Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
Moderator: NecronLord
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
They did sell miniatures, with each miniature having a base the size of a single hex. It's not a huge hex really, a single hex in a BT game is 30m across. It's a good abstraction for a vehicle on the move, but not so when you're supposed to have a platoon of infantry occupying the same space.
-Gunhead
-Gunhead
"In the absence of orders, go find something and kill it."
-Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel
"And if you don't wanna feel like a putz
Collect the clues and connect the dots
You'll see the pattern that is bursting your bubble, and it's Bad" -The Hives
-Generalfeldmarschall Erwin Rommel
"And if you don't wanna feel like a putz
Collect the clues and connect the dots
You'll see the pattern that is bursting your bubble, and it's Bad" -The Hives
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
Hexes speed up play, though - it's quicker to calculate range by counting hexes than by breaking out a tape measure each time, and a BattleTech round takes long enough as it is.Stark wrote:Gunhead, the maps would STILL provide all that stuff without hexes. If the system had an option for measurement, it's strange to me that they used hexes at all. A lack of imagination, probably.
- LaCroix
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5196
- Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
- Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
True.eyl wrote:Hexes speed up play, though - it's quicker to calculate range by counting hexes than by breaking out a tape measure each time, and a BattleTech round takes long enough as it is.
The easiest solution would have been to sell carpet-sized maps in rolls and use real ranges... These fold-up maps were pretty useless, you had to use four or more of them, anyway, if you wanted a decent area to game on, even if you only used a lance on each side...
Have different damage values for weapon vs target, e.g. missiles/Flamethrowers doing huge amount of damage to infantry, a MG doing nothing to Mechs, etc... Make infantry easier to kill, a SRM squad is a mechkiller, and according to novels, they should be appetizers... Dropships are cannonfodder, but should be fortresses...
For tanks, leave them at 100 tons max, and make mechs in weight of 1000 tons, and using a x10 mod on their gun weight and damage. Make it so that their armor still is the same value per ton. Use some technobabble about reactors not usable in tanks and so they can't be larger... A bit of tweaking, and voila- a huge (and more realistic armored) machine, that can waste a tank by one shot, while a tank is rather flimsy and has a pew-pew-gun. Even a Locust(now 100 tons heavy, his Med lasers now dishing out 50 pts damage) could take on a 100 ton tank now and wipe the floor with it.
There are so many things wrong with the game, it's like they had a basic idea, worked out a first working version and then they stopped trying...
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
- Sarevok
- The Fearless One
- Posts: 10681
- Joined: 2002-12-24 07:29am
- Location: The Covenants last and final line of defense
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
Eh no. Battletech with mechs only would be boring. The support vehicles, tanks, helicopters etc spice up the game immensely. If you nerf them to the point of useless BT suddenly loses a lot of it's appeal.For tanks, leave them at 100 tons max, and make mechs in weight of 1000 tons, and using a x10 mod on their gun weight and damage. Make it so that their armor still is the same value per ton. Use some technobabble about reactors not usable in tanks and so they can't be larger... A bit of tweaking, and voila- a huge (and more realistic armored) machine, that can waste a tank by one shot, while a tank is rather flimsy and has a pew-pew-gun. Even a Locust(now 100 tons heavy, his Med lasers now dishing out 50 pts damage) could take on a 100 ton tank now and wipe the floor with it.
I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.
- LaCroix
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5196
- Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
- Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
Well, to me it lost it's appeal when a cheap tank could assrape pricy Mechs...Sarevok wrote:Eh no. Battletech with mechs only would be boring. The support vehicles, tanks, helicopters etc spice up the game immensely. If you nerf them to the point of useless BT suddenly loses a lot of it's appeal.For tanks, leave them at 100 tons max, and make mechs in weight of 1000 tons, and using a x10 mod on their gun weight and damage. Make it so that their armor still is the same value per ton. Use some technobabble about reactors not usable in tanks and so they can't be larger... A bit of tweaking, and voila- a huge (and more realistic armored) machine, that can waste a tank by one shot, while a tank is rather flimsy and has a pew-pew-gun. Even a Locust(now 100 tons heavy, his Med lasers now dishing out 50 pts damage) could take on a 100 ton tank now and wipe the floor with it.
