KickStarter BATTLETECH - turn-based mech combat from Harebrained Schemes

[Cael]

Other than heat generation and blocking LOS, terrain doesn't really come into play either; I've never seem a Mech trip over or get stuck in swamp for example.

Which is a massive LOL because terrain was one of the main considerations in TT for every move you make.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

In TT, there are entire books and sets of rules dedicated to Aerospace Fighters, DropShips and Warships.

As early as Crescent Hawk's Inception, there was mention of how a DropShip held off the Kuritans while you grabbed the SL cache right at the end, IIRC.

In Crescent Hawk's Revenge, Aerospace Fighters can be used to strafe entire sections of the map. Offscreen artillery can be used to drop random bombs on designated spots on the map. Both you and the enemy had them.

"logically the BattleMech is useless in its own setting"

Reading comprehension much, or still too sexually obsessed with Kevin? The main point was that the BattleMech is a useless thing that in no way warrants existing much less the vastly outsized importance given to it in the setting because the guys at FASA were kinda stupid about the matter of airpower, hence why airpower is almost all the time conspiciously absent, or made worse than WW1 level technology like in case of MW4 (where to note you have aerospace units show up a few times since Vengeance, not just Mercs). Similar effect tends to happen in MechWarrior games too where conventional vehicles are otherwise greatly reduced in effectiveness too otherwise, since it would make the whole "dominant weapon of the 31st century" shtick very apparent in how completely it falls apart under even slightest scrutiny.

(Also those were artillery strikes in MechCommander, not bomber attacks)

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

This game is just missing too much. I wanted to like it but the environments are stale, missions are borked, Argo customization is meh, mechs are *too* customizable to the point where they don't have any individual character, and there isn't enough benefit to using a variety of mechs (goes to crappy mission/map variety).

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

This game is just missing too much. I wanted to like it but the environments are stale, missions are borked, Argo customization is meh, mechs are *too* customizable to the point where they don't have any individual character, and there isn't enough benefit to using a variety of mechs (goes to crappy mission/map variety).

The problem with Mech customization isn't really the extent of it, it's not as bad as when things go to the extent where the 'mech is just a skin and tonnage count because everything else is interchangeable. The problem is that there's always Just Better options (and as usual for the franchise games, it's Bigger = Better kind of deal, with most ton ranges just having superior alternatives to rest of their peers; actually this issue is kind of more pronounced than usual since alpha strike capacity and ability to withstand damage are most/only important qualities due to battles revolving around being outnumbered), even besides obviously bad ones like Banshee. Easy way to see it is to just look at the chart that lists things like effective free tonnage and the movement values.

As alluded earlier, the environment problem is just that they're random maps, it would have been a better idea to have a long linear campaign so maps could have more fun elements to them. Same problem with the Argo really (since the Argo is geared to be a feature for a nonlinear sandbox campaign), the upgrades are rarely worth the increased running costs unless you play a tremendously long amount of time for the morale bonus event options outweighing just paying extra wages to stay at desired value.

 

[fantadomat]

This took an interesting turn.

And then Cael decided to talk about the stupid game.

 

[Drakron]

, hence why airpower is almost all the time conspiciously absent

The reason is ALL sides have comparable air capabilities and thus you dont get USAF vs fucking nothing, plus who gives a flying fuck about muh air force when you can just use orbital strikes? if you are going to bring spacefighters not only they exist but they also killed the Ilkhan that started the Clan invasio when one kamizaked into the ship bridge and stopped the first wave as the Clans needed to elect another Khan.

Its not about being "logical", its about fighers not being the end all of everything with heavy duty destruction being carried on the orbital layer by starships and yes, Orbital strikes are a thing, they dont happen often became "orbital strikes happens, everyone is dead" is kinda shit for a game now isnt it?

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

The problem is that logically the BattleMech is a pointless and ultimately shitty weapon inside its own setting because it cannot maintain any semblence of logical consistency.

And yes, orbital strikes are also a part of this problem of BattleMechs having zero reason to exist in the setting they are the stars of.

 

[Cael]

In TT, there are entire books and sets of rules dedicated to Aerospace Fighters, DropShips and Warships.

As early as Crescent Hawk's Inception, there was mention of how a DropShip held off the Kuritans while you grabbed the SL cache right at the end, IIRC.

