HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: META: Subject Line Header
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 03:44:09 GMT

In article <1gqcmpINNo0j@charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu> tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Stress Kitty) writes:
>Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex writes:
>>I write:
>>>2)  For killfiles to work, we need unique strings 
>> 
>> Heh heh!  Realize that part of the impetus for the creation of
>> this group was because there was a huge amount of BattleTech posts
>> on rec.games.board, and they were separated by those kinds of of tag
>> strings.  I created rec.games.mecha to split off those posts into a
>> separate newsgroup where all the topics of discussion would be so
>> similar that tag strings for kill files would not be needed.  
>
>Unlike you, I think tag strings are good.  I have a threaded news-
>reader, and on the subject screen I'd like to be able to take only
>the anime-based stuff (have to do that by subject) and the Mekton
>stuff.  Now, quite often I can see topics that seem to be obviously
>specific to battletech, and can un-select them.  However, many of 
>the topics are just "huh?" subjects.

 
    ][ never said that I thought that they were bad.  It's merely
 a consequence of moving mecha (specifically BattleTech) posts from
 rec.games.board to rec.games.mecha that people are going to be less
 inclined to put tag strings on their posts.  Perhaps I didn't phrase
 it correctly, the first time.  The main thrust was to split off mecha
 posts into their own group.  Once there, I would not expect to ask
 people to continue with the tag strings, as there would be (and _WAS_,
 if you saw my initial "Welcome to rec.games.mecha" post, where there
 was some later confusion over a request I made in it) resistance to
 it.
 

>> gamers have been granted the freedom to put whatever they want in
>> their subject lines, and it's too late to turn back now.  (:
>
>I never thought politely asking for subject tags were violating
>freedom of speech.  I exercise mine in asking, and they exercise
>their freedom of choice and thence their freedom of expression in
>telling or not.
 
 
    ][ should have put "freedom," above, in quotes.  On rec.games.board
 there was a self-imposed "restriction" on the subject lines, requiring
 a tag string.  I'm sure many people saw the creation of rec.games.mecha
 as "freeing" them from that "restriction."  Anyway, I support your
 freedom of speech in asking people to put tag strings on their posts.
 It's merely my intent to let you know that you may expect some
 reluctance on the part of the people on rec.games.mecha who came over
 from rec.games.board to concede to your request.  My apologies for
 any ill feelings generated.

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
From: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Second Genyosha)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: BTECH: Cestus stats
Date: 16 Dec 1992 01:10:40 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council (Public Access), Wgtn, Nz
Reply-To: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

In article <CRUSADER.92Dec15015209@liero.cc.lut.fi>, crusader@lut.fi (Crusader ,the Holy Soldier of Metal) writes:
>> In article <Bz96rq.3DF@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>, cpbeaure@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Chris Beauregard) writes:
>> A little while ago I pikced up a miniature for the Cestus mech.
>> ///unfortunately, I'm missing the stats for it.  I think it popped up in
>> a Battletechnology a while back (aren't they all a while back <grin>).
>> Anyhow, would some kind individual please post/e-mail (might as well
>> post, share the wealth...) the stats for it?

>Are miniatures for the 'mechs published in the Battletechnology 
>available? If so, where ?
>I crusader@kannel.lut.fi

 Ral Partha did put out the old Battledroids years ago and I got the
Falcon and Gladiator. I suspect that the Falcon will reappear soon as
it is a 3050 mek now.

 Does anyone have the latest on Ral Partha? I'm awaiting the Katana/Crockett
and a few of the 3055 meks to buy. I would buy the odd Clan meks, but they
don't fit together very well.
This has been....
 Tony Taia                                    (Sho-sa of the Second Genyosha)
  TAIA_A@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
3055-3067: So little time, so many Clan meks to kill! :)        `|'Disclaimer!
**Noone knows what I know, so you know that what I know is only mine to know**
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: Limb loss in Btech
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:43:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.052854.28694@u.washington.edu> foregone@stein.u.washington.edu (Carl Chavez) writes:
>I would like to know what you Btech guys think about the following...
>
>Suppose a _quick_ hovercraft hits the left leg. Would the mech:
>
>1) lose the left leg and fall down (as the rules would say), or
>
>2) lose BOTH legs because the hovercraft's momentum (?) would carry it into
>	the next leg
 
