Author Topic: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?  (Read 834 times)

HeavyArmorMecha

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 211
How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« on: 17 January 2024, 00:49:18 »
Currently, mech construction parts are symmetrical...

But I'm curious to ask, how do you people feel about asymmetrical constructed mechs?

Like, the IS XL Fusion Engine, occupies 3 crits in EACH left AND right torso. But what if, you're given the option to selective about the placement of your XLFE crits? Such as: 6 in the LT, 0 in the RT... or 4 in the RT, 2 more in the CT... etc, etc...

Same as the cockpit, what if you're given the option to mount it in either LT or RT?

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1774
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #1 on: 17 January 2024, 02:58:44 »
The main thing then would be, how to price such a thing.  Mechs like the thunderbolt are already a little asymmetric, but the head hit location = hitting the head, no matter where it is.  Like, the nose mount on a marauder or the shoulder mount on the tbolt, the head is SOMEWHERE, and that location has a very small chance of being hit.  Torso mounted cockpits are an advanced rule, and they are mostly OP... the pilot has a bit more worries from heat but takes way way less risk from head shots.  I dont like the rule for torso mounted cockpits, because the pilot is sitting SOMEWHERE, and wherever that place is should be able to be hit for pilot damage.  Especially with other advanced rules like floating crits to move crits away from always hitting the CT, the torso mounted cockpit is a no-brainer always better advanced rule option--meaning all mechs would have it already.

As for the engine being off centerline, well if you have a mech with an off center of balance, when an enemy shoots you 'center mass' they would just shoot the new 'center mass', aka center torso.  So like, mounting the engine on the left side to my mind just makes the LT the new center mass.  I know mechs weapons arnt symmetrical, but my point is that if the engine is on the left, well that would be the 'new' location for people to shoot the most... it would be the new center torso.

As for splitting crits, this mostly seems like a way to keep an IS XL mech alive by putting less then 3 crits on a particular torso.  Gameplay wise, this would be a great boon... Id move 1 crit from each side torso back into the CT, so that each side had only 2 crits.  But there would need to be some cost for this, as moving engine crits around seems like a big bonus.

Frabby

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4268
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #2 on: 17 January 2024, 05:44:33 »
Many if not most 'Mechs are already asymmetric through their weapons loadout. Even those that aren’t will become asymmetric the second they take damage or even lose a limb.
There’s also one or two canon 'Mech designs with asymmetric armor distribution.

So nothing too unusual really.
Sarna.net BattleTechWiki Admin
Author of the BattleCorps stories Feather vs. Mountain, Rise and Shine, Proprietary, Trial of Faith & scenario Twins

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1855
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #3 on: 17 January 2024, 06:43:51 »
Ultimately, you will place the same amount of crits for some locations anyways, seems to be your intention, right? Then it would be usually fine. Although this makes the game even more chunky, though, but only for some exceptional units it would be not that bad. I see some exploits for this but usually it won't be much an issue.

Sabelkatten

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6977
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #4 on: 17 January 2024, 12:23:43 »
Shifting one engine crit of an IS XLFE from one side torso to the CT or other side is a major benefit as destroying that side will no longer auto-kill the mech. If you empty one side torso it will arguably not be more vulnerable than a LFE.

In reverse moving crits from the CT to a side torso will generally make an engine more vulnerable.

I don't think the idea is bad per se, but it probably needs specific rules for each configuration. E.g. an obvious mod would be to move the crits of an LFE from one side torso to the CT to fit a HGR+CASE. But this makes the LFE less vulnerable so the weight saving should probably 15-20% instead of 25%.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1463
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #5 on: 17 January 2024, 22:11:31 »
The main thing then would be, how to price such a thing.  Mechs like the thunderbolt are already a little asymmetric, but the head hit location = hitting the head, no matter where it is.  Like, the nose mount on a marauder or the shoulder mount on the tbolt, the head is SOMEWHERE, and that location has a very small chance of being hit.  Torso mounted cockpits are an advanced rule, and they are mostly OP... the pilot has a bit more worries from heat but takes way way less risk from head shots.  I dont like the rule for torso mounted cockpits, because the pilot is sitting SOMEWHERE, and wherever that place should be able to be hit for pilot damage.  Especially with other advanced rules like floating crits to move crits away from always hitting the CT, the torso mounted cockpit is a no-brainer always better advanced rule option--meaning all mechs would have it already.
Torso Cockpits also weigh an extra ton, have a PSR penalty like small cockpits do, and lacks any ejection mechanism whatsoever.

They're worthless for lights and essentially pointless on mediums and most heavies.  A small number of very specific heavy/assault Battlemech designs actually benefit from them, and those are invariably quads and tripods which can absorb the PSR penalty.
As for the engine being off centerline, well if you have a mech with an off center of balance, when an enemy shoots you 'center mass' they would just shoot the new 'center mass', aka center torso.  So like, mounting the engine on the left side to my mind just makes the LT the new center mass.  I know mechs weapons arnt symmetrical, but my point is that if the engine is on the left, well that would be the 'new' location for people to shoot the most... it would be the new center torso.
How would the OPFOR know that the engine is significantly off centerline and thus the center of mass is way to the left if they're not familiar with the model?  I doubt that matters much anyways, since aiming at "center of mass" is a technically incorrect but useful shorthand for aiming at the geometric center/centroid.  What you're describing sounds more like that "aiming left/right" optional rule.

