Author Topic: Battletech: How and What would you change  (Read 36074 times)

Kamov

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 425
  • It's time to end this ones and for all
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #90 on: 21 June 2011, 16:51:13 »
How the hell does that "better reflect the universe"?

XL engined mechs don't cost 2-3 times what their SFE counterparts do, making it inconceivable that a budget office would ever purchase anything but larger quantities of SFE mechs instead of 1/2 the number of mechs but with XL engines.  SFEs have all the advantages as far as ease of construction and maintenance, so lowering the price of XLs only makes purchasing them justifiable based on *less* of an increased cost, but that's important to me just to explain why XL engines are tossed in stuff at will.


Cost scaling on the whole is a stupid idea

Yeah, well, that's like... your opinion, man.
(The above writing is entirely my opinion based upon my own incomplete knowledge of life, the universe, and everything beyond it and should be taken as such although I don't want to tell you what to do, because that's your right and your freedom to choose your own opinions and ablah blah blah legalese etc etc)

Fear Factory

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4070
  • Designing the Enemy
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #91 on: 21 June 2011, 17:54:11 »
I WANNA REPLACE THE PPC'S ON MAH AWESOME!!!!111

Um... sorry PPC's are pretty scarce right now.  You'll have to pay 5x the normal amount for one.  However, there are some really cheap alternatives....

*points to AC/5's*

Yeah, I was cruel.
The conflict is pure - The truth devised - The future secured - The enemy designed
Maj. Isaac "Litany" Van Houten, Lone Wolves, The Former 66th "Litany Against Fear" Company

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12307
  • In the name of Xin Sheng, I will punish you!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #92 on: 21 June 2011, 18:01:12 »
I agree with you, Kamov.  C-Bill costs are long overdue for revision.  As they are, they only amplify the nonsensical nature of FASAnomics.

doulos05

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 666
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #93 on: 21 June 2011, 18:38:55 »
I agree with you, Kamov.  C-Bill costs are long overdue for revision.  As they are, they only amplify the nonsensical nature of FASAnomics.
I propose a new currency, R2. The F-Bill, or FASA-Bill. FASA-Bills are roughly equivalent to current C-Bills, except that their true value fluctuates based on the value of the item being purchased. So, if you're buying a new toaster for your altarkitchen, they approximate the buying power of a US Dollar in 1995. But, if you're buying a new mech, each F-Bill has the approximate buying power of the number of Galactic Credits in Star Wars acquired by the sale of an Imperial Star Destroyer with cloaking device on the black market.

Then, we can simply retcon all previous prices as being in F-Bills and revise the price tables to produce more sensible results.
I mean, it's not like once you having something in low Earth orbit you can stick a gassy astronaut on the outside after Chili Night and fart it anywhere in the solar system.

Psyckosama

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 545
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #94 on: 22 June 2011, 00:11:23 »
XL engined mechs don't cost 2-3 times what their SFE counterparts do, making it inconceivable that a budget office would ever purchase anything but larger quantities of SFE mechs instead of 1/2 the number of mechs but with XL engines.  SFEs have all the advantages as far as ease of construction and maintenance, so lowering the price of XLs only makes purchasing them justifiable based on *less* of an increased cost, but that's important to me just to explain why XL engines are tossed in stuff at will.

New toy syndrome and the willingness to pay out the nose for a marginal increase in ability. It's why Light Engines were created and the perfect example is how the some governments will pay out the nose for otherwise marginal equipment.

Quote
Yeah, well, that's like... your opinion, man.

I was thinking price multiplier actually... for example why does the PPC on a Dropship suddenly cost over 1m Cbills?

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13326
  • I said don't look!
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #95 on: 22 June 2011, 00:39:06 »
Oh one other thing I just thought of.  I'd rework flechette ammo into something that makes sense.  Seriously the current errata still for whatever reason confounds me as to how much damage I actually apply to an infantry unit.  I probably should bump my thread on the matter since I'm thinking about it.

Akalabeth

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1533
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #96 on: 22 June 2011, 01:53:58 »
Aerospace firing arcs.
Make wing arcs relevant. As it is, there is really no justifible reason to put any aerospace weapons in any location except for the nose.

