Which benefits are required to make Combat Vehicle equal asset as Battlemech?

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

You know, combat vehicle was intended to be designed to weaker than a battlemech with same weight. It is not possible to mimic the melee attack, but no double heat sink and ridiculous +50% weight on fusion engine makes them far inferior choice over battlemechs.

I have tested that consider the weight for XL engine on a combat vehicle as same as an XXL engine(that is almost same as removing +50 weight penalty), but still the end result is weaker than battlemechs with the same weight. No heats for non-energy weapon is a tasty advantage, but there is not much weapons to exploit that either(usually cannon and artillery, but artillery is already the job of CVs, not mechs, and it is not the line unit).

I don't want they become the superior asset to the battlemech. I just want them to become worthy enough to spend a slot for a lance.

At least it is sure that can't/hard to jump and can't make the melee attack are must be the advantage of mechs(although not all mechs are able to jump). But what addition will make them equal to a mech as a frontline unit, and is reasonable to add on the vehicle but not for the mechs? Is there any idea?

[worktroll]

Combat vehicles can't be weight for weight as effective as 'Mechs. It's a fundamental law of the BT universe, like magnetic polarity and the inability to develop on-chip integrated circuits.

The way to look at it - in-universe - is that vehicles can be
- cheaper
- more specialised
- and sometimes more durable

than the more general and all-purpose 'Mechs. Some examples:

- Scout hovers and VTOLs can more easily generate higher speeds at lower costs than a 'Mech, which means you waste less metal sending a platoon of Savannah Masters out instead of a lance of Locusts, and only two come back.

- Want LRMs for defensive purposes? LRM carriers with spotters. Want a slightly mobile wall? Schildkrote. Want a bigger wall? Behemoth or Demolisher.

So vehicles are about supplementing and supporting 'Mech forces, or providing more defensive tonnage for your house-bill. Pick complementary vehicles to your 'Mech forces.

And yes, an all vehicle force can beat an 'equal' 'Mech force, not least because (if balancing by BV or Cbill or PV) the vehicle force will be significantly larger.


However, I think the simplest way of lifting combat vehicles would be to ignore motive crits.

[idea weenie]

One detail is that vehicles are more efficient when transporting by Dropship.  A Mech will always take up 150 tons of room due to the Mech Bay mass, while vehicles take up 50 or 100 tons, depending directly on their mass.

To make Mechs be the go-to item for interplanetary warfare, Mechs must be more efficient than vehicles on a per-transportation-ton basis.  A 50 ton Mech must be more efficient than a trio of 50-ton vehicles, as both take up 150 tons on a Dropship. A 20-ton Locust still takes up 150 tons of Mech Bay, even though a 50-ton light vehicle bay can carry a helicopter, hovercraft, or WIGE.


For myself, I would like to make it where vehicles dissipate half the heat per heat sink compared to Mechs (smaller surface area), while getting more armor points per ton (smaller surface area).  They are bricks, in both the good and bad way. 

I.e. a 3025 vehicle armed with PPCs and using standard heat sinks would pay 27 tons per PPC (7 for the PPC, and 20 tons for the 20 heat sinks needed to dissipate the heat).  Once double heat sinks arrive, the vehicle only pays 17 tons per PPC (7 for the PPC, and 10 for the 10 double heat sinks).

Edit - this would also include heat from ballistic and missile weapons.  You might go with additional rules for 'external-mounted' weapons that don't need to have their heat tracked, but this also means any hit on that location also disables/destroys the weapon.

Ex:
Rocketruck-140 has fourteen RL/10 mounted in its cargo bed.  They are listed as:
14 * RL/10 F(Ex) (damage and range listing for each)

Before firing, the truck takes a hit on the Front location.  The Truck turns into a very bright fireworks show.

A second Rocketruck used a thin piece of civilian armor as protection.  It only carries a single RL/10, as the remaining 6.5 tons are used for half a ton of armor, and 6 standard heat sinks to handle the cooling.  This truck takes a hit on the front that is too weak to get through the armor.  It survives, gets close to the enemy next turn, and opens fire.

[Col Toda]

Offensively the mech by weight is nearly always better . Defensively on prepared ground the combat vehicle is nearly always better.  As an artillery platform  Combat vehicles rule . If you focus on using Ballistic and missile  weapons they can be better as they do not track heat from those weapons.  Fuel Cell engines for combat vehicles has about the same gmotive power as a light fusion enginr for 1/3 the price  .

[idea weenie]

Offensively the mech by weight is nearly always better . Defensively on prepared ground the combat vehicle is nearly always better.  As an artillery platform  Combat vehicles rule . If you focus on using Ballistic and missile  weapons they can be better as they do not track heat from those weapons.  Fuel Cell engines for combat vehicles has about the same gmotive power as a light fusion enginr for 1/3 the price  .

Existing combat vehicles don't track heat, but you do have to mount a number of heat sinks able to fire all of the weapons.

My change (where heat sinks only count as half effective) would include ballistic and missile weapons for tracking heat.  (I forgot to mention that).  So an AC/20 producing 7 heat would need 14 tons for standard heat sinks. 

