Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ccs wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


There is a lot wrong with Battletech, but the time to change it passed over 30 years ago. They could have redone the ruleset in the 80's but by now there is too much incumbency that the only way forward is to stay the same.
People as a result forgive its many flaws.

Well, whatever you think those "many flaws" are, they don't seen to have hindered the game any. Or deterred it's many fans.

Which include myself.

But, I shall list a handful of them.

1. 2d6 system which makes banking dice rolls difficult and clumsy.

2. Ludicrous weapon imbalances. The devs recognise this to the point that the online games are quietly but substantially changed.

3. Fizikz that makes 40K seem rational, well almost. While remaining pressed against a yardstick of modern reality, which 40K does not as a fantast game.

4. Constant bat crazy excuses for the total war in the active timeline.

5. Weapon ranges.

There is a lot more than that, but even the most hardened fanboi should admit there are many many failings to Battletech.
The thing is, its remains a workable system and has been consistent. The community goes along with that. Could you image the problems the 40K community if the weapons imbalance commonplace to Battletech were more prominent in 40K. We don't like it when one Leman Russ gun is imbalanced compared to the others, but any of those loadouts in any edition would be paragons of game balance and erudite point balance compared to the standard weaponry in Battletech.
Battletech is given a hard pass by its community but has by and large earned it. I would not change Battletech now, but a complete rewrite of the system in say 1987 +/-1 would have made the game immeasurably better.

ccs wrote:


Well, whatever you think those "many flaws" are, they don't seen to have hindered the game any. Or deterred it's many fans.

Battletech has a really cool core mechanic where heat generation serves as a proxy for Clausewitz's "friction." One can only do so much before heat shuts you down. The alternative is finite ammunition. It's really brilliant, and that's why the game endures.

There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.

That being said, the background is brilliant, the way they advanced the technology was neat and about the only truly dumb thing about it was Comstar, aka AT&T in Space. The militant army of Ma Bell was like an extended 80s joke that got out of hand.

Non-Americans may not get that for decades, phone service in the United States was a monopoly. As in, you didn't even own your own phone. So the notion of a galactic phone company with its own quasi-religious fighting force was...amusing. But also silly.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:


That being said, the background is brilliant, the way they advanced the technology was neat and about the only truly dumb thing about it was Comstar, aka AT&T in Space. The militant army of Ma Bell was like an extended 80s joke that got out of hand.

Non-Americans may not get that for decades, phone service in the United States was a monopoly. As in, you didn't even own your own phone. So the notion of a galactic phone company with its own quasi-religious fighting force was...amusing. But also silly.

ComStar, like the Mechanicus, is Aasimov's Foundation Scientism in all but name.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.

I feel like that's a bonus in a game.

At least in so much as one big risk with games is what GW had a bit of with flying units when they added aircraft. Back then only anti-air could take them out, which meant you had to take anti air in every army. However it also meant that if you went air-heavy and your opponent only took a token anti-air; you could shut that down and then attack with a great degree of impunity. Yes that is realistic, but its not as "fun" in a game setting.

 Platuan4th wrote:


ComStar, like the Mechanicus, is Aasimov's Foundation Scientism in all but name.

Asimov is a blind spot for me. Read some of his short stories, but none of the books. I need to rectify that.

However, the concept of the Armed Phone Company resonated in the US. See also the fear of the "phone cops" from WKRP in Cincinnati.

 Orlanth wrote:
1. 2d6 system which makes banking dice rolls difficult and clumsy.

2. Ludicrous weapon imbalances. The devs recognise this to the point that the online games are quietly but substantially changed.

3. Fizikz that makes 40K seem rational, well almost. While remaining pressed against a yardstick of modern reality, which 40K does not as a fantast game.

4. Constant bat crazy excuses for the total war in the active timeline.

5. Weapon ranges.

Those first two are not flaws.

A 2D6 system would destroy something on the scale of 40k, but when a BTech game can literally be 1 v 1, it's not a big deal. And yes, the weapon tech is imbalanced. That's part of the setting. Some things are just flat out better than others. Technology advances. Some people get left behind. It's incorporating narrative right into the rules. That's not a flaw. That's the game working as intended.

Physics problems? It's a game about giant stompy robots. By rights the tanks in the game should be bending them over every single time, but the concession is that this is a world where 'Mechs (for whatever reason) are superior to everything anyone else has come up with. There are things that annoy me - a 1 ton piece of modular armour or a shield slows your 'Mech, but replacing that with a 1 ton laser doesn't - but they're hardly 'flaws' that would require any sort of great rewrite or new edition to fix.

The constant need for war isn't a flaw in the games rules. And weapon ranges? Who gives a feth about weapon ranges? How many games really do weapon ranges correctly? Why is this a "flaw" of BattleTech's?

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:
There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.

In 40k my Guardsmen wound Warlord Titans if they hit it on a '6'.

