Improve Battletech

[Sarevok]

The biggest complaint against Battletech is quite simple. The ranges in the tabletop are completely crap. The stats for the weapons are hillariously wrong. I mean who the heck needs a multi-ton laser designator to call an air strke ??

So here is a task for fellow BT fans. How would you tweak various rules values to improve the game while keeping the core aesthetics same ? If tabletop dimensions do not permit it consider as if the game was played using a computer simulator like MegaMek.

Here is what I would do personally.

1. Keep the old ranges for energy weapons but use an ingenious explanation system. Officially according to the stats the weapons have ranges derived from Aerotech games. But against heavy armor of ground vehicles they suffer a severe damage penalty when fired beyond old tabletop ranges. This is explained in fluff by how lasers suffer attenuation in atmosphere and against heavy armor they become worthless after a few kilometers.

2. AC2 and AC5 autocannons have ranges similar to modern tank guns. There is no excuse here. However the AC20 would be an exception. It would fire a huge shell with very low muzzle velocity. Thus restricted in range. The AC10 would have intermediate range between the AC20 and lighter autocannons firing faster shells.

3. Gauss Rifles would have virtually unlimited range. They can hit any hex within line of sight with only limitation how accurately the weapon was aimed.

4. LRMs and SRMs are TINY as far as missiles go. It's easy to explain why they have such short ranges. So keep them unchanged.

[PainRack]

1. Keep the old ranges for energy weapons but use an ingenious explanation system. Officially according to the stats the weapons have ranges derived from Aerotech games. But against heavy armor of ground vehicles they suffer a severe damage penalty when fired beyond old tabletop ranges. This is explained in fluff by how lasers suffer attenuation in atmosphere and against heavy armor they become worthless after a few kilometers.

Officially, the game explains range issues with accuracy via the extreme range as well as conversion to Battlespace rules. If you assume "effective" range and so forth, yeah.

What I WOULD do is rebalance damage and heat rules. The old system was that autocannons was your low heat, ranged weapons.It balanced off ammunition, space and short range inaccuracy with being able to load more than one long range, hard hitting weapon(AC/5,10 vs Large laser/PPC).

I think it was Chris who mentioned this before, but namely, make autocannons range increase with calibre. You will need to shrink the AC/2 tonnage to say... maybe 3 or 4 tons to balance it(but it would still be shit) but yeah. Give AC/2 range of 12, making it superior to SRMs and scale it up from there. Gauss rifles would then fall into the spectrum here as part of the AC range..... although again, I will rebalance the heat partially by escalating it upwards. Maybe 3-4 heat. AC/2 would be "wanted" purely because of its anti-infantry, anti building capabilities, in line with fluff. A long range machine gun so as to speak.

So, what would that make machine guns? Non exploding spray and pray against infantry to be used at ranges of up to 9, but shrunk down to 3 for mechs. Their advantage will come entirely from the fact that there's no heat, oh, and I rebalance the ammo so that it make sense against the AC/2. Roll a D6 to figure out how much ammo is used or something, and thats how many infantrymen are killed.

There much more that needs to be done with damage and heat so as to rebalance weapons, so that the old roles can come back, especially when new weapons like MRMs, plasma rifles and etc are considered.

[Stark]

Moving to a system based less on missing and pilot skill would probably help. The ranges as they stand would be fine if the mechanics behind them weren't so broken and longer ranges were available. By changing the way hitting is calculated you could even fix the stupid hitpoint armour. Indeed, if the game modeled armour in a meaningful way, weapons would have more useful niches to fill, and you could even get rid of the hilarious reloadable missile boxes mounted externally because the missiles would actually be useful.

Yes, this means 'replace it with an actual good system'. When you have 20t sedans armed with a laser, its time to get a new engine.

[Sarevok]

Moving to a system based less on missing and pilot skill would probably help.

Not a good idea. The game focuses on the Mechwarrior as much as the machine he pilots. Pilot skill plays a huge role in Battletech mythos.

By changing the way hitting is calculated you could even fix the stupid hitpoint armour.

They do that in Heavy Gear where it's all about armor penetration and it produces some very lethal combat . But that does not feel right for Battletech. Mechs are supposed to be able to tank a lot of fire rather than keel over after the first Gauss Rifle round hits.

Indeed, if the game modeled armour in a meaningful way, weapons would have more useful niches to fill, and you could even get rid of the hilarious reloadable missile boxes mounted externally because the missiles would actually be useful.

