Forums of the Megaverse®

Chris0013 wrote:Is Wolff's armor from Scott's flashback in there? With a decent picture??

What of Lunk's Big gun o' pimp slap? again...with decent picture??

Lunk's gun is there. I don't agree with what it is, but the damage is good.

I haven't spotted the armor though

And stated in another thread. Most equipment has a picture, save for a single motorcycle.

thank u Tiree

Tiree wrote:Okay quick rundown:

Background Information
* Earther
* Spacer
* Half-Breeds (Yes, Half Zent's and Tiroleans)
* New Skills (this is located after OCC's but fits best under this heading)

OCC's
* Freedom Fighter - w/ 4 MOSs
* Patcher (Mechanic)
* Pathfinder (Wilderness Scout)
* Urchin - w/ 4 subcategories/special abilities
* Wasteland Rider (basic thug - really haven't looked at it much)
* Invid Genetic Experiment
* Invid Cybernetic Experiment

IMU's (FrankenMecha)
* Rules on How to build
* Ares
* Typhoon (Hover Cyclone)
* WidowMaker

Vehicles
* 3 New Motorcyles (+1 Reprint Hovercycle) 2 new Images
* 2 Trucks, 2 New Images
* 2 Boats, 2 New Images

Weapons
* 6 Weapons and/or Weapon Systems, 6 Images

New Rules Information
* Starvation
* Hostile Environments
* Salvage
* Trading
* Salvage Tables

Information On Invid Occupied Earth
* Regional Information

Invid
* Brains
* Invid Prince/Princesses (They are quite a beast!)
* Regess
* Hives
* Protoculture Farms
* Invid Flower of Life (goes over details of certain aspects of the flower)
* Genesis Pits

Character Bios
* Rand
* Rook
* Lancer
* Lunk
* Annie
* Corg
* Sera

Tiree wrote:And stated in another thread. Most equipment has a picture, save for a single motorcycle.

Well the "Warthog" is "not actually one particular design, but is a general name for a number of old, large cruiser-style motorcycles that have been hevily modified, armored and often armed." (pg53) Given that text description it is understandable why there are no illustrations.

Tiree wrote:

Chris0013 wrote:What of Lunk's Big gun o' pimp slap? again...with decent picture??

Lunk's gun is there. I don't agree with what it is, but the damage is good.

I had assumed the "RL-4" from the Masters Sourcebook was Lunk's gun.

I got will
I got will
I got will
I got will
!!!!!
will tell u what I think !!!

Tiree wrote:

Chris0013 wrote:What of Lunk's Big gun o' pimp slap? again...with decent picture??

Lunk's gun is there. I don't agree with what it is, but the damage is good.

I always assumed it was a beam gun of some kind.

ESalter wrote:I had assumed the "RL-4" from the Masters Sourcebook was Lunk's gun.

No, it wasn't.

Arnie100 wrote:

Tiree wrote:

Chris0013 wrote:What of Lunk's Big gun o' pimp slap? again...with decent picture??

Lunk's gun is there. I don't agree with what it is, but the damage is good.

I always assumed it was a beam gun of some kind.

in the show it had a visual and audio effect different from the beamweapons in use, more like a projectile weapon. the weapon itself looked rather like an old style 20mm anti-tank rifle given a modern-tech makeover.

what does the RPG claim it is?

glitterboy2098 wrote:what does the RPG claim it is?

Experimental protoculture-powered rail gun. Which means the Invid can detect this thing? Yeah?

Arnie100 wrote:

glitterboy2098 wrote:what does the RPG claim it is?

Experimental protoculture-powered rail gun. Which means the Invid can detect this thing? Yeah?

