Should things taken for granted in TW be ignored in ATOW?

[mitchberthelson]

Interesting to look at, actually.

Infantry-fired LRMs have a range of 2100 meters.  Mech LRMs 'only go' 630 meters.

Yeah, and unfortunately, I found some more citations that prove that recent products still have this problem. The Tech Manual, pg. 93, in an in-character voice states that the Challenger MBT is "potent at all ranges from 30 to 660 meters."

The Maxim's LongFire V LRM's are mentioned in the same book, similar voice on pg. 93 as enabling it to "engage targets at ranges up to 630 meters."

The fluff for the Light Active Probe mentions a 30m range on pg. 204.

The HPPC's fluff talks about it retaining focusing problems at less than 90m on pg. 235.

So yeah....we still have problems with "real world" measurements in in character voice matching a rule that is only supposed to be for abstraction. Likely, many of the authors writing that copy weren't aware of the significance, especially since AToW wasn't in their mind at the time.

Looks like some of that fluff has to just be handwaved at RPG time and the TW rule given priority to avoid smashing the suspension of disbelief of those being introduced to the game. The alternate "100 per hex" ranges should fix that nicely if you're not using minis. You could also double the ranges and time scale while removing the tactical addendum's restrictions on rate of fire. Or just modify QuickStrike/BattleForce, which has somewhat more ambiguous ranging.

[Acolyte]

OK, it boils down to "it's your game". If your asking about mine, what I do (for range) is to use the extreme and LOS ranges as part of every weapon, and I reduce the penalties for those ranges in half. Besides the to hit penalty there are no others, so no reduced damage and the like. What I used to do was have the short range be the base range and every multiple of that add a +1 modifier. The TacOps ranges are easier. It should be noted that our house rules were put in place not to make the game any more "realistic" but to speed the game up. More hits at longer ranges helps with this.

On a side note: In Decision at Thunder Rift, it describes Grayson as shooting at a building more than a kilometer away with his AC5. Basically saying that hitting a moving, operating 'Mech at that range was very hard, but a building not so much. It also, in an earlier part, has him in a Locust shooting at a Marauder kilometers away and thinking that some of the shots hit, but that there was no way to be sure at that range. So, even in the earliest of fluff, the ranges were considered to be LOS, but not easy beyond the stated ranges.

   - Shane

[StoneRhino]

I believe they have talked about this before, that the weapons ranges that are given are not intended to be seen as "realistic". The ranges are meant to be seen as a way of fitting on the table, and also justified by suggesting that the further out someone is the harder it is to hit them.

When you are talking about an RPG setting versus the TW rules, the TW rules assumes that all units are actively in the fight, that they are moving about. The RPG is going to lead to situations where that guard is really just sitting there watching tv instead of moving about to make himself a harder to hit target, that is assuming he even knew he was in danger.

The reason to switch to a BT scale map is when you are using large units as opposed to infantry in a fight. The reason to use such as a gm is to remove any possible headaches from having to adjust the ranges of all weapons along with any rules. The whole point of the rules is to make it possible to run a game with as few problems for the GM to sort out as possible. Being a GM of course requires a person to either accept the challenge of a problem a player generates, or waving it off due to the amount of time it would take to work out. Some players may hate that a GM waves some things off, other players may hate when another player chokes the game to death by getting a GM to sort something out just for them.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

You COULD just roleplay ATOW mech combat without ever moving to TW scale rules/mapsheets.  It'd solve some problems.

But render ATOWs biggest strength moot in the process.  (being compatable with TW/TO)

If a mechjock could blast that target from kilometers away in ATOW, what constraints are imposed that prevents him from doing it when we switch to TW scale?

THAT's the conversation I want to have.  If I'm going to allow (or ask to be allowed) longer-than-TW/TO legal shots in the course of an ATOW battle set in TW/TO rules, I want to do it with as reasonable and plausible a basis as possible.

