Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?

[namar13766]

Would reclassifying the Mech weights for each category count as rewritten rules?

Because Takiro made a good post over on OBT that seemed pretty interesting.

20s would fall into a new Ultra-Light Category where they'd serve as auxiliaries (support roles, training, logistics, militia at first and then even out of there) at best, basically non-combatants.

Lights would now range from 25 to 40 tons (25, 30, 35, 40) and like all other categories there would be four integers of 5 ton design in each.

Medium would be 45 to 60 tons (45, 50, 55, 60).

Heavy would be 65 to 80 tons (65, 70, 75, 80).

Assaults would be 85 to 100 tons (85, 90, 95, 100).

[paladin2019]

Considering the lightest mechs can be 10 tons per the original conception of the game, yes, it would both be a re-written rule and one that writes out the original potentials.

[Daemion]

Yeah, I mean when you look at game performance and lore, autocannons and missiles are reversed.

Autocannons, if they are clusters of shells, should roll on the cluster table.  Thats not far fetched I think.  But the game rules have them as single impact weapons, whose range is separate from their damage (so not a KE round, but an explosive of some variety).  The only rule I have ever seen that treats ACs as something other then a single shot weapon is the rule in tac ops where you can split the AC damage in half, for exactly 2 instances of damage on 2 nearby mechs.

Meanwhile, the art of missiles is large, single firing missiles, but the game treats them as clusters of missiles that spread over a target.  An SRM is a far better stand in for a rapid fire 120mm then an AC5.  And the AC5, with the minimum range, is a better stand in for a medium range missile with a single impact damage.  I often point out the art is very magnified, as the Dougram missiles on the wolverine and such were all single shot, 1 missile at a time weapons.  Battletech kept the art, but the rules have each missile only a tiny fraction of the size of the launcher.  All 20 LRM launch tubes can fit in the space around a single launch tube in the art... The twin LRM20s on an archer, in scale, would look like 20 imperceptibly small holes where missile 1 goes, with the rest of that space being flat.  An SRM6 would look more like a revolver or gattling cannon, with how small the missiles actually are and how fast they are loaded.

The gun art is also off from fluff, again cause everything is too large.  The gun on top of the marauder is supposed to be a 120mm firing 3 round clips... thats fine, BUT... the actual size of that gun is massive.  Way bigger then a 120, and no clip feed or clips at all.  The inner barrel diameter is roughly 1/22 the height (someone else feel free to take a picture of theirs for a better measurement, I just used the pixel length in paint to divide the height in pixels with the width, but imprecisely), so if it was a 12 meter tall marauder then that barrel is 530 mm.  So since art influences so much of the game and how its perceived, ill just leave it at that haha.

This is why I think that AC munitions have a bit of homing capacity in them, which is the basis for the advanced Precision Ammo you get in the 3060s.

What most people are describing are the modern dead-fire rounds.  They go where the gun is pointing at the time of firing.  Homing better explains the grouping of standard, ultra, and even Rotary ACs. 

So, as such, I don't see a problem with implementing dumb-fire munitions as an alternate ammo type that requires rolling on the cluster chart to figure out how much damage you're doing before you roll a single damage location. 

And, the VSAC concept can simply be its own class of weapon.  Treat it as tech, rather than a hard rule, and then you can have the best of both worlds.

I'm also looking at implementing a style of autocannon that rolls a number of attacks equal to its rating, each one doing a single point of damage, to represent older AC technologies which use dumb-fire cannon munitions.  If the cannon is braced, the shots which hit all group in one spot.  If it isn't they go random. 

[Daemion]

So, I'm looking at what the Alpha Strike handling of AeroSpace ground attacks, and I'm thinking it wouldn't take much to implement them to standard.

My group already allows ground units to attack anywhere along the declared path of travel instead of the weird aiming at the center of the map rule.  Never made sense.  To hear that was implemented in AS is kinda cool.

And, because we are now on a ground map, Aero units must now use individual ground ranges and receive the appropriate to-hit modifiers, including the 2 hex per altitude level addition to the final range value that ground units face.  If it isn't that way already, I would have the fighters roll and attack roll for each weapon in an attack much like ground units, to keep the system matching.

