|
|
|
Mordel's Bar & Grill |
|
  |
» |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
 Posted: 17-Dec-2003 15:41 Post subject: Level 1.5 tech |
  |
|
I mentioned this in a post down below, and I want to give it a fuller airing. It's basically an attempt to introduce more advanced technology without the game-balance issues that cloud so much of the stuff FASA's released. I'm not going to be inventing any new equipment here, just providing a list of equipment I believe to be well-balanced. The criteria I follow is to exclude items which rely upon brute force for their effectiveness on the Battlefield, and to include those pieces of equipment which depend upon tactical prudence for their effectiveness. I've also included items I feel are not techically beyond the pale of 3025 knowledge; not all of the new equipment was super-technically advanced. MRMs and A-Pods are the obvious candidates for this category. This is entirely an Inner Sphere exercise; Clan equipment is a whole other can of worms; also note some of this stuff is level 3. Alright, here it goes:
ER Large Laser
ER PPC
AMS
LB 10-X (maybe other classes of ACs too)
MRMs
NARC Missile Beacon
Beagle Probe
ECM Suites
A-Pods
Coolant Pod
PPC Capacitor
Heat-Seeking SRM warheads
AX warheads
Smoke Warheads
Anti-Personnel Missile Warheads
CASE
ELRMs
TAG
Arrow IV
Semi-Guided LRM warheads
Grenade Launcher
Copperhead Artillery Rounds
Heavy Flamers
Hot-Loaded LRMs
Flare LRMs
There were a few items I regarded as debatable for 1.5 status; here they are:
Swarm LRMs
Ultra Autocannon 2/5
Laser AMS (very dangerous to use without Double Heat Sinks)
MASC
Reactive Armor
Laser-Reflective Armor
A few items which are emphatically forbidden:
XL engines
Double Heat Sinks
Feel Free to comment
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Oafman
Draconis Combine
Tai-sho
Joined: 18-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1657
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 17-Dec-2003 16:17 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
Looks good to me.
_________________
Festina Lente!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vagabond
Mercenary
Mr. Referee
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 5724
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 17-Dec-2003 16:40 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
Quote:
| A few items which are emphatically forbidden:
XL engines
Double Heat Sinks
Feel Free to comment
|
|
I disagree with the XL Engine. While it allows for alot of extra equipment, you also get the extra risk of destruction. Plus when added to not having Double Heat Sinks that extra load just just more selective in its use.
same goes with ES and FF. The space they take really hurts when at best your putting only 6 extra heat sinks in your engine.
IMHO DHS have been and will remain the key piece of trouble equipment. it allows to much for to little.
shoot, i'd even love to fight a LPL/TC monster if the only heat sinks hes totin are single strength.
to my eyes BT is a game of WW2 Fighter combat with legs. Range is limited, and its about the dance. Mechs [used to] have to be a comprimise between speed/agility, punch, and survivability. ya, mounting a 120 howitzer in the nose of a medium bomber can be deadly, but now your units to sluggish and easy pikens to more balanced intercepters.
_________________
one must work hard to cultivate the mind and body. and one must always cultivate the mind.
