| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
 Posted: 04-Feb-2004 20:44 Post subject: Decreasing the length of the Game |
  |
|
| The most common gripe about Battletech comes from the amount of time it takes to play a game. I think the best way to reduce the time the game takes may be to restructure the phases. Specifically, the movement phase, reaction phase, (already omitted from rBMR) both attack phases, and the heat phase should be consolidated into a single phase, called henceforth the Action Phase. Initiative would determine who would move & fire first, and after that each player would alternate moving & firing individual 'mechs until all 'mechs had completed their actions. Damage would take effect immediately during the action phase of the 'mech inflicting the damage, not after all actions have been resolved. Thus, if the initiative winner destroys an enemy's weapon, that enemy cannot retaliate with the weapon if its Action Phase falls later. This benefit counteracts the benefit of first movement which the winner of the initiative lost. The heat phase could be eliminated also; the effects of heat begin immediately once the heat is incurred, at the end of each 'mechs action phase.
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Havoc~Ronin
Federated Suns
Major
Joined: 13-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 427
|
| Posted: 05-Feb-2004 10:39 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
Your proposal is verging on Real Time which is quite difficult to simulate on a gameboard. Although it would not any speed up the game, but also reflect a more realistic approach, there always seems to be someone who is disadvantaged (and not by the players actions). I tried a realtime game once, but it quickly degenerated into a state of mass confusion. There were 4 of us and two refs ( one to watch movement and follow the action and the other to track the fire, heat and damage to make sure the players did not miss anything). The game began well with a feeling of excitement, but after 20 minutes of play, it began very hard to follow what was happening to your mech, let alone your opponents. Plus, the refs had bad headaches by then and so the experiment failed.
I do like the combining of phases to:
1. Movement Phase,
2. Action Phase, and
3. Resolution Phase.
It is worth pursuing.
_________________
"Ours is not to question why, ours is just to do...."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Col. Dwight Chandra
Lewis' Executioners
C.O., Alpha Co.
Joined: 15-Aug-2002 00:00
Posts: 170
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 05-Feb-2004 11:48 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
I do the following:
1) use fewer units per scenario
2) start both sides closer to each other. In the case of a slugfest, start both sides in the center of the field (rather than entering from opposite ends of the map). In other cases, set up the scenario such that one side ambushes the other (this ensures that round 1 goes right into weapons fire!)
Item 1 above does not mean you cannot play out any large scale battles. If you want to do so, you can either:
a) break the battle up into 3 or 4 smaller skirmishes and play each of the latter as a seperate scenario, or
b) [braces for the inevitable onslaught of flames heading his way] use the Battleforce rules module. I have used it many times...it works fine (especially if you are dealing with units that are not the players' "Player Character" units)
Breaking a large battle into 3-4 skirmishes can be fun to play out. You can set it up so that the "winners" of one scenario can function as reinforcements for another scenario --keep in mind that the "reinforcements" will show up will all the battle damage they had at the end of their last fight, so players sometimes decide NOT to send them in as reinforcements where they are likely to encounter "minty fresh" opponents.
_________________
I'm the guy
who laughs at the guy
who makes fun of the guy
who thinks he's the coolest guy in the room.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
bandit
Clan Nova Cat
Star Colonel
Joined: 21-Sep-2002 00:00
Posts: 474
Location: Italy
|
| Posted: 06-Feb-2004 04:01 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
..someone forgot:
BV..ready,recordsheet,scenario.....
This also took long time.
I did the refery one time but was
a simple game...and long time ago.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 06-Feb-2004 18:39 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
Real time is easy to do, you just need a computer . . .
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 06-Feb-2004 18:50 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
I am doubtful that the changes you propose would help the speed of gameplay at all. You're not getting rid of anything, and somewhat distrupting the balance of play.
I have dealt with this successfully in the scenarios I ran in the past. Here's some guidelines I use:
1) Never have it involve a mech that can jump more than 6 or run more than 12.
Typically I keep the jumping to 5 or less.
2) Start out the units close to each other.
In the last game I ran I had the front line mechs start out within 12 hexes of each other, separated by a hill so no one was in LOS.
3) Have a scenario objective that rewards or necessitates aggressive behavior.
In my last scenario I gave the attackers something like 12 turns to destroy a certain building, of course behind enemy lines, else the defenders would get an air strike on their behalf (something like 200 points of damage worth of bombs). It worked great.
4) Keep the number of mechs low.
5v5, with a few vehicles thrown in on top, is about as big as I will go when I design scenarios.
