Dueling Rules

BattleTech : Board Game Previous Index Next Threaded
Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Christopher_Perkins
12/28/10 02:49 PM
138.162.128.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What things would you find useful in dueling rules?

So far there have been two variations.

Solaris VII Boxed Set and Solaris: the Reaches
(mostly Mechwarrior: Second Edition Suppliments)
2.5 second turns, 7.5 meter hexes (TR2750/TR3050)

and

Mechwarriors Guide to Solaris VII and Map Pack Solaris VII
(mostly Mechwarrior: Third Edition Suppliments)
5 second turns, 15 meter hexes (updated to Twilight of Clans / FC Civil War Era)
10 second turns, 30 meter hexes

To me all three levels of dueling rules would do well in a single publication with Specific Equipment information settings for all three where they differ from the standard/advanced/experimental rules.

Rules for BattleMech and Vehicle Use in the RPG as well as actually codifying the range bands for BattleTech Weapons in the RPG would also be useful.

Currently all that is known is: the Combat Operations published Infantry Platoon Creation Rules formulas converting RPG variable stats to BattleTech Damage, BattleTech Long Range in hexes * 100 meters is the RPG Extreme range, Support Vehicles need to add the "Advanced Fire Control" computer to have the same BattleTech roll targets as Combat Vehicles & BattleMechs, so it stands to reason that Combat Vehicles, BattleMechs, ProtoMechs, and Powered Armor (including BattleArmor) would get the +2 Targeting Bonus that SUV with the "Advanced Fire Control" computer get in the RPG per combat Equipment.

Not really sure about the usefulness of the Stable information... not envisioning a Solaris VII suppliment, instead this would be dueling rules for any circumstance.

Rules updating the infantry platoon creation rules to using the A Time of War stats would be useful, as would rules for infantry weapons fireing against Combat Vehicles and Support Vehicles using armor with BAR lower than 10 (when Combat Operations was published the BAR rating did not exist so all armor was at 100%)
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Karagin
12/28/10 10:36 PM
72.178.75.99

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Only thing I every found use full from the dueling rules was the ability to lump weapons together and fire them at one time...

And for the record, BAR is not important to most players as it seems to be to you. Just an FYI. Really think you should just write your own rules and play by them since you seem set and determined to have real life brought in to the game and rules at every single twist and turn not matter how complex or longer this would make the game or remove the FUN from it. BUT each to their own I guess.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Christopher_Perkins
12/29/10 06:46 AM
138.162.128.55

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
== Re Gang fireing ==

humm, yeah, remember that from Solaris VII, i think that gang fired Streak SRMs was carried over to the main set of rules as an optional rule?


== Re Barrier Rating ==
Barrier Rating is not really important... When all the Armor is the Standard BattleTech Armor that has Barrier Rating 10.

it gets a little more important if you have all the armor on a target the same barrier rating vs all weapons,i.e. a SUV emulating a modern Day Tank would have Barrier Rating 7, and therefore a Medium Laser Fired against it should do 7 damage instead of 5. The Current iteration of the rules treats it as the same damage with an increased OSOK potential due to an increased through armor critical chance.

then there are armors like Laser Reflective Armor, Explosive Armor, and the myrid BattleArmor Types. These have varying barrier ratings depending on what they are hit with... And then the barrier Rating is important... (but it is hidden by notations like "halve the damage from damage type X, and double the damage from damage type Y, damage type Z stays the same")
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Karagin
12/29/10 08:08 AM
72.178.75.99

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Another FYI the Barrier Rating again is NOT something the main game worries about and the SUV are NOT IMPORTANT to most of us, cool though some are, the idea of another rule set to build vehicles is not important enough to most to try and apply it to every thing else in the game.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Christopher_Perkins
12/30/10 08:20 AM
138.162.128.53

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
== Re Barrier Ratings ==
Tech Manual and Total Warfare define the "main game".

All armor in the game has a Barrier Rating.
if the barrier rating is not stated, assume that it has a barrier rating of 10.

really, i think that they would have been better served to reduce the Maximum Amount of armor per section/location instead of reducing the amount of protection per point (q.v. Tech Level D and Above BAR Table)... it would have been way less confusing to a player using a record sheet.

That is, instead of a Modern Day Vehicle being limited to Barrier 7, Simply Reducing the maximum points of armor that the vehicle could carry to 70% of what a combat vehicle can carry... then each tech level could have had a single points per ton notation.

