Missiles

[Sleeping_Dragon]

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Yes you are. A better sight/scope, longer barrel, better groove/twist ratio for it's intended role, smoother trigger. All would improve accuracy or range on a 9mm. For an SRM I'm not sure, I don't have one, but there would be things in the construction/design of the rack that could effect to-hits or range.

Ah, so you made a comparison that's perfectly ludicrous, and you expect it to be taken seriously. Of course you think I'm being assinine... shame you didn't think about not having an SRM before making such comments. Haven't had the time to think of those things yet either, huh?

I expect it to be taken seriously because it's a legitimate comparision. In fact, the comparision still holds true for the solution to the missle problem that is currently being implemented/concidered. (Better 'something' in the larger racks results in more hits with individual missles)

[Coyote27]

"There are two sides to any discussion: Mine, which is that my opponent is an idiot, and my opponent's, which is irrelevant because he is an idiot." -Summoner

[Thorgrim]

ORIGINAL: Sleeping_Dragon
I expect it to be taken seriously because it's a legitimate comparision. In fact, the comparision still holds true for the solution to the missle problem that is currently being implemented/concidered. (Better 'something' in the larger racks results in more hits with individual missles)

No it is not. By comparing one 9mm handgun with another of another manufacturer and/or with "extras", you're comparing one SRM4 with another from another manufacturer. You're not comparing to an SRM8. An SRM8 is an SRM4 with more launch tubes. Period. Hence having the same name.
And no, the solution has nothing to do with what you've been claiming. It's a physical characteristic, that works with EVERYTHING in the SRM4 being perfectly the same as in the SRM8. No electronics (???) crap or different missiles or whatever. You can say what you want to come out clean, I don't care.

[elmo3]

Never mind.

[Sleeping_Dragon]

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim
...An SRM8 is an SRM4 with more launch tubes. Period. Hence having the same name....
It's a physical characteristic, that works with EVERYTHING in the SRM4 being perfectly the same as in the SRM8. No electronics (???) crap or different missiles or whatever....

With the current 'fix' why does a overall larger percentage of missles in the larger racks hit now? It's more then just having more tubes.


... Nevermind...



Actually, I rarely let 'physics' get in the way of game balance, It can usually be 'hand-waved' away with some futuristic, trekkie, mumbo-jumbo, after all it's GIANT FIGHTING ROBOTS.

I officially resend any comment reguarding 'why' there are non-obvious differences between the missle racks.

From here forward I will conclude that the 'in-game physics' reason for any differneces in the missle racks is due to the Blue Faerie and Pixie Dust. Yes, now I'm being assinine/ludicrous, but If the game is better balanced, I'm happy. The 'why' behind it, I care little.

[Thorgrim]

Funny.
Don't know if you noticed, but the game does have a lot of physics supporting it. As long as it is possible to maintain that and keep balance, why shouldn't it?
I see you removed the comment about not getting into any more "physics" discussions... I guess you do care, but whatever floats your boat.

[Burzmali]

The physics aren't bad, but there are still giant walking robots that can end up fighting hand to hand. Realistically, ATs would get chewed apart due to their poor surface area to armor ratio. Comparable tanks would clean their clocks in a stand up fight and aerospace fighters could torch them without even wandering into the ATs range. Mecha always need an excuse to be a viable combat option.

That said, there are plenty of reasons why an LRM12 isn't twice the size, weight or heat of an LRM6. First, remove any redundant systems, that will save weight and space. Second, a larger rack has a higher cost, this might represent a better internal heat profile per missile (i.e. mirror lined tubes, higher grade coolants, etc.).

[Thorgrim]

ORIGINAL: Burzmali
The physics aren't bad, but there are still giant walking robots that can end up fighting hand to hand.

So?

Realistically, ATs would get chewed apart due to their poor surface area to armor ratio. Comparable tanks would clean their clocks in a stand up fight and aerospace fighters could torch them without even wandering into the ATs range.

Are you sure? If there are ASFs in both sides, that would only be valid for who gets air superiority. Even then, you'd have to disregard ground-based missile batteries, and naval support. And you don't conquer planets with only air assets, do you? As for tanks, you know why 'mechs are superior, don't you?

Mecha always need an excuse to be a viable combat option.

Can the fact that they don't exist yet have anything to do with it?

