From: clarka@netcom.com (Andrew Clark)
Subject: Re: Vehicle rules and munchkinism  (with ANSWERS!)  
Followup-To: rec.games.mecha 
Summary: a better answer 
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Distribution: world 
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 01:00:28 GMT


There is a problem with the Battletech rules.  Hovercraft are simply
too damn fast.  FASA is (correctly) concerned that 'Mechs are beginning
to lose their dominance over the battlefield.

The FASA solution is worse than the problem.  It appears to be a "done
deal" that FASA will be changing the Sequence of Play to require that all
vehicles move BEFORE all 'Mechs move.

This would be a bad idea.  First of all, it takes away any chance of
vehicles charging 'Mechs.  Ever.  There have been some abuses of 
the charging rules (move 20/30 VTOLs used for ramming, for example)
but 'Mechs would become the only units capable of physical attack.
 
The second problem is a tactical one.  Hovercraft and VTOLs are     
capable of rushing behind a 'Mech and back-shooting it repeatedly
until it dies, regardless of initiative rolls.  FASA published a design 
using the concept (the 5-ton Savannah Master, armed with a medium
laser and obscene speed) in the vehicle techbook.  Backshooting
'Mechs is a time-honored part of Battletech.  Jumping 'Mechs and
high-speed scout 'Mechs (particularly those with MASC) are often
used to come up behind another 'Mech and pulverize it.  But players
can often purchase several hovercraft instead of one 'Mech in
order to do the same job, which detracts from the use of 'Mechs.

The requirement that all vehicles move before any 'Mech moves would
prevent vehicles from ever gaining the upper hand.   This is a switch
from one extreme (vehicles are too powerful) to the other (vehicles
become useless.)  The "neurohelmet vs joystick" argument is based
on reality, and it should be clear by now that Battletech has nothing
to do with reality.  I'll take a pair of Apaches against any 'Mech in
the Inner Sphere (whether Clan or not . . .) 

The problem is twofold: 1) that high-speed tiny vehicles are used for
ramming  and  2) that hovercraft and VTOLS are now more effective 
in the backshot role than 'Mechs.

The answer to the first is to selectively prohibit the use of 
ramming by vehicles.  An absolute ban (of the type created by this
proposed rules change) would IMHO detract from the spirit of
Battletech.  Vehicles should have a chance -- perhaps not a FAIR
chance, but nonetheless a chance. 

The answer to the second is to reduce the efficiency of VTOLS and 
hovercraft in the backshot role.  This would involve changes to
the hovercraft and/or VTOL design rules in order to slow them
down and make them less efficient in the backshot role when
compared with 'Mechs.

Here is a list of proposed fixes that would be less catastrophic
than modifying the sequence of play yet might solve the problem,
singly or in combination:  
 

Vehicle-mounted fusion engines no longer get ten heat sinks free.  
Instead, they get one free heat sink for every 25 points of Engine 
Rating.  This encourages the use of missile and ballistic weapons 
on vehicles, which makes more sense.  This would require a 
redesign of most vehicles mounting energy weapons. 

[It would prevent light hovercraft from cheaply mounting the
ever-popular medium laser.]

The Suspension/Lift factors for hovercraft are lowered.
The obscene speed of hovercraft is directly due to the Suspension
Factors, so lowering the suspension factors would lower hovercraft
speeds.  This would require a redesign or refiguring of all hovercraft
designs currently published. 

[It would simultaneously slow down hovercraft and make it more
difficult for hovercraft to mount as many weapons or as much armor in
order to remain fast.  The precise amount of the change should be
carefully calculated by FASA.]   

Hovercraft and VTOLS are prohibited from deliberately ramming other
units due to the fragile nature of their construction and their pilots'
desire to remain alive.  Only tracked and wheeled land vehicles may
deliberately ram.  Accidental rams (due to skidding or sideslipping) 
should be resolved using the existing rules.  This would require no
changes to existing vehicle designs.

[This should be a clean and quick fix.  It could be done tomorrow.]

The C-Bill cost of hovercraft and VTOLs could be increased as a 
balancing factor.  I don't use the C-Bill rules myself, but some people
on the network do and this seems like an obvious fix to make.

[Alone, this wouldn't have much impact.  It's still a good idea.]

I hope FASA will take a look at these proposals.  As a gamer, I've
become more and more frustrated with FASA.  I'm tired of putting up
with typos and mis-designed book 'Mechs.  Battletech is a great game,
and I'd like it to stay that way.
-- 
clarka@netcom.com     Andrew Clark     My ignorance is my own fault.
"We have virtual reality today: Pete Wilson lives in it." | Bad cop! 
"Macs are to computing what television is to journalism." | No donut! 
Secondary account at aclark@UCSD.EDU -- prefer mail at netcom site.