Possible Rule Change: Armor and Mobility

[Daemonward]

Likewise, there needs to be *something* that makes groundhuggers an attractive choice to *someone*. Make them cheaper? Make them faster in a straight line? Increase their armor?

I would vote for greater weight/component allowance for groundhugger armor and weapons. The downsides being that groundhuggers are useless in space, and depending on how weighted down they are with armor and weapons, some groundhuggers may not be practical for anything but holding defensive positions/protecting installations.

Also, when entering an environment/battle-zone that is incompatible with your current mecha (e.g. groundhuggers in space, aerofighters in caves), I think that a menu should come up allowing you to either select one of your compatible mecha or rent a compatible mecha (available only for arena duels, limited mecha selection, ammunition/repair costs automatically paid after the battle). In some cases, entrance should be disallowed if no compatible mecha is available (i.e., no man vs. mecha arena fights unless explicitly allowed).

[xpace]

Reserving targeting and ECM for critical hits (and/or failures?) also sounds like a nice, simple abstraction.

As Crucifix explained, most types of attacks Mecha in the GearHead universe are unlikely to rely on anything other than line-of-sight and optical equipment to target enemies - especially with things like lasers and hand-to-hand or melee combat. According to scale, the distances of combat in GearHead are significantly less than in real life modern combat. And there are very little - if any - scientifically sound reasons why ECM should interfere with optical sights. Even the notion that ECM might interfere with computer software is unlikely. That's more like "hacking", anyway, and that's a different skill entirely.

From a technical standpoint, ECM is defined as "an electrical or electronic device designed to trick or deceive radar, sonar or other detection systems, like infrared (IR) or lasers". Ordinarily, ECM is used to throw off radar signatures or thwart lock-ons by missile terminal homers or, at sea, torpedoes.

In every sci-fi game I've played that had ECM, it was reserved for thwarting missiles (and/or torpedoes). And I find it difficult to conceptualize how it could be used to thwart attacks by slug throwers, lasers, or - more ridiculously - throwing a punch from 5 feet away inside a 50-foot-tall walking tank.

Thwarting missiles, however, is something else entirely. In GearHead, there is no weapon that can ruin one's day quite as fast as swarms of high-yield missiles. And enemy units are much more likely to both have missiles and use them at the first opportunity. (Unlike players, AI-controlled enemies don't care about things like weight and cost.)

In real life, missiles come in two general varieties: "dumb fire" (straight line-of-sight) and "smart" (seeking, by radar, GPS or laser guidance). Obviously, smart missiles are the more dangerous kind as they are capable of hitting a small target from very far away - even if the target is moving. But, unlike most other weapon types, missiles are vulnerable to things like flak, flares, and ECM.

To summarize: I'd be critical of using ECM to counter anything other than missiles or, begrudgingly, attack bonuses from combat software. IMO, having it be used as a jack-of-all-trades countermeasures system against all attacks and all critical hits is just... silly.

Likewise, there needs to be *something* that makes groundhuggers an attractive choice to *someone*. Make them cheaper? Make them faster in a straight line? Increase their armor?

Agreed. Cars and tanks should be faster in a straight line than mecha - as long as the terrain is rather smooth. But if the terrain is real rough, Mecha should have the advantage. Mecha can also turn on a dime, unlike most conventional vehicles. Cars and tanks are also old technology that should be much simpler and cheaper to manufacture. Mecha need all sorts of advanced technology, moving joints, and tons of "myomer" artificial muscles or servos or whatever. And as Daemonward suggested, groundhuggers should have a (slightly) higher weight allowance.

I like Telok's idea of separating lift from thrust and having bonuses and penalties based on whether wings are present or not.

Agreed. A good idea.

...The downsides being that groundhuggers are useless in space, and depending on how weighted down they are with armor and weapons, some groundhuggers may not be practical...

Good point. So far, it seems Groundhuggers are even less practical in GH2 than they were in GH1. Although, to be fair, even without a space-capable vehicle it should be possible for players to rely on "shuttle service" pay for transport between locations in space. (Also: I'm still very partial to the idea of the player eventually getting the opportunity to acquire a small space shuttle or ship of their own for transport.)

