|
Post by CC Test on Mar 13, 2011 19:06:56 GMT -5
Played a game today to test close combat. Bladed/hacking/tearing weapons using laser damage and crushing/bludgeoning weapons using missile damage. Respective cost of a CC weapon is 1/2/3 BP depending on size, must be mounted in an arm and they generate no heat when used. They are used during the normal combat phase and can be mixed in with normal firing of weapons. We used the opposed roll from the ram rules to resolve these attacks (including the +2 for "from behind").
It worked very well. The opposed rolls meant that there were actually a lot of missed attacks (we did a pair of heavy mechs each) on both sides. We did think that it might be good to add a modifier if your opponent doesn't have a CC weapon (+1 or +2). We'll be trying them again soon.
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Mar 14, 2011 11:18:40 GMT -5
Thanks for the report. Please keep us posted on how your custom rules play out.
Have you thought of combining CCW's with limited ammo rules? This would force players into using them as the battle progressed...
|
|
|
Post by CC rules on Mar 14, 2011 13:46:26 GMT -5
We figured if you were going to burn a slot on a CC weapon you were going to try to use it. While it's nice to make sure all your slots are filled to help keep crits from being rerolled there would be better choices than just filling the slot with a CC weapon (pretty much ANY 1pt weapon would be better if you're not planning on engaging up close.) The no heat to attack and the ability to get inside effective missile range were enough incentive to get folks to move close. The potential for 4 heavy laser attacks for only 2 laser's worth of heat is quite an incentive to get in close.
Need to try these again in a larger game. In 2 vs 2 and knowing it was a test of the CC rules we may have forced the issue. A larger game with more mechs (another multi player arena game perhaps) might help show if there's any real improvements that should be looked at.
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Mar 15, 2011 1:58:23 GMT -5
Played a game today to test close combat. Bladed/hacking/tearing weapons using laser damage and crushing/bludgeoning weapons using missile damage. Respective cost of a CC weapon is 1/2/3 BP depending on size, must be mounted in an arm and they generate no heat when used. They are used during the normal combat phase and can be mixed in with normal firing of weapons. We used the opposed roll from the ram rules to resolve these attacks (including the +2 for "from behind"). It worked very well. The opposed rolls meant that there were actually a lot of missed attacks (we did a pair of heavy mechs each) on both sides. We did think that it might be good to add a modifier if your opponent doesn't have a CC weapon (+1 or +2). We'll be trying them again soon. I don't object to CCW's not causing heat, but I would suggest that blade type weapons not produce full laser-type damage if you play it that way. The shape of the damage has to be balanced... maybe 2, 3, 4 vertical patterns instead of the usual 3, 4, 5. A + modifier against non-CCW equipped units makes sense. But what if you just said that you get a +1 if you have one CCW and a +2 if you have two CCW's?
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Mar 15, 2011 2:05:50 GMT -5
We figured if you were going to burn a slot on a CC weapon you were going to try to use it. While it's nice to make sure all your slots are filled to help keep crits from being rerolled there would be better choices than just filling the slot with a CC weapon (pretty much ANY 1pt weapon would be better if you're not planning on engaging up close.) The no heat to attack and the ability to get inside effective missile range were enough incentive to get folks to move close. The potential for 4 heavy laser attacks for only 2 laser's worth of heat is quite an incentive to get in close. Need to try these again in a larger game. In 2 vs 2 and knowing it was a test of the CC rules we may have forced the issue. A larger game with more mechs (another multi player arena game perhaps) might help show if there's any real improvements that should be looked at. My goal is to incorporate CCW's in such a way that they are appealing to players who enjoy that particular tactic... but not so advantageous that it becomes a good idea for every player. Know what I mean?... A player should enjoy fielding CCW's if they decide to, but not regret it if they don't...
|
|
|
Post by fallow on Mar 16, 2011 17:37:28 GMT -5
How about CC weapons doing damage left to right, top to bottom in order, with each point of damage removing one undamaged box. This would assure that CC weapons cannot do crits until all armor is destroyed, eliminate the need for a pattern and prevent lost pattern damage.
|
|
|
Post by Sarcastro1 on Mar 16, 2011 23:40:11 GMT -5
There are a few disadvantages for taking the CC weapon. You're giving up a slot (or two) of ranged punch for a few turns of no heat swings that have to pass an opposed roll. In our games our CC attacks did much less damage than our shooting because of the opposed roll. Heavies aren't dishing no heat laser love on 3+ to each other. Our games saw about a 50% hit rate at best.
