Hard point inflation in battletech. What, How, Why and Where.
- Thread starter Chaon
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No, I think because if you take a look at the BattleTech tabletop Customization rules - which are kind of open and nonrestrictive themselves - you'll find changing engines is listed as something which needs a fully-capable BattleMech factory to have possible, while all the weapons and armor refitting can theoretically be done in the field oa a 'Mech Bay.
And if they had a factory-level facility on the Argo, there's be a lot more problems than it would solve.
That goes back to the whole issue of how you are customizing a unit. Are you using the construction rules out of TM, or are you using the repair/refit rules out of StratOps.
One and the same, the StratOps rules reference the construction rules, then determine what level of customization you're at and what facility you need.
I have no problem with no hardpoint restrictions at all, except that it doesn't feel like 3025 era. Nobody has the knowledge to make massive changes like engine swapping anymore, except at the factories, and they don't have the proper facilities either. Certainly not onboard the Argo. I would've preferred a system that took failure into account so it made modding of 'Mechs have a risk to it.
I don't like RNG for customisation when it already costs so much in time and money to do it. It's not like your body shop is going to depend on chance as to whether they can lift your car and fit a new suspension system and fat tyres?
As you said, the Argo is capable of limited customisation so no engine swaps.
The hardpoints are just a way to show that when they designed the mech, they ran power lines, control runs and cooling systems suitable for a certain type of weapon. So energy hardpoints would have a lot of power and cooling connections while ballistic hardpoints might not need as much cooling but require more solid mountings, etc.
Changing those parts around is slightly out of scope for what is in the Argo mechbay so that is what hardpoints might be showing. {It sounds good anyway.}
Agreed.
Looking at customization from the outside (i.e. without taking the TT's rules into account) and realistically speaking (yes, yes, I know), changing a ballistic weapon to a energy one (or putting any weapon where non has been before) would be a _massive_ undertaking.
Looking at replacing an AC/5 with a PPC as an example, as this is one of the most common custom jobs in TT, you first would have to re-wire the entire mech, so you get enough power-lines to the PPC.
Next you have to redo the cooling system, since that PPC is a massive heat-hog and will need 10 times as much cooling as the AC - and you can't just add lines either. The cooling capacity of your mech is limited, so you have to cut things elsewhere to make it work (same with the power lines, btw).
Now you have to modify the internal structure, so it can actually _hold_ the totally differently shaped PPC and remove the ammo-bin and the ammo-feed system.
Next comes the re-programming of the targeting system, since the PPC's "shot" doesn't drop due to gravity and has a different muzzle velocity/different drag rate in an atmosphere. You'd also have to reprogram the mech's gyro, because you changed the mass distribution on your mech and have replaced the AC with a weapon that doesn't have recoil (or at least a lot less).
You'd also have to stress-test all modifications, to make sure they hold up in combat, first one by one, then all together.
Looking at the above, it kinda becomes clear why omni-mechs were as big an advantage as they were in the lore.
If hardpoint inflation makes for a funner game, than it is absolutely fine by me. Of course, I can not say for certain whether it will or it will not until the game is released, but I do know that even as hard-core as I can be, I would get very frustrated if I had to send out severely undergunned 'Mechs time and time again because I was unlucky in my contracts and could not find the right weapon type for them (think Griffin with 1 medium laser and no missiles or Centurion with a single AC/2).
I feel it's needed to help early game. I really hope that new weapons aren't so plentiful in plunder (plunderful?) that I can choose amongst the types for the specific weapon I need. If I have to "make do" with 2 medium lasers where I used to have a large laser, then I'm going to need those additional hardpoints.
RNG fail rates to upgrades are a big no,no as in the games they are in are F2P microtransaction messes and other un-fun games. Better to gate that stuff behind traditional RNG/ drop chance and grind to time gate the item which is far more palatable and gamers are used to that.
RNG failure rates on weapon swaps could easily result in a death spiral where you need to mount a non-stock weapon to field a mech but can't because the RNG was not in your favor, compounding loss upon loss because your mech is now potentially near-useless.
Hardpoints aren't just for customization, but also for simply making mechs functional again after suffering battle damage.
Hardpoints aren't just for customization, but also for simply making mechs functional again after suffering battle damage.
They are hardly the same, except at perhaps a very base level. StratOps may reference TechManual, but utilizing the repair/refit to perform modifications can cause you to have failures and also places limitations on what can be done. While using the construction rules in TechManual to perform modifications amounts to little more than just magicing a ‘Mech together with no consequences as long as it does not go over weight or critical slot restrictions.
