Re: DS: Walkers

>From a realism standpoint it's arguably very
well-thought out.  From a gaming standpoint, it may be
too harsh (unless you WANT it harsh).  I like making
certain aspects of the game as accurate and realistic
as possible, but I do understand that there's both a
science and a fiction aspect to Science Fiction, and
believe in a certain level of SOD.

Most of my complaints about Battletech had to do with
the tedium level associated with resolving damage. (we
usually spent more time marking little boxes than
actually manouvering and firing).

And while I felt they favored necha TOO heavily, they
were what the game was about, and some people like
them -- so I'd rather see them as a balanced option,
with strengths and drawbacks, not something that's
overpowering to the point of dominance, NOR restricted
to the point of irrelevance.

--- Symon Cook <Symon@ereshkigal.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article
>
<20030207011009.11384.qmail@web20308.mail.yahoo.com>,
> Brian
> Bilderback <greywanderer987@yahoo.com> writes
> >First let me reiterate that I am a Battletech
> escapee
> >and thus a little hard on mecha.  I for one like
> the
> >restrictions placed on them in DSII regarding
> >increased signature.
> >
> 
> You may find this interesting from my DS5W then:-
> 
> Walking Vehicles
> 
> DSII has pretty reasonable rules for Walkers,
> although it falls into the
> 'excellent in all terrain' trap that seems to come
> from nowhere except
> companies trying to develop these white elephants
> (recent legged
> vehicles seem hardly better than when first tried
> out in the late
> sixties). Honestly, human legs are known to be bad
> in mud, snow, ice and
> wading in water. Why should mechanical ones be any
> better? People fall
> over often but can usually cope with this. Will a
> 'Mech'? A certain Mr.
> Lucas showed us how Mechs really don't want to fall
> over, especially if
> being stupid enough to 'run'. All that kinetic
> energy will do something
> nasty. A Walker is going to methodically plod, not
> run. How can any
> ground vehicle be better than Grav? Ground pressure
> is a problem,
> careful design of feet can mitigate this, but then
> you don't have slim
> nimble legs to thread through trees anymore and I
> suspect such a foot
> could be disabled easily with machine gun fire. A
> man wearing snow shoes
> isn't nimble, even though he has great ground
> pressure. Of course, with
> Grav technology you can mitigate this, but why put
> legs on a Grav
> vehicle? All those subassemblies and joints can be
> armoured, but never
> as well as a front glassis plate. A walking vehicle
> will have shot traps
> galore. You are never going to be able to mount as
> much equipment on a
> walking vehicle as you can a more conventional one.
> In short, walking
> vehicles are possible but never as good as the
> alternatives. Oh, and we
> don't see them in B5. Observant players will notice
> the abysmal combat
> characteristics of walkers but for those that insist
> and wish to hand
> victory to their opponents.
> 
> Walkers should be constructed as detailed in DSII
> pages 14 and 52, with
> the following exceptions.
> 
> Combat Walkers should be considered erect and mostly
> bipedal. Transport
> walkers usually have four or more legs, a more
> conventional appearance
> and be a more rational choice.
> Signature is one higher than the Size Class of the
> Walker. Walkers are
> easy targets so go heavy on the Stealth technology.
> Maximum Armour is one less than Size Class. Side,
> Rear, Top and Bottom
> Armour is determined as for any normal vehicle. A
> combat walker that
> takes a Mobility hit cannot fire any weaponry. It
> has fallen over. Other
> walkers that take a Mobility hit must make a Quality
> Roll with a Target
> of four. Failure means they too have fallen over and
> must take the
> consequences.
> Infantry walkers can only mount Class one weaponry.
> Combat and Transport
> Walkers can mount Class one weapons as desired but
> other weapons are
> more restricted. Maximum turret weapon Class is  two
> less than the
> walker Size. Maximum 'arm' weapon Class is one less
> than the Walker
> Size. Maximum Weapon size is equal to the walker
> size. Missiles are
> exempt from these additional restrictions however.
> Walkers aren't good
> at absorbing recoil, not optimally designed for
> mounting weapons and
> have to keep their weight down.
> 
> Movement
> Infantry walkers use mechanised movement
> characteristics and have an MV
> of four which costs 80% of BPV. All other walkers
> have a speed of six,
> or eight if enhanced. They certainly cannot run.
> Walker movement costs
> 100% of BPV or 120% if Enhanced. Walking vehicles
> have much more trouble
> than other vehicles when faced with the possibility
> of Miring. In
> conditions where a walker might be subject to
> Miring, it rolls a Quality
> die. If the roll is less than or equal to the
> walkers Size Class then it
> is immobilised as the damage Chit. A walker that
> Mires must roll again.
> A second Mire result means that the Walker has
> fallen over or is up to
> it's neck in something. If it survives the fall, it
> still counts as
> destroyed as it will require disproportionate effort
> to recover and may
> have taken substantial damage. An AEV or ARV will be
> required to 'pull
> out' a mired walker, but it requires time outside a
> scenario and the use
> of an ARV to recover a 'double-mired' walker.
> Walkers may not self-
> recover from miring.
> 
>	  Walkers
> Easy	  N/a
> Normal  Open, Roads
> Poor	  Hills,  Sand, Cultivated, Light Scrub,
> Rough, Rivers/Streams at
> a ford
> Difficult	  Light woods, Dunes*, Urban*, Swamp*,
> Open water*
> Impassable	  Mountains, Dense woods
> 
> * A Miring roll is always required at the mid point
> of movement.
> 
> Falling Over
> A hazard glossed over in most Mech games. To resolve
> a fall, draw chits
> equal to Size Class, with Red and Special Chits
> valid. If the walker
> survives this abuse, it will need the assistance of
> an ARV of equal or
> greater size to regain it's feet.
> 
> Cheers
> -- 
> Symon Cook (founder member of Camros)(The Campaign
> for Real Operating Systems).
> .....
> "You fertility deities are worse than Marxists," he
> said. "You think that's all 
> that goes on between people."
> 
> Roger Zelazny, Lord of Light. 1971.

=====
Qui me amat, amet et canem meum.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com