== re gang Fireing ==
were you talking about Target Interlock Circuts where you could set up weapons to be fired all at once, and adjust them in the end phase of each turn... IIRC if you didn't Shoot that turn you could change the TIC?
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Karagin
12/30/10 09:59 AM
72.178.75.99

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
TIC yes.

As for the rest, it is a game, one that does not need reality tossed into it. If you want realistic rules, then either write your own and get a group to play them, or use MicroArmor rules or one of games that deal with modern combat in that it is set up to mirror real life weapons and damage.

And again BAR is not something folks use, if they want to use combat vehicles they will use the NORMAL rules for those and not the SUV rules. Again I will state this, having two systems to build vehicles makes for issues and your comments Chris are a good sign of that. Hint here, the combat vehicles and their rules for use and construction are still valid and thus make needing the SUV rules to build anything for combat pointless.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Christopher_Perkins
12/30/10 01:11 PM
138.162.128.53

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
== Re TIC ==
Not aiming to change, only add, so will keep the mechanics of both more or less the same... (beyond adding the "off the deep end" ranges for the really "out there") ill probably write it one way or the other, but it would definately be nice if i could make it usable/useful enough to be... more.

== Re BAR ==
BAR 10 + Armored Chassis means "the same as BattleMechs and Combat Vehicles" i.e. "no change to rules".
Industrial mechs can use Armor that has Half the effectiveness as standard Armor, so the best equivelency using standard armor would be halving the armor that a location can use.


== Combat Vehicles ==
As for using the SUV rules to build Combat Vehicles, that would be more to directly reference how crippled Support Vehicles are in comparison to Combat Vehicles...
with Two different sets of rules, it is hard to make comparison... regardless of using Combat Vehicle Rules or Support Vehicle Rules... funnily enough, Both use the same record sheets.

If you are talking About modern day combat vehicles... the rules as published state that "Combat Vehicles" (as they are published in every thing since City Tech) did not exist until the invention of the BattleMech so out-classed Modern Day equipment that an entirely new design philosophy for "conventional" equipment was needed to give it a chance.

To Build Current Era / Modern Day equipment (I.O.W. Pre-BattleMech Vehicles) under the Combat Vehicle Rules, Mercenaries Supplimental II "Other Era's of BattleTech" states that 20% of the vehicles tonnage would be unusable.

i would take this further stating that if there is an armor limit (been a long time since i ran HM Vee), then the Armor limit would be reduced to 70% of the limit for standard rules combat vehicles (q.v. BAR 7 Limit).
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Christopher_Perkins
12/30/10 01:38 PM
138.162.128.52

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
=== SUV ===
Quick and dirty House Rules for using SUV in your games if you don't want to bother with BAR, look at the stats, create the Sheet (or use a Pre printed RS). and Mark off a certain percentage of the Armor.

for
BAR 2, mark off 80% of the armor points
BAR 3, mark off 70% of the armor points
BAR 4, mark off 60% of the armor points
BAR 5, mark off 50% of the armor points
BAR 6, mark off 40% of the armor points
BAR 7, mark off 30% of the armor points
BAR 8, mark off 20% of the armor points
BAR 9, mark off 10% of the armor points
BAR 10 - already actual amount

or, to emulate the stats in HM Vee... adjust the published armor amounts for an SUV using the above, and add the appropriate equipment (some would need to be custom...) and use the closest Engine type and the closest MP Rating... Units kludged in this manner should have a lot of unused tonnage...

Expected unused tonnage is approximately 20%... but it could be lower or higher (feels like 20% was an off the cuff number...)
1 Ton unused for 5 Ton vehicles
2 Tons unused for 10 Ton Vehicles
3 Tons unused for 15 Ton Vehicles
4 Tons unused for 20 Ton Vehicles
5 Tons unused for 25 Ton Vehicles
6 Tons unused for 30 Ton Vehicles
7 Tons unused for 35 Ton Vehicles
8 Tons unused for 40 Ton Vehicles
9 Tons unused for 45 Ton Vehicles
10 Tons unused for 50 Ton Vehicles
11 Tons unused for 55 Ton Vehicles
12 Tons unused for 60 Ton Vehicles
13 Tons unused for 65 Ton Vehicles
14 Tons unused for 70 Ton Vehicles
15 Tons unused for 75 Ton Vehicles
16 Tons unused for 80 Ton Vehicles
17 Tons unused for 85 Ton Vehicles
18 Tons unused for 90 Ton Vehicles
19 Tons unused for 95 Ton Vehicles
20 Tons unused for 100 Ton Vehicles

not sure what to do for the vehicle types (e.g. WiGE & Air Ships) that HM Vee doesnt support yet.
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Karagin
12/30/10 05:55 PM
72.178.75.99

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
IF you want to use a different rule set that fixes the broken areas then come up with one, other wise unless you can get TPTB to listen it is pretty pointless to preach to choir around here.

