Register Register

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
 Very Cool :thumbsup:
2
That's cool. It is good work. :thumbsup:

I don't remember the Spartan having myomer bundles but it's been a while since I read the Palladium fluff.
3
Fan Designs and Rules / Re: Rifle Cannons: What have you done?
« Last post by RifleMech on Today at 04:57:21 »
Were you not paying attention to Herb's formula for the M1's 120mm?  He stated he started the TRo 1945 with BAR 5 as the base point and working backward, and forward, from there.

As for your other suggestions, don't steer those at me.  They're not gonna work for my palette.

Trying to shoe-horn in BT construction rules into something which naturally doesn't follow them is not what I consider an ideal use of my time.  I already tried it and wasn't satisfied with the results.


Yes. I remember. He also that 1900-1960 would be BAR-5-6, that armor from the 1960 to 2020 would be BAR-6 and that BAR-3 armor would what was used on the first Ironclads. After 2020 comes BAR-7 and then BAR-8 and so on.  So I'm still not seeing where you're going with this.  :-\

Are you complaining about Mechs only having 2 choices, BAR-5 and BAR-10? I agree with you. Other BAR armors should be allowed to be mounted on mechs.

Or are you complaining about the AC/5 not being able to get a penetrating critical hit roll against BAR/5 armor? Even though Autocannons are "superior" to Rifle Cannons? I agree that ACs are more advanced than RCs. Advanced doesn't automatically mean better penetration though. A weapon can be more advanced and still not have better penetration as I've pointed out in the previous post. 

As for my suggestions, if you don't think XTRO:1945 works for you, don't use it. I don't know what you'd use but whatever works for you.  :thumbsup: 

About the complaint of units only have a single BAR and the suggestion of Patchwork armor. That sure seems to be what you were wanting but whatever. Again, whatever works for you.  :thumbsup:
4
Since we're doing this tonight, and I'm feeling risk-takish...

Certain maneuvers are common in the fiction, and I've beat a drum so badly people freak out if I mention it. 

probably because I was less-than-gentle about my disdain, BUT!!!

they're part of the setting.

in a way, integral to it at this point, given how often it's been used.

needs a format and structure.  Needs to be possible, and needs to make sense.

because it's there, and it's not going to go away.

This is not like 'Battlemech fuel stockpiles' (Those of you who've either got sources from the eighties, or remember it because you were playing in the eighties know what I'm talking about, for the rest, it's not important.  Just remember that BT has gone through periods where the science content of the science fiction was less than it currently is and be grateful for improvements on that score.)

A few things are fundamentally different about space warfare than ground warfare, one of those, is that when you engage in a space battle, your space ship is also the only thing keeping you alive when you're OUT of battle.  This makes some ofthe priorities slip away from the typical lone hero thing you can do with an imitation of Michael Wittmann.

It also means that a fleet-in-being can pose a threat without firing a shot, enough of one, that it must be dealt with.  This in turn makes withdrawal a viable move where it wouldn't in a ground campaign.

Morale may actually matter MORE with ships, than with ground forces.

by incorporating a 'morale stat' we can maybe make more exiting games, because situations may arise where making THAT roll, can shift the outcome from one of pure 'armor plus guns'.

IOW incorporating and regularizing the 'head game' as part of space-naval strategy, with a randomized effect to avoid the "Nuh-uh!!!" he-said-she-said-they-said.

Each 'unit' has a base Morale stat, which only comes into play under specific circumstances.

sort of a setup of "Piloting/Gunnery/Morale".

Under those specific circumstances, a failed Morale roll will result in a forced withdrawal of that unit as per the 'Forced withdrawal' rules already published, or make certain tactical actions fail, while a passed morale check under those conditions, will allow some outright crazy actions that would otherwise be impossible because otherwise intelligent men would NOT obey that order.

I'm tossing this out there because, in part, I've kind of neglected this thread a bit to see what people focus and discuss, and in part, because I just want to see how you guys react to the concept.
5
I said ages ago somewhere in the miniatures section that CGL should do a plastic Mech Kickstarter, and some people poo-pooed me for it, and some said it wouldn't work...

...I've said it before and I'll say it again. CGL would be crazy not to run another Battletech Kickstarter...and another after that, and the sooner the better to ride the wave of hype from the first Kickstarter.

They should have all the artwork and 3D models and renders being done by the same crew.

They should have pro-painters paint up the 3D printed pre-production models to a very high standard.

They should make new TRO's with all the new artwork, in full colour, even if they are just digital versions.

