If anyone has a moment and would like to work through designing their own robot (which could be used in the game I'm currently working on) grab a copy of the condensed construction rules in PDF format: www.freepress.multiservers.com/maisfactory.pdf.

A quick tutorial:
Start by picking your tonnage (try to stay between 10 and 100 for your first try). Put that number in the Tonnage slot.

Then write in your class (you can find the class weight ranges in the construction rules) after which choose a Single or Double Skeleton (use a single for your first try).

Next, move down to the next line and use the formulas for determing the Skeleton weight and the number of mounts available.

After this move down to the next line and subtract the total tons of the MAIS from 102. This gives you a movement rating which you'll use on the next line.

On this next line you will divide the Movement Rating by the class modifier (2 for everything but unlimited) and this will give you your Hex Usage (range) value. This is the number of hexes this MAIS can use in any given Movement Phase.

To determine Skeletal Points multiply the skeletal tons by 10 and place that number on the empty line. A note has already been added to the sheet as I noticed it was missing as I as writing this tutorial.

Now move to the top left area and use the formula to allocate armor. Armor can take represent up to 1/2 of the total weight of the MAIS standard grade armor give 10 points of protection per ton.

Next, go down to the bottom right area; "Weight available for weapons" line and fill in the empty slots to determine your free weight. Then pick your weapons from the Weapons chart and allocate their mounts to the locations (left arm, left forearm, etc.). There is no specific limit to how many mounts can go in one location but systems may not be split across locations.

Now take your Skeletal Points and allocate those to the gray boxes in each location (divide by 12 and use the odd points on the torso). For locations where you've placed mounts subtract the number of mounts from the Skeletal Points allocated and only write in the remaining Skeletal Points in the box. Total mounts are included in the skeletal points so make sure that when the allocated points andthe mounts are added together they do not exceed the maximum Skeletal Points (skeletal tons x 10).

The rest you should be able to figure out I hope.

If you have any questions or comments please post them here.

I'll post a new quick start set of rules shortly – they've changed quite a bit from the first post I threw up a few days ago.

Thanks,

John

The big question for me is simply, how is your system different from Battletech?

I've read the two .pdfs (pleasantly put together, by the way) and I'm aware that there's no element directly lifted from Battletech, but though the parts are different the whole feels very similar -- with the significant exception of the almost martial arts-style Special Moves, but then the rest of your system doesn't support a very "kung fu in giant robots" kind of approach. What kind of game are you trying to create? And what are you trying to do that Battletech (or Mekton, which I've read but not played) doesn't already do just fine?

First off thanks for taking the time to read through my stuff! I aprreciate it.

I'm trying to do several things, that Battletech doesn't do, actually. As what I've posted so far is really just bits and snippets of the whole - a whole that currently resides mainly in the mass between my ears - I'll kind of lay out direction I want to take the game here:

1) Simplify game play - as compared to Btech or other RPGs. I use only one die! ;) Granted, I'm not a hardcore pen & paper RPG player (grabs my Nomex vest) but I do enjoy Battletech and have for some time. However some of its rules and mechanics seem overly complicated to me.

2) Diversify the MAIS (mech) designs. If you'll notice there is no limit to the weight of a MAIS. I've also included formulas and a ground work to design weapon systems. I hope to encourage some pretty wild designs that will not only be fun to toy with may become necessary when I start to get on to the second part of the game. The part that I want to put the most emphasis on. See No. 4 below.

3) Encourage players to "bond" with a particular MAIS (serial numbers, pilot-mais bonus, etc) so that the actual machine a player's pilot uses almost becomes a character itself.

3) Emphasis on special moves. I've not begun to scratch the surface of these. I do plan on putting more emphasis on "kung fu" style moves.

4) Once I have the "EHG Corridor" rules complete I plan on working on the part of the game that I hope will really change things up. Here's the quick and dirty of "the Expanse." Players will, essentially, join expeditionary force of some faction and explore uncharted planets in the hopes of finding the fabled "Giants." These are giant biological-technological hybrid beings that once ruled the universe. These things will have thousands of hit points and drop "ancient tech" etc. Easiest/fastest way to explain this is think dungeon crawling in 100 - 300 ton robots. ;)

What I posted today was just the core mechanics of actual gameplay and none of the lore or embeilshment. I have a rough history/back story jotted down. I'd be happy to post it if you'd care to read it.

I would be very interested in the background. Without some really cool background it still sounds like a rehash to me.

1) Simplified Rules
2) A lot of different robots
3) Special moves

I like simpler rules (never got into Battletech myself because it looked too much like my homework and now actual work). A lot of different robots doesn't do much for me since you are rewarding a player for using the same robot over and over again (which is a cool idea). And special moves? I'm mixed. I know everyone likes to crap on D20 but I think this idea could basically be done now using it. Make big robots be like big monsters and let your big robots take special big robot feats and write up a couple melee specific ones (haymaker punch, roundhouse kick, etc.)

I know this sounds really negative but please don't see it that way. I just got done reading those Heartbreaker articles on here and this sounds like Battletech Heartbreaker.

Nah, I don't see it as negative. Mainly because I know where I want to take this and if I go the way I'm leaning it wont be B-tech. I certainly don't want to be b-tech.

Two warnings here. 1) this is long. 2) This is a very, very rough background. This is mainly a working idea sketch and leaves off before the Great War which unites the Human and Elder/Eldan empires into teh Elder Human Government (EHG) that is referenced in the stuff I've posted thus far. The Great War is itself (the war) roughly 600 - 1,000 years before "present" universe time.

I know the voice changes tense and there are other structure problems but like I said this isn't a finnished piece in the least. ;)

----------------------------

(edit) I had the thing posted here but it was a wall of text and I thought it'd be a little more polite to post it as a web page for ya'll. Sorry about the ads it's a free web host that I'm jsut using temporarily. It's annoying, I know. :(

Check here for bacground:www.freepress.multiservers.com/bnova.html
-----------------------------------------------

Again, really rough background. Lots of holes but it should give some idea of where this game is coming from/headed.

As with all technology, those who did not have it wanted it. So, a black market emerged dealing with very small – no bigger than a child’s handball – Black Nova Reaction Spheres. These were big enough to power a personal vehicle and would only destroy an area a city blocks in radius if one were to de-contain. But the technology was forbidden planet-side and so to curb this black market, the Elders established a special police force. This action divided the economic classes pushed the society to the brink of civil war the likes of which had never before been encountered among the Eldan society.

You got it kinda right. ;)

Quick run down/explanation:
-------------------------------------
Way back when, in a place far, far away ... (sorry had to do it) .... The Kluarks (who later take the name Eldan) create a genetically engineered race who are incapable of expressing or feeling emotions. This race is then placed in charge of leading the civilization as their politicians/leaders and call these "clones" the Elders. This happens long before the civilization discovers Dynamo/Black Nova technology. Centuries go by, they develop space travel and begin colonizing nearby star systems. At around say 2200 a.d. (earth history) they discover Dyanmo and Black Nova technology and send out their probes. One malfunctions and ends up traveling back in time (roughly 2023 a.d. eath history). SETI discovers the probe, humanity reverse engineers the technology on board and sets out on the great expansion which spans roughly two centuries. These are the "lost" 200 years that, form the Elders point of view, is only a matter of a few years. So humanity knows about the Elders but the Elders don't know about Humans.

