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
always presented in the fiction)?

[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:

- at heat 0-4, no difference
- at heat 5-8, -1 MP (8+ is a 1-point to-hit penalty)
- at heat 9 exactly, +1 MP
- at heat 10-14, -1 MP (13+ is a 2-point to-hit penalty)
- etc.

Yeah, you get double hand-to-hand and lifting strength, but "a bonus
movement point, in return for a to-hit penalty and lots of
bookkeeping" doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

--
https://tekeli.li/battletech/
https://tekeli.li/tin-soldier/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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 <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Wednesday, January.
Tomorrow will be Thursday, January.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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 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.

Well, there is Triple-Strength Myomer, and the heat to activate.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

Yeeeeees... though adding a medium laser or two for close-in defence
is clearly not intended as a primary role.

Let's look at the Rifleman. Ignore the medium lasers for now. Two
large lasers (bracket-5 weapons) and two AC/5s (bracket-6, happiest at
4-6). It seems pretty clear to me that those weapons are intended to
be used together, with perhaps a little early plinking at range 16-18.

So you fire them all, and you generate 18 heat from weapons fire
alone, of which you can shed 10. Probably you walked, so you're going
up by 9 heat for each full-strike. Even if you swap the medium lasers
for heat sinks (instead of, oh, I don't know, ARMOUR) it doesn't help
much.

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.

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.

(I don't have my original books to hand, but some looking around
suggests that that list for Battletech is: Stinger, Shadow Hawk,
Archer, Griffin, Warhammer, Phoenix Hawk, Marauder, Crusader, Wasp and Rifleman; from Citytech, Stalker, Hunckback, Spider,
Ost{sol|roc|scout}, Archer, Shadow Hawk, Marauder, Rifleman, Crusader
and Warhammer.)

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.

For a young Roger in the late 1980s, all this was actually a feature,
because it meant that designing 'Mechs was worth doing - one could get
better performance out of one's own designs than out of anything
stock. The game was one of design plus fight, rather than just fight.
(The same was true of Car Wars about the same period.)

--
https://tekeli.li/battletech/
https://tekeli.li/tin-soldier/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@nospam.firedrake.org>:

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

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 <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Saturday, January - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Sunday, January - a weekend.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2018-01-22, David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@nospam.firedrake.org>:

Perhaps if some amount of heat build-up had been inevitable (as it was >>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.

(Sigh) You're me again. I had just that outraged conversation, or
perhaps rant would be closer.

To make it inevitable heat dissipation would have to have varied with heat >level, which would make sense...

Hmm. How could that look in game mechanical terms? In the design
phase, there'd be some function which turns your number of heat sinks
and tonnage into a fraction, and that's how much excess heat you can
dump per turn. Half is a good number to test with. So if you're
steadily producing 10 heat a turn...

turn 1 +10 = 10 heat, lose half to 5
turn 2 +10 = 15 heat, lose half to 8
turn 3 +10 = 18 heat, lose half to 9
turn 4 +10 = 19 heat, lose half to 10

and it sits at 10. That might work.

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.

I generally try to avoid melee engagements. (This is a personal bias.
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).

--
https://tekeli.li/battletech/
https://tekeli.li/tin-soldier/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@nospam.firedrake.org>:

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.
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 <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Clown shoes. I hope that doesn't bother you.
Today is Saturday, January - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Sunday, January - a weekend.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2018-01-22, David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@nospam.firedrake.org>:

I generally try to avoid melee engagements. (This is a personal bias.
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.

Just checked Total Warfare and it's the same: you can't fire any
weapons on that limb in the same turn as a punch/kick. Not many
classic 'Mechs had leg-mounted weapons; the Crusader is the only one
that comes to mind. (After all, leg space is for heat sinks. Or, if
you're being silly, jump jets.)

--
https://tekeli.li/battletech/
https://tekeli.li/tin-soldier/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@nospam.firedrake.org>:

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.

