D8 Battletech

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
KamikazeJohnson
02/09/14 12:31 PM
50.72.218.68

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I've been playing around a bit with modifying the BT combat system slightly to use D8 instead of D6. My motivation was primarily the way +1 penalties can stack up to absurd levels very quickly (11+ to hit at Medium Range?). By using D8s, the roll range changes from 2-12 (peak 7) to 2-16 (peak 9). Default skills would need to be adjusted upward by 1-2 points to compensate, as would Heat Scale Shutdown/Ammo Explosion rolls and Consciousness rolls. The Cluster Hit Table would have to be completely altered, probably the biggest nuisance of the game.

So...would this improve the game, hurt the game, or just make it...different?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Karagin
02/09/14 12:40 PM
70.118.139.48

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think it would be a bit different and the changes would not effect overall play.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
02/09/14 03:22 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Actually, it would change the game. More shots hitting would shorten it by alot. It would also throw some of the min/max people into a screaming fit. They would actually lose more units because they couldn't jump in short range against a slow moving target and not be immune to return fire. I think that jumping like this is one of the saving graces of medium mechs.

You would be the best person to say if it is good for your game. Try it out. You will see that a lot of the light long range units will not be able to flee as much as they do now.

Now the down size. Units being able to shoot now will mean you won't be able to hide as well. Instead of being 'safe' in the third set of heavy woods, units will be able to snipe at you with a chance to be hit. You will have more damage, since now 16's to hit are possible. If I use an energy weapon base, like the schrek, you bet I will take the chance and fire ever time I can.
Unless you change line of sight and stuff like that, there is not good way to hide from damage.

The above 8 movement units will now be hittable and easier to take out.

Recap. It will shorten the game.
KamikazeJohnson
02/09/14 04:01 PM
50.72.218.68

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Actually, it would change the game. More shots hitting would shorten it by alot. It would also throw some of the min/max people into a screaming fit. They would actually lose more units because they couldn't jump in short range against a slow moving target and not be immune to return fire. I think that jumping like this is one of the saving graces of medium mechs.

You would be the best person to say if it is good for your game. Try it out. You will see that a lot of the light long range units will not be able to flee as much as they do now.

Now the down size. Units being able to shoot now will mean you won't be able to hide as well. Instead of being 'safe' in the third set of heavy woods, units will be able to snipe at you with a chance to be hit. You will have more damage, since now 16's to hit are possible. If I use an energy weapon base, like the schrek, you bet I will take the chance and fire ever time I can.
Unless you change line of sight and stuff like that, there is not good way to hide from damage.

The above 8 movement units will now be hittable and easier to take out.

Recap. It will shorten the game.



Shortening the game is kinda the idea...quite often I've seen ridiculous (to me) target numbers on what should be fairly routine shots: Medium Range (6), Attacker Walked (+1), Target Moved 5 (+2), 2 Light Woods (+2) = 11, or 8.3% chance of a hit. Using D8 and an adjusted Default Gunnery of 6 and the same modifiers gives a Target Number of 13, which is a 15.6% chance of a hit...still difficult, but not unreasonably. Note that a fast 'Mech or Vehicle can still bump the target number up to 14 or 15 without unreasonable conditions being present. With the new Target Movement Table allowing modifiers of up to +6, very fast units can easily make a Medium Range shot (and sometimes even a Short-Range shot) Impossible.

D8 also makes Long-Range shots a more reasonable option, yielding target numbers of 14 or 15 (9.4% or 4.7%) instead of Impossible.

Key to not speeding up destruction too much is modifying the appropriate Skills...Short Range shots should have fairly close to the same chance of a hit.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Retry
02/09/14 04:03 PM
67.239.109.174

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
RIP hovercraft and VTOLs and light mechs with jump jets.

Hello 100 ton monsters of all types!

(How would you apply it to aerospace fighters?)
ghostrider
02/09/14 09:17 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
make them die a lot faster as well. But that isn't necesarily a bad thing either.

Though the medium range being 6 is based on a skill 4 gunnery. Do not let anyone talk you into allowing a gunnery of -1 or more. Neg gunners will destroy the game.

And the chance to hit higher numbers may not be that bad. The fast movement will still help avoid shots. Granted using 2d8 would make it more likely to hit. I hated the fact that a unit could not hit a 30 meter tall unit standing right in front of it. Ever had a spider try a death from above and there was nothing you could do about it?
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
02/10/14 03:07 PM
172.56.32.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
There is nothing you can do to stop someone from having a negative gunnery skill if they put the points towards it.

I like this D8 concept.

I would not be all that surprised if the original game used d6 out of default because it was the most common die that existed.
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!!!
ghostrider
02/10/14 03:59 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
maybe they did it to lure the people like craps shooters or backgammon players.

It is cheaper to buy d6 then any other dice as well.
KamikazeJohnson
02/10/14 04:29 PM
50.72.218.68

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
maybe they did it to lure the people like craps shooters or backgammon players.

It is cheaper to buy d6 then any other dice as well.



D6s are the default "dice" for most people. Games use D6 unless there's a compelling reason to do otherwise.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
02/10/14 11:21 PM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would believe that to be true. Instead of having one chart using a d20, you can break it up into 3 or more with a d6. First you roll which chart to use, then another for the entry on the chart.

I think it is because the d6 is used so often in society, it is the accepted die for everything.

Though I'm sure people here would like to see your prototype if you would. Unless you want to patent it or copyright it first.
I will try and give you honest input, and I'm sure others here will. Might spark some disagreement, but then saying hi or high will do that.
csadn
02/15/14 04:11 AM
50.39.219.114

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The problem here isn't the dice -- it's the fact that outside of Level 2 Tech, there's no "helpful" modifiers in the game; paraphrasing Horatio Gates in _The Crossing_, the mods only go in one direction, and to score hits requires the other.

A far-simpler method of dealing with this would be to subtract 2 from all targeting mods, across the board. For ex.: The normal range-increment mods are "short = 0; medium = +2; long = +4"; the refigured version would be "short = -2; medium = 0; long = +2".

Psychologically speaking, having some more "helpful" mods might encourage even-riskier behavior -- using the above example, it might encourage players to get up-close -- which leads to more "interesting" games ("Interesting" here meaning "the gaming version of 'hold my beer and watch this'"). In the Olden Days, when the base TH was 4, and Gunnery skill was subtracted for lower (better) numbers, players took a lot of "interesting" risks to earn enough kills to get that all-important minus-sign.
CF

Oregon: The "Outworlds Alliance" of the United States of America
ghostrider
02/15/14 06:49 AM
24.30.128.72

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The low end of the game isnt the issue. Its the high end. With a gunnery skill of 4, you should at short range, no movement modifiers, no terrain modifiers, hit another unit one a 4+ on 2d6. Now I don't know if you consider no move and stationary one and the same. You can dodge without moving. Buildings are definately stationary and should be an automatic hit under these conditions.

Now lets talk about a 0 gun. It is very possible at long range to not be able to hit a 30 meter tall unit and damage it in long range conditions. Even if it sat still. This should only happen if you do not have a line of sight. Ignore indirect fire for now.

Lrm Indirect fire uses the battle computers and a forward observer (which is interesting) to target a unit.
Why do they do this? Best guess is balance.
A faster unit could very well avoid all damage and still hit their target. Now coming in a straight line should negate that bonus. Don't care how faster you move towards something, it should be able to hit. Now moving at an angle is different. This causes more problems not only to hit, but to make the game runs smooth.

They need to increase the ability to hit, or make it so 12 hits anything in range in line of sight.
Drasnighta
05/16/15 08:59 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yeah, all rolls needing 2D6s get +2

Other than that. I'd keep default skills as Default.

But I like my characters to suck. Makes the game last longer.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
KamikazeJohnson
05/16/15 09:02 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
This idea has been rolling around in my head again lately...I'm thinking about crunching some number with it when I get some time.

Actually, the idea has evolved somewhat in my head to include various other changes to the familiar BT system...I'm thinking about calling it "BattleTech Reboot" or something of that nature. in my fantasies, I develop a system for myself and my local group to try, we playtest the crap out of it, then submit it to become an "official" spinoff system, possibly an alternate timeline starting fresh in 3025 again.

Basically, instead of the constant "adding on" to the existing system, take advantage of the several decades' worth of gameplay to revise the system from the ground up.

Features I intend to include:
D8 rather than D6
Modified weapon stats, particularly Autocannon-class weapons
Tweak the rules for Quads
Create more distinction between the different classes of weapons
Modify the Cluster Hit system

I had considered for a while making my own system (as opposed to a BTech system with tweaked rules) but this way I have a good solid starting point...besides, whatever I came up with would probably be similar enough to BT to get me in trouble for "derivative works" if I tried to publish it lol.

Anyway...anyone interested in contributing some ideas to this project? Comment or message me!
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Drasnighta
05/16/15 09:06 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Feel free to bounce stuff this way, and both ways... I'm an Ex Games Designer after all.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
ghostrider
05/17/15 03:01 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
kind of why the house rules thread was made, but if the thread creator here isn't concerned about 'thread jacking' there would be a lot of things that could be done to make the game a little more fun.

One suggestion is 3d6 best 2 when you technically get into the elite range, instead of going with 2 gun or something like that. But I do like the 2d8 as well.

Another would be increase the speed of mechs a little over other ground units. It would help make their 'mobility' something worth a crap. Dropping a few things for vehicles could counter it, but then you could remove some options from them as well. Set the maximum amount of weapons they can carry or something like that to avoid overkill with them.

An option for physical attacks might be grab weapons and make them unusable for that round, for mechs with hands.

I don't care if you use any of the ideas I suggest. Modify them as needed.
Hell there are alot of things that can be tweaked. I would suggest removing artillery from mechs, and keeping them on slow moving vehilces that can NOT fire them while moving. If you want mobile artillery.

Maximum armor for vehicles would be another. Some would say that is crap, but you could then remove the thru armor crits for all ground units. Maybe bump some of the armor limits for mechs, such as a little more for the legs and possibly the head. Or even made the head a possible torso crit instead of its own location. This might need something like installing the dual cockpit to have it as such.
ghostrider
05/17/15 03:11 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hell another thought. Different style of mgs. One anti armor for dealing with mechs and such, while an infantry one that is crap against normal mech armor but rips up infantry units. Different ammos could be used as well.

To help the mobility advantage, you could allow mechs with jets to jump into a hovering dropship when retreating from a battle, as well as actually putting up the ability for them to be dropped in a battle from one that is less then 200 meters in the air. Put some excitement into an actual hot drop.
And dfa rules when being dropped like that.

Maybe add in the ability to make an advanced unit that has better mobility, so a kick can hit anywhere on the enemy's mech, but cost alot of criticals.

If you want a longer battle, maybe have all armor upgraded so it all takes half damage at least on just mechs. That would swing the king of the battlefield back to the mechs.
ghostrider
05/18/15 02:50 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
had a few more ideas go thru my mind.
Maybe set all mech to a minimum of 3 speed for assaults, 4 for heavy, 5 for medium and 6 for lights. That would be for normal actuators/myomers/whatever you are going to use to move the mechs. Upgrades to go faster would cost space/weight which ties into another thought.
Each weight class has so much room it can use for weapons/equipment. This could avoid some issues, though weight would still be a factor. This can be used to limit vehicles even moreso then mechs. Trying to get the equipment to actually point up high enough to fire about the knees of a mech next to a tank isn't really explained in battletech.

I would suggest that normal non infantry/civilian weapons not be able to affect military armor on units. The idea a simple hunting rifle could do one tenth of what a normal ppc can really doesn't make any sense. Granted specialized ammo could be used, ie explosive tipped. But the unit getting hit while carrying it should DIE from the resulting explosion from it.

You could limit the amount of engines by just changing out the movement as suggfested above, with a minimum engine/power output needed for each weight class. You could force larger engines when loaded down with things like energy weapons and gauss weapons. The ballistics would not require such a large engine, though missiles might be either way.
Same could be used for alot of electronics.
I would suggest limiting what can be placed in the legs of a mech, since a ppc in the leg is very stupid in my opinion, but that is NOT dealing with a quad.
Heat is something that I haven't really thought much with.
Another issue is detecting units, which without a neutral game master is very difficult to do. But I would suggest an optional section that goes over this when they do have one.
KamikazeJohnson
05/18/15 03:35 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Interesting thoughts...you're going a bit farther with the movement rules than I had planned to...it makes a fundamental change to the 'Mech design system. Although I had considered something akin to "suspension factor" for certain 'Mech designs...per weight class, or for Tripod or Quad 'Mechs for example.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
05/18/15 11:50 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wasn't sure how far you were going to go.
If you don't use it, that's fine. Had the thought and put it up. Granted you can use something like that to a lesser effect. Like maybe have tsm make that break thru so it doesn't have to be heated.

I would still suggest the extra movement for the mechs. Even if it is a simple +1 to movement. Make the mobility actually work.
Not sure if they have it, but you could put in a lateral shift for all mechs. Not as much movement points as turning and moving into that hex then turning again, but something that costs a little less.