     _
    (_,ood question.  How about another question: Why would you WANT it
 to take out both legs?  So that it can't get up on the remaining one
 leg?  To decrease salvage value?
     _
    /-\nyway, I think there's a lot of qualifications to the question.
 If the hover hits from the front, you could say that it didn't hit
 head-on, but more of a glancing blow, so only one leg is lost.  If the
 hover hits from the side, you could say that the first leg takes the
 shock of the damage and crumples (like the front end of a car).  Then
 the mech either tumbles over/to the side of the hover (not according
 to the rules) or it gets bumped off into the next hex before the hover
 can get to the next leg ("Damn, those legs are just like springs!"),
 which the rules seem to infer.  Besides, the hover supposedly comes to
 a complete stop in that hex, so at the end of the charge it's supposed
 to have zero momentum.  Being as unrealistic as it is, you could say
 that at the precise moment the hover touches the mech's leg, all
 kinetic energy is instantly transferred, the hover comes to a complete
 stop, and the energy then wrecks the leg, changes its vector to UP,
 proceeds to demolish the side torso, and then if there's any left over
 it finally changes its vector to HORIZONTAL again and does its remaining
 thing on the center torso. 
    ___
     |ake your pick.  (:

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
From: pad@probitas.cs.utas.edu.au (Paul A Daniels)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: Battletech: Re: 'City Archer'
Date: 20 Dec 92 22:37:40 GMT
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.


	
	I don't think the clans have much of an advantge these days.
Heck anyone crippled by that silly sense of honor that most perople play them
with, and then the fact that the IS mechs are almost (*donns flame retardant
suit) as good. Heck even using the 3025 tech you can come up with some
deadly mechs, (let alone vehicles). The poor old clanners dont have much of a 
chance when they have 1.5 times their tonnage up against them, they have to
be extremely mobile, as all you need to do with the IS designs is over gun them
you can guarantee a kill fairly quickly, all though you take losses :).
	Heck the modify the old 3025 warhammer, drop its speed to 3/5 and
replace its short range weapons for an AC/20 (you wouldnt want to bbe mugged
by this), or change the AC/20 for ML and heatsinks to use them. You end up with 
a very nasty mech and that is without FF armor, blue shields etc....
	
	Playing without the clan honor system, and allowing the IS to field
whatever it wants, 1.5x tonnage for the IS is giving them an advantage.

	Oh for a complete rewrite of the Construction/Weapon types/damage rules
but then it would be slower or no longer battletech ;)

-
[All of the above was MHO, so if you don't like ti just ignore it. I just get
a little irritated with all the people complianing about the unfair advantage 
of the clans.]
From: hamilton_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: BTECH: ammo explosions
Date: 20 Dec 92 23:46:06 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Organization: Wellington City Council (Public Access), Wgtn, Nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

In article <1992Dec17.164738.11209@wam.umd.edu>, ara@wam.umd.edu (Ford Prefect) writes:
>In article <17DEC199209072401@jane.uh.edu> st1pn@jane.uh.edu (Sparkl McWarkl) writes:
>>I've seen a few people comment on ammo explosions damaging adjacent mechs...
>>How exactly is this figured?  Could put a whole new spin on our campaigns, I 
>>would guess....
>>
>>
>>McWarkl:  "Lessee, you get an ammo crit.  You have *how* many rounds left??"
> Well there are propably better ways to handle this but the system we use
>is anything in the adjacent hexes takes 10 percent of the total explosive
>force of all the ammo on the mech.  The Pilot of the exploding mech
>is ofcourse caught in the explosion during ejection and is Killed
>that is assuming the ejection system is turned on :->
>
>-Ara 
>"Hey! who stuck that AC20 Round in my jump jet nosels"