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 <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Saturday, January - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Sunday, January - a weekend.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2018-01-23, David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@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
is a good example.

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.

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.

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.

(You've done that calculation, right?

https://tekeli.li/battletech/optimech.html

Something that FASA very clearly didn't do. It leads to things like
the "MicroMaster" - take a BattleMaster, drop it to 75 tons, move
around a couple of points of armour so as not to exceed internal
structure limits, and you have a 'Mech that's just as capable but
cheaper by any published balancing system.)

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.

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 design philosophy of the Atlas seems to be that the biggest 'Mech
has to have the biggest of each gun. SRM? 6. LRM? 20. AC? 20. Shame we
can't fit a PPC, never mind.

the Banshee and other "let's go
4/6/0 on a huge 'Mech and have minimal everything" designs

Yeah, slide it down to 85 (or 75) and you get 4.5 tons back.

(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. (Actually, "a whole bunch of the same weapon" was
a remarkably under-explored niche in published designs.)

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.

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 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.)

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".

As I remember it, TR2750 added some funky tech, and TR3050 brought in
lots more of it, but it was completely flavourless compared with the
Succession Wars if you didn't think the Clans were the Most Exciting
Thing Ever. And I didn't.

That old weapon table generated a lot of interesting design choices
and tradeoffs.

--
https://tekeli.li/battletech/
https://tekeli.li/tin-soldier/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@nospam.firedrake.org>:

On 2018-01-23, David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@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
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.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is Saturday, January - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Sunday, January - a weekend.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2018-01-23, David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@nospam.firedrake.org>:

Sure - most of them do a better job. The Wolverine with SRM-6 and AC/5
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).

Yeah, it's a forgettable 'Mech because it doesn't stand out for
anything in particular, but it's a solid slogger.

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...

Oh, sure, in this particular case it's fair enough.

But actually I'm not convinced they have a useful self-defence role
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.

(It should now be clear that when I have a design envelope to explore
I tend to push into the corners.)

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.

Yeah, if you want to keep four big guns that's probably the way to go.

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.

Seems reasonable.

I wonder sometimes what a game would be like if it were designed for
the fluff, with specialised anti-aircraft 'Mechs and so on.

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.

Yeah, an AC/2 does 0.28 damage/weight, while an LRM-20 does 0.72.
(Where "weight" includes the weapon itself plus ten shots of
ammunition, and "damage" includes the cluster hit table effects.) The
extra range isn't worth it against that ratio.

The Stalker gets a lot just by going 3/5/0 - ridiculously overgunned but >that's better than being ridiculously undergunned.

With the overgunned designs, I find the main gameplay is getting into
position to make your one strike-with-everything. With something more
balanced, there's the progressive range-closing duel which I think was
probably the general intent.

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.

Yeah, I guess. A 5/8/0 Scorpion could be somewhere around the 35-40t
range. I tend to use the Scorpion as a mobile sniper so I don't really
want the jump jets, but then I do want that extra speed.

--
https://tekeli.li/battletech/
https://tekeli.li/tin-soldier/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@nospam.firedrake.org>:

On 2018-01-23, David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@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
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.)

I was going to say, what torso bomb, absent CASE any ammunition explosion
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 <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is Gloucesterday, January.
Tomorrow will be Leicesterday, January.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2018-01-25, Roger Bell_West wrote:

1x PPC + 10 heat sinks = 17 tons
2x AC/5 + 2 heat sinks + 20 shots = 20 tons

Correction - 19 tons for the pair of AC/5s with ten shots each. I used
to have that table memorised...

--
https://tekeli.li/battletech/
https://tekeli.li/tin-soldier/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2018-01-25, David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@nospam.firedrake.org>:

But actually I'm not convinced they have a useful self-defence role
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).

If you want to take out an Archer by sending a 'Mech optimised for
close combat to sneak in masked by terrain... four MLs aren't going to
make a lot of difference to that fight.

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.

