Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
The Third Imperium is not Traveller
I had Marc Remillard in a 2300-ish setting using Traveller 2d6 rules, I definitely have the notes for him and Denis somewhere.
Denis makes Marc pre-Lylmik look like a chirper
Ion Spinal Mount
- Thread starter MasterGwydion
- Start date
I had Marc Remillard in a 2300-ish setting using Traveller 2d6 rules, I definitely have the notes for him and Denis somewhere.
Denis makes Marc pre-Lylmik look like a chirper
Limpin Legin
Emperor Mongoose
Reminds me of Steve Jackson's Car Wars, which was published decades before BattleTech. The mechanic you are describing is more like an improvised bludgeoning cudgel rather than a cutting sword action. Sure, you can brain storm the idea and pimp your Mech with such an add-on , but would it be "worth the cost" (like you say)?
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
That depends on the game mechanic. In BattleTech, if your mech is designed for close range weapons, or has the speed to run up behind a bigger mech, then a melee weapon can make a lot of sense. Head armor is limited, and the difference between a medium laser at point blank range and a mech melee weapon is that the laser hits the enemy head on a 2d6 roll of 12. 1 in 36. The hatchet/mace/sword/severed mech leg? 1 in 6. Plus head hits give a pilot critical chance.
RING that bell.
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
Yeah... that needs gravitics and a robot brain to keep the user from flying off somewhere (most likely while spinning in circles) on a miss.
Limpin Legin
Emperor Mongoose
Yes, I have played BattleTech on two to three occasions, and discussed the game beyond that. When we played we used pre-defined mechs, to save time over creating our own. Our pre-defined Mechs had lots of weapons each with different range capabilities and, as I recall, some weapons, like missiles, don't work at close range, but other weapons, such as machine guns, only work at close range.
So, I can see the tactical logic of your argument. However, the rules we played, hit location was determined by a table known as an "Armour Diagram" on the targets Record Sheet. Nothing to do with attackers proximity to the Head, or attackers choice of weapon. But there were optional rules that we did not investigate, including heat build-up. Maybe you are referring to an optional rule?
None of our pre-defined Mechs had melee weapons, but, now you mention it, I can see that melee weapons are allowable in BattleTech. According to sarna.net, certain melee weapons have advantage of being better damage than a punch and don't incur heat build-up. And that makes sense to me. But it doesn't go on to say how a Mech, armed with a sword or a hatchet, can inflict cutting or slashing damage (?) on another Mech, which is the point of my comment that these additions are no more than improvised cudgels.
BattleTech Mechs are a bit like Combat Walkers in 2300AD in that they provide a pilot with a piece of armour on legs, equipped out with weapons
. However, 2300AD's Combat Walkers do not appear to have melee weapons of any kind. This is sensible, in my mind, considering the size and tonnage of the opponents armour.Nah, the idea is if you hit vehicle armour with a wrecking ball, that's a lot of bludgeoning damage, but it's spread out over a large area (exactly like a club against plate mail).
If you can refine your club to have a cutting edge, then all that force is being imparted at one spot, and is therefore more effective at penetrating the armour [although some armours will be designed to deflect these, just as some plate is highly effective against cutting/slashing weaponry, but that's usually a trade off that makes you more vulnerable to bludgeoning].
When a 100 ton mech hits another mech, with a sword that weighs 10-20 tons (including all the necessary controls to be able to wield it as accurately as a sword).. yeah, it's going to be effective.
Of course, that's a MASSIVE investment that can't do anything if you can't get to your opponent.
And, most times, the opinion is that even if you think the investment in a melee weapon is worth it (it usually isnt), the additional cost to invest in a sword instead of club is still in itself usually not worth it. It still does have all the advantages of a sword, but due to the nature of mech and vehicle armour in general, and the fact that vehicles typically want to protect against projectile fire in the first place (extreme force to pinpoint location), the occasions when a sword is a noticeable improvement over a club are few and far between (but are also effective for non combat situations where cutting up a vehicle would be helpful, like cutting a civilian vehicle apart that's been in an accident), and so the cost investment is doubly not worth it.
