OBT Forum
General BattleTech => General Discussion => Topic started by: Trace Coburn on October 07, 2017, 10:19:10 PM
-
I’m taking another look at this project, after leaving it fallow for a time, and I find myself bothered by the degree of fiddly detail involved in resolving damage. Granted, much of that’s inherent to working with a template-based damage-system overlaid on BattleTech/Tactical Operations, but the fact remains that I find myself torn between staying loyal to the game’s BattleTech roots and keeping things like the Cluster Hits table (which feels awkward and slow and a PITA), or going to a more straightforward resolution mechanic that breaks with BT practices, like modified d2/d3 rolls or even the Beam Dice rolls from a game like Full Thrust (http://downloads.groundzerogames.co.uk/FB1Full.pdf).
I’ve heard anecdotal accounts — granted, many of them from 4chan — saying that many people consider the added complexity of aerospace to be the main barrier-to-entry. If that’s the case, should I simplify RT2.0? Perhaps keep the templates for main weapons, but take the CH table out of the mix? How much detail do people even want — full AeroTech 2, BattleSpace, or Full Thrust?
I guess I’m just looking for feedback on the rules as they’ve been posted, because it’s been three years and I’ve heard... nothing. :'(
Is our community truly that small? :'(
-
Since I'm laid up and an Aerospace virgin, I'll take a look. Got a link?
-
Since I'm laid up and an Aerospace virgin, I'll take a look. Got a link?
In his signature.
I guess I’m just looking for feedback on the rules as they’ve been posted, because it’s been three years and I’ve heard... nothing. :'(
If I remember well, the damage part was what always confused me as it was too far away from what I am used too (from memory).
-
The one that says Renegade Tech 2.0?
-
Indeed it is. Be aware that in its current form, like Greenaway’s original RT, it’s an overlay on Total Warfare/Tactical Operations combat, so you’re probably going to be doing a fair bit of flipping back-and-forth. For reference/any play-tests you might like to try, I’ve attached my current-version record-sheet for an Essex-class light cruiser, and its stat-blocks are below.
CONVERTED:
LIGHT CRUISER HULL (3d3 wide, 2x3d3 long)
SI ROWS: 60/10 = 6 rows
BLOCK I [2711]
ARMOUR (FA): NOSE: 60+37/20= 4.85 [5 rows, THRESHOLD 4]
FL/FR: 60+37/20= 4.85 [5 rows, THRESHOLD 4]
AL/AR: 60+37/20= 4.85 [5 rows, THRESHOLD 4]
AFT: 60+37/20= 4.85 [5 rows, THRESHOLD 4]
SI: 6 rows; Armour (FA): 5 rows [4]/5 rows [4]/5 rows [4]/5 rows [4]; SC4, F6
Turrets: Fore: 1 NGR20/2
L/R: 2 NL35/3 [F/FS/AS - FS/AS/A], 2 NGR20/2 [F/FS/AS - FS/AS/A], 2 M-NPPC-45/2 [F/FS/AS - FS/AS/A], 1 AR9/3 [F/FS/AS]
Aft: 1 AR9/3 [AR/A/AL]
First vessels designed to mount fifth-generation medium particle cannons as-standard.
BLOCK II [2736]
ARMOUR (FA): NOSE: 60+56/20= 5.80 [6 rows, THRESHOLD 6]
FL/FR: 60+56/20= 5.80 [6 rows, THRESHOLD 6]
AL/AR: 60+56/20= 5.80 [6 rows, THRESHOLD 6]
AFT: 60+56/20= 5.80 [6 rows, THRESHOLD 6]
SI: 6 rows; Armour (FA): 6 rows [6]/6 rows [6]/6 rows [6]/6 rows [6]; SC4, F6
Turrets: Fore: 1 NGR20/2
L/R: 4 NL35/4 [2xF/FS/AS - 2xFS/AS/A], 2 NGR20/2 [F/FS/AS - FS/AS/A], 2 M-NPPC-45/3 [F/FS/AS - FS/AS/A], 1 AR10/3 [F/FS/AS]
Aft: 1 AR10/3 [AR/A/AL]
SLEP refurbishment to incorporate new AR10 missile systems, also improving armour protection in light of operational experience and concerns from front-line commanders. Particle-cannon turrets uprated to triple mounts as testbed for planned Sovietskii Soyuz cruisers.