That's a start.

For playing on the low altitude map, I would allow grounded dropships to act as Anti-Aircraft platforms, being able to engage and be engaged by aircraft at the low-altitude ranges.  It's a benefit and drawback to being big armored buildings.  And, that would be how I would treat any unit or installation that has an Anti-Aircraft quirk or ability.  They get to engage at Low-Altitude range bands.  And, then we can implement AA Arrow IV and artillery batteries. Of course, LoS would be an issue if there is terrain tall enough.

So the Jag and the Rifleman and the Aesir and the Partyvan could be participants in air battles on the low altitude map.  If they're doing this while also in the middle of a firefight on the ground (a ground game) they would not be able to dedicate fire to anything in the game.  I'm sure there could be some way to work out whether they can move and do this and implement the appropriate modifiers to their attacks, or not.  It would be easier to require they are stationary.

I'll give it some extra thought, but I'm thinking that they may either have to be immobile while performing AA work, allowing Aircraft to shoot back at them, or they're immune to Aero range fire, forcing Aircraft to make an attack pass on them to take them out.

[Mechanis]

Yeah, I mean when you look at game performance and lore, autocannons and missiles are reversed.

Autocannons, if they are clusters of shells, should roll on the cluster table.  Thats not far fetched I think.  But the game rules have them as single impact weapons, whose range is separate from their damage (so not a KE round, but an explosive of some variety).  The only rule I have ever seen that treats ACs as something other then a single shot weapon is the rule in tac ops where you can split the AC damage in half, for exactly 2 instances of damage on 2 nearby mechs.

Meanwhile, the art of missiles is large, single firing missiles, but the game treats them as clusters of missiles that spread over a target.  An SRM is a far better stand in for a rapid fire 120mm then an AC5.  And the AC5, with the minimum range, is a better stand in for a medium range missile with a single impact damage.  I often point out the art is very magnified, as the Dougram missiles on the wolverine and such were all single shot, 1 missile at a time weapons.  Battletech kept the art, but the rules have each missile only a tiny fraction of the size of the launcher.  All 20 LRM launch tubes can fit in the space around a single launch tube in the art... The twin LRM20s on an archer, in scale, would look like 20 imperceptibly small holes where missile 1 goes, with the rest of that space being flat.  An SRM6 would look more like a revolver or gattling cannon, with how small the missiles actually are and how fast they are loaded.

The gun art is also off from fluff, again cause everything is too large.  The gun on top of the marauder is supposed to be a 120mm firing 3 round clips... thats fine, BUT... the actual size of that gun is massive.  Way bigger then a 120, and no clip feed or clips at all.  The inner barrel diameter is roughly 1/22 the height (someone else feel free to take a picture of theirs for a better measurement, I just used the pixel length in paint to divide the height in pixels with the width, but imprecisely), so if it was a 12 meter tall marauder then that barrel is 530 mm.  So since art influences so much of the game and how its perceived, ill just leave it at that haha.

Note that missile lore states they're a third the length of previous missiles (as they no longer have separate payload and propellent) and so can be presumed to be of similar diameter to existing circa 1980s missile systems like, for example, the Hellfire; while I definitely agree that much of the art and model sculpts are significantly out of scale to various degrees, it is often a lot less than you might think,
I do, however, agree that Autocannons have a bit of a disconnect between their lore and mechanical implementation, but frankly unless you drastically reduced their mass changing them to a cluster weapon would remove the only real reason to bring them at all
(And while lore does state Autocannons usually have high fire rates and (relatively) modest calibers, there are a few here and there which are just single shot (in the context of a ten second turn) weapons with comically enormous bore diameters, so it would make all that a little awkward.)

[DevianID]

Note that missile lore states they're a third the length of previous missiles (as they no longer have separate payload and propellent)

I have heard the 'missiles look like coke bottles' thing before, but the propellent/payload thing isnt real is it?  A missile that hits at shorter range doesnt do more damage.

