On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)
<h1 id="title">Elliquiy Role Playing Forums</h1>
		<h2 id="linktree">Play-By-Post: Bondage, D/s, S&amp;M =&gt; Bondage: Human Small Groups =&gt; Topic started by: Wargtass on 03-12-2012, 12:19:51</h2>
		<dl id="posts">
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Wargtass</strong> on <strong>03-12-2012, 12:19:51</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<span style="font-size: 24pt;" class="bbc_size"><span style="font-family: impact;" class="bbc_font">Project: BattleTech</span></span><br><br>Thread dedicated to further development of the BattleTech 3049 RP. The goal is to develop a system for high tier player capacity on a multi-mission base with an overarching plot-line. Or something like that.<br><br><span style="font-family: impact;" class="bbc_font"><span style="font-size: 18pt;" class="bbc_size">Things done, partially or fully (may be further polished later on):</span></span><br><br><ul class="bbc_list"><li><strong>Lance-Leader/co-DMing:</strong> <em>Co-DM's being named Lieutenant Lance-Leaders and being appointed CO's of 1-3 Lances for each mission. He/she in turn choose LL's for the different Lances during the duration of the mission.</em></li><li><strong>Mission Allotment:</strong> <em>Missions are created regularly by the DM's and put up on a Mission Allotment-thread where Lieutenants can then bid for missions. Once a mission is allotted they may recruit MechWarriors from the Company pool through a Recruitment Thread much like a Wanted-thread. Once the Mission is under way it can only be terminated through completion, failure or retreat after which the MechWarriors are returned to the pool.</em></li><li><strong>ISN:</strong> <em>The Inner Sphere News Network: A sort of status update on territories, timelines and general BattleTech Fluff. Might need some editors?</em></li></ul><br><span style="font-family: impact;" class="bbc_font"><span style="font-size: 18pt;" class="bbc_size">Things needing figuring out:</span></span><br><br><ul class="bbc_list"><li><strong>'Mech Allowance:</strong> <em>Which 'Mechs are allowed, when does Clan/Lostech become available, when does Clan-'Mechs become available?</em></li><li><strong>Faction Basing:</strong> <em>How many of each faction can be supported, should there be a quota to discourage faction-bias in the Company, should it be equal or relative to faction size/rarity, when does Clan-based bondmen/women become valid?</em></li><li><strong>Mission creation:</strong> <em>Should there be some sort of norm for creating missions? How do we set a value on the mission? Maps or no? Difficulty curves or no? How to interpret Missions.</em></li><li><strong>Salvage and Modification</strong> <em>How to balance it?</em></li></ul><br>Discussion on the different topics should be clearly labeled as to avoid confusion.<br><br>If you wish to add a topic to the <em>Things needing figuring out</em>-list, say so and I shall comply. Items in the <em>Things needing figuring out</em>-list will be moved or discarded once a decision is made or consensus reached.<br><br><hr><br>IC Thread (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=158161.0)<br>OOC Thread (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=157975.0)<br>Character Thread (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=157978.0)<br>Mission Breifings (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=157976.0)<br>Project Development (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.0)<br>Deleted Scenes (http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=161278.0)
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Phaia</strong> on <strong>03-12-2012, 15:24:42</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				count me as interested!!<br><br>Phaia
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Lady Quixote</strong> on <strong>04-12-2012, 01:27:28</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<strong>Faction Basing:</strong> I think this is mostly a non-issue, assuming the idea is for each lance (or company) is going to be a Merc unit it's not unheard of for a merc unit to be faction specific or bias against another faction.&nbsp; Clan based bondsmen, I would probably pass on this.&nbsp; It was very, very rare for a bondsman to ever get bumped up to being in a mech again and even if they do not being trueborn most will never see front line action.&nbsp; If we are not allowing a Clan based units I'd leave out the whole idea of bondsmen (I'm also not aware of anyone escaping after being captured).<br><br><strong>Mech Allowance:</strong>&nbsp; there are a couple of issues here, I'd keep it to be mechs that are found mostly in 3025 and 3050 but keeping an eye on when they were available.&nbsp; Also I'd keep the customization limited in the beginning, after they get some c-bills and salvage under their belt they can start modifying their mechs.&nbsp; How salvage and purchasing works will be something else to work out.<br><br><strong>Weight Quota:</strong> I wouldn't worry so much about weight more lance specifications.&nbsp; create listings for lances (looking for 4 for a recon lance and so on), that would help you figure the mechs that would acceptable.<br><br>So in the end I'd say we should add <strong>Salvage and modifications</strong> to <strong>Things needing figuring out section.</strong>&nbsp; It will be tricky to either keep things even across the missions.<br><br>Matt
