153 replies to this topic

[The Boneshaman]

Just a thought I had. Does anyone think TT BT need a bit of a makeover? Tweak weapons a bit lore ECT. Most weapons we have now days make BT weapons look inferior. An AC/20 in books I have read is 120mm and bigger. But they have a very short rang when compared to the 120mm of the M1 Abrams. Don’t get me wrong I love TT BT more than the MW games. You can do more like punch kick beat that mech to death with its own leg. But I feel that with the clans attacking in 3050 and its 3085 no real weapons upgrades have been given to the IS they have had clan tech for 35 years now. You think they would have come up with something that would make the clans cringe. Can’t they reverse engineer the weapons and armor so the FF and ES isn’t so bulky. Heck some of the clans have joined sides with the IS. You think they would help them by teaching the IS to make the lighter and more equipment. The jihad story line was ok but could have been better planed out and made more sense the Dark Age was just stupid.
What’s everyone’s thought?

Edited for spelling/ grammar Nazis

Edited by The Boneshaman, 21 March 2012 - 04:38 AM.

[Bluey]

IT DOES
pause for a dramatic effect


IT DOESS

Edited by Bluey, 20 March 2012 - 05:26 PM.

[John Wolf]

No. No it doesn't.

[Yeach]

Yes
(I almost wanted to start this topic... but I couldnt because it would look biased since I am TT outsider)

[Terick]

No change needed or wanted. Before the Jihad. Removing the Jihad and Dark Age, with changes to the War of Reaving would be great.

The only things that should change would be.

Would be possibly making all energy weapon have damage like the SN PPC. Meaning they do less and less damage the farther away the target is.

Redoing clan tech to make it an the IS tech more balanced... but then I follow the train of thought that no matter what COMSTAR had tried, tech would have moved forward because it always does in war.

As for the arguments that it should only be mechs that shoot. There is a reason your post was deleted. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't possible/plausible.

Edited by Terick, 20 March 2012 - 05:49 PM.

[Arctic Fox]

Dose it?

It's already established that by the end of the Jihad the IS is capable of replicating quite a bit of Clan technology, but that starting mass production would cost too much. There are a few designs in the XTROs (Like ComStar's CX-19 Ironsides), for instance, that specifically mention limited production of Clan technology by IS powers.

As for weapons ranges, they're specifically so because ranges going up to kilometers would not allow face-to-face combat between knights in giant stompy robots. And if you really want more realistic ranges, there's always the Extreme and LOS Range rules in Tactical Operations.

Edited by Arctic Fox, 20 March 2012 - 05:41 PM.

[Dimetime]

I have to agree that there is no fundamental change needed. Been playing TT for 15+ years so guess I'm an insider.

Now, looking at what you suggest, that to me just comes down to semantics. If they went through and changed the name of a few weapons (but not the stats) I'd probably grumble a bit until I memorized all the new names and then it'd be ok.

[Terick]

The argument for why can't the reproduce clan grade equipment shows in things that are more important that taking apart a weapon.

The problem comes down to the manufacturing base. Yes the IS tech labs can make clan grade copies. But they can't mass produce it because they don't have the industrial base that is able to make the components the right way size.

This is why it is possible for another country to have F-14s and not be able to make the replacement parts. Ask Iran why they are still trying to get radar parts for the F-14s they have and not making the parts. The have had the planes since the 1970s.... and they have developed a nuclear program in that time...

[Siphonaptera]

Yes, but not a major overhaul.

Autocannon ranges need to be increased as in real life the bigger the round the farther it goes accurately. AC 5's,10's, and 20's should have the same range as the AC/2 would be a simple fix. This would also go a long way towards making them worth the weight.

Double the amount of ammo per ton for everything. Get rid of ammo explosions (today's M1A1 has the equivalent of CASE...) and replace it with 1d6 additional crits instead.

Actually, that pretty much takes care of the game's problems except for the time it takes to play due to complexity, but that would require a complete reboot and then it wouldn't really be BT.

[NeoDac]

My answer is yes and no. the weapons on mechs are supposely much more powerful than what we see today because mech armor is shall we say godly a modern M1A1 abrams shell would literaly bounce off without a dent. not that theres much explanation of how they are powered up.. the other half of that is that most technology in battletech has backslid.. heavily.. of course the clans arent near as advanced as it sounds like they should be. still going back and changing things just because current technology caught up is generaly a bad idea.
BTW" i'm a little annoyed with some of the changes in the new edition (total warefare) like pulse lasers not working with Targeting computers. i understand its a balance issue but you take a weapon thats designed to be something very precise and accurate then say it doesnt work with a targeting computer because its innacurate. (and if you dont understand the balance issue look at the saggitaire and imagine it being able to target whatever location it wants with the pulse laser bonus to hit)

[Arctic Fox]