By taking a CC weapon you also pretty much announce to everyone you're going to drive this thing right down your opponent's throat so they could become a priority target. In larger games I can see one or two melee mechs trying to close as quickly as possible and being savaged by missile units from across the table when they get tagged with a target designator. Top it off with the fact that being engaged doesn't keep you from being shot at by your opponent and CC looks like a great way to finish someone off but not so great if the opponent is untouched.
I definitely see where you're coming from on not wanting them to be a "must have" choice. One of the things I love about this game is that there AREN'T any must have choices and I don't want to see that balance wrecked. From our initial playtest though while it was nice to have the CC weapon it wasn't a game winner. In fact during our quick game there was a point when I wanted to disengage and shoot. I was losing the exchange (my one CC weapon and heavy cannon to his 2 heavy cannons and CC weapon.) Had I moved out of melee I could have thrown my heavy missile into the mix AND forced him to burn some heat to move if he wanted to re-engage (he had taken 2 heat sink crits.) The better chance to hit was tempting but as it was just a test game we decided to slug away. I ended up winning the exchange w/a lucky crit done by my cannon, not the CC weapon.
I need to try a few more games with the rules and larger engagements (one game does not a full blown playtest make.) For now we'll continue with the current "counts as" damage system and see if it really works or if it needs to be toned down. We'll also incorporate the bonus for attacking someone who isn't armed w/a close combat weapon. Maybe also a bonus if your TP is higher (I've always looked at TP as a combo of electronic warfare and agility). Will hopefully see some more games this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Mar 17, 2011 22:58:05 GMT -5
Great feedback... thanks!
Do you plan to try giving a +1 to the opposing roll for each CCW the attacker has? I'm curious to see if that has the desired result. If you have one CCW and your opponent does not, you get a +1. This method also gives you a bonus if you have more CCW's than your opponent. If you have two CCWs and your opponent has one, you still get a +1. Obviously, if you have two CCWs and your opponent has none, you get a nice +2.
I see your point about the opposing roll balancing the laser-type damage in place of heat.
Tp - I think of it as a function of speed and size... big and slow, small and fast, etc...
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Oct 12, 2011 8:23:20 GMT -5
Hey, I'm new to the site, but have been playing BattleTech for over 20 years. I was part of a gaming group that had litterally dozens of 'Mechs each... I myself had over 300! (I wish I still had them... I miss them.)
Anyway, here are MY thoughts...
1) Jump Jets. Any 'Mech can have them. I think that even the Behemoth with it's 2/3 movement had jump jets, too. That was just enough to get him out of a tight spot.
I think it should be 1/2/3 Bv per 'Mech size. In BattleTech, they took into account speed, size and so forth... (and, YES, this is NOT Battletech, I know)! I think the simplicity of this game makes it FAR superior in a lot of ways. To name but one, you can play a game out using a Star (5 Mechs) in a "reasonable" amount of time. There are no special charts or meticulus armor diagrams to follow... just a kick-butt grid, that is awesome!
2) Melee Weapons. I think ANY mech can carry a close combat weapon. I had a custom Battlemaster (I called the Redeemer) that carried a hatchet, and had Triple-Strength Mylomer that let you cut almost ANY mech down to size.
Since these weapons would hit on a Punch Location Table, meaning Arms, Torsos and Head, it was VERY deadly.
Speaking of HIT LOCATION TABLES, have you ever thought about including these?
In BattleTech (using 2D6) it gave you the following hit locations:
2- Center Torso, Possible Crit 3- Left Leg 4- Right Leg 5- Left Arm 6- Left Torso 7- Center Torso 8- Right Torso 9-Right Arm 10- Lower Left Arm 11- Lower Right Arm 12- Head
(Or something like that... it's been a few years)
Anyway, I was thinking about this:
1- Left Leg 2- Right Leg 3-4 - Left Arm 5- Left Torso 6- Center Torso 7- Right Torso 8-9- Right Arm 10 - Head
There really is no "center torso" on MechAttach Mechs, aside from the "cockpit" section... which is where the engine is.
