Why does only weapon hard points matter for combat potential? we could have the best weaponry in existence and it would not increase our combat potential
Suggestion: replace Weapon Hardpoints with the average for Weapon Effectiveness, this would more accurately represent how strong our mech is in terms of firepower, of course, this would also over represent our mechs armor in the combat equation so you could instead move all of the armor stats (Joint Protection, Pilot Protection, Armour Plating, etc.) to it's own independent category, then, make the Combat Potential average an average of both the Armor average and the Weapon Effectiveness average
Now, that's kind of a word salad, so here's an example of what this would look like:
Combat Potential (X)
X | Weapon Effectiveness
X | Armor Effectiveness
Weapon Effectiveness (X)
X | T-WPN - Armour Penetration
X | T-ARM - Damage Output
X | T-PTP - Effective Range
X | T-PTJ - Rate of Fire
X | T-PTC - Weapons Control
Armor Effectiveness: (X) X | C-ARM - Armour Plating
X | C-PTP - Pilot Protection
X | C-PTJ - Joint Protection
X | C-PTC - Component Protection
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
[X] [Develop] (Free) We're not even close to our Combat Potential, this thing is very vulnerable to fire. Let's decide how we're going to armour this thing and figure out how much weight we're going to allocate to it.
The minor failure here improved things by more then the minor success. Based on previous patterns the minor failure looks right, but the minor success would go to B+. Both were +1 EoM and the Build & Repair Speed rolls went up by a full 3 points/letter on a minor success.
Looking over it, this is actually correct but poorly communicated. It's to do with which roll was for a full +1 point and which roll was for partial points. I'm trying to think of better ways of conveying and tracking all this in the future - the weapons section ended up being a bit janky as I expected due to the partial step increases. Something to consider for v2 of the mech design engine.
Why does only weapon hard points matter for combat potential? we could have the best weaponry in existence and it would not increase our combat potential
Suggestion: replace Weapon Hardpoints with the average for Weapon Effectiveness, this would more accurately represent how strong our mech is in terms of firepower, of course, this would also over represent our mechs armor in the combat equation so you could instead move all of the armor stats (Joint Protection, Pilot Protection, Armour Plating, etc.) to it's own independent category, then, make the Combat Potential average an average of both the Armor average and the Weapon Effectiveness average
Now, that's kind of a word salad, so here's an example of what this would look like:
Combat Potential (X)
X | Weapon Effectiveness
X | Armor Effectiveness
Weapon Effectiveness (X)
X | T-WPN - Armour Penetration
X | T-ARM - Damage Output
X | T-PTP - Effective Range
X | T-PTJ - Rate of Fire
X | T-PTC - Weapons Control
Armor Effectiveness: (X) X | C-ARM - Armour Plating
X | C-PTP - Pilot Protection
X | C-PTJ - Joint Protection
X | C-PTC - Component Protection
I largely agree with what you've written and thanks for the word salad!
This is actually an approach I was considering as I was going through the process, as the current system definitely isn't quite playing out on paper as it did in my head - trial by fire and all that. I'm going to be reworking all this somehow - but it's not going to be until the next mech because I want to sit on it a bit longer and I don't want to move the goalposts that you're working towards mid-mech.
I've also considered an alternative approach with the inclusion of harder numbers in places, but I've been trying to avoid going too deep into the simulation hole until I have a quick, reliable system working in the background that I'm happy with. There's always room to experiment and we'll see where we land on it - I'll try to keep each individual mech as consistent as possible in the system that we're using, at least, to make it easier to play!
Also missing from this equation is some form of mobility tracking (top speed, acceleration) - the limb drive speed and power control, agility, etc. all hint at it but don't directly state it, so I'll need to add that in as well in this mech before we're done.
Looking over it, this is actually correct but poorly communicated. It's to do with which roll was for a full +1 point and which roll was for partial points. I'm trying to think of better ways of conveying and tracking all this in the future - the weapons section ended up being a bit janky as I expected due to the partial step increases. Something to consider for v2 of the mech design engine.
If it is correct then is was very poorly communicated. As far as I can tell both the rolls for the heavy mount should have been for a full point. The two partial points did not change things, as would be expected.
I've quoted everything below to break things down.
