info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Heat
47 views
Skip to first unread message
David Damerell
Jan 19, 2018, 8:53:38 AM1/19/18
to
I was looking over some BattleTech stuff recently, and was reminded of the
recentish thread about the game. Something else that frustrates me, on
reflection, is the heat system; there's a mass of detail there, a certain
amount of bookkeeping, a lot of the game's theme - and all for nothing
because the effects of heat are so unequivocally bad [1]. If you design
your own 'Mechs to be boringly effective they're nearly always
close to heat-neutral - there's a reason the Awesome is just _so_ good -
and even piloting book 'Mechs it's relatively to rare to fire an
overheating full broadside from something like a Warhammer (let alone a
comedically under-heatsinked 'Mech like a Rifleman).
If heat had offered some benefits (explained with some fluff about how
myomers work) and/or the heat scale had had a sweet spot somewhere other
than zero, it could have been a more interesting mechanic.
(Of course, other stuff would need to change, or the effect would just
have been to make energy weapons even more better than everything else...)
[1] OK, yes, except Triple-Strength Myomer, yes, I'm a 3025 Luddite...
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, January.
Tomorrow will be Thursday, January.
recentish thread about the game. Something else that frustrates me, on
reflection, is the heat system; there's a mass of detail there, a certain
amount of bookkeeping, a lot of the game's theme - and all for nothing
because the effects of heat are so unequivocally bad [1]. If you design
your own 'Mechs to be boringly effective they're nearly always
close to heat-neutral - there's a reason the Awesome is just _so_ good -
and even piloting book 'Mechs it's relatively to rare to fire an
overheating full broadside from something like a Warhammer (let alone a
comedically under-heatsinked 'Mech like a Rifleman).
If heat had offered some benefits (explained with some fluff about how
myomers work) and/or the heat scale had had a sweet spot somewhere other
than zero, it could have been a more interesting mechanic.
(Of course, other stuff would need to change, or the effect would just
have been to make energy weapons even more better than everything else...)
[1] OK, yes, except Triple-Strength Myomer, yes, I'm a 3025 Luddite...
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, January.
Tomorrow will be Thursday, January.
Jonathan Schattke
Jan 20, 2018, 6:00:08 PM1/20/18
to
On Friday, January 19, 2018 at 7:53:38 AM UTC-6, David Damerell wrote:
> If you design
> your own 'Mechs to be boringly effective they're nearly always
> close to heat-neutral
Many of the 3025 designs have way too many weapons, because they are designed with weapons to use at range and another set to use close; For instance, pairing LRMs with medium lasers, but having heat sinks for only one or the other set.
> If you design
> your own 'Mechs to be boringly effective they're nearly always
> close to heat-neutral
> If heat had offered some benefits (explained with some fluff about how
> myomers work) and/or the heat scale had had a sweet spot somewhere other
> than zero, it could have been a more interesting mechanic.
David Damerell
Jan 21, 2018, 8:02:23 PM1/21/18
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>always presented in the fiction)?
Quite. I read the first Grey Death book as a teenage pedant munchkin, and
because I was a teenage pedant munchkin, was upset that the Locust pilot
was ever popped out of her 'Mech by overheating and the threat of Inferno
hits when game mechanically it was no threat.
To make it inevitable heat dissipation would have to have varied with heat
level, which would make sense...
(And I do still appreciate the way that ADB decided that since the purpose
of SFB fiction was to support SFB, that all SFB fiction should work with
SFB game mechanics. It might not make for the best fiction, but it does
make for the best fiction that's part of the game...)
>>[1] OK, yes, except Triple-Strength Myomer, yes, I'm a 3025 Luddite...
I wish the other person who replied to my post had read this.
>Even TSM doesn't actually do all that much for you unless you're
>closing into hand-to-hand combat. In the current rules:
But presumably you only put TSM on a hatchet-equipped 'Mech, where it is a
godsend.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Saturday, January - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Sunday, January - a weekend.
>On 2018-01-19, David Damerell wrote:
>>If heat had offered some benefits (explained with some fluff about how
>>myomers work) and/or the heat scale had had a sweet spot somewhere other
>>than zero, it could have been a more interesting mechanic.
>>(Of course, other stuff would need to change, or the effect would just
>>have been to make energy weapons even more better than everything else...)
>Perhaps if some amount of heat build-up had been inevitable (as it was
>>If heat had offered some benefits (explained with some fluff about how
>>myomers work) and/or the heat scale had had a sweet spot somewhere other
>>than zero, it could have been a more interesting mechanic.