(A fusion engine mounted on a vehicle would only provide a net of 5 heat sinks)

For Fuel Cell vehicles, IIRC you would still have to install power amplifiers for energy weapons.  The nice part is that Fuel Cells are environment independent, so as long as the vehicle has the necessary sealing it can be submersible more than once.


So the goal for Mechs should be pushing the initiative where the Mech force can decide which board to use, and which side of the board to come in on (i.e. to the side or behind the dug-in enemy force)

[Charistoph]

One of the biggest advantages that Mechs have is generally survivability.  If CVs lose all internal structure on anything besides the turret, it is destroyed.  You can only do that with a Mech for the head or the center torso.  Unless you're very accurate and lucky, that is a lot of damage to pulse through.

Another aspect is immobilizing a CV is far easier than a Mech.  Mechs have strongly reinforced mobilized system that is separate from the kill areas of the 'Mech, whereas CVs have them remarkably exposed (especially for VTOLs).

If you want to make a CV "equal" to a Mech, those are the things to consider.  But as people have mentioned, CVs are not supposed to be equal in a direct fashion, just all those indirect fashions such as numbers and being able to otherwise ignore many of the Mech's limitations.

[Col Toda]

Combat vehicles only track heat from energy  weapons  . Fuel Cell with ballistic and missile  weapons is great . You can convert the BV to heavy offensive bv with the use of trailers  . On prepared ground you can have hull down positions 7 hexes apart and have a hovertank move from one to another every turn  +3 movement modifier +2 hull down and hull down reduces motor crit chances.  Dump heavy smoke in a hull down hex that hovertank has another +2  for +7  regular gunner at short range that walked is looking for 12 to hit . Regular gunner in tank is looking for 7-11 to hit at short or medium range  and if they  hit with TAG indirect homing and semi- guided is a killer  looking to hit with 4-6 range . The non use of trailers  and the lack of pre prepared hull down positions  for an offensive force makes mechs better .  Defensively vehicles are conditionally better . If they charge the hill the mech crests the hill sees the 100 to Behemoth tank open up on them w 2 AC 20 ultras . Possibly seeing  a 50 to trailer w 12+ improved one shot SRM 6 on a turret  . Tanks only start to eat multiple target penalties when the number of targets start to exceed  the number of gunners in the vehicle.

If you insist on having energy weapons a single small laser or add the heat sinks for a small x-pulse laser is fine . Or go the chemical laser weapon route no heat for vehicles  but consumes ammo.

Heavy combat vehicles like a 100 ton main battle tank has 4 + gunners it can easily tow a trailer w 4 LRM  10s each gunner shooting indirect at hull down hex without any mulitarget penalties to lay down smoke as needed from behind a hill . The hex is an immobile target -4 to hit +1 , for indirect  fire +2 or 4 for range . Thats target numbers of 1 for short range,  3 for medium range and 5 for long range. 

Check out the 3060 TRO Shiltron Prime . It has 2 Arrow IV  launchers a C3 Master and 2 medium  lasers it provides other units w C3 and has 8 tons of ammo to reign death to TAGed targets

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

One of the biggest advantages that Mechs have is generally survivability.  If CVs lose all internal structure on anything besides the turret, it is destroyed.  You can only do that with a Mech for the head or the center torso.  Unless you're very accurate and lucky, that is a lot of damage to pulse through.

Another aspect is immobilizing a CV is far easier than a Mech.  Mechs have strongly reinforced mobilized system that is separate from the kill areas of the 'Mech, whereas CVs have them remarkably exposed (especially for VTOLs).

If you want to make a CV "equal" to a Mech, those are the things to consider.  But as people have mentioned, CVs are not supposed to be equal in a direct fashion, just all those indirect fashions such as numbers and being able to otherwise ignore many of the Mech's limitations.

And I am intended to find the solution to actually make them equal to mech, and that's why it is on fan rules forum rather than ground combat forum.

So, making them harder to kill and immobilize seems not a bad option. They are already cannot be knocked down, after all, but they are not only lacking melee attack but also weaker.

------------------

What about weapons? No double heat sink but ignore non-energy heats is not that bad but usually it reduces overall damage output than mechs I think.

---------------

What I have come to mind right now are;

-Remove +50% weight on fusion engine of combat vehicle, make them to use the same weight as the same engine on a battlemech(It was what I did before).
-Give free Armored Motive Systems on Tracked/wheeled/Hover/WiGE, ignores weight.
-Remove all internal of each location save for rotor, and merge the internals by one; Body. Perhaps 1/5 of weight seems enough internal structure for the combined body(instead of 1/10 on each location). Rotor is already quite safe by 1/10 damage rule, so I think that it seems fine.
-ALL weapons on a combat vehicle gets Accurate Weapon design quirk for free. Directly gives more weapon is somewhat weird, but gives better accuracy for their stable nature seems fine I think.
-Change the result of 2 to 4 of Ground Combat Vehicle(193. TW) to Turret, making the turrets to soak the damage better.

