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

Ruger

  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5558
Re: Re: Will Catalyst produce and sell more plastic miniature sets?
« Reply #30 on: 09 February 2019, 16:47:43 »
Not to be a jerk, but you began your post with their is lots that you can do to reduce the effects of luck, but you listed none.

Now I understand you can avoid getting hit... but Im genuinly curious, how do you avoid the luck factor of where you hit and lower the attrition in Battletech?

I’m a pretty clever guy but I have not found a way thus far... at least not with the core set.

I have played this game solo, in a Lance vs. Lance game where Im the only player and I make 1 second decesions and I could not get the game under 3 hours.  So when people say ”2 hours”, I truly don’t see how its possible.  The issue is definitly not people taking too long or not using expedition methods... its just straight attrition that keeps the game in the 3+ hour category and 6+ hours if you play with someone actively trying to win.

Back in college, when we played, we did a (MW2nd edition) RPG campaign, so it wasn't just all tabletop, all the time...but when we did go into 'Mech combat, we had our RPG stats, including edge.

The standard rules for edge allowed you to reroll a die when you used t...we did ours a bit different (edge added or subtracted from a roll per player call, but can't get more into it outside fan rules board), but this kind of thing allowed you to "change fate", and thus adjust luck a bit when really needed...

Ruger
"If someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back." - Malcolm Reynolds, Firefly

"Who I am is where I stand. Where I stand is where I fall...Stand with me." - The Doctor, The Doctor Falls, Doctor Who

ANS Kamas P81

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13204
Re: Re: Will Catalyst produce and sell more plastic miniature sets?
« Reply #31 on: 09 February 2019, 19:38:54 »
If you want to continue the rules adjustment discussion, please start another topic.
Thread split perhaps?  There's a lot to that being discussed, could stand to be carried over and continued I think.
Der Hölle Rache kocht in meinem Herzen,
Tod und Verzweiflung flammet um mich her!
Fühlt nicht durch dich Jadefalke Todesschmerzen,
So bist du meine Tochter nimmermehr!

Bedwyr

  • A Sticky Wicket
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10168
  • RIP. Again. And again. And again.
Re: Re: Will Catalyst produce and sell more plastic miniature sets?
« Reply #32 on: 10 February 2019, 10:31:49 »
Thread split perhaps?  There's a lot to that being discussed, could stand to be carried over and continued I think.

I can try that again. I attempted it earlier but found much of the conversation line interspersed and difficult to split cleanly.
Alas poor Photobucket. I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

Bedwyr

  • A Sticky Wicket
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10168
  • RIP. Again. And again. And again.
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #33 on: 10 February 2019, 10:36:51 »
Alright, y'all. I split the topics as best I could. It ain't perfect and still has at least one message quote left in the other thread, but here's where to talk more about rules modifications (or not) for the sake of the game. Stay respectful.

For minis and plastics discussion go here: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=64313.msg1480741#msg1480741
« Last Edit: 10 February 2019, 10:40:04 by Bedwyr »
Alas poor Photobucket. I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 36956
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #34 on: 10 February 2019, 10:41:51 »
Should this thread be moved to Fan Rules?

Apocal

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 547
Re: Re: Will Catalyst produce and sell more plastic miniature sets?
« Reply #35 on: 10 February 2019, 10:43:23 »
My biggest complaint about the rules as they are except cluster hits. If you could cut the parts where the entire game stops to figure out where those 23 missiles hit, it would improve flow significantly (and spare me on the box of death. I have two. You shouldn’t have to construct contraptions like that)

Something like this?
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=62539.0


Bedwyr

  • A Sticky Wicket
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10168
  • RIP. Again. And again. And again.
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #36 on: 10 February 2019, 11:41:56 »
Should this thread be moved to Fan Rules?

I might if it gets into the weeds on specific changes. So far this is just about the meta-discussion. E.g.- what kinds of rules changes would be good/bad for the game. That's good enough to stick with General for now.
Alas poor Photobucket. I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3568
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #37 on: 10 February 2019, 12:03:25 »
Everything becomes Clantech and Omnimechs.  Boomed fixed the attrition problem right there.  When my group plays clan we nearly half the time.  Everything becomes extremely lethal which means daring and luck win the day and the Melee.  Also if someone cPL-TACCOMs we drop Naga or Huey A4s on him, nothing is safe you expect to die but die awesome

brother elf

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Re: Will Catalyst produce and sell more plastic miniature sets?
« Reply #38 on: 10 February 2019, 12:21:51 »
Weapons get much deadlier once you move out of the succession wars. Lights and low end mediums especially that wander out into the open without a ton of speed fight very bravely and die very quickly. I had a nightstar that took something like fourteen gauss hits before going down once but that’s super rare.