>>(Of course, other stuff would need to change, or the effect would just
>>have been to make energy weapons even more better than everything else...)
>always presented in the fiction)?
Quite. I read the first Grey Death book as a teenage pedant munchkin, and
because I was a teenage pedant munchkin, was upset that the Locust pilot
was ever popped out of her 'Mech by overheating and the threat of Inferno
hits when game mechanically it was no threat.
To make it inevitable heat dissipation would have to have varied with heat
level, which would make sense...
(And I do still appreciate the way that ADB decided that since the purpose
of SFB fiction was to support SFB, that all SFB fiction should work with
SFB game mechanics. It might not make for the best fiction, but it does
make for the best fiction that's part of the game...)
>>[1] OK, yes, except Triple-Strength Myomer, yes, I'm a 3025 Luddite...
>Even TSM doesn't actually do all that much for you unless you're
>closing into hand-to-hand combat. In the current rules:
But presumably you only put TSM on a hatchet-equipped 'Mech, where it is a
godsend.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Saturday, January - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Sunday, January - a weekend.
David Damerell
Jan 22, 2018, 6:07:42 AM1/22/18
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>I did the same in _Necromunda_ where it nearly broke the system;
>you're clearly meant to charge in shouting "rar", not snipe from a
>distance.) But of course there is always that one-in-six instant kill
>chance on the punch table (for a 60-tonner, or a 30-tonner with
>hatchet).
Also it's often the case (especially with TSM) that putting the boot in
only requires a to-hit roll with no terrain to take off a leg; and, better
yet, you can (or you could; this may have changed?) fire your guns while
you're doing it.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Clown shoes. I hope that doesn't bother you.
>On 2018-01-22, David Damerell wrote:
>>But presumably you only put TSM on a hatchet-equipped 'Mech, where it is a
>>godsend.
>I generally try to avoid melee engagements. (This is a personal bias.
>>But presumably you only put TSM on a hatchet-equipped 'Mech, where it is a
>>godsend.
>I did the same in _Necromunda_ where it nearly broke the system;
>you're clearly meant to charge in shouting "rar", not snipe from a
>distance.) But of course there is always that one-in-six instant kill
>chance on the punch table (for a 60-tonner, or a 30-tonner with
>hatchet).
Also it's often the case (especially with TSM) that putting the boot in
only requires a to-hit roll with no terrain to take off a leg; and, better
yet, you can (or you could; this may have changed?) fire your guns while
you're doing it.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Clown shoes. I hope that doesn't bother you.
David Damerell
Jan 22, 2018, 3:43:44 PM1/22/18
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
To be fair, the Rifleman is particularly bad there. Most of the overgunned
book designs do seem to suggest a desire to have short and long range
options - even those working from Unseen designs like the Warhammer and
Battlemaster.
>Ignore the medium lasers for now.
Although they do seem a particularly odd choice given the large lasers
don't even have a minimum range.
>My conclusion is that the Rifleman has the weapons fit it does (and
>the corresponding lack of heat sinks and armour) because the
>ADR-04-Mk.X Destroid Defender in Super Dimension Fortress Macross
>clearly has four big guns on it, and in basic Battletech (no AC/2, 10
>or 20) they could only be AC/5s, large lasers or PPCs.
PPCs wouldn't help and 4 AC/5s wouldn't fit... and we could take off 17
tons of AC/5 and add 10 tons of large lasers and 7 heat sinks, also making
it no better. I guess the only way to fix it given those clear four big
guns would be to make it much heavier.
3 AC/5s and one large laser could be done, losing both medium lasers,
another tonne of armour... but leaving it able to actually use its
armament.
>I think that what one might call the "wave zero" designs, from the
>pre-TR3025 rulebooks in the Battletech and Citytech boxed sets, were
>constructed without much reference to actual play experience.
And some TR3025 designs - the Atlas and other "let's go 3/5/0 and have
minimal long-range armament" designs, the Banshee and other "let's go
4/6/0 on a huge 'Mech and have minimal everything" designs (and the Victor
which combines both errors...), the JagerMech (admittedly, the AC/2 is so
bad that I can see why no-one was ever going to produce a good design using
AC/2s...)
Of course, I appreciate that it was useful to us that the book designs be
imperfect so we could have satisfying experiences improving on them... but
that could still have been done without so many of them being so very bad.
>One could probably say the same for the "wave one" designs from
>TR3025, except that they include the Awesome. Well, perhaps it was
>just coincidentally great.