[Talen5000]

The reason BattleMechs exist in the BTU is because they ARE superior to the other tools of war. That includes vehicles and infantry.

Going further, vehicles and infantry in game are arguably more effective than they are in the BTU.

As it is, there are several elements of vehicle design I disagree with, but which can be worked around.

ICE engines should be lighter, but one can argue that the engine is rather the entire motive system and that a lighter ICE engine is combined with a heavier, more complex motive system, APUs, transmission, gearing, extra armour, fuel, etc. This is a fudge...this equipment is likely considered part of the structure in the current system, but an acceptable one I think. Still heavier than it needs to be but perhaps but that diwn to armour and redundancy.

Double Heat Sinks are likewise problematic but again, could be explained away as not just incompatible, but due to bottlenecks in the ability to transfer energy and radiate it away, perhaps linked to the vehicles surface area or compact nature. End result being that DHS can be used but they aren't any more effective.

Personally....I'd like to see fusion engines banned, or at least restricted to a vehicular fusion engine where power generation is exchanged for size.

Other than that, while I'd be willing to see ICE engines mass much lighter than fusion engines....half, third or even a quarter as much, with separate mass for fuel...what I think vehicles need is a size factor. Say, equipment taking up 1 weapon slot for every 4 or 6 criticals and a limit as to what the turret can carry. That, and making jump tanks much less viable. You'd need to make changes to compensate...a heavier internal structure perhaps.

None of which makes vehicles more "effective".

Which is the point...vehicles need to be inferior to Mechs. Mechs are more mobile and have greater survivability, are more durable and flexible. But Mechs need to be more effective than vehicles, even vehicles of a similar or greater mass

The BIG advantage of vehicles over Mechs is something the game board cannot really replicate....cost. Vehicles may not be as tough as Mechs but they can carry Mech grade weapons, and they are far tougher than civilian or support vehicles.

Those facts alone make them worthwhile in any force...they provide numbers and a weapons platform that is equal to 90% of what it might face and a threat to the 10% that outmatch it.

But what addition makes them the equal of Mechs on a 1 to 1 basis?
It cannot exist without undermining the games core

[Robroy]

I agree with Talen5000 in that Mechs in the game are the superior machine, I also think the combat vehicles are to weak. I use the increased effectiveness rules, TacOps, pg. 107.

Also house rule that hover craft get the flotation hull free, and tracked vehicles get the armored motive system for free.

Just a couple simple things that make a world of difference while maintaining the spirit of the game.

[Col Toda]

You can already crush mechs with combat vehicles  with the use of hills indirect fire use of trailers and prepared grounds . A mech tends tend to balance defensive BV with Offensive  BV about 50/50 give or take 20 percent combat vehicles with trailers  can get you an offensive bv easily in excess of 80 percent  and cost half or less in C bills than the attacking mech force . The role of combat vehicles is to support and supplement mechs on the offensive generally with active probes ,TAG , and Salvage / Support  . Using cheap  fast vehicles with Fuel Cell engines  to get in the face of the enemy mechs you are exposing  a unit that can by made by the hundreds or even thousands from a factory to destroy mechs that are made by the dozens from a single factory  . On defense ,on prepared ground  combat vehicles are already conditionally better than mechs and they are supported by mechs .

If you are intent on the KISS principle.  with work you can make a great flexible non disposable  main battle tank with 3070 tech . I designed an 80 ton 4/6 tracked tank called the shiro Tora or White Tiger or Dearh Tiger tank . XL fusion engine , 236 points of Heavy Fibrous Armor   F 58 , R/L 45 R, 40 , T 48 . PPC , Thunderbolt 10,  TAG, and 2 MML 9 in the Turret  .It moves in combat into a smoke hex shot in front of it the previous turn flank 5 +2 , heany smoke +2 , I enemy  stays at range you shoot the PPC and 1 MML 9 or 2 if you do not move out of smoke he.x and make the next one. If they close to the PPC minimum  range the 2 MML 9s shoot 18 short range  missiles in there face averaging 9 or 10 2 pt hits if it is a jumping energy boat it shoots infernos for the maximum of 18 pts of external heat . Example  Grasshopper 6K  Jumps next to tank alpha strikes building up a maximum of 9 heat plus up to 18 external from the MML 9s infernos forces shutdown and ammo explosion  and maybe a conciousness check . The Tank 1389 BV the Grasshopper 1484 . Pretty  fair fight . Grasshopper has 1 ER large laser with a range of 19 , the tank a PPC , and a Thunderbolt 10 w a range of 18 and 2 MML 9s with a range of 21 . If a target  comes between 15 and 5 hexes away it can attepy to TAG a target if successful eliminates movement penalties for semi-guided LRMs for the MML 9s . Even  on the off chance the tank is immobilized it has enough armor to be a turret  for a turn or 2 .  Ammo is 1 ton of smoke SRM , 1 ton Inferno SRM  , 1 ton standard  SRM , 1 ton semi guided LRMs , 2 tons standard LRMs,  2 tons Thunderbolt shots with CASE . 

