Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?

[Nebfer]

I actually have a theory about why engines are that way.  That weight also includes structural reinforcements, beefed up actuators, and other components needed to actually make the mech withstand the stresses of going that fast in addition to actually making the mech go that fast in the first place.  So while two 200 engines could provide sufficient power to make a mech go that fast the mech would tear itself apart trying to do so.

I have an old txt document (dated to 2007, but I know that the text is older) where I saved an old post of a question my brother once asked, on Mechs horsepower.
In it they mentioned the fact that the only thing that really changes in regards to weight when you make a mech faster or slower is the engine, which would seem to indicate that the Mechs myomers and improved actuators would have to be part of the engines mass.
As logically if you make the mech faster you adding a more powerful engine, but adding a few more horsepower to your engine is not necessarily enough, you also have often have to improve the transmission and whatnot to be able to use that extra power. Or in this case better or more myomers and actuators.


Theirs a book dated to 1990 called the Technology of Tanks by  Richard M. Ogorkiewicz, in it it mentions that if you look at the motive side of things a Tank typically spends about 30% of it's mass on getting it to move, with the brake down as
Armor ~45-51% for most MBTs, though light tanks it can go as low as ~35% and heavy tanks it can be as high as 56%, if built more for structural concerns than as armor the "armor shell" will still be about 20% of the over all weight. Per cubic meter of internal volume most tanks range from .5 to 2 tons per cubic meter of internal volume (in terms of armor mass).
Running gear ~20-23% of the over all weight, broken down
- 8-10% tracks
- 11-13% suspension
Engine, transmission & final drive ~12%
Weapons & mountings3-7% /10% on lighter tanks with big guns
Main gun Ammo is generally around .8 and 1.5 tons
Fuel is Generally around .7 to 1.5 tons

The remainder of the tank is taken up by electronics, the crew and their gear, and any other miscellaneous items.
 
With B-tech tanks 30ish percent of mass for ICE seems to be around 3/5 for most heavier tanks, and 4/6 with fusion...

[idea weenie]

From the SP Artillery thread, specifically for this quote:

The problem is Khymerion that the construction rules don't support your vision when it comes to artillery.  Artillery is extremely crit-heavy which precludes you from mounting it on Support Vees under 100 tons  (which I always thought was a significant failing of the SuV rules).  So really, they do have to be built as Combat Vehicles. 

I would argue for a rule saying a unit has the existing number of crits, along with an 'exterior' set of crits equal to the number of interior crits.  However anything in the extra crits is not protected by armor.  So if you have a vehicle that has 10 crits normally, and you want to mount an Arrow IV (15 crits, IIRC), with 5 tons of ammo (5 more crits needed), you can, but only 10 crits total can be mounted internally.  The rest gives the attacker a free critical roll, and any crits from that roll are applied immediately to whatever is outside the armor first.

So if the designer decided to put all 5 tons of ammo inside the armor (sensible), and leave the 15 crit Arrow IV with 5 crits internal and 10 crits external, it could do so.  However, if that artillery unit takes fire, each shot is a potential crit that will take out the artillery system.

[A. Lurker]

Followup on my first post: I've since experimented a bit with setting the base to-hit number for kicks at unmodified Piloting skill without the usual -2 (which is to say, exactly the same as for punches...assuming a full set of actuators in either case). So far I like the resulting balance rather better than the rules default one; you can in practice still kick sufficiently helpless targets in front of you easily enough, but the risk/reward ratio now starts to actually discourage reflexively trying to kick any old time you have a target in your face and front arc just because you happen to have a free leg available and nothing else to do. And yet kicks remain the most readily available physical attack mode on most 'Mechs and one that actually connects still has the same effects as ever, so it's also not as though I'd already nerfed them into oblivion.

Also makes it that much harder to step on infantry, of course. But given that it's a thirty-meter hex you're stomping around in and looking down on from several meters above ground while they're presumably doing their best to not get stepped on at 'Mech foot level and that letting enemy troopers into your hex where you can't shoot at them is a bad idea to begin with, I can live with that.