Also, when entering an environment/battle-zone that is incompatible with your current mecha... [snip] I think that a menu should come up allowing you to either select one of your compatible mecha or rent a compatible mecha... [snip] In some cases, entrance should be disallowed if no compatible mecha is available.

A good idea, IMO. If for no other reason, this makes things simpler and less confusing for new players. It also makes things convenient.

[SharkD]

How about this: Make separate Speed and Mobility stats. When determining weapon accuracy, Speed has half the influence of Mobility. Mobility also determines the turning radius at a particular Speed.

Generally only mecha should be able to turn without moving outside their squares.

[edit]

Oops.

[Michael]

And there are very little - if any - scientifically sound reasons why ECM should interfere with optical sights.

The Mark 1 Eyeball can be jammed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL5zznzzBtQ

It's just that little research has gone into doing so.  Likely because it is aircraft battles that draw all the attention, and in dogfights optical range is knife range.  The benefits of any "optical jammer" in disrupting fine targeting would be offset by a tendency to make it easier for the enemy to get a coarse idea of where the opponent is.

As for GearHead, it would probably be best to distinguish between weapons that are actually aimed directly by the pilot, and ones where computers do the fine aiming.  Any guided weapon is obviously computer-controlled, as well as any weapon cable of interception (since the needed reaction time is superhuman).  Such weapons should be usable without MA or MG skill, but be susceptible to jamming.

This could also provide a resolution to one silly rule in GH.  In GH1, at least, you can build robots that fight alongside you, but unless you build a "self-aware" robot it cannot pilot a mech.  We could instead allow any robot to run a mech, but with the stipulation that it's opponents get EW savings throws on every attack it attempts.  Having a soul thus acts as a super ECCM system....

[Crucifix]

And there are very little - if any - scientifically sound reasons why ECM should interfere with optical sights.

The Mark 1 Eyeball can be jammed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL5zznzzBtQ

It's just that little research has gone into doing so.  Likely because it is aircraft battles that draw all the attention, and in dogfights optical range is knife range.  The benefits of any "optical jammer" in disrupting fine targeting would be offset by a tendency to make it easier for the enemy to get a coarse idea of where the opponent is.

As for GearHead, it would probably be best to distinguish between weapons that are actually aimed directly by the pilot, and ones where computers do the fine aiming.  Any guided weapon is obviously computer-controlled, as well as any weapon cable of interception (since the needed reaction time is superhuman).  Such weapons should be usable without MA or MG skill, but be susceptible to jamming.

This could also provide a resolution to one silly rule in GH.  In GH1, at least, you can build robots that fight alongside you, but unless you build a "self-aware" robot it cannot pilot a mech.  We could instead allow any robot to run a mech, but with the stipulation that it's opponents get EW savings throws on every attack it attempts.  Having a soul thus acts as a super ECCM system....

How does "superhuman" come into play when you bring in Cyberware or Biotech? Slap in an optical spine and a few processor speed enhancements into the old meatsack and the line blurs a little between computer-controlled and meatware.

And of course, according to Mr Hewitt Cyberware is an umbrella term for both cybernetic and biotech enhancements, so your superhuman cyborg might be 100% organic....

[xpace]

And there are very little - if any - scientifically sound reasons why ECM should interfere with optical sights.

The Mark 1 Eyeball can be jammed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL5zznzzBtQ

It's just that little research has gone into doing so....

Umm... That video is called "Techno Kitten Adventure" and it demonstrates a hyper-cute mega-psychedelic indie video game.

So, did you get the video link mixed up with something else? Or were you unable to find the link and figured that nobody would bother to check it out?

