Full damage on covered targets

[Wolf von Versweber]

You changed your argument from "It's unrealistic" to "It's not the same as in the rulebook".

Yes, it's not the same as in the original rulebook, nobody claimed that, but that doesn't make it worse. It's a change that benefits gameplay and is arguably even more realistic.
Rules that need to be used with dices and sheets in a reasonable timeframe aren't neccessarily the best. And different rules can be better when used in a pc game.

Those rules are >unrealistic< by the way. A projectile doesn't just hit or miss. Cover can offer protection without stopping it completely. That's how armour works and cover can act as extended armour. A tree doesn't stop a bullet that can penetrate steel.
When it comes to realism, a projectile at 500m would also do less damage than at 100m, but in bt it's just less accurate.

PS: Forrests aren't supposed to hide mechs in the game, so you can shoot it, but the forest offers protection. If forests were supposed to hide mechs, they would need to block sight, not make shots less accurate. There's no reason why it should be harder to hit a mech that you can see standing still in some trees.

Edit: Hadn't seen your last reply when I wrote the post, was afk.

 

[Mackie42]

Well that would apply to a projectile that is slowed down after a breakthrough, a rocket would explode on a tree, but a laser would keep its full intensity when it burned through, but it's good, I had hoped for a more board game and I'm disappointed by this implementation.
It just doesn't live up to the expectations I had for this realization.

 

[sortulv]

Well that would apply to a projectile that is slowed down after a breakthrough, a rocket would explode on a tree, but a laser would keep its full intensity when it burned through, but it's good, I had hoped for a more board game and I'm disappointed by this implementation.
It just doesn't live up to the expectations I had for this realization.

A rocket would also remove said three, as would the laser and the projectile - as such the realistic thing might have been to give units in cover an effect similar to cheverons - to be destroyed as the cover is hit by weapons. (sort of like the reverse of breaching shot)
You also get some wierd effects like standing in a forest when hit with a mech sized flamer would actually be worse than not having cover at all - since a forest fire may increase heat a lot...

 

[Democratus]

Heat sinks in general aren't very "simulationist". The temperatures that heat sinks would have to shed given the energies involved (gigawatt lasers, fusion reactors) are so high that the difference between an arctic environment and a desert environment is insignificant. There should be no appreciable difference in how much heat you can shed between the two.

But this is a game. And it's cool to think that deserts are hot and build heat while frozen tundra is cold and aids in heat reduction.

The game aspect is the most important. So it trumps other concerns in many cases.

 

[Sten]

You folks are arguing over cover and concealment.
Cover should reduce the effects of fire (DR) and make it harder to hit you. What we sort of have in game now in the abstract.
Concealment will only make it harder to hit you and for you to hit your target. If you are hit, you take near to full force on that hit.

Combine the two for cover and concealment what we have in real life.