Another idea might be going a bit far would be the ability for mechs to 'dodge' certain amount of shots. Maybe tie it into the movement, ie a move of 3 would allow 3 chances, while a move of 6 would allow 6. Granted a maximum per round would need to be done. Maybe max it at 6. Make it an opposed roll. If mech rolls higher, they dodge, but maybe make it so they have to declare which shot they will attempt it with and roll at the same time. They might dodge a shot that misses anyways sort of thing.
Could halve that for vehicles. Make the driving skill useful. Might make the game longer, but add a bit of excitement into it.
Blackwell
05/18/15 04:32 PM
24.123.192.82

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
couldn't we simply reduce movement modifiers or negate the modifiers if they run straight at you or require a facing change every 3 hexes moved in order to gain the modifier and those facing changes have to be after each 3 hexes travelled not all at the end

I like the idea using D8 for gunnery but we could still use D6 for location hits and missile tables, no need to rewrite everything.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
05/18/15 05:04 PM
172.56.15.79

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One change I would do is to increase the size of a hex from 30m to 45m and let two mechs occupy one hex. This would increase the speed of everything and the ranges that weapons can fire but wont really change anything.

Other changes
Energy weapons require batteries and a power plant can only recharge an X amount depending on the size of the engine.

A standard energy battery has 200 power units and takes one ton and one crit. If hit it does one point of damage per unit of power that it had when hit. Also unlike other ammo it cant be dumped but it can be turned off from being recharged.

Small laser uses 1 unit
Medium laser uses 5 units
Large laser uses 20 units
PPC uses 50 units
Gauss Rifle 20 units

Extended range doubles the power units used
Pulse weapons doubles the power used
Pulse Extended Range uses five times the power used

Any kind of power plant Fusion or ICE creates one power unit per 20 units of engine size each turn rounded down but no less than one. Hydrogen power cells can recharge energy batteries but will cost it in range it can move.

If you go from D6 to D8 that would mean you would go from 12 crits each location to 16 crits. I see that as a good thing. Some of the larger weapons would just be made to use more crits.

I would also allow Machine Guns to be installed in clusters of no more than three taking only one crit but if the cluster is hit all of the machine guns in the cluster are destroyed. I do like the anti mech machine gun and the anti personal machine gun idea.

I would drop almost all the heat that ballistic and missile weapons create and entirely bar double heat sinks from the game.

AC/2, AC/5 = 0 heat
AC/10, Gauss Rifle = 1 heat
AC/20, = 2 heat

SRM-2, SRM-4 and LRM-5 = 0 heat
SRM-6, LRM-10 = 1 heat
LRM-15, LRM-20 = 2 heat
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!!!
Retry
05/18/15 06:28 PM
76.7.238.104

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
increase the speed of mechs a little over other ground units. It would help make their 'mobility' something worth a crap. Dropping a few things for vehicles could counter it, but then you could remove some options from them as well. Set the maximum amount of weapons they can carry or something like that to avoid overkill with them.



Battlemechs already can reach higher speeds over conventional treads and even wheels. The most useful engine type, Fusion, creates a 1.5x multiplier on vehicles that doesn't carry over to mechs, meaning a battlemech can either be faster or more powerful than a similarly designed vehicle. A 50 ton 4/6 SFE tracked tank will, with maxed armor, have 16 tons to spare. A 50 ton 5/8 SFE bipedal mech with semi-maxed (10.5 tons) armor will also have 16 tons to spare.

Battlemech mobility is also superior to conventional tracks and wheels, and has it's own advantages against the hover and WiGE movement types. Mobility isn't just raw speed; terrain traversing capabilities must also be considered. Light and heavy woods can be entered by a battlemech, while the only vehicle type that can hope to enter a light woods is tracked. Hovercraft, although fast, can also skid into compromising situations, and all vehicles can have their speed lowered or destroyed through motive crits of some sort. The Battlemech's motive system, legs, are much more resilient, making it's own mobility easier to exploit. May I mention the Jump Jets?

Vehicles do have a maximum amount of carriable weapons. Their critical slots work differently than battlemechs, but one cannot simply spam thousands of machine guns on a 100 ton chassis.


Edited by Retry (05/18/15 06:28 PM)
ghostrider
05/18/15 11:57 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If I recall, tracked unit move the same amount of speed as the same weight mech with the same sized engine. Yes, you need a transmission for it, but mechs tend to be about the same speed as the tracked units. Wheeled is actually easier to go faster. That first statement seems wrong., retry. Maybe it is just how I read it.

As for any changes in the rule after the clan invasion, I could not say what they did. But frankly, something like the behemoth tank or even the ontos shows how bad a unit could be. Even the srm carrier could be included into that.

Now if they are going to change things to make the game more fun, there is no reason why 2 mechs couldn't fit into a 30 meter hex. Now unless you are going to change the entire size scaling of the hexes, I would think this is better then going to 45 meters. Granted maybe making the 2 mechs easier to hit since they don't have as much room to manuever might be interesting.
I do like the mg cluster idea, but would ask if they would have so many shots of ammo with it, or have to have a separate location. That is not including extra ammo for them.
The energy weapon usage sounds like the right track. Might need a little work, but looks decent as is.
The ac and missile heats should be bumped up just a little for the larger packs, and would ultras just double the heat?

And if you really wanted to limit vehicles, make them carry heat sinks for the missile launchers and ballistic weapons. That would solve the ICE weight problem. Make it the same, since there would be no free heat for them.
KamikazeJohnson
05/19/15 12:46 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

One change I would do is to increase the size of a hex from 30m to 45m and let two mechs occupy one hex. This would increase the speed of everything and the ranges that weapons can fire but wont really change anything.

Other changes
Energy weapons require batteries and a power plant can only recharge an X amount depending on the size of the engine.

A standard energy battery has 200 power units and takes one ton and one crit. If hit it does one point of damage per unit of power that it had when hit. Also unlike other ammo it cant be dumped but it can be turned off from being recharged.

Small laser uses 1 unit
Medium laser uses 5 units
Large laser uses 20 units
PPC uses 50 units
Gauss Rifle 20 units

Extended range doubles the power units used
Pulse weapons doubles the power used
Pulse Extended Range uses five times the power used

Any kind of power plant Fusion or ICE creates one power unit per 20 units of engine size each turn rounded down but no less than one. Hydrogen power cells can recharge energy batteries but will cost it in range it can move.

If you go from D6 to D8 that would mean you would go from 12 crits each location to 16 crits. I see that as a good thing. Some of the larger weapons would just be made to use more crits.

I would also allow Machine Guns to be installed in clusters of no more than three taking only one crit but if the cluster is hit all of the machine guns in the cluster are destroyed. I do like the anti mech machine gun and the anti personal machine gun idea.

I would drop almost all the heat that ballistic and missile weapons create and entirely bar double heat sinks from the game.

AC/2, AC/5 = 0 heat
AC/10, Gauss Rifle = 1 heat
AC/20, = 2 heat

SRM-2, SRM-4 and LRM-5 = 0 heat
SRM-6, LRM-10 = 1 heat
LRM-15, LRM-20 = 2 heat



I have actually put some thought into a "Power Output Rating" system, where instead a set speed, an engine produces a certain power output, and the player chooses each turn how much power to devote to Movement, hiw much to Weapons, etc. Power use over/under a certain threshold is refkected by the Heat Scale. However, I'm worried that it might complicate the game a bit more, resulting in slower play, when I'm hoping that my rule cganges will result in a more streamlined game that plays faster and less awkwardly. One thing it would do, however, would be to eliminate the "Engine Stages" that you get during 'Mech construction...for example you would no longer be restricted to choosing between a 240 and a 320 Engine for your 80-tonner...you can choose any engine you like.

An interesting concept, but it needs a lot of study before I decide if I want to amake that dramatic a change to the game system.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
05/19/15 01:47 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You could simplify it by clustering weapons like a pod. All weapons fire at one time creating x power consumption. Maybe have preset units made out and just add them into a mech. Granted it might reduce players selection, but if you put a grouping that people use a lot of, it would eliminate some issues. Not a great thought but one that might help.
There is something you did forget with the 80 ton mech. You can choose the 80 and 160 rated engine, but I doubt many would want something that slow.
Interestingly enough, the set up donkey put out would pretty much eliminate heat all together, since you would have to charge the energy banks in order to fire anything. Granted that does seem to be countered a little lower with the ballistic and cannons.

I like the power output idea, but I don't think it will be streamlined enough to do much good. Hopefully I'm wrong, and will try to provide a way to help.
One aspect is over 'reviving' the engine which could cause it to shut down or even explode from to much abuse.
You might have to create a table that has a normal operations output for the engine, and a maximum emergency output before damage. Maybe double engine rating for normal and 3 times emergency, just for a quick thought.

As a side thought, if you run capacitors/batteries, installing a larger pack should give you some bonus to weight and space taken, so running 2 packs that store 40 energy each, would be heavier and take up more room then one 80 capacity pack. Nothing huge, but makes it easier to take out all of them in one hit instead of needing 2 hits.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
05/19/15 12:50 PM
172.56.4.63

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
My way of charging of the energy batteries was to just have an alternator that runs off the engine. I was not thinking that energy weapons would need a large portion of the engines out put. I think that is just over kill.

Basically I was trying to make energy weapons not the ultimate weapons in the game. I was trying to force people to use a mix of energy, ballistic, and missile weapons. I would love to make it if you use only one of the three types of weapon systems in a design you would get your butt majorly kicked.
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!!!
ghostrider
05/19/15 02:29 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I agree with the thought. Honestly, if the power was taken directly from the engine, and didn't have a storage device to hold most if not all of it, I could very well see the unit coming to a stop as the engine stalls from the power requirements.
I was concerned that if heat sinks and power capacitor/battery banks were needed, it might swing the problem to far against them. Just a voiced concern, nothing more.
I would also suggest to require the gauss weapons have a charge assigned to them as well.
Now would you suggest reducing the heat output of the energy weapons themselves, while having a heat output for the storage devices? That would mean there is a minimum heat output for having the charges stored. Say if they didn't have it charged, it would take that round to bring up the power so weapons the needed it could fire the next round?
I know we went over the issue of energy weapons being the top dog because as long as there it power to fire, they can.
Which also begs the question for ammo dependent weapons. Will there be an increase in ammo sizes, or eliminate the quantity, but not the position or critical for the bin?

Now if you want to use this idea for movement, it could be based on weight and speed wanted. Say a 20 ton unit movement would be like 10 power units per hex, while the 100 ton might require 50 units per hex to move. If you didn't want to fire in that round, the 100 tonner might be able to reach say 6 or 7 speed.
With any power left over dropped from the game, meaning only the current power output of the engine could be used.
Engine damage would reduce that power output, meaning the unit would have to pick and choose what they would put the power to, limiting their firepower.
Drasnighta
05/19/15 05:02 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
We're getting into Earthsiege/Starsiege territory a bit with that...
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
KamikazeJohnson
05/19/15 05:29 PM
72.143.233.127

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I agree with the thought. Honestly, if the power was taken directly from the engine, and didn't have a storage device to hold most if not all of it, I could very well see the unit coming to a stop as the engine stalls from the power requirements.
I was concerned that if heat sinks and power capacitor/battery banks were needed, it might swing the problem to far against them. Just a voiced concern, nothing more.
I would also suggest to require the gauss weapons have a charge assigned to them as well.
Now would you suggest reducing the heat output of the energy weapons themselves, while having a heat output for the storage devices? That would mean there is a minimum heat output for having the charges stored. Say if they didn't have it charged, it would take that round to bring up the power so weapons the needed it could fire the next round?
I know we went over the issue of energy weapons being the top dog because as long as there it power to fire, they can.
Which also begs the question for ammo dependent weapons. Will there be an increase in ammo sizes, or eliminate the quantity, but not the position or critical for the bin?

Now if you want to use this idea for movement, it could be based on weight and speed wanted. Say a 20 ton unit movement would be like 10 power units per hex, while the 100 ton might require 50 units per hex to move. If you didn't want to fire in that round, the 100 tonner might be able to reach say 6 or 7 speed.
With any power left over dropped from the game, meaning only the current power output of the engine could be used.
Engine damage would reduce that power output, meaning the unit would have to pick and choose what they would put the power to, limiting their firepower.



Also on my list of changes is to improve ammo weapons...in general increasing ammo supply, but at the same time making ammo explosions less destructive. I've always found it frustrating that an ammo hit...any ammo...is pretty much a death sentence to any 'Mech...a Heavy or Assault should have at least some chance of survival.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Retry
05/19/15 11:15 PM
76.7.238.104

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
If I recall, tracked unit move the same amount of speed as the same weight mech with the same sized engine. Yes, you need a transmission for it, but mechs tend to be about the same speed as the tracked units. Wheeled is actually easier to go faster. That first statement seems wrong., retry. Maybe it is just how I read it.



They can move at the same speed as the same weight mech with the same size engine, but if the engine is fusion then the vehicle will have a 50% higher engine weight. The vehicle will have to sacrifice in armor or weaponry whereas the Mech probably won't, unless it's something silly like a Charger.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
05/19/15 11:23 PM
172.56.32.31

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
To tell the truth there is to much ammo per ton, ammo should weigh a great deal more than it does. But to keep the game playable it needs to be left alone.

I also think engines should be left alone.