[Elmoth]

The whole idea I think is that prepared positions give the advantage to the defenders, be them vehicles or mechs. At equal BV the defender should have an advantage there. Prepared positions (and firing solutions) are a BV/force multiplier.

[Col Toda]

With a little work you can design a combat vehicle to be competitive.  It is not very hard by the 3070s as certain tech becomes advanced or tournament legal vs experimental.  Take the magic number  for combat vehicles is 50 tons or less .  I designed a Vedette Moonstrider tank . CASE , Thunderbolt 5. Light AC/2 with precision rounds , tracked with 5/8 movement,  Fuel Cell engine and environmentally sealed chassis  . All weapons in Turret including TAG and small X-PULSE laser . 148 pts of heavy Ferro Fibrous armor .  2,152,188 C bills 734BV and can operate on an airless airless moon with mechs . It take a 50 ton light vehicle bay vs 150 ton mech bay . So you lose a light mech TAG  lance and replace it with a TAG company . So for 2/3 the price of a 25 ton Mongoose -76 for approximately the same BV you get a 50 ton unit with twice the armor and  2/3 to half the speed with its MASC . You can design combat vehicles  that are competitive as you want that can operate with mechs just about anywhere they can with the only big limitation is operational radius due to theu approx 600 km range with a fuel cell. For a significant surcharge you can put in a light fusion engine and maybe a better laser.  To compare with the original ICE Vedette  the Moonstrider has 1/3 more  armor and firepower , not quite double the BV more than if TAG guided  munitions are used .  The ICE has 1,000 km range . The The ICE cannot operate on an airless moon or drive along the bottom of a river bed . ICE costs less . The Moonstrider Vedette  is better mostly and competitive to like priced light mechs . Just a little inferior to like BV mechs . 3 Moonstrider Vedettes VS 2 Mongoose-76 s is the same price in C Bills but the tanks have about 1/3 more BV still think it is a fair fight . One on one it is a rough equivalent but since the tank sports a TAG system and is an expendable attrition unit I like it better.

Use the design strengths of a vehicle to make them competitive.  1 Heavy Ferro fibrous armor takes 3 vehicle design spaces vs 21 mech spaces . 2 Fuel  Cell engine ,3 missile and ballistic weapons . 4 Light or XL but try not to have more energy weapons than the 10 free heat sinks provides. 5 If Clan do not hesitate to add medium chemical lasers no heat with vehicles just ammo . 6 look for viability for amphibious or sealed chassis modification for tracked or wheeled vehicles.  7 when choosing  weapons put some thought to it . PPC, Thunderbolt, and light AC/2s all have 6/12/18 range brackets.  8 Some weapons have a minimum range penalty so have a Small X-PULSE laser or Large MML (Multiple Missile Launcher to make closing painful . Use precision rounds for light AC 2s and 5s . Hope this answers the question being asked here.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Well, I have to clarify that what I intended is a top end combat vehicle that using at least XL fusion as the minimum requirement, and that is expected to be similar or even expensive than the mechs with same tonnage. Else I don't expect them to be equal to a mech with same tonnage.

[Col Toda]

The Shiro Tora Tank I described earlier fits the XL powered tank that is a good value for the price .  80 tons of Main Battle Tank .

[RifleMech]

I don't think vehicles should be "equal" to mechs. Mechs are supposed to be superior.

I have thought about Vehicles tracking heat. There is fluff about vehicle engines overheating and heat generated from autocannons causing the crews to wear special suits.

I've got mixed feelings about DHS. Part of me says no, to keep mechs superior but then again aerospace gets to use them so why not?

I do agree that the 50% weight increase for engine shielding could go.
I don't think vehicles should get free armored motive systems. Mechs can still have their joints damaged. They also have to pay extra to armor each crit. Vehicles shouldn't get it for free.

I don't think that vehicles should get free internal structures either. However, I don't think they should be destroyed when a location reaches 0 either. I can see naval units sinking, and VTOLs and WiGEs crashing but the rest should be turned into pill boxes. At least there should be a roll to determine if destroyed or not. After all how many of us have seen front wheel drive cars keep going after being cut in half?

I'd disagree with the accurate weapon quirk too. That goes with the weapon, not the unit firing it. Maybe improved targeting system but I'm inclined against giving out quirks to a class of units just because.

[Iron Grenadier]

Rather than a free Armored Motive, maybe free CASE?

Hardened Armor with no penalties for tracked combat vehicles? Fluff it as they can handle the weight better or something?

Easy to Repair or Easy to Pilot quirks for wheeled combat vehicles? Fluff it as wheeled vehicles are the single most common type of vehicle in the BTU, and the mechanics are well known.


Not sure about hover or VTOL's.

[Col Toda]

Combat vehicles I designed for the Dark Age mixed Tech like so many mechs of that era.  Clan Chassis and modification :  Inner Sphere Armor , Engine and weapons .so Armored motive  systems  chasis is half CASE is free . Generally do not change much before then . Advantages applied in an ERA in which it is normal without changing Any existing  rules . Saves 5 1/2 tons on a 100 ton tracked vehicle and 3 tons on any 50 ton vehicle. 