Having TWO rule sets to build vehicles is pretty silly IMVHO, but TPTB don't seem to care about the common fans opinions so it a mute point. And no Cray your saying that do care is not going to be enough to convince me other wise given that the fans told Nytuls hey this is a bad thing aka the Protos and among other things and they still kept them around, we also pointed out that art work could be redone how many years did that take to get it done? So no they really don't care if the fans like or dislike something unless we vote via pocket book and then nope that doesn't work because we get labeled etc...so no Chris telling us about things you feel are broken is great but it doesn't change anything.

You want to play your way, which is wonderful, but the rest may not want to play that way, so either post all of your "improved/realistic" rules or find a group of folks who want to play with one shot one kill weapons and homing missiles and infantry weapons that take crews and skill rolls to use and have fun with it.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Christopher_Perkins
12/31/10 03:29 PM
24.125.16.116

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
== SUV House Rules ==
How do you handle SUV in your games?
Do you use the BAR system... or do you use the armor points as printed?
If you use the Armor Points as printed then you are giving them too much credit.
If you are ignoring them, then you are ignoring an aspect that has been left out of the game far too long, the execution may have been buggy, but it was needed.

that is why i tossed up that quick and dirty method... these units exist in the universe now, and at minimum make interesting scenery. But i figure that if one person is vehemently against the BAR System, then I might as well give a useful way to bypass it and still represent the various thicknesses of paper that the canon unit has.

== Needed or Unneeded Rules ==
To me, whither or not a rule is needed is not predicated by whither or not it was already in the game or supplements or replaces something already in the game.

What Matters is whither or not Something in the game can be said to have attempted to model the equipment of 1985 or retcon in post 1985 equipment that would have been developed in the BattleTech universe (many of the new additions are written as new innovations in the game (TAG = PAVE type systems)... others are written as rediscovered technology (Rifled or Smooth bore Cannon or even Differing Armor Types) or the Best of the RPG being mainstreamed to the BattleTech Game.

The SUV System, the Infantry Platoon Creation System, the BattleArmor Creation System, etc, these were created to fill in the gaps in the construction rules... Not every one see's the need, but it is much better to have a rule and wonder why it was created than it is to something that every one knows is missing and have every one constantly wonder why it is missing.

ProtoMechs may not have been needed, but they fill in the gap between Ultralight and BattleArmor.
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Karagin
01/02/11 09:58 AM
72.178.75.99

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
SUVs are vehicles if I want them then I treat them as vehicles using the normal rules to make vehicles, nothing fancy, since they are there for fluff or target practice. Beyond that they DO NOT NEED their own construction rule set, and with a few additional rules added for how certain things move or don't move etc, not much else is really needed.

BAR I do not use. I converted all of the BAR to normal armor since it keeps things simple and allows for a better game, no need to worry about two different armor systems, that is one of the biggest issues with Pallidaum Games and their SDC and MDC setup.

And NO the BAR was not needed at all. It adds nothing but more rules, a second set of armor thus leading to confusion since now you need to see if you are using weapons that will only hurt or kill a vehicle, again if I want to play realisticaly I will play Micro Armor or better yet I can go into work and play the game for real, wait I do that any ways. So no I am not leaving anything out, just tossing out the un-needed with the rest of the trash.

There were no gaps in the contruction rules. Just areas that needed to be address, we did not need a second set of rules to make vehicles, as for BA rules, they are very limiting and make it so the mechs don't lose their place as king. Infantry Platoons, never was hard to say what they had, take a pencil, write down what they have beyond rifles or SMGs etc...and there you go. Way easier then having it as it is.

Again IF you want a more realistic take, then either re-do the rules or use another set of rules.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Christopher_Perkins
01/02/11 11:20 PM
24.125.16.116

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

SUVs are vehicles if I want them then I treat them as vehicles using the normal rules to make vehicles, nothing fancy, since they are there for fluff or target practice. Beyond that they DO NOT NEED their own construction rule set, and with a few additional rules added for how certain things move or don't move etc, not much else is really needed.




