Battletech Rules Modification Discussion

[AdmiralObvious]

I'm not a fan of the everything hits center mass idea, but then I'm one of the guys who likes to play with floating crits and called shots.

I'll say it again, the issue isn't rolling the dice and figuring out what happens. For me that's the best part of the game.

The issue is the bookkeeping. If you do the CT hits only idea, all your equipment needs to be counted as being there too. It would eliminate a lot of the extra HP values everywhere else, which would reduce bookkeeping.

(P.S. I've never played alpha strike, but I think this kinda describes it.)

[nckestrel]

I was mostly joking, just throwing random ideas out. 

[Elmoth]

I have bought he new boxed because the minis are great.

I play alpha strike because the rules are far from good, but not 80s terrible.

I consider IWM miniatures (and their awful pre-80s website!!!) the thing keeping me out of the loop of miniature collecting.

A new, modern game (not necessarily driven by exceptions like GW games) would be amazing. A game that plays in 45 minutes to 1.5 hours and that is tournament friendly.

Great universe with bad rules and bad models (except the new MWO style designs) makes for a great RPG experience but a poor tabletop game.

[Kovax]

I was always of the opinion that 2D6 does not give enough range for the various modifiers and target numbers.  Getting a +4 modifier makes a long-range shot at a moving target a 12+ even if the shooter stands still and there are no other factors that come into play.  You go from roughly "even odds" to "snowball's chance in hell" too easily.  3D6 gives more granularity and range of outcomes, plus provides a slightly more "bell shaped" probability curve than 2D6.  Shots go from good odds to poor odds, but not as easily to "impossible".  The classic example is a skirmish between a pair of Locusts, where the to-hit numbers occasionally dip down to as low as a mere 11+, but are usually at 13+ to hit.  It's challenging in the same way that Chess is, where any mistake may be punished, but not "exciting" enough for 21st Century gaming.  By expanding the range of possible die roll outcomes using 3D6 or such, the standard 4+ base number to hit a stationary target at short range goes from "fairly likely" to "almost guaranteed", while the to-hit numbers for difficult targets don't top out.  Now you can hit those Locusts on a 13+ shot, but the odds aren't great.  This would also allow "Extreme Range" optional rules to come into play more often, where the +8 for range is a very significant factor, but no longer an impossible shot unless both you and the target don't move.

The worse offending example of the limited range of the dice would be WH40K and its single D6 rolls, where a 1 terrain penalty takes you from 3:6 "even odds" to a 2:6 chance, and a 2 penalty moves it to a very difficult 1:6.  Add in some other factor, and it's no shot.  Conversely, the difference between a "regular" and an "elite" unit is that the one almost can't miss.  A single (+-)1 bonus or penalty has a massive effect on combat.  The more sides on the dice or the more dice you use, the more granularity you can have in the modifiers, while the more dice you use, the more the outcome takes on the shape of a probability curve, where the outliers are highly unlikely and most of the results fall at least somewhere near the center.  1D gives a totally flat probability "curve", with equal odds of rolling any number in the range.

1D6 - odds of rolling a 6 = 1:6 - this is only useful for "stand and fire at short range" odds.
2D6 - odds of rolling a 12 = 1:36 - this allows for "poor shots", but not for highly unlikely events or "nearly impossible" shots.
3D6 - odds of rolling an 18 = 1:216 - this gives you real "Hail Mary" chances like real-world un-aimed shots at suspected targets.
4D6 - odds of rolling a 1296 = 1:1296 - this works for extreme improbabilities like gun jams, sudden weather changes, etc.

I'd also prefer to see more units with one "big" gun which can seriously threaten another 'Mech, plus a few secondary weapons, rather than having multiple semi-big guns that are individually incapable of affecting the outcome unless you land several shots in the same place or get a lucky critical effect.  Real warfare involves mostly "one hit, one kill" weaponry; BattleTech is very often a game of sandpapering your opponent until either one runs out of armor and starts taking critical damage, or one of you takes a "golden BB" in the wrong location.  I'd rather see something in the middle, where an individual hit is very often "significant", but rarely takes a unit out of the fight completely.  In my opinion, it should be significantly easier to do internal damage to all but the heaviest units: less armor, more internal structure, and therefore more "damage" that actually reduces effectiveness.  Sandpaper (BattleTech 3025 damage) isn't all that exciting until the armor runs out, but pulling multiple pieces off the map on the first round of fire (WH40K) isn't all that great either.

As pointed out in several posts, paring down the record sheet details takes away the semi-RPG side of the game, and turns your hereditary war machine, complete with specializations an weaknesses, into just another counter to pull off the board during the enemy's shooting phase.  I don't care for Alpha Strike, it simply has no appeal to me.

