Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?

[Daryk]

I'd like to see fewer scales, personally.  Right now, we have infantry, Battle Armor, Protomechs, 'Mechs/Combat Vehicles/ASFs, Small Craft, DropShips, JumpShpis, WarShips and Space Stations.

The AP vs. BAR system can simplify everything from 'Mechs on down for armor.  Weapons just need to be consolidated so you don't have THREE different versions below 'Mech scale.

[Retry]

Artemis IV/V.  To make use of it, you need a 1-ton/1.5 ton unit for each missile launcher, and you need a specific compatible ammunition type, and you need direct line-of-sight to the target, and you need to avoid any ECM effects your opponent may have.  For Artemis IV, the reward for jumping through all these hoops is a meager +2 to your cluster hit roll (Art V is quite a bit more useful with +3 cluster bonus and -1 to hit bonus, though the restrictions are the same).  If you don't (or can't) jump through all of these hoops, your Artemis upgrades are dead weight.

I don't think all of these restrictions should be relaxed, but having all of them at the same time is rather rough for what is ultimately a meager average damage bonus (for IV at least; V is another can of worms).  I've increasingly found that the opportunity cost isn't worth it and I'm scrapping the Art IV upgrade for more ammo, more armor, or sometimes more launchers.

I think the problem is the Art IV is a minor buff to damage to a system you don't usually take just for their raw damage.  If you just want damage, medium lasers are more efficient than SRM launchers, but medium lasers can't douse infantry in fire via inferno rounds.  If you want long-ranged firepower, Gauss Rifles and ERPPCs are very competitive and actually have slightly better range than LRMs while having shorter (or no) minimum range, but only the LRMs can hit something on the other side of an apartment complex with the help of a spotter.  So the Art IV slightly increases raw damage in a relatively narrow set of scenarios, without improving their utility functions, which is really a big reason why you might want missiles over other weapons.

I'd probably start by scrapping the Artemis-compatible ammo: Your Artemis launcher bestows the cluster buffs with any missile types.  Frag missiles get the bonus, infernos get the bonus, and so on.  That way, Artemis IV can even enhance some of the specialty ammo, instead of being mutually exclusive with it.

If that's not enough, then I'd look into making Artemis systems work in indirect fire too.  They'd need to be refluffed, since the beam-based target designators and transmitters obviously wouldn't work without a line of sight.

[Mechanis]

Artemis IV/V.  To make use of it, you need a 1-ton/1.5 ton unit for each missile launcher, and you need a specific compatible ammunition type, and you need direct line-of-sight to the target, and you need to avoid any ECM effects your opponent may have.  For Artemis IV, the reward for jumping through all these hoops is a meager +2 to your cluster hit roll (Art V is quite a bit more useful with +3 cluster bonus and -1 to hit bonus, though the restrictions are the same).  If you don't (or can't) jump through all of these hoops, your Artemis upgrades are dead weight.

I don't think all of these restrictions should be relaxed, but having all of them at the same time is rather rough for what is ultimately a meager average damage bonus (for IV at least; V is another can of worms).  I've increasingly found that the opportunity cost isn't worth it and I'm scrapping the Art IV upgrade for more ammo, more armor, or sometimes more launchers.

I think the problem is the Art IV is a minor buff to damage to a system you don't usually take just for their raw damage.  If you just want damage, medium lasers are more efficient than SRM launchers, but medium lasers can't douse infantry in fire via inferno rounds.  If you want long-ranged firepower, Gauss Rifles and ERPPCs are very competitive and actually have slightly better range than LRMs while having shorter (or no) minimum range, but only the LRMs can hit something on the other side of an apartment complex with the help of a spotter.  So the Art IV slightly increases raw damage in a relatively narrow set of scenarios, without improving their utility functions, which is really a big reason why you might want missiles over other weapons.

I'd probably start by scrapping the Artemis-compatible ammo: Your Artemis launcher bestows the cluster buffs with any missile types.  Frag missiles get the bonus, infernos get the bonus, and so on.  That way, Artemis IV can even enhance some of the specialty ammo, instead of being mutually exclusive with it.

