"BattleTech: Thoughts Paint it Pink Made me consider" Topic
21 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the SF Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestScience Fiction
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticlePainting a droid from the Fearless boxed set.
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor takes a virtual tour of Reaper's new offices.
Featured Book Review
|
Bandit | 19 Mar 2014 7:04 p.m. PST |
Here is from a blog post I just put up today after reading a lot of back entries on Paint it Pink's blog which can be found here: link I'll admit I'm a bit long winded in it, if you want to cut to the chase, skip down to The Timeline. My original blog post can be found here: link ––––––––––––––––––––––––––– How much of BattleTech's problem is we play the whole length of the timeline? BattleTech: A Game of Armored Combat Once upon a time there was BattleDroids, then there was a lawsuit, or at least the threat of a lawsuit, thus, BattleDroids (1st edition) begot BattleTech (2nd edition) circa 1985. I have a copy of the rule book from the original box set. That original rule book is 43 pages including the inside of the front cover and the the inside and outside of the back cover. It was a well organized with excellent use of space. This is as minimalistic as BattleTech gets, it is straight forward and clean, it only deals with 'Mecha – while infantry, vehicles and aerospace fighters acknowledged in the fluff text that populates columns on the outside edge of most pages, there are no rules for their use. BattleTech (2nd edition, 1985) was followed by a 3rd edition (1992, 1994) and 4th edition (1996) box sets as well as a "Classic BattleTech Box Set" eventually. CityTech: The BattleTech Game of Urban Combat The CityTech (1st edition) box set was released as an expansion to BattleTech (2nd edition) in 1986, while being an expansion it could be played self-contained. CityTech added rules for buildings and the inclusion of infantry and tanks. CityTech (2nd edition) was updated in 1994 to match BattleTech (3rd edition) but this new set also broke new ground by introducing the Clan Technology and 'Mecha in the 3050-3054 timeline it comprised. AeroTech: The BattleTech Game of Fighter Combat Along side CityTech the AeroTech (1st edition) box set was also released in 1986. AeroTech was hex based combat for the aerospace fighters mentioned in the BattleTech (2nd edition) rule book in addition to DropShips and how each interact with 'Mecha. AeroTech also introduced rules for Land-Air-Mechs (LAMs). AeroTech was updated as well with a 2nd edition which, among other changed, stripped out LAMs due to the long storied Harmony-Gold / Playmates legal battle. BattleTech Manual, Compendium & Master Rules In 1987 the BattleTech Manual was issued as the first "core" rulebook and meant to unite the three strands of the tabletop system by rolling the CityTech and AeroTech rules into the same rulebook as the BattleTech 'Mecha rules in addition to some rules from the MechWarrior RPG. This was followed by the 1990 BattleTech Compendium which was itself updated in 1994. The Compendium was itself replaced by the BattleTech Master Rules (1998, revised 2001). All of these continued to either consolidate different parts of whichever expansion rule systems were either in vogue or remove those which were on their way out. Tactical Handbook & MaxTech During this whole timeline there were, of course, other books released as rule expansions. The most notable of these were the Tactical Handbook and MaxTech, the first which introduced a rule level system of Basic / Introductory (Level 1), Advanced / Tournament Legal (Level 2) and Optional (Level 3) including LAMs. The Timeline 3025 – BattleTech (2nd edition) 3050 – CityTech (2nd edition) 3060 – MaxTech & Master Rules In about 35+ storyline years the amount of equipment available in the BattleTech universe went from 21 items to around 400. These are snapshots of course, '3025 tech' actually refers to stuff that is good up to and around 3025 until superseded by something else and the high end of the timeline can be expanded up to at least 3070, maybe 3085 or so
let's just call it 60 years for ease. That said, there wasn't much change between 2750 and 3030. About that time the Gray Death Legion discovered a Star League Memory Core on the planet of Helm and boom, an explosion of new tech that just kept showering in. The introduction of the Clans around 3050 just pushed that further. "I only play 3025!" A lot of players and fans will talk about how they 'only play 3025'. They cite game balance and lack of complication. Those are pretty compelling arguments both on their face and in the specific details. Now here's the thing: a lot of weapons and equipment of war has been invented from the start of World War II and the present day here in 2014. They're out there, they exist, but not many military units are deploying German MG42s any more. How much of the problem of BattleTech's "complication" is due to we the players not putting in both lower and higher limits on what technology is included in any give game? "We are still playing 3025