Now, if the missile is actually a gyrojet, or recoilles rifle, both are 'coke bottle' shaped that has an odd propellent system.  It turns SRMs into RPGs with limited guidance.  While Im not opposed to such, as most missiles have exhaust vents on all the new art, im pretty sure we have seen missiles in the art looking like traditional long missiles--though the art is 'heroicly' scaled so its hard to base anything on it anymore.

[paladin2019]

I have heard the 'missiles look like coke bottles' thing before, but the propellent/payload thing isnt real is it?  A missile that hits at shorter range doesnt do more damage.

As far as coke can missiles, this is where the game came from

[Zematus737]

Overruns in Aerospace ACS map should use the Tactical Value rather than size of the Unit.

[DevianID]

As far as coke can missiles, this is where the game came from

That makes me want a 2 SRM6 archer in place of the LRM20, with a head mounted flamer.  Figures the coke bottle missiles came from macross haha.

Im more familiar with this art:


EDIT: The first is the 2.5 meter long maverick missile, and the second is the LRM5 with what appears to be a maverick derivative.  The art missile is clearly super oversized being based on the 250ish KG maverick, same with the launch tubes on the mechs being far too wide.  If the missiles are micro missiles, which they could be, then all 5 of those launch ports would fit in the same space of 1 LRM tube on the existing models (and would be almost imperceptible at the mini scale instead of the wide missiles we have now).

[paladin2019]

That second illo seems to be based on the Phoenix, but fins like either of those are a hard sell in a tube launched munition.

Edits for pics

[Daryk]

The Phoenix chops the front of the Maverick's fins off... the illustration doesn't...

[paladin2019]

The Phoenix chops the front of the Maverick's fins off... the illustration doesn't...

More accurately, the Maverick extends the slopes of the Phoenix's wings fins, but, regardless, I guess you're saying the square front of the wings fins makes it totally impossible that the artist could have taken inspiration from a different missile. Only Maverick is possible 


edit: wings? 

[DevianID]

Either way, the missiles the art uses are massive if they are maverick or phoenix missile proportions like in the art.  And like, I get it, you want to see the missile tubes on the mech, but the art and mini supports single fired large missiles and the rules support small rockets or RPG warhead clusters.

It would be a different feeling, but an SRM6 mounting 6 total missiles, dealing 20 damage and 10 heat per launch, instead of 8 damage, 4 heat, and 15 shots, would match the massive missiles in the mini/art and keep the total damage/heat in parity, but would frontload the damage to get the games done a bit sooner.  Also, the srm2 on a shadowhawk wouldnt be a joke haha.

[Mechanis]

That makes me want a 2 SRM6 archer in place of the LRM20, with a head mounted flamer.  Figures the coke bottle missiles came from macross haha.

Im more familiar with this art:


EDIT: The first is the 2.5 meter long maverick missile, and the second is the LRM5 with what appears to be a maverick derivative.  The art missile is clearly super oversized being based on the 250ish KG maverick, same with the launch tubes on the mechs being far too wide.  If the missiles are micro missiles, which they could be, then all 5 of those launch ports would fit in the same space of 1 LRM tube on the existing models (and would be almost imperceptible at the mini scale instead of the wide missiles we have now).

Ah. I see.

You are confusing the Arrow IV Artillery System - which is what that art is for - with the LRM 5 (which has not to my knowledge been given art, ever, besides the various TROs/model sculpts.)

All is made clear!

But yeah, they're not necessarily blunt cylinders, because aerodynamics, but the lore is pretty explicit that they do not have separate payload and propellent, this being the big advance that makes BT Missile Launchers practical vis a vis ammunition.

So BT missiles would likely still look... Basically like a modern missile, but be like, maybe a foot and a half long for something the power of a Hellfire.h

Edit: though given how aerodynamics works, I suspect that most "actually" sort of split the difference, and are smaller in diameter while being only *somewhat* shorter, just because forward cross-sectional area has a much greater impact on aerodynamic efficiency than length!

[Cannonshop]

Another one:
Infantry Ranges (that is, ranges of weapons relative to unit types they're pointed at.)

