It hurts to be King! Why aren't the Subjects suffering as much or more?

[Nightlord01]

That, however, isn't the issue that makes vehicles more survivable than people think. All of your mathematic probabilities you cite are all assuming everything is equal. But nothing is ever equal in a game in BT. There's one very big aspect to the game that people seem to be forgetting, and it happens a lot. Mechs hand out bonus damage against themselves to their opponents. I'm talking about falling in general. It doesn't just happen from failing a kick, it happens from any PSR, whether by choice or by circumstance. And, when a Mech falls, it hurts itself.

The only time a mech is subject to a piloting roll is either through combat damage, or through the players choices, activating MASC or moving into rough terrain etc.

Vehicles have a lot more ways to suffer from combat damage, both penetrating and non-penetrating.

I'm thinking that whatever way you cut it, mechs are advantaged.

[Daemion]

I think you are misunderstanding something crucial - The reason why conventional vehicles & infantry don't have highly unlikely chances of dealing very limited but potentially crippling damage to themselves isn't because the game creators are looking to make them as good or better than 'Mechs - it's because the game designers understand that they aren't the focus of the game, so their rules are made intrinsically simpler.  There aren't rules for the possibility of an infantry platoon's HMG jamming not because it's impossible in the Battletech universe or because the authors want to buff infantry, but because infantry are plenty weak already and adding a further complicated rule for infantry machine gun jams that will at most reduce damage output by 2 just isn't worth the page space to print it and would be no fun for the majority of players, because it would take time away from playing with the 'Mechs.

So, since they're cannon fodder, who cares?

I completely understand the sentiment. No matter how cool-looking or well statted a tank may be, I too would prefer to play a Mech any day. I have a couple players in my groups who refuse to play anything but Mechs, but they have no problem facing off against them. I only run vehicles and battle armor and maybe some infantry as opposition for somebody's hero force, or because it's strongly implied in the force I'm designing.

But, I don't dislike taking vees or infantry because they're week. It's because they're too simple, and quite boring. As a game, I'd rather be entertained by all that it has to offer, and not just the primary focus element.

I believe you're a widely versed gamer with a wide range of systems under your belt. I strongly suspect that you know, like I know, that there are many better ways to add significant detail and give infantry and vehicles flavor, character, and options - making them entertaining - while still streamlining them and keeping them in their cannon fodder position. As it stands, the current style, and even some of the older styles, are highly unsatisfactory. It's not that they simply don't do certain things; they aren't even given the choice, regardless of how bad the results may be afterward.

If you go back to older, simpler rulesets, you'll find Mechs feel more powerful. Why? Because the rules are simpler. You attacked a wood hex and it was automatically cleared, for example. Sure, certain weapons were left out when choosing to implement that option, but it was there. The same applies with vehicles and infantry. With simpler rules, they don't have as many risks or drawbacks to weaken them.

I, myself, would welcome detail, and I'm not the only one. I see posts every now and then, and even short threads, asking about a revamped BattleTroops. Some people go so far as to look to the RPGs for a method of moderately detailed personnel combat that can still integrate with the standard BattleTech game. So, it's not like people don't care about the more conventional units.

As I said, I can think of all kinds of ways to make a better system, but to post it would be a fan-design. So I won't. I'll just leave it at I know the new game designers could have done better, and still can.

[MadCapellan]

But, I don't dislike taking vees or infantry because they're week. It's because they're too simple, and quite boring.

See, I felt they were lacking a certain something under BMR, but I feel that under Total Warfare, they're close to perfect. Conventional infantry have their battlefield niche (ground-holders that require special tools to eliminate and harassers extraordinaire) and so do conventional vehicles (VTOLs and hovercraft are fast fragile flankers, & tracked units are mobile sentry guns) I'm not sure what else they could possibly need to make them more fun to play. Almost any change will either make them more powerful (really not acceptable) or will have so little effect on the game as to be not worth the time to roll out and track.

[StoneRhino]

I would say that kicking a vehicle, which is getting a free attack simply because you are a mech, is far from a dubious benefit. With a nice big -2 to the TN for a kick, it makes getting in close risky business for even a light mech trying to circle an assault mech.

Jumpjets? Good luck getting that tank to do that in the standard rules.

Using lasers with that flexible heatscale as a mech instead of having to add a standard heat sink for each point of heat your weapons use is hardly dubious.

Double heatsinks that only a mech can use? Really??? Guess that's another questionable advantage.

I don't think you should really put much into the borderline stupid saying that mechs are the king. They shouldn't be without being challenged, otherwise there's no point to different units other then to give the other person free kills to pad their ego. They shouldn't be the best at everything either, and to they really should be subject to far more critical hits then a vehicle due to all of the moving parts.

I used to play with the old BMR+Maxtech+some of the Tactical handbook rules and as much as it improved vehicles and infantry, mechs were still the preferred units for most of the group. It made the game greater depth once infantry weren't being auto splatted by a gauss rifle, and 100 ton vehicles not being destroyed by an SRM2+inferno round.

The game is a much better position then it was when it comes to the base rules then any point in the past. Mechs become pointless once the other units lose their ability to do anything other then die. It becomes a question of why use anything but a mech? Once you start playing games of nothing but mechs you start to wonder why the game seems so one dimensional since there are fewer options to play. Some people like that, I get it, but it makes the game rather simple minded at best at that point since flame throwers and machine guns become tonnage for more armor and medium lasers.

Hopefully the next rules set will put artillery back into the "tournament" level of rules and stop assuming that the playerbase is just to stupid to use it. Not only that it removes artillery from basic level games which then requires the same conversation as adding in optional rules, or experimental tech when it really should just be part of the base game. If people that play other games can handle artillery, I'm pretty sure that BT players can. I also hope to see infantry options found in maxtech and tacops gets moved to the standard rules.

[StoneRhino]

I, myself, would welcome detail, and I'm not the only one. I see posts every now and then, and even short threads, asking about a revamped BattleTroops. Some people go so far as to look to the RPGs for a method of moderately detailed personnel combat that can still integrate with the standard BattleTech game. So, it's not like people don't care about the more conventional units.

I would be at least one of those individuals asking about Battletroops2. I had started working on creating an updated version of the game using the Time of War rules, but my harddrive crashed, taking with it the rules for a CCG I was working on as well.

I hate the idea that people assume that vehicles and infantry should be viewed as cannon fodder. I hate the idea that people think that every fight is going to be mech centric though there are several times more vehicles and platoons of infantry then there are mechs in any given faction. Sure, one faction might put more RnD into their mechs, but another might get the bright idea of putting as much into their conventional forces due to the massive number of units that would benefit from any upgrades.