obtain and maintain the equipment.  Not to mention, I sincerely doubt our GM will allow us to do this for free.  Can you name many things that are allowed for free?
86
Fan Art / Re: Battletech 3D fan models
« Last post by Juodas Varnas on Today at 14:22:58 »
Odd. I can't see it...

- Herb
Can you see it now? Added it as an attachment instead of embedding it into the post itself
87
Fan Art / Re: Battletech 3D fan models
« Last post by HABeas2 on Today at 14:14:56 »
Odd. I can't see it...

- Herb
88
Aerospace Combat / Re: Question about the Aurora
« Last post by Daryk on Today at 14:12:21 »
The break point for Quarters (Steerage) vs. Bays is about 90 days.  People as cargo is something to you want to avoid at all costs, as you outline.

When I'm designing ships, I usually install Quarters for all the Bay personnel, and use the Bays as SAR bunks.  That gets the life support costs right and avoids stressing the system when you have additional people aboard (at least until you exceed the number of Bay quality bunks).
89
MegaMek Games / Re: Coming Soon to MegaMek
« Last post by TriplerSDMB on Today at 14:05:28 »
90
Aerospace Combat / Re: WarShips vs. ASF - optimal weapons layout?
« Last post by Gorgon on Today at 14:02:19 »
So in your experience its better for warships to rely on smaller weapons and organic fighter and dropship support for ASF defense. Reserve the big guns for big targets?
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
Register