According to the books, Mechs could nearly ignore all other combatants for them being powerless against them. You don't get that feeling when you play that game. Not at all...
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
- Sarevok
- The Fearless One
- Posts: 10681
- Joined: 2002-12-24 07:29am
- Location: The Covenants last and final line of defense
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
Actually most players I know of have the exact opposite complaint.
They think mechs are too overpowered.
They think mechs are too overpowered.
I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.
- LaCroix
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 5196
- Joined: 2004-12-21 12:14pm
- Location: Sopron District, Hungary, Europe, Terra
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
Then they were battling on tonnage grounds. If you use C-notes to do battle, you always win if you buy tanks. For the same price, they have twice or three times the oomph.Sarevok wrote:Actually most players I know of have the exact opposite complaint.
They think mechs are too overpowered.
Like in real life, the side investing their money into walking armor will be defeated.
(My worst nightmare was a Lance of Mechs against their value in infantry and Savannah Masters...)
A minute's thought suggests that the very idea of this is stupid. A more detailed examination raises the possibility that it might be an answer to the question "how could the Germans win the war after the US gets involved?" - Captain Seafort, in a thread proposing a 1942 'D-Day' in Quiberon Bay
I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
I do archery skeet. With a Trebuchet.
- The Dark
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 7378
- Joined: 2002-10-31 10:28pm
- Location: Promoting ornithological awareness
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
Stark wrote:Quote something official saying weapon ranges have been reduced for gameplay mechanics. Since all the books were BASED on gameplay mechanics for ages, I'll enjoy this. Amusingly Gundam shows how easy it is to build your setting around a desired type of combat; Battletech didn't even bother.
Concession accepted.Classic BattleTech: Total Warfare, page 36 wrote: A NOTE ON SCALE AND THE RULES
...
[P]layers should note that such "real world" terms are abstractions when applied to the board game.
...
Weapon ranges provide another example. Players will quickly realize that the longest-range standard weapon in the game can only hit targets out to thirty hexes (900 meters) from the attacker. Real-world primary main battle tank weapons have operational targeting ranges in excess of 4,000 meters. Because Classic BattleTech mapsheets are only 17 hexes long, recreating real-world ranges on a table would require more than seven mapsheets laid end to end, for a playing space greater than twelve feet in length. Not many people have that type of table space, nor would it provide players with any tactical maneuvering room. Anywhere a player might move a unit on the map, an attacker could hit that unit.
...
Players are encouraged to remember such abstractions and not get bogged down in real-world mechanics and physics.
BattleTech for SilCoreStanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
- Batman
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 16432
- Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
- Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
...which curiously enough fails to mention that actual BT weapon ranges are any longer.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
- Connor MacLeod
- Sith Apprentice
- Posts: 14065
- Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
- Contact:
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
Don't most BT mechs tend to operate more like oversized infantry? I vaguely recall you have a single pilot whereas most other military vehicles tend to have a crew, so fighting the vehicle is going to impose limitations and probably affect things like range. This might tie in with any sort of cultural imperative driving mech-oriented combat thay may exist.
(and yes I know that doesn't automatically improve competence or make it any less realistic, I'm just looking for some way to make sense of it.)
For the record this probably isn't limited to Battletech either. I've run across similar problems with Renegade legion (tanks as big as a starfighter having single digit km ranges for hypervelocity railguns and lasers, despite the fact fighters have longer ranges. Likewise scaling up from capital ships to fighters in terms of power/mass ratios or acceleration is fucked up too.)
(and yes I know that doesn't automatically improve competence or make it any less realistic, I'm just looking for some way to make sense of it.)
For the record this probably isn't limited to Battletech either. I've run across similar problems with Renegade legion (tanks as big as a starfighter having single digit km ranges for hypervelocity railguns and lasers, despite the fact fighters have longer ranges. Likewise scaling up from capital ships to fighters in terms of power/mass ratios or acceleration is fucked up too.)
- Batman
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 16432
- Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
- Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
I don't see why weapon ranges would be affected by the Mech being operated by a single pilot (nor do they get any better for crewed vehicles using the exact same weapon). At worst, I can see it affecting accuracy, and even that should cease to be a problem if your Mech is stationary, the target is stationary, and especially if both are. I don't think there's any significant range increase in those situations.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
- 18-Till-I-Die
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 7271
- Joined: 2004-02-22 05:07am
- Location: In your base, killing your d00ds...obviously
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
This may sound silly but couldn't we just GUESS at what the ranges are?
