Streamlining Battletech?

[Tangoforone]

So basically, pull a GW and ask people to rebuild?

I don't think that is feasible.

The difference between GW and the various owners of Battletech is that the equipment stats are consistent with each unit they are used on.  If Battletech were owned by GW, then Version 33 of Total Warfare would only include a Raven, Atlas, and Commando, and 10 other units would get updated two months before GW releases Version 34 of Total Warfare, nullifying everything.  Under GW, each unit would have its own rules, instead of each piece of equipment having rules.  Like I said earlier, that the equipment rules are standard to all units through all eras is what has kept players around, at least partially.

In the end, I just want this game to grow, not just exist.  The Kickstarter brought in some new people, and people who used to play but left for a while.  I would be curious to know how many people sunk a large amount of money ($200 or more) that are completely new to Battletech, or just started with the AGOAC or BB.  Again, maybe my assumption is incorrect, but I would imagine a significant portion of big donors were people who are veterans to the game.  So for Battletech to get popular beyond its current base after the Kickstarter, the ruleset is going to have to be just as attractive as the miniatures.

Wargaming is getting popular, but games like Star Wars Legion and Flames of War are dominating the war gaming at the stores I play at, and my Battletech group plays fairly regularly so it isn't like Battletech is not being exposed to people.  Games with rulebooks that are less than 100 pages are just becoming more popular, so I propose that Catalyst creates a Total Warfare ruleset that simplifies things to build on the success from the Kickstarter.  The models are going to look fantastic once they hit shelves, but I picture a portion of people who look at the miniatures then go and look at the 300ish page rulebook might be turned off, especially if they are looking for casual wargaming.  Besides, Total Warfare 1 would still exist, so people who love everything about that version or don't want to bother learning a new ruleset could still play it.  It isn't like Version 2 is released then all the Version 1 rulebooks and record sheets just evaporate. 

I'm just a guy that tries to recognize trends, and the wargaming trend that I see is rulesets that are more simplified and less simulator-based, while still holding to the spirit of whatever universe the game is based in.

[Talen5000]

So for Battletech to get popular beyond its current base after the Kickstarter, the ruleset is going to have to be just as attractive as the miniatures.

Wargaming is getting popular, but games like Star Wars Legion and Flames of War are dominating the war gaming at the stores I play at, and my Battletech group plays fairly regularly so it isn't like Battletech is not being exposed to people.  Games with rulebooks that are less than 100 pages are just becoming more popular, so I propose that Catalyst creates a Total Warfare ruleset that simplifies things to build on the success from the Kickstarter.  The models are going to look fantastic once they hit shelves, but I picture a portion of people who look at the miniatures then go and look at the 300ish page rulebook might be turned off, especially if they are looking for casual wargaming.  Besides, Total Warfare 1 would still exist, so people who love everything about that version or don't want to bother learning a new ruleset could still play it.  It isn't like Version 2 is released then all the Version 1 rulebooks and record sheets just evaporate. 

I'm just a guy that tries to recognize trends, and the wargaming trend that I see is rulesets that are more simplified and less simulator-based, while still holding to the spirit of whatever universe the game is based in.

And a lot of people feel the same way.

The question is....how?

Streamlining rulebooks?
Maybe...but the core rules fits into about 20 pages and they aren't that complicated.

There are special case rules that could easily go....a 100Yon Mech climbing a cliff? No.
There might be ways be combine concepts...such as an all encompassing Obscurement mod instead of terrain plus ecm plus....
There are pieces of equipment whose rules either do not make sense or which are too complex for their own good. C3 should simply reduce TNs by 1 for every four equipped units on board.
And you can argue some weapons should be removed from an anti armour role (MGs) or limited in someway.



 But when you get down to it,there are reasons and benefits behind every existing rule. Even rolling 40 dice for an LB 20...it can be fun to roll so many dice,thrilling to see the damage and crits build up. Its like playing the lottery

Alpha Strike was an attempt to streamline the game in the manner you suggest but so far, it has had limited success.