except it is 3085." In the real world of warfare, weapon systems get replaced. While there are still firearms in use from the 1960s and 1970s now in 2014, there are not any first or second world air forces deploying P-51 Mustangs, yet here we are in the BattleTech universe throwing out a range of equipment that spans over 60 years – and it isn't like combustion engines are still in use after 100 years, rather it is all technology from this genre that hasn't been lost due to storyline flummox, i.e. LosTech, is available and listed. This made me think of The Sword and the Flame. If you're a historical war gamer then you might know that name. It is a wide ranging wargaming rule set that spans the "colonial war period" that I suppose you could think of as from the 1880s to the early 1940s. You can find everything from the Zulus running down British infantry with spears to T.E. Lawrence galvanizing the Arabian cavalry and leading the indigenous war effort of that region during World War I. This is to say that no two games of The Sword and The Flame (TSATF) need look much alike. How does TSATF relate to BattleTech? Put simply: Why does a 3025 game look like a 3085 game, or even better – why do players expect a 3025 game to play like a 3085 game? We aren't in 3025 any more
or "3025 isn't 3050 and 3050 isn't 3085
" I've been churning on this a bit and I am getting more and more comfortable with the fact that an "early" BattleTech game and a "late" BattleTech game shouldn't really play the same way. In 3025 autocanons are crazy useful, few weapons can do more than 5 damage, almost everything tops out at 10 damage, I likely can't afford to fire all my weapons because heat is a huge concern and I'll be thrilled for every point a To-Hit number is lower than 7 when I'm firing on a target. Jump forward to 3070 and the game has an entirely different set of concerns: I'm a big strong 'Mech, filled with energy weapons, missiles, point defense systems, specialized armor, special networking & targeting computers and maybe some specialized ballistic weapons holding little to no concern about heat – but I'm challenged by a tooled up hovercraft that can outmaneuver me and typically shows up in groups. In between we have the 3050s when the Clans show up. Assuming you play Inner Sphere then you're outclassed in a 1-to-1 scenario but while your ER PPC doesn't do as much damage as your opponent's and it creates more heat, you get a C3 Computer Network to counter with allowing you to coordinate the efforts of several 'Mechs to hunt, isolate and kill individual Clan 'Mechs. Frankly, Clan players really should be forced to follow Clan honor rules which goes a distance in evening the fight. The point being, there are really at least three to four distinct eras in BattleTech that maybe should be played distinctly. Just as a 3025 era Locust is largely useless in a fight against a 3025 Warhammer, a 3025 BattleMaster isn't terribly useful against a 3058 Mauler. How much of the game's complication is removed if we played "within the practical era"? |
charles popp | 19 Mar 2014 7:21 p.m. PST |
I agree. I personally like the feel of the earlier stuff. Back when someone said dispossesed it meant something. The weapons additions are kinda okay esp when it comes to the artillery and support weapons. But the hi tech weapons,armor and little do dads do nothing but slow down play. I said this in another topic. BattleTech StarFleet Battles itself. It took a nice simple system and added so may rules as to almost make it unplayable. Same can be said of Starfire. The game now is nothing like the original or even the last version put out by Task Fore/ADB. I do not want 15 different pieces of equipment on my Mech that I need to memorize and know what they do off the top of my head.If I am doing a 1-1 duel maybe but hat is still a lot of knowledge needed for just one piece of metal sitting on my table. |
Zargon | 19 Mar 2014 11:54 p.m. PST |
Nice article, and your right about the eras. I played the early stuff and it was great fun as it went on lost interest in the constant changes/updates. My philosophy here is KISS (keep it simple stupid), although I loved the idea of a bunch of smaller mechs trying to take down one or two behemoths without getting shelacked buy getting too close. Cheers |
AndrewGPaul | 20 Mar 2014 3:49 a.m. PST |
