Register Register

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
(looks up from draft outline of "XTRO: Fortunate Son")

replying so I can keep track of this conversation...  ;) ;D

I did stat out the Huey....

- Herb
2
Combat Vehicles / Re: Warrior H-7 refits
« Last post by Cannonshop on Today at 23:21:17 »
So maybe I didnt explain well for the ultra.  I am saying that the ultra ac/5, without firing in ultra mode, is still a great gun due to longer range and shorter minimum range.  As an anti anything gun, it has the ability to function up close for when your target is unable to shoot back, unlike LRMs, and you can outrange PPCs and such while still doing damage to a mech.  The AC2 is better some of the time versus a narrow selection of targets, and the variant ammo AC/5 sometimes is great, but a UAC/5 variant in 3048 would be a great option when variant ammo isnt out and 20 hexes still outranges most opponents.

As for jamming, perception of jam failures exceeds reality on the tabletop.  If you have 20+ turns to game and are safe from fire, you wont use ultra mode.  If you have 10 or less turns to game or your unit is gonna get shot a bunch, you should always use ultra.  The math is pretty binary and easy to estimate--the jam chance of an ultra is never ever a downside as you only fire ultra when it is mathematically beneficial.

The warrior with the 3026 paper armor package is not a good unit no matter what gun you give it.  Saying the ultra5 is bad misses the point that any gun you put on it instead of armor is bad.  IE, instead of the vaunted ac/2 srm version, an ac2 and armor version is strictly better.  As would be an LRM and armor version, or an SRM and armor version, or an AC5 and armor version--heck armor and cargo is better.  But with the base version as a self imposed restriction, I really like the ultra ac/5 variant, as it is a great showcase of what an ultra AC/5 unit should be now that variant ammo exists.

I'd disagree with your conclusion, DevianID, it's NOT the best choice for a platform for two reasons:

1) because whether exaggerated or not, the failure rate is unpredictable and leaves the airframe without a weapon of any kind when it happens.  guaranteed failure/malfunctions that are unpredictable tend to happen right when you need the system to work (an application of Murphy's law), they do NOT tend to happen when it doesn't matter.

2) ammunition duration and hits vs. misses.  One of the reasons the Hawk Moth works as a big-gun chopper, is that it has such wide range bands that it's easy to hang at the HM's medium range while staying in an opponent's long.  This is pretty much what you want to be doing if you have a big-bore on a 30 ton chassis.  the H-7/AC-5/UAC's basic problem is, when you're at their long, you're also at yours, and the medium/long overlap isn't very wide.  This means you're taking shots at poorer to-hit numbers or at higher risk (most often, poorer hit numbers since the examples given in this thread have the same basic layout as the original), which means you're missing more often, even in single, but you're starting with less than half the number of shots of ammo that the base model's AC/2 carries (and thus, half the potential ammo if you're using something like Precision, which you can't use on an ultra anyway.)

Hits that hit, even 2 pointers, do more damage than shots that miss (even 5 or 10 pointers).  Knife fighting with a VTOL is a bad idea unless it's with something ELSE that has a fixed forward gun and greatly reduced speed.  (thus, why the Mantis is good for hunting other VTOLs despite having no range and  popguns).

The Ultra 5 or AC/5 both are optimized for units that don't self-disassemble when they lose their motive systems-that is, ground bound vehicles or 'mechs, and work best if they're part of an array or have significant secondary weapons.  why? because their range and endurance are both 'average' with other significant weapons systems (PPC, other AC/5s, ERLL, etc. etc.)

on a VTOL, it's a waste of potential, while on a tank or 'mech, it's a useful piece of kit (aside from the unreliability) because you're missing more often, have no means to compensate, and are at 'average' range for return fire.

3
MechWarrior Hall / Re: Word Association 32: What Say You?
« Last post by rebs on Today at 23:18:09 »
Theodolite
4
Non-Canon Units / Re: Renegade Legions to Battletech
« Last post by Hominid Mk II on Today at 23:12:03 »
It's mostly the THOR system I'm considering trying to adapt into my AU. Surely it can't help but be rather less hi-tech than other RL weapon systems? Shouldn't that make it at least somewhat less difficult to adapt for the BTU?