So you do not use any of the published SUV?


Quote:

BAR I do not use. I converted all of the BAR to normal armor since it keeps things simple and allows for a better game, no need to worry about two different armor systems, that is one of the biggest issues with Pallidaum Games and their SDC and MDC setup.




how did you convert the armor?
if you treat all armor points as standard armor, then you are giving glorified targets way too much protection

Quote:


And NO the BAR was not needed at all. It adds nothing but more rules, a second set of armor thus leading to confusion since now you need to see if you are using weapons that will only hurt or kill a vehicle,




not sure what you mean by confusion?

you are talking about their Thresholding rules? yeah, that made it over complicated... 62.5 kg of the same materiel should provide the same amount of protection regardless of whither it was 1 point of BAR 10 or 2 points of BAR 5. or rather 937.5 should provide the same amount of protection, regardless of whither or not it was 15 points of Bar 10, 21 points of BAR 7 or 30 points of BAR 5... how is it that they allow a 6 Damage weapon to penetrate enough armor to stop a gauss rifle... granted, there is the Armored Chassis required to reach BAR 10, but still.... in their defense, they do limit the armor points per location so that you will rarely see a vehicle with lower BAR armor having points enough to equal the protection of a vehicle with Higher BAR armor... but they did some serious dancing to do that.

Quote:


There were no gaps in the contruction rules. Just areas that needed to be address,




those areas that needed to be addressed are gaps in the rules.

Quote:

we did not need a second set of rules to make vehicles




Partial agreement, as long as the metric was introduced to make vehicles at earlier technology levels, and without hardened chassis, etc...

As it was, i think that they should have made the SUV rules capable of building something as effective as Existing Combat Vehicles, and then either removed the previous rules from circulation or left people with a choice of the vehicle rules like they had a choice between life path and points based in the third edition RPG

Quote:

as for BA rules, they are very limiting and make it so the mechs don't lose their place as king.




what do you mean?
Are you talking about how BattleArmor can not do in BattleTech what it can do in the RPG?

Quote:

Infantry Platoons, never was hard to say what they had, take a pencil, write down what they have beyond rifles or SMGs etc...and there you go. Way easier then having it as it is.




umm, no, very hard to make your own unit... heck, we should be able to do units with 28 Light industrial Exoskeletons and 28 Man Pack PPCs (1 Damage)... granted, it is something that the Stealthy Foxes would have, but there is precedent in the universe for it, and it is impossible under the rules... the Alternative is a Unit with 14 Man Pack PPCs without the Light Industrial Exoskeletons... the Rules almost make this possible... the rules do make possible the unit of 4 unarmored light trucks, each towing a Support PPC (2 Damage)
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/03/11 06:33 AM
108.122.116.8

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Christopher_Perkins if your looking to make Battletech more realistic the first thing you need to do is to trash the battle mechs them self's. Battle mechs are dumb and will never see the light of day in the real world. At the best we might see battlearmor on the real world battlefields.

In the real world,
1)Something that is 10 meters high is a target and only a target. Something that big is just begging to be shot at because you just cant miss hitting the stupid thing.

2)If you put a cannon on the thing all that will happen is the stupid thing will fall over because of the recoil.

3)At best you could put enough armor on the thing to stop small arms fire do to weight restrictions. I don't care how advanced armor technology becomes weapon technology will always keep pace.

Now that we know that Battletech is totally unrealistic and unquestionably pure fantasy, stop trying to make it into something that it can never be. The people that first made up the game understood K.I.S.S. Keep It Simple Stupid. The only reason more rules have been added was because players demanded it and the owners of the copyrights wanted to make some money off of the work and or money they put into the game.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Karagin
01/03/11 12:26 PM
178.76.138.173

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Chris, let me explain again what I do:

I build the SUVs as best as I can WITH THE NORMAL VEHICLE CONSTRUCTION RULES. If it has 14 points of armor per facing I try to fit that OR I use the listed weight of the armor as my guide point. I DO NOT USE THE BAR SYSTEM AT ALL. I am not sure why you are not following that.

So to sum up IF I like the vehicle, then it get's made over to a normal vehicle, if I find a vehicle okay for background fluff I leave it as hey they have these but they are not important enough to worry about, land trains come to mind as do some of the airships.