The common justification for the short-short-short range of battletech weapons, is Battlmech armors.  ATOW gives significantly longer ranges for rifles and machineguns and the like vs. human beings, than the base ranges in TM or standard Battletech.

For heavy anti-infantry weapons with a significant anti-infantry bonus, specifically laser or ballistic weapons, increase range by three on the battletech map, when firing at conventional infantry.


Thus a Machinegun has a short range of 3, and a long range of 9, when firing at conventional infantry, but still has a short of 1 and a long of 3 when firing at battlearmor, other 'mechs, vehicles, "Mechanized" infantry (TW) etc.

CF, Hard Cover, etc.

When firing at infantry forted up in bunkers or fortified positions (or indoors), the CF of the structure reduces infantry casualties by the CF in question.  (a CF of 5 on a structure reduces damage by 5 casualties), never to go below 1.  (aka if you get a hit on infantry under cover, and that cover exceeds your 2d6 dice roll with your machinegun, they still take ONE casualty minimum.  the reason? there's always some dumbass who sticks his head up when he needs to be ducking.)

Digging in; Infantry digging into a position gain one CF per turn spent digging in, up to 5 CF on open terrain.  Rubbled hexes grant one CF of cover base, but multiply this effort by two.  (maximum Ten CF for infantry dug in)  Note: while digging in, the platoon or squad in question may not move from that hex, fire at opposing units, or spot for artillery.  Doing so locks the CF of the dug in hex at whatever it was the previous turn, until reduced by incoming fire, or other clearing efforts.

Specific combat-engineering units may double the maximum.

Spotter Effects: Artillery

one Artillery spotter enables indirect fire, two reduces indirect fire's scatter by one hex, three by two hexes, four by three hexes to a minimum distance of one hex.  These spotters may not engage in other activities while spotting unless the artillery unit has...

C3M/Command console/Command Post active (Present on the board/map) 

[Daryk]

I'd probably also require the spotters to have Recon Cameras (at least) to allow them to do something else while spotting.

[Col Toda]

Like the mass vs armor points idea . Also I like any anti missile system or method if it reduces cluster number below 2 all missile shot down  or  destroyed

[Cannonshop]

I'd probably also require the spotters to have Recon Cameras (at least) to allow them to do something else while spotting.

hmm...it would give 'gear' certain advantages, now wouldn't it?

Recon Camera; allows a unit to 'spot' while moving.

C3 slave: Permits units in the same network to both fire, and move.

(C3M would grant the same FDC function that a command console does, on top of the other functions)

'Drop' sensors; Act as a spotter for the hex they're in.

[paladin2019]

Also I like any anti missile system or method if it reduces cluster number below 2 all missile shot down  or  destroyed

The original iteration made you declare which volley you were engaging before rolls are made to hit and you reduce the volley by 1d6 missiles. If you don't reduce the volley to zero and the volley subsequently hits, you roll on the smaller cluster table closest to how many missiles are left.

[Daemion]

I gotta admit that I really like the application to the cluster table approach.  One thing we tried as a bridge was to roll a d3 for primitive AMSs and a D6 for clan, and the value is applied to the cluster roll. 

Also, it seems to me that an AMS should be able to engage any and all clusters from a target unit, but at the expense of heat and/or ammo (in the case of Laser AMS, no ammo).  One per use, effectively.  It would help bring back the unpredictability of heat and ammo expenditure of the BMR and older systems, but a little more functionality.


As for the missile art, I've decided in my own Head canon that some of the fresh launch depictions we see in art are a 'shot cannister' that contains the individual munitions which will burst out of it at some point in the flight.  So, when an LRM-5 shoots its '5 missiles' it launches them packed in a large cannister, and then once past minimum, they burst out and continue their trajectory as individual missiles.  This goes against the lore of the RPGs, of course, but, I can live with that.

[Daemion]

Another one:
Infantry Ranges (that is, ranges of weapons relative to unit types they're pointed at.)

The common justification for the short-short-short range of battletech weapons, is Battlmech armors.  ATOW gives significantly longer ranges for rifles and machineguns and the like vs. human beings, than the base ranges in TM or standard Battletech.