[Fear Factory]

Shameless plug... BattleTech 2.0

Abou and I have been playing this way for a while now and it works. Games are faster, results are identical. There are ways to upgrade the game without completely changing it.

[Papabees]

I've actually really been thinking about this for a couple years now. I feel like most of the game up to and including seeing if you hit is pretty good with some really minor tweaks(they are a few things to kill. Skidding I'm looking at you). Movement mods would be similar to Alpha Strike in that if you walk you get X, run you get X, regardless of total distance moved.  Once you hit though is where things really tend to bog down. So i'm thinking instead of all the dots and gobbly gook units still have individual weapons but the mech stats like Move, Heat Sinks, Armor are recorded via damage track (like the old Clickytech game. Heresy I know) So mechs have 4-12 Damage tracks> when you attack with a weapon you add the damage to your attack roll Margin of success and compare it to the armor rating of the unit. FREX, a ERPPC might have a damage of 6 while an Atlas has a Armor of 8. My MoS on the attack roll is three so 9 total. I beat the Armor so Atlas loses 1 damage track, which may or may not reduce his stats depending on how much damage he already has. You can have a crit mechanism and still handle heat the same way. The only thing that has me scratching my head a bit is how to handle missiles. Anyway, this is what has been bouncing around in my brain.   

[Fear Factory]

BattleTech is a game that has survived the test of time because of how "simply complicated" the rules are (Introductory). If that makes any sense... What I mean is, the rules are simple and straightforward and the math is simple, the results have some cinematic style payoffs that other games don't have. Like, kicking the leg off a 'Mech just to watch it get its head get smashed in from the fall.

Abou and I both share the same feelings about the game. What makes the game complicated are the steps it can take to achieve results, which can take time even if you are experienced. But the other problem is that if you remove some of these game mechanics (like most players on the forums choose to do) you remove a core mechanic. A good example is the cluster hit system, while you're rolling a ton of results for an LB-X cluster/SRM spread, you start getting some interesting results from head hits and critical hits. It's one of those things you don't notice unless you have some really hot dice.

There are changes you can make that actually modernize the game without anything drastic:

- TMM based movement (like Alpha Strike) with some restrictions.
- Aerotech 2 range brackets, but keeping the maximum range for weapons (example, Medium Laser: max range of 9)
- Physical attacks getting the same modifier, not including Charging and DFA, so they actually compete with one another
- Increasing autocannon damage to make them competitive weapons in the short and long game
- Terrain rules that change the meta to make certain weapons/cover more useful in situations (missiles apply the woods modifier negatively to the cluster hit table OR water doesn't require heat sinks in the legs to help with heat).
- The 2 cluster chart, change from 1 to 2 for the 7 result. Now, all cluster weapons throw their weight above 50% on 7+
- EDIT: Minor hit location change, the side arc 9 result to the corresponding rear torso location (encourages maneuvering).

And we have more in the works. These are honestly just minor tweaks that look like major changes to the game, to the point where I can hear the torches getting lit by the old players, but it is so much easier and faster to play for basically the same result. I can't see myself ever going back to counting hexes and putting down movement dice ever again, which is honestly, just a band-aid on an old system in an attempt to keep it going.

[MadCapellan]

Fixed range brackets is a terrible idea - weapons like the medium laser already deal significantly more damage for their weight/heat generated than larger weapons, & eliminating the benefits larger weapons gain from longer short/medium ranges ultimately just makes them even worse vs medium lasers than they already were. The game really doesn't need any more reasons to rush to point-blank range & exchange SRMs, medium lasers & fisticuffs than it already has.

[abou]

Fixed range brackets is a terrible idea - weapons like the medium laser already deal significantly more damage for their weight/heat generated than larger weapons, & eliminating the benefits larger weapons gain from longer short/medium ranges ultimately just makes them even worse vs medium lasers than they already were. The game really doesn't need any more reasons to rush to point-blank range & exchange SRMs, medium lasers & fisticuffs than it already has.

Honestly, we haven't had that problem in the way you describe it. It isn't even really AT2 range brackets either. It just seems to work. Only other thing I can think of would be to increase the general medium range and shorten the short range. Maybe 5/15/25 instead of 6/12/24.

[Bedwyr]

My standard for streamlining is getting it by my embedded engineer friend who, the last time we tried to play BT, said "Mike, I'm sorry. I just can't keep playing. All I'm doing is imagining how I can make this go much faster if I just write a program for it and I'm not enjoying myself."