IF something is to big to be made with the official rules then I use the home tech rules my group has had for years on expanding vehicles to bigger sizes across the board, they work, they follow the normal construction rules and allow for all the cool toys to be added since they are nothing more then expanded combat vehicle construction rules, unlike the SUV rules which makes GURPS Vehicle rules seem like a cake walk.

And no it is not hard to make infantry platoons, as I said pencil and paper works wonders.

Again this is a game, if you don't like the rules make up your own, or use something like Micro-Armor. Find a group that is willing to play your way and have fun, meanwhile the game is setup as has been pointed out to you on the KISS system, it is simple enough to play without the need for any thing overly complex. The more complex you make it the less fun the game becomes, something that the current TPTB might want to keep in mind since it should have been clear to them that if they had to publish a book that tells players HOW TO USE the core rule books, then things have gone to far and they have lost the fun of the game in that it was simple and fun to play. But I am not seeing that they caught on to this and given that you are dead set on telling us how broken the game rule set up is since it is not realistic enough for you means that you would rather seem it turn into some akin to Star Fleet Battles and the numerous rule changes etc...that system as. A lot of us don't want that kind of game.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Christopher_Perkins
01/03/11 03:44 PM
138.162.128.52

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Chris, let me explain again what I do:

I build the SUVs as best as I can WITH THE NORMAL VEHICLE CONSTRUCTION RULES. If it has 14 points of armor per facing I try to fit that OR I use the listed weight of the armor as my guide point. I DO NOT USE THE BAR SYSTEM AT ALL. I am not sure why you are not following that.




I was driving at the second option that you just mentioned.
Always use the weight of the armor, even if you have sufficient mass to use the points.

if in doubt, reduce the number of points per side by percentages...
that if they give a vehicle Barrier 7 and it has 14 points in a locatioin, then it has 10 points of Standard.

but you are probably able to eyeball the allocation percentage after opting to go with the mass of the armor, i have to do every thing by a spreadsheet or a tool like HM Vee.

Quote:


So to sum up IF I like the vehicle, then it get's made over to a normal vehicle, if I find a vehicle okay for background fluff I leave it as hey they have these but they are not important enough to worry about, land trains come to mind as do some of the airships.




good enough...

Quote:


IF something is to big to be made with the official rules




Phrase it "Combat Vehicle" rules and you get your point accross... I know what you mean, but someone that doesn't know you will be thinking "but the SUV rules are just as official"... remember, the Writers are the ones that set what is canon or official.... we the players get to choose what actually gets USED

Quote:


then I use the home tech rules my group has had for years on expanding vehicles to bigger sizes across the board, they work, they follow the normal construction rules and allow for all the cool toys to be added since they are nothing more then expanded combat vehicle construction rules, unlike the SUV rules which makes GURPS Vehicle rules seem like a cake walk.




You really do not want to see the mobile structure rules that can handle aircraft carriers and super tankers

Quote:


And no it is not hard to make infantry platoons, as I said pencil and paper works wonders.




without the rules and the stats, how do you figure out how much damage the platoon does? What metric do you use?

granted, using BattleForce 1, and the Percentage Based damages from MechWarrior First edition and Mechwarrior Second Edition i was able to come in pretty close to the original stats published in City Tech using the platoon loadouts published in BattleTroops...

and, i am all but certain that i am the reason that they took the time to write the infantry platoon creation rules at all :happydance:
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Karagin
01/03/11 08:33 PM
178.76.138.173

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Chris, there are 28 guys in a platoon for BT, they have support weapons, the base line I use is this, 4 heavy support weapons means that you get 4 weapons that can do some kind of damage to a mech or vehicle, since the standard assault rifle isn't going to do anything to an armored vehicle. So if they have SRMs then we go off the fact that at 2pts a piece the four guys that have them can do 8 points of damage, we go with one shot SRM2s. Same for the RRs and other support weapons, their normal damage times the number in the platoon BASED on the reasonable idea that you are not going to arm the entire platoon with nothing but RRs or SRM2s etc...simple easy and it works well enough. Nothing complex and I don't need a book to tell me how TPTB think it should be done.