Greatclub

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3088
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #6 on: 18 January 2024, 03:17:38 »
Torso mounted cockpits are an advanced rule, and they are mostly OP... the pilot has a bit more worries from heat but takes way way less risk from head shots.

I disagree with this; the weakness is in the +1 to piloting rolls. Greater chance of falling, greater chance of taking damage from falling.

Play a stalker II and tell me it isn't a big deal. I've lost a few Osteon to break-dancing.




moving around XL slots seems inherently unbalanced. With the canon XL, all three of the torso locations are critical for mech survival. Ammo goes off in a torso location with XL, the mech is dead with or without CASE.

Moving a single crit slot from one torso to the other means that there would only be only two smash-to-win sections (3 with the head.)

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1774
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #7 on: 22 January 2024, 00:04:27 »
On the topic of PSR, the psr penalty is something you can offset, by paying BV.  You also get a discount, like from small cockpits, cause of the piloting penalty, so it's not like you don't get something for it if you stay at 5 base piloting.

No ejection is not a thing.  Some people may play campaigns, and may care about how their pilot takes damage.  But a headshot kills a pilot, and losing all your torso structure kills a pilot.  But its much harder to kill a pilot with 15 damage when you take a torso cockpit.  As for ammo, case exists to offset ammo explosions going to the center. 

A fun thing--due to the damage transfer rules coming out before torso cockpits were a thing, if your ammo in your head gets hit or you take a big shot like an ac20, all the excess damage just goes away.  So while you pay +1 ton for a torso cockpit, you save .5 tons on case.  The head ammo bin is ideal on torso mechs.

There is nothing you can take to survive a headshot without torso mounted cockpits, and the penalty can be offset and the advantage is unobtainable any other way, including no damage transfer.  For every osteon you lost to breakdancing, other mechs died to headshots, and those mechs didnt have an option to pay BV to avoid it.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1463
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #8 on: 22 January 2024, 22:06:57 »
On the topic of PSR, the psr penalty is something you can offset, by paying BV.  You also get a discount, like from small cockpits, cause of the piloting penalty, so it's not like you don't get something for it if you stay at 5 base piloting.
A BV manipulation method that works well enough for quick pick-up games and doesn't work at all for campaigns.  One does not simply pull an expert Battlemech pilot out of your hat so you can pilot small cockpit or torso mounted battlemechs, or hardened armor battlemech or such, for free- at least that's certainly not how any of our campaigns did it.
No ejection is not a thing.  Some people may play campaigns, and may care about how their pilot takes damage.  But a headshot kills a pilot, and losing all your torso structure kills a pilot.  But its much harder to kill a pilot with 15 damage when you take a torso cockpit.  As for ammo, case exists to offset ammo explosions going to the center. 
No, Torso Cockpits cannot eject.  Tac Ops is very clear about that.

The center torso takes hits 7x as often as the head from the front and rear.  Even on Battlemechs with the heaviest armor like an Atlas, the Battlemech is more likely to suffer crippling engine damage, gyro damage, or even structural collapse, before the head is decapitated.  The likelihood also increases when taking into account damage transfer.

Torso cockpit 'mechs are also still debilitated when their heads get lopped off, since losing those head sensors effectively blinds the 'mechs and smack a massive +4 penalty on essentially every roll, both to-hit and PSR: You're mission-killed, which will translate to being actually killed (or at least captured) if you lose the fight (and probably even if you win it because you're flailing around like a headless chicken), which you probably will since you just had a bad stroke of luck getting decapitated.  Torso cockpits trade dying instantly on a headcap* to instead be probably dying due to a headcap a minute later and definitely dying on CT loss, plus extra vulnerability from heat in certain scenarios and being more difficult to pilot.  And increased tonnage.

*Optional TacOps rules apply, results may vary
Quote
A fun thing--due to the damage transfer rules coming out before torso cockpits were a thing, if your ammo in your head gets hit or you take a big shot like an ac20, all the excess damage just goes away.  So while you pay +1 ton for a torso cockpit, you save .5 tons on case.  The head ammo bin is ideal on torso mechs.
A novel approach, but one that has its own limitations.  Such a 'Mech could only ever host 4 tons of explosive ammo, and plenty of weapon systems are sufficiently ammo hogs that you could easily need more than that.
Quote
There is nothing you can take to survive a headshot without torso mounted cockpits, and the penalty can be offset and the advantage is unobtainable any other way, including no damage transfer.  For every osteon you lost to breakdancing, other mechs died to headshots, and those mechs didnt have an option to pay BV to avoid it.
For ERPPCs: Reflective armor, Blue Shield
For Gauss/AC20: Ballistic-Reinforced Armor, Hardened Armor
In General: Modular Armor attached to the head (thought it was restricted from that location but upon review apparently not?)
15-pointers with quirks: Ferro-Lamellor + Armored Cowl quirk

All of these have their own quirks and caveats of their own, but they're not unique in that regards: The torso cockpit's fine print is just painful.

