mikeg
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by mikeg on Apr 17, 2015 9:10:16 GMT -5
Hello Grid folks! Long time Battletech/Mechwarrior/Alpha Strike/Heavy gear/Jovian Chronicles player. Just picked up Mech Attack and love it. Especially the damage system. Plenty of depth but easy to handle. Wish I had gotten this years ago. Played my first game last night and got gutted by my 9 year old. A few questions and I looked but I apologize if this is covered somewhere else.
The weapons ranges seem a little short ala Mechwarrior clix. I was thinking of just doubling them to give more ability to make use of cover (like mechs scrambling through a city) and a wider range of maneuver. Anybody tried this as a HR?
Pilots - Anybody ever fooled around with making pilots? Say 1 BP for +1 to hit, 1 BP for +1 TP? We really like named characters in our running campaigns.
Big fan of pulse lasers. After 1 game (sorry, can't help but want to tinker) was thinking about a 1 BP upgrade. Maybe add +1 to hit and/or a little spread damage. Like -1 to the penetration depth but add a single penetration to an adjoining spot or something. Anyone ever tinker with that?
Jump jets. Need jump jets! Going to try a few of the HRs I saw on those and CCWs.
Looking forward to a bunch of games this weekend!
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Apr 17, 2015 21:40:05 GMT -5
Hello Grid folks! Long time Battletech/Mechwarrior/Alpha Strike/Heavy gear/Jovian Chronicles player. Just picked up Mech Attack and love it. Especially the damage system. Plenty of depth but easy to handle. Wish I had gotten this years ago. Played my first game last night and got gutted by my 9 year old. A few questions and I looked but I apologize if this is covered somewhere else. The weapons ranges seem a little short ala Mechwarrior clix. I was thinking of just doubling them to give more ability to make use of cover (like mechs scrambling through a city) and a wider range of maneuver. Anybody tried this as a HR? Pilots - Anybody ever fooled around with making pilots? Say 1 BP for +1 to hit, 1 BP for +1 TP? We really like named characters in our running campaigns. Big fan of pulse lasers. After 1 game (sorry, can't help but want to tinker) was thinking about a 1 BP upgrade. Maybe add +1 to hit and/or a little spread damage. Like -1 to the penetration depth but add a single penetration to an adjoining spot or something. Anyone ever tinker with that? Jump jets. Need jump jets! Going to try a few of the HRs I saw on those and CCWs. Looking forward to a bunch of games this weekend! Welcome! I'm glad you're enjoying the games. Plenty of depth and simple is exactly what I was going for. Weapon ranges - The goal was to encourage maneuvering to get into range rather than just firing for effect on turn 1. Pilots - Yes, I've been saving that for campaign rules... but they could be easily house-ruled. Pulse Lasers - I wanted to avoid the long lists of weapons you find in other games. I wanted to keep the list short enough that all players would likely be familiar with them. Rather than you telling me you have x-weapon and then I have to go look up x-weapon to see what it does. So a weapon has to be significantly different to warrant a spot on the list. A pulse laser would be too similar to a twin-linked laser or a heavy machine gun, from a game mechanic perspective. Jump Jets / CCWs - Working on it...
|
|
Techpriest
New Member
Looking for players in KC
Posts: 34
|
Post by Techpriest on Apr 18, 2015 9:43:29 GMT -5
We have also talked about the ranges being short. BattleTech weapons tend to have longer range while movement is similar. I do agree this does put an emphasis on movement and tactical thinking which I like. It does make for some odd situations though. My light mech can't hit your infantry with his lasers because they are to far away, but he can run over and step on them. My mech is running straight at you across an empty table and you only get one attack on me before I crash into you. That does not seem right.
I did note in the rulebook the game is intended for a 3'x3' table. We play in a 4'x8' table and that does make a difference.
We are going to try longer ranges next time by adding an extreme range. Extreme Range goes from current max to current max+50%. So lasers will be 6/10/15, missiles will be 3-10/14/21, etc. -2 to Extreme Range. Give you options but reward movement. Will post once we try it out.
