Author Topic: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion  (Read 34737 times)

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #180 on: 17 February 2019, 21:50:03 »
I concede.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #181 on: 17 February 2019, 22:46:54 »
Are you trying to tell me that having shorter range brackets won't result in more misses when shots are taken at the same target at the same range? Reducing range brackets means reduced overall accuracy. You can try to say that most people won't take shots at long range, but that just points back to the fact that taking shots at long range isn't really worth doing due to how inaccurate it is.

I'm suggesting that "average accuracy" is a terrible way to illustrate that issue, because the worst pulse laser in the game has a higher average accuracy now than anything you could hope to prove with the comparison you used, and the Heavy machine Gun has one of the highest "average accuracy" % in the game.

Your point was made with follow-up clarification but good lord is that a terrible metric to put any stock into.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #182 on: 17 February 2019, 23:09:44 »
"Pulse" should mean a hit bonus (I favor half range penalties) at the same ranges.

That's like.... way down the list of things that I'd consider changing first, though.  First on the chopping block is the 2d6 location table, the critical hit resolution tables, and the cluster hits table.

Totally with you. As stated up thread I feel like the biggest issue with the rules is everything that happens after I roll to hit.

On a side note, interesting idea with pulse lasers.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #183 on: 18 February 2019, 02:14:32 »
Well, if any of you are interested, this thread inspired me to focus my frustration on finishing a simple expansion onto the Beginner Box I've been working on since I opened it. The quick start rules look great. My old project was called BattleStrike, but I scraped that and about started over.

All it does:

1 - Add a simplified heat scale without changing weapon stats
2 - Add pilot hits caused by head hits and ammo explosions from heat
3 - Add an abstract critical hit system using the standard chart with Alpha Strike-ish results
4 - Expand on terrain (Just threw in Depth 1 water, level changes, rough terrain, and partial cover)
5 - (Optional) Add physical attacks, either do one of those or fire weapons, all in the weapons attack phase.

I'm over trying to make suggestions on the base game. It's a losing battle.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12192
  • Just a little piglet serving the Capellan State!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #184 on: 18 February 2019, 08:00:43 »
I'm suggesting that "average accuracy" is a terrible way to illustrate that issue, because the worst pulse laser in the game has a higher average accuracy now than anything you could hope to prove with the comparison you used, and the Heavy machine Gun has one of the highest "average accuracy" % in the game.

Your point was made with follow-up clarification but good lord is that a terrible metric to put any stock into.

Those weapons may be terrible, but the reason they are terrible isn't their accuracy! My intent was to show how big a difference the proposed rules made to weapon accuracy with a single value. It was the best way I could come up with on the spot to illustrate how much accuracy was being gained/lost. Yes, it is reflects only a single attribute of a weapon - it's average accuracy across the length of its range - but as that was the issue at hand & that was being discussed, I don't see why assigning it a specific value is inherently without merit.

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #185 on: 18 February 2019, 12:51:17 »
Those weapons may be terrible, but the reason they are terrible isn't their accuracy! My intent was to show how big a difference the proposed rules made to weapon accuracy with a single value. It was the best way I could come up with on the spot to illustrate how much accuracy was being gained/lost. Yes, it is reflects only a single attribute of a weapon - it's average accuracy across the length of its range - but as that was the issue at hand & that was being discussed, I don't see why assigning it a specific value is inherently without merit.

I agree with you that the bracket thing was a terrible idea. We thought a maximum range cap per weapon would help, but obviously not. However, it looks far more terrible than what it should because your numbers assume two things:

1) Out ranging the medium laser, either by stats or combined with the mobility or range to do that, doesn't matter.
2) Every player is just going to spam medium lasers and fight in short range on 1 map. Which honestly has also been an issue under the current system.

So what is the actual issue here? Range no matter how it's been done since the 80's? Or weapon balance, which has been a pretty big issue with no attempts to fix it? All we get are band aids through weapons/equipment bloat, or blow it up with double heat sinks and ClanTech? Can't even do a simple fix for the infamous/rumored minimum range typo for Clan LRM's.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12192
  • Just a little piglet serving the Capellan State!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #186 on: 18 February 2019, 13:14:41 »
In my experience, it is never a weapon's maximum long range that matters - it is its maximum short range. The drop off in accuracy at medium range & beyond due to the interplay between the 2D6 bell curve & the +2 per bracket modifier makes engagement at medium range questionable unless standing still & long range more of a crap-shoot than a valid tactic. Being able to attack you opponent at short range when their weapons are at medium or long is a very valid & beneficial tactic. Striking at long-range from outside your enemy's weapon range won't accomplish anything unless your gauss rifle is lucky enough to score boxcars or you roll a floating crit. The medium laser is a tad unbalanced due to its efficiency, but staying outside 3 hexes & still being effective is pretty easy under the standard rules - 6 hexes when all weapons have the same short range? Not so much.