Might be that's not possible, but it's worth putting that opinion into stark relief: software developers and engineers live and breathe the automation of dull repetitive tasks. Cluster hits are like catnip to this kind of trained brain.

[Sartris]

I think about it too and I took three programming courses like 20 years ago

[MadCapellan]

Honestly, we haven't had that problem in the way you describe it. It isn't even really AT2 range brackets either. It just seems to work. Only other thing I can think of would be to increase the general medium range and shorten the short range. Maybe 5/15/25 instead of 6/12/24.

It "just seems to work" for you because you folks are accustomed to playing Battletech a certain way & continue to do so. Hats off to you for not trying to break the spirit of the game in a friendly session, but mathematically, that's what you're proposing. A 5 ton 8 damage 8 heat weapon has no value over a 1 ton, 5 damage 3 heat weapon unless there's some other distinguishing factor. Because of the 2D6 bell curve, medium range shots have always been unreliable and long-range shots extremely iffy.  By pushing an even greater ratio of the medium laser's weapon range into the "short" column, you are vastly increasing its effectiveness. By stripping away the ER Large Laser's 7 short range & 14 medium range, you are nearly completely eliminating any advantage it's paying 4 additional heat for. Variable weapon range brackets aren't any more complicated than fixed ones (you're already keeping overall weapon ranges intact - how are those any less complicated than the range brackets themselves?), & trying to remove them will only render even more weapons ineffective! I'm sorry, that's not really an improvement in any way.

EDIT: IF for some reason, range brackets are that complicated to you, consider changing them to multiples - a medium laser's range brackets are multiples of 3, large laser 5, ER Large Laser of 7 & so on. That way you're still just memorizing a single range number per weapon, but you're retaining the essence of the weapon. Not sure what you'd do about weapons like the Snub-Nose PPC, but it'd run into the same problems with your previous method as well.

[Papabees]

It "just seems to work" for you because you folks are accustomed to playing Battletech a certain way & continue to do so. Hats off to you for not trying to break the spirit of the game in a friendly session, but mathematically, that's what you're proposing. A 5 ton 8 damage 8 heat weapon has no value over a 1 ton, 5 damage 3 heat weapon unless there's some other distinguishing factor. Because of the 2D6 bell curve, medium range shots have always been unreliable and long-range shots extremely iffy.  By pushing an even greater ratio of the medium laser's weapon range into the "short" column, you are vastly increasing its effectiveness. By stripping away the ER Large Laser's 7 short range & 14 medium range, you are nearly completely eliminating any advantage it's paying 4 additional heat for. Variable weapon range brackets aren't any more complicated than fixed ones (you're already keeping overall weapon ranges intact - how are those any less complicated than the range brackets themselves?), & trying to remove them will only render even more weapons ineffective! I'm sorry, that's not really an improvement in any way.

Well it's less complicated because you figure one to hit number and then just roll everything. I get your argument but to say there is no improvement probably isn't fair. I like you favor the variable ranges. One thing that could be done is to basically say that since you have one targeting computer you figure one target number using the worst range. FREX, I fire two PPCs, Two MLas, I use the range of the MLas to determine the to hit for everything . Gives an advantage back to long range weapons and keeps people from firing weapons that really have very little chance to hit. Just another thought.
 

[MadCapellan]

The problem there is that so many weapons in Battletech are only different because of their to-hit numbers. There's only so much you can do with damage values & maximum ranges rarely come into play in a meaningful way. ER Lasers over standard? Better to-hit numbers. Pulse Lasers? Awful if it wasn't for their better to-hit numbers. Light PPC over Medium Laser? Better to-hit numbers. LRMs over MRMs? To-hit numbers. It's such an essential part of the game that you'd need to re-stat all the weapons to make more than a handful of them competitive. At that point, you might as well just write a new robot game.

[Fear Factory]

Fixed range brackets is a terrible idea - weapons like the medium laser already deal significantly more damage for their weight/heat generated than larger weapons, & eliminating the benefits larger weapons gain from longer short/medium ranges ultimately just makes them even worse vs medium lasers than they already were. The game really doesn't need any more reasons to rush to point-blank range & exchange SRMs, medium lasers & fisticuffs than it already has.

I know what you're saying, but I was way more inclined to get into fisticuffs under the current system. With ours, it's a lot easier to maneuver and easier to hit at range while maneuvering, so you can dance outside of that 9 hex range for the same +2 medium range mod payoff. IMO, just based off of what we have run so far, I'm more inclined to dance in the high end of the short and most of the medium range bracket. I was also all about fast units and fighting at close range in standard BattleTech. It's a sacrifice in the way you described, but I think you're not considering it with the other changes we made. It's simpler, even if the math might be off, but I think the meta changed for the better overall.  :-\

It "just seems to work" for you because you folks are accustomed to playing Battletech a certain way & continue to do so.