[Sartris]

i don't play with many genuine house rules - we've adopted lance movement and the alpha strike mechanic of unifying target declaration and firing into one action to speed up gameplay. also i've never counted immobile units as part of initiative. If you have six units and two are immobilized for some reason, you only have four units for the purposes of movement.   

i don't have any firm solutions, but here are a few things about the ruleset that i'd change

1) cluster rolls. there has to be an easier way than 1) hit/miss 2) how many projectiles 3) roll group of projectiles 4) goto 3

i use a little box o death when things get really out of control, but i still have to read results one at a time. it would be great if somehow and cluster weapon were resolvable in two rolls. i'm not sure how this can be done under the current game setup without creating a whole new series of charts or somesuch.

2) having more concentrated damage. i'm going to start implementing the tacops called shots option for high/low targeting in my next chaos campaign. i've never liked how randomly units take damage from direct-fire weapons. I get how the mechanics of the game  turns combat into segments of ten second bursts where the firing of weapons is abstracted under a blanket, but coming to the table top from the MW2 experience, I rarely ever fired in anything but banks of weapons.   

3) primitive combat vehicle construction - give them primitive components like mechs

4) infantry damage - I agree with separating support weapon attacks from the rest - i don't think the vast majority of infantry weapons should be able to damage armor. see complaint #1 regarding how platoon damage is determined. too many rolls.

[croaker]

One proposal I've seen for missile to-hits -- instead of a separate to-hit and cluster roll, just roll 3d6, subtract the to-hit modifiers, and compare the result to the cluster table.

[Khymerion]

Two we have been recently testing and are about let go free range...

1)  Allowing sub-cap cannons fire like artillery against ground targets as well as space targets.   Long Toms, Cruise Missiles, and Sub-Cap Missiles still out range the SCCs and thus still retains an effective role but it allowed heavy ground fortresses and a few custom vehicles to turn their big guns towards immediate threats when pressed.   Not the most effective rule but one that gives a bit more versatility to certain units.

2)  Any non-streak missile launcher can be modified into a torpedo.  Made sense to us playing.  Simple to implement, no fuss.

[Karasu]

One proposal I've seen for missile to-hits -- instead of a separate to-hit and cluster roll, just roll 3d6, subtract the to-hit modifiers, and compare the result to the cluster table.

Oh, I like that.  What's the maths like?  My gut instinct is that it makes missiles a bit better.

[monbvol]

Would make SRMs, MRMs, and LRMs a lot better in their sweet spots but doing rough calculations it would result in a noticeable improvement that I think could be counter balanced nicely by AMS(something I think is underutilized in existing designs as is).

I'll have to more thorough thought exercises on it to see how it really plays out.

[Col Toda]

3 things all aerospace rules . PPC spinal mount 10 heat per Capital point damage weight scaled up accordingly other types would need far more work to develop. Change the rules again for interposing KF fields to a lose 1 structural integrity point for both ships and all passengers and crew takes 20 point's of lethal and 40 points of fatigue points . Perhaps scaled up depending on the power level of the game . Give a codified statistics for a super heavy mech bay .

[croaker]

Hmmm. random crazy, Dropship with a spinal-mount NL or NPPC....

[Sockmonkey]

Would make SRMs, MRMs, and LRMs a lot better in their sweet spots but doing rough calculations it would result in a noticeable improvement that I think could be counter balanced nicely by AMS(something I think is underutilized in existing designs as is).

I'll have to more thorough thought exercises on it to see how it really plays out.

Yeah, I like this too. Helps missiles compete against energy weapons with DHS, and anything that works halfway well that simplifies the calculations and speeds up the game is a good thing.

[TigerShark]

Another rule I discussed was having the weapon BV split between ammunition and the total BV of the weapon. i.e.:

Weapon A is 300 BV and requires 2 tons of ammunition (10 shots each) to be "functional". Functional is defined as having 12+ shots for the purpose of this rule.

