Battletech: How and What would you change

[MadCapellan]

I'd keep them the amount they are personally, just more backwater crap holes. Heck, I'd have it so there are planets (mostly half-abandoned colonies, see the Age of War/Star League Era maps) that while technically are part of a successor state haven't actually seen official visitors for the past 120 years.

The problem with the idea of simply reducing planetary population is that it ignores the impetus for colonization in the first place: overpopulation and resource shortage.  People who live on a world with only 100 million people have no reason to colonize another world, they already can't see their neighbor's house in most instances and couldn't possibly be consuming all of the worlds natural resources unless it was a poor choice for colonization in the first place. 

How many of the worlds on the maps in Battletech have even ever been important?  You could pull worlds like Old Kentucky and Fortymile off the map and no one would even notice, because besides being a circle on the map, they've never affected canon one way or the other.  I'd rather keep population density similar to it is now (sensible), reduce the number of worlds, and expand the number of troops to realistic levels, while using ÃœberTech to keep the BattleMech on top of the heap where normal weapons can't hurt them.

[Psyckosama]

The problem with the idea of simply reducing planetary population is that it ignores the impetus for colonization in the first place: overpopulation and resource shortage.  People who live on a world with only 100 million people have no reason to colonize another world, they already can't see their neighbor's house in most instances and couldn't possibly be consuming all of the worlds natural resources unless it was a poor choice for colonization in the first place. 

Actually I think said neighbors is the exact reason people would colonize a new world. When you don't like someone and space travel is cheap and abundant the simple fact you don't like getting bossed around by the local gov'ment or those damned neighbor kids are playing too much of that darnfangled Rap music is reason enough to move. Often people don't move because they HAVE to but because they WANT to.

How many of the worlds on the maps in Battletech have even ever been important?  You could pull worlds like Old Kentucky and Fortymile off the map and no one would even notice, because besides being a circle on the map, they've never affected canon one way or the other.  I'd rather keep population density similar to it is now (sensible), reduce the number of worlds, and expand the number of troops to realistic levels, while using ÃœberTech to keep the BattleMech on top of the heap where normal weapons can't hurt them.

Which brings up the same point... why not just put the Ubercannons on a TANK.

Seriously this blows the hell out of the setting and most of the best parts of the flavor

[General308]

The problem with the idea of simply reducing planetary population is that it ignores the impetus for colonization in the first place: overpopulation and resource shortage.  People who live on a world with only 100 million people have no reason to colonize another world, they already can't see their neighbor's house in most instances and couldn't possibly be consuming all of the worlds natural resources unless it was a poor choice for colonization in the first place. 

How many of the worlds on the maps in Battletech have even ever been important?  You could pull worlds like Old Kentucky and Fortymile off the map and no one would even notice, because besides being a circle on the map, they've never affected canon one way or the other.  I'd rather keep population density similar to it is now (sensible), reduce the number of worlds, and expand the number of troops to realistic levels, while using ÃœberTech to keep the BattleMech on top of the heap where normal weapons can't hurt them.

I don't think that is why people came from Euorpe to the America's.   So why would those be the reason's in the future?

[MadCapellan]

Actually I think said neighbors is the exact reason people would colonize a new world.

Your missing my point.  If you can't see your neighbors, they aren't a problem.  Only when population density is enough that your neighbors interfere in your life does colonization seem attractive.

Which brings up the same point... why not just put the Ubercannons on a TANK.

They do, they're called Demolishers, which are infinitely better than the 22nd century tank equivalents that occupy most militias.

I don't think that is why people came from Euorpe to the America's.   So why would those be the reason's in the future?

It absolutely was.  The Industrial Revolution put massive numbers of serfs out of work and into debters prisons.  With no land for them to work, no need for them with increasing automation, and the government locking them up, diving into the unknown seemed like a reasonable escape.

[General308]

Your missing my point.  If you can't see your neighbors, they aren't a problem.  Only when population density is enough that your neighbors interfere in your life does colonization seem attractive.

They do, they're called Demolishers, which are infinitely better than the 22nd century tank equivalents that occupy most militias.

It absolutely was.  The Industrial Revolution put massive numbers of serfs out of work and into debters prisons.  With no land for them to work, no need for them with increasing automation, and the government locking them up, diving into the unknown seemed like a reasonable escape.