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>orderNchaos</strong> on <strong>04-12-2012, 06:26:20</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				I'd love to help out with the developmental stuff and possibly co-DM.&nbsp; <br><br>I think if we're going to be running different companies as individual threads or 'missions' we need more indepth mission briefings and we should give the companies the chance to mission plan their own assaults.&nbsp; First this gives the players the sense of ownership in each mission, second they should know the capabilities and limitations of their mech so they need to be able to plan the best way to use them.&nbsp; Third, it gives the GM a chance to plan the enemies response with out the need to plan how the players will react.&nbsp; Gives it more of an RP style.<br><br>I agree with Mvo33 on the mech allowance point.&nbsp; New mechs in 3050 were heavily guarded assets and only houses could really afford to upgrade their line units.&nbsp; Especially with the Clan invasion, many of the houses were scrambling to get new mechs online to meet the threat where old constantly rebuilt and salvaged mechs ruled the field before the clans.<br><br>On the weight issue.&nbsp; From my experience with BT, Lance's need to be balanced based on their strengths and less on available weight or size.&nbsp; For instance our recon lance needs the speed and surveillance systems to be effective.&nbsp; While it's nice to have the support of the heavies in the group, speed and agility is a recon lance's advantage.&nbsp; We should probably discuss the current Lance composition, based on new players joining we can shuffle things around and balance things out more.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Sel Nar</strong> on <strong>04-12-2012, 06:38:46</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Honestly, at the moment, If you folded the Shadow Hawk and Sling into Recon, and Swapped the Marauder and Hatchetman into the command lance, you'd have a proper company composition, without forcing limited movement to nearly as large an extent as it is.<br><br>Of the 'mechs in the company, only the Axman and Sling are truly rare. The Axman was first built in the mid '40s, and is a fedcom exclusive, phasing out the lighter Hatchetman, while the Sling only has a few dozen surviving chassis in the entire inner sphere.<br><br>Pretty much every other 'mech in the company has A: Been around for forever, or B: has been retrofit into star league configuration due to the tech renniasance due to the Helm memory Core. (Eg; the Highlander swapping out an AC/20 for the gauss, the Black Knight upgrading to Ferro-Fibrous, or the Awesome sidegrading to Double heatsinks to slap in a fourth main gun, an ECM suite, and a half-ton of armour)<br><br>And yes, Retrofitting is expensive as hell, but still cheaper than buying a new 'mech.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Wargtass</strong> on <strong>04-12-2012, 10:27:46</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7324997#msg7324997">Quote from: mvo33 on 04-12-2012, 01:27:28</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><strong>Faction Basing:</strong> I think this is mostly a non-issue, assuming the idea is for each lance (or company) is going to be a Merc unit it's not unheard of for a merc unit to be faction specific or bias against another faction.&nbsp; Clan based bondsmen, I would probably pass on this.&nbsp; It was very, very rare for a bondsman to ever get bumped up to being in a mech again and even if they do not being trueborn most will never see front line action.&nbsp; If we are not allowing a Clan based units I'd leave out the whole idea of bondsmen (I'm also not aware of anyone escaping after being captured).</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>What I meant was if we should have any restrictions to the backgrounds. At the moment we have 3,5 Dracs with another one incoming. I'm all for the free choice of all men and women, but when we are looking less like a diverse mercenary group and more like a Kuritan house-warming party. Perhaps I am the only one who's reacting on this.<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7324997#msg7324997">Quote from: mvo33 on 04-12-2012, 01:27:28</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><strong>Mech Allowance:</strong>&nbsp; there are a couple of issues here, I'd keep it to be mechs that are found mostly in 3025 and 3050 but keeping an eye on when they were available.&nbsp; Also I'd keep the customization limited in the beginning, after they get some c-bills and salvage under their belt they can start modifying their mechs.&nbsp; How salvage and purchasing works will be something else to work out.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>A pretty good idea. I like it.<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7324997#msg7324997">Quote from: mvo33 on 04-12-2012, 01:27:28</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><strong>Weight Quota:</strong> I wouldn't worry so much about weight more lance specifications.&nbsp; create listings for lances (looking for 4 for a recon lance and so on), that would help you figure the mechs that would acceptable.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>Another good one.<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7324997#msg7324997">Quote from: mvo33 on 04-12-2012, 01:27:28</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">So in the end I'd say we should add <strong>Salvage and modifications</strong> to <strong>Things needing figuring out section.</strong>&nbsp; It will be tricky to either keep things even across the missions.<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>Added.<br><br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7326649#msg7326649">Quote from: orderNchaos on 04-12-2012, 06:26:20</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">I'd love to help out with the developmental stuff and possibly co-DM.<br><br>I think if we're going to be running different companies as individual threads or 'missions' we need more indepth mission briefings and we should give the companies the chance to mission plan their own assaults.&nbsp; First this gives the players the sense of ownership in each mission, second they should know the capabilities and limitations of their mech so they need to be able to plan the best way to use them.&nbsp; Third, it gives the GM a chance to plan the enemies response with out the need to plan how the players will react.&nbsp; Gives it more of an RP style.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>Absolutely, there was never any question about that in my mind. Mostly because I want to spend time on something other than writing up missions.&nbsp; :P<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7326649#msg7326649">Quote from: orderNchaos on 04-12-2012, 06:26:20</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">On the weight issue.