Pointers for designing new weapons?

[Izzy193]

As I have shown I got issues creating weapons for BattleTech, are there any general pointers(apart from don't) for someone who wants to make a custom weapon for BattleTech?

It would be helpful if there was a guide to help those who actually want to make a custom weapon for their version of BattleTech Universe. Be they Inner Sphere or Clan Spec weapons. Because it would help a lot for newbies in this field like myself.

Feel free to list example of what to do(and not to do) when designing a BattleTech weapon for use in the TT game. I personally want to design some odd yet useful weapons and want to avoid pitfalls when designing them.

[PuppyLikesLaserPointers]

Make something simply better than something else, and almost same with the other existing equipments, seems the only general rule of no, maybe. Although make something simply better is fine if the change of meta is what you exactly intended, such as the difference of post reintroduce of double heat sink, but if you do, then you should make something available for most of units.

[Daryk]

Consistency and balance are the main recommendations I'd make... :)

[Speedbump]

Sadly I don't think there's a proper guide anywhere.

The best advice I can give you is to decide when you start exactly what you're trying to balance against and be very specific. If you're designing a new weapon for the Succession Wars era you need to know where on the sliding scale between medium lasers (the best weapon of the era) and AC/5s (the worst) you want to sit, then find weapons of similar range to use as yardsticks for damage per tonnage. If your weapon does things other than direct damage you also need estimate how strong that effect is, but even there knowing if you're doing half the damage + that effect will help you tune things.

Even if your answer is "I want this to be to Clantech as Clantech is to IS" you need points of comparison to decide if your Small Super-Graser or whatever is actually as much better than the C ERML than the C ERML is better than a IS LL.

[Cannonshop]

look at the timeframe your campaign is going on in.  A rotary autocannon is grossly overpowered for 3025, and somewhat limp for 3150, where all the other experimental techs show up.

so start with logical variation.

For example, the canon Heavy Machine-gun for the Inner Sphere weighs as much as a medium laser with a small laser chaser, ranges 2, and only provides a boost against light (unarmored) infantry for the armor damage of a single small laser-at the risk of a bin of explosive ammo and a fairly huge burden in terms of carriage space.

compare to the Clan version, which, with half a ton of ammo, weighs one ton.

The problem is a logical one; what kind of idiot would build the Inner Sphere version, which is qualitatively inferior to virtually anything you can put into that ton-and-a-half?

Esp. since you can get 30% more range and an extra D6 of anti-infantry damage by carrying standard inner sphere machine guns) while having less of a torso bomb if your ammo bin gets critted (since you'll use it up faster, and per-shot damage is lower)?

answer: Nobody.  really, outside of forced canon exceptions, anyone arming to actually WIN isn't going to take this weapon, it's a dog.

So...let's do an alternative, by ocnsidering the idea that not all researchers just blindly copy the performance of something because "Duhr, it's Klanner!!! duh-huH!!!"

The Alternative Inner Sphere Heavy Machine Gun:

.75 tons (meant to be used in pairs, obviously, or to absorb that loose quarter ton you sometimes get with fractional accounting).

Damage: 2 (2D6)-just like a standard machine gun.

Ammo Explosion: 3 per round in the magazine (like Clanner HMG's)

Range:
Short: 2
Medium: 4
Long: 6

The extra weight is reinforced breech and the extra range is more and hotter propellant for the same projectile, further, you're not spending the equivalent of a Medium Pulse laser plus heat-sink to mount two of them to do the same job.  The damage curve is a little lower at the top end, but it can inflict that damage further away than a standard machine gun (though not really that much further), making it good as a support weapon for covering infantry embark/debark from transporting units, or greasing that riot at ranges they can't reply with PISTOLS.

This, in an AU, can replace the "inner sphere heavy machine gun" which is outperformed by pistols and shotguns, with something that actually justifies its existence (and eliminates the "Light" machine gun that weighs in the same as a standard for one point tickles).

thus, a factionally different development curve, which doesn't rely on "Well duh, Clan Gear is Better".

further, this can slide into earlier, or lower-tech eras without massive disruption or being grossly overpowered, or replicating the performance of something fundamentally already better.  which makes it easier to balance.

[AlphaMirage]

Agreed with cannonshop, balance is key unless you want to make up a new table of weapons. Although a RAC/5 is beneath the ML in my table of the 143 weapons I built for my Point Barrows Guide (link in sig below).

[Maingunnery]

Why does it exist?
Be honest with yourself and define the exact purpose of its existence and why it meets that better than the alternatives.

How often are you going to use it?
One of the most basic questions that you will need to ask yourself, if you are going to use it a lot then it might be worth all the work, if not then consider to leave it as a short fiction blurb concerning failed/WIP R&D, or even dropping it entirely.

Meaningful decisions
For example if some custom technology offers multiple choices but if users always choose one specific choice then the others are redundant and should be removed.
This also relates to other weapons, in some circumstances it should be best to fire the custom weapon, while in other circumstances it should be a better decision to fire other weapons. 

Minimizing work
If a piece of equipment required multiple dice rolls to use, then try to find a way to do it with less dice rolls, such as making a better roll table. The same goes for record keeping, always try to find efficient ways for players to use it.

Battle Value
Calculate the BV or take measures that do not increase the BV.
After calculating the BV then divide the BV by the tonnage to see how it compares to various tech ratings.

[Red Pins]

Hmm.  Well, these are all good suggestions, and I wish I had known them when I started my own projects.

For me, I have always been struck by how inventors have blind spots - like your creation of the LAC-10.  Went completely unnoticed until you thought of it.  I thought of using a second capacitor bank to make Ultra-rate Gauss rifles, for instance, but missed the concept behind HAGs.

And I can't remember the name of the player from the OBT forums who came up with a whirlwind-style launcher for sub-caps, dragon-something.  I love that idea!

The only other idea I ever came up with was to have others playtest my creations against me - it didn't seem fair to expect them to enjoy losing to another wonder weapon I came up with.

[BATTLEMASTER]

I'd do what you want and use the weapon BV calculator on the Heavy Metal Pro website to help with balance - that is, if you want balance :)