That said, there are plenty of reasons why an LRM12 isn't twice the size, weight or heat of an LRM6. First, remove any redundant systems, that will save weight and space.

Almost sounds true. Like what?

Second, a larger rack has a higher cost, this might represent a better internal heat profile per missile (i.e. mirror lined tubes, higher grade coolants, etc.).

They're bigger, of course they have a higher cost. A proportional increase though. So no need for fancy explanations.

[Burzmali]

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Realistically, ATs would get chewed apart due to their poor surface area to armor ratio. Comparable tanks would clean their clocks in a stand up fight and aerospace fighters could torch them without even wandering into the ATs range.

Are you sure? If there are ASFs in both sides, that would only be valid for who gets air superiority. Even then, you'd have to disregard ground-based missile batteries, and naval support. And you don't conquer planets with only air assets, do you?

I won't argue as most of this debate is academic pending a absolute decision on the technology available, but the Ogre principle still holds: The size and value of an asset can never exceeds the expense of delivering a single overkill weapon (i.e. nuke, antimatter weapon, X-ray pumped missile, etc.) The example being the Ogre Cybertank which is effectively imprevious to anything smaller than a nuclear weapon, however eventually your enemy has invested so much in the Ogre that it becomes cost effective to simply nuke it to pieces.

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

As for tanks, you know why 'mechs are superior, don't you?

Aside from looking cooler? Your probably going to say off-road capablity, but that discounts the chance that hovertanks, or something similiar, are feasible. Yet again, I would need to know the technology available to decide.

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Mecha always need an excuse to be a viable combat option.

Can the fact that they don't exist yet have anything to do with it?

Planes didn't exist yet they fill a nice niche in combat, giant walking things don't exist but don't have much a niche to fill.

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

That said, there are plenty of reasons why an LRM12 isn't twice the size, weight or heat of an LRM6. First, remove any redundant systems, that will save weight and space.

Almost sounds true. Like what?

First off, the electronics wouldn't need to be twice the size, bigger es, but not double. Second, any hydraulic or pneumatic lifting arms could be increased in diameter to deal with the increased load, but their masses and volumes wouldn't double. Finally, any reloading system isn't duplicated as the reload time is longer, and not all the reload time is physically moving the missile, so it could be argued that the reloader is only slightly larger.

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Second, a larger rack has a higher cost, this might represent a better internal heat profile per missile (i.e. mirror lined tubes, higher grade coolants, etc.).

They're bigger, of course they have a higher cost. A proportional increase though. So no need for fancy explanations.

True, but a higher 'value' item may warrent more advanced equipment. The price increase for adding advanced features to the LRM6 may be too high, but the LRM12 is already priced so high that the designers were able to sneak a few heat reducing features into the price.

[Sleeping_Dragon]

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim
As long as it is possible to maintain that and keep balance, why shouldn't it?

Who said it shouldn't? as long as balance and fun are preserved. (left the fun part out of the last post, my bad)

I see you removed the comment about not getting into any more "physics" discussions... I guess you do care

Yep, editted a lot of stuff right after I posted it. It didn't say what I wanted it to say, thus the edit, like almost all my posts.

Yeah, I do care... a little, but definately not enough to continue to the missle rack 'physics' discussion.

but whatever floats your boat.

Buoyancy.... or maybe the Green Faerie

[Thorgrim]

I think they were, and with no need to make drastic changes.

Too much faerie talk here...

[Thorgrim]

ORIGINAL: Burzmali
I won't argue as most of this debate is academic pending a absolute decision on the technology available,

You were obviously talking about BT or any other similar system, because there's no official mention of ASFs or vehicles in ToS anywhere. In BT, 'mechs are the kings of the battlefield. ASFs (and any vehicle) use the exact same weapons as 'mechs, so they do not have any range advantage over them. They do have more limitations and vulnerabilities. Hence the continued existance (and superiority) of 'mechs.

Aside from looking cooler? Your probably going to say off-road capablity, but that discounts the chance that hovertanks, or something similiar, are feasible. Yet again, I would need to know the technology available to decide.

Yes, off-road capability, among other things like vulnerabilites. Hovertanks, they have their own problems, they rely on speed alone to survive, and they also have off-road limitations.

Planes didn't exist yet they fill a nice niche in combat, giant walking things don't exist but don't have much a niche to fill.