&nbsp; From my experience with BT, Lance's need to be balanced based on their strengths and less on available weight or size.&nbsp; For instance our recon lance needs the speed and surveillance systems to be effective.&nbsp; While it's nice to have the support of the heavies in the group, speed and agility is a recon lance's advantage.&nbsp; We should probably discuss the current Lance composition, based on new players joining we can shuffle things around and balance things out more.<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>Only reason I put the Hatchetman and Marauder in the Scout Lance was because We didn't have enough Lights to fill out a Lance, and since they were entering at the 'Mechbays they needed some heavy support until Assault joined up. But yes, with some more MechWarriors coming in I should be able to put better balance in the Lances. And with future changes it will be up to the commander of a Mission to put together his/her own lances.<br><br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7326707#msg7326707">Quote from: Sel Nar on 04-12-2012, 06:38:46</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Honestly, at the moment, If you folded the Shadow Hawk and Sling into Recon, and Swapped the Marauder and Hatchetman into the command lance, you'd have a proper company composition, without forcing limited movement to nearly as large an extent as it is.<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>See above.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>vin26m</strong> on <strong>04-12-2012, 11:52:11</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				I didn't read all the posts in depth.&nbsp; I just have a couple of ideas:<br><br>I don't think it's that much of an issue if there are lots of characters from one faction.&nbsp; I think all of the Draconis Combine characters left their home space on bad terms, which, if anything, could be an RP opportunity for them - discussing their common background.&nbsp; It could also bring all the non-Kurita people together.&nbsp; And what draws all the mercs together is that they all want some level of freedom they didn't get from their home space.<br><br>Any chance of playing clan characters?&nbsp; Maybe something like the remaining members of Clan Wolverine or Widowmaker who made a run for it and survived?
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Branwen</strong> on <strong>04-12-2012, 11:56:49</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				I really think you should give serious thought as to whether this is a system game, or a game set in the BT universe.&nbsp; <br><br>What I see in the OOC board is very off putting to someone who just wants to roleplay in the universe and not be a mechanics / canon / stats monkey.&nbsp; If you want that, and I understand a lot of people do, you should consider adopting a system for characters and for combat.&nbsp; Something like MechWarrior rules and MegaMek for combat.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Wargtass</strong> on <strong>04-12-2012, 13:03:40</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7327500#msg7327500">Quote from: vin26m on 04-12-2012, 11:52:11</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">I didn't read all the posts in depth.&nbsp; I just have a couple of ideas:<br><br>I don't think it's that much of an issue if there are lots of characters from one faction.&nbsp; I think all of the Draconis Combine characters left their home space on bad terms, which, if anything, could be an RP opportunity for them - discussing their common background.&nbsp; It could also bring all the non-Kurita people together.&nbsp; And what draws all the mercs together is that they all want some level of freedom they didn't get from their home space.<br><br>Any chance of playing clan characters?&nbsp; Maybe something like the remaining members of Clan Wolverine or Widowmaker who made a run for it and survived?<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>I am thinking of making a slightly brainwashed and arrogant Capellan character just for a character development project like that. Especially since I'm thinking of putting Walter on administrative duty along with Perkins.&nbsp; :P<br><br>As for Clan-characters, that would be waaay ahead into the future. I understand that there is an interest in playing Clanners, but I don't want to shoehorn them in. Many merc-units actually too Clanners as bondsmen to use in their companies, but that wasn't until somewhere into 3050 when they started getting a hang of the Clan's honor system. It could be a reward for long-term players if we ever get bigger than 20 players, which I don't see happening quickly.<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7327507#msg7327507">Quote from: Branwen on 04-12-2012, 11:56:49</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">I really think you should give serious thought as to whether this is a system game, or a game set in the BT universe.&nbsp; <br><br>What I see in the OOC board is very off putting to someone who just wants to roleplay in the universe and not be a mechanics / canon / stats monkey.&nbsp; If you want that, and I understand a lot of people do, you should consider adopting a system for characters and for combat.&nbsp; Something like MechWarrior rules and MegaMek for combat.<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>I have made it clear from the beginning that I don't want a game-system, but rather dramatic descriptions and character play. If anyone wants to play a game of BattleTech, fire up MegaMek and play a game och BattleTech. There is certainly a base here of players that you can ask.<br><br>I myself have no wish to turn this into a system, but I greatly do enjoy Mechlabbing and understand the need for a way to enforce what we put on our 'Mechs. Which is why I would for instance be more strict about how you build your 'Mech in character creation but not so much using the rules once we are in game. Systems have an excellent talent for bogging a game down and discouraging new players to join in.