Logo Comments

Divider

Comments On The Game System

Battletech

Contents

V2.1, 1 June 2005.

Introduction

General Comments

Although the game of Battletech is fun to play, it has an unbelievable number of problems, errors, and just plan stupid things associated with it. The inability of FASA to clean up its game system and provide a logical, consistent, and reasonable background is, at times, appalling, at other times, just pathetic.

I am sure some people will jump on me, given the previous statement, as to why I "waste" time and computer space to complain about this game, since I could just not play the game, and then keep quiet. Well, I like playing Battletech. It is a fun game. But, it could be so much better, and that is what bothers me the most. For the same effort that FASA expended on Battletech, they could have produced a much, much better product.

The "FASAverse"

The "FASAverse" is the term I have coined to describe the odd, unique, non-intuitive, and totally non physics-based universes described by FASA in their games. This acknowledges that the rules most of us must follow in the "real world" simply do not apply in the FASAverses. The Battletech FASAverse is, perhaps, the most extreme of the FASAverses, in that very, very few of the laws of the physical universe apply therein.

What's Wrong?

I intend to address only four major aspects of the Battletech / FASAverse's problems; the rules, the technology, the historical background, and the equipment designs. There are numerous other areas where the system needs help, but these are among the most blatant. It should be noted that the following discussion contains only examples of what is wrong. A complete description of all the problems would, as may be seen, require a book.

The Rules

The rules are full of inconsistencies, incomplete rules, and contraditions. No attempt will be made here to document more than a couple of the odder rules, so as to demonstrate some of the problems in the rules.

Modifications, Clarifications, And Additions

A separate discussion of the modifications, clarifications, and additions necessary are included elsewhere. In the Campaign Rules write up for The Keep Campaign, there are twelve pages of rules modifications, clarifications, and additions.

Jump Jets - Inconsistency #1

Although never made clear in the construction rules, all design programs require that Jump Jets be mounted symmetrically to provide even thrust. Therefore, a battlemech could not be constructed with one Jump Jet in the Left Leg and two Jump Jets in the right leg. However, if in battle, a mech with four jump jets, two in each leg, takes a critical hit to a Jump Jet in its Left Leg, it will still be capable of jumping a distance of 3. If the requirement for symmetry were applied consistently, the damaged mech would only be able to jump a distance of 2, as one Jump Jet in the Right Leg would be unbalanced and so have to be deactivated.

Jump Jets - Inconsistency #2

According to the BattleMech Critical Hits (Compendium, page 42-45), when a "Jump Jet" takes a hit, the Jump Jet itself is not destroyed, only the exhaust port. Instead, " ... the designers provided protection from weapons fire for this equipment so as to prevent the devastating explosion that would occur if it were hit." How did they do that? What is used to make these jump jets? I want that material and design technique for all the components on all my mechs!

It may be noted that this silliness is partially corrected in the Battletech Master Rules (page 37). Although the revised rule still indicates that the jump jet exhaust port is destroyed instead of the apparently untouchable jump jet, at least it deletes the obviously ludicrous explanation.

The Technology

I get the distinct feeling that the game's writers are, assuming they attended college, literature and sociology majors. They clearly display no background whatsoever in history, technology, or science, and have very carefully avoided applying any knowledge in these subject areas to the game.

Weapon Ranges

Check the ranges of weaponry in Battletech! The weapons have effective ranges which are less than that of systems which are long obsolete today. Even given the loss of technology which is supposed to have occurred during the Succession Wars, one would expect that people who are able to build battlemechs and maintain space ships would have the technology to at least equal that available in the Second World War.

The longest ranged, direct fire weapon (the Clan LB 2-X Autocannon) has a Maximum (Extended) Range of 1,080 meters (40 hexes), with an Effective (Long) Range of 810 meters (30 hexes). Only the smallest of twentieth century direct fire artillery pieces (ex. the German 3.7 cm anti-tank gun of World War II) have less effective ranges than this. The main gun of the U.S. M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank has an Effective Range in excess of 4,000 meters (its maximum range is dramatically longer, but not relevant).

The modern equivalent of the direct fire missiles (SRMs, MRMs, and LRMs) would be anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM). However, "equivalent" would be the wrong word for this, since even the obsolete U.S. Dragon ATGM has a significantly longer range than the Extended Range of an LRM 20. One might also note that the modern ATGMs are "guided", unlike their Battletech equivalents.

As with the direct fire missiles, the indirect fire missiles (Arrow IV System) of the FASAverse cannot compare to out-of-date equipment. The maximum range of the Arrow IV System (6 maps or 3,960 meters for the Clan version) is effectively the same as current battlefield anti-tank missiles (ex. TOW). No comparison is possible to its logical equivalents, such as the old Lance or the newer Pershing missiles.

