Vehicles and Double Heat Sinks

[SCC]

You don't move your vehicles? I do not consider that a joke..

How often are vehicles rendered immobile? I believe it's a bit of a given that sooner or later they will, right?

[TigerShark]

How often are vehicles rendered immobile? I believe it's a bit of a given that sooner or later they will, right?

No.

[StCptMara]

How often are vehicles rendered immobile? I believe it's a bit of a given that sooner or later they will, right?

Honestly? In my experience, while it is easier to immobilize a vehicle then a 'mech, I still, generally, keep to the
"Speed is life" mentality when using a vehicles, because, when maneuvred right, frankly, they still do enough overall
damage, and take fewer losses of mobility then you seem to think. I have, actually, rarely seen a fight involving vehicles
devolve into the implied series of stationary guns you seem to expect it will..It usually ends with the 'mechs trying to
avoid the vehicles...

[Moonsword]

They don't usually degenerate quite that far.  Usually.  I've seen a couple of lances that have either gotten completely immobilized or have so little speed left that they're functionally immobile.  It's more of a hallmark of 3/5 tanks than anything else, but on the other hand, I generally see lances of 4/6 to 5/8 vehicles get at least one serious mobility hit.  Having used both the stock and TacOps mobility hit rules, the latter does significantly reduce this sort of thing.

[Nebfer]

A concept I was thinking about, what if instead of a double heat sink, what if they got a improved heat sink that sinked 1.2 heat rounding down (i.e. nine sinks would shed 10 units of heat, ten sinks would shed 12).
It would cost the same as a double sink and take up a slot or two on the vehicle as well (and is not mountable on mechs).

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Sounds seriously underpowered.  If I'm understanding you correctly it drop the heatsinks on the DI Morgan from 35 to 32.

[House Davie Merc]

Honestly? In my experience, while it is easier to immobilize a vehicle then a 'mech, I still, generally, keep to the
"Speed is life" mentality when using a vehicles, because, when maneuvred right, frankly, they still do enough overall
damage, and take fewer losses of mobility then you seem to think. I have, actually, rarely seen a fight involving vehicles
devolve into the implied series of stationary guns you seem to expect it will..It usually ends with the 'mechs trying to
avoid the vehicles...

Prior to the rules Changes in Total Warfare I used to field the MG variant of J.Edgar Hover in the majority of my 3025 games .
I absolutely loved that design .  From the weapons set up to what I've always thought was a pretty cool mini .

In the 1st 4 games I played after TW came out my  J.Edgars were immobolized extremely early in the game .
Even with high movement mods  the first tiny hits and they were down or made so slow that they were an
easy target the following round .
Something similar happened to the other players I game with that use hovers .

It happened with such regularity that most of us stopped using hovers other then the
Savannah Master .

Funny how a few rules changes meant that our hovercrafts went back into storage and bug mechs with MGs
like Stingers and Locusts were dusted off and brought back onto the table .
Changes in the SRM inferno rules also put the regular J.Edgar back into boxes as well as
many Wasps .

As for vehicles with double heat sinks -  NO WAY .
It would be one of the most destructive acts to unbalance the game in it's history .

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

People keep saying that but the evidence for such is less than compelling.

Also, I've found that in any terrain other than open plains where they can run wide open without worrying about drifting into forbidden terrain, hovercraft tend to suck, regardless of mobility hits.

[Nebfer]

Sounds seriously underpowered.  If I'm understanding you correctly it drop the heatsinks on the DI Morgan from 35 to 32.

Well 30 of these heat sinks should sink 36 heat
Basically if you had X heat sinks you would dissipate Y amount of heat
5..=6 heat (5 sinks = 6 heat shed)
10=12 heat
15=18 heat
20=24 heat
25=30 heat
30=36 heat
35=42 heat
40=48 heat

Perhaps I should of said rounded normally rather than down... As such 29 improved vehicle heat sinks would sink 35 heat.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Still sounds underpowered.  But more than that it sounds overly complex.

[Nebfer]

Still sounds underpowered.  But more than that it sounds overly complex.

Well having full strength double heat sinks is not going to happen...

And saving 2 tons per ER Large laser not good enough?

And I do not think it's that complex, it's not any more complex than Ferro-fibrous is, math wise (at the lest).

[Akalabeth]

Does any one have any idea what happens when you have a Vehicle that needs a new reactor and the only one you have on hand uses DHS?

You're left with one powerless vehicle and one pointless reactor.

[Drasius]

Either that or you jam the engine in there but the heat dissipation ability of the engine requires more airflow than the tank can provide, and as such, the heat sinks all work at half capacity. Tada, problem solvered.

[Khymerion]

Either that or you jam the engine in there but the heat dissipation ability of the engine requires more airflow than the tank can provide, and as such, the heat sinks all work at half capacity. Tada, problem solvered.

So DHS able to sap of 150% instead of 200% heat?   Not too bad honestly.  Wouldn't completely unbalance things but might see a few more viable energy boat vehicles...   which is always nice for the lighter (50 ton and less) vehicles to be able to pack some of the more modern weapons and armors...   *grumble*  Accursed stealth armor and void signature systems, why must you vex me so with your outrageous heat requirements precluding effective energy armaments?!

[VF1LAM]

I once asked what it would be like if you could make a 3050s version of the Schrek [ER] PPC Carrier...!!!

[StCptMara]

I once asked what it would be like if you could make a 3050s version of the Schrek [ER] PPC Carrier...!!!

ERPH! Well first you will likely start with an XL Engine and Ferro Fibrous armour to get more tonnage...
Now, you just need to find 15 more tons...

