Author Topic: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?  (Read 35088 times)

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #60 on: 05 July 2015, 17:24:19 »
I'm fine with mechanized and motorized infantry conceptually.  They might need tweaking a bit.  But the idea that they move around in vehicles too insignificant to be covered by the game rules is fine with me.

I haven't liked any of the RPGs since 2nd edition.  I'd like to see some sort of Mechwarrior/Battletroops/Battletech integration where there was consistency between the games. 

Khymerion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
    • The Iron Hack
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #61 on: 05 July 2015, 21:56:16 »
I'm fine with mechanized and motorized infantry conceptually.  They might need tweaking a bit.  But the idea that they move around in vehicles too insignificant to be covered by the game rules is fine with me.


There is a big difference between too insignificant to be covered and completely unreproducible with rules and magic in terms of weight with abilities beyond reasonable disbelief.
"Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."  - Larry Niven... far too appropriate at times here.

...but sometimes making sure you turn their ace into red paste is more important than friends.

Do not offend the chair leg of truth.  It is wise and terrible.

The GM is only right for as long as the facts back him up.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5856
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #62 on: 06 July 2015, 11:17:21 »
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.

Would you be too averse to the idea of having the items that get damaged through critical hits having their own armor values instead of having to power through all of an arc's armor? That is what bothers me about capital ship combat. It makes sense on something that large, even droppers, especially with the hyper-futuristic accuracy BT is known for, to pick at certain locations and keep hammering them until they break. It happens in the fiction all the time, why can't it happen on the game board?

It makes sense that landing gear may be less armored than weaponry or vice versa. This, in my opinion would certainly make the armor seem less magic as you can punch small holes in it somewhere instead of having to demolish a whole 30 square meters or more of armor plate before you can start hurting stuff.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5856
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #63 on: 06 July 2015, 11:19:57 »
I'm certainly a proponent of a revised BattleTroops that integrates well with both RPG and BattleTech Tactical.

In fact, I kinda wish they did something along the lines of Descent.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #64 on: 06 July 2015, 11:22:58 »
There is a big difference between too insignificant to be covered and completely unreproducible with rules and magic in terms of weight with abilities beyond reasonable disbelief.

My point is that something like a Jeep probably isn't significant enough as a vehicle for it to matter.  I've played a bunch of different game systems and so I'm okay with using different mechanics to represent the same thing.

--

If I were to rewrite it, I'd start with 3025 technology and balance it as best as I could.  Start there, and include infantry, tanks, aerospace, and balance all of it.  I'd probably use a combination of BMR and TW for infantry and vehicle rules.  I'd combine the bonuses (but not the penalties) from a lot of the specialty ammo (tracer, flak, and flechette) and give it to ACs for free.  So -2 to hit against VTOLs and fighters, +1 for night fight instead of +2, and double damage against infantry.  That would all be part of "standard" AC ammo and would explain why so many mechs had them.  Suddenly they become really good weapons, versatile even if they are a bit inefficient against mechs.  Double-tapping rules would be standard.

I'd have an infantry scale game similar to Battletroops (I'm probably the only person who liked that game), but I'd make it similar to other 28mm games like Infinity.  There would be a clear connection between the rules in the troops-scale game and the rules in the mech-scale game.

I like my Robotech mechs, where they are mobile and they can do drop kicks and throw girders at each other, so I'd give rules that favor those over simply the walking tanks of the computer games.  There would be a physical attack for grabbing a vehicle and flipping it over -- or if it is light enough, grabbing one and throwing it.  Cinematic play would be given a preference over realistic style.

I'd rework the top of the engine chart as well, so that a 400 rating engine doesn't screw you over as much.  Maybe the 400 would weigh in at 38 tons or something instead of 52.5, and scale down from there.

I'd base infantry around the squad.  So an SRM squad is 7 men, has a leader, two SRM guys, and four riflemen.  Each guy adds something to the squad, even if it's just a body to take damage.  While a medium laser might kill a random guy, something like a machine gun might simply just kill a squad outright (Damage: one squad).  So if you get lucky, your 2 medium lasers might kill the two guys holding the SRMs, and then the squad can't do anything to you.  Or you might just kill two riflemen and the squad is pretty much unharmed.  You could have a platoon of multiple squads, and that would increase their firepower, but then anti-infantry weapons (infernos, autocannons, machine guns) would have a chance to hit multiple squads at once.