Well, then try it out for a few games and then tell us if it's stupid. Part of the reason we started that thread was because too many people throw around ideas on the boards without actually trying them. At least we're trying something and testing it, even if you (an others) think it is "terrible."

...

I mean all of this respectfully. Every time I get into these discussions, for a second, I revisit the option of dropping the hobby like other players here have already done. At this point I feel like it's counter productive for me to buy it anymore. Alpha Strike got me back in, reignited that spark, but now here we are again with the core game causing me grief. I'm tired of hearing that any idea to streamline the game is terrible. Tired of seeing people reject the game because of the same old rules. And those people, like myself, are told to "get good" or talked down on, like BattleTech is the 1st class or a holy grail of gaming. I mean I get it, I'm one guy with a flawed opinion and it doesn't matter.

[nckestrel]

Just remember to relax. The thread is starting with the idea that there is something wrong with the current rules. If somebody says there is something wrong with your suggested fix, they’re not doing more than the thread started with.
Remember you don’t have to convince anybody. Nobody is deciding the rules here. Just relax and ignore those you don’t agree with, and add your input. 99% of the people reading your post aren’t replying. Plenty of people have heard your point.  You’ve made your point, don’t get too frustrated over the people that disagree with you vocally. If there’s something useful in what they say, learn from it. If there’s not, move on.
(Reminding myself of most of this is always helpful as well..)

[ActionButler]

Alpha Strike’s fixed ranges are much better than the “range for every flavor of laser”, in my opinion. They keep the simulation of different damage at different ranges without new players constantly needing to check their record sheets.

Heck, I wouldn’t be opposed to trying the game without any range modifiers. If we remove the assumption that each hex is 30 meters and just pretend that any given battle starts out as a proverbial close-quarters knife fight, you’ve already sped up the game without sacrificing the detailed levels of damage.

Alternatively, my personal favorite “fix” is to assume that each hex is much larger than 30 meters and reduce each unit’s speed accordingly, you could move to a Command and Colors-style system where combat only happens at ranges of four or five hexes out.

[MadCapellan]

Well, then try it out for a few games and then tell us if it's stupid. Part of the reason we started that thread was because too many people throw around ideas on the boards without actually trying them. At least we're trying something and testing it, even if you (an others) think it is "terrible."

My friend, I've been playing this game religiously for over twenty years. In that time we tried a lot of just terrible ideas to "streamline" the game - no movement heat, aiming shots to the punch table & yes, using a single set of range bands. A single set of range bands isn't a new idea - it's what AS does after all - but that produces a host of other issues that had to be addressed in AS's implementation. I'm not opposed to ways to improve the game, & I'm certainly not replying just to rubbish your ideas, but it's very easy for a tiny group of players to fail to account for the way how they want to play & are accustomed to playing colors the results of their experience. That's where mathmatics come in, & the math is pretty clear that replacing all existing weapon ranges with a single set of bands will invalidate a lot of weapon systems. Maybe you're okay with that. Fair enough! But maybe there's a better way to accomplish your goals for simplification without doing that. I made a suggestion of my own. If you're interested, we could talk more about various possibilities to streamline the combat resolution system. But as proposed, you're discussing a system that would require a rework of weapon systems or a drastic bv revision, at the very least.

Alpha Strike got me back in, reignited that spark, but now here we are again with the core game causing me grief.

If you get the spark from Alpha Strike, is there a reason you want to still play the main game? It seems to me like Alpha Strike is already giving you most of what you want, & maybe you'd be better off applying rules tweaks to AS than Total Warfare.

 

I'm tired of hearing that any idea to streamline the game is terrible.

If I felt that way, I wouldn't have bothered entering this thread, but by the same token, any proposed "streamlining" of the rules isn't necessarily good or even truly streamlining. I'm open to discussing what could be better with Battletech, but a lot of apparently simple fixes cause a lot more issues than they resolve.

[MadCapellan]

Heck, I wouldn’t be opposed to trying the game without any range modifiers.

Eliminating range modifiers is actually a better suggestion in my mind than a single fixed set of modifiers. The biggest disruption caused by the fixed range bands is that effectiveness for long-range oriented weapons' effectiveness drops off at the same distance as short range weapons. Eliminating all range modifiers would preserve that effectiveness while eliminating one of the rows of the to-hit modifier table. The big problem you'll run into here is that long range weapons will become extremely effective in the opening rounds of the game, & on small boards it may feel like all weapons are in range at all times. If you use that method, you may want to set weapons' existing medium range as their maximum range to prevent close range sluggers from being completely obliterated before they can close across the map!

