From: foregone@stein.u.washington.edu (Carl Chavez)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: Vehicle rules and munchkinism  (with ANSWERS!)
Date: 28 Dec 1992 21:24:55 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <1992Dec26.010028.708@netcom.com> clarka@netcom.com (Andrew Clark) writes:
>
>
>The problem is twofold: 1) that high-speed tiny vehicles are used for
>ramming  and  2) that hovercraft and VTOLS are now more effective 
>in the backshot role than 'Mechs.
>
>The answer to the first is to selectively prohibit the use of 
>ramming by vehicles.  An absolute ban (of the type created by this
>proposed rules change) would IMHO detract from the spirit of
>Battletech.  Vehicles should have a chance -- perhaps not a FAIR
>chance, but nonetheless a chance. 
>
>The answer to the second is to reduce the efficiency of VTOLS and 
>hovercraft in the backshot role.  This would involve changes to
>the hovercraft and/or VTOL design rules in order to slow them
>down and make them less efficient in the backshot role when
>compared with 'Mechs.
>
>Here is a list of proposed fixes that would be less catastrophic
>than modifying the sequence of play yet might solve the problem,
>singly or in combination:  
> 
>
>Vehicle-mounted fusion engines no longer get ten heat sinks free.  
>Instead, they get one free heat sink for every 25 points of Engine 
>Rating.  This encourages the use of missile and ballistic weapons 
>on vehicles, which makes more sense.  This would require a 
>redesign of most vehicles mounting energy weapons. 
>

Fine.

>[It would prevent light hovercraft from cheaply mounting the
>ever-popular medium laser.]
>
>The Suspension/Lift factors for hovercraft are lowered.
>The obscene speed of hovercraft is directly due to the Suspension
>Factors, so lowering the suspension factors would lower hovercraft
>speeds.  This would require a redesign or refiguring of all hovercraft
>designs currently published. 
>

Maybe...

>[It would simultaneously slow down hovercraft and make it more
>difficult for hovercraft to mount as many weapons or as much armor in
>order to remain fast.  The precise amount of the change should be
>carefully calculated by FASA.]   
>
>Hovercraft and VTOLS are prohibited from deliberately ramming other
>units due to the fragile nature of their construction and their pilots'
>desire to remain alive.  Only tracked and wheeled land vehicles may
>deliberately ram.  Accidental rams (due to skidding or sideslipping) 
>should be resolved using the existing rules.  This would require no
>changes to existing vehicle designs.
>

No. VTOLs I understand, but hovercraft? I don't see much difference in
structure between wheeled, tracked, and hover vehicles.

>[This should be a clean and quick fix.  It could be done tomorrow.]
>
>The C-Bill cost of hovercraft and VTOLs could be increased as a 
>balancing factor.  I don't use the C-Bill rules myself, but some people
>on the network do and this seems like an obvious fix to make.
>
>[Alone, this wouldn't have much impact.  It's still a good idea.]

Not really. Hovercraft and VTOLs could not possibly cost as much as a mech...



My idea: during the initiative phase, each side involved rolls initiative
for each individual unit, with vehicles suffering a -2 penalty. This can be
simplified in large scale battles, with mixed units suffering a -2 penalty.

The argument that hovercraft and VTOLs are too dangerous because of backshots
is ludicrous. If the mech user has light mechs, he/she can avoid the hovers
and VTOLs!