Author Topic: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)  (Read 349 times)

Lycanphoenix

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
    • Message me on Telegram
Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« on: 26 April 2024, 07:07:58 »
BattleTech's current underwater rules in a nutshell:
- Half of your weapons no longer work.
- You could catastrophically implode at any moment.
- If it makes you feel any better, your mech runs slightly cooler.

Needless to say, I don't like it. These rules just aren't fun... Like they're purposefully designed to make you NOT want to play underwater.

I'm of the opinion that these rules need a significant overhaul... But I don't know where to start. Suggestions?

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3660
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #1 on: 26 April 2024, 07:30:58 »
I'd say reducing the chance of breach to only on '2' (unless you mount Hargel) would be the best step. Compartments can flood when armor is breached without Hargel which I think is fair. Half speed without UMUs are fine, pilot checks each hex though are not. I think having a IUMU might even be better as it allows for speedy underwater movement for even large mechs. I'm also pretty okay with the energy weapon range reduction. The real problem is Sensors, EWAR, and LOS (this is also true of the game as a whole), as well as the interaction with the surface. We have the equipment to manage most everything else (MASS, UMUs, Hargel).

There is no reason not to just use LRTs at present but I think there needs to be some other drawback like a -4 cluster reduction that gives you a reason to use something else. I think LRTs should actually have half range as they are very lightweight torpedoes. It should make more sense to use a Seabolt (from my Battlesea mod) and maybe have a MPM (the Undine aquatic missile launcher) ammo loadout for SRMs as that gives lightweight mechs the ability to strike from below. You could even have say super-cavitating ballistic ammo (at half load) which could make things interesting as that might allow ballistics to possess their full range giving you a reason to use a cannon underwater.

drjones

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 202
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #2 on: 26 April 2024, 08:50:20 »
I'm not sure about an overhaul, but one thing that seems odd to me is that breach checks only need to be made for damage incurred in the water, not for damage taken prior to entering the water (see TW pg. 121). I don't see the reasoning for that; it seems that prior damage could have compromised the damaged location and made it not watertight. I suppose there could be an explanation of either playability or something having to do with water pressure during the damage sequence. Also, if prior damage could make a location not watertight an interesting question would be whether you'd roll for a breach before or after entering the water; the underlying rationale would be whether a breach is detectable by the mechwarrior/crew before water starts pouring into the location upon submerging...

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3660
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #3 on: 26 April 2024, 09:07:41 »
I believe the standard rules are that any location without armor floods if you enter water so that is already taken care of. That said yes prior damage taken is not counted for the breach rolls.

I think the other thing might be that a water vessel should be built to watertight standards so they shouldn't flood if a location is destroyed. Battlemechs are not normally, however I think maybe having a reinforced chassis protects the components inside so that armor breach doesn't auto-flood. Gives reinforced structure a greater reason to be used and could enable underwater construction/mining mechs which I think might give you more reasons to fight down there.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3660
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #4 on: 26 April 2024, 14:11:04 »
Battlemechs are an ALL-terrain vehicle though and someone might want to play Blue Submarine No 6, it wouldn't actually change that much but its in the same niche as fighting on a Warship and there are rules for that. There are also plenty of reasons to fight below the waves (Harjel, Gold/Minerals, Planetary Defense C2 Nodes, factories, Society bases, etc...) but far fewer to fight on a Warship.

Zematus737

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #5 on: 26 April 2024, 15:54:33 »
Have you looked at the expanded Underwater rules found in TO pg193?  It's not much, but there isn't much you can do down there either.  It's too expensive to build down there and things are too vulnerable to the damage sustained.  You're better off going up to space rather than down there.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3660
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #6 on: 26 April 2024, 18:32:36 »
I don't know about that. Underwater construction certainly would be more complicated but space infrastructure is pretty vulnerable to anything and importantly visible. Having a hardened undersea facility could be advantageous to protect vulnerable infrastructure and for the security of whatever is inside.

Lycanphoenix

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
    • Message me on Telegram
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #7 on: 26 April 2024, 19:51:35 »
Sounds like the perfect recipe for a Nebula California version of Bioshock.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3660
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #8 on: 26 April 2024, 19:57:55 »
Or that Koltan mission in KOTOR. Sure a bad experiment on a space station could be pushed into a gas giant but a couple det charges and it's buried in the abyss under megatons of water.

idea weenie

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4885
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #9 on: 26 April 2024, 23:23:30 »
I don't know about that. Underwater construction certainly would be more complicated but space infrastructure is pretty vulnerable to anything and importantly visible. Having a hardened undersea facility could be advantageous to protect vulnerable infrastructure and for the security of whatever is inside.