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Apr 18, 2015 17:14:33 GMT -5
I'm toying with the idea of using a more simplistic approach to weapon ranges; more akin to Alpha Strike. Rather than short, medium, and long range being defined for each weapon individually... short, medium, and long ranges would be defined globally to be used by every weapon.
For example: Short Range = 6" Medium Range = 12" Long Range = 18"
Weapon stats would be simpler: Laser - S,M Cannon - S,M,L Missile - M,L Machine Gun - S,M
Combat modifiers: Short = None Medium = -1 Long = -2
I think this would greatly reduce the time spent looking up weapon ranges. You could also paint an 18" ruler/stick with green, yellow, and red areas which would make measuring attacks super quick.
The downside is that weapons would lose a tad bit of "individuality". A weapon's range can be used to give that weapon its own unique characteristics. But I think it's worth the gain in speed and simplicity.
Thoughts?
|
|
Techpriest
New Member
Looking for players in KC
Posts: 34
|
Post by Techpriest on Apr 18, 2015 19:35:42 GMT -5
I really like that! As someone that has played Classic BattleTech I think the system is already super-streamlined but am always look for a way to spend more time playing and less time doing math. I am mildly dyslexic and have a hard time keeping numbers straight in my head. Last game was over 2 hours and I double checked the range before every shot because I did not trust myself to remember the range of my few weapons. I really like the fact that all weapons of the same type have the same range.
Since the fastest current vehicles (light mech with engine boost or ultra-light vehicle with engine boost) can move 12 I would like to see more weapons with a range past 12. Currently the only item that can hit a fast mech before he can get next to you are missiles. With the numbers above you solve that problem in my mind as well.
Very eager to see the v2 rules.
|
|
|
Post by sharkbait on Apr 18, 2015 20:51:45 GMT -5
I like the "range bands" idea for weapons. I don't think there's too much loss of individuality; each type still has their own damage profile.
All this new discussion is making me want to play more Mech Attack.
|
|
mikeg
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by mikeg on Apr 20, 2015 9:17:49 GMT -5
I definitely get the point about the ranges forcing you to maneuver. I guess it has to with scale and feeling weird when your 3 inch mech can't shoot much further than it is tall. I'll get used to it. I think the range bands might work better here than Alpha Strike because of the damage profiles keep the individual flavor. I like how a missile can't fire short too. I think i'd like to see lasers, at least the heavy, shoot a little further but it's not a huge deal. Would an extreme missile range out to 24" at -3 or even -4 to hit be too unbalanced? That way it has three effective range bands also. Just a thought. Gotta keep those fire support mech jocks happy.
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Apr 20, 2015 16:49:31 GMT -5
The 6/12/18 global ranges are negotiable; I'm open to suggestions. Maybe 12/18/24? At those ranges, I feel like I would need to open up the RGMS to 36"... That's some good reach, but it's balanced out by the fact that missiles couldn't be fired within 12". So if you're going to stack a unit for maximum long-range firepower, you better not let them get close.
|
|
Techpriest
New Member
Looking for players in KC
Posts: 34
|
Post by Techpriest on Apr 22, 2015 19:25:44 GMT -5
I really like the idea of leaving S.M.L as variables. Playing a 4 player arena gladiator game on a 3x3 table it can stand for 4,8,12. Playing an epic battle on a 4x8 table it can stand for 6,12,18 or 8,16,24. Don't like that, at your house it might mean 12,24,36, or 12,18,24 or whatever you want. Have a couple sets of marked sticks and just grab the proper ones for that game.
I am working on making laminated mech sheets to use with wet erase markers. I like the idea of just having one set of cards that will work with any range numbers we choose.
I would recommend the numbers be evenly spaced for the simple reason that it lets you measure from either end of the stick, but play your game your way. I picked up a .5"x36" square wooden rod. I plan to make two 18" sticks marked at the 6" and 12" spots. I will paint the whole thing white then paint the middle 6" some other color (see what I have in the garage). We will use them this weekend and report back.
