Author Topic: Battletech: What rules would you have written differently? (Read 35715 times)

Khymerion · « **Reply #120 on:** 13 July 2015, 07:47:05 »

Fair enough.

monbvol · « **Reply #121 on:** 13 July 2015, 08:09:06 »

Yeah I'm not sure making AMM worse is a good way to go. Would make WiGe units all but ineffective and does make Battletech seem less technologically advanced as weapon stabilization to allow for accurate fire on the move was a thing by the mid 1940's.

croaker · « **Reply #122 on:** 13 July 2015, 10:01:48 »

It does seem to be more of an RPG Tie-In element than anything else, but I -would- like to see highly-skilled Aces get the respect they deserve, yes. And for piloting skill to be useful for more than setting the to-hits for physical attacks.

I don't have ATOW handy so this may already be in there as a pilot special ability, but:
"Fire on the Run" - Reduce the movement penalty to gunnery TNs by 1.

And something to allow high-skill pilots to use Evasive Maneuvers more effectively.

massey · « **Reply #123 on:** 13 July 2015, 10:31:02 »

I go back and forth on the "evasion" issue, between wanting it incorporated into the standard game rules and wanting it to be more of an RPG kind of thing.

I like the Special Pilot abilities. I've been thinking the next time I run a Mechwarrior game (which, honestly, is more of an "if" than a "when"), of requiring players to take SPAs as they improve their Gunnery/Piloting. So a guy who is a 4/5 probably doesn't have any SPAs. He's just a normal mech pilot. But a guy who is a 3/4 should either have one already or should be about to learn one. Guys who are a 2/3 should have a few SPAs, and the truly elite elite should be dripping with them. So to get your 1/1 pilot to that level, you'd probably have to buy him like 8 or 9 SPAs on the way. And some of those abilities should be things that increase the defenses of your mech. The "Maneuvering Ace" ability can make it easier to eke out a higher target movement modifier. Having something like "Whack-A-Mole" where you get an extra +1 bonus for terrain, or "Missile Swatter" where you count as having AMS even if you don't have it (and get an extra bonus if you do), or "Arm Block" where with a piloting roll you can choose to take damage from one weapon on your arm instead of wherever they hit -- those type of things could make the really good pilots a pain in the butt to deal with.

Alternatively you might have some game mechanic where really good pilots could choose to raise to-hit rolls for everyone equally. So Badass McGraw (Gunnery 1/Piloting 2) in his Awesome can make a piloting skill roll and choose to give everybody who shoots at him a +4 to hit penalty, on top of every other modifier. He takes the same penalty himself, but he's really good so he can still hit. He'll need 9s and 10s instead of 5s and 6s, but now instead of the other guys needing 8s, they need 12s.

PurpleDragon · « **Reply #124 on:** 13 July 2015, 17:58:45 »

Well, I think not being able to shoot if you evade is a bit much. Makes evading a mute point for me. I think instead of not being able to shoot back, it should be something like +3 or +4 to the to hit TNs of the evading pilot. That way, yeah, you can evade, but those jerky, dodging movements affect your own shots as well.

Karasu · « **Reply #125 on:** 14 July 2015, 03:19:58 »

I'm sure there was an Evade movement mode in one of the optional rulesets at one point. If memory serves correctly it was: Have the MP of walking, the heat of running, +3 for your to hit, an additional +2(?) on anyone shooting at you.

I'm unsure of how balanced that is...

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #126 on:** 14 July 2015, 07:47:19 »

Targetting computers affected by ECM

Vehicle armour must be reduced significantly before you can get the easy critical hits. Unless you roll a 2

Doug Glendower · « **Reply #127 on:** 14 July 2015, 10:36:41 »

There was the idea to make all weapons of a type work the same so, after 3052 all UACs should have an unjam roll akin to the RAC.

TigerShark · « **Reply #128 on:** 14 July 2015, 10:52:58 »

Quote from: Doug Glendower on 14 July 2015, 10:36:41

There was the idea to make all weapons of a type work the same so, after 3052 all UACs should have an unjam roll akin to the RAC.