Now, over the next few hundred years the Elders grow more heavy handed in controlling the use of Black Nova and becausethey are biological beings they defy their engineering and begin to develop emotions. In doing so the Eldan (the people they govern) grow more and more dispondandt and eventually a civil war breaks out between those who support the Elders and those who want the technology. As the civil war gets more brutal and deadly many of the Eldan return to the Old Religion which, in part, spoke of the Giants. Essentially Gods, these beings lived among those they created and were giant biological (and what would later be learned or explained as) and technological creatures. While the Eldan civil war is going on the Human Empire is growing and expanding and fighting amongst itself and during this strife MAIS are developed. At first MAIS are infantry augmentations but one world develops it further into self-sufficient machines capable of weilding immense firepower. They use their new invention to stave off invasions from the Human Empire but as they grow increasingly isolated they are forced to fall in line. After the Elder warship drone is found the MAIS are developed as a weapon against the Elders.

Eventually humanity finds its way into Eldan space and the Great War begins which serves to end the Elder civil war and unit the civilization. In the early years of the wars those Eldan who had returned to the Old Religion thought that humans were the Giants returned to punish the society for its war but as the Great War drug on the truth was learned. Being adapt at technology teh Eldan develop their own MAIS and the war grinds into a stalemate. Eventually the war ends and the Elders and HUman leaders agree to merge the two empires to create the Elder-Human Government (EHG). six hundred years of general peace and prosperity pass to bring the story up to present universe time.

Presently the EHG Corridor is showing sings of discord. The EHG itself has grown weak as for the past 400 years it ahs concentrated on sending out expiditionary forces for reasons unknown to the general populous. And, as humanity has a nasty habit of doing, many of the planets along the fringe of the corridor are feeling the need to be free to choose their own destiny and as such several systems are in open rebellion against the EHG.

This is the first theater into which a player will be born and adventure. The Home Front or the EHG Corridor wil lallow a player to align with one of three factions: the Military (serving as a police force, and to put down civil war), various Militias (militias are planetary police forces generally found in fringe systems) or pirate bands (essentially mercenary units that are bregrudgenly tolerated by the EHG for the most part).

Once I get this core system, includeing the EHG corridor, fleshed out I'll get to work on the Expanse which will deal with the expeditionary forces. Why they've been out in the expanse, what they're looking for, bring the Giants into play, etc. This is the section I'll be most proud of and I think will be the most exciting/different spin on "Giant Robots in space."

------------------------------
That help?

Do all three groups have their own MAIS's? These must not be *too* rare if you plan for a whole party to be equipped with them.

Yeah, nearly everyone has access to MAIS technology. It's become pretty standard fare over the prosperous years. The Elder's learned their lesson in trying to control technology and Humans are too opportunistic/"capitalistic" to not build and sell the technoogy.

Diversify the MAIS (mech) designs. If you'll notice there is no limit to the weight of a MAIS. I've also included formulas and a ground work to design weapon systems. I hope to encourage some pretty wild designs that will not only be fun to toy with may become necessary when I start to get on to the second part of the game.

This is built into the system. Unlimited class MAIS have a base movement of zero and for every 200 tons above 400 I belive – can't remember, off hand – a negative one hex penalty is incurred. This may be overcome through the use of auxillary generators but in doing so weight and space is used in order to simply get the thing to move.

And yes there is a limit to the tonnage a "cruiser" (dropship/interstellar ship) can transport. So some MAIS may be so large that they are conisdered planetary defenders in that they are built on a specific planet and never leave.

I tried to design the system so that, while on paper there are no restrictions, there are practical implications within the game universe that must be considered if one were to build, say, a 1,000 ton MAIS.

And yes certain size/class MAIS are better suited for urban settings while others are better suited for planetary/open assault. Also some are better suited for zero gravity environments and some are better suited for atmospheric conditions. This is where the freedom to design or customize a MAIS will come into play. Build/customize/use the MAIS that is appropriate for the mission.

pilot602 wrote: This is built into the system. Unlimited class MAIS have a base movement of zero and for every 200 tons above 400 I belive – can't remember, off hand – a negative one hex penalty is incurred. This may be overcome through the use of auxillary generators but in doing so weight and space is used in order to simply get the thing to move.

And yes there is a limit to the tonnage a "cruiser" (dropship/interstellar ship) can transport. So some MAIS may be so large that they are conisdered planetary defenders in that they are built on a specific planet and never leave.

And yes certain size/class MAIS are better suited for urban settings while others are better suited for planetary/open assault. Also some are better suited for zero gravity environments and some are better suited for atmospheric conditions. This is where the freedom to design or customize a MAIS will come into play. Build/customize/use the MAIS that is appropriate for the mission.

I see your point and it's valid when you are talking MAIS on MAIS combat.
In "normal" play where one quad is fighting another squad (be it in urban settings or on big open fields or on the surface of interstellar warships in the middle of deep space) these gigantic machines will more than likely be impractical.

However, they will serve a purpose within the game universe and as such they need a mechanic to explain their construction.

I think what you're missing in regards to these other-wise impractical designs, is that in the "Expanse" theater of play (which I really haven't fleshed out or posted anywhere but in this thread) the "Giants" that the expeditionary forces are looking for and fighting will dwarf even the 100 ton MAIS. What a "naked" human is to a MAIS, a 100 ton MAIS will be to a Giant.

In these scenarios it may/will be necessary to field some larger designs which may not be effective against small MAIS but will more than likely be necessary in order to take down a Giant. There will be mechanics in place to transport these things around.

That's the idea anyway.

In the Homefront theater (EHG Corridor) these large MAIS will play more often the role of a planetary defender (park it, or a couple, outside the Planetary Capital and blast the heck out of anything that tries to approach ... think a "mini" Giant) or the "odd-ball" in some scenario.

It's not so much that players will use these weird MAIS on a routine basis, it's more so that there is a system in place for the GM/players to create these gigantic machines for specific scenarios and such.

Now, as far as "open field" battles ar concerned I ask you this ... how, and more importantly where, exactly is a force of "anything" going to land on a planet? You can't set down a "battletech size" drop ship in the middle of a city without knocking down half of it. And it pretty much ruins any element of stealt/surprise (we're assuming planetary satelites have been destroyed/jammed etc.) So, "invading" troops/vehicles have to start someplace. If the invaders start a few miles from the city and your goal, as a defender, is to save the city/strageic location would it not behoove you to move forward and head off the attack away from your defensive goal, thereby reducing the chance of damage to your location? Case in point, the current Iraq war. The Iraqi military didn't wait for the Colaition to waltz into Baghadad before they engaged they fought them anywhere and everywhere they could. Granted a lot of battles were around urban environments but all of these engagements started outside of the cities and worked inward.

So in this scenario a large MAIS that would be impractical to manuever in a city could/would serve as an assault vehicle driving the fight close enough to allow smaller, more efficient units to penetrate the urban environement. No one design fits all scenarios and thus a mixture of forces must be used.

Let's also consider if you want to really bring pain on a planet what would one of the key targets be to destroy? How bout food source? Blockade the planet, and burn the farms and the people planetside are going to submit fairly quickly or die.

But, as far as MAIS in an urban environment goes pretty much anything is going to be able to operate within it but larger they get the more collateral damage is done. (The specific mechanics for this I haven't written yet, but I will) Which, if the object of the mission is to capture a city it behooves the battle planners to assault the city with lots of smaller MAIS. MAIS that aren't going to tear it apart while operating inside it. If the objective is to raze it to the gorund then the planners should send in the big guns.