Which is not an overpopulation or a lack of resourses problem.   It is a lack of oportunity issue.  Which has nothing to do with over population.  People came for new oportunity.  Those reasons wouldn't change which is exactly why a world comes abut with a very low population.  People came fornew oportunitys

[E. Icaza]

The problem with the idea of simply reducing planetary population is that it ignores the impetus for colonization in the first place: overpopulation and resource shortage.  People who live on a world with only 100 million people have no reason to colonize another world, they already can't see their neighbor's house in most instances and couldn't possibly be consuming all of the worlds natural resources unless it was a poor choice for colonization in the first place. 

The horrors of the 1st & 2nd Succession Wars is the primary reason for the reduction of planetary populations.  A world of 4 billion reduced to only being able to sustain 40 million or so when the cities and population centers are bombed...or the machinery that makes the planet habitable by teeming billions ceases to function and the parts are unavailable to fix it and millions or billions die or relocate to another world, with all of the chaos and disruption that brings.

With high-tech society on the edge of destruction, people fall back to subsistence economies, which can't support billions and population numbers level out at what the planet can sustain.  Industry not related to carrying on the Succession Wars languishes, resulting in a huge tech drought.  The next Einstein, Kearney or Fuchida is either toiling away in a ComStar HPG compound, preserving and honoring (but never improving) the sacred technologies of the Star League era...if he's lucky.  Otherwise, his vast potential is wasted as he toils away on a turnip farm on Planet X.

You know...what CBT used to be before it became all "a fusion powered hover-car in every garage" and planetary internets.

[Fear Factory]

You know...what CBT used to be before it became all "a fusion powered hover-car in every garage" and planetary internets.

I miss those days.  BattleTech used to have this retro/space western kind of feel, if that's the right way to put it.  I liked it when Medium BattleMechs used to dominate the field and even lances could overcome planets.  It's way too bulky now.

However, I like all the "new" technology we got.  Fuel Cell, Nuclear...  why not a Fuel Cell vehicle in every garage?

EDIT:  Right now, I call it the "ASSAULT JUMP SNIPER MECHWARRIOR 4 ERA OF BATTLETECH"

[E. Icaza]

However, I like all the "new" technology we got.  Fuel Cell, Nuclear...  why not a Fuel Cell vehicle in every garage?

Sure, fuel cells are fine.  Fusion engines are a different beast altogether. 

[Sandslice]

I miss those days.  BattleTech used to have this retro/space western kind of feel, if that's the right way to put it.  I liked it when Medium BattleMechs used to dominate the field and even lances could overcome planets.  It's way too bulky now.

However, I like all the "new" technology we got.  Fuel Cell, Nuclear...  why not a Fuel Cell vehicle in every garage?

EDIT:  Right now, I call it the "ASSAULT JUMP SNIPER MECHWARRIOR 4 ERA OF BATTLETECH"

The inevitable result of expanding options in all things 'MechTech is this sprawl in what's available.  It could explain why I'm somewhat Level 1 nostalgic.  'Mechs as "THE Heavy Cavalry" in a world of future tanks, choppas, and other CAS elements?  Definitely.  'Mechs as the unwieldy katana* of mighty samurai, as steely horses ridden by 30th century knights, as something almost too valuable to risk losing in battle?  Yep yep.  'Mechs as mainline battle units, and anti-'Mech infantry training still being quite rare?  Everything I know about the evolution of military tactics and training says no --- the horseman enjoyed dominance but was countered; the battleship, the tank, the fighter jet, all have counters.  And any army wishing to be considered viable learns and deploys the counters.

If 'Mechs are rare, maybe preparing for the unlikely isn't worth it for most people, which is part of the 'Mech's ability to conquer worlds with only a company or two.  If 'Mechs are common, then only sheer stupidity (or maybe politicking - which happened in the history of medieval archery) stops anti-'Mech infantry from being common.

*Not my phrase, but something I remember from the fluff in the Gray Death Legion scenario pack, which (even before the core rules) was my intro to BT.  Sadly, it's been almost 25 years and I don't still have that book.  :<  Specifically, "unwieldy katana" is how Koga described his Archer before a mirror duel.

[Nebfer]

How many of the worlds on the maps in Battletech have even ever been important?  You could pull worlds like Old Kentucky and Fortymile off the map and no one would even notice, because besides being a circle on the map, they've never affected canon one way or the other.  I'd rather keep population density similar to it is now (sensible), reduce the number of worlds, and expand the number of troops to realistic levels, while using ÃœberTech to keep the BattleMech on top of the heap where normal weapons can't hurt them.