Putting what the modifier is into the rolls entry would probably be worthwhile. For example:
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1) Ease of Maintenance [+1] increases from C- to C+ | 13 vs. 18 - minor failure
Changing things so an old [0.33] is the new [+1] and an old [+1] is a [+3] would probably work.
[Simple Modular Mount]
This system is set up to enable easy removal and replacement of the weapons system with other weapon systems of the same type (e.g. rockets with rockets, missiles with missiles). Adds a small amount of customizability and makes maintenance easier. [+1] Ease of Maintenance [Same Type Weapon Swaps Allowed]
[152mm Battle Cannon] [In-House Build]
Our weapons engineers have proposed a 150mm cannon which we believe will be more than capable of taking out the enemy up close or from a distance. It's simple, easy to build, easy to service, and militaries around the world are already familiar with systems of this type of weapon and will be able to source parts locally.[5 tons, size 4. 1x Attack. Average range. Average accuracy. Average damage. Average reload. Versatile ammo types. 25 ammo capacity).]
[+2] Armour Penetration, [+2] Damage Output, [+2] Effective Range, [+1] Rate of Fire, [+1] Weapons Control
[+1] Heat Management, [+1] Build & Repair Speeds, [+1] Ease of Maintenance
[Simple Modular Mount]
This system is set up to enable easy removal and replacement of the weapons system with other weapon systems of the same type (e.g. rockets with rockets, missiles with missiles). Adds a small amount of customizability and makes maintenance easier. [+0.33] Ease of Maintenance [Same Type Weapon Swaps Allowed]
[Rear Mounted]
By placing the weapon mount on the back of the chassis, we guarantee a full view of the rear of the mech, allowing it to fire on targets circling behind the relatively slow mech. The mount position is well suited for aiming at targets in this arc, but it leave larger blind spots to either flank of the mech. [+0.33] Ease of Maintenance [+0.33] Heat Management, [+0.33] Weapons Control
[Turret Flaw] Weapon Blind Spot (Horizontal)
If it is correct then is was very poorly communicated. As far as I can tell both the rolls for the heavy mount should have been for a full point. The two partial points did not change things, as would be expected.
I've quoted everything below to break things down.
Putting what the modifier is into the rolls entry would probably be worthwhile. For example:
Weapons Development (Ballistic): Trained (+2) vs. Extra Difficulty (+1) Ease of Maintenance [+1] increases from C- to C+ | 13 vs. 18 - minor failure
Changing things so an old [0.33] is the new [+1] and an old [+1] is a [+3] would probably work.
Listed as a [+1] in the vote, minor success increased EoM by 1 point. This would be in line with it being a [+0.33] instead of a +1.
Listed as a +1, minor failure increased EoM by 2 points.
Listed as a +0.33, minor failure did not change EoM.
Listed as a +0.33, minor failure did not change EoM.
I read through it on my phone in bed and got myself confused! You're completely right, I've mixed up the Heavy-sized simple modular mount with the Light-sized simple modular mount at some point in my calculations!
I've recalculated and this means your Ease of Maintenance should have increased to B+. This does consequentially increase the difficulty of your 0.33 rolls, but they failed by small margins anyway so there's no impact from that. This also boosts your overall Logistics Values to a flat B.
Thanks for pushing me on this! I don't think we'll have any more partial rolls for the remainder of this mech, so this issue shouldn't crop up again - in any case, I have some Thoughts™ about how I can do this system better for the next mech anyway which will circumvent a lot of the short term fixes.
Shifting from +0.33 to +1 and thus +1 to +3 could work, certainly, but since I was using the number primarily to indicate the number of rolls, it removes that element - I'd probably need to clarify rolls and bonuses together, like [+1x3] vs. [+3x1] or something like that. That might work better in the future whatever system I'm using, tbh.
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (-1 Funding) Screw it, let's spend some budget on refactoring our existing setup now. We can address flaws in the recently implemented weapons systems, and the Kinematics team can look at more potential improvements to the skeleton while we're at it.
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
[X] [Develop] (-1 Funding) Screw it, let's spend some budget on refactoring our existing setup now. We can address flaws in the recently implemented weapons systems, and the Kinematics team can look at more potential improvements to the skeleton while we're at it.
[X] [Develop] (Free) We're not even close to our Combat Potential, this thing is very vulnerable to fire. Let's decide how we're going to armour this thing and figure out how much weight we're going to allocate to it.