 An early form of this type of ammo explosion me and some mates used to use was
just to say that the damage is halved in the next hex, and so on, ie it keeps
going untill you have one point of damage. Totaly unrealistic, but quite fun.
 We had a 'Mech that was about 30 tons moving about 7/11, no armour, and just
piled to the hilt with machine gun ammo, about 10 tons. You'ed run it up to an 
enemy 'Mech, going full tilt and using as much cover as posible. Then, if the
mech you were charging fired on you, there was a good chance he'll hit the
ammo. If he didnt fire on it, just get the rest of your lance to shoot him. And
if that didnt work, when you charge him, you have another chance to hit the
ammo. This would kinda assume that ALL the ammo goes in a chain reaction.
 "Here, I'll have 4000 points of damage in my hex, ouch, and, oops heres 2000
points to you, and oh look, your friend is two hexes away, sorry about that.
Hay you, you're four hexes away, well you still take 250 points...."
 Very munchkin, we only used it once....<sick> 8->.

  ->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->->
  \                                                                          \
  / '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             /
  \                                                                          \
  <-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-<-
From: ratner@owlnet.rice.edu (Logan Joshua Ratner)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: Mekton II
Keywords: Building Mektons
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:18:24 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <NFTkVB1w165w@runic.via.mind.org> thantos@runic.via.mind.org (Paul Williams [SysOp]) writes:
>
>ratner@owlnet.rice.edu (Logan Joshua Ratner) writes:
>
>> Further:
>> There is a new supplement out by R. Talsorian for Mecha Construction.
>> I forget the name, but it looks to be a major revamp/upgrade.  Frankly,
>> the Mekton II rules were a bit vague in places. For example:
>
>   Yup, the  _MTS_  outdates  quite  a  lot.  I'll answer your question as
>        well as I can using the new rules.
>

>> What can/can't one do from a gunner's cockpit?
>
>   Can't pilot and can only fire weapons allowed from that cockpit.    The
>        pilot can always override.

Okay, can I tie all weapons to the gunner's control?  If not, what are
the restrictions?

>> Also note that the thrust to weight ratio as given in the game
>> (3:1) is not adhered to in the sample mechs which use a 1:1 ratio.
>
>   3:1 is only the space to construction points as  far  as  I  can  tell,
>        thus  twelve points in fans (6cp) fits in two spaces, while twelve
>        points in AG (24cp) takes eight.

Er, um, I meant the air-speed calculations based thrust/tonnage.  The sample
mechs violate the Mekton II rules as stated.

>> I havn't seen the new rules, but I have been using a sort of "house rules"
>> that fix many of these problems.
>
>   Mind throwing them up at us?

As soon as I compare them to the new rules, I'll pass them on.
I'll also give the whole thing for those who don't have/use MTS.

>> Another fix is that in my games movement is no longer an action.
>> This eliminated the "stand and shoot to get more shots off" syndrome
>> that often developed at my house.
>
>   I don't seem to have that problem 'round here.    Of  course,  standing
>        still is usually a bad idea unless you're lying in ambush.  :)

Really?  In my games, the guy who stood off and let an attack fly w/ every
available action tended to win.  How do you avoid this?

>thantos@runic.via.mind.org (Paul Williams [SysOp])


ratner
From: lxb@doc.ic.ac.uk (Luan Xuan Bach)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: Battletech MUSE.....
Date: 11 Dec 1992 19:24:44 -0000
Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK.
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: oak42.doc.ic.ac.uk


In article <1992Dec11.164552.1292@gn.ecn.purdue.edu>, tblackma@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Marauder) writes:
|> I have heard about the Battletech MUSE that is out on the net.  What is 
|> it, and how do I play.  Any help would be appreciated.
|> 
|> Tom
|> -- 
|> tblackma@gn.ecn.purdue.edu--------------------------Thomas Blackman
|> *  Paint 'em all, let the               "Impressive.........,"    *
|> *  Judges sort 'em out.                 "Most Impressive....."    *
|> *  Tippmann's forever!                      -Darth Vader          *

telnet 129.72.2.48 3026 to get logon.