Weapon A = 150 BV
Ammunition = 75 BV per ton (150 BV total for 20 shots)

This more-closely simulates the fact that, without ammo, a weapon is a useless hunk of metal. But also that current Ballistic weapons are saddled with being charged for the complete weapon BV + ammunition, where energy simply has the full weapon BV and does not require ammo.

EXAMPLE

AC/10 (Standard)

Total BV (current) = 123
------------------------------
Weapon BV = 62
Ammo BV (needs 2 tons for "functionality") = 31 BV per ton


The effect of this being that units that are under-ammoed have a real boost in-game, such as the Enforcer, Banshee -5S or Phoenix -4R.

[Sockmonkey]

Another rule I discussed was having the weapon BV split between ammunition and the total BV of the weapon.

Makes perfect sense to me.

[Istal_Devalis]

I'd have only made two real changes.

A: Armor would be 10 points a ton. This makes it easier to figure out numbers on the fly. Modify damage to scale.
B: Double Heat Sinks would be a bit more prohibitive. Twenty Heat Dissipation, without paying for it, is pretty good and puts using ballistic into the 'Why bother?' category until you get to heavier units with bigger payloads.

[TigerShark]

Prototype DHS are written how normal DHS should have been, way back in 1989. If we had that kind of structure, this game would be far more balanced and interesting between the tech levels.

[Farnsworth]

I currently use a 5 second impulse initiative system much like the old TNE 2.0 where the Mechs agility, modified by its pilots skill, determines its number of actions/movement, dodge depending on load/encumbrance of what weapons are mounted/carried, equipment, appliqué armor, frame mass etc. it carries vs. power output. There is no heat, only ammunition or power consumption and armor is not ablative, instead using a toughness factor and critical hit system much like a simplified TNE 2.0. 

[Karasu]

I currently use a 5 second impulse initiative system much like the old TNE 2.0 where the Mechs agility, modified by its pilots skill, determines its number of actions/movement, dodge depending on load/encumbrance of what weapons are mounted/carried, equipment, appliqué armor, frame mass etc. it carries vs. power output. There is no heat, only ammunition or power consumption and armor is not ablative, instead using a toughness factor and critical hit system much like a simplified TNE 2.0.

That sounds very cool (on account of not using heat... sorry), but dare I say that it doesn't seem like 'Battletech' to me.

[Karasu]

Having had a reasonable number of comments, here’s the ones I’d use now:

Tabletop rules (ould be used now with current designs)
My LB-X autocannon rule (Implications: 6.8 damage average on LB10 compared to 6.3)
My Ultra autocannon rule (Implications: 48.5% of double-tap compared to 41.6%)
Monbvol’s basic physical attack rule (Implications: Unarmed physicals harder to hit with)
A Lurker’s neurofeedback rule (ie, it doesn't exist)
Tigershark’s MASC rule (Modified slightly: first attempt requires a 1+ on 2d6, then +2 from then on)
Croaker’s missiles rule (Implications need attacked by a Stats degree)

I'm also tempted by the idea of making SRMs work in 5-point clusters as well.

Construction rules (Would need re-writing of designs)
My Ferro-fibrous Armour rules
My alternative materials rule
Something for infantry, possibly beachhead1985’s musings
Monbvol’s description of Engine weights
Orion’s Jump Jet rule (tempted to say that 1t of Jets gives 50thexes of jump)
Prototype DHS, as per Tigershark (Is this the one where you get 10 dissipation free, than can add SHS for an extra one each or DHS for an extra two each?)

[massey]

I like the game so I don't want to change too much.  I'd probably go back to the original game rules.  I'd try to better integrate artillery, infantry, vehicles, and aerospace.  Right now a lot of those seem tacked on with their own rules that don't fit well with the basic mech stuff.  Some of the changes might be descriptive-only.  The actual mechanics might not be different but the explanation for what is happening would be.