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Twenty more tons, the Schrek is an 80 ton vehicle.

[StCptMara]

Twenty more tons, the Schrek is an 80 ton vehicle.

A 3050's version of the Shrek with ER PPCs..3 ER PPCs is 45 heat, the 3 standard PPCs are 30 heat. Thus, you need
an extra 15 tons beyond the base to get the heatsinks to cover those. If you were just uptonning it to 100 tons,
then making the conversion would, probably, be fairly easy...but that is a new design, not an upgraded shrek..

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I thought you were making a reference to the DI Morgan, which is a 100 ton upgrade of the Schrek and does mount ER PPCs.

Sorry about the misunderstanding.

[VF1LAM]

@everyone who helped:  Thanks for pointing out the DI Morgan, which appears to be classified as an Assault Tank rather than merely a PPC Carrier. O0  As one of those 3025 grognards, who has only occasionally played in the 3050s, I was not as familiar with more recent BattleTechnology.

By the way, what does the "DI" stand for?  I presume it is "Defiance Industries", who actually make the tank?

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Seems to be.

[Nebfer]

So DHS able to sap of 150% instead of 200% heat?   Not too bad honestly.  Wouldn't completely unbalance things but might see a few more viable energy boat vehicles...   which is always nice for the lighter (50 ton and less) vehicles to be able to pack some of the more modern weapons and armors...   *grumble*  Accursed stealth armor and void signature systems, why must you vex me so with your outrageous heat requirements precluding effective energy armaments?!

Strange I proposed a some what similar idea but was told it was to complex, and worthless. Though I suggested 1.2 heat, for a improved heat sink available for tanks.

[StCptMara]

Strange I proposed a some what similar idea but was told it was to complex, and worthless. Though I suggested 1.2 heat, for a improved heat sink available for tanks.

What would almost work better, I would think, would be LIGHTER single heatsinks. We already have Compact Heat Sinks, why not Light Heat Sinks?

[Khymerion]

Strange I proposed a some what similar idea but was told it was to complex, and worthless. Though I suggested 1.2 heat, for a improved heat sink available for tanks.

1.2 leads to strange fractions and needing 5 to get an equal to a 6th...  not too complex but only getting a very limited benefit towards weight.   The complex and 'worthless' part is trying to give enough heat sinks to actually dissipate a PPC for example...  with your advanced heat sinks - 10 pts sinked by only 8.3 heatsinks... which means 9.    1.5, which still giving a horrible fraction, 6.6 only rounds up to 7.

I can see the problem now.

What would almost work better, I would think, would be LIGHTER single heatsinks. We already have Compact Heat Sinks, why not Light Heat Sinks?

Because some mech jockey will end up wanting to use it to get around using DHS?   Now, if the lighter SHS was a vehicle only device, that could be interesting.

[StCptMara]

Because some mech jockey will end up wanting to use it to get around using DHS?   Now, if the lighter SHS was a vehicle only device, that could be interesting.

Sort of like the Protomech .25 ton Heatsinks?

[Khymerion]

Sort of like the Protomech .25 ton Heatsinks?

Wouldn't go that light but definitely sounds like something that could be looked into as an alternative.

[rlbell]

What would almost work better, I would think, would be LIGHTER single heatsinks. We already have Compact Heat Sinks, why not Light Heat Sinks?

In another thread, I proposed half-sinks--  half a ton, one crit slot and dissipating one heat.  The fact that you only get ten of them with the engine and they take up the same space in the engine as DHS make them less useful on mechs; although, being able to stick them in the CT/HD/Legs gives them some utility for IS designs.  They are easier to fit into the mech, but DHS are definitely lighter.  A mech with a 300FE only needs an extra 2t to dissipate 24 heat, but a half sink design with a 300FE needs 7t and twelve crit slots.  They get better as engine ratings go down, but for the same heat dissipation, they will mass an extra five tons.  The only advantage is they can take fewer crit slots.  Only if a half sink counted as a compact heatsink, for being integral to the engine, would a mech jockey pull out his DHS for them.

Another way to limit the number of DHS on a vehicle is to have each DHS not integral to the engine take up one of the vehicle's slots (which will really limit their use on non-fusion vehicles).

The holy grail is the compact double heatsink: 1.5t, one crit slot, two heat, and being able to to cram two into the engine for every 25 points of rating

[Sockmonkey]

'Mechs would not be pointless.

They are the only truly all terrain vehicle.

This this, a thousand times this. VTOLs are skeet, tanks can't jump chasms, and anyone with half a brain would mine the crap out of any roads or flat terrain. Nerfing vehicles arbitrarilly just kills the immersion and suspension of disbelief. Mechs are more in line with special ops and such, which is what a player wants because you're in a critical role where you can be the "hero" as opposed to just one random grunt in an army.

[Greywind]

tanks can't jump chasms,

Kanga

[HMS_Swiftsure]

I firmly feel that vehicles should always play second fiddle to 'Mechs.  Yes, I'm the guy that plays MM with Vee Effectiveness optional rule off and direct blow rules on.

In reality, there is absolutely no reason that tanks wouldn't be exponentially more powerful and sensible than 'Mechs.  But I didn't get drawn into BattleTech for the reality of it, I came for the stompy 'Mechs.  Tanks being almost as effective as 'Mechs just kills it for me.  I mean, if they're THAT good, and THAT much cheaper, why not just use them exclusively?  The terrain thing sort of makes sense, but I prefer 'Mechs to be far more survivable as well.  This solidifies their place at the top of the food chain, and makes playing with them fun.  Likewise, it makes campaigns dealing with combat vees as secondary units or opfor militia interesting.