Finally, there is field artillery. This is the only segment of weaponry where Battletech weapons in any way come even slightly close to almost being somewhat similar to the capabilities of some twentieth century weapons. Of course, even most of the artillery from the First World War could engage and destroy Battletech artillery well before the Battletech artillery could respond. However, there are two spots where Battletech artillery at least does better than the other weaponry. First, the longest ranged Battletech artillery piece (the Long Tom) actually out ranges one standard piece of U.S. field artillery (the M102 towed 105 mm field gun). One might note, however, that the M102 is a light weight field gun for use by airborne troops. Further, the Mobile Long Tom vehicle weighs in at 80 tons, while the M102 weighs 1.5 tons, or call it about 10 tons if you throw in a couple of loaded trucks to tow the gun, transport the crew, and carry some ammunition. Second, the Battletech artillery positively shines in its rate of fire. Battletech artillery is able to fire once per turn (10 second turns), or six times per minute, consistently. Heavy field artillery has a maximum rate of fire of three or four per minute, with a sustained rate of fire of one or two per minute. This keeps the guns from becoming too hot and reduces barrel wear. Perhaps we may assume that, given the massive weight of the guns, Battletech artillery pieces have built in cooling systems.

The following comparison tables primarily use modern U.S. and World War II German weaponry. The U.S. entries show what is typical for modern weapons. The German weapons are used primarily as comparisons for Battletech's direct fire weapons such as the Autocannons and Gauss Rifles. Such weapons are normally used today only on armored vehicles. Also note that the Effective Range is the maximum range at which a weapon is able to effectively hit and damage its intended target. For Battletech purposes, this is the Long Range value, as only the best gunners have any chance to score a hit at the Extended Range. A list of references for the data in the tables is provided.

Gun Range, Damage, and Weight

Another demonstration of FASA's total lack of knowledge about weapons is the relationship between; 1) the weight of a weapon system, 2) its range, and 3) its damage potential. First, reality, as a general rule, when comparing the capabilities of guns, you keep one of these three factors constant and change the other two as a trade off. Thus, holding the mass of a weapon constant, you may increase its range by decreasing its damage (typically done by using a sabot round); or you could hold the damage potential constant and increase the range by creating a larger gun (extending the length of the barrel).

Another almost absolute rule from history is that the larger and more powerful a gun is, the farther it will shoot. This is not just a general rule, there are almost no examples throughout history of groups of guns where, as the gun grew physically larger, it did not fire larger shot and send that shot farther. This even applies to crossbows and many pre-firearm siege weapons. It does not, however, apply in the FASAverse.

Looking at the different types of autocannons, FASA thinks that all three factors vary. The result is weapon values that make no sense. For autocannons, damage increases, weight increases, but range decreases. No! It doesn't work that way! If we assume that the damage increases, and the range decreases, then the weight should stay about the same, not increase.

What should exist are multiple classes of guns. For the Autocannon 2 there should be at least four variants. [Note that these are not realistic figures, only figures which are consistent with the existing Battletech weapons data.]

Artillery Shell Flight Time

A quick comment is due regarding one of the best examples of the lack of simple physics in the Battletech rules. The Compendoum (page 79) gives a table of flight times for artillery shells. Did anyone run the numbers on this?

For a "Distance from Battefield" of 20 map sheets the "Time in Flight" is 10 turns. That's 22 hexes per map at 30 yards per hex, which gives a distance of 13,200 yards. A turn is 10 seconds, so there is a flight time of 100 seconds. Simple division gives us 132 yards per second. Converting to feet we get 396 feet per second (fps) .. let's call it 400 fps for simplicity.

What moves at about 400 fps? Well, paint balls travel at about 300 to 500 fps (unless you open the regulator value too far, then they could have 600+ fps). A professional baseball pitcher throwing a 100 mph fast ball gets 440 fps. No, wait, ... that's too fast for Battletech artillery shells!

How far to paint balls travel? Well, that is the true range of Battletech artillery based on the speed of the projectiles.

Also, at the other end of the Shell Flight Table, the first entry is 1-2 map sheets with a flight time of 1 turn. One map sheet is 22 hexes (660 yards). Flight time isn't needed! A Gause Rifle has a Long range of 22 hexes, and impacts in the turn it was fired. That probably means that a Gause Rifle's projectile moves at more than 132 fps.

Computers And Electronic Equipment

Granted that Battletech was originally published in the early to mid 1980s, but, even then the trend in computers and electronics was obvious to anyone. So why does it take 5 tons for a C3 Master computer, 1 ton for a C3 Slave computer, or 2 tons for a Targeting Computer which can control only a single Autocannon/5? The U.S. military currently has computers which can perform similar functions to what is described for a C3 Master computer and the Targeting Computer. Not only are these computers man portable, some can be held in a person's hand.