If that's not enough, then I'd look into making Artemis systems work in indirect fire too.  They'd need to be refluffed, since the beam-based target designators and transmitters obviously wouldn't work without a line of sight.

I mean, given the fluff I should think that it would actually be easier to rule that Artemis ammo gets some of the same bonuses as Semi-guided, since they're supposed to be cousin technologies. Maybe like, if the target was TAG'd, the cluster mod gets a flat+2 regardless of fire mode on top of the normal DF mod, and it ignores spotter penalties which still applies even when you're shooting it out of a normal launcher.

Also probably easy the restrictions to just launchers that share ammo rather than every launcher which can have it must have it if you carry it at all.

[paladin2019]

Another thought I had.

AC/AC Ammo: All ACs fire the same ammo, the rating is just how many shots they fire per attack. Each bin holds 90 shots. Recoil, etc., then becomes the rationale for larger guns with shorter range. This allows the future introduction of the Multi-Timed Autocannon or Variably-Timed Autocannon (MTAC or VTAC, whichever sounds cooler) that can operate in any mode up to its rating. A VTAC/10 could thus operate as an AC/2, AC/5, or AC/10 expending 2, 5, or 10 shots in the attack at the appropriate range bands.

[Daryk]

That's begging for even more variability, i.e., any number from 1-10 for your example.  Not that that would be a bad thing...

[Cannonshop]

That's begging for even more variability, i.e., any number from 1-10 for your example.  Not that that would be a bad thing...

The problem comes from the interaction of damage and range.  Ultras fire at a higher rate, yet they GAIN effective range, this is contrary to the performance in the proposed idea-which is that the drop in range is because of the higher firing rate.  (Something you can actually, if you live in a place where you're allowed to own firearms you can test by comparing the benchrest range of a semi-auto firing slowly, with one firing quickly.  the bullets go down range the same distance whether you're cycling the action one-at-a-time, or have stuck a crank handle on the side to emulate a gattling gun.)

so no, Autocannon ammo has to be functionally different depending on class, because bullets' don't pop a parachute and land gently past the point your sights are no longer effective for predicting the general outcome.  (a 9mm fired at 45 degrees is lethal out quite a lot further than one fired using regular sights.  Accidents can happen out to a mile away using .22 rimfire, a much milder load.  when you get into 'rifle calibers' it can get absurd quickly).

Recommended Reading: "Hatcher's Notebook" (I have no idea how many printings that reference has had, my oldest copy dates to the 1960s and my newest to sometime in the 1990s, and it's still commonly referenced for firearms experimenters, handloaders, and competitors.)

A more 'rational' reasont o account for the range differences between AC 2 and AC20 might be to consider all Autocannon ammunition must fit into a specific length to feed, and that that length is decided by how big an opening you can have through the shoulder and elbow joints of a battlemech.

AC/2 can therefore have more propellant relative to the payload delivered on the other end with a better ballistic coefficient-which explains the longer range, within the same total, loaded, cartridge length (and maybe diameter) when compared to 5, 10, and 20 classes.

Hence the longer effective range for lighter autocannons-they can push a shell with more propellant, and the shell can be better shaped to pass through atmosphere (ballistic coefficient) while your 'big bores' are fiting big, blunt objects that lose energy in atmosphere more quickly and start with less of it to begin with vs. their inertia.

for real-world comparison, a 5.7x28 is going to have a longer effective range than a 9x21 or 9x19 cartridge that can pass through the same magazine opening in the frame.  (or fit the same cylinder if you like revolvers)

a 'mech's arm is a complex jointed structure, there's limits to what, and how much, opening you can put into that joint before you can't feed something through it.

We actually see this with .50 Beowulf vs. .223-both fit the magazine well of an AR-pattern rifle, one has absurd energy transfer at close range and no long range performance, the other has long range performance and good accuracy.

[paladin2019]

If the gun isn't properly compensated, effective range for point targets (which BattleTech cares about) drops. Full stop.

