"Game Breaking Technology"

[WarMonkey]

I think Catalyst has done a pretty good job of balancing new advances in technology. Even with clan tech and the like, there are rules to make sure the game can be enjoyed by anyone, regardless of the tech level they choose.

Cheers,
LCC

This. Absolutely this. :)

[SteelRaven]

Tech doesn´t break games.

Jerks do.

A rule set that can´t be broken by abusive behaviour hasn´t been invented yet.
Yes even chess.

This

[Akalabeth]

Your understanding of a point value system is questionable in a way. If by questionable you mean that it cannot account for every situation and every possible match up that you and your friends come up with, then you are correct. Your understanding of the BV system should be based upon the idea that it is an attempt to come up with a means of balancing forces in their most raw form.

It's not questionable, it's just reality.
Ballistic Reinforced Armour is TWICE as effective against 2/3rds of the weapon in the game and technically less effective against Energy Weapons (I think it may get less points per ton?).

Now I don't have FM 3145, because I don't agree with that recent divorce of rules from the units that use them, however I would assume that BRA costs more BV than regular armour. That means, that any surplus BV you pay is completely wasted when facing an opponent with energy weapons and when you face weapons against which that weapon is effective you're probably getting an advantage because the cost of the armour is probably not double that of an equivalent amount of armour.

So in neither scenario are you actually getting an accurate and even fight in terms of point values. That's why I say it's inherently imbalanced.

It's like RE Lasers. They're double effective versus reflective armour and have the regular effectiveness against normal armour. So if they're costed vs reflective armour, they're over-BVed against all other types of armour. If they're costed on some average, then they're paying too much or too little in all situations pretty much.

And this isn't about what a point system is.
It's about the technology and its incompatibility with a point system.

[Hellraiser]

I've always felt that a 'Mech jumping around like mad doesn't quite fit the theme in a similar(but far less brow-furrowing) manner as LAMs.  I enjoy playing with the piloting check for jumping into heavy woods optional woods, but I'm often left feeling as though it isn't enough of a penalty.

In the books there are cases of mechs running out of fuel for Jumpjets just like you do in space & with jump "packs".

There is no rule for this in the game.  I'd like to see a "Limit" on the # of Jumps you can make in a game myself.

It might limit using JJ as the Default movement rate for some units & instead use them as intended, for emergencies.

[MadCapellan]

And if you were playing a small ground skirmish? ;)

Yeah. I don't see why cruise missiles (or any other off-board artillery) should be allowed in a small game that won't allow aerospace, counter-battery, or more than two maps to move around on.

[Frabby]

I read most if not all of the new BT material, but I rarely get to actually play the game anymore. And when I play, I stick to 3025 era tech most of the time because it is a fairly balanced system of construction rules and weapon stats. Escalating the status quo to another tech level that essentially increased gun power and armor thickness didn't improve the ruleset very much for me.

So if I were to name a "broken" weapon it's headcappers, i.e. any gun with a 14+ damage output.
In 3025 there was the AC/20 which is relatively short-ranged, too big, and eats through ammo bins. And the blazer which is an overall poor weapon except for its headcapping potential.
Higher tech levels have an abundance of headcappers, most with long range. Statistically, each of these weapons has a 1 in 36 chance to destroy any opposing 'Mech with each single hit which increases the random element over tactics and player skill whenever these weapons appear on the game board.

That said, there is a much more worrying meta-problem there for me: Rules bloat. There will always be new rules, new weapons, new equipment. There will never be a complete, definitive rule set. Herb confirmed as much in a BattleChat.
That rules bloat in and of itself has the potential to hurt the game. It's not a single weapon or piece of equipment that will break the game in the end, it will be the sheer mass of them. (Personally, I've lost track on how many different melee weapon types we have, for example. I try to ignore them away. Clubs. Axes. Swords. Wrecking balls. Will we see 'Mech-sized motorcycles eventually, and rules for 'Mech jousting? Talk about jumping the shark.)

My two cents, anyways. YMMV.

[Maskerade]

How about lasers that actually behave like lasers by having a "short range" bracket that goes all the way out to the horizon? Spot an enemy mech at 60 hexes? Shoot at it using short range (lack of) modifiers!  :D

And do next to no damage because dispersion means that the beam's footprint is roughly a hundred metres across and the damage is divided fairly equally throughout that footprint?