"If we put armour on the back, it'll just encourage them to get shot
there." (from one of the Living Steel books)

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. (I
still have the dodgy PDF collection they put out on CD-ROM a few years
back.)

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.)

I was going to say, what torso bomb, absent CASE any ammunition explosion
is almost certainly fatal, but I see now you are referring to the chance
of hitting it.

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.)

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.

--
https://tekeli.li/battletech/
https://tekeli.li/tin-soldier/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@nospam.firedrake.org>:

On 2018-01-25, David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@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.

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.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Clown shoes. I hope that doesn't bother you.
Today is Leicesterday, January.
Tomorrow will be Brieday, January.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2018-01-25, David Damerell wrote:

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.

It makes lots of sense and is fairly simple.

I suspect that they had a nifty design which needed more crit spaces,
and changed the rules so that it could work.

(A similar rule change about the beginning of the Clans era was part
of what kicked me out of the game - they decided it was now acceptable
to split a weapon between arm and torso, so you could have an AC/20
and a hand on the same arm.

That and the ER PPCs not having a minimum range.)

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";

Yes, that's fair; not _much_ worse, but worse in every respect except flexibility, and that's just not worth it.

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.

I think sharing heat sinks can make some sense if you have very
diverse engagement ranges - it's pretty rare that you'll want to fire
LRMs and medium lasers at the same time.

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.

I rate the AC/10 as slightly better, if one includes the necessary
heat sinks. But it's pretty close.

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.

Again, including heat sinks and the cluster hits table, the LRM-20 is
best; LRM-15 and -5 are identically efficient, and very nearly as
good; LRM-10 is much worse.

With the SRMs it makes a bit more sense; 6 is more efficient than 4, 4
is more efficient than 2.

https://tekeli.li/battletech/weapeff.html

[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.

Yeah, that invention might take the form of "energy weapons need extra maintenance" or something of that nature.

Well, my first attempt to fix Battletech is in the sig - Tin Soldier
is a ruleset designed to use the existing 'Mech design library, and I
know you've read it because you gave me useful comments on it. But
that does deliberately reuse weapon damage ratings and so on.

If I have another try, I'll probably throw out the 'Mech library, and
build something that runs off the TR3025 fluff. (Because, when I think
about it, nearly all the 'Mechs I actually remember are in there.
Except the Longbow.)

--
https://tekeli.li/battletech/
https://tekeli.li/tin-soldier/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@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?

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.

Again, including heat sinks and the cluster hits table, the LRM-20 is
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 <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is Leicesterday, January.
Tomorrow will be Brieday, January.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2018-01-26, David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@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.

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.

Again, including heat sinks and the cluster hits table, the LRM-20 is
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.

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.

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.

You also get less variance because you're rolling to hit three times
rather than once. Say you're hitting on 6s, with the three -5s the hit
spread is

0: 2%
1: 17%
2: 43%
3: 38%

mean hits is 2.2, variance is 0.6.

With the single -15, counting it as three hits:

0: 28%
3: 72%

mean hits is 2.16, variance is 1.8.

So using the three smaller launchers, you have about half the chance
of hitting with all three 5-shots, but also a much lower chance of
doing no damage at all.

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).

I'm trying to come up with a real-world multi-tube missile system that
can fire multiple salvoes without people attending to it from outside
the armour with winches and things, and I'm not succeeding. So it's
difficult to see what's being modelled, really, and therefore to build
useful analogies.

One might argue that bigger arrays ought to be able to be more
efficiently built, but then again maybe not.

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.

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.

("One ton" doesn't allow for the possibility of ammunition reserves
shared between multiple weapons.)

--
https://tekeli.li/battletech/
https://tekeli.li/tin-soldier/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@nospam.firedrake.org>:

On 2018-01-26, David Damerell wrote:

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+rgm201801@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.

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.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Clown shoes. I hope that doesn't bother you.
Today is Brieday, January.
Tomorrow will be Gouday, January.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)