The proposed rule posits that the technology does not properly compensate for rapid firing. 20 shots within the available engagement envelope of a 10 second round throws off a gun's aim more than 2 shots. Hence, range is diminished. UACs and RACs may not develop under this system (the proposition in this thread is these proposals are how the rules were written in 1984) in favor of the variable timed variants (hi and lo rates on the Bradley's panel, for example).

All BattleTech ranges are ridiculously short and nonsensically scaled to other weapons because the game was built around balance using tonnage rather than the later CV and BV. Bigger guns have shorter ranges because they deal more damage, that's it. There is no simulationist adaptation formula or the like. So unless adding BV is part of the rule, I'm trying to keep things balanced in the same way.

[Cannonshop]

If the gun isn't properly compensated, effective range for point targets (which BattleTech cares about) drops. Full stop.

The proposed rule posits that the technology does not properly compensate for rapid firing. 20 shots within the available engagement envelope of a 10 second round throws off a gun's aim more than 2 shots. Hence, range is diminished. UACs and RACs may not develop under this system (the proposition in this thread is these proposals are how the rules were written in 1984) in favor of the variable timed variants (hi and lo rates on the Bradley's panel, for example).

All BattleTech ranges are ridiculously short and nonsensically scaled to other weapons because the game was built around balance using tonnage rather than the later CV and BV. Bigger guns have shorter ranges because they deal more damage, that's it. There is no simulationist adaptation formula or the like. So unless adding BV is part of the rule, I'm trying to keep things balanced in the same way.

Let me ask you something, then... These are supremely expensive weapons on supremely expensive platforms developed by entities whose budget on paperclips dwarfs the GDP of all of North America combined.

do you really think they're going to field point-shooting combat weapons without adequate compensation? that they're going to develop anything past the toolroom prototype that can't hold zero? or that they'd retain it for centuries without correcting the zeroing problem?

My explanation has the benefit of not requiring literally centuries of engineers being incompetent-there's a fixed, you-can't-fit it in easier explanation for the difference in performance, yours, assumes nobody ever thought of stabilizing the barrel or developing compensation for recoil.

which way do you think requires MORE suspension of disbelief?

admittedly, Battletech works on FasaFizikz, not Physics, but still...

[paladin2019]

do you really think they're going to field point-shooting combat weapons without adequate compensation?

Given the game design choices made in how the extant weapon stats work? Yes, I absolutely believe that.

[Mechanis]

Mmmkay. So. Couple things.
First: Autocannons are not specific weapons. They are a class of weapon performance. why is this important? Simple! It means there can be no mechanical difference between an AC 2, and an AC 20, other than additional recoil compensation and higher fire rate on the latter.



Two; consider the nature of an Autocannon: this is a tank gun, that fires as fast as a machine gun, and can reliably put an entire burst onto a sub-meter diameter target, while both the firing platform and target are moving in excess of, sometimes, hundreds of kilometers per hour. Think about what that means, in terms of stabilization, recoil compensation and so on; for example the AC 20 on the Hetzer combat vehicle is stated to be a 150mm cannon firing ten round bursts. the fact that it can't reliably hit something more than a few hundred meters away is completely understandable!

Three, the Tabletop ranges are a representation of effective range - that is, the ranges at which you actually have a chance to hit things which are actively evading, which you yourself are doing so, with less than ten seconds to aim, in an environment of such comprehensive jamming that even pure optical systems are not reliable.For example, TAGs have to use some kind of random rotation multifrequency witchcraft to keep from being spoofed, and their lore specifically notes that older more conventional laser-designators are completely useless against the integrated EW suite of even the meanest, chepest, most bargain basement tanks.

Edit: I suppose I should also mention that there are rules for firing beyond your normal "maximum" range, and rules for tracking missed shots, in TacOps.

[DevianID]

Yeah, I mean when you look at game performance and lore, autocannons and missiles are reversed.

Autocannons, if they are clusters of shells, should roll on the cluster table.  Thats not far fetched I think.  But the game rules have them as single impact weapons, whose range is separate from their damage (so not a KE round, but an explosive of some variety).  The only rule I have ever seen that treats ACs as something other then a single shot weapon is the rule in tac ops where you can split the AC damage in half, for exactly 2 instances of damage on 2 nearby mechs.