Is tihs the kind of stuff your looking for to be answered or am I off base again?

pilot602 wrote: I see your point and it's valid when you are talking MAIS on MAIS combat.
In "normal" play where one quad is fighting another squad (be it in urban settings or on big open fields or on the surface of interstellar warships in the middle of deep space) these gigantic machines will more than likely be impractical.

I think what you're missing in regards to these other-wise impractical designs, is that in the "Expanse" theater of play (which I really haven't fleshed out or posted anywhere but in this thread) the "Giants" that the expeditionary forces are looking for and fighting will dwarf even the 100 ton MAIS. What a "naked" human is to a MAIS, a 100 ton MAIS will be to a Giant.

In these scenarios it may/will be necessary to field some larger designs which may not be effective against small MAIS but will more than likely be necessary in order to take down a Giant. There will be mechanics in place to transport these things around.

That's the idea anyway.

In the Homefront theater (EHG Corridor) these large MAIS will play more often the role of a planetary defender (park it, or a couple, outside the Planetary Capital and blast the heck out of anything that tries to approach ... think a "mini" Giant) or the "odd-ball" in some scenario.

Now, as far as "open field" battles ar concerned I ask you this ... how, and more importantly where, exactly is a force of "anything" going to land on a planet? You can't set down a "battletech size" drop ship in the middle of a city without knocking down half of it.

And it pretty much ruins any element of stealt/surprise (we're assuming planetary satelites have been destroyed/jammed etc.) So, "invading" troops/vehicles have to start someplace.

If the invaders start a few miles from the city and your goal, as a defender, is to save the city/strageic location would it not behoove you to move forward and head off the attack away from your defensive goal, thereby reducing the chance of damage to your location?

Case in point, the current Iraq war. The Iraqi military didn't wait for the Colaition to waltz into Baghadad before they engaged they fought them anywhere and everywhere they could. Granted a lot of battles were around urban environments but all of these engagements started outside of the cities and worked inward.

So in this scenario a large MAIS that would be impractical to manuever in a city could/would serve as an assault vehicle driving the fight close enough to allow smaller, more efficient units to penetrate the urban environement. No one design fits all scenarios and thus a mixture of forces must be used.

Let's also consider if you want to really bring pain on a planet what would one of the key targets be to destroy? How bout food source? Blockade the planet, and burn the farms and the people planetside are going to submit fairly quickly or die.

But, as far as MAIS in an urban environment goes pretty much anything is going to be able to operate within it but larger they get the more collateral damage is done. (The specific mechanics for this I haven't written yet, but I will) Which, if the object of the mission is to capture a city it behooves the battle planners to assault the city with lots of smaller MAIS. MAIS that aren't going to tear it apart while operating inside it. If the objective is to raze it to the gorund then the planners should send in the big guns.

OK, this is sprawling out of hand ... please post your concise, clear-cut questions and I'll do my best to answer them. This isn't a jab but just meant to "get to the point." ;)

Basically Mike is saying that the underlying premise of your world history doesn't make sense. Inother words given the factors that you've said exist there is no viable reason for MAIS to exist in the manner in which you suggest.

Military powers do not build every concievable size of ship that they are capable of building. They build to fulfill very specific purposes. Therefor the basic premise that you need a system to design every kind of mech from 10 tons to beyond 100 isn't really accurate.

For instance once you have control of orbit, there is virtually no need to land ground troops at all except infantry to occupy after a surrender. If it is possible for one side to control orbit than they can completely and utterly obliterate any opponent. There is no need to land MAIS ever. The best the defender could hope for is to hold out in secret bunkers deep below ground...not an environment suitable for mech warfare. That generally won't last long, since air, water, heat radiation, and waste recycling needs will eventually give away the positions of the bunkers at which time they become vulnerable.

In such a situation, there is no need for MAIS warfare at all...except perhaps to combat your giants. Which means only the giant killer MAISes would ever be built.

If you have a situation where the ground defenders have weaponry powerful enough to drive enemy ships out of orbit so the above can't happen, then you have a situation where the shape of war will become the various ways the attacker can reliably destroy those defenses so they can acheive orbital superiority and then we're back to the above scenario.

What you'd need to do then is come up with some reason why those particular weapons can only be effectively engaged and destroyed by armored units on the ground (i.e. MAISes). For example, if the weapons render the enemy unable to remain in orbit they probably also do a decent job of atmospheric interdiction as well.

At that point you need to get ground forces down to the planet to take out the weapons. But how do you land large numbers of troops in the face of debilitating enemy fire? You can't (at least not without unreasonable casualties) so you need to land as small a number of troops as possible as quickly and secretly as possible. But yet those small numbers of troops have to be powerful enough to take out a large number of entrenched defenders.

Hense the mechs. Heavily Armored with more firepower than a battalion of 20th century tanks (as the Battle tech text went) they can be dropped in small units capable of zipping past the weapons. They land near a weapon emplacement, engage the defenders with the mission of destroying the weapon. Each weapon in a region that they can destroy makes it easier to land more mechs and occupying troops and eventually make the planet safe for the attacker's fleet to orbit, at which point the planet has no choice but to surrender.


NOW you have a premise to justify why mechs exist. It means 99% of all scenarios you come up with must be centered on the attack or destruction of one of these ground to orbit defense weapon installations. There will rarely be any reason to attack anything else using a MAIS.


That's just one example of how to set up a rationale for your MAISes, but I its an example of what I think Mike is saying you're missing at this point.


The ultimate problem with battle mechs, of course, is that they are ultimately highly inefficient and completely foolish designs. There is no set of assumptions you can create that would make a bipedal walking vehicle superior to tracks, wheels, aerial, or ground effect vehicles. So starting from the premise that regardless of that you still want them because they're cool, you at least need to attempt to come up with a rationale for them to exist.

Actually, I just went back through your posts and tried to pull out the direct questions and answer them individually. I think some of the question arise from two different views of warfare. I doubt I'll change your views/ideas on it and I doubt you'll change mine but this thread has got me thinking about things that need to be addressed, so thanks. :)

- How are MAIS transported about?

- What is other transportation like in the setting?

- That is, can MAIS be used in an urban setting without destroying parts of it (like infrastructure) as they move around?

- If they can't be used in Urban settings, then what are they good for, what do they defend?

- The best way to incorporate these things is not to have a design limit, but to have the effects built into the design. That way the players have to take this into consideration when designing how large a thing to create. Do I make it too large for all but the largest transports to carry? Do I make it slow? Or do I trade some size for tactical and strategic agility? That sort of thing.

- So any MAIS not designed to fight in an urban area will be next to worthless.

- What considerations make a particular size better for these different missions? What am I missing?

- This implies that smaller MAIS can affect larger ones. Implying that they can also fuzzy-wuzzy the larger ones. Meaning we're back to all small ones.

- You've just opened up a whole nother can of worms. If you control space, then why do you need to land? If you have superiority in terms of intelligence, your satilites have replaced theirs, then why don't you just shoot them from orbit? Because they're in the city? Well, then, let's go down to the city.

- how will you landing in a drop ship lose surprise?

- Actually, no. That is, if the goal of the invaders is to destroy the city, they'll do it with bombs and artillery.

- So, if the bots are going somewhere, it's to take control, not to destroy it.

Meaning that, in fact, using the strategic element as a shield makes a lot of sense. If they have to shoot through it to get to you, then at the worst, they won't have the strategic asset when the fight is over.