I think I've reached the bit of this reply where I realise you've already
written all the stuff I just wrote in reply. :-/
I think it helps the Awesome, although it is very solid anyway, that
almost all the other assault 'Mechs are so seriously terrible. There are
one or two other relative gems amongst the stock designs - the UrbanMech
in the right conditions, the Panther, the Thunderbolt... even the
Crusader's not too terrible.
Also I think classic BattleTech has a real problem with differentiation of
weapon types, presumably why 305x added all those funky autocannon and
missile options. Without even any balancing mechanism but tonnage, the
AC/5 cannot help but come out "just worse".
>On 2018-01-21, Jonathan Schattke wrote:
>>Many of the 3025 designs have way too many weapons, because they are
>designed with weapons to use at range and another set to use close; For
>instance, pairing LRMs with medium lasers, but having heat sinks for
>only one or the other set.
>Let's look at the Rifleman.
>>Many of the 3025 designs have way too many weapons, because they are
>designed with weapons to use at range and another set to use close; For
>instance, pairing LRMs with medium lasers, but having heat sinks for
>only one or the other set.
To be fair, the Rifleman is particularly bad there. Most of the overgunned
book designs do seem to suggest a desire to have short and long range
options - even those working from Unseen designs like the Warhammer and
Battlemaster.
>Ignore the medium lasers for now.
Although they do seem a particularly odd choice given the large lasers
don't even have a minimum range.
>My conclusion is that the Rifleman has the weapons fit it does (and
>the corresponding lack of heat sinks and armour) because the
>ADR-04-Mk.X Destroid Defender in Super Dimension Fortress Macross
>clearly has four big guns on it, and in basic Battletech (no AC/2, 10
>or 20) they could only be AC/5s, large lasers or PPCs.
PPCs wouldn't help and 4 AC/5s wouldn't fit... and we could take off 17
tons of AC/5 and add 10 tons of large lasers and 7 heat sinks, also making
it no better. I guess the only way to fix it given those clear four big
guns would be to make it much heavier.
3 AC/5s and one large laser could be done, losing both medium lasers,
another tonne of armour... but leaving it able to actually use its
armament.
>I think that what one might call the "wave zero" designs, from the
>pre-TR3025 rulebooks in the Battletech and Citytech boxed sets, were
>constructed without much reference to actual play experience.
And some TR3025 designs - the Atlas and other "let's go 3/5/0 and have
minimal long-range armament" designs, the Banshee and other "let's go
4/6/0 on a huge 'Mech and have minimal everything" designs (and the Victor
which combines both errors...), the JagerMech (admittedly, the AC/2 is so
bad that I can see why no-one was ever going to produce a good design using
AC/2s...)
Of course, I appreciate that it was useful to us that the book designs be
imperfect so we could have satisfying experiences improving on them... but
that could still have been done without so many of them being so very bad.
>One could probably say the same for the "wave one" designs from
>TR3025, except that they include the Awesome. Well, perhaps it was
>just coincidentally great.
I think I've reached the bit of this reply where I realise you've already
written all the stuff I just wrote in reply. :-/
I think it helps the Awesome, although it is very solid anyway, that
almost all the other assault 'Mechs are so seriously terrible. There are
one or two other relative gems amongst the stock designs - the UrbanMech
in the right conditions, the Panther, the Thunderbolt... even the
Crusader's not too terrible.
Also I think classic BattleTech has a real problem with differentiation of
weapon types, presumably why 305x added all those funky autocannon and
missile options. Without even any balancing mechanism but tonnage, the
AC/5 cannot help but come out "just worse".
David Damerell
Jan 22, 2018, 6:17:20 PM1/22/18
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>On 2018-01-23, David Damerell wrote:
>is a good example.
I can never remember the Wolverine, I think it sorts into the Shadow Hawk
hashbucket in my brain. (I went to look it up).
>>>Ignore the medium lasers for now.
>>Although they do seem a particularly odd choice given the large lasers
>>don't even have a minimum range.
>Medium lasers are best used for sticking as many as will fit on, I think.
I recognise they're in general very good, but they do look odd on an
overgunned underarmoured under-HSed 'Mech with no-minimum-range weapons. I
mean, yes, maybe the answer to that isn't to remove the medium lasers, but
if we're stuck with the overgunned...
>>it no better. I guess the only way to fix it given those clear four big
>>guns would be to make it much heavier.
>Four LLs is 32, plus 20+ heat sinks, and you're already beyond the
>move-4 sweet spot of 42.5 tons of equipment plus armour.