The only explanation which might partially explain the bulk and weight of these computers, is that they are actually mechanical analog equipment. Of course, even old military mechanical analog equipment would be lighter. The U.S. Navy's Mark IA (pronounced "Mark One Able") fire control computer (World War II era) weighted about a ton, and could accurately control any number of 5" inch / 38 caliber dual purpose guns for surface combat or shore bombardment.

Battlemechs As The Superior Fighting Units?

I grant that it would be hard to call the game "Battletech" if Battlemechs were not the primary combat unit in the game system. However, does anyone actually believe that such lumbering monstrosities could defeat conventional armored vehicles in battle? There can be many ways to discuss which is the better type of combat unit, but one factor presents a convincing and conclusive argument by itself; the ability to carry armor.

Real combat vehicles have, compared to mechs, relatively little surface area. When it comes to carrying armor this is a major advantage. Mechs have a huge surface area, all of which must be armored to one degree or another. For any given tonnage of armor, a vehicle will have much thicker armor overall than a mech, probably by a multiple of five or more. This is partially reflected in the game mechanics to the extent that vehicles have five areas to armor, while mechs have eleven. Further, in the real world, the ability of armor to defend something is a function of its composition and thickness, not the number of "pips" it has. Real armor must be penetrated, not worn away.

The result of any encounter between a well designed armored combat vehicle and a well designed mech of the same tonnage should be that in the vast majority of the encounters, the vehicle destroys the mech, while taking only a modest amount of damage itself. Battlemechs would be a limited form of combat vehicle, used only where conventional combat vehicles could not effectively reach.

The Historical Background

The historical background of any science fiction book or game must be such that it allows the reader or player to suspend their disbelief for the duration of the book or game. To do this, the background must make sense. It must be such that one may believe that it is possible for our current reality to reach the described state. It must also be internally reasonable, so that one may accept how things work within the "reality" of the story. The historical background of Battletech meets neither of these requirements adequately, and thus the game system must be classed as "fantasy science fiction".

Uncommon Water?

One of the driving explanations behind the scarcity of planets with large populations is the general lack of water. This does not sit well in the real world. Water is a common molecule and easily formed. A planet within the proper zone around its star to allow human habitation and with an atmosphere should also be able to create and maintain water.

In settled systems where water is rarer, it can be created from elements in the system. The obvious source for materials is a gas giant. A dropship capable of landing on a terrestrial planet can enter the outer atmosphere of a gas giant. The gases it collects can be sorted into those usable for fuel, thus providing the fuel the ship needs, and hydrogen and oxygen. The ship can make the water, freeze it and store it. Making the water immediately would be more efficient, as it is easier to transport as ice than as separate gases. While this might not be a quick process, it would, over the years, significantly increase the amount of water on any water limited planet.

It may also be assumed that if water were such a scarce commodity, water conservation on the part of society would not only be legally mandatory, but an unconscious habit of everyone. Unlike today, where waste water is "thrown" back into the environment (hopefully after at least some treatment), every house, business, and community would have water reclamation facilities, to purify waste water for reuse. Once established, the requirement for new or additional water in such systems would be limited, and driven primarily by any increases in population. While precious, it would not be the source of so many problems and pirate activities.

The Loss Of Technology

According to the historical background, the current (say 3058) level of technology is significantly below that of the former Star League. The reason given for this is the damage done to various planets during the Succession Wars. This makes an interesting excuse for why the battlemechs and weaponry are so pathetic, but it doesn't make historical sense.

Is it likely that technology would be totally lost across hundreds of planets over the course of three hundred years? No, it is not likely! During World War II, Germany was subjected to heavy bombardment by the Allied strategic air forces, and was cut off from many strategically important raw materials by blockade. The attacks were far more severe, frequent, and concentrated than anything described during the Succession Wars. Yet, Germany was steadily increasing its scientific and technological knowledge right up to the end of the war. According to the Battletech logic, Germany should have been reduced to a technology level equivalent, at best, to the beginning of the nineteenth century. Instead, Germany led the world in the development of jet aircraft, rockets, small arms, submarines, and armored vehicles. It was developing new weapons and improving existing weapons until the last days of the war.

Further, even if one planet were subjected to sufficient damage to reduce its technology level significantly, one of its first moves toward recovery would be to obtain the lost technology from another planet. Technology transfer would become a booming business. There would be profit in the retention and sale of technology, and since the Battletech economic system appears to be primarily based on capitalism, people and companies would have a vested interest in seeing that technology was not lost. As a result, not only would Star League technology not be lost, but more likely the incessant warfare would, as it has historically on Earth, spur the development of much more advanced technologies.