- Then why don't the bots throw nukes? Or do they?

why cant you burn farms from orbit

That's just one example of how to set up a rationale for your MAISes, but I its an example of what I think Mike is saying you're missing at this point.

Well, why didn't the U.S. just nuke Iraq? We had/have the capability. In fact, we control the airspace over Iraq but yet we still have soldiers dying on a daily basis. Battles and war are not black and white binary outcomes. If you control space, but you have rebel forces dug in around the planet, with the exception of turning the entire surface of the planet into glass, you have to go down and dig out the bad guys. If the "bad" guys have MAIS you can't really go after them in a Hummer.

At some point you still need to send something down to the surface to take physical control. Once you have forces on the gorund and have a way of sustaining operations (i.e. take over key food, energy, logistic sites) on the planet does it then logistical sense to keep your primary space fleet in orbit playing baby sitter?

Then once forces are planetside and the planet has surrendered does it mean everyone is going to play nice? Just because the government surrendered it doesn't mean that all the people whom it governs agree with the surrender. At this point the entire planet is essentialy an "urban" environement as pockets of rebels will dig in and fight as best they can.

This is a basic tenet of modern warfare. If you can find it, you can destroy it.

You can't hide a 100 ton bipedal warmachine.

And most planets will not need to be occupied at all. If your primary purpose is to eliminate the planets ability to engage in aggression against you simply disarming it will get the job done. Then orbital monitoring can ensure that the defenses are not rebuilt.

Orbital bombardment would then eliminate any remaining enemy mechs that refuse to surrender while your own mechs are taken off world to assault somewhere else.

Ralph's points are good, but not quite what I was getting at. That is, I agree with him completely, but I also believe that rationales can be assembled that explain all of the problematic stuff. You still have a long way to go there, and you need to have all of that rationale stuff in place, really, before you can go on to creating the mech building systems.

My original point was to assume that you had a good rationale for all of this, but to point out a potential problem with the mech generation system. Which is that, essentially, from what I can see there is no reason to build large mechs. That is, there's an optimal size for them given everything that I've seen so far.


As for understanding how modern warfare works, I'd like to think that my military experience makes me, if not an expert, at least a very talented hobbiest. I'm a keen student of all things military. You've misread my analysis in a number of places, and in others you've only made my point for me. So I can only ask that, perhaps you reread my posts. I've read yours in their entirity to understand them, and I'd ask the same respect be given to my posts if you intend to challenge them.


You keep ignoring the power ratio problem for the problems of not having identified the other factors for mechs. Given your stats as they are, no govenment would ever build a mech larger than a certain size. In fact, you've got me now doing the number crunching on your system. I'm not precisely sure yet, but I think that the best power curve ratio is found at mechs of approximately 50 tonnes. Given your comments about them not needing to be landed and that I suspect that this size isn't a problem for urban areas (an M1 is heavier and works in our relatively low tech environment in cities), I'm almost positive that this is the case.

Now, perhaps there's something I'm not seeing. One thing that's not in your document is cost for things. It could be that large MAIS are cheaper to build somehow. But looking at your other formulae, I rather doubt it (if you have costs worked out at all). That is, in general the curves tend to be pretty linear. That is, power tends to increase proportionally in all areas with the size of the mech (with the exception of that "sweet spot" effect that I'm detecting above). In fact, the only "overhead" cost that I can see on the mech is the head/cockpit. What this means is that two 50 ton MAIS's are about the same effectiveness as a 100 ton MAIS (range/speed will tend to cancel). Which means that given similar costs that it makes more sense to have the two 50 ton MAIS - two vehicles are more versatile than one.

If, in fact, there's a cost break for larger MAIS, then they'll probably all end up at 100 tons. Because, though I'm not sure what the effect of the auxilliarly engines needed to move a larger MAIS, but if they take any space at all, or cost any money, then these will have a serious degradation in the power curve. That is, while a 100 ton mech will be able to take on two 50 ton mechs, a 200 ton mech will get completely trashed by two 100 ton mechs.

Now you say that the fuzzy wuzzy problem will not occur because of "resources". Is there some resource that limits the total number of mechs? Or, again, is there some cost break for larger mechs? Because if not, then the same amount of resources to build one thousand ton mech will also build 100 ten ton mechs. And the 100 ten tonners will be much more dangerous as a whole.

It can't be transport, because it takes precidely the same amount of space to transport the thousand ton mech as it does the 100 ten tonners.

So what limits the fallacy?

If it's the cost break thing, you end up with all 100 ton mechs. If it's some limiting gizmo, then you end up with the size of mechs being determined by taking the total resources available to build them, and dividing by the number of gizmos - each mech being made as large as possible (though all equal in size to avoid the diminishing returns as much as possible), in order to make the most of your gizmos.

None of this is making sense. If you get your rationalizations straight first, then we can help you get your math straight so that different size mechs do make sense. It can all be made to work, but not as is.

Mike

You can't hide a 100 ton bipedal warmachine.

Sure you can. You can hide whole division of 'em if you're creative enough. To use Iraq as an example again they burried aircraft and we're still finding things (ironically, no WMD - but that's a topic for another board) and we're only talking about a single, relatively unpopulated country. How exactly do you search and disarm an entire planet as quickly as you are proposing? Just because you ask a "defeated" force to hand over their sticks it doesnt mean they'll give you all of them.

Ahh like Europe did with 1930's Gernmany? If a country wants to re-arm it will find a way - especially if the folks watching are only doing so in a cursory manner. Sitting several hundred miles up in space looking down on an entire planet too see if they are rearming would be like sitting on the roof of your house and trying to find "Waldo" in one of the "Where's Waldo" books placed across the street. You might be able to see the book but you can't see the finite picture.

Orbital bombardment would then eliminate any remaining enemy mechs that refuse to surrender while your own mechs are taken off world to assault somewhere else.

But in saying this you imply another need for MAIS; the role of defending and repelling incoming MAIS. If, as you say, their only role would be to assault planets by taking out their orbital defenses why would orbital platforms be looking for and destroying enemy MAIS?

Mike Holmes wrote: Ralph's points are good, but not quite what I was getting at. That is, I agree with him completely, but I also believe that rationales can be assembled that explain all of the problematic stuff. You still have a long way to go there, and you need to have all of that rationale stuff in place, really, before you can go on to creating the mech building systems.

My original point was to assume that you had a good rationale for all of this, but to point out a potential problem with the mech generation system. Which is that, essentially, from what I can see there is no reason to build large mechs. That is, there's an optimal size for them given everything that I've seen so far.

As for understanding how modern warfare works, I'd like to think that my military experience makes me, if not an expert, at least a very talented hobbiest. I'm a keen student of all things military. You've misread my analysis in a number of places, and in others you've only made my point for me. So I can only ask that, perhaps you reread my posts. I've read yours in their entirity to understand them, and I'd ask the same respect be given to my posts if you intend to challenge them.

You keep ignoring the power ratio problem for the problems of not having identified the other factors for mechs. Given your stats as they are, no govenment would ever build a mech larger than a certain size.

In fact, you've got me now doing the number crunching on your system. I'm not precisely sure yet, but I think that the best power curve ratio is found at mechs of approximately 50 tonnes. Given your comments about them not needing to be landed and that I suspect that this size isn't a problem for urban areas (an M1 is heavier and works in our relatively low tech environment in cities), I'm almost positive that this is the case. Now, perhaps there's something I'm not seeing. One thing that's not in your document is cost for things. It could be that large MAIS are cheaper to build somehow. But looking at your other formulae, I rather doubt it (if you have costs worked out at all).

