Time for a Battletech Revamping?

[Mostro Joe]

The "new" core rulebooks are out there with great "vintage" covers that I really like.
But, after this iteration, it is perhaps time for a revamping of the rules?
In my humble opinion there are things that could be reviewed, expecially in the advanced books. I put here a few exemples:
- The Combat Operations rules, folded in the Strategic Operations book if I'm not wrong, have a lot of problems. I hoped that, when taken from Combat Operations, they could had had a revision but it's not happened and the copy/paste editing kept the issues.
- The mechanized infantry introduced with TW should be removed. It is a redundant kind of infantry, we having yet the motorized infantry and APC vehicles of any sort in almost every TRO. So we shoud get rid of the APCs or we should get rid of the mechanized infantry. Or we should get rid of the motirized kind of infantry because it seems there is a lot of confusion between mechanized and motorized infantry, even in some TROs. It should have been easier to make different kinds of motorized infantry, like motorized infantry (hover) or motorized infantry (VTOL) instead of making strange mechanized versions like the "Hachiman Taro Enterprise Extraction Force " or the "Cavalry Point, Sixty-seventh BattleMech Cluster, Iota Galaxy" that does not seem "mechanized" at all.
Also, it could be ridicoulus to have some "matrioska" infantry, like mechanized infantry on tracked vehicles that get down from the ramp of a Bulldog tank for an exemple.
- the infantry construction rules have problems in some odd details. Like having rules for units in "swimsuits" or putting hand grenades in the "support weapons" field. It could have been better, for an exemple, to just factorize grenades in a bonus for infantry close combats (logical in a 6mm scale). Or to create a "physical attack phase" for infantry platoons that would go in melee, something like the good assault rules for boarding marines in space that we see in the Tactical Operations book. A lot of weapons in the infantry construction rules, the vast majority of them, will never be used under the actual rules.
- I don't feel the Campaign Operations book has the same appeal and clearness of the really good Mercenary handbook, but perhaps here it's just me. ALso, some mission reamin difficult to set up without some added advice (Covert operations? Riot control? It is not an answer to just say "roleplay it" if the gaming group wants just a Battletech scenario).
- A Time of War should be scrapped in favor of something more rules-light (without being it too "simplicistic"). Yes I know there is Destiny now, and it is a good product, but AToW is still in the core rulebook series, Destiny is not.

What would you like to see streamlined, changed or absolutely scrapped?

[Elmoth]

Movement please. Simplify movement tenfold. In both AS and core book the ammount of little nitpick rules is unnecessary and slows game down a lot. At least in my experience.And it could be worded in English instead of Excel. That would be good as well.

And as they are not really relevant to 99.9% of engagements and the setting anymore besides narrative color, I would simply scrap the overheat rules. It would also simplifuy things and need to track stuff. In 3025 it is mildly relevant. For later eras not so much. Yes, i know I will be alone in this one.

[SteelRaven]

Alpha Strike already exists, let's stop beating the dead horse named 'I want the same thing but different!"

[Aotrs Commander]

If I'm brutally honest, it you get rid of the nuts and bolts of the rules (like the heat) there wouldn't be any point in playing BattleTech, I'd just use the models and play something entirely different. Without the nuts-and-bolts, as a system, BT doesn't have anything to inherently recommend it.

(It is, granted, more thorough that many wargames rules, through sheer dint of longevity, I'll grant you, but so is Advanced Squad Leader - and you can do thorough without mechanical complexity.)



Of course, the other alternative is simply to write your own houserules, which is is what I did (for BattleTech and literallty every single other set of rules I've ever bought and used in anger); in BT's case, basically keeping the nuts-and-bolts of the shooting and damage system, but changing the round-sequence entirely (and not using a hex-map) and how movement works a little bit. There is never a need to take any set of rules as gospel except in the very specific case of a competition/event run by that game's makers. Take the bits you like, ditch the rest. It's no different to using a mod, on a computer game (except I was doing it before mods were a thing...)

There's nothing stopping you, OP, from just ignoring those rules you don't like.

[Mecha82]

Alpha Strike already exists, let's stop beating the dead horse named 'I want the same thing but different!"

Very much this. Alpha Strike exists for a reason so people that want simpler BT can just play it instead of CBT. 

[ActionButler]

Do I think the rules need to be freshened up for the 21st Century? Yes.