To re-list some possible factors that suppress TW/TO engagement ranges:

Shifts in terrain so subtle they don't rate on the TW elevation scale, yet can still provide dead-LOS space.
Assumption that all targets are always aware of enemies and evading appropriately at all times (definately range-reducing in conjuction with above)
ECM/Jamming
Sensor clutter from ground/trees/buildings
Use of smoke generators to approach within point blank range before opening fire
Compromises made in metallurgy/software engineering to allow weapons to be recalibrated for any planetary (or deep space) environment.

[Acolyte]

How about an alarm that tells a 'Mech (or vehicle) when it's being targeted. Maybe a laser rifle in the hands of an infantryman doesn't have (or need) a sensor to lock onto a target before pulling the trigger but a heavier weapon does, at least at long ranges. Part of the training would be "if you hear that alarm, move! It doesn't matter where you move just do it!" This would make long range shots at piloted 'Mechs difficult even if they were stationary.

   - Shane

[mitchberthelson]

You COULD just roleplay ATOW mech combat without ever moving to TW scale rules/mapsheets.  It'd solve some problems.

But render ATOWs biggest strength moot in the process.  (being compatable with TW/TO)

If a mechjock could blast that target from kilometers away in ATOW, what constraints are imposed that prevents him from doing it when we switch to TW scale?

THAT's the conversation I want to have.  If I'm going to allow (or ask to be allowed) longer-than-TW/TO legal shots in the course of an ATOW battle set in TW/TO rules, I want to do it with as reasonable and plausible a basis as possible.

To re-list some possible factors that suppress TW/TO engagement ranges:

Shifts in terrain so subtle they don't rate on the TW elevation scale, yet can still provide dead-LOS space.
Assumption that all targets are always aware of enemies and evading appropriately at all times (definately range-reducing in conjuction with above)
ECM/Jamming
Sensor clutter from ground/trees/buildings
Use of smoke generators to approach within point blank range before opening fire
Compromises made in metallurgy/software engineering to allow weapons to be recalibrated for any planetary (or deep space) environment.

I suggest reading Era Report: 2750 to get some ideas for this stuff. It discusses, for example, the fact that all combat units since the 2200's have active electronic camouflage systems that, among other things, create fake laser dots in the area around them to fool guidance systems. It also discusses how physical anti-missile systems fell out of favor because electronic anti-missile systems (i.e. "soft kill" stuff that distracts or outright fries guidance) got so good....until armies switched from small groups of large missiles to massive groups of small ones, forcing the TH to resurrect and miniaturize Phalanx.

Might give you a few things to work with.

Oh, and as has been previously mentioned, using the Extreme/LOS Range optional rules would help quite a bit, reducing the ground that you have to cover in your justifications.

[monbvol]

Which still doesn't resolve the incongruities of Infantry and their conversions.  Which may force me to think about some more house rule adjustments to keep certain things in hand.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

There are intriguing questions about anti-personnel weapons on tactical units.  "Why do they settle on 90m machine guns when infantry use machine guns on each other with reach far beyond that?"

If you play in the Renaissance era and your game includes Battle Armor.. there's really troubling questions about ATOW/TW crossover.

[monbvol]

*nod*

My trick for TW doesn't really work for AToW.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

As I was trying to iron out a comprehensive set of house rules, it suddenly hit me.

There's already mechanic in place to allow a ATOW character to 'break' the game in ways that TW doesn't account for- SPAs.

The simplest answer might be to design a a few new Special Abilities.

Still doesn't do anything to help the 1 TW turn = 12 ATOW turns in space, however.  THAT's just a gnarly knot.

[monbvol]

*nod*

The more time I try and figure out thorny issues like this the more I'm convinced that anything that isn't mech or combat vehicle cannot be made sensible and still be recognizable.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

The time dilation for Space turns might solve itself with a simple treatment on heatsinks.  If you say that that heatsinks are simply 1/12 as effective in space as in the atmosphere, it more or less allows things to fall into place.  (the why of such a loss of effectiveness can be handwaived as the way the 'magic' of how future technology works)

As for the suppressed weapon ranges, I'm torn as to what would be a better approach.  A SPA that allows you to shoot at longer ranges, or instituting a houserule(s) that covers when/how/if you can shoot at greater-than-TW ranges.