My biggest complaint about the rules as they are except cluster hits. If you could cut the parts where the entire game stops to figure out where those 23 missiles hit, it would improve flow significantly (and spare me on the box of death. I have two. You shouldn’t have to construct contraptions like that)

I have, in the past, when I wanted to bring SRM carriers and LBX20s, prepared sheets of random numbers, already mapped  to the Front/Rear location chart. Saves rolling and looking up locations, but of course, it's a matter of trust you don't memorize that 5 rolls from now will be a head shot. (I guess this is one of those things where you need to balance paperwork vs the visceral enjoyment of rolling dice. Sure, you can have a digital record sheet app where you just say "I receive a LBX20 cluster, left side, +0 on the cluster chart" and the numbers go down so fast you don't even see what happens. I think that would reduce the immersion somewhat, though, even moreso if I'm the opposite player who sees much less of where the damage goes. I wonder how I'd feel if the game aid app just read the locations out aloud, and you still physically mark off the bubbles. I think it's very illustrative to look at what HBS did, and how many of those classical elements still carry over into flashing locations and numbers floating away from the target.)

I guess you could also prepare a pack of 36 hit location cards which you shuffle before resolving each entire weapon from. Yes, that means your LBX20 can't get more than one lucky headshot per attack, so technically, it's a house rule. Might still be "good enough".

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6316
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Re: Will Catalyst produce and sell more plastic miniature sets?
« Reply #39 on: 10 February 2019, 12:32:21 »
I have, in the past, when I wanted to bring SRM carriers and LBX20s, prepared sheets of random numbers, already mapped  to the Front/Rear location chart. Saves rolling and looking up locations, but of course, it's a matter of trust you don't memorize that 5 rolls from now will be a head shot. (I guess this is one of those things where you need to balance paperwork vs the visceral enjoyment of rolling dice. Sure, you can have a digital record sheet app where you just say "I receive a LBX20 cluster, left side, +0 on the cluster chart" and the numbers go down so fast you don't even see what happens. I think that would reduce the immersion somewhat, though, even moreso if I'm the opposite player who sees much less of where the damage goes. I wonder how I'd feel if the game aid app just read the locations out aloud, and you still physically mark off the bubbles. I think it's very illustrative to look at what HBS did, and how many of those classical elements still carry over into flashing locations and numbers floating away from the target.)

I guess you could also prepare a pack of 36 hit location cards which you shuffle before resolving each entire weapon from. Yes, that means your LBX20 can't get more than one lucky headshot per attack, so technically, it's a house rule. Might still be "good enough".

Easy enough to resolve.

Bring in a set of say 12 predetirmed rolls for them LB20x, and SRM6 monsters, and just roll and eliminate, much like a Critical Hit Slots for a mech with 1-6 & 1-6. As each roll is made, eliminate that from the chart, and it is 'used up'. Eliminates the worry that you've memorized the chart as there is still an element of randomness there.
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

Bigkahuna

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #40 on: 10 February 2019, 12:37:32 »
Well I think this is a great topic, though I think its important to note that any new players entering the game are certain to begin in the Succession Era of play since this is the where the Core Set is focused on.  So I think while advice such as ”Use a X era”, or ”inject tactical operations rules” or other rulebooks certainly is good advice and I do agree from my own review of some of this material its clear that some of the attrition/game length problems are addressed here as the game gets more deadly. I do think that the topic should focus on new players who I think are most likely to find the speed/length of the game to be an issue given limited knowledge of the game (assuming they just entered into it with the core set) and the fact that most likely the only material available to them is the core set which is actually not that far from the truth as most of the books that might suggest a solution are currently out of print.

One thing I  have been considering is the actions during the Combat phase.  In the core set (before adding anything from Tactical Operations) the core action is ”shoot weapons” using the standard rules.

One think that I think might work is giving oppertunity to offer more options during this phase with simple rules to help make the game a bit more deadlier.