I really wish I had access to a RL Rulebook right now, but I don't. So I can't do this for myself and all I can do is ask other people for their input.
5
Instead of tracking damage by individuals, using the battlearmor method i mentioned earlier with each squad acting as 1 battle armor obliviates the need for man by man damage tracking.  Either the squad is functional with their weapon system, or it isnt, and the only weapon systems we need for infantry in battletech would be the ones with only battletech stats, namely the battle armor ones.  When the squad loses it's last pip, whatever cohesion keeping it firing its weapons is gone--up to the campaign rules to determine killed/wounded/equipment destroyed statuses per damage pip.  We can also give more pips to 5 man elementals, or WOB zombie infantry, or less pips to unarmored infantry, without needing odd damage divisors or anything, the same as heavy and light battle armor gets more or less pips.  Infantry keeping the same record sheet, whether battle armor or mechanized or foot, with their movement types and all, also helps standardize things.

Some variant of this is the best way to handle it. Pretty much every game that is in a smaller scale then 25-28mm doesn't bother tracking individuals for good reason. you don't deal in individuals you deal in abstracted squads or fire teams at this scale.
6
ok am now curious...what kerensky did not take with him because he considered it too nasty or to beyond what could be considered a weapon a humane weapon.
obviously took the nukes not so sure about bio weapons

If your plan is to take a long distance journey to a isolated group of planets to establish a isolated, self sufficient colony, having some bio-weapons in storage may be a bad idea.

As crazy as it is, people tend to fear bio weapons more than nukes or chemical weapons.   
7
Off Topic / Re: NHL 2021-2022 Thread. Let's get Kraken!
« Last post by Firesprocket on Today at 22:58:02 »
Chara signs with the Isles.  He can help Parise hook up with social security.

Chara back on the Island where his career started.  If this is his last season it seems a fitting place for it.

Does he have a gambling problem? Yes.
Did it cost him pretty much everything? Yes.
Did he bet on his own games?  That he vehemently denies.

He's going to be the first known test case for the NHL after gambling has been legalized in many states.  He was probably better off keeping his mouth shut until the NHL finishes its investigation.  His activity off the rink notable for all the wrong reasons and if proven he did bet on NHL games I'd expect we'll see a ban.
8
General BattleTech Discussion / Re: A question of detail
« Last post by DevianID on Today at 22:57:14 »
I cant recommend mekhq enough for bookkeeping technical staff and such.  It really scratches the itch for book keeping without making a dozen spreadsheets--simply import the damage from your tabletop games and set your support staff to work healing wounds and repairing mechs.  The admins roll for contracts and scrounge for replacement parts, and you can track mechwarriors xp and any campaign bonus abilities all in one place.
9
I've been watching that artist on the BattleTech Reddit for a while and cannot echo five's excitement enough. They are killing it with the new art in a style you could swear you saw in the 1987 Mercenaries Handbook. Just can't get enough of that.
10
Non-Canon Units / Re: Renegade Legions to Battletech
« Last post by marcussmythe on Today at 22:51:53 »
I don't suppose anybody here has ever tried adapting Renegade Legion tech into something that conforms to BT rules, by any chance? Especially the THOR Kinetic Bombardment orbiters?

If not, would anybody be interested in having a go at doing that now?

We fiddled with it at our local tables back when RL was a live game - but ultimately decided that a faithful translation did not seem to us possible.  RL operates at a completely different tech level, and if you were building ‘Grav Tanks’ that felt like RL Grav Tanks, they would not make a good game played across from Mechs.

Many years later... idk?  What do you want to capture?  I think we have to get away from direct comparisons - no modeling a Romulus Grav Tank in Battletech, or a conflict between the TOG and the Star League.  But what do we do to get the -feel- of that universe in the BTU?

I think the simplest defining factor of the RL universe, compared to Battle-tech, is gravitic manipulation.  So lets add that to the BTU.

For Grav Tanks, I would would take a Tank Chassis.  Give it a hovercrafts lift factors, proportionate to mass.  Let it choose to fly like a hovercraft, or like a VTOL, as it wishes, and can insert from orbit (but not return, IIRC).  Give it the better of a tracked and hover vehicles terrain permissions.  Maybe give it ‘free’ armored motive system.  Its going to be a world-spanking super-tech unit, but it will feel like a RL Grav Tank, and assuming the other tech is the same, it shouldn't be any worse game balance wise than the Clan Invasion vs 3025 Units.

The Interceptors could just be ASFs with no fuel or need for it, no SI based breakdowns, and the ability to run masses into superheavy (and mount up to 3 engines).  Also game-shattering, but it would get the feel.

If Gravitic Manipulation applied to Capital Ships?  Idk.  Game change such as to be unrecognizable.

How does it come in?  Some roman flavored scattered group of humanity discovers gravitic manipulation and comes home.

And then some jerk combines grav tech with mecha, including transformable mech - and we all know where that ends.  :):):)

PPS - as for Thor, Id look at maybe something like a 5 or 10 ton computer controlled ASF that crashes into the ground unit?
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Register