If you can refine your club to have a cutting edge, then all that force is being imparted at one spot, and is therefore more effective at penetrating the armour [although some armours will be designed to deflect these, just as some plate is highly effective against cutting/slashing weaponry, but that's usually a trade off that makes you more vulnerable to bludgeoning].
When a 100 ton mech hits another mech, with a sword that weighs 10-20 tons (including all the necessary controls to be able to wield it as accurately as a sword).. yeah, it's going to be effective.
Of course, that's a MASSIVE investment that can't do anything if you can't get to your opponent.
And, most times, the opinion is that even if you think the investment in a melee weapon is worth it (it usually isnt), the additional cost to invest in a sword instead of club is still in itself usually not worth it. It still does have all the advantages of a sword, but due to the nature of mech and vehicle armour in general, and the fact that vehicles typically want to protect against projectile fire in the first place (extreme force to pinpoint location), the occasions when a sword is a noticeable improvement over a club are few and far between (but are also effective for non combat situations where cutting up a vehicle would be helpful, like cutting a civilian vehicle apart that's been in an accident), and so the cost investment is doubly not worth it.
JustEastOfTheEdge
Cosmic Mongoose
Pointless arguments seem to scale indefinitely.
Limpin Legin
Emperor Mongoose
Well, that is how a centre punch works, and that only dents the surface of metal or wood, not penetrates it. Swords and hatchets work by shearing, shaving or slicing through the material. Not so easy when dealing with tough and ductile material such as metal armour. See formulas for toughness and ductility in metallurgy :
Toughness - Wikipedia
Ductility - Wikipedia
In practice, the opposite would likely happen; the thin sword blade would eventually buckle or fracture as it impacts the larger surface of armour, which could distribute the force of a blow over a larger surface.
Plus, an average male adult (83kg) can use an average sword (0.9kg) as it is only 0.12% of his entire body weight. A 100 ton mech using a 20 ton "sword" would be 20% of the Mech's weight - massive difference. Would likely fall over or stagger unsteadily under the shear centrifugal weight, before anything useful was struck.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
If you could get up close and personal with a mech, a battle axe is cheap and doesn't use up ammunition.
Also, part of my favourite pastime, cutrate cutthroat loadouts.
Also, part of my favourite pastime, cutrate cutthroat loadouts.
Limpin Legin
Emperor Mongoose
Hope that your Mechs make it back home after a days battle.
Personally, I'd rather keep a wine rack and a cool box inside my Mechs, just in case that niche Carouse-1 skill is needed
.Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
J. L. Brown
Emperor Mongoose
Yes, I have played BattleTech on two to three occasions, and discussed the game beyond that. When we played we used pre-defined mechs, to save time over creating our own. Our pre-defined Mechs had lots of weapons each with different range capabilities and, as I recall, some weapons, like missiles, don't work at close range, but other weapons, such as machine guns, only work at close range.
So, I can see the tactical logic of your argument. However, the rules we played, hit location was determined by a table known as an "Armour Diagram" on the targets Record Sheet. Nothing to do with attackers proximity to the Head, or attackers choice of weapon. But there were optional rules that we did not investigate, including heat build-up. Maybe you are referring to an optional rule?
None of our pre-defined Mechs had melee weapons, but, now you mention it, I can see that melee weapons are allowable in BattleTech. According to sarna.net, certain melee weapons have advantage of being better damage than a punch and don't incur heat build-up. And that makes sense to me. But it doesn't go on to say how a Mech, armed with a sword or a hatchet, can inflict cutting or slashing damage (?) on another Mech, which is the point of my comment that these additions are no more than improvised cudgels.
BattleTech Mechs are a bit like Combat Walkers in 2300AD in that they provide a pilot with a piece of armour on legs, equipped out with weapons
Melee attacks date back to the FASA BattleDroids ruleset; they have been a part of BattleTech since the very beginning. So has heat build-up; and it melts my brain a little bit that you treated heat as 'optional' -- it is a huge balancing factor between weapons and 'mechs, and a large driver of tactics in the game.