I'm not going to make it a prototype. Since the UEDF has had rail gun tech since the 1st Robotech war (Officer Pods have 44mm rail cannons, and the SDF-1 has large rail cannons) it would be pretty easy reverse engineer. Thus some sort of anti-mecha weapon could be made utilizing the 44mm rail gun slug. Sure it would big an heavy and require some sort of back pack style energy source. The weapon would most likely be vehicle mounted, but a two man team could use it like a sniper weapon.

i have been reading slowly and so far it better even with a few typos /mistakes
love the O.C.C better skills then the first invid invasion book IMHO
love the stinger mecha
more later

compact Robotech sheet
FOR Robotech R.P.G The Macross Sourcebook or
Robotech R.P.G The Masters Sourcebook or
Robotech R.P.G The Shadow Chronicles or
Robotech New Generation™ Sourcebook

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv23 ... 1323737581
i wish i could put in Microsoft word or PDF


oh thank you
13105 viewer
and 876 Replies

ROBOTECH SHEET VF-1 class with cyclone.pdf

<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?tk1sdoqfa4brwsp" target="_blank">http://www.mediafire.com/?tk1sdoqfa4brwsp</a>
OK this a test

compact Robotech sheet
FOR Robotech R.P.G The Macross Sourcebook or
Robotech R.P.G The Masters Sourcebook or
Robotech R.P.G The Shadow Chronicles or
Robotech New Generation™ Sourcebook


ROBOTECH SHEET General Mecha AND cyclone

http://www.mediafire.com/?b1niqsgwzzxaz8s

ROBOTECH SHEET Macros Destroids
http://www.mediafire.com/?2bh2akbjdw4q4i6

ROBOTECH MACROSS SAGA SHEET VF 1 macross only all
http://www.mediafire.com/?z6pvn7oad9y8uum

I picked up a copy two days ago........from a GM POV, i like this book....some of the art is from the 1st ed. Invid Invasion book.
The IMU section could have been better. Ok, why are the Invid Experiments full O.C.C.s, they should be a template added to an O.C.C.

ROBOTECH INVID SHEET vehicle
<a href="http://www.mediafire.com/?afhtyycd1gtrchr" target="_blank">http://www.mediafire.com/?afhtyycd1gtrchr</a>

Snake Eyes wrote:I picked up a copy two days ago........from a GM POV, i like this book....some of the art is from the 1st ed. Invid Invasion book.
The IMU section could have been better. Ok, why are the Invid Experiments full O.C.C.s, they should be a template added to an O.C.C.

If you are interested I did a parts compatibility list so that you don't end up with things like the ares.......

jaymz wrote:

Snake Eyes wrote:I picked up a copy two days ago........from a GM POV, i like this book....some of the art is from the 1st ed. Invid Invasion book.
The IMU section could have been better. Ok, why are the Invid Experiments full O.C.C.s, they should be a template added to an O.C.C.

If you are interested I did a parts compatibility list so that you don't end up with things like the ares.......

cool, shoot me a copy

Snake Eyes wrote:

jaymz wrote:

Snake Eyes wrote:I picked up a copy two days ago........from a GM POV, i like this book....some of the art is from the 1st ed. Invid Invasion book.
The IMU section could have been better. Ok, why are the Invid Experiments full O.C.C.s, they should be a template added to an O.C.C.

If you are interested I did a parts compatibility list so that you don't end up with things like the ares.......

cool, shoot me a copy

same here thanks

Just picked up my copy of the New Generation Sourcebook and I'm a little curious as to why you didn't print it in the same smaller format you used for the other Robotech Saga books?

Be nice, folks…

SRoss wrote:Just picked up my copy of the New Generation Sourcebook and I'm a little curious as to why you didn't print it in the same smaller format you used for the other Robotech Saga books?

Long, enduring story. But seeing this is your first post, I'll be nice

Bottom line...they sucked: 1) nobody used them as "mobile pocket books" like they were advertised to be and 2) they didnt stay open when you put the book down, which really blows when you use both your hands to type and you were trying to go through character creation. Basically, manga sized books work for...manga...a book that you read cover to cover...not flip through back and fourth and reference during character creation and game play of an RPG. The standard sized books stay open when you put them down.

Plus the majority of fans didn't want them in the first place.

Basically, Palladium listened to feedback from the fans and went back to a format they were good at, despite a few people actually liking the smaller formatted books (I was not one of them).

Snake Eyes wrote:Ok, why are the Invid Experiments full O.C.C.s, they should be a template added to an O.C.C.

The very nature of the game's classes results in a fixed snapshot rather than an organically developed character: look at the "Communications Engineer" from the Macross Sourcebook, for instance.