Do I also think that there is a reason that Battletech has kept chugging along for decades where other games have disappeared? Also yes.

The more I struggle with modernizing the game, the more I agree with the side that says, “just use Alpha Strike”. Alpha Strike IS the modern version of Battletech. It’s fast, it’s efficient, it keeps the feel of the parent game, and it just works. Have I adjusted some of the rules here and there? Yes, but that me. I can’t help but fiddle with a system.

[Atlas3060]

- I don't feel the Campaign Operations book has the same appeal and clearness of the really good Mercenary handbook, but perhaps here it's just me. ALso, some mission reamin difficult to set up without some added advice (Covert operations? Riot control? It is not an answer to just say "roleplay it" if the gaming group wants just a Battletech scenario).

I hate to be the one that says this, but the only advice I can think of is "Not every one of these is going to be TW/AS compatible so adjust expectations".
Covert ops? Okay sure there might be some Breakout missions or Recon scenarios you can do, but honestly the big exciting chunk is going to be you roleplaying it in something like AToW.

Riot Control? Unless your plan is to kill the mobs or shoot tear gas SRMs, see my earlier point about AToW (or name your favorite other edition or RPG system)

The Merc books and the Campaign Operations book always love to list off those contract types, which is great. However if players keep going into a book or section about Campaign level thinking and assume all of it would be just Mech fighting scaled compatible, time to rethink that idea as a player.

On the other side though it's a waste of time from a writer's perspective to say "This is for Mechs, this is for RPG, etc" because some mad lad or lass will make it work for them and more power to you there.

- A Time of War should be scrapped in favor of something more rules-light (without being it too "simplicistic"). Yes I know there is Destiny now, and it is a good product, but AToW is still in the core rulebook series, Destiny is not.

What would you like to see streamlined, changed or absolutely scrapped?

At this point I'll agree to disagree. AToW already feels "rules light" as it is compared to when I first showed up reading on 3rd edition and then backtracking to 2nd realizing there's limitations on the older edition just due to stuff no longer being printed for it. Destiny may be fine for others, but for me it's just not viable to hold my interest.

In a way I see Destiny as the "Alpha Strike" of the RPG spectrum compared to AToW. Besides if anything AToW should be in the core rulebook series while Destiny is not. Rules wise there's not enough there, in my opinion, to justify Destiny taking that center stage (albeit a tiny stage because RPGs aren't the biggest focus for this title and I understand that sadly).

As some others have said, I appreciate the way CGL is handling "streamlining" now. Let's face it sometimes making things "lighter" or "smoother" will just water down a game's unique flavor and sometimes it will renew a populace. There's good and bad to each attempt, but lately I've seen quite a number of titles just go full bore into a version and if you liked the other then oh well.

With how Battletech is now, if things look too complex in TW you have Alpha Strike. Both kinds of players have a home.

[Dahmin_Toran]

For me since I have been running more larger, narrative campaigns, I have been using Alpha Strike more often, where each player takes a lance and plays on larger hexless maps with terrain. It looks so purty! For a more detailed (RPG-like) experience, I use Total Warfare where each player takes a single Mech. We have been playing Alpha Strike more often since we like the larger battles and tactics play a little more prominence.

[Sartris]

a tradition unlike any other - the annual fix battletech thread

realistically this is another "here's the game system i'd rather be playing" discussion. the rules aren't going anywhere - too much time and too many resources have been put into the current ruleset from BMM to the boxes to the revisions of the tail end books like SO and CO.

i've tried myself to "fix" the base game a half dozen different times - but the result either wasn't battletech or wasn't any fun. fear factory and abou made an honest, play-tested effort to revise the game down in the fan rules section. it's the best effort i've seen. i've yet to try MW: Destiny's combat, but that's also an option.

actionbutler and i have both independently tried CBT movement with AS attacks and mods with good results.

[plastic_slug]

Sorry, while Alpha Strike may be faster and more efficient, it feels nothing like Battletech. At all. ‘I do four circles of damage. Your mech is dead. Next.’ 

[Aotrs Commander]

actionbutler and i have both independently tried CBT movement with AS attacks and mods with good results.

Not sure what the abbreivations are...?

(Card-based turns and asynchronus...?)

[ActionButler]

AToW already feels "rules light" as it is compared to when I first showed up reading on 3rd edition and then backtracking to 2nd realizing there's limitations on the older edition just due to stuff no longer being printed for it. Destiny may be fine for others, but for me it's just not viable to hold my interest.

