|
|
|
Mordel's Bar & Grill |
|
  |
» |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Vampire
Free Worlds League
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 912
Location: Spain
|
 Posted: 16-Mar-2002 11:34 Post subject: Alternate Damage System: some comments |
  |
|
http://rt000pui.eresmas.net/Battletech/Rules_revision/VampDmgSys.html
Vagabond and probably other people had some questions about it. I finally got around to post a reply.
First, an overview of the system:
The system simulates that there's a stalemate in the Battletech battlefield, destructive ability and protection are precariously balanced.
Long range slugging matches will result in most shots bouncing off harmlessly of the targets armor, with little actual damage. But the armor will wear down eventually, weakening until it reaches a threshold when a hit powerful enough will crumble it to pieces and pierce through to cause internal damage. If your 'Mech (or tank or whatever) has enough armor, you'll enjoy invulnerability to weapons whose piercing ability is below your armor level..for a time, once your armor starts wearing down, it goes downhill very fast.
The trick is to know when to pull out before your armor is weakened to dangerous levels. Replacing armor plates is far less costly that risking internal damage.
So actual destruction of Battlemechs is rare, except for the occasional lucky shot, the aim is to neutralize the enemy and force him to disengage. It's the best that can be achieved with the limited means available. A 'Mech that is forced to leave the battlefield and prevented from accomplishing its mission is as good as destroyed. The focus is more in achieving the mission than destruction of the enemy.
I have tried to make a system that reflects accurately the unique conditions of the Battletech universe. These premises are:
1) Weapon technology is stagnant. There's no arms race that alters the balance between "spear and shield". Wars are fought with the
same weapons as centuries ago, and they have worsened instead of improving, due to the technological decay.
2) With dwindling resources, destruction is avoided whenever possible. Instead of WWII battles, where tanks where "expended" like so many ammunition rounds, commanders are forced to preserve their precious and unreplaceable Battlemechs (and other equipment), and a battle is won when one side has got enough punishment and decides to cut its losses and retreat rather than be destroyed. The concept of limited warfare has far reaching implications other than pure battlefield ones, and means that Battlemech combats are more like knightly jousts than WWII tank battles.
3) As a consequence of all this, I think the system simulates adequately how a good number of Battlemechs have managed to survive through centuries of warfare. Don't expose yourself to fire too much, and the resilience of your 'Mech will allow it to be repaired time and again and handed down to your heir.
Now onto the rationale behind the rule mechanics:
>ok. only one problem with you damage system.
Don't think I didn't notice it  It's a unforeseen consequence of the way the math was done, but it makes sense in an odd sort of way. Read on.
>if a Gauss cannon hits a armor location with
>14pts. it would do 1 damage, correct?.
Correct.
>if a Gauss cannon hits a armor location with
>15pts, it would do 3 damage, correct?.
correct. simple enough, isn't it?
>so where's the level damage ratio there?.
>all weapons should do a minimum amount of
>damage weapons normal damage / 5 = min damage
If you like it more that way, make it so, it will give you a more proggresive scale of damage and will make it a little more destructive.
Actually, what happens is that an oblique shot that glances off armor (penetration <= armor) is going to make a large dent on it. It'll not breach the armor, but it will make a furrow on it.
I've based this on photos of tank damage. Shots that pierce the armor, tend to punch neat, little holes, the havoc they wreak inside the tank is hardly apparent viewed from the outside.
One particular graphic example is a photo of a King Tiger tank that was hit on the front hull by a sabot round from a 6-pounder (IIRC)
antitank gun. The round was too light to penetrate the thick glacis, but it dug a large furrow on the armor.
You get the idea, some shots that are bounced off will cause a lot of superficial damage over a wide area, while a shot that barely manages to pierce the entire armor thickness just drills a deep hole small in diameter.
Something similar happens with energy beams, I'm not going to elaborate on this because I want to wrap it up by now.
In conclusion, this game mechanics quirk not only makes sense from a physical standpoint, but also adds a bit more of uncertainty to the system. Remember, the whole point of the system is to resume in an abstract die roll all the variables that came into play in "terminal ballistics", rather that a fixed, linear, proggresive damage scale but unrealistic.
_________________
Memento audare semper
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
Cadet
ComStar
Lieutenant, SG
Joined: 17-Mar-2002 00:00
Posts: 495
|
| Posted: 19-Jul-2002 16:41 Post subject: Alternate Damage System: some comments |
|
|
What bugs me is that in the current system, there really is no penetration of armor at all. It just gets knocked off in blocks until it is all gone and THEN stuff goes internal.
I really like the Renegade Tech version.
_________________
I'm not family friendly. That's why I don't post here.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 19-Jul-2002 18:42 Post subject: Alternate Damage System: some comments |
|
|
Well Vamp, I've looked over your system several times now. I think its safe to say that you and I have completely different desires for what we want the game to be like.
Although I haven't played with your system, just running the numbers it looks like it mostly accomplishes what you want it to do. One problem, though, might be that at short range the damage multiplier really increases the discrepancy between small and large weapons. For example, to a medium mech or lighter heavy mech an AC/20 goes from a "pretty bad" weapon to a "potentially devastating" weapon. This system definitely favors the big guns.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
» |
All times are GMT-04:00 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