But really, there are several factors behind BTs lack of momentum. Marketing and lack of name recognition are two but they require time and money to address. The Kickstarter should also hopefully provide a unified art style for the first time in ages and remove the threat of certain lawsuits. The new box sets are cheaper and more sustainable rather than being loss leaders.

It might be an idea to introduce a Deluxe Box set with new models, heavy duty maps, etc.

But it isn't just about the rules. It is about the perceived speed of play. BT focuses on detail  while other games try to places dozens of models on the map at once. An hour for a 1 on 1 duel or an hour for 20v20? Its about impact...that 1 on 1 duel might take 40 minutes before serious damage occurs.

BT has tried to speed up gameplay....defence systems have lagged, TCs are more common, Clan warriors have greater skill...all of which translates into quicker fights.

Why do I prefer the Clans? Because the fights are more brutal and intense than those of the IS and don't last as long. I give each pilot a point of Edge to spend as he sees fit to deal with luck and away we go.

But other issues include the lack of faction personality. Any faction can use any Mech. Which is great for convenience but also not so great if you want to build faction loyalty. Should the game go towards faction Mechs, faction specific rules and perks? I wouldn't be averse.

But there is a whole discussion to be had over these issues. Simplifying the game is one possibility but one fraught with hazards.

It might be better to focus on BT as a duelling game and move to AS as the default.

[Hptm. Streiger]

Well, I think that HBS Battletech is already a perfect streamline version of Battletech.
A lot of changes in that game would behave great on the gaming table as well.
Starting with moving from 2d6 to 2d100 (or rolling two 10 sided dices)
Also the ini is great, you move and shoot or move and attack in a single turn with a single unit.
Helps as well to shorten the movement phase of the game

[Apocal]

Well, I think that HBS Battletech is already a perfect streamline version of Battletech.
A lot of changes in that game would behave great on the gaming table as well.
Starting with moving from 2d6 to 2d100 (or rolling two 10 sided dices)
Also the ini is great, you move and shoot or move and attack in a single turn with a single unit.
Helps as well to shorten the movement phase of the game

HBSTech uses a 1d20 for gunnery, at least on the surface interface.

And GATOR alone gets mostly overhauled in the process.
1. Gunnery scale can be a bit more generous with pilots topping at nearly perfect accuracy except at extremes.
2. No attacker movement modifiers, even for jumping.
3. Target movement modifiers are stripped away with every attack, successful or not.
4. Woods don't hide mechs or make hitting much more difficult. Instead they use the TO optional rule for damage reduction. There is terrain that makes you harder to hit, but usually with a tradeoff, like enhancing whatever damage you do take, hurting your to-hit chances, adding additional heat, making it harder for you to topple over, etc.
5. The short and medium range band for weapons are consolidated into one ("optimal range") without penalties. Firing at long range still has a penalty but nowhere near as severe as a +4 on the 2d6 curve.

There are others too.
6. Sprinting is available by default.
7. Firing arcs are simplified.
8. Only one form of melee attack, without potential penalties but at the cost of giving up a firing turn, except for small weapons (MGs, small lasers, flamers, etc.) which add to the attack.
9. Overheating does not penalize movement or accuracy, but instead burns off a bit of internal structure for all locations except the head and only occurs at approximately +15 overheat. At +25, shutdown is automatic.
10. Knockdowns happen without random element; take too much damage from missiles or ballistics (or PPCs) and down she goes.
11. No through-armor criticals, with one exception. The Gauss Rifle does automatic TACs with every hit.
12. No general-use targeting computer; equivalents exist for specific weapon classes and weigh a fixed amount.
13. Lasers gain a mild bonus to accuracy over other weapons.
14. Ballistics suffer a mild penalty to accuracy over consecutive firing turns.
15. Missiles hit on a per-missile basis, rather than binary hit/miss followed by a cluster table.