Pro of a SPA is that it fits elegantly in with the feel of the rest of ATOW.  If you want to do something in a mech that TW doesn't let you, you pay for the ability.
Con of a SPA is tuning it.  Too much bonus range for too little cost makes for a bad design in it'd be too good NOT to have.  If it's too expensive, it won't see use. I'm toying with an idea of a cheap (50xp or so) price that can be bought in levels, and each level increasing the multiplier on Extended Range. (level 1 is Medium range x3, level 2 is medium range X4, so on)  I might make it also involve an opposed check of some kind with the target, and/or make it apply only to missile/energy/ballistic each time you buy a level)

Houserules might ultimately give me exactly what I want, but they have the notable downside of being a chore for players to learn/remember.. not being likely to be used by OTHER GMs in case *I* want to shoot farther as a Player, and generally being more of a headache to create and balance because noone else would be interested in it.

[BirdofPrey]

The time dilation for Space turns might solve itself with a simple treatment on heatsinks.  If you say that that heatsinks are simply 1/12 as effective in space as in the atmosphere, it more or less allows things to fall into place.  (the why of such a loss of effectiveness can be handwaived as the way the 'magic' of how future technology works)

No handwaiving required, it's much harder to lose heat with in space since there's no atmosphere to convect the heat away.

[monbvol]

The Extreme and Line of Sight range rules from TacOps help some but not quite enough.

[guardiandashi]

The time dilation for Space turns might solve itself with a simple treatment on heatsinks.  If you say that that heatsinks are simply 1/12 as effective in space as in the atmosphere, it more or less allows things to fall into place.  (the why of such a loss of effectiveness can be handwaived as the way the 'magic' of how future technology works)

As for the suppressed weapon ranges, I'm torn as to what would be a better approach.  A SPA that allows you to shoot at longer ranges, or instituting a houserule(s) that covers when/how/if you can shoot at greater-than-TW ranges.

Pro of a SPA is that it fits elegantly in with the feel of the rest of ATOW.  If you want to do something in a mech that TW doesn't let you, you pay for the ability.
Con of a SPA is tuning it.  Too much bonus range for too little cost makes for a bad design in it'd be too good NOT to have.  If it's too expensive, it won't see use. I'm toying with an idea of a cheap (50xp or so) price that can be bought in levels, and each level increasing the multiplier on Extended Range. (level 1 is Medium range x3, level 2 is medium range X4, so on)  I might make it also involve an opposed check of some kind with the target, and/or make it apply only to missile/energy/ballistic each time you buy a level)

Houserules might ultimately give me exactly what I want, but they have the notable downside of being a chore for players to learn/remember.. not being likely to be used by OTHER GMs in case *I* want to shoot farther as a Player, and generally being more of a headache to create and balance because noone else would be interested in it.

one possibility would be things like the advanced targeting computers article from battletechnology magazine

no they are not zero net some really are better than others

two of them (the targa 7 vidcom 17 is 1) adjust the maximum range of all weapons mounted on the unit by +5 hexes the exception being small lasers and other 1/2/3 range weapons where all brackets were modified, to if I remember right... 1-2/3-4/5-8

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Here's a couple ideas..

Special Pilot Ability: Anti-Aircraft Gunner
"Just like shootin' clay pigeons..."
Prerequisites: Sensor Operations 4+; BM/Vehicle with Anti-Aircraft Targeting Design Quirk
XP Cost: 100

While most tactical Air Defense units maintain a very small threat bubble so as to be able to turn their guns equally well on ground targets, their powerful search radars can be exploited for maximum effectiveness against air targets at the cost of not being able to acquire firing solutions on ground targets.