That is, in general the curves tend to be pretty linear. That is, power tends to increase proportionally in all areas with the size of the mech (with the exception of that "sweet spot" effect that I'm detecting above). In fact, the only "overhead" cost that I can see on the mech is the head/cockpit.

What this means is that two 50 ton MAIS's are about the same effectiveness as a 100 ton MAIS (range/speed will tend to cancel). Which means that given similar costs that it makes more sense to have the two 50 ton MAIS - two vehicles are more versatile than one.

If, in fact, there's a cost break for larger MAIS, then they'll probably all end up at 100 tons. Because, though I'm not sure what the effect of the auxilliarly engines needed to move a larger MAIS, but if they take any space at all, or cost any money, then these will have a serious degradation in the power curve. That is, while a 100 ton mech will be able to take on two 50 ton mechs, a 200 ton mech will get completely trashed by two 100 ton mechs.

Now you say that the fuzzy wuzzy problem will not occur because of "resources". Is there some resource that limits the total number of mechs? Or, again, is there some cost break for larger mechs? Because if not, then the same amount of resources to build one thousand ton mech will also build 100 ten ton mechs. And the 100 ten tonners will be much more dangerous as a whole.

It can't be transport, because it takes precidely the same amount of space to transport the thousand ton mech as it does the 100 ten tonners.

So what limits the fallacy?

If it's the cost break thing, you end up with all 100 ton mechs. If it's some limiting gizmo, then you end up with the size of mechs being determined by taking the total resources available to build them, and dividing by the number of gizmos - each mech being made as large as possible (though all equal in size to avoid the diminishing returns as much as possible), in order to make the most of your gizmos.

None of this is making sense. If you get your rationalizations straight first, then we can help you get your math straight so that different size mechs do make sense. It can all be made to work, but not as is.

Mike

OK does this help:

A 50 ton MAIS will have a Skeleton that weighs 25 tons. This gives the MAIS 50 mounts, and if maximum armor is used (25 tons), the remaining wieght available for weapons/equipment is 25 tons.

So, a 50 ton MAIS, 50 mounts and 25 free tons, a range of 26 hexes and a total damage absorption rating of (armor points + internal points) of 500.

The maximum weapon output currently availble to fit in this MAIS would be a Supreme Heavy Ionic Canon (120 dmg, 40 mounts, 20 tons) and a Heavy Ionic Canon (32 dmg, 8 mounts, 4 tons). - note: there could possibly be other combinations but for simplicty sakes I'll stick with energy weapons as they never run out of ammunition..

So this MAIS has a damage absorption factor of 500 points, moves 26 hexes and has a total damage output of 152 (or a damage/ton rating of 3.2)

-------

A 400 ton MAIS will have a Skeleton that weighs 200 tons. This gives the MAIS 100 mounts, and if one half of maximum armor is used (100 tons), the remaining wieght available for weapons/equipment is 100 tons.

Because it uses a double skeleton (unlimiteds are required to use a 2xSkeleton) any range generated by mounted Aux Gens will be doubled. Generators weigh 4 tons and use 8 mounts. It takes one generator to move one hex. So we'll place five generators giving the MAIS a range of 8 (-1+5=4x2=8) hexes at a cost of 20 tons and 40 mounts.

So, a 400 ton MAIS, 60 mounts and 80 free tons, a range of 8 hexes and a total damage absorption rating of (armor points + internal points) of 3,000.

The maximum weapon output currently availble to fit in this MAIS would be a seven Heavy Ionic Cannons (32 dmg, 8 mounts, 4 tons) and one Medium Ionic Cannon (16 dmg, 4 mount, 2 ton).

So this MAIS has a damage absorption factor of 3,000 points, moves 8 hexes and has a total damage output of 240 (or a damage/ton rating of .6)

-------

Now if you took eight 50 tonners (equal tonnage when compared to the 400 tonner) as outfitted above, the damage output per turn would be 1,216 compared to the output of the 400 tonner at 240.

However, this is still an 8:1 ratio. Meaning while the tonnage is the same there are now 8 MAIS, 8 pilots, 8 support crews, etc. to maintain/field an "equal" amount of tons.

It would take these eight MAIS 2.46 turns to destroy the 400 tonner and it would take the 400 tonner 16.6 turns to destroy the 8, 50 tonners.

I see you point and I think if I changed the mount formula for Unlimited class MAIS (x2 or x4 instead of ÷2) the damage output of the Unlimiteds would jump through the roof and match the possible out put of several MAIS combined.

Is this the kind of stuff you want to see justified/fixed/tweaked?

Is mecha construction that vital to your game idea? I mean if there were a number of set basic designs would the game suffer?

Beyond balance, etc. the engineer in me is kind of curious why they are building a gazillion different kinds of MAISs. This ignores assembly line advantages in the first place and in the second engineering costs would be huge. Look at the auto industry. New cars take a couple years to be designed.

I dunno, just something to think about.

No, that's a good point but also look at the auto industry a different way; how many types of four door, four-cylinder cars do 250 million (U.S. population) really need? Point is if someone is willing to buy it someone is willing to build it and in a civilization that spans multiple solar systems I think it would only be natural to see diversification.

But you did get me thinking ... if I'm trying to put focus on keeping players tied to one machine should the ability to design them be so important? I guess the strongest argument is that by having a design mechanic it serves double duty as a customization (which if you are tied to one MAIS you're probably going to want to do) mechanic.

Sorry to show up so late in this conversation. I've been working on my own mecha game for about a year now. We have several playtests under our belt, and it seems to work out OK. I've been keeping track of development sporadically in my LiveJournal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/nikotesla/.

About Roroga and how I've confronted the issues you're confronting:

Playing pieces are made of Lego, so everyone's mecha are truly unique.

Here's how I've dealt with this power-curve issue (which I sensed early on, too):

1: I don't care how many tons a mecha is. The players don't either, believe it or not. What I care about it an offense/defense/move ratios are. Every little kid who comes into my workshop and builds a mecha to fight with says "It's fast" or "It shoots with this gun DOOOJJH!" or "It's heavily armored", not "It's heavy". When they tell me what kind of gun it is, it comes down to a couple of things: it goes BOOOM! or takatakatakataka! or zzzzzzzzzzkt! and then it does damage to something. The idea is to have a mediated (by the rules) drama, not to practice accounting.

2: I don't care how many bullets I have. Counting bullets is not fun and is dramatically a downer. It matters dramatically what's broken, but not in terms of gameplay. It doesn't matter whether I have a shield or an ECM pod or smoke grenades; they all do the same thing.

3: In fact, all of the bookkeeping is a downer and is viewed with circumspection throughout the rules.

4: There is a Scale for everything (this is where we get to the meat of your problem, and mine, too). There's Human scale (soldiers, for instance), Vehicle scale (tanks, jeeps, planes), Mecha Scale (mecha and other giant machines), Building Scale, and Starship Scale.

Different forms of propulsion work better or worse, depending on the terrain. Legs give you several advantages that make them the most attractive choice in most applications: it gives the ability to dodge to any model, and, in combination with hands, gives mecha one of the three martial art styles. The only advantage of wheels or tracks is that they're faster. That doesn't translate to better, necessarily. It's contextual. I've tried to balance the effectiveness of all the mechanical functions in the game: full-auto isn't inherently any better than a single, well-placed shot, but being able to do the right one at the right time is.

