HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga)
Subject: Re: Vehicle rules and munchkinism (with ANSWERS!)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 01:01:23 GMT

foregone@stein.u.washington.edu (Carl Chavez) writes:

>Oh, I forgot: create special structural integrity rules for vehicles (similar
>to the Aerotech rules). That way, a 2 ton hovercraft going 630 kph will
>certainly be ripped apart by various natural forces.

Well, 630 kph isn't that fast. 360+ mph or something like that. None of the
vehicles that you can design with the rules break the laws of aerodynamics
so badly that they'll fly apart when you open up the throttle. Perhaps what
is needed is a required piloting roll whenever you make a turn or move over
non-flat terrain at speeds exceeding 300kph. I think just about anything would
get squirrely to handle moving that fast.


Axly

********************************************************************************
*  Axly             *  "... and grenades are also useful for digging foxholes, *
*  Red Sword Targa  *   removing unwanted shrubbery, unclogging drains..."     *
*                   *      -Axly's Book of Explosives for Pyromaniacs          *
********************************************************************************
From: jadeflcn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Ivan Carl Roseland)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Where is th Btech muse?
Date: 27 Dec 1992 18:27:44 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4
Originator: jadeflcn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu



Hello all!
I lost the address to the Btech Muse......
could someone plese send it to me.........
my email address is
jadeflcn@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

thanks ahead of time.

\\\/
 0o
 __
  !
From: seablade@u.washington.edu (Sigfried Allen Trent)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: BTECH: Color Schemes
Date: 22 Dec 92 23:28:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: 128.seablade-221292152949
Followup-To: rec.games.mecha
Organization: Mac N' Dos Consulting

In article <1992Dec20.124407.7044@gw.wmich.edu>, 997vanderkol@gw.wmich.edu
wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 	Here is a question for all of you painters of Battletech minatures.
> Does anyone have an up-to-date listing/selection/idea of color schemes of
> mech forces. I Know about the "Cammo Specs" Book, and I want more than that
> offers. Things like standard FC camo, Star League color schemes, famous
> mercenary color schemes, colors with history (For ex: in drag racing it is
> considered bad luck to have a car painted green), and so forth. One thing I
> would like to see in further sources books is possible painting guides.
> Similar to what Games Workshop/White Dwarf do for Space Marines, Warhammer
> 40k, Warhammer, etc.
> 
> 
> John VanDerKolk

I've got a great color scheme.  I paint my mechs with suits and ties.
I like to call it "Urban Camoflage".  I get lots of compliments on them.

Thats not a mech, its a 60 tom buisness man.
Gives new meaning to the term hostile takeover and corprait raiders.

Some advice
"Forgive yourself and those you love."
"Always try to be nice to people and animals."
"Try to stay relaxed in all situations."
"Always be as honest as you can."
"Be confidant and have no fear."
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Mechs
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 08:52:34 GMT

In article <ajross.725252979@husc.harvard.edu> ajross@husc10.harvard.edu (Andrew Ross) writes:
>lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex) writes:
>> 
>>    |\|o, there is NO REASON behind the current level of "realism" in
>> BattleTech rules, aside from "game balance" or "that's the way it was
>> originally designed, so we have to live with it."  We already went
>> over this a while ago on rec.games.board:  BATTLETECH IS NOT REALISTIC,
>> AND IT NEVER WILL BE.  Just consider BattleTech compared to real mecha
>> combat to be like chess compared to real medieval combat.  BattleTech's
>> actual PROBLEM is this "pseudo-realism" that it has.  Picking at the
>> problems of realism in BTech is like doing the same thing with Star
>> Trek.
>
>Um...   _REAL_ mecha combat?  How about "Battletech is not realistic. 
>Period."  It seems to me that Btech is about as realistic a mecha combat
>game as can be written.
 