Or so you say. They managed to spin a very nice universe in BT though, with a nice niche for 'mechs. If they do ever come to exist, I'm sure it will be to fill some niche. Like planes.

First off, the electronics wouldn't need to be twice the size, bigger es, but not double.

First off, you're assuming there's some kind of FCS attached to the racks. Other than mechanical tracking. The battle computer does most of the work.

Second, any hydraulic or pneumatic lifting arms could be increased in diameter to deal with the increased load, but their masses and volumes wouldn't double.

Second, you're seeing it in reverse, it's the LARGER rack that weighs more than double the smaller one. A purely game balance issue, if you look at all the other missile types.

Finally, any reloading system isn't duplicated as the reload time is longer, and not all the reload time is physically moving the missile, so it could be argued that the reloader is only slightly larger.

Finally, if the rack is loaded all at once, whatever size, then exactly what is the extra time for in the larger racks? The reloader may be a little slower due to the increased mass to be moved (even if it made stronger), but almost double time?

True, but a higher 'value' item may warrent more advanced equipment.

Thus making it a new "category" of missile rack. An Advanced xxx rack. An LRM12 is just a bigger LRM6. In ToS, in BT, wherever.

The price increase for adding advanced features to the LRM6 may be too high, but the LRM12 is already priced so high that the designers were able to sneak a few heat reducing features into the price.

That's funny, because the LRM12 creates more than double the heat of an LRM6...

[Thorgrim]

ORIGINAL: Burzmali
The physics aren't bad, but there are still giant walking robots that can end up fighting hand to hand.

Ever watched those small remote-controlled robots face in CC combat in special arenas, on TV? Small step.

[Burzmali]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, BT was not the last word written on mecha combat. Sure BT was the first and is still on of the best, but it sacrificed realism by the truckload for playablity. Can you explain why laser mounted in appendages can generate enough heat to shutdown an AT? Who exactly thought it was a good idea to put tiny little batteries on energy weapons anyways? Why not forget the other weapons and mount a huge powerpack with enough energy to fire the laser for a minute or 5 while keeping the gun cool with the futuristic version of swamp coolers? Of course, as it is, that would make combat very quick and very lethal and hence not much fun, without significantly altering the parameters of combat. On top of that BT cited (maybe even created) the oldest excuse for the use of mecha "Someone created a really good control system that can only be used on human-shaped vehicles". Without an excuse mecha can't be as manuevarable as a jet or gunship, and not as heavily armored as a tank buit using the same technology.

As for missiles, I was just providing justifications for LRM12s being smaller, lightier, or less heat intensive than a pair of LRM6s. Play balance is more important than a reason, but there shouldn't be a clear cut advantage for selecting LRM6s over LRM12s, that's just broken. Also, I'd love to see the option to buy 'advanced' versions of weapons with lower weight, heat, or space, for a much higher price and upkeep, but that would increase the size of the weapon table by a factor of 5 or 6 so I can't see Larkin being in too big of a rush to implement that [;)] Not that I wouldn't pay for an expansion pack that had said feature or anything [;)][;)]

[Thorgrim]

ORIGINAL: Burzmali
I've said it before and I'll say it again, BT was not the last word written on mecha combat.

You did. And I said 'or any other similar system'. You were talking about ASFs and tanks being superior. So, in what system? If they are weaker, then why does the said system use them? [&:]
Why do we still have tanks today, since bombers can turn them to dust without even wandering into their range? And we have nukes too. Infantry still exists too.
'Mechs seem like the perfect planetary assault weapon to me. In a future where there is such things as planetary assaults, the 'mech does have a niche. I don't see tanks doing it effectively.

Sure BT was the first and is still on of the best, but it sacrificed realism by the truckload for playablity. Can you explain why laser mounted in appendages can generate enough heat to shutdown an AT?

That's funny, that's the question I asked a few days ago... similar at least.
Yes, ToS also sacrifices a bit of realism. But not as much as BT.

Who exactly thought it was a good idea to put tiny little batteries on energy weapons anyways?

You mean accumulators? You mean this:
- This is an energy weapon and needs no ammo. Energy weapons
- rely on powerbanks to recharge, which are fed by the Engine.
- The energy for the next shot is restored by the Engine's
- available power, determined by a special arithmetical function.
Exactly what you think is wrong with it?