It isn't a theoretical.  I've used Torso Cockpit battlemechs as OpFors in campaigns before; they consistently took a much higher pilot death % per killed Battlemech than other models using conventional cockpits, with the situation being especially dire for lights and mediums where the torso cockpit was an active hinderance.  Through all the torso cockpit 'mechs used I've only ever seen two exceptions: One area was superheavies where torso cockpits don't exist anyways, and the other was this very unconventional 100-ton quad that acted more as a zombie ECM + sensor platform than as a conventional Battlemech, and that one couldn't exist in canon anyway due to its eclectic equipment loadout.

Also, just since the cockpit is a piece of Tac Ops equipment it seems fair to me that we take a look at its optional rules as well.  "Skin-of-teeth Ejection" allows Mechwarriors to eject on decapitating strikes and potentially survive one.
« Last Edit: 22 January 2024, 22:13:54 by Retry »

Mechanis

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 56
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #9 on: 23 January 2024, 20:19:36 »
Also, Ya'all seem to have forgotten that the pilot still automatically takes 1 damage every time the location with the cockpit in it gets hit.

Forgot getting critted out or destroyed, a torso cockpit means that your CT health drops to 4-5 hits, period, because the pilot gets too concussed to drive/be alive.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1463
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #10 on: 23 January 2024, 22:25:43 »
Also, Ya'all seem to have forgotten that the pilot still automatically takes 1 damage every time the location with the cockpit in it gets hit.
No we haven't, because that is also not true for torso cockpits.  Only for conventional cockpit types that are mounted in the head.

VanVelding

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 558
    • Powered by Indifference, Focused by Caffeine
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #11 on: 23 January 2024, 23:13:58 »
Also, Ya'all seem to have forgotten that the pilot still automatically takes 1 damage every time the location with the cockpit in it gets hit.

Forgot getting critted out or destroyed, a torso cockpit means that your CT health drops to 4-5 hits, period, because the pilot gets too concussed to drive/be alive.
I feel like that was the Maximum Tech rule, but TacOps removed it.

As for the topic, a simple assumption is always that the status quo is the most efficient. While hit locations are kind of conceptual in-universe, there's something about battlemech construction that spreads out an XL engine in such a way that losing a large section of the torso is fatal to the engine. Wherever the the cockpit is, it can't really nestle under all of the armor you'd find on a torso location.

That said, "most efficient" isn't "only." If the cost is worth it, it's worth testing. If you find that almost every design works better with the ability to move around crits, even with a cost, then it's probably not punishing enough. If that was the case, the IS or the SL would have made it the default.

If having crits is bad, maybe moving them makes more crits. You can move an engine crit from one location to an adjacent one, but it requires creating a new engine crit in the new location. You can't tuck all your IS XL engine crits in the center torso, because moving just one from a side torso to the center torso creates a new engine crit to take a hit.

Assuming that's your drawback, instead of a 3-6-3 spread, you could have a 1-8-5 spread or a rather bold 5-4-5 or 7-2-7.

If you wanted to pack gear into a CT for an SFE, you could try 2-4-2.

If you wanted to have tons of fun, you could move CT crits into a small cockpit, with some pilot damage checks to accompany it.

I'm not sure what else this could apply to. It seems gyros do need to be centered, but 'mechs themselves aren't always centered, not in terms of art or actual tonnage (Kit Fox Prime). Why not let one be a little off-center on the 'mech sheet?

Actuators can't move around because they're defined by their location in the 'mech's structure. Special armor/structure types (save a few) do let you squish them around anyway. Certain big guns can already be split between any two adjacent locations without additional rules, though maybe you could do three if you wanted? I don't know why you'd want to split an AC/20 between your CT, LT, and LA, but live your bliss.

If the question is "how do I feel about it?" I'd say that I'm fine with it as an additional construction options, as long as there are enough drawbacks to keep the advantages from making it ubiquitous.
Co-host of 17 to 01 and The Beige and The Bold. I also have a dusty old blog about whatever comes to mind vanvelding.blogspot.

Demiurge

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • What matters is it catches mice
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #12 on: 24 January 2024, 09:49:31 »
The killer app for this would be having an XL engine that only takes up crits on one side, leaving an entire 12 crits free on the opposite side torso to mount a really huge weapon like some sort of artillery or heavy Gauss or what have you.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37811
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: How do you feel.... about asymmetrical mech construction?
« Reply #13 on: 24 January 2024, 20:32:04 »
There has to be a reason heads are the default... I think the odds of hitting the head are pretty much it...

 

Register