 
    \/\/ell, "real mecha combat" as a term used for comparison.
 Lots of shows have had mecha combat that is at least realistic
 within the show.  Most of the capabilities of mecha that you see
 in shows goes far beyond current technology, so they don't have
 to worry about being caught on certain things.  All they need to
 do is say "well, it's the advanced technology that lets them do
 that."  Whereas BattleTech is not even realistic when compared
 to today's technology.

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: Realism vs. Mechs
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 02:09:06 GMT

In article <1h9carINNot5@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> saruman@cats.ucsc.edu (Nicholas Patrick Popoff) writes:
>
>	Hmm...I have a question that has little to do with this topic,
>but came from Jesse's question above, and here it is:  If the IS can
>build 100-ton stomping battle machines, why the hell cant they just
>make some missiles that actualy beat 20th century tech, that will actualy
>HIT their target, regardless of the pilot.  I mean, why cant you have smart
>weapons that far in the future.  I mean, you have a HUGE target, and yet
>your weapons actually MISS?  Does this make sence in any way, given that
>Btech is about 1000 years down the road of smartweapons?  Why couldnt
>they just make a lazer that aims itself at that 100 ton mech.  If realism
>were the point, I cant see why every single shot wouldnt be dead on on
>the limb joints or head, accurate to the foot, atleast.  And thats another
>thing - why the hell would you wanna fight in a humanoid shape instead
>of a tank shape?  Maneuverability might be an issue, but with any sort of
>hover technology, that would be gone.  Tanks would have much better armor
>and payload capabilities, with no weak spots like the dozens of joints
>and such things that come with a human shape.
>	I realize that nitpicking realism isnt a bit important in most
>games, but I was just wondering if there was a logical reason behind
>btech rules and robots and such, besides the fact that auto-aiming weapons
>would be booring as hell.....8-)
 
 
    |\|o, there is NO REASON behind the current level of "realism" in
 BattleTech rules, aside from "game balance" or "that's the way it was
 originally designed, so we have to live with it."  We already went
 over this a while ago on rec.games.board:  BATTLETECH IS NOT REALISTIC,
 AND IT NEVER WILL BE.  Just consider BattleTech compared to real mecha
 combat to be like chess compared to real medieval combat.  BattleTech's
 actual PROBLEM is this "pseudo-realism" that it has.  Picking at the
 problems of realism in BTech is like doing the same thing with Star
 Trek.

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
From: 91vanderkolk@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: BTECH: What is the Date?
Date: 25 Dec 92 12:43:03 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University



	Introducing the Clans and such is just fine, cause it adds another
level of possibilities. What I want to know is, What is the current "year" that
FASA is working with in Battletech. Is it 3055, 3056 or what? Also does anyone
know shen we might see more on the other Clans?


John VanDerKolk
"It's a poor craftsman that blames poor workmanship on his tools."
From: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Second Genyosha)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: FAQ, do we need one?
Date: 22 Dec 1992 04:26:42 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council (Public Access), Wgtn, Nz
Reply-To: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz


 Hmmmm......I don't know about you lot, but I think we may need one now.
Seems that we have waves or is it cycles of the same old questions going
around and around.
 I already have a KILL file for the Btech MUSE etc.

 What say the rest of you?
This has been...            : "I have never listened to anyone who criticized
 Tony Taia                  :my taste in space travel, sideshows or gorillas.
  TAIA_A@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz :When this occurs, I pack up my dinosaurs and leave
My ideas are mine only, ok? :leave the room." - Ray Bradbury 1980. Age 60.
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: hamilton_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Battletech: ARROW IV VTOL (Was Re: high speed hovertanks)
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:00:12 NZST
Organization: Welligton City Council, Public Access.
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

>  Well, the real reason for the change is not any new insight into
> neurohelmets, but rather the desire on FASA's part of make 'Mechs
> more powerful as regards vehicles. So, if you don't want things
> that way, don't play with the new rules.

 Hello, anyone who thinks that thinks 'Mechs aren't powerful enough in relation
to vehicles, hasnt looked at the vehicle hit table lately. Crits. crits. and
more crits. I used a platoon of tanks against a lance of 'Mechs resently, and
there movement rates whent from the full 5/8 to imobile in just four rounds.
  