NeoDac, on 20 March 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

BTW" i'm a little annoyed with some of the changes in the new edition (total warefare) like pulse lasers not working with Targeting computers. i understand its a balance issue but you take a weapon thats designed to be something very precise and accurate then say it doesnt work with a targeting computer because its innacurate. (and if you dont understand the balance issue look at the saggitaire and imagine it being able to target whatever location it wants with the pulse laser bonus to hit)

Considering the fact that pulse lasers gain their accuracy bonus by virtue of greater volume of fire rather than by being inherently more accurate, much in the same way a burst from a submachine gun is more 'accurate' than a shot from bolt-action rifle, I don't see why it makes so little sense that they can be more accurate for general firing but not for the sort of pinpoint accuracy required for aimed shots.

[HighlandWolf]

I love how a real life modern day tank is being compared to a mech, or at least the gun is

and NO, it doesnt meed a make over

[Terick]

NeoDac, on 20 March 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

BTW" i'm a little annoyed with some of the changes in the new edition (total warefare) like pulse lasers not working with Targeting computers. i understand its a balance issue but you take a weapon thats designed to be something very precise and accurate then say it doesnt work with a targeting computer because its innacurate. (and if you dont understand the balance issue look at the saggitaire and imagine it being able to target whatever location it wants with the pulse laser bonus to hit)

Pulse lasers aren't more accurate. They are laser machine guns. So the have a higher chance to hit then a standard laser because more shots are fired. I would vote to make pulse lasers hit like the pellets of an LB-x. Meaning there is a roll to see how many shots hit and then where each one hits. Would make the clan LPL much more balanced since it would be an energy LB-10x with slightly better range.

As for balance issues. Autocannons don't always fire more accurately the bigger the round. This is true if you are also increasing the barrel length. But seeing that the barrel of the AC/10 is long then the barrel of the AC/20... wouldn't have any more range.

Removing ammo bombs while doubling ammo would take away the need for ammo. Energy boats would be almost worthless. Now I can have an LB-10x with the same range and damage as a PPC and almost no heat? Yes it is five more tons. But I have 20 shots and the chances your going to be dead or well in to overheat.

Forget the Sagi, how about the Warhawk C. Clan LPLs with targeting computer.... aim for the leg at 600 meters and not 180 like the Sagi.

Edited by Terick, 20 March 2012 - 06:23 PM.

[Pht]

The Boneshaman, on 20 March 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

Just a thought I had. Dose any one think TT BT need a bit of a make over. Tweek weapons a bit lore ECT. Most weapons we have now days make BT weapons look inferior.

Um, no, they are not inferior.

http://mwomercs.com/...age__hl__nebfer

http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__12993

http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__13666

Quote

An AC/20 in books I have read are 120mm and bigger. But they have a very short rang whene compaird to the 120mm of the M1 Abrams.

AC/20s don't fire single rounds; they fire multiple groups of smaller rounds.

Quote

But I feal that with the clans attacking in 3050 and its 3085 no real weapons upgrades have been given to the IS they have had clan tech for 35 years now.

The IS have some seriously nice new toys towards the middle and the end of the the Word of blake Jihad. Maybe you missed it?

-----


That said, you should really work on your english usage. It doesn't help your position much...

Terick, on 20 March 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

Pulse lasers aren't more accurate. They are laser machine guns. So the have a higher chance to hit then a standard laser because more shots are fired.

Actually, pulse lasers are easier to hit with because the "off time" between pulses allows the 'mech to re-aim them and the shorter "on time" of the individual pulses are easier to put onto the target, versus the non-pulse lasers which have a considerable amount of "on time" to do their full rated damage.

Edited by Pht, 20 March 2012 - 06:37 PM.

[Terick]

Pht, on 20 March 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

AC/20s don't fire single rounds; they fire multiple groups of smaller rounds.

No. All ACs fire single rounds. Yes some of the novel writers wrote that they fire a burst and the artist for one of the TROs did make it look that way. But all AC/s fire single shells or double tap if Ultra ACs or using the rapid fire optional rule.

For a good reference look at the description of the Enforcer in TRO 3025. It specifically mentions that the ammo bay for the enforcer is a magazine style with ten rounds load that can be easily loaded form the rear by a forklift. Made that way to allow for quick changes so the mech cna get back to the fight.

This has also been confirmed on the official website as being ACs shoot one shell with the exception of cluster round for LBs and then Ultra and rapid fire shooting two shells.

[GrimJim]

nO.

In fact, find an old box set and play that. Fewer rules, faster games, less mess, more fun. (Or just play MegaMek for more realtime jollies).

Personally I always liked the idea of feudal, Mad Max, attrition styled MechWarrior. Where you could find lasers used next to flintlocks, where a populace might have cybernetics but no ability to desalinate drinking water, where a single 'Mech could dominate a continent, but by this time was likely run by a Commodore 64 with LOS targeting.