What needs tweaking is weapons systems.
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!!!
ghostrider
05/20/15 02:25 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Never heard of the earthsiege/starsiege game so if that does sound like their territory, then thanks for telling me. Don't want any issues.

As was suggested in another thread, making ammo like fuel for ICEs. Allow enough to last the battle, but I can see issues with that.
I would like to know the reasoning behind the ammo should weigh more then it does. A gauss slug should weigh more then an ac 10 shell by a bit, yet they have 8 shots verses 10. Not saying it is wrong or bad, but curious.

And I do agree with the ammo explosions. A ton of mg ammo does 2 points per round? 200 points? That does sound like more then a bit much. It should blow out the armor as well as some of the force and maybe even some of the round before they cook off. I can see an auto fall for the mech, but to destroy a mech, yet an arm breach under water or in space doesn't shut the unit down? Sounds like each area has some physical separation in them. I found ammo on a light mech was stupid in the extreme, because of the instant death.

And we seem to agree that the weapons need tweaking.

On a side note, are you going to deal with comms and sensors? possible jammers interfering with orders?
I know that is extremely difficult without a game master running it to enforce anything like that. To a lesser extent, the sensors.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
05/20/15 06:58 PM
208.54.38.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
100 rounds of .50 cal of ball ammo weighs 16kgs. If a machine gun fires 600 rounds a minuet that is 100 rounds a turn. 200 turns of ammo should weigh 3.2 tons and not 1 ton.
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!!!
ghostrider
05/20/15 11:54 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That I didn't know.
The thing is, when firing, does the shot do a burst fire, or continuous fire the entire round? It may be it only shoots 150 to 200 bullets in a round.
Then again, you have to remember that a single round for battletech is 10 second. So 100 bullets should be max in a round. I believe aerotech is 1 minute turns. Which means some games using strafing runs would probably be wrong in timing.
If you consider the 10 seconds firing, the number of shots may not even equal a ton.
Hope that doesn't sound like I am picking apart your idea as much as it seems.

Also, is that firing caseless shots or with the shell casings? I don't remember if battletech uses the shell casings or not.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
05/23/15 08:19 AM
172.56.30.82

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Your trying to get small bullets to punch through heavy armor plating. I would say firing the entire round. I was assuming it was firing 100 bullets a round.

Yes 100 bullets in a round would be correct "IF" the machine gun "ONLY" fires at 600 rounds a minuet. If you have a mini gun that fires 4,500 rounds a minuet you would use 750 bullets a round. My first example was a heavy round that fired at a slow rate of fire and not a light round firing at a very high rate of fire.

Well since all of the BT art work that I have ever seen shows casings falling from ballistic weapons being fired I would say that they do use casing ammunition.
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!!!
ghostrider
05/23/15 01:05 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
50 caliber is not really that small of a bullet. A 22 is.
Now from what I have seen, normally larger shots fire slower then smaller ones. Yes, there are exceptions.

Now the art work and the economics of the innersphere would mean they waste alot of materials on shell casings. I would figure people could make a fortune selling the metal back to the government, as you really never hear much about clean up crews looking for that type of salvage. And the one issue I have with the artists. They tend to draw those same casings falling from a gauss rifle. That is a single solid chunk, without a casing. But it still looks cool.

Now I know a 30 mm will tear up tanks. Not sure the fire rate of the a10s gun. Anyone know the comparisons to a 50 cal vrs the 30mm for that stats? I think someone posted it once before, but not sure. Might be a good idea to put it in another thread.
CrayModerator
05/23/15 05:18 PM
97.101.96.171

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

Yes 100 bullets in a round would be correct "IF" the machine gun "ONLY" fires at 600 rounds a minuet. If you have a mini gun that fires 4,500 rounds a minuet you would use 750 bullets a round. My first example was a heavy round that fired at a slow rate of fire and not a light round firing at a very high rate of fire.



A BT weapon doesn't necessarily spend a full 10-second turn firing. It might just be a half-second tap on the trigger when you have a lock. Tactical Operations and MaxTech address longer bursts with MGs and ACs.

Quote:
Well since all of the BT art work that I have ever seen shows casings falling from ballistic weapons being fired I would say that they do use casing ammunition.



Caseless autocannons are addressed in Tactical Operations. They're definitely not standard.
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.
ghostrider
05/25/15 04:02 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
a thought had occurred to me about the length of time the mg's fired.
There is noting in the rules to explain how long they fire in a round, but yet there is a spider variant that has mgs on it. They can jump 240 meters to a target and fire the mgs at it. Even a locust or spider running 360 meters can do the same. That would mean there is a limited time they fire, otherwise you should never do any damage in that round, since you are out of the 90 meters range while approaching it.. Yet, you can be point blank when you use them.


Edited by ghostrider (05/25/15 04:03 AM)
KamikazeJohnson
05/25/15 11:32 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

a thought had occurred to me about the length of time the mg's fired.
There is noting in the rules to explain how long they fire in a round, but yet there is a spider variant that has mgs on it. They can jump 240 meters to a target and fire the mgs at it. Even a locust or spider running 360 meters can do the same. That would mean there is a limited time they fire, otherwise you should never do any damage in that round, since you are out of the 90 meters range while approaching it.. Yet, you can be point blank when you use them.



MGs (and, depending on how you envision them, Autocannons) are the biggest inconsistency with the move/fire phase system. You can assume Burst Fire, but there's no logical reason why they can't fire continuously for periods of 10 seconds or longer (the present-day equivalents can handle sustained fire without overheating), in which case, why limit their damage potential? Or we can assume the weapon fired the whole time, but then we have issues where a Locust "strafing" a target somehow does the same damage with the same hit percentage with it MGs as a Thunderbolt using its plodding movement to maintain optimal range for the entire 10 sec. I personally chalk it up as an abstraction for the sake of fitting in with the game system, and take the damage rating as a kind of "average" damage from the weapon.

Note as well that a rapid-fire weapon should logically have a "spray" effect, where you would expect a 10-second burs to perhaps hit the arm, travel across the torso, maybe all the way across to the other arm, but that type of damage path isn't easily represented in BT without adding several paragraph of Special Rules for rapid-fire weapons.

There's a point where I give up trying to justify things logically, and just accept it.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/01/15 04:59 PM
172.56.42.25

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
KamikazeJohnson writes:

There's a point where I give up trying to justify things logically, and just accept it.



Welcome to the logical thinking gamers. =P
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!!!
ghostrider
06/01/15 11:38 PM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Actually, the walking line of shots across the torso in the novels is a very good example of the damage inconsistencies of the autocannons. I would think the damage they do should be considered average for that size weapon. I would think an ac 5 would do 5 points on the normal hit, but maybe it should do a point to a/some locations next to it's damage area on a good hit roll. Maybe an extra point for ever say 3 over the roll to hit.
Maybe increasing the damage it does might be a way to balance the fact energy weapons just out perform them.
Removing the heat from them might be another thing, but this isn't something that should be considered lightly.

The length of time would have to be burst otherwise the ultra would not be working.

Some of it just needs tweaking. I could understand the 'lost tech' crap for a while, but really. They have not figured out how to fix this crap yet? The heavy laser doing twice the damage for the same range but double the heat of a normal laser, yet they can't improve the normal ones?
I don't have the re-engineered information but it sounds like it has issues as well. Honestly, I would think the er and pulse variants were re-engineered.
KamikazeJohnson
06/09/15 02:35 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Did a test run of some of my new rules, and for the most part things worked well. My changes to the Cluster Hit system turned LRMs into Monster Weapons of Death. Well, maybe not that extreme, but an LRM 15 worked out somewhat more effective than a PPC (at least in part due to crappy rolls by the Awesome), when once you factor in tonnage, ammo, and heat, a PPC and a LRM 20 should be approximately even, so apparently I need to tweak my Custer Table numbers.

D8 play is...interesting...we used base Gunnery skills of 6, and even so, the movement and terrain modifiers were noticeably less significant. Add in the fact that missiles had a chance of hitting well below the target number (or minor damage, but still something), and those speedy Light 'Mechs were in much more danger than usual. The other bi difference...was simply the difference. Any experienced BT player has a feel for how likely they are to hit at any given target number. Suddenly 9s and 10s were "average" shots, and even a 14 was worth going for in many instances. The change felt positive overall, but will definitely call for some mental adjustment when switching over from regular BT.

Planning on incorporating more SRMs into the next fight, see how they measure up to Medium Lasers.Need to complete my Hit Location Tables as well, although that and some of my weapon tweaks will make the "classic" 3025 'Mechs obsolete. Probably need to redesign them. Anyone know of a 'Mech Design program that allows customization of the base rules?

So much work to do, so little time to playtest
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
06/09/15 11:55 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Glad to hear it made the game interesting.
From what it sounds like, running up to club each other is not going to be the norm anymore. Which sounds more like the game should have been like. More fluid, less I swing, now you swing. Then repeat.

Though I can see this making the urbanmech nothing more then target practice.
Just curious, but you did a 3025 run? Or did you have more advanced weapons in it?
Drasnighta
06/09/15 12:43 PM
198.53.98.65

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:


Though I can see this making the urbanmech nothing more then target practice.




You say that like the situation has changed.
CEO Heretic BattleMechs.
KamikazeJohnson
06/09/15 11:13 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Drasnighta writes:

Quote:
ghostrider writes:


Though I can see this making the urbanmech nothing more then target practice.




You say that like the situation has changed.



UrbanMech = Speedbump

Actually, I'm working on Facing rules for Hit Locations, which go hand-in-hand with slightly altered Armour Limit rules. Add in my modified Weapon specs, which lightens Autocannons somewhat, and the UM-60 becomes a somewhat more durable speedbump.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
06/09/15 11:34 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Glad to hear it made the game interesting.
From what it sounds like, running up to club each other is not going to be the norm anymore. Which sounds more like the game should have been like. More fluid, less I swing, now you swing. Then repeat.

Though I can see this making the urbanmech nothing more then target practice.
Just curious, but you did a 3025 run? Or did you have more advanced weapons in it?



Stand'n'Bash will definitely become limited to groups of like-minded Heavies and Assaults (and poor unfortunates left with no other options). I expect Piloting Skill Checks to be a more significant part of the game, making Push and Charge attacks more prominent, and putting Physical Attacks into the Movement Phase will allow "run by" punches...kind of like a "clothesline" attack.

I did 3025 for a trial run, to test the basic system. I have some plans for the advanced tech, specifically the Autocannon advances.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
06/10/15 02:16 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Moving the physical attacks to the movement phase, will definitely make piloting skill rolls that much more prominent. It will make dfa alot more dangerous.
I would suggest making it a little harder to do the clothesline if the target hasn't moved that turn. Logic being they could try and dodge the attack since they do have some movement left.
I do feel even more sorry for the unit that misses a charge. Short range back shot for failing. Ouch.

Keeping an eye on what people try to use after they make a physical will definitely be needed. I can imagine someone trying to fire arm weapons after throwing a punch.
A nasty thought about axes and such. If you can do a clothesline attack with them, would it be possible be able to hit a second target if in range?

One last thought about movement and the penalties to hit. Should that be based on how far the firing unit moves as well? Even at a walk, a spider moves further then say a running urbanmech, yet I would figure it would be harder to keep the weapon on target while moving that distance.
Maybe remove it with a piloting roll, or at least modify it by one.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/12/15 08:49 PM
208.54.38.245

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would modify the base to hit numbers to bring it to an average 2d8 roll from a 2d6 roll.
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!!!
ghostrider
06/13/15 01:18 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It just struck me as odd, that a unit running at 90 meters would have a harder time of hitting something then something that is walking at 240 meters in 10 seconds would.
And jumping that distance make it the same to hit?
Unless jumping is like the mech warrior vidoe games later versions were you slide along the ground vs the arching motion of the earlier ones, I would think it would be more difficult to shoot.

Now with the rest of the to hit rolls, have you considered things like extending the shots out to cover things like more then 3 wood sets?
Line of sight was interesting, since you should be able to target thru the computers radar/mad sensors, otherwise idf from a moving unit should be impossible. This is assuming that you can shoot the target, vs say a wall or building in the way. But even that, atleast lrm idf should be allowed in some situations. Maybe a unit equipped with and advanced probe might qualify.
I would think light woods should allow the shots, though heavy woods should shut it down.

And with the discussion about hitting targets, I would think keeping the base the same. With the 2d8, it makes it easier to hit something. An open field shot with something coming directly at you should not be so difficult as the current rules suggest. Example. Locust runs straight at you (+4). Without you even moving at short range that is an 8 at base 4 shot. Should it really be that hard if you aim for center mass?
KamikazeJohnson
06/16/15 01:42 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

I would modify the base to hit numbers to bring it to an average 2d8 roll from a 2d6 roll.



Current round of playtesting uses default Gunnery Skill of 6, rather than 4. Still seemed to result in more hits than before...except for the Awesome.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
06/16/15 02:56 AM
76.89.120.217

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Always seems to be the one unit you want to kill everything with, misses with the big guns. The dual ac 20 and upgraded ultra 20 mech I used seemed to do that alot. It is one of the reasons I also use punches over kicks. Miss and fall.

