Author Topic: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion  (Read 34611 times)

Greatclub

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3024
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #120 on: 13 February 2019, 03:37:06 »

EDIT: I realized after hitting post that I could explain it more easily.  Unit abilities and special rules are something that players can use and interact with.  The hit location chart, on the other hand, is just something that happens to people.  There's no interaction between the players and table; it's a mandatory stopping point to the game's momentum that is entirely dedicated to finding out what had already happened.

You can interact with it a little. Aimed shots from TarComps or SPAs, aiming high/low/L/R from TacOps rules, partial cover on the target's end. The table cumbersome, but it's also kinda necessary to having multiple hit locations. And eventually you start to remember at least the front locations.

MoffMalthus

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #121 on: 13 February 2019, 07:35:29 »
In my opinion BattleTech is a timesink by design. It is not meant to play fast. It is a game for those who want the visceral moment-by-moment experience of battle in giant stompy robots. It is a simulation more than a game.

For me this is fantastic. I can savor the dread and relief of each potential mishap occuring or being avoided and then carry forward to eventual victory or learn from my defeat.

However this is not for everyone. Some people want a game without that. Something to play and move on from. That's great, too. The reality is that BattleTech is not that game. BattleTech is a slow playing, highly granular, simulationist experience that was once all the rage and will become more popular again as market tastes evolve. Video games were predicted to be the death of boardgames in the '70's and '80's but have come back since the oughts to near to and potentially exceeding their mid 20th century heyday. I think BattleTech is in that same curve.

Does BattleTech need some streamlining? Sure. But I don't believe it really needs to happen by dumping the core rules. A cluster hits formula instead of table might be nice. ie I rolled 3 higher than needed to hit with my LRMs so I hit with 60% of my missiles or something like that. MoS modifiers to the location table could be nice as well, move the result of the location one spot for each 3 you make the roll by or something. These things could possibly improve the game without losing what BattleTech is.

I 100% agree with your post! I see Battletech on the rise, at least modestly now and as long as the powers that be can continue to produce more products and minor rules adjustments it will be here another 35 years.
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death."
-Sun Tzu

Church14

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1098
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #122 on: 13 February 2019, 08:28:50 »
A long time ago I played with some interesting streamlined rules for critical hits. Basically, the rules were designed to make taking any internal damage a terrifying moment.

When you do internal damage:
1) If your to-hit roll was a 12, blow the limb/head off.
2) Use the damage to infantry rules to determine # of critical hits.
2a) I think autocannons had a buff here. I think they were a straight #crits dealt equal to damage dealt to internal. LB-X did not get that buff

Yeah, so missiles and basic autocannons get a huge buff for crit hunting and one less roll was needed.


Different rules streamline: I feel like a margin of success could be used for the cluster table to remove a roll.
« Last Edit: 13 February 2019, 08:30:33 by Church14 »

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5780
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #123 on: 13 February 2019, 10:10:26 »
 C:-)
Guys, I think by now that most of you know that I love a good debate about whether or not the game is too slow and needs a rules refresh, but this is a friendly reminder to keep this discussion as broad as possible if you want it to stay in General Discussion. If it gets too deep into the weeds of fan rules, there is a very good chance that it will get moved to a more appropriate subsection of the forums.
 C:-)
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

Psycho

  • CamoSpecs
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #124 on: 13 February 2019, 10:23:46 »


A rebuttal is a direct, factual answer, claiming that having an RPG was Fasa pushing you to have megagames was not. It was the equivalent of me claiming that you don't have a problem with how long TW rules play, because Battleforce has been around for 25+ years, therefore you've had an answer for that long. Would you feel that that would be a legitimate response to your concerns?

Still unanswered: have you seen *any* other game system pushed as far as BT and still hold up? How many times have you seen 12 people at a single game of any other system? What is it that makes other systems run better at this scale, assuming you've seen it done? If you're unwilling to make an apples-to-apples comparison, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

I do find it challenging to see how a large game sells BT well in a convention/store setting; though if I'm being honest there are a lot of things that have been done over the years with the BT IP that I find very confusing.

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6316
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #125 on: 13 February 2019, 10:32:50 »
I'm not sure where people are getting the idea BT was always designed to be a 1v1 game until later.

As at the very least since June 1985, the 2nd Edition Box Set EXPLECITELY calls BT a game for 2 or more players.
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #126 on: 13 February 2019, 10:52:44 »
I'm not sure where people are getting the idea BT was always designed to be a 1v1 game until later.

