Absolutely nowhere did I suggest crits be automatic. Rather, I suggested that crit results tables be standardized so that individual components no longer need to be tracked on a separate (and huge) section of the record sheet in order to resolve them.
Hm, so when a critical hit is rolled, it's on a table something like (for arms, as an example):
1-2: Arm actuators
3-4: Bulkiest item
5: Second bulkiest item
6: chosen by attacker/defender, depending on rules
And have the current Critical Hit table be something behind the scenes, done in the design phase but not on the actual record sheet?
1) Separate unit activations. Pick a unit, move, shoot, resolve effects, move on. Alternate activations with your opponent. Allow weapons to be fired at any point during a unit's movement. This helps prevent having large stretches of time where nothing interactive happens for multiple players, and also makes high speed skirmishers and harassers useful even as overall tonnage goes up on both sides.
Agreed. I think Paul missed the point where the effects of combat still don't happen until the end phase, so no unit is preemptively destroyed, but it means that each model is a 'one-and-done' affair that you can mark.
3) Remove TMM as a concept linked to hexes entered or distance moved. Make it either an intrinsic quality of a 'Mech (B-), a quality of having moved or being able to move (B+), or give a few options for players to pick between that meter defensive movement against boosting offensive capability (A+). This prevents requiring micromanagement of every single MP expended to make Lights worth using and significantly speeds the movement phase of every activation.
Interesting. I'd want to see more detail on this. But the difference between Run and Walk is, technically, what you're talking about with A+.
On the whole, though, it isn't a big deal to count hexes and turns and so on - every game with a board does it, and it's a negligible time waste.
However, giving a flat TMM to units based on their speed, with a bonus TMM depending on whether they walked or jumped, would be a raised amount of detail from Alpha Strike without giving up too much granularity, and it would speed up the affair of "How hard is the target to hit?"
And despite what Paul thinks, removing the flat TMM from Alpha Strike is an optional rule.
4) Significantly reduce extra movement costs for most terrain types. Declare more terrain types impassable. Coupled with 3), make committing to major maneuvers into a "Should I/Shouldn't I?" instead of five minutes calculating whether X or Y combination of turns and new hexes entered gives optimal TMM and reduces penalties.
Simplifying the movement penalty charts would do good work too - either it's open (no penalty or bonus), impeded (half movement or +1 MP cost, covers half-depth water, going up hills, going through woods), or impassible (+2 MP cost, covers walking through buildings, full depth water, climbing up cliffs), with the notation that only 'Mechs can do impassible terrain unless the specific unit has an exception - subs for full depth water, Kangas and jumping for Impassible, and so on.
5) Streamline and simplify damage and armor values. Armor/Structure values are significantly inflated from where they need to be to function in nigh identical fashion. Pick a weapon to operate as a baseline (why hello there, Medium Laser), and rebalance using that value as either "1" or "2". Recalculate armor and weapon damage accordingly. Don't hesitate to round or fudge details. Rework cluster weapons to remove the cluster roll entirely. When the dust settles, Light 'Mechs have 1-3 armor points in a given location, high end Assaults can get up to 8 or so.
So. I like the idea and I'd endorse it, but...
Part of the problem is the significant amount of work it would take to do on what, 3500 different units? Software could probably be written to put a datasheet in one end and have it poop out the new stats, but it would add exponentially to the work required - there's so much of the GAME bound up in the design rules, and it would mean reprinting and revising more than just the record sheets. The TROs would now be entirely obsolete, for example.
I think that if I had my druthers, I'd leave the stat blocks alone, at least for a long time, and focus on the core rules.
6) Streamline heat values and the heat scale. Remove "empty" heat levels on the scale, re-normalize starting at 1 going up to about 10. Cut heatsinks in half, make every single point on the heat scale matter. Rework weapon heat to take this into account, using a baseline and balancing off that (Medium Laser! You shouldn't have). Heat happens immediately upon finishing an activation. Combined with 2) and 5), record sheets become simpler overnight. You can now fit 4-6 on a single page of A4 paper.
Now THIS, on the other hand, could be done without invalidating 20+ TROs, tons of design rules, and could be accomplished with some white-out on old record sheets. Divide heat values by 3, rounding down? So an ERLL becomes 4 heat, an ERPPC becomes 5 heat, and a Gauss Rifle becomes 0.
The basic idea of heat is that it's a tradeoff: for a short-term damage output NOW, you reduce your ability to deal damage in the future. Any new heat rules should remember this, without going as far as Alpha Strike did.
7) Breaking the mold on my changes so far: expand physical attacks. "Choose punch or kick, but kick is almost always better and if you don't have X or Y optional equipment kicks are absolutely always better" isn't really a choice for 90% of 'Mechs. Alternating activations would also make physical attack choices even more important, especially if it becomes an either/or choice and not a "both" choice. Do you fire all guns as you run by, or do you slide tackle the Longbow and restrict its movement choices the next time it gets up while doing some damage? Grapple, maybe to keep it in place? Pick a flavor you like and imagine it, as long as the end result is "kicks aren't the only real option in 90% of circumstances".
Ugh. One option ALWAYS ends up being better, or else you end up with a confusing mess - take the Warmachine Power Attack rules, of which there are 8 different ones, each of which are highly situational, and which you forget about 90% of the time. Battletech doesn't fuff around, and that makes it a surprisingly quick thing.
Honestly, reducing the damage of kicks would help some. Kicks are just too strong, and focus on a very specific area so you don't have to worry about it randomly spattering across the various locations ineffectively.
8) Include morale/leadership in some fashion. BattleTech fights are, without significant hemming and hawing beforehand, fights to the death with no exception. This does not reflect any fluff written prior to about 3058 or so. This doesn't mean "roll dice to see if you lose the game this turn", it's "your pilot has a lot of holes in their armor and their lancemate just went down, see whether they keep pressing the attack."
Random roll morale is always touchy. Technically speaking, infantry should ALWAYS be running away from the 100-ton firebreathing monster charging at them with a huge axe!
But honestly, forced withdrawal type rules, where if a location on a 'Mech is breached the pilot retreats rather than risk his expensive machine, would also speed up games. Maybe having "fight to the death" as an additional SPA, like below.
9) Enormously expand SPAs, make them more interesting than niche -1 to hit in such and such circumstance. Include them in standard level rules. Make pilots as memorable as their 'Mechs, without making them more valuable than their 'Mechs.
Yes. Pilots should matter as much, if not more, than their 'Mechs. It's a game of armored combat, of knights whose steed and armor are the same damn thing, and the game has NEVER reflected that. Having something like Alpha Strike, where a limited number of pilots can take SPAs, and expanding lance formations to give them under certain circumstances, would be boss.
The only problem is... how do you balance it points-wise? Maybe before you can get X SPA for an assault 'Mech, you have to HAVE that many assault 'Mechs? I dunno. I'd rather set this idea aside to be explored further later.
So you see? Just because we don't necessarily all have the same IDEAS doesn't mean talking is COMPLETELY worthless.
