Battletech Public Playtest Thread

payn

Glory to Marik
Greetings,

It appears the good folks at Catalyst Games Labs (CGL) have been doing some internal testing with their devs and agents. They are currently trying to find areas of the game mechanics where streamlining, adjustments, or outright removal might benefit play. This is a very tight rope walk between changing a game that has mostly stayed the same for 40 years and improving game play. Dont take my word for it though, you can find out right from the horses mouth as they say.

My plan is to discuss each "package" of the playtest as they come out with EN Worlders who are interested (if any).

-Cheers
 

log in or register to remove this ad



So, playtest round 1 is labeled "Survival Package". Its pretty simple with just two major rule changes.
  • Remove side hit location tables. Only Front and rear tables for playtest.
  • Ammo explosions do a maximum of the following;
    • 20 damage with transfer to a location without CASE.
    • 10 damage without transfer to a location with CASE
    • 1 Damage and no transfer with a location with CASE II
I am on the fence with removing side hit locations. The reasoning is that vets often have front and rear memorized and can deal damage quickly as a result. I have seen this, but Ive also seen veterans who still needs a reference chart (everybody still needs one at some point). My pitch for keeping the side location tables is I think it makes a tactical choice on both offense and defense when it comes to damaged locations. For me, this is what sets Classic Battletech apart from Alpha Strike and other modern miniature games. I dont think having 2 instead of 4 tables will be any quicker for the general gaming public.

On ammo explosions, this is much needed. Ammo explosion usually means dead mech, period. Now, encouraging fast and dangerous play is one argument, but energy weapons not only dont rely on ammo, they also dont explode. Making some mech load-outs just plain superior to their ammo reliant cousins. So, I agree with this change in theory. I plan to test it out soon. My gut says the damage needs to be even less, something like 12/8/1 since 20 is enough to still render most mechs dead or severely disabled. Though, I will save that feedback until ive actually gotten these to the table.

On the topic of ammo explosions, not only is it known, but we have had a long running house rule. We use the aerospace 1/10 damage ruling. Meaning, most ammo explosions will not destroy a mech, but likely put one in forced withdrawal if you are using that rule. Its kept ammo explosion as a dreadful thing, but not allowed it to be an insta kill thing. Which the devs are aiming for witht he playtest. I will provide this feedback since I have years of experience with it now.
 

I'm interested. I straight up haven't played a game since 2019, and although it was nice, the game really shows its age and I think it needs to be streamlined a bit.
This alludes to the tight rope walk I mentioned. Some of Classic Battletech definitely needs a look. Id say more revision than streamline. A big part of what makes Classic Battletech such a great wargame is its not gone the route of quick simple play with ass loads of units. I mean, you can play modern minis wargame with Alpha Strike, but i'm after a granular detailed experience. So, if it speeds up play but keeps that detail, im all for it, if it gets removed simply because its complex, im not for that.

I feel pretty good about where the devs minds are at. Especially, since a larger internal playtest document was leaked recently. I got a good idea what all the packages are going to look like already.
 

Colour me very interested! I was lucky to be able to contribute/comment to FASA back in the day (would've been around 93-95 IIRC) on potential rule revisions. I'll look at the rules when I get home tonight and comment back. :)
 

This alludes to the tight rope walk I mentioned. Some of Classic Battletech definitely needs a look. Id say more revision than streamline. A big part of what makes Classic Battletech such a great wargame is its not gone the route of quick simple play with ass loads of units.
I'm with you there. I'd like the game to run a little bit quicker, but at the same time I don't want it to change too radically. I only recently accepted Clans were going to be a part of the game forever, I can only adapt so quickly.
 

I'll start with ammo explosion, as it's quicker and something I've also toyed with over the years. Firstly, because it has always seemed way too dangerous and too much of a penalty for the mech (not to mention the poor pilot also takes damage due to Neurohelmet feedback!). Secondly, because bits of it didn't make sense, both because why would an omnidirectional explosion of some ammo do the same base damage as shaped charges or kinetic impactors, and also why would arm internal damage travel perfectly through the small tunnel of the shoulder joint into the torso?

And thirdly, because of how it played at the table, where every Warhammer pilot (unless piloting the 6K or the 6D) began the game by dumping all their MG ammo since a) with a range of 3 they're never going to use the dang things and b) walking around with a 400 point bomb in your torso is not a good idea. :P

Back in 2002 when I wrote out a book of houserules, I'd gone with reducing the damage done to 1/3 of the total calculated damage. But that now still seems too high, too much of a penalty. Especially given the automatic damage to the Mechwarrior, and the fact it will generate another roll on the critical hit table (It does/would, right? You're taking internal damage, so that means you would roll, right?), I think a more appropriate level is to mostly maim the area affected, with at best blowing that section off/out and maybe a bit of damage to the adjacent body part (internal when going torso to torso, or to the armour when going between limb and torso).

I'm less of a fan of a cap -- a cutoff feels artificial. I think I'd prefer a simple multiplier of the weapon's damage. Or maybe just straight up weapon damage, or weapon damage +X.

Straight up, an SRM 6 would do 12 points. That blows off the arm of up to a 75 ton mech. (!) Takes out the side torso or leg of up to a 50 ton mech. Even on a 100 tonner, that takes out 70% of an arm, and 57% of a leg or side torso. That still hurts. LRM 20, AC/20, both are limb shearing. But an AC/5 only auto de-arms a 30 tonner, and legs only a 20 tonner. MG explosions are a bit of a sneeze. (Though, again, with the damage to the pilot and chance for additional internal crits, there's still opportunity for more hurt).

Straight up +2 might be interesting. That's 4 points on an MG, 7 points on an AC/5, which auto-dearms a 45 tonner and legs/torsos a 30 tonner. Your SRM 6 now affects 85 and 60 tonners, respectively. And your AC/20 or LRM 20 don't really get that much more scary... though now with cascading damage there's another critical chance roll in the adjacent location.

Going with 2x keeps the MG at 4, but now makes that AC/5 at 10 and so starts auto-dearming 40 tonners. And any weapon damage beyond 11 becomes an auto de-leg or side torso device. AC/10 does that to anything 95 tons and below, SRM 6, LRM 15, AC/20 ammo explosions are super serious.

I think my sweet spot is in that range of "Ammo explosions do 2 points of damage plus the damage value of the waeapon to the internal structure of the ammo's location". (Or maybe 3+X) Not as elegant as 1x or 2x, but easier to calculate than "how much ammo is remaining times the weapon damage" and feels less "artificial" than a cap at 20.

(As a side note, a cap at 20 is interesting as how often will it come up that you'll do less than 20 under the standard rules? 9 shots of MG ammo equals 18, 4 shots of SRM 2, 2 shots of SRM4, 1 shot of SRM 6, 1 shot of LRM 10, 3 shots of LRM 5, 3 shots of AC/5, and etc. In other words, you have so few instances where you would do less than the cap that to me, again, it makes more sense for speed/playability with about the same effect to just set the value to a smallish value rather than worry about those small edge cases.)

More later!
 


Remove ads

Top