[Fear Factory]

My friend, I've been playing this game religiously for over twenty years. In that time we tried a lot of just terrible ideas to "streamline" the game - no movement heat, aiming shots to the punch table & yes, using a single set of range bands. A single set of range bands isn't a new idea - it's what AS does after all - but that produces a host of other issues that had to be addressed in AS's implementation. I'm not opposed to ways to improve the game, & I'm certainly not replying just to rubbish your ideas, but it's very easy for a tiny group of players to fail to account for the way how they want to play & are accustomed to playing colors the results of their experience. That's where mathmatics come in, & the math is pretty clear that replacing all existing weapon ranges with a single set of bands will invalidate a lot of weapon systems. Maybe you're okay with that. Fair enough! But maybe there's a better way to accomplish your goals for simplification without doing that. I made a suggestion of my own. If you're interested, we could talk more about various possibilities to streamline the combat resolution system. But as proposed, you're discussing a system that would require a rework of weapon systems or a drastic bv revision, at the very least.

I know who you are. I've played for about 20 years, just not as religiously as you have. You've been on the forums for a long time. You can apply the same pack mentality we have with our house rules with current rule set as it has stood since the 80's. The same arguments pop up over and over again, may it be how sluggish games are or even how much the clans broke the game, and there is a reason for it. It's not just because people don't want to learn the game.

If you really have ideas about how to handle range brackets or anything else that replaces my crappy ideas, by all means, PLEASE PM them to me because I'm willing to try it out. There is obviously something I'm not grasping about game balance. You seriously just killed my interest to even attempt anything else on the core game, or possibly play it again unless it's in MegaMek. Alpha Strike might just be the only game for me. (EDIT: There is zero sarcasm here, I'm not trying to be snarky if I am coming off that way.)  :-\

If you get the spark from Alpha Strike, is there a reason you want to still play the main game? It seems to me like Alpha Strike is already giving you most of what you want, & maybe you'd be better off applying rules tweaks to AS than Total Warfare.

Alpha Strike is too abstract, even though I love it for what it is. It's a love-hate-love relationship. :-\

[MadCapellan]

Well, I suggested having all range brackets be multiples of a single value (3/6/9, 4/8/12, 5/10/15, etc.), eliminating all the odd weapon combinations like the ER Large Laser (7/14/19?) or just eliminating range brackets entirely as suggested by ActionButler & simply give all weapons a maximum effective range equal to their current medium range. I'm sure we could consider a number of other possibilities as well, but if we're looking to give all weapons the same to-hit value, we might as well stick with Alpha Strike as a base, I suspect.

Alpha Strike is too abstract, even though I love it for what it is. It's a love-hate-love relationship. :-\

What parts of Battletech do you feel are missing from Alpha Strike? Maybe there's a way to add those back into Alpha Strike rather than trying to pull Total Warfare more towards AS?

[Scotty]

What parts of Battletech do you feel are missing from Alpha Strike? Maybe there's a way to add those back into Alpha Strike rather than trying to pull Total Warfare more towards AS?

Even as somebody who absolutely loves Alpha Strike, the things that most frequently get mentioned as "I miss X part of BattleTech" are degrading performance as a result of locational damage, finer tuned heat management, and a perceived loss in the importance of individual unit's movement.

The latter is almost certainly a matter of experience and transitioning to new rules, coupled at least a little bit with having to get used to no longer micromanaging fast units' movement to maximize TMMs.

The former two are... not particularly possible to implement in Alpha Strike as it stands without effectively redoing the entire thing, and yanking it out of the niche it fills.

It's not about "moving Total Warfare toward Alpha Strike" it's about modernizing Total Warfare to attract and keep new players.  The two concepts are unrelated outside of the fairly uncontroversial opinion that Alpha Strike is a more modern game (and it shows).

[abou]

MadCap, I have to admit that I thought about this over the afternoon and I am conflicted. Initially the idea of the alternate rules set was to induce a left-shift towards lowering to-hit numbers. By doing that you speed up the game. The other was to simplify the math for players, which is not a problem for me, but a common complaint. As it stands, the bracket solution is simply a compromise to achieve goals of game play.