Just thinking outloud here but I was thinking there could be 3 core options.

Standard Shooting:  Works as the standard rules.

Focused Fire:  In this case you tie all of the weapons you fire (which must share the same shooting modifier) to a single attack roll and a single hit location roll.  Dangerous in that you could potentially miss the entire shot, but lethal if you hit as everything will be focused in a single zone.

Aimed Shot:  You forgo shooting with all but one weapon and may select any hit location other than the head for that shot.  This would not work with indirect fire.

Just floating some ideas.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 36956
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #41 on: 10 February 2019, 15:27:42 »
Do "modern" players really expect there to be no learning curve?  Proficiency reduces the time it takes for every activity I can think of...

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9071
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #42 on: 10 February 2019, 15:51:25 »
Do "modern" players really expect there to be no learning curve?  Proficiency reduces the time it takes for every activity I can think of...
I don't think the issue with BattleTech is learning curve. It doesn't have much of that really, on the account of relatively shallow tactical depth, which IMO amounts largely to "pick good units and figure out maintaining high TMM while minimizing that of the enemy's, at least on basic level. Though this isn't necessarily a bad thing for a casual game, makes it easy to pick up and play.
And if one uses the quick play learning PDF before going into actual game, it is quite simple, my friend at least figured it quickly.

But BT is time consuming. Filling in boxes and rolling dice a lot is not part of learning curve of the game itself. I mean, yeah, you get faster at those things the more you do them but that applies to all games and things, not part of BattleTech specifically, and generally speaking isn't the fun part (plus actually having opportunities to play BT seem to be rare, which doesn't really allow one to develop fast dice throwing/reading and paper filling skill...).
More modern design tends to avoid time spent filling in boxes or crossing over parts on 4 or more A4 paper sheets, or rolling a lot of dice, even other large scale wargames i've read about (not that many admittedly!) seem to be much lighter on record keeping than BT. Consider Alpha Strike, much reduced dice rolling and record keeping, these alone speed up the game massively.

That said, i'm not sure how to deal with the amount of record keeping a simulationist game like BattleTech does beyond outsourcing it to a computer. Suppose one could design some kind of "systems" instead of record sheets, and/or use tokens but the amounts needed for a game like BattleTech are too large to make this truly practical.

Unit selection ("use Clan designs") or modified rules (eg Bigkahuna's suggested focus fire) can speed up the game by making it more deadly, but it doesn't reduce overall record keeping. Or make the game more deep, especially on higher end ("easy to play, hard to master"), since ideally that would be a secondary benefit.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13676
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #43 on: 10 February 2019, 16:22:55 »
The biggest issue in my perspective with BattleTech is the amount of time and the number of tables required to figure out what happened with the course of action you selected.

Let's assume that you are relatively proficient at the game, and that you begin the Shooting Phase with a target clearly in mind.  You have made your decision on what you're going to do for combat during that turn.

Now that that decision has been made you must:

1) wait your turn while (an)other player(s) declare their attacks, potentially taking the time to calculate hit numbers in case they have less of a concrete plan than you do
2) Wait your turn while (an)other player(s) resolve their attacks.
3) Roll to hit, each time comparing the result to a potentially different target number especially if you have multiple targets.
4) Determine the amount of hit locations you have to roll, the order you're going to roll them in, and the amount of damage.
5) Roll each location individually, marking damage as appropriate, making critical hit rolls as necessary and resolving those immediately, which may generate additional damage, etc.

And after all that, you finally know the results of the decision you made potentially 10 or 15 minutes ago.  Every single thing in the middle has been something delaying you from actually playing the game.  If you're playing a game with multiple other people, especially as part of a larger event (say, convention events), the number of game decisions you make in four to six hours can be counted on both hands.

That's ridiculous.  That's not playing a game, it's watching a simulation be calculated, long-form edition.  No amount of player tricks, experience, short-cuts, or rules of thumb change the fundamental issue: BattleTech takes too long to resolve, and it only gets worse the more advanced tech is involved.  Games may get physically shorter, but they don't result in any more player interaction, and in fact frequently result in far less.

Any changes to BattleTech to 'modernize' it should be aimed at one or all of: shortening or streamlining the number of steps required to resolve basic actions to give players more opportunity to play the game; improving the frequency of player decision making, whether by removing the 'simultaneous' nature of the game or some other method to reduce the long periods of time where nobody is actually deciding anything; or simplifying the interactions so that more pieces can interact with the game simultaneously.