It would probably make for an entertaining game but I'm not sure I'd take it up as streamlined BT. It would play in an entirely different manner, especially with an IGO/UGO firing resolution in place, and a lot of BT staples would get left by the wayside in the process...

[Thunderbolt]

My main objective would be to "cull the herd" so to speak.
1. The amount of hardware out there, a lot of it doing the same job.
2. The forced "for story sake" division of tech over way to many years to facilitate the innersphere-clan separation.
3. The over abundance of Mech chassis and models. I get it the "name the current poster child" mechs are important, but enough is enough already.

The main issues is weeding out the minutia without hindering CGL ability to make money.
And the mechs are a big sales point for the company, wither in books(TRO), plastic (minis),etc..
And how do the clans survive vs. the innersphere if the tech is the same, crippling the stories tellers ability to make them a viable threat.

why not have & enjoy your cake?

Given the "Mad Max dark ages" feel of the SW, the IS Houses brought every possible piece of hardware into service... including every single prototype & training 'Mech

Even so, in 3025, the 16 most popular front-line chassis accounted for most of the actual units -- all the rest you could view as rare-to-unique prototypes & curiosities?

[Thunderbolt]

Fewer rolls.  That's the easiest way to streamline things.  Reduce the amount of dice rolling and the number of charts.  For instance, an LB-X could just do one location at half damage, but give you a +2 on the possible crit chart.  No, it's not the array of little one point hits, but it still thematically serves the same purpose, and it doesn't take nearly as long to resolve.

But anything too specific that we talk about here will probably be met with demands that this go in the Fan Designs forum.

combine your rolls?

Determine number of hits (for missiles & clusters) directly from the to-hit roll?

e.g. Margin of Success (MoS) of 0 --> "7" on missile hits table, MoS of 1 --> "8", etc.  your cluster hits = 7 + MoS

that would enable you to hit the target with a few rounds even on failed rolls, amounting to something similar to the "-1" to hit bonus of LBX

you could probably use MoS to determine hit-location simultaneously, also

[Talen5000]

Starting with moving from 2d6 to 2d100 (or rolling two 10 sided dices)

Yes...one of the flaws of both BT and the RPG is that 2D6 does not provide enough granularity.

A move to 3D6, a D20, 2D10 or a percentile system would fix that.

[Hptm. Streiger]

Combining MoS and Cluster Roll sounds like a good idea, would give larger cluster weapons like the LRM20 an edge over 4 or even 5 LRM5s when shooting lights

[dgorsman]

Short range shots would end up with more hits, and long range with less, which (kind of) emulates the advanced rules.

There's always downsides.  Pilots with better skills, or other situations with to-hit bonuses, would do noticeably more damage.  Weapons with to-hit penalties such as rocket launchers or MRMs would be further penalized.

[Thunderbolt]

think that's because the standard rules ignore MoS entirely

According to the RPG (2nd ed.), a MoS of 5 (on 2d6) is considered a "bullseye" extreme success, amounting to a much better strike than MoS = 0

The optional rule of half-damage on MoS = 0 comes closest to including the effects of MoS

Perhaps you could use your MoS to modify your "missile hits" & "hit location" rolls?  You could spend 1 point of MoS to increase your missile hits roll by one, so you'd generally get more missiles onto target.  And after that, you could spend any remaining MoS points to "slide" your hit location(s) around, modifying your hit location roll result(s) by 1 for each point of MoS so spent.

If you get a bullseye (MoS = 5) and (say) roll a "7 - center torso" for your HL, you could "slide" your result all the way to "7+5 = 12 - cockpit" ???

