I think any suggestions are contingent on TPB’s overall vision for the rules. Do they want:
1) a system that exists within the BTU, but not necessarily interconnected with other rules
2) a system that is meant to integrate with the scale chain from AToW to ISaW
3) something else
Otherwise we’re just pitching our own rulebooks
Last post on the issue....
I think that if you want to develop and sell an RPG as opposed to a pilot generator for the board, then you need to develop and sell an actual RPG.
That doesn'y mean ignoring Mechs. Far from it. This IS the BTU.
But, IMO, it cannot be done by trying to recreate the board game or replace it. If you have the board game and are in a position to use the TacAdd rules from ATOW, it also means you can play using board game rules.
My take?
You need to include several options.
First....the RPG combat sections needs cleaned up and rewritten. The same can be said for much of ATOW.
Second...the RPG needs a decent vehicular combat section independent of the board game. This section should address the use of Mechs within an RPG section.
The mass of rules appropriate only for the board game can and should be dropped.
Third...rather than bring the board game into the RPG by creating an RPG ruleset, the RPG should look at ways of integrating the board game into the RPG using the board game rules.
This would require fleshing out but would require a skill equivalence table. You have gunnery and piloting, but initiative would be a tactics roll. Morale checks would be leadership. Shutdown avoidance a computer roll.
No need for conversion stats if you can use the board game directly.
Instead, you'd want a specific Vehicular Attribute:
Ablative Armour. Immune to Personal and Support Scale Weaponry.
Weapon scales to be retwigged....
Personal: 1-10
Support: 1-10 with 10 Personal = 1 Support.
Mech: Board Game.
There could be an argument for a fourth scale (Conventional?) to specifically cover Support Vehicles. They would be coveted by board game rules, but there may be too much of a change in scale and effectiveness following the Support Scale.
You'd also want to tweak the armour rules, giving weapons a suitable AP value for a specific scale.
And for weapons? They can only damage armour of the same scale, unless they have the AntiArmour feature or Anti Mech, which allows them to do damage according to their Rating.
So, an SRM with an AntiMech rating of 2 would do 2 points of damage to Mech scale Ablative armour, a Light SRM with an AMR of 1 would do 1 point.
The ideas here would need to be fleshed out. And there are other mechanics that could be used if these wouldn't work.
But the point here is that there is no need to recreate the board game rules within the RPG. Maybe, if there were pages to burn, but there aren't.
Instead of providing what is effectively a new ruleset for the boardgame, the RPG should simply use the board game and its rules, leverage what is already there by finding ways to bring those mechanics into the RPG.
An infantry portable LRM that has an AntiMechRating of 1 means it does 1 point of damage to targets with Mech Scale Ablative armour. A weapon without an AMR ability...which should be most, or even all other non missile support weapons...doesn't even scratch the paint.
I'm not against integrating the board game...but an RPG by its nature, should be an RPG and focus on the personal scale because we already have the board game for larger. Developing a game merely to act as a pilot generator is a waste and while ATOW does make efforts to move away, the inclusion of the Tactical Addendum section shows it hasn't moved far enough. That is made clear in other sections where the game stops being an RPG and moves into something more akin to Squad Commander.
ATOW doesn't need that. Instead, certain skills should have an addendum as to how they are used in other games. It should het a dedicated RPG focussed vehicular combat section. It should remove the examples which focus on scenarios best left to other games.
It should focus on the personal RPG scale which is where it works best.
But...my opinion. I like ATOW but there is so much room for improvement, and a big reason is that it does try to bring in the board game.
And unfortunately...trying to return to topic here...I see Destiny making some of the same mistakes. Just as I see it embracing new concepts that I like. The scale concept I mentioned above is one.
Now, it is also the case that I'm just looking at ATOW and Destiny with different values and priorities, that I want it to do different things. That is why all the above is just MO.