From: clarka@netcom.com (Andrew Clark)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH:  On artillery and PBM
Summary: let's get some PBM going somehow!
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:30:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: netcom.1992Nov10.163027.7642
Followup-To: rec.games.board
Distribution: world
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

phygod72@nic.gac.edu (Phil ) writes:
>
>The point has been brought up that my VTOLs will die off easily. 
>This is indeed true, especially against the Clan.  

I <fight> the Clan, so I have to be aware of their capabilities.
Even with Inner Sphere weapons and tactics, artillery observers can be
forcefully dealt with.  (But very high-speed hovercraft work just as well
as VTOLs and can usually take more hits . . . a Savannah Master with TAG
can give Clansmen nightmares :)   

>*However*, in my own defence, I should like to state:
>
>1) You think that the VTOL is going to be *in front* of you?  No way!

Not necessarily.  That's why vehicles have turrets.  (And 'Mechs can flip
arms too.)  

>2) I've added another [+1] to your modifier if you want to shoot against     
>     anything other than one VTOL (secondary target)--not bad for a 
>     five-tonner.

Only if I'm forced to fire at multiple targets.  Your VTOLs are the only
viable target on the mapsheet.  

>3) If worse comes to worse, I'll charge your legs, knocking you to the ground, 
>     essentially crippling you.  (granted, it would take roughly 6 of the 
>     buggers to knock out a leg, but...)

Ok.  That doesn't deal with the hovertanks. :)
It would be a great trade; BTW, where did you get the suicidal pilots
who are also good arty spotters?

>4) I would (with spare tonnage) have VTOL's with a ton of lasers...just 
>     pile them up in the hex behind an assult mech (I can put 1000 of them 
>     there if I had them), and watch his rear armour vapourise!

You think heavy 'Mechs don't carry rear-mounted weapons for just this
contingency?  (And, of course, for close-in battles and dealing with
pesky jump 'Mechs)  Since an assault 'Mech doesn't have speed, it must
have all-around firepower.  (I found this out the hard way at Pacificon
when someone started beating up my Awesome with a jump 'mech.) 

>The artillery force that I have posted is simply a point that I was trying to  
>make--I wouldn't seriously have 600 tons of artillery tanks though it can be  
>done!

That's the point exactly.  Artillery is <not> an unbalancing force, by
itself.  It is a key part of a unified whole . . .

>*****
 
>On another note, is there a way to PBM BattleTech?  I realise that the dice  
>thing would be a little difficult to overcome (perhaps a C program that will  
>interface SMTP servers?), but it'd be a neat idea.  I'd really like to try out 
>my strategies against people that I haven't been playing with for years :)

I'd love to see this done, but I have no idea of how to implement it.  
In E-mail, you could do it with variant rules, an agreed-upon battlefield,
and plotted movement (based on hex numbers and facings.)  It would take a
while to play even one game . . . but if someone comes up with rules for
it, I'll be eager to play.  I haven't found anyone at UC San Diego yet.
-- 
clarka@netcom.com     Andrew Clark     My ignorance is my own fault.
"We have virtual reality today: Pete Wilson lives in it." | Bad cop! 
"Macs are to computing what television is to journalism." | No donut! 
Secondary account at aclark@UCSD.EDU -- prefer mail at netcom site.   
Newsgroups: rec.games.board