/btg/ - Battletech General

Old thread:
>>49502300
>>49502300
>>49502300

wtf i hate copypasting now

File: PBW STRONK.png (238KB, 1552x918px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1552x918px

Second for PURPLE BURD STRONK

File: IMG_1633.jpg (81KB, 638x847px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 638x847px

>Trying to design a Mech
>Get advice from /btg/
>Hop to it
>One thing is too heavy
>Another too much heat
>A third too many slots

Guys I think I'm just shit. Should I stick to running lances of Mechs I already know?

>>49559658
>Another too much heat
It'll be fine.
[Rifleman noises]

>>49559752
It was a LAM with 12 Flamers and two PML's.

I'm not entirely sure if Flamers are that great, are they?

>>49559765
Heat damage to enemies is capped at 15. So no, that's kinda useless. Go with ML-spam instead.

>>49559765
>It was a LAM with 12 Flamers and two PML's.

Um, yeah. Not only is that pretty horrible, but the mere fact that it's a LAM could get you shanked if the wrong guy showed up for games day. Stick to pre-existing mechs for the time being, until you figure out how the tabletop game works.

File: Marauder-Redo-2.jpg (486KB, 1729x1687px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1729x1687px

Marauder thread?
Might as well dump the shimrauder chronology :)

File: MAD-8.jpg (256KB, 709x900px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 709x900px

>>49560388
You guys were the feedback source for this one.

File: battletech___experimental_marauder_by_shimmering_sword-d5odoqo.jpg (340KB, 1136x750px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 1136x750px

>>49560400
Then comes the CGL derivative 4X model.

File: IMG_1661.jpg (252KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

252KB, 1600x1200px

>>49560407
Minis of both are made, legal 4X comes first.

File: 17185444.jpg (57KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x480px

>>49560412
Nscale versions of the shimrauder have a limited and quiet production, then pirates bootleg the design in 6mm scale.

File: MWO-Marauder-3.jpg (314KB, 817x900px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 817x900px

>>49560422
Random MWO styled version in the mean time.

File: Marauder v21.jpg (264KB, 820x1000px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 820x1000px

>>49560431
Classics project quietly starts. Warhammer comes first, then the Marauder.
My previous concepts are ultimately thrown out for another fresh look.

File: AnthonyScroggins Marauder Lineart 11.jpg (522KB, 1044x1200px) Image search: [Google]

522KB, 1044x1200px

>>49560444
Lineart eventually drops.

>>49560453
And a cover cameo.

File: cover marauder.jpg (2MB, 1347x1655px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1347x1655px

>>49560461
Derp

File: mad1sss2.jpg (387KB, 1100x1300px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1100x1300px

>>49560471
Sculpting happens.

File: mini.jpg (346KB, 854x867px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 854x867px

>>49560481
And finally a mini that you can't buy, yet :P

Guys has that project on the Polish/Canadian OG periphery faction continued?

>>49560388
>>49560400
>>49560407
>>49560412
Good job Mr. SS, your work on the unseens is quite nice compared to how the MWO unseen look

File: battletech_mad3r_marauder_original.jpg (216KB, 1059x1280px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1059x1280px

>>49559146
>Marauder Edition

Hey! I can contribute!

File: dana_sterling.png (434KB, 680x480px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 680x480px

>>49559397

When did Dana grow her hair out?

>>49560388
your MAD is awesome looking

File: 70t_twin_gauss_shooter.jpg (565KB, 1280x1627px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1280x1627px

>>49559658
>Trying to design a Mech
>Get advice from /btg/

OK, so looking through Tech Readout 3058, and for the Inner Sphere, I don't see anything smaller than an assault mech with two gauss rifles. It seemed like a good idea - no hand or lower arm actuators, so I can flip around and shoot behind me, C.A.S.E. in each arm to prevent total mech disintegration if someone looks at a gauss rifle the wrong way... and plenty of lasers in case the enemy wants to move closer for some reason. It seemed cooler in my head than how it looks on paper.

It's still a work in progress. No idea how to fill out the fluff, though, and I'm pretty sure all the good names are taken. Maybe I should start considering names in other languages...

Gauss Hunchie, yes or no?

>>49562462
but you cant brawl with a gauss rifle

>>49562462
>>49562509
Agreed, hunchies are for getting close.

File: champion0.gif (38KB, 402x401px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 402x401px

>>49562387
Champion II? Because damned if those arms don't remind me of the Champion.
And are you looking through original 3058? Because the Avatar G mounts them, but it's in 3058 Upgrade, not the original. And there are few others dual gauss heavies in other TROs.

>C.A.S.E. in each arm to prevent total mech disintegration if someone looks at a gauss rifle the wrong way
IS tech can't mount standard CASE in arms though, only torsos. Are you literally doing everything by hand? Becasue some of the programs in the OP like Solaris Skunk Works or Megameklab make this shit a whole simpler, in part because the generally don't let you do things the rules don't allow.

> It seemed cooler in my head than how it looks on paper.
It's a good unit, just kind of boring because of how good it is.

>>49562462
Snub nose PPC hunchie with a capacitor

I'd call it the Corner Case

File: 1349350112489.png (2MB, 1432x625px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1432x625px

>>49562543

>>49562548
>Champion II? Because damned if those arms don't remind me of the Champion.

I could consider that. It would be about as boring as the design itself, so maybe that's the name it deserves.

>And are you looking through original 3058? Because the Avatar G mounts them, but it's in 3058 Upgrade, not the original. And there are few others dual gauss heavies in other TROs.

Yeah, my copy of 3058 has a primary configuration, then alternates A-C, none of which include a gauss rifle. There's the Nightstar, but it's 95 tons!

>>C.A.S.E. in each arm to prevent total mech disintegration if someone looks at a gauss rifle the wrong way
>IS tech can't mount standard CASE in arms though, only torsos.

Oh yeah! Duh!

>Are you literally doing everything by hand?

Yes.

>Becasue some of the programs in the OP like Solaris Skunk Works or Megameklab make this shit a whole simpler, in part because the generally don't let you do things the rules don't allow.

I think I have a designer program here with the 3050 rules in it. Shame on me for not using it. This idea was just rattling around in my head.

What about AC-20 Orion or Cataphract? Would you roll one?

>>49561379

People stopped toying with it some time last thread. Its still out there but I think people have paused for breath. I know its still fresh in my mind and I intend to continue work on it.

>>49562670
You know that hunchie is just getting in position for a point blank ac/20 shot.

>>49562462
I built one, called the HBK-2CS4C. Mounts a Gauss and an ER Large. Pretty spicy, give it a shot.

>>49562768
An Orion, sure, but I don't use Capellan crap.

>>49559765
Flamers have abysmal range, and can only deal heat or damage per turn, not both. Flamers are for burninating infantry, or for setting fires, assuming fire and smoke rules are in play for your tabletop game.

MWO any good or even any fun?

>>49565380
Not really. If you want a slow paced tactical shooter, try Dreadnought.

>>49565380
It's... okay, in small doses.

Play a few matches here and there, then log off and come back at a later date.

If you play it like an arena shooter with your favourite mechs, it's fun.

Try and make it into anything else, you'll end up frustrated.

How about a little design challenge to revive the thread?
It was observed that the periphery was exceptionally short on new designs in the 3050-60 period, so how about designing and posting some?

>>49567213
>It was observed that the periphery was exceptionally short on new designs in the 3050-60 period, so how about designing and posting some?

No. They shouldn't have any new designs in general and certainly no new designs until the CapCon intereferes with their fiat magic to build new factories. The periphery is supposed to be shit, so keep it that way.

>>49567213

Not to be as much of an ass as >>49567247, but canonically the Periphery has no native access to a lot of Lostech until the Trinity Alliance and is also fluffed as having issues with production- the Taurians building a new 3035-flavour Hatchetman line and the Marsshall are both big honking giant deals.