In Crescent Hawk's Revenge, Aerospace Fighters can be used to strafe entire sections of the map. Offscreen artillery can be used to drop random bombs on designated spots on the map. Both you and the enemy had them.

"logically the BattleMech is useless in its own setting"

Reading comprehension much, or still too sexually obsessed with Kevin? The main point was that the BattleMech is a useless thing that in no way warrants existing much less the vastly outsized importance given to it in the setting because the guys at FASA were kinda stupid about the matter of airpower, hence why airpower is almost all the time conspiciously absent, or made worse than WW1 level technology like in case of MW4 (where to note you have aerospace units show up a few times since Vengeance, not just Mercs). Similar effect tends to happen in MechWarrior games too where conventional vehicles are otherwise greatly reduced in effectiveness too otherwise, since it would make the whole "dominant weapon of the 31st century" shtick very apparent in how completely it falls apart under even slightest scrutiny.

(Also those were artillery strikes in MechCommander, not bomber attacks)

You have been saying that for a long time, and it has always been ignored because that is like saying magic is illogical in DnD. You are basically trying to troll and get a reaction, and now you are pissed off because you are not getting it.

 

[Drakron]

The problem is that logically the BattleMech is a pointless and ultimately shitty weapon inside its own setting because it cannot maintain any semblence of logical consistency.

And yes, orbital strikes are also a part of this problem of BattleMechs having zero reason to exist in the setting they are the stars of.

Battletech is designed about mechs, you can argue about it but within the setting they are one of the key factors because its about mehcs.

Orbital attacks are rarely used because they destroy the infrastructure, in Battletech usually they wanted to capture the place, not raze it to the ground and this is part of why Mechs are important since they are "scaled up" infantry, aircraft take a backseat because air superiority is no longer as important due to the orbital layer, there is no reason to develop strategic bombers since a basic dropship defensive weapons can already achieve the same results, mind you that Battletech still have Combat Vehicles such as the Condor that is a Hover tank or the Peregrine that is a attack helicopter, there were also Naval Vehicles so you cannot argue Battletech only had mechs and was about mechs as all sorts of things had stats, Mechs were just a part of the universe and even if it focused on then doesnt mean everything doesnt exist, heck it even have Elemetars that are power armor that could take down a Mech.

People will get mad if you say everything on Battletech was only Mechs since that is untrue, Dropships were of key importance since they restricted how many Mechs and tonnage could you land, similarly you have JumpShips that limited the amount of Dropships you can carry and so on ... logistics exist, the setting rules deal with then since all of what I mentioned have stats, weight, armor, etc ...

But this game just doesnt do that, it gives a false impression since it just gives you a special snowflake ship, let me give you a example ... the most iconic Dropship is the Union, now the Union carries 12 mechs and now lets take the Invader that is the most common JumpShip, it have 3 hardpoints meaning it can only carry 3 Dropships, this gives it a limit of 36 Mechs now we have the Argo that ... err ... makes no sense, as a dropship it cannot land and if FTL capable then it cannot carry Dropships because the rules say they have to be docked to the JumpShip. Logistics be damned ... here is your base of operations, a prototype (LostTech of course) that cannot function within the rules.

Also other games have shown some depth, for example in Mechcommander you had to use minelayers to complete the mission because otherwise you would be overrun, it was designed with that in mind .... ot also had FoW were you could requests for aerofighters to scout the area and it would remove the FoW on that location, it also had artillery so you could shell enemies ... if you just do "armor vs damage" then its a very crude and simplistic game, if you remove the overhead COSTS (yes, there is a price tag on everything in the rules) then any semblance of logistics is lost, you just have infinite missiles, repair is just a matter of time and even buying mechs is just a question of "how much" ... time in travel? lost ... limit on ability to even take on the mission due to having all Mechs in operations, lost ... there is just follow the story missions and the RNG missions (for padding), just one aspect ... and complaining about it being about it is ignoring games have dealt with other aspects and this is why I am interested in MW5 Mercenaries because there will be more about running a mercenary operation that just mech combat.

 

[Cael]

This took an interesting turn.

And then Cael decided to talk about the stupid game.

 

[fantadomat]

This took an interesting turn.

And then Cael decided to talk about the stupid game.

Wrong forum mate .