How about I use my realistically-weighted-and-ranged artillery to shoot you from over the horizon?
Game-breaking technology happens when you try to apply real life to battletech, because it breaks the game in the "nothing works as we want it to" sense of the word.

[ColBosch]

When it comes to reality, yes, BattleTech is deliberately "broken," and has been - openly - from the start. This is a non-issue.

[Auren]

And do next to no damage because dispersion means that the beam's footprint is roughly a hundred metres across and the damage is divided fairly equally throughout that footprint?

How about I use my realistically-weighted-and-ranged artillery to shoot you from over the horizon?
Game-breaking technology happens when you try to apply real life to battletech, because it breaks the game in the "nothing works as we want it to" sense of the word.

At that point, why not just play Craps or Yahtzee and assign whatever narrative you want? I'm sure it'd be just as fun.

[Kos]

Honestly I just don't dig the 'broken' philosophy.  Maybe it's my background in historical wargaming but I find avoiding 'broken' situations is more about using stuff like scenarios and objectives.  It's all how you play the game.  If you just play 'fight to the death' scenarios with the most optimized cheesy units possible you might 'break' the rules because that seems to be the objective of this mode of gaming.  Whereas if you play a variety of scenarios, often with restrictions in the type of units one can use, with different objectives over different terrain no one unit/tech/tactic is going to win out all of the time. 

[Maskerade]

Honestly I just don't dig the 'broken' philosophy.  Maybe it's my background in historical wargaming but I find avoiding 'broken' situations is more about using stuff like scenarios and objectives.  It's all how you play the game.  If you just play 'fight to the death' scenarios with the most optimized cheesy units possible you might 'break' the rules because that seems to be the objective of this mode of gaming.  Whereas if you play a variety of scenarios, often with restrictions in the type of units one can use, with different objectives over different terrain no one unit/tech/tactic is going to win out all of the time.

The main thing I see here is that usually, if you can kill all of your opponents' units, you'll win by default anyway.

Using Warhammer 40,000 as an example. In 5th edition, there were 3 possible missions you might have to fight - "capture enemy base", "king of the hill", and "destroy everything". The problem was that all of the missions had "if enemy has no units left on the field, you automatically win" as a victory condition, and lists built around sheer killing power tended to be able to compete in all situations by virtually ignoring the objective and parking a single cheap unit on it at the end.
So it is with battletech. If I have to capture a specific building for information inside it and you have mechs defending it, the simplest solution is to destroy all the defenders, then take my sweet time finding that information and leaving with it without any external pressure. It doesn't matter how slow my force is, as long as we eventually beat our opponents into the dirt and have a single mobile mech at the end, we still win.

There are missions that avert this by having you chase precious cargo, but you're generally best not using mechs for that anyway - airborne units are all generally faster than ground sloggers, and a VTOL with a platoon or two of troops can usually capture a lightly defended unit on its own.

[SCC]

One technology that should have been game breaking, or at least game changing, was LAC

[Kit deSummersville]

How about lasers that actually behave like lasers by having a "short range" bracket that goes all the way out to the horizon? Spot an enemy mech at 60 hexes? Shoot at it using short range (lack of) modifiers!  :D

Go for it. Whatever works for your game.

[Maskerade]

One technology that should have been game breaking, or at least game changing, was LAC

LAC/5 is basically a poor man's light PPC. LAC/2 loses the single advantage of the AC/2: the range. I happen to like both of them, but the Clan ERLL is better than the LAC/2, and the light PPC beats out the LAC/5 by several orders of magnitude.

When they roll out light UACs and LB-Xs however....

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

So it is with battletech. If I have to capture a specific building for information inside it and you have mechs defending it, the simplest solution is to destroy all the defenders, then take my sweet time finding that information and leaving with it without any external pressure. It doesn't matter how slow my force is, as long as we eventually beat our opponents into the dirt and have a single mobile mech at the end, we still win.

You're assuming that you'll always have enough of a numeric advantage over an opponent to make such a strategy viable.  Far too often, especially given Battletech's transportation bottleneck, you simply won't have the numbers needed to succeed such attrition based warfare, or else the price you pay in order to win is too great: you may have taken the base but if you lost 90% of your force doing so, what are you going to do when the other battalion they had on planet comes back for revenge?