>  The rule change still doesn't change the fact that fast hovercraft
> still make the best Arrow IV platforms. After all, the weapon is
> fired so far away from the 'Mechs it doesn't matter who moves first.

 Nope, the best vehicle Arrow IV platform is a 30 ton VTOL. You just sit in the
air, about four boards away, and just nuke him using direct fire amunition.
Your to-hit no. is nine unless he gets in the trees. If you're just in the air
four boards away, and out of range of everything of his, exept artillery, then
he has to come get you. And by the time he does this, he's a smoking pair of
boots. Ha, fortunatly, this situation is untouched by any rules regarding
movement of vehicles.

  ->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->
  \                                                                          \
  / 'I dont need to be able to spell for my AC/20 to rip your head off...'   /
  \                                                                          \
  /                        Sho-sa Peter Hamilton, 37th Dieron Regulars, DCMS /
  \                        (3025, our speciality)                            \
  /                        E-mail: HAMILTON_P@Kosmos.wcc.govt.nz             /
  \                                                                          \
  <-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-

Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri)
Subject: Re: Machine Guns in BTECH
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]
Reply-To: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
	<RATINOX.92Dec16230627@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu>
	<1h2oplEINN77k@uni-erlangen.de>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 03:45:28 GMT

>>>>> On Sun, 20 Dec 1992 21:32:37 GMT,
>>>>> kabreuer@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Klaus Breuer) said:

>Vulcan cannon is a 20mm gun and is common to fighter aircraft and
>anti-missile systems (can you say Ageis?). The closest Battletech
Klaus> No, but I can _spell_ Aegis :)

Klaus> PS: Gosh, I hope I'm not wrong in this - would be awfully emparassing :)
                                                                  ^^^
Yes, it could be quite *emBarassing :-).

--Rat
||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat          ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
It is a proud and lonely thing to be a Stainless Steel Rat.
                                                        --`Slippery' Jim DiGriz
From: kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: BTECH: "Efficiency" (Was: Re: MECH: Heavy Hammer)
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:01:13 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec


> >       Eff is measured by Total Custom Cost / Combat Value / 1000.
>  
>  
    > ][nteresting.  I think I'd rather compute an efficiency value that's
> the inverse of that, though.  That is, (Combat Value * 1000) / Total
> Unit Cost.  That way, the better you are, the closer you get to 1 from
> BELOW.  Using the inverse of your equation, you get the following:


	Oh well... we in Canada think upside down :)

	Actuslly, I was just rtying to avoid small fractions, and
inverted the formula. Ie, the closer you get to 1.0 or below, the better
your design is.


+---------------------------------+   ___     ___       ___
| Stephane I. Matis               |  /   \_BATLLETECH  /\__\ Viva NeXT! 
| E-Mail : kgnome@cs.concordia.ca |  \___/   \___/     \/__/ NeXTSTEP 3.0!
| "It Just Works..." - Steve Jobs |      \___/   
+---------------------------------+       Wolfnet Operative & NeXThead
From: maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: MECHA!: Questions
Date: 26 Dec 92 23:17:30 GMT
Organization: Sweet Oblivion

I recall that one of the designers of this game read this group, so I
hope I can get some definite answers. Any experinced Mecha! gamers are
welcome to express their opinions and solutions too, ofcourse.

First of all: I sort of collect mecha games. I have nearly all board/rpg
types there are. What I look for is that anime style fast flowing fluid
action and suspense.

I like Mecha!, a lot. However, some points seem a bit fuzzy to me, most
of them concerning mecha construction:

Turning radius:

- If you have a humanoid mecha with super maneuvarability, it's turning
radius is 0" Does this mean you can turn to face any direction for
free, or do you have to spend points? 

- Turning radius is based on configuration alone. Therefore I see no
reason why one would, for example, buy anything except flight movement
for a humanoid mecha. Could someone offer explanation?