 

[Cael]

This took an interesting turn.

And then Cael decided to talk about the stupid game.

Wrong forum mate .

Back on track, bitch!

 

[Beastro]

"logically the BattleMech is useless in its own setting"

Reading comprehension much, or still too sexually obsessed with Kevin? The main point was that the BattleMech is a useless thing that in no way warrants existing much less the vastly outsized importance given to it in the setting because the guys at FASA were kinda stupid about the matter of airpower, hence why airpower is almost all the time conspiciously absent, or made worse than WW1 level technology like in case of MW4 (where to note you have aerospace units show up a few times since Vengeance, not just Mercs). Similar effect tends to happen in MechWarrior games too where conventional vehicles are otherwise greatly reduced in effectiveness too otherwise, since it would make the whole "dominant weapon of the 31st century" shtick very apparent in how completely it falls apart under even slightest scrutiny.

(Also those were artillery strikes in MechCommander, not bomber attacks)

With that said it's a fine compromise for the appeal of Mechs. If we were going super realistic we'd just have what we have today, MBT-like tracked vehicles as low and flat to the ground as possible, most likely a few feet tall after eliminating the crew with AI or RC control.

I for one wouldn't want that given how boring and ugly tanks (and other things, like warships) are now in that they all effectively look the same being driven by the same hyper evolutionary demands of modern warfare.

I do like BTs Falkenberg's Legion/Dune style warfare where mercs and a small number of advanced tech, like Mech can turn an entire planetary battle because of how sparely dispersed Mankind and tech is over the galaxy, I only wish the Mechs themselves were smaller on average, since things get rather WH40K silly with the size of the heavier ones and the heaviest should be around medium size at 50-60 tons with Mechs making up the difference in their lethality in speed being futuristic cavalry working in combined arms with more conventional vehicles and infantry (and I know BT does combined arms better than most popular game settings, but it's still too dominated by Mechs).

, hence why airpower is almost all the time conspiciously absent

The reason is ALL sides have comparable air capabilities and thus you dont get USAF vs fucking nothing, plus who gives a flying fuck about muh air force when you can just use orbital strikes? if you are going to bring spacefighters not only they exist but they also killed the Ilkhan that started the Clan invasio when one kamizaked into the ship bridge and stopped the first wave as the Clans needed to elect another Khan.

Its not about being "logical", its about fighers not being the end all of everything with heavy duty destruction being carried on the orbital layer by starships and yes, Orbital strikes are a thing, they dont happen often became "orbital strikes happens, everyone is dead" is kinda shit for a game now isnt it?

The conundrum is the same as what all war-enthusiasts face in the post-WWII setting, keeping their ideas of war fun and interesting while banishing the spectre of what has made much of modern warfare "unfun" from an enthusiasts perspective, nuclear weapons and our mostly Western perception of the finality that comes with them.

With planetary bombardment it's the same unfun finality that is either ignored or explained away given the nature of war in the __th Century by having war commonly be widespread, low intensity like much BT stuff is, potential bombardment weps can't penetrate a modestly thick atmosphere for reasons keeping space weps in space, or taking a different look to apocalyptic weapons like the Soviet Union did, who differed from the West in looking on WWIII as a long war or rebuilding with the power who rebuilt first to build new nuclear weapons and renuke their enemies being the winner (Which was the reason why the Typhoon SSBNs were originally built, to surface months after the first exchange, launch recon satellites, discover areas of reconstruction in the West and elsewhere and attack them, as well as their habit of keeping even WWII era tanks and other equipment in storage to use after both sides had lost everything else top tier they had).

 

[Drakron]

Well orbital bombardment still have some issues that are kinda the same of using nuclear weapons, they are too destructive and if you want to to capture the thing you arent going to use then.

Its more of a matter of smaller destruction, nukes did evolve into smaller wields, such as the AIR-2 Genie that was a anti-bomber missile, I kinda like handwave things because I recall when Vietnam started there was the idea missiles had replaced guns entirely just to be proven completely wrong, people like saying Mechs arent realistic but who knows, maybe they will end up being used for reasons we arent seeing or because of things that might create the need for then to be created, a lot of arguments about "realism" is kinda the same as they having perfect knowledge of everything as we can only look at things as we know now, our knowledge is incomplete and flawed so just because we cannot doesnt mean its impossible or cannot work.