Meanwhile, the art of missiles is large, single firing missiles, but the game treats them as clusters of missiles that spread over a target.  An SRM is a far better stand in for a rapid fire 120mm then an AC5.  And the AC5, with the minimum range, is a better stand in for a medium range missile with a single impact damage.  I often point out the art is very magnified, as the Dougram missiles on the wolverine and such were all single shot, 1 missile at a time weapons.  Battletech kept the art, but the rules have each missile only a tiny fraction of the size of the launcher.  All 20 LRM launch tubes can fit in the space around a single launch tube in the art... The twin LRM20s on an archer, in scale, would look like 20 imperceptibly small holes where missile 1 goes, with the rest of that space being flat.  An SRM6 would look more like a revolver or gattling cannon, with how small the missiles actually are and how fast they are loaded.

The gun art is also off from fluff, again cause everything is too large.  The gun on top of the marauder is supposed to be a 120mm firing 3 round clips... thats fine, BUT... the actual size of that gun is massive.  Way bigger then a 120, and no clip feed or clips at all.  The inner barrel diameter is roughly 1/22 the height (someone else feel free to take a picture of theirs for a better measurement, I just used the pixel length in paint to divide the height in pixels with the width, but imprecisely), so if it was a 12 meter tall marauder then that barrel is 530 mm.  So since art influences so much of the game and how its perceived, ill just leave it at that haha.

[Intermittent_Coherence]

Construction rules for Aerospace units.
Everything from ASFs to warships. Everything must go.

[monbvol]

Construction rules for Aerospace units.
Everything from ASFs to warships. Everything must go.

Easily in my top 3.

How much the construction rules influence the aerospace game in the current incarnation is just ridiculous.

[Intermittent_Coherence]

Easily in my top 3.

How much the construction rules influence the aerospace game in the current incarnation is just ridiculous.

Right?
ASFs are just plain broken. An ASF will carry more armor and armament than a mech of equivalent tonnage.... Which I'm pretty sure breaks the core tenet of the setting, that of mechs being king.

Small Craft and Dropship construction rules are mostly fine, and agree a lot. One is clearly a scaled down version of the other. The only issue is that Small Craft carry too much less armament and armor per unit thrust compared to ASFs. So probably tweak them to narrow the gap. And I'm pretty sure nobody's come up yet with construction rules for life boats.

Then there's the really big stuff: space stations, jumpships and warships. Jumpships and space stations being limited to an SI of 1 makes no sense. Anything fitted with station keeping thrusters instead of full on maneuver drives being limited to an SI of 1 makes even less sense.

[Daryk]

Small Craft not being able to use Infantry Bay quarters should definitely be fixed.  Imposing full on crew quarters on orbit to surface landing craft is crazy.

[Cannonshop]

Right?
ASFs are just plain broken. An ASF will carry more armor and armament than a mech of equivalent tonnage.... Which I'm pretty sure breaks the core tenet of the setting, that of mechs being king.

Small Craft and Dropship construction rules are mostly fine, and agree a lot. One is clearly a scaled down version of the other. The only issue is that Small Craft carry too much less armament and armor per unit thrust compared to ASFs. So probably tweak them to narrow the gap. And I'm pretty sure nobody's come up yet with construction rules for life boats.

Then there's the really big stuff: space stations, jumpships and warships. Jumpships and space stations being limited to an SI of 1 makes no sense. Anything fitted with station keeping thrusters instead of full on maneuver drives being limited to an SI of 1 makes even less sense.

Point of order there;  ASF hav this flaw called "Threshold" which 'mechs don't have, and lack most of the exposed hinges and ball joints that 'mechs DO have.

Basically an airframe is 99% rigid structure with some small moving panels and a big ass nozzle at the back, but the ablatie armor doesn't protect them NEARLY as well.

More Armor mass? sure, Less Protection from incoming fire? Yeah, you bet.