This means Intro tech only, and most Introtech niches have been done to death.

After 3063 or whatever it was they start gaining access to stuff rapidly but for the era you're interested in you're kinda shit out of luck.

>>49567213
Sounds kinda interesting. You have any guidelines in mind?

File: Banshee.png (90KB, 1256x1288px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 1256x1288px

>>49567213

Step 1: Buy old Banshees.
Step 2: Buy field refit kits from the FWL.
Step 4: Upgrade.

If George Hasek didn't turn into a retard and die, what do you guys think he'd have gotten up to in and after the jihad?

>>49568913
Making sure the Capellan March part of the AFFS didn't follow Yvonne along into retardville.

So Syrtis Fusilier RCTs while everyone else goes full LCT, probably doing like the Liaos and hording gear to rebuild formations. (Why not the 1st Kathil Uhlans to remind everyone of Morgan Hasek-Davion's vigilance against the Capellans?)

But that wouldn't happen because it would involve Xin Sheng being slighted in some way.

I just think it's funny how members of House Hasek disappeared entirely and when you try to ask about it on the OF the writers literally mock you. Quality customer interaction.

>>49568913

He would have just died in the Jihad regardless.

>>49568105
Very nice m8, thanks

Here's your reward:

http://i.4cdn.org/gif/1474705684942.webm

>>49568913
Blah blah blah AU and everything, but my thinking is that he'd spend pretty much all of his post-jihad time making sure his march is ready for the inevitable capellan attack.
Some ideas I came up with are
>selling AFFS mechs that are due to be scrapped for treaty reasons to 'scapyards' which are owned by "veterans' social clubs"
>convincing GM to rebuilt some of their destroyed kathil lines on an independent world in the near-periphery that isn't subject to whatever disarmament treaties that yvonne signed with stone
>buying up large quantities of surplused retrotech and new-builds from the periphery and mothballing them
>(these ones are adventure hooks for if I ever get to run this goddamn stuff)
>rumored to be bidding on an ex-WoB WarShip that's being sold on the black market
>allegedly stockpiling nuclear weapons
>building a secret mechwarrior academy somewhere in the fronc reaches
>plotting with literally everyone against house liao

>>49568913
Probably would have died to some Blakist bullshit while riding in with the cavalry to break the siege of New Avalon. That's not what I want to happen, but it's what I think would be written by TPB.

Slightly unrelated but
>tfw I just realized Sword of Sedition was written by Coleman
>a pure Suns and Levin novel
That's so fucking strange.

>>49568105
Insufficient LB-10Xs.

>>49570918
You could also have him buying up small mercenary groups in the Periphery or making a deal with someone willing to sell surplus to anyone like the Diamond Sharks/Calderon Protectorate. Word of Blake and Comstar mechs would be cheap because of the bad rep so you might see the rare Grim Reaper or Buccaneer in a lance.

>>49572825
I think you meant insufficient LGRs. He did say FWL refit kits...

>>49574330

>LGRs
>In the 3050s
>In the Periphery

>>49573775
>small mercenary groups in the Periphery or making a deal with someone willing to sell surplus to anyone like the Diamond Sharks/Calderon Protectorate
AU stuff being what it is, there isn't really a Calderon Protectorate, but I've got him buying up pretty much all of the TC's 'no questions asked' exports (no nuclear war between the two and fellow anti-capellan xin sheng casualty Jeff Calderon running the show there makes that relationship merely slightly uneasy rather than 100% homicidal), plus stuff from filtvelt, the magistacy and even a bit from the froncs.
Good idea with the diamond sharks, though. I completely forgot about their post-jihad 'anyone anywhere anytime' sales policy

File: Ghetto 70T.png (38KB, 1271x818px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1271x818px

>>49559658
>>49562387
>>49562764
I just use Solais Skunkwerks, Makes the process much much simpler, allowing you to choose parts while the system automates the math, and making adjustments to designs is easy as hell

http://www.solarisskunkwerks.com/downloads

You'll want the Program here
http://www.solarisskunkwerks.com/downloads/SSW_0.6.83.1.zip?attredirects=0&d=1

And the Master Unit list here
http://www.solarisskunkwerks.com/downloads/SSW%20Master.zip?attredirects=0&d=1

This program also makes it very easy to find and print record sheets of desired mechs

File: 1247226249897.jpg (771KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

771KB, 1600x1200px

Guys, what are the heavies you usually roll with?
Do you often use customized units?
Pic related, my favored gal

>>49575287
Whammy and Black Knight.

File: locust_griffin&stalker.jpg (72KB, 800x204px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x204px

OMG! It's a mech that's *not* Unseen!

>>49575216
But anon, that screenshot is from MegaMekLab.

>>49575287
Hard to say no to Orions and Thuds, especially since they're both nice generalists that you can throw in to most any situation. Though the Orion doesn't get upgraded nearly as well as the Thud does.

>>49559146
It's BattleTech, not "Battletech".

>>49575287
Thud, Archers, Warhammers and Marauders forever. Merlins, too. After 3055, the Bandersnatch joins the list, as does the herc and Cestus.
I use customs reasonably often, due to my fanatical hatred of unCASE'd ammo and torsobombs

>>49575287
I use whatever I can get my hands on, which usually means an Archer or a Rifleman. I don't customize unless forced to most of the time, just for the fact you have to repair so much in a campaign and screwing up your customization rolls can jack up a perfectly good ride.
>I'll just replace this AC/5 with an AC/10 and rip out some bits for the difference
>Oh, it jams on anything less than a 6 forever and has a permanent +1 to hit unless I fix this cockup at a licensed mech dealership

If I get a choice, then Thud/Warhammer/Marauder

>>49579564
thats why i make sure my techs are top notch

>>49579617
So do I, but there usually aren't a bunch of really good ones for hire within easy distance of the kind of dumps that hire sub-batallion level mercs to garrison their whole world. Or worse, you have a state unit with assigned techs and most of your field crew suck while the golden boys are relaxing in the dropship you won't see for a month. That's if you actually make it to the rendezvous on time.

You can tell my GM likes to put the pressure on outside of combat.

But that feeling when you successfully mount a PPC and some javelin arms on a trashed urbanmech in between battles with nothing but technician Steve and his magical field gantry with your mechwarriors working as his astechs? Priceless.

>>49579765
This is why i played a genius field mechanic instead of a pilot in the last campaign i was in. Sitting on the sidelines during all the hot mecha on mecha action was all worth it when i successfully refitted my entire assigned lance of succession war era shit mechs with turbo quirked clan salvage. Them tubeborns didnt know what hit em

>>49579564
>>49579462
Which Archers do you guys usually deploy?
I have always found them a bit too explodey, or fragile

>>49579944
In 3025, I use both the regular -2R and a simple custom that drops the LRMs to 15s to add extra heat sinks. After 3050, I love the-4M, often modified by dropping the art IV for extra lasers, as well as a dirt simple -2R upgrade that drops one ton of armor to add CASE and DHS.
None of these have ever gone wrong on me.
Also, one bit of maybe-bad advice for making archers less explosive in 3025 it to either do refits replacing some of the ammo with something else, like heat sinks or MLs, or being willing to take shots at longer ranges and worse odds than you're used to

>>49579944
Bog standard 2R. The 2K runs too hot for me and I'm a guy that loves riding the heat curve. I hold them back until I run them dry, usually. They key I've always found to successfully using explody machines is to make them a less tempting target than something else. A hunchback is worth its weight in gold for a purpose like this. Oh, and don't be afraid to hotload your LRM's. In a CASEless machine, the advantages are insane for relatively little drawback.

Later on the 4M is a gem, the steiner srm and narc ones are never very good, goons are goonsclusive so pretty irrelevant to me, the kuritan upgrades to the 2K are garbage until the 8K which is a totally different kind of machine, the liao stealth archer is good but a little too expensive BV-wise for my taste. The royal is also excellent but its a royal. The periphery rocket one is hilarious.