But that is interesting that even a higher gunnery skill results in a little easier to hit. Might check the dice to make sure they aren't loaded

Did you give any thought to returning the ams back to taking out a number of missles, which might mean the entire volley is destroyed with no damage to the ams carrier? That would help balance the lrm spread hits, as well as make them a little more useful. I was going to suggest possible allowing a good roll to take out more then normal. Would really screw up those that love streaks.
KamikazeJohnson
07/17/15 07:13 PM
24.114.42.43

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So a simple Dice conversion has turned into a full-blown alternate ruleset...I've modified Movement somewhat, intruducing Inertia when stopping or moving from a standstill. Tweaked the weapon stats a bit. Added 2 additional weapons, LRM 25 and LRM 30 to go along with greatly modified LRM rules. LRMs now use a combined To-Hit/Missile Hit roll...LRMs, particularly the bigger racks...rarely miss completely now, although a shot at a high To-Number is more likely to result in only a minor amount of damage. LRMs are smaller, lighter, carry more ammo, and generate more heat, but require a "loading" round between shots, making them much more effective in pairs.

Altered the Hit Location table to make more sense...6 Location Charts reduced to 2 simple Table to account for 6 directions of incoming fire. Max Torso Armour rules will need to be modified to allow heavier Back armour, work in progress.

Still working out the details for my Engine Power requirement for Energy weapons...but essentially Energy Weapons draw from the same Power limit as Movement, meaning a Laser Boat may need to reduce speed in order to apply maximum firepower.

Many changes done, many more to come
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
07/17/15 08:00 PM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Did you really think it was going to be simple like just adjusting numbers? I know you have been here longer then that.

Interesting that you say max rear torso armor. I believe that is dependent on how much front armor you have. 12 internal means 24 armor, so you could have 12 points on the back, as long as you only have max of 12 on the front. I do not think there is anything that says you can't put all 24 on the back except weapons fire critting as soon as it hits.

And the suggestions doesn't mean you have to deal with them. Most seem to be counter to issues people have with the game and reality. Yes, it is fantasy, and yes there is the fact you have to give some physics up to play it, but some things just sound wrong.

Now with the engine issues, can the unit carry a larger engine to counter the power requirements for it? Like using a 325 engine in a marauder instead of the 300?

I do like the idea of having a reload time for some things like missiles, but will the be dependent on the size of the rack? Like a 5 pack not having much, where a 20 pack might be a couple of rounds? And even more if you have multiple ammo types and want to use something other then the default ammo?
Firestarter
07/17/15 08:02 PM
67.251.72.165

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I must say this is impressive. I do believe you have created Battletech 2.0
Good job.
ghostrider
07/17/15 08:10 PM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Watch the copyrights.

It does make you wonder how much you can tweak things and still be playable and fun. I don't know if he is going to let us in on the design or not. It would be a tro by itself.

And speaking of this, I have a question for the admins.
Could he put this on the board here, or would that be a violation of copyrights?
We don't want any legal issues at all.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/17/15 11:22 PM
71.170.164.190

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
As long as he does not try to sell it there should be no issue with the copyrights that are held by the owners of BT.
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!!!
KamikazeJohnson
07/17/15 11:22 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Did you really think it was going to be simple like just adjusting numbers? I know you have been here longer then that.



No comment.

Quote:
Interesting that you say max rear torso armor. I believe that is dependent on how much front armor you have. 12 internal means 24 armor, so you could have 12 points on the back, as long as you only have max of 12 on the front. I do not think there is anything that says you can't put all 24 on the back except weapons fire critting as soon as it hits.



The modified Hit Location Table makes Rear hits much more common; however, simply changing the Front/Rear ratio would leave Torsos badly underarmoured in a Slugfest. I'm thinking of allowing 2 per Internal for Front Torso, and an additional 1 per Internal for the back. Balance might entail modifying the amoung of Torso Structure at each tonnage, or other armour-related changes.

Quote:
Now with the engine issues, can the unit carry a larger engine to counter the power requirements for it? Like using a 325 engine in a marauder instead of the 300?



That was kinda the idea...under standard rules, 100-ton 'Mech has 4 Engine choices...100, 200, 300, and 400. Under these rules, a 100-ton 'Mech could mount a 325 Engine, reserving 300 points for Movement, and 25 for Weapons. However, the 'Mech could also be over-armed, forcing it to reduce to 2/3 movement in order to fire up to 125 points worth of energy weapons. Could be especially useful for heavily-armed Mediums...move 8/12 to get to the action, move 5/8 while engaged, then back up to 8/12 to escape. Should affect Jump movement as well, I'd imagine.

Quote:
I do like the idea of having a reload time for some things like missiles, but will the be dependent on the size of the rack? Like a 5 pack not having much, where a 20 pack might be a couple of rounds? And even more if you have multiple ammo types and want to use something other then the default ammo?



I think the reload time would work best if it's consistent across all LRMs...works fluff-wise by assuming a larger rack has a comparatively larger ammo feed system. I'm accounting for multiple ammo types by forcing the player to choose which ammo bin is used during the Reload turn. Requires planning ahead with their ammo choices.

I now have the onerous task of playtesting for balance ahead of me. Oh, the horror of playing multiple sessions...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
07/17/15 11:28 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Watch the copyrights.

It does make you wonder how much you can tweak things and still be playable and fun. I don't know if he is going to let us in on the design or not. It would be a tro by itself.

And speaking of this, I have a question for the admins.
Could he put this on the board here, or would that be a violation of copyrights?
We don't want any legal issues at all.



I'm hoping that being "just a collection of house rules" will keep me safe from copyright issues. Right now it's a labour of love for my own enjoyment...I have no intention of distributing the completed project without first working out a deal with TPTB. Would be nice to see that happen, but I'm not holding my breath lol.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
07/18/15 01:26 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
It might throw off the balance, but maybe having torso armor use 1/2 of the front armor on the back.
Say put 6 points on the front, and the rear gets 3 points for 'free'. This would mean you would not armor the back, but it would automatically be done from the front. That would mean the armor per ton might change or you would require less tonnage in weight. That might change the internal to allowing 3 points per spot instead of 2.. This would only be allowed for the torsos. A little much, but some thing that might be workable.

Also, I would think some one will ask sooner or later, though I suggest no. Would you allow overcharging of the energy weapons?
Potentially more damage but can explode the weapon.

When you talk to them, maybe suggest a 'home rule' guide book or something like it. That might go over a little better with them. Though I doubt it.
Firestarter
07/18/15 06:02 PM
67.251.72.165

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If you dont mind I think I'm going to try JUST the D8 rule today.
I haven't played in a while so might as well see how much it speeds up the game.
Its just the 3rd edition. So not too many rules, but if its ok I'm going to try it.
ghostrider
07/19/15 02:17 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't remember seeing anything that says you can not pick and choose the parts you want to play. But since you brought it up, I don't think you can use just the d8 for playing with.

Just let us know you experience with it, since it may show some needed tweaks.
Granted the location rolls could have been left with the standard table.
Then again maybe opening up 2 more spots per location might come up with some other interesting designs. Hmmm..
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/19/15 08:36 AM
71.170.164.190

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I am assuming that your not getting free weight of armor on the torsos but have to account for each and every point of armor for the amount of weight the mech carries in armor.

I have never liked that the mech had to split its torso armor between the front and back. I do like the idea that you can have three points of armor for the torso two going to the front and one going to the back for each point of internal structure.

Now I have a question. Does one have to equalize the armor placement or can one max out the front or back and not its opposite location?
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!!!
ghostrider
07/19/15 11:27 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That would depend on how you see an armor point spread out. For legs and arms the point goes completely around the limb, verses the torso that forms a sheet on only one side.
Yes, the argument could be said surface area of the torso is greater, so it can not cover the rear and still provide the normal protection it should.

The suggestion I was suggesting would be strict that it would have to be 2 front 1 back.
But as with all suggestions here, it is up to you to pick and modify any ideas you want to use.
Technically the head already uses the 3 for 1 internal, so it isn't really that far fetched.
Who knows, maybe creating another armor type that allows for more armor per ton then normal, though going this route is bordering bad since that would be the normal after it is started being used. It also means the enemy units will ALL have it.
Firestarter
07/19/15 01:09 PM
67.251.72.165

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I was planning on keeping the standard tables and using the D8 for to-hit rolls.
KamikazeJohnson
07/20/15 12:00 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Firestarter writes:

I was planning on keeping the standard tables and using the D8 for to-hit rolls.



If you're going to use the D8s for To-Hit roll, make sure to modify the Gunnery Skills accordingly. Gunnery of 6 instead of 4 gives you roughly the same base odds, but will lessen the effects of the modifiers, for a net better chance to hit. 2D8 with Gunnery 4 will be roughly equivalent to a Gunnery 1 under standard rules.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/20/15 08:23 AM
71.170.164.190

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If someone wanted to do it it would be interesting to see all of the 3025 mechs redone with d8 crits, the 2-1 torso armor, and the the modified weapon crits that where suggested in this thread.
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!!!
ghostrider
07/20/15 12:04 PM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The 3025 mechs would be interesting, but I don't see them gaining much, though the 2/1 torso armor might give them some weight depending on if they do the armor points like a limb. Even without the armor, some weapons packages would be changed. A few having alot of weight, but not alot of criticals for smaller weapons and heat sinks might change, like the atlas. We did discuss the removal of the 20 for lasers and others lighter weapons. Imagine what you could do with the room for heatsinks to use them.

The more advanced tech mechs could benefit alot from it. Room for some extra heatsinks, or maybe another ton of ammo. For a few, the extra crits might open up better possibilities, like having a full ac 20 in the arms and not split in a torso.

But the main person that might even try is the one that is doing the play testing.
KamikazeJohnson
07/20/15 12:39 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The 3025 mechs would be interesting, but I don't see them gaining much, though the 2/1 torso armor might give them some weight depending on if they do the armor points like a limb. Even without the armor, some weapons packages would be changed. A few having alot of weight, but not alot of criticals for smaller weapons and heat sinks might change, like the atlas. We did discuss the removal of the 20 for lasers and others lighter weapons. Imagine what you could do with the room for heatsinks to use them.

The more advanced tech mechs could benefit alot from it. Room for some extra heatsinks, or maybe another ton of ammo. For a few, the extra crits might open up better possibilities, like having a full ac 20 in the arms and not split in a torso.

But the main person that might even try is the one that is doing the play testing.



I'm absolutely planning on redesigning the 3025 'Mechs once I have the new rules sorted out...since I'm tweaking a lot of the weapon specs, none of the existing designs will be "legal" under the new system. However, I'l try to keep the same general concept, so the 'Mechs are familiar to experienced BT players.

The Archer is the one I'm thinking about the most...if the numbers work out, it will carry a pair of the new LRM 30s, able to sustain firing one each round while the other loads.

The Warhammer is another that could see some interesting growth...with my new Engine rules for energy weapons, I could see it working out well...sacrifice speed to maintain fire with the PPCs at range, but maintain full mobility while skirmishing with the close-range weapons. Awesome will pretty much have the option of Move or Fire. That will probably be the hardest part...once I get the rules set for the weapons, getting them all balanced will probably take a lot of tweaking.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Retry
07/20/15 12:54 PM
76.7.237.17

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yeesh, these rules sound quirky.
KamikazeJohnson
07/20/15 03:11 PM
24.114.43.187

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Retry writes:

Yeesh, these rules sound quirky.



It's actually not as complicated as it sounds from that little blurb. Basically, your standard 300-rated engine generates 300 units of energy per turn. So a Thunderbolt with a 300-rated engine (ignore the weight variance for now) would use 260 points to use movement rate 4/6, leaving 40 points to power energy weapons. Moving at 3/5 rate uses only 195 points, leaving 105 for energy weapons.

It's a rough rule right now...not sure if I will allow overspending at a cost of heat or some other effect, or if it will he a "hard cap".
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
07/20/15 04:15 PM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That does bring up the question about overheated mechs. Will the heat scale limit power output?

Thought came up when thinking a unit could devote power to running away from a battle that is was redlining on the heat.
Since 5 on the scale reduces walking in normal mechs, this would make sense the power levels would drop. Overheating semi's going up a grade lose power, so it would have physical reality backing it.
Not sure if you thought about it.

I wonder if we can get our own subject on the forums for this, or should this go in the off topic area?
(yes, I want my own subject forum )
ghostrider
07/21/15 01:40 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A point was brought up in another thread about AA units not being more effective against air units then others. If you didn't see the response, or want to keep it here, I was thinking dedicated AA units might have radar that would allow +1 against air units, and maybe suffer a penalty for engaging ground targets since the weapons would be mounted in an upwardly fashion, but thinking about it, might not work with mechs like the Rifleman.

Mabye make that penalty at a range of 1 for those mechs. Could say air sensors mess with ground sensors.
KamikazeJohnson
07/30/15 02:05 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
New rule tweak...I now included definitions of 4 different Arm types, each with different firing arcs and capabilities. Arm type is defined by the type/number of Actuators present in the Arm. Thinking of assigning the Unarticulated Arm (a.k.a. "Rifleman style" Arm) a bonus for Anti-Aircraft fire.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
07/30/15 09:22 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Technically it has the shoulder and upper arm actuators, but then maybe that would be a good way to distinguish an AA mech verse any thing just titled anti air. And now that I think about it, that might be the disadvantage of making a mech anti air. The penalties for no lower or hand actuators should counter it.