In the dark ages of the Succession Wars which mixed tech levels from the 18th century to the 31st, I could totally see todays tech ripping up BattleTechnology.

'Sides, if there was real world parity, then you'd never see your opponents (since they'd be shooting from nine miles away), and most games would be over after the first shot.

[Randal Waide]

Why not hovering mechs piloted by disembodied brains?
Nah. I dont play the newer rules. I stopped my tech after Victor beat the Clans. I mean, I have a couple of regiments of metal minis and several clusters of clans, having new weapons doesn't make it better for me. Being able to play what I have well does.
In my opinion the length of the games is my main issue, especially with my time being at a premium. Because of that we have experimented with the Battleforce Quick Strike rules, used in conjunction with the miniature rules with some success. Not only does it allow us to play more minis at once, it also keeps the "roles" of the mechs more in line and doesn't devolve to a slugfest of giants at the end. It feels like what I hope MWO turns out to be. I recommend it.

[Sychodemus]

Any game can benefit from healthy and well-thought revisions from time to time. If changes can be made that do not change the flavor or otherwise invalidate preexisting canon and possibly bring in new players, then such revision might be a good thing. However, if revision in effect invalidates canon, loses the setting flavor or alienates its core audience then it is a terrible thing.

In the case of Battletech, the overwhelming majority of its fanbase is "veteran" players (in one form or another) and there has never been enough need for "new" players to justify losing the former.
As much as some would like a revision that introduces certain realism, to do so would very likely create more problems than it would solve. Battletech has only ever had a passing acquaintance with realism, but instead it has endeavored to create and maintain one of its own making. While not logical in a "real world" sense, BT's internal realism is indeed part of what has made it last for as long as it has.

Total War did a very good job of consolidating and correcting many issues that emerged over the decades without changing what makes it -mechanically speaking- Battletech. It also introduced or reintroduced certain optional mechanics (often player-originated house rules) that players could use at their discretion. Despite this, BT's core mechanics are very clunky, slow and quite intimidating, especially to new players. This does not, however, mean that the whole thing will be (or even should be) redone from scratch.

I am someone that believes that Battletech could really benefit from a major game-system revision, but I also understand that such a thing is unlikely any time in the near future - if ever. Such an undertaking offers no guarantee of success and when the cost, time and difficulty of such a thing is taken into account, it could very well destroy it. Battletech is really still recovering from its near-extinction around 2000, and to be honest, it was its hardcore fanbase and their loyalty to that "ancient" game-system that saved it.

That is not to say that BT could not benefit from major revisons, but it would probably be better if major, across-the-board changes took the form of optional/alternate rules sets (actual sets of alternate base mechanics, rather than optional rules to be plugged into the core game.) In that way, new concepts could be offered to players that like the setting but not necessarily the game mechanics themselves. However, such diversity can be very expensive and is unlikely ever to dislodge the core loyal fanbase of Battletech -which is the one thing that it could never afford to do.

[cyb3rj4ck]

No.

Simply put: loss-tech.

Complicatedly put: a modern 120mm tank gun has a longer barrel than an AC/20. AC/20s have always been more like a belly-gun. It's also power balancing -- I really wouldn't want that to have more range! Even so, putting a sufficient barrel on a mech to withstand the compression of such a large round would be extremely heavy and awkward. Balance could become an issue.

[SiriusBeef]

Like any other miniature war game there is a certain need to accept the writers intentions as far as table-top mechanics and weapons balance. I have yet to find a tabletop system that does not require extra attention when it comes to building a balanced engagement. The perception that a game is unbalanced(any game) seems to me to be the main cause for people loosing intrest in a system. Simply put, there is only so much loosing an individual will endure before tossing out his or her figs and moving onto another system. TT gaming in general is horrible in this respect. GW(games Workshop) and now PP(Privateer Press) are among the worst offenders today. As far as I have seen in all the game systems (dozens) I've played in the past 30 years or so is that BT falls somewhere in the middle of the "the best game system ever" scale. The Introduction of the Clans was essentially the end of any resemblance of balance in the game in many peoples eyes. Imagine you spent several years collecting and painting minis then on day your buddy shows up with a single Timby and proceeds to waste your whole lance... Not fun. What BT does have is a real old school feel. Like SFB and CarWars the game mechanics is almost completely table driven and very granular record keeping is of the utmost importance. some old folks like me love that crap but it is only through experience that a balanced battle can be had.

As far as a facelift goes Wizkids tried it failed horribly... Stupid clicky crap...

Other that that I thought Catalyst did a fantastic job at revising the original books and adding non hex based rules. A few minor changes were made to weapons and such but nothing radical.

The crux of the biscuit for the MWO team at Piranha is going to be how they implement Clan tech into the mix. It's been the bane of all who have come before...