For heavy anti-infantry weapons with a significant anti-infantry bonus, specifically laser or ballistic weapons, increase range by three on the battletech map, when firing at conventional infantry.

It's elegant enough and it roughly fits the ranges the support weapons get in AToW from what I've seen that I'm gonna use this.  It makes generating stats for the support weapons for these BA Squad Style sheets easier.

[DevianID]

You are confusing the Arrow IV Artillery System - which is what that art is for - with the LRM 5 (which has not to my knowledge been given art, ever, besides the various TROs/model sculpts.)

looks like the sarna article my image used of the LRM is a flipped arrow launcher then.  I blame sarna haha.

I looked thought techmanual and tacops, and this is the only image I see for an LRM in that book, specifically the thunder LRM.  The SRM has more illustrations, and the SRM is pretty short and wide, kinda like an RPG/recoilless round that doesnt taper down, or a short/wide Javelin.

There is also the old Mad Cat cutaway showing pretty massive LRMs with the launcher.  The Mad Cat with the 200 mm garret arsenal missiles, which are massive.  They also only had 15 launch tubes in the OG art.  Those massive missiles are kinda why I would have written the missiles to be individual, art matching missiles like I mention above.  So that 200 mm LRM would be an 8 damage single shot missile costing 4 heat per launch, so if you have an LRM15 you have 15 8 damage missiles generating 4 heat per launch.  So an LRM5 would weigh 2.5 tons (1.5 tons clan), with 5 shots max, for 40 potential damage, instead of 3 damage at 12 shots like a normal LRM5 with half an ammo bin.

But yeah, they're not necessarily blunt cylinders, because aerodynamics, but the lore is pretty explicit that they do not have separate payload and propellent

I have seen others say this.  Is this like some old fluff?  It makes no sense, and I didnt see it mentioned in the techmanual.  Even in the very first Gray Death novel, the SRM had a normal payload or an inferno payload--and inferno fuel wasnt described as rocket fuel.  There is a ton of different payloads missiles have, isnt it impossible the propellent and payload are the same?  Also, never has an LRM done more damage at short range, which we presume would happen if it had more propellent acting as payload.

[Nerdi]

The biggest issue with BattleTech Numbers for things like mass values is there is no formula, it's all out-of-a-hat gutfeel from the 80s/90s.

That is definitely not the situation. There was a formula. The engine rating table was generated most definitely from an exponential equation.  I tried to fit polynomials and they would not fit.
And that is the issue I have with it: The weights are too low for small engines and too high for large engines.

[Cannonshop]

That is definitely not the situation. There was a formula. The engine rating table was generated most definitely from an exponential equation.  I tried to fit polynomials and they would not fit.
And that is the issue I have with it: The weights are too low for small engines and too high for large engines.

Square/cube law issues??  Problem I can see immediately with your statement, is that nobody's ever actually BUILT a fusion reactor that generated more energy than it took to get it going and takes to keep it going.

Why is that important? because it could be that while the power increases linearly, the shit needed to keep it running is exponentially heavier to take the strain.

This isn't like your V8 engine here.  the mass increasing exponentially might actually be, within the magic  physics of teh setting, absolutely necessary to handle the process and keep it going.  We can't apply real-world physics here, because we've been 20 years from working fusion power for the last sixty, which puts it firmly in the 'magic system' category-the numbers balance in the setting because it's one of the fantasy elements of the science fantasy.

[DevianID]

Engine weights and power output are not linked, using base game rules and comparing to physics.  AKA, a 40 ton mech moving 8/12 uses a 320 engine.  An 80 ton mech moving 4/6 uses the same engine.  However, engine power needed for speed/acceleration isnt linear to mass IRL.  If I take a car and remove half of the non-drivetrain weight, so its an engine sled, it wouldnt have double the acceleration and top speed.

If the engine weights were linear, but your engine rating was tonnage*speed^2, we would get a much better curve.  As it is, the 10 ton mechs and 5 ton vehicles are just FAR too fast, as the engine scaling, like Nerdi points out, are not properly scaled.