So you looked at the rifleman/galahad arms then looked that the marauder/timberwolf arms and seen just what each one should be able to do then realized a warhammer is in between them?

You could also add a special roll when torso or head hit to see if radar unit is damages, like some of the scenario packs did with spotlights mounted on mechs. Think it was 7+ to avoid losing it.

Just a thought, but would advance rules maybe limit what a mech like the marauder could put in the arms, since that ball joint configuration can not be that strong?


Edited by ghostrider (07/30/15 09:24 AM)
KamikazeJohnson
07/30/15 09:44 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Technically it has the shoulder and upper arm actuators, but then maybe that would be a good way to distinguish an AA mech verse any thing just titled anti air. And now that I think about it, that might be the disadvantage of making a mech anti air. The penalties for no lower or hand actuators should counter it.

So you looked at the rifleman/galahad arms then looked that the marauder/timberwolf arms and seen just what each one should be able to do then realized a warhammer is in between them?

You could also add a special roll when torso or head hit to see if radar unit is damages, like some of the scenario packs did with spotlights mounted on mechs. Think it was 7+ to avoid losing it.

Just a thought, but would advance rules maybe limit what a mech like the marauder could put in the arms, since that ball joint configuration can not be that strong?



I defined 5 different types of Arms, including 1 completely new type.

1) Fixed-mount. Shoulder only, no Actuators. No Punch or Push attacks. Same firing arc as Torso weapons. Weapons over a certain size (dependent on weight class of 'Mech) must be mounted this way if arm-mounted. (e.g. the AC/10 on the UrbanMech)

2) Unarticulated Arm. Shoulder and Upper Arm Actuator. Arm dies not bend. No Punch or Push attacks. Weapons have 180-degree firing arc, from direct front to direct rear. Bonus to Ant-Aircraft fire. (e.g. Rifleman)

3) Articulated Arm. Shoulder, Upper Arm and Lower Arm Actuators. Normal Arm firing arc. Penalties for Punch or Push attacks. (e.g. Warhammer)

4) Full Arm. Same as Articulated Arm, no penaties for Punch or Push attacks. (e.g. Atlas)

5) Ball Mount. Shoulder and Ball Actuator. Firing arc includes full Front arc all the way to direct rear. Most weapons may fire into same hex. Lower half of arm is completely removed, so crit space is limited. Ball Actuator uses 2 crit spaces. (e.g. Locust)
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
07/31/15 03:34 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Nice. That definitely adds more realism to the game. Have you actually tried it out?

Gonna be interesting seeing things like the stalker mech try firing to the sides and it looks like the fixed mount type.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/31/15 05:01 AM
71.170.162.49

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would make 2 have the ability to fire into the full front ark and ditch 5. There is making it more realistic then there is making it complicated for the sake of being complicated.
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!!!
ghostrider
07/31/15 11:59 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
You want complicated?
Look at some of the engines out on the markets today.
There are more then a few that have several different brackets holding the alternator and such. Sometimes they change them in mid year on car models.
And that isn't even discussing the 151 pontiac heads. There is 5 different versions of it on the older engines. Casting numbers are supposed to take care of that, but the morons used the same one on 3 of the models. And there is a big difference in them. One has a shorter head bolt then the other 2, and intake/water ports are different on the other 2.

But as with everything else suggested here, use what you like. Modify it to your tastes.
I do realize it looks like it is getting more complicated, but in the end, it does make the game more challenging to use some mechs. The Thorn comes to mind. The ball mount lrm it uses in the right arm, it a good example of this.

And one more suggestion for the unarticulated arm. I would suggest a penalty for trying to stand up, since you have nothing to use to get up with.

And if you want to get a little deeper, I would suggest leg types as well. I would think the legs of a locust or warhawk should have a larger penalty for piloting rolls as catching your foot on something as you try to move forward, does not have a knee to land on. But this is just a complicated suggestion.
KamikazeJohnson
07/31/15 08:18 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

But as with everything else suggested here, use what you like. Modify it to your tastes.
I do realize it looks like it is getting more complicated, but in the end, it does make the game more challenging to use some mechs. The Thorn comes to mind. The ball mount lrm it uses in the right arm, it a good example of this.

And one more suggestion for the unarticulated arm. I would suggest a penalty for trying to stand up, since you have nothing to use to get up with.

And if you want to get a little deeper, I would suggest leg types as well. I would think the legs of a locust or warhawk should have a larger penalty for piloting rolls as catching your foot on something as you try to move forward, does not have a knee to land on. But this is just a complicated suggestion.



Standing Up modifiers could probably be lumped in with the modifiers for Damaged Actuators. Not sure what to do about that right now, but I've had a couple thoughts on it.

Never thought about Leg types...really only 2 types, determined by the direction the knee bends. I suppose they could be differentiated in-game by giving the "reverse-bend" actuators a different name...exchange a Suspension Factor for a Piloting penalty? Or I might just leave that alone...for now at least.

Solo Playtesting session tonight, I'll let ya know how it goes. Might try to build a couple 'Mechs in accordance with the modified construction rules, so I can try out the Power Rating system for energy weapons, and see how well balanced the game is with different sized 'Mechs designed according to the new system.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
07/31/15 10:32 PM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The leg thought was only for walking/running penalties to piloting. Had thought about it afterwards and realized, the mechs that hunker down with backwards knees would actually be a little easier to get up, but only in this instance.
I would leave it for now, but it is something that might be good for advanced rules.

The engine power will require mechs being changed, as currently some are horribly inefficient with their current weapons loads. I really don't see to much difference in a locust, but something like a falcon or other laser boat might be a problem.

Also, any thoughts on jump jets and how they will affect power usage.
KamikazeJohnson
08/01/15 12:37 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The leg thought was only for walking/running penalties to piloting. Had thought about it afterwards and realized, the mechs that hunker down with backwards knees would actually be a little easier to get up, but only in this instance.
I would leave it for now, but it is something that might be good for advanced rules.

The engine power will require mechs being changed, as currently some are horribly inefficient with their current weapons loads. I really don't see to much difference in a locust, but something like a falcon or other laser boat might be a problem.

Also, any thoughts on jump jets and how they will affect power usage.



Let's see if I can get a clear explanation in one try...

A 300 Engine puts out 300 Power Points.
If we assume a 60-ton 'Mech, the pilot can choose Movement Rate 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. If using Movement Rate 4, 240 Power Points are allocated to the Movement systems...essentially, treat Movement that turn as if the 'Mech has a 240 Engine. Walk 4, Run 6, Jump 4 (assuming at least 4 Jump Jets installed). The remaining 60 Power Points could power, for example, 2 PPCs (30 Power each). So a 60-ton 'Mech sacrifices 1 level of speed whenever it fires its PPCs.

Still balancing Engine Tonnage (currently 75% of Standard), Power Consumption, and Heat.

So far, the Archer and Thunderbolt worked out pretty well...possibly more efficient than the originals. Warhammer and Marauder will be a real test, as will a lot of the Mediums, I expect.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
08/01/15 01:17 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So jump jets are not using power?
Or are they equal to the walk power?

Also, this means a mech doesn't have a run factor anymore. It just uses so much power to go that much faster. For instance the 75 ton marauder would top out at 4 speed due to being a 300 engine. I am assuming that is 75 (weight of mech) tmes 4 speed (power is 75 times speed).

If this is true, it would slow down mechs since they could max out engine just by walking. The 60 ton example using a dragon mech. Normal 5/8 move, would now max at 5 from power available.
If this is true, is there anything planned to allow faster movements for a short distance?
And I am not talking masc. Something like an overdrive on the system?

Also will gunnery be based on firing units movement if this is true as well?


Edited by ghostrider (08/01/15 01:19 AM)
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/01/15 07:55 AM
71.170.162.49

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A mech would need to have a battery reserve of power for running or for energy weapon fire.

One should have a battery within the engine so one can run for at least a few turns. Say at least minimum equal to the engines size so it can run full out for four turns. If one wants more of a power reserve for running or energy weapon fire they would need external batteries that take weight and crits.

Your example of the 60 ton mech with the 300 engine would have an internal battery reserve of 300 power units. Each unit of speed above its walk speed would use an extra 50%. So your example of the 60 ton mech to run at the speed of 7 it would use 60 power units from its reserve batteries.

Now mechs that round up their running speed aka 5/8 would not be able to run full out for the full two turns but that would help even things out for mechs that dont round up their speed.

To recharge the batteries for every power unit not used each turn it recharges the battery reserve by that amount.
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!!!
ghostrider
08/01/15 11:44 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I agree with most of this, donkey, but there is a small issue with the math. If they power used is weight times speed, you use 60 power at speed one, 120 at speed 2...
With a 300 engine, it would move 5 for the cost of 300.
Even without the extra 50%, which is a good thought, it would use 420 power to move at speed 7, ie 360 at speed 6. With the extra 50%, it would use 390 at speed 6 and 480 at speed 7.

I would limit recharging rate to about 1/4th power available to avoid the run in, fire everything, run out to cool and recharge idea. It would probably slow the game down some as people wait to recharge, which is almost counter to what it seems this idea is going for.


And I didn't mean gunnery being based on speed of unit. I meant the to hit number for shooting from the moving mech. Sorry for not being clear on this.

Now the external batteries sounds interesting, but I can see an issue with it. Someone will try and say the mech can carry so much weight, therefore you would not need to allocate criticals for the external packs. Though the extra weight would be easier to deal with on the move, as it would require more power to move the mech, ie a 60 ton mech carrying 4 tons would be considered 64 tons for power consumption for moving.


Damn you kj. You are making me think and it hurts.


Edited by ghostrider (08/01/15 11:45 AM)
KamikazeJohnson
08/01/15 12:55 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Damn you kj. You are making me think and it hurts.



Actually, you're overthinking...

At Power Level 4, the 'Mech can Walk 4, Run 6, or Jump 4. Think of Power Level as having a governor on the engine, ans Walk/Run being Low Gear/High Gear. Run gives you a higher top speed, but it costs you Heat and Accuracy.

So in a given turn, you decide how much you want to reserve for Energy Weapons (most 'Mechs will have "leftover" power so it's not really a choice, eg a 330 Engine on a 60-tonner...use 30 Power for a Large Laser and 2 Mediums), then choose Walk or Run with the remaining Power.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
08/01/15 02:13 PM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
So you set the power of say the Rifleman at walk 4. Is that set or is it a throttle system so the next round you only walk 3?

It looks like it is set so a Marauder, is set for walk level of 4 with a standard 300 engine. How would it move (run) at six if the power is 300, and to walk 4 requires all of it?
I'm sorry if this sounds like asking the same thing, but this is something I want to know. I might have missed the information on how the engine works and movement.
But this sounds like running requires no extra energy if this is the way it is set up.

Also, there is no information on if jets are requiring energy to use or not.
A simple yes or no, that no extra energy is needed for a run would solve that part of it.
Yes or no for jets using power.
My brain is slipping more and more every month.
ghostrider
08/01/15 02:16 PM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And how do you determine the max speed of a unit if it doesn't require extra energy to move them?

Since you will be changing engine sizes, how will you determine max speed? the 330 engine example will throw off figures especially if a mech uses an engine that will allow it to fire everything at it's 'set speed' but may actually allow it an extra move point if it doesn't fire?

Yeah, too many questions, but they pop up from time to time.
KamikazeJohnson
08/02/15 12:44 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

And how do you determine the max speed of a unit if it doesn't require extra energy to move them?



The Game Rules explanation: take the highest Full Multiple of the 'Mech's tonnage equal to or less than the Engine Rating to determine the maximum Power that can be allocated to movement. Using that as your Maximum Movement Rating, determine movement speed as you would under Classic rules.

e.g. 65-ton Thunderbolt carries a 295 Engine. Power Level 4 requires 260 Power. Maximum Rated Speed is Walk 4, Run 6 (so technically Max Speed is 64 km/h, i.e Run speed at Power Level 4).

Fluff explanation: Run vs Walk does not require extra Power from the Engine, it simply activates the movement system differently...greater speed at the cost of decreased stability and poorer target-tracking ability. Power is robbed from those systems to allow the slight increase required for the faster movement style.

The "extra" engine power can be fluff-explained by declaring that the Myomers activate in ""Stages", similar to Wave Harmonics, so you can only activate them in multiples of the base power level (explains why you can't walk 3.5 hexes). Advanced "hexless" rules could allow movement without that restriction.

I hope I'm making sense here lol. The Hex restrictions make movement speeds counterintuitive already, so don't try too hard to "real-world" movement rules.

Quote:

Since you will be changing engine sizes, how will you determine max speed? the 330 engine example will throw off figures especially if a mech uses an engine that will allow it to fire everything at it's 'set speed' but may actually allow it an extra move point if it doesn't fire?

Yeah, too many questions, but they pop up from time to time.



As above...as long as the Engine Rating is a full multiple of Tonnage, you can determine Max Speed as always. If not full multiple, just Round Down, or use unrounded numbers for Hexless Miniature play.