I noticed that missiles can only fire M,L but M is -1 and L is -2, so there is no way to fire missiles without a penalty. Not sure I love that. First range band of weapon is no mod, second range band is -1, third range band is -2? So in the Medium range band lasers get -1 but missiles have no penalty.
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Apr 23, 2015 20:16:59 GMT -5
I really like the idea of leaving S.M.L as variables. Playing a 4 player arena gladiator game on a 3x3 table it can stand for 4,8,12. Playing an epic battle on a 4x8 table it can stand for 6,12,18 or 8,16,24. Don't like that, at your house it might mean 12,24,36, or 12,18,24 or whatever you want. Have a couple sets of marked sticks and just grab the proper ones for that game. Excellent point... What if Missile were S/M/L... and had a minimum arming distance equal to half of the S scale. So if the scale you're using has short range at 6", the minimum arming distance for missiles would be 3". That would resolve the S/M/L modifier anomaly and retain the logic of missiles not being good for shooting up close. Or it could be that missiles are just inherently inaccurate... hence the -1/-2 modifiers.
|
|
|
Post by Mike H "Chugosh" on Apr 25, 2015 22:14:28 GMT -5
Does that mean we get back to the anime style of swarms of missiles like Battletech tried so brokenly to use? (I'm sorry, most of those things could not possibly hold more than one shot of their full missile batteries and the conservation of space has bugged me ever since I figured it out twenty years ago. Even the DA models I'm fixing up bug me for that same reason.)
I like the idea of the range bands, and I would keep the missiles at the M&L bands with the accompanying shot penalties, but you could get around those by having a spotter with RGMS up close and fire from up to twice long at close odds. Add in indirect fire if the spotter is LOS and you have a killer tactic built into the game that is not very unrealistic at all. Especially if we figure out how to parachute guys into enemy territory within the rules.
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Apr 26, 2015 12:04:54 GMT -5
Does that mean we get back to the anime style of swarms of missiles like Battletech tried so brokenly to use? (I'm sorry, most of those things could not possibly hold more than one shot of their full missile batteries and the conservation of space has bugged me ever since I figured it out twenty years ago. Even the DA models I'm fixing up bug me for that same reason.) I like the idea of the range bands, and I would keep the missiles at the M&L bands with the accompanying shot penalties, but you could get around those by having a spotter with RGMS up close and fire from up to twice long at close odds. Add in indirect fire if the spotter is LOS and you have a killer tactic built into the game that is not very unrealistic at all. Especially if we figure out how to parachute guys into enemy territory within the rules. Swarms - I liked the look of the Robotech missile swarms... but like you said, they are just not practical if you need to fire more than once. I like to think of them as pods of missiles that fire one missile at a time; so if your pod shows 6 missiles, you can fire it six times if you're using expendable ammo rules. Range Bands - I'm leaning toward leaving missiles at M/L with the -1/-2 modifiers... just to encourage the type of combined arms strategy you suggested. Parachute? - Umm no, any buffoon can fall out of an airplane; it takes skill to ride a rope to the ground. Air Assault! Seriously though, I do have ideas for something along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by Mike H "Chugosh" on Apr 26, 2015 21:33:55 GMT -5
Sweet! I forgot about air cav assaults. That would be an epic turn in a game.