On the other hand, I do agree with you and cannot get around the fact that the traditional ranges are there for a reason. One only need look at a Warhammer standing at 7 hexes to very quickly see where the problems are with the simplified system. In traditional rules, it is much wiser to fire the two PPCs for 20 heat since you generate a lower to-hit. However, with a bracketing system, it is probably smarter to fire one PPC, both medium lasers, and the SRM-6 for 20 heat. Yes, the PPC delivers a greater amount of damage to a single location, but you will do more damage over all with the second choice.

So, is there maybe a better answer that satisfies a quicker play style and simplification? Is the 3 hex window that larger weapons have over medium lasers while still being in medium range enough of an advantage? I don't know. You wouldn't want longer range hits to be too easy, but maybe you keep range modifiers lower. Maybe to-hit is changed from 0/+2/+4 to 0/+1/+3 or 0/+1/+2?

I don't have an easy answer. I know that if you and I were gaming partners, I wouldn't mind keeping the traditional rules set. Although I would probably still push for buffed autocannons.

PS. I've been playing the game since 1995 and I've made every mistake there is and thought about the game a lot.

[Fear Factory]

Well, I suggested having all range brackets be multiples of a single value (3/6/9, 4/8/12, 5/10/15, etc.), eliminating all the odd weapon combinations like the ER Large Laser (7/14/19?) or just eliminating range brackets entirely as suggested by ActionButler & simply give all weapons a maximum effective range equal to their current medium range. I'm sure we could consider a number of other possibilities as well, but if we're looking to give all weapons the same to-hit value, we might as well stick with Alpha Strike as a base, I suspect.

I don't know if you realized it, just to be clear, but we do it like this:

Range brackets are 1-6 short, 7-12 medium, 13-24 long, 25+ extreme, all across the board, with the same +0/+2/+4/+6 modifiers. All weapons follow this but they have a maximum range on top of that.

So a medium laser effectively goes from being 3/6/9 to 6/9/-
A large laser 5/10/15 to 6/12/15
PPC 6/12/18 min 3
LRM's 6/12/21 min 6
SRM's 6/9/-
Machine gun 3/-/-

People go in assuming we're lumping weapons together like Aerotech and automatically throw it out because they miss the maximum range part. The maximum range helps keep a lot of the advantages bigger weapons have over smaller systems because they can still out range them. This, coupled with the Alpha Strike inspired movement system we have, seems to flow nicely. But yes, I understand that it does remove the ability for a weapon like the ER large laser to get a short range modifier at 7 hexes against a medium laser's +4 long range mod. The option is just to maneuver and stay outside of short range OR stay outside of the medium laser's maximum range of 9. The tactics are still there, it's just abstracted a bit more to keep the game moving at a decent pace.

However, this only really works because of the movement system we use with it, because you can only use your walking mode AND fire. Running was changed to sprinting. This makes it a lot harder to close in on your target. So the medium loses a bit more because of that, it seems. I don't want to derail this thread any further, though. I'm passionate about this because I felt like we had something that was a worthy compromise. It legitimately got me excited about playing again. Knowing that you changed Abou's mind... I just don't know anymore, because all this experience showed me is that I'm not all that interested in the core game anymore.

What parts of Battletech do you feel are missing from Alpha Strike? Maybe there's a way to add those back into Alpha Strike rather than trying to pull Total Warfare more towards AS?

Alpha Strike is way too abstract to achieve the amount of grit that BattleTech has, which is why IMO people try and modify the core game more often. I was in a campaign that went over a year and it felt good, but it wasn't really the same because of its scale. Abou pointed it out to me before, but BattleTech is unique in the way that 'Mechs can lose limbs and suffer critical hits because of its attention to detail. You really do miss out on a lot when you play Alpha Strike, but as it stands, Alpha Strike flows a lot better and is more appealing to the modern gamer because of it.

[MadCapellan]

Alpha Strike is way too abstract to achieve the amount of grit that BattleTech has, which is why IMO people try and modify the core game more often. I was in a campaign that went over a year and it felt good, but it wasn't really the same because of its scale. Abou pointed it out to me before, but BattleTech is unique in the way that 'Mechs can lose limbs and suffer critical hits because of its attention to detail. You really do miss out on a lot when you play Alpha Strike, but as it stands, Alpha Strike flows a lot better and is more appealing to the modern gamer because of it.

The former two are... not particularly possible to implement in Alpha Strike as it stands without effectively redoing the entire thing, and yanking it out of the niche it fills.

You'd be writing a lot of rules whole-cloth to be sure, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't create hit locations or create more granular heat management or damage degradation for Alpha Strike. If all you want is limbs blown of, a to-hit table & separate locations could certainly be made for the system with limited effort. Render AS's critical hit results more location specific & you're practically good to go.