As at the very least since June 1985, the 2nd Edition Box Set EXPLECITELY calls BT a game for 2 or more players.

Yes, but the rules for more than 2 players have always been "share a side".  There are no separate initiative rules, the extra players just "negotiate" who "gets" to move a unit first.  They are a team, not separate players. There are no rules for an unequal number of units when there are more than two sides?  There are no victory conditions (in the base game/core rulebooks) for more than 2 sides. 
The more than 2 players is really just 2 players with assistants.
House rules and later expansions to rules especially post-TW and convention scenario rules (grinders, card-based initiative, etc) have added some more support, but the game is still based on 2 players.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3568
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #127 on: 13 February 2019, 11:12:01 »
I've done three or four way shoot outs before with independent players moving against one another it's as chaotic and frenzied as can be.  Man those games are fun.  You also have the Blood name grand Melee where everyone is in it for themselves there can only be one victor

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19768
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #128 on: 13 February 2019, 11:15:43 »
the advantage of the trial of bloodright is that everyone participating has one unit and you have to engage.

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: 6316
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #129 on: 13 February 2019, 11:18:26 »
Yes, but the rules for more than 2 players have always been "share a side".  There are no separate initiative rules, the extra players just "negotiate" who "gets" to move a unit first.  They are a team, not separate players. There are no rules for an unequal number of units when there are more than two sides?  There are no victory conditions (in the base game/core rulebooks) for more than 2 sides. 
The more than 2 players is really just 2 players with assistants.
House rules and later expansions to rules especially post-TW and convention scenario rules (grinders, card-based initiative, etc) have added some more support, but the game is still based on 2 players.

Sounds like we should then be using a different term than 2 players. A player is a person. However, if we are trying to say BT is a game for 2 sides or opposing forces, then that I can agree on ;)
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13676
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #130 on: 13 February 2019, 11:32:02 »
A rebuttal is a direct, factual answer, claiming that having an RPG was Fasa pushing you to have megagames was not.

I claimed no such thing.  I will absolutely claim,  however, that an RPG campaign of practically any stripe imaginable calls for a group of typically a GM and 3-6 other players.  That's not a "megagame" but I feel I can confidently state that even a "small" RPG group of 3 players and a GM playing OpFor runs headfirst into the issues I described.

BattleTech has absolutely nearly since its inception promoted games large enough to run into these issues.  The difference is that in the 80s and 90s that was just the price you paid to get a game in.
We can do better.

Still unanswered: have you seen *any* other game system pushed as far as BT and still hold up? How many times have you seen 12 people at a single game of any other system? What is it that makes other systems run better at this scale, assuming you've seen it done?

I'm going to be honest here: even though I did directly address this, I really don't care.  Please don't interpret that as disrespect, because that is absolutely not the intent.   "But can <other thing> do it better,  huh?" is not and never will be a compelling argument to not attempt to improve.

If you're unwilling to make an apples-to-apples comparison, I don't see the point in continuing this discussion.

On topic of "But does <other thing> do it better?", perhaps this is for the best.
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.

Psycho

  • CamoSpecs
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1691
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #131 on: 13 February 2019, 15:09:42 »
At this point in my life I don't have time to play bunches of games. That's why I'm interested in your experience how other games hold up under the weight of large numbers of players. You claim they do, but only went so far as to say "more than 2" players, which could be much smaller than the games of 12 BT players that I've been to, and didn't mention how they kept things moving better. I'd assume they would be at least 6x longer than a game that was one-on-one, or introduce other limiting factors. Not having time to see for myself, I don't know. I'm okay with you choosing to hold an opinion tightly, but feel like I'm running into a wall where it isn't about discussion anymore.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13676
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #132 on: 13 February 2019, 17:48:48 »
That's kind of what I mean.  The comparison on the basis of large numbers of players is a non-starter, because those games market themselves as games primarily between two people.  My assertions can be effectively narrowed down to:

I) BattleTech rapidly approaches a non-interactive and non-engaging experience as the size of the game increases.
   1) Even in smaller games the amount of time dedicated to recording results can outweigh the amount of time actually playing the game
       a)  This is bad.
       b)  It doesn't have to be this way.
II) BattleTech was able to survive and thrive in the 80s and 90s because the competition wasn't sufficiently better to draw players away.
   1)  It is no longer the 80s and 90s
   2)  The quality of BattleTech's competition has steadily and significantly improved during that time.
       a) BattleTech has not.

