Okay. Back on topic, I find it interesting that a lot of the meta details people want can be justified as a form of Tech. Equipment that performs a certain way, imparting certain benefits. If you can conceive it, you can try it in the form of equipment or construction.
But, if this is a wish-list thread, I would be open to seeing the older rule-sets offered as advanced rules options, as well. Going back to the old BattleDroids and their infantry and tanks can be a style of optional play if a group agrees. Going back to ye olde BMR or BattleTech Master Rules, and showing some application of misinterpretations for making Mechs stronger to some degree.
I've seen all to many advanced rules that weaken the magic weaponry of the BTs 27th through 31st centuries. I want rules, even if optional, but official, that make the Mech truly a powerhouse, and give it a reason to exist in the light of real-world considerations why they wouldn't exist as military weapons. I want to see a reason behind the houses adopting the tech instead of trying to find ways to counter or defeat it. Some of those older rule sets do that.
NOtably, I was running mainly conventional units back when it wasn't cool (BMR(r) and earlier), it was still
possible to win with a force of tanks, vtols and infantry against 'mechs, but it was a lot harder, and a lot of 'mech habits' didn't carry over well, if at all. (Assault Tanks weren't implacable bunkers, they were extremely vulnerable cost-sinks, you NEEDED that TMM on VTOLs or they were dead, because anything that could reach them could kill them in a single shot if it hit the rotors, artillery splash wasn't dinner-plates-of-death diagrams, even for the very large stuff...)
TW made Assault tanks (that is, 3/5 or slower) a viable option for a fixed defense scenario, where before the practice of 'parking' was outright suicide if the other player was even
half aware of their built in vulnerabilities (Infernoes an fire-making stuff, crit-seeking, and so on.) Holding still with something like an Alacorn was an open invite for the other guy's SRM-equipped fast-movers to inferno it into nonexistence and staying stationary after was directly petitioning for it to die the next turn.
then again, Elementals had the same problem (which is why the salamander suit's fireproofing was worthy to include in the TRO entry-it didn't DIE when you hit the hex with an inferno strike!)
Vehicle play (successful) was VERY DIFFERENT from Total Warfare in the bMR era- you didn't let your tanks sit anywhere for long, because it literally was 'keep moving or die', and successful tactics (for me) revolved around 'pressure' and movement. (at one point prior to TW's writing I manifestoed out this idea that the slowest tank you can field effectively is about a 4/6. That's fast enough that you don't need to flank to have a positve TMM,which means not taking the flanking penalty with every shot.)
such rules would NOT play well with most audiences in the present day, likewise, TW's adoption of Munchtek's Rotor Damage Nerf is the only reason people today think a Yellowjacket or other slow VTOL even CAN be viable as more than a way to redistribute expensive lostech to the other side as salvage while you lose gloriously (and expensively).
How so?? imagine your local combined-arms lord coping with the idea that a PPC can shear the rotors right off, that a Medium Laser can knock his birds down...because mister rotor takes FULL DAMAGE from being hit.
With anything that CAN hit.
think about how that changes what your players think is 'good'.
all of a sudden, heavier does NOT automatically equal 'better', instead, if you want to use it successfully, you have to change how you're using it and shelve the 'mechwarrior standard of "well, it's bigger so it's got to be better" in favor of a different paradigm.
(playing "Goat Path" scenario with H-7s in BMR(r) is a fairly different experience when you're not using H-7s and you don't have the munchtek rotor damage nerf going for you. Those AC/2's suddenly make a LOT more sense than something bigger, that doesn't reach nearly as far, or something slower, with a lot more armor, because the armor becomes quite secondary in terms of survival when compared with things like cruising speed...).
my own contribution to this over-all thread is a lot simpler.
"In situations where you have dissimilar numbers on the initiative, the movement for the losing side is front-loaded instead of rear-loaded, with the movement of the larger force being multiples until parity is reached..."
in a 5 on 4, that means : 2(1), 1(1), 1(1), 1(1).
in a 5 on 8, that means : 2(1)2(1), 2(1), 1(1), 1(1)
The purpose here is twofold:
1. because larger forces involving human beings are harder to administrate and control.
2. The infamous "Initiative sinking" practice that creates a perception of unfairness. The attempt at instituting "Force size multiplier" resulted in ridiculous amounts of paperwork for what should be friendly, rules-lite gaming in the BV system, and failed to deliver on anything that wasn't simply choosing the most optimized custom desigins with ultra-elite pilots fighting singly.
Thus, we front load initiative because it gives a fairer fight when the forces are asymmetrically sized, without having to dig into complicated extra calculations and brutal penalties to get a fair match (if you were around for the FSM era, you may remember that ****** who walked into a 5 or 10 thousand BV match with a single custom 'mech and, to keep it BV compliant, forced everyone else to either dump the forces they'd spent weeks painting, or accept P/G scores somewhere in the 7/8 range.)
Artillery ScatterOn a Miss: the margin of failure decides distance, roll 1D6 for direction.
Why: Because gunnery should matter. Better gun crews shoot tighter groups than poorer gun crews. This being because maintenance and upkeep are part of the gunnery experience, as is being able to do trigonometry and ballistic calculations. This also streamlines and simplifies the artillery scatter rules, so that you spend less time rolling extra dice-you missed, you can see HOW BADLY YOU MISSED, the only question being where the shot landed. Most players can do simple addition or subtraction mentally (*it's part of the core game, really), so it takes less time and that means more time doing things you want to do instead.
Ultra Autocannons and JammingRoll Gunnery plus three to unjam.
not piloting, you're not bouncing it around, your gunnery crew (on a tank) or your 'mech's gunnery systems are doing what gunnery systems OUGHT TO BE DOING.
It's still complicated, but it makes certain designs less of a testimony to the fictional corruption of fictional corporations if the damn gun is at LEAST as reliable as a 1965 era M-16. YOu're already paying in weight and the inability to use specialty ammo (and C-bills if you're a campaign player) for the privilege of emptying your ammo boxes at twice the rate.
This and an adjustment to the rolls for unjamming a RAC to straight Gunnery to keep the balance between the two. The idea anyone would field a weapon that requires depo-level repair on a random basis regardless of what your soldiers are using it for is ludicrous. Armies don't buy systems that make a hash of their OWN operational planning, if they did, the British would've been fielding automatic rifles in 1914, regardless of their reliability issues, and the US would've been fielding improved versions of the Hall Rifle as standard in 1860, instead of going back to rifled muskets after the Mexican war. (AND The Germans would've been putting Mondragon rifles in the trenches instead of on the balloons in 1914.)