The former is accomplished with computer programs like MegaMek; BattleTech makes for a fantastic computer board game.  The middle is accomplished in fine fashion by the BattleTech PC game; each time a 'Mech moves the player is involved in the game and constantly re-evaluating their moves and choices.  The latter is accomplished by Alpha Strike, where have more pieces and a more fluid combat phase makes the player's decisions more frequent and numerous while also allowing the more frequent decisions to be accomplished in a smaller time frame.

In every case, traditional BattleTech is an enormously bloated and slow game.
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: 19768
  • Kid in the puddle eating mud of CGL contributors
    • Master Unit List
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #44 on: 10 February 2019, 16:39:59 »
Scotty manages to articulate more aptly what I mean when I ask “can we roll fewer dice?”

I like what Alpha Strike tried to do, I just find the product unsatisfying. I’ve tinkered for years with cutting down on steps and subroutines (especially cluster hits) and the conclusion I’ve arrived at is that hit locations are the biggest culprit for a lot of the rolling. I think there’s a midpoint (or even) a 2/3 point between BT and AS and it involves doing away with 11 armored zones of the machine. Another is to cut down on tables by figuring out ways to apply effects based on what the dice say rather than having to look at / memorize a table

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?

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13676
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #45 on: 10 February 2019, 16:52:40 »
One of the fastest ways to speed up hit locations is to switch from a 2d6 table to a directional 1d6 table.  You can fiddle with the odds to reasonably approach the same or similar chance of hitting a particular body part overall, while making attack direction more important and also allow you to roll multiple easily-interpreted locations at once.

That said, even with similar odds of a given location being hit, that's the kind of change that is extremely visible (almost the point, when you think about it. :P ) and likely to draw lots of flak from players who are convinced things are fine as-is and that a shortcut like the box of death is a meaningful solution and not the symptom of a deeper systemic problem.
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.

Bigkahuna

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #46 on: 10 February 2019, 17:06:40 »
I agree that the complexity of resolving an action (experienced or not) takes time due simply to the many activities that need to be resolved (roll to hit, roll to see where you hit, roll to see if you critical, roll to see where you critical, rinse and repeat for several weapons, multiply that by 8 mechs each with 4-6 weapons).  Don't get me wrong I think experience can knock some time off, but that is not the reason why Battletech games take so long to finish, it takes a long time because these activities take time to complete.

There is also something I agree with here in regards to the depth of the game.  I always say that, the length of the game, and the depth of the game need to be in sync.  For example, we play a board game called Twilight Imperium.  A highly complex, super deep science-fiction civilization building game.  Now this game takes about 5-6 hours to finish a 6 player game and ask anyone in our group and they will tell you that the games feel short, as if the game ends before it should.  Its not the time that is the issue, I will happily play a 6 hour game as will my group, but I don't think Battletech (as mentioned by someone above) is a tactically rich and deep enough game to justify it taking 4-6 hours to complete.  I love it don't get me wrong, but 2 hours into it, it feels like it should be wrapping up, that's about the scale of tactical depth to game length its at.

I also think that much of the expanded rules of the game found in the campaign operations and tactical operations book don't actually deepen the games tactical depth, they simply add more rules to resolve the same level of tactical game with even more die rolls.  Which is why I don't think in particular the Tactical Operations book is really all that great.  It just creates more complexity and bookkeeping, but doesn't really add anything to the games tactical play.  My opinion, some might disagree, but that's how I see it.

I agree that Battletech is a relatively simple game from a decision stand point.  You move, you decide where to shoot.  How far you move is important, where you end up is important, who you shoot at is important.  But the resolution of the game is almost purely random and there is virtually nothing you can do to control that.  I mean Hit Location and tracking individual damage and all the random stuff like cluster tables and critical damage results don't add anything at all to the tactical game, they are just random events generated by the randomness of dice results. I do get that its a simulation of statistically curved results, which is actually, as random as it may seem, a more accurate representation of actual battles, but as a game, it just bookkeeping, dice rolls and a lot of randomness.

That combined with the attrition of the game, really puts Battletech in the "Light Tactical Game" genre, which by its very nature really should be a pretty short game.  I put Battletech in about the same category as X-Wing when it comes to "tactical weight", the difference is that an X-Wing match takes about 30-45 minutes to complete, while Battletech, on a good day with everyone acting quickly takes 3-4 hours, but more realistically 4-6 hours.