[Kos]

The main thing I see here is that usually, if you can kill all of your opponents' units, you'll win by default anyway.

Using Warhammer 40,000 as an example. In 5th edition, there were 3 possible missions you might have to fight - "capture enemy base", "king of the hill", and "destroy everything". The problem was that all of the missions had "if enemy has no units left on the field, you automatically win" as a victory condition, and lists built around sheer killing power tended to be able to compete in all situations by virtually ignoring the objective and parking a single cheap unit on it at the end.
So it is with battletech. If I have to capture a specific building for information inside it and you have mechs defending it, the simplest solution is to destroy all the defenders, then take my sweet time finding that information and leaving with it without any external pressure. It doesn't matter how slow my force is, as long as we eventually beat our opponents into the dirt and have a single mobile mech at the end, we still win.

There are missions that avert this by having you chase precious cargo, but you're generally best not using mechs for that anyway - airborne units are all generally faster than ground sloggers, and a VTOL with a platoon or two of troops can usually capture a lightly defended unit on its own.

Ah yes, however: Kos (& co.) don't play that homie!

But seriously, we've run into that situation before.  The current house rule is games last 8 + d6 turns and you have to make your objectives within the turns played.  No blasting away and assuming you 'automatically' make scout/capture/ect. objectives because every other unit is toast.

Word. 8)

[Acolyte]

So it is with battletech. If I have to capture a specific building for information inside it and you have mechs defending it, the simplest solution is to destroy all the defenders, then take my sweet time finding that information and leaving with it without any external pressure. It doesn't matter how slow my force is, as long as we eventually beat our opponents into the dirt and have a single mobile mech at the end, we still win.

There are missions that avert this by having you chase precious cargo, but you're generally best not using mechs for that anyway - airborne units are all generally faster than ground sloggers, and a VTOL with a platoon or two of troops can usually capture a lightly defended unit on its own.

You can avoid this by having the defender get re-enforcements after a certain amount of turns, or simply giving a turn limit, after which it's assumed the attacker must retreat. The other is linked scenarios. Whatever damage the attacker takes before getting the objective stays on the sheet for the next, or maybe you allow a certain amount of time for repairs, but not enough for, say, engine hits.

Tends to make players focus on the objective.

   - Shane

[SCC]

LAC/5 is basically a poor man's light PPC. LAC/2 loses the single advantage of the AC/2: the range. I happen to like both of them, but the Clan ERLL is better than the LAC/2, and the light PPC beats out the LAC/5 by several orders of magnitude.

When they roll out light UACs and LB-Xs however....

OH, yes, it's generally agreed that the only thing the AC/2 has going for it is the range, and even then that's really only against ASFs, so with the LAC-2 lacking that.

And I wouldn't cal the LAC-5 a poor mans LPPC, it weighs twice as much after ammo and only has 5/6 the range, rather it's the best the IS can do to make something that matches the CL ERML

[Maskerade]

rather it's the best the IS can do to make something that matches the CL ERML

...aside from the Light PPC?

[StCptMara]

Now I don't have FM 3145, because I don't agree with that recent divorce of rules from the units that use them,

OK..this I do not get. Only TRO 2750 and the original 3050 ever put new tech in the TRO. In all other cases,
it was put in either separate books(see: CityTech introducing the variations of autocannons that were then
used in 3025, and none of those were in TRO 3025) or the Field Manuals. Yes, eventually, those made their
way into the revised corebook. However, the Corebook that is going to have all the stuff from FM:3145 is the
still in production Interstellar Ops in the "Era Specific" Rules section.

[WarGod]

nuclear weapons on a ground fight.....

agreed, that and ortillery.  but anything else not so much, you learn, become tactically smarter.  hell even with all the new shinies for 3145 most every sports some new gear.  if you don't like it play a diffrent era

[Lorcan Nagle]

I've used orbital bombardment.  It's surprisingly not that much of a game breaker.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Is this where someone makes another joke about Weirdo?

[Nahuris]

Oh it is counterable.....though each flat bed has about 3 turns to live once it opens fire so I don't think that will work.  Remember in 3 turns that mech has covered 24hexes.

The Hunchback similarly lacks enough firepower to down it's attacker before it loses a leg and becomes easy pickings.