This leads me to the setting, its important that things work within the setting ... mechs in BattleTech do in the sense they ended up as such scaled up Infantry that for major conflicts they are used but there is still used for other things, they also very expensive there is no need to use a light tech for police work or just fighting some insurgents that dont have Mechs, we do the same today by not deploying tank regiments when we are fighting some people that just have at best trucks with miniguns at the back.

 

[Beastro]

Its more of a matter of smaller destruction, nukes did evolve into smaller wields, such as the AIR-2 Genie that was a anti-bomber missile,

Genie was a terrible idea given that it was an unguided rocket and not a missile from that terrible era in the 50s when guns were ineffective and missiles were still embryonic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmdale

I kinda like handwave things because I recall when Vietnam started there was the idea missiles had replaced guns entirely just to be proven completely wrong

Except that they had replaced guns entirely. The issue was the ROEs in Vietnam made by McNamara and the DOD prevented combat beyond visual range that completely negated the strengths of, and reasons for, missiles like the Sparrow.

In a similar way North Vietnamese integrated air defence had spelled the end of aircraft operating below 10,000 long before MANPADs did. The only reason terrain hugging and aircraft like the A-10 (which wasn't built to fight in Europe, it was made to replace the A-1 in the light ground support role and was obsolete before it entered service) were able to keep going was that circumstances after the COld War allowed them some room to be of use even though terrain hugging aircraft and the A-10 suffered horrible losses in relation to other aircraft in the Gulf War and the main reason the latter was sent Scud hunting was to get the aircraft out of harms way and still be of use.

mechs in BattleTech do in the sense they ended up as such scaled up Infantry

I don't see that in a Mechs role, at all. What Mechs do and what infantry do have little in relation to one another, and if that is the mindset than it's foolish for creators. Infantry will be replaced by other infantry, either exoskeletons in BT, or by robots, which is why the role of infantry hasn't changed despite the dramatic changes in warfare in the last century, nothing can replace boots on the ground but boots on the gorund.

The nearest thing Mechs are are like old and armoured cavalry with their increased mobility and firepower enabling them to act as flankers and mobile support for BT-suitable infantry that could vary from high exoskeletons and battle armour to simple uniformed infantry like we have today that are backed up by conventional vehicles and equipment as we know them, aircraft, tanks, artillry, infantry support weapons like mortars.

With that said, I could also see Mechs acting like the fulcrum of warfare like heavy cavalry was during the Middle Ages, where most other parts of an army showed up giving half-hearted resistance as they watched the knights fight it out that would then rout if theirs lost whether or not they still had a chance to win the battle.

I'm not familiar with much BT fluff beyond randomly browsing Sarna while fighting insomnia, but has there even been battles like Agincourt or Sempach where defenders lacking mechs defeated a mech force using prepared or environmental defences to eliminate the mechs advantages and exploit their weaknesses? (Like fighting in mountains or rough, rocky terrain)?

 

[Cael]

I'm not familiar with much BT fluff beyond randomly browsing Sarna while fighting insomnia, but has there even been battles like Agincourt or Sempach where defenders lacking mechs defeated a mech force using prepared or environmental defences to eliminate the mechs advantages and exploit their weaknesses? (Like fighting in mountains or rough, rocky terrain)?

Quite easily.

'Mechs are powerful, but not invincible, and much of their power comes from the fact they have many more hit locations than conventional vehicles. You can take an arm off a 'mech and it will keep fighting. If you take a turret off a tank, it is toast. It also has an edge in all-terrain mobility in TT and most BTech games, especially MechCommander. And in TT, you can instant-kill a vehicle far easier than a 'mech, but that relies on luck more than anything else.

A well prepared defender utilising a mix of fixed emplacements, heavy vehicles and well-sited weapons carriers (the most famous are the LRM and SRM carriers, but there are also PPC, Gauss and AC carriers) can easily defeat a 'mech unit. IF the defender knows what he is doing. I have a design for a tank that is basically a mobile turret, and it takes down 'mechs with ease (far better than the Demolisher, but it is also far more expensive).

