Possible Rule Change: Armor and Mobility

[Joseph Hewitt]

One of the things I've been playing around with is a new to-hit/damage system. At the moment mecha have a MV score, which is a penalty applied to piloting rolls. Weapons have Acc, BV, and some other traits which can help them hit more easily. Once a mecha is hit, damage is rolled, and this must penetrate the mecha's armor. Again, there are certain traits which can make this more or less likely.

My new system would scrap most of that. Weapons would have three basic traits: Accuracy, Penetration, and Damage. All three would be rated on a scale of 1 to 5. Models (mecha, characters, and props) would have two defensive scores: Mobility and Armor. These get added to a target's defensive skill, making them harder to hit or damage.

Accuracy counteracts Mobility, but it can't reduce the target's defense below the basic defense value. Likewise Penetration counteracts Armor. In order to cause damage, the attacker must defeat the best one of the target's defenses. If Mobility is beat then the target is hit but not necessarily hurt. If Mobility and Armor are both beat, the target is hit and damaged.

So there's no point in using your gauss rifle against a Vadel because you're probably not going to hit. And there's no point in using the vulcan cannon against a Bargol since you'll never penetrate the armor. On the other hand if you use the vulcan cannon against the Vadel and the gauss rifle against the Bargol you should do pretty well.

The advantages of this system over the current one:

• There's no such thing as "the best weapon"; instead different weapons have different uses.
• Armor and maneuverability are now co-measurable. Though there will probably be certain differences between the two, specializing in one or the other should both be viable (as should trying to balance the two).
• On a related point, being deficient in one or the other will no longer be a death sentence.
• To repurpose the other mecha traits, Targeting could now represent your chance of causing a critical hit (with an Attack+Craft roll) and ECM counteracts it.

You can download a test program to play around with this here:

http://www.gearheadrpg.com/GHW_Combat.zip

I know this is a big change, but the game's in the middle of a massive rewrite. If things are gonna be changed now's the time to do it.

[xpace]

Sounds good to me, provided this new system gets play tested enough for balance. I really like a rock-paper-scissors type of system of strengths and weaknesses because it can add a lot more strategy to a game. And since a lot of the strategy in GearHead seems to be how your mecha are built, this would add to it. This would also give players more of a reason to have more than one type of weapon installed, so that they'd have a better chance to penetrate a target's defenses even if they don't know what they'll be up against next.

BTW, while we're on the subject of mecha defenses: In the GH Technology: The Babble Behind It thread you mentioned:

- Force fields (Repulsor Shields) are being developed, but are not yet standard technology. There's one example of a force field in GH2 already (based on the phase effect, not a repulsor shield) and another one will be showing up soon.

I understand that you would want to make that technology rare. But I'm assuming that if the player plays their cards right, they could acquire a piece of that. This would be cool. GH1 had that 'super mecha' and 'stealth mecha' as special story rewards, so I'd expect GH2 to have it's own special tech rewards.

However, I'm thinking that, after going through a one-time story mission or something and (through persistence and/or luck) the player manages to get a shield generator, how much would they lament their luck when enemies manage to either destroy the component or the mecha they're piloting. (It'd probably only be a matter of when, not if...) Perhaps players should have more than one chance at getting one?

Also, this reminds me of how, in GH1, the largest mecha are not the best choices for players. Huge mecha and tanks are pretty strong as opponents, but the poor MV score (and other stats) makes them very impractical for the player to use. They may have room for a lot of armor, large weapons, and components, but they'd eventually get damaged. So a medium-sized mecha is usually much better, because not getting hit and a better chance of hitting your target is what's most important.

IMO, that situation is rather unfortunate. The impracticality of large vehicles rather limits the choices available to players. However, I think that having either a really high penetration resistance (would that be your new "Armor" stat?) or Repulsor Shields might make really large vehicles a more practical choice.

[DudeGuyMan]

I'm firmly in the "mecha are cool but silly and no sane society would ever really build them" camp and would find it beautifully subversive to drive a giant mecha-smashing tank around.

That aside, yeah I think this proposed system sounds pretty good, both simpler to understand and a bit more realistic. Machine gun bullets don't "strip armor" from an Abrams tank, they just spang off it.

[Prokofiev]

The 'scale of 5' sounds like it might be a tad simplistic. Even the 'vanilla' modless base game has a very wide variety of weapons, especially taking into account differences between, say, light rockets 60 and swarm rockets 40. Or, for that matter, swarm 5 v. 20 v. 40.

That said, I do like the idea of making the different forms of defense/attack more useful and distinct. In my (comparatively short) experience with GH1/2 it seems like mobility is king. Armor helped a little when you inevitably got hit, but a poor MV value and/or low speed generally meant a fast death, regardless of how much armor you had. In GH2, your opponents had a tendency to always throttle about at top speed (especially in space!), which favored high BV/acc.