I'd dramatically expand the quirks system, and give some of them significant in game effects.  Each mech and vehicle would have its own standard quirks.  Some might be good (the Rifleman's anti-air capabilities), and some would be bad (say a vehicle that can't fire when moving at more than cruising speed).  I'd be liberal with them too, to try and make the rules match the fluff.  Some types of "advanced technology" (like rocket launchers, a-pods, maybe anti-missile, early active probes and ECM, alternate ammo and missiles) would become standard technology.  Let's give the 3025 players a lot of good options.

Anyway, I'd get 3025 technology balanced and working exactly how I wanted it.  Then I'd move on to advanced equipment.  A lot of the advantages of Star League tech would be handled with "good" quirks.  "Improved heat sinks" might give you +5 or +10 heat dissipation every round, instead of double heat sinks.  "Extralight engine" might give you an extra Walking MP.  "Ultra AC" might just eliminate the jamming from double tapping.  "ER Lasers" could add 1 to all ranges.  And then certain types of advanced technology would have their own game stats.  Gauss Rifles would obviously need their own stats.  Ferro-fibrous armor might just be 18 points per ton.  LB-X ACs would probably be lighter with longer range.  I'd probably give them a -1 to hit but do the cluster rolls in 5 point locations.

The goal would be to give SL mechs some pure advantages over baseline Inner Sphere stuff, and give a justification as to why certain mechs (like the Marauder) seem to be designed badly -- they originally had SL quirks that made them very effective.  When (and if) Clan stuff came out, they would continue that trend.  They'd probably get lighter and better weapons, but it would be the mech quirks that really set them apart.  The goal would be to give the Clans a big advantage, but not insurmountable.  Also BT really needs to trim down the weapon charts.  They are insane right now.  Pulse lasers also need to be nerfed, especially Clan, because it's 25 years later and they're still the best weapons in the game.

As far as including all these quirks in the construction rules, I might say that the average IS mech has, say, 2 pts of positive quirks.  The average SL mech has like 7 pts, and the average Clan mech has like 10 pts.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5856
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #65 on: 07 July 2015, 16:55:56 »
My point is that something like a Jeep probably isn't significant enough as a vehicle for it to matter.  I've played a bunch of different game systems and so I'm okay with using different mechanics to represent the same thing.

It's good that you are.

For me, I find that it shouldn't be the guys that are being tracked, but the jeep and the guys in it. If it's so insignificant to track, then the damage should probably be the same to the platoon no matter what was used to deal it - the Jeep is being destroyed, leaving all occupants either dead or incapacitated. Even inside ten seconds, if the rest of the platoon were to stop and pick up any survivors, there should be some slowdown to represent that. There isn't, and thus the narrative in my head doesn't hold up under scrutiny.





It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5856
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #66 on: 07 July 2015, 17:00:46 »
I'd have an infantry scale game similar to Battletroops (I'm probably the only person who liked that game), but I'd make it similar to other 28mm games like Infinity.  There would be a clear connection between the rules in the troops-scale game and the rules in the mech-scale game.

On its own, BattleTroops was a neat game. The only problem I had was the integration with the larger game it was meant to work with.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Khymerion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
    • The Iron Hack
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #67 on: 07 July 2015, 17:46:16 »
My point is that something like a Jeep probably isn't significant enough as a vehicle for it to matter.  I've played a bunch of different game systems and so I'm okay with using different mechanics to represent the same thing.

--


No, it is not a significant vehicle on it's own.  It's the magical transport weight of said vehicle that is capable of pulling 20+ tons of field guns and move all of it's men who are capable of firing all their various weapons and who in my head glued to the side like some terrible parody of the Keystone Cops.    If I can't reproduce that capability with a basic vehicle and be able to account for it's abilities and it's transport capacity within a dropship...  then it needs to be redressed and updated.  For me, the transport weight for a mechanized or motorized unit really grates me.

BTW:  This is how I think most of our infantry must get around if they are using something that only adds a scant few tons to it's transport weight over foot infantry...



"Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."  - Larry Niven... far too appropriate at times here.

...but sometimes making sure you turn their ace into red paste is more important than friends.

Do not offend the chair leg of truth.  It is wise and terrible.

The GM is only right for as long as the facts back him up.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 25653
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #68 on: 07 July 2015, 18:07:10 »
As I understood it, mechanised (hope I get them round the right way) use personal transport - motorcycles, possibly with sidecars, quad bikes, and the like. Motorised use trucks/cars/hummers & equivalents.

So mechanised doesn't add that much; motorised does. Jeeps, Bren carriers, Kettenkrad, all live in the grey area between the two types.

FWIW, anyway ;)
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5856
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #69 on: 07 July 2015, 18:13:40 »
Continuing on the next gen BattleTroops approach, while I would still offer a quick and durty, abstract means of resolving boarding operations, I would so use BattleTroops Revised as a means of having a dungeon crawl session in the same vein as Descent or HeroQuest or the old Dungeons and Dragons.

Ships would have different rooms and decks mapped out with one side playing an 'overlord' the ship's crew, and the other side playing the 'heroes' grave robbers tomb raiders borders.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13287
  • I said don't look!
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #70 on: 07 July 2015, 19:27:49 »
Oh yes, another I was just reminded of that I'd do.

Torpedoes are now just another specialty ammunition and thus available for MMLs, SRMs, and LRMs.  I may expand this to MRMs but not sure about ATMs/iATMs.

Khymerion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
    • The Iron Hack
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #71 on: 07 July 2015, 19:31:36 »
Oh yes, another I was just reminded of that I'd do.

Torpedoes are now just another specialty ammunition and thus available for MMLs, SRMs, and LRMs.  I may expand this to MRMs but not sure about ATMs/iATMs.

And thunderbolts?
"Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."  - Larry Niven... far too appropriate at times here.

...but sometimes making sure you turn their ace into red paste is more important than friends.

Do not offend the chair leg of truth.  It is wise and terrible.

The GM is only right for as long as the facts back him up.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13287
  • I said don't look!
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #72 on: 07 July 2015, 19:59:01 »
The concentration of damage Thunderbolts present does concern me for game balance but not so much that I don't think a reasonable counter could not be found to make them acceptable.

Meow Liao

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 449
  • The PPC Kitty
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #73 on: 07 July 2015, 22:09:47 »
Cruise missiles would be individual weapons that don't require a launcher over twice the weight of the missile. 

Meow Liao


Have some plum wine with that PPC.

PurpleDragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #74 on: 07 July 2015, 23:29:48 »
I'm certainly a proponent of a revised BattleTroops that integrates well with both RPG and BattleTech Tactical.

/snipped/

This would rock. 

I also liked the previous post of making the infantry on board a squad level action as opposed to a platoon level.  Make it possible to stack infantry squads in the same hex up to a company sized element, but don't make it required at platoon level.  Whenever I can, I run my games with infantry squads over platoons anyway.  then a squad should include at least a squad leader (sgt) and a team leader/assistant squad leader (cpl).  At each level up, there should be room for a couple of extra persons in leadership position to be added e.g.  platoons are generally lead by a lieutenant, and have a platoon sergeant.   Companies are generally lead by a captain and have a first sergeant,...   Companies and above generally have an extra squad or platoon or bigger element added to them to represent command staff and admin anyway.  My problem is that there is no leadership representation at company and below organization level.  I would like to see some rules wherein it would integrate the old avalon hill wargame squad leader with the battletech "wear down" or loss of personnel as opposed to the SL squad morale check/killed results. 
give a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. 
Set him on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

The secret to winning the land/air battle is that you must always remain rigidly flexible.

I like tabletop more anyway, computer games are for nerds!  -  Knallogfall

A. Lurker

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4641
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #75 on: 08 July 2015, 02:23:29 »
And thunderbolts?