If that's still not clear, feel free to PM me with additional questions so I can formulate a rules explanation to avoid any confusion. Unambiguous rules explanations aren't always my strong point...my explanations always make perfect sense to me...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
08/30/15 01:18 AM
76.89.121.69

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
A thought came up with the inertia idea. You wanted to keep track of it, well would it help if a unit gained an 'extra' movement point if it continued at the same speed without turning in the next turn?
It would keep at the walk/run of the turn before it, but just move 1 open/clear space more?
And if you wanted to throw it in, penalize a unit that reverses their course by reducing their movement by 1.
Of course jets would not apply to this. Flying in itself is a different beast entirely.
ghostrider
04/07/16 11:35 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Haven't heard anything about this system in a while.
Still working on it, or did you give it up?

And update on if it has improved play or not would be nice to know.
KamikazeJohnson
04/07/16 03:18 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Haven't heard anything about this system in a while.
Still working on it, or did you give it up?

And update on if it has improved play or not would be nice to know.



Still working on it, just been to busy with work and such to devote a serious amount of time to it.

I decided to abandon the Energy Level system; I think it's a good system, but trying to shoehorn it into an existing system just didn't work. If I ever decide to create and entirely new game system I might use it.

Put some work into Arm Types and Firing/Damage arcs. A few tweaks to Construction rules. Weapon stars are mostly good to go I think, might need some fine tuning once I get in enough playtesting.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
05/08/16 06:05 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Found a few minutes to do a bit of tweaking. Adjusted Autocannon masses, added Anti-Infantry to AC shots (1D8 vs Inf per size class), all Autocannon receive a -1 accuracy bonus vs non-Infantry targets.

Next mission: revised Punch and Kick hit tables. Keep Head Hits rare, even for Punches. If done properly, I might return to something like the old Partial Cover rules...I find it distasteful that an elite gunner firing on an immobile target will still "waste" over 20% of shots firing at the cover. Maybe keep the current PC system for LRM shots, although with the new combined table for LRMs, there might not be much difference.

Considering building additional Hit Location tables for dealing with elevation changes; eg. firing at a 'Mech in an adjacent hex with an elevation difference of more than 2 levels will have an effect similar to firing from the side vs from front/back; better odds of hitting upper vs lower half of the target.

Thoughts?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
05/08/16 07:04 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Might really scare those people from letting things attack from above and have them roll on the strafe tables. If you want to apply the limited head shots with that table, remove the second head shot and put a leg shot in there.

Thought struck me while replying to this, maybe add a +1 per experience level to gunnery against an immobile target. So an elite pilot would be +3 on top of other bonuses. Veteran +2 and regular, +1. Or just go with +1 for veteran/elite.

Did you include lbx cannon shot with the 1d8?
Or will you just add x amount to the cluster shot?
I would think range would be your friend with cluster shots against infantry, ie spread out a little more in distances. But just a thought.

Another thought. Might add a bonus to units firing from below a mech, to do movement crits. Have to be directly below or idea with the higher elevations. The idea here would be more likely to cause jamming of hip/leg joints with shrapnel or even partial melting of rings. Might suggest pilot roll to remove that particular penalty. Ie snap/break obstruction.
A little much, but a thought.
KamikazeJohnson
05/08/16 09:17 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Might really scare those people from letting things attack from above and have them roll on the strafe tables. If you want to apply the limited head shots with that table, remove the second head shot and put a leg shot in there.




Was actually going to pull out the Strafing tables as a starting point for my Punch table.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
05/27/16 05:03 PM
72.143.228.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Played around a bit more with construction rules. Changed the rules for the "free" Heat Sinks. Now Free Heat Sinks = Heat Sinks Hidden in Engine. Eg. a Marauder with a 300 Engine has 12 Heat Sinks without spending crits OR tonnage. An UrbanMech only gets 2...

Allowing Gyros, Armour, and Ammo to use 0.25-ton increments. Might do the same with the Engine table.

Cockpits vary from 2-4 tons depending on the tonnage of the 'Mech

Messing with Jump Jet sizes...thinking about:
Light 'Mech: 0.25 ton
Medium 'Mech: 0.5 ton
Heavy 'Mech: 1 ton
Assault 'Mech: 2 tons

Redefined the 'Mech weight classes slightly:
5-20: Ultra-Light
25-40: Light
45-60: Medium
65-80: Heavy
85-100: Assault

Weight Class will affect things like Cockpit Tonnage, Jump Jet tonnage, limitations on Arm-mounted weapons, possibly Crit space in Arms and Torso.

Time to put out some redesigns and see how they work out.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
05/27/16 05:31 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The sink situation does solve some problems with larger engines having some advantage over the small ones, and does solve some of the issues of lighter ones with a huge advantage of free weight.

Not sure how a gyro would get a .25 increment, so I will have to see what that will do.

Now with the redefine and the jet issue, does that mean the ultra lights use .25 jets?
Or will they have some other weight/advantage? Maybe 2 hex jump with the power of one jet?

And this is extreme thinking, but will the smaller engines have less criticals they take up?
Say the 300-400 range uses normal, while the 200-295 uses 1 less spot?
100-195 2 spots while the under 100 might have 3 spots less.
Might be too much to deal with, but a thought.
KamikazeJohnson
05/27/16 08:09 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

The sink situation does solve some problems with larger engines having some advantage over the small ones, and does solve some of the issues of lighter ones with a huge advantage of free weight.



That's kind if the idea. It also has the interesting effect of encouraging ACs rather than PPCs/Large Lasers on slow smaller 'Mechs

Quote:
Not sure how a gyro would get a .25 increment, so I will have to see what that will do.



Gyro Tonnage = Engine Rating/100, round up. Under current rules, a 325 Engine requires a 4 ton gyro. Under my rules, it would be 3.25 tons.

Quote:
Now with the redefine and the jet issue, does that mean the ultra lights use .25 jets?
Or will they have some other weight/advantage? Maybe 2 hex jump with the power of one jet?



At the moment, jets are minimum of 0.25 tons each, mainly for practicality purposes. I don't expect to see many 'Mechs in that category anyway.

Quote:
And this is extreme thinking, but will the smaller engines have less criticals they take up?
Say the 300-400 range uses normal, while the 200-295 uses 1 less spot?
100-195 2 spots while the under 100 might have 3 spots less.
Might be too much to deal with, but a thought.



Interesting thought...might have to look into that.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson


Edited by KamikazeJohnson (05/27/16 08:41 PM)
ghostrider
05/28/16 09:51 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Had a few ideas about extra stuff.
First, the possible addition of a crit on the number of crits table for mechs. Thought maybe a roll of 2 would allow one crit but no reroll. This would mean an empty, already hit, or slot that does nothing when hit, would not allow a reroll.

Second was an optional table.
If you are bumping up the criticals to say 8 or 16, one spot could be support items, such as ammo feeds for weapons, no explosion but destroys feed. Coolant lines, which when hit might restrict coolant causing extra heat from items on that location if limb, or side if torso. Power lines, which might cause weapons malfunction on up to power loss in that side/area if torso/limb.
The power loss one might be bad if the leg shuts down... Piloting roll to avoid a fall.
But as I said. Optional table thoughts.

And a little more thought with engine slots. Might base it on weight of engine, not just rating. Forgot the lighter ones might actually be the same or close to the same weight.
KamikazeJohnson
06/07/16 06:35 PM
24.114.23.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Getting ready for the next round of playtesting. Tules have been streamlined a bit, all the original TRO:3025 'Mechs have been converted. Not sure how they will perform, but the look good on paper.

Still need to do Tanks and Infantry, and figure out how I want to handle Physical attacks.

Updates will be posted after the playtesting session.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
06/07/16 08:31 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Might be too much, but maybe opposed skill checks for physicals might be in order. Or just bonus/penalty depending on each skills. Ie, defender higher, penalty. Attacker higher, bonus to hit.
Depending on if you want something close to fair, I would suggest rams for tanks, once that is taken care of.
Maybe allow good pilots a roll (say 10+) to see if they can do 2 physicals.
Blocks might be too much as well, though if you do, might allow successful block to put attacker off balance, ie piloting roll.


We talked about arms before, and thought it might come into play here. Less actuators is harder to remain standing sort of thing. Same with standing. Again, may be too much.

Also might be too far, but added critical effect for tanks. On side or roll over. Similar to side slipping for vtols and hovers. Not as common though. Maybe kick to side of tank might add to chance.

Infantry might be good to have normal and non powered armor for normal soldiers. Normal is normal damage, while non powered armor might be 2 hits per soldier to kill.
Normal grenades might be dealt with for damage to units as well. New type. Sticky grenades for planting or throwing on mechs, vehicles, powered armored, even other infantry, but only one soldier for normal infantry.

Yeah. More things to say no to.
KamikazeJohnson
06/10/16 06:41 PM
24.114.42.43

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
My plan for tanks/infantry is to abstract them, which will allow a more realistic ratio of tank to 'Mechs while keeping the game primarily about 'Mechs. Something similar to the Alpha Strike system, such that a Lance of tanks requires about as much attention as a single 'Mech. Optional "full rules" for tanks, but ideally without as many "fiddly" rules.

Factors I intend to work into Physical Attacks (not all factors will necessarily apply to all types of Physical Attacks):
Attacker movement
Target movement
Target Engagement vs Avoidance
Rated speed
Initiative
Size Class
Piloting skill (Attacker and Target)
Arm types

Still a work in progress, lots to do before I get to that.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
06/11/16 01:07 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If you want some more ideas, just ask.
I know not everything is worth a second thought, but I do hope to get others to build on things.

With the d8's, are you going to allow something like blind fire?
Like idf fire on targets you can see on sensor, but no los?
Even direct fire might have a chance to damage something in 3+ heavy wood sort of idea. Like +10 to hit or something like it.
Lrms kind of deal with idf...

And thinking of los.. how would penalizing a units targeting lock against ecm units sound?
Maybe penalize it by 1 for low/all ecm gear?
Maybe allow advanced probes a bonus when in range.
Not the best ideas, but might be optional or help get other ideas going.
KamikazeJohnson
08/22/16 11:27 PM
72.143.226.2

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Finally had another playtesting session. The new Archer is a nightmare with twin LRM-30s, even after adding a "reload" round between shots. Surprisingly, the weapon changes turned the Shadow Hawk into a highly effective machine.

Still lots of work to do, but the system is evolving rapidly, and it looks like it will actually become a nice, balanced, fun system by the time I'm finished.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
08/23/16 11:21 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Now does that include the upgraded versions of the weapons, such as the er variants?
I know that sounds bad, but they did seem to have a little more advantage then disadvantages. The clans made it even worse.

I am guessing you will put up the 'new' mechs once you get the system finished. It will be interesting how the catapult/crusader lines will change with their current lrm 15 packs.

And for the normal shadow hawk to be effective?
Is that even possible?
KamikazeJohnson
08/23/16 05:10 PM
24.114.38.215

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Now does that include the upgraded versions of the weapons, such as the er variants?
I know that sounds bad, but they did seem to have a little more advantage then disadvantages. The clans made it even worse.


That's kinda the idea of "upgraded" weapons. Haven't done up the enhanced equipment list, but I have a few ideas...I expect some equipment to become flatly obsolete...and there's nothing wrong with that.

Quote:
I am guessing you will put up the 'new' mechs once you get the system finished. It will be interesting how the catapult/crusader lines will change with their current lrm 15 packs.


I might do that, although the designs won't make much sense without an understanding of how the game system and construction rules are different.

Quote:
And for the normal shadow hawk to be effective?
Is that even possible?



A second Medium Laser, more armour, SRM range boosted to 4/8/12 with improved accuracy from combining the To-Hit and Cluster Table rolls, a -1 accuracy bonus on the AC/5, and a vastly improved LRM 5. Overall, a tough customer now.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
08/23/16 08:06 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Honestly, there are a few weapons that were obsolete when the game was made. The small laser being one of them. It was an after thought weapon in my opinion. Something you put on, since you have half a ton.
Now before everyone goes nuts, this is based on the initial infantry damage. Afterwards it didn't improve much, but better then wasting the heat of a ppc or some other weapon.
The range/damage needed a little tweaking.
I really thought ranges for the lasers should have been further or even the same.
Example would be they all reached out to 15 like a large laser, but the size/damage/heat should have changed.
But that is a bit radical for most.
KamikazeJohnson
08/24/16 06:17 PM
72.143.232.157

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

Honestly, there are a few weapons that were obsolete when the game was made. The small laser being one of them. It was an after thought weapon in my opinion. Something you put on, since you have half a ton.
Now before everyone goes nuts, this is based on the initial infantry damage. Afterwards it didn't improve much, but better then wasting the heat of a ppc or some other weapon.
The range/damage needed a little tweaking.
I really thought ranges for the lasers should have been further or even the same.
Example would be they all reached out to 15 like a large laser, but the size/damage/heat should have changed.
But that is a bit radical for most.



Not a bad idea...I would think have laser damage decrease with range. Might be a bit too radical a change to work into the existing system.