ESalter wrote:

Snake Eyes wrote:Ok, why are the Invid Experiments full O.C.C.s, they should be a template added to an O.C.C.

The very nature of the game's classes results in a fixed snapshot rather than an organically developed character: look at the "Communications Engineer" from the Macross Sourcebook, for instance.

With a little work (additional character creation tables) an organically developed character can be created. I've gone so far as to make up a table to determine one's Social Background and education. I've developed further tables that will map out a character military service history.

"With a little work," he says…

How do I say this without it coming off as a rant? When D&D third edition was published, the Palladium house system became the uncontested winner of the "most inflexible character creation system in print" award. It's possible to add flexibility to it; but in my experience, doing so largely involves rebuilding it from the ground up — something that many of us simply don't have time for.

That said, on the subject of Palladium's class system: they could have treated the Invid Experiments as if they were RCCs — a package of powers and drawbacks that gets added to your choice of suitable OCCs. As I've mentioned somewhere, that's what I've done: I've stripped out the skill selections from the Genetic and Bionic Experiments and turned them into the basis for two "new" OCCs: the Earth-Born Vagabond and the Spacer Civilian, respectively. (Don't ask me how Spacer civilians found their way to Earth during the Invid occupation; I expect that nearly every off-worlder who ends up on Earth will have one of the military OCCs from TSC. But waste not, want not: the skill-set for the Bionics Experiment is set up to handle nonmilitary off-wielders, so I might as well put it to use.)

The fault i see with the invid experiments is the fact that, for the cyber-experiment the character is supposed to have a military background, yet they can't select any mecha skills

Snake Eyes wrote:The fault i see with the invid experiments is the fact that, for the cyber-experiment the character is supposed to have a military background, yet they can't select any mecha skills

not everyone in the military is a fighter-pilot... maybe the military background is cook.

Colonel Wolfe wrote:

Snake Eyes wrote:The fault i see with the invid experiments is the fact that, for the cyber-experiment the character is supposed to have a military background, yet they can't select any mecha skills

not everyone in the military is a fighter-pilot... maybe the military background is cook.

Or a medic or a technical officer that maintains the dilithium protoculture matrix chamber...

I don't see them as having a military background; I see them as having a generic spacer background. Which is not a defense of the New Gen Sourcebook, or of the Invid Experiments as OCCs.

Really, the shortsighted nature of the Class system is on full display here: the assumption is that the writers of the book know better what the player characters should be like than the players do. By the simple expedient of changing the Invid Experiments into RCCs, I opened up a whole realm of story possibilities, such as a batch of kids (Urchins) who get rescued from an Invid Hive where they had been subjected to Experimentation. You can't do that with the regular OCCs. And imagine how much more story opportunities would exist if the OCCs were replaced by something with even a little more flexibility to it.

Maybe even — dare I dream? — some sort of point-buy setup that gives you the freedom to come up with your own character concept instead of being stuck playing a variation of whatever character concepts the writers had in mind.

jaymz wrote:

Colonel Wolfe wrote:

Snake Eyes wrote:The fault i see with the invid experiments is the fact that, for the cyber-experiment the character is supposed to have a military background, yet they can't select any mecha skills

not everyone in the military is a fighter-pilot... maybe the military background is cook.

Or a medic or a technical officer that maintains the dilithium protoculture matrix chamber...

I'll probably use the invid experiments as generic military backgrounds and as an addon to other O.C.C.s

Snake Eyes wrote:I'll probably use the invid experiments as generic military backgrounds and as an addon to other O.C.C.s

Not both of them. They make a point of saying that the vast majority of the Genetic Experiments were Earth-born, while the vast majority of the cybernetic experiments were spacers. The corresponding skill sets match — or, I suspect, the other way around: the bit about the inexplicable bias in the selection process is there to justify the skill sets.

dataweaver wrote:"With a little work," he says…

How do I say this without it coming off as a rant? When D&D third edition was published, the Palladium house system became the uncontested winner of the "most inflexible character creation system in print" award. It's possible to add flexibility to it; but in my experience, doing so largely involves rebuilding it from the ground up — something that many of us simply don't have time for.