Could be more fun & more realistic to account for MoS

[Apocal]

think that's because the standard rules ignore MoS entirely

According to the RPG (2nd ed.), a MoS of 5 (on 2d6) is considered a "bullseye" extreme success, amounting to a much better strike than MoS = 0

The optional rule of half-damage on MoS = 0 comes closest to including the effects of MoS

Perhaps you could use your MoS to modify your "missile hits" & "hit location" rolls?  You could spend 1 point of MoS to increase your missile hits roll by one, so you'd generally get more missiles onto target.  And after that, you could spend any remaining MoS points to "slide" your hit location(s) around, modifying your hit location roll result(s) by 1 for each point of MoS so spent.

If you get a bullseye (MoS = 5) and (say) roll a "7 - center torso" for your HL, you could "slide" your result all the way to "7+5 = 12 - cockpit" ???

Could be more fun & more realistic to account for MoS

That would certainly speed games up, at the cost of slowing down firing resolution.

[Thunderbolt]

That would certainly speed games up, at the cost of slowing down firing resolution.

doesn't make you do more rolls, you just have to remember your MoS from the first one and use your MoS on all the ones after that

same number of rolls, just now with adjustments from your MoS on the first

[Apocal]

doesn't make you do more rolls, you just have to remember your MoS from the first one and use your MoS on all the ones after that

same number of rolls, just now with adjustments from your MoS on the first

Then you have to decide if you want to slide your hit location roll around. Then repeat for every roll that hits with a margin of success. Hunchback-4SP with both six packs hitting hard would take a bit longer. Like I said, I think it will lead to faster games overall (it would be hard not to if you could concentrate hits just a bit) just that firing resolution would take a bit longer. I wouldn't mind playing that way.

[Thunderbolt]

Millennium's End RPG combined "to-hit" and "hit-location" in a realistic way, one roll determined where you strike (off target wide, barely off target, on target here, there):

[Thunderbolt]

Then you have to decide if you want to slide your hit location roll around. Then repeat for every roll that hits with a margin of success. Hunchback-4SP with both six packs hitting hard would take a bit longer. Like I said, I think it will lead to faster games overall (it would be hard not to if you could concentrate hits just a bit) just that firing resolution would take a bit longer. I wouldn't mind playing that way.

suppose you could also group your weapons into TICs, and then treat them (basically) like LRMs, one roll for the entire "cluster" of weapons...

if you hit, roll again on the "missile hits table" for number of weapons which hit (adjustable by your MoS) and so on... ???

[Thunderbolt]

Doesn't seem like much interest, but to sketch out an idea, you could combine to-hit & hit-location rolls in BT by, somehow, overlaying a targeting grid onto the 'mech silhouette vaguely as follows, and determine the (x,y) = (horizontal,vertical) point of impact by rollings (2d6-7, 2d6-7) to randomly generate an (x,y) pair of numbers, each ranging from -5 to +5 but centered on 0.  (Net) To-hit penalties would allow the defender to "slide" the resulting impact point one grid square horizontally or vertically for each point of penalty, ultimately out and off the target silhouette.  Conversely, (net) to-hit bonuses would allow the attacker to "slide" the impact point one grid square inwards per point, more likely onto target, getting a hit:

[Talen5000]

Doesn't seem like much interest, but to sketch out an idea, you could combine to-hit & hit-location rolls in BT by, somehow, overlaying a targeting grid onto the 'mech silhouette vaguely as follows, and determine the (x,y) = (horizontal,vertical) point of impact by rollings (2d6-7, 2d6-7) to randomly generate an (x,y) pair of numbers, each ranging from -5 to +5 but centered on 0.  (Net) To-hit penalties would allow the defender to "slide" the resulting impact point one grid square horizontally or vertically for each point of penalty, ultimately out and off the target silhouette.  Conversely, (net) to-hit bonuses would allow the attacker to "slide" the impact point one grid square inwards per point, more likely onto target, getting a hit:

An interesting idea but I think a lot of those presented here have the issue that they take up more time than they save.