//^(^_^)^\\
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 17-Dec-2003 16:47 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
| I hadn't considered the critical load caused by using Endo Steel or Ferro-Fibrous; you might be right there. Of course both of those options presume you're building the 'mech from scratch, which is a situation I try and avoid. I prefer the reactive armor for this situation; it's a little more balanced in that it only provided defense from a certain type of attack.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
AWAD
Draconis Combine
Chu-sa
Joined: 06-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 766
|
| Posted: 17-Dec-2003 22:38 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2003-12-17 15:41, -Mud wrote:
I mentioned this in a post down below, and I want to give it a fuller airing. It's basically an attempt to introduce more advanced technology without the game-balance issues that cloud so much of the stuff FASA's released. I'm not going to be inventing any new equipment here, just providing a list of equipment I believe to be well-balanced. The criteria I follow is to exclude items which rely upon brute force for their effectiveness on the Battlefield, and to include those pieces of equipment which depend upon tactical prudence for their effectiveness. I've also included items I feel are not techically beyond the pale of 3025 knowledge; not all of the new equipment was super-technically advanced. MRMs and A-Pods are the obvious candidates for this category. This is entirely an Inner Sphere exercise; Clan equipment is a whole other can of worms; also note some of this stuff is level 3. Alright, here it goes:
ER Large Laser
ER PPC
AMS
LB 10-X (maybe other classes of ACs too)
MRMs
NARC Missile Beacon
Beagle Probe
ECM Suites
A-Pods
Coolant Pod
PPC Capacitor
Heat-Seeking SRM warheads
AX warheads
Smoke Warheads
Anti-Personnel Missile Warheads
CASE
ELRMs
TAG
Arrow IV
Semi-Guided LRM warheads
Grenade Launcher
Copperhead Artillery Rounds
Heavy Flamers
Hot-Loaded LRMs
Flare LRMs
There were a few items I regarded as debatable for 1.5 status; here they are:
Swarm LRMs
Ultra Autocannon 2/5
Laser AMS (very dangerous to use without Double Heat Sinks)
MASC
Reactive Armor
Laser-Reflective Armor
A few items which are emphatically forbidden:
XL engines
Double Heat Sinks
Feel Free to comment
|
|
Ahh the we want flexibility but cut the number crunching death machine crap. I have tried it and worked with some success, depends on your players.
Your list is mostly fine, but not sure of some of the warheads. Some like tandem charge are BS. Also I do not like special armor, other than Ferro Fibrous; which I noticed that and Endo Steel are not on your list.
Ultra cannons are not an issue. I use UAC2/5 and LB 10/20 for fun. Also an overhaul of ERLM, not a new launcher, but as ammo. Will not digress at this time.
The best control is to yank DHS, problem is that is what players really want. I tried to alter it even to 1.5 or something like that. Just does not balance out to well. So generally I left DHS in the game...... but then made maintenance, availability and the likes much harder.
Killing XL engines torques a few players but most do not mind. But it is fun to redo the book designs with no XL, can be challenging.
But the best and easiest way to minimize DHS, was to put the old 10 heats max on the engine cap. So your 4/6 75 ton Mech can not have 12 DHS on the engine. But you keep the same 1 HS per 25 tons minimum, so your 4/6 40 ton Mech can have 6 only. This makes the DHS a critical space absorbing system. Yeah good crunchers can get around it, but it slows them down.
AWAD- Maybe I need to revisit 1.5 HS
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 18-Dec-2003 00:13 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
If your intent is to introduce L2 tech that is not too far off from the 3025 level then the list is okay. There is no indication L1 tech had even mediocre targeting and tracking capability, so the AMS, reactive armor, LAMS, Narc missile beacon, ECM suites and probes should be nixed.
However, it looks like you're trying to justify ousting DHS from L2 tech. I have never thought of DHS as a big evil. They changed how the game was played, but IMO they are not unbalancing.
[ This Message was edited by: Gangrene on 2003-12-18 00:20 ]
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Stinger
The Knights of Chaos
General
Joined: 30-Apr-2002 00:00
Posts: 1833
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 18-Dec-2003 02:47 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
Bah. I am one of the few that like all of the different tech. I just want to see all of the weapons reworked.
(Get rid of Pulse they are garbage same with RAC, just dont like either system).
But to really fix things either rework all the IS gear to bring it in line with the clan gear. Or nix the clans all together ( a idea I generally dont agree with).
I would really like to see the weapons get a huge overhaul. fix the rules for some of the out of balance weapons. Pulse lasers have got to go. No weapon should have a range of 20 with a minus 2 to hit. Erppc should have a slight damage decrease and a range decrease, same with Gauss, the Light gauss is a step in the right direction but that should have been the original weapon to begin with, but with a shorter range. Missiles should have a longer range and it should be significantly longer, say a range of 30 max. and nothing should come with in 6 hexes of the max range of the Missiles. Missile boats should be scary now they are just a hinderance.