I did tweak the SL slightly. Small Lasers (and MGs) can fire into the same hex with no penalties, so range is 0-1, 2, 3. Might tweak it to 0-1, 2-3, 4 or 0-1, 2, 3-4.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
08/29/16 01:07 AM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Made a major change to Construction Rules: increased Armour from 16/ton to 20/ton. Torso Armour allocation rules have been altered as well, allowing Front Torso locations to mount 2pts/Internal, and Rear Torso can mount an additional 1pt/Internal. Every tonnage now mounts almost exactly the same Max Armour in terms of tonnage, so none of the designs need to be changed aside from Armour allocation, which hasn't been finalized yet anyway.

The reason for this change (aside from a general increase in the offensive capacity of LRMs, SRMs, and Autocannons) is the change to Damage Arcs...in general, it will be MUCH easier to hit the Rear torso, but just allocating more armour to the Rear Torso would leave the Front Torso underarmoured. An overall boost seemed warranted.

Edit: the torso allocation change was mentioned earlier in this thread, but I actually finalized it now, along with the armour/ton increase.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson


Edited by KamikazeJohnson (08/29/16 01:09 AM)
KamikazeJohnson
09/03/16 02:27 PM
207.161.146.219

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One of my more controversial proposed rules: firing arcs for different weapon locations.

Always seemed in classic BT that weapon location is mostly meaningless. Sure, arms had different firing arcs, legs had their own issues, but mostly the only difference it made was in the Critical Hit lottery.

My proposal makes weapon location a much more significant factor, making tactical maneuvering a more important part of the game; a skilled player will try to keep the enemy in his prime firing arc while avoiding the firing arcs of the enemy's most dangerous weapons.

I've already described the various firing arcs for the different types of arms; I'm proposing limiting the torso firing arcs even further; Center Torso front/rear has a firing arc similar to the current Rear firing arc (or Front arc for vehicles). Left/Right torso each have half the current firing arc...Left Torso weapons cannot fire to the Right of the "center line" in front/behind the 'Mech. Rear torso weapons have the same firing arcs as Front Torso weapons, only to the rear. Quads will be able to mount a Turret to make up for the lack of Torso-Twist, which will be even more of as handicap under this system...I might rework Quads somewhat to include a Turret location, making them even more unique, although that may require a separate hit Location Table for Quads. Hmmm...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
09/03/16 03:49 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I can agree with firing arcs having limitations. The rifleman should not be able to fire the arms into some of the normal arks for arm weapons, while something like the marauder has enough 'joints' to almost fire into the flank of the opposite side.
Hand held weapons would be close if not the same as the marauder.

I can also support the torso issues, and most mechs seem to have the center torso sticking out, while weapons in the side seem to be flat or even inside the torso. The hunchback would be a funny example of a torso mounted weapon that should NOT be able to fire into the extreme left hexes. Technically, it would blow the head off the mech with the 20.

Now would this be considered optional, or part of the main rules?
I ask, as simplicity is destroyed by this. Though that is not a bad thing.
KamikazeJohnson
09/03/16 04:29 PM
72.143.231.149

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
ghostrider writes:

I can agree with firing arcs having limitations. The rifleman should not be able to fire the arms into some of the normal arks for arm weapons, while something like the marauder has enough 'joints' to almost fire into the flank of the opposite side.
Hand held weapons would be close if not the same as the marauder.

I can also support the torso issues, and most mechs seem to have the center torso sticking out, while weapons in the side seem to be flat or even inside the torso. The hunchback would be a funny example of a torso mounted weapon that should NOT be able to fire into the extreme left hexes. Technically, it would blow the head off the mech with the 20.

Now would this be considered optional, or part of the main rules?
I ask, as simplicity is destroyed by this. Though that is not a bad thing.



I would want it as a full rule...firing arcs need to be taken into consideration when designing a 'Mech...2 'Mechs with identical weapins but in different locations could get used very much differently, and would therefore be distinctly different 'Mechs.

Definitely adds more complexity, as you need to be aware of each individual weapon's firing arcs. I could see that consideration causing increases Analysis Paralysis in players prone to it. Playtesting required.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
11/26/16 10:44 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Haven't added to this thread in a while, so I guess it's time for an update.

Game is a playable system now, still waiting on some details to be filled in, like Falling and Physical Attacks, not to mention things like Infantry and Tanks. Redesigned all the original TRO:3025 'Mechs to comply with the modified weapon stats and construction rules. Once the record sheets are complete (8 down, 47 to go!) I'll be ready for some serious playtesting.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
12/19/16 06:33 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wow...I completely underestimated the long and teduious process of manually filling in the record sheets for all 55 of the original TRO:3025 designs. 32/55 complete as if this post. I might also add a few extras to fill out some less popular tonnages, as well as add a couple more in the Ultra-Light (5-20 tons) range, currently occupied only by the Locust and Wasp.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
01/04/17 03:31 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
KamikazeJohnson writes:

One of my more controversial proposed rules: firing arcs for different weapon locations.

Always seemed in classic BT that weapon location is mostly meaningless. Sure, arms had different firing arcs, legs had their own issues, but mostly the only difference it made was in the Critical Hit lottery.

My proposal makes weapon location a much more significant factor, making tactical maneuvering a more important part of the game; a skilled player will try to keep the enemy in his prime firing arc while avoiding the firing arcs of the enemy's most dangerous weapons.

I've already described the various firing arcs for the different types of arms; I'm proposing limiting the torso firing arcs even further; Center Torso front/rear has a firing arc similar to the current Rear firing arc (or Front arc for vehicles). Left/Right torso each have half the current firing arc...Left Torso weapons cannot fire to the Right of the "center line" in front/behind the 'Mech. Rear torso weapons have the same firing arcs as Front Torso weapons, only to the rear. Quads will be able to mount a Turret to make up for the lack of Torso-Twist, which will be even more of as handicap under this system...I might rework Quads somewhat to include a Turret location, making them even more unique, although that may require a separate hit Location Table for Quads. Hmmm...



Designed a new Quad Record Sheet format, which includes a Turret location. Reduced Leg and Torso Internal to compensate for the Unternal in the new location...Quads still have slightly more Max Armour than Bipeds, but only by a few points.

To compensate for the Turret tonnage and the limited firing arcs from other locations, I allowed a small Suspension Factor for Quads:
Ultra-Light (5-20 Tons): 5
Light (25-40 Tons): 10
Medium (45-60 Tons): 15
Heavy (65-80 Tons): 20
Assault (85-100 Tons): 25

To justify the additional rules and tables, I'm also adding more Quads to the 3025 lineup; Firestarter is now a Quad, and I'm thinking of converting one of the Ost 'Mechs to make the two nearly-identical 'Mechs significantly different on the battlefield.

My favourite: the Charger is now a Quad. The 25-point Suspension Factor allows 5/8 movement at 85 Tons, which not only increases Charge damage even more, but also restores the Charger's lost status as an Assault 'Mech, which confers various advantages when it comes to Physical attacks...a Charger landing a Charge on Hunchbach now gets a -3 To-Hit modifier, deals 68 Damage, and forces a Piloting check at +5!!! You don't want to see what it can do to an UrbanMech...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
01/12/17 02:00 PM
72.143.216.37

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I just realized it's been almost THREE YEARS since I first started on this project. Wow. A lot has happened in that time, and the system is finally coming together. I wanted to take a minute to send out a huge THANK YOU to everyone who has taken the time to read and comment on this thread...while I may have largely ignored the suggestions made, the very fact of having this thread and getting feedback has helped clarify many ideas in my own mind, and has also helped keep me commited to completing the project.

The biggest issue for me now will be playtesting...hopefully the system will stand up under extensive play without needing any major changes to things I've already incorporated. After that, I still need to hammer out Physical Attack rules, modify a few tables, and find some way of abstracting Tanks and Infantry to allow them to be used in canon-realistic numbers without taking the focus of the game off 'Mechs.

Again, thank you so much for nearly 3 years of encouragement!
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
01/12/17 07:15 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Damn slow ****. Should have been done 2 years ago

Not surprising it took that long as there seems to be alot of stuff that was done. And since I doubt it was something you could work on all day long, that takes even more time.

A suggestion for the tanks and infantry issue. Defensive forces have tanks mixed into each unit. Maybe like having a mech control a full company of tanks and infantry. Also, garrison units having more lighter tanks except for important targets, like mech factories.

On the offensive side, having the heavier units backing up mech forces would be an idea.
Yeah sounds like the way things should be done, but some how isn't.
One more thing it the terrain compatibility issues. If you don't have the long los, lrms are NOT something to be used unless you can guarantee idf fire. Even then, shorter ranged weapons should prevail.

Physicals, I would think allowing hand actuators the ability to grab the other mech. A piloting roll vs each other might allow the winning unit to prevent the losing one from firing on them with some or maybe all weapons. Depends on how you want to go. Or maybe pulling the mech to the ground might work. Bonus for more weight, not weight groups. IE 20 verses 25 ton mech are both light, but the 25 ton mech should have some advantage. Providing each has all actuators needed.
Units with more joints in the arms might be able to hit the side of the enemy as the joints would allow a slap verse a straight on punch.
But these are just suggestions.
ghostrider
01/12/17 07:19 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Damn. Looking at the old statement, and thought maybe a quad might be able to hit 2 units with a charge if they are in line with the charge itself. Piloting roll to see if they can keep the momentum up to ram the second unit.
Cut the speed dramatically when they plow thru the first unit. Just more to keep you up at night.
KamikazeJohnson
01/14/17 09:47 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
In an effort to keep the various weapon systems balanced against each other while at the same time distinct from each other, I have introduced a few edits to various weapons.

PPC: Inflicts 2 Heat damage on the target, contributes 5 points toward thr threshold to force a damage-related Piloting Roll.

Large Laser: Like all lasers, since there is no physical impact from the shot, they do not contribute toward a damage-related Piloting Roll. In order to balance it vs the PPC's improvements, Heat generation has been reduced to 7 instead of 8.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
01/15/17 06:20 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I thought the damage thresh hold roll was for losing armor, not an actual force, ie over 1 ton dropping off.
That is unless you added a penalty to it with things like cannons, gauss rifles and missiles.

Oh yeah. Better not throw out any more ideas. I don't think you have the patience to deal with another possible rework. So just ignore me.
KamikazeJohnson
01/15/17 08:41 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
I thought the damage thresh hold roll was for losing armor, not an actual force, ie over 1 ton dropping off.
That is unless you added a penalty to it with things like cannons, gauss rifles and missiles.

Oh yeah. Better not throw out any more ideas. I don't think you have the patience to deal with another possible rework. So just ignore me.



I went on the assumption that is was the force of impact that makes the Piloting Skill Check necessary. The Piloting Roll Threshold is the minimum amount of damage a unit can take in a single phase to require a Piloting Roll. IIn Classic BT, that threshold is 20 for all units; I decided to vary it by weight class so heavier 'Mechs are harder to knock over.

Laser damage doesn't count toward the Threshold at all. PPCs count half. Autocannons and MGs count normally, missiles count double (do to the explosive force).
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
01/16/17 04:14 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
That is why I asked about the idea of why a light mech didn't have more issues then a an assault mech losing less armor. 20 points can wipe out the armor and torso for almost all, if not all 20-25 ton mechs.
But it is good to know it has been done.
Honestly a single ml hit is enough to cause a balance issue with a light mech, especially with some that have 2 arm armor points and 2 internal. That removes that limb without any issues.

Now one clarification to the threshold. Is the gauss weapons added in there, or are they counted as autocannons for the threshold?
I ask as they use kinetic force to do damage more then the ac's do.
KamikazeJohnson
01/22/17 09:55 PM
72.143.218.75

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
FINALLY finished the Record Sheets. If I EVER say I'm thinking about overhauling the sheets, resulting in a near-complete redo, please slap me around a bit with a large trout.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
01/26/17 01:40 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One of my biggest concerns with my new system is whether or not my weapon tweaks resulted in better balance than the original, or if I just simply created a new set of unbalanced weapon stats. With the original system, it's relatively simple to compare weapons, since the damage is consistent (Cluster Table weapons use a simple Average Damage calculation), so you simply have to account for Tonnage, Heat (simply add Heat Sink Equivalence to Tonnage), and Range to get a pretty good evaluation.

My system is trickier. Autocannons receive a -1 targeting bonus, and Missiles are even more complicated: since the Cluster Roll is incorporated into the To-Hit Roll, the weapon system's Average Damage is dependent on the To-Hit Number.

To help settle the issue, I pulled out my dear, dear friend Excel to assist me with an incredibly cumbersome calculation to work out the Average Damage for each weapon at every possibly To-Hit Number. The table isn't complete yet, but the results so far are encouraging...SRMs compare very well to Energy and Ballistic weapons; Range and Ammo Dependence are still difficult to quantify, but the three types appear to be quite well balanced in terms of damage. Haven't tackled the LRM table yet, so we'll see if my "loading turn" balanced them properly, or if the Cluster Table needs adjusting.

Two things that are standing out: 1) Medium Lasers are no longer the standard "most efficient" weapon...the size, damage, heat, and range still make it a good "default" weapon, but there's much more incentive to back up your primary weapons with non-ML choices. And 2) Large Lasers, even with Heat reduced to 7, may end up being the "New Autocannon", since the boosted SRM 4 neatly equals it at a To-Hit of 9, and the SRM 6 deals considerably more damage, leaving the LL with only a small range advantage, and of course the Big Crunch effect vs Scatter Damage.