We could stick with the existing armament but bump it to 75 tons, finding
6 more tons for armour and heatsinks. Which would still be kind of bad,
but perhaps better.
>(You've done that calculation, right?
Not since secondary school. :-)
>>3 AC/5s and one large laser could be done, losing both medium lasers,
>>another tonne of armour... but leaving it able to actually use its
>>armament.
>Until someone spat at it, yeah. But then it would be asymmetrical.
Well, it's already a bit odd in that 4 apparently identical guns in the
art turn out to be 2 of one sort and 2 of the other. Put in some fluff
about how Star League Riflemen had 2/2 but the difficulty of getting laser
unobtanium and the fortunate decision to make the mounts modular means
the modern Rifleman is 3/1.
>>(and the Victor
>>which combines both errors...), the JagerMech (admittedly, the AC/2 is so
>>bad that I can see why no-one was ever going to produce a good design using
>>AC/2s...)
>Maybe if you had a whole stack of AC/2s on a reasonably mobile 'Mech,
>that could keep out of range and be really annoying as it sandblasted
>the enemy to death.
I'd rather have LRMs, even with the slightly lesser range. My impression,
without a detailed calculation, is that you might well find even once
you've fired off all your ammo that the enemy is not significantly
sandblasted, unless you got lucky with crits/heads. All the fire will be
at long range and presumably the target will not obligingly stand still in
the open to be sandblasted; it's only got to sit in heavy woods for 5/6 of
that ammo to go to waste.
>The Wolverine can be surprisingly effective and hard to kill. And I've
>had a soft spot for the Stalker for a while, though I can see it has
>problems.
The Stalker gets a lot just by going 3/5/0 - ridiculously overgunned but
that's better than being ridiculously undergunned.
The Scorpion has that PPC plus SRM 6 combination that's just
>about my favourite fit which doesn't include medium lasers, and modulo
>the torso bomb (which I think we've talked about before) it's pretty
>solid. (Even without any special rules for being four-legged.)
Here I think's the first place we seriously differ. The Scorpion loses so
much by not going 5/8/0 - aside from the speed it's hard to see it offers
much over the Panther, a full 20 tons lighter, and the Panther's jump jets
make up for a lot of the difference. Sure, it's an SRM6 not an SRM4, and 8
points more armour... but on the other hand the Panther squeezes in more
heat sinks.
>That old weapon table generated a lot of interesting design choices
>and tradeoffs.
I may be being a bit harsh. The PPC vs. 2xAC/5 thing bugs me a lot; the
rest of the table doesn't really have any such egregious misdesign.
>On 2018-01-23, David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>>Let's look at the Rifleman.
>>To be fair, the Rifleman is particularly bad there. Most of the overgunned
>>book designs do seem to suggest a desire to have short and long range
>>options - even those working from Unseen designs like the Warhammer and
>>Battlemaster.
>Sure - most of them do a better job. The Wolverine with SRM-6 and AC/5
>>>Let's look at the Rifleman.
>>To be fair, the Rifleman is particularly bad there. Most of the overgunned
>>book designs do seem to suggest a desire to have short and long range
>>options - even those working from Unseen designs like the Warhammer and
>>Battlemaster.
>is a good example.
I can never remember the Wolverine, I think it sorts into the Shadow Hawk
hashbucket in my brain. (I went to look it up).
>>>Ignore the medium lasers for now.
>>Although they do seem a particularly odd choice given the large lasers
>>don't even have a minimum range.
I recognise they're in general very good, but they do look odd on an
overgunned underarmoured under-HSed 'Mech with no-minimum-range weapons. I
mean, yes, maybe the answer to that isn't to remove the medium lasers, but
if we're stuck with the overgunned...
>>it no better. I guess the only way to fix it given those clear four big
>>guns would be to make it much heavier.
>move-4 sweet spot of 42.5 tons of equipment plus armour.
We could stick with the existing armament but bump it to 75 tons, finding
6 more tons for armour and heatsinks. Which would still be kind of bad,
but perhaps better.
>(You've done that calculation, right?
Not since secondary school. :-)
>>3 AC/5s and one large laser could be done, losing both medium lasers,
>>another tonne of armour... but leaving it able to actually use its
>>armament.
Well, it's already a bit odd in that 4 apparently identical guns in the
art turn out to be 2 of one sort and 2 of the other. Put in some fluff
about how Star League Riflemen had 2/2 but the difficulty of getting laser
unobtanium and the fortunate decision to make the mounts modular means
the modern Rifleman is 3/1.