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Honestly, I think that it needs MORE than what I said, and it is still not enough, because battlemech have superior mobility and melee attack, and torso twist without spend weight on turret(although turret is good anyways).

It is true that Battletech universe puts mechs superior over vehicles, but I didn't deny it. I just want to discuss about the additional houserule to make the expensive fusion vehicles equal to mech, against the basic theory of the universe itself.

I don't think that mechs are need to be superior at all. After all, it is only a biped(or tripod/quad) tank, rather than use track/wheel/air cushion/rotor/ground effect to move. Walking, and having hands for some models, is the only unique feature of the battlemech. Thats ALL the difference, actually. Am I hate walkers? Not really, and actually I prefer them over vehicles very much. But I am not gone so far to intentially make the vehicles worse than the walkers. It is the matter of taste, not the matter of tier level. If there should a tier level, it should be ICE/Fuel Cell and Fusion engine, not by how it moves. What I want is both of them are coexist and the individual situation makes some of them better than the others, not simply declare that some kind among them is superior.

Well, what I expect them is not truly same unit, or what I need is just a legged unit. But I want them to be work as the same unit, an equal one unit in the lance, not the 'inferior' unit despite put the best effort to produce as much as making a battlemech. Making CVs even with the mech doesn't kicks mech from their place, and I never want that(because I like biped machines very much). It just provide us more reasonable combinations.

Accuracy buff seems mimimum effort to do that, for I think that they should better at ranged attack because they lacks melee attack. Then it can support the mechs behind. It is still not so gone so far as giving them more tonnage to weapon. Perhaps 'reduce' the tonnage for weapons NOT mounted on the turret seems doable, though, for I am always think that fixed weapon on the CV have little meaning other than fluff. It may makes so called 'tank destroyer' styled vehicles worth considering. Although I don't like turretless combat vehicles with a weapon personally.

Not allowing DHS seems only making the CV inferior to mechs, not because it is not possible in the reality of Battletech Universe, for aerospace fighters are actually use DHS without any problem. But, DHS and ignore non-energy heat source seems tradeoff and can't be combined. It is interesting to use the tank with same heat rule with mech, though, but it must also count every heat source as the mech does.


And among what I suggested, the internal part means simply combine internal with only one part(body). For now the internals of CV is divided to front/rear/left/right/turret(if it have one)/rotor, with the point 1/10 of its tonnage. But what I suggest is, remove all of them save for rotor and just make the internal of body, with the point of 1/5 of its tonnage, and still keep the rotor for VTOL.

For example, a 100 tons CV currently have 10 points on each front/rear/left/right, and turret if it have one. But with the suggestion, it only have 20 points of internal, and any damage breaching through any location directly damages it. So it is more durable against one particular direction, but still far from an invincible wall. It will be easier to record as well. And, 20 point of internal is still too weaker than a 100 tons mech's 31 point of internal on center torso either, so it can be increased as well, but consider how mechs are fell(usually they fells by destroyed gyro or engine, before it lost all the mandatory internal) it seems safe to leave the internal to 1/5 or 1/3.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

So, simply put, I don't care that ICE/Fuel Cell CVs are being inferior to the others at all, for it is just a cheapshot compared by fusion fueled powerful units. What I want to give the benefit is, the vehicles that costs considerable resource and requires technology compared by proper battlemech, and can consider an equal member of the lance, not the inferior cheapshot to fill the gap.

It is on Fan Designs and Rules.

[Talen5000]

It is true that Battletech universe puts mechs superior over vehicles, but I didn't deny it. I just want to discuss about the additional houserule to make the expensive fusion vehicles equal to mech, against the basic theory of the universe itself.

House rules is easy.  There are several you can use, but probably modifying the motive hits table is easiest.


The problem is the "basic theory" of the universe.

Mechs need to be better than vehicles in order to justify their place in the universe. And not just slightly better...MUCH better. On a ton for ton basis.

There are certainly aspects of vehicle design and use that don't make sense but against that is thexrealusation that, if anything, vehicles and infantry are STRONGER in the board game than they are in the BTU itself.

Vehicles...properly designed and utilised...do have a place in the BTU, but there is a reason they are usually seen as cannon fodder in BT.

I don't think that mechs are need to be superior at all.

Then why use Mechs at all?

After all, it is only a biped(or tripod/quad) tank, rather than use track/wheel/air cushion/rotor/ground effect to move.

No...it isn't.

The advantage isn't due to just how Mechs move, but in how their construction makes them tougher, stronger, more adaptable, more survivable and with more flexibility than a vehicle.

You rip the side off a tank, and it is dead. You rip an arm off a Mech and it'll laugh as it picks it up and hits you with it.

Now...I disagree with some of the restrictions embraced by the construction rules. I don't like that technologies are arbitrarily restricted, or given what appear to be unfair penalties. I think there are...were...better ways to embody a vehicles vulnerability.