I would also re-integrate the Aerospace rules with battletech. Why aerofighters were given some weird abstraction of their normal firing ranges I'll never know. Why not just keep it all the same??? It's like they couldn't let battlespace die for some reason

Lorcan Nagle

  • 75 tons of heavy metal mayhem
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12206
  • We're back, baby!
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #97 on: 22 June 2011, 02:00:20 »
IIRC Stratops has optional rules for using individual weapon ranges in aerospace combat.
The moderator formerly known as the user formerly known as nenechan

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37922
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #98 on: 22 June 2011, 05:23:59 »
...
I was thinking price multiplier actually... for example why does the PPC on a Dropship suddenly cost over 1m Cbills?
One possible explanation: a PPC on a drop ship is being aimed and fired across kilometers vice 540 meters, and is expected to survive multiple atmospheric reentries.

Demos

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1602
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #99 on: 22 June 2011, 06:03:57 »
XL engined mechs don't cost 2-3 times what their SFE counterparts do, making it inconceivable that a budget office would ever purchase anything but larger quantities of SFE mechs instead of 1/2 the number of mechs but with XL engines.  SFEs have all the advantages as far as ease of construction and maintenance, so lowering the price of XLs only makes purchasing them justifiable based on *less* of an increased cost, but that's important to me just to explain why XL engines are tossed in stuff at will.
+2

I agree with you, Kamov.  C-Bill costs are long overdue for revision.  As they are, they only amplify the nonsensical nature of FASAnomics.
Unforutnatle, then some of the stupid entrys in the TROs must be re-written  ::)
"WoB - Seekers of Serenity, Protectors of Human Purity, Enforcers of Blake's Will!"

MadCapellan

  • Furibunda Scriptorem
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12307
  • In the name of Xin Sheng, I will punish you!
    • Check out the anime I've seen & reviewed!
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #100 on: 22 June 2011, 06:17:41 »
Oh one other thing I just thought of.  I'd rework flechette ammo into something that makes sense.  Seriously the current errata still for whatever reason confounds me as to how much damage I actually apply to an infantry unit.  I probably should bump my thread on the matter since I'm thinking about it.

Last I checked, the errata made it so that autocannons using flechette ammo deal their full damage to infantry, so an AC/10 firing flechette will kill ten troopers, twenty in the open. 

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13326
  • I said don't look!
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #101 on: 22 June 2011, 10:05:00 »
Last I checked, the errata made it so that autocannons using flechette ammo deal their full damage to infantry, so an AC/10 firing flechette will kill ten troopers, twenty in the open. 

Which they could have said in a less confusing manner because the way it is now makes it almost sound like you need to roll on some sort of troopers hit table and then figure out the damage.

Orin J.

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2785
  • I am to feared! Aw, come on guys...
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #102 on: 22 June 2011, 11:18:26 »
XL engined mechs don't cost 2-3 times what their SFE counterparts do, making it inconceivable that a budget office would ever purchase anything but larger quantities of SFE mechs instead of 1/2 the number of mechs but with XL engines.  SFEs have all the advantages as far as ease of construction and maintenance, so lowering the price of XLs only makes purchasing them justifiable based on *less* of an increased cost, but that's important to me just to explain why XL engines are tossed in stuff at will.

historically, haven't militaries usually gone for spending lots of dough on the newest "game-changing" advancement over simply acquiring more "out of date" equipment? even if they end up pumping more money into until it works of they can buy some OTHER new tech to replace it?
The Grey Death Legion? Dead? Gotcha, wake me when it's back.....
--------------------------
Every once in a while things make sense.


Don't let these moments alarm you. They pass.

Kamov

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 425
  • It's time to end this ones and for all
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #103 on: 22 June 2011, 11:28:14 »
No.  There are countless instances of modern weapons programs being cancelled in favor of simply eking more years of use out of current, "good-enough" equipment.
(The above writing is entirely my opinion based upon my own incomplete knowledge of life, the universe, and everything beyond it and should be taken as such although I don't want to tell you what to do, because that's your right and your freedom to choose your own opinions and ablah blah blah legalese etc etc)

Akalabeth

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1533
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #104 on: 22 June 2011, 13:26:49 »
IIRC Stratops has optional rules for using individual weapon ranges in aerospace combat.

Yes, point being they're optional rules (and rules which anyone could have implemented without buying a 60 dollar book).

 Why are the standard tournament rules still weird abstracted values and range brackets? What purpose does that serve?

