Register Register

Author Topic: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?  (Read 18448 times)

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #60 on: 03 February 2011, 11:07:29 »
Yes and I'm not allowed too any more.  Heavy LRM carriers loaded with MPW rounds do not make for a good day.

Why yes, that is an additional 48 heat.  Still glad you alpha'd me now?   ;D

Haven't gotten around to using MPWs yet. Am I wrong in assuming they should be held to the same cap of 15 external heat?
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14356
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #61 on: 03 February 2011, 11:09:16 »
No.  It's possible that they've been around since the Great Book of Munchtech Tactical Handbook days, before that rule was imposed, so it's possible they're referring to an older game.

Paladin1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1437
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #62 on: 03 February 2011, 11:16:37 »
No.  It's possible that they've been around since the Great Book of Munchtech Tactical Handbook days, before that rule was imposed, so it's possible they're referring to an older game.
Moonsword's right, MPWs are much older and while I don't know how they're handled under TW rules, under the old rules there was no limit to how high you could force someone's heat with these.  I, personally, have seen players hit with over 80 additional points of heat due to the effects of multiple MPW strikes.  It's not pretty, especially if you were using the munchtech rules for expanded heat scales like Moonsword mentioned.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #63 on: 03 February 2011, 11:21:59 »
Moonsword's right, MPWs are much older and while I don't know how they're handled under TW rules, under the old rules there was no limit to how high you could force someone's heat with these.  I, personally, have seen players hit with over 80 additional points of heat due to the effects of multiple MPW strikes.  It's not pretty, especially if you were using the munchtech rules for expanded heat scales like Moonsword mentioned.

Alright, that's what I assumed. During the fun gap between infernos becoming available for all SRMs and the TW rules for max external heat I had a whole lot of fun spiking unsuspecting mechs to "cook-off mode", but I've never had a problem with placing a cap to limit munchy tactics like that. I'd like to see some sort of clarification on MPWs, just to be sure that they fall udner the same purview as all other external heat. TO THE RULES FORUMS!
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Paladin1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1437
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #64 on: 03 February 2011, 11:31:05 »
We'll see what TPTB say, but I always thought that the external heat rule didn't apply to MPWs due to the way that MPWs worked.  They disrupt the engine's containment field, thus releasing extra heat and causing the nifty +3 to-hit next turn due to the extra electronic interference.  Thus the heat source is internal rather than external.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #65 on: 03 February 2011, 11:33:57 »
We'll see what TPTB say, but I always thought that the external heat rule didn't apply to MPWs due to the way that MPWs worked.  They disrupt the engine's containment field, thus releasing extra heat and causing the nifty +3 to-hit next turn due to the extra electronic interference.  Thus the heat source is internal rather than external.

Hmmm, an idea but really likely irrelevant. The 15 point cap is an artificial cap for balance anyways. It's not a question so much about how the heat is applied as that the ability to give your opponents extra heat is extremely unbalanced if unchecked. External refers to the source of the cause of the heat, not the actual mechanism of heat generation. But again, TPTB hold final say
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14356
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #66 on: 03 February 2011, 11:36:36 »
Moonsword's right, MPWs are much older and while I don't know how they're handled under TW rules, under the old rules there was no limit to how high you could force someone's heat with these.  I, personally, have seen players hit with over 80 additional points of heat due to the effects of multiple MPW strikes.  It's not pretty, especially if you were using the munchtech rules for expanded heat scales like Moonsword mentioned.

The modern rules for them are in TacOps.  The 15 heat cap was imposed in TW.  Considering the widespread proliferation of the plasma rifle and especially the plasma cannon as well as the increasing use of Infernos due to the need for infantry-killing weapons, that was probably a wise decision to keep things from spiraling completely out of control.

There is no mention made of an exception to the cap, either.  Personally, I'd leave it in place - there's enough ways to spike heat these days that using MPWs in concert with something else could be very munchy - but we'll see what they say.

Paladin1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1437
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #67 on: 03 February 2011, 11:37:48 »
Agreed, the PTB will have the final say, but I was approaching this from the point of view that, for the rules to be consistant, they have to allow MPWs to act as they have historically acted since their heatsource is generated internally instead of externally like fire or infernos.  I understand the concerns about game balance, and even agree, but I'm also concerned about rules continuity.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #68 on: 03 February 2011, 11:42:09 »
Agreed, the PTB will have the final say, but I was approaching this from the point of view that, for the rules to be consistant, they have to allow MPWs to act as they have historically acted since their heatsource is generated internally instead of externally like fire or infernos.  I understand the concerns about game balance, and even agree, but I'm also concerned about rules continuity.

