Rotwang
08/28/04 08:04 PM
213.118.82.41
|
What if Fanpro made "realistic" BT rules as a separate rulebook, doing away with the short combat ranges, reworking the damage system and adding more detail. Would you play it ?
|
Cray
08/28/04 10:12 PM
24.165.240.163
|
Quote:
What if Fanpro made "realistic" BT rules as a separate rulebook, doing away with the short combat ranges, reworking the damage system and adding more detail. Would you play it ?
It's called GURPS Vehicles, and it's very slow and tedious, moreso than Battletech.
I use GURPS Vehicles to draw up very realistic and detailed vehicles for quite a few roleplaying games. However, I don't use GURPS Vehicle combat rules. No thank you.
And when you open the door to realism in BT, consider what you're saying. "Realistic" 31st century weaponry, or even realistic 23rd century weaponry? In the last 50 years, 1950 to 2000AD, we've gone from dumb cannon shells and artillery to "smart" munitions and unmanned combat drones. What would the "primitive" 3025 weaponry be like? Anti-matter LRMs with AI guidance and 1000km ranges? Line-of-sight, super-accurate beam weapons that would let gravtanks duel with warships in orbit? Combats lasting 5 seconds from the time both sides got on the same continent? Let's not talk about "realistic" Clan tech, which is 700 years more advanced than 3025-era L1 technology.
I play BT for its anachronisms, it's feudal future with impractical walking tanks firing roaring autocannons and nearly dumb fire missiles. So, no, I wouldn't be interested in a "realistic" version of Battletech - it wouldn't be Battletech.
If you're miffed about the short ranges in BT, I suggest just saying the hexes are 300m across and the turns are 100 seconds long. You open up the ranges 10-fold without many changes to the rules.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Edited by Cray (08/28/04 10:15 PM)
|
Gangrene
08/29/04 12:41 AM
24.6.228.14
|
If they did a good job, yes. Of course, "good" is a relative measure, and I am sure everyone has different ideas of what is good and what is realistic. Personally I am fine with a rather vague set of damage rules. I do not need to know the status of every actuator and microcontroller in the mech. I would prefer rules that bring weapons performance more into line with that of realistic weapons, especially missiles. This would promote the use of more real world tactics and get away from the whole knights-bludgioning-each-other feel of the game.
Gangrene
|
Cray
08/29/04 08:46 AM
24.165.240.163
|
Quote:
This would promote the use of more real world tactics and get away from the whole knights-bludgioning-each-other feel of the game.
It would certainly get away from the original knights/feudal feel of the game.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Grizzly
08/29/04 11:29 AM
12.108.119.227
|
I agree with Cray. It wouldn't be Battletech if you had realism like that. If I want a game that is realistic I'll play ASL. Thanks, but I'll take my "beer and pretzels" version of Battletech over an ultra-realistic version any day. I like the fact that I can play and remember most of the rules, even after not having played for at least a year. Yeah, I've had a bit of a drought lately  .
"I am but mad north-northwest, when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" Hamlet
|
Lone_Wolf_Radick
08/29/04 08:29 PM
129.33.119.12
|
Agreed with the position that "reality" would mire the game down in rules so much as to make the experience of playing un-enjoyable... Besides, if they were really worried about realism, they never would have made Gauss rifles and LRM's with such limited (by current ballistic standards) ranges... Enjoy it for what it is, an ESCAPE from reality, a glimpse into what may be one day, or a look at fuedalism through the eyes (or cockpit) of a giant walking tank...
War Never Determines who is right, only who is left.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing-Darth Vader"
|
Cray
08/29/04 08:41 PM
68.200.106.1
|
Quote:
Enjoy it for what it is, an ESCAPE from reality, a glimpse into what may be one day, or a look at fuedalism through the eyes (or cockpit) of a giant walking tank...
That's nicely said.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Lone_Wolf_Radick
08/30/04 06:58 PM
129.33.119.12
|
Thanks... Too much realism ruins Sci-fi in my opinion, and if they were all based on total reality, imagine the legal battles and confused fans then...
War Never Determines who is right, only who is left.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing-Darth Vader"
|
Gangrene
08/30/04 10:19 PM
24.6.228.14
|
Quote:
It would certainly get away from the original knights/feudal feel of the game.
I don't think that is a bad thing. The feudal feel made sense in light of the storyline and made for a fun game when using the L1 rules set. But when the story became about large armies shaking the Inner Sphere the rules enforcing the feudal feel started to feel outdated. IMO the makers tried to have their cake and eat it to, as the saying goes, and the result was a mish-mash of universe that felt forced and disjointed. Plus a lot of the L2+ rules just don't work well.
I think a set of rules for more realistic warfare, smart weapons, good ranges, one-shot kills and all, would also be fun. But it would be different, and require a completely different set of tactics and game scales.
Gangrene
|
wartang
08/30/04 10:22 PM
209.201.75.13
|
Quote:
I think a set of rules for more realistic warfare, smart weapons, good ranges, one-shot kills and all, would also be fun. But it would be different, and require a completely different set of tactics and game scales.
im with him on this
i love this game
|
Karagin
09/04/04 08:02 AM
82.214.192.111
|
Having added in my fair share of realistic rules and weapons and such, I can say that some things that would be realistic just dont work so well in BT.
Mainly because of the ranges, hey this is played on a table top for the most part not out in the parking lot, also because of the damage settings used in the game.
Adding in some high tech wonder weapons is a good thing, but tailoring them so they FIT into the rules is another and that is where the issues of what is good or bad come up.
My game world of BT has grav tanks and other really neat things but the mechs still are an important part of the game. If you make changes to one part you have to make changes across the board. I have found this out the hard way.
So realism can be added, but not a lot. You need to pick what will work and go with that. And then the biggest and I am sure a lot of folks will agree, problem is making sure ALL the writters and such remeber the addtions and changes and such and keep to them when they do the write ups or the novels.
Somethings work better from the RPG point of view, like use of scanners and such, then they do in the board game side of the house and vise versa.
What all did you have in mind for changes? I have played the game where folks have changed the scale of the hex size as Cray suggested and played it where folks have vehicles harder to kill, which I liked, and other have taken the Solairs ranges and combat rules and used them as the normal combat rules for play. Each time the game was fun and enjoyable and different, yet kept the BT flavor.
So it comes down to what do you want to add and how can you do it without losing the BT feel. If you lose the BT feel then you might as well play Renegade Legion or Robotech or Star Wars.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|