But that is beside the point.

And, being honest, there are very few restrictions that cannot be explained.

But, the issue is simple.

Mechs are and need to be superior than vehicles. Barring certain specialist designs such as subs.

The advantage vehicles have is that they are relatively cheap to buy and maintain.
The disadvantage is that they are terrain restricted, are less mobile and flexible, and are more vulnerable to damage.

The simplest way to get around such restrictions is to create a new Advanced Vehicle type which allows you to create vehicles with advanced tech and rules.

This was how SHMs and Mobile Structures came about.

[Talen5000]

So, simply put, I don't care that ICE/Fuel Cell CVs are being inferior to the others at all, for it is just a cheapshot compared by fusion fueled powerful units. What I want to give the benefit is, the vehicles that costs considerable resource and requires technology compared by proper battlemech, and can consider an equal member of the lance, not the inferior cheapshot to fill the gap.

It is on Fan Designs and Rules.

And I don't believe that can be done without undermining the foundation of the universe.

Namely...the supremacy of BattleMechs in combat.

[Hptm. Streiger]

So, simply put, I don't care that ICE/Fuel Cell CVs are being inferior to the others at all, for it is just a cheapshot compared by fusion fueled powerful units. What I want to give the benefit is, the vehicles that costs considerable resource and requires technology compared by proper battlemech, and can consider an equal member of the lance, not the inferior cheapshot to fill the gap.

It is on Fan Designs and Rules.

OK, you ask for and idea that gives benefit to better more expensive tanks.
The issue ist, that the choice of the engine doesn't affect the game performance. So a ICE tank behaves similar to a XL engine tank.
Lets compare a pure Fusion Engine tank the Manticore with a equally armed 60t Mech. (you end with max armor - and 16 heatsinks to use the long range weapons without overheating.... that's clearly in favour of the Mech, and the Manticore (with exception of that stupid laser, is already one of the best heavy tanks)

When you use the Manticore as the gold standard for a heavy tank, any FCE or ICE powered tank should be less effective correct?

[Col Toda]

Combat vehicles are already conditionally better than mechs . Just the role of carrying any artillery weapons weapons they are way better.  A super heany vehicle  can launch one of the lighter cruise missiles  for  God's sake  . You can deploy a company of light combat vehicles or 6 heavy tanks in the space of a lance of mechs on a dropship  .  Combined Arms exists because 3 light vehicles are better than 1 mech  and 3 heavy tanks are better than 2 mechs .  Quantity is a quality all by it's self . Mechs just can't do it all .

Any militia can design a 50 ton  6/9 wheeled tractor  to pull up to 3  50 ton trailers with 5 LRM 15s and 5 tons of ammo each for about 5 million C Bills  . You cannot deploy a 5 million  C bill mech  with 15 LRM 15s . You are comparing combat vehicles against  the mechs strengths and not maximizing  the combat vehicle's  strengths against mechs . If you did that mechs would be wreakage on the battlefield with a like tonnage for of vehicles.

 Mech factories assemble mechs by the dozens yearly while vehicle factories produce them by the hundreds or even thousands yearly . Combat vehicles in the Battletech Universe are attrition units . You win strategically if you kill 100 tons mechs at less than 1000 tons of combat vehicles ideally less than 360 tons . So long as that happens   combat vehicles  have a place in any order of battle.  Mechs are scarce  resource heavy,  highly complex, with very tight tolerances so slow to produce.  Combat vehicles use more available resources far less complex that can be produced at one or two orders of magnitude faster than mechs . If you count armed trailers it is better than 2 orders of magnitude.  By 3070s the tech available makes combat vehicles very competitive as is before that they were marginally competitive.  Give combat vehicles many more advantages the mech would be extinct in Battletech as it is if it was not for  CASE 2 that mechs can have but  vehicles can't  those conditions are almost already there .

And who says vehicles can't do physical attacks . I had a 50 ton hovertank charge me , does only leg hits takes an automatic motive crit and the WOB crew sets off the booby trap system  hit or miss .forces most of your units to declare shooting at it  while other more expensive units get to shoot at you with impunity

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

OK, you ask for and idea that gives benefit to better more expensive tanks.
The issue ist, that the choice of the engine doesn't affect the game performance. So a ICE tank behaves similar to a XL engine tank.
Lets compare a pure Fusion Engine tank the Manticore with a equally armed 60t Mech. (you end with max armor - and 16 heatsinks to use the long range weapons without overheating.... that's clearly in favour of the Mech, and the Manticore (with exception of that stupid laser, is already one of the best heavy tanks)

When you use the Manticore as the gold standard for a heavy tank, any FCE or ICE powered tank should be less effective correct?

The difference between ICE tank and XL engine tank seems nothing different with retromech and battlemech, for me. Do you expect retromech is a king of the ground combat? It is actually cheap cannon fodder for someone who is not able to afford proper battlemech.

And, who cares for the ICE tank? They are already the cheaper low tech weapon, and are easily killed as well.