Fast with pulses works. As long as you can avoid being kicked the game becomes quite balanced.  But it also becomes like an old school dog fight.  Which is kinda my point, TSM + IJJ radicaly changes the feel of the resulting game, while granting a significant advantage over anyone playing by the 'old' rules.

Challenger

Thing is, with the cost of that combo --- it's not really worth going after those trucks, and they wouldn't be the only forces on the field.
I rarely run anything under 8 units --- and I tend to mix things up, a LOT. I also tend to generalize my forces, so that I am not hurting if I happen to lose a unit ---
Yes, the IJJ units with TSM are somewhat difficult to deal with..... but, it isn't impossible, and good combined tactics are some of the better ways to deal with it.

Other methods would be Battle Armor, or Vtols...
Vtols can use bombs, and even the Ferret can carry 2 of those.... unless you choose to use a rocket launcher as a bomb... rush in, fire the rockets, and drop the launcher..... suddenly, those little 5 ton vehicles are a threat.

It's actually one of the reasons I bought a package of Gabriels... there is the official variant with 2 rocket 10's..... as there is nothing better than watching someone chase vehicles that cost 1/10th of the cost of the mech he is fielding...

Nahuris

[Nahuris]

The main thing I see here is that usually, if you can kill all of your opponents' units, you'll win by default anyway.

Using Warhammer 40,000 as an example. In 5th edition, there were 3 possible missions you might have to fight - "capture enemy base", "king of the hill", and "destroy everything". The problem was that all of the missions had "if enemy has no units left on the field, you automatically win" as a victory condition, and lists built around sheer killing power tended to be able to compete in all situations by virtually ignoring the objective and parking a single cheap unit on it at the end.
So it is with battletech. If I have to capture a specific building for information inside it and you have mechs defending it, the simplest solution is to destroy all the defenders, then take my sweet time finding that information and leaving with it without any external pressure. It doesn't matter how slow my force is, as long as we eventually beat our opponents into the dirt and have a single mobile mech at the end, we still win.

There are missions that avert this by having you chase precious cargo, but you're generally best not using mechs for that anyway - airborne units are all generally faster than ground sloggers, and a VTOL with a platoon or two of troops can usually capture a lightly defended unit on its own.

Simple, I have techs in the building, and they are deleting the database. If it takes too long for you to get there, then you lose, even if you kill the defenders.
Most of the games I play are carefully set up to keep "just default to killing everyone" from being an easy default option..... In addition, forced withdrawal helps a lot with it.

I had one game, where the objective on one side was to retake a prison camp --- it was set in an area of city, and the base had already been attacked, and the defenders driven off --- the attackers were now evacuating the prisoners, making them the defenders for the scenario....  the new attacking player, tasked with recapturing the base, chose mostly heavy and assault mechs, and came in with the attitude that he was going to kill all the defenders, and win by default.... what he didn't count on was one lance buying time, while the rest formed up on the evacuating armored cars, and just ran off the field.... he did manage to kill 3 mechs, and recaptured an empty building..... but, he lost the scenario. Had he used fast mechs, he could have forced a firefight, which would have resulted in the evacuees not leaving the building.... they were loaded in standard military trucks, and could not risk driving out with nothing but canvas guarding their people.

However, the big mechs never got in range of the trucks....

Capturing a dropship before it lifts off... etc.... are pretty much the way most scenarios I create are built. We usually have a victory point system, and there are points for killing opposing forces, but we usually set it up, so that the best you can get is a marginal victory, at best, that way...... and as soon as one side is done, we call the game, and decide victory right there. Any objectives not completed, are not completed. Of course, this has also once resulted in a military officer managing to hook up with friendly infantry, at which point, they commandeered a vehicle, and proceeded to drive the school bus they hijacked across 3 maps and off the board.....

Since this is a military game, there should be some form of military objective, and if that objective is to destroy as many units as possible, then there should be some form of victory for preserving your command, as in, inflicting damage, and then retreating units off --- if I can get some mission kills of your mechs, and still get all of mine off my end of the board, that it still a partial victory for me... you might have that plot of dirt, but I can repair my forces for later......it isn't always about owning dirt.