 

[Beastro]

'Mechs are powerful, but not invincible, and much of their power comes from the fact they have many more hit locations than conventional vehicles. You can take an arm off a 'mech and it will keep fighting. If you take a turret off a tank, it is toast. It also has an edge in all-terrain mobility in TT and most BTech games, especially MechCommander. And in TT, you can instant-kill a vehicle far easier than a 'mech, but that relies on luck more than anything else.

Not surprised this mentality is in the setting, overvaluing the utility of an individual mech or vehicle instead of looking at things from a wider perspective- Yamato Thinking.

A good case of that was before and during WWII when people were worried over the vulnerability of aircraft carriers in bad weather if they encountered a battleship or cruiser that they'd be defenceless to, since their aircraft couldn't launch. Those with the previously mentioned mentality focused too much on the problem and came out with silliness like this:

When the proper solution was less fancy and needed no major design alterations from anything, just have more fast BBs and cruisers around to escort carriers thereby keeping warships specialized and preventing utility from diminishing their capabilities.

In the case of Mechs, you say their power comes from more hit locations making them more versatile, where I'd rather say that is a severe weakness, and it is why tank design has always pushed towards minimization - keeping the tank as low to the ground and as small a target as possible. What is better? To be hit and keep on fighting partially disabled, or to not be hit at all?

In the case of Mechs, the unavoidable problem with all those hit locations (and Mechs as a universal type) is that fact that two are critical and losing one disables the entire Mech, the legs.

 

[Cael]

'Mechs are powerful, but not invincible, and much of their power comes from the fact they have many more hit locations than conventional vehicles. You can take an arm off a 'mech and it will keep fighting. If you take a turret off a tank, it is toast. It also has an edge in all-terrain mobility in TT and most BTech games, especially MechCommander. And in TT, you can instant-kill a vehicle far easier than a 'mech, but that relies on luck more than anything else.

Not surprised this mentality is in the setting, overvaluing the utility of an individual mech or vehicle instead of looking at things from a wider perspective- Yamato Thinking.

A good case of that was before and during WWII when people were worried over the vulnerability of aircraft carriers in bad weather if they encountered a battleship or cruiser that they'd be defenceless to, since their aircraft couldn't launch. Those with the previously mentioned mentality focused too much on the problem and came out with silliness like this:

When the proper solution was less fancy and needed no major design alterations from anything, just have more fast BBs and cruisers around to escort carriers thereby keeping warships specialized and preventing utility from diminishing their capabilities.

In the case of Mechs, you say their power comes from more hit locations making them more versatile, where I'd rather say that is a severe weakness, and it is why tank design has always pushed towards minimization - keeping the tank as low to the ground and as small a target as possible. What is better? To be hit and keep on fighting partially disabled, or to not be hit at all?

In the case of Mechs, the unavoidable problem with all those hit locations (and Mechs as a universal type) is that fact that two are critical and losing one disables the entire Mech, the legs.

We are not talking real life here. We are talking BTech.

There is no advantage to not getting hit as a vehicle compared to a 'mech other than speed. Certain vehicles has an advantage in speed (hovercrafts, for example), but other than that, you can hit a vehicle as easily as you can hit a 'mech. That is when hit locations come in. In a 'mech, the hits are spread out over 8 locations, each of which has its own internal structure. A vehicle has two if it has a turret. If it doesn't have a turret, then all damage goes into the one of four sides that faces the incoming fire.

In such a scenario, the 'mech has the advantage.

To top it off, every hit on a vehicle could trigger a TAC. For a 'mech, only 1 in 36 hits has a chance to trigger a TAC. And vehicle TAC are far more severe than 'mech TAC, ranging from being unable to move to jammed turret to crew killed outright.

 

[Beastro]

We are not talking real life here. We are talking BTech.

I guess as much as I am a fan of it, I'm bugged that they didn't go further down the path of thinking they did to make Mechs more the flagship, and yet still just one piece of the overall military setting are they created, like Space Marines in WH40K, rather than the dominant thing that eclipses everything else.

 

[Cael]

We are not talking real life here. We are talking BTech.

I guess as much as I am a fan of it, I'm bugged that they didn't go further down the path of thinking they did to make Mechs more the flagship, and yet still just one piece of the overall military setting are they created, like Space Marines in WH40K, rather than the dominant thing that eclipses everything else.