If you want to reduce rolls in this way, I would advocate a simpler system

Mechwarriors are trained to shoot for the centre of mass. All attacks hit the "7" but also do one third-one half damage and receive a -1 TN Bonus. The damage reduction there simply to keep the fights lasting just as long.
A player can choose to roll as normal, but loses the TN Bonus.
A Mechwarrior can

[Ursus Maior]

I must say, I absolutely like the combat system in Mechwarrior: Destiny. I don't like Alpha Strike one bit, so why not dump AS and support MW:D more? It would give grognards like be the classic rules and a new, simpler rule set to play.

Okay, that might not be fair to AS players or those wanting a change for the classic rules, but it would upset the player base less than dumping over 30 years of books and sheets and doing the old Clicktech trick again on them.

There is a reason BT survived this long without a lot of changes: People like it and it is very modular. I can still (no: again!) pick up a not very complex game for a beer and pretzel game of lance vs. lance and be done in under one hour with an experienced buddy. Or I can take a whole weekend and slug it out in an augmented combined arms battalion vs. super nova trinary game with several players per side; or anything in between.

[Talen5000]

I must say, I absolutely like the combat system in Mechwarrior: Destiny. I don't like Alpha Strike one bit, so why not dump AS and support MW:D more? It would give grognards like be the classic rules and a new, simpler rule set to play.

Personally, I thought it was OK - but also unnecessary and made the mistake other MW RPGs made - turning the game into a board game replacement. I felt the entire section could be cut and replaced with something a bit more generic as if you want to play the board game, there's an entire board game out there. Not saying it doesn't have some value, but of all the things that the game needed, a new set of rules for Mech combat wasn't one of them. And yes, I am aware that this is BT, yes, I am aware that this is in many ways oversimplfying things, and yes - Mech combat is important. But not for an RPG.

[Apocal]

Doesn't seem like much interest...

Honestly, the main reason I didn't reply is because I didn't actually understand what you were suggesting well enough to offer any sort of critique on the positives and negatives (my receiver, not your transmitter) and I didn't want to look like an idiot by saying, "I don't understand this."

I am interested in anything that keeps the pace of a BT game brisk (generally less rolling required), but I also want to be upfront and clear about the trade-offs.

[Thunderbolt]

As a basic mindset, I was thinking that you could define 1 crit simulates 1 cubic meter of volume (in round numbers), which would require 1 square meter of armor in front and back (in round numbers).  So, a 'mech record sheet would fill out squares, each one of which represented about 1 m x 1 m = 1 square meter of area.  Each square could hold 1 crit's worth of gear.  You would assign all of your actuators, engine & gyro & cockpit, as well as weapons & equipment, crits onto the grid.

More crits means yours is a physically larger, more voluminous, 'mech.  More likely to get hit. (Also requires more armor to cover, so this system would give some advantage to smaller, more compact designs.)

If you'll let me try to save myself some time, it would look vaguely like the following image...you can imagine placing "Foot / LL / UL / Hip" actuator crits into the legs... and the "Shoulder / UA / LA / Hand" actuators crits in the arms... the 3 dark green squares in the torso could represent (say) the gyro... the 6 lime green squares in the head would represent the "Life Support / Sensors / Cockpit (plus something else)" crits… evidently there's a 1 crit medium or small laser right on top...

Overall, the following "mech" occupies 56 crits of actuators, gyro, head crits, and other stuff (unspecified, but you get the idea, yes?).  It is 15 squares tall, so, evidently being a pretty large 'mech, it is about 15 meters tall.



To attack it, pick an "aim point"... any one of those squares... and "roll around that location" with (2d6-7, 2d6-7)

A typical BT mechwarrior, wanting to maximize their chances of hitting the target, always aims for the center of the center torso ("the 'mechs belly-button" so to speak).  So, let's say that's what we want to try first...

you designate the center of the center torso as your aim point, and roll two (2) sets of 2d6... and you get "12" and "9"

(12-7, 9-7) = (+5, +2)

your shot goes wide 5 squares to the right, and 2 squares up...