Interesting to note the B-tech RPG 1st edition has this.
House Davion has about 110 worlds
House Steiner has around 90 worlds
House Laio has less than 40 worlds
House Kurita has approximately 100 worlds
House Marik has 110 worlds


Edit:
I do not recall any world being taken by a single lance of mechs, company's perhaps if their lucky, typical its been battalion or larger that have taken worlds. Just look at the 4th succession war, almost all of the actions involved at lest one mech regiment and support.

[doulos05]

Interesting to note the B-tech RPG 1st edition has this.
House Davion has about 110 worlds
House Steiner has around 90 worlds
House Laio has less than 40 worlds
House Kurita has approximately 100 worlds
House Marik has 110 worlds


Edit:
I do not recall any world being taken by a single lance of mechs, company's perhaps if their lucky, typical its been battalion or larger that have taken worlds. Just look at the 4th succession war, almost all of the actions involved at lest one mech regiment and support.

True, but the 4th Succession War is also presented as an aberration compared to the previous 2 centuries of warfare, and the novels explicitly have a company of pirates capturing and subduing a world.

[MadCapellan]

Which is not an overpopulation or a lack of resourses problem.   It is a lack of oportunity issue. 

If the land you live in can't provide all of it's inhabitants with a means to feed and clothe themselves, then it's overpopulated.  The point at which land becomes overpopulated can very overtime based upon technology and productivity levels.  The simple fact remains that those people moved because their position was untenable, not because "Hey, I wonder what's over there?"

[Sockmonkey]

Disengaging the field inhibitors isn't good enough.  What's the explaination for the ERPPC not having them and the standard having them?  To my knowledge they haven't explained this in canon.  Once that's been done, then I'll be satisfied.  What's to stop them retroengineering the tech that takes away the minimum for ER models to the standard?

IIRC the "field inhibitors" didn't prevent feedback, they restricted aiming and firing so you could only make shots where feedback wouldn't happen. Thus the penalty at short range where you need to aim faster.
The erppc supposedly is built to handle more power being fed into whatever mechanism focuses and contains the beam. This would prevent feedback but more power means more heat. The extended range is a byproduct of better beam containment.
The snub uses an even smaller beam contaiment mechanism than a standard PPC, thus accounting for it's lower weight, but the containment is concentrated in close in rather than extending along the full length of the beam. So you get no extra heat but the beam starts falling apart before it gets very far.
Did they ever get around to making ER heavy and light PPCS? Or heavy and light snubs? Or are those still in the realm of house rules? I know there are some fan-made stats for them floating around out there but did any of that make it into semi-cannon?

[PeripheryPirate]

Did they ever get around to making ER heavy and light PPCS? Or heavy and light snubs? Or are those still in the realm of house rules? I know there are some fan-made stats for them floating around out there but did any of that make it into semi-cannon?

Nope, just autocannon.

[Daemion]

Ben Rome killed the Wolf's Dragoons a long time ago

But, not completely. They'll make a [temporary?] return in the Dark Age. Same with the Hounds.

6. Ferro-fibrous armour, endo-steel count and empty slots count as valid locations for an internal hit and need not be re-rolled.
Reason: to again reduce number of times dice need to be rolled and therefore speed up the game.

While I like the idea of ballistic protection, I will point out that critical hit res rolls are actually quite linear in nature and not curved like the standard to-hits and location charts. Because they're linear, if you need, you can resolve crits quite easily by using [gasp] role-playing dice. a d4 will handle that arm that has nothing but the actuators, and hand, or a basic leg with nothing else in it.  When a location suffers crits, start moving down the dice sizes, using a top-down numbering pattern, skipping any damaged or non-vital crit items. Need a d3? Roll a d6 and cut the result in half, rounding up. D5? same with a d10. We do this and it has sped up crit resolution quite handily.



Now. Moving on. Something somebody said about certain unit performances reminded me of something I'm planning at home:

fixing the arcs for those side lasers on the Galleon!

Every piece of art, some quite recent, show the lasers firing where? The front! Yet the rules don't back that up. I honestly never did quite like the rules for side weapons on vehicles. The simplest fix would probably to give them a 180 field of fire.

That will be an early run. (The GAL seen on the cover of Combat Operations is a WoB holdover of this model.)

Then as the succession wars carry on, and stuff degrades, the Galleon also suffers. The side lasers lose their capacity for the full field of fire, resulting in the common GAL-100 we're all familiar with. Yeah, that pose for the lasers in the old TR '25? That's the resting position. The don't drop forward, but instead drop back and can swivel out, thus the limited arcs we know about. This is actually a compromise at the factory level when the full 180 capacity was lost.