It doesn't matter, on any meaningful level, whether Warmachine or 40K are better or worse than BattleTech at supporting large player counts simultaneously.  It matters a whole lot that those games have either significantly improved during their lifetimes and successfully captured a new audience, or were able to capture a bigger audience than BattleTech from scratch in a mere handful of years by virtue of presenting appealing and attractive gameplay.
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.

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12181
  • Just a little piglet serving the Capellan State!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #133 on: 13 February 2019, 17:58:56 »
It doesn't matter, on any meaningful level, whether Warmachine or 40K are better or worse than BattleTech at supporting large player counts simultaneously.  It matters a whole lot that those games have either significantly improved during their lifetimes and successfully captured a new audience, or were able to capture a bigger audience than BattleTech from scratch in a mere handful of years by virtue of presenting appealing and attractive gameplay.

I have a strong supposition that such success is more a result of visual improvements than mechanical ones. Up until recently 40K was pretty notorious for unbalanced, unappealing, stand & shoot game-play but continued to push-on by virtue of a hyper-aggressive marketing strategy & miniatures that looked drop dead gorgeous. I suspect that even if the rules had consisted of consulting a 30 column chart to determine thoroughly random combat results, they'd still have sold nearly as much as they always have. Sometimes the appeal is not in the gameplay.....

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13676
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #134 on: 13 February 2019, 18:06:59 »
And yet, funnily enough, when they cleaned up the garbage rules they were selling and started aggressively rolling out balance tweaks (and new models, of course), their revenue nearly doubled in one fiscal year.

Far be it from me to heap all the success at one altar, but 40K is currently more successful than it has ever been and it's not hard to guess why.
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.

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12181
  • Just a little piglet serving the Capellan State!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #135 on: 13 February 2019, 19:29:01 »
Far be it from me to heap all the success at one altar, but 40K is currently more successful than it has ever been and it's not hard to guess why.

The rules are now closer to 2nd Edition 40K than they've been in years. Just sayin'!  ;)

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19768
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #136 on: 13 February 2019, 19:40:31 »
Are you suggesting we go back to one autocannon

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?

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12181
  • Just a little piglet serving the Capellan State!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #137 on: 13 February 2019, 19:57:13 »
Are you suggesting we go back to one autocannon

Naaaaah, that'd be Rogue Trader!  :D

carlisimo

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 572
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #138 on: 13 February 2019, 20:43:07 »
I mostly agree.

I’m not a fan of the 8th ed. 40k rules at all; imo, they de-emphasize movement and positioning by weakening terrain rules, and reduce difficult decisions by letting squads do more things at a time than they used to.  However, the concept of simple core rules with a bunch of special rules on top does seem to be popular.  8th ed. also wiped the slate clean on some terrible balance issues.  They’re back, inevitably, but the fresh start won back a lot of jaded players.  And yes, the models are great.

40k has benefitted quite a bit from video game tie-ins.  If only Battletech had something like that...

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19768
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #139 on: 13 February 2019, 21:00:58 »
It’s a lot easier when the people to contact about cross promotions are in the adjacent cubicles rather than other licensees of a split IP who owe you exactly bupkis on the coordination end

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?

MoffMalthus

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #140 on: 14 February 2019, 06:37:52 »
I believe the ultimate reason 40k is so successful in the end is due to the model quality and amount of new models produced every month. Half the people who buy 40k don't even play the game. This is one area where I think we could all agree that more good quality mech sculpts would help tremendously above any tweaks that could be made to the rules.
"Regard your soldiers as your children, and they will follow you into the deepest valleys; look on them as your own beloved sons, and they will stand by you even unto death."
-Sun Tzu

Elmoth

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3414
  • Periphery fanboy
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #141 on: 14 February 2019, 09:33:56 »
Games Workshop has publicly said that is a company that creates games in order to sell miniatures.

Apocal

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 547
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #142 on: 14 February 2019, 09:47:41 »
I believe the ultimate reason 40k is so successful in the end is due to the model quality and amount of new models produced every month. Half the people who buy 40k don't even play the game. This is one area where I think we could all agree that more good quality mech sculpts would help tremendously above any tweaks that could be made to the rules.

Shimmyseen stuff is top-notch for that. My initial interest in BT (due to MW2) died off due my impression of the art/minis being negative. But HBSTech drew me back in and then I realized that MWO had flipped the art style away from being anime and into being more industrial/military which is right up my alley. From there to MegaMek and then the table.