I'd expect a dedicated underwater facility would have lots of submarine units to protect itself.  Add in a few expendable floating sensor pods to keep an eye out for enemy units being dropped from overhead.

Battlemechs would be Industrialmechs used for underwater construction/repairs/maintenance.

Zematus737

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #10 on: 26 April 2024, 23:45:20 »
In vacuum you may have to deal with radiation issues, but in the sea you will definitely need larger maintenance crews and have to deal with corrosion too.  Whatever you can build in space would last longer and will always be more useful than an underwater facility that can never reposition itself.  Defensively used as a fortification.  Sure.  I'm just questioning the practicality of it in comparison to a space shipyard and warships.  The purpose for anything down there is to hide whatever it is you don't want to be observed.  You can call it security if you want to, but it sounds like a replay of Bioshock to me.

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1717
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #11 on: 27 April 2024, 04:55:36 »
I'm with you on the needing to be more 'fun' part.  Water combat comes up a lot when a mech standing in water falls over.  So even in 3025 it happens all the time, cause you want those leg mounted heat sinks to work overtime, and you want partial cover.

The actual breach rules, flooding, PSRs for every square of movement, and reduced ranges on most things makes underwater combat a slog though.  It makes you roll lots of extra dice, looking for very low odds things like breaches on 10+s and falls on 4-s.  Its also pretty short ranged, and the torpedoes are either SRTs which really cause a lot of rolls, or LRTs which, thanks to the massive speed reduction and range reduction, are too punishing if the other side doesn't have them.  Its rocket tag, but not the fun fast paced frenzy kind like in quake.

VanVelding

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 552
    • Powered by Indifference, Focused by Caffeine
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #12 on: 27 April 2024, 13:29:13 »
I think you should run your table under any rules you want. But let me witter on before I start pitching some changes for you.

Fit for Purpose
Quote
BattleTech's current underwater rules in a nutshell:
- Half of your weapons no longer work.
- You could catastrophically implode at any moment.
- If it makes you feel any better, your mech runs slightly cooler.
Sauce for the goose. Both you and your opponents will suffer the same penalties. If you fight an enemy on an open plain, the unit with ground movement and range will have an advantage. On broken terrain, a unit with jump jets and close-range weapons will do well. In space, victory will probably go to the one who brough LB-X autocannons and SRMs. Battletech is a game about the terrain as much as it is the units. Water is just another terrain, one that confers benefits and drawbacks for the player to utilize.

Woods hexes and elevated hexes and building hexes all provide ways to interact with advantages and drawbacks which force a player to make a choice when interacting with them. Some units will have more choices than others, but that's the paradigm and it's how games work: players make choices between options to maximize their chances of winning.

TacOps introduces a lot of additional types of terrain and weather to increase those options. The entire a la carte design philosophy of the Battletech game/franchise is based on adding more things to your game/campaign to interact with.

Water in Battletech does offer some choices:
-Units with heat sinks in their legs can dissipate more heat and enjoy partial cover in exchange for losing a lot of MP, having no cover, and a chance to fall.
-Units can take total cover unless another unit follows them into the water to have a knife fight on a parallel map with a lot of dice rolls.
-You can push/charge someone into water so that their hit locations without armor are disabled.
-It can be a less-desirable hex when compared to an already undesirable hex (say, Rubble).
-Fielding non-mech aquatic units.

So Water fulfills its basic game role of offering choices. Nominally. After all, having a battlemech fight entirely in depth two water isn't necessarily the point of having those rules. Like how salt is a great seasoning, but it doesn't make an edible main course. Are the water rules bad if they were only ever intended to be an all-but-impassible terrain type? Well, we have submarines and UMUs and MASS and torpedoes that tell us they weren't "only ever" intended for that.

The modern water rules feel like the result of the grinding of "let's have some water on the battlefield" gears, "we're creating a realized universe which has to include boats" gears, and "let's make some aquatic toys" gears.

So, does Catalyst need to overhaul BattleTech's water rules? I don't think the IP's success depends on it.

