Battletech: What rules would you have written differently?

[Orion]

I would actually be surprised if there weren't already rules for this out there somewhere....I'd like to redo all missile and LB autocannon hits.  No more rolls on the cluster table.  Margin of success of the to-hit roll is indexed to the number that hit.  I'd want range to the target to modify this for the LB autocannon.  I think I'd also want range to modify the number of missiles that hit, but could be talked out of it.

As an optional rule, the LB autocannon must divide the damage into two clusters at short range, 3 at medium range, and 5 at long range.  If it does less damage than that, then each point is rolled separately.  This would simulate the spreading of the sub-munitions nicely.  Optional though, because it is more complicated.

Second optional rule - the LB autocannon gets no bonus at short range, +1 at medium range, and +2 at long range.  Or maybe 0/2/4.  So it gets easier to hit at longer ranges, but the damage is going down. 

I don't like the concept of mech shotguns at all.  Wouldn't bother me at all to remove them from the game entirely.  But if I were to keep them, I'd probably just make LB a type of specialty ammo any autocannon can use.  Not much different from flechette, after all.

[TigerShark]

I'm not shooting down his idea, just trying to figure out what he meant by "accountable".  I also think there's a bit of "the current rules are WRONG" going around in this thread.

Ehh... without going TOO far off topic...

I don't know about wrong/right, but I do know what works/doesn't. The average TT gamer doesn't have the volume necessary to really see how busted a rule is until it's been played a few times. Maybe dozens of times. Case-in-point: C3 and Line-of-Sight rules. Until there were enough DB games played, nobody could have known how over-powered C3 was. Electronic versions discovered this VERY early on, but rules changes were slow to come about. Why? Most likely, the data from Megamek/Mekwars isn't really taken as seriously as TT data from official Agents / playtesters.

So I think there are plenty of rules which should/could change to better the game, but TPTB just aren't willing to move on them yet.

[massey]

Ehh... without going TOO far off topic...

I don't know about wrong/right, but I do know what works/doesn't. The average TT gamer doesn't have the volume necessary to really see how busted a rule is until it's been played a few times. Maybe dozens of times. Case-in-point: C3 and Line-of-Sight rules. Until there were enough DB games played, nobody could have known how over-powered C3 was. Electronic versions discovered this VERY early on, but rules changes were slow to come about. Why? Most likely, the data from Megamek/Mekwars isn't really taken as seriously as TT data from official Agents / playtesters.

So I think there are plenty of rules which should/could change to better the game, but TPTB just aren't willing to move on them yet.

I disagree.  I don't know anyone who didn't recognize C3 as being incredibly nasty when they first laid eyes on it.

[TigerShark]

I disagree.  I don't know anyone who didn't recognize C3 as being incredibly nasty when they first laid eyes on it.

Not just talking 'nasty.' But having a fatal flaw in it. You could hide a spotter inside a building basement, where nobody would ever find it, and still provide Short range bracketing for 5 other units. On a table, you could at least see where the guy was and move forward / flush him out. In double-blind, it was just a permanent zone of death.

That's fine if that's how the rule is intended to work, but I don't think the BV was taking double-blind into account, as it's a TacOps rule. Just as BV doesn't take Rapid Fire MGs into account. So one or the other needed to be fixed.

[Khymerion]

Like the fact that JUST one shot from an AMS is all it take to down the single massive missile?

The 1 shot AMS shoot downs are a good hard counter, it is not a guaranteed chance but it worked plus, as a torpedo, it would actually be less effective than the 'Itano Circus' approach to LRT/SRT spamming since it would only give a single chance at flooding instead of multiple so it is a nice counter.

[monbvol]

It'd have to be Laser AMS as ammunition fed AMS could be problematic...  Unless you made a specialty AMS that used micro torpedoes/rockets as intercepts...

Okay Thunderbolts getting a Torpedo specialty version are fine by me.

As for C3, I've not really been that big of a fan.  In fact I do tend to think it's usefulness is overhyped as I've just had too many games where I never got a bonus for having C3 and many of those included an enemy force that didn't have any ECM at all.

[A. Lurker]

The main big deal with C3 these days is probably its BV cost -- the system itself doesn't really add anything to your force's raw firepower, it just enables you to concentrate what's still there after installing the C3 components in the first place more effectively if you play your cards right. Since Battle Value runs mostly off a "best case" analysis, C3 naturally adds to it under the assumption that every C3 user is a tactical genius who'll somehow manage to contrive optimal working conditions in every single turn (and if it didn't make that assumption it'd simply break the other way as a balancing tool as soon as such a player came along), which can then result in it looking overcosted for what you get out of it for many of us.

Of course, in universe they don't know squat about our little tabletop balance concerns and in fact would probably happily argue that fair fights are for suckers in the first place. There, C3 is pretty much just an electronic teamwork enhancer, and if ECM does happen to temporarily jam your connection you just spit out some colorful invective and keep firing the old-fashioned way until your link comes back on line.