Lack of flexibility is a particular problem for a Robotech RPG, thematically: characters need to adapt.

dataweaver wrote:That said, on the subject of Palladium's class system: they could have treated the Invid Experiments as if they were RCCs — a package of powers and drawbacks that gets added to your choice of suitable OCCs.

I think an "RCC" is a race-restricted class; that's certainly what the Zentraedi RCCs were.

Gryphon wrote:Is all of the Moon base strictly military?

Maybe not; a civilian base might explain such a large base's existence when there were no servicemen on the moon.

Gryphon wrote:[T}here would be no interest in non-protoculture powered satellites....

I'm not sure about that; "conventional" satellites might be more difficult to find, but the Invid were sending up patrols...

Gryphon wrote:Admittedly there won't be any functional habitats up there...probably, but there will be elsewhere in the Earth system.

Mars and Venus, at least.

Gryphon wrote:Even if they were evacuated, many would require specialists to maintain, and rather than send in recently trained soldiers, volunteer civilians on long term retainers would make more sense in the long run.

I'd guess Scott spent most of his childhood on Mars; I believe there's a "Mars City" in GCM.

Gryphon wrote:It actually bothered me that the Moon Base in The Shadow Chronicles had no civilians at all, and apparently neither did Space Station Liberty.

Did we really see enough of either to know for sure?

ESalter wrote:

Gryphon wrote:Is all of the Moon base strictly military?

Maybe not; a civilian base might explain such a large base's existence when there were no servicemen on the moon.

IIRC, it's mentioned in The Art of Robotech: the Shadow Chronicles that the colonies on the moon and whatnot were originally civilian/research installations that were militarized during the latter part of the war with the Robotech Masters. In that sense, the answer is "yes and no". Yes, it's currently a military base, and No, it wasn't always thus.

ESalter wrote:

Gryphon wrote:[T}here would be no interest in non-protoculture powered satellites....

I'm not sure about that; "conventional" satellites might be more difficult to find, but the Invid were sending up patrols...

It'd be especially problematic/unwise in the context of the RPG, where the Invid can apparently see active fusion plants as easily as they see protoculture generators.

ESalter wrote:

Gryphon wrote:Admittedly there won't be any functional habitats up there...probably, but there will be elsewhere in the Earth system.

Mars and Venus, at least.

For the record, there is no concrete evidence to support the idea that Venus has been colonized or is the location of some manner of military base in Robotech. Mars and Jupiter, definitely (we see troops from either). Neptune is iffy, as that VF-13 Gamma Fighter isn't canon.

ESalter wrote:I'd guess Scott spent most of his childhood on Mars; I believe there's a "Mars City" in GCM.

Eh... it's actually called "Mars Colony", but w/e. Back in the original Genesis Climber MOSPEADA, Stick Bernard was a citizen of Mars colony, born and raised on the red planet. Earth was his first real encounter with another planet. (There's much more extensive colonization of Mars and other planets post-2012 in the original Macross than there is in either MOSPEADA or Robotech.)

Gryphon wrote:It might make it harder to find them, but their lack of protoculture power, coupled to their relative inactivity, would likely mean the Invid simply don't care what they were for. it's like how they manage to fool the Invid by acting like destroyed mecha...

Did that happen often? I can only recall one case off the top of my head ("Reflex Point"), and there the Invid were distracted by something else.

Gryphon wrote:...the Invid care if its A) Firing at them, B) powered by protoculture, and C) what does the Invid in charge say at that exact moment. If a patrol of boosted scouts flies within visual range of a functional satellite, they will ignore it if it doesn't fire at them, doesn't emit protoculture energy signatures, of a higher evolved/ranking Invid doesn't say specifically at that moment to frag it on a just in case basis.

Maybe there're standing orders to eliminate satellites.

Gryphon wrote:This is why I said "probably" when I referred to space habitats. The same would apply even though the habitat is significantly larger. No fire, no protoculture, and not orders to eliminate it means it will still be there...it might be a derelict, since its unlikely it will still have power, but it won;t be removed out of hand. Invid don't typically do out of hand, they need provocation or orders....

One the one hand, the Invid often leave human towns alone; on the other, humans in orbit are in a good position to drop things on the ground...