Shields:

- Shields seem very effective. Since there is no limitation of hands
available etc. It seems only an idiot doesn't buy a shield (I guess this
goes with GUNDAM design philosophy rather well).

Weapons: 

- I like the rules to construct my own weapons. However, it's always
cheaper to just buy a bigger gun than take the RoF or Battery options.
Why? Bigger guns have longer range anyway. If you're not planning to
bust the 6 dice limit, I see no good reason to spend points on these
options. 

- Buying multiple weapons seems futile too. Most example mechas only
carry one weapon system, but in anime we regularly see mecha bristling
with different weapons.

Turrets:

How come vehicular powersuits can have turrets, but vehicular mecha can
not?





--------
maxxon@swob.nullnet.fi (Mikko Kurki-Suonio) Voice +358 0 8092681
Sweet Oblivion (+358 0 8092678, V.32bis 8N1) Official SRP Headquarters
SnailMail: Maininkitie 8A8 SF 02320 ESPOO FINLAND
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: MEK: The Kobold   KBD-1M
From: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Second Genyosha)
Date: 22 Dec 1992 02:30:14 GMT
Reply-To: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Organization: Wellington City Council (Public Access), Wgtn, Nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

 
The Kobold   KBD-1M
25 tons              Locations  Criticals Tons
IS                       -          -      2.5
Nissan 200               -          -      8.5
 Walk  8
 Run  12
 Jump  0
Gyro & Cockpit           -          -      5.0
Heat Sinks   10       1H/1RL        2      0.0
Armour       80          -          -      5.0
 H    3   8
CT    8 10/4
RT/LT 6  8/3
RA/LA 4   8
RL/LL 6  10

Flamer                   RA         1      1.0
3 x Machine Gun     1RT/1CT/1LT     3      1.5
Ammo ( MG ) 100          CT         1      0.5

Overview:
 Designed primarly as an anti-infantry mek, the Kobold is made to make the
PBI's life miserable. Since infantry are more common in the Periphery than
meks, the Kobold makes sense. Commissioned by the Magestrix in 3024, the
design was copied from the old Locust mek.

Capabilities:
 With Nissan offering cheap second hand 200 engines, the Procurement
Department for the Canopus military brought out the entire supply.
Using flamers and machine guns, the Kobold has limited ranged combat ability.
It is not designed for mek combat, though it does have some use in urban
situation where ranges are shorter and speed is of greater use.

Battle History:
 Used in a raid on a Liao frontier world, the Kobold had remarkable success
against the 141st Infantry Assault Battalion. Driving the Liao infantry
in a dead-end canyon, the Lance of 3 Kobolds lead by a Locust charged the
Capellans. Throwing the infantry into total disarray and within five minutes
the Liao commander surrendered.
 Against the Marik world of Claybrooke, the same lance was wiped out by a
medium lance of Marik meks. The Kobolds were unable to exchange fire with the
two Whitworths and were all disable by LRM fire. The Locust escaped to report
on this action and is credits the defeat to the lack of a medium laser on the
Kobolds.

Variants:
 There is only one where two machine guns are removed for a torso mounted
medium laser. Though this variant isn't common as the Kobold is stationed
on worlds as Infantry Support meks.

*****
Comments?
This has been....
 Tony Taia                                    (Chu-sa of the Second Genyosha)
 TAIA_A@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz  **Join the DCMS see the Inner Sphere and kill it**
3055-3067: So little time, so many Clan meks to kill! :)
**Noone knows what I know, so you know that what I know is only mine to know**
From: Jesse.Taylor@launchpad.unc.edu (Jesse Taylor)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: BCK-5R Backstabber
Date: 24 Dec 92 02:26:56 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service

Just a little something I came up with while thinking about light, fast
'mechs that run around behind big slow ones and blow through their back
armor....