Its a really hard game to get to the table for those reasons.


Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9071
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #47 on: 10 February 2019, 17:38:17 »
I also think that much of the expanded rules of the game found in the campaign operations and tactical operations book don't actually deepen the games tactical depth, they simply add more rules to resolve the same level of tactical game with even more die rolls.  Which is why I don't think in particular the Tactical Operations book is really all that great.  It just creates more complexity and bookkeeping, but doesn't really add anything to the games tactical play.  My opinion, some might disagree, but that's how I see it.
I like calling BattleTech a simulationist game, and TacOps highly enhances that (not to mention adding some options to correct some flaws to an extent, like BAP being largely useless in standard rules). Excellent and fun additions from that simulationist POV.
Admittedly not so great from gameplay-perspective, as you say many options aren't particularly deep but do take time.

ArchonDan

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 143
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #48 on: 10 February 2019, 18:26:06 »
Call me a fundamentalist but I think the game mechanics are very solid and represent a level of detail that lacks in modern games IMO. I started playing late 80's as a kid in junior high and nerver found the charts or tables overwhelming, heck the only problem I remember having was the use of ammunition. How many shorts per ton and such  :D but have since figured that out. Since then I've played many games over the years and always come back the Battletech mechanics.

The modifiers for movement and range, the heat tracking all provide different levels of decisions making that lack from modern games that abstract things to the n-th degree. The movement modifier make light, fast Mech viable, make a great balancing of armor verse speed. Modifiers allow for variations in different areas of play Mech design. Heat monitoring keeps weapon platforms in check, provides an element of risk verse reward.

I played a lot of 40k 2nd and really enjoyed that system, because it also had modifiers that allowed a diversity of weapon and units. The switch over to 3rd and the AP system killed the game for me. Armor because a binary thing and anything by 3+ was of very limited use among other aspects of the game that got washed away with abstraction. " "Modern" game mechanics strip away and dumb down  too much of the real decision making process IMO. I understand where that comes from with the advent of video games and mobile games, but I feel it really diminishes table top games when it goes too far.

Another poster described Battletech as a cockpit view game and that is what makes Battletech great to me, walking tanks with a very personal and tactical level of interaction.




Bedwyr

  • A Sticky Wicket
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10168
  • RIP. Again. And again. And again.
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #49 on: 10 February 2019, 18:42:27 »
All good points. I think much of the issue is less clearly associated with the goal and feel of the game and more with modern game design tries to achieve.

If I were going to try to write a clean-sheet Mech cockpit simulator, I would probably come up with something different as I'd be trying to maximize a combination of player time, player choice and agency, and player fun. It might still be associated with a small unit tactics game, but it might not. Depends on which objectives I would try to prioritize.


And above all, a caution to keep in mind the dictum you'll hear from nearly every game designer: There are not a scarcity of ideas, just a scarcity of time, money, and audience resources required to bring any given idea to fruition. Most designers keep notebooks of ideas, of which maybe one or two become products or expansions. We are drowning in tabletop games. It's just fortunate that Battletech has a collective memory and existing audience to exploit.
Alas poor Photobucket. I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13676
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #50 on: 10 February 2019, 19:11:34 »
"Modern" game mechanics strip away and dumb down  too much of the real decision making process IMO. I understand where that comes from with the advent of video games and mobile games, but I feel it really diminishes table top games when it goes too far.

This is a pretty common misinterpretation of what actually happens, I think.  The average video game includes as much (or more) tactical depth as any game that ever came out in the 80s (BattleTech included), but has the benefit of hiding their mechanics under a layer of graphics that the player doesn't have to look under to play the game.

You can see this concept perfectly encapsulated in the modern XCOM remake.  The original XCOM used a clunky but very discretely tracked "Time Units" to allow units to perform actions and move around the map.  The amount of detail was incredible, and made for an amount of inputs that at the time was impressive and has only gotten more so.