Rules-wise, my biggest issue -- resolution of even simple scenarios between beginner players -- is pretty well addressed by using the pilot cards and mechs from the box. Slavomir Kladivo, Wade Fitzwarin, Piers Ballatine and (especially!) Sigtrygg the Griffin pilot are all pretty much walking warcrimes. Games involving them certainly don't want for damage dealt per round.
« Last Edit: 14 February 2019, 10:08:28 by Apocal »

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13676
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #143 on: 14 February 2019, 10:26:15 »
Games Workshop has publicly said that is a company that creates games in order to sell miniatures.

The CEO who (infamously) described the company that way (the phrase "jewel-like objects of wonder" was used with complete sincerity, it was hilarious) has since been canned and replaced.  The new guy doesn't think like that.  That, not coincidentally, is when GW started knocking it out of the park.

The quality of miniatures hasn't changed since then.  A model designed six months before the change in company leadership and a model designed two years later are practically indistinguishable.  That part is a constant.  The parts that have changed are the level and quality of community involvement, and the rules (for both 40K and their fantasy line, which horribly mismanaged a new reboot under old leadership).  The community team gets people to take a look, the models and actually fun rules for them get people to keep playing.

Companies could learn a lot from both.
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.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #144 on: 14 February 2019, 10:38:04 »
The CEO who (infamously) described the company that way (the phrase "jewel-like objects of wonder" was used with complete sincerity, it was hilarious) has since been canned and replaced.  The new guy doesn't think like that.  That, not coincidentally, is when GW started knocking it out of the park.

The quality of miniatures hasn't changed since then.  A model designed six months before the change in company leadership and a model designed two years later are practically indistinguishable.  That part is a constant.  The parts that have changed are the level and quality of community involvement, and the rules (for both 40K and their fantasy line, which horribly mismanaged a new reboot under old leadership).  The community team gets people to take a look, the models and actually fun rules for them get people to keep playing.

Companies could learn a lot from both.

Both are true.  In relation to CGL, CGL makes money selling books.  BattleTech needs more than just books (particularly just sourcebooks).  But in the end, success will still be determined by how many books it sells. But those books will only sell after the game is on a strong footing.
IWM makes money from selling miniatures.  It also needs BattleTech the game on a strong footing before it can successfully sell miniatures and make money. 
It's possible CGL could transition to be a company making it's money from selling board games.  It's had some success with that, and I think it's looking to make more of their company. Obviously that would also need BattleTech the game to be on a strong footing if that's going to be how BattleTech makes CGL money.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

wolfspider

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 747
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #145 on: 14 February 2019, 15:21:35 »
The CEO who (infamously) described the company that way (the phrase "jewel-like objects of wonder" was used with complete sincerity, it was hilarious) has since been canned and replaced.  The new guy doesn't think like that.  That, not coincidentally, is when GW started knocking it out of the park.

They started knocking out of the park when they hired a marketing firm and started listening to the customer, but removing the old CEO did help.
 :)
I may have a low amount of posts but I have a PHD in Battletech and mechs older then most people on this board!

Bosefius

  • Will Moderate for Hugs
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6675
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #146 on: 14 February 2019, 18:02:38 »
This thread is way off topic, please bring it back around.
Catalyst Demo Agent #221, Huntington, WV

It's times like this I ask myself "What would Jabba the Hutt do?"

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #147 on: 14 February 2019, 18:04:28 »
All weapons auto-hit the center torso. No rolling to/hit or location. That would speed up play ;).
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 36958
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #148 on: 14 February 2019, 18:10:36 »
Isn't that just Alpha Strike?  ???

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #149 on: 14 February 2019, 18:18:23 »
Isn't that just Alpha Strike?  ???

Nope, AS wastes time making you roll to hit.  It’s not modern enough.

Or maybe go the other direction. For every point of gunnery skill lower than 4, you can adjust the location roll by 1. More time for each attack, but also more player choices... and less attacks overall as units would presumably be destroyed quicker by good location choices.  Maybe as an option instead of affecting the to/hit roll.  Ie. Skill 3 can roll to-hit at a base 3 with no location modolifuing, or as a base 4 with a +\-1 location modifier. Scary once they are up close..
« Last Edit: 14 February 2019, 18:20:27 by nckestrel »
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets