| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
 Posted: 19-Jun-2004 19:27 Post subject: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
  |
|
In several post displayed recently some individuals have noted that Battletech has never had an overhaul of the core rules set, and some have expressed the opinion that Btech needs one. So what do you think?
If you think it does need an overhaul please say why you think that, and what you might want to see changed.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Vagabond
Mercenary
Mr. Referee
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 5792
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 20-Jun-2004 00:43 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
it is my personel opinion that it needs an update badly. i mean the system was designed with lvl1 tech ONLY in mind. which was fine back in the 80s but not now. with the spread of new technologies and the general upward and expansive trend that is occuring, the system is over taxed and is breaking at the seems. it cannot hold up to this growth in equipment and number of units on board as it presently sits.
the system gets bulky and bogged down at anything more then 5v5. you'll spend 8 hours to finish a battle or decimate each other with weapons that virtualy break existent limits set upon by the rules system.
in addition, when first designed the game excluded basic units and focused on just mechs. fine for a fledgling game but not ok for something over 20 years old. the existent rules are weak and under dog basic units far to much. infantry as it sits has been forced to fit into the peramiters of mechs, which has resulted in none BA being pethetic.
full scale conflicts are dreams that cannot be carried out as the rules make such thing complicated and far to time consuming.
part of the reason that battletech is great is because of its feel and flavor. however, its rules and seemingly complicated combat system discoriges players from joining this beautifull world.
many games have fully revised there rule sets without loosing those aspects that make that game the game. DnD has now had 3 editions. Star Wars likewise. Computer games continualy change rule sets and retain the proper feel. thou, i do admit that many games have faultered do to rule changes.
what is needed is something that combines all the aspects of battletech [mechwarrior RPG, fighters, vehicles, infantry, spaceships, ect] into a single universal system that retains the uber chess feel without the bulkiness and allows room to grow.
my 2 c-bills.
_________________
one must work hard to cultivate the mind and body. and one must always cultivate the mind.
//^(^_^)^\\
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8081
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 20-Jun-2004 06:20 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Vagabond and I have had many discussions about this topic, and I'd have to say I'm in complete agreement with him.
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 20-Jun-2004 15:46 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
I think the system needs an overhaul too, but I don't think its possible to keep the same feel of the game with a new rules set. The limitations of the core rules are part of what gives Btech its feel. Part of what has limited Btech's rules growth is that everything needs to be balanced to maintain the knights-in-combat feel. I don't think the rules set can allow for expanding technology without losing that feel.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 20-Jun-2004 21:11 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
There are certainly lots of little problems. Still, any change would probably arouse a furor among the players. I've never seen a rules change idea posted here win unamimous consent.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 20-Jun-2004 23:29 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-20 21:11, -Mud wrote:
There are certainly lots of little problems. Still, any change would probably arouse a furor among the players. I've never seen a rules change idea posted here win unamimous consent.
|
|
And this is one of the more open-minded forums. I tried posting ideas on CBT, and that did not go over well. It seems to me that Btech fans are some of the most dedicated fans when it comes to the traditional core rules of their game.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vagabond
Mercenary
Mr. Referee
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 5792
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 01:21 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Quote:
|
I've never seen a rules change idea posted here win unamimous consent.
|
|
That is part of the problem. they suggest changes to an existent and outdated system. we are not talking about rule changes, we are talking about an interely new system.
yes, change causes moans. i remember the groans i heard through out my gaming comunity when WotC released 3E DnD. fanatical supporters of ADnD were up in arms about most of the changes and ideas. i myself had issues with it. it ends up that 3E is by far the best system i've played DnD on. in addition it allows unlimited growth by its use of a core d20 system that accepts and works with moduals and rule expansions. you need not squeeze a rule in because the system accepts them easily.
BT does not. i am not saying that BT should go d20. personely i don't see that working well. however, it has been shown that you can change a games core rules while not destroying the game or its base feel.
_________________
one must work hard to cultivate the mind and body. and one must always cultivate the mind.
//^(^_^)^\\
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sir Henry
Team Bansai
Senior Tech Specialist
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4899
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 06:05 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
It needs some small changes and updates. The old system works (after a fashion, anyway), but does need some clarification on some rules and exploration into others.
_________________
Sir Henry
A Dragon in the disguise of a bunny, is still a Dragon.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Storm
Draconis Combine
Chu-i
Joined: 06-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 278
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 09:02 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
I think it does. I agree with Vagabond. We tried a 12 v 12 battle once. It took an hour a turn!