_________________
Stinger
If it's "creepy" to use the Internet, military satellites, and robot aircraft to find a house full of gorgeous young models so I can drop in on them unexpected, then FINE, I'm "creepy". Howard Wolowitz. BBT.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 18-Dec-2003 16:40 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
| DHS arn't unbalancing IF designers show some restraint in using them; however, all too often the level two battlefield is populated with 'mechs that don't have to manage their heat...at all. As I always considered heat management to be intergral to battletech's success, I try to keep designs hot. 2750 and 3050 generally are not too bad in this respect. Most of the original Star League 'mechs and Omnimechs ran hot, and were not min-maxed at all. (look at the Loki, for example). 3055 was not too bad either, now that I think of it...but 3057 onwards started to get rediculous.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 18-Dec-2003 20:34 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2003-12-18 16:40, -Mud wrote:
DHS arn't unbalancing IF designers show some restraint in using them; however, all too often the level two battlefield is populated with 'mechs that don't have to manage their heat...at all. As I always considered heat management to be intergral to battletech's success, I try to keep designs hot. |
|
I am of the opposite camp (or perhaps I am the opposite camp, as I've never met anyone who agrees with me on this point). From an engineering design standpoint the idea that military equipment would be designed to not make the most use of its primary weapons is ridiculous. Mech weapons are not ICBM's or hand reloaded mortars, they are automated weapon systems that are intended to be used repeatedly. To artificially apply a constraint like heat is just absurd, IMO. Optimization isn't munchkinism.
The main advantage of DHS is that you can design a decent mech that is heat efficient, and no longer have to keep track of heat. Quite frankly I find heat dull as a game element and a poor balancing factor in game design. DHS can keep the game balanced (via the mech design system), speed up gameplay by removing one of the variables and allow more weapons fire. This has the positive effects of simplifying gameplay and speeding it up.
Both of these are needed if we want more people to get into Btech and if we want to play larger games in a shorter amount of time. I think FanPro should take the next logical step and make heat-balancing a design issue and not a game issue.
Now, I know most of you purists do not agree with me on this point. But getting rid of heat management is one of the simplest steps to modernizing the game we could take, and has a relatively small impact on the tactics of the game.
The only major problem area of DHS is when non-DHS mechs and DHS mechs mix. Then they become unbalancing. The means of heat dissipation should be applied universaly, whatever it is.
[ This Message was edited by: Gangrene on 2003-12-18 20:38 ]
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Motown Scrapper
Clan Ice Hellions
Galaxy Commander
Joined: 24-Jul-2003 00:00
Posts: 2074
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 18-Dec-2003 21:51 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
I think what we are seeing here with this argument against DHS and other level 2 tech are people who have a certain amount of arrogance and feel that somehow it is better to use flawed designs then to build equipments that are optimized for the best performance according to conditions and tactical philosophy.Part of what I like about BattleTech is the opportunity to create equipments that best suit your fighting style.I use level 2 and book level 3. To me the challenge is to build designs that optimize my tactical philosophy and then go up against an opponent that has a different style and has his/her equipment optimized to his/her style.The challenge then is not only tactics but designs as well.The more variety there is in equipment the more of a challenge there is.I like speed so my designs tend toward light fast designs with batteries of large numbers of short range weapons. Some of the people in my group like to use large slow moving mechs that use large long range weapons that enable them to pound their opponents at long range and rely on heavy armour to absorb the inevitable punishment while they hammer their enemys.I like to use fast mechs and hovercraft to close quickly and use encirclement tactics to get in fast and rip with large numbers of small lasers MGs and SRMs to inflict massive close range damage.That is the challenge to figure out what works best for you style against your opponents style and adjusted for terrain and other outside factors.
_________________
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have-Rush Limbaugh www.rushlimbaugh.com
Force of nature
Still crazy after all these years
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 18-Dec-2003 22:53 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
I'm going to reply to both of the above posts here. As for the argument that gameplay should be simplified, Battletech is already pretty simple. It's really a lot closer to Axis & Allies than it is to Squad Leader in terms of it's complexity. The game is somewhat slow, granted, but only when player's insist on fielding more units than the game was reasonably designed to accomodate. Above company level, use Battleforce, it's a lot faster. A dumbed down version of the game has already been released...it's called clicky-tech  oops, I meant MWDA. If MWDA draws more people into Battletech, so much the better, but in my mind Battletech works weel enough as is.