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13326
  • I said don't look!
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #105 on: 22 June 2011, 14:17:13 »
Another thing I just thought of.  Rework the Line of Sight rules in Tac Ops.  Seriously if I'm reading them right if Greenburg's Godzillas attack Tokyo a defending Infantry unit can call in indirect LRM support from an Archer stationed in San Fransisco.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37922
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #106 on: 22 June 2011, 17:36:22 »
Another thing I just thought of.  Rework the Line of Sight rules in Tac Ops.  Seriously if I'm reading them right if Greenburg's Godzillas attack Tokyo a defending Infantry unit can call in indirect LRM support from an Archer stationed in San Fransisco.
That's one thing I think they lost in simplifying the BattleTechnology Maximum Range rule set: actual detailed maximum ranges for weapons (only lasers are truly LOS).  Of course, that set was 3-5 pages as I recall, and the current rules are less than half a page.

No.  There are countless instances of modern weapons programs being cancelled in favor of simply eking more years of use out of current, "good-enough" equipment.
For some specific examples of this, see: B-52's, EA-6B's, Super Hornets, CH-46's, most US Navy amphibious ships, any "Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)", the M109 Paladin, and what I believe to be the current oldest serving weapon, the M2 Browning machine gun (I'm curious to know if I'm wrong on that one).

Lorcan Nagle

  • 75 tons of heavy metal mayhem
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12206
  • We're back, baby!
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #107 on: 22 June 2011, 18:02:14 »
Yes, point being they're optional rules (and rules which anyone could have implemented without buying a 60 dollar book).

 Why are the standard tournament rules still weird abstracted values and range brackets? What purpose does that serve?

Do you play that many tournament games with aerospace assets that it's an issue?  And you're not buying stratops just for that rule - there's a hell of a lot of useful Aerospace stuff in it, not to mention the maintenance and customisation rules, BattleForce, and QuickStrike
The moderator formerly known as the user formerly known as nenechan

Davout73

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1837
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #108 on: 22 June 2011, 18:15:17 »
The M191 is a little bit older, but not by much.
And then you have the Colt 1911.

I suspect there may be some older weapons out there in use, but their numbers are pretty small.

Davout

That's one thing I think they lost in simplifying the BattleTechnology Maximum Range rule set: actual detailed maximum ranges for weapons (only lasers are truly LOS).  Of course, that set was 3-5 pages as I recall, and the current rules are less than half a page.
For some specific examples of this, see: B-52's, EA-6B's, Super Hornets, CH-46's, most US Navy amphibious ships, any "Service Life Extension Program (SLEP)", the M109 Paladin, and what I believe to be the current oldest serving weapon, the M2 Browning machine gun (I'm curious to know if I'm wrong on that one).
Kiiro no Torii, a Battletech AU, found here:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,7316.0.html
Interview with a Mercenary, found here: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,319.0.html
Every Man Must Be Tempted, a KNT Universe series: https://bg.battletech.com/forums/fan-fiction/every-man-must-be-tempted
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent, because the competent use it when it could do some good."

doulos05

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 666
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #109 on: 22 June 2011, 18:30:12 »
Another thing I just thought of.  Rework the Line of Sight rules in Tac Ops.  Seriously if I'm reading them right if Greenburg's Godzillas attack Tokyo a defending Infantry unit can call in indirect LRM support from an Archer stationed in San Fransisco.
How else can you deal with giant lizards rising from the depths?
I mean, it's not like once you having something in low Earth orbit you can stick a gassy astronaut on the outside after Chili Night and fart it anywhere in the solar system.

Akalabeth

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1533
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #110 on: 22 June 2011, 18:33:43 »
Do you play that many tournament games with aerospace assets that it's an issue?  And you're not buying stratops just for that rule - there's a hell of a lot of useful Aerospace stuff in it, not to mention the maintenance and customisation rules, BattleForce, and QuickStrike

I don't play any tournament games, I just don't understand why they're treated under a different system. I was under the impression from A Time of War that the purpose of that book was to integrate the RPG better to the tabletop, yet even among the tabletop the Aerospace and Battletech rules are on two different wave-lengths.

We've looked at the customization rules and so forth, and for a while the quality rating and other elements were integrated into our campaign but it's since been removed as it was a bit too cumbersome. I'll never play Battleforce, and quick strike I'm not familiar with. I've only looked at bits and pieces of my friend's copy. But if you want to turn this into a book review, then even with TO I found it's filled with a lot of stuff I'll never ever ever use. And a lot of stuff that's more/less been cut and pasted from Max tech which I already own. And some enduring ambiguities despite the public beta test (assuming that happened for TO, not sure).

