Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Timberwolfd]

Thread for spitballing a version X.0 ruleset for CBT to streamline play while addressing balance issues.

Operating principles
1. Try to maintain compatibility with currently existing TROs.
2. Work with mechs and vehicles first with infantry, aerospace, and naval concerns taking a decided 3rd+ place. To the extent that rules changes improve play with other unit types, great, but the focus is on mechs first and vehicles second.
3. New mechanics and dice are welcome.



Changes proposed:
1. 2d10 instead of 2d6. This will increase the statistical range of rolls and reduce the impact of modifiers, allowing greater range of bonuses/penalties before the roll chances become either auto hit or auto miss.

2. Introduction of an armor penetration mechanic. If your attack succeeds, the weapon may penetrate the armor and generate a critical hit (TACs may be eliminated in favor of this rule, play testing will need to determine if the overlap of the two mechanics creates undo rolling.) The current formulation is that weapon X will deal 1 point of structure damage in addition to armor damage if the attack roll is successful and less than a weapon by weapon penetration value. For example, an AC/20 has a hypothetical penetration value of 12. If the TN to hit is 8, then on a roll below 8, the attack misses. On a roll between 8 and 12, the attack hits and damages the internal structure, generating a critical hit check. On a roll above 12, the attack only damages armor.  Autocannons would receive higher penetration values to balance out their weight. missile weapons would have very low or no penetration values. Beam lasers would have medium to low penetration values while pulse lasers have no penetration value. Physical attacks would have high penetration values, with melee weapon attacks approaching auto penetration. This would give each weapon system more flavor and allow balancing autocannons without changing weights compared to existing construction rules. Now mechs like the JagerMech are trading inefficient armor damage rates for the chance to penetrate their opponents and crit them out. The penetration mechanic is likely to be modified by the target's armor so that it is somewhat harder to penetrate heavily armored units and easier to penetrate lightly armored units.

[agustaaquila]

  The penetration mechanic is likely to be modified by the target's armor so that it is somewhat harder to penetrate heavily armored units and easier to penetrate lightly armored units.

This idea alone creates so much more complexity then it removes that this rule set auto-fails the condition of streamlining play.  With units warying from 2 points of armor approaching 100 the results would add a massive new table to memorize.

Also Battletech players are legendary for their grognard status, to the point that catalyst doesn't reveal the line developer name to reduce harassment to the person.  Enjoy the email hate for trying to change fundamental aspects of the game. 

[Timberwolfd]

Also Battletech players are legendary for their grognard status, to the point that catalyst doesn't reveal the line developer name to reduce harassment to the person.  Enjoy the email hate for trying to change fundamental aspects of the game. 

That would be why its a rules musings thread instead of an actual attempt to create a new ruleset. If I were to really want to introduce it, I would give it a new name and just note that the rules are compatible with CBT. Then it would be a different game and people who want to wallow in their faded glories and thump their chests about how they fought at the side of First Prince Ian Davion, can continue to do so while blocking out the existence of X.0.

  The penetration mechanic is likely to be modified by the target's armor so that it is somewhat harder to penetrate heavily armored units and easier to penetrate lightly armored units.

This idea alone creates so much more complexity then it removes that this rule set auto-fails the condition of streamlining play.  With units warying from 2 points of armor approaching 100 the results would add a massive new table to memorize.

I would make it simple like for every 10 points of armor reduce penetration by 1 so that there would not be a new table and the more flimsy the armor, the more easily penetrated.

[Timberwolfd]

To further the rock/paper/scissors of the weapons types, where ACs and the Gauss Rifle get penetration, missiles get fragmentation. Fragmentation does extra damage to non-battle armor infantry, civilian vehicles, VTOLs, and ASFs. Artillery, MGs, and LB-X cluster ammo also gets fragmentation. ACs can fire flak ammo, but lose penetration when doing so. Fragmentation doubles damage to non-battle armor infantry and civilian vehicles and double again in the open. ASFs and VTOLs receive +1 damage per cluster. So an LRM 5 missile cluster would deal 6 damage to an ASF or VTOL. Similarly, an AC/10 firing flak ammo would deal 11 damage and an AC/2 firing flak ammo would deal 3 damage.