Why not forget the other weapons and mount a huge powerpack with enough energy to fire the laser for a minute or 5 while keeping the gun cool with the futuristic version of swamp coolers?

Because you can deliver more damage at a given point in time if you have more weapons? Because if your *one* weapon malfunctions or gets destroyed, you're toast? Because the weapon would melt unless it'd be made of special materials, which would not necessarily be damage resistant? Or it'd need a cooler the size of a large warehouse?

Of course, as it is, that would make combat very quick and very lethal and hence not much fun, without significantly altering the parameters of combat.

And who guarantees such a weapon fired for 5 minutes would kill an opponent? Who guarantees you can keep the lock for 5 min? Who guarantees you don't get toasted before those 5 min?

On top of that BT cited (maybe even created) the oldest excuse for the use of mecha "Someone created a really good control system that can only be used on human-shaped vehicles".

Most 'Mechs are not even close to human shape. Bird-like, spider-like, you name it. They do walk upright, with the aid of a gyro, and have arms and legs.

Without an excuse mecha can't be as manuevarable as a jet or gunship, and not as heavily armored as a tank buit using the same technology.

You think? What's the top speed of the fastest 'mech you know? Jump jets provide a lot of maneuverability. Do you know how thick the armor of an assault in ToS can be?

As for missiles, I was just providing justifications for LRM12s being smaller, lightier, or less heat intensive than a pair of LRM6s.

Which they aren't. So your arguments were wrong. That's what I was saying.

Also, I'd love to see the option to buy 'advanced' versions of weapons with lower weight, heat, or space, for a much higher price and upkeep, but that would increase the size of the weapon table by a factor of 5 or 6

That was one of the problems with BT...

[Burzmali]

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

ORIGINAL: Burzmali
I've said it before and I'll say it again, BT was not the last word written on mecha combat.

You did. And I said 'or any other similar system'. You were talking about ASFs and tanks being superior. So, in what system? If they are weaker, then why does the said system use them? [&:]

GURPS, and Mekton to name a few, though Mekton (as it is a Mecha combat game) admits to using a hand wave to increase to effectiviness of Mecha, and both do. Anyway you slice it, a tank can mount more armor/ton of weight than a mecha. Mecha burn far too much surface area by having legs, heads and arms where as a tank need only to heavily armor a small sloped cross-section on the side facing the enemy.

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Why do we still have tanks today, since bombers can turn them to dust without even wandering into their range? And we have nukes too. Infantry still exists too.
'Mechs seem like the perfect planetary assault weapon to me. In a future where there is such things as planetary assaults, the 'mech does have a niche. I don't see tanks doing it effectively.

Yeah, bombers can take out tanks, but bombers can't invade cities all that well. You always need something on the ground, preferably big and heavily armored. Nukes vs. Infantry is a cost problem, if a nuke delivery system where cheap enough that it was cost effective to nuke a company with it, infantry would need to be upgraded or obseleted, much like the horse mounted cavalry disappeared by WWII. When it comes down to it, the technology available needs to be slanted heavily in ATs favor for them to be a good planetary invader. Twist a few technologies this way or that and you would be invading with battlesuited infantry with flying stealth fortresses for support.

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

That's funny, that's the question I asked a few days ago... similar at least.
Yes, ToS also sacrifices a bit of realism. But not as much as BT.

Which I am very grateful for.

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Who exactly thought it was a good idea to put tiny little batteries on energy weapons anyways?

You mean accumulators? You mean this:
- This is an energy weapon and needs no ammo. Energy weapons
- rely on powerbanks to recharge, which are fed by the Engine.
- The energy for the next shot is restored by the Engine's
- available power, determined by a special arithmetical function.
Exactly what you think is wrong with it?

Yes, but from an engineering viewpoint, who thought that a battery that could last for less than a second at a time was a good idea?

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Why not forget the other weapons and mount a huge powerpack with enough energy to fire the laser for a minute or 5 while keeping the gun cool with the futuristic version of swamp coolers?

Because you can deliver more damage at a given point in time if you have more weapons? Because if your *one* weapon malfunctions or gets destroyed, you're toast? Because the weapon would melt unless it'd be made of special materials, which would not necessarily be damage resistant? Or it'd need a cooler the size of a large warehouse?