I know there is a chart that says what the effects are if you score a "critical", but it might also be cool to say,"you blew my left arm off, so I can't use my laser."
Finally, flamers. I have 'SLICKS' NCC power armor, and it has similar weapons including a flame thrower. I was thinking about including this and making it similar to a light machine gun, only doing less damage and costing 1 Bv.
Any thoughts? Let me know...
Thank you for your attention.
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Oct 13, 2011 13:19:20 GMT -5
Ok, here is my new prototype. It has TWO new upgrade options: a Flame-Thrower and Jump Jets. The Flamer is SLICK's N.C.C. POWER ARMOR weapon (used without his consent nor knowledge). It is a little large for this Medium mech, but I needed a placeholder until Dagger and WaffleM start producing them. The stats for it are as follows: It is a Light Weapon Bp 2 Rv 3/6 Hv 2 Dp 4x (same as a Medium Machine Gun) It's short range is made up for by the additional firepower. It also does +1 damage to vehicles, and +2 to Infantry. *- this is my own special rules. I am in NO way associated with Armor Grid Games, nor anyone else important in any way shape or form. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Oct 13, 2011 13:50:50 GMT -5
Now... for the Jump Jets.
Using this piece that came with ARMOR GRID: Mech Factory (Buy it if you don't have it yet), since it doesn't appear to have any coupling sections, this would make an EXCELLENT Jump Jet pack.
The rules are simple.
The Mech can move while ignoring terrain. Since the Mech is only given the ability to "leap" over items, it does not have "true flight" capability. At the end of the turn, it is standing flat on the ground again.
The restrictions of this movement prevent the Mech from moving more that its walking speed. It takes a lot of heat to allow this unit to move through the air, so each time this is activated, it generates 3 heat.
Since the pilot is so busy trying not to crash, any attacks made by a Jumping Mech receive a -2 modifier.
Likewise, improved gyroscopes make it IMPOSSIBLE to crash while jumping. The technology allows the Mech to always land squarely on its feet (Dagger should like that rule... no need for piloting rolls or other distractions).
Finally, the cost for this equipment is as follows:
Light Mech 2 Bp Medium Mech 4 Bp Heavy Mech 6 Bp
Since these are directly proportioned to fit a specific Mech, you can't put a small one in a Medium Mech to save Bp. It won't work.
Also, bu using the piece from AGMF, it prevents any other equipment to be placed in the center torsos. (Also, by using this piece, the players have to buy the set to get the piece... good marketing technique, AND Armor Grid would only have to place the additional rules on the site without having to release a whole new expansion).
Ok... that is MY house rules and how they work. I hope you enjoy it.
David
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Oct 13, 2011 14:52:24 GMT -5
I was looking at another option for Flamers. By using the Light machine gun from the Core Set, and removing the clip from it, and add a canister from the Large or Medium Laser, you have a PERFECT flame-thrower.
It would not be confused with the other weapons, because of the barrel and canister combination.
Any thoughts?
If the AG guys would want to include these rules, they could simply modify the weapons (as per this simple suggestion) and could offer it as a free "Upgrade Download" and that way it could be available almost immediately.
Just saying...
|
|
|
Post by Dagger on Oct 13, 2011 20:19:01 GMT -5
Slick's Flamer actually looks pretty good... maybe just scale it down a bit when you print it. Maybe you can scale it down 75% or so in the printer options...
I like your rules too... I like how the jump jets are more cost prohibitive for a heavy mech than a light mech... makes sense. You might even go with 3, 4, and 5 Bp for light, medium, and heavy respectively. 6 is quite expensive...
Also, feel free to give it a try without the jump jets using up the torso slots. Maybe the jump jets are integral to the frame... you you still have use of all of your hardpoints.
|
|
|
Post by kiladecus on Oct 13, 2011 21:02:48 GMT -5
I playtested this Mech, the FIREMASTER, and it really was pretty cool! With a Medium Laser, flame-thrower AND Jump Jets, it used up 7 heat by firing everything. I good roll prevented it from being shut-down... still it was SO cool.
I haven't enjoyed a game this much in a while!
(It lost BTW... but looked cool doing it).
|
|
|
Post by WaffleM on Oct 14, 2011 7:50:49 GMT -5
Cool use of Slick's Flamer! The large size makes it look very "anime"! ;D
|
|