HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bo033@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joe E. Stainbrook)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: BTECH: Light Vs. Heavy (maybe even Assualt) [BSW Pub.]
Date: 14 Dec 1992 22:56:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bo033@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joe E. Stainbrook)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu



High!
  I have been playing for a few years now and found that in my units a well
piloted well designed light or even medium mechs can match most heavy and
some assualt mechs.  I prove this case with the Habet WolfHound (posted
earlier) and two of these designs can keep another mech occupied and pepper
it enough so a heavier mech can catch up and finish it off.  
  (I had a nice 3 hour long battle against soeone in a 3050 Warhammer try
to defeat my WLF-2L on a map with minimal terrain. The Keyword is: TRY. 
Never-the-less I toasted it being about to keep moving fast enough to avoid
shots, keep up a steady rain a fire which peppered the WarHammer, and this
was only using a green Habet cadet agaist a reguar Lio officer.  I wasn't
an officer after that battle.)
  Light mechs, on the whole, are cheaper, faster, and more readily avalible
than heavy and assualt mechs whichgives a strong pooint to their use as a
standard mech as the Wasp ans stinger were the warhorses in many units
throughout the 3015-40 Inner Sphere. There whole idea on using assualt
mechs for all missions is fun fer gamming but in this Btek universe it is
very uneconomically feasable. 

The following has been brought to you with fundings from Habet Hussars,
						Johnston Habet
						chief in command.

-- 
GroundOut to some.. Give me your hand so I may feel your warmth, so I may
have your tender touch upon me, and that I may die reborn in your grace.
WARNING: The preceding has been brought to you by BSW (XX <CENSORED> XX) 
Publishing Inc.-bo033@cleveland.Freenet.Edu  From mind to mouth I live.
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: pwg25888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Patrick W. Grady)
Subject: Re: Maurader vriant 3025
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 06:52:59 GMT

dshaffer@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Donald A Shaffer) writes:
<<<mech deleted>>>

>....So what do you think? comments would be appreciated. :)

	
	Not a bad idea, although I prefer to keep more of a ranged punch
so I had one that put in two LRM 5's and a ton of ammo, two heat sinks,
and two tons of armor.  Other versions replaced the AC with a Large 
Laser and heat sinks and armor.  I have even had some with a mix of
extra SRM, LRM, and medium lasers.

Patrick

     
-- 
Patrick Grady               |  I express my opinion,
                            |  I express your opinion
email: p-grady2@uiuc.edu    |  for large sums of money.

Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: m91kgh@tdb.uu.se (Karl-Gunnar Hultland)
Subject: Re: MUSE
Organization: Dept. of Scientific Computing, Uppsala Univ.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:37:10 GMT

Doug Dawson (dddawson@lpl.arizona.edu) wrote:
: In article <1gl4o2INN7d2@bigboote.WPI.EDU> dodger@rajeesh.WPI.EDU (DoDGeR) writes:
: >Don't expect
: >the clans to ever show up though...from what i have heard the gods hate the
: >clans and will probably never code them.
: 
: 
:  Minor note...The internal calendar seems to be moving in realtime...and
:  the game is at 3026 right now.  Unless they do a major revision, the
:  clans wouldn't show up until _well_ into next century...

They say that when it is fully operational a month Gametime will
be a week real time...


				Dixie
				CO 4th Davion Guards
-- 

Karl-Gunnar Hultland              Vox Dei, Vox Populi
m91kgh@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: morrisa@cs.UAlberta.CA (ANDREW Morris)
Subject: Re: Battletech: Re: 'City Archer'
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:06:39 GMT

wschip76@ursa.calvin.edu (Tom Schipper) writes:

>morrisa@cs.UAlberta.CA (ANDREW Morris) writes:
>>Oh, and by the way - just my personal opinion:  Rifleman(men?) bite!  2/4/2
>>for torso armor on the back!!??  Arrgh!  The question I have what type
>>of idiot would want one?  But then again, it's better than running around
>>with the infrantry... :-)

>I believe standard Riflemen are too hot, and the lack of both back armor 
>and manuverability may be a problem, but not the armor by itself.  At
>Gamex, one of the tournaments was a free for all calling for custom 75 ton
>mechs.  I used one with 4/6/4 movement and  NO back armor.  I did pretty 
>well until I was forced to leave due to other obligations.  Maybe the back 
>armor would have been a weakness if everyone had knew about it and tried to
>hit me in the back, but it is VERY difficult to get a back shot on someone who
>knows what they are doing.