5 squares to the right of the "belly button" is one square above the hand on the right side of the image, in the same column as the "c" in "champ"...

then 2 squares up from there is a miss which whizzes past the "elbow" on the right side of the image

Conversely, say you had been aiming at the bottom dark green square, to knock out the gyro (say)… +5 right, +2 up would actually still be a hit on said "elbow" square

Might sound complicate the first time around, but its really a simple idea:

• choose a target square
• roll (2d6-7, 2d6-7) "around" that square

[Nicoli]

One of the key things that have to be done with a v2 of Battletech is to run every rule through the "rule of 200". Basically how does the rule work if you have to do it 200 times a game. This is especially important in Battletech because we can customize units and such to cause that to happen. One LB-X 20 isn't a major time sink, 16 are. This was why I came up with (though  I'm sure I wasn't the first) the adjacent location damage value for cluster weapons, it does a good enough job representing the weapons but is fast enough that having to do it 200 times a game isn't troublesome.

Battletech is a game that is very mechanic focused, best summed up by the Tactical Operations tag line "we got a rule for that". What Battletech needs it a player focused rework, overhauling how the players interact with the rules and game information. Most of the elements in Tactical Operations should be standard rules of the game if the mechanics are rewritten with the player using them in mind.

Take building destruction, the mechanic works but isn't optimized in anyway for the players to interact with it well. Currently every building hex has a HP pool that has to be individual tracked by writing it down on a separate sheet of paper. Mildly annoying if you have just a few buildings a nightmare in full set of city maps. Give buildings a damage threshold number, and put it on the map(another pet-peeve of mine with Battletech), whenever a weapon hits the building roll a D6 add it to the damage of the weapon. If it beats the threshold you put a damage token on the hex. At the end of any unit activation where a building gets a damage token roll a d6 add the number of damage tokens and if that beats the threshold the building collapses in rubble.

This is the type of stuff Battletech needs to be looking at in its changes. Stuff where your making the tracking of information easier, less looking up or writing stuff down, using things like tokens and dials to track information. We as players have created a bunch of shortcuts and player aids to track information because the core game doesn't do a good job at it.

[Ursus Maior]

Personally, I thought it was OK - but also unnecessary and made the mistake other MW RPGs made - turning the game into a board game replacement.

[...]

But not for an RPG.

I agree with the first point. In most RPGs this would be unnecessary. But if I want to play a BT or MW RPG - in comparison to a RPG set in the BTU - I need something that can incorporate mecha combat true to the style of the miniature game that is BT into my campaign. If I want to play a RPG set in the BTU, I would advise anyone to play Mongoose Traveller in its latest edition. It's 2D6 and quite modular and flexible. Or go for the free but complete Stars Without Number (revised edition) for another generic scifi RPG.

Really, when it comes to RPGs genuine mechanically new games are extremely rare and good ones even more so. There is no need to have a BT flavored set of rules, unless it's delivering incorporation of the miniature game. And I liked both solutions presented by MW:D.

[Talen5000]

I agree with the first point. In most RPGs this would be unnecessary. But if I want to play a BT or MW RPG - in comparison to a RPG set in the BTU - I need something that can incorporate mecha combat true to the style of the miniature game that is BT into my campaign.

I've discussed this elsewherew and will therefore be brief - but the MW RPG already has access to a set of rules that incorporates mecha combat true to the the style of the miniature game.
It's called Total War, or the rules incldued in the board game box sets.
What the MW RPG doesn't need is yet another attempt to rework those rules into the RPG system. It needs to find a way to use the board within the RPG and then  jusrt add a comprehensive vehicle combat system. The continuing attempts to incorporate new rulesets to try and mimic/replace the board game never seem to work, always have issues and aways seem to result in a waste of space and design time/energy that could be better spent on other topics. MW2 had munchkin characters, the D10 of MW3 was a decent attempt to provdie a new system, and ATOW is just flawed. No - I'm not going to go into a detailed analysis.

