Author Topic: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion  (Read 34748 times)

mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4497
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #300 on: 25 February 2019, 07:02:18 »
I'm just throwing this out there: Ars Cardboard reviewed a Fallout tabletop game that might have some ideas we can use to meet the goal of making the game more fun.

Fallout: Wasteland Warfare: A “rad” miniatures game full of Nuka-Cola flavor

I find it especially noteworthy because the subhead of the article is "But be prepared for some complexity."

In particular I think the initiative system may interest some of you.
Be the Loremaster:

Battletech transport rules take a very feline approach to moving troops in a combat zone: If they fits, they ships.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your BT experience. Now what? (Thanks Sartis!)

Karasu

  • Mecharcheologist by appointment
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 833
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #301 on: 25 February 2019, 12:19:58 »
I've stayed out of this, but I want to add something in breifly.

The big problem with MoS for cluster weapons is that it makes them more powerful (hunh?!) or less powerful. 

The biggest thing with Battletech is the to-hit roll being pass/fail. You make the shot or you didn't.  This applies to PPCs or missiles.  But with an MoS system, you are either penalizing missiles (for needing MoS >0 for average damage), which often shoot at longer ranges anyways (and higher TNs).   Or you use MoF, where even if you "miss" by 1 or 2, some still hit.  The problem is that this gives cluster weapons a "pulse bonus", where you can shotgun spam it, knowing you almost can't hit on a 12, but if you get 10s you can still deal damage to that light mech. This unbalances everything else, as cluster weapons now become more powerful (Which isn't a bad thing for IS LRMs, but for SRMs, LBX, and clan weapons, it is not good).

Do I have a suggestion for making it better? No, no I don't. But making it MoS/MoF based will unbalance cluster weapons compared to all other weapons (either + or -), which would mandate a much larger re-check.


I think there is an argument to simplify criticals to using polyhedral dice (it is much faster than the 1d6+1d6 system) with an optional 1d6+1d6 if you don't have polyhedrals.

I'll admit to this being a bit of a slow response here.
Because there is a way to adjust the results by varying what the MoS 0 actually gives, it's merely a case of statistics and comparison to produce a table that matches the outcomes that currently take place.

I'm vaguely intrigued by the possibility of different weapon systems using 'splash' style resolution (damage location hit and adjacent ones) or 'shotgun' style resolution (damage based on MoS) as a way to differentiate them.  Doing MoS with missiles would maybe allow just aggregating all LRMs: "You fired 2 LRM15s?  roll to hit on the 30 chart."
But that gets very technical and is probably for Fan Rules.

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5796
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Re: Will Catalyst produce and sell more plastic miniature sets?
« Reply #302 on: 26 February 2019, 10:02:37 »
My hope was to grow the game into a campaign... .

I know I'm late to this discussion, but I would like to point out that the changes you're suggesting will have a drastic impact on one of the aspects of extended play that can bring people back: Salvage.

With the declare before you resolve rules, you run the chance that a Mech that simply got head-chopped might have also suffered an ammo breach and there's nothing left in the same fire phase.

I know, because I've played and still play plenty of campaigns, and salvage is in many ways important. An enemy's machine may end up replacing a ride lost by one of your pilots later on.

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

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

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

Talen5000

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 902
    • Handbook: Smoke Jaguar
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #303 on: 08 March 2019, 05:21:22 »
How about this idea. Go back to a cluster hit template (damage focused on hit location with damage to adjacent locations) and to re-introduce the lost chance of the hits damaging something important (head/crit), include some kind of aiming mechanic whether pulling from TO or coming up with something wholly different.

One rule I've used on occasion....

Roll for hit location as normal.
Apply half the damage.
Move 1 up and 1 down on the hit table
Apply half the remaining damage to each.
"So let me get this straight. You want to fly on a magic carpet to see the King of the Potato People and plead with him for your freedom, and you're telling me you're completely sane?" -- Uncle Arnie

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5796
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #304 on: 09 March 2019, 14:33:43 »
That combined with the attrition of the game, really puts Battletech in the "Light Tactical Game" genre, which by its very nature really should be a pretty short game.  I put Battletech in about the same category as X-Wing when it comes to "tactical weight", the difference is that an X-Wing match takes about 30-45 minutes to complete, while Battletech, on a good day with everyone acting quickly takes 3-4 hours, but more realistically 4-6 hours.

But, that's the thing. For me, BattleTech is less a game and more of a social event. While each player works through a portion of combat, we're kinda chatting about other things. Hence, the tactical depth is great for that.  You don't have to think too hard to map out your turn, and then you can change focus for a few minutes while talking about a random subject, and then still be able to come back to my plan without any issues.

Commentary is very much a part of this game for our group.

I will admit that we have come to this pretty quickly when we first started playing as a group.  So, we kinda expect it.

Maybe it's the expectation of the game, compared to more modern games, that is the problem.