Um, not to slam you, but give me a Locust and I'll take out your mech...  The
only thing Locusts are good for in combat ARE the shots in the back...
--
============================================================================
 "Life's a Bitch and then you fly..."     "Let's get dangerous!"  - D. Duck

      Andrew Morris (The Android)     E-Mail : morrisa@cs.ualberta.ca
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: conty@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (E. Kontei)
Subject: Re: Machine Guns in BTECH
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:40:33 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.023256.12608@wam.umd.edu>, ara@wam.umd.edu (Ford Prefect) writes:
> 
> Whats the deal with Machine Guns, ( Yes the weapon people like to hate ) 
> why do they fire 1 round a turn :( Seems to me we could get a lot more
> use out of these Magnificent weapons if they fired bursts of 10 to even
> 50 rounds a turn.

One BTECH round is not 1 bullet!
Isn't it about 200 bullets or so (haven't played with MGs in a while).

Now, all that firepower is being wasted against armor,
which is almost impervious to small arms fire.  Note I said
"almost", that's where the 1-3 pts. damage come in.

> The prime example being the VULCAN cannon on the 
> Modern day A10 which can rip a tank to shreads.

That's a Vulcan CANNON.  An autocannon.

-- 
			    E n r i q u e  C o n t y
			The Incredible Man-with-no-Life
			      jester@ihlpm.att.com
		    Disclaimer: You're not dealing with AT&T
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: a2chao@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Allen Chao)
Subject: Re: C3 Network Questions......
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:19:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.221327.1231@netcom.com> lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex) writes:
>          A
>         /|\
>       /  |  \
>     /     \   \
>   /        \    \
>  B---ECM---C-----D
>

Actually, if there were communications like so, why would there be need of a
C^3 Master?  For example, a link shouldn't exist between C and D or B and C,
because I doesn't go thru the Master at A.  Paths should exist like this:

          A
         /|\
        / | \
       B  C  D
 
...and that's all.  That's why there's a 5 ton (or whatever) computer inside
unit A.  Link C to D works C-A-D.  Link B to C works the same.  Now don't
you think that that's reasonable? 8)  (Least I think so...)
(But wait a minute, you said the same thing that I said in the next paragraph
and contradict yourself...)

> Say, 2 tons and 2 critical spaces instead of 1 each.  That's an
> equivalent sized network (5+1+1+1 = 2+2+2+2 = 8 total).  I think I'll
> add that to Conbattler....  (:  ( ==> Standard C^3 can route around
> ECM.  C^3 Direct [2 tons/crits] cannot, but doesn't require a master
> command computer which can break the whole network if destroyed.)
>
	The 'by-the-book' C^3 should be the one that cannot reroute,
since all info must pass thru the main unit. (One good tactic is to cover
the C^3 main with ECM...)  Your alternative system should be the one to
be able to reroute, since each unit can do the same job as the other units.


-- 
Allen Chao : a2chao@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca : Netriding at ~3:00a!
 -----You know, this lack of sleep might be why I'm so tired...------
Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:54:16 -0500 
From: Robert Everett Brunskill <rb6t+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Melee Attacks

Ok, some time ago there was a debate over Hatchet rules, etc. and some
recent posts have reminded me to post my melee rules that I recently
found.

I currently have rules on the following items:
-From FASA-
  Arms:
Punch
Push
Club
Claw
Buzzsaw
Hatchet
Mace
Sword
  Legs:
Kick
  Body:
Charge
Death from Above
Thrash

-From BTechnology Mag-
  Arms:
Myomer Whip
  Body:
Ram Plate


--My modifications to Claw/Mace rules--
All weapons are given a # of Attacks rating.  All attacks except for the
punch and claws have a rating of 1, punching and clawing can be done
twice.