Now, if the mission is to take or hold a strategic terrain feature, we are talking a different story. However, I still don't necessarily have to kill you, just push you back enough, that you can't take that hill .....

Nahuris

[Nahuris]

I've used orbital bombardment.  It's surprisingly not that much of a game breaker.

I can see a Naval laser being able to vaporize a single mech --- but the moment your warship fires on me, I am rushing into close contact with your forces ..... go ahead, risk that fire, and let's see what friendly fire, orbital style, does to your morale.

Nahuris

[Akalabeth]

OK..this I do not get. Only TRO 2750 and the original 3050 ever put new tech in the TRO. In all other cases,
it was put in either separate books(see: CityTech introducing the variations of autocannons that were then
used in 3025, and none of those were in TRO 3025) or the Field Manuals. Yes, eventually, those made their
way into the revised corebook. However, the Corebook that is going to have all the stuff from FM:3145 is the
still in production Interstellar Ops in the "Era Specific" Rules section.

Wrong.

TRO 3050 had clan tech, rules for Elementals and the elemental record sheets
TRO 2750 had new technology as well
TRO 3057 had some rules, clarifications, record sheets and reference tables for Battlespace. It also had game statistics to convert existing fighter craft to Battlespace statistics.
TRO 3060 had rules for protomech use (And construction I believe)
TRO 3085 doesn't have rules for LAMs, however I understand they're with the Record Sheets for 3085
TRO Prototypes has a few new design quirks for Protomechs and some equipment introduction stats.

But in any case, there are at least 3 TROs which had new rules introduced. One other paired the record sheets with the new rules. 3057 had a lot of rule related material and Prototypes had a few, less important rules attached to it.

Previous field manuals also paired new weaponry with new units as well. From what I understand of 3145 it has no new units. In any case, I'm not the greatest fan of the field manuals, they're at best a reference book and only then rarely used so requiring me to buy it to use the units and sheets in TRO 3145 and RS 3145 is not exactly something I'm a fan of. Given the comments by people in the know that said Field Manuals have never been great sellers, I suspect the rules were put in there to increase their sales. To me it's just cutting the content I want into multiple purchases.

For 3145  I would rather they did away with the PDF TROS, and instead did two print TROs with all the units and the new weaponry and technology to use in them. Split the republic, mercs and clans into one TRO and put the house units in the other and add technology and rules were applicable. As it is, units I'm interested will never been in print form (like all of the Quad Vees) because I don't intend on picking up any of the PDFs. Well, actually I did pick up one PDF, the Republic because I Thought it would have rules for the super heavies. In turns out that it has no new units and no rules whatsoever. So that's 10 dollars I basically burned.

[SCC]

3057 had no new tech, just BF Space rules from the looks of things on Sarna and the 3085 RS had PLAY rules for LAMs, but LAMs aren't new and no construction rules where given

Print copies of ANYTHING in roleplaying are on the way

[Akalabeth]

3057 had no new tech, just BF Space rules from the looks of things on Sarna and the 3085 RS had PLAY rules for LAMs, but LAMs aren't new and no construction rules where given

Print copies of ANYTHING in roleplaying are on the way

The point is I don't feel I should need to buy 3-12 different products just to play with some new toys. I realize that TROs are somewhat distinct in the field of tabletop gaming, but I don't know of any other game on the market that would introduce new units with new rules and not actually have the rules alongside those units. It's just a scam from my point of view. Because there's a difference between giving players what they need and enticing them to buy more, and splitting what players need across a minimum of 3 products and requiring them to get all three.

In any case at this point I've sufficiently answered the question and this is way off topic.


On topic, whether tech breaks a game or not I don't think any one can say at this point, at least not of the new technology. Only time and play will tell. I think the greatest impact these new technologies have will be in the tournaments, where someone's mech selection will be essentially voided by what the opponent is fielding.

[Auren]

OK..this I do not get. Only TRO 2750 and the original 3050 ever put new tech in the TRO. In all other cases,
it was put in either separate books(see: CityTech introducing the variations of autocannons that were then
used in 3025, and none of those were in TRO 3025) or the Field Manuals. Yes, eventually, those made their
way into the revised corebook. However, the Corebook that is going to have all the stuff from FM:3145 is the
still in production Interstellar Ops in the "Era Specific" Rules section.

TRO:3060 had Protomech rules tbf