Personally, my only real gripe with AToW is character creation. Make that easier and I'm on-board.

actionbutler and i have both independently tried CBT movement with AS attacks and mods with good results.

Can confirm. There's a lot of intriguing possibilities to be had by merging systems, but not a ton of successes. Like Sartris, I've taken many stabs at "fixing" traditional Battletech using a combination of internal and external rules and systems and it just never works out right. I'm still interested in gluing together Alpha Strike's movement and weapons with Destiny's armor grid because it would keep the classic element of hit locations (Sartis, I think you called Alpha Destiny on that mockup you made) but my gut instinct is that it was just feel like smaller Battletech and not "fixed" Battletech.

Sorry, while Alpha Strike may be faster and more efficient, it feels nothing like Battletech. At all. ‘I do four circles of damage. Your mech is dead. Next.’ 

I mean... unless the armor and structure pips on your record sheets are squares, that is exactly the core of Battletech. Classic Battletech has a lot more circles and puts them in different places, but it still basically comes down to inflicting enough circles of damage to stop the other guy from doing the same to you.

Not sure what the abbreivations are...?

(Card-based turns and asynchronus...?)

CBT = Classic Battletech

AS= Alpha Strike

[Aotrs Commander]

CBT = Classic Battletech

AS= Alpha Strike

GUH! Of course it is, I even know that! So obvious, I just wasn't even thinking in that context.



I don't know how Alpha Strike does it, but what I'm using is (and I won't go into much detail, because not the fan rules forum) a unit-by-unit activation system (so unit moves/fires, then enemy unit moves/fires, side with least number of units can force the otherside to activate until they have even numbers). Movement is a little different, since you can in theory get to move twice (but only you last movement counts for shooting numbers), but as you have to use an action to change speed, which means if you are forced to move, you can't stop. (This is pilfered from a set of rules called Maneuver Group.) But I have fundementally left the hit/damage system alone (tweaked to-hit a bit, upped damage on AC 2 through 10), since that is the aforementioned nuts-and-bolts of BT that makes it BT as far as I'm concerned. (Because reactions are a thing (such as when someone moves into sight), it means that it started to play in terms of tactics, almost more like X-Com-y in terms of the tactical decision-making (manuvering to see who is forced to start the overwatch chain), which is the bit which is the most interesting of any wargame, shooting and flavour aside.)

(I half intended to do a write-up of the stuff I'm doing with that for, like, the fan-forums and stuff (even took pictures of the... one and only game I've played since lockdown, along with notes), but just at the moment, it seems like a lot of effort that (on 2020's current level of function) likely wouldn't get much interest.)

[monbvol]

For me I do take the Battlemech Manual as a sign that TPB are at least willing to clean up the rules to be a bit less wordy and have fewer odd interactions.

Which I support wholeheartedly.

I used to want more drastic changes as well but I long ago realized it would almost certainly kill Battletech to make a lot of the changes I would have liked to see.

AToW yeah it needs some work but I agree the biggest problem with how it is now is life module character creation.  There are a couple other things I'd change to make certain other things more relevant and I'd re-work a few of the traits.

[Atlas3060]

Personally, my only real gripe with AToW is character creation. Make that easier and I'm on-board.

As much as I enjoy how they did Life Modules, yeah I can see how that gets a bit mucky for some.
Still point based is just so simple I spend more time writing out in other supposed streamlined games like D&D 5e characters than AToW.
If anything the points system from AToW reminds me a lot of the MoS packages from 2e, just you can pour more XP into it and get more skill bonus is all.

Though I will say for AToW the one thing I would change is that whole Pain Resistance, Toughness, etc trait part. There's at least two traits easy which boil down to "you're going to take less damage' but how they write it makes it strange.
I know they answered it somewhere in the forums, that's not the point I'm addressing, I'm saying if I could change it then Toughness would be a variable point like Wealth or something that scales how much damage from what I take and clears up precisely how each type of damage is nullified or reduced.

Aside from that I just flip the modifiers so they add or reduce the TN instead of the roll because Battletech taught me that way. I can't shake that conditioning after all and even they said in the book "Yeah so here's how you do all that.."