...and then show all that off during the Kickstarter, this kind of stuff drives miniature collectors and most gamers nuts, and very quickly relieves them of any spare cash they have. They should also do the same thing they did with the first Kickstarter, and have a really long Pledge Manager period to capture and rake in a heap more cash.

For this KS, they should focus on;

1 - Some Mechs they didn't cover in the first KS,

2 - Alternate sculpts for some of the most popular Mechs from the first KS,

3 - Most popular armoured vehicles,

4 - Most popular aircraft,

5 - Gnome or Golem BA and a couple of different types of IS BA, and

6 - Terrain would be cool but not as popular because people use different hex sizes.

...and I said this before too, they should very seriously consider getting their own plastic mold injection machine so they can make their own stuff in-house...you don't have to worry about what China ends up doing then, and don't have to rely on hem. There was a Kickstarter a couple of years ago where a US company, as part of their Kickstarter, did exactly this and ended up making all their own hard plastic injection models in-house. There's a big market for plastic Mechs, Armoured Vehicles, Battle Armour, Aircraft and alternate Mech parts for conversions...and when they weren't making stuff for themselves, they could use the machine to take on other work, both gaming and non-gaming industry related to keep the profits rolling in.
6
Playing Catch-up.

I actually agree with this sentiment, and I think that, yes, it can be abstracted in a good way.  I'm not so sure the 'armor blanket' per location is it, especially if some of the key items are spread out over 250 to 1000m or more. 

That's half a BT ground map to two, just to give you an idea of scale for warships versus ground units.  Strike attacks on a low altitude map can only target 30 meters.  Also, most Warships have a mountain's worth of girth. 

Finally, while barracks and hallways might not be worth tracking, crit-wise, they're still attached to the spine of the ship in some way, and thus their loss can effect structural integrity on a whole. 

I don't know if he's finished his rules revisions yet, but Kirk Alderfer's Galactic space combat game seems to start with the assumption that the SI will take damage more often than not.  This is why WorkTroll's Leviathans: Monsters in the Sky is another good alternative, but would need a massive re-skin to accommodate space combat.

But, I digress.  Time to focus on mechanics, as CannonShop said.


But, we do have options.  Why don't we focus on that and quit picking nits on construction and unit representation.  We're trying to tweak the existing rule-set to make it more entertaining, and making WarShips 'worth it'.

As such...

I like this.  It seems simple enough.  Especially if we're not going to change the damage scale.



On the flip side, should capital weapons be treated as 'Space Artillery'?  (This brings up the question of scale and range, but I'll tackle that later.)

So, a HNPPC only does 35 points of standard damage. (Five Points shy of causing a Tac Handbook crater? Pshaw!  Heck, it can't even knock a TW Heavy Woods hex flat anymore!  Double Pshaw!!) 

WarShips and DropShips are, in many ways, mobile structures.   

Don't naval weapons doing ground attacks have a blast radius with splash damage?

What if, keeping the damage the same, Naval Weapons cause splash damage like artillery on Warships and Dropships?  Maybe have half-damage splash onto either adjacent locations (say, for dropships) or adjacent critical items on the hit chart (say, for warships). 

Like for ground artillery, we could also have close misses where you still get the blast radius nicking a target or multiple targets in the same hex.  Again, this comes back to what scale of game we're playing at.

I think we might want to reserve the 'warship versus ground' question for after settling up the most problematic area for most players:  Warships versus other naval units, and naval versus naval.

I have my own ideas on warships bombarding the ground, and they're almost guaranteed to be unpopular.

screw it, here, this is my idea on it;

1. you're right, cap weapons should have a splash zone.

2. however...I think the writers started getting it right by restricting altitude on how high up you get to be for precise Orbital Bombardment, they just missed something that would handle the bigger 'macro balance' issues that Warship Extinction is trying to address.  ("I Kills it with mah WARRRSHIP!!!")
 
What is this?  Okay, look at the death of the Lucien Davion in the fiction-she was holding Geosynchronous position at low orbit-had to be, really, to guarantee hits.  testing with the Star Wars concepts in the eighties (the DoD project, aka SDI, which was funded by the Reagan administration) showed that atmosphere and magnetic field interference would bend beam weapons unpredictably, and targeting of moving objects was...problematic with projectiles.  This is actual hardcore stuff tested by the U.S. Government (and revealed in congressional hearings on the subject circa 1986.)

