HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tdunn@ecst.csuchico.edu (Stress Kitty)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: META: Subject Line Header
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:17:13 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: grotus.ecst.csuchico.edu

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.

> 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.

-- 
Krogt, n. (chemical symbol: Kr):
	The metallic silver coating found on fast-food game cards.
		-- Rich Hall, "Sniglets"
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: wh@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Winter Nova)
Subject: [BTECH] Can Vehicles Charge Mechs Under New FASA Rules?
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:27:54 GMT

On page 17 of Issue Eight of Mech Magazine, it is written that FASA has
approved a change to the Sequence of Play:

I.   Initiative
II.  Vehicle Movement
III. BattleMech Movement
etc.

It is written that this new rule takes into consideration that Mechs can
react faster than any other type of movement because of the use of legs and
neurohelmets; therefore, "Mechs should be able to move later in the round
(when compared to vehicles)."

Does this mean that vehicles cannot charge Mechs under this new rule?

Please consider, too, that a Mech can be charged only AFTER it has moved.
Since all Mechs will move AFTER all vehicles have moved, is there no way
for Mechs to be charged by vehicles?

I've been following the thread of cannon fodder vehicles, and I've used
them a few times as well, so I am interested in knowing if this new FASA
rule will change things a bit.  I'd appreciate any follow-ups.  Thanks.

Winter Nova
Night Stalkers
--
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: m91kgh@tdb.uu.se (Karl-Gunnar Hultland)
Subject: Re: Griffon Stats wanted
Organization: Dept. of Scientific Computing, Uppsala Univ.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 09:48:38 GMT

Andrei Cogan (coganman@soda.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: Heat Sinks	13	3
: 
: 	the MUSE uses all 3025 tek as far as I can tell. BTW, look for me as
: Private Blantleff of the 21st Centauri Lancers (FWL Mercs). Therefore, look
: out you Cappies and Elsies and Federats -- yo' asses is mine :)

Well Dixie will await you eagerly in her Mech carrying that Sunbeam of
hers :)


					Karl

-- 

Karl-Gunnar Hultland              Vox Dei, Vox Populi
m91kgh@bellatrix.tdb.uu.se
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Subject: Re: Which weapon is best? (Was: Re: btech lrm)
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:52:27 GMT

From: cosc182n@menudo.uh.edu

> I nominate the disruptor as the Klingon weapon of choce....
> 
> (Bad makeup indead!)

	Indeed! 

 I nominate the Genessis device. It's Ecologically friednlly!
	(Well at least to the ecology IT starts!)



+---------------------------------+   ___     ___       ___
| Stephane I. Matis               |  /   \_BATLLETECH  /\__\ Viva NeXT! 
| E-Mail : kgnome@cs.concordia.ca |  \___/   \___/     \/__/ NeXTSTEP 3.0!
| "It Just Works..." - Steve Jobs |      \___/   
+---------------------------------+       Wolfnet Operative & NeXThead 
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: ratner@owlnet.rice.edu (Logan Joshua Ratner)
Subject: Re: Mekton II
Keywords: Building Mektons
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 21:42:47 GMT

In article <3cZoVB1w165w@runic.via.mind.org> thantos@runic.via.mind.org (Paul Williams [SysOp]) writes:
>
>ratner@owlnet.rice.edu (Logan Joshua Ratner) writes:
>
>> Okay, can I tie all weapons to the gunner's control?  If not, what are
>> the restrictions?
>
>   Sure can.    You'll  probably  need a co-pilot anyway to run the new EW
>        systems (missile jamming, sensor jamming, radar jamming).
>
>> Er, um, I meant the air-speed calculations based thrust/tonnage.  The sample
>> mechs violate the Mekton II rules as stated.
>
>   I avoid the sample mechs if at all possible.   :)  Air  speed  calc  is
>        Fans base  8  hexes, thrusters 12, gravs 14, no?  Plus one hex per
>        three extra thrust points.  Makes it *real* difficult to  go  full
>        grav thrusters much overspeed (6cp per added hex).

Yes, and it's the plus one per three extra points thrust that the sample
mechs have wrong.  The use a one to one ratio that makes them damned fast.

>
>> 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.
>
>   Great.
>
>> 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?
>
>   I make  sure  he's  got targets outside his firing arc.  Turning around
>        is one action right there, and if you  set  the  good  choices  of
>        targets set  up  properly,  more than one turn.  If its one on one
>        or two on two things can be pretty  cut  and  dry  with  just  two
>        targets,  but with more or with clever use of movement you can hit
>        from the front then slam from the rear.

Nice, but I often end up in small engagements (just the way my campaign works.)
Lots of one on one or two on one attacks.