The problem is, the decisions that governed how those TUs were used ended up being almost identical across players once a given player learned how to optimize their expenditure.  The "smart" way to play ended up being to explore a little bit at a time, and reserve enough TUs for the individual soldier's weapon to be used during the enemy turn when one walked into view as an overwatch attack.  If you didn't do it that way, you were playing the game at a sub-optimal level.  Sometimes, using all your TUs to move was preferable, and sometimes having enough TUs to move and then do something that could take direct action against a visible enemy was preferable - the unifying theme of course being that TUs were by a huge margin expended as "Move + <thing>", followed distantly by "Move the whole way".

Fast forward to the new XCOM remake from a few years ago.  Instead of TUs, each soldier gets the choice between one "blue" move, after which they can still perform an action (like going on overwatch, firing a weapon, throwing a grenade, etc.), and a "yellow" move after which their turn ends.  While at a glance this is incredibly simplified and abstracted compared to managing sometimes hundreds of TUs per soldier, it plays out in exactly the same fashion.  The real difference is that the remake's method of handling actions is immediately intuitive and easy to learn.  You can figure out the finer nuances by playing the game more, but the basic concept is easy to grasp, and happens quickly.  The player gets one or two opportunities (or more, as soldiers develop) to make a decision, but each of those decisions are meaningful.  Much more importantly, they are obviously meaningful to the player, and they cultivate a sense of engagement with the mechanics that the original failed very hard to convey to new players.

The lesson to be learned here is: granularity of detail is a benefit if and only if all of the available detail helps the player more effectively engage with the system in a way that is intuitive and beneficial to their enjoyment.

A large portion of BattleTech's detail fails on that criteria.  Now, what that doesn't mean is that all extraneous detail should be removed.  Having discrete movement points is fine up to a point, having detailed modifiers for attacks is fine to a point.  What it does mean is that "complex" isn't "better", and that at the same time "simpler" isn't "worse".  It means that all mechanics should be built to serve the player, not the other way around.
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.

Bigkahuna

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #51 on: 10 February 2019, 19:16:36 »
Call me a fundamentalist but I think the game mechanics are very solid and represent a level of detail that lacks in modern games IMO. I started playing late 80's as a kid in junior high and nerver found the charts or tables overwhelming, heck the only problem I remember having was the use of ammunition. How many shorts per ton and such  :D but have since figured that out. Since then I've played many games over the years and always come back the Battletech mechanics.


I don't find the charts overwhelming at all, nor the rules, I mean for my gaming group we classified the game as "simple", which is kind of at odds with what everyone understood about the game going into it.  It is often referred to as a "complex" tactical game, but at a table where we play ASL for example, Battletech really doesn't rank particularly high on the complexity scale at all. 

What I don't really get is where "modifiers" and "charts" result in a higher level of tactics.  I mean, for all intense and purposes during the movement phase and the shooting phase, everything that goes into the accounting for Battletech is pretty common and standard stuff for miniatures games.  There is nothing particularly awe inspiring in how these two phases play out or how tactics at the table are deeper in some way than any on other miniature game.

The core cause of the attrition and hence the length of the game are after the hit where we end up in the world of total randomness. Random hit location, random cluster charts, you roll to see if you crit, you roll to see what you crit, you roll to see if you fall down, you roll to see if you stay conscious, you roll to get up... most of these rules there is ZERO decision on the part of the player, its quite literally purely random. 

Really my only beef with it is that it extends the play time very dramatically because you can shoot at a guy for 10 rounds and not destroy a damn thing, even though if you hit the right locations you would have killed him 5 times over.  Which way it goes is pure randomness and the charts themselves don't have much logic in them so there isn't match tactical use for them.  They are simply random.

At first you might get the impression that shooting from the right side or the left side of a mech for example might have some impact, or shooting from the rear for that matter, but the way these charts are setup it still pretty damn random.  You shoot at a guy from his right side you might still hit his left Torso anyway or his left arm.  Shoot him in the back 5 times and there is still a good chance you will shoot his arms and legs rather than that weak armor on the back Torso... and oddly you can still shoot his head even though the cockpit is clearly in the front of the mech.

I guess all I'm saying is that.. if its going to be this random.. may as well make it a much faster and deadlier game.  Its silly to spend 4 hours rolling against random charts.... lets just get to the blowing up stuff faster.
« Last Edit: 10 February 2019, 19:21:40 by Bigkahuna »

Valkerie

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2522
  • Gravity always wins.
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #52 on: 10 February 2019, 19:49:19 »
To the randomness of the hit locations, critical hits, and so forth, I find it very similar to my experiences playing the Mechwarrior video games.  The video games do a good job (I think) of showing how difficult it actually is to hit something with a Mech, especially at distance.  I can't count the number of times I've had a shot lined up, only to have it veer offline because I got hit while pulling the trigger.  Or my target jumps out of the way.  Or one of my own teammates bumps me and screws up my shot.  Even had a target fall down after getting shot in back by teammates, and watched my gauss shot fly right over the top of them.