That's probably why the blue eyed in I'd were evolving

Gryphon wrote:To date it doesn't matter, of something isn't obviously a threat, as in actively attacking them, the Invid will ignore it, the OSM shows this, Robotech: TNG shows this, and the Robotech TNG RPG agrees with it. It's not even that Invid are stupid (they are actually, up until at least a certain level, and even those Invid are naive as all get out), It's just that they Invid aren't used to thinking everything they come across is a threat, serious or otherwise. Sure, your players might "educate" the Invid, or at least a specific group of them, differently, but overall the Invid are like insect, reactionary, not proactive in nature at all, not unless a Brain, an Enforcer (PCU, by the way, the names are switched here, teh power armor sized units should be enforcers of "law" and order, while the larger mecha should be soldier units), or something of higher discernment decides it doesn't like a particular piece of metal laying on the ground, or floating "harmlessly" through space.

I'm not disagreeing with you (I mean, the same things could be said about humans); but how do we know the "Invid Space Command" (or whatever) hasn't given orders for satellites to be sought and destroyed?

Gryphon wrote:...I also feel that after a time, some of the Invid might start to realize whats goign on and begin to direct a little additional attention to wreckage, just in case. Actually, wouldn't they at least strip out the protoculture cells form a downed mecha, theirs or otherwise?

A salvage team would arrive after our heroes are long gone, so it's hard to know. (Also, robotech mecha have a distressing tendency to explode at the slightest hit. )

Gryphon wrote:Well, that's because everything comes with a fairly testy self destruct system built right in!

Actually, I was wondering about this one myself. From a purely RPG point of view, why do all mecha have self destruct systems built in?

I think the reason why self destruct systems added to the game is because we see Rick self destruct his VT after Breetai beats the heck outta it with his bare hands and impales it to a bulkhead. I am partial to think that the 'self destruct' is really an overloading of the mecha's engines, and not purposely placed explosives meant to deny equipment to the enemy.

Gryphon wrote:Well, that's because everything comes with a fairly testy self destruct system built right in!

Actually, I was wondering about this one myself. From a purely RPG point of view, why do all mecha have self destruct systems built in?

jedi078's pretty much spot-on... it's a reasonable inference on Palladium's part, based on the self-destruct sequence that we see Hikaru/Rick's VF-1J do after he ejects during a fistfight with Britai/Breetai. At least according to the OSM, the VF-1 was given a self-destruct system to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy in the event it was captured. It turned out to be kind of pointless, since the Zentradi didn't have the technical skill set to reverse-engineer it anyway and the Zentradi rebels that eventually cropped up later on in Macross's main timeline had the knowledge and the skills to make capturing one for study pointless.

Self-destruct capability shows up in Macross, so the writers of the RPG are assuming that future mecha in the Robotech universe would share that capability. It seems like a safe-enough assumption to me.

Gryphon wrote:Well, that's because everything comes with a fairly testy self destruct system built right in!

Actually, I was wondering about this one myself. From a purely RPG point of view, why do all mecha have self destruct systems built in? I can't think of a military anywhere where this is considered a standard feature, except for possible stealth aircraft, and even then I can't say for sure. I know tanks, helicopters, sensitive communications transports, and apparently even fighters lack this feature in real life, so why was it added to basically everything in the game?!

FWIW, I think only VFs and certain other aircraft self-destruct.

Gryphon wrote: Actually, in most cases I would question the existence of basically any significant security system more sophisticated than a standard lock, mainly because of the existence of means and measures to counter potential theft of these devices, such as guards, patrols, base perimeters, large space going warship hulls wrapped around them, etc.

Any thoughts or experiences on this one? Anyone?

I'm guessing it's an idea of Siembieda's that carries across multiple games; the answer to your question might be found by learning which game it first appeared in. (It was in the 1E core book, at least.)

Per the 2E books....

UEDF Destroids, VHT, VHR, ASC Baatloids, ASC Power suits, Cyclones, and Silverbacks do not have a self destruct listed.

The VF-1, Logan, Ajax, Alpha, Beta, and do have a self destruct listed.

The Conbat, Condor, and Bioroid Interceptor are listed as having the same equipment and features as the Beta, so they too per the RAW, have self destruct systems.