That reminds me: Thunderbolts could definitely use some alternate ammo types. They've been around long enough by now, and a single big missile should offer plenty of room for fancy options -- even if it obviously doesn't particularly need to worry about cluster bonuses. :)

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #76 on: 08 July 2015, 08:38:48 »
No, it is not a significant vehicle on it's own.  It's the magical transport weight of said vehicle that is capable of pulling 20+ tons of field guns and move all of it's men who are capable of firing all their various weapons and who in my head glued to the side like some terrible parody of the Keystone Cops.    If I can't reproduce that capability with a basic vehicle and be able to account for it's abilities and it's transport capacity within a dropship...  then it needs to be redressed and updated.  For me, the transport weight for a mechanized or motorized unit really grates me.

BTW:  This is how I think most of our infantry must get around if they are using something that only adds a scant few tons to it's transport weight over foot infantry...

Well, it's all abstracted.  I suppose it depends on what level of abstraction you are okay with in your game. 

I imagined mechanized infantry as something like this:





You pile as many people as you can into/onto the vehicle.  The slower movement rate over a traditional vehicle can represent people jumping on or off of it during the fighting.  The exact number of guys per vehicle, and the exact types of vehicles, would not be precisely defined.  It could be guys in a SWAT team van, in Humvees, Toyota pickups, or potentially even something like big golf carts.  We don't know exactly how many there are because it's not that important to track where each particular infantry guy is riding, whether he's mounted or dismounted, or exactly how many transport vehicles remain.  With all the wide variety of vehicles available in the Inner Sphere, it could be all sorts of things.

Do the game stats need tweaked?  Sure, that's fine.  I don't have a problem with that.  But conceptually I like them.

croaker

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 868
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #77 on: 08 July 2015, 09:30:06 »
That's motorized infantry.

Mechanized infantry has APCs that I would insist actually be run as separate vehicles.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11045
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #78 on: 08 July 2015, 09:44:14 »
That's motorized infantry.

Mechanized infantry has APCs that I would insist actually be run as separate vehicles.

BattleTech: where APCs are worthy (of individual attention) and people are not! :)
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

croaker

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 868
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #79 on: 08 July 2015, 10:01:00 »
Considering that we actually have official game stats for APCs...

Heck, we have official stats for trucks and jeeps in TRO: Vehicle Annex.

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #80 on: 08 July 2015, 10:07:56 »
That's motorized infantry.

Mechanized infantry has APCs that I would insist actually be run as separate vehicles.

You mean if you were to rewrite the rules?  That's fine.  But that's not how they currently work.  Mechanized infantry is its own thing and doesn't have separate vehicles.

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5042
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #81 on: 08 July 2015, 10:32:22 »
A foot platoon with an APC = mechanized. So I'm not sure how tiny the vehicles are within a Mechanized Platoon, but they must be smaller than a jeep to have no stats of their own.

More likely, they were lumped together for simplicity. Just like the Support Weapons and Primary Weapons were lumped together in range brackets. Creating some very silly scenarios, I might add (like vibro-axes going 21 hexes).
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

Khymerion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
    • The Iron Hack
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #82 on: 08 July 2015, 10:34:49 »
You mean if you were to rewrite the rules?  That's fine.  But that's not how they currently work.  Mechanized infantry is its own thing and doesn't have separate vehicles.

That is okay, that is why this is a rewrite the rules thread... to actually make them accountable.
"Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."  - Larry Niven... far too appropriate at times here.

...but sometimes making sure you turn their ace into red paste is more important than friends.

Do not offend the chair leg of truth.  It is wise and terrible.

The GM is only right for as long as the facts back him up.

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #83 on: 08 July 2015, 10:38:52 »
A foot platoon with an APC = mechanized. So I'm not sure how tiny the vehicles are within a Mechanized Platoon, but they must be smaller than a jeep to have no stats of their own.

More likely, they were lumped together for simplicity. Just like the Support Weapons and Primary Weapons were lumped together in range brackets. Creating some very silly scenarios, I might add (like vibro-axes going 21 hexes).

It mentions in the Techmanual that they are lumped together as an abstraction.  It really depends on what strains your suspension of disbelief.  As I said earlier, I've played a lot of different games.  To me it isn't any different than a guy having 100 hit points that represent him ducking out of the way/being tough/being an experienced warrior/any other justification, and you're hitting him with a sword that does a D6 damage.  "You mean I have to stab this normal guy 30 times with my sword before he falls down?"  "Umm... yeah."