[Crimson Dawn]

It is interesting that a lot of people in this thread are immediately comparing to AS when talking about simplifying when there is a lot of room for simplifying CBT and what you find in AS.

As for AS style movement I do kind of wish that was a thing in CBT.  A LOT of wasted time in games I have been in has been people trying to figure out the way to max their movement mod.  Yes that does mean more thinking which can be good but the amount of time needed just to get a standard mod ends up being really annoying and seems to lead people to doing crazy moves just to get a +2 instead of a +1 (as they should but it at times looks ridiculous).  Movement in AS was so much nicer and perhaps even more importantly it made faster mechs much better as they can move in crazy ways and still have good defensive mods which is something I have a hard time achieving in CBT.

[Insaniac99]

It is interesting that a lot of people in this thread are immediately comparing to AS when talking about simplifying when there is a lot of room for simplifying CBT and what you find in AS.

As for AS style movement I do kind of wish that was a thing in CBT.  A LOT of wasted time in games I have been in has been people trying to figure out the way to max their movement mod.  Yes that does mean more thinking which can be good but the amount of time needed just to get a standard mod ends up being really annoying and seems to lead people to doing crazy moves just to get a +2 instead of a +1 (as they should but it at times looks ridiculous).  Movement in AS was so much nicer and perhaps even more importantly it made faster mechs much better as they can move in crazy ways and still have good defensive mods which is something I have a hard time achieving in CBT.

The main problem I have with AS movement is it encourages moving one inch even if you didn't plan to move.  I like their just count the distance or wind the ruler, but i prefer TW's you only get a mod based on how far you moved.

[SteveRestless]

The main problem I have with AS movement is it encourages moving one inch even if you didn't plan to move.  I like their just count the distance or wind the ruler, but i prefer TW's you only get a mod based on how far you moved.

Way I'd like to do it is halfway between TW and AS. Get the max mod for the mode of movement you used. Timber Wolf Walks 1 or walks 5? it gets the mod for 5. Runs 6? runs 8? gets the mod for 8.  Keeps you from getting the bonus for 8 if you only walked 1, but simplifies the math for movement calc.

[Insaniac99]

Way I'd like to do it is halfway between TW and AS. Get the max mod for the mode of movement you used. Timber Wolf Walks 1 or walks 5? it gets the mod for 5. Runs 6? runs 8? gets the mod for 8.  Keeps you from getting the bonus for 8 if you only walked 1, but simplifies the math for movement calc.

That's better, but I still don't like the encouragement of what I see in games, using partial cover and/or woods and moving a minor amount but getting the highest defensive mod possible (running 1 for an 8 bonus).  Gives the attacker a bad shot as well, but is balanced by making a hit near impossible for the opponent unless they stand still.

[ActionButler]

A word of warning from Moderator ActionButler, too much talk or theory-crafting about specific rules changes and this thread almost certainly takes a trip to the Fan Rules section of the board. So, if you guys want to stay in General Discussion and enjoy the activity that comes with, just go easy on the “well, what if we did X instead of Y”.

And now back to World’s Worst Battletech Fan ActionButler...

I used to want more drastic changes as well but I long ago realized it would almost certainly kill Battletech to make a lot of the changes I would have liked to see.

This is exactly where I’m at. There are a lot of ways that you could change the game to make it more efficient or more realistic or more whatever, but there is a very fine line between “fixing” Battletech and building an entirely new game on the ashes of Battletech that just so happens to share the same universe and mechs.

Are there things I’d like to see changed? Absolutely. There must be away to speed up the resolution of cluster weapons. The system we have now cannot possibly be the apex of simulating a mech-sized shotgun. Likewise, the game needs SOMETHING to help new folks build an effective army. “Take whatever you want” may have worked fine when there were only a couple dozen different mechs, but now that you can field a tournament-legal light mech battalion and never repeat the same chassis twice, it’s just a cop out.

But those are just window dressing. Neither one changes the core concepts of the game. They don’t rip out the game’s armor pips and and weapon damage and replace them with armor ratings and armor penetration scores, or drastically alter the scale the each unit represents. The heart of the game, with all of its oddities and idiosyncrasies, has to stay the same for it to still be “Battletech!”, which is exactly why I’m more and more convinced that Alpha Strike was the right system for “Battletech! But Faster!”