[Hptm. Streiger]

The difference between ICE tank and XL engine tank seems nothing different with retromech and battlemech, for me. Do you expect retromech is a king of the ground combat? It is actually cheap cannon fodder for someone who is not able to afford proper battlemech.

And, who cares for the ICE tank? They are already the cheaper low tech weapon, and are easily killed as well.

And because the retro mech has less weight or can't use double heatsinks it already got a lower BV to reflect this. The same for tanks, a Demo with XL instead of ICE - would be faster and tougher and better armed. At least when propper designed (2 AC20s might not be the best weapons)

Also, costs are not really that effective or coherent - costs always need to consider the basic economic demand, and I really can't think that the demand for Small Pulse Lasers or SSRM2 (OS) is that large.

[RifleMech]

Rather than a free Armored Motive, maybe free CASE?

Hardened Armor with no penalties for tracked combat vehicles? Fluff it as they can handle the weight better or something?

Easy to Repair or Easy to Pilot quirks for wheeled combat vehicles? Fluff it as wheeled vehicles are the single most common type of vehicle in the BTU, and the mechanics are well known.

Not sure about hover or VTOL's.

Free CASE?  Maybe for Combat Vehicles and Support Vehicles fully equal to Combat Vehicles.

I could get behind the Hardened Armor on Tracked vehicles as they distribute their weight better. Maybe for warships too.

I'm not sure about the easy to pilot quirk for wheeled vehicles. It's a blanket application when really some are easier to pilot than others.

Honestly, I think that it needs MORE than what I said, and it is still not enough, because battlemech have superior mobility and melee attack, and torso twist without spend weight on turret(although turret is good anyways).

It is true that Battletech universe puts mechs superior over vehicles, but I didn't deny it. I just want to discuss about the additional houserule to make the expensive fusion vehicles equal to mech, against the basic theory of the universe itself.

I don't think that mechs are need to be superior at all. After all, it is only a biped(or tripod/quad) tank, rather than use track/wheel/air cushion/rotor/ground effect to move. Walking, and having hands for some models, is the only unique feature of the battlemech. Thats ALL the difference, actually. Am I hate walkers? Not really, and actually I prefer them over vehicles very much. But I am not gone so far to intentially make the vehicles worse than the walkers. It is the matter of taste, not the matter of tier level. If there should a tier level, it should be ICE/Fuel Cell and Fusion engine, not by how it moves. What I want is both of them are coexist and the individual situation makes some of them better than the others, not simply declare that some kind among them is superior.

Well, what I expect them is not truly same unit, or what I need is just a legged unit. But I want them to be work as the same unit, an equal one unit in the lance, not the 'inferior' unit despite put the best effort to produce as much as making a battlemech. Making CVs even with the mech doesn't kicks mech from their place, and I never want that(because I like biped machines very much). It just provide us more reasonable combinations.

They won't ever be equal do to terrain restrictions. I think that's how it should be. However I don't think units should always get free weight stuff. I don't think Mechs should get free turrets for example. The Goliath got a quirk when it should have a real turret. I also don't think a Mech should be able to add "quirks" without paying weight or space for them, like various targeting quirks. I can see a mech being built with it but not adding it afterwords.

Accuracy buff seems mimimum effort to do that, for I think that they should better at ranged attack because they lacks melee attack. Then it can support the mechs behind. It is still not so gone so far as giving them more tonnage to weapon. Perhaps 'reduce' the tonnage for weapons NOT mounted on the turret seems doable, though, for I am always think that fixed weapon on the CV have little meaning other than fluff. It may makes so called 'tank destroyer' styled vehicles worth considering. Although I don't like turretless combat vehicles with a weapon personally.

Then again vehicles are lower and more effected by terrain. Or wind for VTOLs and WiGEs and waves for naval units. Mechs also have height so they can see further and should be more accurate. Right now targeting is an even field. I think that's good enough. I do think though that ground vehicles with the right equipment should be able to conduct melee attacks. It may not be as easy as a mech but I think they should.

Not allowing DHS seems only making the CV inferior to mechs, not because it is not possible in the reality of Battletech Universe, for aerospace fighters are actually use DHS without any problem. But, DHS and ignore non-energy heat source seems tradeoff and can't be combined. It is interesting to use the tank with same heat rule with mech, though, but it must also count every heat source as the mech does.

I wouldn't mind if tanks counted every heat source. Even if it's an optional rule. But then you'd have to treat them as mechs with a heat scale that they operate on. I think they should be able to use DHS.

And among what I suggested, the internal part means simply combine internal with only one part(body). For now the internals of CV is divided to front/rear/left/right/turret(if it have one)/rotor, with the point 1/10 of its tonnage. But what I suggest is, remove all of them save for rotor and just make the internal of body, with the point of 1/5 of its tonnage, and still keep the rotor for VTOL.