In between we have the 3050s when the Clans show up. Assuming you play Inner Sphere then you're outclassed in a 1-to-1 scenario but while your ER PPC doesn't do as much damage as your opponent's and it creates more heat, you get a C3 Computer Network to counter with allowing you to coordinate the efforts of several 'Mechs to hunt, isolate and kill individual Clan 'Mechs. Frankly, Clan players really should be forced to follow Clan honor rules which goes a distance in evening the fight. IIRC if the Inner Sphere forces break the rules of Honor, the Clan forces aren't bound by them either. That means the IS need to take down enough Clan forces to give them an advantage by "underhanded means" pretty much instantly. |
Bandit | 20 Mar 2014 6:11 a.m. PST |
AndrewGPaul, IIRC if the Inner Sphere forces break the rules of Honor, the Clan forces aren't bound by them either. That means the IS need to take down enough Clan forces to give them an advantage by "underhanded means" pretty much instantly. Two points: 1) I am speaking primarily with application of fluff history text to game play. I am essentially stating that players should adopt this position because in the early Clan Invasion period it helps to level the playing field and provide less one-sided games. Therefore I am promoting a liberal use of Zellbrigen (Clan Honor Rules). 2) Per Sarna.net Zellbrigen can be interpreted broadly. Some Clans followed it more, some less. It speaks of how toward the end of the Invasion Campaign its use wained, that would indicate it was use more consistently at the front end of the Invasion. It also notes that few warriors would be willing to disregard the rules and allow the fight to break down completely into what we would consider a "normal battle" because they did not wish to face consequences for their conduct presuming they survived. What I'm getting at here is there is enough room for interpretation to justify requiring use of Clan Honor while allowing Inner Sphere units to disregard it at least in the earlier portion of the Invasion. There are also a handful of ways around this if further fluff justification is necessary. Such as providing the Inner Sphere forces with plenty of artillery support and allowing liberal use of C3 computer networks. With artillery, the Clan player doesn't get to break Clan Honor until at least after the first volley which might well kill a couple 'Mechs. With C3 computers, being targeted by one 'Mech and shot at by another isn't really being shot at by two 'Mechs
charles popp & Zargon, Do consider that what I'm advocating isn't just, "Let's all play 3025," but rather more like, "Let's play *this scenario* strictly within given era," i.e. 3025 tech in a 3067 game should be ultra rare, maybe even more so than cutting edge equipment is. Perhaps the oldest 'Mech you're likely to see fighting in a 3067 game is from the late 3050s
Thereby narrowing the huge list of available weapons and equipment down to what someone might consider relatively "current" technology and in so doing shrink the applicable special case rules for that scenario similarly to what is done in historical wargaming when using rules that span long periods of time (like the 50 years between the Franco-Prussian War and the post World War I era). I'm currently drafting another article on ammo explosions and whether they make sense to play as written. I've gotta thank Paint it Pink as I've been reading a lot of her old blog entries lately, along with some of those who disagree with her and it is giving me a lot to think about. Cheers, The Bandit |
Paint it Pink | 20 Mar 2014 7:04 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the shout out, and I'm gad that my humble mumblings about one of my favourite games has generated renewed interest in it. |
Bandit | 20 Mar 2014 7:59 a.m. PST |
I wrote a posting on ammo explosions as well. The gist is that I think they are supposed to be deadly in the pre-CASE eras and potentially deadly in the post-CASE eras. Thus I advocate the alternative of running with reduced ammo capacity rather than nerfing the ammo explosion rules. It has a built-in game balancer since you can under-load to reduce potential damage but that also reduces your available ammunition. In my blathering I also make a case for why machine gun ammo being "more damaging" than other ammo types really doesn't matter as the practical impact is the same. The post is on my blog here: link The full content is quoted below. Cheers, The Bandit –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Ammunition can explode, FYI. Is your ‘Mech supposed to live through an ammo explosion? My answer: No. Common Ammunition Types AC/5 – 20 rounds per ton, 5 damage each, 100 damage per full ton AC/10 – 10 rounds per ton, 10 damage each, 100 damage per full ton AC/20 – 5 rounds per ton, 20 damage each, 100 damage per full ton Machine Gun – 200 rounds per ton, 2 damage each, 400 damage per full ton LRM 5 – 24 rounds per ton, 5 damage each, 120 damage per full ton LRM 10 – 12 rounds per ton, 12 damage each, 120 damage per full ton LRM 15 – 8 