The ablative armor systems works. It's simple and it's fun. Unlike the ranges and weights of certain component issue the armor does not require such huge suspension of disbelief to immerse yourself in the game.

[Gunhead]

The ablative armor system is about as much fun as getting your teeth pulled and just slows down a system that is slow as fuck as it is. All those to-hit-rolls and hit location rolls are also asstastic. I could go into greater detail what would make their gameplay better, but the short version is "Redesign it". The only part I consider worth keeping is the inverted iniative system.

-Gunhead

[Imperial Overlord]

Massive redesign.

[Norade]

Never played the game, but it sounds more dysfunctional than Warhammer Fantasy and 40k... Also, shouldn't this be in G&C?

[Gunhead]

Never played the game, but it sounds more dysfunctional than Warhammer Fantasy and 40k... Also, shouldn't this be in G&C?

If this going to be a thread about game mechanics, I'd say this belongs to G&C. Then again it's hard to separate game mechanics from rest of the setting in BT since TT stupidity is quite well entrenched in the fluff / Novels as well.

-Gunhead

[Stark]

Not a good idea. The game focuses on the Mechwarrior as much as the machine he pilots. Pilot skill plays a huge role in Battletech mythos.

Sorry, I thought you wanted to fix something. PS? You can focus on the pilot without being obsessed with missing so much that you are firing swarms of missiles at a guy 500m away.

They do that in Heavy Gear where it's all about armor penetration and it produces some very lethal combat . But that does not feel right for Battletech. Mechs are supposed to be able to tank a lot of fire rather than keel over after the first Gauss Rifle round hits.

Sorry, I thought you wanted to fix something. PS? Different armour mechanics would actually allow mechs to tank way, way more fire than they do now, and tank some weapons literally indefinitely. Oops!

The ablative armor systems works. It's simple and it's fun. Unlike the ranges and weights of certain component issue the armor does not require such huge suspension of disbelief to immerse yourself in the game.

Sorry, I thought you wanted to fix something. Firstly, the ablative armour system doesn't 'work', its a relic of the type of 'colour in the dots' mech sheet they used in the 80s. If you don't understand how that single stupid mechanic knocks-on through the entire system to create all the failure, you should go read the rules again. Secondly, things like constantly missing, laughably short range, weapon niches, even the application of criticals and speeds are determined by the fundamental need to grind through hitpoints. Entire (stupid) mech designs revolve around this need. If you pick a stupid Battletech mechanic, the reason it is there is probably 'hitpoints'.

Asking how to fix a system and then knee-jerking into 'WAH BUT I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING' is fucking retarded. You could easily apply different, far more successful mechanics to the Battletech universe (particularly if you ditch the last 20 years of twinky bullshit); but you don't want to, because you're married to all the concepts that make it shit.

[Purple]

You could easily apply different, far more successful mechanics to the Battletech universe (particularly if you ditch the last 20 years of twinky bullshit); but you don't want to, because you're married to all the concepts that make it shit.

And what would said mechanic be?
Enlighten us if you will.

[Norade]

You could easily apply different, far more successful mechanics to the Battletech universe (particularly if you ditch the last 20 years of twinky bullshit); but you don't want to, because you're married to all the concepts that make it shit.

And what would said mechanic be?
Enlighten us if you will.

Ditching pilot skill, or at least making missing with a large number of shots less of a factor. Taking away hit points as armor for flat armor and armor penetration values so you can't chew down a mech with MG's. Making ranges and weapons roles make more sense. Shit, I can think of these and I've never played the damned game.

[Batman]

Which are we supposed to improve? The game, or the setting? Those might not be compatible.

[Norade]

Which are we supposed to improve? The game, or the setting? Those might not be compatible.

I think they are, you can increase ranges without ruining the game. You can change the way armor works without ruining the game. You can change targeting without ruining the game.

[Batman]

Kindly notice that I said might, not aren't.

[Norade]

Kindly notice that I said might, not aren't.

So true... Kind of like rebooting the DCU might have been good.

[PainRack]

Sorry, I thought you wanted to fix something. Firstly, the ablative armour system doesn't 'work', its a relic of the type of 'colour in the dots' mech sheet they used in the 80s. If you don't understand how that single stupid mechanic knocks-on through the entire system to create all the failure, you should go read the rules again. Secondly, things like constantly missing, laughably short range, weapon niches, even the application of criticals and speeds are determined by the fundamental need to grind through hitpoints. Entire (stupid) mech designs revolve around this need. If you pick a stupid Battletech mechanic, the reason it is there is probably 'hitpoints'.