Overall, however, the results are encouraging. Bot looking forward to the LRM calculation though *shudder*
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
08/02/17 08:56 PM
72.143.223.166

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply


BATTLETECH: Reboot

Hey folks! Been far too long since my last update, but I still rattle this project around in my brain from time to time.

I was reviewing my 3025 designs recently, and got thinking about LRMs again...specifically about how there's very little difference between, for example, 1 LRM 20 vs 2 LRM 10...basically, if you want an LRM 20, just install 2 LRM 10 and always fire them together. I previously considered making the larger racks somewhat more efficient, but the tonnage didn't eem to work out right.

Current idea:
1) Scrap all the LRMs except for the LRM 5
2) Rename it simply "LRM"
3) Require at least one "LRM Fire Control" (1 ton/1 crit) on any unit mounting 1 or more LRMs.
4) All LRMs fired in a turn using a single Fire Control fire as a unit (4 LRMs = LRM 20) with a single Hit Roll and must be fired at a single target.
5) Additional FCs allow the unit to split fire without incurring Secondary Target penalties.
6) Possibly impose a limit to the number of LRMs that may be fired by a single FC (probably 6), or require them all to be in the same location as the FC.
7) Possibly allow each FC to be used only every 2nd turn (forcing the Archer, for example, to mount 2 of them)

Thoughts?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
08/02/17 11:18 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I would suggest limiting them to one section if you are going to do this. IE all of them in the right arm.
Otherwise you run into someone saying the different locations would not allow all the packs to fire off, such as a flanking target on the right, which the left torso could not fire at.
Not sure if you would allow them to be split if there is a second FC as I am going to assume they are all tuned to one frequency to follow, making the tracking systems in the missiles confused if more then one FC is in use. Too technical maybe, but it is out there. I kind of like the fcs feel to them, so if you do allow different locations, then each should require their own fc.

Also, you may have to redo the number of missiles that hit table.
And the thought of dealing with the heat issues popped into my mind. lrm 5 are 2 heat. 10 is 4, while the 15 is 5 with the 20 at 6 heat. 4 normal packs will run 8 heat.
The tonnage is odd. Would it be better to add half ton per launcher?
Such as not needing it if only one launcher, but 2 would bring the total to 2.5 tons, while a 3rd would be 4 tons. That would make the 4 spot at 5.5 tons. Still off in the more weight direction, but have the fc takes only one crit?

I do like the idea of not having to have different ammo containers, as we discussed with the using just 5 packs and marking them off the 120 missiles. So 24 slots of 5 missiles per shot.

Now are you going to allow some additional missiles per ton, or cut it down a little?
And I would suggest a full ton of ammo for special munitions, and all launchers fired that turn use it, so you don't have to keep a running total of each 5 pack, which might be done anyways.

Now for an added bonus.
Are you going to do this with srms and mrms?
KamikazeJohnson
08/03/17 11:45 AM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
I would suggest limiting them to one section if you are going to do this. IE all of them in the right arm.
Otherwise you run into someone saying the different locations would not allow all the packs to fire off, such as a flanking target on the right, which the left torso could not fire at.


I was thinking about that...especially with Firing Arcs being more of a factor under my rules; it wouldn't necessarily be more "realistic" that way, but it would definitely be much easier than doing a Firing Arc check to make sure you can actually fire them all.

Quote:
Also, you may have to redo the number of missiles that hit table.


I already created a new table; remember that under these rules there is no separate roll for the number of missiles. So if you fire 5 LRMs at a To-Hit number of 6, you roll once, say, get a 9, so you check the Cluster Table on the "25" column at "+3", and the result is 21 missiles hit.

Quote:
And the thought of dealing with the heat issues popped into my mind. lrm 5 are 2 heat. 10 is 4, while the 15 is 5 with the 20 at 6 heat. 4 normal packs will run 8 heat.
The tonnage is odd. Would it be better to add half ton per launcher?
Such as not needing it if only one launcher, but 2 would bring the total to 2.5 tons, while a 3rd would be 4 tons. That would make the 4 spot at 5.5 tons. Still off in the more weight direction, but have the fc takes only one crit?


I previously modified both the Tonnage and Heat values for the LRMs, completely removing the variable efficiency; so 4 x LRM 5 = 2 x LRM 10 = 1 x LRM 20 in both Mass and Heat.

Quote:
I do like the idea of not having to have different ammo containers, as we discussed with the using just 5 packs and marking them off the 120 missiles. So 24 slots of 5 missiles per shot.

Now are you going to allow some additional missiles per ton, or cut it down a little?
And I would suggest a full ton of ammo for special munitions, and all launchers fired that turn use it, so you don't have to keep a running total of each 5 pack, which might be done anyways.


I increased LRM Ammo to 150 Missiles/Ton, all LRMs can share a single bin. Ammo can be assigned in 0.5-ton or 1-ton bins to allow greater flexibility with specialty ammo. I would definitely insist on all LRMs fired through a single FC should use the same ammo bin.

Quote:
Now for an added bonus.
Are you going to do this with srms and mrms?


Not planning to do it with SRMs...they got a huge power boost under my rules, I don't think they need added flexibility. Plus I like having the different types of missiles work differently. I'll decide with MRMs when I start building in more advanced tech.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
AmaroqStarwind
04/03/18 03:57 PM
99.203.27.104

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I'm not sure that I like the idea of energy weapons running on a battery that can explode. I do have a separate idea, though, that could probably be good.

How about having separate Critical Slots for the Rear Torso?

This would mean that certain components like the Gyro and Engine would be split between the Front and Rear Torsos, and XL Engines would occupy four locations, Front (Center), Left, Right and Rear (Center). It would also make some components harder to hit, but still be vulnerable from all sides, and it would allow for additional room to mount stuff in the mech, because you're now thinking in Three Dimensions instead of Two. It would also mean that some components could only be mounted in the front (and sides), while others could only be mounted in the rear (and sides). Examples for front-only items include front-facing weapons and Torso Cockpits, while examples for read-only items include rear-facing weapons and Jump Jets.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
AmaroqStarwind
04/04/18 04:13 AM
99.203.26.189

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Like, seriously... With what has been done to energy weapons with some of these modifications, they may as well be removed from the game entirely. Chemical Lasers and Vehicular Flamers for everyone!
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
ghostrider
04/05/18 12:52 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Much like the over use of quirks, lasers in the game are overbalanced. Don't explode. Fires if you got power. No ammunition. In mechs they can overheat the unit and still work. Light weight with decent range.

This idea came about as the 2d6 ran into problems as some shots run into the 12+ range to begin with. And some of them should not be limited as the rules say. It is not something that will replace the battle tech rules, but something KJ started playing around with.
I guess it has some merit since he is still working on it after a few months.. Maybe years. Not sure at this point, and not gonna check. Maybe next post.
AmaroqStarwind
04/07/18 02:53 AM
99.203.27.127

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I have actually been looking to experiment with alternative systems for BattleTech myself... 1d20, 2d8, 2d10, and so on.

So far, I think the optimal approach wouldn't be 2d8, like what KJ is working with, but 3d6 instead.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
AmaroqStarwind
04/08/18 05:30 AM
99.203.26.50

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Oh, if it hasn't been suggested already... Could we perhaps use Fractional Accounting standard?

The more complicated math would only be present during Construction, so it shouldn't impact actual Gameplay too severely (at least in terms of pacing, it might have a small impact on balance).

If we can't have full fractional accounting (aka 1-kilogram rounding), then merely having Quarter-Ton rounding again would suffice. (I also don't like the idea of Gyros using Full-Ton Rounding.)

Also, for all of the example designs/scenarios, you should also explain and demonstrate some of the different design philosophies, such as Armor-focused designs versus Firepower-focused or Agility-focused designs, or Bracket Fire designs/tactics versus Alpha Strike designs/tactics.

Also, while Mechs are freaking awesome and are the main focus of BattleTech in its current form, the BattleTech universe is a lot bigger than just Mechs, and I really wish that more emphasis was placed on Combined Arms, keeping Ground Vehicles, Air Vehicles, Mechs, Infantry and Powered Armor balanced but distinct.

The idea that BattleMechs should be the Be All End All Curbstomp just doesn't sit right with me, and it actually irks me a lot with how the threat levels of other combat units constantly gets downplayed, especially in the videogames; even in Classic BattleTech, Infantry can be very dangerous to not just one, but to several BattleMechs in the right circumtances... but games like MechWarrior, MechCommander and MechAssault portray infantry like moronic suicide squads shooting you with cotton candy and kitten farts.

A few more victims of the "Mechs are the best at everything, and all other combat units don't even deserve to exist" philosophy... Land Air Mechs, Submarines/Aircraft Carriers, VTOLs, Tanks, Powered Armor, etc... and even Airships*!

*IIRC, airships do exist somewhere in BattleTech, but I am only aware of this because it was mentioned by other people on a few occasions. I've never actually seen any for myself at the time of this writing.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
ghostrider
04/08/18 07:31 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Changes in the rules changed the game alot.
The issue with lams is the same one about alot of the original designs and pictures. They had a major lawsuit that ended the developers from using the pictures. The unseen mechs.

I agree that vehicles are very important to the game, but as I was told a few times, this is not world of tanks. It is fighting mechs with mechs. No one wants to fight a tank that is far superior to them mech, even though the original tag line for mechs was mobility. Not fire power. Not armor.
This very reason was said to be why vehicle can't use alot of items that mechs can, and there is no over heating the vehicles.

If you can come up with a system using 3d6, then do so. The 2d8 seems to be working well enough from what has been said about it.

And the infantry in the mechcommander games are armored. And I agree. They charge at you, when that is the worse thing they could do. But their sensor thing is something that makes them almost impossible to locate doing it the board game way. Most likes and only certain other mechs have the sensors.
AmaroqStarwind
04/09/18 12:03 PM
99.203.155.94

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well, specifically in the case of LAMs, I'm specifically referring to the arbitrary restrictions that were placed on them in Interstellar Operations and onwards, which were added seemingly to discourage their use rather than for any real balancing function (at least as far as I can tell).

As for the Unseen Controversy, we likely shouldn't have to worry about it for much longer seeing as Harmony Gold is but one hex away from biting the gauss slug.

- - - - -

So, I would like to propose some revised construction rules for Gyros really quick, nothing too major... reason number one being that Gyro calculations suck in their current state, and reason number two being that once you start getting into things like Interface Cockpits which remove the Gyro from the equation entirely, they start to become increasingly overpowered with higher rating engines.

My first proposed change for Gyro calculations is for special types such as the Compact, Heavy Duty or Extra-Light Gyros, rather than performing the calculations as normal and then multiplying the final weight of the Gyro, the engine rating should be multiplied first and then the Gyro calculation can proceed as normal. For example, an Extra-Light Gyro for a 360 Engine would have the same weight as a Standard Gyro for a 180 Engine. On the other end of the scale, A Compact Gyro for a 60-rated engine would have the same weight as a Standard Gyro for a 90-rated engine, or as a Heavy-Duty Gyro for a 45-rated engine.

The second proposed change for Gyro calculations is to use Quarter-Ton rounding, as opposed to Half-Ton rounding. This is a much simpler, and much smaller, change, but it can have a very big impact.

Third and final proposed change for Gyros is to treat them sort of like Jump Jets, with increasing size per weight class; for mechs in the 20-to-55 ton range, they would occupy Two Critical Spaces, while for mechs in the 60-to-80 and 85-to-100 ranges, they would occupy Three and Four Critical Spaces respectively. This only applies to Standard and Heavy-Duty Gyros however, with Compact Gyros taking up half as much space (rounded up) and Extralight Gyros taking up 33% more space (rounded up). All Gyros except for Heavy Duty Gyros would explicitly be forbidden from becoming Armored Components, preventing the "Armored Compact Gyros" exploit that I recently discovered, and simultaneously preventing the unfortunate "Armored Extralight Gyro" boondoggle.
Discord: Amaroq the Kitsune#1092
Telegram: @Lycanphoenix
MechEngine (Alpha) -- On Hiatus

The Scientist Caste has determined that time travel is dishonorable.
KamikazeJohnson
04/25/20 06:16 PM
72.143.236.176

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hey folks, miss me?

Just reviving this old thread since I'm planning on spending some Isolation time with my kids shaking some of the wrinkles out of my modified system. I might start a new thread on it once I get my rules sheet revised and filled out a bit.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Karagin
04/25/20 08:09 PM
70.118.172.64

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Hey folks, miss me?

Just reviving this old thread since I'm planning on spending some Isolation time with my kids shaking some of the wrinkles out of my modified system. I might start a new thread on it once I get my rules sheet revised and filled out a bit.



AWESOME!
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
04/26/20 03:04 AM
66.74.60.165

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Wow. That was one long sleep time. Hope the roots growing over you didn't cause to much trouble getting up.

Good to see you are still alive.
It will be nice to see something with the system.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | >> (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 13 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

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

Topic views: 77948


Contact Admins Sarna.net