I'd change the scale so that hexes were 180 meters and turns were one minute.  This would make the ranges at least a little more believable.  I'd also point out that these ranges are an abstraction for gameplay, and are not indicative of their "actual" max range.

I'd point out that a "miss" does not necessarily indicate that an attack did not make contact.  An infantry unit whose guns harmlessly bounce off of Battlemech armored plate might have simply not rolled high enough to "hit" the target.  An infantry unit would be presumed to shoot at joints, heat vents, cockpit glass, maintenance panels, etc.  Shooting directly at the armor is a good way to do no damage.  Similarly, the -2 a pulse laser gets might be due to being better able to get around standard armor's anti-laser treatment.

One problem that I have is with advanced tech explanations that really aren't that advanced.  In other words, explaining too much of how things work.  When reactive armor and reflective armor were first introduced, it made me roll my eyes because I figured that sort of technology would either be already be in use, or way out of date.  You just now thought to make the armor shiny?  So I would steer clear of describing advanced technologies with any sort of real world terminology.  Star Trek does this right with making all of their stuff up.  Trying to incorporate real world tech into Battletech makes the standard weapons seem less super-tech.

I'd give better hand held weapon rules, so mechs could drop them and then pick up guns from other mechs.  I'd make things like A-Pods be quirks instead of equipment that took up actual tonnage. 

There would be a "basic" level of Battletech very similar to the introductory box.  Then there would be an "advanced" level that added stuff like ECM rules, over-the-horizon weapons fire, and other more complicated things.  The in-game effect would be the same -- units with intro equipment would basically cancel each other out.  So a Griffin vs a Shadowhawk would be the same if you played it in either rules set, the Shadowhawk's free ECM suite countering the Griffin's free active probe.  But the advanced rules would better describe how that functioned, and better incorporate other types of tech.

[Istal_Devalis]

Oh, and thinking about it, one more 'rule'.
Add MoS modifiers to cluster hit tables.

[A. Lurker]

Oh, and thinking about it, one more 'rule'.
Add MoS modifiers to cluster hit tables.

So, a bit like TacOps direct blows? That works, I suppose, although a simple "bonus = MoS" rule would be more powerful than "+2 per 3 over TN or over 2, whichever is less".

[Kharim]

I have got some:
1)Make AMS work in certain range for example 4 hexes. So one unit could provide cover for others if it chooses so. Multiple AMS units could really shine here (Uller C i am looking at You).
2)Burst fire weapon also work against Battle Armour. This is because in my group We use little to no coventional infantry. It also makes flamers and MG's more usefull to have.
3)Drop the weight of all classic AC's and increse the ranges a little bit. Whatever to make them more attractive for players.
4)Make pulse laser split their damage into two groupings. Multiple beams right?
5)Make mounting & dismounting cost 1 MP for both carrier and the carried. Also unit that wants to mount must end its movement in carriers hex with 1  MP left, then carrier also spends 1 MP to pickup and is ready to go. It is simpler that way and allows for faster operations with infantry.
5) c3 cost in BV must go down since it needs LoS and cost calculating formula remains the same.
6)nerfing kicks & punches is not an answer. Make physical weapons better by making them use Punch attack table or some new table- making a standard roll is a pain in the ass when You swing Your hatchet and hit... a leg!
7)I also have been testing the additive BV skill modifier table. Lower skill costs encourage players to field better pilots.

I like the ideas for UAC and LBX hit distribution.

[garhkal]

I'd have only made two real changes.

A: Armor would be 10 points a ton. This makes it easier to figure out numbers on the fly. Modify damage to scale.
B: Double Heat Sinks would be a bit more prohibitive. Twenty Heat Dissipation, without paying for it, is pretty good and puts using ballistic into the 'Why bother?' category until you get to heavier units with bigger payloads.

Perhaps make it that all heat sinks in the engine are single only and if you want doubles they are mounted outside the engine. 