I don’t have time for CBT anymore. There just aren’t enough hours in the day to split between work, the wife, the kids, the pets, the house, the yard, other hobbies, and a game that is famous for taking a very long time. That’s where the appeal of faster, simpler Battletech always came from for me and that’s exactly why Alpha Strike has become my idea of “normal” Battletech.

Anyway... carry on, my friends.

[Insaniac99]

Honestly, I think the best revamp is incorporating digital assistants like Flechs sheets.  You don't have to care about making 10 hit rolls, 6-8 cluster rolls and then ~36 hit locations for a SRM carrier, it will do it in less than a second.

Personally I like rolling dice so I just roll them up fast and resolve it in a minute or two.

[SteelRaven]

Hate to say it but I don't think the problem is the rules as much as some of the people we play with. That guy who takes a hour to move his mech will over think the game regardless.

[Insaniac99]

Hate to say it but I don't think the problem is the rules as much as some of the people we play with. That guy who takes a hour to move his mech will over think the game regardless.

Agreed.  Kibitzing and analysis paralysis are the parts that take the longest. When playing with friends, I try to encourage everyone to move right along; when running events and demo games and I see that starting to happen, I gently suggest two optimal (or at least near optimal) movements to go with depending on whether they want to be more aggressive or more defensive to keep the game moving.

[Dahmin_Toran]

I don’t have time for CBT anymore. There just aren’t enough hours in the day to split between work, the wife, the kids, the pets, the house, the yard, other hobbies, and a game that is famous for taking a very long time. That’s where the appeal of faster, simpler Battletech always came from for me and that’s exactly why Alpha Strike has become my idea of “normal” Battletech.

Anyway... carry on, my friends.

That is more me these days. I wish I could play more RPG-style games rather than Narrative Campaigns, then I would get more CBT games in. But don't get me wrong, I still love Alpha Strike.

[ActionButler]

Hate to say it but I don't think the problem is the rules as much as some of the people we play with. That guy who takes a hour to move his mech will over think the game regardless.

I mean, I kind of assumed (perhaps dangerously) that was true of all games. I would astonished if people weren’t complaining about That Guy/Gal on at least one corner of every 40K/Sigmar/Flames of War/X-Wing/Whatever the Ground Version of X-Wing Is/Warmahordes forum

[Asgo]

simple solution to speed up games: set a clock for each turn :)
if you want to increase tension: reduce time per turn with each round

[plastic_slug]

Any resemblance between Alpha Strike and Classic Battletech is more coincidence than design. Alpha Strike is so bland, it could just as well be giant bunnies, killer clowns, or lawyers going after each other as much as giant robots.

[RifleMech]

With Motorized/Mechanized infantry, I wouldn't mind if there were optional rules to make them less abstract. Especially considering infantry vehicles have stats for TW and ATOW. I'd say how I think they should be more treated but I don't want to break any rules.

Speaking of AToW, I hope there will be better integration with TW. I can't build the infantry and vehicles in AToW with TM. There's also items in AToW I wouldn't mind using in TW but there aren't TW rules for them.

Aerospace needs work.

[AlphaMirage]

simple solution to speed up games: set a clock for each turn :)
if you want to increase tension: reduce time per turn with each round

I'd be down for that, my turns are always the quickest cause I pay attention. We have one guy that takes forever and drags the game. Coincidentally he also dies first and then the whole game is over in a blur between Stormlion and I.

Aerospace needs work.

Aerospace definitely needs an alpha strike version and a convenient way to generate capital fighter squads faster would be very welcome. The Battlemech Manual abstract support has been a godsend.

[Wendelsnatch]

I agree with many about AToW and the character creation.  I actually love the life path idea, and how it forces your hand to certain skills and traits influenced by your upbringing.  The downside is that it is an accounting nightmare.  With the points based system, you get 2 dimensional characters prone to min/maxing.

CBT, I really have no gripes.  Yeah, it can feel bloated and overly complex with aerospace rules, and artillery, hidden units discovered by probes unless there is ECM, unless there is ECCM..... but at the end of the day you don’t need all that unless you want to.  All those rules can be really enjoyable by providing multi dimensional dept, bu in my old age I more often find myself falling back on the simplicity of a good old 4v4 3025 match of stompy robots.  The only “change” I would like to see as it is what I use in my head canon is turn time and weapon ranges.  Call a turn 30 seconds and a hex 90 meters and weapon ranges become more believable.  Functionally, it’s the same battletech