rounds per ton, 15 damage each, 120 damage per full ton LRM 20 – 6 rounds per ton, 20 damage each, 120 damage per full ton SRM 2 – 50 rounds per ton, 4 damage each, 200 damage per full ton SRM 4 – 25 rounds per ton, 8 damage each, 200 damage per full ton SRM 6 – 15 rounds per ton, 12 damage each, 180 damage per full ton I didn't include the various autocanon variants because many carry the same number of rounds per ton as the basic models and this is meant to be illustrative not exhaustive. The ammo explosion rules state: When the ammo in a hit location explodes, all the ammo in that location explodes. If the player has not stated which ammo is located in which hit location, assume that the ammo that will do the most damage is the ammo hit. The damage value of all remaining ammo is totalled and applied to the Internal Structure Diagram. BattleTech: A Game of Armored Combat: 2nd edition (FASA, 1985), page 25 This was revised slightly in later editions: Calculate the total Damage Value of all ammo carried in the slot and apply that total to the Internal Structure Diagram
If the location is not protected by CASE, any excess damage transfers to the internal structure of the next location. For locations protected by CASE, vent any remaining damage without further harm. A critical hit to ammo only explodes the ammo in that location. It explodes with a force equal to the ammo's damage value times the shots remaining. Missile ammo explodes with a force equal to the number of missiles remaining times their damage value. BattleTech Compendium: 1640 (FASA, 1990) page 30 BattleTech Compendium: The Rules of Warfare: 1691 (FASA, 1995), page 43 BattleTech Master Rules: 1707 (FASA, 1998), page 36 BattleTech Master Rules Revised Edition: 10984 (Fan Pro / WK Games, 2002), page 37 BattleTech: Total War: 35101 (Fan Pro / WK Games / CGL, 2006), page 125 Pretty consistent. So, when a slot containing ammunition explodes, all the ammunition in that slot blows up and does damage equal to the total damage value of the remaining shots. If a full ton of SRM4 ammo explodes it will do 200 damage to the internal structure of the ‘Mech. The obvious stand out is and has always been the machine gun – really? 400 points of damage per ton? More than three tons of LRM 20 warheads? Equal to four tons of AC/20 ammo? . I've always considered this a fair complaint, but it is an outlier and about the only outlier so let's ignore it for a moment. The bulk of our sample will inflict ~100 points of damage per ton if it all explodes, up to 200 if we're talking LRMs. How much damage can the internal structure of a ‘Mech take? The construction rules regarding internal structure state: Of every ‘Mech's total tonnage, 10 percent is taken up by its internal structure. The table shows the number of tons needed by every ‘Mech of a given weight. It also shows the number and allocation of the ‘Mech's Internal Structure Boxes. Every ‘Mech has 3 Internal Structure Boxes in the head location. BattleTech: A Game of Armored Combat: 2nd edition (FASA, 1985), page 38
The internal structure takes up 10 percent of a BattleMech's total weight. The Internal Structure Table shows the number of tons of internal structure required by every BattleMech of a given weight, and the number and allocation of the BattleMech's internal structure boxes. The head's internal structure is not listed on the table, because all BattleMech heads take up 3 internal structure boxes. BattleTech Master Rules Revised Edition: 10984 (Fan Pro / WK Games, 2002), page 116 Standard structure weighs 10 percent of the BattleMech's total weight, while endo-steel weighs half as much (rounded up to the nearest half ton). The BattleMech's total mass also determines the number of internal structure points each location receives. The BattleMech Internal Structure Table at right provides the mass of internal structure (standard and endo-steel) for all legal BattleMech tonnages, as well as the number of internal structure circles each location must have. BattleTech: Tech Manual: 35103 (Fan Pro / WK Games / CGL, 2007), page 46 Once again, while the rules got more explicit as time went on, the gist is that 10% of the total tonnage equals the number of internal structure points. I'm not reproducing the tables here for comparison but outside of the inclusion of endo-steel in later books, they match. Thus, we can determine the greatest amount of internal structure available in any one section is 31 points in the center torso of a 100 ton ‘Mech. The same 100 ton ‘Mech would have 21 points in each of the side torsos and legs with 17 points in each arm. This is an excellent time to restate my premise: Is your ‘Mech supposed to live through an ammo explosion? My answer: No. Since damage on internal structure is carried inward damaging the internal structure of the next section that means the longest possible route would be from a limb through the side torso into the center torso. How much damage has to occur from an ammo explosion before a ‘Mech is destroyed is going to be equal to the amount of internal structure between where the explosion starts and the center torso being destroyed (best case scenario, standard engine, gyro, etc