1)Make AMS work in certain range for example 4 hexes. So one unit could provide cover for others if it chooses so. Multiple AMS units could really shine here (Uller C i am looking at You).

I could see an either or..  Either you defend someone else or yourself.

[Empyrus]

Perhaps make it that all heat sinks in the engine are single only and if you want doubles they are mounted outside the engine. 

This is a change i would have made to the rules.

All mass-free engine sinks are always treated as single heat sinks, that is all mechs have base heat dissipation of 10 regardless where they are located. Not sure about the size they should be though, single or used sink-type size. Keeping them SHS size makes distinguishing them simple for purposes of crit checking but requires modifying most mechs record sheets. Keeping them the size of the chosen sink-type means these free sinks must be designated but the record sheet doesn't have to be modified as much.
Additional heat sinks could be either singles, compacts (IS), doubles (IS or Clan), or laser sinks (Clans) but no mixing types (ie no compacts and doubles in one design).
Any additional sinks an engine can hold are of the used heat sink type (eg 300-rated engine can hold two extra single, double or laser sinks, or four compact sinks) as usual.

Not sure the change would be that big deal. Sure, heat management for many mechs would be suddenly very difficult, on the other hand, things would rarely quite as difficult as 3025-era mechs have it. Some designs that are meant to be high-firepower-heat-neutral would be kind of broken i guess (like the Hellstar) but... *shrug*, i'm not a fan of those in the first place so i'll just say "whatever".

[TigerShark]

This rule already exists in the Historical: Reunification War book. Prototype DHS.

[A. Lurker]

I'm not currently interested in invalidating huge chunks of if not outright all canon by messing about with the construction rules to the point where existing designs no longer match them. Though if I was and wanted to distinguish more between a 'Mech's engine and its heat sinks proper, I might simply give the former ten points of "reserve" dissipation free of charge (no weight, no crits, that's just what every fusion engine comes with as a safeguard -- which incidentally handily explains why it shuts down once that's gone, i.e. after the third hit) and then insist on having any and all "actual" heat sinks on top of that mounted externally regardless of engine rating...

Could see myself waiving the prohibition against OmniMechs having hands on the same arm as an autocannon, Gauss weapon, or PPC, though. That wouldn't actually break any canon units at all, and any "officially illegal" designs resulting from that could in a pinch always be converted back again by just stripping them of the offending actuators.

[idea weenie]

Perhaps make it that all heat sinks in the engine are single only and if you want doubles they are mounted outside the engine. 

Cray had an idea where you develop half-mass heat sinks.  Clan versions take up half a ton, 1 crit space, and dissipate 1 pt of heat.  Engines can still only mount 10 heat sinks.  Effectively they are identical in heat dissipated per ton and critical space as regular DHS, but are more resistant to damage.

Inner sphere version might be half a ton, 2 crits, and dissipate 1 pt of heat.

Disadvantage is you lose the 10 extra heat being dissipated by the engine.  Advantage is your heat sinks are more robust (instead of a single crit taking out a DHS and removing 2 pts of heat dissipation, you only lose one of the two HMHS and 1 pt of heat dissipation).

Of course, I'd want to be able to mix half mass heat sinks with regular heat sinks, as the half mass heat sinks in the legs are not as heat efficient as regular heat sinks for their size.


Of course, I'd want to make Flamers and Inferno rounds to heat damage based on the number of heat sinks a target has.  Perhaps a Flamer would do 1 pt of heat for every 10 heat sinks the target has (FRD, min 1 per attack), and Infernos would do 1 pt for every 20 heat sinks (and since Infernos are fired in salvos, this isn't as bad for the attacker).  If multiple sources of heat are fired, they are totaled and divided, then rounded down.  So a single Flamer against a mech with 15 heat dissipation would do 1 pt of heat, while a unit mounting 2 Flamers would do 3 pts of heat.  A unit hitting with 5 Inferno SRMs would do 5 pts of heat, as the regular math would be 3 pts of heat (5 * 15 = 75, 75/80 = 3.75, FRD = 3), but since there wee 5 SRMs it will do 5 pts of heat.