As for the engines themselves, a 10 rated engine in game, in like a trailer, can power infinite medium lasers, until the weight of the trailer and cooling system, not the output of the engine, is the limiting factor.  So even the smallest engine has 'infinite' output, its the other stuff like transmission, drive train/myomere, ect, that should be a majority of engine weight.  Bigger engines have more efficient cooling, but only by a little bit.

Like, if the engine formula was .5 * tonnage * walk^2, a cicada would have a 1280 engine and a zeus would have a 640.  The Cicada engine would be 2x as strong, which makes more sense as it goes twice as fast, for a 4x energy cost, at half the weight.

It also would mean the joke speeds on things like savanah masters would get tonned WAY the heck down, into a much more gameplay friendly space.  instead of 15/23 being the lightest possible engine, it would be close to as heavy as a 45 ton mech's engine moving 5/8--forcing those too fast units to have more reasonable speeds.

Edit: to be fair, if we switched to a more energy correct engine/drivetrain weight, we would need exponential structure and armor costs.  Like how a cicada's engine should require more then a Zeus, the Zeus's structure and armor, point for point, should cost more then the cicadas.  4 tons of structure supporting 40 tons means an 80 ton unit would need 16 tons of structure, since support scales in cross section area while weight scales in volume.  At a certain point big things bones are not wide enough to support the weight due to this scaling issue.

[Nerdi]

If the engine weights were linear, but your engine rating was tonnage*speed^2, we would get a much better curve.  As it is, the 10 ton mechs and 5 ton vehicles are just FAR too fast, as the engine scaling, like Nerdi points out, are not properly scaled.
...
It also would mean the joke speeds on things like savanah masters would get tonned WAY the heck down, into a much more gameplay friendly space.  instead of 15/23 being the lightest possible engine, it would be close to as heavy as a 45 ton mech's engine moving 5/8--forcing those too fast units to have more reasonable speeds.

Edit: to be fair, if we switched to a more energy correct engine/drivetrain weight, we would need exponential structure and armor costs.  Like how a cicada's engine should require more then a Zeus, the Zeus's structure and armor, point for point, should cost more then the cicadas.  4 tons of structure supporting 40 tons means an 80 ton unit would need 16 tons of structure, since support scales in cross section area while weight scales in volume.  At a certain point big things bones are not wide enough to support the weight due to this scaling issue.

The Savannah Master is the unit that combines all above deficits, it should not be possible.

It's a game in a fictional universe so it only has to work as such.
Fusion engines must not be as light as they can be by the rules.
Using the engine for the scaling of the units is fine as long as it is done right. And I think it isn't right at the bottom end. That one can not build a useful 100t Mech in the Lostech age is good. Third order scaling with a minimum weight could have achieved the same. In my second post I provided an example that is similar to the original table.

[Daemion]

And, that supports the idea that the actual, physical power plant in a Mech isn't that heavy as the 'rating' would have you believe.  It really is extra Myomer beyond the base IS to get the MP for Mechs, and probably means more power plug-in slots to the reactor itself.

But, the power train of a modern vehicle isn't the same as more Myomer and more signal boosters to get the contractions at higher speeds, or raw strength to move heavier weights. 

However, if that's really the case, then the physical damage that Mechs should be able to do should probably also be based on the engine rating and not on pure tonnage, as well.

So, a Cicada should be kicking as hard as An Awesome with a 320 Power (Engine) Rating.

[Charistoph]

Should I point out that the power plant needed to run weapons in buildings/turrets is based on the Damage those weapons do?

[DevianID]

Im not familiar with those building rules.  Techmanual?

I only know about the trailer of any size using a 10 rated engine if it doesn't want to hook up to a parent vehicle.

[Daemion]

The only building emplacement rules I'm familiar with happen to be out of the BattleTech Manual and the BMR.  And, when powering the weapons, the rating was based equipment tonnage, I think.  Been a while since I looked, though.

No, I derived my conclusion from, of all things, the cost calculation of actuators, which was based not on the Internals, but the Engine Rating.