-
Ok, tomorrow I've got six kids in the house, so Tuesday while the kids are at school/Pre-K would be the earliest playtest. I'll DL the rules and post any questions tomorrow.
-
Wow. I haven't forgotten RL 2.0 - but this is BIG! I'm still reading.
-
Many thanks for your time and input, Red Pins; I’ll add you to the credits for the game at first opportunity. ;)
For the benefit of those who care, this is the level of abstraction I was considering moving to, at least for capital aerospace. I was thinking of shifting towards the Full Thrust style of simpler to-hit dice-rolling:
- BattleTech To-Hit: 2d6, trying to roll over (Gunnery + movement/target aspect + range + ECM - bracketing/AA mod)
- Full Thrust To-Hit: 1d6, trying to roll over (fixed TN at given range, abstracting all the above modifiers into the TN)
So capital direct-fire weapons batteries would go from adding up a long string of modifiers to rolling a single dice per barrel and referring to a range table like the following:
| ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= |
| WEAPON | HIT ON 2+ | HIT ON 3+ | HIT ON 4+ | HIT ON 5+ | HIT ON 6 |
| ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= |
| LLC | 7* | 14* | 21 | 28 | 35 |
| MLC | 9* | 18* | 27 | 36 | 45 |
| HLC | 11* | 22* | 33 | 44 | 55 |
| ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= |
| LPC | 6 | 12 | 18 | 24 | 30 |
| MPC | 8 | 16 | 24 | 32 | 40 |
| HPC | 10 | 20 | 30 | 40 | 50 |
| ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= | ========= |
| MAC (all) | 2 | 6 | 10 | 14 | 18 |
| NGR (all) | 4 | 12 | 20 | 28 | 36 |
| Mass Driver (All) | 8 | 24 | 40 | 56 | 72 |
* At these ranges, capital laser batteries can target missiles and fighters like point-defence batteries can (each roll of 4 or 5 kills one bird, each 6 kills two and earns a re-roll). Against ships, the damage-templates would drop off (or not, for KEWs) as already established in RT2.0.
- BattleTech Point Defence (against missiles): modified 2d6 TH roll for each kind of weapon (laser, pulse-laser, PPC, missile, ballistic, AMS etc.). Each 1 point of Capital damage inflicted on a missile increases the TN of its To-Hit roll by 1, with a TN higher than 12 being an automatic miss; missiles not defeated can still connect
- BattleTech Point Defence (against fighters): modified 2d6 TH roll for each kind of weapon (laser, pulse-laser, PPC, missile, ballistic etc.). Damage directly done to the fighter/squadron, which may be critical or negligible depending on the nature of the fighter(s)
- Full Thrust Point Defence: PD weapons are abstracted to PD mounts (1 PD die, multiple use) and Scatterguns/Grapeshot (6 or 4 PD dice, but 1-shot). Defender allocates X total of PD assets to each incoming missile salvo, then rolls Xd6. Each roll of 4 or 5 kills/deflects one missile, each 6 kills two missiles and gets a re-roll. Overkill against a given salvo is wasted, and any surviving missiles connect
- RT2.0 Point Defence (current): modified 2d6 rolls by PD beam-bays or PD missile-clusters to-hit, then roll another modified 2d6 on the Cluster Hits table, with each hit destroying 1 missile. Surviving missiles roll for the number of warheads that hit; anti-missile bays automatically destroy (1d3-1) warheads each. Any overkill is wasted, surviving warheads connect
I just wonder how many of our resident aerospace folks are really, really fond of the old BT-style mechanics and their granularity/realism, their feel of the see-saw struggle between offence and defence. I mean, ideally I would go with the simple options wherever possible to make the game more accessible and faster-playing, but if that’s not what the players want, there’s not a lot of point, is there? :-\
-
I think... I think, maybe, that you might have to go whole hog. I never played Full Thrust either, but you might be better off adapting Battletech units to the Full Thrust system, and offer it to the Full Thrust players rather than the smaller aerospace community here.