I would like to see the following:
Faster gameplay (cut down on the number of phases, perhaps?)
More realistic construction rules: I like to make motorcycles, and a 5-ton motorcycle just doesn't cut it. And when I design a 'mech, I do it in the following order: Size (tonnage), speed, engine, weapons load, heat sinks, armor, about the exact opposite way the rules describe.
Increased flexibility for infantry. Mostly, they come across as cannon fodder.
A way to handle large conflicts- Company-level or larger.
By the way, this may interest you: http://www.devildogdesign.com/html/index.php
This is 25mm modern combat, but their free rules have a lot of good ideas.
Of course, if you revamp the rules, you'll still have people pissing and moaning about what got changed and what didn't. You can't please everyone (which is why we have people who are stuck in 3025).
But you should at least please me.
Storm
[ This Message was edited by: Storm on 2004-06-21 09:03 ]
_________________
Storm  "The More that thou sweatest and swearest in training, the less thou bleedest and diest in combat."--Dick Marcinko
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 10:48 Post subject: My suggestions |
|
|
That's why I voted for "a little touching up." In general the game works pretty well, up to a lance sized level. Vehicles don't take as much time to run, so you can augment a lance of 'mechs with a company of vehicles if you want to run a larger scale game. Becides that, I'd only make four changes:
1) Pulse lasers need to be altered. Shorten the range on the clan versions (maybe give them the same range as standard inner sphere laser weapons of the same size...a clan LPL does 5/10/15, a MPL does 3/6/9, etc. In addition, reduce the to-hit modifier from -2 to -1.
2) AC/2s and AC/5s are inefficient. Increase their damage to 4 and 7 respectively.
3) Increase the range of small lasers and machine guns to 2/4/6.
4) The current scale of 30 meters a hex is unrealistic. Increase the scale to 100 meters per hex, and divide all movement rates by three. Such a change offers two advantages: 1st, weapon ranges become more realistic. A PPC can has a range of nearly two kilometers. Machine guns can actually hit someone standing on the other end of a football field. 2nd, the uber-speed factor, which has really unbalanced the game since the introduction of XL engines, is eliminated from the game. Even a Dasher only pulls 6/9 under this system.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Kiris65
Draconis Combine
Tai-i
Joined: 17-Dec-2003 00:00
Posts: 371
Location: Panama
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 11:10 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
Well, but isn't an overhaul what Wizkids is trying to do brining on Mechwarrior - Dark Age?
Not familiar with their game system, has anybody played it?
_________________
Anata no gosenzo sama ni kao o awase rare masuka! - (Get ready to meet your ashamed ancestors!)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Feral
ComStar
Sergeant
Joined: 25-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 11:19 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
Not to detract from the theme but pulse lasers were never meant to be balanced with the other lasers of the same size ... this is reflected in the fact that they are typically much heavier tonnage-wise.
XL engines are balanced by their cost, assuming you play the game as a campaign. I'm running a campaign right now and it was a big (and expensive) deal for them to buy some light engines ... not to mention that XL's would have broken the bank.
Regardless I concur, change is good.
_________________
I know nothing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Mordel
Mordel.Net
Administrator
Joined: 03-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 6087
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 12:39 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
That Light Fusion really helped on my Spider though. Allowed me to get full armor. So it was well worth the c-bills! 
_________________
Mordel Blacknight - Site Administrator
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Mordel
Mordel.Net
Administrator
Joined: 03-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 6087
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 12:41 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Hey, we're not "stuck" in 3025, we just prefer to play with that level tech because it offers a more balanced approach to the game. Remember, the game was designed for 3025 tech. The rules haven't changed since. So playing 3025 tech brings it back to where it was and what the rules were designed to handle.
_________________
Mordel Blacknight - Site Administrator
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Wanallo
Federated Suns
Leftenant Colonel
Joined: 02-Jan-2004 00:00
Posts: 671
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: 21-Jun-2004 13:43 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
I liked Muds idea's, my only real grudge is with some of the weapons. Pulse lasers and the AC's are really in need of change, also some of the ranges would be more realistic if they were increased. MG's are worthless and the AC2 is pathetic, a stream of shells does the same damage as a burst of mg bullets.
Infantry need revamping. It would also be nice to use more units without the massive timescale. The most i have played is a 12 on 12. It lasted 2 days (about 15hours in all). Even taking into account i was still getting used to the rules some changes would be in order.
_________________
Constant exposure to dangers will breed contempt for them-Seneca
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