Asking how to fix a system and then knee-jerking into 'WAH BUT I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING' is fucking retarded. You could easily apply different, far more successful mechanics to the Battletech universe (particularly if you ditch the last 20 years of twinky bullshit); but you don't want to, because you're married to all the concepts that make it shit.

I don't know.... the hitpoint system WAS relatively simple to work with. The things that bogged down gameplay was rolling to hit loc, when your opponent has 10 SSRM4.

I'm not sure why munchkins or etc exploiting the particularities of the hitpoint system make this different. I also know that the headache that comes in gameplay comes more from range/positioning rather than hitpoint. Well, other than use of positioning to expose left, right, rear facing. Range/positioning will still be as important in an AP mechanic.

BMR does help streamline that with the reaction phase, but fucked tanks over with their variant of positioning. Screw that. I want my old tanks armor facing.

[PainRack]

Actually, that brings up an old complaint. Vehicles.

First of all, I will do away with the mech facing thing. Oh come on, yeah, tanks have a different facing mechanism and introduce more rules to learn, deal with it. Its not that difficult to remember that they have one more hex to determine facing than mechs. Its less broken than removing the effectiveness of left/right armour facing entirely.

That being said, the vehicle rules do introduce more complexity into the game and streamlining them is desirable.... I don't know, some of the stuff I considering, especially level 3 play may alter the "precious" game balance between mechs and tanks.

[PainRack]

Never played the game, but it sounds more dysfunctional than Warhammer Fantasy and 40k... Also, shouldn't this be in G&C?

Coverhammer:D

The game has problems waging larger than lance on lance battles, and I will agree that this is due to the range/missing/hitpoint system.

[Nephtys]

I tested a game for Catalyst Studios called 'Leviathans' which had a lot of Battletech Lineage. It fixed a lot of issues with B-Tech, which was primarily record keeping.

I'd say I'm inspired to suggest that each section (Arms, Sidetorsos, etc) has only like 8 points. The first five or so are armor slots, and the last two are internal systems. A weapon only has a chance to penetrate and remove an armor layer, while some very powerful weapons (PPCs, Gauss, AC20s) can take out two or three. Once you hit the first internal structure slot, all devices labeled as 'high power' or whatever are disabled. The second internal slot disables everything in the location, and the last hit destroys the whole section. This prevents that maddening record keeping.

---

As for other game mechanics, basically just update some weapons to be useful.
Low-Caliber ACs should be allowed to use precision ammo (for the bonus to hit, makes them much more useful given their ridiculous tonnage)
Just remove Machine Guns from the game.
Give FF Armor and Endo-Steel actual drawbacks, similar to how XL engines have major drawbacks. Perhaps FF Armor maxes out earlier, while Endo-Steel reduces Internal Structure points, etc.
Make Medium Lasers not the end-all of weapons

[Stark]

Streamlining the locations would not only save paperwork, but improve the design metagame too.

If you rebalanced all the guns together rather than have the TL1 guns and then bolt on the later guns, things like medium lasers wouldn't fall in the sweet spot anymore. It'd be pretty trival to do, too.

[Ford Prefect]

Not a good idea. The game focuses on the Mechwarrior as much as the machine he pilots. Pilot skill plays a huge role in Battletech mythos.

To be honest, I've never really gotten that impression. I mean that's the intent, but in practice the 'Mechwarrior as ace knight' thing isn't really evident.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Having tried to design my own wargame system, I can offer some input when it comes to scaling.

What it comes down to is how large you want your battlefield to be, how much space you have available to play in (bedroom floor, dining room table, games room, etc), and how much abstraction you're willing to put up with. This is where the fluff comes in, determining factors such as the ranges and destructive power of weapons.

For example, modern MBTs can generally shoot at ranges of around 3-4 kilometres, while some ATGMs and MANPADs can manage ranges of 5 kilometres. Classic Battletech used the 6mm scale, in which a 10-14m tall Battlemech is represented by a 35-42mm tall miniature. If 1 metre is 3.5mm, then a gaming area of 2m by 2m represents an battlefield of 571m by 571m. This is pretty much why Battletech weapons seem to have such short ranges.