Ah, I get it! Mark 1 Eyeball is the human eye. And this video demonstrates that with enough hallucinogenic chemicals anyone's optical sighting can be severely impaired. Still, that's a very weak argument.  (That's related to using ECM countermeasures?  )

[Michael]

How does "superhuman" come into play when you bring in Cyberware or Biotech? Slap in an optical spine and a few processor speed enhancements into the old meatsack and the line blurs a little between computer-controlled and meatware.

It would depend on the way the implants work.  If an implant actually gives you bullet time, then yes you could run your missile interceptions by hand and have normal human ECM-resistance. But I don't think GH1's cyberware is supposed to be that good -- this would be like having Re: and Sp: in the hundreds.

More likely, a cyber implant would basically borrow control of the owner's gun arm, relying on the human mind only for IFF services.  Such a system would be vulnerable to ECM.

Ah, I get it! Mark 1 Eyeball is the human eye.

Exactly.  My point is that TKA would be an absolutely trivial game, except that depending on the point of the music, it jams the player's eyeball rather severely.

In theory, a with a powerful strobe/kaleidoscopic spotlight, a defending vehicle could target an attackers face or gun-camera, and make him feel like he is playing TKA when just trying to line up a shot.  The spotlight would constitute an optical ECM system.

Bright enough, and it would jam a naked eyeball worse than a remote camera.  Cameras can't feel pain.


A completely different kind of optical ECM, slightly beyond current real-world technology but more strategically useful, would be nanobot chameleon paint.  The computer that determines what camouflage pattern to use at each moment would rightly be called an "ECM system".

[xpace]

...In theory, a with a powerful strobe/kaleidoscopic spotlight, a defending vehicle could target an attackers face or gun-camera, and make him feel like he is playing TKA when just trying to line up a shot.  The spotlight would constitute an optical ECM system.

So, you propose a strategic system of powerful strobe lights and rapidly changing colored spotlights as a defense against optical sighting?  And you don't see how that could make a vehicle even more of a target than what it already is? 

Granted, the typical attack distances in GearHead are significantly less than in the real world. But it's not exactly in-yer-face. And that TKA game's primary disorienting effects are due to extreme distractions, like the score turning huge and zooming around the screen, or swarms of bacon with wings, or giant bunny rabbits filling the screen, or the game suddenly reversing direction, or the field of vision being narrowed by about 40%... etc, etc. IMO, the shifting colors and flashing lights seems secondary to all that.

Also, I'd imagine that it would be impractical to have enough strobe lights and colored spotlights to completely drowned out all other sources of light during the day. You could have a mech completely covered in lights and it still would not be enough. And those lights would be easily wiped out with a single area effect attack or the sonic boom from a large caliber gun.

A completely different kind of optical ECM, slightly beyond current real-world technology but more strategically useful, would be nanobot chameleon paint.  The computer that determines what camouflage pattern to use at each moment would rightly be called an "ECM system".

Umm... no. That would rightly be called "first-generation invisibility technology." That's entirely different from ECM. For one thing, the Stealth skill is (and always should be) separate from the Electronic Warfare skill.

Anyway, I don't recall there existing any invisibility or nanobot-based stealth technology in the GearHead universe. If there was, I'd think that Mr. Hewitt would reserve that as a one-time encounter as part of a plot or maybe as a unique plot reward. That said, I seem to recall a certain one-of-a-kind "stealth" prototype mecha one could obtain by reaching a certain rank in the Thieves Guild. (As I recall, it was "stealth" technology based around area-effect smoke missiles. Though, it was a nice mecha.)

Bottom line: They may be working on first-generation stealth technology today, but (as far as the public knows) they're still a ways from a practical device. And GearHead is set in a post-apocalyptic universe where a certain amount of advanced technology and knowledge was lost.

[Prokofiev]

Regarding jamming the Mk. I eyeball (that is, basic vision)-- you don't have to spray strobe effects all over the place to mess with somebody's aiming. The most basic form of 'eyeball jamming' that exists (but is not really used) is the simple laser-light. As I understand it, pointing even a weak laser (like a laser pointer) at somebody's eyes can cause temporary vision loss-- not blindness, but vision damage. The wiki article on laser safety has a little on it.