As with other attempts, I like some aspects of the Destiny system....but that doesn't (yet) alter the fact that I still think including such rules is a huge mistake. But then, I could also suggest that Destiny is also a mistake as it is yet another RPG system that needs to be supported, resulting in further fragmentation.

But - my opinion and others differ.

As for streamlining BT, again...each existing rule has its place, and its adherents and each existing rule also works well for what it does. Even rolling 40D6 for a LB20X hit can be hugely rewarding.

It should also be noted that some streamlining could occur through changes to the record sheets, by placing more information on them or through minor rules changes such as increasing the chances for a critical hit, or increasing the skill of the warriors involved. One could also add in new options such as "Evasive" movement to let players feel more in control.

Are there systems which require reworking? Yes....I would remove Reengineered Lasers. I would rework the C3 systems into a simpler "Reduce Target LOS mods by1 and provdie a +1 Initiative bonus so long as two or more working C3 systems are active." The BAR system could be simplified. And so on.

But overall, there are probably very few rules or systems which require a rework, where the mechanic is too cumbersome to be worth the deployment. Of those, C3 is probably at the top of my list. Cluster hits would probably be second....but here, a choke option might be more useful. Fewer rolls, quicker resolution, but less damage. That could allow the use of onyl one hit location roll. An AP mechanic to limit critical chances might also speed the game up by discouraging the use of cluster munitions except in certain situtaions.

[Hptm. Streiger]

Well you can highly discourage the use of cluster weapons by the use of

• Ferro Lammelor
• TacOps rule of alternative forest cover (no to hit modification but reduced damage)
• TacOps rule that critical hit chance is also based on damage of that hit

However, all those options do not help to increase the speed of the game.
I would rather use those as "rough" guideline when "streamlining" cluster ammunition. So you would play a game with those rules and then you might play a similar game with your "idea" of alternative cluster rule. Is the outcome similar? Did the first game was still a great BattleTech game?

[Col Toda]

Easy I do it by using ammo using largely  heat neutral  units .  If your units only generate  heat by movement  while firing  everything  and you move in formation  that quickens game play quite a bit . Using  C3 and / or TAG that speeds  the combat to short and brutal .

[Nicoli]

Easy I do it by using ammo using largely  heat neutral  units .  If your units only generate  heat by movement  while firing  everything  and you move in formation  that quickens game play quite a bit . Using  C3 and / or TAG that speeds  the combat to short and brutal .

That's kind of cheating, much like using pilots with better skills. Your playing in a way to avoid the rules as opposed to cleaning them up. There is really no reason that a Game of Battletech with two lances using full gear options and all the additional (not swappable rules) in tactical operations shouldn't be doable around an hour with new players without a  teacher. The rules for Battletech are not difficult, but run into a couple of issues that slow down play unless you play very frequently or have silly player aids like the "Box of Doom".

But overall, there are probably very few rules or systems which require a rework, where the mechanic is too cumbersome to be worth the deployment. Of those, C3 is probably at the top of my list. Cluster hits would probably be second....but here, a choke option might be more useful. Fewer rolls, quicker resolution, but less damage. That could allow the use of onyl one hit location roll. An AP mechanic to limit critical chances might also speed the game up by discouraging the use of cluster munitions except in certain situtaions.

I'd say that a lot of Battletech rules while simply fall into three categories of problems:

1. Hidden Information - The effects of a rule are hidden in a table or description instead of being presented on either the Map or the unit sheet.

2. Poor or excessive Record Keeping - Constantly having to write things down when a token or dial would handle it quicker. The lack of Heat dials for example is a no-no now.

3. Brute Force rules- Trying to simulate something by just doing lots of rolls or actions.

Battletech is game that if designed today everyone would look at the designers and laugh asking why they are trying to publish a draft for a ruleset. This is not a trash on Battletech, so much as it is a realization that back when Battletech was written games development and technology was still in its infancy. Things that people hadn't figured out or wasn't financially viable to include in games are now know or significantly cheaper. Just take a look at the cost of High-quality plastic miniatures now. 

