Why are lighter more stable chassis slower than heavier less stable frames?
Assaults 32 tons +5 spd 36 (Iceman, I'm doing
34 tons +10 spd 35 this from memory,
36 tons +0 spd 34 if the numbers are
38 tons -10 spd 33 a little off the
principle isn't)
Shouldn't the heavier chassis be the slower one?
(Marga, you owe me a rematch and I'm hoping that this will give you some incentive) <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Deep Philosophical Question
Moderator: MOD_TitansOfSteel
It seems as if you are confusing Handling bonuses with increases in speed. The modifiers for each chassis is applied to skill checks. If you are in a chassis with a modifier of +10% and your Movement skill is 50% than your total is simply 60% to pass a skill check. Dodging, walking into water or swamp, BRG hits. (this doesn't count terrain modifiers. And as far as your rematch with Marga, he'll have to take a number and get in line.
Stability has to do with the profile (center of mass) of the chassis, not its mass. So it is unrelated to the chassis' speed.
Heavier chassis are faster than lighter ones cause of their improved internal frame I guess, stronger actuators, better neural bridges, a more stable platform/better aerodynamics. Keep in mind that the weight of the *whole* titan is the same in a 200t A1 and in a 200t A4, so stronger actuators will make the difference in speed.
On a side note, don't know if you have noticed, but underweight titans will be slightly faster.
Heavier chassis are faster than lighter ones cause of their improved internal frame I guess, stronger actuators, better neural bridges, a more stable platform/better aerodynamics. Keep in mind that the weight of the *whole* titan is the same in a 200t A1 and in a 200t A4, so stronger actuators will make the difference in speed.
On a side note, don't know if you have noticed, but underweight titans will be slightly faster.
Iceman
Iceman, you seem to be missing the point. The A4 frame is less stable than A1-A3. Your arguement would work if the heavier chassis frames got progressively more stable but this is not the case.
A S.U.V. that weighs two tons can carry more payload (internal spaces) than a luxury sedan of the same weight. If you are going at a high rate of speed would you rather corner in the S.U.V. or the sedan? The handling/stability modifiers indicate that the lighter frames are more stable and should, therefore, be able to be piloted at greater speeds than the heavier frames. This would also give more incentive to use the lighter frames when designing. When you sacrifice payload/internal slots for stability the usual reward is a faster vehicle. I stand by my arguement that the base speeds of the designs should be reversed.
A1 +5% fastest but slightly less stable because
of speed bonus
A2 +10% second fastest very stable but payload
starts to suffer
A3 +0% third fastest balance stability/payload
A4 -10% slowest least stable but best internal
payload
A S.U.V. that weighs two tons can carry more payload (internal spaces) than a luxury sedan of the same weight. If you are going at a high rate of speed would you rather corner in the S.U.V. or the sedan? The handling/stability modifiers indicate that the lighter frames are more stable and should, therefore, be able to be piloted at greater speeds than the heavier frames. This would also give more incentive to use the lighter frames when designing. When you sacrifice payload/internal slots for stability the usual reward is a faster vehicle. I stand by my arguement that the base speeds of the designs should be reversed.
A1 +5% fastest but slightly less stable because
of speed bonus
A2 +10% second fastest very stable but payload
starts to suffer
A3 +0% third fastest balance stability/payload
A4 -10% slowest least stable but best internal
payload
Nope, you seem to have missed my point. I said very clearly that stability/handling has nothing to do with the mass of the chassis, yet you insist on saying that that was what I was saying... ?!Originally posted by Hetz:
Iceman, you seem to be missing the point. The A4 frame is less stable than A1-A3. Your arguement would work if the heavier chassis frames got progressively more stable but this is not the case.
The A4 is less stable cause of its configuration, to allow for more pod space you sacrifice its profile. And, of course, in terms of game balance it is beneficial.
Iceman
The point that I guess I'm really trying to make is this.
In designing any Armored Fighting Vehicle there is a basic trade-off. The equation is: Armor/Firepower/Speed pick two. You can have a heavily armored and weaponed vechicle (land or sea) but it ain't gonna move real quick or a lightly armored well weaponed fast vechicle or a fast well armored vechicle that's armed with pea-shooters. This is pretty much a universal truth. For example in business the equation is: Price/Quality/Time pick 2. A business can make a profit selling any two out of those three things but if it tries to sell all three at once it won't stay a business for very long.
One of the best attributes of ToS/WS is not only that you have a huge number of choices but that the choices are for the most part real. Chassis weight/type is one of the few areas that falls short of this. There is very little reason to pick the lower weight chassis types because the gains in handling are vastly overmatched by the losses in internal structure and speed. By reversing the base speed of the 4 chassis types you not only achieve better balance you bring the game closer to that reality of armor/firepower/speed 2/3.