File: Archer 5Ga.png (44KB, 651x909px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 651x909px

>>49579944
I'm a big fan of customs, so aside from modding the -2R with 15 pods to reduce heat concerns and up the endurance, I use pic related when the 3050s roll around.

File: Archer 5Wa.png (43KB, 646x957px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 646x957px

>>49580440
Or if you're feeling Blakist, this one.

>>49560412
this is gorgeous dude.

>>49579944
-4M master race.

What battlemech and it's variants do you guys think is the best just stock?

>>49582696
Almost all the Hunchbacks, Griffin, Catapult, Javelin, Thug, Thunderbolt are the ones which comes to mind

>>49582696
Things with hands decent movement and armor, and a good weapons load. So basically something like this minus the catapult.

>>49582696
Best at what? Deathkilling would be something like the Annihilator or Hellstar. General utility would be one of the 55-ton trio or a Thunderbolt or something. It really depends on what it needs to be the best *at*.

>>49579944
Literally a poor surat's Mad Dog

>>49582696
Define best.
The thunderbolt and pretty much all of it's variants are exceptionally good at what they're trying to do, which is be utility ass-kickers

The nightstar, devastator, pillager and thunderhawk and hellstar are cheesily good stock at just plain killing shit

>>49574402
You just gave me a horrible new idea.

Prototype Light Gauss Rifle: When fired, roll 2d6. On a 2, the capacitor banks explode, causing the same damage as a normal critical hit and destroying the weapon.

>>49582696

The only good stock Mechs are those which mount at least 95% of their maximum armor load, carry no explosive ammo (with a specific exemption for AC/20 ammo or Guass Rifles), have a standard engine, and are capable of dealing at least 1/3rd of their mass in damage beyond 18 hexes and at least half their mass in damage inside of 9 hexes.

Very, very, few stock Mechs are good.

>>49578890
Hold on to your autism, anon

>>49583737

>Very, very, few stock Mechs are good.

I think what you mean is that very few are *optimised.*

>>49584426

There's no difference. A design that is not optimized is not "good" by definition.

File: Monte_Cook.jpg (84KB, 170x227px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 170x227px

>>49584444

>>49582835
>Hands needed

Flipping arms doesn't come up much, then?

>>49585143
>that body posture
more like Monte Crook, somebody call chiropractor for this man

>>49579564
I am doing some heavy customization to a Marauder/King Krab hobo-mash-up on Scorpion legs.

We're on a desert world and there's a cult of speed tailing us, we need 360* rotation on atleast four flamers per hand, not counting those AC/20's for anti-mech Cockpit Punching.

>>49575216
>Doesn't have machinegun knees or exploding knees.
0/10

New TtS today, I promise to upload it sometime in this weekend

Easily the best of the bunch. It has rules for fucking giant crystals, the kind of rule I wanted since that Mechwarrior 2 mission

>>49585364
>giant crystals
HA HA TIME FOR TIBERIUM

File: 191px-3025_Grasshopper1.jpg (14KB, 191x281px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 191x281px

>>49575287
This sexy beast, Jump Jets, good heat management, and a LRM for when you're getting in close.

>>49559146
Alright goys, important question. If you are shooting at an enemy mechs left or right side, do you hit their rear torso armor? Played against a new person today and we had played in two different ways.

>>49586033
Literally a timeless classic.

>>49586289

Nope. You have to be in their rear arc (prior to any torso twisting) to hit rear locations.

>>49586851
Really? I always played that if you were hitting their left or right side the opposite sides armor and central armor were rear hits. Also does torso twisting decide which part you hit at all?

>>49586289
As I have always read it, the front.

Looking through the various rulebooks this game has had going back to 3rd edition, I can't find anything that explicitly says hits to the left or right side hit the front torso armor. I can see why someone might think it could hit the rear, since side facings are on the 'back' half of the hex.

The example spread across pages 114-120 of Total Warfare actually has shots against a 'mech's left side hitting torso locations, but never explicitly says they hit the front. There are actually similar (and much shorter) examples in the BMR, Compendium, and 3rd ed rules, but none of them come right out and say it hits the front.

That said, note that the only place that mentions 'rear' on the hit location table is the Front/Rear column. I'd think if it was intended that side hits struck the rear armor, the entries on those columns would say 'Rear Right Torso' instead of 'Right Torso', and so on.

>>49586920
Torso twisting they call out pretty clearly at least, it has no effect on which part f the 'mech you hit. Facing is determined by which way the 'mechs feet are pointing.

>>49586920
>>49586930
Aha, took me a while to find the right search terms to get the answer from the source:

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=5744.msg575961#msg575961

>>49586971
Thanks boss. Youre a champ.

>>49586971

>implying that those answers are in any way official or mean anything

>>49587048

Edgy.

>>49587012
Out of curiosity, how would this difference affect your games? Is a lot of effort spent keeping opponents out of your side arcs? Do those extra back shots often make or break the fight, or do you position to avoid it?

>>49587093
We played two games, one with my way and one with his. I think we both liked my way more, but I kinda wanna stick with the traditional rules just because. The back shots didn't make or break a fight. Positioning was still important, but it mainly meant heavies and assaults couldn't just shrug off lights as much. There was a lot more focus on keeping flankers suppressed by LRMs and such so they didn't bust in with SRMs and MGs and tear up a back ark. Positioning to avoid it was usually pretty easy but I can see why it could become a problem. My hunchback killed his atlas because I managed to walk an extra hex and hit him in the rear torso which my spider shot up earlier. If your games need to get a bit more mobile I recommend it. There was a lot more movement and positioning to counter stuff in the game where we could hit the back ark from the side.

>>49587165
I've wondered how a general tabletop game would go with the new turn order Harebrained Schemes cooked up for the BT game. For reference, it's basically Lights->Mediums->Heavies->Assaults with units given the ability to hold their action to a later phase (save assaults). Gets rid of initiative as we know it, and gives greater tactical leeway to lighter mechs. Saw the system being used in the Death From Above twitch/youtube series and was curious.

>>49587258
Hmm could be interesting. I might try it out some time. I'm a big fan of light mechs so game change that makes them more important than just scouts and ECM holders is good in book.

>>49587315
The way I've seen it run from the DFA show and the BT pre-Alpha footage is both sides roll to see which one goes first, and then by weight class (give or take holding actions) each side resolves movement and then actions.

>mfw HBS went throwback and got Duane Loose to do some minor work on the new Battletech game
I don't care what people say; 3025 is still my favorite TRO. I love the art. So I am happy they gave him a callback. He did the design for the Striker light tank and the J. Edgar.

>>49587944
>I love the art.

Props. I like 80s mecha anime too.

>>49587707
Hmm seems like it should work in reverse for tabletop. First mechs to go are 100 tonners for the team that lost initiative, then 100 tonners for the winner, then 95 for losing and so on and so on. Might be fun

>>49565380
it's pretty good. Slow start but once you've got a mech or two it picks up. It's well balanced too.

>>49587944
>>49587995

To each their own, but I rolled my eyes like never before when I saw the update. Loose did a terrible job in TRO 3025/3026, the hype over his construction lines, traced mechs is unjustified

>>49565380
It's alright... don't try and play competitively and dont try and climb the ranking latter. Treat it like a little mech vacation where you can drop in for a few matches every now and then and fry some people while building up cool custom mechs. Keep in mind, some mechs are totally busted and some are kind of garbage. If you don't have a favorite I recommend looking at metamechs and netbuilding a robot for yourself. Beats getting roasted by LRM boats every round because you have a subpar mech. Also the transactions are super pricey, costs nearly 30 dollars for a set of heavy mechs.

>>49588007

Fucks heavier 'Mechs if that side won initiative and the other side is lighter though.

>>49588215
>Well balanced
Kodiak says otherwise. Also the clans in general can fuck right off.

>>49588308
Right. Plus it lets the side that won possibly dictate battlefield movement by moving their lights to a certain place.

