NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/games/mecha/723

Text File | 1992-12-25 | 9.3 KB | 181 lines

Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Path: sparky!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!kgnome
From: [e-mail] (MATIS stephane)
Subject: Re: Vehicle rules and munchkinism (was Re: high-speed hovertanks REDUX!)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: rose.cs.concordia.ca
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:34:20 GMT
Lines: 168

From: [e-mail] (Andrei Cogan)

    > <sigh> This new rules seems to be another attempt by FA$A to
> munchinize the game. Prior to the coming of the clans, mek design was a
> great deal more complex than merely "max speed the speed, max the armour,
> and load up on MPL's and targeting computers." Back when all we had was 3025
> tek, I played mixed-unit battles, and realized that although vehicles had a
> lot of value as fire-support and recon, the main battling went to the meks
> (although don't tell that to the Shreck PPC carrier drivers...)

    They still do. I don;t see what your problem is ... the only
vehicle that ever had a big chance in BattleTech was the hovecarft.
Note, Star League units HAD neurlhelmets for all fighting forces. Now,
we don't.


    > With the arrival of clan tek, vehicles suddenly gained a great deal
> more value, basically as extensions of the two main IS anti-clan tactics
> (paste 'em at short range or run-run-run). Vehicles were more useful, as
> they had a LOT more speed than meks, and could also stack on obscene amounts
> of armor relative to meks their weight. Unfortunately, this has also led to
> much greater use of vehicles than in pre-Clan days (at least in my
> experience).

    Ok, so the rules are rather rough ... life is also. No more
"Packing" a poor 'Mech with two dozen vehicles, firing widly and then
running. Now you have to use 'Mechs, like they did in the 4th Succession
War. Delta Batallion mean anything to you ?

    > This new rule, however, makes vehicles much more useless. The
> arrival of Clan mek designs has led to a 'bigger is better' approach towards
> IS mek design. Vehicle tactics remained basically the same as before, other
> than the fact that its use has become more common. Now, under the new rules,
> vehicle design is doomed to follow the same top-heavy path of its mecha
> cousins. I understand that this game is called BattleTECH, and not Tank
> Wars. However, this rule is doomed to lead to even greater munchinization of
> the game.

    Other than RCTs, I haven't read many usage of tanks in the Inner
Sphere. They may contain a lot of them in Militia units and planetary
guards ... but pure combat forces are mostlly 'mechs.

    > Mixed-unit tactics are suddenly going to become much different, at
> least on the small scale. In using small (lance-on-lance) battles, vehicles
> of ANY kind other than the heavily-armored behemoths are going to become
> largely useless. I've fought Clan star-vs.-1 heavy mek lance and two medium
> cavalry vehicle lance combats, and three times out of 4, I could (as IS)
> take out the Clans. Under the new rules, any battles involving small numbers
> of vehicles are bound to lead to the death of the vehicles -- their
> maneuverability advantage is nullified, as suddenly that great feint that
> drew two of the five omnis off is pointless when the omnis can choose to
> respond or ignore it at will now -- the only benefit that the vehicles now
> have is the +3 movement bonus, which is in any case nullified thru the use
> of MPL's and LPL's.

    Well then, you have a problem. You can use good long range
vehicles, like the English Bowman, and fight with them a runnign battle.
Or you can use a quick dart-in-and-out with Saladins, once you know that
the enemy WILL HAVE TO engage your 'Mechs. That way, even if the
vehicles move first, they will have the chance to do damage.

    Note, to ballance this, the vehicle to-hit sheet might me
modified and the rules for fire and inferno also. I'll keep you posted.