BCK-5R Backstabber

Chassis: 30 Tons w/ Endo Steel II
Engine: 330XL
MPs: 11/17/6
Armor: 3 tons Ferro-Fibrous
Weapons: 2 Medium Pulse Lasers (CT)
Standard Armor Configuration:
	Head: 5
	CT-R: 10 - 5
	R/LT-R: 5 - 2
	R/LA: 4
	R/LL: 6
Variants:
	#1: Replace one pulse laser w/ an Anti-Missile Laser and a
half-ton of armor.
	#2: Replace one MPL w/ Guardian ECM and a half-ton armor
	#3: Replace one MPL w/ TAG and a ton of armor
	#4: Replace the Jump Jets w/ armor

All variants of the Backstabber are designed w/ energy weapons in mind.
However, this lead to a heat problem when the Backstabber ran behind a
'mech and toasted it in the back with it's lasers. The pilot had to hope
for a kill on the first or second shot so that he could spend a round
cooling down.

The Backstabber proved most effective against medium 'mechs, as those were
least likely to have excessive armor in the back or rear-mounted weapons,
which mean the Backstabber could get penetration on the first shot. It's
thin armor made it vulnerable to designs which mounted one or two medium
lasers in the back, and designs that could rotate their arm-mounted
weapons to face back were a bane to Backstabber pilots. However, the sheer
speed of the design has allowed it to often escape from fights it couldn't
win. The variant designs were implemented because of the comments of
Mechwarriors.

The 'mech performed well in testing, but in it's first battle, one of the
two prototypes was too close behind an Archer when it scored an ammo hit,
and was destroyed in the resulting explosiong. (Yes, the Archer had CASE,
y'know, the system that funnels the explosion out the BACK...)

The backstabber is a favorite with experienced MechWarriors, who prefer a
quick kill to a sustained slugging match.

The cost of the 'mech is 5,685,160 C-Bills, quite expensive for a 'mech
it's size, but if used with skill, it is as effective as any other design
at the same price.

JT

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: Which weapon is best? (Was: Re: btech lrm)
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 20:56:28 GMT

In article <BzzAo9.GGz@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (RedSwordTarga) writes:
>lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex) writes:
>>     _
>>    /-\s you can see, the Pulse ML actually beats the ER ML for range
>> everywhere except at ranges beyond 12, PLUS it has that nice 2 less
>> to-hit on ranges below 5.  It may weigh a ton more, but it does 1 less
>> heat.  Using regular heat sinks, they're even.  Using double heat sinks,
>> the Pulse ML is only down half a ton.  (Reminds me of comparisons
>> between the PPC and the AC/5, when BattleTech/Droids first came out. :)
>
>Yes, but that extra ton really counts a lot. You can run 5 ER Mediums and
>a targeting (sp?) computer for 6 tons. That only gets you 3 Pulses.
 
     _
    /-\h, but those 5 ER mediums are going to give you 25 heat if you
 fire all of them.  The 3 Pulse mediums are only going to give you 12.
 So those 5 ER MLs would require 13 DSHSes, for a total of 19 tons.
 For 20 tons you could get 5 Pulse MLs (20 heat), plus 10 DSHS.  Both
 do equal damage, so it looks like a pretty even tradeoff, when you add
 in heat sinks.  Except that the Pulse MLs still give you that extra -1
 at 1-4, 6-8, and 11-12 hexes over the ER MLs w/ Targeting Computer.
 The ER MLs/Tg C win out with a -1 over the PMLs at 5, 9-10, and 13-15
 hexes.  I'll still take the Pulse MLs, thanks.  (:

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: BTECH: Help with making maps+
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 14:52:58 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.032456.14603@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>, ewood@lonestar.utsa.edu (Eric S. Wood) writes:
>     Me and couple of friends have started playing Battle Tech a couple of
> weeks ago. We are getting tired of using the same maps every time and I was
> wondering if anybody out thier has come up with a way to make maps. Any ideas
> would be greatly appreciated.
> 

Hex paper, or find a another game that has similiar map types or even one that
is totally different.. Might have to use removable plastic sheets..

Captain Davis, 5th Scouts (Mecha), Morgoth's Raiders.


Michael Adams
Alias: Morgoth/Ghost Wheel 
nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu


Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha