StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I have not played battletech in forever and noted how unfair the critcals are for vehicles. Has anybody worked up a set of alternate criticals that are a bit better balanced?

Get the book Maximum Tech, if you can still find it: they have optional rules which make vehicles much more dangerous.

Thanks, I can get a copy online. What does it add for vehicles if I may ask?

Ah, one of the reasons I don't play B-tech more, the vehicle crits. I actually met the guy responsible for that at a con. While everyone else was using the original rules to create dinky fifty ton tanks with an AC/5 'Main Gun' for the universe, he created the Demolisher assault tank, with 2 AC/20s and the ability to kill any mech that it got in range of. This forced them to 'balance' the game so that mechs were once more the undisputed lords of the battlefield.

How badly were the ground vehicles represented? Weak weapons? Bad armor? Unreasonably low speed? All of the above?

consequences wrote:Ah, one of the reasons I don't play B-tech more, the vehicle crits. I actually met the guy responsible for that at a con. While everyone else was using the original rules to create dinky fifty ton tanks with an AC/5 'Main Gun' for the universe, he created the Demolisher assault tank, with 2 AC/20s and the ability to kill any mech that it got in range of. This forced them to 'balance' the game so that mechs were once more the undisputed lords of the battlefield.

The Demolisher sucks. Any mech that can stay out of it's range can destroy it. AC 20s have such pitiful ranges.

I perfer the pop up attack savannha master/Rommel double feature

of course I do remember the guy who killed clan mechs with his ZSU inspired 8 ultra AC2 tank....

There was also a guy responsible for the "one engine per mech" rule. He apparently had two reactors in his mech (I think using an old lack-of-rule stating that it had to be in center torso, so he placed one in each side), and had a heavy mech outrunning recon mechs.

But yeah, most vehicles suck in BT. The only one I liked was one I developed with an assload of MRM launchers (3 MRM-40s, IIRC). Fire a couple salvos to saturate an area and then run to another fire post.

Staying out of range isn't that easy, especially when you consider the fact that in those days, the longest ranged weapon was the AC/2, at 24 hexes(and how many 2025 mchs can you name that had AC/2s? I can only think of one, the Jagermech). Factor in the fact that you can only back up at a walk, or run away and engage with the weapons of one arm at long range, with something like a -4 to hit before terrain even plays into it, and its just not that easy to do. Remember, this was before any advanced tech had been created, when any mech fast enough to stay ahead mounted squat by way of long range weapons. Also remember how quickly you could overheat a heavy mech, just by firing two ppcs repeatedly, because double heat sinks didn't exist. Then there's the entire range of possibilities opened up by having the tank holding obstructed terrain.

And if you can't wrap your mind around the early rules restrictions, just use the Alacorn in your head instead, three gauss rifles would trash any mech if the rules didn't screw the tank to start with.

consequences wrote:Staying out of range isn't that easy, especially when you consider the fact that in those days, the longest ranged weapon was the AC/2, at 24 hexes(and how many 2025 mchs can you name that had AC/2s? I can only think of one, the Jagermech).

BJ-1 Blackjack, BJ-1DC Blackjack, CLNT-2-4T Clint, VL-2T Vulcan, DRG-1C Dragon, JM6-A Jagermech, and JM6-S Jagermech all have AC/2s. So five by chassis type, seven by layout. The quickest is a 6/9 for movement, with the slowest a 4/6. Of course, the AC/2 is a mere popgun of a weapon (it's a 20mm cannon) that takes forever to batter through even light armor.

Newtonian Fury wrote:How badly were the ground vehicles represented? Weak weapons? Bad armor? Unreasonably low speed? All of the above?

Hit charts and criticals...a battlemech can often take 3 to 4 criticals in the main body (Center torso) before being destroyed. The criticals on a tank give a 66% chance of the tank being completely disabled in a single critical. Also, the regular hit chart for vehicles has disabling hits (which the battlemech does not.) Even if the odds are low, they exist which they do not for mechs

Kitsune wrote:Thanks, I can get a copy online. What does it add for vehicles if I may ask?

A whole lot, actually: multiple crew (so a vehicle can attack more than one target without penalty,) new firing arcs, expanded hit locations and critical tables, changes to VTOL movement to make them more survivable, new units such as super-heavy tanks (up to 200 tons) and large naval vessels (up to 555 tons), secondary turrets for vehicles, chin turrets, dual and coaxial rotors, and mast mounts for VTOLS, specialized units like bridgelayers, bulldozers and minesweepers, amphibious vehicles, and the use of drones. There's also a section of rules intended to make infantry a little more threatening of a proposition.

Newtonian Fury wrote:How badly were the ground vehicles represented? Weak weapons? Bad armor? Unreasonably low speed? All of the above?

The main problems for vehicles are the hit tables and the destruction rules. It's possible to have your turret lock or throw a tread before you even start taking internal damage. Vehicles are destroyed when you deplete the internal structure of one location: 'mechs can continue fighting with both arms, both side torsos, and a leg missing. The engines for vehicles weigh more, limiting their speed and the tonnage available for armor and weapons. Best of all, where an inferno missile (essentially a napalm warhead) hits a battlemech it raises the 'mech's internal temperature: against a vehicle, you roll every round its on fire to see if it is immediately destroyed. Thus a twenty-ton 'mech like a Wasp can take out a 100-ton tank without ever inflicting a point of damage to it.

The Dark wrote:

consequences wrote:Staying out of range isn't that easy, especially when you consider the fact that in those days, the longest ranged weapon was the AC/2, at 24 hexes(and how many 2025 mchs can you name that had AC/2s? I can only think of one, the Jagermech).

BJ-1 Blackjack, BJ-1DC Blackjack, CLNT-2-4T Clint, VL-2T Vulcan, DRG-1C Dragon, JM6-A Jagermech, and JM6-S Jagermech all have AC/2s. So five by chassis type, seven by layout. The quickest is a 6/9 for movement, with the slowest a 4/6. Of course, the AC/2 is a mere popgun of a weapon (it's a 20mm cannon) that takes forever to batter through even light armor.

Is not the Dragon armed with a AC5 ? Also I think you forgot the Mauler which has multiple AC2s like the Jagermech.

Bah. Battletech has to be biased against Vehicles/Tanks. Simply because if it played fair, it would be bloody clear how Mechs are horribly outclassed by Tanks in every possible way. Even if you discount stuff like relative armour coverage and stability

Considering the mechs they use are ponderous piles of garbage, without even the manueverability advantage usually touted by mecha fan-boys, you are absolutely correct.

Vehicles are still better than mechs anyway because of the items rule. You can pack huge numbers of Gauss's and LRMS without worrying about criticals, and can use XL engines and ferro-fibrous without worrying.
I had a couple homemade vehicles banned from the store, because they where capable of taking down most mechs without even trying and could withstand shitloads of punishment. And a 100 ton vehicle with 4 Arrow IVs is simply hilarious.

What do you think was backing up my infamous "Legion Estranger" spotter squad convicts (try a squad of penal mercs armed only with a TAG laser)

evilcat4000 wrote:Is not the Dragon armed with a AC5 ? Also I think you forgot the Mauler which has multiple AC2s like the Jagermech.

There are multiple versions of the Dragon. The DRG-1C has an AC/2. The DRG-1N has an AC/5. Mauler does have AC/2s, but it's a 3050 design, and I was going on the fact that consequences asked for 3025 designs with AC/2s.

beyond hope wrote:The main problems for vehicles are the hit tables and the destruction rules. It's possible to have your turret lock or throw a tread before you even start taking internal damage. Vehicles are destroyed when you deplete the internal structure of one location: 'mechs can continue fighting with both arms, both side torsos, and a leg missing.

Ah, of course. For any given level of technology, treads will be much more complex and therefore delicate devices than fully articulated bipedal walking systems

The engines for vehicles weigh more, limiting their speed and the tonnage available for armor and weapons.

OMG, they actually made an engine which turns treads weigh more than an engine which must achieve bipedal locomotion with multi-ton legs?

Best of all, where an inferno missile (essentially a napalm warhead) hits a battlemech it raises the 'mech's internal temperature: against a vehicle, you roll every round its on fire to see if it is immediately destroyed. Thus a twenty-ton 'mech like a Wasp can take out a 100-ton tank without ever inflicting a point of damage to it.

And they added an Achilles Heel too, eh? That's just pathetic. The only way to make mechs vs tanks work is to have some insane tech advantage for the mechs, ie- the mechs are from an alien society and the plucky human defenders use tanks.

Darth Wong wrote: OMG, they actually made an engine which turns treads weigh more than an engine which must achieve bipedal locomotion with multi-ton legs?

They also made laser designators weigh as ton as I recall, while in reality even the most primitive versions ever fielded in action weighed only about 200 pounds and they've been easily man portable for well over a decade. The creators where fucking morons.

And they added an Achilles Heel too, eh? That's just pathetic. The only way to make mechs vs tanks work is to have some insane tech advantage for the mechs, ie- the mechs are from an alien society and the plucky human defenders use tanks.

But you forget, this is the advanced future where heavy artillery systems are outmatched by the weapons of WW1 in range and weigh, and pack the punch of hand grenades.

Very, very sad....

Darth Wong wrote:

Best of all, where an inferno missile (essentially a napalm warhead) hits a battlemech it raises the 'mech's internal temperature: against a vehicle, you roll every round its on fire to see if it is immediately destroyed. Thus a twenty-ton 'mech like a Wasp can take out a 100-ton tank without ever inflicting a point of damage to it.

And they added an Achilles Heel too, eh? That's just pathetic. The only way to make mechs vs tanks work is to have some insane tech advantage for the mechs, ie- the mechs are from an alien society and the plucky human defenders use tanks.

The only way to make mechs vs tanks work is to have consistent rules between them... for instance the engine weight thing, the incendiary destruction thing... the designers looked for ways to hamstring tanks, to feed the mech-wanking. C'mon, they put heatsinks in the legs... these are not intelligent people.

Stark wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Best of all, where an inferno missile (essentially a napalm warhead) hits a battlemech it raises the 'mech's internal temperature: against a vehicle, you roll every round its on fire to see if it is immediately destroyed. Thus a twenty-ton 'mech like a Wasp can take out a 100-ton tank without ever inflicting a point of damage to it.