I mean a BattleTech autocannon isn't that different than say a large caliber cannon on Earth right? Like, what, 30mm? I would imagine it wouldn't be that far off to just take it as read that their guns have the same ranges as ours for the sake of a versus argument. Unless they use railguns and just call them "autocannons", and why they'd do that I have no idea. Also we know lasers would, most likely, be limited by line of sight and dissipation from the air so that could be estimated if they ever mentioned what kind of output the lasers have.
That doesn't fix the core problem but it makes things easier in a debate. It wouldn't help with the particle cannons or missiles since we don't know what kind of warheads they have, or the guass guns, but it'd make the other weapons somewhat easier to wrap one's head around.
I mean a BattleTech autocannon isn't that different than say a large caliber cannon on Earth right? Like, what, 30mm? I would imagine it wouldn't be that far off to just take it as read that their guns have the same ranges as ours for the sake of a versus argument. Unless they use railguns and just call them "autocannons", and why they'd do that I have no idea. Also we know lasers would, most likely, be limited by line of sight and dissipation from the air so that could be estimated if they ever mentioned what kind of output the lasers have.
That doesn't fix the core problem but it makes things easier in a debate. It wouldn't help with the particle cannons or missiles since we don't know what kind of warheads they have, or the guass guns, but it'd make the other weapons somewhat easier to wrap one's head around.
Kanye West Saves.
- Nephtys
- Sith Acolyte
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: 2005-04-02 10:54pm
- Location: South Cali... where life is cheap!
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
Well. The rule of thumb is a Mech will be an even match to a vehicle of one higher weight class. So a light mech is a good match for a medium tank. A medium mech for a heavy tank, etc.
The in-universe reasoning I suppose can come from both the fact that Mechs (and similarly, Aerospace Fighters) are prestigious armaments, operated by one very highly trained pilot. In a universe of limited space transit capacity, every ton counts. And for whatever reason, these two types of weapons are ton for ton more efficient. Likewise, their pilots are generally more elite than vehicle crews, or pilots of pure atmos fighters.
While any c-bills value in tanks is going to trash the same in mechs, the succession wars and their like have changed war to be about surgical strikes to take valuable single planets or cities or whatnot. Hesperus II for example, was fought over for one damn factory how many times?
The in-universe reasoning I suppose can come from both the fact that Mechs (and similarly, Aerospace Fighters) are prestigious armaments, operated by one very highly trained pilot. In a universe of limited space transit capacity, every ton counts. And for whatever reason, these two types of weapons are ton for ton more efficient. Likewise, their pilots are generally more elite than vehicle crews, or pilots of pure atmos fighters.
While any c-bills value in tanks is going to trash the same in mechs, the succession wars and their like have changed war to be about surgical strikes to take valuable single planets or cities or whatnot. Hesperus II for example, was fought over for one damn factory how many times?
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
ISTR the blurb at the end of Wolves on the Border specifying that PPCs theoretically have LOS range.18-Till-I-Die wrote:This may sound silly but couldn't we just GUESS at what the ranges are?
I mean a BattleTech autocannon isn't that different than say a large caliber cannon on Earth right? Like, what, 30mm? I would imagine it wouldn't be that far off to just take it as read that their guns have the same ranges as ours for the sake of a versus argument. Unless they use railguns and just call them "autocannons", and why they'd do that I have no idea. Also we know lasers would, most likely, be limited by line of sight and dissipation from the air so that could be estimated if they ever mentioned what kind of output the lasers have.
That doesn't fix the core problem but it makes things easier in a debate. It wouldn't help with the particle cannons or missiles since we don't know what kind of warheads they have, or the guass guns, but it'd make the other weapons somewhat easier to wrap one's head around.
Also, I have a recollection of some Level 3 (i.e. non-tournament) rules for "real" ranges, but I can't remember where I saw them.