[monbvol]

I'd probably still re-do C3 completely because to me it doesn't make a lot of sense that a unit that is closer but almost certainly with a different angle of attack is feeding another useful targeting data to a degree to make your shots easier, especially since it partially dispels the mythos of Battletech's magic armor being part of the reason weapon ranges are so short.

[TigerShark]

I'd probably still re-do C3 completely because to me it doesn't make a lot of sense that a unit that is closer but almost certainly with a different angle of attack is feeding another useful targeting data to a degree to make your shots easier, especially since it partially dispels the mythos of Battletech's magic armor being part of the reason weapon ranges are so short.

It's not necessarily 'feeding it' the data, but triangulating a position. Distance from firing unit to spotter + spotter to target + firing unit to target.

[TigerShark]

As for C3, I've not really been that big of a fan.  In fact I do tend to think it's usefulness is overhyped as I've just had too many games where I never got a bonus for having C3 and many of those included an enemy force that didn't have any ECM at all.

Unless you're playing on a map big enough to exploit the usefulness, you'll get hammered. Just as in Clan v. IS. You can't use 2x2 map sheets and expect it to function properly. Needs to be 3x3, minimum.

[massey]

Not just talking 'nasty.' But having a fatal flaw in it. You could hide a spotter inside a building basement, where nobody would ever find it, and still provide Short range bracketing for 5 other units. On a table, you could at least see where the guy was and move forward / flush him out. In double-blind, it was just a permanent zone of death.

That's fine if that's how the rule is intended to work, but I don't think the BV was taking double-blind into account, as it's a TacOps rule. Just as BV doesn't take Rapid Fire MGs into account. So one or the other needed to be fixed.

Well, that's a pretty specific set of circumstances.  I honestly don't see that being a problem in anything except Megamek.  The first double blind rules came out in the Tactical Handbook in 1994, which was several years after C3 was introduced.  And honestly during that time it was so complicated that I don't remember anyone using it except for maybe in an RPG setting where there was already a GM. 

In a normal game, where you can see your opponent's mech sheets, it's pretty simple to deduce "hey, that guy is shooting me as if he's 5 hexes away.  He is not 5 hexes away.  The only thing within 5 hexes of me is that building.  Hey, his guys have a C3 computer.  Hmm..."  In a Megamek game it's different because double blind is much easier to play and the to-hit rolls go by a million times faster.  You might not even realize the guy's higher hit chance is because of the C3 unit until you've been pounded for like 7 turns.  But in the regular game, I don't think that is a big issue.

[TigerShark]

Well, that's a pretty specific set of circumstances.  I honestly don't see that being a problem in anything except Megamek.  The first double blind rules came out in the Tactical Handbook in 1994, which was several years after C3 was introduced.  And honestly during that time it was so complicated that I don't remember anyone using it except for maybe in an RPG setting where there was already a GM. 

In a normal game, where you can see your opponent's mech sheets, it's pretty simple to deduce "hey, that guy is shooting me as if he's 5 hexes away.  He is not 5 hexes away.  The only thing within 5 hexes of me is that building.  Hey, his guys have a C3 computer.  Hmm..."  In a Megamek game it's different because double blind is much easier to play and the to-hit rolls go by a million times faster.  You might not even realize the guy's higher hit chance is because of the C3 unit until you've been pounded for like 7 turns.  But in the regular game, I don't think that is a big issue.

It's not that 'specific' set of circumstances at all. All maps, with the exception of those which are wide open, have spots where LOS breaks. There are folks who only play their TT games on the intro boxed set maps. And if you do, then it's pretty easy to guess. But outside of that, especially in Urban, Wooded or Mountain maps... Yeah. Plenty of places a spotter can hide and provide target data from -1 terrain, behind a hill, inside a building, standing in a river that is 2 levels below the terrain, in the middle of a clump of woods, hiding between buildings, inside the nooks/crannies of an industrial map, etc. etc. etc.

And that is VERY common. And FYI - I'd say MM games outnumber table top by exponents. Probably in the tens (if not hundreds) to 1.

[massey]

It's not that 'specific' set of circumstances at all. All maps, with the exception of those which are wide open, have spots where LOS breaks. There are folks who only play their TT games on the intro boxed set maps. And if you do, then it's pretty easy to guess. But outside of that, especially in Urban, Wooded or Mountain maps... Yeah. Plenty of places a spotter can hide and provide target data from -1 terrain, behind a hill, inside a building, standing in a river that is 2 levels below the terrain, in the middle of a clump of woods, hiding between buildings, inside the nooks/crannies of an industrial map, etc. etc. etc.

And that is VERY common. And FYI - I'd say MM games outnumber table top by exponents. Probably in the tens (if not hundreds) to 1.