Lorcan Nagle

  • 75 tons of heavy metal mayhem
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 12206
  • We're back, baby!
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #111 on: 22 June 2011, 18:41:08 »
I don't play any tournament games, I just don't understand why they're treated under a different system. I was under the impression from A Time of War that the purpose of that book was to integrate the RPG better to the tabletop, yet even among the tabletop the Aerospace and Battletech rules are on two different wave-lengths.

I can't speak for the designers, but I'd guess that it was either for simplicity's sake or a legacy rule they didn't need to change.  It has been a part of aerospace rules for some time.

Quote
We've looked at the customization rules and so forth, and for a while the quality rating and other elements were integrated into our campaign but it's since been removed as it was a bit too cumbersome. I'll never play Battleforce, and quick strike I'm not familiar with. I've only looked at bits and pieces of my friend's copy. But if you want to turn this into a book review, then even with TO I found it's filled with a lot of stuff I'll never ever ever use. And a lot of stuff that's more/less been cut and pasted from Max tech which I already own.

That's fair enough.  I'd recommend giving quickstrike a shot because it's a lot of fun, but it uses the BattleForce rules as a baseline so if you don't like them then c'est la vie.

Quote
And some enduring ambiguities despite the public beta test (assuming that happened for TO, not sure).

ATOW was the only core book to get a public beta.
The moderator formerly known as the user formerly known as nenechan

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #112 on: 22 June 2011, 20:37:03 »
*Reduction of Inner Sphere populations by a factor of 100 or so.

This, +1 billion.  By 100 is the perfect number to match military sizes, the ability for planets to be raided, water being important, mechs being rare, jumpships being rare, etc, etc.... basically, 1% of the population would fix a LOT of the stupidity that was fasanomics.

Reasons?  Well the populations of billions are actually over twice what they are on Earth today based on today's growth rate of 1.14%.  However, modern nations are closer to .4% to .5%, meaning the population in 3025 would be about HALF what is listed. 

Basically, most planets should be tens to hundreds of thousands, with only key planets going into the millions.  At current military percentages that gives many planets just a battalion or two, and at most maybe 100 militia regiments, again fitting all the fluff ever published.

Trillions of population simply makes the universe too vast to make your players meaningful.

Ways to reduce populations:
  • Space Travel is bad for you, and apparently decreases fertility considerably
  • Planets are *very* hostile
  • Diseases and plagues from these new worlds are quite common
  • Earth started a population control program (max 1 kid per couple until pop back down to about 5B), after people were just used to not having many kids (1-2 max) and growth rates stayed much lower and in some cases, decreased.
  • The population figures listed for planets were total amount of people who have been through that system, not the population *living* on that system.  Chalk it up to another ComStar error.

If the population isn't fixed, the whole universe is kinda stupid, as it just doesn't make logical sense.

I don't want a discussion about this, feel free to differ, that is just my opinion on the whole universe.

And the game I'm making where you can conquer the inner sphere will have about 1% of the currently published populations, else it'd be stupid too.
« Last Edit: 23 June 2011, 00:27:28 by Bad_Syntax »
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Dread Moores

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2201
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #113 on: 22 June 2011, 22:19:10 »
Basically, most planets should be tens to hundreds of thousands, with only key planets going into the millions.  At current military percentages that gives many planets just a battalion or two, and at most maybe 100 militia regiments, again fitting all the fluff ever published.

If you go that route, what would change to make colonizing that number of planets necessary? Meaning, what changes would you make to motivate people to go colonize another planet when the existing planet only has less than a million in population?

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #114 on: 22 June 2011, 23:44:32 »
If you go that route, what would change to make colonizing that number of planets necessary? Meaning, what changes would you make to motivate people to go colonize another planet when the existing planet only has less than a million in population?

First ones to colonize it rule it.... some rulers suck, so people go elsewhere, many extended families just go out and take over a planet.  Everybody wants to get away from excessive rule.  Plus, at this point, they all go after easy resources (no point in strip mining when a planet 2 jumps away has crap all over the surface).

Also, some people will prefer certain types of planets.  Some love water, some love arctic, some love the jungle, some the desert, everybody is looking for that perfect place to settle, and may have to go to a few planets to find what they want (a "Hawaii" type island is a prime example).

