Register Register

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
No-one sees value in Direct Fire or Indirect Fire formations? Or just go balls-slowly-to-the-wall with Assault & Battle?

I absolutely see value with those formations. The Heavy Level II that I listed is pretty good in the sense that qualifies for multiple formation types and you can easily change to what best matches the scenario you are playing. Now I'm making an assumption you are using Chaos Campaign which allows you to use SPs to change formation types as needed.

With that being said, I'd likely choose Fire over the others. I like the Sniper SPA a lot...I think it's one of the best granted SPAs (especially with slower units).

I rate Battle (and the Lucky SPA) higher than Direct Fire (and the Weapon Specialist SPA). I just feel you are more likely to be in a situation where a re-roll is the better choice over the chance of missing by 1-point to do half damage.

I also listed Fire Support as an option....on second look that was in error. The Level II listed is shy one unit to meet the IF# requirement. BUT...if it was...Fire Support would work really well in any scenario where terrain and LOS are an issue, and the Oblique
Attacker SPA is a constant modifier.
2
I believe the closest you're going to be able to get to a game with Aerotech units is building custom aircraft to resemble BattleTech aerospace fighters within X-Plane Flight Simulator.  I did this once with a Leopard Dropship and it was pretty awesome!
3
Aerospace Combat / Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Last post by BATTLEMASTER on Today at 11:03:29 »
I'm of the opinion that if quadvees can take all the nice structural stuff an lighter engines, LAMs should as well regardless the difference between tanks and planes.  They're both transforming robots  :P  I allow custom LAMs that leverage stuff like ES, FF and XL engines at my table for this reason :)
4
idea weenie's post, whle amusing,  is an example of not what to do; you shouldn't try to to handle an out-of-game problem in-game. (Seriously, that is an example of how not to go about things, as was the advice given on every roleplaying board thread I've ever read on problem players. Maybe only as very last resort if you've tried talking out-of-character and for some reason you can't boot them out of the group unless you "pursuade" them to quit of their own accord, which seems like a fairly unlikely confluence of events. But even then, you'd be better just saying "okay, then," and ignore them for the rest of the session.)

But yes, ultimately, if a player decides that rather than play the game that is happening, they refuse and basically sulk ("I sell my mech and retire"), then YES, they (and everyone else in the group) would be better off if they didn't play.

At the end of the day, you've basically been creating this hypothetical straw obstreporous player that, as they are only a hypothetical and not a real, actual person, cannot be dealt with. Especially since the ultimate answer to a player who doesn't want to play the game the GM is running really boils down to a) to NOT play that game or b) suck it up, adjust their expectations and play the game that everyone else is playing. You can't make someome play a game they have decided they don't want to and it is silly to try, as it just makes in not fun for anyone else.



(And in my PERSONAL experience, GMs are so thin on the ground because no-one ever has any time anymore (which is why I am DM Forever Now), that any players keen enough to want to turn up every week tend not to be that fussy about what they play as long as the game isn't intolerable. In my group, I'll admit I'm probably the fussiest, to a degree, since there's stuff that I'm not keen on - western RPGs, for one, and I made a sporting effort as far as I could, because it was at least a break from DMing. (Something I won't get to do again, since the chap that ran that died last year.))

But maybe the player is right to object? Maybe the standard Merc campaign is a bad, railroading mess and we are wrong for liking it.
5
Indeed, welcome back!

Ruger
6
BattleTech Game Errata / Re: Total Warfare - 11 October 2021 (v9.0)
« Last post by jayoung on Today at 10:58:40 »
    * VERSION:
Corrected Seventh Printing; Sixth Printing by Catalyst Game Labs (PDF)
    * LOCATION:
page 301, "I" section of the index.
    * THE ERROR:
There is no index reference for ICE Engine critical hits. I believe this should be there, as on the same page, in the "F" section this entry exists:
Fission Engine, critical hit, 126
    * THE CORRECTION:
Add a new entry in the "I" section ICE Engine, critical hit, 126