This also means we need to make larger Flamers   >:D.  Imagine a 5 ton mech Flamer, fed off the main reactor, with the following stats:
Hvy Flamer:
Heat: 15
Dmg: .9* (Heat)
Range: 1/2/3
Tons: 5
Crits: 5
* Does 9 pts of heat for every 10 points of heat dissipation the target has in operation, minimum 1 pt of heat.  If the target does not track heat, it does 4d6 damage (more than the little Flamer, but since it is a single weapon instead of smaller redundant).
* As anti-infantry, does 3* the damage of a regular Flamer as anti-infantry damage (not as efficient as the smaller, as it is still a single stream).

[sillybrit]

I echo the calls to revamp how infantry work. Support weapons and disposables should be required to damage armored targets, with perhaps some exceptions such as weapons with underbarrel grenade launchers and maybe a few higher tech infantry weapons. The latter would provide an advantage for SLDF and Clan troops, for example. Infantry units would be squad sized at most, with limits on the number that can be carried in APCs.

Revamp WarShips, both construction and usage, so that we don't have situations like the magic armor with the former, while for the latter the main goal is to create a situation where naval battles are more like WW1 than WW2 in the Pacific. ASFs would be much less effective against capital scale armor, requiring Alamos and ASMs to do significant damage, with their own guns mostly limited to damaging sensors, weapons bays, PD arrays, bay doors, etc, although they would be able to inflict damage against arcs stripped of armor. PD would be rebalanced so that nukes become viable without themselves being overpowered.

Greatly reduce the number of weapons. For example, HVACs and RACs would be gone. Normal ACs are already very high velocity so there's no need for HVACs, and RACs should be covered between UACs and ACs. We already have the idea that an AC class represents a plethora of different weapon types, with a AC20 either a slow firing large caliber weapon or a smaller caliber weapon firing multiple rounds per shot, so really the features of HVACs and RACs should already be encompassed by that abstraction.

Bring back the rule that allowed OmniFighters to increase thrust if they dropped or removed some pods. It's simple physics: the thrust output of your engines is constant, but mass is lowered, thus you should have higher acceleration. Unlike OmniMechs, for example there wouldn't be suspension limits or some other restriction.

Reduce the anti-armor damage for APGRs to 2 points.

No quad BA.

No mechanized or motorized infantry as currently presented. These should either be lightweight combat vehicles, or regular infantry carried in separate transports.

Realism mode. As an optional set of rules, give weapons the sort of ranges they'd actually have. This would require map hexes to be scaled up and thus movement would be much less effective, so the flow of the game would be much different.

Revamp the boarding rules, particularly with respect to BA. It's currently possible to design a suit that's strong in terms of Marine Boarding Points, but sucks in ATOW/TW terms.

[Empyrus]

No quad BA.

:D ;D

Perhaps they could be designated micro-mechs or something... Probably wouldn't retcon them out of existence though. Even though i don't care for them either. (Dark Age Fenrir mini looks good though, perhaps the only exception. But only because it looks good! No comment on its stats in CBT.)

[Khymerion]

I echo the calls to revamp how infantry work. Support weapons and disposables should be required to damage armored targets, with perhaps some exceptions such as weapons with underbarrel grenade launchers and maybe a few higher tech infantry weapons. The latter would provide an advantage for SLDF and Clan troops, for example. Infantry units would be squad sized at most, with limits on the number that can be carried in APCs.

No mechanized or motorized infantry as currently presented. These should either be lightweight combat vehicles, or regular infantry carried in separate transports.

Realism mode. As an optional set of rules, give weapons the sort of ranges they'd actually have. This would require map hexes to be scaled up and thus movement would be much less effective, so the flow of the game would be much different.

Realism mode would be nice.  Glad to see someone else thinks the mechanized and motorized infantry need a major revamp.