| 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: 22-Jun-2004 00:36 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
  |
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-21 23:29, Motown Scrapper wrote:
Sounds to me like you have problems dealing with movement over large areas
|
|
No, I have a problem with the game being stupid in this area. Show me one instance in real life where ground vehicles trying to dodge shells in the open is a valid battlefield tactic.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Motown Scrapper
Clan Ice Hellions
Galaxy Commander
Joined: 24-Jul-2003 00:00
Posts: 2074
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 22-Jun-2004 02:14 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-22 00:36, Gangrene wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-21 23:29, Motown Scrapper wrote:
Sounds to me like you have problems dealing with movement over large areas
|
|
No, I have a problem with the game being stupid in this area. Show me one instance in real life where ground vehicles trying to dodge shells in the open is a valid battlefield tactic.
|
|
My point exactly You have made my arguement for me because it is MUCH more than that. I make MUCH use of cover and fight a very positional battle especialy when I do not play clans and do not have to worry about Zellbrigan
_________________
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have-Rush Limbaugh www.rushlimbaugh.com
Force of nature
Still crazy after all these years
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 22-Jun-2004 13:21 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
I would say that for battletech 2E speed should probably max out at about 6/9/6; that's a Dasher.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 22-Jun-2004 20:07 Post subject: RE: My suggestions |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-22 02:14, Motown Scrapper wrote:
My point exactly You have made my arguement for me because it is MUCH more than that. I make MUCH use of cover and fight a very positional battle especialy when I do not play clans and do not have to worry about Zellbrigan
|
|
"My point exactly", huh? That's a load of crap. If you are so convinced that you play a positional battle are you willing to see the movement modifier rules thrown out of Battletech?
With mud's proposal the relative speeds of mechs will be basically unchanged, thus your ability to take terrain would not be limited. Only the movement mods would be affected.
By the way, in real life, that thing whose tactics I would like to model, darting between areas of cover exposes you to enemy fire. The fact that Btech only deals with the end conditions is another reason that the rules need to be fixed (and something mud's idea helps alleviate, I might add). So my challenge still stands.
[ This Message was edited by: Gangrene on 2004-06-23 01:18 ]
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Karagin
Imperial Karagin Army
Imperial General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4120
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 23-Jun-2004 03:46 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
I have been told that MWDA was suppose to be FASA's attempt to "update the rules to allow for better streamline play" now if that is true then your idea has been answered.
Not with standing the furor and stances on MWDA vs BT, I feel that the core game, ie Battletech, does need some cleaning up and small changes to level things dealing with infantry and vehicles while keeping the mechs at the top of the food chain. I have seen many good ideas as far as rules and variants and new and balanced weapons from folks on here, some of my good friends and other places and yes I have seen the flip side of thing where munchness is the key.
Areas I think they need to clean up:
Vehicle rules and construction
Infantry rules in combat
Linking Aerospace and BT to allow for a better use of both together
Also with the new tech things need to be there to limit what that can do. Having levels help but that still doesn't stop folks from over doing it with the loop holes.
One thing that needs to happen is a rule that prevents Targ and Pulse working together.
Just my thoughts.
_________________
Karagin
Only the dead have seen the end of war. - Plato
"Wasted trip Man. Nobody said nuthin' about lockin' horns with no tigers." Oddball
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8081
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 23-Jun-2004 04:53 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-23 03:46, Karagin wrote:
I have been told that MWDA was suppose to be FASA's attempt to "update the rules to allow for better streamline play" now if that is true then your idea has been answered.
|
|
Why would FASA design a game who's system was owned by another company?
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Karagin
Imperial Karagin Army
Imperial General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4120
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 23-Jun-2004 09:22 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
The idea that MWDA would clean the stage and slate so to speak of all of the COOL tech and we would be back to events similar to the 3025 era is what I was refering to. That's what I meant.
The game mechanics of MWDA are simple, fast and thus the idea of things other then mechs blasting away are all there. Which are similar to MageKnight and WK's other CGs.
Sorry for the confusion.
