Post by caltino on May 31, 2015 13:56:49 GMT -5
I feel like I am going to flood the boards, because I have a lot of interest in the game and many questions/ideas. I'm trying to hold back, but this one is important.
In another thread Dagger said:
"I just made a decision early on in the design process to take more of an "abstract" approach to representing Mech armor. I wanted the game to play faster and be less of a simulation and more of a strategic/tactical exercise.
[snip]
Once I got into deciding how many columns to assign to arms, legs, and front/rear torso... and saw that it really needed locational critical hit tables (instead of just one)... I decided it was too cumbersome and not in line with the direction I wanted to go. It would be a nice optional/house rule though..."
I am going to guess that for a lot of people coming to this system, the abstraction of locational critical damage is difficult. It certainly is for me. The row for the critical damage doesn't correspond to the columns above it. You punch through column 6, roll for critical, get a 1- what does that mean? You didn't really damage spot 1 in the critical systems row, did you? You hit spot 6 on the mech, and it produced result #1.
Let's say the critical damages the arm. If you hit column 6 again, you damage something else, maybe left arm. Hitting the same spot again causes completely different effects.
After providing such a clear physical outline in the armor grid, the departure is jarring.
Now, my question- in the post above, Dagger said "Once I got into deciding how many columns to assign to arms, legs, and front/rear torso... and saw that it really needed locational critical hit tables (instead of just one)..." I am not sure I understand this. Why would you need several critical tables, one for each area? If you did assign columns to arms, etc, and that element is hit, why not use the same critical table results we already have? Hardpoints are destroyed, systems equipment (move, heat sink) reduced to 1, everything else causes fuel cell explosions. That's it.
I respect the decision not to allow targeting- the hit location is random and that's a design choice. And if you don't allow targeting, the locations don't matter. You hit spots randomly anyway so what difference does it make if you know where the arms or the heat sink are. But a lot of suggested house rules are about managing hit locations. If not outright picking columns, at least shifting hits around. And these are interesting. There's room for creativity here in auxiliary equipment or weapons. If critical hit locations could be deterministic with little additional complexity it may be worth considering.
One impact it might have is in killing mechs- since you would no longer be able to hit the same exposed armor spot for multiple critical hits, it require continuing to damage various armor columns. That may make it harder than punching one hole with lasers than repeatedly trying to hit the same spot with machine guns. I say it might make it harder, because it might not- since currently hit location is random, it's hard to punch a hole. It's based on luck and this is another issue with the game: A mech may just go down with a few hits if the rolls are lucky- laser hits a column twice, then you roll a 9 or a 10 on the critical hit table. Or hits may be all over the place and a mech may stand after 10-15 hits. The deterministic critical system locations would take away this swingy nature. (Or not, a rule could easily say multiple critical hits to the same spot will cause big explosions, after the system hit is destroyed).
I posted this as a question because I respect the amount of thought and play testing you all have put into the game, and I'm sure you would have insight. I would like to understand, not criticize. I am not suggesting changing the game radically; the discussion is worthwhile for generating ideas nevertheless.
In another thread Dagger said:
"I just made a decision early on in the design process to take more of an "abstract" approach to representing Mech armor. I wanted the game to play faster and be less of a simulation and more of a strategic/tactical exercise.
[snip]
Once I got into deciding how many columns to assign to arms, legs, and front/rear torso... and saw that it really needed locational critical hit tables (instead of just one)... I decided it was too cumbersome and not in line with the direction I wanted to go. It would be a nice optional/house rule though..."
I am going to guess that for a lot of people coming to this system, the abstraction of locational critical damage is difficult. It certainly is for me. The row for the critical damage doesn't correspond to the columns above it. You punch through column 6, roll for critical, get a 1- what does that mean? You didn't really damage spot 1 in the critical systems row, did you? You hit spot 6 on the mech, and it produced result #1.
Let's say the critical damages the arm. If you hit column 6 again, you damage something else, maybe left arm. Hitting the same spot again causes completely different effects.
After providing such a clear physical outline in the armor grid, the departure is jarring.
Now, my question- in the post above, Dagger said "Once I got into deciding how many columns to assign to arms, legs, and front/rear torso... and saw that it really needed locational critical hit tables (instead of just one)..." I am not sure I understand this. Why would you need several critical tables, one for each area? If you did assign columns to arms, etc, and that element is hit, why not use the same critical table results we already have? Hardpoints are destroyed, systems equipment (move, heat sink) reduced to 1, everything else causes fuel cell explosions. That's it.
I respect the decision not to allow targeting- the hit location is random and that's a design choice. And if you don't allow targeting, the locations don't matter. You hit spots randomly anyway so what difference does it make if you know where the arms or the heat sink are. But a lot of suggested house rules are about managing hit locations. If not outright picking columns, at least shifting hits around. And these are interesting. There's room for creativity here in auxiliary equipment or weapons. If critical hit locations could be deterministic with little additional complexity it may be worth considering.
One impact it might have is in killing mechs- since you would no longer be able to hit the same exposed armor spot for multiple critical hits, it require continuing to damage various armor columns. That may make it harder than punching one hole with lasers than repeatedly trying to hit the same spot with machine guns. I say it might make it harder, because it might not- since currently hit location is random, it's hard to punch a hole. It's based on luck and this is another issue with the game: A mech may just go down with a few hits if the rolls are lucky- laser hits a column twice, then you roll a 9 or a 10 on the critical hit table. Or hits may be all over the place and a mech may stand after 10-15 hits. The deterministic critical system locations would take away this swingy nature. (Or not, a rule could easily say multiple critical hits to the same spot will cause big explosions, after the system hit is destroyed).
I posted this as a question because I respect the amount of thought and play testing you all have put into the game, and I'm sure you would have insight. I would like to understand, not criticize. I am not suggesting changing the game radically; the discussion is worthwhile for generating ideas nevertheless.