My point is that in the standard tabletop game, it isn't a problem at all.  The game was written and balanced with that in mind.  Double blind is an optional rule that is almost never utilized on the tabletop.  It is simply too much work.  And on those rare occasions when it is played, it is still relatively easy to figure out where the spotter is because you know the range bracket the opponent is using.

The fact that a computer program came along and made an optional rule very easy to implement does not mean that C3 is imbalanced in anything other than in the computer game with that specific optional rule in place.

Now C3 is very powerful, as I agreed earlier.  In many cases it is too powerful.  But your complaint is really about Megamek, and not Battletech.

[TigerShark]

I would say it's the fact that BattleTech is slowly dying as a result of the bloated, difficult-to-implement rule set and things aren't being play tested. Table top BT is pretty difficult to find. More difficult to find consistently. And even more difficult to find a group which doesn't demand "3025 only."

Gauging the rules by 1980s testing methods doesn't help things move forward. People just flat-out don't play TT as much as the electronic version(s) [questionable whether I'd call MWO a version of BT, but that's another topic]. I don't see a reason to gauge the effectiveness of a rule according to an out-dated mode which is becoming increasingly scarce. Gotta move forward and that's what MegaMek and Alpha Strike attempt to do.

[A. Lurker]

Since a C3 spotter needs line of sight to the target to provide any bonuses, about the only way one could do so and not be detected in turn would be by using the hidden unit rules. Which, incidentally, MegaMek doesn't implement to this day for much the same reason it doesn't have command-detonated minefields (basically, nobody's figured out yet how to make surprise-interrupts in the middle of another player's action work in that context)...

[TigerShark]

Since a C3 spotter needs line of sight to the target to provide any bonuses, about the only way one could do so and not be detected in turn would be by using the hidden unit rules. Which, incidentally, MegaMek doesn't implement to this day for much the same reason it doesn't have command-detonated minefields (basically, nobody's figured out yet how to make surprise-interrupts in the middle of another player's action work in that context)...

Yeah, that's a bit of a puzzle. I'd say that once the movement turn ends for the unit, the player can get a pop-up dialog asking if he wants to detonate any of those fields. If he does, the unit's movement is reset to the place of the mine detonation.

But I can see why it isn't coded.

[Daemion]

I'd probably still re-do C3 completely because to me it doesn't make a lot of sense that a unit that is closer but almost certainly with a different angle of attack is feeding another useful targeting data to a degree to make your shots easier, especially since it partially dispels the mythos of Battletech's magic armor being part of the reason weapon ranges are so short.

Yeah. It only helps in regards to helping overcome ECM, or helping to overwhelm an opponent's defensive movement.

[monbvol]

It's not necessarily 'feeding it' the data, but triangulating a position. Distance from firing unit to spotter + spotter to target + firing unit to target.

With what I know about how fire control computers of even the 1940's working that still is not going to result in the kind of accuracy improvement that C3 gives and still flies in the face of how Battletech armor is supposed to be part of what limits the range of weapons to what we see.

Unless you're playing on a map big enough to exploit the usefulness, you'll get hammered. Just as in Clan v. IS. You can't use 2x2 map sheets and expect it to function properly. Needs to be 3x3, minimum.

I've used C3 under a lot of conditions and honestly even with it's original limitations(where the spotter didn't actually have to have LOS to the target) it has rarely been useful.

I do feel like Alphastrike is the way of the future but I also feel like it has come about 5 years too late to keep Battletech from dying a slow painful death.

MegaMek makes me wish I was a bit better with Java so I could start re-writing more stuff more thoroughly.

[idea weenie]

I imagined mechanized infantry as something like this:
http://www.allrader.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/wuestenterroristen_1.jpg
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews_Files/images13/world/TerroristsTruck_LG.jpg

You pile as many people as you can into/onto the vehicle.  The slower movement rate over a traditional vehicle can represent people jumping on or off of it during the fighting.  The exact number of guys per vehicle, and the exact types of vehicles, would not be precisely defined.  It could be guys in a SWAT team van, in Humvees, Toyota pickups, or potentially even something like big golf carts.  We don't know exactly how many there are because it's not that important to track where each particular infantry guy is riding, whether he's mounted or dismounted, or exactly how many transport vehicles remain.  With all the wide variety of vehicles available in the Inner Sphere, it could be all sorts of things.

So if the vehicle moves at flank on anything other than clear terrain, you roll a D3 for every squad, and that many infantry are mission-killed from bouncing out?   ;D

[TigerShark]

With what I know about how fire control computers of even the 1940's working that still is not going to result in the kind of accuracy improvement that C3 gives and still flies in the face of how Battletech armor is supposed to be part of what limits the range of weapons to what we see.

I've used C3 under a lot of conditions and honestly even with it's original limitations(where the spotter didn't actually have to have LOS to the target) it has rarely been useful.