As for the contentions that heat is a poor balancing factor, and that it's silly to expect engineers to design 'mechs to perform at less than optimum levels, you're forgetting the scavenger mentality which permeates Battletech (this is true even in the 3050 era...even the Clans are forced to make do with limited resources; this is why they developed the Trial system to limit the damage caused by all out warfare). Battlemechs don't operate at optimum efficiency, because techs don't have the necessary equipment to restore damaged 'mechs to fully optimal efficiency. Level Two Battletech changed this, but level two battletech is essentially a compromise between advanced technology and playability within the system which had already been established. Read the old fluff about Star League technology; it was described as being much more dangerous than even Clan technology turned out to be. Problem was, the game designers had to come up with a set of rules that didn't render 3025 'mechs totally defenseless.
As for the argument that 'mech design is it's own playing field, wherein players can customize their forces to fit their combat styles, the problem here is that dedicated designers tend to find the solutions which work best, and use only them, thus seriously inhibiting the amount of variety in a game. I used to take this point of view, to the point where I rarely ever played with unmodified designs. If you dig up some of my older posts, you will find me vehemently expressing the sentiment that almost all of the TRO 'mechs are so poorly designed as to not be worth using. The problem I eventually saw with this approach is that is stifles variety in 'mech designs, as everybody was forced to adopt the same limited number of solutions which provided maximum power, in order to stay competitive. Certain weapons disappeared from the battlefield entirely. Those players who choose to stick with the traditional designs would never stand a chance. I'd rather have the variety which goes with less than perfect designs. The technical readouts do provide plenty of options for any playing style. As for the charge that those of us who prefer less than perfect designs are arrogant, I counter that I'd rather play a game where I am continually challenged. The challenge of designing the "perfect 'mech" is lost as soon as you figure out the formula for min-maxing the various design variables, which I think just about everybody who plays Battletech figures out fairly quickly.
Read over the technical readout section of this site; certain designs have been tagged as being too good for this very reason (ie, Masakari C and Thor D, or the Jenner with lots of armor but no SRM rack, or the Javelin with four medium lasers and lots of armor). Sure, these designs will win every time, but where is the strategy or the stimulating challenge with a design which will win every time?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 18-Dec-2003 22:59 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
I noticed a very wise observation on a re-reading of your post; the importance of compromise between speed, firepower, and protection in 3025 'mech design. It is the interplay of these variables which renders 3025 battletech such a tactically interesting game. Ironically, 3050 gives you more design options, but fewer options on the field. Personally, I'd rather play a game where my tactics are tested, not my engineering skills.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 18-Dec-2003 23:42 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
Battletech is not even close to Axis&Allies in terms of complexity. Maybe if you got rid of extraneous piloting skill rolls, ammunition accounting, heat accounting, and supervision of miniscule parts (arm actuators, etc) then Btech would be close.
You're right that the game was not designed to accomodate large numbers of units (anything over 4 per side, IMO), but that's one reason why I think the game needs to be redesigned. Other miniatures-based games manage to field large numbers of units, Battletech (or a derivative) can do the same.
MWDA is not Battletech, and resembles it in name only. The biggest problem with falling back on that, though, is that the makers of MWDA do not give a crap about Battletech. Do you think the owners of MWDA (WotC owns Wizkids, right?) would spare a penny to save Battletech products if they were in danger of being pulled out of the market? No way.
I agree that machines would not be optimized in the 3025 setting, but the game has advanced since then. In 3025 setting it was exceptable, even fun, to deal with the oddities of the machines and the limitations of the designs. But FASA messed that up and went with a progressive mentality that bears itself out in the rules in a half-assed fashion. If they are going to go hi-tech, then have the transition period and go hi-tech. The compromise you mentioned, this inability to choose one or the other but to merge the two in absurd ways, is what's so annoying. They have machineguns that can target and track incoming missiles but the mechs have trouble hitting another mech at 0.5 km, bullets that adjust their course mid-flight and missiles that don't, myomer that can make a mech run as fast as a Porsche but they need a multi-ton gyro to keep the mech upright. Gimme a break. In the 3025 era the lack of performance made sense, but as Btech progressed its become more of a mess.
If they are going to do hi-tech then they might as well go all the way, and see if they can make a fun game that emulates that style of warfare.
Maybe it would have been better if they had never tried to reintroduce Star League tech but kept Btech in its Mad Max-style atmosphere. IMO Battletech was best in that setting, and when I get a chance to play L1 is a strong option. Unfortunately FASA did not stick with that atmosphere.