So what you have are a bunch of mission-related units (say, a bunch of dudes that have to get to a building, their APC, and their tank for covering fire), and then you have mecha, which are simply the best at fighting because a) other models can hide behind them like tanks in WWII, b) they carry weapons proportionate to their Scale, c) they get the credit for the win (and therefore experience points and damage quirks) in campaign games because they're the heroes of the show, d) they can dodge in several ways, e) They can climb, jump, and do Sokokunst (martial art) moves that make them powerful disproportionately to their cost in a wide, though not all-encompassing, range of missions.

Building-scale vehicles are effectively stationary. Starship-scale vehicles won't fit on your floor (and are useful therefore only in abstract starship battle, which hasn't yet been tested).

But here are some important plot-based elements: there are no long range weapons. No artillery of note, no orbital bombardment, and limited aircraft use. This is because the mecha are used for the frontal assault part of specific missions. They don't want to flatten the city. They want to get to a particular building. They want to kill the Prime Minister, or help a spy steal a file, or secure a building as headquarters in an eventual coup.

In other words, it's plot based. Maybe there's other stuff going on in wide-open flat fields where they pound each other with guns. But the mecha fight in tight quarters where their dodging ability and poweful martial arts make a difference, and where total destruction is not desirable, and maybe contrary to your goals.

Gasaraki is one of very few mecha stories where I've seen mecha make sense: they're of medium, tank-like size, but they can travel over buildings and sidestep in a way that tanks can't. They also have Kewl Powerz, like the fact that they get full integration with the pilot's body and mind, so they react at a superhuman speed. I started with the same premise the Gasaraki design team did: take the advantages of a human (which are myriad - the abilities to climb, martial arts abilities and their accompanying ki special effects, jump, pick things up, throw stuff, and so forth), and patch their vulnerabilties (squishy flesh and low speed).

My rules are a pigmess right now and are even missing some rules we've made up on the fly and want to keep, but if anyone wants an outline-form to chew on and spit out, then laugh and point at the wad on the ground, it can be found here:
http://joshua.swingpad.com/roroga0.4.pdf
Naturally, these rules are copyrighted by me, but you all can probably come up with better implementations of the fundamental ideas anyway.

I think the miniatures game Warmachine does big robots alright. But they're steampunk setting big robots instead of tanks so maybe that doesn't help much.

What about making a certain number of chassis that can be modified with personal choice weapons? I imagine it being something like choosing your class in D&D. You pick the fighter class and then you add the longbow and the point blank shot feat while another guy picks the figher, sword and shield and toughness feat. Or so on. You would still get a lot of versatility without making your life really difficult. Or you could just use a "counts as" type rule. One guy may drive the Chevy Corvette and the other drives the Ford Mustang but in your game they count as the same vehicle. This would promote some depth to the setting without making it a bookkeeping nightmare.

Well I was driving to work today and had the idea, how 'bout this:

Instead of tying the Skelton to the overall weight, why not tie the overall weight to the skeleton.

Right now my internal structure is a derrivative of the proposed total weight of each MAIS. (Total tonnage ÷ four [or two]). What if, instead, I made it so that the "class" is actually arbitrarily defining the skelton (or chasis) and each class of skeleton could carry up to X weight. I think, this, then would make each class have it's own power curve and do away with (or lessen to some degree) the diminishing return in terms of design for larger and larger machines. The limiting factor (to keep everyone from running around in 18,000 ton MAIS) would be interstellar transport, cost of production, availability, etc.

I'm also going to go in and re-do the weapons. As it is now they just don't fit.

Ok ... how's this for rationalization (the need for these machines):

Mobile Armored Invasion Suits, as they exist in 1001 a.e., arose from exactly what the name implies: armored exo-skeletal suits used to augment infantry soldiers – particularly when fighting in harsh environments. Their use gradually spread to all facets of infantry work.

After the United Earth Empire discovered the Elder warship the idea of planetary defense was tackled. Several people proposed a satelite of planetary based systems with which to shoot at orbiting ships. And while these were developed and effective to some extent, these systems could be easily defeated by obrital bombardment.

One solar system, that happened to be a leading producer of infantry MAIS suits fell into rebellion against the United Earth Empire. Recognizing the problems with stationary planetary defense systems several of the leading MAIS manufacturers formed a consortium believing the idea of augmenting soldiers and deploying them to the shell of a space vessel could be an effective ofr of offense. At first shuttles were tested, delivering MAIS suited infantry to the hull of a ship. Once there they found they had an extraordinaly hard time penetrating the hull of even a light, intrasolar cargo ship. So a hull, penetrating wepaon needed to be developed. Various forms of hand-held cutters and explosive devices were designed and tested but one problem kept reappearing – hand-held weapons did not provide enough punch to create a breech fast enough for soldiers to enter the ship.
Then, one of the more prolific MAIS deisgners had the idea of landing a walking forklift fitted with powerful weapons on the hull, using it to create a breech and thereby allow the shock troops to enter.
Walking forklifts had been in use throughout the UEE for generations and after several modifications and trials a hybrid was born. A MAIsuit wrapped inside a walking, armored and armed, forklift. Fitted with articulated hands it was the perfect hull-breeching system. It could punch a hole into the hull with it's weapons and then use its hands to place a pod of MAIsuit equipped shock troops at the opening allowing the troops to enter and storm the ship. Ideally the perfect placement of these troops would be on or near the bridge so as to effectively take control of the ship with as few troop as possible.

Thus the walking, robotic tank was evolved from a combination of the exo-xkeletal MAIsuit and a civillian tool.

The UEE incensed that a system had rebelled – the system responsible for 60-percent of infantry MAIsuit production, no less – sent the flagship fleet to retake the system.

Upon arriving in the system the Iso Solar government deployed their intrasystem fleet, and while pathetically out gunned, the fleet managed to get close enough to deploy fighter cover to mask and help deliver their new, secret weapon – the Mobile Armored Invasion Suit.

The MAIS sped across the intervening space, under fighter cover, and landed firmly on the outer shell of the flag ship of the fleet carrying pods of shock troops. Once attached to the hull the MAIS, using their weapons and articulated hands, ripped holes in the hull large enough to fit the shock troop pods into and thus allow shock troops storm the ship. While the shock troops worked on capturing the ship internally the MAIS simply walked down the hull destroying anti-fighter weapons and eventually working their way to the engine sheaths where they simply laid waste to the external portions of the engine slowing the ship to a crawl.

Watching the flag ship, of the flagship fleet, get ripped apart the remaining portion of the fleet fled the system to theorize a way to counter this new threat.

A secondary planetary defense system had been developed and it was frightengly effective.

With a primary purpose for existence the MAIS other uses were explored The units were tested in varying environments and found to be effective as all around assault vehicles and especially planetary assault vehicles. They especially shined at destroying planetary based anti-orbital emplacements once the problem of deplyoying them planet-side was overcome.

A weakness was discovered once the machines were used planetside – they were particularly vunerable to aircraft. This problem was solved by fittign the machines with an automatic anti-aircraft system. Then, once combined with infantry the machines were nearly unstoppable. As their mobility and range of use (water, land, space) far outshone other armor systems.

The Free Worlds of Iso System managed to stave off the United Earth Empire for several generations before finally falling into line as political moods changed.