It's not about "moving Total Warfare toward Alpha Strike" it's about modernizing Total Warfare to attract and keep new players.  The two concepts are unrelated outside of the fairly uncontroversial opinion that Alpha Strike is a more modern game (and it shows).

I followed as much. Alpha Strike got dragged into the conversation because Fear Factory was advocating eliminating variable weapon range brackets, something Alpha Strike has already done & somewhat accounted for. That, combined with him already expressing enjoyment of Alpha Strike made me wonder why he'd want to go back to a system he seems to have a lot of issues with.

MadCap, I have to admit that I thought about this over the afternoon and I am conflicted. Initially the idea of the alternate rules set was to induce a left-shift towards lowering to-hit numbers. By doing that you speed up the game. The other was to simplify the math for players, which is not a problem for me, but a common complaint. As it stands, the bracket solution is simply a compromise to achieve goals of game play.

Lowering to-hit numbers is an understandable objective especially when attempting to speed game-play, but doing it by changing the range brackets is actually increasing the to-hit numbers of your longer range weapons, so it's counter to your intention. The math isn't particularly simplified, either, although you may be doing fewer overall calculations if they are all the same value across all weapons. Still, I believe the end result you'll get is a substantially shallower, less balanced game.

Reducing ranged to-hit numbers to 0/+1/+3 isn't a bad idea if you don't mind medium-range fire becoming substantially more effective, but if you're looking for a way to reduce TNs across the board, just giving everyone superior gunnery skills is an easy way to lower them across the board w/o impacting game balance!

I don't know if you realized it, just to be clear, but we do it like this:

I followed you, but as I said this method has an inversely negative impact on longer range weapons, because hexes with a +0 to-hit are significantly more valuable than hexes at a +2 or +4 to-hit due to the way that impacts the die results of the 2D6 bell curve. Let's compare the accuracy of the medium laser & ER PPC under the standard & your house rules.
Wpn                   Short        Medium       Long                Avg Accuracy
                         72.2%       41.6%         16.6%
Official Rules
ER PPC               1-7 hexes  8-14 hexes  15-23 hexes     41.13%
Medium Laser     1-3 hexes  4-6 hexes     7-9 hexes        43.46%
Proposed Rules
ER PPC               1-6 hexes  7-12 hexes  13-23 hexes     37.62%
Medium Laser     1-6 hexes  7-9 hexes    -                      62%

Under the official rules, the average accuracy across the range of both weapons is roughly identical. Under your proposed system, the medium laser becomes nearly twice as accurate across the length of its effective range as the ER PPC, as the ER PPC sees a significant drop in effectiveness across multiple hexes while the medium laser is buffed in 2/3rds of its range brackets. This is terrible for making the game more interesting because it makes fewer weapons effective at dealing damage, and is terrible for game balance because you've made certain weapons significantly more effective than they previously were while rendering others worse, particularly in a way which is hardest of the weapons that are already the more questionable choices, like light ACs.

[Fear Factory]

I followed you, but as I said this method has an inversely negative impact on longer range weapons, because hexes with a +0 to-hit are significantly more valuable than hexes at a +2 or +4 to-hit due to the way that impacts the die results of the 2D6 bell curve. Let's compare the accuracy of the medium laser & ER PPC under the standard & your house rules.
Wpn                   Short        Medium       Long                Avg Accuracy
                         72.2%       41.6%         16.6%
Official Rules
ER PPC               1-7 hexes  8-14 hexes  15-23 hexes     41.13%
Medium Laser     1-3 hexes  4-6 hexes     7-9 hexes        43.46%
Proposed Rules
ER PPC               1-6 hexes  7-12 hexes  13-23 hexes     37.62%
Medium Laser     1-6 hexes  7-9 hexes    -                      62%

Under the official rules, the average accuracy across the range of both weapons is roughly identical. Under your proposed system, the medium laser becomes nearly twice as accurate across the length of its effective range as the ER PPC, as the ER PPC sees a significant drop in effectiveness across multiple hexes while the medium laser is buffed in 2/3rds of its range brackets. This is terrible for making the game more interesting because it makes fewer weapons effective at dealing damage, and is terrible for game balance because you've made certain weapons significantly more effective than they previously were while rendering others worse, particularly in a way which is hardest of the weapons that are already the more questionable choices, like light ACs.

Look, I'm not an expert when it comes to math, especially statistics and probability in most cases, so I'm totally going to show it here...