For example, a 100 tons CV currently have 10 points on each front/rear/left/right, and turret if it have one. But with the suggestion, it only have 20 points of internal, and any damage breaching through any location directly damages it. So it is more durable against one particular direction, but still far from an invincible wall. It will be easier to record as well. And, 20 point of internal is still too weaker than a 100 tons mech's 31 point of internal on center torso either, so it can be increased as well, but consider how mechs are fell(usually they fells by destroyed gyro or engine, before it lost all the mandatory internal) it seems safe to leave the internal to 1/5 or 1/3.

Id have to say no. I'm not even happy with AS not having IS.

So, simply put, I don't care that ICE/Fuel Cell CVs are being inferior to the others at all, for it is just a cheapshot compared by fusion fueled powerful units. What I want to give the benefit is, the vehicles that costs considerable resource and requires technology compared by proper battlemech, and can consider an equal member of the lance, not the inferior cheapshot to fill the gap.

It is on Fan Designs and Rules.

I think for the most part vehicle will always be inferior to Mechs. Although they do have some advantages. They're a lot easier to transport. You can get at least 2 vehicles for every mech on a dropship.

You can also have more in a hex than a mech and even a destroyed motorcycle will block a mech. Weird I know. I would go even further than 2 vehicles per hex. I'd increase that number up to 5 for vehicles 2-5 tons and up to 30 for vehicles 2 tons or less. Considering how many motorized infantry fit in a hex I don't think 30 motorcycles is too much.

[Iron Grenadier]

Free CASE?  Maybe for Combat Vehicles and Support Vehicles fully equal to Combat Vehicles.

I could get behind the Hardened Armor on Tracked vehicles as they distribute their weight better. Maybe for warships too.

I'm not sure about the easy to pilot quirk for wheeled vehicles. It's a blanket application when really some are easier to pilot than others.

I wasn't sure what really to give wheeled vehicles to be honest. I happened to be looking over quirks for something else and thought maybe?

[Talen5000]

The simple truth is that you cannot make a vehicle that is the equal of Mechs without destroying a fundamental principle of the BTU.

Vehicles must be inferior to Mechs.


You CAN advocate a new construction system for advanced rules that allow for advanced materials and construction technologies.

You COULD create a system that avoids some of the design shortfalls.

You could also think of reasons why the existing limitations are in place.


For example.

1....Structure.
Equal to 35% of maximum vehicle mass. Includes suspension, transmission, gearing, internal armour and compartmentalisation, redundancies and damage control, etc.
2...Control
Equal to 5% of vehicle mass. Includes sensors and vehicular electronics
3... Engine
Calculate engine rating as normal. Mass is half that of XXL fusion.
Multiply by 2 for fusion, or by 1.15 for Fuel Cell
4...Fuel
Add Fuel. 1kg of fuel provides 1 ton-km of fuel. A vehicle uses 1 fuel point for every MP spent, or 5 if moving at flank.
5...Add weapons.
Ballistic and missile weapons require ammo.
Energy weapons require batteries. 5kg per heat per shot
Weapons require 1 slot per 3 critical slots.
Reduce mass of ballistic weapons by 20%, increase mass of energy weapons by 15%
6...Add turret
The structure and motor of a turret masses 20% of the equipment mounted in the turret.
7...Add armour
6 points of armour per ton, with a damage threshold of the armour value divided by 20. No limit.

Or...

You can house rule the use of armoured chassis as standard, house rule the use of DHS, allow the use of endo steel in home designs, etc.


Or...

Endo steel can be used in vehicles, but is subject to stresses which present  an unacceptable degree of vulnerability.

Vehicles do not use heat sinks at all. Mass allocated to heat sinks is instead represents mass devoted to power storage systems used to power energy weapons. This still needs to be connected via a power amp system which acts as a way to convert the energy from its storage form to its active form...a transformer or similar device.

Fusion engines used in vehicles are small and compact, only distantly related to the fusion engines used in BattleMechs. They produce much less power, but are small enough to fit in the cramped confines of a vehicle. The reason they are so heavy is because what the TROs list as "Engine" is actually the mass of the entire motive system..tracks/wheels, gearing transmission, fuel, etc. ICE engines include all this complex systems while simpler fusion engines still require additional shielding because the smaller size forces it to use a more dangerous method.(Or rather...its heavier because it is just a different type of fusion engine)


The point here is that I agree that while some of the restrictions placed on vehicles don't make sense...at least, at face value...that doesn't mean explanations can't be provided.

So....you CAN make the existing rules work.
You CAN create a new construction system that might embrace the new more logical values.
You CAN come up with explanations for the inherent limitations.


You can do all sorts of stuff.

But you cannot make vehicles the equal of Mechs without undermining Mechs.

The universe is just built that way...vehicles are cheap and relatively simple, but Mechs are tougher, more mobile and far more dangerous on a ton for ton basis.

You want them to become worthy of a slot in a lance? They already are. They are cheap, and they can bought in bulk. They are fragile, but carry Mech class weapons making them a real threat. They bring numbers to a command, allowing the defence of multiple targets freeing up Mechs fir what they do best.

[Robroy]

My suggestion for the free armored motive system was just for tracked vehicles. I mean those drive systems is just one big chunk of steel after another.