BTW if anyone reading this is an 'expert' on MUSE, I can do with some advice on
creating objects and making MONEY :).
From: itchy.caltech.edu!hanishd (Daniel Hanish)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Scouts
Date: 12 Dec 1992 03:59:13 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: itchy.caltech.edu
Originator: hanishd@itchy


	Since everyone's talking about their favorite light recon 'Mechs  
(10/15(20)/0 speed and so on) I should point out one thing: get a vehicle  
instead.
	A VTOL or a hovertank can usually outperform an equal-weight light  
'Mech, and is a heckuva lot cheaper.  Also, a VTOL can go over obstacles a  
lot better.  Notice that XL engines and FF armor have NO drawbacks on  
vehicles.
	Imagine a Savannah Master with an XL engine (movement of 20/30 or  
so, and about 2 tons of weapons and armor).  The fastest a 'Mech can run  
is 30, if it weighs 20 tons, has almost no armor or weaponry, and a MASC.
	I personally prefer this for a scout: (BTW, it has to be unmanned;  
the g-forces would kill the pilot)

Name: Seeker
Type: VTOL
Tonnage: 0.5
	Internal Structure: 0.05
	Control Components: 0.025
	Rotors: 	    0.05
	Engine: 25 XL	    0.375
		Cruise: 150 MP's
		Flank:  225 MP's
		Suspension Factor: 50
	Armor: 0, but has 1 point of Internal Structure in each location
Cost: about 8000 C-Bills

	This thing has no armor, no weaponry, and moves 14 boards EACH  
TURN (Imagine if it sideslips!).  It is dirt cheap- a Foot Infantryman,  
not Anti-Mech trained, costs 20,000 per man.  Since it is almost always  
unmanned, and has no remote control, its mission must be programmed before  
launch.  However, you can program it to do general missions, such as  
follow a unit, scout an area, or seek-and-destroy.
	It does 11 pts. of damage when it rams you, and if it misses, it  
turns around.  This makes it a good defensive unit for an installation- it  
can be launched at the last minute, ordered to attack the first enemy unit  
it sees (and it's about as cheap as some SRM's)
	Of course, where are you going to get hundreds of XL engines?  Too  
bad the Clans don't use vehicles: these'd make great jetpacks for  
Elementals.

PS: anyone ever actually calculate G-forces for AeroTech?  I did once-  
seems a 1 Thrust Point acceleration on the outer space map, assuming an  
even one-minute burn, pulls something like 21 G's PER THRUST POINT.  Just  
one more thing to think about when you mention "munchkins".
From: 997vanderkol@gw.wmich.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: ECM system (was RE: C3 Network Questions)        
Date: 17 Dec 92 10:07:40 EST
Organization: Western Michigan University

In article <1992Dec17.033042.5948@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>, probe@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Prabal Nandy) writes:
>    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...  

	"The Guardian ECM suite is a broad-spectrum jamming and electronic
countermeasure device designed to reduce the effectiveness of enemy
long-range scanning and surveillance equipment."

	Broad spectrum would include infra-red and UV. All it needs to do to
mess up Artemis is emmit infra-red signals to jam the system.
> 
>    Hmmm... Perhaps it's the "Tight-beam microwave communications link..."?
> 
>                                                         Lord of the Flies
> 							1st MPC Division
> 						        Colony World Myops
> 

John VanDerKolk
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: foregone@stein.u.washington.edu (Carl Chavez)
Subject: Re: BTECH: high-speed hovertanks
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:04:47 GMT

In article <RATINOX.92Dec15211309@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu writes:
>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:28:10 GMT, a2chao@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu
>>>>>> (Allen Chao) said:
>
>Allen> But the paperwork, the paperwork! 8)
>
>I didn't throw them all at once. Just wave after wave after wave of
>hovertanks :-).
>
>Allen> It might also be interesting to see if your hovertanks cost less
>Allen> than the mechs...  (I didn't know that you were allowed 5 ton
>Allen> vechs....)
>
>Gabriel Hovertank, 5 Tons
>                        Heat Sinks 10   0.0     Armor
>IS              0.5     Control Equip.  0.25    Front  5
>Engine     35   1.5     Lift Equip.     0.5     Left   3
>  Type     Fusion       Power Amp.      0.0     Right  3
>  Cruise   15           Turret          0.1     Rear   3
>  Flank    23           Armor      18   1.0     Turret 4
>
>Medium Laser    1.0     Turret
>
>This thing *defines* fast. :-)
>
>--Rat

But you use a fusion engine. I couldn't use this in one of my campaigns,
because of the rarity of such engines. Do you have an IC version?