[ This Message was edited by: Gangrene on 2004-02-06 21:34 ]
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 07-Feb-2004 20:39 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-02-06 18:50, Gangrene wrote:
I am doubtful that the changes you propose would help the speed of gameplay at all. You're not getting rid of anything, and somewhat distrupting the balance of play.
|
|
How does it disrupt the balance of play? Both sides have to deal with the new situation. Additionally, I do think a single phase would take less time, if only because you only have to shuffle through that pile of record sheets a fewer number of times in order to move and fire all of your units...hmm, movement modifiers might be problematic here though. For the firing unit there would be no problem, because you move before you fire, but what about a unit that hasn't moved yet and is being fired upon? I think I can get around this by having the previous turn's movement modifier count up until the 'mech gets an action phase in the current turn. That way a player cannot knock off all the enemy light 'mechs simply by firing at them before they have a chance to move and receive their defensive bonus.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 07-Feb-2004 20:59 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-02-07 20:39, -Mud wrote:
How does it disrupt the balance of play?
|
|
Well, you just noted a timing error in how movement mods are calculated. A lot of the balancing of Battletech is based on that the units are considered firing simulatneously. I don't think you can just exclude that and assume the game will remain balanced with the same rules set.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Old Dog
Capellan Confederation
Sang-wei
Joined: 24-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: 07-Feb-2004 23:22 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
One big slowdown is people counting out, over and over, where they can go, using facings, and so on.
Easiest fix?
Get rid of teh hexes (Gasp!) and just go with inches, ignoring the cost of facing changes. Just measure X inches from your base, put yoru mech there, stick a die beside it to show how far it went, and move on. This saves a LOT of time.
Armor boxing out also can take a while. We're still finding good ways to do this. The best, thusfar, is to have a sheet like so:
Head 8
CT 24
CT-R 8
RT 20
RT-R 4
LT 20
LT-R 4
RA 16
LA 16
RL 20
LL 20
Then, instead of boxes, just use the time-honored 'tick four, fifth diagnol, tick four' method. Easy to count and everyone knows it.
We've tried dice-counting armor left, damage inflicted, or teh use of counters, but nothing works as well as just ticking off damage as you take it.
These two things give a LOT of time back, and that's always a good thing.
-- Old Dog, dancin' dogie
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 07-Feb-2004 23:32 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
The armor idea might work, but I have never found armor accounting to be much of a waste of time in btech. I don't fill in the circles, I just put a slash through them.
I have to disagree with you on ditching hexes. I have never known a miniatures-style game to move faster than a tabletop game with patterned movement.
[ This Message was edited by: Gangrene on 2004-02-08 11:55 ]
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
DarkAdder
Clan Star Adder
Star Commander
Joined: 10-Jan-2004 00:00
Posts: 604
|
| Posted: 07-Feb-2004 23:55 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
I have to go along with gangrene, there. Id rather be able to work with the hexes, and know travel distance and range right off than have to bust out a tape measure every time I want to do something. I tried that with one game, and it slowed everything wayyyy down. Namely because people couldnt agree on what point to measure distance from, and once you moved, some jackaninny would say 'well, you moved too far, you slid your ruler to go that far' or somesuch. Total headache.
_________________
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 08-Feb-2004 00:05 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
| I am really not too sure how much of an impact that would have. After all, both players have an equal chance to inflict damage first. Additionally, the player who fires first also is forced to lose the advantage of moving first. I have never liked the fact that one player can totally dominate the game simply because he wins initiative more often. A contest of skill turns into a contest of luck when this happens. This proposal would make initiative a lot less important.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sir Henry
Team Bansai
Senior Tech Specialist
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4899
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 09-Feb-2004 06:13 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
You could use a Laser measuring device. It give LOS and Distance in about 5 seconds... 
_________________
Sir Henry
A Dragon in the disguise of a bunny, is still a Dragon.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Havoc~Ronin
Federated Suns
Major
Joined: 13-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 427
|
| Posted: 09-Feb-2004 11:44 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
HA HA!!
_________________
"Ours is not to question why, ours is just to do...."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Old Dog
Capellan Confederation
Sang-wei
Joined: 24-May-2002 00:00
Posts: 299
|
| Posted: 09-Feb-2004 13:25 Post subject: RE: Decreasing the length of the Game |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-02-09 06:13, Sir Henry wrote:
You could use a Laser measuring device. It give LOS and Distance in about 5 seconds...
|
|
So, how many tons is a micro-micro-micro laser? 
-- Old Dog, laserproof Lassie
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