THAT isn't the problem with the construction rules (Which actually work pretty well for ASF)

I mean, consider this: I shoot your 'mech, with 50 points of armor on the centr torso location, and how many internals do I get to check for, if I don't roll '2' and I'm using a medium laser?

Now, shoot an ASF with 50 points of armor on the facing, with a medium laser.
How many crtical chances do I get, on an average to-hit roll (say, 8) when it hits?

yeah.

THAT isn't what makes them 'broken'.

[Sir Chaos]

Mmmkay. So. Couple things.
First: Autocannons are not specific weapons. They are a class of weapon performance. why is this important? Simple! It means there can be no mechanical difference between an AC 2, and an AC 20, other than additional recoil compensation and higher fire rate on the latter.



Two; consider the nature of an Autocannon: this is a tank gun, that fires as fast as a machine gun, and can reliably put an entire burst onto a sub-meter diameter target, while both the firing platform and target are moving in excess of, sometimes, hundreds of kilometers per hour. Think about what that means, in terms of stabilization, recoil compensation and so on; for example the AC 20 on the Hetzer combat vehicle is stated to be a 150mm cannon firing ten round bursts. the fact that it can't reliably hit something more than a few hundred meters away is completely understandable!

Three, the Tabletop ranges are a representation of effective range - that is, the ranges at which you actually have a chance to hit things which are actively evading, which you yourself are doing so, with less than ten seconds to aim, in an environment of such comprehensive jamming that even pure optical systems are not reliable.For example, TAGs have to use some kind of random rotation multifrequency witchcraft to keep from being spoofed, and their lore specifically notes that older more conventional laser-designators are completely useless against the integrated EW suite of even the meanest, chepest, most bargain basement tanks.

Edit: I suppose I should also mention that there are rules for firing beyond your normal "maximum" range, and rules for tracking missed shots, in TacOps.

Some of that used to be so, at least in the fluff.

In the appendices of the German version of the older BT novels, the Shadow Hawk is said to have a 90mm autocannon, while the Marauder is said to have a 120mm autocannon - although both have an AC/5. They also state that LRM, for example, have a maximum range of several kilometers, but can only hit over a much shorter range.

Can´t say I´ve ever read either in any English language source, but I kinda doubt the translators or German language editors just made that up on their own.

[Grand_dm]

No DHS in the engine.

[monbvol]

I think I would compromise on that to be honest.

Instead of it being always flat # of heat sinks I'd make it critical slots of heat sinks.

So for example a 300 rated engine would only be able to house 4 IS DHS and 6 Clan DHS.

That was Compact Heat Sinks would suddenly have a purpose because you could hide 24 of those suckers in the same engine.

[Daryk]

I took a different approach: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,62762.0.html

I made "prototype" DHS half ton, one heat each (and two crits), and continued to limit them to 10 in the engine.

[DevianID]

I think I would compromise on that to be honest.

Instead of it being always flat # of heat sinks I'd make it critical slots of heat sinks.

So for example a 300 rated engine would only be able to house 4 IS DHS and 6 Clan DHS.

That was Compact Heat Sinks would suddenly have a purpose because you could hide 24 of those suckers in the same engine.

Thats a cool rule.  I can see light mechs like a stinger that wanted endo/ferro using compact sinks to get 10 dissipation with as few crit spots as possible, versus 20 with doubles but needing to compromise ferro to be able to fit, as with this change a 120 engine could only hold 1 IS double sink, leaving 9x3 to be allocated.

[Intermittent_Coherence]

Mmmkay. So. Couple things.
First: Autocannons are not specific weapons. They are a class of weapon performance. why is this important? Simple! It means there can be no mechanical difference between an AC 2, and an AC 20, other than additional recoil compensation and higher fire rate on the latter.



Two; consider the nature of an Autocannon: this is a tank gun, that fires as fast as a machine gun, and can reliably put an entire burst onto a sub-meter diameter target, while both the firing platform and target are moving in excess of, sometimes, hundreds of kilometers per hour.

Actually I'd put these more in the vein of modern naval guns like the Oto Melara.