I've always believed that tabletop Battletech is trying to take all these random variables into account, and simulate as best as possible using dice.  I don't know how you change that without fundamentally changing the game from what it is.
There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others.   -Machiavelli

Greetings, Mechwarrior!  You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against...Oops, wrong universe.  -unknown SLDF Recruiter

Because overkill is underrated my friend.  -John "Hannibal" Smith

Unit/Scheme of the Month Master Index

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9071
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #53 on: 10 February 2019, 20:12:51 »
Really my only beef with it is that it extends the play time very dramatically because you can shoot at a guy for 10 rounds and not destroy a damn thing, even though if you hit the right locations you would have killed him 5 times over.  Which way it goes is pure randomness and the charts themselves don't have much logic in them so there isn't match tactical use for them.  They are simply random.
I remember getting this in Dungeons and Dragons (when spells aren't involved) and some homebrewed RPGs. Really frustrating for all players involved though at least in these games GM can fudge it.
Of course, i've also had this happen in X-wing, getting multiple turns where neither side does any damage (we don't use time limit in home games, we usually don't need it), and neither side had anything to really change the odds. That said that game's forced movement essentially means the status quo cannot continue forever.

Ultimately this is a fundamental issue in any game with dice, occasionally exacerbated by average to-hit odds being too low. Smart design would minimize this though, or give a way out, and time-limited objectives may be a good option for that ("I'm getting shot at but i gotta try to reach that place anyway rather than stand and trade fire").

Strictly speaking BattleTech is reasonably good at managing this: close in to reduce range penalties, deny enemy cover or mobility (map control), go punch or kick them if weapons don't do good results, stuff like that. Some stuff is really hard with regular pilots (4 gunner/5 piloting), things are much more fun with veteran pilots IMO (3 gunnery, 4 piloting). Of course, random hit locations and occasionally limited damage or massive armor counteract some of these things heavily, or you get those situations where trying to backstab but you hit massively armored leg instead of weak rear armor.

And other aspects could be certainly helped. Making aimed shots much easier (not to mention available by default always) would reduce general randomness, and it wouldn't really mean all 'Mechs get shot in the torso only, in many cases shooting an arm reduces enemy firepower significantly, and legging an enemy is usually crippling.

As for other things, like that "roll to get up" thing, perhaps rolling should be replaced with a cost? Such as heat, since it is existing mechanic that is deeply tied to the identity of the game. Piloting skill could be still kept, by making it passively reduce cost. For example, if getting up would cost heat equal to piloting skill, it would mean that better piloting skill is good, and you'd lose that much from heat capacity, clear trade-off, since the other option would be to stay there and shoot from prone position.
This would increase player agency and reduce some dice rolling that isn't particularly interesting. And i feel costs in general make for interesting decisions. Scotty mentions modern XCOM and it is a good example. Do i use this move to get into better position or do i attack now? Simple cost, massive impact.

I do have to admit some hilarity of the game involves dice rolling. I remember a case when my friend's 'Mech got knocked down, the pilot losing consciousness, and me then failing at shooting the now immobile 'Mech to the point i blow up from heat, and at this point my friend's pilot wakes up... I also recall a hilarious story of someone skidding in a city, falling into a fountain and cracking open their head armor leading the cockpit getting flooded.
But perhaps a game doesn't need that so much.

To the randomness of the hit locations, critical hits, and so forth, I find it very similar to my experiences playing the Mechwarrior video games.  The video games do a good job (I think) of showing how difficult it actually is to hit something with a Mech, especially at distance.
Dunno, pile on enough Gauss rifles, PPCs and/or lasers and pull the trigger. Once you hit, your target dies or is severely damaged. Boating a weapon type is common in Mechwarriors because it is highly effective. In tabletop BT all weapons are always individually aimed, and aimed shots suffer massive enough penalty hitting with them is really hard in the first place. Boating a single type of weapons doesn't give as much benefits as it does in the video games.