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
FanPro line is that the "game range are meant for simulation" purposes, however, they don't offer anything else for "real" values, although they did highlight the game varying ranges by increasing the RPG values further.Sarevok wrote:So how far can Battletech weapons really shoot ? I am told the board game rules are fake. And what about relative weapon ranges ? As in gauss rifle range > AC5 range > AC20 range ? Does fluff ranges mean a short range brawler/city fighter Hunchback's can now headshot a sniper mech like the Gauss rifle armed Hollander at 3000 m with a AC20 now ?
Sorry BT fans but even as someone whose first PC game was Mechwarrior 2 some of the claims about BT in online debates irk me. Versus debate Battletech is nothing like the FASA/Catalyst Labs published game I know of.
The problems with "relative" ranges rests primarily in the AT rules and application. AT use short, medium and long ranges only unlike the more specific hex based system. There is still a relative range increase, such as LRM are longer range than large lasers which are longer than AC/20 and etc.
The question is how does one wish to reconcile everything together.
I haven't seen the latest from Cray and the rest of the board, but essentially, they say the weapons have a longer range in universe, but are shortened to board game rules effectively.
I take a slightly different approach. I believe that the ranges do reflect effective range, but the difference in ranges applies to different contexts of effective range. The game simulation doesn't cover the difference in effective range accurately, but it does so "generally" enough. So, a large laser does have an effective range of 450m against mechs and tanks in the fast paced combat of the battletech board game, but its lethality against units might be somewhat longer, especially when used against unarmoured targets.
The rest simply rest in how one wish to balance the various retcon and etc such a balancing act required.
Nope. The game range of 450m for the SRM is the board game extreme range rules.GuppyShark wrote:The ranges were longer in the computer games, because the tabletop "game mechanics" ranges would not have been plausible from an in-cockpit perspective.
Essentially, the ranges at which the weapons hit but the targeting lock doesn't turn red or lock on reflects the extreme range rules. You can test this via large lasers, where the bolt travels, but do no damage whatsoever past extreme range rules.
Because the Mad Cat cockpit isn't over the engine unlike true torso cockpits. Its not as if we weren't told radiation did pose a problem with regards to the Bushwhacker, and indeed, those problems were solved when the Feds copied the Mad Dog design.Amusingly there was not only no reason to use such ridiculous ranges originally, but little chance they'll ever change. Time to deal with 'Battletech is fucking stupid' again, I guess.
Can someone explain to me how 'torso cockpits' entail all kinds of penalties due to raditation or whatever the fuck but Mad Cats exist? :V
Aren't LRMs basically unguided anyway? The only possible limiation is propellant.
As for LRMs......... you want to hear my retcon or the official party line?:D
My retcon is that Battlemechs effective ranges in combat is limited primarily by armour and the capabilities of Battletech targeting/gear. The armour is tough enough, counter jamming and targeting limitation high enough that mechs have to rely on an equivalent of spray and pray to gain effective hits against mech armour.
The Proof? Well.......
Operation Stilleto says mech weapons are optimised to hit targets at ranges of kilometers only, explaining mechs targeting difficulties re space combat against fast moving, distant targets.
We know that mech armour is supposed to protect against hits via reradiation and deflection from the armour description. The rules and novel description add a reactive armour component to armour.
Both fluff text as well as game rules state that armoured tanks, mechs and aerospace fighters are armoured "differently". Mechs are the heaviest protected, vehicles second, fighters the least, however, one ton of standard armour gives an effective 16 points protection for these 3 units. Hence, the protection must be in vulnerability. We do see this reflected ingame via the critical hits rules. A mech may suffer a critical hit that endanger the center torso, a tank, which is lesser "armoured" suffers more potential critical hits to vulnerable components and the aerospace fighter offers the least protection against critical hits.
Armour thus works to protect a unit in two ways. It prevents damage similar to modern day armour, at closer ranges, weapons fire are able to more accurately target and penetrate the armour. If the armour is unable to deflect the hit, then it scarifices itself to absorb the damage. The "thinness" of the armour allows critical hits.
Don't ask further questions.