>>49565380
>>49588215
>>49588366
Basically don't get involved in anything that might be "skilled play" because then you wander into annoying as shit meta builds everywhere, which is basically clans with long-range energy weapons. It's fun below that level, but the meta is about as bad as Mechwarrior 4 Mercs back in the day.

So, I'm trying to get a BT/MW RPG game going with some friends. What era/year would you guys recommend? It's a bunch of people that have never played BT before, so I was thinking 3028 era, and roll it from there.

>>49588007
I can't quite see the logic behind the winner of initiative going last. That seems counter-intuitive, buuut that might be because I'm used to chess.

File: Are you a bad enough dude.jpg (4MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3648x2736px

Anime cons are fun places.

>>49586289
Normally, no. However there are TacOps rules that the use altered hit location tables that do make it possible.

File: awesome.jpg (238KB, 1024x1367px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1024x1367px

>>49590098

>>49591190
That's an Atlas, not an Awesome

>>49589796
Think of it in terms of the winner managing to predict the other guy's intentions and launch counter-moves even before those intentions are actioned. Remember, BT attacks and damage are resolved simultaneously. The winner of initiative gets to wait and watch their opponent's moves, assess what they're doing, and react to that by adjusting his positions and tactics. That puts the guy who lost initiative into a worse tactical position.

File: Warrior_(CCG).jpg (31KB, 308x312px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 308x312px

>>49577363
You're right, I'm retarded, time to commit Sudoku I guess

Have a mostly unrelated image

Does the inner sphere have a 75 ton battlemech from the 3025 to 3055 era that carries 4 ballistic weapons?

>>49585167
>Flipping arms doesn't come up much, then?

Not that anon, but a mech with two hands can uproot a tree and smack someone else with it!

>>49585167
>>49592242

The reason I prefer hand actuators on Mechs is somewhat more prosaic. A Mech with hands can help construct things like fortifications - essentially, any Mech with hands can double as an infantry battlefield engineering company with only a modicum of effort. In campaign play (or RPG play), that's *huge*.

>>49592283
It's also super important for raiding.

File: 20161001_033749.jpg (3MB, 5312x2988px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5312x2988px

So this is my first painted battlemech lance.

File: centurion_with_marines.jpg (576KB, 1600x1287px) Image search: [Google]

576KB, 1600x1287px

>>49592888

Not bad, anon. Y'know, we do sometimes discuss Battletech paint jobs over on /WIP/ ...

>>49592189

>tfw russianbro made me an MWO wolverine mini
>it's actually pretty high quality AND came with variant arms

That guy, I love his work.

>>49592086
Nope, no such thing exists, and there isn't much point to one either. I suppose you could tape some MGs to a bandersnatch if you REALLY wanted, but I can't see why you'd want that

>>49593141
I was just curious if the inner sphere had something that could sport four autocannons in the 75 ton bracket, but oh well.

>>49593192
Nothing canon, and really, it would be pretty awful on the table, since you'd have to use -5s or twos. I'm guessing you're a MWO guy?

Though, if your heart is set on autocannon spam blasting, you CAN crowbar three LBX-10s into a marauder chassis if you really want

>>49593192
Jaegermechs are about the closest you'll find

>>49593219
Yeah, I was kinda curious if there was a possibility of one for MWO. Armour of the 75 tonner while still retaining moderate mobility and a nice amount of firepower.

Silly question but what are some mechs with French names?

>>49593868
Legionnaire

>>49593868
Lancelot ;)

File: STOP IT GOKU.jpg (9KB, 200x176px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x176px

>>49560400
>Not a clan ER PPC

>>49593868
Quasimodo too?

>>49560412
>-4X in FS colors
>prototype made by Regulans
[confusion]

>>49593499
If you have Firecontrol, the Rifleman can sport 4 AC/2's and about 600 rounds, plus an emergency small laser. 1k+ meter thunder. It's delicious.
>>49593219
Yeah, I was doing some buggery with a marauder chasis earlier, but I settled on having some extra heatsinks and flamers to work alongside my PPCs

>>49591640
I see. Personally, that's how I play everything, but I've always heard conventional wisdom say "Always attack", and going first will force your enemy to react to you, giving you the initiative.

>>49589749
Aren't the 3050's when the Clans come into the fold? That would give you the widest derth of material to play with without getting into "AND THEN WOBBIES" and other 3100's nonsense.

>>49594205
Forever 67 is the deepest by amount of material, I think.

>>49589749
Fourth Succession War sounds good. Lots of opportunity for big planetary campaigns and intrigues.

>>49594186
As an excercise, go play megamek and give the bot a major initiative bonus, so it always wins init. You'll quickly see why winning initiative and moving last is so important.

>>49589749
3025 is best for people who don't know the lore very well. I think that the mid-late 50s offers the biggest variety of possible plots, though

>>49594205
>3100s nonsense
Anon, you got it wrong
lostech and neo feudal is from 3025 and 3050, not from 3100

>>49594186
>>49594791
The concept of initiative is to be able to process the optimal course of action first, which does not necessarily mean being the first to act. Think OODA loop.

>>49594993

LosTech and Neo-Feudal is 3rd SW to 3030ish. Tech recovery has started in the 3020s and ramps into high gear in the 3030s.

>>49596009
Nonsense still not caused by the 3100s, though

Anyone got the new TtS yet?

>>49596065
I do, anon. I'm too lazy to turn my pc on and upload it, sorry
Can you wait until tomorrow?

Sure it's only a TtS.

If an omnimech can haul around battle armor like it's nothing, why can't you just attach one-ton slabs of armor in the same spots?

>>49598510

Game balance.

>>49594220

It's quite a common start-off point for RPGs and fan campaigns (e.g MW4 NBT-HC, mektek, FGC) because of that, though a degree of grognardism plays a part too.

Events usually ends up going like this though: IS unites, Clans unite, the two sides have a big dust off in the rimward Inner Sphere. Pretty boring, even with absurd metagame alliances that crop up. I find the Jihad story much more interesting.

>>49598510
Modular armor, bro. But it sucks more than it should and isn't really worth it.

So what's the argument against LAMs? I haven't tried them but I kind of want to after seeing the new art.

>>49599081

At best, they complicate things and slow the game down.

At worst they fuck balance hard. There are ways of countering this like bringing shit tons of artillery or flak weapons but most meta environments don't feature that, so groups have to completely revamp the way they play to cut LAMs down to size.

This is also just with canon LAMs. If you think custom 'Mechs or optimised canon ones shit on game balance you don't even want to think about what custom LAMs can do.

>>49599370
What are some examples? I've heard that the new rules gimped them hard.

>>49562387
Basically a Fat Galahad

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Galahad_(BattleMech)

We had a pretty good thing a few days ago where we designed good crud, stalker and Warhammer 3050 models because the canon ones are kinda trash, so how about we do it again, but with the Rifleman and Atlas?

File: Rifleman 4G.png (45KB, 656x1004px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 656x1004px

>>49599498
Accept that you can't have big lasers and big ACs, and shove in LB-10X.

File: Atlases.png (83KB, 1519x1005px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1519x1005px

>>49599551
These two Atlases are pretty similar, but I like the RS version.

>>49599455

It's a combination of their movement radius and ability to spam high movement modifiers. Together they can render themselves almost unhittable by controlling range bands and stacking +4 TMMs.

I'm sure NEA will be along in a moment to say that this is the case with all high-movement 'Mechs but those are extreme outliers while LAMs are designed like that from the ground up.

>>49584444
Optimization is only relevant if it's 1996 and your still balancing the game by tonnage.

>>49590098
>tfw the anime cons in my area have nothing but love live cosplayers and the like
I deserve better

>>49600299

The BV system can still be gamed by using multiple slower units with high armour since those factors are weighted less than speed and firepower.