So what is the issue? I don't have much of an issue with the weapon to hit rules, so I'm not sure I should be the judge, but imbalance between weapons strikes me as a larger issue than the ranged to-hit rules overall, although I offered a few suggestions regarding that area.
« Last Edit: 18 February 2019, 13:21:26 by MadCapellan »

abou

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1891
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #187 on: 18 February 2019, 13:41:28 »
I saw someone suggested a 3D6 roll for to-hit. That is interesting. But does that make things more complicated or do you need to muck with modifiers to make it work?

It could potentially increase the benefit to medium and long-range combat. However, does that open another can of worms?

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19825
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #188 on: 18 February 2019, 14:07:41 »
I saw someone suggested a 3D6 roll for to-hit. That is interesting. But does that make things more complicated or do you need to muck with modifiers to make it work?

It could potentially increase the benefit to medium and long-range combat. However, does that open another can of worms?

depends on how easily you want to hit things. 12s is a 37% chance to hit with 3d6. 8s become an 84% success (181/216 possibilities). short range combat essentially becomes a turkey shoot.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

abou

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1891
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #189 on: 18 February 2019, 14:10:52 »
Oi... yeah, I don't like turkey that much anyway.

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12192
  • Just a little piglet serving the Capellan State!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #190 on: 18 February 2019, 14:47:13 »
The more dice you add to a roll, the more results cluster toward the median result. 3D6 will make results of 10-11 exceedingly common. If you're looking to flatten the effects of modifiers, you should try a 1D12 instead. This wouls have the knock-on effect of making shots at 12 significantly easier to hit, & head hits/crits much more common if you use it for hit locations......

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19825
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #191 on: 18 February 2019, 15:04:26 »
D12 also gives you an extra permiatation as 2d6 can’t roll 1. The fringe hits of 10+ get a huge boost. Law of unintended consequences bites you with much more common failures on even normally easy PSRs and things like RAC jams

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6324
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #192 on: 18 February 2019, 15:18:10 »
The more dice you add to a roll, the more results cluster toward the median result. 3D6 will make results of 10-11 exceedingly common. If you're looking to flatten the effects of modifiers, you should try a 1D12 instead. This wouls have the knock-on effect of making shots at 12 significantly easier to hit, & head hits/crits much more common if you use it for hit locations......

Personally, I'd rather make the jump to 2d10's

numbers between 2-20, would be nice.
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #193 on: 18 February 2019, 15:39:44 »
It's beneficial to keep things as simple in terms of materials required as possible.  All rolls using D6s is one of BattleTech's exemplary qualities.  D6s are everywhere.  Everyone has D6s.

Not everybody has D10s, and not everything in BattleTech could use D10s.  Moving to D10s would be a net negative to the end user.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #194 on: 18 February 2019, 15:46:42 »
If you need proof of what Scotty says here, just see 3rd Edition MechWarrior...  ::)

Bedwyr

  • A Sticky Wicket
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10178
  • RIP. Again. And again. And again.
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #195 on: 18 February 2019, 15:55:42 »
How about this idea. Go back to a cluster hit template (damage focused on hit location with damage to adjacent locations) and to re-introduce the lost chance of the hits damaging something important (head/crit), include some kind of aiming mechanic whether pulling from TO or coming up with something wholly different.
Alas poor Photobucket. I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

Greatclub

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3036
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #196 on: 18 February 2019, 17:09:02 »
Battletech has survived 35 years with little modification to the core of the game - lots of add-ons, but the core remains intact. How many other games can say that? Risk, Axis & Allies, a couple of the historical games?

Yeah, rolling on cluster, hit location, and critical gets tedious, and really should get a phone app, but it's so core to the results that it shouldn't be eliminated. IMHO, doing so would be throwing out the baby with the dirty bathwater.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #197 on: 18 February 2019, 18:03:45 »
Battletech has survived 35 years with little modification to the core of the game - lots of add-ons, but the core remains intact. How many other games can say that? Risk, Axis & Allies, a couple of the historical games?

Mentioning other games where the primary complaint against them is how long they take to play seems like it doesn't recommend BattleTech very well.

Y
eah, rolling on cluster, hit location, and critical gets tedious, and really should get a phone app, but it's so core to the results that it shouldn't be eliminated. IMHO, doing so would be throwing out the baby with the dirty bathwater.

I feel like a not-insignificant number of older BT fans have Stockholm Syndrome'd themselves into liking how much time it takes to resolve decisions, or at least convinced themselves that It's necessary to preserve the spirit of the gameplay.