). As legs have more internal structure than arms and I am seeking best case scenario, we'll say the ammo is stored in a leg: Internal Structure Points on a 100 ton ‘Mech Leg 21 Side Torso 21 Center Torso 31 Total Internal Structure 71 points I'm reading intent out of practical implication but it seems to me that a ‘Mech simply isn't supposed to live through an ammo explosion. Sure, the ammo slot might be mostly empty and sure you could have CASE installed which would halt the ammo explosion at a given point along its journey but in those circumstances the ‘Mech is still crippled, likely too crippled to continue in the present battle. Now that I've got that all said and done, I want to explain what had me thinking about this. Two things: 1) house rules for ammo explosions, 2) machine gun ammunition. #1 Ammo Explosion House Rules. Largely due to the lethality of exploding machine gun ammunition I've read that a lot of people draft a house rule to reduce the lethality of ammo explosions all together. The most common one seems to be that instead of doing damage equal to all the remaining rounds in the ton of ammo, the explosion does damage equal to a single round of ammo, i.e. a full ton of machine gun ammo does 2 points of damage not 400. After walking through the math of it, I think this is the wrong way to go. An ammo explosion is clearly supposed to take a non-CASE equipped ‘Mech out of combat, likely permanently in the form of a destroyed unit. To house rule this and reduce the worse an ammo explosion can do to an assault ‘Mech is cripple it (an LRM 20 ammo ton exploding would do 20 points of damage which would not destroy a leg or side torso, so 100 ton ‘Mechs just became somewhat immune to the practical impact of internal ammo explosions) just makes assault ‘Mechs comparatively more powerful than their lighter cousins – cause ya know those assault ‘Mechs, they really needed more of an edge ;-) #2 Explosive Power of Machine Gun Ammo is Absurd. It is absurd but I don't think it matters. The practical implication is that any ammunition explosion of any type will certainly cripple and will likely kill any ‘Mech by reaching the center torso and blowing it out. Thus, it doesn't matter much by how much the center torso is destroyed. In the circumstance of CASE equipped ‘Mecha, similarly, it doesn't matter how much "extra" damage is vented outside. There is a second concern with machine gun ammunition that I should address, that is, due to the number of rounds included per ton it is impossible to reduce it fast enough to become inert while other ammo-fed weapons can be expended quickly enough in game play to potentially reduce their damage should an ammo explosion occur. On its face this seems fair but in the details I believe it matters less than one would first think. The biggest factor here is game length, the average game is not likely to run for more than 10-12 turns, very possibly half that. Therefore few weapons can have enough ammo expended to put any potential explosion into a "safe zone" where the afore mentioned "cripple, likely kill" outcome isn't possible: Damage Potential of Common Ammunition Types After 10-12 Turns Firing AC/5 – 50 damage AC/10 – 0 damage AC/20 – 0 damage Machine Gun – 380 damage LRM 5 – 60 damage LRM 10 – 0 damage LRM 15 – 0 damage LRM 20 – 0 damage SRM 2 – 160 damage SRM 4 – 100 damage SRM 6 – 60 damage The machine gun is still the highest damage but there are also five others that will kill a ‘Mech without CASE just as well. This gets even worse if we admit rightfully that of that 10-12 turns, you're likely only firing half the time. Damage Potential of Common Ammunition Types After 4-6 Turns Firing AC/5 – 75 damage AC/10 – 50 damage AC/20 – 0 damage Machine Gun – 390 damage LRM 5 – 100 damage LRM 10 – 72 damage LRM 15 – 60 damage LRM 20 – 0 damage SRM 2 – 180 damage SRM 4 – 160 damage SRM 6 – 120 damage Now everything is potentially a ‘Mech a killer but for two. Lastly, I would offer what I feel is a more balanced solution than the house rule of "only one round exploding" as that rule completely removes the benefits of CASE in late era ‘Mecha. I propose that ‘Mechs do not have to arrive for battle with full ammo crates loaded. This probably sounds a bit overly obvious, but we generally load up our ‘Mechs using Heavy Metal Pro or Solaris Skunk Werks or some other design app – or by copying or printing an original record sheet – which have ammunition allocated (predominately) in whole tons and we just play it that way. I'm not saying that I get to walk into a battle with two half tons of SRM2 ammo and therefore gain a ton of something else, rather I'm saying that my two tons of SRM2 ammo could be under capacity. The space is spent, the weight is spent but I have fewer shots and less damage potential. This is the default case in any linked battles or campaign games that someone plays – if you don't have the resources to refill your ammo, you're going in with whatever you have left from the last fight, thus I see it as an equally valid disposition for "one-off" battles. Just my thoughts. |