Well you can highly discourage the use of cluster weapons by the use of

• Ferro Lammelor
• TacOps rule of alternative forest cover (no to hit modification but reduced damage)
• TacOps rule that critical hit chance is also based on damage of that hit

However, all those options do not help to increase the speed of the game.
I would rather use those as "rough" guideline when "streamlining" cluster ammunition. So you would play a game with those rules and then you might play a similar game with your "idea" of alternative cluster rule. Is the outcome similar? Did the first game was still a great BattleTech game?

The big issue is those are mostly just ways of hiding the core problem of the rules instead of fixing the mechanic so it's unnecessary. Play a game using split damage values bleeding over into adjacent spaces using the transfer chart just with a quick fudge of the damage values. It allows you to resolve an LB-x 20 hit from start to finish in less then 5 seconds. It actually makes more logical sense as while the spread may be different by weapon type, even with missiles they are going to hit mostly around where you are aiming as opposed to the current always doing the distribution off of a perfect center mass aim every time.

[Apocal]

That's kind of cheating, much like using pilots with better skills. Your playing in a way to avoid the rules as opposed to cleaning them up. There is really no reason that a Game of Battletech with two lances using full gear options and all the additional (not swappable rules) in tactical operations shouldn't be doable around an hour with new players without a  teacher. The rules for Battletech are not difficult, but run into a couple of issues that slow down play unless you play very frequently or have silly player aids like the "Box of Doom".

That's very optimistic in my own experience. Even 2 vs. 2 wasn't have been doable in an hour's time, mostly because of constant rules lookups and without involving anything from TacOps. Or indeed, anything past basic introtech mechs and weapons. Two lances with full gear options and including rules from TacOps for a pair of new players in under an hour? That would probably be ten minutes per turn, tops, and even then it might not conclude merely based on 4/5 pilots missing damned near every shot early on.

[Hptm. Streiger]

That's very optimistic in my own experience. Even 2 vs. 2 wasn't have been doable in an hour's time, mostly because of constant rules lookups and without involving anything from TacOps. Or indeed, anything past basic introtech mechs and weapons. Two lances with full gear options and including rules from TacOps for a pair of new players in under an hour? That would probably be ten minutes per turn, tops, and even then it might not conclude merely based on 4/5 pilots missing damned near every shot early on.

I have made the experience that larger battles play much faster. There are so many units that its impossible to find the perfect move, so people simply move instead of "testing". Another thing is the fire concentration of large battles... especially when moving information of coherent units (lance of Thugs) - you have 4 units with the same range and heat profile and its likely that they all produce the same toHit number.
What also helps (for me) is to have a "pivot table" (can be written down fast before the battle - those 1minute of time will safe you lots of time when calculating stuff (you don't need to sum all the numbers 4+2+2+whatever - you simple see the "movement dice" of the target a 4 you did run, its the medium range so the second table... row-column...you have a value. Try it, you safe 50% of your time for getting the toHit number.

[dgorsman]

That's very optimistic in my own experience. Even 2 vs. 2 wasn't have been doable in an hour's time, mostly because of constant rules lookups and without involving anything from TacOps. Or indeed, anything past basic introtech mechs and weapons. Two lances with full gear options and including rules from TacOps for a pair of new players in under an hour? That would probably be ten minutes per turn, tops, and even then it might not conclude merely based on 4/5 pilots missing damned near every shot early on.

Indeed.  And it ignores another point: not everyone is looking for an ultra-fast playing game.  Taking an afternoon to play a game isn't less enjoyable than rushing through something in an hour.  Otherwise games like chess, scrabble, or Monopoly would be gone.

Players could just roll some dice and the highest roll wins.  Fast, yes; you could do that dozens of times in an hour.  Not a whole lot of fun though.