File: the maddest of cats.jpg (154KB, 599x1175px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 599x1175px

>>49590098
>>49591190
You dare to refuse my batchall?

File: Atlas AS7-LG.png (56KB, 619x953px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 619x953px

>>49599498
>Atlas
I had this really weird idea for a refit of a standard AS7-D. I kinda want to take it for a spin sometime in a casual game to see how it performs. Obviously switching TAG for CASE would be more ideal, but I ran outta room. I might try to shift some things around to see if I can manage it. Will derp around with the Rifleman to see what I can come up with.

>>49601932
I just realized my Atlas doesn't really fit the "3050" requirement. Oh well, I'm tired.

File: Rifleman RFL-3MP.png (44KB, 660x980px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 660x980px

>>49599498
have this quad LL rifleman.
(I have another one, but it's basically CA's but with a SFE, so whatever)
I'll see what I can come up with atlas-wise later

>>49602399
I'll buy 10. I love bog standard LLas.

File: gl-5.png (345KB, 580x422px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 580x422px

>>49601775
Sorry, I got lost on my way there.

It irks my autism how the Thunderbolt keeps switching from left to right the shoulder-mounted missile launcher between the various versions

File: SamuraiRPSystem2.jpg (91KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 720x576px

Hey /btg/, a couple AtB/megamek questions for you...

1) AtB and Battle Armor: A few months back, an anon suggested I stay well away from using BA in my campaigns because it supposedly corrupted save files. I'd prefer not to lose my game, but at the same time, I love BA, and it seems like it'd be ideal for the all-too-frequent night-fights that crop up.

2) Megamek and MG Arrays: Never learned how to get my MG arrays to array. Never looked that deeply into it at the same time, since I haven't had any units with them. How do? Is it something I have to toggle in the criticals like with Stealth armor, or to I toggle it with "Mode" like switching LRMs from direct to indirect fire?

Img: An old holdover of my Mechwarrior 2nd ed gaming group, using Explorer corps rules...

>>49602953
Isn't it the same deal with the Griffin?

>>49603644
>Amphibian planet has less surface water than burd planet

>>49603650
>using a Griffin
At least you're not using a Shadow Hawk

>>49603998
Wait, what? Since when did one of... scratch that... THE most effective 55 tonner in introtech BT become a bad thing?

Don't get me wrong, I love a good Wolverine, but good god, man. Next you'll be deriding my choice of using an Awesome 8Q

>>49603844
Highest life form != most commonly found life form
Also, dice rolls.

>>49604166
Just messing around mate
Just to argue, I guess I'd deploy a Thug or Hatamoto-Chi, maybe even a Zeus if I'm feeling Lyran that day
Let's be honest, how many times have you managed to shoot all 3 PPCs (plus the small laser) in a favorable situation?

>>49604260
every 2/3 turns with the old 3-3-2 pattern... With such a small minimum, it's pretty good almost anywhere.

Thug, you're speaking my language. Hatamoto-Chi... eeh. I lost my love for it thanks to bad sinking. Zeus... Zeus is a heavy mech with an extra 5 tons.

>>49603650
There are only 2 variants with reverse sided LRM: the -1S and -5L

>>49604327
Sell me on other assaults then
I already acknowledge the Awesome and his zombie power

>>49603644
Oh that's neat. How'd you make it?

>>49599455
In the new rules, AirMechs can get unhittable defensive mods, but they do it by taking unusable offensive mods.

>>49605211
If you like throwing 30 points of damage downrange, then you'll love hitting with over FIFTY. Yes gentlemen, the Charger: the last 'Mech you'll ever drive.

Are there any decent BattleTech podcasts out there?

>>49606302
The Duncan Fisher VA guy does some, I think. I dunno how good they are.

Hey guys, I discovered today that my Campus has a 'tech room' where they have a whole bunch of Oculus Rifts, Vives and better yet 3D printers. Where is the best place to get 3D models of mechs? I wanna start printing out some cool looking mini's for the weekly board game night.

>>49606758
You're not gonna be able to make good quality prints at normal BT scale without a really really good 3D printer.

>>49606856
They have pretty nice ones, but I don't know if they are really top notch or not. If I wanted to start 3D printing models though, where do I get the files I need?

>>49602953
>>49603650
>>49603998
>>49604166
Out of curiosity is there anyone else here who pretty much just uses original 'Mechs?

Like I've seen and occasionally used all the newer ones in the TROs from 3050 and on, but I just prefer the classics. Not even a grog, I don't even play exclusively 3025 anymore.

>>49603644
>Megamek and MG Arrays
In the most current dev version of MM, the array should be linked by default. In your weapon list, it'll say 'linked'. Use the mode button to switch between link/unlinked, but it will take a full turn to do so.

Also, you fire the array. It won't let you fire each MG individually, if the array is linked.

>>49599713
>I'm sure NEA will be along in a moment to say that this is the case with all high-movement 'Mechs

But he's right, though. Mechs that routinely can achieve a +4 TMM basically break the RNG spread. Light Mechs are even worse than LAMs because they only take a +2 AMM for running and LAMs get a +4, and LAMs can't use their speed and take advantage of woods at the same time, while Light Mechs can.

In any case, the issue with the new LAM rules was the fact that they were completely incapable of doing anything while zooming around being unhittable. A unit that can't impact the battlefield except by dying shouldn't exist, and the only way LAMs could impact the battlefield was by flying somewhere and then getting destroyed because if they wanted to use their weapons, they couldn't use their speed.

CGL fixed that in the new version of IntOps, IIRC. I haven't looked at the rules in a while.

>>49608646
>A unit that can't impact the battlefield except by dying shouldn't exist

If your larger point is that LAMs never should have existed and anyone who has ever used one in a game is a piece of human garbage who should eat two bullets to the back of the head and have their children billed for the ammo expenditure, then I completely agree.

If that wasn't your point, the objectively correct position is still what I've outlined above.

>>49608646
>an unhittable scout unit is a bad thing

Now I dunno you, but playing double-blind, that seems like somthing that's well worth using. And if you're actually playing with ammo dumps and such, they'll be prime trolling material as you can show them flying off towards those dumps whenever your opponent feels like moving forward to engage you.

So anyone going to upload the TtS yet?

>>49609668
It's me again, anon
Not yet ;_;
Had to bring my mom to hospital, I'm still here

Ouch, I can wait, I understand.

>>49609915
Hope she's doing okay.

>>49608646

It's a "problem" only for LAM players who only want to use AirMech mode because of their movement radius to stack the +4 TMM on top of controlling range and attack route to limit return fire to a single enemy arc while they can put all weapons on target.

Literally *every* player I've seen who wanted to use LAMs was a complete shitter who ran 6/9/6 55-tonners with Clan LPLs, TC, and C3 on them. I have never, in my 20 years of playing BT, seen *anyone* who wanted to use them because it was appropriate for their unit going by fluff. Like, not even once.

The new rules in some ways are actually worse for balance since they get another 50% movement range and never have to leave AirMech mode and can use iJJs to offset no longer being able to have XL engines and other weight-saving tech. Them being back gives the shitters an opening to crap on things again while also tempting non-shitters to join the dark side.

In an ideal world AirMech mode would be completely useless for combat. It'd be the mode you use for rapid approaches beneath enemy radar for raids and attacks on logistical centres. For combat you'd switch to either 'Mech or ASF mode. LAMs would be a great choice for campaigns but limited utility in stand-up fight games.

But the pro-LAM crowd went REEEE at the idea of their precious AirMech mode no longer being game-breakingly powerful, so it got buffed again and here we are.

>>49610647

>limited utility in stand-up fight games.

Yeah, I can see how people might have serious issues with 'Hey, this is shit in 90% of games people play'

>>49599081

The rules for them suck. Just like the rules for the vehicle/mech transformers.

They've never had a good rules version.

>>49610682

There are a raft of examples I could point to where that is still the case but nobody has an issue with it because those units aren't as popular as LAMs.