emckinney | 20 Mar 2014 9:44 a.m. PST |
"
but not many military units are deploying German MG42s any more." Actually, the MG42 is the German Army's squad support weapon, re-chambered for 7.62 NATO. The M60 was developed from the MG42. There are a number of other squad MGs out there that are minor developments of the MG42, with really minimal effects on performance. B-52s are still flying
are expected to soldier on for decades more. The M1 tank went into service in 1980 there's no serious schedule for replacing it. Yes, it has seen numerous upgrades. Sometimes technology advances slowly. Sometimes it advances quickly. Sometimes you have fast and slow advances alongside one another. |
Bandit | 20 Mar 2014 9:55 a.m. PST |
emckinney, Point well taken on the MG42, I was kinda wondering if I picked a bad example after I posted it and thought, "I really should have said the M1 Garand
" Regarding the B-52 and the M1 Tank I'd argue that refits keep them useful as you acknowledge. I am not arguing a Warhammer from 3025 should be excluded from a 3085 game, rather that a Warhammer from 3025 that is fighting in 3085 should have been upgraded to the hilt over the intervening 60 years. Cheers, The Bandit |
Lion in the Stars | 20 Mar 2014 10:25 a.m. PST |
My issue with the ammo explosion rules is that ammo carried in an arm slot (assuming there's space there, of course) should not penetrate into the torso regardless of CASE. There's no ammo feed to chain-react into the torso! I fully agree that a Torso ammo explosion should blow the Mech in half (we call that a "brewed up" tank). Even with side torso ammo storage and CASE, that's likely a crippled mech with no ammo left. For a modern example, the Abrams. I've seen the video of the Army testing the ammo storage system. Took a full load of 120mm ammo in the turret, placed a small "primer" charge to start the explosion, and then shut the door to the ammo storage. Left a video camera running, pointed at the door. Then there was a split-screen showing the outside of the tank, as two multi-ton (6 tons each, IIRC) blow-out panels on the roof of the Abrams went flying. No penetration of the armored door into the crew space. Personally, I would rule that MG ammo does NOT cause internal damage, period, as a special exception to the general rule. While small-arms fire may be able to penetrate armor, an ammunition explosion doesn't have anywhere NEAR the force per round. Autocannon and missiles still behave as normal, and an ammunition explosion in the arm should blow the arm off entirely. I do like that "low ammo load" idea, though. |
Steve W | 20 Mar 2014 10:26 a.m. PST |
We play Renegade Tech these days,seems to work a lot better for us |
Nerroth | 20 Mar 2014 12:03 p.m. PST |
The current era has moved past 3085 to 3145, and is set to move forward again with the coming of the IlClan sourcebook. But it may be worth noting that the timeline goes backwards, as well as forwards. Recent historial files from Catalyst have gone as far back as the Age of War and the Reunification War, when "Primitive" RetroTech was being used long before "modern" BattleTechnology first entered service.
Plus there have been more recent files looking at the Amaris Coup and Operation KLONDIKE, while there is talk on the CGL BT forums of future historical files looking at the first three Succession Wars. (Apparently the First and Second Succession Wars will be grouped together, with a separate file covering the Third by itself.) If one isn't ready to make the leap forward into the Jihad or Dark Age, the option is there to go back to much earlier eras instead. Plus, many of the units in these older eras are already supported in Alpha Strike, with Unit Cards for many Primitive designs already on the MUL.
AS may come into its own when looking at some of the larger engagements of the era, since it may provide a faster avenue for larger combined-arms operations than "classic" BattleTech can. Also, while the Captain's Edition of SFB may be quite a large game system at this point, there are the likes of Federation Commander, the SFU adaptation for Starmada, and the soon-to-be-relaunched A Call to Arms: Star Fleet to choose from also. As with the choice between Total Warfare and Alpha Strike, there is literally more than one game in town for each universe.