[DevianID]

Actually I'd put these more in the vein of modern naval guns like the Oto Melara.

My headcannon on autocannons is exactly that.  A 57mm AC5 at 8 tons, and the 8 ton Bofors 57mm firing the naval grade 6.5kg shells in 8 shell racks are roughly the same, but the AC5 is a 2250 year invention that can be fired from less then a 3000 ton ship without an ocean of water to keep cool.  Same with the oto melara 76mm, also 7.5 tons like the Bofors, firing massive 12.5kg shells in 4 round clips for 50kg of shell per trigger pull.  These are big shells, bigger then the 76mm on the older tanks, and the 200+ years of advancement needed is to get these autocannons mountable on something as tiny as a tank, and also vastly lower heat for space operations.  An ac5 does 1 heat, meanwhile the oto melara pumps seawater and flushes with fresh water constantly to keep the barrels cool.  Both are 4-5 meter barrels, which is close to what we see on the shadowhawk and sentinel.  The wolverine with that snub nose 80mm is some HE/recoilless thing, as the ac5s visual design are too different between the longer barrel shadowhawk/ marauder, and snub nose wolverine.

Since rifles cant be used in space and autocannons can, it made sense to me that whatever the autocannon is doing, its with vastly less heat then the current naval ACs so you arnt melting the barrels after 30 seconds in the absence of air to assist cooling.  Like, 1 heat is pretty impressive considering, its the one part about autocannons we actually like with their stats.

[paladin2019]

Since rifles cant be used in space

Wait, what? Even if you're talking about lo-tech rifled cannon, wait, what?

[DevianID]

Rifle/cannons/light/medium/heavy cant be used on the space map.  Im pretty sure im not making that up i think?

[monbvol]

Game Rules: Rifles lack the power to function effectively at normal space-to-space ranges, but may be employed by aerospace units operating in
atmosphere and their ground-based counterparts, where they function as normal direct-fire ballistic weapons. However, because they lack the armorpenetrating power of modern autocannons, rifles of all sizes must subtract 3 points of damage (to a minimum of 0) for successful attacks against any
unit except for conventional infantry, battle armor, ’Mechs using Commercial Armor, or Support Vehicles with a BAR rating below 8.

Which makes it sound like it isn't a heating/cooling issue but a lack of penetrating power and shell velocity that keeps them from being effective.

[Mechanis]

I think it's important to consider that Autocannons by default are firing HEAT rounds, typically in large bursts, because BT armor is basically immune to the "classic" penetrator rods and whatnot. Additionally, while we have no data on caliber or fire rate for a lot of stuff, we do know that the "Machine Gun" on the Scorpion tank is a 20mm rotary cannon (likely a Space Future M61), and the Hetzer's AC 20 is a 150mm canon that fires ten-round bursts. It is thus likely that the Rifles fire single projectiles rather than spamming bursts like a machine gun, making them less effective.

[monbvol]

I think it's important to consider that Autocannons by default are firing HEAT rounds, typically in large bursts, because BT armor is basically immune to the "classic" penetrator rods and whatnot. Additionally, while we have no data on caliber or fire rate for a lot of stuff, we do know that the "Machine Gun" on the Scorpion tank is a 20mm rotary cannon (likely a Space Future M61), and the Hetzer's AC 20 is a 150mm canon that fires ten-round bursts. It is thus likely that the Rifles fire single projectiles rather than spamming bursts like a machine gun, making them less effective.

Except we have specific mentions of ACs firing depleted uranium rounds before there were AP specialty ammunition rules.

[paladin2019]

And HEAT is problematic below ~70mm projectiles.

[Mechanis]

And HEAT is problematic below ~70mm projectiles.

Considering that the lowest caliber we have directly stated is 90mm (for an AC 5, no less), this would hardly seem an issue; the lore for Autocannons does, however, directly state that the standard ammunition type is high explosive anti tank. (To say nothing about the fact that they're probably using the same metallique as LRMs/SRMs etc, because why would you not, so materials based limits like that are fundamentally unknowable on account of our limited perspective.)