Also, corporations settle too, so in many cases settlements are just corporations taking over a planet for some resource.

Granted, they don't *have* to go to another planet, but when all it takes is a week in the sun at a jump point to go 1 jump farther, many people will do it.  This totally fits within the fluff of why there are so many in the periphery.  Heck, it also explains why there are colonized planets so far out.

On a planet with tens to hundreds of thousands, many of your small communities would actually be able to fit within the concrete on a citytech map.  Why else would we have that mapsheet? :)  Having such small populations also means many planets may only have 1-2 space ports, instead of multiple in every major city.  This means a lot more of an adventuring type universe.  Lets face it, landing on Earth isn't exactly exciting with 7B people and thousands of airports, but landing on say the Moon with 1 base would be.

Lots of reasons ;)
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Psyckosama

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 545
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #115 on: 22 June 2011, 23:46:53 »
No.  There are countless instances of modern weapons programs being cancelled in favor of simply eking more years of use out of current, "good-enough" equipment.

Modern being the key word, as you have to remember we're living in possibly one of the most peaceful periods in the past century. Battletech is more comparable to the Cold War Era in lines of weapons perforation where they were replacing all of the Air Force's Jets with a new model every 5 or so years... and even today you still have massive money holes of dubious value like the V-22 and F-35...
This, +1 billion.  By 100 is the perfect number to match military sizes, the ability for planets to be raided, water being important, mechs being rare, jumpships being rare, etc, etc.... basically, 1% of the population would fix a LOT of the stupidity that was fasanomics.

I can see the value of this idea, though I think that's a bit on the overkill side myself.

Quote
Reasons?  Well the populations of billions are actually over twice what they are on Earth today based on today's growth rate of 1.14%.  However, modern nations are closer to .4% to .5%, meaning the population in 3025 would be about twice what is listed. 

Huh? That isn't entirely clear.

Quote
Basically, most planets should be tens to hundreds of thousands, with only key planets going into the millions.  At current military percentages that gives many planets just a battalion or two, and at most maybe 100 militia regiments, again fitting all the fluff ever published.

Not really large enough to build up an economy. Plus the fact is that militaries on the whole in the setting tend to lack in the makes sense. I'm not disagreeing just right now the average population of the inner sphere is 3 billion per world. 3 million per world is 100 times less and I think its a bit too small.

Quote
Trillions of population simply makes the universe too vast to make your players meaningful.

I agree completely.

Quote
Ways to reduce populations:
  • Space Travel is bad for you, and apparently decreases fertility considerably

Would really negatively affect PCs and other characters who travel... to the point it would kinda break the setting.

Quote
  • Planets are *very* hostile

This I like. It's even made clear that many planets are sub-optimal for human survival, even with basic terraforming.

Quote
  • Diseases and plagues from these new worlds are quite common

Also like. It was one of the main pains in the ass during colonization in the age of exploration. Many died of the local diseases.

Quote
  • Earth started a population control program (max 1 kid per couple until pop back down to about 5B), after people were just used to not having many kids (1-2 max) and growth rates stayed much lower and in some cases, decreased.

Not really. You see when put under ecological pressure the first human instinct is to produce children plus it would be in a colonies best interest to establish a large, stable population base even to the point of importing eggs and sperm to widen the gene pool.

Quote
  • The population figures listed for planets were total amount of people who have been through that system, not the population *living* on that system.  Chalk it up to another ComStar error.

Now that is a bit silly...
If the population isn't fixed, the whole universe is kinda stupid, as it just doesn't make logical sense.

I don't want a discussion about this, feel free to differ, that is just my opinion on the whole universe.

Quote
And the game I'm making where you can conquer the inner sphere will have about 1% of the currently published populations, else it'd be stupid too.

I still think you're going to the point of overkill on this one.
If you go that route, what would change to make colonizing that number of planets necessary? Meaning, what changes would you make to motivate people to go colonize another planet when the existing planet only has less than a million in population?

Human nature and the fact that it's THERE.

Why share a planet with those damned dirty culture/ideology/political party/ethnic group you hate and have to make political compromises and the like in order not to piss off your neighbors when you can just go to that nice unoccupied world a couple jumps away and not have to share space with the untermench next door?