There are two possible solutions to this problem. One is to keep the short ranges and provide some excuse (such as heavy ECM), while the other is to use abstraction. This latter option is what a lot of air, sea, and space combat games do, essentially having the model represent the (much smaller) battlemech on the field. The problem with this is that the model ends up taking up more space on the gaming area than the battlemech it represents would on the battlefield. In Battlefleet Gothic, to pick an example, this isn't a problem because two models touching bases are ships passing within a thousand kilometres of eachother. But if we want to represent a 5km by 5km battlefield on a 2m by 2m gaming area, that means 1cm of the gaming area represents 25 metres, meaning that if a 35mm model was to scale, it would be 87.5 metres tall. More to the point, if said model is standing on a 30mm wide base, then its taking up the equivalent of 75 metres on the battlefield.

On the other hand, there could be an element of realism in such an approach. RW tanks tend to be deployed 100 metres or so apart, which in this case could be represented by two tank models, set on 40mm bases, arranged with bases touching.

[LaCroix]

My opinion (quick shot):

You need to make big mechs tanks and smaller ones prey.

Make armour a fixed thing. If you have that or that kind of armour thickness at one place, 'this' kind of gun will do damage, that other won't.

Classify weapons as heavy, medium, light, infantry.

Make missiles swarm weapons that make one hit, but rolled with number of hits on SAME location. Single hits don't count. (Maybe except for light armour or infantry...)

Infantry does shit on armoured targets, but raises hell on infantry (A single laser shot is nothing on a group of people, a flame-thrower or MG is hard on them)

Each hit that penetrates does one line internal damage.

You got heavy armour, medium guns only do half damage (roll dice), light none.
Medium armour: Heavy does two lines, medium normal, light half.
light: heavy does 4, medium 2, light 1, infantry half (roll dice) line damage
none(infantry) heavy 4, medium 2, light 1, infantry 2 lines (no armour = bad juju against MG garbs)

Hit systems will be compromised (if multiple lines) or out of service. There will be lines for armour and internal structure that means non-critical hits, except that if they are all crossed out, the limb is blown off.

If damaged lines are hit again, it does nothing. Your luck.

Armour has 'hitpoints' - for every two/three/five(depends on how playable that turns out) hits that penetrate , the armour class for the area hit is reduced by one. Glancing hits don't count.

Wit this system, you can have an Atlas assrape hordes of light mechs, but still have him vulnerable to quick kills by lucky shots with a medium to heavy weapon and a good pilot. (eg. 3 Reactor hits or 2 gyro hits, cockpit hits...) Also, a nearly completely bullet-riddled mech might stay on its legs for long, if nobody manages a good critical hit.

Let Pilot skill count for evasion purposes, if you want - a to hit modifier (good 'mech pilots are said to 'dance' on the field in a permanent evasive pattern)

To give a good reason why Battlemechs are around, limit tanks to medium weapons, or make their critical structure so that there are problems. For example: crew compartment can be hit from any side, and is a kill; or one track hit = stationary vehicle. Logical points, but potentially crippling. Or give them no evasive to-hit modifier for pilot skill.

[Rabid]

To give a good reason why Battlemechs are around, limit tanks to medium weapons, or make their critical structure so that there are problems. For example: crew compartment can be hit from any side, and is a kill; or one track hit = stationary vehicle. Logical points, but potentially crippling. Or give them no evasive to-hit modifier for pilot skill.

Or you could say that tanks can't go on every terrain type :

- Swamps
- Steep hills
- Broken terrain (glacier, ...)
- Etc...

Whereas the Mechs, as bipedal vehicles, have the ability to pass these obstacles.

Plus, tanks are low on the ground, comparatively to mechs which are taller - a thing that can allow them (the mechs) to have a better line of sight.


Combine the two, and that means that tanks could have, maybe, weapons as powerful as mechs, but that they aren't as mobile, and they can't shoot as far/as high/etc... Tanks could be used as some sort of Mech Destroyers, hiding somewhere, ambushing the ennemy. Being more discreet than a mech in all its might is such case would be an advantage : stealth has its uses, after all.


In turn, this would justify the use of mechs instead of tanks as the preffered weapon, as they are more "versatile" vis-a-vis the type of terrain they can battle on with efficiency - an important things when you "regiment" or whatever is supposed to battle on different planets. But it would also justify why tanks are still used, as they still have an utility on the battlefield.


Whaddaya think ?

[LaCroix]

That's already in the rules. Several vehicles have problems with areas. (Vehicles can't pass woods, water deeper than lvl1 (except for amphibious or hovercraft), and can't climb (more than 1 level up per hex)