Crews that inherited old Galleons may or may not have an original. With replacement parts not available, some technicians have played with reorienting the weapons mount, putting the limited arc into the front where they overlap. This isn't supported, and as a customization is pretty limited. However, it is assumed that whenever a depiction shows a Galleon firing forward, if it isn't one of the vintage models, it is one of these modified versions.

Just something small that bothered me. If I were to fix BT, the 180 degree side arcs would be an advanced option or construction option I'd throw in if they haven't already.

[Nebfer]

Now. Moving on. Something somebody said about certain unit performances reminded me of something I'm planning at home:

fixing the arcs for those side lasers on the Galleon!

Every piece of art, some quite recent, show the lasers firing where? The front! Yet the rules don't back that up. I honestly never did quite like the rules for side weapons on vehicles. The simplest fix would probably to give them a 180 field of fire.

That will be an early run. (The GAL seen on the cover of Combat Operations is a WoB holdover of this model.)

Then as the succession wars carry on, and stuff degrades, the Galleon also suffers. The side lasers lose their capacity for the full field of fire, resulting in the common GAL-100 we're all familiar with. Yeah, that pose for the lasers in the old TR '25? That's the resting position. The don't drop forward, but instead drop back and can swivel out, thus the limited arcs we know about. This is actually a compromise at the factory level when the full 180 capacity was lost.

Crews that inherited old Galleons may or may not have an original. With replacement parts not available, some technicians have played with reorienting the weapons mount, putting the limited arc into the front where they overlap. This isn't supported, and as a customization is pretty limited. However, it is assumed that whenever a depiction shows a Galleon firing forward, if it isn't one of the vintage models, it is one of these modified versions.

Just something small that bothered me. If I were to fix BT, the 180 degree side arcs would be an advanced option or construction option I'd throw in if they haven't already.

Theirs two things available that changes that, Regular rules have them firing mostly to the rear hexside. Tac ops have them firing to the two side hexsides (much better). Tac ops also has sponsons what provide an 180 degree arc.

True, but the 4th Succession War is also presented as an aberration compared to the previous 2 centuries of warfare, and the novels explicitly have a company of pirates capturing and subduing a world.

War of 3039? regimental, Clan invasion?, Fed com civil war? all regimental ops, practically every significant planetary action done to date has involved battalion sized b-mech forces or larger.
If company sized invasions where the norm then they should be the norm not battalions or regiments.

[Paint it Pink]

How would you explain killing 90% of the IS population then?

Accountancy error...

Or, falls in the populations have been on the rise over the last three centuries and no-one has really kept track of the real numbers...

Or, mass starvation, disease and pestilence from the Jihad...

Whatever works really.

[monbvol]

War of 3039? regimental, Clan invasion?, Fed com civil war? all regimental ops, practically every significant planetary action done to date has involved battalion sized b-mech forces or larger.
If company sized invasions where the norm then they should be the norm not battalions or regiments.

The problem is all those instances are post 4th Succession War.  In other worlds after Hanse decided he didn't want to play by the rules that all the Houses had been playing by for the last couple of Centuries.  Everybody else decided they'd rather get with the program or risk being swallowed piece by piece.

[Nebfer]

The problem is all those instances are post 4th Succession War.  In other worlds after Hanse decided he didn't want to play by the rules that all the Houses had been playing by for the last couple of Centuries.  Everybody else decided they'd rather get with the program or risk being swallowed piece by piece.

Or in other words the time for small military's was ending by the time the game began. And that the small scale operations was only an artifact of the 3rd succession war, and not a fact of life of B-tech history before and after that time frame.

So why should we really base the militarys and what naught on a artifact of a war we are not even set in when the game starts and is starting on it's way out when we are placed in the game?

Should the militarys be smaller in 3025? yes and they where smaller in 3025. IIRC most houses only had about 40 to 70 regiments at that time frame, compared to the 50 to 100 regiments 25 years later and ~70-80 regiments some 35 years later.

It's not like any ones really saying that we should throw that element out and have 2,500+ battlemech regiments per house in 3025.

~150 to 220 regiments in 3025 is not a huge increase in any case. It's still small enough that a company is still useful and a battalion would still be a significant force.

[monbvol]

For most of us newer players that's certainly true.  The game has been moving forward for quite some time and things have been changing.