Of course, considering that high-yield laser cannons are all over the place, your average mech cockpit probably has (at least!) the equivalent of safety glasses over it. Still, it illustrates that there are ways to mess with one's eyes.

[Michael]

Umm... no. That would rightly be called "first-generation invisibility technology."

To be called "invisibility", a technology should at minimum give different colors depending on viewing angle.  So if you have a 15 meter mecha standing on a flat grassy field on a clear day, it should appear blue to a human viewing from below, and green to a plane looking down from above.  That's a long way off.

I'm just thinking of something more like what real life chameleons and octopi have.  Which can be quite convincing at times. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN99Kx_ghC8, at 1:32)

The most basic form of 'eyeball jamming' that exists (but is not really used) is the simple laser-light. As I understand it, pointing even a weak laser (like a laser pointer) at somebody's eyes can cause temporary vision loss-- not blindness, but vision damage.

Actually, this is in practical real-world use, in the form of the flashbang grenade.

[Prokofiev]

Flashbangs... of course, heh. Although we only have them in grenade form right now, it's probably not too much to expect different delivery forms in a future with giant robots.

Regarding invisibility, it might not be quite as far off as you think-- this is only a lab demonstration, of course, and this application would probably not be effective for giant things, but it's still pretty interesting:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/invisibility-cloak-mirage/

[Rowanthepreacher]

Wow. It's been a while since I visited the forums.

I've been pondering something posted a page or two ago about penetration and damage.

You could get the kind of variable penetration damage Crucifix was talking about by having extra points of penetration limit the number of components that can be damaged. Lower penetration weapons would wreck up everything the touch, while high penetration weapons, which are more likely to breach the armour in the first place, will cut a clean hole through unarmoured targets. Simply allocating damage to (Penetration - Armour) (minimum of 1) internal locations should simulate the large holes made by weapons forced (or made) to bounce and yaw.

Light mechs with low armour will take clean shots from big guns and lose internal components one at a time.

Light mechs against light guns will get penetrated and have their insides wrecked (heh) as it should be.

Heavy mechs will simply rebuke light penetration weaponry entirely (armour>penetration), while heavy penetration guns would do lots of damage to them.

It requires no additional tags and little additional processing, while rebalancing underpowered armour. In all of this, damage remains much the same, with the only difference being in how it's applied.

I'd draw up a little table, but my forum skills are weakened from long disuse.

[PlaintextMan]

I feel like throwing my opinion onto the opinion heap, but I haven't read this thread through yet. This damage system rewrite sounds like a wonderful idea, if it isn't implemented already. Judging from how nicely (IMO) the GHAR engine is calculating damage compared to ye olde GH1.100, I'd say progress was made.

The 'scale of 5' sounds like it might be a tad simplistic. Even the 'vanilla' modless base game has a very wide variety of weapons, especially taking into account differences between, say, light rockets 60 and swarm rockets 40. Or, for that matter, swarm 5 v. 20 v. 40.

Yes. It sounds a bit simplistic. I also think that the variety of modern and 'futuristic' weaponry have to be taken into account with the physics. I'd rename or just look at "Damage" as something like "Stopping Power". "How much [kinetic] energy or impulse does that weapon transfer to which parts?"

Mentioning variety, IMO some of the speciality tags on weapons like Brutal give a nice noticable difference, even if the tags are pretty rigid. Others, such as Armorpiercing are way lacking in variance, but this should be fixed by such a new system, ofc.

Also, the variety of possible armor could make an interesting addition. I'd imagine that one would put reactive armor on the outsides to counteract shaped charges and other high-penetration weapons, but these would be stripped off by lasers or high-power machine guns with ease, for example. Perhaps even add in armor specialized against blast penetration or thermal weapons like lasers. And slat armor. That stuff is interesting. Really low-tech.

I've been pondering something posted a page or two ago about penetration and damage.
Light mechs with low armour will take clean shots from big guns and lose internal components one at a time.
Light mechs against light guns will get penetrated and have their insides wrecked (heh) as it should be.
Heavy mechs will simply rebuke light penetration weaponry entirely (armour>penetration), while heavy penetration guns would do lots of damage to them.