It seems like the rational in the 2E books for self destruct depends on if the mecha can fly. Personally the idea of an a built in explosive charge for the distinct purpose of denying the mecha to the enemy is pretty dumb. What if somebody get's a lucky shot in and hit's said explosive charge? IMO said self destruct is a simple overload of the mecha reflex's engines. Pilot spends a few actions disabling the safeties, and then ejects (or doesn't) before the engine overloads one melee later.

Of course one has to wonder why one cannot do the same with a Destriod or other ground mecha to initiate a self destruct, so I guess any mecha's engines could be over loaded.

jedi078 wrote:Of course one has to wonder why one cannot do the same with a Destriod or other ground mecha to initiate a self destruct, so I guess any mecha's engines could be over loaded.

That actually makes perfect sense to me. The ability to disable hard safeties might not generally be allowed, at least not from inside the cockpit as a standard feature, both for safety and lowest common denominator reasons; there's teenagers could be piloting these things. The exception was made in certain mecha to enable self-destruct for the stated enemy denial because of the perceived value of these mecha, aided by more faith in the lowest common denominator of those designated to use those particular mecha.

jedi078 wrote:It seems like the rational in the 2E books for self destruct depends on if the mecha can fly. [...] IMO said self destruct is a simple overload of the mecha reflex's engines. Pilot spends a few actions disabling the safeties, and then ejects (or doesn't) before the engine overloads one melee later.

Um... there's a problem with that particular line of thought. Namely, a number of those mecha don't use reflex power plants for energy. The VF-1, etc. use fusion reactors for their power source. Why, then, would the destroids (which are also using fusion reactors) not have the capability?

Seto Kaiba wrote:

jedi078 wrote:It seems like the rational in the 2E books for self destruct depends on if the mecha can fly. [...] IMO said self destruct is a simple overload of the mecha reflex's engines. Pilot spends a few actions disabling the safeties, and then ejects (or doesn't) before the engine overloads one melee later.

Um... there's a problem with that particular line of thought. Namely, a number of those mecha don't use reflex power plants for energy. The VF-1, etc. use fusion reactors for their power source. Why, then, would the destroids (which are also using fusion reactors) not have the capability?

The team of engineers who designed destroids didnt get the requirement from the customer but the R&D division who made the flying mecha did perhaps? Point is, its canon that the ground mecha do not have the capability, yet flying mecha does. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it checks.

Sgt Anjay wrote:

jedi078 wrote:Of course one has to wonder why one cannot do the same with a Destriod or other ground mecha to initiate a self destruct, so I guess any mecha's engines could be over loaded.

That actually makes perfect sense to me. The ability to disable hard safeties might not generally be allowed, at least not from inside the cockpit as a standard feature, both for safety and lowest common denominator reasons; there's teenagers could be piloting these things. The exception was made in certain mecha to enable self-destruct for the stated enemy denial because of the perceived value of these mecha, aided by more faith in the lowest common denominator of those designated to use those particular mecha.

Kagashi wrote:The team of engineers who designed destroids didnt get the requirement from the customer but the R&D division who made the flying mecha did perhaps? Point is, its canon that the ground mecha do not have the capability, yet flying mecha does. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it checks.

@ Sgt Anjay and Kagashi: To me it makes no sense whatsoever to put self destruct devices on your jets, but not your tanks. In the grand scheme of things having either a tank or jet aircraft fall into enemy hands is a bad thing. Therefore if you’re going to put a self destruct device/capability in one, it might as well be in the other.

@ Sgt Anjay: The VT's are piloted by teenagers (both Max and Rick were in their teens) so I'm not even sure why your trying to use that to validate not having a self destruct device on some mecha but have it on others.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

jedi078 wrote:It seems like the rational in the 2E books for self destruct depends on if the mecha can fly. [...] IMO said self destruct is a simple overload of the mecha reflex's engines. Pilot spends a few actions disabling the safeties, and then ejects (or doesn't) before the engine overloads one melee later.

Um... there's a problem with that particular line of thought. Namely, a number of those mecha don't use reflex power plants for energy. The VF-1, etc. use fusion reactors for their power source. Why, then, would the destroids (which are also using fusion reactors) not have the capability?