> die-rolling, and very little use of tactics.
>
> >Hmmm...
> >
> >WHAT IF (aiii! not the dreaded whatif!!) you mounted something in a
> >vehicle similar to the Rigger Controls in ShadowRun, or perhaps a Virtual
> >Reality control suit for the pilot. It is technologically feasible for the
> >IS (the can build 100-ton stomping battle machines. and you're telling me
> >they can't build VR?!) and the system needn't be as complex as the
> >neurohelmet, since it doesn't have to do the stuff with the myomers. It
> >would give the pilots every bit as good a reaction as the 'warriors.
> >
> >Of course, it would be more expensive, and possible (probably) more
> >massive than the current controls, meaning that the current style of
> >suicide vehicles wouldn't work in a cost-based system, and tonnage-based
> >vehicles would be less kick-rear.
>
    > FA$A's rationale, that meks gain the TREMENDOUS movement advantage
> due to their use of neurohelmets is a load of crock! Look thru any of the
> TR's -- MechWarrior, 1st Ed. mentions the use of neurohelmets in speeders,
> TR 3025 uses them in Swift Wind scout car, the Warrior Attack chopper in TR
> 3026 mentions the use of something similar, and, in fact, the speeder
> helmets are said to be direct substitutes for mek neurohelmets at times!

    Ok. I had enough of this SCREAMING. What FASA (or FA$A accroding
to our fiend here) wanted to better simulate is the instant reaction and
movement that a neurlhelmet offers. This means that a 'Mech can sideskip
an incoming hit, move with more grace ... etc ...

    Mechforce members complained that vehicles were ALWAYS used by
either side as "last to commit" and it disrupted the ballance of the
games by a lot. With this new rule, there is now such problem. BTW, I
excuse if "seem" to be screaming .. I'm just "stressing". Note, if you
don't like it ... don't use it. It is a free market!

    > The VR systems available to the IS are fairly primitive, true (the
> only real use of them is holotables and Anastasius Focht's little setup on
> Tukayid (sp?). The one mentioned in Outbound is a special case, but
> basically, what it boils down to is that vehicles CAN and SHOULD have the
> same response times as meks.

    Sorry, read what's before. Vehicles can though of as crewd as
WWII all the way to today and the some. Some of the ICE based tanks are
little more than armored deathtraps witha gun of some sort. No high tech
there I'm afraid.

    > The only way vehicles can survive under the new system so have
> super-Demolishers and super-Shrecks -- which leads to a great deal of
> munchin, large-scale, die-rolling extravaganzas.

    To slow... unless used a "slow-moving installation". I'll drop
arty or bomb them. Sorry, but useless.

    > This is perhaps my biggest gripe of the new regime, as evidenced in
> (a) the new tech and (b) the new rules -- good tactical decisions are
> increasingly being replaced by indiscriminate die rolling (no more use of
> terrain for much cover, as they can get you at 20 hexes with a -3
> modifier...) Now, mind you, I LIKE and USE the clans fairly frequently, and
> they have forced me to change tactics to incorporate more vehicles.
    > This leads me to one of two alternatives: (1) Play under all the new
> rules, and lose a LOT more meks and a LOT more vehicles, or (2) ignore the
> new vehicle rules and make mixed-unit combat more interesting and enjoyable.
> This is something that I as a fairly experienced player can do, but I worry
> for new players who come in and realize that their only real hope in
> relatively flat terrain is to load up on those 80+ ton tank and mech
> behemoths, and for myself in case I ever come up against a tournament
> situation, although in 7 years of playing, I have yet to attend one :(

    Follow your on advice. Also, my only gripe would be that 'Mech
are TOO slow. Not that it matters, but vehicles shouldn't have become so
"hot" to begin with. Point in fact, I used 5 Bandit Hovertanks to
destroy 2.5 Battalions of heavy 'Mechs, because they always moved last,
and the enemy had (HAD) to contend with my 'Mechs. That routine will
need a small revision, but that's all.


> >JT
> >
> >--
> >   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
> >     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
> >        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
> >           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
>
    > -Andrei
>
> Tai-i Pendo Matsuura of Ghost-ni
> Private Blantleff of the 21st Centauri Lancers on the MUSE
>
>
   > Andrei Cogan ([e-mail])   |||    When in doubt, panic.
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you think it will take,       |
> |   even if you take into account Hofstadter's Law.                           |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> |                "Be kind to your brain cells, I say" - Joe B.                |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+


+---------------------------------+   ___     ___       ___
| Stephane I. Matis               |  /   \_BATLLETECH  /\__\ Viva NeXT!
| E-Mail : [e-mail] |  \___/   \___/     \/__/ NeXTSTEP 3.0!
| "It Just Works..." - Steve Jobs |      \___/
+---------------------------------+       Wolfnet Operative & NeXThead