|
|
Techpriest
New Member
Looking for players in KC
Posts: 34
|
Post by Techpriest on Apr 26, 2015 23:09:15 GMT -5
We played tonight using the SML measuring stick. Short=6", Medium=12", Long=18". I took an 18"x.25" square rod and painted it white. I then painted the middle 6" yellow. We played that Missiles had a min of 1/2 Short so I put a dot there. For simplicity sake I am on-board with missiles getting M,L. My opponent agreed that SML was easier than 6/10, 8/12, 3-10/14. I really liked how the SML stick made the game go smoother. I had not realized before we played that it would happen, but all weapons now have the same to-hit. Previous game if the target was 7" away and I was shooting with a laser and a machine gun I might need a 5 to hit with the laser and 4 with the machine gun. With SML everything needs the same roll at any given distance. Makes it easier still, I really liked that part. My opponent noted that it does reduce the diversity of the weapons and makes some less useful. Cannon and missile now have same max, and missile has a larger minimum. This just tipped the scaled in favor of the cannon by a noticeable margin in my mind. Missiles are 1 point cheaper and can do RGMS. The missile has a wider damage but the cannon goes deeper. I am thinking the no minimum range and deeper armor penetration are well worth the point. We both agreed that unless we were trying to use RGMS we would not be taking missiles anymore. I am thinking the cannon should generate 2 heat to offest it's other advantages if using the SML system and give players a reason to choose missiles again. In S,M weapons machine gun lost a little range to the laser. They cost the same points, laser has penetration but the machine gun has less heat. I have always thought that if I was making the next rule book I would add an extra dot of damage or two to the machine gun, or raise lasers by 1 BP each. I think the penetration is well worth the heat, going to SML just nudged the scale a bit more in the laser's favor in my mind. I rarely took machine guns before, and with SML it will be even more rare. For RGMS we declared that friendly units up to 2xL can fire. Overall we felt the improvements out-weighed the problems so we plan to use it next game as well. WP_20150426_003 by techpriest_ks, on Flickr
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Apr 27, 2015 19:42:07 GMT -5
We played tonight using the SML measuring stick. Short=6", Medium=12", Long=18". I took an 18"x.25" square rod and painted it white. I then painted the middle 6" yellow. We played that Missiles had a min of 1/2 Short so I put a dot there. For simplicity sake I am on-board with missiles getting M,L. My opponent agreed that SML was easier than 6/10, 8/12, 3-10/14. I really liked how the SML stick made the game go smoother. I had not realized before we played that it would happen, but all weapons now have the same to-hit. Previous game if the target was 7" away and I was shooting with a laser and a machine gun I might need a 5 to hit with the laser and 4 with the machine gun. With SML everything needs the same roll at any given distance. Makes it easier still, I really liked that part. My opponent noted that it does reduce the diversity of the weapons and makes some less useful. Cannon and missile now have same max, and missile has a larger minimum. This just tipped the scaled in favor of the cannon by a noticeable margin in my mind. Missiles are 1 point cheaper and can do RGMS. The missile has a wider damage but the cannon goes deeper. I am thinking the no minimum range and deeper armor penetration are well worth the point. We both agreed that unless we were trying to use RGMS we would not be taking missiles anymore. I am thinking the cannon should generate 2 heat to offest it's other advantages if using the SML system and give players a reason to choose missiles again. In S,M weapons machine gun lost a little range to the laser. They cost the same points, laser has penetration but the machine gun has less heat. I have always thought that if I was making the next rule book I would add an extra dot of damage or two to the machine gun, or raise lasers by 1 BP each. I think the penetration is well worth the heat, going to SML just nudged the scale a bit more in the laser's favor in my mind. I rarely took machine guns before, and with SML it will be even more rare. For RGMS we declared that friendly units up to 2xL can fire. Overall we felt the improvements out-weighed the problems so we plan to use it next game as well. Thanks for the feedback. I'm glad the SML idea is working. I like the 2xL for RGMS, it works regardless of what scale you choose to use for SML. Having weapons with different to-hit numbers didn't really bring anything to the game. Like you said, it really only gave some variety in the stats/fluff of the weapons at the cost of slowing game play. I just need to find ways to provide variety without slowing game play... but that's not my primary goal. My primary goal, as far as weapons are concerned, was to provide a system where a weapon's perceived value varies depending on the situation. For example, lasers are great early game when you are trying to dig holes into a Mech's Critical Systems Area, but once you have that hole Machine Guns become more valuable because they give you multiple chances at triggering crit rolls when you hit the Critical Systems Area. Missiles - Long Range. RGMS can double their range. Potential for armor blow out. Only weapon system that can target aircraft at High level...(wink). I think they're worth taking... Machine Guns - Machine guns shine late game when you need to generate crit rolls... and they're cheap... but maybe they need more early game incentive. Try playing them with +1 damage like you suggested and let me know how you like it.
|
|