Claws do Tonnage/7.5 points of damage (rounding off), and must replace
the hand.  All other rules are the same as a hatchet.

I kept Mace rules the same, except that the ammount of pressure exerted
by a club (It's not cutting, it's crushing) requires that it completely
replace the hand actuator, it cannot be held.

Those are my house rules.  Just saying that everything worked the same
as a hatchet was dull.  I would have modified them more if I could have
thought of a feasible way.

Rob Brunskill
-----
This message brought to you by Monback Brothers' Trash Removal
<Truck sounds>
"'mon back, 'mon back, 'mon back,"
<Crash>
"That's good."
From: 8044ferguson@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: Battletech: The Great Debate.
Date: 21 Dec 1992 04:29:49 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Reply-To: 8044ferguson@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsd.csd.mu.edu

In article <1gl94qEINN8r0@uni-erlangen.de>, kabreuer@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Klaus Breuer) writes:
>hamilton_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:
>
>> Andrew Morris of Alberta Canada writes:
>
>>> Just a question to throw out to the masses, how many people out there
>>>played this game BEFORE the clans showed up?  What is your impression?
>>about Clan this, and Clan that, and Clan blah blah blah.
>> In a nutshell, I believe the game was better before the Clan invation, and
>>its dam hard to find people who feel like wise. So if you do, SPEAK UP!  
>
>UP! UP!
>I _loathe_ Clan tech. Life was much more fun when you actually had to watch
>your heat level, use some strategy, sneak about...
>Clans are just a Munchkins dream come true...
>
>Ciao,
>Klaus
>---
>Klaus Breuer, Rudelsweiher Str. 6b, 8520 Erlangen, Germany
>** "Geez, I need a _reason_ for everything?" --Calvin 
>** "Should I or shouldn't I? -- Too late, I did!" --Hobbes 
	Clans suck.  But if you oppenant can't play they are kinda fun to make
connfetti out of.  Anybody like that shareware version of Battletech.  With
pretty much all the stuff the real game had?  Just curious.

		Thanks very much
			From

				Mr. Touch
From: kabreuer@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Klaus Breuer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: Machine Guns in BTECH
Date: 20 Dec 92 21:32:37 GMT
Organization: Student Pool, CSD, University of Erlangen, Germany
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.188.60.9

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

Ciao,
Klaus

PS: Gosh, I hope I'm not wrong in this - would be awfully emparassing :)
---
Klaus Breuer, Rudelsweiher Str. 6b, 8520 Erlangen, Germany
** "Geez, I need a _reason_ for everything?" --Calvin 
** "Should I or shouldn't I? -- Too late, I did!" --Hobbes 
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: probe@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Prabal Nandy)
Subject: Re: ECM system (was RE: C3 Network Questions)        
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:30:42 GMT

   Reading from the Compendium, However....

   "....The artemis locks onto any target, illuminates it with an _infared
beam_..." (p.118)

   According to your theory, the GECM knocks out all transmitted signals,
but not laser 'painting', such as used by TAG or targeting computers... But
as we can see, the Artemis IV is ALSO a beam 'painting' system and therefore
should NOT be blocked by GECM...  

   Hmmm... Perhaps it's the "Tight-beam microwave communications link..."?

                                                        Lord of the Flies
							1st MPC Division
						        Colony World Myops
From: rspangle@celaeno.uucp (Randy Spangler)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Lego mechs (was Re: Set a Standard)
Date: 17 Dec 1992 23:39:20 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: celaeno.micro.caltech.edu

In article <1992Dec11.221304.15882@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> mhatz@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mike Hatz) writes:

%Mike
%Master of the Lego Mechs!  :-)

I once built a Veritech fighter out of lego - about 15" long, and it could
transform, without being disassembled, into all 3 modes.  I've got pictures
somewhere...

Anyone else build mechs out of something interesting?  How about radio
control mechs?  (Yeah, yeah, with real guns and lasers, and model rocket
engines for jump jets...)