A character with the Anti-Aircraft Gunner may spend one round recalibrating and up-powering his sensors to enter 'Anti-Aircraft mode'.  After that round has passed, his BM/Vehicle is treated as having presence on a low altitude map, and may engage targets at that scale as if he were piloting an Aerospace fighter.  Similarly, the un-dampened sensor emissions provide an easy beacon to any airborne sensors, and the BM/Vehicle may in turn be engaged as if it were a target at altitude 0 and Velocity 0.

While in 'anti-aircraft mode' the BM/Vehicle may not engage targets on the ground map, nor may it stand in trees or similar terrain due to massive sensor interference.  The character may exit 'anti-aircraft mode' by expending another turn to do so, returning to normal targeting rules afterwards. 




2nd idea:
Careful Aim House Rule: In addition to everything mentioned on pg 84 of TacOps, each round (two rounds, in ATOW) of careful aim DOUBLES the maximum reach of Extreme Range.  For example, after 1 round of careful aim a Medium Laser may engage a target at 24 hexes.  After 2 rounds, 48 hexes.  After the maximum 3 rounds, 96 hexes.

My thoughts on the house rule: For my own games, I'd also REMOVE all references to damage penalties.  (since ranges much bigger than that in ASF dogfights don't suffer any..)  But other than that, I think it's a fairly simple rule that is more or less in line with the existing Careful Aim and Extreme Range rules.  I'm fine with NOT requiring a SPA to make use of it, since the loooong time between shots is plenty of penalty right there.  If a target can't/won't break LOS in that amount of time before death comes from kilometers away, it deserves to be shot.  And it pretty much satisfies my desire to see 'better vs real world' comparison.. while real world tanks may be hitting from 4,000 meters or more, they're not doing it 6 times per minute.

[monbvol]

Eh, I'm not sure there needs to be such a massive improvement of AA capability when you can already make a mapsheet a no fly zone with Design Quirks, traits, and already existing SPAs.

But something to bring some of the worst offending Support Weapons in line would be to apply a -1 AP at Long Range and a -2 AP at Extreme Range(total) to all Support Weapons and Small Arms not using Ordinance.

I'll have to think on how to bring the Missile Launchers into line because a range of 2,100 meters for the LRM Launcher and 1,500 meters for the MRM Launcher still present problems.

[Gustav Kuriga]

while real world tanks may be hitting from 4,000 meters or more, they're not doing it 6 times per minute.

While the rest of your post is good, an Abrams tank can manage 6 rounds per minute... very accurately.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

While the rest of your post is good, an Abrams tank can manage 6 rounds per minute... very accurately.

I didn't think that'd be the case, but at any rate it's only peripheral.  I already knew that modern MBTs can fire on the move, and the Careful Aim rule requires a stationary shooter. 

Even tho the idea doesn't make BT tech meet modern capabilities, it seems like a decently balanced rule to expand some realistic-ish range into the game.   With so much time to break LOS on an incoming aimed shot, the fights would usually descend into typical point-blank engagement ranges covered by regular TW rules.  So while it gives great flexibility in ATOW, it doesn't ruin TW.

Eh, I'm not sure there needs to be such a massive improvement of AA capability when you can already make a mapsheet a no fly zone with Design Quirks, traits, and already existing SPAs.

I really need constructive feedback on those ideas, so thanks for the thought.  But I wasn't getting at improving AA coverage on a TW battlefield.. more was trying to give a pilot a way to cover a site larger than a single TW map where the ASFs don't feel the need to oblige the defenders by attacking them directly.

Basically, trying to address how frustrating it'd be for a Rifleman pilot guarding something like an airfield or supply depot.  So long as the bombers never strike anything within ~500 meters or so of the mech at any given time, he's utterly helpless to defend the site from the marauding fliers.  Despite piloting what's supposed to be among the best AA platforms around. 

[Gustav Kuriga]

I didn't think that'd be the case, but at any rate it's only peripheral.  I already knew that modern MBTs can fire on the move, and the Careful Aim rule requires a stationary shooter. 