I do feel like Alphastrike is the way of the future but I also feel like it has come about 5 years too late to keep Battletech from dying a slow painful death.

MegaMek makes me wish I was a bit better with Java so I could start re-writing more stuff more thoroughly.

Not having played you, I don't know if that's a play style issue or if your opponents are just "that" good. But I guarantee I'd make it a nightmare for ya' lol

[Daemion]

Well. Looks like one more thing I'd add would be buildings and terrain.

I've already looked at this once, but I would definitely separate the class of building from how much Construction Factor it's supposed to have. The Class of building is all about how much protection it provides to infantry. The CF is how much tonnage and damage it can support. Always made sense to me that buildings with lots of glass windows as your sole protection against the elements should provide little to no protection from high-grade, futuristic weapons. Heck, lasers should be going right through glass.

Secondly, the whole TARDIS effect for Mechs never made sense. They never mentioned anything of the sort in the old BattleTech Manual Rules. That seems to be something introduced in the BMR.

[nckestrel]

The main thing I would like to have changed, is make better pilots have better defense.  Of some kind.  Dodge, target modifier, something.    Maybe even cap TMM based on skill.  As a game it works as is, as a campaign, elites die too easily.  As in, once they are specifically targeted, not much will stop their impending doom.

[Daemion]

The main thing I would like to have changed, is make better pilots have better defense.  Of some kind.  Dodge, target modifier, something.    Maybe even cap TMM based on skill.  As a game it works as is, as a campaign, elites die too easily.  As in, once they are specifically targeted, not much will stop their impending doom.

One thing I've found is that SPAs really help, especially when one ability is Edge. It's gotten to the point where neither of my groups plays without one guy on each side having a unit moderately decked out with some special ability. And, this would be a good place to put in something to that effect. SPAs are a great way to experiment with things that could normally break the standard rules and make things unbalanced. For example, you normally can't use two hatchets in a single close combat phase. Give a guy an SPA that allows him two, and he comes up with a custom hatchetman wielding two hatchets.

[TigerShark]

Adding Edge as an optional rule in TW would be better than putting it exclusively in AToW. There's a point of diminishing returns when a 5,000 BV unit can be taken out in 1 hit. If that same unit were a 2/2 and got 1 point of Edge per Piloting skill upgrade, it would have 3 re-rolls of head caps. That makes a lot of sense in balancing out the horrible Piloting BV spike.

I have no idea why it's 15% per Piloting level anyhow. Should be 5-8% and it shouldn't be multiplied with Gunnery like it is now. Just makes 3/4 and above a tough sell for bigger units.

[massey]

The main thing I would like to have changed, is make better pilots have better defense.  Of some kind.  Dodge, target modifier, something.    Maybe even cap TMM based on skill.  As a game it works as is, as a campaign, elites die too easily.  As in, once they are specifically targeted, not much will stop their impending doom.

It's funny, I was just thinking about that yesterday.  I like this idea.

[TigerShark]

FYI, We've extensively tested my pilot skill chart, bringing it down from +15% to +10%. Since pilot leveling is 100% voluntary, we're able to gauge this a bit better than in a purely random pilot leveling environment.

I literally had ZERO complaints about 'Mechs being "too cheap" at higher levels. People voluntarily made 4/4 and even 4/3 Assaults (admittedly, the latter were on the faster ones like the CGR- and RMP- series). I saw absolutely no drawback in moving the BV down for piloting, whatsoever. And we're talking around 500+ test games for data over the past two years. This, in combination with eliminating the multiplication system, is surely something which should be pursued and replace the current Skill Chart.

CURRENT
1.2 (Gunnery) * 1.15 (Piloting) = 138% BV for a 3/4

PROPOSED
1.2 (Gunnery) + 1.1 (Piloting) = 130% BV for 3/4

That 8% is pretty huge in terms of game balance and the number of units one could add in, say, Clan v. IS scenarios.

[Meow Liao]

I would also use the same movement modifiers for attack and defense.   One mech moves 30kph and another 180kph yet the effect on their own targeting is the same.  Meanwhile the effect on targeting those mechs is vastly different.  The modifier chart needs to better represent the effort required to pilot a mech at high speeds. 

Meow Liao

[massey]

I would also use the same movement modifiers for attack and defense.   One mech moves 30kph and another 180kph yet the effect on their own targeting is the same.  Meanwhile the effect on targeting those mechs is vastly different.  The modifier chart needs to better represent the effort required to pilot a mech at high speeds. 

Meow Liao

That eliminates half the strategy of the game.

[Khymerion]

That eliminates half the strategy of the game.

And forces new ones to rise.

[A. Lurker]

And forces new ones to rise.

I don't know; seems to me to at least at a glance reward playing TurretTech, which is hardly a "new" strategy at all.