Iceman, my appologies, I was at work and in a hurry and I misread the meaning of your reply.
In designing any Armored Fighting Vehicle there is a basic trade-off. The equation is: Armor/Firepower/Speed pick two. You can have a heavily armored and weaponed vechicle (land or sea) but it ain't gonna move real quick or a lightly armored well weaponed fast vechicle or a fast well armored vechicle that's armed with pea-shooters. This is pretty much a universal truth. For example in business the equation is: Price/Quality/Time pick 2. A business can make a profit selling any two out of those three things but if it tries to sell all three at once it won't stay a business for very long.
One of the best attributes of ToS/WS is not only that you have a huge number of choices but that the choices are for the most part real. Chassis weight/type is one of the few areas that falls short of this. There is very little reason to pick the lower weight chassis types because the gains in handling are vastly overmatched by the losses in internal structure and speed. By reversing the base speed of the 4 chassis types you not only achieve better balance you bring the game closer to that reality of armor/firepower/speed 2/3.
Iceman, my appologies, I was at work and in a hurry and I misread the meaning of your reply.
Hetz,
I couldn't possibly agree more. I can't imagine using A1 chassis unless I'm planning to have some very interesting weapons configurations leaving me with lots of extra slots to play with. Even at +15 better handling the slot space sacrifice is quite drastic in Assault size class.
As a matter of fact, I would like to see that different chassis types required different amounts of PUs to move at their full speed, and have speed variations that actually mattered something. (See 'Gravity' thread for more info.) A step from BMT 35 up to BMT 39 isn't a significant one, IMHO. Currently it seems rather strange that a titan with Engine A isn't actually any faster than the one with Engine 1. I'm not suggesting MechForce style either, where engine was the ONLY thing determining your speed, but a midway should prove usable.
I couldn't possibly agree more. I can't imagine using A1 chassis unless I'm planning to have some very interesting weapons configurations leaving me with lots of extra slots to play with. Even at +15 better handling the slot space sacrifice is quite drastic in Assault size class.
As a matter of fact, I would like to see that different chassis types required different amounts of PUs to move at their full speed, and have speed variations that actually mattered something. (See 'Gravity' thread for more info.) A step from BMT 35 up to BMT 39 isn't a significant one, IMHO. Currently it seems rather strange that a titan with Engine A isn't actually any faster than the one with Engine 1. I'm not suggesting MechForce style either, where engine was the ONLY thing determining your speed, but a midway should prove usable.
--
Jukka Mikkonen a.k.a. Sir Rechet
Jukka Mikkonen a.k.a. Sir Rechet
Oh my God, am I the only one with any knowledge of basic physics around here?? <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
We all know that U = RI (voltage equals ohms multiplied by current)
Power (in electrical terms) can thus be
a) P = UI (so-called 'normal form')
b) P = R times I squared
c) P = U squared divided by R
So, to increase power, you can either increase voltage OR current, or even both. Resistance can't be changed so easily.
To increase current, all you really need to do is to change internal resistance.. Not so trivial, but doable.
We all know that U = RI (voltage equals ohms multiplied by current)
Power (in electrical terms) can thus be
a) P = UI (so-called 'normal form')
b) P = R times I squared
c) P = U squared divided by R
So, to increase power, you can either increase voltage OR current, or even both. Resistance can't be changed so easily.
To increase current, all you really need to do is to change internal resistance.. Not so trivial, but doable.
--
Jukka Mikkonen a.k.a. Sir Rechet
Jukka Mikkonen a.k.a. Sir Rechet
ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NoNoNoNoNo........We love your game. I have told you privately what ToS has meant to me. I am both proud and honored that you've chosen to listen to a couple of my ideas in the past. In some cases you've said "shadap" and after playing more games I've gone "you're right, it's not necessary". If we didn't care about this being the best game possible we wouldn't fight with you (outside of the arena anyway) <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> I don't care one way or the other about the physics of actuators or what the equation should look like. All that I do care about is that this game, when released, is the best game that it can possibly be. The reason that I'm continuing to discuss this is because I really do think that it's an important issue and should be looked at closely.
I am not talking about physics or engineering what I'm bringing up is Play Balance. The more balanced this game is the more respected it will be. I've been playing military board games for 37 years. More than 80% of those games have only one strategy that has the best chance for each side. Discern that strategy and the game dies.
The beauty and elegance of ToS/WS is that this is not the case. 5 recons vs one assault/beam vs cannon ,whatever, there is no one optimal solution to almost any situation in this game.