It still doesn't solve the issue, since an Ultra AC that does not jam, and one that does, both have the same Battle Value. There should either be a removal of jamming or an inclusion of a BV reduction in the calculation for the jam %. I think people would be more comfortable with the latter, but after removing jamming in my campaign, I saw no adverse affects. The UAC simply became a competitive weapon. Gods forbid. :)

A. Lurker · « **Reply #129 on:** 15 July 2015, 12:20:15 »

I just remembered a fairly simple house rule I've actually been reflexively using for a while now: when a quad 'Mech loses a side torso, the corresponding foreleg stays attached because it is after all a leg and not an arm.

Makes quads a little tougher overall and allows them to enjoy the unique benefits of their construction a little longer on average, but I haven't noticed any particularly game-breaking side effects. You still lose a chunk of your firepower with that side when it goes, it's just that you no longer take an automatic fall and mobility hit to go as well. Rather like, you know, those non-quad 'Mechs who don't have that happen to them either...

idea weenie · « **Reply #130 on:** 17 July 2015, 19:01:02 »

From the TRO: 1945 thread, i had an idea:
Alternate tech target movement modifier tables.

For example a low-tech force might use the following table:

Target Movement	TMM
0	0
1-2	+1
3-4	+2
5-6	+3

While a higher-tech (i.e. Clan) force might use:

Target Movement	TMM
0-2	0
3-7	+1
8-15	+2
16+	+3

(A bit excessive, but you should get the idea.)

One piece of tech might be the Movement tracker system. The Inner Sphere version only takes up 1 ton for every 10 tons of weaponry hooked to it. It allows the mounting unit to ignore 1 pt of target movement modifier, and is incompatible with Targeting Computers and Artemis systems. (Targeting Computer for the obvious reasons, and Artemis would require constant dedicated feed from the system as it guides missiles in their flight).

FedComGirl · « **Reply #131 on:** 22 July 2015, 05:08:19 »

I would treat quirks differently. Many of them would have costs and availability ratings. I'd also have two versions built in and add ons. Built in has cost built into the unit, add ons cost more and enough could also force a penalty quirk. This would mostly be for sensor and targeting systems though. Add to many and you've got a cramped cockpit. Or you could have your cockpit factory refurbished and get everything built in for a whole lot more money.

I would bring in any items from older books and update them as necessary. Some like Max Tech's targeting systems could be considered older tech versions. I would allow those that take weight and crits to be mounted any place though.

I would give Rifle Cannons more ammo types. I would also change how Rifle Cannons have their damages reduced. Light Rifle Cannons should do some damage. Everything else does. I'm really tempted to remove the damage reduction completely. Autocannons increased ammo loads and versatility are enough to outclass Rifles and force their wide spread abandonment. Rifle Cannon's weight, damage and range though would be enticing enough to keep them lingering around in specialty shops though.

I would change how Aerospace interact with ground units. I'd convert thrust to cruise MP and have Aerospace units use them for not just for movement in hexes but also vertically by elevation. Like Naval units only faster. Weapons have the same ranges plus elevation. That would apply to all units. Although ground units aren't likely to benefit as much. VTOL and Naval units would benefit from this more. Naval units would also be allowed to drop/fire torpedo bombs. Airships may carry bombs. Ground units can also use the same modes for Active Probes as Fighters. More than one probe may also be used providing they're operating in different modes. (aerospace games would also have rules for 3 dimensions, not just two.)

I'd have actual rules for Hoff's single crit Double Strength "Chemical" Heat sinks that matches the fluff. I'd also make rules for other fluffed items.

Infantry would be revised. Damages on support weapons would be changed to be more accurate to original stats and fluff. Motorized and Mechanized Infantry would be changed to operate more like battle armor with vehicles having actual stats. Field Artillery and Guns would be built as trailers and could include missile and laser weapons. They may be used by other infantry types but not moved and fired in the same turn.

I'd have quirks to make autocannon types more different. Regular, gast guns, gattling guns and the like.