Last edited:
No. You cannot fail at making a customization, in so far as your failure does not prevent it from happening. It only increases the amount of time needed to perform the task, in a basic sense. It may cause the components to degrade in quality, but I don't use the "per component" quality rules on the grounds I don't need more spreadsheets devoted to info which doesn't figure into the play. You also don't use the construction rules for customization, you use them for construction inside the context of "we've started play, and I need to take out this PPC and put in a Large Laser". That is what the customization rules in StratOps are adept at handling, while construction rules are for building something before you begin a campaign.
The construction rules are, if you look at it from an in-universe perspective, a factory designing a new variant or a new chassis altogether. The customization rules are where some field refits happen.
Your right in that you can't fail but every 'failure' increases the cost and time and if your playing with querks can add negative querks to the machine etc.
And no.. the Customisation rules are not just for field refits they very specifically have modifiers/requirements for certain types of 'customisations' some can be done in field, some can be done in a hanger, some require a full refit/repair station and others require a factory level facility.. things like Engine swaps etc for different ratings can't be done in the field under TT rules.
And this is where this game is mostly using the rules of table top with some adjustments.
We won't have to worry about customisation or repair failures but we do have to worry about the cost in time and money to do it. Then we will be limited by weight, money, time and availability of weapons in what customisation we can do.
Hardpoints will limit us as to what weapons we can fit onto a mech and if we just don't have the weapon for a replacement, then we have to use something else if it fits the hardpoint.
It's going to be fun seeing what people have to do in the campaign.
It's intriguing you really took what I said, and assumed it to be complete. I wasn't going to completely lift the whole thing - that's for @stjobe to do instead. But what we are doing by and large in HBS' game would fall mostly under field-capable refit, or things which can be done in a Mech Bay. By disallowing engine changes - that's the only adjustment in 3025 which requires a factory to pull off. Anything else you need a factory for? You can't do in 3025 because it involves tech not recovered yet. (Triple Strength Myomer, Double Heat Sinks, Endo Steel...)
I've looked at this for a while, honestly, and it's probably the only part of that chapter in StratOps I didn't take issue with outright and want to send back to be iterated again. But that's another show.
I used the term failure, because that is the exact terminology that the book uses. I am with you on the quality rules, my current group tends not to really use them except for instances of huge success or massive failure. I am aware of the difference between the construction and customization rules and their uses.
Other than some differences in terminology, we seem to be not only on the same page but also speaking for the same side.
I feel like we need to really see how Hardpoint inflation is going to work in game before we can really form a solid opinion on it (especially for the SP Campaign).
There are just too many unknowns at this time. Things like weapon scarcity. Not just the scarcity of powerful weapons, but the scarcity of weapons in general. Also with fixed internal structure, engines, and Single Heat Sinks, we have limiting factors in the game anyway.
I just have a feeling that this is something we need to try out, to really see how it effects the gameplay.
There are just too many unknowns at this time. Things like weapon scarcity. Not just the scarcity of powerful weapons, but the scarcity of weapons in general. Also with fixed internal structure, engines, and Single Heat Sinks, we have limiting factors in the game anyway.
I just have a feeling that this is something we need to try out, to really see how it effects the gameplay.
Wasn't meaning to do it that way was more just saying that the TT rules do allow for a 'failure' and limit is all depending on the facilities though your right too that HBS's limits kinda remove the need for a Factory refit, of course all of them get easier with a factory hehe.. would be interesting to see if your sitting at a factory world if things refitted faster, doubt they've done it and before some one goes 'we are in the TC/what will become the new colony region.. even before they built Detroit Mech Works in 3057 the TC and MH (not to mention the CC) both have even in 3025 mech works in the region.
3025 though we know it takes a lot longer from memory (i don't have statops or the like open atm) to refit a lot of stuff compared to later but we also know i think from memory and again memory here.. that it's basically just Time on the Argo which is fine I mean lets face it the Argo is meant to end up being presuming we do it a fully equiped and functioning Combat Drop ship in all but 'drop' capability like the Beheamoth class and from Jordan's comment in that last Q&A you need to be careful when you decide to do a refit else you might not have a mech ready for a mission (again think it's great)
On the actual slots as I said a page ago and in the support thread until we get to play the game.. none of us can say how its gonna effect things either in the SP or MP game because lets face it beta didn't have it the only way we got that done was to mod the files ourselves, but hopefully 'soon' we can all find out play it and give HBS our feedback and lets face it people can always make 'house rules' for PVP and use their own choice in SP as to if they do something or don't.
Just like the game so far, I would have prefered TT, but if it's still fun, I'm more than willing to accept the streamlined version. Worked well enough so far with the gameplay (barring a few niggles), hopefully it'll work well with the customisation. Reserving judgement until I get to try it out in campaign.