Would it be nice for players to have a set of water rules which create a more engaging experience when fighting underwater with 'mechs? Yeees.

The Purpose
So what's not fun about using 'mechs in water?
-PSR rolls: Slows down the game and drains MP that are already at a premium.
-Breach rolls: Slows down the game and creates a random element where any damage can suddenly become critical.
-Ranges/weapons: If you duck into water mid-fight, you might already be close to an opponent, but if you're not then you've got to spend several turns closing.
-High movement costs: If every hex costs 4 MP at least, then your movement options drop precipitously. You have fewer choices and the short range of your weapons dictate most of those options will be "waddle into range."

You don't need to change all of these to make water combat more engaging.
Changing breach and PSR rolls would make aquatic combat a slow slugfest between 'mechs' energy weapons.
Changing the PSR rolls and diminished weapons would make water an arena of quick death from low TMMs and frequent breach rolls.
Changing breach rolls and high movement costs would make fighting in water a push-your-luck slugfest of speed versus (limited) firepower.

Changes
So which rules you'd change depends on what you want that combat to look like. Just a few ideas:
PSR Rolls
-Only require PSR rolls for moving from land to water.
-Only make one PSR per turn for being in water.
-Allow a unit to spend additional MP instead of making a PSR for being in water.

Breach Rolls
-Make breach rolls harder, but give larger weapons/damage clusters a bonus that makes them more likely.
-Require a breach roll only for damage clusters above a certain level (say, half a location's armor)
-Instead of multiple breach rolls, make one hit location roll at the end of a turn a unit was hit. If that location matches one that took damage, then the location is breached. (Very bad for the CT)
-Auto-breach for ever so much damage.
-Forget breaches and just make a determining critical hit roll at the end of the turn for each location hit. Instead of flooding whole locations, individual components are flooded.

Ranges/Weapons
-Allow all weapons to fire underwater
-Allow torpedoes as alternate ammunition for LRMs, SRMs, & MMLs.
-Let energy weapons work normally underwater.
-Let ballistics shoot into/from depth 1 water.
-Let ballistics shoot in water with a reduced range for a fail chance.
-Give ballistics aquatic specialty ammunition.

High Movement Costs
-Reduce the movement cost for depth 2+ water by 1 or 2 points. Reducing it by two points would be a lot.
-Reduce elevation change costs for 'mechs in depth 2+ water by half and let them change up to three elevation at a time.

Patch-Fixes
You could also create equipment for working in water, which doesn't revise water rules, but allows units more easily to circumvent their effects.
LaSMs - Land-sea 'Mechs. Like LAMs, LaSMs can reconfigure themselves to operate well in the sea. They transform like LAMs and once they're transformed, the need to make PSRs is removed and MP cost for water hexes is reduced.
Hydro-Attuned Lasers - Lasers that do okay on land and okay in water.
AES for water - AES for your legs that lets you avoid making water PSRs. Or a feature added to existing AES.
VLMs - Vertical launch missiles. They can shoot from water to targets not in water.
Depth Charges - Missiles that can fire from targets not in water to targets in water.
[Unused fortification superlative] Armor/Structure - A type of armor/structure that better resists breaches or diminishes breach effects. Or an added feature to existing armor/structure types.

You could also let me run into water. It's not really related to your thing, but let me slam a 'mech traveling at 110kph into a lake. I can take it!

Caution and Conclusion
The issue is that if you're on a 'normal' battlefield and your 'mechs are optimized for land combat and your enemies are optimized for aquatic combat, then they might find a lake and sit on it while you each dare each other to come into your tiny sub-battlefield where you have the advantage.

Submarines and aquatic units might be at a disadvantage. They have a niche now and letting 'mechs work in water might obsolete them. Counterpoint: I don't care about vehicles and never will.

If you create weapons that fire from water onto land, it could be very annoying. Albeit, a way to irritatingly force an enemy into your favored terrain, which they aren't optimized for and creates a flailing, unfun way for them to win or a flailing, unfun way for them to lose.

Water rules are clunky, clunkier than they should be given how close they are to the core gameplay experience. But they're not too far out of spec. A full revision isn't necessary, but how you change them depends on how you want to change the gameplay underwater. The best way to tell if your changes are working is to playtest, playtest, playtest.
Co-host of 17 to 01 and The Beige and The Bold. I also have a dusty old blog about whatever comes to mind vanvelding.blogspot.