Well, plenty of ATs are already one-weapon centric already so that isn't a problem. Modern tanks get by just fine with only a single main weapon, and with an ATs DCS repairing a damaged weapon is a snap. Heat is already overrated (crutch borrowed from BT), and a swamp cooler as I mentioned above could keep it cool for several minutes. I'm talking in physics terms here not game terms as that crutch is needed for balance.

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

And who guarantees such a weapon fired for 5 minutes would kill an opponent? Who guarantees you can keep the lock for 5 min? Who guarantees you don't get toasted before those 5 min?

Well, if <1 sec worth of impact does 9 damage, 5 minutes would do more like 5000+ so I think that would kill just about anything. Keeping a lock would be a problem, admitted, but with 5 minutes of juice you could afford to use it like a firehose, if you are missing, you just drag the beam over onto the target. It's why automatic fire is so effective, if you can see the impacts you can adjust to the correct spot.

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Most 'Mechs are not even close to human shape. Bird-like, spider-like, you name it. They do walk upright, with the aid of a gyro, and have arms and legs.

Two arms, two legs, and a head sounds very humanlike to me [;)]

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Without an excuse mecha can't be as manuevarable as a jet or gunship, and not as heavily armored as a tank buit using the same technology.

You think? What's the top speed of the fastest 'mech you know? Jump jets provide a lot of maneuverability. Do you know how thick the armor of an assault in ToS can be?

Let's not get started on jump PORTS, that's another relic that should have been left with BT. Thruster or expenable jump packs, maybe, but do have any idea how horrible the physics of jump jets/ports are? It makes me shiver. But even so, a modern gunship can break 200mph and a modern tank can break 60mph on open terrain, both soundly beat the fastest recon AT. And whatever thickness of armor you could throw on an assualt could be thrown on a tank while weighing less and having a better chance of deflecting incoming fire.

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

As for missiles, I was just providing justifications for LRM12s being smaller, lightier, or less heat intensive than a pair of LRM6s.

Which they aren't. So your arguments were wrong. That's what I was saying.

And if you haven't noticed there is some discussion about changing the size or weight or heat of the LRM12 vs the LRM6, I was just providing some justification. It's all about balance and 2 LRM6s shouldn't have a clear cut advantage over a single LRM12.

ORIGINAL: Thorgrim

Also, I'd love to see the option to buy 'advanced' versions of weapons with lower weight, heat, or space, for a much higher price and upkeep, but that would increase the size of the weapon table by a factor of 5 or 6

That was one of the problems with BT...

Given, but I'm a gearhead, so I like having all the options. Even BT had variations of each Mech, something that would be cool for ATs. It would prevent the player from going, "Oh, a Guru, that has a TB and pair of MGs, I'll be fine as long as it can't close" as soon as they lock onto a target.

[aquietfrog]

ORIGINAL: Burzmali

Given, but I'm a gearhead, so I like having all the options. Even BT had variations of each Mech, something that would be cool for ATs. It would prevent the player from going, "Oh, a Guru, that has a TB and pair of MGs, I'll be fine as long as it can't close" as soon as they lock onto a target.

In that case, I would suggest a feature in the Battle module to override Titan names with vague random names, which can be toggled on and off like fog of war.

[Thorgrim]

ORIGINAL: Burzmali
GURPS, and Mekton to name a few, though Mekton (as it is a Mecha combat game) admits to using a hand wave to increase to effectiviness of Mecha, and both do.

Like I said, don't know them, can't say, but seriously doubt it. Not going to check them though, waste of time.

Anyway you slice it, a tank can mount more armor/ton of weight than a mecha. Mecha burn far too much surface area by having legs, heads and arms where as a tank need only to heavily armor a small sloped cross-section on the side facing the enemy.

Turret? Tracks, and "soft belly"?

Yeah, bombers can take out tanks, but bombers can't invade cities all that well.

And tanks are not the best either. 'Mechs however are more flexible, and that was part of the point.

You always need something on the ground, preferably big and heavily armored.

'Mechs?

Nukes vs. Infantry is a cost problem, if a nuke delivery system where cheap enough that it was cost effective to nuke a company with it, infantry would need to be upgraded or obseleted, much like the horse mounted cavalry disappeared by WWII.

I meant nukes vs everything, as a followup to your idea.