(BTW, my Amputator design (the hovercraft ram that knocks off both legs)
has been lost. I'll post it when I rebuild it).



Organization: Sophomore, Physics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: bradleah@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (II Andrew Bradley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: House Mech Document
Date: 12 Dec 1992 04:18:22 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department at Rose-Hulman
Reply-To: bradleah@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (II Andrew Bradley)
NNTP-Posting-Host: o233-06.nextwork.rose-hulman.edu


		I was wondering if anyone had a house document on the  
different mechs that they allow to run in their games that are either FASA  
varients or are "home grown mechs."????????
		If anyone does and would like to take the time to put it  
in a format that can be sent through e-mail ( I do not know how; any help)    
than I would be greatly appricative of you.  If not then o-well; I guess  
that it was worth a shot.

		Thanks in Advance,
	Andy Bradley ( e-mail at bradleah@nextwork.rose-hulman.edu )

		a.k.a.
			Major Drew Bradley of the Merc Unit "Black Hawks"
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Repost: Basilisk BSK - 1C
From: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Second Genyosha)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 02:47:50 GMT
Reply-To: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
Organization: Wellington City Council (Public Access), Wgtn, Nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

 Just to let you know I'm not totally lost in 3050+, here's an old tek design.
***---***
 I'm bored after designing new tech (3050 IS) meks and who needs more Clan
meks? So I decided to do a back to basics and create a old tech (3025) mek.
So here it is named the Basilisk, care of my aging AD&D Monster Manual.

Basilisk BSK - 1C
65 Tons              Criticals Locations Tonnage
IS Standard             -          -        6.5
Engine: Magna 260       -          -       13.5
 Walk : 4
 Run  : 6
 Jump : 4
Gyro & Cockpit          -          -        6.0
Heat Sinks     11       1         1H        1.0
Armour        208       -          -       13.0 NB:Use Thunderbolt(3025) stats

AC/5                    5         5RT       8.0
Ammo (AC/5) 20          1         1RT       1.0
AC/5                    5         5LT       8.0
Ammo (AC/5) 20          1         1LT       1.0
Medium Laser            1         1LA       1.0
Small Laser             1         1CT       0.5
Small Laser             1         1CT       0.5
Medium Laser            1         1RA       1.0
4 Jump Jets             4        2RT/2LT    4.0

Overview:
 The Basilisk is the first in a new branch of meks for the Canopus military.
Lacking any real heavy and assault mek facilities, the Basilisk tries to
overcome the lack of power that is so common in the Canopus military, which
is the main factor contributed to the poor showing during the Invasion of
the Confederation.

Capabilities:
 Though the Basilisk lacks the real firepower of a PPC, the AC/5s do provide
some damage. The difficulty of purchasing or producing PPCs and large lasers
prohibits their being used in any serious construction. Such are the
shortcomings of the Periphery.
 The lasers are dependable and provide the Basilisk with additional punch
after the AC/5s have run dry. The jump jets were installed to allow the
Basilisk to outmanuever the Warhammers and Thunderbolts of the Taurians.
Though the Basilisk lacks the firepower of the Inner Sphere, on this side
far away from the awesome Clans. The Basilisk has found a home and looks to
be used for many years to come.

Battle History:
 The Basilisk has been used againist the Taurians on two occassions, both
times it destroyed and crippled twice it's number. Much to the disgust of
the Taurians.

Variants:
 Replacing the AC/5s with AC/10s and the deadly AC/20s is seen as feasible,
but at present there are not plans to do so.

***---***
 Hope you enjoyed it
This has been....
 Tony Taia                                    (Sho-sa of the Second Genyosha)
  TAIA_A@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
3055-3067: So little time, so many Clan meks to kill! :)        `|'Disclaimer!
**Noone knows what I know, so you know that what I know is only mine to know**