<br><br>As such, I am right now, at this instance, putting my veto on any system being used outside of 'Mech-creation. You may discuss the merits of different components and how much damage such and such would actually do in the OOC, but I draw the line there. Apologies for sounding like a dictator on this, but I wouldn't enjoy roleplaying like that and I am guessing many others wouldn't as well.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Sel Nar</strong> on <strong>04-12-2012, 15:46:41</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7327579#msg7327579">Quote from: Wargtass on 04-12-2012, 13:03:40</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">As such, I am right now, at this instance, putting my veto on any system being used outside of 'Mech-creation. You may discuss the merits of different components and how much damage such and such would actually do in the OOC, but I draw the line there. Apologies for sounding like a dictator on this, but I wouldn't enjoy roleplaying like that and I am guessing many others wouldn't as well.<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>Hear Hear. Keeps the Rules-Layers (Ie. Me) From being an asshole to newbies, too because I tend to open my mouth (or write reflexively) without thinking things through.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>vin26m</strong> on <strong>05-12-2012, 02:20:13</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7327579#msg7327579">Quote from: Wargtass on 04-12-2012, 13:03:40</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">As for Clan-characters, that would be waaay ahead into the future. I understand that there is an interest in playing Clanners, but I don't want to shoehorn them in. <br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>I think playing Clanners would make for some great roleplay.&nbsp; You certainly play one well, and I am sure a couple of other players would be able to pull them off, too.<br><br>I am also looking forward to some merc down time.&nbsp; The RP before the mission was fun, and having some after a successful mission would be fun too.&nbsp; How do mercs celebrate?&nbsp; Would they go to a particular planet to do so?
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Lady Quixote</strong> on <strong>05-12-2012, 03:10:44</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				So I have mixed feelings on allowing people to play clanners, partially because we are in 3049 the clans are just starting to invade and the amount of people who understand what's happening is quite slim.&nbsp; Also generally the clans weren't to keen on explaining themselves, they took it for granted that everyone knew what they were talking about when no one did.<br><br>Heck even after the leaders/princes of the Inner Sphere went to Outreach to be 'trained' most still didn't get it especially if you are an old dog.&nbsp; But Vin26m makes a good point in the roleplaying opportunities.&nbsp; My own opinion would be to create a star or two and give them clan missions.&nbsp; I wouldn't do many of then (really two I think is too many) and would not have the Merc Lances fight.&nbsp; <br><br><strong>Salvage and modification:</strong>&nbsp; I thought about this a bit and I keep coming back to the idea of just letting players swap out weapons, ammo, armor and maybe heat sinks on a regular basis.&nbsp; Things like changing out an engine to be an XL, going from one internal structure part to another really would require a complete design team of engineers to work on and probably years worth of work.&nbsp; Sure in a car you can drop in an new engine if you wanted but it's not really a spur of the moment decision, and the idea is that an XL engine is bulkier would compound the problems.&nbsp; <br><br>If one takes Justin Allard-Liao's Centurion as the 'gold' standard for what can be done, he really just changed weapons.&nbsp; (Victor had TSM installed but he's a prince and had a full team there to rework his mech...something might be possible but the player should realize that he might be out of combat for a month or two).<br><br>As for what/how we create salvage from a mission...still don't know yet.&nbsp; GMs should most likely have the say but how do you figure out what's good to be salvaged or not in a freeform system (pnp it's easier because you can look at weapons not damaged/destroyed).<br>Matt
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>TheGlyphstone</strong> on <strong>16-12-2012, 21:16:33</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Clanners are awesome, but it'd be very disruptive to the current timeline of the game to allow Clan PCs, so I'm against them for now. As Warg said, maybe something for later on.<br><br>On Modifications:<br>I'd like to use the Mechwarrior Online system as a vague guideline for modifications. For those who haven't played it, a basic mech chassis can be modified as long as the mods don't go over its critical slots or tonnage limit, but you can only swap weapons for weapons of the same 'class'. Ballistic mounts/slots can only be traded for other ballistics, missile launchers for missile launchers, energy weapons or energy weapons, etc. It allows for alterations without giving us all Omnimechs from the start (they should be rare and incredibly valuable salvage), and seems to fit the 'field modifications' I'm familiar with in the fluff (The hereditary <em>Yen-Lo-Wang</em>, for example, swapped its AC-10 for an AC-20 and finally a Gauss Rifle, and the field-mod of the King Crab traded its AC-20's for Gauss Rifles.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Wargtass</strong> on <strong>16-12-2012, 21:34:52</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7394451#msg7394451">Quote from: TheGlyphstone on 16-12-2012, 21:16:33</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">On Modifications:<br>I'd like to use the Mechwarrior Online system as a vague guideline for modifications. For those who haven't played it, a basic mech chassis can be modified as long as the mods don't go over its critical slots or tonnage limit, but you can only swap weapons for weapons of the same 'class'. Ballistic mounts/slots can only be traded for other ballistics, missile launchers for missile launchers, energy weapons or energy weapons, etc. It allows for alterations without giving us all Omnimechs from the start (they should be rare and incredibly valuable salvage), and seems to fit the 'field modifications' I'm familiar with in the fluff (The hereditary <em>Yen-Lo-Wang</em>, for example, swapped its AC-10 for an AC-20 and finally a Gauss Rifle, and the field-mod of the King Crab traded its AC-20's for Gauss Rifles.