Khymerion · « **Reply #132 on:** 22 July 2015, 09:06:08 »

I think one of the big changes to aerospace I would want to propose is the breaking up of weapons into what I would designate as three major types. As we stand currently, all of our weapons are generically grouped by weapon type, locked to a certain arc, and capped by a single set damage value. This is a terrible hold over from a malfunctioning but beloved earlier game engine that about half of the battlespace rules were cribbed from in the first place... without any of the fun still in it. Since we have slowly sliced more and more of the old Renegade Legion: Leviathan rules out... it is time to dispense with the last few vestiges of those rules that are being maintained out of tradition sake for a 20+ year old dead rule set (that I do love) and change for something more.

As I said, I did say three types.
Type 1: Bays. This is the closest to how we currently know of our warships, massive gun bays that are mounted in our traditional locked arcs. Maintain the traditional damage cap on the bay.

Type 2: Turrets, limited in the number of guns they are able to carry but give an increased arc of fire, to give more versatility to certain weapon systems at the expense of a vastly increased tonnage of the mount in question. There would be two subtypes, Dorsal/Ventral and lets just call it for familiarity sake, sponson or casemate mounts. Lacking the damage cap but instead limited to only having a set number of capital or sub-capital weapons in a turret.

Type 3: Spinal/Co-axial mounts. For we do have Mass Drivers and they still need to be accounted for or any future diabolical weapon/wave motion guns/co-axial super PPCs someone might come up with in the future.

I should toss in a 4th type to cover missiles... we have long come to accept the idea of the VLS rack in modern surface ships and submarines that provide a rather large and versatile range of what can be targeted and hit with a missile, it feels odd that once we go to space, we still mount missile launchers like torpedo tubes in set arcs. Yes, we have optional rules that let us fire missiles out of arc but that should be standard.

This is all just to break the space game away from some of the last pieces of it's defunct corpse of an ancestor's hold on the rules and provide a few more options to make ship designing feel a bit more interesting and less like we are driving giant space pre-dreadnaught ironclads.

TigerShark · « **Reply #133 on:** 22 July 2015, 09:41:49 »

Just remembered this, but there should be different skill charts for different unit types. For example, tracked vees shouldn't be elevating their BV by 15% every time they increase Piloting. They never use it, while a VTOL is in constant use of this skill. 'Mechs are over-charged at 15%, while Aerospace on Ground Maps could actually be under-charged, depending on your POV.

FedComGirl · « **Reply #134 on:** 23 July 2015, 02:13:26 »

Infantry would have more than one range for weapons and more than one attack. They can continue to be grouped by weapon type for ease of game though. No more pocket knifes hitting at 9 hexes and damaging a mech because the next guy has a laser cannon.

Mortars would be artillery area effect weapons. Not as powerful as regular artillery but still better than they are now.

Battle Armor weapons and equipment are available to be mounted on small vehicles under 5 tons. Same with their armor. Cost and availability would keep them in check though along with infantry versions being just as good as was originally printed. Vehicles would need to mount heat sinks per energy weapon per the old Combat Equipment rules.

Aerospace fighters and Aerodyne small craft and dropships can be made amphibious.

Mechs can have cockpits in more than one location, and the old dual cockpit are valid again and tripod cockpits can be used by all. They're just really expensive and rare.

Quad LAMs are legal.

Caedis Animus · « **Reply #135 on:** 30 July 2015, 05:27:15 »

What do you mean, "More than one location"? Do you mean putting a cockpit in say, the right torso? The left leg?

While I agree with the concept of being able to change where the cockpit is more freely, I think it should be mandatory to have all the other associated crits (Life support, sensors) move with it, into said torso. That would keep people from doing stupid weird things like leg-mounted cockpits. Maybe restrict moving the head to torso/head slots only?

massey · « **Reply #136 on:** 30 July 2015, 13:27:46 »

I just figured the "head" of the mech was wherever the cockpit was. Because you've gotta have a way in and out, probably an ejection system as well, and you can't put it too close to the fusion reactor, that's why the "head" only has 3 pts of internal structure and can only carry 9 armor.

Of course that logic doesn't really work with torso-mounted cockpits working the way they do, but it's my own personal explanation for it.