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (Free) Let's settle the Engine question now - between the right drive setup and whatever benefits the cockpit's Neural Link might unlock, we might be able to hit those agility targets without a limb refactor.
Project Knight - Mecha Design Bureau
EXTRA CONTENT
Intelligence Report S.C.3206
QM's Note: Just a little bit of extra side content to flesh out what's happening outside your bureau as the story of early mech development advances - and some information on your known competitors! Written both for fun and because I was fleshing out a detailed overview of what your competitors look like at this stage anyway.
NEW MAIL:
FROM: Market Research Lead Simon Dealer
TO: You
Hey Director,
I've managed to drag up some intel on our competitors that I thought might be of interest to you.
You might've heard recently about the defeat of that North Atlantean armoured brigade out on the Rim. Well, it might not surprise you to learn that the Zaibatsu have something to do with it. The Director General of Japan has disavowed involvement and condemned the Zaibatsu actions - but everyone knows the Seven Conglomerates escaped government control centuries ago when they moved their collective headquarters to the Pleiades Cluster. The Conglomerate in question this time is the Mutsuraboshi Group - the same Zaibatsu responsible for the development of the Warmech we saw the other day. The NAF is blaming the Zaibatsu for escalating conflict in the peacekeeping zones by deploying a battalion of Type 01 "Senshi" units to strengthen the rebel forces.
Well, the good news is that international interest in acquiring Mechs is now at an all-time high. The bad news is, Mutsuraboshi announced today that they're going to be releasing a budget version of their now infamous Warmech. They're calling it the Type-06 'Zeitgeist' and they're going to be staging field trials next year, with an aim to have it in full production by the end of the decade - it'll likely end up being a direct competitor to us, and they've already got the branding power behind them to boot. Thankfully our chassis is significantly different in both style and combat role, so we don't think it'll be able to knock us out of the market that easily.
We don't have much information on the Zeitgeist so far, but we have picked up some information about the Type-01 'Senshi' and its capabilities:
Type 01 "Senshi" (Mutsuraboshi Heavy Industries - low espionage level)
Bipedal Form
Integrated Jump Jet Systems
Height is ~10m
Weight estimated at 102 tons
Universal Weapon Mounts for highly flexible loadouts
Typically equipped with a 'handheld' Zaibatsu-built Heavy HEL Cannon
Dedicated Backpack Space for Power Cells and Munitions
Shoulder-Mounted Twin Micro-Missile Arrays
Wrist-Mounted Plasma Cutter
Helmet-Mounted 40mm Grenade Launcher
I don't know how 'budget' the Type-06 'Zeitgeist' is going to be compared to its parent model, but if we assume they cut back on modularity and some of the luxury features, that's a good starting point. Honestly, even the cut down version's probably going to be a beast and pretty hard to compete with - although I hear that the Chinese and Atlanteans are already working on systems that'll do just that. Given how much money and power is flying around the high-end Mech market right now, I'm kind of glad we didn't immediately jump the gun in trying to compete with them - the board's not exactly skimping on funding for our department, but it feels like we've got a niche almost to ourselves right now.
That's not to say we don't have any competition to worry about, of course. Enter the East African Federation - they're already very close to completing a homebrew mech they're calling 'Object 22', built off the chassis of their highly successful Industrial Walker program - which I might remind you already ships thousands of WorkMechs a year out of Zanzibar Spaceport. They're planning on flooding the market with these cheap conversions, and are already making overtures to every Second and Third Tier State you can imagine. We've already got some idea of what their capabilities are likely to be like:
'Object 22' (Zanzibar Metalworks - high espionage level)
Light Bipedal Mech Chassis Dimensions:
Max Height: 6.71m Tonnage:
Max Tonnage: 65 tons
Weapon Mounts:
Medium Carried Mount (Size 4, Universal Mod, Both Hands)
- Typically a Medium-sized Autocannon, Battlecannon, or Rotary Cannon- Backpack Feed for Ammo or Power Cell Light External Mount (Size 2, Universal Mod, Left Torso)
- Stock Configuration: 70mm Rocket Pod Light External Mount (Size 2, Universal Mod, Right Torso)
- Stock Configuration: Light HEL Cannon
Skeletal Design (E+)
D | S-EFF Structural Efficiency
D | S-DUR - Skeletal Durability
F+ | S-AGI - Skeletal Agility
E- | S-STB - Skeletal Stability
E | S-ACT - Actuator Precision