<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>Indeed, I follow this system when I generally look at what 'Mechs are viable to have. While you could basically put a whole bunch of Gauss Rifles on an Awesome in SSW, it wouldn't really be an Awesome anymore. It's pretty indicative of the classic MechWarrior set up with hardpoints.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Lady Quixote</strong> on <strong>16-12-2012, 22:23:15</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				So I guess don't like the 'hard' point idea (it's kind of what Mechwarrior 4 had), you should be able to radically alter your mechs weaponry if you want but realize it will cost time and money.&nbsp; There are special mechs out there with configurations vastly different from the original.&nbsp; The only difference between that and Omni-mechs is that it can be done in the field, since all weapon systems are standard and freely interchangeable.<br><br>Just wrap a cost structure around it, say 10,000 per ton or crit slot, or weapon.<br><br>Matt
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>TheGlyphstone</strong> on <strong>16-12-2012, 22:33:36</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7394741#msg7394741">Quote from: mvo33 on 16-12-2012, 22:23:15</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">So I guess don't like the 'hard' point idea (it's kind of what Mechwarrior 4 had), you should be able to radically alter your mechs weaponry if you want but realize it will cost time and money.&nbsp; There are special mechs out there with configurations vastly different from the original.&nbsp; The only difference between that and Omni-mechs is that it can be done in the field, since all weapon systems are standard and freely interchangeable.<br><br>Just wrap a cost structure around it, say 10,000 per ton or crit slot, or weapon.<br><br>Matt<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>There are very different configurations of the base 'Mech design, but considering how variable some of them diverge, it seems more likely they were purpose-built or designed that way out of the factory. Take the Hunchback, for example, the base HBK-1 with its AC-20. There are a number of HBK-variants with missile weaponry in place of the autocannon, but I get the impression they were designed that way from the start (particularly the ones with Double Heat Sinks) rather than having ever been a default HBK-1 and being modified. Extend this example to any canon Mech design and its variant. It provides a reason for those canon variants to exist by providing a different 'base' set of hard points than can be allocated to whatever weapons are desired, and reinforces the Omnimech flexibility advantage.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Lady Quixote</strong> on <strong>16-12-2012, 22:48:36</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Oh no I understand that most manufactured variants were designed and built for that purpose, I was bring up the more custom variants that are out there.&nbsp; Once's that weren't painstakingly built for the purpose, for example this custom Marauder variant:<br><br><em>MAD-SD Marauder Douglas - The personal ‘Mech of 12th Vegan Rangers Alpha Regiment commander Margrave Sheridan Douglass during the DCMS's Third Succession War invasion of Galtor III, only the arm mounted medium lasers remain, with each PPC replaced by a Large Laser and the autocannon swapped for a pair of SRM-4 launchers with a shared ton of reloads. The remaining weight and space is devoted to five additional heat sinks and three extra tons of armor. BV (2.0) = 1,459[47]</em><br><br>SRM-4 instead of an autocannon, personally I think that's crazy, since the only reason you might need that much close in firepower would be if you still had the PPCs with the limited range.&nbsp; But it can/was done, I think that option should exist but make it costly.<br><br>Once again Omnimechs flexibility comes from being able to be done quickly in the field and not from the fact that it can be done at all (one would also think that this should mean less variety of mechs fielded by the clans but FASA/Catalyst has to sell books somehow).&nbsp; <br><br>Matt
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>TheGlyphstone</strong> on <strong>16-12-2012, 23:06:50</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Even so, that feels/reads to me more like it was a 'custom design' produced in the factory rather than a customized Mech variant. The sort of gross designs like that tend to be explicitly mentioned as one-offs and generally owned by important or otherwise noteworthy people, so it's more like choosing your own set of hardpoints from the start rather than altering the hardpoints of an existing chassis. I'm sure there's at least one example that proves me wrong out there, but I think stuff like that should be very much exceptions to the rule that a 'Mech is more or less static in its general configuration...you could, with enough time and money, modify a chassis to spec, but it'd end up cheaper in the end to just buy a stock chassis closer to you end design and modify that.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Lady Quixote</strong> on <strong>16-12-2012, 23:23:25</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Right, I guess my whole point boils down as, in a extended/long term game one shouldn't out right limit the options to the player.&nbsp; Let them be able to do the massive mech modification swapping out all energy weapons for missile weapons if they want but make it something they have to work/save for.&nbsp; Let them pilot that Archer, salvage the Clan Gauss Rifle and decide that it's worth his well earned money (after 4-5 missions maybe) to take a month off, spend your life savings to rip out the LRMs in a torso to install that Gauss Rifle.&nbsp; Knowing full well that there a chance it could get destroyed and he'll need to either find another Clan Gauss rifle, try to make an IS one work, or spend another month and his life savings again to put the LRMs back in.<br><br>Otherwise what good is the salvage and money to your character...<br><br>Matt