Sorry to sound consescending, and apologies if my point was hard to come up with from my posts. But you've managed to decipher it after all, so on we go....

pilot602 wrote:
It would take these eight MAIS 2.46 turns to destroy the 400 tonner and it would take the 400 tonner 16.6 turns to destroy the 8, 50 tonners.

I see you point and I think if I changed the mount formula for Unlimited class MAIS (x2 or x4 instead of ÷2) the damage output of the Unlimiteds would jump through the roof and match the possible out put of several MAIS combined.

However, this is still an 8:1 ratio. Meaning while the tonnage is the same there are now 8 MAIS, 8 pilots, 8 support crews, etc. to maintain/field an "equal" amount of tons.

I'm going to follow up my post directly above with this one on the rationale so far.

pilot602 wrote: After the United Earth Empire discovered the Elder warship the idea of planetary defense was tackled. Several people proposed a satelite of planetary based systems with which to shoot at orbiting ships. And while these were developed and effective to some extent, these systems could be easily defeated by obrital bombardment.

Thus the walking, robotic tank was evolved from a combination of the exo-xkeletal MAIsuit and a civillian tool.

Upon arriving in the system the Iso Solar government deployed their intrasystem fleet, and while pathetically out gunned, the fleet managed to get close enough to deploy fighter cover to mask and help deliver their new, secret weapon – the Mobile Armored Invasion Suit.

The MAIS sped across the intervening space, under fighter cover, and landed firmly on the outer shell of the flag ship of the fleet carrying pods of shock troops. Once attached to the hull the MAIS, using their weapons and articulated hands, ripped holes in the hull large enough to fit the shock troop pods into and thus allow shock troops storm the ship. While the shock troops worked on capturing the ship internally the MAIS simply walked down the hull destroying anti-fighter weapons and eventually working their way to the engine sheaths where they simply laid waste to the external portions of the engine slowing the ship to a crawl.

Watching the flag ship, of the flagship fleet, get ripped apart the remaining portion of the fleet fled the system to theorize a way to counter this new threat.

A secondary planetary defense system had been developed and it was frightengly effective.

With a primary purpose for existence the MAIS other uses were explored The units were tested in varying environments and found to be effective as all around assault vehicles and especially planetary assault vehicles. They especially shined at destroying planetary based anti-orbital emplacements once the problem of deplyoying them planet-side was overcome.

A weakness was discovered once the machines were used planetside – they were particularly vunerable to aircraft. This problem was solved by fittign the machines with an automatic anti-aircraft system. Then, once combined with infantry the machines were nearly unstoppable. As their mobility and range of use (water, land, space) far outshone other armor systems.

The nice thing about this background is the one of the adavantages to bigger machines is that you can carry more weapons and shock troops. And in space the larger the machine is the fewer you have to send and land on the hull of an invading ship.

First, thanks for the post previous (power curve) ... I'm working on several different approaches to fix the problem. I hope to post the ideas in short order ...

Second, the use of MAIS against larger ships.

It comes back to what you called me on before. Sure, if you want to destroy the ship you'd use fighters or other, big ships. But if you want to raid one and capture it you need to get troops on board.

So the first thing you try is sending over a shuttle with 10, 20, 40 troops on board, land on the hull, have them get out and then try to penetrate the hull (a hull designed to withstand attack from fighters and big ships) with hand-held devices. Yes they may be able to breach it but it's going to take a long time and time – while standing in deep space, on the hull of a hostile warship – is one commodity that runs out quickly.

So, now you need something that has more punch but can apply that punch precisely and at the same time defend/protect the troops that are being deployed.

In comes the MAIS. If you can land four or five MAIS on the hull of a ship use their more powerful weapons(as comparedto hand held weapons), in a much more precise manner (as opposed to deploying those weapons from from a moving platform, i.e. fighter) you've defeated the ships defenses because there are no defenses for what you're doing. At this point (inthe game-universe) there are no defenses against this kind of attack as it's a new tactic.

Thus the flag ship falls and the UEE retreats for a time.

Time marches on and ships are retrofitted, and then designed, with anti-MAIS turrets/defenses but these are now vulnerable to fighters and big-ship weapons.

Inter-stellar warfaring ships are expensive and a relatively rare commodity, and in this universe, humanity has a habit of recycling as much technology as possible (i.e. they found and revrese engineered the Elder's tech to start them on their "Great Expansion). So capturing a warship is of much higher value than simply destroying it. Especially to the Free Words who lack any kind of large warship to begin with.

It's a microcosm of planetary assault. If small, or fast, or small and fast potent things can get past the primary defenses designed to take out big, slow moving things – those defenses can now be nullified by the small, fast, relatively potent things. I.E. MAIS are landed outside a city [note: I'm changing it to all MAIS may be deployed via LOAD or some variation of it, ie. no drop ship] and used to go in and take out the big guns so larger ships can land and storm the city with infantry, etc. The idea with landing MAIS on the hull of a ship is this same idea.

This is, again, the "fighter fallacy" from SFB. There has to be some rationale why smaller things that fit into larger things can carry more effective power than the larger thing.

What is the "problem" in question here? How was it overcome?

If MAIS can fly ...

If they can shoot down cruise missiles and ones from planes with their anti-aircraft devices, then why can't they shoot down the missiles that other mechs fire at them?

How are these advantages? Mass is mass. Several small ones, few large ones, it doesn't matter as long as everything gets where it's going. In fact, if targeting these is difficult a good argument could be made for lots of smaller ones being more effective at delivering their payload.

pilot602 wrote: Granted the 15 individual MAIS are larger than the individual 30 but mass doesn't always define volume. That is to say, a 50 ton mais isn't necessarily going to be 50% bigger (volume wise) than a 25 ton MAIS.

Who said they were made from the same material? ;)

But I have a few new ideas that I think mght really take me away from the "walking tank" model of Battletech and in, at least, a different way if not slightly unique.

I'll get the new mechanics up ASAP.

Actually, given that the volume isn't dispersed evenly and designs may vary, different size MAIS might have somewhat different densities (this in addition to the idea that they're made of different materials which, while possible, seems pretty dubious). And we're already assuming that silhouette size isn't that important, or there would have to be some really strong arguments for the walking model (which is about as easy a target as one can imagine for a given density - humans didn't evolve to avoid missile fire). Further, overhead for transport can be large. That is, again, if the crew for each is the same size, they have to be transported, the same tool kit is the same size, the hanger mechanisms may be different...

But that's all fairly irrellevant. The ability of a space transport to transport something is pretty much independent of volume. This is because the things transported don't actually have to be inside the transport. They can be "racked" outside of the transport if you like. It's only mass that determines what the transport can propell. The difference in an atmosphere is less than a 10% variance for volume.

Of course, if your sci-fi propulsion system ignores some particular law of physics (they often do) then this might not be true.

It comes back to what you called me on before. Sure, if you want to destroy the ship you'd use fighters or other, big ships. But if you want to raid one and capture it you need to get troops on board.

Let me try explaining it this way. Say you send out 100 fighters and in that jumbled mess of machines you have 30 MAIS carrying shock troops. The enemy now has a, roughly speaking, 30% chance of hitting one of those MAIS. If you take those same 100 fighters but mix in only 15 MAIS the enemy now has a 50% less chance of hitting a MAIS. Granted the 15 individual MAIS are larger than the individual 30 but mass doesn't always define volume. That is to say, a 50 ton mais isn't necessarily going to be 50% bigger (volume wise) than a 25 ton MAIS.