Combat Potential (E+)
D- | C-WPN - Weapons Hardpoints
D- | C-ARM - Armour Plating
E | C-PTP - Pilot Protection
E | C-PTJ - Joint Protection
E+ | C-PTC - Component Protection
Weapon Effectiveness (E+)
D- | W-PEN - Armour Penetration
D- | W-DMG - Damage Output
D- | W-RNG - Effective Range
E | W-ROF - Rate of Fire
E+ | W-CTR - Weapons Control
Power and Drive Effectiveness (D-)
D- | P-PWC - Power Control
E- | P-LMB - Limb Drive Speed
A- | P-HTM - Heat Management
E- | P-SPD - Top Speed
F | P-ACC - Acceleration
Logistical Values (A)
A+ | L-CST - Material Affordability
B+ | L-TCH - Tech Simplicity
S | L-BNR - Build & Repair Speeds
A- | L-EOM - Ease of Maintenance
Overall, as a combat system, it doesn't seem like it's going to be a huge threat to us when it comes to customers who are looking for quality, but it sure as heck might make a difference to the customers who are just looking to deploy a high volume of metal on the cheap. They're going to make it onto the market before us at this rate, and not only are they going to be able to build these things quickly and cheaply, but they already have a significant mech industry behind them, so we risk falling behind if we hope to compete with just numbers. Still, Object 22's a bit of a glorified technical, so if we do a good enough job of providing value for money, maybe no one will actually want it?
[X] [Skill] Materials Science +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
Materials is vital for both engine and armor which is coming up next.
I intend to burn every single point of Budget by the time this project is done - this is our first flagship design, we must take every reasonable effort to knock it out of the park.
Also, I would like to remind everyone that our defenses both durability and agility are utter trash (only one value is even a D I think), so armor and engines really kind of need to lean towards the bigger values even if it costs us.
I feel like Bipedal mechs must have bonuses to universal mounts, Because jesus all its weapons are universal and it's still tech simplicity b+.
Also, Their is a very good reason I didn't want to jump in the deep end, I am feeling self concous now. I thought our stats that broke into B- were good, and out here is this Bullshit lmao. On the positive, Our next mech WILL be better, since we got experience over the course of this.
At the same time, The walking Tank feels well rounded compared to that thing.
Almost certainly I want to make a bipedal mech to see whats different.
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
I'm fairly certain that's because a bipedal mech has something our Quad doesn't, hands. A mech with hands can theoretically use any weapon of the right size and weight, and they're going to leverage that to give it a varied arsenal. That's one thing that made early mobile suits so dangerous, the average Zaku had its pick between a machine gun, bazooka, and heat hawk (essentially a superheated axe) with some also mounting specialty equipment like missile pods and MS-sized grenades.
That's not to say there isn't a benefit to internal weaponry though. It's more well-protected, the ammo can be stored in the mech instead of having to, swap a clip, recharge a battery, or hook your power generator to the gun to make it fire. Plus there's a limit to the scale of how big a handheld weapon can be without throwing the balance off, but one that's built into the machine should theoretically be balanced for it. (Fun bit of Battletech lore, the Hunchback is one of the smallest machines to mount an AC/20, essentially the biggest mech gun in the galaxy. It was designed to shoulder the weight of the cannon, so variants that remove the autocannon or mount smaller variants are called "Swaybacks" because their gyro is used to coping with the extra weight.)
Also, whoops I haven't voted yet
[X] [Skill] Structural Engineering +2 to +3
[X] [Develop] (Gamble for -1 to +1 Funding) Trying to build this thing without a working cockpit is getting ridiculous. Petition the board and convince them to let us work more closely with the Neural Link department - maybe we can help unblock their issues in building the cockpit and get this project back on track.
What did I say about us having a niche and how important that would be? Though the Senshi has got to be a bit on the expensive side with those weapon systems.
I am all for that especially if we can pair them with Vilanox and Scarazook inspired mechs. You have the high speed recons and then you have the mobile heavy cannons to go with them.
Vilanox (ヴォルカノン Vorukanon) is the Evolved form of the Spectrobes known as Vilar and Vilamasta. This powerful tank-like Spectrobe made its debut in Spectrobes as a Corona Property Spectrobe. Vilakroma is a rare mutation of this Spectrobe. A long horn-beetle type insect with an extremely large...