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>TheGlyphstone</strong> on <strong>16-12-2012, 23:28:46</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				We're not really keeping track of salvage or money, though, are we? It's more of a 'hey, you got loot' thing in between the RP.<br><br>If we actually use/make a system to keep track of what components we salvage, that might need to change.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Branwen</strong> on <strong>16-12-2012, 23:42:32</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Is there a plan to allow us to salvage or claim captured BattleMechs?&nbsp; For example, in the last mission it was stated several were present in the hangar, but we were not able to choose them or take them along.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3049 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Wargtass</strong> on <strong>17-12-2012, 00:01:19</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7395160#msg7395160">Quote from: Branwen on 16-12-2012, 23:42:32</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Is there a plan to allow us to salvage or claim captured BattleMechs?&nbsp; For example, in the last mission it was stated several were present in the hangar, but we were not able to choose them or take them along.<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>That is my intention, yes.<br><br><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7395074#msg7395074">Quote from: TheGlyphstone on 16-12-2012, 23:28:46</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">We're not really keeping track of salvage or money, though, are we? It's more of a 'hey, you got loot' thing in between the RP.<br><br>If we actually use/make a system to keep track of what components we salvage, that might need to change.<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>I am keeping track of the loot you got in the last raid. Just haven't been indexed by the crew yet. You will have to hold out for a little while more...&nbsp; ;D<br><br>As for how it will be implemented in the future, we'll have to discuss that further.<br><br>
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>PaladinZenaku</strong> on <strong>07-03-2013, 01:34:50</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<span style="font-family: impact;" class="bbc_font"><span style="font-size: 18pt;" class="bbc_size">Things needing figuring out:</span></span><br><br><ul class="bbc_list"><li><strong>'Mech Allowance:</strong> <em>Which 'Mechs are allowed, when does Clan/Lostech become available, when does Clan-'Mechs become available?</em></li></ul>I think clan mechs should be available about when of course the clan invades. Mostly due to we go in and clear a base, killing the pilots before they get to their mechs. In turn means free mechs. There is a but for that though called did we have enough time and retrieval gear to get everything<br><ul class="bbc_list"><li><strong>Faction Basing:</strong> <em>How many of each faction can be supported, should there be a quota to discourage faction-bias in the Company, should it be equal or relative to faction size/rarity, when does Clan-based bondmen/women become valid?</em></li></ul>On the factions, I say we don't need to have a quota but just let it be known there might be more missions if we are not all Dracs or FedCom. More factions, more contacts to new clients. On the subject of bondsmen/women, we should wait about a few years after the clans invasion happens because our characters will have to know clan traditions to gain bondsmen/women. <br><ul class="bbc_list"><li><strong>Mission creation:</strong> <em>Should there be some sort of norm for creating missions? How do we set a value on the mission? Maps or no? Difficulty curves or no? How to interpret Missions.</em></li></ul>No norm because it makes it sort of boring when you can expect everything. Value? I will leave that to the others to decide. Maps is helpful. Difficulty curves is a good idea sometimes as long as they ain't way overpowering to the point where the entire group gets killed. To explain missions are to find the base objectives first, then to explain them after. Sometimes it is best not to tell the terrain or setting just (Go here kill this guy.) If more info is added it will set in stone what the gm has to give and will take away the random curve balls he can throw to make it more fun or harder for the players.<br><ul class="bbc_list"><li><strong>Salvage and Modification</strong> <em>How to balance it?</em></li></ul>Salvage should be like the game Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries. Where you get what you dont destroy like if you blow off a mechs legs you get the weapons from it or the mech itself. Modifications should be legal as in you trade a meduim laser wieghing X amount of tons for something that wieghs the same or less.[/list]