-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Randy Spangler                   |   Get your mind out of the gutter   |
|   rspangle@micro.caltech.edu       |   you're blocking my periscope      |
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: parnell_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Pi-Rat)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: Mech Design Theory
Date: 20 Dec 1992 22:34:47 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council (Public Access), Wgtn, Nz
Reply-To: parnell_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

In article <1992Dec19.172249.2608@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>, 
			sjb5@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (STACY JOHN BEHRENS) writes:

>In article <BzCH9o.Mxv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, 
	       		ses52823@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Marius) writes:
>>You obviously meant to type 'Hunchback' NOT 'Hunter'...

>No, I'm talking 20-45 tons and moving 6-9-6+.  Much different mech than a
>Huchback.  Used properly, much more effective too.

	Well that sounds like one of my hunchbacks....
		50 tons
		6-9-6
		close to max armour
		Gauss or 2 Large Pulse Lasers
		2 med lasers

>-- 
>Stacy John Behrens
>*===)-------------
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>The only justification for our concepts and systems of concepts is that they
>serve to represent the complex of our experiences; beyond this they have not
>legitimacy.                                  [Albert Einstein]
>||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Paul
	Ciao, May The Dice Be With You
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
|       We gaurantee fast service, No matter how long it takes...             |
|                                  EMail:PARNELL_P@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz         |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: cosc182n@menudo.uh.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: BTECH: high-speed hovertanks
Date: 14 Dec 1992 20:36:38 -0600
Organization: University of Houston
NNTP-Posting-Host: menudo.uh.edu

Ya, but I have a mech that would survive! I call the series Gravedigger,
due to the fact that they are very tough mechs.  100 ton to 50 tons
machines of destruction.  The Gravediggers are a custom lance, utilizing
a mixture of technologies. From freezers to standard armor, ERPPCs to
machine guns.... 

I'll post the if I get a chance (My account is 'bout to be zapped)



                                                   Erik
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 12:09:56 EST
From: <JJR111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Mekton - Gundam

  Hi there, has anyone done any work on stats for mecha from Chars
Counterattack.  Intereseted in the Alpha ??????, the large mech at
the end.  I think it would qualify as an escort size mech.
Any comments?

Jim Racz
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: BTECH: heat sinks anyone
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:23:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.183752.7028@gw.wmich.edu> 964reid@gw.wmich.edu writes:
>I am still waiting on the a reply from lunatic or stephene on 
>my question of heat sinks....
>
>
>can they be turned on and off at will??
>
>thanx.
>x91reid@gw.wmich.edu


    ]-[ey, give us a chance, eh?  (:  Only about 15 hours passed since
 you first asked for a specific response from Stephane or me.  We can't
 be online 24 hours a day, even if we wanted to be.  <grin>
 
    ___
     |here's nothing official in the rules about turning off heat sinks
 during a game.  It simply isn't addressed.  People should feel free to
 make their own house rules about it, though.  Here's a few examples:
 
 #1)  A mech can turn off all of its additional heat sinks (beyond the
      10 that come with the engine) together during a turn.  This is
      rather limiting, but then a mechwarrior already has ENOUGH on
      his hands to do, so it should be something that can be done by
      flipping only a single switch.
 
 #2)  A mech can turn off any number of its heat sinks individually,
      but they don't stop working until the NEXT turn.  This gives
      you a bit more chance -- Are you SURE that you're not going to
      need those extra 5 heat sinks, next turn?
 
 #3)  A mech can turn off any number of heatsinks, but only by a tech
      BEFORE the battle, and it takes a tech AFTER the battle to turn
      then back on again.  This is for those mechs that have TSM but
      don't have enough weapons to push their heat up to 19.
 
 #4)  A mech can turn off any number of heatsinks, at any time.
      Nah, not enough of a challenge....
     _
    (_ hoose one of these, or make up your own.

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= 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: Battletech: You want munchkin?
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 07:01:51 GMT

In article <Bz44LM.KJr@newsflash.concordia.ca> kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane) writes:
>From: m91kgh@tdb.uu.se (Karl-Gunnar Hultland)
>I wrote:
>> : 	Sam always want's to ballance the game... and I think he is
>> : right to do so. BTW, it wasn't HIS decision about the Clans. He did
>> : contribute about their background though.
>> 
>> Now tell us who we shall bash then? Who is responible for
>> the Munchikinification of our beloved 'giand robot':) game?
>
>	Jordan K. "I'm a millionaire" Weisman
>
>	... not disrespect intended. He reminds me of Jobs a lot!
>	BTW he has a lovelly family ... 
>
>	Reason Clans arrived :  Jordan wanted a COMPUTER game.
>				Programmers wanted it easy.
>				Thus Omni.
>
>				Thus... add it to BattleTech.
 