I'll take Machine Guns doing small amounts of chip damage over that bull gak any day of the week...

 Overread wrote:


I feel like that's a bonus in a game.

At least in so much as one big risk with games is what GW had a bit of with flying units when they added aircraft. Back then only anti-air could take them out, which meant you had to take anti air in every army. However it also meant that if you went air-heavy and your opponent only took a token anti-air; you could shut that down and then attack with a great degree of impunity. Yes that is realistic, but its not as "fun" in a game setting.

Given the scale, the inclusion of flying units in 40k was an obvious money grab. Completely inappropriate at that level of simulation and horribly unbalancing. Another factor pushing me away from the "current" game and back to an older edition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
1. 2d6 system which makes banking dice rolls difficult and clumsy.

2. Ludicrous weapon imbalances. The devs recognise this to the point that the online games are quietly but substantially changed.

3. Fizikz that makes 40K seem rational, well almost. While remaining pressed against a yardstick of modern reality, which 40K does not as a fantast game.

4. Constant bat crazy excuses for the total war in the active timeline.

5. Weapon ranges.

Those first two are not flaws.

A 2D6 system would destroy something on the scale of 40k, but when a BTech game can literally be 1 v 1, it's not a big deal. And yes, the weapon tech is imbalanced. That's part of the setting. Some things are just flat out better than others. Technology advances. Some people get left behind. It's incorporating narrative right into the rules. That's not a flaw. That's the game working as intended.

Physics problems? It's a game about giant stompy robots. By rights the tanks in the game should be bending them over every single time, but the concession is that this is a world where 'Mechs (for whatever reason) are superior to everything anyone else has come up with. There are things that annoy me - a 1 ton piece of modular armour or a shield slows your 'Mech, but replacing that with a 1 ton laser doesn't - but they're hardly 'flaws' that would require any sort of great rewrite or new edition to fix.

The constant need for war isn't a flaw in the games rules. And weapon ranges? Who gives a feth about weapon ranges? How many games really do weapon ranges correctly? Why is this a "flaw" of BattleTech's?

I'll agree that the 2d6 to hit for every weapon can bog things down when you get beyond 1v1, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a "flaw." Sure, it will take longer, but you wind up with more detail (which you may or not like) and the possibility of at least some of your weapons hitting a target versus an all or nothing. And yeah, rolling criticals and damage locations can also take some time. Again, though, not necessarily a "flaw," as much as a style of game.

And really no game has "realistic" weapon ranges. 40k is even more ridiculous on that front than Battletech, honestly, with your bolt pistol only having a range of what, 40 feet? That's a problem to pretty much most games, though, since realistic weapon ranges would go well across the average 4x6 game table.

 Valander wrote:


And really no game has "realistic" weapon ranges. 40k is even more ridiculous on that front than Battletech, honestly, with your bolt pistol only having a range of what, 40 feet? That's a problem to pretty much most games, though, since realistic weapon ranges would go well across the average 4x6 game table.

After my fantasy rules were published (link in sig), I thought about doing a "Conqueror 40k" rule set. The first thing I realized was that if I was going to keep the scale consistent, all weapons could reach across the board. Range wasn't even a thing to worry about.

Ultimately, I abandoned the project because while 40k is deeply silly in many ways, I find 2nd ed. gets me where I want to go.

Not seeing the link for your rules. Interested in learning more about it

You know what's easier to read than 2D6 for each model is a D12

 privateer4hire wrote:
Not seeing the link for your rules. Interested in learning more about it

https://www.ahlloyd.com/2018/08/conqueror-revised-edition-is-now-available.html

Here's the discussion thread on this site: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/807756.page

Basically, I was sick of the way GW had rendered my fantasy figures largely obsolete, so I made my own system. But when it came down to it, 2nd ed. 40k was still fun. I needed some fixes, but I honestly was quite happy with it, so I didn't really see the need to reinvent the wheel.

I wish Battletech had come up with just a little more plausible reason for giant robots to dominate the battlefield, because they do look cool.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You know what's easier to read than 2D6 for each model is a D12

Sure, but when Btech came out d12 were only available in "geeky" places while d6 were everywhere.

M.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You know what's easier to read than 2D6 for each model is a D12

They also give different results (2-12 for 2D6 and 1-12 for the 1D12).

And a slight bell curve for averages with 2d6.

The game is built around that bell curve. A D12 wouldn't have that.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.

You do realize the "machine guns" on mechs are often firing 20mm rounds right? Of course a .787 round can and will chunk off armor, and or break things if you shoot it enough times in rapid succession. Shoot, we use .50 cals as anti material rifles and to tackle light vehicles.

20mm is no joke

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You know what's easier to read than 2D6 for each model is a D12

Sure, if you want a completely different results distribution.