In some recent RPG sessions, I notice we do the same thing.  And, those can take a few hours to resolve what in actuality are very minor scenes in a larger story.  One or two in a night, maybe with combat, maybe without. I don't see people complaining about length of RPG sessions. But, a lot of people expect it.

Sure, a social event does not a tournament game make. But, I recall running through a grinder with fresh players and a veteran or two, and the banter, the interaction was there, and enjoyable. I ask anyone who went to GenCon and participated in one of the major story-line games that lasted pretty much all day if they weren't gabbing and bantering with the other players.

That's the era this game came out of.  That's the style of game it really is.

And, I still find the detail to be very engrossing, because, when something unexpected happens, like a failed piloting roll taking off a limb from falling damage, we spend minutes going back and forth illustrating with words what we think happened, or should have happened.  Sometimes, when someone rolls snake-eyes on a to-hit roll, someone will joke about the target healing a point, or something to that effect.

I've played X-wing and Trek: Attack Wing, and I didn't get that kind of interaction or creativity.

So, I feel torn in that I do want a BT game that is faster and can resolve a battle more promptly, maybe with less pip tracking and some form of refined damage tracking system, somewhere in between BT Core and Alpha Strike.  But, at the same time, I enjoy the social event. 

It also helps that a lot of the games we run are campaign style missions.  Coming up with a reason to fight, who against, and what makes a win is actually kinda fun outside the actual game session.  Then, being able to make a presentation of it to my friends, and see how they enjoy it is a big boon.  Just about like a GM working up the next session for the group or different parts of it.

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

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

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

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5796
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #305 on: 09 March 2019, 15:05:40 »
In the abstract, how about an Alpha Strike game that has some kind of mechanic where limbs fall off or there is some other kind of mechanical sense of armor/systems degredation?


In the context of normal BT, what about missiles having a standard dispersion pattern centered around the hit location?

You mean like Heavy Gear?  Each time a gear gets hit, it takes 1 or 2 points of damage, as long as it's not catastrophic. Then an item is eliminated from use.

Now, applying this to Alpha isn't hard.  If I recall, damage to internals is an automatic crit result on a small chart. It's effects based.  But, I'm still of the opinion that you shouldn't have to power through armor to get there.

For example, a PPC to a Wasp's right arm will still take off that right arm, cutting its damage in half.  So, that's armor and internals all at once.

Maybe implement a crit chance roll or threshold for damage on Mechs which have armor. Maybe allow hard hitting weapons like an AC/10 or 20 or gauss or PPC to modify it in some fashion.

You don't have to worry about tracking locations, but you still get some of the random damage aspects of the core game. 

Personally, I would actually simply go with a change in damage scale, like 5 point groupings of the core game being the new 1.  I'd allow for special instances of grouping smaller weapons or individual shots from them.  Then I'd find a way to keep the locations, but streamline how they're determined to get hit.

Complete aside: Something I really want!  I want a version of the game that can properly emulate modern combat, which is also found in a lot of anime, and an interface with the current BT style system. Why? I've always wondered how x-Mecha that functions as it's portrayed (Like, say, an M1 Abrams) would compare with BattleTech. Haven't gotten over that.



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

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

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

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5796
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: Battletech Rules Modification Discussion
« Reply #306 on: 09 March 2019, 17:57:36 »
One is regarding Scotty's comments which I completely agree with, in that a good miniatures game as is the case with many modernly designed miniatures games, is that they keep players engaged and I agree that administration and bookkeeping cannot be counted as engaging players.

Okay. I would like to point out something.  Pardon me for playing catch-up, but I don't internet often, so it's a thing for me to have to spend a day reading up on a topic I enjoy.

But, as I go, things occur to me.  Like this.

Magic: The Gathering may not be a miniature's game, but I imagine that it fit's the bill for an interactive game.  However, that breaks down the more people you add in a group game. It doesn't matter if it's teams on two sides, or a giant melee.  Once your turn's done, you have to wait through everyone else's turn before you can interact again, more often than not.  This does not include the reactionary control player who has an instant or two in his hand.

However, I've seen it happen way too often, especially with younger players. And we did this every other weekend.  TV is on, and something interesting is playing, and when their turn was done, the younger players, and some adults, would turn to watch the tube while they waited to be attacked or their turn came up.

So, this isn't a problem with just BattleTech. It's a problem with games in general, that when you have too many people involved, it's hard to stay engaged. And I don't see any game that can fix that.  I don't see any way to really fix that beyond keeping the number of players down to something manageable (2-4 seems to be optimal), or designing a game in such a way that each player's turn is so damn short that they don't really make any decisions which feel meaningful.

Two-player BattleTech has never had a problem with engagement. Not from all the time I've played. 3-4 also seems to work well, because each side can consult, strategize and whatever while another person's busy.

And, quite frankly, I am all too fond of rolling fistfuls of death to handle weapons fire resolution.

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

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

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