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>TheGlyphstone</strong> on <strong>07-03-2013, 03:24:05</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<ul class="bbc_list"></ul><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7837121#msg7837121">Quote from: PaladinZenaku on 07-03-2013, 01:34:50</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><span style="font-family: impact;" class="bbc_font"><span style="font-size: 18pt;" class="bbc_size">Things needing figuring out:</span></span><br><br><ul class="bbc_list"><li><strong>'Mech Allowance:</strong> <em>Which 'Mechs are allowed, when does Clan/Lostech become available, when does Clan-'Mechs become available?</em></li></ul>I think clan mechs should be available about when of course the clan invades. Mostly due to we go in and clear a base, killing the pilots before they get to their mechs. In turn means free mechs. There is a but for that though called did we have enough time and retrieval gear to get everything<br><br>Mildly disagree. If we get our hands on Clantech, it should be rare and piecemeal, scrap salvage. The front lines of the invasion are going to be their top elites, Mechwarriors who would eat us alive for breakfast - getting an intact Clan 'Mech should be next to impossible. Even well after the Clan Wars, Clan mechs in the hands of IS merc units are quite rare compared to the homebrewed IS Omnimech designs...we really don't want to become the Black Thorns.<br><br><ul class="bbc_list"><li><strong>Faction Basing:</strong> <em>How many of each faction can be supported, should there be a quota to discourage faction-bias in the Company, should it be equal or relative to faction size/rarity, when does Clan-based bondmen/women become valid?</em></li></ul>On the factions, I say we don't need to have a quota but just let it be known there might be more missions if we are not all Dracs or FedCom. More factions, more contacts to new clients. On the subject of bondsmen/women, we should wait about a few years after the clans invasion happens because our characters will have to know clan traditions to gain bondsmen/women. <br><br>Agreed.<br><br><ul class="bbc_list"><li><strong>Mission creation:</strong> <em>Should there be some sort of norm for creating missions? How do we set a value on the mission? Maps or no? Difficulty curves or no? How to interpret Missions.</em></li></ul>No norm because it makes it sort of boring when you can expect everything. Value? I will leave that to the others to decide. Maps is helpful. Difficulty curves is a good idea sometimes as long as they ain't way overpowering to the point where the entire group gets killed. To explain missions are to find the base objectives first, then to explain them after. Sometimes it is best not to tell the terrain or setting just (Go here kill this guy.) If more info is added it will set in stone what the gm has to give and will take away the random curve balls he can throw to make it more fun or harder for the players.<br><br>Strongly agree.<br><br><ul class="bbc_list"><li><strong>Salvage and Modification</strong> <em>How to balance it?</em></li></ul>Salvage should be like the game Mechwarrior 4 Mercenaries. Where you get what you dont destroy like if you blow off a mechs legs you get the weapons from it or the mech itself. Modifications should be legal as in you trade a meduim laser wieghing X amount of tons for something that wieghs the same or less.[/list]<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>Very strongly disagree. Turning all our mechs into pseudo-Omnimechs is not something I want to see in any form, as discussed previously upthread.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>PaladinZenaku</strong> on <strong>07-03-2013, 06:59:23</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7837743#msg7837743">Quote from: TheGlyphstone on 07-03-2013, 03:24:05</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><ul class="bbc_list">Mildly disagree. If we get our hands on Clantech, it should be rare and piecemeal, scrap salvage. The front lines of the invasion are going to be their top elites, Mechwarriors who would eat us alive for breakfast - getting an intact Clan 'Mech should be next to impossible. Even well after the Clan Wars, Clan mechs in the hands of IS merc units are quite rare compared to the homebrewed IS Omnimech designs...we really don't want to become the Black Thorns.<br><br>Very strongly disagree. Turning all our mechs into pseudo-Omnimechs is not something I want to see in any form, as discussed previously upthread.<br></ul></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>I personally dont like clan mechs all that much but was just saying to get it so we can sell it to buy new IS mechs or buff our current models with some possible additions like take my crusader. When I get enough money, I will remove the MGs and ammo to free up 2 tons to place jumpjets or add more LRM ammo. As for the pseudo-omnimech comment, I know that you cant take off a gauss and put a PPC in its place unless its a omnimech whichh is out of the question for now. But like I said above, it doesnt always HAVE to be a weapon but something that can be backed up in a fluff stand point.[/list]
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Sel Nar</strong> on <strong>07-03-2013, 21:22:42</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<ul class="bbc_list"></ul><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7839094#msg7839094">Quote from: PaladinZenaku on 07-03-2013, 06:59:23</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">I personally dont like clan mechs all that much but was just saying to get it so we can sell it to buy new IS mechs or buff our current models with some possible additions like take my crusader. When I get enough money, I will remove the MGs and ammo to free up 2 tons to place jumpjets or add more LRM ammo. As for the pseudo-omnimech comment, I know that you cant take off a gauss and put a PPC in its place unless its a omnimech whichh is out of the question for now. But like I said above, it doesnt always HAVE to be a weapon but something that can be backed up in a fluff stand point.[/list]<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br>The 'pseudo-omni comment is in regards to the fact that Mechwarrior 4's 'hardpoint' system allowed you to literally 'plug and play' weapons, which was the major advantage Omnis have over 'classic 'mechs.<br><br>Just popping out something like an Autocannon for a gauss, or a dozen machineguns, or a larger/smaller autocannon is asking for trouble with the 'mech's computer systems until you patch into the Targeting and Tracking systems and program it with the new range profiles and estimated damage threshold of the weapon(s), as well as a whole crapton of extra information needed to ensure that, if you're aiming at something, you won't get an error message saying that the AC/20 your mech no longer has can't hit the target you have locked with your shiny new gauss rifle.