ArchonDan

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 143
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #54 on: 10 February 2019, 20:23:18 »
I don't find the charts overwhelming at all, nor the rules, I mean for my gaming group we classified the game as "simple", which is kind of at odds with what everyone understood about the game going into it.  It is often referred to as a "complex" tactical game, but at a table where we play ASL for example, Battletech really doesn't rank particularly high on the complexity scale at all. 


I agree with your statements around video games and I agree that they are more complex and that the majority of that complexity is hidden under the hood in the a form of automation. That is where modern table top rules try to abstract and where my feeling of striping away or dumb down the decision making process. Table top games have
to compete for time against the instant gratification, graphics and automation of video games.

How do they keep the players attention when they can jump into a great looking video game.

I don't find BattleTech complex, but compare to 40k, Bolt Action, AOS, X-Wing I find it clearer and more engaging. I'm not trying to bad mouth any other games, it's more about the types of choices available during the game, the types of balancing of risk verse reward.

The XCOM example is a very good one, it retained a superior level of decision for the player. That is what I think current rules have and needs to be retained as a table top game.
 

Greatclub

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3024
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #55 on: 10 February 2019, 21:32:21 »
In the (unlikely) event the devs are reading this thread, I release the below for their use without attribution or compensation.

What I want is more granularity in the cluster hits chart. Getting the same number of hits on both 5 and 8 is pretty silly, serving only to make the game more consistent.

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 #56 on: 10 February 2019, 21:37:18 »
I’d rather replace the table and just roll xd6 with some protocol for overflow (since we can only use D6 apparently).

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?

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3568
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #57 on: 10 February 2019, 21:45:26 »
Just 1d6 for cluster should be easy enough.  Might test it in a future game.

Crimson Dawn

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 696
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #58 on: 10 February 2019, 22:20:40 »
To the randomness of the hit locations, critical hits, and so forth, I find it very similar to my experiences playing the Mechwarrior video games.  The video games do a good job (I think) of showing how difficult it actually is to hit something with a Mech, especially at distance.  I can't count the number of times I've had a shot lined up, only to have it veer offline because I got hit while pulling the trigger.  Or my target jumps out of the way.  Or one of my own teammates bumps me and screws up my shot.  Even had a target fall down after getting shot in back by teammates, and watched my gauss shot fly right over the top of them.

I've always believed that tabletop Battletech is trying to take all these random variables into account, and simulate as best as possible using dice.  I don't know how you change that without fundamentally changing the game from what it is.

The funny thing is I have the opposite experience.  Now granted at long distances it makes more sense but if you play many of the mechwarrior games (especially more recent ones) at what are likely medium and close range for many weapons the tabletop rules really stop making sense in this regard.

If I have my wolfhound at decently close range not just do I have really good chances of hitting my enemy I also have a really good chance of hitting the exact spot I want on many mechs (not counting the head).  If I want to remove the side torso on many mechs it is easy to do but in the table top at the same range my 3 medium lasers (which often hit the same spot on a mech at this range in the mechwarrior games) will hill all sorts of parts of a mech  such as both arms and the left leg while in the game I can often times put all three lasers on the torso of my choice, the same leg, or an arm.

IN particular at close ranges I do think the game using standard rules do not have a good answer as to why a mech cannot concentrate its fire more than the absolute randomness that the current game shows.

Bigkahuna

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 39
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #59 on: 11 February 2019, 02:21:09 »
I have been considering how Aimed Shot should work.  I personally don't like the flat modifier on it, while simpler, it really doesn't reflect the battlefield.

What I'm thinking for Aimed shot is as followed.

You declare an aimed shot, you may only shoot with weapons that have the exact same To Hit for this shot and may not use any other weapons and you double your range modifier when shooting, you may not aim for the head.  As such, from long range aimed shot is pretty much useless, at close range you have no penalty at all and the removal of the head-shot ensures that it isn't a game about taking out peoples head.  Weapons that are similiar are easier to shoot together in unison (Like 3x Medium lasers for example).  I would also say aimed shot does not work for melee combat and cannot be used when under a weapons minimum range and weapons all shots at range 3 or less are considered short range for the purpose of aimed shot (aka with Small Lasers shooting at range 3 would mean you don't double the range penalty).

One of several ideas I'm working into my House Ruled Edition of Battletech.