I could also point out that LAM rules appear in a book meant to handle advanced rules for units in a variety of eras to support campaign play, not in the base rule book for tournament play where everything has to be good in a stand-up fight.

Or that LAMs can use one of their other two modes instead of zipping around in AirMech mode spamming unhittable TNs.

>>49610730

QuadMechs suck balls because of the 20%+ mass they have to sacrifice on transformation gear. 10-15% would have been better.

OTOH they're being deployed in place of vehicles so the Horses can exploit Zellbrigen IC, where they're still an upgrade over tanks. So being paired up and for bids helps a lot.

>>49608955
I don't get you.

Yes, I agree that the LAM can get ridiculous TMMs that can make fighting it hard. But that's not like the Wraith can't get itself a +4 on the regular (in addition to any woods it might accidentally find itself jumping into), nor is it impossible to make designs that abuse stealth armor, iJJs, and partial wings to get something like a +5 or +6.

Seems like your hatred is grounded in an irrational dislike of the LAM, not any actual facts or math.

>>49610750

Or the devs could write rules for them...ever...that give them an option other than 'Spam airmech'. LAMs are kinda useless for both points and weight outside Airmech so they don't get much in the way of options if they want to be usable.

>>49610647
>But the pro-LAM crowd went REEEE at the idea of their precious AirMech mode no longer being game-breakingly powerful, so it got buffed again and here we are.
No, the pro-LAM crowd REEE'd over the fact that until the rules were changed, the best TMM you could generate aside from range was a +2, regardless of how fast you were going because of the Angle of Attack modifiers. Meanwhile a Wraith is moving half the speed and twice the TMM. The modification back to standard rules means most of them are moving with a +5 TMM, with some moving with a +6. Admittedly, adding a further +1 for being Airborne is probably a bit much, but considering most modern LAMs are pretty shit in combat, you just fling Flak and Pulse shots at them and ignore them if they're too hard to hit.

But this sounds like same REEE over "YOU'RE PLAYING THE GAME IN A WAY I DON'T LIKE OR CONDONE" that always happens when LAMs get brought up

Can bmechs solely use jumpjets cruise around? Saw IBO today and the opening battle has the MS solely move with thrusters with no walking

>>49610789

The Wraith does that on a chassis that supports a payload of 11 tons.

A shittily built LAM moves 9/14 and brings a payload of 19.5 tons.

A more reasonable example LAM will go 4/6/6 for a final movement of 18/27 in LAM mode with a 10-ton payload.

And those are all on chassis with max armour.

The Wraith has a 7-he bubble where it can either get out of LOS, get to an opponent's rear, or move to a position where the enemy can only pivot a single arm onto them while choosing the range firing takes place at.

LAMs have a bubble of anywhere between 14 and 32 hexes where they can do that.

Movement's just one aspect of the issue. Probably the most visible, but not the end of it.

>>49610845

Then you change the BV to be calculated on what it can do in 'Mech or ASF mode since one is not usable to fight. This is not an insoluble issue.

>>49610967
No, BattleMechs are tanks that happen to walk, while MS are not.

>>49610967

Only in zero or near zero grav.

MW games take a lot of liberties.

>>49610977
>Then you change the BV to be calculated on what it can do in 'Mech or ASF mode since one is not usable to fight.

So your solution is still 'No airmech' rather than making all 3 viable?

>>49610647
>In an ideal world AirMech mode would be completely useless for combat.

Yeah, fuck off. That has literally never been the case in fluff for LAMs. You disagree with the entire point behind the unit class.

>>49611036
>So your solution is still 'No airmech' rather than making all 3 viable?

No, the correct solution is "no airmech and no people who play airmechs are allowed to play battletech again". Both parts are needed.

>>49611085

Ah, right. Of course, we can't have people who have fun differently.

>>49611036

AirMech is still viable for game use, but not for facetanking entire enemy companies. It's for scouting and rapidly approaching enemy logistical centres. If they need to slog it out they then switch to 'Mech or ASF mode instead of spamming TMM and range mods to drive the to-hits past 11.

>>49611064

I disagree with the idea LAMs should be innately better than 'Mechs in every battlefield role.

>>49611138

>It's for scouting and rapidly approaching enemy logistical centres.

That's something that only happens in campaign, not most games. It's also an area I fail to see how it would really do better than the ASF form.

Since I was specifically called out, my only contribution to the LAM fight this time is that discussing LAMs is like discussing gun control. Neither side of the debate - with INCREDIBLY rare exceptions - is capable of composing an unbiased and/or unemotional argument, and thus actual discussion of the issue is simply futile.

I've seen LAMfags insist that if LAMs can't be 100-ton cLPL TComp boats with max armor *and* the +2 MP to their Walk rating that ASFs get (ie, they can get a 6/9/6 movement profile and thus 18 Jump/Flank MP), then they aren't properly respecting the fluff and everyone who disagrees just hates LAMs. I've seen anti-LAMfags insist that it doesn't matter if a LAM can actually do anything; simply its ability to freely position itself on the board using its high MP allowance is proof enough of the unit's inherent brokenness and as such, LAMs should be removed from the game and their advocates killed for bringing LAMs to games (yes, I've heard that seriously, in person, face-to-face with their spit spraying into mine - not just on the internet - one of three times I thought I was seriously about to have to be in a fight at a convention). I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments should be lost in time, like tears...in...rain. Time for this argument to die.

>>49611169

ASF have to do multiple fly-overs and linger over the area longer to do the job.

LAMs can come in at ~300kph, transform, tear things up for three times the damage of an ASF and get out in the same time an ASF can hit a logistics dump once.

LAMs in AirMech mode are also more difficult to detect or intercept than ASFs.

>>49611138
>I disagree with the idea LAMs should be innately better than 'Mechs in every battlefield role.

Well, that was their clear intent when they were inserted into the game, and that's what the fluff has always centered upon (see also: Youngblood, Jason), so you can fuck right off.

>>49611260

One thing I will say is that the Cincy meta is significantly different to most around the world.

In your games people are used to way more combined-arms than other metas, so someone bringing an LAM to one of your games is pretty likely to run into dedicated AA and/or ASFs that can counter LAMs with a reasonable degree of success.

IME most metas are feature primarily 'Mechs with some vees and rarely infantry. ASFs are almost never seen and nobody worries about AA.

That's a paradigm LAMs are going to fuck with *hard,* but it's an environment way more common than the Cincy meta.

I don't want them removed but I think if they're going to remain AirMech mode needs to be toned down. Preferably by reducing their MP in that mode to something more reasonable.

>>49611281

'Mechs were supposed to be a shit ton better than tanks and infantry too.

Now we have infantry that can do Heavy 'Mech damage at 21 hexes while taking about as much damage to kill, and vees are a lot tougher than they used to be.

Things can change. Balance can evolve.

>>49611377
>Balance can evolve.

If balance was to evolve correctly, though, we'd be playing with tanks and Mechs wouldn't exist.

>>49611337

In that case Mech and ASF need to be turned up, as right now they are kinda shitty.

>>49611392

Man, I would happily pay mech prices if I could get tanks without shit like motive crits from every nick and scratch.

>>49611337
Why are you rumbling without an LBX or two in your force?

File: Malachite 3.png (37KB, 658x844px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 658x844px

Fuck LAMs, get Ground Mobile HPGs. All y'all motherfuckers best beware, I just made a Mech that costs more than some WarShips.

>>49611337
>IME most metas are feature primarily 'Mechs with some vees and rarely infantry. ASFs are almost never seen and nobody worries about AA.
>That's a paradigm LAMs are going to fuck with *hard,* but it's an environment way more common than the Cincy meta.

I understand that. That's a totally reasonable argument.