>>(and the Victor
>>which combines both errors...), the JagerMech (admittedly, the AC/2 is so
>>bad that I can see why no-one was ever going to produce a good design using
>>AC/2s...)
>that could keep out of range and be really annoying as it sandblasted
>the enemy to death.
I'd rather have LRMs, even with the slightly lesser range. My impression,
without a detailed calculation, is that you might well find even once
you've fired off all your ammo that the enemy is not significantly
sandblasted, unless you got lucky with crits/heads. All the fire will be
at long range and presumably the target will not obligingly stand still in
the open to be sandblasted; it's only got to sit in heavy woods for 5/6 of
that ammo to go to waste.
>The Wolverine can be surprisingly effective and hard to kill. And I've
>had a soft spot for the Stalker for a while, though I can see it has
>problems.
The Stalker gets a lot just by going 3/5/0 - ridiculously overgunned but
that's better than being ridiculously undergunned.
The Scorpion has that PPC plus SRM 6 combination that's just
>about my favourite fit which doesn't include medium lasers, and modulo
>the torso bomb (which I think we've talked about before) it's pretty
>solid. (Even without any special rules for being four-legged.)
Here I think's the first place we seriously differ. The Scorpion loses so
much by not going 5/8/0 - aside from the speed it's hard to see it offers
much over the Panther, a full 20 tons lighter, and the Panther's jump jets
make up for a lot of the difference. Sure, it's an SRM6 not an SRM4, and 8
points more armour... but on the other hand the Panther squeezes in more
heat sinks.
>That old weapon table generated a lot of interesting design choices
>and tradeoffs.
I may be being a bit harsh. The PPC vs. 2xAC/5 thing bugs me a lot; the
rest of the table doesn't really have any such egregious misdesign.
David Damerell
Jan 24, 2018, 2:31:09 PM1/24/18
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>On 2018-01-23, David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>>Medium lasers are best used for sticking as many as will fit on, I think.
>>I recognise they're in general very good, but they do look odd on an
>>overgunned underarmoured under-HSed 'Mech with no-minimum-range weapons. I
>>mean, yes, maybe the answer to that isn't to remove the medium lasers, but
>>if we're stuck with the overgunned...
>But actually I'm not convinced they have a useful self-defence role
>On 2018-01-23, David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>>Medium lasers are best used for sticking as many as will fit on, I think.
>>I recognise they're in general very good, but they do look odd on an
>>overgunned underarmoured under-HSed 'Mech with no-minimum-range weapons. I
>>mean, yes, maybe the answer to that isn't to remove the medium lasers, but
>>if we're stuck with the overgunned...
>either. Take the Archer, a pair of LRM-20s (6 heat, 12 shots each) and
>10 sinks. Strip off those four MLs, which you should never be getting
>close enough to the enemy to use anyway, and you can drop on another
>two sinks and 24 more shots.
Well, the Archer commits the standard book 'Mech design trope of sticking
on two rear-facing medium lasers in the optimistic expectation that anyone
who might otherwise take a rear shot will be discouraged from doing so by
them (all else aside, in spite of the fact that it also gets you out of arc
of at least one of the Archer's other two medium lasers).
A friend of mine rejected this to the extreme of omitting rear torso
armour - sure, it's nice sometimes, but generally you're better off having
it on the front, especially if the opponent doesn't know you've done it.
The two forward MLs are much less bad.
>(It should now be clear that when I have a design envelope to explore
>I tend to push into the corners.)
I think we all do the "here is a gun, let us just have as many of that gun
as we can" thing. It worked for the _Dreadnought_...
>I wonder sometimes what a game would be like if it were designed for
>the fluff, with specialised anti-aircraft 'Mechs and so on.
I wonder if I still have the issue of Dragon magazine that did just that,
giving each TR3025 'Mech a shtick based on the fluff text.
>>>The Scorpion has that PPC plus SRM 6 combination that's just
>>>about my favourite fit which doesn't include medium lasers, and modulo
>>>the torso bomb (which I think we've talked about before) it's pretty
>>>solid. (Even without any special rules for being four-legged.)
is almost certainly fatal, but I see now you are referring to the chance
of hitting it.
Incidentally, with reference to a complaint in a previous article about
PPC vs 2xAC/5, it's not even that the only balancing mechanism was
tonnage; on looking it up in the FanPro Master Rules, you'll also _pay
more_ for the privilege of having a heavier weapon system that runs out of
ammo.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Gloucesterday, January.
Tomorrow will be Leicesterday, January.