_________________
Karagin
Only the dead have seen the end of war. - Plato
"Wasted trip Man. Nobody said nuthin' about lockin' horns with no tigers." Oddball
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Peter_Smith
Capellan Confederation
Yi-si-ben-bing
Joined: 25-Mar-2002 00:00
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: 23-Jun-2004 10:47 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-23 03:46, Karagin wrote:
I have been told that MWDA was suppose to be FASA's attempt to "update the rules to allow for better streamline play" now if that is true then your idea has been answered. |
|
While there was a big project in the works at FASA at the end, it was nothing like MWDA.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 23-Jun-2004 19:59 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-23 03:46, Karagin wrote:
I have been told that MWDA was suppose to be FASA's attempt to "update the rules to allow for better streamline play" now if that is true then your idea has been answered.
|
|
Except for the better flexibility and realism I would like. Clickey games are faster, no doubt, but Wizkid's rules sets leave a lot to be desired in terms of tactical depth.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Wanallo
Federated Suns
Leftenant Colonel
Joined: 02-Jan-2004 00:00
Posts: 671
Location: United Kingdom
|
| Posted: 24-Jun-2004 02:09 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
The tactical element is wat made BT fun, alot of things are decided by dice rolls. The only changes worth making are revisions of the weapons. Some are a bit laclustre (AC5,AC2,MG) while some are too good (Pulse laser)
There aren't many mechs i build that don't mount pulse lasers. I much prefer weapons like MRM's where the damage done depends on the dice roll.
_________________
Constant exposure to dangers will breed contempt for them-Seneca
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 24-Jun-2004 19:51 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-06-24 02:09, Wanallo wrote:
The tactical element is wat made BT fun, alot of things are decided by dice rolls. |
|
Too much is dependent on dice rolls, IMO. I understand the need for uncertainty, but the game could be a little more chess-like.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Feral
ComStar
Sergeant
Joined: 25-Mar-2004 00:00
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: 25-Jun-2004 13:04 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Well a couple important things to think about.
More dice = good. The more dice you roll the more likely they are to come out to their expected probability. Meaning the larger the sample set the more normalized it will appear. I've always sort of wished there was a 3D6 chart for hit locations instead of 2D6 ... this way you can get a better hit distribution. Unfortunately this is slower.
I beleive all weapons in a location have to target the same enemy. I also believe that all torsos and legs have to target a single enemy. This means that only arms and maybe rear firing weapons can target secondary targets ... this will simplify things on the battlefield and combines nicely with my next change recommendation ...
In order to speed things up I believe that all weapons in a location have to be linked. They don't always have to be fired but they have to always be linked to the same roll. Meaning if you had 4 medium lasers in an arm and you wanted to fire any number of them ... you would make only one roll for them all. This makes sense from a targetting perspective and speeds things up. Combined with the preceding rule of a single location targetting a single target you end up reducing the total number of overall rolls.
_________________
I know nothing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 25-Jun-2004 13:10 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
This is essentially the concept used by battlespace and aerotech with weapons bays. There is certainly no need to roll every single SRM hit and small laser miss.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ronin
ComStar
Colonel
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 908
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 25-Jun-2004 20:51 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
Linking the to-hit rolls certainly speeds things up, but it also makes things something of an all-or-nothing nature regarding hits and damage. Using you example of 4 medium lasers: if they hit, would they all go to the same location?
If so, then you are essentially making a super weapon of sorts... why get an AC20 when 4 mediunm lasers have the same range and damage potential, with no ammo concerns. The heat difference is easily offset by the weight reduction, even when using single heat sinks.
If not, then simply get a bunch of different colored dice, declare which ones are sets (if they aren't matched already) and roll them all at once. Repeat for the weapons that hit: designate which dice represent which weapons. If the amount of weapons fired is small enough (or your hands are big enough) you can roll to-hit and damage at the same time: any weapon that misses, you ignore the hit location rolled.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Horhiro
Draconis Combine
Samurai
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1625
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 01-Jul-2004 18:40 Post subject: RE: Does Battletech need an overhaul? |
|
|
I would like to see a three ringed dial that you could plop your mech down onto, to keep track things happening in the current turn such as :Heat, your movement type(did you Walk, run or jump) and your movement mod. It would help speed up game play for both you and your opponents.
I would also like to see streamlined movement/declaration rules. I have always liked random mech movement, and hidden fire declaration. It takes away some of the "Chess-like/I'm looking for the perfect move" crap which bogs the game down. And why should your opponents know what your firing at them until you do?
Get rid of the # missle hit chart. Instead when you hit with missles roll 1 die: 1-3 half hit, 4-6 all hit (up the Lrm5 and 15 to lrm6 and 16)
Lastly I would like to see a mech only make one piloting check roll per phase(not including movement phase), I mean you already add in all the mods together for each event anyway, so just make one roll and get it over with.
just my .02
[ This Message was edited by: Horhiro on 2004-07-01 18:42 ]
_________________
"I have lived my life trying to be a virtuous man. The Dragon admires tenacity, and the code of the samurai upholds it as well." -Minobu Tetsuhara
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