Also Chris you comment does indeed suggest that you are dead set on complex rules if you can not fully understand that listing and assigning support weapons to a platoon means you need 3 pages of rules and twelve tables to give you the same thing as simply going with the idea that support weapons are crewed, so normal 2-4 guys are going to be tied into the system and going from there. Really add some common sense into your thought process and stop trying to re-invent the wheel.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/04/11 05:55 AM
184.224.154.91

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Chris you need to understand KISS 'Keep It Simple Stupid'. The more complicated you make things the more you are going to chase people away from wanting to play the game. That's what happened with D&D 4th edition you have to have a costly rule book after another costly rule book to play the stupid game. And they never fixed anything they just made the game more complicated to sale more books. Who really wants to shell out 100s of dollars on a %$@# game!?! That's a rhetorical question I know that lots of fools have. Battletech is just fine as it is. If you want to make things more complicated that's fine. You can have your house rules like everyone else. I my self have created a very complicated economic system for my games because I don't like the fact that most games just throw something into the game with no thought put into it what so ever. They spend years on making rules on how to use magic and an hour on the economic system for the game. I would say less than an hour but you have to give them some time to type it into a computer you cant use shorthand.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Christopher_Perkins
01/04/11 09:30 AM
138.162.128.54

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Chris, there are 28 guys in a platoon for BT, they have support weapons, the base line I use is this, 4 heavy support weapons means that you get 4 weapons that can do some kind of damage to a mech or vehicle, since the standard assault rifle isn't going to do anything to an armored vehicle.




Right, rifles with standard ammo don't do damage with single shots, even under the canon platoon rules the rifles get summed up and then truncated... Even .50 calibre rifles require shots in the 30 rounds per second range to do 1 damage.

Safe to disregard them.

Quote:


So if they have SRMs then we go off the fact that at 2pts a piece the four guys that have them can do 8 points of damage, we go with one shot SRM2s.




how do you come up with the 4 Support Weapons per platoon?

More like 2 per Squad under the Canon rulesi think they are wrong in that because BattleTroops had 2 Support Weapons per Squad (3x2 Semi-portable & 1x2 Support for Laser & MG), and 4 Support Weapons per Squad (3x4 "Infantry" SRM, and 1x4 "Mech" SRM)... (inferno is just screwy)

Quote:


Same for the RRs and other support weapons, their normal damage times the number in the platoon BASED on the reasonable idea that you are not going to arm the entire platoon with nothing but RRs or SRM2s etc...simple easy and it works well enough. Nothing complex and I don't need a book to tell me how TPTB think it should be done.




Actually, the book is important because it told the PTB how to do it. (and they still didn't make the rules capable of doing the 4 BattleTroops Platoons - the only canon platoons that existed at the time - verdict... Epic Fail but still useful as a guideline)
As i Said before, i was able to come rather close to the CitiTech Stats using the Mechwarrior First Edition & TR3026 damage chance tables, the BattleTroops Platoon Structure and the first edition BattleForce box.

Quote:

Also Chris you comment does indeed suggest that you are dead set on complex rules if you can not fully understand that listing and assigning support weapons to a platoon means you need 3 pages of rules and twelve tables to give you the same thing as simply going with the idea that support weapons are crewed, so normal 2-4 guys are going to be tied into the system and going from there. Really add some common sense into your thought process and stop trying to re-invent the wheel.




Agreed: Crew values should have been the only limit on what weapons can be in a platoon...
Take the 2 Damage Support PPC: if a Motorized platoon requires 5 Crew per towed Support PPC, or a Foot Platoon requires 10 Crew per man-portable (*ahem*) Support PPC, then the fire team should have replaced the squad as the important unit.

the Twelve tables are to give the BattleTech Stats for all the Infantry Scale Weapons that are currently in the game...

And as per move or fire (the boogieman that led the PTB to add in that useless limit)... how long in seconds does it take a "reasonably skilled" (read the average for guys that do this for a living) fire team to set up a Ma Deuce to the point that it can be expected to bear on an armored target?
The Same for an AT-4, Javelin, Dragon, or TOW Team, how about for a Recoiless Rifle? I am of a mind to say that *Any* Crewed support weapon that is not shoulder fired cannot be fired on the move (and even shoulder fired weapons like the LSRM, SRM, LRM, & Rocket Launchers require dropping to one knee.

as to the complexity of the SUV rules... I am not sure how much more complicated it is than the Combat Vehicle Rules... I cannot pen create in either...
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Christopher_Perkins
01/04/11 09:43 AM
138.162.128.55

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Chris you need to understand KISS 'Keep It Simple Stupid'. The more complicated you make things the more you are going to chase people away from wanting to play the game.