>
>   There's a much easier process to killing another  mek  in  Mekton  now,
>        simply  open  up  with  a massive salvo of missiles (I have a mek,
>        the Foehammer, with 90 3kill +2WA missiles, 45  of  which  can  be
>        fired in  one  action  at  one  mek.    Base  +11 to hit with that
>        attack.  Torso attacks are deadly.) This assumes  its  not  taking
>        place  in  a  campeign  where  its  difficult to replace missiles,
>        though.  Increase the  scarcity  of  missiles  and  you  make  the
>        players  more  thoughtful  about blowing half their arsonal in one
>        action.

Ouch! 45 3kill missiles?  OUCH. OUCH! OUCH!!

Oh, and what in hell is a PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK?


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

ratner

Organization: Freshman, CIT general, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:47:03 -0500 
From: Robert Everett Brunskill <rb6t+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Battletech: The Great Debate.

I need all the help I can get.  I am a repeat loser at battletech when I
fight against my friends.  I took an equal mass of clan mechs vs.
innersphere and lost.

I don't even want to sign my name it's so embarrassing.
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Subject: Re: BTECH: Question, please help
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 04:58:01 GMT

From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
> >
> >Have the BTech people come out with the SFB equivalent of BPV for
> >various mechs?  It would make it easier in choosing "fair fights".
> >That is if "fair fights" is what you want.
>  
>  
    > |\/|echForce North America, the NA chapter of the kind of
 > BattleTech "fan club," has developed a "Combat Value" system.  FASA
 > has semi-adopted it for their mechs, as all the record sheets they
 > have put out have "Combat Value" numbers printed at the bottom of
 > them.  The actual rules for calculation of these values are only
 > available from MechForce NA, though, they're not in any book that
 > FASA has yet published.  From what I've heard, a lot of the "Combat
 > Values" printed in the record sheets don't add up, anyway.

	I can vouch for that! :-) Actually, Merc2nd has Combat Values
	and uses them EXTENSIVELLY. Also the Medium and Assult 'Mech
	record sheets contain on the last page the formulas. It's 
	a rather simple system.

	Merc2 will include 'Mech, Aerospace, Vehicle and even Infantry 
	calculation tables ... taken staright from Issue #3 of Mechforce
	newsletter.

BTW	Merc2 is leaving my hands for good on Monday. I'm just adding
the finishing touches, like the CV formulas, Mass Combat, and other
general niceties :).

> -- 
   > _______________________________________________________
  > /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 > /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
> /______________________________________________________/


+---------------------------------+   ___     ___       ___
| Stephane I. Matis               |  /   \_BATLLETECH  /\__\ Viva NeXT! 
| E-Mail : kgnome@cs.concordia.ca |  \___/   \___/     \/__/ NeXTSTEP 3.0!
| "It Just Works..." - Steve Jobs |      \___/   
+---------------------------------+       Wolfnet Operative & NeXThead 
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: morrisa@cs.UAlberta.CA (ANDREW Morris)
Subject: Re: Probably Useless, but...
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:36:44 GMT

griffin@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Zack Thompson) writes:


>Howdy-

>Cuisinart here.

>I would just like to say that it is possible to put 38 machine guns
>  on a mech, have two tons of ammo, 12.5 tons of armor, and a
>  movement of 5/8/(10) w/MASC.  80 tonner, IS 3050 tech.  "You say
>  your 5 regiments of infantry need a little support?  Well, I got
>  this mech here...".  Hell, talk about paper cuts...

All I know is that I wouldn't want to be there to watch you roll the
damage(and you WOULD want to roll each gun seperately - greater chance
of knocking out the pilot from head shots...)  ARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!

>Just for the Record.

>                       The Crystal Griffin
--
============================================================================
 "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: kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Subject: Re: btech lrm
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:35:29 GMT

From: st1pn@jane.uh.edu (Sparkl McWarkl)

> Hmmm.  In our games, we always figure individual locations for each LRM hit,
> i.e., if you hit with all 20 of your LRM-20's latest salvo, well, you get
> to roll 20 different times.  Slows the game down a hell of a lot.  This 
> started accidentally, when we were "testing" the game's mechanics, but we
> decided to keep it.  Partially because it seemed reasonable at the time.
> Mostly because it's so deeply ingrained into us by now our heads would
> explode if we tried to change our evil ways.  (Call us rebels.:)

	We tend to replace all the LRM/SRM rules. We have alternate
damage and flight system that makes LRM/SRM a lot deadlier and prevents
a 'Mech form carrying 8000 Bijilion rounds. This way... we can explain
where all those missiles come from ... it's not MAGIC anymore :).

Gosh ... I'm starting to get a Kiwi accent to my smilies ... it's Tony's
fault!