Catalyst's writers must've seen the same reports I did, and read the same sources, because orbital bombardment requires in the rules being in or very near the atmospheric interface, relatively close to the planet.  What they missed, was the joy that comes from needing to keep your platform stable and on target.

Yeah, I mean, PSR rolls with a penalty-you're basically having to 'fly' end-on over the target in steadily increasing bad weather.  So a stacking penalty, per turn, as plasma would have to form to keep a stationary position (or advance your position at the speed of ground forces) from dipping into a fluid (atmosphere is a fluid, and at the speed necessary NOT to be owned by gravity, well...plasma is that thing that makes all your re-entry scenes in "The Right Stuff" so cool to look at-it's also real).

OB, therefore, is and should be RISKY AS ******.  Your pilot needs to be focusing on holding her steady and on 'course', sensors would be focused downward to avoid random impacts, or to keep eyes on target, and there's going to be issues if you have to maneuver in that state, and you should be burning fuel like crazy to hold position and remain steady, since nobody owns a gravity polarizer tech.

IOW, instead of treating it like a 'go-to-tactic', orbital bombardment should be 'possible, but difficult, with a high risk of failure'.

This keeps your warships in space, instead of laying waste to whole continents or winning the battle in a single shot-which is what has the writers and developers all in a fluster.

the "Possible but difficult' thing can be applied to some other elements that the fiction highlights.

Orbital bombardment suggestions by phase:

phase 1: Positioning.  This takes up all your actions in a turn, and requires a base PSR, failure inflicts damage from an incorrect orbital insertion, but can be recovered in the next movement phase on a successful PSR.  Fuel burn at overthrust times two.

Phase 2: (first round of shooting) Gunnery score is modified by 4, and another PSR is required both in the movement, and heat phases.  The first (before bombardment) is Piloting  penalized by 2, the heat phase check is piloting modified by three.  Failure in this second PSR may result in loss of control, does result in damage to the hull and a crit check to engines aand weapons along the ship facing pointed at the planet. fuel burn at overthrust times two

Phase 3: (second round of shooting) initial PSR is modified by 4, Gunnery is modified by 6, second PSR (heat phase) modified by 8.  Failure to the second PSR here, results in damage to engines and hull and may result in loss of control. fuel burn at overthrust times two.

Phase 4: (or phase 3 if you only dipped to fire for a single turn) Withdrawal.  Fuel burn at overthrust times four, PSR is back to the current 'base' number.

Do-able, but RISKY AS HELL.

also difficult, it requires a highly trained crew to pull it off, and a ship in good condition.

While in Orbital bombardment position, (Phases 1-4) PSR takes an additional hit for every defensive fire against opponents NOT on the planet or in line with the planet-because Newton's a bastard, and firing out toward space means pushing your balancing-on-a-column-of-nuclear-fire ship is getting pushed around by the reaction to firing your defensive weapons.  (all defensive fires are at a penalty, including AMS) and you may not launch or recover fighters or small craft without adding to the penalties already incurred on your piloting checks.

note: None of this applies in vacuum or over airless rocks, only over planets with atmospheres.

applies to:  Warships, Dropships capable of orbital bombardment with capital or subcapital weapons.

does not apply to: Smallcraft, fighters.

Values SHOULD be adjusted for playability, I'm pulling example numbers out of my fourth point of contact here, someone else can suggest BETTER numbers, but the idea is to balance 'power levels' to an extent that naval, while useful, has limits that ground forces don't.
7
BattleMechs / Re: Design Challenge: Pimp My MiniMarauder
« Last post by Sabelkatten on Today at 04:28:21 »
Because BFG. ;)

Code: [Select]
Minirauder MAD-14S

Mass: 50 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Tournament Legal
Era: Clan Invasion
Tech Rating/Era Availability: E/X-X-E-A
Production Year: 3070
Cost: 9,044,000 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,702

Chassis: Unknown Endo-Steel
Power Plant: Unknown 250 Fusion XL Engine
Walking Speed: 54.0 km/h
Maximum Speed: 86.4 km/h
Jump Jets: None
    Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Light Ferro-Fibrous
Armament:
    1  Gauss Rifle
    2  Light PPCs
    2  ER Medium Lasers
    2  ER Small Lasers
Manufacturer: Unknown
    Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment           Type                         Rating                   Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Endo-Steel                    83 points                2.50
    Internal Locations: 3 LT, 4 LA, 3 RA, 2 LL, 2 RL
Engine:             XL Fusion Engine             250                       6.50
    Walking MP: 5
    Running MP: 8
    Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks:         Double Heat Sink             11(22)                    1.00
    Heat Sink Locations: 1 LT
Gyro:               XL                                                     1.50
Cockpit:            Standard                                               3.00
    Actuators:      L: SH+UA+LA    R: SH+UA+LA
Armor:              Light Ferro-Fibrous          AV - 161                  9.50
    Armor Locations: 2 LT, 2 LA, 3 RA