I'll give you that one.  O0

[monbvol]

Step 1:

Use Line of Sight Rules from TacOps.

Step 2:

Load up on AA computer, Sniper SPA, Skill Specialization Gunnery/Mech[Ballistic], Weapon Specialist AC-2/5 or LB-2/5X, Natural Aptitude Gunnery/Mech.

Step 3:

Make anything that flies cry.

Step 4:

Profit.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Step 1:

Use Line of Sight Rules from TacOps.

Step 2:

Load up on AA computer, Sniper SPA, Skill Specialization Gunnery/Mech[Ballistic], Weapon Specialist AC-2/5 or LB-2/5X, Natural Aptitude Gunnery/Mech.

Step 3:

Make anything that flies cry.

Step 4:

Profit.

The part I don't like about that approach is while it allows the Rifleman to shoot the ASF flying a couple TW maps away, it doesn't have a provision for the ASFs to return fire.  If the autocannon shells/LRMs can reach up from the ground to strike at that range, they certainly should be able to streak down from the sky in return.  The roleplay experience of the ATOW character flying the fighter is also on the line.

[massey]

Step 1:  Admit that the original weapons ranges were unrealistic.  For whatever reason the original rules gave hex distances that were too short, rather than redefining the hexes as longer distances.

Step 2:  Be willing to ignore the original weapons ranges.  Otherwise you will never be able to have a satisfactory answer.

As I said earlier, the method I prefer is to pretend that hexes are six times their listed size and use minute-long turns.  So instead of a hex being 30 meters (or about 100 feet), they're about 600 feet.  Machine guns shoot 1800 feet.  SRMs have a range of about a mile.  This matches RPG ranges much better.  It's still not going to be exactly the same, but it doesn't change BT gameplay one bit.  9 hexes is still 9 hexes.  I think it improves the verisimilitude of the game.

The only problems come up with cities (why buildings take up multiple hexes), and jump distances.  A Phoenix Hawk is now leaping a half-mile, which is going to have some interesting effects when it can now cross the Mississippi River in a hop.

When you talk about rate of fire, and reload times, and why can't my PPC fire more than once a minute, the explanation is that in mech combat you've got pauses in the action.  Infantry inside a building have enough time to have a nice cinematic moment, the sergeant gives a rousing speech to his men before they plunge out into the street to shoot at that Locust with their SRMs.  As mechs move through woods, you lose sight of the other guy for a few moments, and try to time your shot for when he comes out from behind that rocky outcropping.  It's not a video game where you tap the space bar as quickly as you can.  In that full minute, there might only be a 5 second firing window when your target is able to be shot at.

As far as ASF times?  Why is a turn a minute instead of 10 seconds?  The same reason.  Because much of an ASF pilot's time is spent on things that don't require a skill roll.  Watch Top Gun again (actually that's just good advice in general, great movie).  You have 50 seconds of "I'm not leaving my wingman," and "I'll hit the speed brakes, he'll fly right by," and then 10 seconds of BLAM BLAM BLAM skill roll skill roll skill roll.  Then the enemy is way over there and you've got to reposition yourself.

[monbvol]

ASF counter responses:

Option 1:

Fly above Altitude 10 drop bombs.

Option 2:

Use ASFs on ground maps rules with the same LOS rules in place.

Option 3:

Use Arrow IV under-wing ordinance.

Step 2:

Profit.

[imperator]

Why not use the AA rules already in place?  It allows you to protect your area as long as your weapon ,meets the range criteria.  I believe it's above 10+ Hexes.  Or you can use Aerospace hexes for range, since they technically use the same weapons O:-)

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Why not use the AA rules already in place?  It allows you to protect your area as long as your weapon ,meets the range criteria.  I believe it's above 10+ Hexes.  Or you can use Aerospace hexes for range, since they technically use the same weapons O:-)

Well, unless there's AA rules I don't know about.. I wouldn't use them because the range is insufficient to actually defend an installation.  A spaceport the size of the real world LAX would measure about 10 x 6 TW mapsheets.  Even artillery used as Air Defense is barely sufficient to cover a patch of ground that size.