> McWarkl:  "Oh, goodness, you see an entire company of Archers...."
> --
> From the slave pens beneath UH's Social(ist) Work(ers) Building
> :::::::st1pn@jetson.uh.edu:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> "Of course I care.  Just not very much."   --James "Kibo" Parry


+---------------------------------+   ___     ___       ___
| Stephane I. Matis               |  /   \_BATLLETECH  /\__\ Viva NeXT! 
| E-Mail : kgnome@cs.concordia.ca |  \___/   \___/     \/__/ NeXTSTEP 3.0!
| "It Just Works..." - Steve Jobs |      \___/   
+---------------------------------+       Wolfnet Operative & NeXThead 
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Subject: Re: MUSE
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:41:29 GMT

From: jrob@ecst.csuchico.edu (Gillis the Humble)

						> jrob


> BTW: Did anyone else think the two page drawing of Nasty Kerensky in the 
> second source book was a waste of paper?  (dog.)

Are You kidding! I'd like to see you looking right that at 80! :)



+---------------------------------+   ___     ___       ___
| Stephane I. Matis               |  /   \_BATLLETECH  /\__\ Viva NeXT! 
| E-Mail : kgnome@cs.concordia.ca |  \___/   \___/     \/__/ NeXTSTEP 3.0!
| "It Just Works..." - Steve Jobs |      \___/   
+---------------------------------+       Wolfnet Operative & NeXThead
From: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz (Second Genyosha)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Engine Hotroding
Date: 16 Dec 1992 02:58:21 GMT
Organization: Wellington City Council (Public Access), Wgtn, Nz
Reply-To: taia_a@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz
NNTP-Posting-Host: kosmos.wcc.govt.nz

 This question has been bothering me for a wee while

 Is it ok to mount a bigger engine in a mek that allows no additional
movement. Eg a 325 in an Awesome instead of a 320.
 Why? Because you can fit another Heat Sink in the engine :) the additional
three criticals is nice and the extra weight isn't that big of a problem.

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**
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Subject: Re: Probably Useless, but...
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 04:43:11 GMT

From: griffin@sage.cc.purdue.edu (The Crystal Griffin)
> Cuisinart here.

  > with a 400 engine.  OK, let's start doing math:
	> Mech	       100 tons
> 
	> 400 Engine	52.5
	> I.S.		10.0
	> Cockpit	 3.0
	> Gyro		 4.0
	> Armor(had to be max, of course.  Nothing but the best.  Besides,
             > max armo makes the whole thing more rediculous.)
			> 19.5
	 > Jump Jets(4)   8.0  (again, humor value)
			> ____=
			> 97.0 tons

  > Any takers?  Any breakers?  Hmm... now that I'm actually seeing some
  > of these numbers, I might actually take one of these out one of these
  > days when I'm teaching some of my friends to play.  Just to make it
  > fair for them.  "OK.  Fine.  I'll handicap myself.  My mech will only
  > have 3 medium lasers.  NO!  Better yet!! I won't take ANY weapons AT
  > ALL!!!".  Of course, be ready for me to pull some amazing shit right
  > out of my ass.

> Ooops... Just broke out the cost chart.  OK, for the one with 3 medium
  > lasers, here's the cost (remember, this is a HUNDRED TON MECH!!!):
               > 10,615,333.33 C-Bills.
  That's under the cost of (if I remember right) nine 3050 Wasps.  

	I calculated $10,745,333 C-Bills using the spreadsheet for
Merc2. Note... each actuator for hand, etc ... counts twice.

	BTW, Combat Value is 4457 and efficiency is 2.41. All in all
	"decent". :-) Funny eh ?


> So, any opinions on the survivable scout mech from hell?
> 
> Just for my Record.
> 
                       > The Crystal Griffin


	Why Not ? Eh ? :)


+---------------------------------+   ___     ___       ___
| Stephane I. Matis               |  /   \_BATLLETECH  /\__\ Viva NeXT! 
| E-Mail : kgnome@cs.concordia.ca |  \___/   \___/     \/__/ NeXTSTEP 3.0!
| "It Just Works..." - Steve Jobs |      \___/   
+---------------------------------+       Wolfnet Operative & NeXThead 
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
From: pwg25888@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Patrick W. Grady)
Subject: Re: Energy or Ballistic?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:44:50 GMT

hamilton_p@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz writes:

> Jonathan Crum states:

>>  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.