FedComGirl · « **Reply #137 on:** 31 July 2015, 06:26:55 »

Caedis_Animus

I was aiming for the Side Torso. Although legs or arms might be interesting for some of the AutoMechs. :D

What got me wanting to was the original Scorpion and Goliath Mechs. Especially their source material. They have cockpits in the side torso. They also have another in what could be considered a head. The Goliath (Crab Gunner) also has a cockpit in the turret along with an infantry compartment.

As for having all the crits, I agree they should be there but I don't think they must be in the same place. The Torso Cockpit has it's life support crits in each side torso. The Center Torso has the cockpit and additional sensor.

massey

That's pretty much how TPTB and the rules handle it. The head is where the cockpit is, even if its in a side torso, or below the arms or even below the waist of the mech.

More things I'd do is allow the purchase and installation of extra life support and sensor crits. Each weighs .5 tons and takes 1 critical slot. Life Support adds an extra 48 hours of air. The sensors can be just additional redundant systems or for extra c-bills function like a lower tech Improved Sensor Quirk.

Mechs can carry infantry and passengers.

Create rules for the fold out camper used on the Marco Mech.

Allow Steam, Battery, and Solar Powered Mechs.

Vition · « **Reply #138 on:** 20 August 2015, 15:32:33 »

Thing's I would have written differently include TMMs, a couple pieces of equipment, and a portion of the Aerospace Fighter rules.

TMMs
I dislike the idea of units managing to regularly receiving target numbers of 11 or higher with a high portion of that being based on movement modifiers. I would cap TMMs at +4, and spread them out a bit, something like:
0-2 = +0
3-6 = +1
6-10 = +2
11-15 = +3
15+ = +4
Jumping = +1 for moving 15 or less
Now, I recognize this would probably make things a lot easier to hit, and thus severely limit the effectiveness of lighter units, particularly when opposing pilots are skilled up. To counter this somewhat I would include rules for evasive maneuvers. Evasive maneuvers would increase the target number by anywhere from 1 to 3 - choice of the pilot - while also increasing the target number of the unit making evasive maneuvers by a like amount.

Standard movement mods would remain the same, so a unit moving at safe/walking/cruising speed receives +1 penalty to hit, and max/running/etc. receives +2 penalty to hit.

Ideally this would cause a trade-off between being more offensively or defensively oriented for that particular turn, without heavily skewing things in favor of lighter or heavier units.

Equipment
There are only a couple pieces of equipment that I would change, and this is primarily due to the above TMM changes.

Pulse Lasers: Only receive a bonus to hit of -1 rather than -2. The -2 has always felt like too much to me.

TAG: Receives a bonus to hit of -2 at short range, -1 at medium range and +1 at long range, also ranges change to 6/12/21 rather than 5/10/15.

Long Ranges on ballistic and missile based weapons: Increase their long range increment by half the current spread. I'll use a gauss rifle as an example, the current base gauss rifle has a long range of 16-22, a spread of 7, half of that is 4 (rounding normally), and producing a long range of 16-26 in my modification to the rules.

Aerospace Fighters
I would change them to be a little bit more in line with how other units are built and armored, as well as slightly limit their choice of equipment.

Engines are limited to standard engines as normal in the Succession Wars eras, they are limited to lights in Clan Invasion through Jihad and Star League eras, and then in the Republic Era they start to have access to XL engines. In most advanced tech eras engines end up limited to 1 step below the best able to be used in battlemechs (and also light engines end up being developed much, much earlier than in canon).

Add a 5% tonnage internal structure, and when endo-steel becomes available allow it to cut it down to 2.5%.

And finally armor, I've always hated the idea of the "flying brick," armor should be limited to similar amounts as equivalent weight battlemechs.

garhkal · « **Reply #139 on:** 21 August 2015, 00:55:45 »

Quote from: A. Lurker on 15 July 2015, 12:20:15

I just remembered a fairly simple house rule I've actually been reflexively using for a while now: when a quad 'Mech loses a side torso, the corresponding foreleg stays attached because it is after all a leg and not an arm.