Battletech migh have issues, but one big thing in its favor is that you can play it with anyone who's played it at any point in time, which is not something that can be said of 40k.

Also, hexmaps remove a whole lot of ambiguities.

But yes, even using just 3025 rules there are some weapons that are mostly crap (looking at you, AC/2s and 5s) and for which you'd be always better off swapping for anything else.

Even so, I'd much rather play Btech than current 40k. It's not even a contest.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You know what's easier to read than 2D6 for each model is a D12

for the same reason we have weapons with 3 shots + 2 Damage and 1 shot and D6 Damage in 40k and both are considered equal because both have the same damage potential, but one is clearly better than the other in practice

EviscerationPlague wrote:
You know what's easier to read than 2D6 for each model is a D12

You know d12 isn't same as 2d6? Different probabilities and all.

What's the odds of rolling 4 on 2d6 vs d12?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.

You do realize the "machine guns" on mechs are often firing 20mm rounds right? Of course a .787 round can and will chunk off armor, and or break things if you shoot it enough times in rapid succession. Shoot, we use .50 cals as anti material rifles and to tackle light vehicles.

So when was last time M1A2 Abrams was taken out by 20mm machine gun?

Any mech can be completely destroyed by machine gun. Can Abrams? Not even disabled but totally destroyed.

tneva82 wrote:


So when was last time M1A2 Abrams was taken out by 20mm machine gun?

Any mech can be completely destroyed by machine gun. Can Abrams? Not even disabled but totally destroyed.

Exactly. A modern MBT is more likely to be disabled by rust than machinegun fire.

The other issue was the painstaking way damage was recorded. We used to joke that the game was a fusion of shooting craps and taking a standardized test.

I love the faction symbolism, the notion of the updates was neat because it created a similar dynamic equilbrium, the mechs looked cool, I just had a hard time funny accepting the game premises. I recall a board game version that used simple terrain and a small periscope to determine LOS. How cool was that?

I'd rather play Battletech than any 40k edition other than 2nd, though, and I think it caught on because at the time, it owned the sci-fi gaming space, just as 40k owns it now.

tneva82 wrote:

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

There are issue with the game, however, and foremost among them is the way damage accumulates. In the Battletech world, if you shoot a piece of armor with enough machineguns it will give way eventually. In the real world, the bullets do nothing because they aren't strong enough to penetrate.

You do realize the "machine guns" on mechs are often firing 20mm rounds right? Of course a .787 round can and will chunk off armor, and or break things if you shoot it enough times in rapid succession. Shoot, we use .50 cals as anti material rifles and to tackle light vehicles.

So when was last time M1A2 Abrams was taken out by 20mm machine gun?

Any mech can be completely destroyed by machine gun. Can Abrams? Not even disabled but totally destroyed.

I'd be curious what concentrated 20mm auto cannon fire would do to armour. 20mm set ups in aircraft can be spewing in the realm of 100 rounds a second, they're obviously not designed to take on tanks with those guns but it'd be interesting to know what it could do to armour if mounted on a stable and accurate platform launching a few hundred rounds in the space of a couple of seconds.

Of course I'm not sure what any of this has to do with GW putting the squeeze on independents, I lost track of this thread pages ago

tneva82 wrote:
So when was last time M1A2 Abrams was taken out by 20mm machine gun?

Any mech can be completely destroyed by machine gun. Can Abrams? Not even disabled but totally destroyed.

I mean, is this any different to super heavies being destroyed by lasguns? Because an Imperial Knight can also be destroyed by them. Not even disabled but totally destroyed.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


I'd be curious what concentrated 20mm auto cannon fire would do to armour. 20mm set ups in aircraft can be spewing in the realm of 100 rounds a second, they're obviously not designed to take on tanks with those guns but it'd be interesting to know what it could do to armour if mounted on a stable and accurate platform launching a few hundred rounds in the space of a couple of seconds.

Of course I'm not sure what any of this has to do with GW putting the squeeze on independents, I lost track of this thread pages ago

Calibers can be misleading. The A-10s 30mm cannon fires depleted uranium ammo (or did) which had special armor-piercing properties but more importantly targeted the armor on the top of the turret. The 20mm cannon going back to WW II were effective against heavy tanks because they were able to fire down into the engine spaces, where there was very little armor.

The point about Battletech is that with enough time you could use machineguns to chew through the heaviest frontal armor.

I think the idea was not that it will eventually chew through the armor, and more along the lines of finding a crack/space/hole and making it's way in.

As for the A/C 2 and A/C 5, I agree on the TT they aren't represented very well.

However, in games like MPBT Online or MW Online, they can tear you apart in seconds.

Their range and the shaking of their targets causes many problems for the opposition. So perhaps the TT could do something like add a negative roll modifier for pilots suffering the impacts.

Seems like this thread has outlived itself as we are now discussing... Battletech and if 20mm cannon can kill tanks?