Fusion, Reflex, it’s all the same to me. As far as I am concerned all mecha are powered by protoculture because otherwise it really isn’t Robotech which revolves around the control of the power source known as protoculture. Basically I'm not a fan of Tommy Yune's retcon's made to make Macross and Masters era mecha non protoculture powered.

As for the line of thought regarding only flying mecha having self destruct I agree, it makes no sense. Both air and ground mecha should have the capability to self destruct. Whether this is simply overloading the engines or purposely placed explosives the books don’t explain this.

honestly.. wouldn't overloading a fusion reaction be pretty bad? I know in mechwarrior.. it level city blocks

jedi078 wrote:

Sgt Anjay wrote:

jedi078 wrote:Of course one has to wonder why one cannot do the same with a Destriod or other ground mecha to initiate a self destruct, so I guess any mecha's engines could be over loaded.

That actually makes perfect sense to me. The ability to disable hard safeties might not generally be allowed, at least not from inside the cockpit as a standard feature, both for safety and lowest common denominator reasons; there's teenagers could be piloting these things. The exception was made in certain mecha to enable self-destruct for the stated enemy denial because of the perceived value of these mecha, aided by more faith in the lowest common denominator of those designated to use those particular mecha.

Kagashi wrote:The team of engineers who designed destroids didnt get the requirement from the customer but the R&D division who made the flying mecha did perhaps? Point is, its canon that the ground mecha do not have the capability, yet flying mecha does. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it checks.

@ Sgt Anjay and Kagashi: To me it makes no sense whatsoever to put self destruct devices on your jets, but not your tanks. In the grand scheme of things having either a tank or jet aircraft fall into enemy hands is a bad thing. Therefore if you’re going to put a self destruct device/capability in one, it might as well be in the other.

Well, firstly, there may be a reason related to the fact that aircraft pilots may eject before their machine is unsalvageable, while ground forces are expected to die with their machines enough to make the integration of self-destruct of negligible benefit. Then again, I also don't expect Robotech to harken 100% to the real world, since its so very clearly not the real world. I'm also not going to state that just because I can't think of a reason, doesn't mean no reason can exist why veritech aircraft were given self-destruct and ground mecha weren't.

jedi078 wrote:@ Sgt Anjay: The VT's are piloted by teenagers (both Max and Rick were in their teens) so I'm not even sure why your trying to use that to validate not having a self destruct device on some mecha but have it on others.

Were there teenagers envisioned to pilot them when they were designed? Rick and Max both were part of the program to train up any Macross Island civilians they could to defend the SDF-1. But really, the teenager thing is secondary, at best. The point is, I could see a military trusting the training given to veritech aircraft pilots more than they trusted the ground operators enough to integrate a system for one group but leaving it out for the others.

Kagashi wrote:The team of engineers who designed destroids didnt get the requirement from the customer but the R&D division who made the flying mecha did perhaps?

Doesn't quite work, both the destroids and the VFs were developed by the military in secret and there was clearly a decent amount of interchange between the teams, seeing as the head of Destroid development (Gen. Leonard) also had access to info about VF development thru legit channels. By the look of things, Robotech's mecha are developed in-house by the military itself rather than by a private company under contract the way real-world military development is done. Customer and developer are one and the same, so a lack of communication seems a little unreasonable.

Kagashi wrote:Point is, its canon that the ground mecha do not have the capability, yet flying mecha does. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it checks.

Um... what? What official, canon source says the ground mecha don't have self-destruct capability? Certainly nothing in OSM sources, and I can't find a thing about it in AoTSC or the Infopedia or any other indisputably canon source.

jedi078 wrote:Fusion, Reflex, it’s all the same to me. As far as I am concerned all mecha are powered by protoculture because otherwise it really isn’t Robotech which revolves around the control of the power source known as protoculture. Basically I'm not a fan of Tommy Yune's retcon's made to make Macross and Masters era mecha non protoculture powered.

Okay, that's your call... I'm not tryin' to tell you how you gotta run your game, I'm just raising the issue with respect to the current official Robotech continuity.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Kagashi wrote:The team of engineers who designed destroids didnt get the requirement from the customer but the R&D division who made the flying mecha did perhaps?