Demos

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1602
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #116 on: 23 June 2011, 00:26:07 »
If you go that route, what would change to make colonizing that number of planets necessary? Meaning, what changes would you make to motivate people to go colonize another planet when the existing planet only has less than a million in population?
Many planets were colonized at the same era, but events (diseases, wars, etc.) reduced the number of populations.
My take:
Due to centuries of savage warfare (AoW, SWs) many planets can't sustain poulations in the dozens of millions, coupled with the fact that Terra is the most fertile planet inthe galaxy *yay*

Also, there is is no large colonization after the fall of the SL - in fact many planets/colonies were scuttled -, so there is no problem of 'no colonization'.
"WoB - Seekers of Serenity, Protectors of Human Purity, Enforcers of Blake's Will!"

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #117 on: 23 June 2011, 00:53:02 »
Well I don't think we can use vicious planets as a reason really, if the planets were hostile enough to wipe out such a huge swath of population, nobody would be leaving Earth.

Instead I think we have to look at birth rates and population control.  Right now the world growth rate is about 1.14%, meaning in 2116 (isn't that the first year of jump drives?) we would have over 30 BILLION people on the planet.  However, the modern nations (EU, US, Australia, etc) have rates closer to .4% or .5%.  With those rates in 2116 the Earth would be about 10.5 BILLION. 

However the Earth really can't sustain that amount of population, even today we have a world wide population issue (about 50 people living in each square km of arable land).  Lets assume sometime between now and 2116, the governments of the world decided that populations were excessive (actually Earth probably decided that!) and there was a movement to reduce birth rates to just 1 child per couple, until the population fell back down to 5B, a more sustainable rate.

The reduced birth rates were for over a generation, so people got used to the idea of only having 1 or 2 children per couple.  This basically got the growth rate down to about 0%.  If people died early, more kids were allowed (lottery).  Many couples chose not to have children at all in fact (my wife and I chose that too).

So 2116 happens, there is a mass exodus.  People start leaving Earth in droves for better places to live.  However the culture of only 1-2 kids per couple hasn't really changed all that much, so when a planet gets colonized by 10K inhabitants, the population tends to hover right around that mark. 

Lets assume that the growth rate stayed around .1%, roughly a quarter of what it is now in modern nations.  Not totally unrealistic, and would represent all the new diseases and dangers of new colonization.  In 3025 the total IS population is about 12B, or about 5 MILLION per world on *average* for 2500 worlds  In 2750 it was about 9.5B, or about 3.8M per 2500 world on average. 

I think that number is still a bit high, but heck the population of Earth today, if split between 2500 worlds, would still be like 2.8M per world!!!

5M per world is roughly the size of Singapore or New Zealand.  I think it is high when looking at it as a single large group of people, but when you scatter those people out into small townships of 50K or less (just large enough to be relatively self-sustainable), your talking 100 communities on the planet.  Have 1-2 large cities of a few hundred thousand for the capital and space port, and the planets become much more manageable.  People within the larger cities pay taxes, and care about who owns them, but all those people across the countryside just live their lives.  Occasionally a mech steps on their home, and they get mad, or a pirate raid lands nearby and steals some of their water supply, but they pretty much don't care who "owns" their planet.

This scenario doesn't involve changing any fluff in the universe except the occasional mention of the planets population.  It makes books like the 2 NAIS 4th Succession War atlases make more sense, makes the military sizes make more sense, heck makes the whole universe make more sense.  Bomb a couple cities on important worlds that were developing a key piece of technology, and sure enough it can be lost, but if all the worlds are freaking huge the techology *would* survive.

I am sticking with this scenario, as it (or one similar) is mandatory in making sense out of the BTU, especially the military operations.

I'd also keep the JS/DS counts at 2500/25000 in 3025, to keep JS more rare than the whole "order of magnitude off" statement in SO does. 

It is far easier to retcon some unimportant populations than to increase the sizes of the militaries by a hundred or thousand to make more sense.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Nebfer

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1398
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #118 on: 23 June 2011, 01:14:26 »
This, +1 billion.  By 100 is the perfect number to match military sizes, the ability for planets to be raided, water being important, mechs being rare, jumpships being rare, etc, etc.... basically, 1% of the population would fix a LOT of the stupidity that was fasanomics.
So would dropping the populations to 1/3rd to 1/5th and tripling the militarys. With current fluff jumpships are not exactly rare in any case.