[ This Message was edited by: Gangrene on 2003-12-19 15:58 ]
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Paul
Capellan Confederation
Sang-wei
Joined: 25-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 255
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 19-Dec-2003 13:56 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2003-12-18 20:34, Gangrene wrote:
From an engineering design standpoint the idea that military equipment would be designed to not make the most use of its primary weapons is ridiculous.
|
|
I agree, in essence. And I don't think you're alone in that camp neither; too many people enjoy playing with heat neutral vehicles.
Where I disagree with your point is the statement that a vehicle which cannot alpha and sink all heat is by definition inefficient.
I personally think that some of the most efficient 'Mechs are those that have 2 or more 'layers' of firepower, IE, the Trebuchet, Stalker. They have a package that's short-range, and a package that is long range, and only sufficient heatsinks to support the use 1 of those 2 packages per turn.
Attempting to sink all the heat would cause a severe drop in the available tonnage. Additionally, it gives them the option to really open up in the hour (well, 10 seconds) of need with an alpha.
To reduce confusion, I do agree that inefficient heat sink ability is a design flaw. IE MAD-3R Marauder. Can't deploy it's main weaponry well.
You seem to indicate that any amount of inability to sink all heat per turn is automatically a flaw, which is where I disagree. If I incorrectly interpretted your point, my apologies.
Quote:
|
Optimization isn't munchkinism.
|
|
A line often quoted by renowned munchkins. 
(But not automatically incorrect)
Quote:
|
Quite frankly I find heat dull as a game element and a poor balancing factor in game design.
|
|
Heat management being dull I guess is subjective. I personally tend to enjoy figuring out what I can and can't fire. (I also like just being able to lean on the trigger sometimes =) )
I know other players enjoy heat management as well, which doesn't invalidate your position neither.
As a balancing factor in the game, well, I'm not sure what you mean. Weaponry emitting heat when used does strike me as a balancing factor. Compare the PPC to an AC10. The PPC has superior range and is lighter, but you need more heatsinks to compensate for it's use, which brings it much closer to the AC10.
Maybe I'm missing your point.
Quote:
|
[removing heat manages]
This has the positive effects of simplifying gameplay and speeding it up.
|
|
Agreed. IIRC the Large Unit rules as published in the BT Mini rules tries to speed up gameplay by removing heat management, the critical hit system, and by simplifying initiative. I think it did pretty well.
Ever had a chance to check out those rules? They might be what you're thinking of.
Quote:
|
I think FanPro should take the next logical step and make heat-balancing a design issue and not a game issue.
|
|
Ah, kind of like how heat is handled in Aerotech 2? Ships must, in effect, be 0 heat vehicles? Can't fire weapons arcs you can't sink the heat of?
Quote:
|
Now, I know most of you purists do not agree with me on this point. But getting rid of heat management is one of the simplest steps to modernizing the game we could take, and has a relatively small impact on the tactics of the game.
|
|
Well, I don't know about that last statement. Using Inferno's, Fires and Flamers set to heat are tactical devices I use with some regularity (esspecially now that Megamek does the paperwork for fire). It can make a pretty big difference since it more or less allows you to 'stun' hostile units, and depending on ammo loads, even destroy them outright. Elemental Points with Flamers can be particularly lethal, not to mention Salamander suits.
Quote:
|
The only major problem area of DHS is when non-DHS mechs and DHS mechs mix. Then they become unbalancing.
|
|
Agreed. But mixing tech often generates trouble, DHS independent. BV helps, but it stays tricky.
Quote:
|
The means of heat dissipation should be applied universaly, whatever it is.
|
|
Not sure I understand what you mean here.
Paul
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 19-Dec-2003 15:24 Post subject: RE: Level 1.5 tech |
|
|
| I don't mind most of the advanced gadgets....they can easily be explained in the 3025 setting as being found in Brian caches and such. Level one technology only offers somewhat limited options, after all. I also like the clans; they originally meshed well with the rest of the universe....and they are also very imaginative. In many ways the clans are not really so different from the Inner Sphere in 3025; a little more formal perhaps, but the idea that war was practiced on a limited scale, subject to a resource scarcity, remains. The Pentagon worlds and the Kerensky cluster are, after all, only marginally inhabitable for the most part.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
» |
All times are GMT-04:00 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
