|
Mordel's Bar & Grill |
|
  |
» |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AWAD
Draconis Combine
Chu-sa
Joined: 06-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 766
|
 Posted: 12-Dec-2006 19:42 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
  |
|
Dig deep to an ancient Dragon magazine and they had an article that quantified and made rules for all the fluff based stuff. Some did nothing, so got advantages and others got hosed.
This was for 3025 Mechs only.
AWAD- Back when Dragon was trying to be an all RPG mag
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
AWAD
Draconis Combine
Chu-sa
Joined: 06-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 766
|
| Posted: 12-Dec-2006 20:25 Post subject: RE: Why are so many mechs so lame? |
|
|
Most people have replied and I agree with a lot of it. Fluff and weakness add character. Make it more challenging. Also the fact of role specific Mechs, Rifleman and Wasp come to mind. Not versatile but have function, and do well at this but not duels or small engagements.
Two things I want to touch on
1) How do designers know their design sucks?
2) Change in technology or fighting style
In our system we have a simple mechanic to see that it sucks. But if you imagine in the Btech universe no way could a designer know.
When the first Tiger hit the battlefield it was thought to be great. But other flaws that showed up later killed it. Too heavy, sunk in soft terrain, not enough fuel, many times out on the battlefield, transverse of turret was slow, little targets ran by, and a host of others. It was feared but it was a seriously flawed tank and had to be upgraded and revised.
How about the M-16, not the A1, just the M-16. It was supposed to be the best. Well it sucked, jammed, broke in HTH fighting, hard to clean. M-16A2 is a superior rifle but how many men died in the field or battles that were draws due to the troops unable to fight effectively. All the experts and field trials did not expose these problems.
Change in fighting style. Look at the F4 Phantom. It was supposed to be fast and shoot missiles. The way battles were to be fought. But the enemy did not agree and the lack of a integral gun was a major issue. Fixed later. Also they could not out turn and dog fight so they had to learn to climb and dive and run and then dart in. Not the way the designers and initial pilots thought it would be. So in certain battles it would be the clear favorite but hurting in others.
So it is easy to find the same justifications and reasons for designs that "suck".
AWAD- Combat is the only true field test
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
» |
All times are GMT-04:00 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