Lycanphoenix

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
    • Message me on Telegram
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #13 on: 27 April 2024, 13:44:03 »
That was a very thorough post. Thank you for your insights!
Tragically, this forum doesn't have a Kudos or Reputation system...

I am definitely inclined to add more toys for underwater combat to try to mitigate some of the shortcomings, but so far all I can really come up with are a couple of ammo types and a couple of design quirks.
« Last Edit: 27 April 2024, 13:45:58 by Lycanphoenix »

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1454
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #14 on: 27 April 2024, 14:44:52 »
I see no reason to encourage underwater play... it's supposed to suck for technology optimized for fighting above water.
RAW, it also sucks for technology optimized for fighting in water (Hydrofoils, conventional hulled vessels, and to a much lesser extent amphibious vehicles & infantry) or even technology optimized for fighting underwater (Submarines)

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37420
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #15 on: 27 April 2024, 15:34:25 »
Submarines with LRTs work just fine (and dominate, as others have noted).  A 15-ton Savannah Master-alike is quite doable and deadly.  Space is hard... underwater is harder, and on purpose.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1454
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #16 on: 27 April 2024, 22:54:46 »
Nah, it effectively reduces the water game to rocket tag between quasi Savannah Master expies (and as an accidental side effect means the existing canon submarine designs, from the Manta & Moray to the Neptune, nonsensible in retrospect

Brown and green water warfare feels very one-note since it ends up boiling down to who has more Submarine Masters with few other tactical considerations.  I tried to rectify this with navy-themed equipment years ago, and while it helped a bit with variety it still fell short (Submarine Master Superiority remained). 

VanVelding

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 552
    • Powered by Indifference, Focused by Caffeine
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #17 on: 28 April 2024, 12:02:03 »
Nah, it effectively reduces the water game to rocket tag between quasi Savannah Master expies (and as an accidental side effect means the existing canon submarine designs, from the Manta & Moray to the Neptune, nonsensible in retrospect

Brown and green water warfare feels very one-note since it ends up boiling down to who has more Submarine Masters with few other tactical considerations.  I tried to rectify this with navy-themed equipment years ago, and while it helped a bit with variety it still fell short (Submarine Master Superiority remained).
Live your bliss man, but I don't see any reason to engage with someone who:
-Doesn't use these rules
-Thinks these rules are perfect

So, you made some changes before. Do you have them posted? How did they change play?
Co-host of 17 to 01 and The Beige and The Bold. I also have a dusty old blog about whatever comes to mind vanvelding.blogspot.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1454
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #18 on: 28 April 2024, 20:27:23 »
It was additional equipment rather than a rules change per say.  It's a much older post, probably one of my first.  You can find it here.

Basically, the small stuff (typical combat vehicle scale) had several additional options, albeit most of those were still missiles.  LRTs lost their range advantage to ELRTs, but ELRTs were so heavy you can't really shove it onto a Savannah Master expy.  Turbid ammo (Smokes for underwater) increased, "Harjel Liners" enabled underwater stuff to get better breach rolls at less weight and cost than regular harjel, and tandem-charged warheads gave SRTs a unique capability in the ability to roll breaches against Harjel units.

It was pretty fun, but I think Savannah Master expies were still top dog, and in hindsight some of the equipment rules ended up clunkier than I prefer.

Lycanphoenix

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
    • Message me on Telegram
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #19 on: 29 April 2024, 16:05:49 »
I remember those HarJel Liners! I was actually considering using them on underwater IndustrialMechs.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5859
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Is it time for an Underwater Rules Overhaul (?)
« Reply #20 on: Today at 02:39:28 »
To answer the primary question to the thread honestly:

Maybe not a rules overhaul, but we could definitely see an expansion on equipment and weapons.

For example, we already have LR and SR Torpedoes.  That could be expanded to Thunderbolts and Missile Artillery.  But, we could go a little further.

Underwater artillery in the form of Depth Charges.  These would be dropped from the surface by ships or aircraft.

And, on top of just pure damage output, we could play around with giving some of these weapons modifiers for breach rolls.

As for rules updates, I wouldn't mind seeing a slightly more comprehensive rule set for surface or submarine vessels and taking on water, ways to mitigate or stop said taking on water, and so on. 
It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

 

Register