                                                      Internal       Armor     
                                                      Structure      Factor     
                                                Head     3            9         
                                        Center Torso     16           24       
                                 Center Torso (rear)                  8         
                                           L/R Torso     12           19       
                                    L/R Torso (rear)                  5         
                                             L/R Arm     8            16       
                                             L/R Leg     12           20       

================================================================================
Equipment                                 Location    Heat    Critical    Mass 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gauss Rifle                                  RT        1         7        15.00
ER Small Laser                               RT        2         1         0.50
ER Small Laser                               LT        2         1         0.50
Light PPC                                    RA        5         2         3.00
ER Medium Laser                              RA        5         1         1.00
Light PPC                                    LA        5         2         3.00
ER Medium Laser                              LA        5         1         1.00
@Gauss Rifle (8)                             HD        -         1         1.00
@Gauss Rifle (8)                             RT        -         1         1.00
                                            Free Critical Slots: 0

BattleForce Statistics
MV      S (+0)  M (+2)  L (+4)  E (+6)   Wt.   Ov   Armor:      5    Points: 17
5          4       4       3       0      2     1   Structure:  2
Special Abilities: SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA
8
Fan Designs and Rules / Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Last post by RifleMech on Today at 04:25:28 »
I rarely fire at long range for a weapon.  Usually it's an impossible hit unless we're allowed better gunners or everybody stopped where they are.  There is a HUGE difference to hit with a +4 difference.  Even a +2 is significant.  And since you're just inverting the relationship as one gets closer, it is perfectly viable to talk about firing LRMs in an SRM's short range, i.e. point-blank.

So I reiterate, unless one can fire the same weapon at two targets, there isn't much of a point to firing both rounds at the same time as one will likely miss, even if one hits.  Though, in some ways, that's not much different than Ultra ACs...

But why not just take a Clan LRM-5 and use the alt ammo in that?

That's a matter of preference though. And unless you're hot loading your LRMs or using a Clan launcher the 6 hex minimum ranges means that they won't be fired point blank. And even if the SRMs may not hit, there's still a chance that they will. Who wants to get hit with twice as many missiles? And with a Clan version, the LRMs have no minimum range so at hexes 9 and under you could be firing them both. It'd be like rapid-firing an AC, without the jamming.

That question makes me wonder why MMLs in the first place. A Clan LRM-5 and SRM-2 weigh just as much as the MML-3 and you won't loose both to a single hit. Maybe Clan MMLs would be more compact? That'd make it good for mechs low on space.





The easiest upgrade would be to allow the usage of Torpedoes.


How about allowing Multi-Purpose Missiles to be fired from Vehicle Scale Launchers? Then you wouldn't have to change the launcher. Just the ammo.


Yeah, I'm not really seeing MML-3s specifically as needing any buffs except to the extent that all missile weapons might need them. For a given amount of damage and heat they're equal to SRM-6s (the most efficient option in terms of heat), being more bulky in exchange for being able to fire LRMs as well. They're the best choice for a great deal of utility ammo, and as LRMs they have such small salvo sizes that they're basically long range crit-seekers.

The bigger MMLs are pretty mediocre and could stand to be better, though.

(snip)


I like the MML-3 and 5 do to their weight. The MML-7 and 9. I lean more towards regular LRMs and SRMs. As for heat, it is a concern for mechs and fighters. Not so much for vehicles.  And there's times, I'd rather have SRMs and infernos than a medium laser.
9
General BattleTech Discussion / Re: Maximum damage in a single phase?
« Last post by SCC on Today at 03:21:37 »
Time to crank the competition up the notch, or maybe knot. The Jormungand Bluewater Cruiser mounts 5 Long Tom Artillery Pieces, now normally these would only be good for 125 points of damage, put load them with Davy Crockett-M's and that shoots up to 500 points.
10
Ok, Kickstarter finally arrived in Rome.
There is everything faction dice apart, but it has been said by Catalyst, if I'm not wrong, that they would be missing, so no surprise.
Have to say the packaging was not great. The "Strategic Operations" book and the "Campaign Operation" book had some visible damages to the corners.
That said, it is good to have finally the items after two years.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Register