From: kgnome@cs.concordia.ca (MATIS stephane)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: BTECH - Rules flexibility???
Date: 29 Sep 92 14:54:57 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec

From: lunatic@netcom.com (Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex)

    > |\|o, actually, I never have played Mekton.  I have played an RPG
 > style anime mecha combat game designed by a friend of mine, called
 > KT I think.  It was very faithful to the anime style of mecha combat.
 
	(ool


    > |\|ew tech rules for what?  BattleTech or Mekton?
 
	Mekton 

     > _
    > (_)ne idea I had recently was to try plyaing the game with only
 > one change: no movement point costs for facing changes or terrain.
 > In this way, if you have a mech that can move 6/9, it can then move
 > to ANY hex within 6 hexes of itself for a +1 firing modifier, or any
 > hex within 9 hexes for a +2 modifier.  You can't really call it
 > walking and running anymore, since you'd expect them to be using some
 > kind of hover or anti-gravity type of movement (like the mecha in so
 > many anime shows).  I haven't yet had the chance to playtest this idea.

	Actually, I had an idea of making Land-Air 'Mech, that are only
	Land-Air and move according to those rules. No conversion equip-
	ment. I haven't playtest this either.

    > ___
     > |rue.  Star Leauge technology and the Clans have unbalanced the
 > game more towards heavy hulking walking arsenal type tactics, and
 > even farther away from the anime mecha style of fighting that inspired
 > it.  I don't doubt that this was intentional.  Sam Lewis himself has
 > said that they don't want BattleTech to be an anime style game.

	Yup, Sam doesn't like 'ANIME' per say. Heck, he always throws
	that in our collective face at Mecha*Press. Heck, ... whatever.

    ___
     > |he way I see it, they could have developed BattleTech along two
 > lines:
>  
    > 1) More towards anime style mecha combat.
>  
    > 2) More towards "realistic" unit combat.
>  
 > Unfortunately, they chose the later.  The main problem with #2 is that
 > BattleTech is inherently UNrealistic, so that instead of BT being
 > either strong on realism or strong on anime style (unrealistic but a
 > heck of a lot of fun) combat, it's right in the middle.  It started
 > out weighted towards anime mecha combat, so I think that's the
 > direction they should have tried to develop the game in.  Of course,
 > it's still weighted down by the mistakes made in the original design
 > that I noted above, so it never would have gotten very far towards the
 > anime style of combat, either.
 
	Well, they probably wanted to fend off a lawsuit. Even if they
	would never admit to it.

    > ]['ve worked on three different major variations to BattleTech in
 > the past seven years or so.  The first one didn't add much, and was
 > ungainly.  (It added rules that made additional rolls necessary,
 > dragging the game out unnecessarily.)  The second one had much of the
 > same equipment and was even more ungainly.  I started work on the
 > third one about two years ago but never finished it.  It was much more
 > abmitious (completely revamped construction and movement rules -- the
 > weapons, maps and counters were about the only things that stayed the
 > same) and much more promising.  The main thrust of my third variation
 > was to make the game simpler and make the game play faster and more
 > like anime style mecha combat.
 
	Yup, rules, more rules, more time. Yup, I know. We are planning
	to cut game time down. We'll see how it goes.

    > ]-[ere's a sample from the construction rules:  First, choose a
 > chassis (internal structure) from .5 tons to 10 tons.  Next, multiply
 > the chassis weight by the initial desired MPs, and then multiply that
 > by 5 to get your engine rating.  (In comparison, this gives mechs that
 > are initially twice as fast as the same IS/Engine in BattleTech.)
 > Next, load up your mech with equipment.  There is no maximum weight
 > limit.  When you're done, divide the engine rating by the final mech
 > tonnage and multiply by two.  That's your final MP allowance.
>  
 > For examples, say you choose a 5 ton chassis, with an initial MP of
 > 10, giving you a 250 engine.  If you load that chassis up to 50 tons,
 > you'll get a final MP of 10.  If you load it up to 100 tons, you'll
 > get a final MP of 5.
    > ___
     > |he practical limitations of designing mechs in this system is
 > that instead of internal structure locations, the mechs have hardpoints.
 > The larger the chassis, the greater number of hardpoints (and of course,
 > the larger the engine required).  Hands are not integral to a chassis,
 > and take up both weight and one hardpoint each.
    > ___
     > |he movement points allowed in this system are so great because
 > any remaining movement points left over during combat can be used to
 > make dodges.  (:
     > _
    > (_)ne final sample I'll mention is that mechs can add external
 > armor, a la the armored Valkyries in Macross.  Once the armor is
 > added, the mech's MPs must be recalculated.  The external armor
 > has hardpoints itself, and can mount additional weapons (which are
 > lost when the armor is destroyed or jettisoned).  External armor
 > takes up hardpoints where it is mounted, and weapons already in
 > those locations cannot be used until the external armor is destroyed
 > or jettisoned (the armor is covering them).  Certain locations, such
 > as weapons held in hands, mounted in the hardpoints in place of the
 > hands, in the head, etc. are exempted.

	Well, you should buy Mekton and kick yourself. You have 
	basically made a summery of their system. You could have
	made money :-)

   > _______________________________________________________
  > /         -= Lunatic Johnathan Bruce E'Sex     (:      /
 > /  lunatic@netcom.com  GEnie: LUNATIC  CI$: 76170,672  /
> /______________________________________________________/

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 From     : Stephane I. Matis                "It Just Works..." 
 Internet : kgnome@cs.concordia.ca             - Steve Paul Jobs, CEO NeXT
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+