What rules continuity? The original rules are null and void as per TW, and while the actual fluff reasoning for the extra heat is due to the engine, that has no bearing on the rules. The term "External Heat" was chosen as it is heat applied by external sources. Not that the actual fluff heat is created by napalm sticking on the outside, or a fire burning on the outside of the mech. Rather, that the reason extra heat is generated is due to something other than the actions of the mech itself. Again, I may be wrong, but that seems to be by far the most balanced and logical interpretation of their wording.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14356
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #69 on: 03 February 2011, 11:43:18 »
Rules continuity on that point was broken across the board when the cap was imposed.  Enough Infernos could shut someone down (or blow them to hell with their ammo) anyway.  And speaking of Infernos, they've been rather willing to nerf things to shove things back into a balanced configuration - witness the way Infernos were throttled back from being an 8+ death check to "only" a critical threat.

Paladin1

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1437
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #70 on: 03 February 2011, 12:01:50 »
What rules continuity? The original rules are null and void as per TW, and while the actual fluff reasoning for the extra heat is due to the engine, that has no bearing on the rules. The term "External Heat" was chosen as it is heat applied by external sources. Not that the actual fluff heat is created by napalm sticking on the outside, or a fire burning on the outside of the mech. Rather, that the reason extra heat is generated is due to something other than the actions of the mech itself. Again, I may be wrong, but that seems to be by far the most balanced and logical interpretation of their wording.
And there's where I was looking for rules continuity.  Not from pre-TW sources, but from the idea of "External Heat" being generated via an External (i.e. outside the 'Mech) source as opposed to an internal source.  My thinking on this is that, while the 15 heat cap is a good representation of how external heat might affect a 'Mech's engine, it doesn't do well when the engine itself is the source of that heat.

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14356
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #71 on: 03 February 2011, 12:09:31 »
Rereading the TacOps fluff, it looks like the cap is still in place.  In response to the MPW's introduction, engine manufacturers adjusted some of the containment software to compensate, keeping a firm hand on the mayhem that they can cause while still making a nod to the period when those improved parameters weren't in place.

target_destroyed

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 86
  • BOOM - Headshot!
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #72 on: 03 February 2011, 12:20:56 »
I prefer larger launchers. Using banks of smaller launchers for the crit factor just seems kinda munchy. To each their own of course.
Star Captain Aaron Hazen - Trinary Bravo
9th Talon Cluster, Jade Falcon (Gamma) Galaxy

We are Crusaders and will trample all who stand in our way!

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #73 on: 03 February 2011, 12:24:37 »
Rereading the TacOps fluff, it looks like the cap is still in place.  In response to the MPW's introduction, engine manufacturers adjusted some of the containment software to compensate, keeping a firm hand on the mayhem that they can cause while still making a nod to the period when those improved parameters weren't in place.

Well there's a whole lot of worms in that can you just opened Moonsword.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14356
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #74 on: 03 February 2011, 12:37:47 »
I don't see any.  That's fluff, not rules text and the implications point back toward the rules balance anyway (the word cap is specifically used in the text).  It also specifically says that their reputation was heavily exaggerated at first.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #75 on: 03 February 2011, 12:47:32 »
I'm more pointing to the implications that they would still be every bit as effective when sued against any mech built before their introduction. As such, a lot of Star League era mechs that were built prior to MPW's introduction can now be implied to not have that applicable cap for MPW-generated heat. Personally I liked it better when the cap rule was just that, a rule. Not necessarily having any hard in-universe justification.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14356
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #76 on: 03 February 2011, 15:44:20 »
They wouldn't be and, generally, the rule doesn't have any in-universe justification - this is an exception, not a rule.  The engine manufacturers basically released firmware patches for the engines.  The effect of this basically drove the magnetic pulse missiles extinct in under a decade.  Judging from the text and the rapid extinction, I'd say that older 'Mechs still received the software changes and thus aren't any more vulnerable.

Quote from: TacOps, page 370
Nevertheless, as rumors of an ultimate “’Mech-stunner” weapon circulated in the 3050s, fusion engine manufacturers across the Inner Sphere responded with updated engine containment software designed to adjust to sudden external influences from magnetic-pulse missile volleys. As a result, while the MP missiles’ pulse still produces a brief “heat spike” in fusion engines, this is actually a side effect of strengthened containment fields that never exceed a certain limit.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #77 on: 03 February 2011, 15:52:15 »
They wouldn't be and, generally, the rule doesn't have any in-universe justification - this is an exception, not a rule.  The engine manufacturers basically released firmware patches for the engines.  The effect of this basically drove the magnetic pulse missiles extinct in under a decade.  Judging from the text and the rapid extinction, I'd say that older 'Mechs still received the software changes and thus aren't any more vulnerable.

A fair point. I'm quickly starting to realize the disadvantage I am at by only being able to get on these boards while at work. i never have my books on me.   :'(
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14356
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #78 on: 03 February 2011, 16:04:01 »
That's why I posted that excerpt - so anyone looking at it knew exactly where I was coming from rather than having to rely on just my testimony of what it says.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #79 on: 03 February 2011, 16:07:02 »
That's why I posted that excerpt - so anyone looking at it knew exactly where I was coming from rather than having to rely on just my testimony of what it says.