David Damerell
Jan 24, 2018, 9:30:44 PM1/24/18
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
I remember it as being one of the last good not-TSR-game articles, so it
stuck in my mind.
>Yup, it's the only thing in that side torso, and my theory is that
>this is because the original draft of the rules did not allow for
>automatic heat sink critical slots provided by the engine. (I have a
>dubious PDF that claims to be the original "Battledroids", and that
>makes no mention of it.)
FWIW Googling finds someone making that very same assertion.
I'm pretty sure BattleTech 2nd Edition doesn't provide the engine
rating/25 rule, either (both from memory and because I've just gone and
looked); 3rd Edition does. It caused us some confusion at the time because
we weren't clear when playing 2nd Edition how many heat sinks to allocate
slots for; the design example allocates 15 slots for an 18-heatsink 'Mech
with a 240-rate engine, and the book 'Mechs don't list heatsink locations.
I think we settled on the 10 free heatsinks not requiring critical slots.
>>Incidentally, with reference to a complaint in a previous article about
>>PPC vs 2xAC/5, it's not even that the only balancing mechanism was
>>tonnage; on looking it up in the FanPro Master Rules, you'll also _pay
>>more_ for the privilege of having a heavier weapon system that runs out of
>>ammo.
>Costs are always a bit iffy, and didn't exist for a long time. Heat
>(getting back to the topic) is clearly meant to be the real balancing
>factor:
>1x PPC + 10 heat sinks = 17 tons
>2x AC/5 + 2 heat sinks + 20 shots = 20 tons
>which at least looks vaguely similar.
I've seen your correction to 19 tons. It is vaguely similar, but one
option is "just worse"; the AC/5s weigh more; they can run out of ammo [1];
you have to pay the weight of the weapons but the heatsinks might come
free with the 'Mech, be skimped on, be shared with other weapons (sure,
this last option is bad); and they can explode and destroy you. The
minimum range isn't even less. They're better as a critfinder? A bit, but
this is partly compensated by the way a single PPC hit is guaranteed to
punch head armour.
Other oddities:
The AC/10 likewise has a worse damage/weight ratio to the large laser, but
at least then it does damage in bigger head-punching clumps.
The LRM-10 seems like a bad deal compared to either 2 LRM-5s or half an
LRM-20. I can kind of expect them to get more efficient as they get
bigger, but not as they get smaller. (The LRM-15 likewise might have been
6 tons, 6 heat). There might be some oddities in the missile hits table,
you say? There are, but they also slightly disfavour the LRM-10.
[1] And short of an intentional decision to invent something to correct
it, no possible campaign logistics system is going to make the situation
anything but worse compared to a one-off game where you can blow off all
20 shots with impunity.
Today is Leicesterday, January.
Tomorrow will be Brieday, January.
>On 2018-01-25, David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>>I wonder sometimes what a game would be like if it were designed for
>>>the fluff, with specialised anti-aircraft 'Mechs and so on.
>>I wonder if I still have the issue of Dragon magazine that did just that,
>>giving each TR3025 'Mech a shtick based on the fluff text.
>Well remembered! "Tricks of the Trade" by Mike Speca, issue #166.
>>Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>>I wonder sometimes what a game would be like if it were designed for
>>>the fluff, with specialised anti-aircraft 'Mechs and so on.
>>I wonder if I still have the issue of Dragon magazine that did just that,
>>giving each TR3025 'Mech a shtick based on the fluff text.
I remember it as being one of the last good not-TSR-game articles, so it
stuck in my mind.
>Yup, it's the only thing in that side torso, and my theory is that
>this is because the original draft of the rules did not allow for
>automatic heat sink critical slots provided by the engine. (I have a
>dubious PDF that claims to be the original "Battledroids", and that
>makes no mention of it.)
FWIW Googling finds someone making that very same assertion.
I'm pretty sure BattleTech 2nd Edition doesn't provide the engine
rating/25 rule, either (both from memory and because I've just gone and
looked); 3rd Edition does. It caused us some confusion at the time because
we weren't clear when playing 2nd Edition how many heat sinks to allocate
slots for; the design example allocates 15 slots for an 18-heatsink 'Mech
with a 240-rate engine, and the book 'Mechs don't list heatsink locations.
I think we settled on the 10 free heatsinks not requiring critical slots.
>>Incidentally, with reference to a complaint in a previous article about
>>PPC vs 2xAC/5, it's not even that the only balancing mechanism was
>>tonnage; on looking it up in the FanPro Master Rules, you'll also _pay
>>more_ for the privilege of having a heavier weapon system that runs out of
>>ammo.