|
Bandit | 20 Mar 2014 12:19 p.m. PST |
Lion in the Stars, The question becomes partly about playability vs realism. There is a lot of broken in BattleTech if we look towards realism. A BattleMaster moves at up to 64.8 km/h while a Locust moves at up to 129.6 km/h (source: Sarna.net). In comparison an M1 Abrams MBT can move at 67 km/h (on road, per Wikipedia). I bring this up because if M1 tanks can hit each other reliably then it would seem with even a couple hundred years of technological advancement (rather than the full ~1,000 years since the storyline includes a large retrograde movement in technology) two vehicles moving at ~70 km/h should be able to hit each other with greater consistency than modern day tanks due – yet it is a game, so missing is kinda important and relates to a factor of game balance. +2 or +4 on 2D6 doesn't really accurately relate to any kind of range factor, if for no other reason because most of the weapons they are being applied to don't exist and those that do we can presume don't exist in any form similar to the one they would a thousand years from now. The weapon ranges are bizarrely short since with weapon systems from the 1980s we can shoot farther with at least as much accuracy
There are tons of things like this as I am sure you are aware. Where I am going is that an ammo explosion is a game mechanic that allows for a 'Mech to be crippled or destroyed due to a lucky (or due to point of view
unlucky?) shot. Where I'm coming from is that the majority of the games I play are historical wargames. Historical wargames purport to simulate some degree of researchable and often observable (at least through recreation) events and actions. I'm commonly quite critical of mechanics that indicate they relate to a historical action but do not match it. You see this a lot in command & control rules and "support" rules. With that in mind, when it comes to Sci-Fi like BattleTech, I'm willing to throw most of that sorta concern out the window. If the fluff doesn't explain the game mechanic in a believable way, well, the fluff was just made up right? The mechanic was developed with a given play balance in mind, that play balance then becomes trump over the explanation which is necessarily comes second. Therefore, your observation seems quite accurate to me, just not applicable. House ruling that some ammunition can't do damage though doesn't seem too strange and even has precedent with the example of gauss rifle rounds which are non-explosive. Arguably heavy machine gun rounds are also non-explosive and are too small to do any real damage. I rather like that idea. Cheers, The Bandit |
Coelacanth1938 | 20 Mar 2014 10:13 p.m. PST |
Tell me when they introduce aliens. |
Paint it Pink | 21 Mar 2014 2:54 a.m. PST |
@ Bandit, I've never liked the ammo explosions, I never will, and that's my opinion. I find you argument with the calculations too gamey for my tastes i.e: relying on artifacts within the rules to justify one's conclusion. YMMV and clearly does. I think we will have to agree to disagree. |
John Treadaway | 21 Mar 2014 4:57 a.m. PST |
Bandit What emckinney said. Along with, say, the 50cal Browning. That hasn't been – to my knowledge – upgraded at all. It is just brilliant: 81 years and counting! But an interesting article: thankyou. John T |
Bandit | 21 Mar 2014 6:21 a.m. PST |
Paint it Pink, I feel I need to explain: I'm not trying to convince you to like the ammo explosion rule nor justifying the ammo explosion rule as either good or bad. What I am doing is seeking to derive the intent of the developers based on the consistency of the rule throughout the many revisions of the system combined with the implications of the rule on game play. Right or wrong, ammo explosions appear to be *intended* to destroy or wildly cripple a 'Mech. Therefore, respecting that ammo explosions intentionally lead to that end, it becomes a question of how the ammo explosion mechanic balances out within the system. Do they lead to poor game balance? Reading your posts regarding ammo explosions on your blog I get the impression you don't like the ammo explosion rule because you feel it lacks realism based on current real world tech combined with your expectation of what a BattleMech is. That's probably very true, but as you point out in several posts – realism goes out the door when you're talking about huge robots that stomp things
thus I don't think realism is a convincing argument as to why game balance should be altered. I think that since realism is an orphan in the system, justification needs to be either admittedly arbitrary or based on the in-game implications of a mechanic. Something along the lines of: • I just prefer X were to work in Z way rather than Y way as it does in the rules because it is my preference and no other reason. • The implications of X working in Y way lead to ABC outcomes which cause DEF issues in the game, therefore I believe Z mechanic is preferable because it addresses ABC and the resulting DEF problems. Neither are invalid, just a question of if there is something broken in the rules or if it is a question of personal preference. That said, I am have either missed or misunderstood your feelings and if your interest in changing / disliking / house ruling ammo explosions has a different line of reasoning behind it, I'd be very interested – especially if it relates to game balance just because that is my big area of interest. I'm not sure how my seeking to determine the consistency of the rule within the system using numbers is 'gamey', I've always understood 