The flip side, of course, is that bringing a LAM into a TW-compliant meta is impossible by definition. They require all parties to agree to their use ahead of time, just like *all* experimental rules (and Level 3 rules before that). The concept of somebody bringing LAMs into a TW-compliant pickup game is a straw man, because doing so is explicitly forbidden by the rules, and if you have somebody breaking those rules or keeping people in ignorance of them, then that's not an issue with the LAM rules, that's an issue with your *players*.

I'll also point out that allowing LAMs into a meta and then not allowing or refusing to use the counters to LAMs (which are largely - but not exclusively - Advanced or Experimental in nature themselves), is tremendously stupid. Honestly, it's the same thing with ASFs; they utterly break the game if you don't or can't explicitly construct a force capable of dealing with them...and what's worse, ASFs are *TW legal*, so there's not even the "fuck you, we're not playing Experimental rules" fallback for them. Forcing people to change the way they play in order to counter your "cool thing" is not inherently bad, that's how pretty much every other modern wargame with a list-building component (Infinity, Bolt Action, Warmahordes, Warhams...shit, even DBA/DBx, etc) works. Interestingly, it's really only the BT community that I've found insists on getting to play a meta that doesn't evolve at all.

>thank you for a reasonable discussion

>>49611443
>8,120,588,667 C-bills
sheeet. I could conquer the magistracy of canopus for that kind of money

>>49611964
You could buy a Texas BB with money left over, so yes.

>>49611802

Fuck off LAMfag. Nobody cares about your shit opinion.

>>49612057
what a well-worded and astute argument.

>>49610450
she is, thanks for asking

here it is, finally
enjoy the crystal terrain rules
http://www.mediafire.com/file/bk2zfcwhlfb92f2/E-CAT35SN212+BattleTech+Touring+the+Stars+Tyrfing.pdf

>>49608955
>>49610647
>>49610901
>>49611085
>>49611281
>>49612057

Original question asker here. I completely regret bringing up this topic. If I knew people were going to get this mad, I would have posted it elsewhere.

NEA, I'm sorry if I caused you to have flashbacks.

File: DSC_0127.jpg (4MB, 4496x3000px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4496x3000px

Tundra Wolf out of nowhere

>>49612342
Welcome to LAMs, son. You're a real /btg/er now.

>>49612342

Don't feel bad. It's a legitimate question, and there is absolutely *nowhere* where you can actually ask that question and NOT start an argument. Not here, not the official forums, not anywhere. Like I said, it's simply impossible to talk about (like an increasing number of other BT-related topics), but the question still deserves to be asked.

>>49612342
Just wait until you inadvertently mention periphery mech production

>>49612151
Thanks. Hope your mom gets better.

>>49599551
Damn. You turned the air defense mech into something that's good enough to field in the front lines, AND made it better at air defense. I'll take a company.

>>49611964
Not like conquering the MoC would be hard. It's the occupation that's hard.

File: qt Black Lanner.jpg (251KB, 800x614px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 800x614px

qt Black Lanner bump

File: Archer Variants.png (138KB, 2640x916px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 2640x916px

Direct Fire Archers Bump.

File: Rifleman RFL-6D.png (46KB, 622x1046px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 622x1046px

rifleman bump

File: 1460851711788.jpg (197KB, 805x908px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 805x908px

>>49614178
Now that's what I'm talking about

>>49614517

>a design known for having A/Cs becomes an energy-based alpha baby with near-max armour

Yup, it's a Davion refit all right.

>>49614178
>working PPC+LL rifleman
You're gone too far this time, hanse

since the last few of these have done quite well, how about a bit more 3050 fix design challenge?

This time, let's do better 3050 Quickdraws, Grasshoppers and Cyclopes

File: Cyclops refit.png (47KB, 594x968px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 594x968px

>>49616048
here's the readout for a cyclops that I used in a 3040s campaign.
kinda needs an XL, but I didn't have the spare fucktons of cash that would have been needed for that

File: Blackjacks.png (141KB, 1244x1750px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1244x1750px

Have some Blackjacks I made while I get this Cyclops copypastaed into a png for the challenge. Maybe I'll do all three.

> Want to play Battletech
> No one to play with, don't wanna use megamek or play MWO

I guess I'm stuck just designing mechs and shit.

Or is there a way to use the mythic GM emulator to play the RPG?

File: EZ Mode.png (126KB, 1888x1312px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1888x1312px

>>49616048

Fixing those is pretty easy.

The canon "upgrades" are all just bafflingly bad.

File: 3050 upgrades Cyclops Grasshopper Quickdraw.png (102KB, 1850x895px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1850x895px

>>49616048
Here, have one for each. The Grasshopper is basically a variant that already exists, and honestly something we should have seen in 3050, not 3064. The Quickdraw is super-crazy; it's basically a mini-Charger now. The Cyclops upgrade is also kinda weird.

File: Quickdraw -5G.png (88KB, 398x1030px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 398x1030px

>>49616048
I hope you like SSRM-2s

>>49616790
>all dem medium lasers on the hopper and QD
Crikey. I like them all though.

>>49616945
>8 SSRM2s
I'd use it. Needs another ton of ammo though.

File: Cyclops -11-M.png (91KB, 361x1092px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 361x1092px

>>49616945
And here's the Cyclops.

>>49616986

>all dem medium lasers on the hopper and QD

The 3025 versions are all ML spam designs too.

In unrelated news:

>TFW brand new glasses
>Prisming is fucking everything up so my keyboard and screen looks like the opening crawl from Star Wars

Not sure if want.

File: Grasshopper -6G.png (89KB, 387x1064px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 387x1064px

>>49617004
And the Grasshopper. De-optimized from the "8 MLs for close range and a C3M because fuck you"

>>49617085
>prisiming
I feel your pain, anon. New glasses are great but fuck the first 24 hours.

>>49617004
>>49617094
It amazes me how similar a lot of these are turning out to each other.

>>49617264
Was your Cyclops the 11-ZS? Cause the 11-M was basically that but with Endo for more armor and CASE before I realized I could go FF to add SSRMs.

File: btg trio.png (139KB, 2009x1010px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 2009x1010px

>>49616048
I've got 99 problems, but ECM isn't one.

File: Charger -3Ka.png (41KB, 656x936px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 656x936px

>>49617301
And I'll head off another idea with pic related.

>>49617292
Nah, this one is mine >>49616824. The one nobody cares about, of course.

>>49565380

Basically when you start out your mechs suck because you have shit gear and you have no skills and you're matched up against people whose mechs are literally twice as good as yours.

With enough grind you can face them on equal terms. The problem is by the time you suffer through the grind to unlock the shit you need to play on a level playing field, you're sick of the game.

File: Charger IIC 5a.png (40KB, 647x904px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 647x904px

>>49617369
And since I'm bored and working on getting together more stuff for the Star Trek General, have the BEST CHARGER.

File: Rifleman -5C.png (90KB, 364x1086px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 364x1086px

Have you ever wanted to use a Rifleman as your lance's point man but were too pussy to because >Rifleman >Armor?

Well now you can.

>>49617478

>Have you ever wanted to use a Rifleman

No, and what the hell kid of question is that any way?

>>49617478
I remember making one that dropped the AC/5s to 2s, and used the remaining tonnage for armor and heat sinks. Actually pretty usable when you get to shoot most of your guns most of the time. I would actually probably standardize all my Riflemen to be this way if I could.

File: RFL.png (38KB, 696x1152px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 696x1152px

>>49618336

I've seen a lot of people advocate something like this as a refit for the Rifleman in 3025. It's still not the best, either in an AA role or more generally, but it's still a lot better than most of the other options or the JagerMech.

The 3050 model should have been like the -6X, but with standard-model lasers. But TR 3050, everyone!

>>49618411
Hey, that's not bad.

Also, I love the JagerMech. For some reason, 'Mechs with AC/2s perform above their throw weight for me. This includes the Blackjack.

>>49618336
>>49618431

When it comes to ACs, I've always been of the Dick Durkin school of thought ("we need bigger fucking guns") - I tend to think of the 2 and the 5 as not enough gun. However, it seems that every time someone uses the AC2 against me, bad things happen to me, doesn't matter if its an opposing player or the bot in ATB.