I'm trying simulate a few situations with an Damage/Penetration/Agility system in my mind:

Warzone 2100: high-explosive artillery and machine guns are basically what you use against infantry, whereas those are of little use against tanks. Infantry units, however get very good damage negation against tank/anti-tank weaponry, supposedly because of their agility.

"Windbuks" air rifle and rats IRL: Home use/practice air rifles are pretty common around where I live. Interesting thing is that the most effective way to kill a rat is to use a blunt-point round, instead of a sharp-tipped round. The blunts give a lot more stopping power; all of the kinetic energy is transferred in one go, and the bullet gets lodged fast in the rodent's body. Instant death (hydrostatic shock, I guess). Sharp points, on the other hand, can penetrate straight through the rodent, which then runs off seemingly as if your shot never connected (and that's even weirder because sharps are notably more accurate than blunts over longer distances). Only later does the rat bleed to death, and then you have to locate the stench.  Why don't mecha bleed? I mean, limbs and myomer muscles and stuff should have some liquids to them, right? Heck, why don't rats bleed in GH? 

Besides shaped charge warheads, look at HESH warheads: this is what I'd imagine the Breaker Cannon is made of. A sh*t-load of impact applied over a broad contact area, sometimes enough to cause [metal] splinters inside a tank or building from the shockwave, all without really penetrating a single centimeter. Ofc, such a thing should make a bit of a clumsy projectile.

CYB Monstrous: currently way sucks, as mentioned. Simply because the effing damage system seems to amplify damage because of the thing's -15 MV score. It should, with a better implementation, be a multi-mecha wrecking machine that just keeps absorbing damage though it can be outrunned. And its auxilliary guns need to be computer-controlled and not manually fired, sheesh.

[PlaintextMan]

I've compiled and ran combat_test.pas. Totally lurving it.

I've though about a generalized damage model, and I conclude four basic weapon attributes. I think there is just one more attribute to be added into the mix, bringing us to these:

• Damage (stopping power). Basic amount of damaging energy the projectile/beam transfers to target.
• Penetration factor. How much the projectile/beam is biased between penetration and slamming/splashing. This should be a multiplier/fraction that determines how much energy is actually transferred into any layer of specific hardness/viscosity/thickness (armor value) upon connecting with it.
• Speed of targeting/aiming. (or "base targeting delay"; faster targeting counters target mobility)
• Shot grouping / Accuracy. Some weapons are accurate (near-perfect grouping at long ranges) but are slow to aim, such as a tank round. Others are fast to aim but have bad grouping making them impractical at range, such as a handheld sub-machinegun.

I think that reload time should then be called "weapon (re)cycle time" instead of "speed" as it was in GH1.

I think I should write a test program similiar to combat_test using this model... later.

[PlaintextMan]

Sorry for triple posting and yet again digging up this aged thread

I've designed a (I hope simple but interesting) tohit/damage system concept with Gearhead roughly in mind. I am now working on a test program, much like combat_test, that that implements this system in C++, to see how well it works. I'm trying to contribute to a change in GH's combat system by making this prototype instead of only throwing another opinion on the opinion heap.

The system, by the way, takes evasion, weapon targetting speed, target apparent size, pilot skills and weapon shot grouping into account for to-hit. It takes damage class, armor score and penetration coefficient into account for damage calculation (with simple layers of armor being damaged and penetrated). Hopefully I also get to BV (which I'm calling Burst Count) and rapid fire, and then (hopefully) for the first time, rapid fire (eg. machine cannon) and burst count (eg. scatter gun) will work in seperate ways, and theoretically damage output will equal DCxBC if all the shots in a burst connect.

I plan to post the code along with a document clearly explaining the system's working on the forum once I'm finished. Which should be less than two weeks from now. ATM I'm making a simple ncurses interface so Linux/*nix only, for now.

I hope there is interest.