    * VERSION:
Corrected Seventh Printing; Sixth Printing by Catalyst Game Labs (PDF)
    * LOCATION:
page 301, "I" section of the index, "IndustrialMech" sub-section.
    * THE ERROR:
There is no reference to the rules for industrial mechs risking destruction if submerged - this is important and easy to miss rule.
    * THE CORRECTION:
Add a new entry, water, 52 (or whatever wording seems appropriate - "submerged" would work too) to the "IndustrialMech" sub-section.
7
Aerospace Combat / Re: Odd Question Hightech on LAMs
« Last post by Cannonshop on Today at 10:57:55 »
And i can tell you with experience that that does not hold up in reality. The crj 900 is a bigger, slightly heavier airplane that uses the exact same engines as the crj700. (CF34-8C5)  It holds 76 passengers vs the 65 passengers that the crj700 does. The crj900 has a wingspan of 82 feet and a length of 119 feet. The crj700 has a wingspan of 76 feet and a length of 106 feet. They are also considered sufficiently similar enough by the FAA to be on the same type rating. The 900 while being a larger airplane with the same engines actually has better structural weight limitations. This allows for additional fuel and passengers giving the airplane more range while pilots and dispatchers have more options to choose from.

The crj900 has more or less a basic operating weight of 50,000lbs, a max take off weight of 85000lbs, and a max landing weight of 75100lbs. It burns 2466lbs  of fuel per 45mins.

The crj700 more or less has a basic operating weight of 45,600lbs, a max take off weight of 75,000lbs, and a max landing weight of 67,000lbs. It burns about 2252lbs of fuel per 45 mins.

The bigger, bulkier, aircraft that weighs 9.6% more, allows for 41% of the aircrafts total takeoff weight to be devoted to fuel and cargo, a total of 35000lbs.
The crj700 only allows for 39% of its total takeoff weight devoted to fuel and cargo, a total of 29,400lbs.
The crj 900 can thus takeoff with 19.05% additional fuel and cargo, a total of 5,600lbs .
The crj 900 can then land with about 12% more fuel and weight than the 700, a total of 8,100 pounds.

For that 9.6% increase in weight you get almost the exact same amount of increase in fuel burned, which is about 9.05% higher, but you now have the ability to hold 5600 additional pounds of cargo or fuel.

I'm not even going to go over weight and balance, but that's not really that big of a problem as you're going to design your aircraft, or in thise case, lam, with this in mind...

The structural weight limitations between the 700 and 900 proves that a slight increase in bulk, with the same engine AND EVEN MORE WEIGHT (unlike how it is in battletech) proves this is not as big of a problem as you think it is.


PS: the seatbelt sign is not turned on due to weight and balance concerns. It's turned on so that people don't turn into projectiles in turbulence, or get hurt.
and does it change shape, Sledge?

no, seriously, is your aircraft example a variable geometry airframe that can also serve as a helicopter and a tank?

this is what we're talking about with LAMs- a variable geometry airframe that can also serve as a light tank and an attack helicopter.

The adaptations you cite, are for a fixed airframe with what can be generously termed stable dimensions.

The Land-Air-'mech is a 1980s Transformer (or Veritech, if you go with the Macross series as your guide, aka Robotech for those of us who watched it as kids in the early eighties.)

You're shifting a hell of a lot more geometry, and something's gonna give.  The limitation makes sense because all that conversion gear is going to be bulky and it's not going to get LESS bulky using bulkier materials and a larger structure because of the square-cube law.
8
one small, tax-adjusted donation of several million dollars will make your dreams come true
I'll get my checkbook.  Oh wait.....
9
BattleMechs / Re: Filling in the Syberian AutoMechs (Open Thread)
« Last post by Luciora on Today at 10:56:10 »
Virtual camo system to mimic a human, is that the equivalent of Syberian-cosplay?   ;D. Are we gonna discuss cultural aspects of the Syberians now?   ;D
10
one small, tax-adjusted donation of several million dollars will make your dreams come true
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Register