Makes quads a little tougher overall and allows them to enjoy the unique benefits of their construction a little longer on average, but I haven't noticed any particularly game-breaking side effects. You still lose a chunk of your firepower with that side when it goes, it's just that you no longer take an automatic fall and mobility hit to go as well. Rather like, you know, those non-quad 'Mechs who don't have that happen to them either...

I like that rule. Treat forelegs as just that LEGS rather than arms.

Daemion · « **Reply #140 on:** 26 August 2015, 09:33:19 »

I have considered, at times, using Aerospace construction and rules for standard ground vehicles. Instead of having 4 or 5 different locations for internals, you have a structural capacity.

One of the things about vehicle movement that struck me as odd was that there was nothing to represent transmission drives. Aerospace movement has that. Applying it to ground to show vehicles getting up to highway speeds makes perfect sense to me.

idea weenie · « **Reply #141 on:** 27 August 2015, 06:57:29 »

Quote from: Daemion on 26 August 2015, 09:33:19

I have considered, at times, using Aerospace construction and rules for standard ground vehicles. Instead of having 4 or 5 different locations for internals, you have a structural capacity.

One of the things about vehicle movement that struck me as odd was that there was nothing to represent transmission drives. Aerospace movement has that. Applying it to ground to show vehicles getting up to highway speeds makes perfect sense to me.

How about:
Running: You must walk before you can run. When moving a number of hexes above your walking modifier, the unit must have walked the prior turn. (This only affects distance traveled, 'running' by using additional power from the engine to cross rough terrain, go up a slop, or punch through a building etc is still freely allowed.)

So if you are in a Locust (walk 8, run 12), and want to go from a standing start through a patch of rough terrain (2 MP cost per hex for a total of 6 hexes), no problem. However if the patch of rough terrain is short enough that the Locust could go 9 hexes in distance (3 rough and 2 clear), the it could only travel 8 hexes, and the rest is explained that you have to get up to speed. Next turn though, the Locust can either walk, run, or stop.

But since this is a specific situation and most units are walking every turn, I see why it wasn't used.

beachhead1985 · « **Reply #142 on:** 27 August 2015, 15:06:48 »

I'm not a fan of the armour limit for vehicles. I'd not have added that.

I'd also make it so you had to burn through some armour before you could start scoring the free critical hits on the location chart.

garhkal · « **Reply #143 on:** 27 August 2015, 16:17:47 »

After getting the question answered, i now wonder what the logic was in NOT letting a mech who is getting Death From Above'ed get to make a physical attack (punch of hatchets) back? I can see why it wouldn't get to kick back, but why not punch or something?

Daemion · « **Reply #144 on:** 27 August 2015, 16:30:27 »

Quote from: idea weenie on 27 August 2015, 06:57:29

How about:
Running: You must walk before you can run. When moving a number of hexes above your walking modifier, the unit must have walked the prior turn. (This only affects distance traveled, 'running' by using additional power from the engine to cross rough terrain, go up a slop, or punch through a building etc is still freely allowed.)

So if you are in a Locust (walk 8, run 12), and want to go from a standing start through a patch of rough terrain (2 MP cost per hex for a total of 6 hexes), no problem. However if the patch of rough terrain is short enough that the Locust could go 9 hexes in distance (3 rough and 2 clear), the it could only travel 8 hexes, and the rest is explained that you have to get up to speed. Next turn though, the Locust can either walk, run, or stop.

But since this is a specific situation and most units are walking every turn, I see why it wasn't used.

They already had that in MaxTech and I bet Tac Ops, and I'm not impressed. Besides, I was only thinking of vehicles. Pedal movement systems I don't see as being effected by inertia so much since walking or running is a matter of controlled falling.

So, I'm passing on that, but for vehicles like the flatbed truck laden down with cargo, it makes sense it should still be able to get to 65 mph even if it's down to a 1/2 cruise/flank movement profile. Hense transmission drive. You accelerate at safe or max and continue to pick up speed the more you spend. If you hit a rise, it subtracts from your velocity unless you account for it by spending 'thrust' or drive.