Lasers get inherent accuracy bonuses to hit by ignoring some of the target's movement modifier, probably the first 2, representing that you only need to be able to see the target to hit it. Pulse lasers would simply ignore more of the target's modifier, up to 4 maybe. Note that the movement modifiers table would be rescaled for 2d10, so the bonuses aren't as big as they seem, statistically.

PPCs, plasma cannons, inferno missiles, and flamers would all get thermal/fire damage. Non-battlearmor infantry take +5 damage and double damage in the open (including doubling the bonus damage). For battle armor, calculate the damage as though the battlearmor were infantry, and if the damage exceeds armor plus trooper inside, the poor schlub cooks. So a PPC will deal 10 points to a trooper, but check if 15 would kill him. If it does, he cooks. Infernos would deal 5 points of heat damage, so normal elementals with 10+1 would survive 2 hits and cook on the third. A flamer would deal 2 damage, but check for killing the trooper on 7.

[Hat]

If you’re looking for streamlining I would recommend instead allowing batteries on weapons to be fired on a single attack roll with the MOS defining number of weapons that hit or use the cluster chart to decide. Alternatively allow for the number of weapons to act as a TN modifier to hit, but only one weapon hits. I could crunch the numbers to see impact over distribution but not willing to go to that much effort on a musing thread atm.

[Timberwolfd]

If you’re looking for streamlining I would recommend instead allowing batteries on weapons to be fired on a single attack roll with the MOS defining number of weapons that hit or use the cluster chart to decide. Alternatively allow for the number of weapons to act as a TN modifier to hit, but only one weapon hits. I could crunch the numbers to see impact over distribution but not willing to go to that much effort on a musing thread atm.

Thinking about it, I would say all of weapon type X in a location would be required to fire as a battery. So if you have 4 medium lasers in an arm, the group could only be aimed at a single target and fired as a single weapon, or any number up to 4. Multiple hits would be MoS based with progressive MoS requirements. A single weapon hits on MoS 0, 2 on MoS 1, 3 on MoS 3, 4 on MoS 6, 5 on MoS 10 and 6 on MoS 15. That would discourage boating, create value for clusters, and realtively closely follow the current statistical curve while dropping the number of rolls required.

The hits/MoS table should probably be rewritten as:
MoS 0 - 1+0
MoS 1 - 1+1
MoS 3 - 1+2
MoS 6 - 1+3
MoS 10 - 1+4
MoS 15 - 1+5

A battery of 4 medium lasers needs a 9 to hit and rolls a 14. MoS 5 means three lasers hit. On a roll of 20, MoS 11, upto to 5 lasers could hit, but there are only 4 in the cluster, so there are only 4 hits.

I'll keep kicking it around in my head, but I think that I like this for now. I can only think of a few boaters in CBT that even get to 5 weapons in a cluster. The Nova, Pirahna, and Komodo.

[Timberwolfd]

Would it take away too much of the feel of the different systems to do something similar for missiles?

Treat an SRM-X as a battery of X weapons with a small to hit bonus (+0-3) that would help with higher MoS's.
Maybe SRM-2 has a MoS bonus of 0, SRM-4 gets a +1 and SRM-6 gets a +2.

Do something similar for LRMs.
LRM-5 is a battery of 5x1 damage weapons with an MoS bonus of 0.
LRM-10 is a battery of 5x2 damage weapons with an MoS bonus of 0.
LRM-15 is a 5x3 with MoS +1
LRM-20 5x4 MoS +2

Give SRMs a +1 at short range and -1 at long range while LRMs get a +1 at long range and -1 to -6. at short range

[Timberwolfd]

How to work with targeting computers?

Normal Shots: +1-2 to hit

Called Shots:
Option 1: Divide MoS by 2-3 and use the new MoS to determine how many weapons hit the targeted location.
Option 2: Second roll like current rules
Option 3: ?