Moonsword, more than almost anyone else on these boards I trust what you have to say if you state it as sourcebook-backed fact. I don't always agree with your opinions, but you rarely say something is straight out of the book unless it is.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14356
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #80 on: 03 February 2011, 16:11:44 »
I have very strong (and very negative) feelings about distorting sources related to my academic background.  I also tend to have the references ready at hand since my "book" collection is electronic, so if I don't know something, frequently my first response is to open the PDF and look.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #81 on: 03 February 2011, 16:18:34 »
I have very strong (and very negative) feelings about distorting sources related to my academic background.  I also tend to have the references ready at hand since my "book" collection is electronic, so if I don't know something, frequently my first response is to open the PDF and look.

Well I have some PDFs on my home computer, but a series of viruses wiped most of my resources, including Total Warfare. Throw in the fact I typically only post while at work, and I largely rely on either online sources or other posters for the exact details on numbers/references. I am considering re-purchasing TW tonight though. Paycheck came in and I'm sick of going without.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Grey

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 534
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #82 on: 04 February 2011, 05:00:51 »
Can't say I've read all the posts here but am I the only one who'll design an MBT with an SRM2 on each facing and one on the turret with two tons of ammo as a defensive measure?

Sure it's a bit munchy, but as a defence it's pretty solid and the crit factor balances things out.

garhkal

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4816
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #83 on: 04 February 2011, 07:24:06 »
In the few i have done, i went with 2 streaks.
It's not who you kill, but how they die!
You can't shoot what you can't see.
You can not dodge it if you don't know it's coming.

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14356
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #84 on: 04 February 2011, 08:42:45 »
Can't say I've read all the posts here but am I the only one who'll design an MBT with an SRM2 on each facing and one on the turret with two tons of ammo as a defensive measure?

Sure it's a bit munchy, but as a defence it's pretty solid and the crit factor balances things out.

It's not especially munchy in my view.  You're not beating the tonnage at all (where a lot of people get aggravated with LRMs) and they're not focusing fire on anything to begin with.  You're also not knocking on Puma levels of ridiculousness with the side arc launchers.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #85 on: 04 February 2011, 10:23:18 »
Agreed. Covering your defensive arcs is perfectly valid. The real issue most of us has with multiple smaller launchers is those situations where a larger launcher would suffice but the designed simply wants to "game" the system more efficiency. You can't cover all of those arcs with a single laucnher though, so by my judgement at least, they all count as seperate launchers, rather than a big launcher broken down into smaller ones for munch purpsoes.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14356
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #86 on: 04 February 2011, 10:45:00 »
SRMs are kind of outside that anyway - it's numbers, heat, and sometimes crits vs. clustering performance at that point.  LRMs and, to a lesser extent, MMLs are a somewhat different issue.  My tolerance of MMLs depends on the situation and the numbers involved.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #87 on: 04 February 2011, 10:57:57 »
SRMs are kind of outside that anyway - it's numbers, heat, and sometimes crits vs. clustering performance at that point.  LRMs and, to a lesser extent, MMLs are a somewhat different issue.  My tolerance of MMLs depends on the situation and the numbers involved.

I assume you mean multiple small MML packs instead of just MMLs in general? Because as a general use weapon they're wonderfully balanced. Not quite as effective as LRMs, not quite as effective as SRMs, but effective enough at both roles to be a legitimate and occasionally superior choice.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

Moonsword

  • Global Moderator
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14356
  • You interrupted me reading TROs for this?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #88 on: 04 February 2011, 11:24:06 »
Yes, I'm referring to massed light launchers.  Because of the decreasing tube numbers as you go up in size, there's a temptation to stack them.  On the other hand, in 'Mechs, the crit issues keep the issue under control nicely.  It's not that large a concern, frankly.

IndyRI

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 891
  • Is it really still snowing?
Re: Smaller missile packs en mass or larger ones?
« Reply #89 on: 04 February 2011, 11:37:58 »
Yes, I'm referring to massed light launchers.  Because of the decreasing tube numbers as you go up in size, there's a temptation to stack them.  On the other hand, in 'Mechs, the crit issues keep the issue under control nicely.  It's not that large a concern, frankly.

I assumed as much. Although a 3 launcher really doesn't have that many concerns versus and standard LRM in terms of the values of multiple small launchers or one large launcher. If anything, the bias of the cluster hits table versus the very small launchers would give it a similar problem as the SRM2 in being less efficient than it would seem.
HEIRS OF AMARIS - An AU Setting for Classic Battletech

Come and see. Comments welcome.
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=757.msg15033

Battlemech Designs Galore
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=840.0

 

Register