PurpleDragon · « **Reply #145 on:** 28 August 2015, 00:24:43 »

Quote from: Daemion on 27 August 2015, 16:30:27

They already had that in MaxTech and I bet Tac Ops, and I'm not impressed. Besides, I was only thinking of vehicles. Pedal movement systems I don't see as being effected by inertia so much since walking or running is a matter of controlled falling.

So, I'm passing on that, but for vehicles like the flatbed truck laden down with cargo, it makes sense it should still be able to get to 65 mph even if it's down to a 1/2 cruise/flank movement profile. Hense transmission drive. You accelerate at safe or max and continue to pick up speed the more you spend. If you hit a rise, it subtracts from your velocity unless you account for it by spending 'thrust' or drive.

Hence making it an "aerospace" type movement system? A lot of people won't play aerospace because they don't want to go through the trouble of keeping track of "velocity" on top of using thrust. Actually, there was a little more than that, but still, more complexity = fewer players. Another thing to consider is that these are 10 second turns. I used to drive a bobtail end dump that weighed 12 tons empty and could carry 15 tons legally (probably 20 pushing it). With a legal load on and good pavement, I could get up to 65 within the span of 10 seconds no problem. I actually had the thing doing 50 backwards for one job and could achieve that in 5 seconds.

Daemion · « **Reply #146 on:** 28 August 2015, 11:03:18 »

Quote from: PurpleDragon on 28 August 2015, 00:24:43

Hence making it an "aerospace" type movement system? A lot of people won't play aerospace because they don't want to go through the trouble of keeping track of "velocity" on top of using thrust. Actually, there was a little more than that, but still, more complexity = fewer players. Another thing to consider is that these are 10 second turns. I used to drive a bobtail end dump that weighed 12 tons empty and could carry 15 tons legally (probably 20 pushing it). With a legal load on and good pavement, I could get up to 65 within the span of 10 seconds no problem. I actually had the thing doing 50 backwards for one job and could achieve that in 5 seconds.

1) Yup. I probably would make it a form of alternative technology now, or an advanced rules option at the time.

2) Sure, you could have the bobcat up to 65 in 10, but would it have covered the same amount of ground in that time that you would get with a flat velocity of 65? There's a difference in reaching the speed and covering the same amount of ground while you're accelerating. And 12-15 tons ain't that great of a difference. I'm thinking a 17 ton semi maxed to 40 ton legal road weight limit.

I still would've put it out there, as much as any of you argue against it.

idea weenie · « **Reply #147 on:** 28 August 2015, 17:27:22 »

Quote from: Daemion on 28 August 2015, 11:03:18

1) Yup. I probably would make it a form of alternative technology now, or an advanced rules option at the time.

How about if a vehicle that is loaded can get up to its original speed, but only at a rate of change equal to its current cruising speed per turn? So a 5/8 vehicle getting reduced to 1/2 due to overloading will take ~5 turns to get to its original speed?

However, this is a vehicle that has to drive carefully due to the load, so anything shooting at it gets a +2 or +3 bonus to hitting it. The 5/8 that a normal combat vehicle does also allows for combat maneuvers, but if it gets loaded, it can only do 1/2 with combat maneuvering. If it tries to drive faster, it will be a much more stable (and easier) target.

Again, a limited area where it would apply. It might be true for the first couple turns on a map, then the convoy will slow down and scatter.

Feign · « **Reply #148 on:** 29 August 2015, 18:13:15 »

There are a multitude of changes I would make:
1 dice per roll, having to keep dice paired up slows down any instances of mass rolling without a box o' doom. I've already got hit location and to-hit charts made up for this.
Unify the construction rules for vehicles and mechs... This would probably make me a few enemies, but it would be worth it to have tracked units with mech torsos after all.
Unify the construction rules for dropships and warships with those for Mobile Structures.
Unify the construction rules for Infantry, BA, and Protomechs though things like the MD infantry certainly blur the lines already.

Lastly, make a Custom Weapon Construction rule set, then take the most optimized weapons that the set can create for any given role and make them the canon weapons list.

...At that point though I might as well change the name as well, because the game would be just about unrecognizable.

garhkal · « **Reply #149 on:** 29 August 2015, 22:12:10 »

A vehicle with a mech's torso.. I can finally make that Terminator HK tank!