'gamey' to be an insult indicating someone was trying to exploit a rule to gain an advantage. That is, unless we're talking about eating dead bird. I'm guessing I understand it different than you mean it or you misunderstood the intent of my post on ammo explosions. John Treadaway, I don't disagree with emckinney, or your example of the Browning, I would say that examples of that same "it ain't broke so don't fix it" occurrence are also plentiful in BattleTech. Standard Inner Sphere medium lasers are still an excellent bang for your buck and through at least 3067 if not much later are crazy useful. Those were introduced in 2300 and are still useful 750+ years later going by fluff, taking it away from fluff, they are available for 3025 games and still useful 40-60 years later in the latter part of the century. I can't speak to the 3100 timeline because I haven't played any games based on tech available at that point. Along side the medium laser are original LRMs, original SRMs, the BattleTech fusion engine is sorta like our internal combustion engine – it gets enhanced and changed and shrunk and modified but at its heart it does the same thing it did at the time it was invented. Original PPCs are still useful after decades of new tech. Point being that I think parallels to the MG42 and Browning 50cal exist in the BattleTech fluff universe as well as in the game play. Examples similar to the M1 Abrams also exist in the form of very old chassis being constantly upgraded and kept useful with new systems but the design goals and intent continue largely unchanged in many cases. Where I was pointing my reasoning in the long post on eras was that much as a Sherman tank is going to hands down lose against a modern equivalent – no one is ever going to choose to fight with that pairing of opponents. No one engages F-14s with P-51s. Also, thank you to everyone being complimentary, I write such things basically for myself as I work through a thought process so on the odd occasion I share them it is really neat to hear others enjoyed them whether they are of like mind or not. Heck, I'd say reading people who disagree with me is generally far, far more useful than reading like minded thoughts – for me at least. Cheers, The Bandit |
Paint it Pink | 21 Mar 2014 9:01 a.m. PST |
@ Bandit: No insult intended. I've had 30 years of discussing the rules and IMO the current product line is bloated with too many rules; the intention of my post is an "if only" wish that I could go back to the beginning and get the basic rule mechanisms changed. As I said I have divested myself of the current core rule books, for the reasons I stated on my blog. BTW: I have no idea what eating dead bird means. |
Bandit | 21 Mar 2014 9:38 a.m. PST |
Paint it Pink, No worries, I was being honest when I said I likely understood the term differently than intended. Regarding 'dead bird' sometimes hunted animal is said to have a "gamey taste" generally applied to birds in my experience, like someone says the grouse or pheasant tastes gamey. Anyways, that was the dead bird Your feelings about bloat, at least in my opinion, are very valid. My first posting about eras was meant to get at the question of if we as players can eliminate some of that through self imposed limits. I'm not sure if it is feasible but it is something to try and seems easily justified. My question to you as to clarifying why you think ammo explosions should be different was an honest one – is it because you just don't care for it (that was what I got from your blog) or because you think it causes balance issues in the game? I am not seeking an argument, where I'm going with this is that if it is the latter I'd love to know what balance problems you've observed. If it is the former – well we are all entitled to feel as we feel. I'll be running a small game in the near future with a new player and two "we've played a couple times" players. We'll likely start with just one 'Mech per player and I am thinking about using the original box set BattleTech 2nd Edition white rulebook for it exactly to see what their reaction to the "lighter" rules is. Cheers, The Bandit |
Paint it Pink | 22 Mar 2014 2:59 a.m. PST |
Both
:-) I don't like it because it doesn't really fit what I expect in a wargame, though it would be ok in an RPG scenario. I have also seen the original Sun of the Fang Dougram, which is arguably the primary inspiration for Battledroids. In the show the hero mech gets away with stuff that the "mook" mechs don't, which is as it should be in a RPG where the players are the heroes. In a wargame, in my opinion, a battle is a more faceless grey affair, no heroes, just survivors. Therefore, in my opinion, everybody should be treated equally, but fairly; as in lets drop the over dramatic RPG aspects of explodey big bangs, and go for a more subtle approach. It's a complicated position to hold, based on opinions that are not easily expressed over the internet; unless one wants to spend several hours crafting a written response that in my opinion will end up with TL:DR responses. As a writer, admittedly of little consequence in the bigger scheme of things, the internet is something I have to careful of, because I could too easily spend far too much time writing stuff that will not earn me money. |
Bandit | 22 Mar 2014 5:20 p.m. PST |
Paint it Pink, Well, that is fair. If you've written about game balance issues that you have connected back to the ammo explosion mechanic somewhere or another and run across those writings, I'd love to read them. Cheers, The Bandit |
|