Things are sometimes represented in more than one way on the tabletop. 

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #84 on: 08 July 2015, 10:41:43 »
That is okay, that is why this is a rewrite the rules thread... to actually make them accountable.

???

Accountable to who?

I want the game to be streamlined and playable.  The biggest problem I have with the game at the moment is how long it takes to play.  It is clunky.  I am much more concerned with that than I am making sure every infantryman accounts for each bullet he fires.

Khymerion

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2500
    • The Iron Hack
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #85 on: 08 July 2015, 10:44:34 »
It mentions in the Techmanual that they are lumped together as an abstraction.  It really depends on what strains your suspension of disbelief.  As I said earlier, I've played a lot of different games.  To me it isn't any different than a guy having 100 hit points that represent him ducking out of the way/being tough/being an experienced warrior/any other justification, and you're hitting him with a sword that does a D6 damage.  "You mean I have to stab this normal guy 30 times with my sword before he falls down?"  "Umm... yeah."

Things are sometimes represented in more than one way on the tabletop.


That is also why in certain other games that have the 100+ HP characters, they have optional rules that add in things like damage thresholds or ways to seriously injure someone with special hits to bypass the need to stab 30 times with a D6 sword to kill someone.   It is for those who want a little less abstraction in their mechanics and a bit more simulation.
"Any sufficiently rigorously defined magic is indistinguishable from technology."  - Larry Niven... far too appropriate at times here.

...but sometimes making sure you turn their ace into red paste is more important than friends.

Do not offend the chair leg of truth.  It is wise and terrible.

The GM is only right for as long as the facts back him up.

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #86 on: 08 July 2015, 11:58:03 »

That is also why in certain other games that have the 100+ HP characters, they have optional rules that add in things like damage thresholds or ways to seriously injure someone with special hits to bypass the need to stab 30 times with a D6 sword to kill someone.   It is for those who want a little less abstraction in their mechanics and a bit more simulation.

And that's cool too.  I don't have anything against the increased level of detail, but I do appreciate the option of simplifying things.  In my experience, infantry platoons tend to last right up until a mech looks at them funny.  Then enough firepower gets directed at them to make them not exist anymore.

Back on topic, I think this brings up a good point.  I think having two different levels of Battletech game rules would work as well.  You could have the "abstract" version and the "crunchy" version.  For instance, artillery fire or aerospace support can be handled as simply as taking a unit gives you X number of bombardments during a game, or it can be done in a very meticulous manner where you calculate everything out.  If you want to break out the low altitude map, and set out mapsheets for your off-board units you can, or you can just say "I took an aerospace fighter, I get 3 strafing attempts this game" and be done with it.

TigerShark

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5042
    • MekWars: Dominion
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #87 on: 08 July 2015, 12:08:15 »
???

Accountable to who?

I want the game to be streamlined and playable.  The biggest problem I have with the game at the moment is how long it takes to play.  It is clunky.  I am much more concerned with that than I am making sure every infantryman accounts for each bullet he fires.

This thread is about a person's opinion on what they would re-write. Why shoot down an opinion that is just that -- an opinion?
  W W W . M E K W A R S - D O M I N I O N . C O M

  "You will fight to the last soldier, and when you die, I will call upon your damned soul to speak horrible curses at the enemy."
     - Orders of Emperor Stefan Amaris to his troops

massey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2445
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #88 on: 08 July 2015, 12:10:28 »
This thread is about a person's opinion on what they would re-write. Why shoot down an opinion that is just that -- an opinion?

I'm not shooting down his idea, just trying to figure out what he meant by "accountable".  I also think there's a bit of "the current rules are WRONG" going around in this thread.

HobbesHurlbut

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3092
  • Live Free or Die Hard
Re: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?
« Reply #89 on: 08 July 2015, 13:22:53 »
The concentration of damage Thunderbolts present does concern me for game balance but not so much that I don't think a reasonable counter could not be found to make them acceptable.
Like the fact that JUST one shot from an AMS is all it take to down the single massive missile?
Clan Blood Spirit - So Bad Ass as to require Orbital Bombardments to wipe us out....it is the only way to be sure!

 

Register