I'm just not seeing the advantage a Medium Laser has over an ER PPC outside of 9 hexes. The way I see it, both weapons could be 100% accurate in all 9 hexes of the laser's range, but the medium laser is never ever EVER going to win outside of 9 hexes because it can't reach. The ER PPC has a 14 hex advantage. So the ER PPC isn't as accurate overall because it has more modifiers to worry about, but it's not going to matter outside of 9 hexes since both weapons are just as accurate within 9 hexes.

Within 9 hexes, if you spam medium lasers you're going to win in raw damage, but it's not going to be any more accurate than a single ER PPC. Isn't this a problem that already exists though?

[Scotty]

In general, I think it would benefit BattleTech to streamline some things about the vast array of different weapon types, and range brackets is one of those.  I think in general that should be in standardization of brackets; of all the issues I have with BattleTech, the concept of range brackets are not one of them.

Each set of brackets being evenly divisible by a common number is important (which is just a fancy way of saying keep it 3/6/9 or 5/10/15, etc.) for both recall and for quickly eyeballing ranges.  There are a couple balance decisions I'd make during that process, but ultimately the entire point is make the whole catalog more approachable.  If I see the tag "ER" on a weapon, it should be easy for me to know off the top of my head "those weapons are on the next highest range bracket".  Arguably with the extra weight and heat, "Pulse" should mean a hit bonus (I favor half range penalties) at the same ranges.

That's like.... way down the list of things that I'd consider changing first, though.  First on the chopping block is the 2d6 location table, the critical hit resolution tables, and the cluster hits table.

EDIT: "average accuracy"?  That looks, sounds, and feels like a made up statistic to prove a made up point.

[Fear Factory]

EDIT: "average accuracy"?  That looks, sounds, and feels like a made up statistic to prove a made up point.

I don't think it's made up. I just think taking the average of a weapon with a 9 hex range, and comparing that to the average of a weapon that reaches out to 23 hexes, without taking in consideration the 14 hex difference that the other weapon can't even reach, isn't right/fair. Unless I'm not understanding something which is why I asked.

[Daryk]

Perhaps put more simply: you're talking about extending the short range of a Medium Laser to 6 hexes.  Holy cow!  Why on earth would I mount anything else when fighting on the postage stamp sized maps of most games?  Speed plus Medium Lasers = WIN under that paradigm.  As someone else said up thread, Medium Lasers don't need any more boosting.

[MadCapellan]

I'm just not seeing the advantage a Medium Laser has over an ER PPC outside of 9 hexes.

I'm not saying the medium laser has an advantage over the ER PPC outside of 9 hexes, I'm saying that because of the way the way the 2D6 bell curve interacts with the +2 to hit modifier of the range brackets, shots outside of short range are significantly less effective than shots within short range, and shots within long range are significantly less effective than shots within medium range. Ergo, for 5 more tons & 9 more heat, the ER PPC is no more effective than 2 medium lasers out to 9 hexes under your proposed rules, & that is a significant problem. Look at your chances to hit with a base to-hit number of 6+: 72.2% at short but almost half that, 41.6% at medium range. How much would you bet on a 40% outcome? What about 16.6% at long range? Probably not very much, because more likely than not you'd lose, & there-in lies the problem. You've doubled the effectiveness of the medium laser while making nearly all of the ER PPC's range advantage ineffective, when the weapon is already significantly heavier, generates more heat, & will deliver less damage than just loading up on medium lasers.

Within 9 hexes, if you spam medium lasers you're going to win in raw damage, but it's not going to be any more accurate than a single ER PPC.

Technically, because you are rolling more weapons, you are far more likely to score one or more hits with multiple medium lasers than with the ER PPC, & selecting the same heat worth of medium lasers will deliver more damage more frequently than you'll get from the ER PPC.

Isn't this a problem that already exists though?

To some extent yes, but the proposed rules substantially exacerbate the problem. Medium Lasers are already an extremely efficient way to turn tonnage & heat into damage at 1-3 hexes. extending that to six doesn't make things better for every other weapon in the game.

EDIT: "average accuracy"?  That looks, sounds, and feels like a made up statistic to prove a made up point.

Are you trying to tell me that having shorter range brackets won't result in more misses when shots are taken at the same target at the same range? Reducing range brackets means reduced overall accuracy. You can try to say that most people won't take shots at long range, but that just points back to the fact that taking shots at long range isn't really worth doing due to how inaccurate it is.

Perhaps put more simply: you're talking about extending the short range of a Medium Laser to 6 hexes.  Holy cow!  Why on earth would I mount anything else when fighting on the postage stamp sized maps of most games?  Speed plus Medium Lasers = WIN under that paradigm.  As someone else said up thread, Medium Lasers don't need any more boosting.

EXACTLY