It's not.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #198 on: 18 February 2019, 18:35:42 »
No Stockholm here... It's how I choose to spend my time.  BattleTech is an armor focused game vice weapons.  40K is weapons focused, and that's what leads to the high casualty rate.  From the discussion here, it seems that's at least one definition of a "modern" game.  The real world is also weapons focused, and having been shot at, I'm more than happy to play a game where that doesn't automatically mean "one kill" if they hit.

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12192
  • Just a little piglet serving the Capellan State!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #199 on: 18 February 2019, 19:02:21 »
No Stockholm here... It's how I choose to spend my time.  BattleTech is an armor focused game vice weapons.  40K is weapons focused, and that's what leads to the high casualty rate.  From the discussion here, it seems that's at least one definition of a "modern" game. 

It's only "modern" in the sense that it's good for miniatures companies from a sales perspective, so that's what they tend to write. Games where units are rapidly eliminated by weapons fire are games that encourage purchasing more miniatures, because each individual miniature has less of a chance of having a meaningful effect on the game. You don't see many games geared towards conflicts between 4 miniatures on a side because that doesn't help the miniatures company's bottom line.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #200 on: 18 February 2019, 20:01:06 »
You don't see many games geared towards conflicts between 4 miniatures on a side because that doesn't help the miniatures company's bottom line.

If you get out of miniature gaming and into board games..
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19825
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #201 on: 18 February 2019, 20:02:05 »
“I’ve been playing since high school and graduated in a year starting with 7, 8, or 9” probably isn’t the sensibility required to sell to the prime demos that buy the bulk of hobby stuff.

The quaintness of the rules won’t pay the bills forever, especially in short order after the old timers retire from buying BT stuff

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #202 on: 18 February 2019, 20:06:40 »
Even at average life expectancy, I figure I've got at least another 30 years before I have to "retire" from buying BattleTech...

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #203 on: 18 February 2019, 20:11:22 »
Yeah, rolling on cluster, hit location, and critical gets tedious, and really should get a phone app
There is one "the Battletech Dice roller"

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19825
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #204 on: 18 February 2019, 20:31:06 »
Even at average life expectancy, I figure I've got at least another 30 years before I have to "retire" from buying BattleTech...

Not too many industries besides life insurance are betting on mass participation from that age group

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #205 on: 18 February 2019, 20:40:36 »
Sure there are, but that's a Rule 4 discussion if I ever thought of one...

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #206 on: 18 February 2019, 20:50:54 »
No Stockholm here... It's how I choose to spend my time.  BattleTech is an armor focused game vice weapons.  40K is weapons focused, and that's what leads to the high casualty rate.  From the discussion here, it seems that's at least one definition of a "modern" game.  The real world is also weapons focused, and having been shot at, I'm more than happy to play a game where that doesn't automatically mean "one kill" if they hit.

See, this is kind of what I mean (regarding the second suggestion, not the first).  The primary thing slowing down BattleTech is not armor or its relative lack of importance.  It's, as Bedwyr's friend Mike said "I could write a computer program to do all of this so much faster".  It's a huge time sink not because of playing the game, but because of figuring out what the thing you did actually just accomplished.  The fact that MegaMek even exists is a fantastic example, because I could play a MegaMek game with a friend and the whole thing up to Lance size would take maybe an hour, if that.  Putting in actually on the table doubles or triples the time spent.  That's not time spent playing, it's time spent manually cranking the game's gears.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19825
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #207 on: 18 February 2019, 21:09:55 »
It’s not so much that as a diminishing number of people find that aspect of the game appealing. Fun inefficiency is acceptable. It’s when the people you’re trying to sell the product find that aspect tedious that there an issue

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #208 on: 18 February 2019, 21:13:43 »
MegaMek must have improved leaps and bounds since I last tried it, then.  An AI company vs. company battle I set up (admittedly, years ago) took about a day to resolve.

I have to admit I'm also a little mystified at the people here who think they know what "the masses" are thinking.  That kind of knowledge is expensive.  Most of us here don't even have CGL's actual sales figures to go by.

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19825
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #209 on: 18 February 2019, 21:43:09 »
It’s obviously not enough to take on extra staff. Or that this is the first box in 5.5 to 6 years. I ran a campaign almost every week for five years  and helped my local agent at least once a month on Saturdays and the most common answer I got when I asked people to play was “yeah that was fun 15-20 years ago I play 40k/war machine/infinity xwing/netrunner/mtg now” - and this wasn’t some small shop. The 40k or mtg tournaments completely filled a 2000 sqft playing area to the point where they’d tell us to kick rocks if we tried to get one table on an event. I don’t need sales figures when the obvious is staring me right in the face

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?