Quote
Reasons?  Well the populations of billions are actually over twice what they are on Earth today based on today's growth rate of 1.14%.  However, modern nations are closer to .4% to .5%, meaning the population in 3025 would be about twice what is listed. As you can see even at low birth rates B-tech worlds should be decently populated. Not tiny worlds that would have difficulty's maintaining 1940s tech.
Basically, most planets should be tens to hundreds of thousands, with only key planets going into the millions.  At current military percentages that gives many planets just a battalion or two, and at most maybe 100 militia regiments, again fitting all the fluff ever published.[/quote]100 militia regiments would be a small but decent sized military for 1 billion. After all who are these guys fighting? Theirs no one on their world to fight, as most worlds have a single government, and for many worlds the hostile border is 2 to 3 weeks a way at FTL speeds. And it's not likely that we are going to see WW2 era militarys as the cost of a single infantry men is considerably more expensive than it was even 40 years ago.
Quote
Trillions of population simply makes the universe too vast to make your players meaningful.
In what way? 5 guys in a world with a population of 3 million is not very meaningful as well, many games have populations in the trillions range or larger, are they any less meaningful?

Quote
Space Travel is bad for you, and apparently decreases fertility considerably
an idiotic idea, why even travel to other worlds, if FTL travel is detrimental to your health.
Quote
Planets are *very* hostile
Why even colonize the world, when as you put it move one to a better one in a few weeks... Most worlds that we have info one in B-tech are livable but not hostile. Most worlds have reasonably decent food production, not exactly a bread baskets but their not deserts.
Quote
Diseases and plagues from these new worlds are quite common
while likely, it's not going to keep them at bay for long or effect every world as bad. Many pathogens on worlds are likely to have little effect due to incompatibility of their DNA/RNA or what ever they would have.
Quote
Earth started a population control program (max 1 kid per couple until pop back down to about 5B), after people were just used to not having many kids (1-2 max) and growth rates stayed much lower and in some cases, decreased.
dose not jive with human psychology, and can cause some issues...
Quote
The population figures listed for planets were total amount of people who have been through that system, not the population *living* on that system.  Chalk it up to another ComStar error.
this makes little sense.

Also on a world of 3 million you can easily move to an out of the way location, where you and your companions are the only ones around for hundreds of kilometers. Resulting in little reason to move to a new world if you hate some one that much as you can travel for months with out seeing another human being (if the world has a land mas smiler to that of earth theirs only 1 person per 50 square km -the US would have a population of just 200,000).
Worlds are wildly diverse places, chances are theirs plenty of places to suit most people on one.


Quote
If the population isn't fixed, the whole universe is kinda stupid, as it just doesn't make logical sense.
Why is the population the problem? Why not fix the real issue that is the military size is to small?
Basically the only real way to get your ideas to work is to make the human race almost completely incapable of having offspring.

Quote
I don't want a discussion about this, feel free to differ, that is just my opinion on the whole universe.
If you did not want to talk about it then you should not have mentioned it.


Personally I would just drop the population to 1/3rd to 1/5th it's current population and enlarge the military to 3x it's current size, and fluff out that theirs a large supporting apparatus behind these units, medical, maintenance, administrative, training, security and logistical units (after all a single regimental scale battle can use up hundreds of tons of munitions and hundreds of tons of armor replacements). With some 200,000 jumpships, this should reduce the issues to a considerable amount, still not completely realistic but much more reasonable.

It would at the lest give a semblance of a military, though one has to ask, why do you need a huge military? Are they going to fight WW2 sized battles? Possible but not likely given the cost of training and equipping one modern infantry men, that's not likely to change, so a realistic military is not going to be 10s of millions strong per world. Also who are these guys fighting? Most of these worlds have a single world government so theirs no one who directly challenges their way of life. The only real threat is 100+ light years a way and has attacked you once in 500+ years, and that was a minor raid.


DarthRads

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2184
  • Trust me...I'm the Doctor...
Re: Battletech: How and What would you change
« Reply #119 on: 23 June 2011, 02:37:06 »
Solution?

Published figures are for the HEIGHT of the Star League. High population growth encouraged duringt eh initial exodus from Earth. Many worlds are sub-par for habitation, but thanks to SL Tech, these are brought up to standard.

Amaris Coup, SL Civil War, Fall of Star League and Succession Wars causes a HUGE drop in population from civilian casualties and the tech decline as the massive machines that stabalized environments are destroyed and cannot be replaced.