Doesn't quite work, both the destroids and the VFs were developed by the military in secret and there was clearly a decent amount of interchange between the teams, seeing as the head of Destroid development (Gen. Leonard) also had access to info about VF development thru legit channels. By the look of things, Robotech's mecha are developed in-house by the military itself rather than by a private company under contract the way real-world military development is done. Customer and developer are one and the same, so a lack of communication seems a little unreasonable.

That doesnt mean anything. No one single source could possibly develop, test, and mass produce all the mecha seen throughout the series. Even if it all fell under the same umbrella of a giant organization and even done in house, there would have to be various divisions to carry out the various projects. Even if customer and developer were one in the same, communication between the various divisions and departments would still have issues.

Seto Kaiba wrote:

Kagashi wrote:Point is, its canon that the ground mecha do not have the capability, yet flying mecha does. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it checks.

Um... what? What official, canon source says the ground mecha don't have self-destruct capability? Certainly nothing in OSM sources, and I can't find a thing about it in AoTSC or the Infopedia or any other indisputably canon source.

If you are looking for me to provide you with some sort of quote that says what I stated above word for word, you will be disappointed because it does not exist. But if you want me to explain, crack open your books and follow along:

Airborne assets:
Ajax and Logan: Item 10 Self Destruct: Masters pp 78-79
VF series Veritecs: Item 9 Self Destruct: Macross pp 55-59
Alphas: Item 8 Self Destruct: tSC Deluxe pp 65-67
Betas: Item 7 Self Destruct: tSC Deluxe pp 76-78
Bioroid Interceptor: Item 5 Sensor Suite and Other Equipment: p 85 ("same as Alpha")
Condor: Item 4 Sensors and Features of Note: p 88 ("Same as Beta") Not really an "airborne asset", but it was designed to be dropped from great heights and float down on their objectives.

Ground assets:
Spartas and Myrmidon: No self destruct listed: Masters pp 90-91
All ASC Battloids and Power Armors: No self destruct listed: Masters pp 105-107
All UEDF Destroids: No self destruct listed: Macross pp 25-27
UEEF Cyclones: No self destruct listed: tSC Deluxe pp 91-92

Further more, these units do not have any statements like the Bioroid Interceptor or Condor has that says "Same as Whatever Mecha". There is your canon source.

jedi078 wrote:

Kagashi wrote:The team of engineers who designed destroids didnt get the requirement from the customer but the R&D division who made the flying mecha did perhaps? Point is, its canon that the ground mecha do not have the capability, yet flying mecha does. Coincidence? Perhaps, but it checks.

@ Sgt Anjay and Kagashi: To me it makes no sense whatsoever to put self destruct devices on your jets, but not your tanks. In the grand scheme of things having either a tank or jet aircraft fall into enemy hands is a bad thing. Therefore if you’re going to put a self destruct device/capability in one, it might as well be in the other.

IDK. Didnt say it made sense. Just reinforcing your statement and observation that airborne assets have self destructs and ground based mecha do not while grabbing at some sense of reason. I dont know the answer why airborne assets self destruct, yet ground based assets do not. I can guess that it might be because Jason Marker wrote Masters/Macross and Siembieda wrote tSC. Perhaps Marker simply forgot to mention the ground based self destructs where as Siembieda remembered to do it for the Condor and the Bioroid Interceptor. Cyclones might just be too small to have the device installed.

Sgt Anjay wrote:Well, firstly, there may be a reason related to the fact that aircraft pilots may eject before their machine is unsalvageable, while ground forces are expected to die with their machines enough to make the integration of self-destruct of negligible benefit. Then again, I also don't expect Robotech to harken 100% to the real world, since its so very clearly not the real world. I'm also not going to state that just because I can't think of a reason, doesn't mean no reason can exist why veritech aircraft were given self-destruct and ground mecha weren't.

Not likely. UEDF Destroids have Ejection Systems (item 11 p 26) despite not having Self Destructs. Why give the pilot the option to eject if he was expected to die fighting? So he could die faster as an SDC squishy?

Self-destruct mechanisms aren't realistic; they're included (in the original show) because they're dramatic.