>(getting back to the topic) is clearly meant to be the real balancing
>factor:
>1x PPC + 10 heat sinks = 17 tons
>2x AC/5 + 2 heat sinks + 20 shots = 20 tons
>which at least looks vaguely similar.
I've seen your correction to 19 tons. It is vaguely similar, but one
option is "just worse"; the AC/5s weigh more; they can run out of ammo [1];
you have to pay the weight of the weapons but the heatsinks might come
free with the 'Mech, be skimped on, be shared with other weapons (sure,
this last option is bad); and they can explode and destroy you. The
minimum range isn't even less. They're better as a critfinder? A bit, but
this is partly compensated by the way a single PPC hit is guaranteed to
punch head armour.
Other oddities:
The AC/10 likewise has a worse damage/weight ratio to the large laser, but
at least then it does damage in bigger head-punching clumps.
The LRM-10 seems like a bad deal compared to either 2 LRM-5s or half an
LRM-20. I can kind of expect them to get more efficient as they get
bigger, but not as they get smaller. (The LRM-15 likewise might have been
6 tons, 6 heat). There might be some oddities in the missile hits table,
you say? There are, but they also slightly disfavour the LRM-10.
[1] And short of an intentional decision to invent something to correct
it, no possible campaign logistics system is going to make the situation
anything but worse compared to a one-off game where you can blow off all
20 shots with impunity.
Today is Leicesterday, January.
Tomorrow will be Brieday, January.
David Damerell
Jan 25, 2018, 3:35:30 PM1/25/18
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>The AC/10 likewise has a worse damage/weight ratio to the large laser, but
>>at least then it does damage in bigger head-punching clumps.
>I rate the AC/10 as slightly better, if one includes the necessary
>>The AC/10 likewise has a worse damage/weight ratio to the large laser, but
>>at least then it does damage in bigger head-punching clumps.
>heat sinks. But it's pretty close.
Yes, this bit's just wrong. What happened there?
>>The LRM-10 seems like a bad deal compared to either 2 LRM-5s or half an
>>LRM-20. I can kind of expect them to get more efficient as they get
>>bigger, but not as they get smaller. (The LRM-15 likewise might have been
>>6 tons, 6 heat). There might be some oddities in the missile hits table,
>>you say? There are, but they also slightly disfavour the LRM-10.
>best; LRM-15 and -5 are identically efficient, and very nearly as
>good; LRM-10 is much worse.
It's not quite true of the LRM-15 and LRM-5, because weight is always
worse than heat. Heat only weighs a ton as the weapons loadout tends to
infinity, even if it is going to be 100% provisioned for. Furthermore
it's slightly preferable to have heatsinks to pad ammo criticals (we're
in 3025, so total slots aren't an issue) - the 3xLRM-5 option is
marginally better just by virtue of having one more slot of padding. And
because the LRM does damage in groups already, it's not like taking the
LRM-15 represents a lot of armour-punching as opposed to the crit-finding
of 3xLRM-5. I can't think of any reason I would not swap an LRM-15 for
3xLRM-5.
>SRMs
I was going to say all those elegantly balanced 'Mechs with two SRM-2s are
in trouble, but looking at TR3025, that's the Dervish, already stuck with
two LRM-10s. (And one of the Locust variants, but the correct Locust
variant is 3 medium lasers, nohow).
>https://tekeli.li/battletech/weapeff.html
This is not bad but does neglect the aforementioned issue that weight is
worse than heat. (Of course, that's hard to measure because of total
weapon loadout, as above).
Also the "ten shots" thing is a bit hilariously improbable for
machineguns, especially if we're before the days of half-ton lots. (Yes, I
appreciate why you're comparing on that basis. :-)
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
David Damerell
Jan 25, 2018, 7:43:22 PM1/25/18
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
What I wrote about the AC/10 is wrong and I don't even know what led me to
get it wrong.
>>It's not quite true of the LRM-15 and LRM-5, because weight is always
>>worse than heat. Heat only weighs a ton as the weapons loadout tends to
>>infinity, even if it is going to be 100% provisioned for.
>I'm not understanding what you're getting at here. Three lots of
>(2-ton launcher plus 2 sinks) is 12, a 7-ton launcher plus 5 sinks is
>12.