     _
    /-\ctually, OmniMechs are/were the next logical step for BattleTech. 
 I started designing my own versions of OmniMechs, called Modular
 Technology, or just MOD for short  (the mechs were collectively known 
 as the "MOD Squad" -- go ahead and groan :)  in 1988, which was two
 years before FASA came out with the OmniMechs.  I was quite amused
 when I saw theirs.  Of course, I didn't do any of this Clan technology
 weaponry, which is where I think the REAL munchkinitis comes in.  I
 just used 3025 and then Star League tech when the 2750 TR came out.
 I'm not going to say that anyone stole the idea from anyone else, as
 very few people ever saw my "MOD" mechs before FASA came out with the
 Omnis (few people have seen most of them even today).  I consider it
 concurrent development of the same, logical idea.
 
    ][t's ridiculously easy for me to whip out new designs, now, with
 my charts and my "MOD" mechs.  I just get out my custom tables, a
 sheet of white paper, put something like the following at the top,
 and go:
 
 MOD Packages
 ------------                                                  Crits: 27
 60 tons, XL/ES, 6/9, 13.0 (max+.25) armour, 0 unalloc HS+4   Remain: 20.5
 W                      L   C   T       W                      L   C   T
 --                     --  --  --      --                     --  --  --
 HS (Double) 10/20      -   0   0       HS (Double) 10/20      -   0   0
 (Weapons, etc. here)                   (Weapons, etc. here)

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: dpund@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Tantor (Dennis Pund))
Subject: Re: C3 Network Questions......
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 07:28:52 GMT

In <14DEC199200230401@zeus.tamu.edu> rrb3919@zeus.tamu.edu (BARRON, RANDY R) writes:

>  Tantor asks:
>	
>>	I have a question about the C3.  If you had an altered ECM package
>>that would decode the enemy C3 transmition frequency and transfers the info
>>to your onboard C3 or slave, Could you tap into the enemy C3 network and use
>>their sensors?

>
>	Wouldn't that be convenient though.  Being at 19 with an ER
>Large Laser or a ER PPC yet having a effective range of 0 (you use
>the targetting system of the mech you're firing at)....

>			Cpt. Adriaan Thorne

	Well not quite what I mean.  I usually fight battles with 1000 tons 
per side in mechs and 1000 in vehicals, so there is a tendency to use lance
organization.  I want to use a lancemates sensors agienst their friends.  Tho
you could also argue that you might be able to use the C3 signal to get a 
better lock on the target.  What do you all think?


					-Tantor

Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: ratner@owlnet.rice.edu (Logan Joshua Ratner)
Subject: Re: Energy or ballistic?
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:56:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.222311.2086@ncsu.edu> melody@grad00.math.ncsu.edu (Patrick Melody) writes:
>In article <Bz24BL.4D4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jrcrum@arapahoe.ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>>I believe the G-rifle would not need power amps, if you'll remember, it  
>>runs off of capacitors (shrug) which cause it to blow up if the weapon  
>>itself is hit.
>
>Yeah, but firing the weapon discharges those capacitors.  They need to be
>recharged, maybe not after every shot (though the rail guns we have now
>generally do) but eventually.        
>
>


The beauty of capacitors is that they can deliver a lot of
charge (read current) and thus a high voltage fairly quickly.

What you do is slowly charge one (or a bank of them)  then
rapidly discharge them by shorting across them.

Thus they must be charged after every 'shot.'  They arn't
batteries and couldn't be replaced by batteries.  A battery
that could produce the strength of energy pulse that a
capacitor gives would be enormous, by comparison.  But then,
it wouldn't need to be recharged after every pulse.
The trade-off is size and weight, which is why capacitors are
used.

(Isn't a background in E.E. wonderful? :-> )

ratner