When it comes down to it, the technology available needs to be slanted heavily in ATs favor for them to be a good planetary invader. Twist a few technologies this way or that and you would be invading with battlesuited infantry with flying stealth fortresses for support.

'Mechs will exist if and when tech is in their favor. That's pretty obvious.

Yes, but from an engineering viewpoint, who thought that a battery that could last for less than a second at a time was a good idea?

From *your* engineering viewpoint. You're thinking about it as a battery. Maybe you're just not wanting to use your engineering mind.

Well, plenty of ATs are already one-weapon centric already so that isn't a problem.

Then we're not talking about the same game. I'm talking about Titans of Steel and BattleTech. And you?

Modern tanks get by just fine with only a single main weapon, and with an ATs DCS repairing a damaged weapon is a snap.

So every design has to ahve a DCS, and the jock must be proficient with it. And hope the DCS doesn't get damaged or destroyed.
Oh wait, let's now argue the engineering validity of something like a DCS...

Heat is already overrated (crutch borrowed from BT), and a swamp cooler as I mentioned above could keep it cool for several minutes. I'm talking in physics terms here not game terms as that crutch is needed for balance.

Bull. Swamp cooler? How big? For *every* weapon type?

Well, if <1 sec worth of impact does 9 damage, 5 minutes would do more like 5000+ so I think that would kill just about anything.

Nope. How long would it take for a high-grade laser to burn through ~20mm of hardened armor, with the target moving and therefore negating a fixed contact point for long? Say it's 1 sec, which is the length of a "turn" in ToS. WAY below that.

Keeping a lock would be a problem, admitted, but with 5 minutes of juice you could afford to use it like a firehose, if you are missing, you just drag the beam over onto the target.

Assuming you have 5 min of juice. Of which you can barely focus the beam on any one bodypart if the target is moving. You'll be wasting way more power than that you'll be actually using, so that's a pretty crappy solution.

It's why automatic fire is so effective, if you can see the impacts you can adjust to the correct spot.

And that's why the MG has the speed bonus.

Two arms, two legs, and a head sounds very humanlike to me [;)]

You mean 2 upper appendices and 2 lower appendices. Hardly arms and legs. We call them that for simplicity. And quads don't have arms.

Let's not get started on jump PORTS, that's another relic that should have been left with BT. Thruster or expenable jump packs, maybe, but do have any idea how horrible the physics of jump jets/ports are?

Yes I do. Yet JPs are not expendable but are rechargeable thrusters. Jump packs are not science fiction.

It makes me shiver. But even so, a modern gunship can break 200mph and a modern tank can break 60mph on open terrain, both soundly beat the fastest recon AT.

Say that again?! Definitely not the same game...

And if you haven't noticed there is some discussion about changing the size or weight or heat of the LRM12 vs the LRM6, I was just providing some justification. It's all about balance and 2 LRM6s shouldn't have a clear cut advantage over a single LRM12.

If you haven't notice, I was right in the middle of that discussion... [;)]
And that doesn't change the fact that your numbers were completely off. You should investigate things before commenting on them.

Given, but I'm a gearhead, so I like having all the options. Even BT had variations of each Mech, something that would be cool for ATs. It would prevent the player from going, "Oh, a Guru, that has a TB and pair of MGs, I'll be fine as long as it can't close" as soon as they lock onto a target.

No it wouldn't. If you know the variant's designation, you know what it packs.

[Burzmali]

Someone remind me not to start a debate with debate Thorgrim over hypothetical technology next time this come up [;)]

I'm going end the debate at this point anyways, arguing when the Powers that Be haven't provided a complete breakdown of what technology is and isn't available is just silly. For the time being, I have decided that all of the ATs armor, frame, weapons, and components are made from Balancium, a substance that always has the weight, volume and heat dissipation that is best for balancing the game. Conviently, balancium can only be used in vehicles built with 2 legs, arms and a head, so only ATs can be cool enough to be important, have a nice day.

As a side note, I like the fog of war idea, maybe with FoW on, the player would be forced to get a yellow or green scan before an opposing AT is identified. Variations would be cool too (i.e. a lock determines that the opposing AT is a Guru, but a yellow or green scan reveals that it is the Guru H, which has had it's MGs traded in for FTs) but alot more work...

[elmo3]

I play the game right now with FOW on full every game. "Oh great, I'm up against a Guru. WTF is that?!". [:D]