> Well I only got as far as Sixth Form Physics in college, but I know that a
>capacitor is a electronic device that is capable of holding on to an electric
>charge, not unlike a battery, but for lesser amounts of time, used in VCRs to
>keep the time stored even when unplugged from the mains, along with many other
>uses. I never botherd to get a better definition when I was a tech, if one was
>high in value or just faulty, I'd replace it.
> Now an I.C.E engine would turn chemical kenetic enery from fuel, to kenetic
>energy to move the unit. There isnt actually any electricity from the I.C.E
>engnie. Any electriciy would come from batteries like the one in your car.
>This batterie could hardly provide the energy needed to accelerate a gauss
>cannon projectile to approx. 500 kph, thus the need to provide power amps.
                             ^^^^^^^^^

	Is this for real?  If so, no wonder Btech seems hokey.  Personally
I thought that it was just the targeting equipment that was not up to par, 
not the weapons themselves.  The rail gun and guass rifle work off of kinetic
energy from the shell to damage the target.  To get the damage listed on the 
armor that is there for the size of the weapon, the shell is moving at speeds
closer to 2500kph (at least 1200 meters per second lets call it) because there
is no explosive in the shell, it is an inert chunk of nickel-steel alloy.

	As for the Gauss rifle requireing power amps, I can see it going either 
way.  It doesnt take much of an alternator to charge the capacitors so if a
gm wants to limit his players with power amps, he should do so, just call it 
a step up transformer to get the voltage upto what the rifle should use.
      	


> Tada !

> Saiyonara

<<<monster .sig deleted>>>

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: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)
Subject: Re: BTECH: Extra Cockpits
Organization: Netcom; Renegade User
Distribution: World
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 00:13:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.194711.27589@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> probe@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Prabal Nandy) writes:
>
>   Does anyone have, or know of any rules for multi-cockpitted mecha? I know
>the old Grasshopper and Battlemaster certainly look like they have two
>cockpits, and I have heard rumors that you CAN install a second cockpit for
>weapons control, but I have seen no offical rules as such...
 
    ___
     |here ARE NO official rules for multiple cockpits in mechs.  I
 believe that Battletechnology has published some optional rules for
 it, though.  There may have even been something in "Unbound," I can't
 remember, but those aren't "official" rules for BattleTech anyway,
 just for MechWarrior.
 
    ][t's pretty simple to make up your own optional rules for multiple
 cockpits.  Like so:  Second cockpit weighs 1 ton, takes up 1 critical
 space, must be mounted in the head.  Piloting skill or to-hit rolls
 are then based on the piloting or gunnery skill of the person in the 
 second cockpit.  You can say that since they weigh the same and take
 up the same amount of space, both cockpits have dual controls.  So if
 one of the mechwarriors is taken out, then the other one can take over
 the entire mech, but s/he must use his/her piloting and gunnery skills.

-- 
   _______________________________________________________
  /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
/______________________________________________________/
From: st1pn@jane.uh.edu (Sparkl McWarkl)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: btech lrm
Date: 17 Dec 1992 21:37 CST
Organization: University of Houston
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: jane.uh.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <1992Dec17.205921.21127@uwasa.fi>, a70860@uwasa.fi (Carl Patrik Andila) writes...
>Christopher Randall (cs011103@cs.brown.edu) wrote:
>I would argue that the lrm-15 is actually more effective overall because
>it produces more concentrated damage, i.e. a larger percentage of 
>5 points and 4 points damage in one location whereas the lrm-5 tends
>to generate only 2 or 3 points of damage to a specific location.
>	Just to point out that not even the simplest matters in this game
>can be viewed from only one viewpoint. 

Hmmm.  In our games, we always figure individual locations for each LRM hit,
i.e., if you hit with all 20 of your LRM-20's latest salvo, well, you get
to roll 20 different times.  Slows the game down a hell of a lot.  This 
started accidentally, when we were "testing" the game's mechanics, but we
decided to keep it.  Partially because it seemed reasonable at the time.
Mostly because it's so deeply ingrained into us by now our heads would
explode if we tried to change our evil ways.  (Call us rebels.:)


McWarkl:  "Oh, goodness, you see an entire company of Archers...."
--
From the slave pens beneath UH's Social(ist) Work(ers) Building
:::::::st1pn@jetson.uh.edu:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
"Of course I care.  Just not very much."   --James "Kibo" Parry
From: dodger@rajeesh.WPI.EDU (DoDGeR)
Newsgroups: rec.games.mecha
Subject: Re: MUSE
Date: 15 Dec 1992 23:39:41 GMT
Organization: Peace Through Superior Viruses!
NNTP-Posting-Host: rajeesh.wpi.edu

In article <1992Dec15.185706.13644@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> dddawson@lpl.arizona.edu (Doug Dawson) writes:
>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...

ine pount about the MUSE...once it is yup and running...one week in RL
will make it equal to 1 month MUSE time...3050 could be on us in a couple of
 years....
SCaT!!!