What I'm getting at is that, given those options, the former is
preferable. On a 'Mech with a small loadout the six sinks are free and the
LRM-5s are just a ton lighter; on a 'Mech with, say, 30 heat dissipation,
each heatsink effectively cost 2/3 of a ton to buy and the LRM-5s are 1/3
of a ton lighter, although this is inobvious if we were thinking about what
to put on the 'Mech last when we picked the LRMs.
(And this is part of why energy weapons rule the roost - 30 heat
dissipation is more than _anything_ has. The "one heat, one ton"
accounting is never right.)
>Given how quick Battletech fights tend to be anyway, maybe one should
>declare all missile racks as non-reloading. So the Warhammer shoulder
>pod contributes six big missiles to the fight, fired one at a time or
>all at once. It's not as if there's really room for an ammunition feed
>up that stalk anyway.
It would kind of lose the "Macross Missile Massacre" element, though. More
seriously, if collectively they represent as much bang as 5-10
conventional SRM salvoes, games might be entirely about manuevering into a
good position to unload the SRMs...
>>Also the "ten shots" thing is a bit hilariously improbable for
>>machineguns, especially if we're before the days of half-ton lots. (Yes, I
>>appreciate why you're comparing on that basis. :-)
>When I was playing book 'Mechs, mostly the first turn consisted of a
>loud rattling sound as everyone dumped their machine-gun ammunition.
Ah, we didn't have the ammo-dumping rule, so every turn we'd faithfully
mark off machine gun ammo as we shot at nothing, never mind that IIRC
no-one ever managed to burn off enough that an ammo explosion would not
have been fatal. Perhaps a house rule to start with only as much MG ammo
as you wanted would have been better; we eventually ended up with a
pseudo-CASE system fitted to everything.
Today is Brieday, January.
Tomorrow will be Gouday, January.
>On 2018-01-26, David Damerell wrote:
>>Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>>>The AC/10 likewise has a worse damage/weight ratio to the large laser, but
>>>>at least then it does damage in bigger head-punching clumps.
>>>I rate the AC/10 as slightly better, if one includes the necessary
>>>heat sinks. But it's pretty close.
>>Yes, this bit's just wrong. What happened there?
>Sorry, I don't follow.
>>Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>>>The AC/10 likewise has a worse damage/weight ratio to the large laser, but
>>>>at least then it does damage in bigger head-punching clumps.
>>>I rate the AC/10 as slightly better, if one includes the necessary
>>>heat sinks. But it's pretty close.
>>Yes, this bit's just wrong. What happened there?
What I wrote about the AC/10 is wrong and I don't even know what led me to
get it wrong.
>>It's not quite true of the LRM-15 and LRM-5, because weight is always
>>worse than heat. Heat only weighs a ton as the weapons loadout tends to
>>infinity, even if it is going to be 100% provisioned for.
>(2-ton launcher plus 2 sinks) is 12, a 7-ton launcher plus 5 sinks is
>12.
What I'm getting at is that, given those options, the former is
preferable. On a 'Mech with a small loadout the six sinks are free and the
LRM-5s are just a ton lighter; on a 'Mech with, say, 30 heat dissipation,
each heatsink effectively cost 2/3 of a ton to buy and the LRM-5s are 1/3
of a ton lighter, although this is inobvious if we were thinking about what
to put on the 'Mech last when we picked the LRMs.
(And this is part of why energy weapons rule the roost - 30 heat
dissipation is more than _anything_ has. The "one heat, one ton"
accounting is never right.)
>Given how quick Battletech fights tend to be anyway, maybe one should
>declare all missile racks as non-reloading. So the Warhammer shoulder
>pod contributes six big missiles to the fight, fired one at a time or
>all at once. It's not as if there's really room for an ammunition feed
>up that stalk anyway.
It would kind of lose the "Macross Missile Massacre" element, though. More
seriously, if collectively they represent as much bang as 5-10
conventional SRM salvoes, games might be entirely about manuevering into a
good position to unload the SRMs...
>>Also the "ten shots" thing is a bit hilariously improbable for
>>machineguns, especially if we're before the days of half-ton lots. (Yes, I
>>appreciate why you're comparing on that basis. :-)
>loud rattling sound as everyone dumped their machine-gun ammunition.
Ah, we didn't have the ammo-dumping rule, so every turn we'd faithfully
mark off machine gun ammo as we shot at nothing, never mind that IIRC
no-one ever managed to burn off enough that an ammo explosion would not
have been fatal. Perhaps a house rule to start with only as much MG ammo
as you wanted would have been better; we eventually ended up with a
pseudo-CASE system fitted to everything.
Today is Brieday, January.
Tomorrow will be Gouday, January.
0 new messages