And they added an Achilles Heel too, eh? That's just pathetic. The only way to make mechs vs tanks work is to have some insane tech advantage for the mechs, ie- the mechs are from an alien society and the plucky human defenders use tanks.

The only way to make mechs vs tanks work is to have consistent rules between them... for instance the engine weight thing, the incendiary destruction thing... the designers looked for ways to hamstring tanks, to feed the mech-wanking. C'mon, they put heatsinks in the legs... these are not intelligent people.

IIRC, they claimed the extra weight for the engines was due to the additional shielding needed to protect the crews. Of course, this doesn't explain why mechs didn't need the extra shielding, given that they didn't have any extra space to protect the pilot from his engine. Nor why said shielding would work against radiation, but not against heat.

If they'd really wanted shielding to be fair, I could see it as maybe 1 or 2 extra tons (say, vehicle weight / 50, rounded to the nearest 1/2 ton). Or maybe 0.5 tons per 100 rating points on the engine. But to make it dependent on the mass of the engine, especially when the engine mass doesn't scale 1:1 with the engine rating, really penalizes the faster and/or larger vehicles (especially the larger ones, which should theoretically have better built-in protection anyway).

And I never really understood incendiary destruction either. I mean, aside from maybe the ICE-driven vehicles, how will sitting in a burning area make a vehicle blow up? Especially if, say, you have a nuclear-powered vehicle (i.e. no volatile fuel to flash-burn) with only energy weapons mounted (i.e. no volatile ammo to cook off)?

Which brings up the other point: overheating. It was actually somewhat realistic to have to account for the heat your weapons produce. But Mechs were able to pile on the weapons while shortchanging themselves on heat sinks... and could even stow some heat sinks in the engine itself. Vehicles, OTOH, could have the same exact engine model, but all heat sinks had to be external to the engine [WTF!], and IIRC all heat produced by energy weapons had to be accounted for (the only saving grace being that projectile and missile weapons didn't need heat sinks, but FASA gave those weapons weaknesses in comparison to energy weapons). And unlike with Mechs (who would first experience speed reductions, then sensor/targeting penalties, and then shutdown), vehicles couldn't even be overheated, or you'd have the same situation as the "vehicle exploded by an Inferno missile".

And then the whole "Battle Value" thing. Forget that they semi-crippled vehicles already (heat sinks, engine mass, space limitations, etc.), but not only did the base BV multipliers end up being smaller than those used on Mechs, they then stuck a final multiplier on the front that completely crippled them.

Unfortunately, I can understand why they wanted to do it:

Battletech was supposed to be a game about Mechs, and putting vehicles on equal footing with Mechs, especially given their cheaper cost and easier production, would have made Mechs superfluous on the battlefield.

Fire ,Fusion and Steel is the only guideI know of that tried to be accurate it was for Traveller TNE but sadly is out of print now

I'm using the BMR here, the last (as far as I know) set of rules published by FASA.

greenmm wrote:IIRC, they claimed the extra weight for the engines was due to the additional shielding needed to protect the crews. Of course, this doesn't explain why mechs didn't need the extra shielding, given that they didn't have any extra space to protect the pilot from his engine. Nor why said shielding would work against radiation, but not against heat.

The extra mass was for "shielding and transmission equipment." The really stupid thing, though, was that an Internal Combustion Engine weighed twice as much as a fusion reactor.

Which brings up the other point: overheating. It was actually somewhat realistic to have to account for the heat your weapons produce. But Mechs were able to pile on the weapons while shortchanging themselves on heat sinks... and could even stow some heat sinks in the engine itself. Vehicles, OTOH, could have the same exact engine model, but all heat sinks had to be external to the engine [WTF!],

Not quite true. They got the 10 heat sinks integral to all fusion reactors. Page 120, under Energy Weapons, has a line "Remember that all fusion plants are designed with 10 integral heat sinks."

and IIRC all heat produced by energy weapons had to be accounted for (the only saving grace being that projectile and missile weapons didn't need heat sinks, but FASA gave those weapons weaknesses in comparison to energy weapons). And unlike with Mechs (who would first experience speed reductions, then sensor/targeting penalties, and then shutdown), vehicles couldn't even be overheated, or you'd have the same situation as the "vehicle exploded by an Inferno missile".

Does it? Page 46 says "a vehicle can automatically shed heat built up from movement or from firing non-energy weapons." I would interpret that to mean that any overheat prevents energy weapons fire but otherwise has no effect, since that's the only reference to vehicles and heat in the chapter on heat effects (unless there's something in Maximum Tech). Just about the only advantage a vehicle has is the turret, allowing it to fire its main weapon in any direction.

And then the whole "Battle Value" thing. Forget that they semi-crippled vehicles already (heat sinks, engine mass, space limitations, etc.), but not only did the base BV multipliers end up being smaller than those used on Mechs, they then stuck a final multiplier on the front that completely crippled them.

Uhm...that's good. It makes vehicles cheaper for their ability. A tank with the same layout as a Mech only costs 80% as much in BV.