To give some illustration, essentially, a mech fires a large laser at another mech. The armour is tough enough that while the laser can travel up to kilometers and be lethal(as seen in AT), the armour can effective absorb and reradiate energy enough that a "precise" hit is required. A 0.8s blast(extrapolated from Solaris rules vis a vis LRMs and ballistic weapons) spread over too wide an area does not score an effective hit against the armour that causes it to ablate. The fact that mechs are said to routinely dodge weapons fire in Solaris , that immobile mechs as opposed to standing still mechs have a negative to hit factor all support the argument that mech pilots use movement to use the armour to protect themselves.
So, why the longer ranges against AT forces? Lesser protection, allowing the same powered weapons to score effective hits that ablate armour at longer ranges.
The RPG and infantry combat in BattleTroops reflect different... contexts of engagement that allows for longer/shorter ranges respectively.
So...... why do LRMs work? Essentially, spray and pray. Its the standard Robotech barrage. Why such a barrage and hits are spread? Essentially, the missiles are fired at enemy targets and its "hoped" that they will cause "lucky" hits against the armour that will cause the armour to ablate, hitting "weak spots". Such a methodology will explain the poor hit ratio of LRMs and the random spread nature of such a hit. Its essentially lucky hits that cause the armour to ablate.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
Anyone can PLEASE, PLEASE, help me find that damn Age of War quote about how war became ritualised and duels, hence, the popularity of mechs? I could only find a supporting quote from Liao FM.....Nephtys wrote:Well. The rule of thumb is a Mech will be an even match to a vehicle of one higher weight class. So a light mech is a good match for a medium tank. A medium mech for a heavy tank, etc.
The in-universe reasoning I suppose can come from both the fact that Mechs (and similarly, Aerospace Fighters) are prestigious armaments, operated by one very highly trained pilot. In a universe of limited space transit capacity, every ton counts. And for whatever reason, these two types of weapons are ton for ton more efficient. Likewise, their pilots are generally more elite than vehicle crews, or pilots of pure atmos fighters.
While any c-bills value in tanks is going to trash the same in mechs, the succession wars and their like have changed war to be about surgical strikes to take valuable single planets or cities or whatnot. Hesperus II for example, was fought over for one damn factory how many times?
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
I didn't notice this but there isn't a need to guess. We know from AT what the effective ranges are via the short, medium, long range profile. 6km and etc.18-Till-I-Die wrote:This may sound silly but couldn't we just GUESS at what the ranges are?
I mean a BattleTech autocannon isn't that different than say a large caliber cannon on Earth right? Like, what, 30mm? I would imagine it wouldn't be that far off to just take it as read that their guns have the same ranges as ours for the sake of a versus argument. Unless they use railguns and just call them "autocannons", and why they'd do that I have no idea. Also we know lasers would, most likely, be limited by line of sight and dissipation from the air so that could be estimated if they ever mentioned what kind of output the lasers have.
That doesn't fix the core problem but it makes things easier in a debate. It wouldn't help with the particle cannons or missiles since we don't know what kind of warheads they have, or the guass guns, but it'd make the other weapons somewhat easier to wrap one's head around.
The real problem is how the game "translates" ranges.
An aerospace fighter engaging another aerospace fighter? Oooh, kilometers range. Engage a mech? Well, the aerospace fighter must now go into CAS mode instead of peppering the mech from 20km in the air.(Er, I'm not used to the post BMR conversion to AT/BT intergration. If I'm wrong, please correct me)
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
-
- Youngling
- Posts: 51
- Joined: 2006-05-30 09:50pm
Re: Battletech weapon ranges - REAL RANGES
The rules for actual mech weapons ranges against ground targets are in Tactical Ops. From memory, correct me if I'm off a hex here, every weapon with a hex range of 7 or more has line of sight range. Call it ~12km or so. Weapons that hit at that range suffer damage degradation depending on weapon class. Gauss weapons take a smaller hit than autocannons etc. There is a large penalty to hit, but it's also easy to make up. For starters, without getting into more exotic stuff like actuator enhancement or pilot quirks for long range shooting, mount the classic large pulse laser targeting computer combo in an arm. Then stand still and brace the arm. That gets you a -4 to hit.eyl wrote:Also, I have a recollection of some Level 3 (i.e. non-tournament) rules for "real" ranges, but I can't remember where I saw them.
This kind of range is backed up by Strategic Operations that says a mech in space has a maximum range of 18km due to targeting system limitations.