A recent case: in ATB, my medium-to-heavy lance vs the bot's medium lance, forests and hills. The bot has a Blackjack with a 1/2 pilot, plus three 4/5s. The P/G worries me, but I think: it's a bloody Blackjack and there's enough forest to avoid getting hit until I can properly deal with him.

The bot promptly parks the Blackjack on a nearby hill and starts shooting. Two rounds, two TACs, two of my 'Mechs killed before ever getting into firing range.

>>49605379
>Oh that's neat. How'd you make it?
Battletech: Explorer Corps, and Corel Photopaint 7.

File: 1338956415192.jpg (212KB, 1007x1089px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 1007x1089px

>>49611802
>Skimmed the back and forth about LAMs.
>Most of the bullshit doesn't seem to stem from LAMs being LAMs, but from munchkins munchkinning with free reign to customisation rules.

I don't use LAMs, but that's in part because I don't have any (Completed) LAM minis, and have played a grand total of one aerospace game in my lifetime - and that was a grinder at a con. What I do know is that customization lead to munchkinny bullshit back in the 3025 days, and the more tech that gets added, the more overpowered the stuff made by min-maxing the customisation system gets.

I don't regret sticking to stock builds. Era doesn't matter, so long as it has a record sheet, though I prefer if IWM has dragged their feet far enough to offer me a pewter, too. If not for prepwork with printing sheets and having all the minis available being prohibitive, I'd play matches with forces decided by RATs.

File: battlearmorsquad.jpg (61KB, 350x350px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 350x350px

>>49603644
>1) AtB and Battle Armor: A few months back, an anon suggested I stay well away from using BA in my campaigns because it supposedly corrupted save files. I'd prefer not to lose my game, but at the same time, I love BA, and it seems like it'd be ideal for the all-too-frequent night-fights that crop up.

Bringing this question up again because I haven't gotten a response, and I'm hoping anyone keeping on top of the MekHQ scene would know.

>>49604185

Yeah, I'm more concerned about the "highest life form" thing. WTF is that even supposed to mean?

I'm assuming mammals are the supposed to be the highest, but mammals are not the most recent taxonomic group to emerge.

And all this assumes the evolutionary paths that have occurred on the planet are even the least bit comparable to Earth's.

>>49620640
Gonna assume it´s intended to be about biological complexity.

File: dirndl.jpg (165KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 533x800px

I was working on a 'Mech design challenge when the thought struck me that a good basis for figuring out a 'Mech that might need designing would be the quality of each House's 'Mech selection by weight bracket.

So to start, how would /btg/ rate each Great House in terms of 'Mech quality and selection in the light, medium, heavy and assault range up to and circa 3067?

>>49622454
Fedcom (yes they're split up, but their mech selections are of more or less identical quality)
>Lights: 7/10
>Mediums: 8/10
>Heavies: 10/10
Assaults: 11/10
FWL
>Lights: 6/10
>Mediums:7/10
>Heavies: 7/10
>Assaults: 5/10
Liao:
>Lights: 7/10
>Mediums: 7/10
>Heavies: 6/10
>Assaults: 9/10
Dracs:
>Lights: 5/10
>Mediums:6/10
>Heavies:5/10
>Assaults: 4/10

>>49622563
>Dracs
>Mediums

Wait what?

>>49622698
They don't like them much, but their selection is ironically pretty good

>>49622723
Only that nice Wolverine comes to mind, is there anything else?

Also I would've rated the FWL mechs a bit higher

>>49623351
Not him, but I especially like the Shadow Hawk-K (the best 3025 Shad, really a sawed off Griffin that doesn't overheat) and the Wolverine-K (it's the white man of Wolverines because it can't jump, but it's well armoured and I prefer the LL/ML combo).

>>49623351
>Also I would've rated the FWL mechs a bit higher
Really? Across the board or certain weights in particular? Because their assault selection, for example, is noticeably awful (Liao has better).

>>49623563
I'd guess the mediums and some heavies; I find most of the -#M variants to be pretty solid
Also didn't the Purple Birds have access to most of the Hunchback types?

>>49620491
Salaries for BA are expensive as hell. Even if you cut them down to all of the squad's salary totaling 1 MechWarrior's salary, you're also staring the more frequent loss of BA pilots and hospital costs. And most Mercenary units run on the razor's edge with just mechs. It's all moot anyway, since according to CampaignOps, a MechWarrior receives a monthly salary of 1500 C-Bills, while a Specialist/Armor Infantry trooper receives 960 per, for a total of 3840 C-Bills a month for an IS squad.

>>49623694
burd variants in 67 tend to suffer the curse of the LGR.

>>49624829
>so you like the GRF-5M?
>how about we halve the LRMs and give it an LGR?

>you know what the Hermes II needs?
>an LGR variant

>>49624829
>>49624883

It's like that whole faction is suitable only for use as GM-controlled OPFOR against the players who are running (Steiner-Davion sourced) well-designed mechs.

File: Atlas AS9-Ma.png (42KB, 660x986px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 660x986px

>>49624829
LGR Curse?

File: IMG_20160818_154711.jpg (3MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4160x3120px

Where are the most up to date rules for Ghost Targets?
Probably some obscure errata thread right?

Here's a pic of a recent three way brawl.

>>49623694
I'm still incensed the MAD-5M isn't a 3 LL/2 MPL version.

>>49620491
I'm much less concerned about how much they cost in C-bills, much more concerned with whether or not it'll corrupt the game data.

>>49626660
The more people the game tracks the slower it can get, mainly. I didn't experience any problems until I had a 20 year campaign going, and that was more like Java saying the files had gotten too big.

>>49620382

LAMs are even more absurd in the 3025 environment. Fewer designs can keep up with them or generate similar to-hit modifiers, and there's even less ways to obtain to-hit bonuses.

>>49626231
Current TO errata doc.

Final battlebump

>>49624908
>>49624829
>people who don't know how to use LGR and therefore say it sucks

Protip: you use it like a large pulse laser with 16 hex range, with the added ability to snipe at very long ranges if you have good numbers and/or deep ammo bins.

BTW if you're the sort of "anything that is weaker than a Nightstar is shit" type Steiner-Davion munchfags we get on here sometimes, don't bother to reply, and better yet, kill yourselves.

Love, a based Marik player.

>>49629308

Anon.

LGRs can be used well, like the Vanquisher or Sirocco variant, and on ASFs.

The problem isn't the weapon itself, it's that like 95% of the designs that use it are completely retarded. They're not built around the LGR, they have it slapped on because lolmariks.

Gentlemen,
Flamers or MGs to fuck up infantry and BA?

>>49629543

Flamers don't do anything special to BA.

MGs don't risk burning entire continents down if things get out of hand.

Of the two, MGs.

But if you can get APGRs, use those instead.

>>49629543
Infernos and flamers, because not committing warcrimes is for faggots.

File: SHD-2H Vang Custom.png (34KB, 666x815px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 666x815px

>>49575287
>Guys, what are the heavies you usually roll with?
Whatever ones I get handed by the RNG. Less flippantly, if I can snag a Thud or an Archer in any era I'm happy. As OPFOR I love Osts, MADs, Cruds, and WHMs, but when I'm running a unit they just get too fucked up too often.

>Do you often use customized units?
In the campaigns I run, it's a rare PC unit that >isn't< customized in some way, but most of the time that's a field-expedient swap, like pulling an ML for a flamer or dropping MGs. A handful of NPC units will also get customs.

>Pic related, my favored gal
She's a beaut, anon. Never go wrong with the classics, I say.

Time to create a new thread
Pls remember to include the new TtS in OP

>>49630573
New Thread
>>49631558
>>49631558
>>49631558

>>49629589
>MGs don't risk burning entire continents down if things get out of hand.
You saying they shit.