Ranged attacks are allocated (based on which side of the enemy you are facing) with 2d6, as you said -- with the exception of a 'mech taking partial cover behind elevation... but we will skip that for now. Melee attacks are allocated differently; punches basically never hit feet, so they are allocated with a single d6 roll on the 'punch table'; kicks never hit the head, so they are allocated with a d6 roll on the 'Kick table' (basically just 'did you hit the right leg or the left leg'). Death-From-Above attacks hit on the punch table; kicking a 'mech at a lower elevation uses the punch table; walking over landmines and ramming attacks by vehicles use the kick table, and etc.
And I would certainly be interested in a spinal-scale Ion weapon mount. And Laser (both beam & pulse) Bays of all sizes.
Limpin Legin
Emperor Mongoose
Thanks for the clarification. That makes complete sense. Still, I am unconvinced slashing and slicing will do anything against Mechs, simply because of the known Toughness and Ductility of metal.
Anyway, we were discussing scalability as a justification for the OP, and that discussion is getting somewhat off topic away from the OP. Maybe discuss it on a new thread, or something.
Oh, yes I completely understand how heat could and should impact more powerful weapons. However the rule does appear as an option in BattleTech and the group I was with were (mostly) complete novices. Even the GM was having a bit of a meltdown in trying to disseminate the rules to the players. So, all in all, it worked out better for the local group dynamic to acknowledge it and then exclude it. If we eventually get round to doing a campaign, it has been mooted to include those rules as well. It is not even a Mongoose game so don't particularly want to discuss this further here. Thanks for the input, anyway.
Cheers. That's the OP question.
A spinal-mount Ion cannon has the capacity to be like the ion cannon on Hoth in Empire Strikes back - a large, but not overly large cannon managed to disable an Imperial Star Destroyer with two hits. However for a weapon to have such destabilizing capacity would automatically guarantee some sort of defense against it. Otherwise the Empire would have either crushed the rebellion or vice versa with ships equipped exclusively with the weapon. SW played fast and loose with a lot of those concepts - no ship would suddenly go out of control and start "falling" from loss of power (nor would a SSD turn into a sword of Damoclese and impale the station below. It looks cool in video and sounds cool on the written page in a book - but translating into a game that's supposed to model things somewhat realistically... well, you get the idea.
Otherwise this weapon would be (almost) like a wave-motion gun from Star Blazers. It would simply dominate the field whenever used.
Otherwise this weapon would be (almost) like a wave-motion gun from Star Blazers. It would simply dominate the field whenever used.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Clone Wars.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
More that effect of a spinal mounted ion cannon would be rather dramatic.
Arkathan
Emperor Mongoose
One thing about an ion cannon as a spinal weapon.
Cost is generally irrelevant among capital ships.
If Ion mounts are a thing, EM hardening would become ubiquitous, rendering the VERY expensive spinal mount useless.
A PA mount that irradiates the crew, leaving a floating hulk that can be salvaged for intel and tech if it doesn't obliterate the target, would be a safer and more well rounded use of space and resources.
Now, I love the ion cannons, and made a patrol leader with a bay cannon as a mini-mount that took my players several hours of game time to neutralize. They were sweating bullets, because it was also well armored, but fortunately their power plant is oversized, so they rarely had to do more than reduce speed every few of turns due to critical hits on power... which because the thrust was going into evasion made them easier to hit.
Cost is generally irrelevant among capital ships.
If Ion mounts are a thing, EM hardening would become ubiquitous, rendering the VERY expensive spinal mount useless.
A PA mount that irradiates the crew, leaving a floating hulk that can be salvaged for intel and tech if it doesn't obliterate the target, would be a safer and more well rounded use of space and resources.
Now, I love the ion cannons, and made a patrol leader with a bay cannon as a mini-mount that took my players several hours of game time to neutralize. They were sweating bullets, because it was also well armored, but fortunately their power plant is oversized, so they rarely had to do more than reduce speed every few of turns due to critical hits on power... which because the thrust was going into evasion made them easier to hit.