In the new rules, with regards to missiles, I'm leaning towards the "Robotech" approach where hundreds/thousands of smaller missiles are fired from MAIS at other MAIS.

Airborne/spaceborne fighters wouldn't carry the same number of missiles a MAIS can because fighters still have to operate within the realm of aerodyanmics (anti-grav tech hasn't been developed to the point of using to actually fly).

OK, I buy that this worked in this suprise situation:

The thing is that you seem to be assuming that either the transports, or the MAIS themselves can travel fast enough that they can't be fired upon.

Which means that the propulsion on that plane is more than the propulsion system on any MAIS, since no MAIS is capable of long term flight. Presumably this is because the power systems used on MAIS aren't strong enough to provide the power for such propulsion.

I'm not saying that MAIS wouldn't be more potent in delivering that firepower locally, but pointing out that the ships in question don't have to be all that much larger than the MAIS themselves.

This assumes that you can afford to lose the fighters. Why not send out decoys instead? That is, if the ship targeted can't tell a MAIS, from a fighter, then it won't be able to tell a decoy from a MAIS either. So why waste the fighters?

Fighters in space being an absurdity anyhow. That is, this presupposes that fighters exist before hand. But the idea of fighters in space makes no sense at all. Again, why not put the weapons of the fighters on the larger ship? What's the advantage to fighters?

Again, and again, it seems that there has to be something about MAIS that gives them an advantage over other arms of the day to make this all viable. If the technology is generally available, then the question becomes why it can't be used with other platforms that make more tactical sense. In Battletech, and other mech games, there is usually either some sort of advanced technology involved that's only usable in this form for some reason, or there's some advantage to the pilot/mech symbiosis that allows them to be inherently superior.

Are MAIS resistant to that sort of force?

The smallest guided missiles are much heavier. Even with advancements, to have a missile that was both guided and capable of damaging armor, I'm guessing that you'd need a munition that was heavier than 20 lbs. Meaning that you're firing more than a ton with the minimum 100 missiles, every shot fired. To say nothing of range - one would assume that if these are to be the long range weapons, that they'd have to be even larger.

You mean they don't have enough thrust, right? The missiles wouldn't make them non-aerodynamic. The thing is that a plane can carry thousands of pounds of missiles today. If what's neccessary to get a mech is 100 twenty pound missiles, then an F14 can carry three shots worth.

Yes, they're new technology, and as such may have some superiority for a while as things convert to account for that. But that means that over the course of the game, that they'll become obsolete as the tech superiority succumbs to the problems inherent in the design over time.

pilot602 wrote: I see where you're leading this – the MAIS have to, in order to make sense, be the "epitomy" or shining example of the thrust/power:weight ratio within the game universe. They also have to be powered by some source that is inaccessible to, or "impractical" to use in, other mechanical designs. So let's assume they are; which now means they have sustained flight capabilities. This means they can "fly" in any environment but at a slightlye reduced rate/mobility in gravity/atmospheres when compared to zero-g operations.

It's not a matter of not being able to tell the difference, it's a matter of shooting down enough decoys/fighters to get them out of the way so as to pyshically hit the key targets with whatever weapon system you're using.

But lets assume MAIS can withstand a few nukes (via the use of some super dense "shield" that only MAIS are capable of weilding) and let's consider resource management from the POV of the ship captain.

Advantage to fighters is remote operations. You can send a bunch of fighters out and away from your ship to hit/harass the other guy.

But you're assuming some kind of conventional warhead is being used in these 20lb missiles. Lets say they're packed with some kind of ultra dense tip

No, I mean aerodynamics. Yes, as the old saying goes, you "can make a barn-door fly with enough Horespower/thrust" but there's a tradeoff. The more aerodynamic an aircraft is designed to be the less thrust is needed to keep it in the air/make it go fast. Yes an F-14 may be capable of carrying lots of missiles but it can't fly at it's top speed or pull many Gs (i.e. engage in a turning fight) is it's loaded down.

So I think the idea of your tonnage works well. Besides 10 or 20 tons, for a walking, piloted machine is really, really light. Hell, armored cars weigh almost 10 tons.

This can be said for any game out there. D&D rules would become obsolete as people developed guns, etc. I can't really "model" some system that never would become obsolete.

Non-sequitur. First, nothing about mass makes it have to be shaped like a barn door. That is, my point is that anything can be made aerodynamic. And F-14s are, in fact, designed to be able to fight fully loaded. Would be a bad design error to make them otherwise, now wouldn't it?

pilot602 wrote: So the point of all that is is if you hang 300 missiles off a wing the drag they produce will limit the airpseed of the aircraft. Slow fighter = dead fighters. ;)

If these MAIS things can break the sound barrier we would be talking MASSIVE somic booms.... they don't exaclty sound aerodynamic to me. Also, those speeds wouldn't be too nice in terms of heat. But goddamn it would look cool exiting a cloud at that speed with something shaped like a MAIS.

But barring some obscure reason why the weapons of a MAIS can't be used on other craft, I really doubt the economic/tactical viability of using them in any situation. In the air they would be inferior to jets, on land they would be too large and heavy to even attempt stealth and would be way too easy to target, underwater their shape and weight would render them essentially useless, and in space they would be equal to everything else in combat but less flexible in terms of using them to transport shit.

But despite all that, they do sound cool, and I'd like to see you pull it off well. Do you have any concept art of what they look like? If so, can I see it?

-Ben

You're retrofitting a rationale to a use, so you've got to think about it from that perspective. You want them to be human-shaped, so what are the advantages of a human form? In Roroga I assume that a humanoid body gives you Super Monkey Climbing Power, Kung Fu Action, and a hero everyone on the battlefield can cheer for.

If you want them to fly at supersonic speeds without catastrophe you have to think about what that means for the humanoid shape. Do they carry heat shields? Do they supercavitate the air? Do they use their mad Kung Fu Skills?

I'd vote for the last one. Otherwise you'll have to answer more very uncomfortable questions like the ones that have already been brought up.

- How large is a hex?

I'm thinking about 1/10th of a mile (roughly 500 feet across).

-How fast can a MAIS go?

Under the stuff I've posted I actually haven't really calculated it. :(

- Can MAIS break the speed of sound?

Under the rules I posted thus far, no. But as far as heat goes, if these things are capable of entering atmospheres (from space) without shriveling up into molten masses of metal any heat generated by breaking the speed of sound (which is roughly only about 700mph at sea level and it gets slow the higher you go) wouldn't be much of a problem.

- When is the game set?

I haven't really "tallied it up" in earth years but I think it's roughly around 3,000 a.d. After about 2223 a.d. the game uses "A.E." or After Expansion.

- Concept art?

Check here
[img]http://freepress.multiservers.com/wraith.jpeg[/img]

- Rationale ...

Yeah I think I've come up with a different approach to the whole system actually. I'm getting ready to post it . ;)

Ummm, I can't see the pic... perhaps if you posted a link to it?

Cheers,
-Ben

http://freepress.multiservers.com/wraith.html

Try that


This is just one design ... there are others and this is just a quick sketch I whiped out free hand when u posted.

You may be splitting off into more than one discussion here. In fact, the original discussion being the validity of the MAIS construction rules we've gone somewhat far afield in getting them figured out from first principles. What I suggest is that you start new threads on the art, new rationales, or the new system when you post it.

Mike

yeah, I was thinking that too.