Technically, if you really look at it that way, the power armour would probably put paid to the tank. All you need are APCs to carry the power armour soldiers to the battlezone and then you let them do their thing. They are smaller and far more manoeuvrable than tanks, and with enhanced strength, a large recoiless rifle or Fallout style minigun shouldn't be a problem to utilise. But that is reality, so shoo! :D

 

[Spark Mandriller]

I'm not familiar with much BT fluff beyond randomly browsing Sarna while fighting insomnia, but has there even been battles like Agincourt or Sempach where defenders lacking mechs defeated a mech force using prepared or environmental defences to eliminate the mechs advantages and exploit their weaknesses? (Like fighting in mountains or rough, rocky terrain)?

Battle of Wolcott was kinda like that. The fight was in a swamp, but only one side was smart enough to bring hovercraft. They did have mechs as well, though. They also set traps beforehand, and basically lied about what forces they were bringing so the other guys would underestimate them. Sneaky snakes.

 

[fantadomat]

This took an interesting turn.

And then Cael decided to talk about the stupid game.

Wrong forum mate .

Back on track, bitch!

Sorry mate,i am slav!

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Its more of a matter of smaller destruction, nukes did evolve into smaller wields, such as the AIR-2 Genie that was a anti-bomber missile,

Genie was a terrible idea given that it was an unguided rocket and not a missile from that terrible era in the 50s when guns were ineffective and missiles were still embryonic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Palmdale

I kinda like handwave things because I recall when Vietnam started there was the idea missiles had replaced guns entirely just to be proven completely wrong

Except that they had replaced guns entirely. The issue was the ROEs in Vietnam made by McNamara and the DOD prevented combat beyond visual range that completely negated the strengths of, and reasons for, missiles like the Sparrow.

In a similar way North Vietnamese integrated air defence had spelled the end of aircraft operating below 10,000 long before MANPADs did. The only reason terrain hugging and aircraft like the A-10 (which wasn't built to fight in Europe, it was made to replace the A-1 in the light ground support role and was obsolete before it entered service) were able to keep going was that circumstances after the COld War allowed them some room to be of use even though terrain hugging aircraft and the A-10 suffered horrible losses in relation to other aircraft in the Gulf War and the main reason the latter was sent Scud hunting was to get the aircraft out of harms way and still be of use.

mechs in BattleTech do in the sense they ended up as such scaled up Infantry

I don't see that in a Mechs role, at all. What Mechs do and what infantry do have little in relation to one another, and if that is the mindset than it's foolish for creators. Infantry will be replaced by other infantry, either exoskeletons in BT, or by robots, which is why the role of infantry hasn't changed despite the dramatic changes in warfare in the last century, nothing can replace boots on the ground but boots on the gorund.

The nearest thing Mechs are are like old and armoured cavalry with their increased mobility and firepower enabling them to act as flankers and mobile support for BT-suitable infantry that could vary from high exoskeletons and battle armour to simple uniformed infantry like we have today that are backed up by conventional vehicles and equipment as we know them, aircraft, tanks, artillry, infantry support weapons like mortars.

With that said, I could also see Mechs acting like the fulcrum of warfare like heavy cavalry was during the Middle Ages, where most other parts of an army showed up giving half-hearted resistance as they watched the knights fight it out that would then rout if theirs lost whether or not they still had a chance to win the battle.

I'm not familiar with much BT fluff beyond randomly browsing Sarna while fighting insomnia, but has there even been battles like Agincourt or Sempach where defenders lacking mechs defeated a mech force using prepared or environmental defences to eliminate the mechs advantages and exploit their weaknesses? (Like fighting in mountains or rough, rocky terrain)?

I'ma give special CFK clapping for this, very eloquently put what's the problem with the vertical tank fiction concept (when the vertical tank doesn't have magical powers that let it become Godzilla sized), particularly when applied to an interstellar war.



I suppose it explains why the go-to mecha analogy for Japs is jet fighters, or why Heavy Gears are indeed closer to infantry than tanks.

 

[Cael]

This took an interesting turn.

And then Cael decided to talk about the stupid game.

Wrong forum mate .

Back on track, bitch!

Sorry mate,i am slav!

You keep that up and you're a wreck, not a slav.

 

[V_K]

You keep that up and you're a wreck, not a slav.

Pot[ay]to, pot[ah]to.