Scarazook (ガラペスタ Garapesuta) is a cannon-like Secret Spectrobe in Spectrobes: Origins. Like all other Secret Spectrobes, Scarazook can only be obtained through the Card Input system. Scarazook bears some resemblance to Vilanox and Vilakroma, resembling a quadrupedal beetle with a large cannon...
Diminsions:
Were about as long as they are tall, with 6 more max tonnage, less then 10% of their max tonnage.
Weaponry: We lack univesral mounts, but the weapon ballance is about equal despite that. we also have a BFG.
Note: furteher stats are not the finished product for us, and some will improve.
Skeletal Design:
2 grade higher in Agility,
5 grades higher in Stability
2 grade lower in Durability
2 grades lower in Precision
Our limbs have better movement and significantly more stability, but slightly less durriable and precise. the latter matter a lot less for our 4 legged design, as we are not needign to move entier limbs to aim weaponry.
Combat potential
3 grades higher in weapon harpoints
1 grade higher in joint protection
2 grade higher in coponent protection
4 grades lower in armor (before equipping any to our mecha)
3 grades lower in pilot portection (before equping a cockpit which is likely going to be center mass)
the two sections were below them in this catagory.. are stuff we have yet to install. more then likely were goign to end up with better armor, and give we seem to be trending towards center mass for the cockpit (nose turrent), pilot protections should easily clear their rateing.
Weapon effectivness
3 grade advantage in armor pentration
3 grade advantate in Damage output.
3 grade advantage in effective range
5 grade advantage in Rate of fire
3 grade advantage in Weapons control.
This section feels off, it's like they don't have any weapons equiped? if not, we compleatly outclass them weapons wise.
Power and Drive effectivness
1 grade advantage in Power control
6 grade advantage in limbe drive speed
3 grade disadvantage in heat management
Top speed and acceleration is yet to be determined. but I'm suspecting were going to significantly outclass them here.
Logistical Value:
5 grade disadvantage in Material afforadability
6 grade disadvantate in tech simplicity
3 grade disadvantage in Build and repair speed
1 grade disadvantage in ease of mantince
no supprise here. We cost more to make and purchuse, and and are more complex. but give their base it's no supprise there. Build/repair speed and ease of mantince are high enough on both mechs to not matter. they are both going to be made in large numbers, and field repairs are going to be easy.
-----
summery: provided we put decent armor on it and don't mess up the top speed and manuvearbility, our mech is going to class our closeset "rival" by a significant margin. out manuvering, our ranging, and oneshotting them before they have a chance to fire back.
I'm guessing it's either because we rolled very well when making our Big Gun, or because it's using a "Universal Mount" it doesn't include the weapon stats because those stats may change depending on the equipped gun. Either way, considering the rest of our stats... I mean, there's a point to making a cheap and effective vehicle. Even if this comes out looking like an armored trashcan with a gun, if you can buy a 12-pack of armored trashcans with guns vs one actually good vehicle, the 12 trashcans will look fairly competitive.
That said, when our stats are better in almost every way, and the few ways they beat us are because we don't have a cockpit or engine yet... I get the distinct impression that we will still be competitive. Especially if we can either keep the pricepoint where it's at or perhaps get a few cheaper parts...
summery: provided we put decent armor on it and don't mess up the top speed and manuvearbility, our mech is going to class our closeset "rival" by a significant margin. out manuvering, our ranging, and oneshotting them before they have a chance to fire back.
If we do decently the O-22 is gonna end up having hundreds if not thousands of units falling off the backs of trucks into the hands of every merc, rebel and two bit milita try hard.
I remember it was mentioned at some point that quadripedal mechs can support heavier weapons than bipeds. So a bipedal's "universal" mount might have less types of weapons that it needs to accommodate, and thus maybe be easier to build.
The Second Tier States are mostly fighting pirates and insurgency movements, or positioning their militaries defensively to ward off potential invaders. They don't need a fancy Zaibatsu clone mech, they need something that can do that. We need to think outside the box! We're proposing a multi-legged platform, somewhere between 4 to 8 limbs, that crawls along the ground. It won't be too nimble, and the Pilots will take some getting used to it, but it'll provide a stable base of fire that will allow us to mount heavier weapons than a Bipedal model, while still being agile and mobile enough to outcompete vehicles in urban and rugged terrain.