Playing the Standard rules only requires one book... Total Warfare
Designing the units for the Standard Game requires another... Tech Manual
Designing and Playing Advanced units that you cannot use in tournaments or most official games (leaving aside that custom units are entirely prohibited in most official games) requires that you pick and choose from 2-3 books. Tactical Operations, Strategic Operations, and maybe Interstellar Operations

Quote:

That's what happened with D&D 4th edition you have to have a costly rule book after another costly rule book to play the stupid game. And they never fixed anything they just made the game more complicated to sale more books. Who really wants to shell out 100s of dollars on a %$@# game!?! That's a rhetorical question I know that lots of fools have. Battletech is just fine as it is. If you want to make things more complicated that's fine.




really, the newer set of replacements were to consolidate the rules... i can list the books that are directly replaced by the current 4-5 core books:
BattleTech Master Rules Revised, AeroTech 2 Revised, MaxTech Revised, Combat Operations, Combat Equipment... and that is just what was reprinted in TW & TM...

They never said that you needed to get the new 4-5 books if you already had the other books that were replaced.

Consider this... it is much cheaper to get 4-5 books than it is to get all the books that had the obscure rules compiled in Tactical Operations and Strategic Operations.
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Karagin
01/04/11 10:40 AM
178.76.138.173

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Chris, the rules of BT are complex enough, we have four to five rule books, that in themselves do not cover everything and have their own errata sheets to fix the errors, that alone should tell you that your ideas to add even more rules is pointless and not needed, BUT if you want more complex rules then knock your self out.

As for where I got the numbers for the support weapons, I looked at what different militaries setup for their crew weapons, then I looked at the BT stuff and then I picked a number that made sense and kept things simple. That is all. No magic, no tables, no charts, just a simple hey this a big weapon, it breaks down in to several parts, thus some one has to carry them and set them up...simple really. So I am sorry but I did not base this on anything complex just what I thought would work.

Again Chris, I did not worry about how fast or slow infantry move or don't move. I added the support weapons to the existing platoon, in doing so I did not change the game, in fact all it did was cause a couple of players in my group to stop ignoring infantry and actively kill them more often then not. I call that growing as a player and learning about how the battlefield is not a cut and dry place. I am not following why you can not except that something simple works and there is no need for complex rules.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
01/04/11 11:33 AM
147.160.136.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hey, folks. Is this thread going to go anywhere constructive soon? Please chill before it gets nastier. I'm very happy that the only posts I've had to address in the past 6 months or so were spambots and don't want to break that streak of moderation-free posts.
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.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/04/11 12:26 PM
68.26.70.101

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

in fact all it did was cause a couple of players in my group to stop ignoring infantry and actively kill them more often then not. I call that growing as a player and learning about how the battlefield is not a cut and dry place.




Yea, ignoring 28 men that are armed with LAWs/RPGs and inferno SRMs can be hazards to your health. Its even better when there concealed inside a group of hardened buildings. Even an Atlas can fall to infantry given enough time to work over the mechs armor.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!


Edited by His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey (01/04/11 12:28 PM)
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
01/04/11 12:38 PM
68.26.70.101

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:


And as per move or fire (the boogieman that led the PTB to add in that useless limit)... how long in seconds does it take a "reasonably skilled" (read the average for guys that do this for a living) fire team to set up a Ma Deuce to the point that it can be expected to bear on an armored target?
The Same for an AT-4, Javelin, Dragon, or TOW Team, how about for a Recoiless Rifle? I am of a mind to say that *Any* Crewed support weapon that is not shoulder fired cannot be fired on the move (and even shoulder fired weapons like the LSRM, SRM, LRM, & Rocket Launchers require dropping to one knee.

as to the complexity of the SUV rules... I am not sure how much more complicated it is than the Combat Vehicle Rules... I cannot pen create in either...




If you think that PBI are useless don't use them in your game. The same goes for vehicles, aircraft, and anything else you don't like. There is no law that says that you have to use anything you don't want.