So you either need 60 Riflemen to guard the spaceport (one per TW sheet) or some way to extend AA reach beyond one's current TW map.  LOS rules could do that, but it's rather inelegant to treat an ASF as any other ground-game target.  One, their movment will quite easily be over 100 hexes and make for awkward "target's movement" penalties.  Two, reciprocity considerations make for awkward questions about how and whether strafing/strike rules should apply if the ASFs can shoot back at LOS ranges.  And that's even before going into how loooooooooong LOS is when we're talking about a target (or shooter) hundreds of meters off the ground.

Treating a ground-based AA platform with Aerospace ranges is exactly what I was thinking in my SPA.  The Rifleman's AC/5 would have range of 18 mapsheets rather than 18 hexes, just like an ASF's would.  And to keep things from going crazy in the ground game, it would only be valid at those ranges against an aero target just as an ASF would.


Edit: 
As an aside, another thing that started bothering me today was Battle Armor.  I usually don't play with them, but I notice ATOW handwaives away all impact on the operator of a suit when it's hit by tactical weaponry, so long as that last box wasn't filled in.  I made a thread here to ask if that's supposed to be a correct view, in-universe.   Assuming it's not, I'm toying with the idea of applying 1 point of fatigue to the operator for every point of TW damage the suit took.  If you've got a battle-armor trooper with a wil as low as 5, you don't even need wakeywakey drugs to stay conscious before your death in most suits.

[BirdofPrey]

Any time the suit takes more than 1 point of damage, the operator takes damage (it's incoming damage -1), and any time a character takes damage he also takes a point of fatigue damage and is stunned.  Both also contribute to the injury modifier that both penalizes action rolls and can reduce the character's speed (I'll have to get back to you on how that last effects BA troopers since the devs haven't gotten back to me on how BA MP works), so the effects of being hit by mech grade weaponry is already factored in.  Normally,shaking off a stun requires a simple action, and you have to stop for a moment to recover fatigue, but the medical systems negate the stun as an incidental action along with removing 2 (IS) or 3 (clan) points of fatigue damage.  They also negate a point or two of the injury modifier, so those medical systems are having a significant effect.

If a medium laser strikes an elemental suit, it will shave off 5 armor and deal 4 standard damage and 1 fatigue damage to the trooper inside, and stuns him, the latter two effects being negated by the LSSU integral to the armor's life support systems.  I fail to see why it would be a problem that a character is still consciousness when the armor fails.  A strike like that splatters, not stuns.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Interesting.  I clearly need to reread the rules on Battle Armor.  thanks for the correction.

As an aside, what I was getting at with the Wil and consciousness was a concern about accumulating so much fatigue too fast- getting knocked out before the armor is destroyed.  But as you pointed out that's pretty much a moot concern, as it appears to already all have been thought out.. I just didn't see it.

[Acolyte]

Interesting.  I clearly need to reread the rules on Battle Armor.  thanks for the correction.

It's on pg 186 in the combat section of AToW. Also, check out pg 57 in the companion.

   - Shane

[Tai Dai Cultist]

It's on pg 186 in the combat section of AToW. Also, check out pg 57 in the companion.

   - Shane

I was aware of that, but to me it meant those rules applied only to small arms and support weapons because of the mention of standard-scale play (and thanks to page 211, never to vehicle-mounted weapons).  Page 211 explains that vehicle scale weapons ignore ATOW scale damage ratings and are instead applied in various ways.  Battle armor is listed as suffering no effects to the pilot when hit by vehicle scale weapons until all armor is marked off, as that's how TW works.  I read that as an exception/over-ruling to page 186.

But I can see how if you choose instead to read as 186 over-ruling 211 it makes for a more sensible system.   Thanks for the additional perspective.