[DarthRads]

I think I've posted this before, but in the SLSB on page...68 there is a section on Alexandr Kerensky where it says the following:

During a routine physical, Alexandr learned that he had a keenly responsive nervous system that could easily adapt to the strains of being a mechwarrior

I think this should be used as a way to explain smaller numbers of mechs (increase conventional units of course, maybe 10x the current levels) in that you need to have an 'advanced nervous system' to get the thing to work properly. Only very small (fraction) ofa % of the populatuion has this. This thing is genetic trait is hereditary, giving rise to the 'Noble' mechwarriors. The bulk of the popualtion carrying the trait were in th SLDF and disapeared in the Exodus.

[doulos05]

Or in other words the time for small military's was ending by the time the game began. And that the small scale operations was only an artifact of the 3rd succession war, and not a fact of life of B-tech history before and after that time frame.

So why should we really base the militarys and what naught on a artifact of a war we are not even set in when the game starts and is starting on it's way out when we are placed in the game?

Should the militarys be smaller in 3025? yes and they where smaller in 3025. IIRC most houses only had about 40 to 70 regiments at that time frame, compared to the 50 to 100 regiments 25 years later and ~70-80 regiments some 35 years later.

It's not like any ones really saying that we should throw that element out and have 2,500+ battlemech regiments per house in 3025.

~150 to 220 regiments in 3025 is not a huge increase in any case. It's still small enough that a company is still useful and a battalion would still be a significant force.

Monvbol already pointed out the chronological point, so I'll answer this.

I still think the number of mechs available should be smaller, not larger. But honestly, the RetroTech setting described by the poster, with hordes of militia armed with rifles that are as combat-effective against a Battlemech as a modern M16 is against a T-90. Inflate the jumpship/dropship figures to carry your new massive armies and go to town!

I'm invading your planet, defended by 120 Militia Corps of 3 Divisions each (2 Armored, equipped with tanks capable of 1 BT damage/turn if lucky, 1 infantry that would be unable to chip the paint), and a mixed regiment of real tanks and PA/L suits supported by a company of mechs. I'm bringing roughly 3 times that (because I'm a smart attacker). Let's have at it. That could make for some truly fun and massive strategic battles and some desperate last stands too. "Ok, my militia infantry are going to use their one-shot LAWs. If they hit, they should do just enough damage to allow my T-90 equivalents to actually scare your Wasp instead of just annoying it."

[jklantern]

Here's a small, stupid one.  Make the LYRANS the producer of the Charger, as it seems like something they would've come up with, give the Draconis Combine something else.

[doulos05]

Here's a small, stupid one.  Make the LYRANS the producer of the Charger, as it seems like something they would've come up with, give the Draconis Combine something else.

The Charger is much to fast to be a Lyran scout, it would outdistance the main force of up-gunned Banshees and Atlases too quickly. That's why we favor the Zeus instead for our scouting needs.

[TigerShark]

The Clans. Gone. Replaced by the SLDF-in-Exile.

The Clans make NO sense in reality or fiction and their very existence is a McGuffin to keep the story moving. Here's the premise of the Clans:

"I'm tired of factionalism in the Pentagon worlds! There's too much in-fighting. I'm going to make these 5 factions into 20 factions! That should stop it!" <---  :D

[Jellico]

Reading Klondike would tell you why you don't want SLDF in Exile. Those guys were nuke happy to a degree to give a Tauran pause.

[TigerShark]

Reading Klondike would tell you why you don't want SLDF in Exile. Those guys were nuke happy to a degree to give a Tauran pause.

I'm fine with that, as long as it's a more realistic scenario than 20 silly Clans with totem animals refusing to cuss and pretending combat is a jousting competition. No thanks.

[Kamov]

I would change the currently useless cost tables so that they actually reflected the state of the universe.  Biggest item:  XL (and Light) engines would no longer be so much more expensive than standard fusion so as to make standard fusion engines the only realistic choice.  Maybe a 10-20% markup for XL, but definitely not 4xSFE.  Also costs for large spacecraft would be scaled according to tonnage, just like the conventional ground equipment.

[Psyckosama]

I would change the currently useless cost tables so that they actually reflected the state of the universe.  Biggest item:  XL (and Light) engines would no longer be so much more expensive than standard fusion so as to make standard fusion engines the only realistic choice.  Maybe a 10-20% markup for XL, but definitely not 4xSFE.

How the hell does that "better reflect the universe"?

 [/quote]Also costs for large spacecraft would be scaled according to tonnage, just like the conventional ground equipment.
[/quote]

Cost scaling on the whole is a stupid idea

[Fear Factory]

Cost scaling on the whole is a stupid idea

I've done it in my campaigns.