As if to support this argument, it may be noted that the Clans, although subject to the need to create an entirely new civilization, almost from scratch, were able to not only retain their technology, but improve upon it. According to the logic that severe hardships result in the loss of technology, the Clans should be a bunch of axe toting barbarians, barely able to build houses, not the galaxy conquering super warriors seen in the FASAverse.

The Clans

Another unlikely result included in the historical background for Battletech is the rise of the Clans. According to the history, in three hundred years the Clans left the Inner Sphere, traveled into distant space, found five marginally habitable worlds, established a thriving civilization based on a culture not seen since the nomadic civilizations on ancient Earth (and a rather non-technical culture at that), converted the least worthy members of the civilization into scientists and technologists, developed new, advanced technologies, built large combat forces, constructed a fleet, and returned to the Inner Sphere as nearly unstoppable conquerors. And all this done by a military force which was notably short on scientists and technologists. Am I the only one who finds this extremely hard to buy?

In the 230+ years since the United States was founded, its population has grown from a few million to 250 million. This growth included vast numbers of immigrants, and had a culture in which large families, until recently, were the norm. The growth potential of the original group of the Clans would be relatively limited, if only due to the needs to devote most resources to the creation of the infrastructure needed to sustain everyday life. Even allowing that the Clans would later use artificial wombs to increase and control the birth rate, the total number of people in the Clans would be significantly less than one billion at the start of the invasion of the Inner Sphere. This would be insignificant compared to any one segment of the Inner Spere.

We are also asked to believe that with the slight resources available to the Clans, and the demands of life on marginal worlds, they would be able to not only retain their Star League technology, but make major advances in military science and technology. It just doesn't make sense. It is the Clans who would have suffered technology loss, not the Inner Sphere. It would take at least one hundred years just to get their civilization established safely, so that it was not in danger of total collapse due to a major disaster (drought, asteroid strike, etc.). Military technology would be of no benefit in such an effort. The background says the Clans practiced extensive testing and infighting. But, such activities would only detract from the general development of their civilization, subtracting the resources needed for the supposed growth. Perhaps they could keep their military technology, provided they were willing to significantly delay when they would be able to undertake an invasion of the Inner Sphere, but that invasion could not occur for at least a few hundred more years.

Finally, why would the people of an advanced civilization completely restructure themselves along the lines of the Mongols, if their objective was to maintain and advance their technology and establish the production capability to support a major military? Despite the myths about such nomadic, warrior based societies, they are not the places from which come major improvements and advancements in science, technology, industry, or culture. Nomads are generally a subsistence culture. They do, at times, produce large, good, low technology armies, but they are not structured to support a force which requires extensive logistics and the manufacture of high technology devices. The Mongols became world conquerors only after they had the resources of the Chinese civilization on which to draw. The Clans have no such base, and would probably have developed as a bunch of backwards, infighting, barbarians with dreams of a return to glory. Their first violent contact with any major Inner Sphere military would be their last.

The Equipment Designs

Everyone seems to want to redesign the battlemechs and vehicles provided by FASA. The main reason given by all of those I know, is that the designs provided are pathetic, and easily defeated by designs with sometimes simple improvements. Why is this? Are they intentionally bad designs to cause problems for the players? Are the game designers so ignorant of the game that they cannot create good designs? Or, are the designs created to allow good descriptions in the source materials?

Two flaws predominate in the provided designs; overheating and inefficient weapons selections.

Few of the provided mechs have sufficient heat sinks to allow more than half to two-thirds of a mech's possible heat to be dissipated. Some do not even allow their main weapons to all be fired at the same time without significant overheating. One of the worst examples of this, is the PTR-4D Penetrator. Its weaponry produces 49 points of heat. It is able to sink only 24 of these. What kind of logic is this? In a mech which is able to eliminate only 24 points of heat, weapons which produce a total of more than about 30 points of heat are almost worthless. The obvious answer is to remove some of the weapons, and add heat sinks to allow more of the weapons to fire without overheating the mech.

An almost overriding concept in the selection of weapons for the FASA designed mechs seems to be an inappropriate combination of long range and short ranged weaponry. Clearly the intention in most cases is to create a mech which is able to fire long range weapons, but when an enemy gets too close for the long range weapons to work well, it switches to short and medium ranged weapons. Garbage! This guarantees that a mech is always wasting much of the weight devoted to its weapons. It also ignores the long established principle of specializing military equipment to perform certain tasks well. There should be mechs designed for long range combat and mechs optimized for shorter range combat, not mechs trying to do both jobs at the same time, and doing both jobs poorly.

Responses To These Comments

A while after these comments were first posted a number of responses were received. Most were not worth the effort to read (we really need to do something about the thinking and writing abilities of some people in this country). However there have been good questions.

Divider

Battletech