<br><br>As for minor modifications, such as stripping out unwanted weapons for extra heat sinks or armour, or 'Common sense' Modifications, such as creating a 'prototype' -9Q Awesome 7 years before it becomes an industry standard, instead of the 8M, which was 'triple the cost by plugging in all the cool new shit, at the cost of the reputation of it being a 'zombiemech'', well, we already have an established response in that regard.<br><br>Doing something more difficult, such as popping out a pair of arm-mounted weapons, and attendant ammo to mount Jump jets in the torso or legs? That's nearly a month of refit time, plus modifications to the computers to allow the previously-groundbound mech the 'fun' of being able to jump over a height 1 building.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Lady Quixote</strong> on <strong>08-03-2013, 00:02:04</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Plus there's a good chance that you can't add more jump jets because you can't 'jump faster' than your walking speed.&nbsp; Although with the solaris rules (and maybe the level 3 rule set as well) you can consecutively jump for four turns.<br><br>The video games made things really easy and well gamey...and the IS does develop Omnimechs but not for another 6 years or so (although the Draconis Combine develops the Raptor in 3052).<br><br>matt
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>PaladinZenaku</strong> on <strong>08-03-2013, 02:20:19</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7842019#msg7842019">Quote from: Sel Nar on 07-03-2013, 21:22:42</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote"><ul class="bbc_list">The 'pseudo-omni comment is in regards to the fact that Mechwarrior 4's 'hardpoint' system allowed you to literally 'plug and play' weapons, which was the major advantage Omnis have over 'classic 'mechs.<br><br>Just popping out something like an Autocannon for a gauss, or a dozen machineguns, or a larger/smaller autocannon is asking for trouble with the 'mech's computer systems until you patch into the Targeting and Tracking systems and program it with the new range profiles and estimated damage threshold of the weapon(s), as well as a whole crapton of extra information needed to ensure that, if you're aiming at something, you won't get an error message saying that the AC/20 your mech no longer has can't hit the target you have locked with your shiny new gauss rifle.<br><br>As for minor modifications, such as stripping out unwanted weapons for extra heat sinks or armour, or 'Common sense' Modifications, such as creating a 'prototype' -9Q Awesome 7 years before it becomes an industry standard, instead of the 8M, which was 'triple the cost by plugging in all the cool new shit, at the cost of the reputation of it being a 'zombiemech'', well, we already have an established response in that regard.<br><br>Doing something more difficult, such as popping out a pair of arm-mounted weapons, and attendant ammo to mount Jump jets in the torso or legs? That's nearly a month of refit time, plus modifications to the computers to allow the previously-groundbound mech the 'fun' of being able to jump over a height 1 building.<br></ul></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>I knew it would involve time to tinker with the computer so it would know it has a short range machine gun instead of a long range gauss. While my mech isnt in the scene yet I was trying to find out if I could do some modifications because it is a CRD-4BR that is 4 years ahead of its time. Now I know what I had planned will take awhile, I need to know about the taking off the machine guns to put more LRM ammo in and if that is a good choice being a missile boat variant. [/list]
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Sel Nar</strong> on <strong>08-03-2013, 03:53:05</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Honestly, the Crusader's amazingly well-balanced, though with a bad habit of ammo explosions due to it only having 10 Heat Sinks (alleviated by the 4BR using DHS). About the only real modification you can get away with that would take only a week or two of time would be to yank out the MGs and ammo, and slap in 2 more medium lasers into holes made by removing the MGs.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>PaladinZenaku</strong> on <strong>08-03-2013, 04:28:04</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				<div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=159179.msg7844142#msg7844142">Quote from: Sel Nar on 08-03-2013, 03:53:05</a></div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">Honestly, the Crusader's amazingly well-balanced, though with a bad habit of ammo explosions due to it only having 10 Heat Sinks (alleviated by the 4BR using DHS). About the only real modification you can get away with that would take only a week or two of time would be to yank out the MGs and ammo, and slap in 2 more medium lasers into holes made by removing the MGs.<br></blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div>I wonder if wargtass will allow it before I get in.
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>Sel Nar</strong> on <strong>08-03-2013, 05:20:29</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Repeat after me: 'You Do Not know what you can get away with, if you forget to ASK."
			</dd>
			<dt class="postheader">
				Title: <strong>Re: On the Receiving End: A Battletech 3050 Game (Project Development)</strong><br>
				Post by: <strong>PaladinZenaku</strong> on <strong>08-03-2013, 05:31:17</strong>
			</dt>
			<dd class="postbody">
				Ok i am sending him a PM about it.
			</dd>
		</dl>
		<div id="footer" class="smalltext">
			
			<span class="smalltext" style="display: inline; visibility: visible; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?action=credits" title="Simple Machines Forum" target="_blank" class="new_win">SMF 2.0.19</a> |
 <a href="https://www.simplemachines.org/about/smf/license.php" title="License" target="_blank" class="new_win">SMF © 2021</a>, <a href="https://www.simplemachines.org" title="Simple Machines" target="_blank" class="new_win">Simple Machines</a>
			</span>
		</div>