I don't like dealing with spacecraft so I don't worry about what they do. I just say that they did there job and leave it at that.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Karagin
01/04/11 01:34 PM
178.76.138.173

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Funny thing about that...in one battle I had infantry in trenches, and my buddy Jon moves his Archer, modded out with ELRMs from THB, about three hexes away, the infantry had some RRs and HMGs, roughly two platoons worth in the trench works, so I open fire, hits are decent including one to the head, I get one of the best rolls of the night, snake eyes, we use the floating crit, and I rolled for results and bam head is hit. Jon had placed one ton of ELRM ammo, 8 shots in the head critical, he was going to use that first but didn't quite get the chance, since I critted that spot and BOOM dead mech. He quickly decided that my infantry had to go, I think that won the battle for me, since he lost 2 more mechs (3 total) out of his 12 to my infantry and the trenches. Fun stuff...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
01/04/11 01:36 PM
178.76.138.173

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hate to sound like a broken record, but you need the other 4 or 5 books to actually do anything beyond using standard mechs. And again I point out, if TPTB had to put a book that explains to the average and veteran players HOW to use the Core Rule book set, then that should have been a clear indication that things had gotten to complex from the start. Just saying...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
Karagin
01/04/11 01:37 PM
178.76.138.173

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think this one is going better then some of the past ones, but you are right we do need to remain civil and all. I wonder if spambots have good target modifiers...
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
CrayModerator
01/04/11 01:48 PM
147.160.136.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

I think this one is going better then some of the past ones, but you are right we do need to remain civil and all. I wonder if spambots have good target modifiers...




No worries. Ya'll are head and shoulders above the testiness in the Neveron forums right now.
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.
Christopher_Perkins
01/04/11 02:36 PM
138.162.128.55

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Chris, the rules of BT are complex enough, we have four to five rule books, that in themselves do not cover everything and have their own errata sheets to fix the errors, that alone should tell you that your ideas to add even more rules is pointless and not needed, BUT if you want more complex rules then knock your self out.




the complexity is in the background and what and why for the rules... but all of that would be transparant to an end user,

Were the Solaris VII boxed set rules really all that complicated?
a little more complicated than the standard rules, but not really hard.

It is not all that complicated to use the infantry platoons once they have been created.


Quote:

As for where I got the numbers for the support weapons, I looked at what different militaries setup for their crew weapons, then I looked at the BT stuff and then I picked a number that made sense and kept things simple.




ahh, individual weapons rather than aggregating them...

Quote:

Again Chris, I did not worry about how fast or slow infantry move or don't move. I added the support weapons to the existing platoon, in doing so I did not change the game




so are you using the original stats and just saying what the weapons are or are you rolling the weapons seperately... going with the original stats doesnt change the game... rolling the weapons seperately does.

Quote:

in fact all it did was cause a couple of players in my group to stop ignoring infantry and actively kill them more often then not. I call that growing as a player and learning about how the battlefield is not a cut and dry place. I am not following why you can not except that something simple works and there is no need for complex rules.




Complexity on the creation end, simplicity on the end that gets used....
My target has always been to come up with the exact same stats as were published in City Tech.
So the Complexity that i love is in the "how did they get there..?" type or "Why are the rules this way...?", that is the stuff that has no affect on game play.
to me, if the results of the come out able to match what already exists, then the rules are successful... if not...
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Christopher_Perkins
01/04/11 02:42 PM
138.162.128.52

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

If you think that PBI are useless don't use them in your game. The same goes for vehicles, aircraft, and anything else you don't like. There is no law that says that you have to use anything you don't want.




umm, i never said that...
I said that the Limit of 2 Support Weapons per squad of 7 men was useless, context helps.


Quote:


I don't like dealing with spacecraft so I don't worry about what they do. I just say that they did there job and leave it at that.




Exactly...

I never did like the ProtoMechs, but that was mainly because they seemed to me like a poor replacement for Land Air Mechs and used up book space and writing effort that would have better been spent getting construction rules for infantry Platoons...
Now i see them as the More Realistic cousins of BattleMechs... consider, none of the Macross & Patlabor mecha are stated to be as large as BattleMechs. Even though BattleTech Borrowed heavily from Macross for images, the Size and Tonnage are all BattleTech.
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Christopher_Perkins
01/04/11 02:43 PM
138.162.128.55

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Hey, folks. Is this thread going to go anywhere constructive soon? Please chill before it gets nastier. I'm very happy that the only posts I've had to address in the past 6 months or so were spambots and don't want to break that streak of moderation-free posts.




what nastiness, i think that the three of us are having fun...

Guys?


As for constructive...
are things out here in the peripherery ever constructive?
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)

Extra information
0 registered and 5 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, mattbuck, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 8332


Contact Admins Sarna.net