That's how you won me over about keeping jump jets limited. Yes, I do miss the flexibility that they had in MechWarrior but now I will and do design Titans without jump because the trade-offs are pretty even. They are Balanced. There is a state of imbalance in the trade offs in chassis types. Can it be fixed by going to a 33,35,37,39 speed differential and by reversing the chassis type speed mods? I don't know, that's what beta-testing is for but as proof of the correctness of my arguement I offer this challenge.
10 a1,a2 and a3 designs vs 10 a4 designs. 10 basic titan types, similar weapons platforms (4 designs in each of 10 catagories)30 games. If there is a direct ratio: most wins vs a1 to fewest wins vs a3 then the chassis types will pretty obviously be proven to be imbalanced in a definite line of bias and the correction will involve a reverse line of bias to create balance.
NoNoNoNoNo........We love your game. I have told you privately what ToS has meant to me. I am both proud and honored that you've chosen to listen to a couple of my ideas in the past. In some cases you've said "shadap" and after playing more games I've gone "you're right, it's not necessary". If we didn't care about this being the best game possible we wouldn't fight with you (outside of the arena anyway) <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> I don't care one way or the other about the physics of actuators or what the equation should look like. All that I do care about is that this game, when released, is the best game that it can possibly be. The reason that I'm continuing to discuss this is because I really do think that it's an important issue and should be looked at closely.
I am not talking about physics or engineering what I'm bringing up is Play Balance. The more balanced this game is the more respected it will be. I've been playing military board games for 37 years. More than 80% of those games have only one strategy that has the best chance for each side. Discern that strategy and the game dies.
The beauty and elegance of ToS/WS is that this is not the case. 5 recons vs one assault/beam vs cannon ,whatever, there is no one optimal solution to almost any situation in this game.
That's how you won me over about keeping jump jets limited. Yes, I do miss the flexibility that they had in MechWarrior but now I will and do design Titans without jump because the trade-offs are pretty even. They are Balanced. There is a state of imbalance in the trade offs in chassis types. Can it be fixed by going to a 33,35,37,39 speed differential and by reversing the chassis type speed mods? I don't know, that's what beta-testing is for but as proof of the correctness of my arguement I offer this challenge.
10 a1,a2 and a3 designs vs 10 a4 designs. 10 basic titan types, similar weapons platforms (4 designs in each of 10 catagories)30 games. If there is a direct ratio: most wins vs a1 to fewest wins vs a3 then the chassis types will pretty obviously be proven to be imbalanced in a definite line of bias and the correction will involve a reverse line of bias to create balance.
Jukka, the power formulas you present are nice and correct (for DC anyway, if you know what you're talking about you know what I'm talking about). *But* the actuators have a limit to the power they can absorb (a physical limit), and supposedly they're already working at their *nominal* power, which means you can't really increased voltage and/or currewnt without them getting damaged/destroyed. That's waht Larkin was saying I think. So go get a major in electrical engineering <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> (I'm joking)
And Hetzer, the A1 does have one major advantage over the A4 which you seem to be forgetting, which is the extra 6 tons. I won't mention the $30,000 (yet).
And Hetzer, the A1 does have one major advantage over the A4 which you seem to be forgetting, which is the extra 6 tons. I won't mention the $30,000 (yet).
Iceman
Anyone who knows a little about basic physics and electricity knows that a given element of a circuit has nominal values for voltage and current (or absorbed power), which are limited by the insulation "strength" and the section of the cables respectively. That means you cannot increase either voltage or current arbitrarily without risking damage to components.
Also, the power formulas presented have different meanings depending on which "side" of the circuit you're refering to, the generator or the load. P=RI2 actually gives you the power *dissipated* in a resistor, which you want to be as low as possible (except in heating applications of course) and not as high as possible.
Sorry about the speech, but I actually *teach* this stuff every day <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Also, the power formulas presented have different meanings depending on which "side" of the circuit you're refering to, the generator or the load. P=RI2 actually gives you the power *dissipated* in a resistor, which you want to be as low as possible (except in heating applications of course) and not as high as possible.
Sorry about the speech, but I actually *teach* this stuff every day <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Iceman
I have to chime in with Hetz on this one. As much as I absolutely HATE to be mobbed by a bunch of recons when playing a medium or heavy, my experience is that the chassis sizes in each group are not balanced. I have over and over tried to figure out what the value of the smaller chassis are, and I have yet to design a chassis based on anything smaller than an A3. I can understand the better actuators, and the center of gravity arguments, but if the smaller chassis don't give some advantage, I would think that some enterprising chap would come up with some new way to make them useful. For the sponsors who buy the titans, if there is no payoff in buying a smaller chassis, you can bet they won't.
-Robinhood-
-Robinhood-