Took a little whirl at pokemechs. Seems clear that weapon choice matters more, but also looks lucky damage still plays a big role. Of course, I doubt that a buruburu and a thorshammer will both have 10 HP in the next version of GH2, heh.

[xpace]

I also find the idea of piloting a Tank instead of a Battroid (the typical humanoid mecha) to be a very attractive idea. It's just too bad that this is not especially practical with the current combat system. But, to be fair, tanks are typically not known for being either very maneuverable or fast. This makes it rather difficult to dodge attacks with them, which makes it more realistic.

The Monstrous can be a strong opponent, but it just does not have the same durability under player control. The reasoning for this was explained in detail on page 42 of the GearHead Arena Player's Guide:

...The reason why you lost a CYB-13 Monstrous so quickly is because they suck. They're alright for the computer, mind you, and can be a nasty challenge due to all their kickass equipment; but they're no good for the player. My reasoning here is simple: There are essentially two main options in mech design, heavy armor/weapons vs. lightweight maneuverability. The Monstrous falls fairly obviously on the 'heavy' side of the equation. In theory, you're supposed to need a balance between these two, and in one-on-one combat, both ways would be equally viable; but in practice, it just doesn't work that way.

Problem is, players virtually never enter one-on-one combat. It's rare to enter a fight with less then three opponents; four or five is more common. When you're outnumbered, dodging and speed have a clear advantage; with high enough maneuverability you can dodge attacks from less skilled pilots all day, but no amount of armor will keep you alive for long against even mediocre opposition. Superior weaponry--the other half of the heavy-mech strategy--is supposed to help here by letting you eliminate everyone before they eliminate you, but again, that's much less likely to work when you're up against so many people. High speed, on the other hand, lets you pick and choose the order in which you engage your opponents, and lets you (sometimes) fight them one-on-one.

Because of these things, I generally don't think I'd ever want to get into a fight using a mech whose MV penalty exceeds -2 or so...

Further, it's unfortunate that some of the more obscure mecha designs, such as the Ornithoids, are also not especially practical for players. IMO, availability and PV (cost) should be the primary factors in deciding which vehicle to use.

Ideally, even a seasoned player would have a very tough time deciding on which vehicles to aim for owning because a majority of them would have a decent balance of strengths and weaknesses. As the saying goes, "Variety is the spice of life." And still being a force to reckon with (instead of seeing it as an Iron-Man Challenge) while piloting whatever fits their play style would be a big boon to some players.

[DudeGuyMan]

I also find the idea of piloting a Tank instead of a Battroid (the typical humanoid mecha) to be a very attractive idea. It's just too bad that this is not especially practical with the current combat system. But, to be fair, tanks are typically not known for being either very maneuverable or fast. This makes it rather difficult to dodge attacks with them, which makes it more realistic.

Oh you'd be surprised. Footage of Abrams tanks catching air as they cruise over sand dunes is common. In any case rolling is generally a more efficient means of locomotion than walking (else no one would own a bicycle) so in a world where engines exist which allow a mecha to run at X speed, getting a groundhugger to travel >X shouldn't be terribly difficult under most circumstances.

I'd like to see a continuum like this, personally, with tanks and fighters being the extremes of armor and mobility, respectively, and a mix of big beefy Battletech-style mecha and lithe agile Gundam mecha filling out the middle.

Tanks -------------- Battletech ----------------------- Gundam ------------------- Aircraft
______________________________________________________________
ARMOR -------------------------------- BALANCE -------------------------------- MOBILITY

[Joseph Hewitt]

Sounds good to me, provided this new system gets play tested enough for balance.

Well that's the fun part, isn't it? At first it won't have been tested a bit.

As for the unique components, I think that's another argument in favor of mecha insurance.

The 'scale of 5' sounds like it might be a tad simplistic.

I don't think so. Sure there's a lot of variation now, but not all of it gets used and much of it is completely useless. Limiting the range of values should also prevent power creep.

I'm firmly in the "mecha are cool but silly and no sane society would ever really build them" camp and would find it beautifully subversive to drive a giant mecha-smashing tank around.

As I've said before, I don't understand that position. I think that's the most diplomatic way I can put it. It's like saying that you like superheroes but don't like the codenames or costumes or powers.

[DudeGuyMan]

Oh I enjoy mecha as entertainment. This, Mechwarrior, Armored Core, whatever. I just have this tendency to encounter and get in big silly internet fights with people who think they're realistic, plausible, or even inevitable in reality as technology improves. Like designing a fighter plane that lugs 20 tons of extraneous arms and legs into a dogfight, or a walking tank that stands upright so that everyone within 10 miles can have a clear shot at it, is ever going to be a good idea.

[Prokofiev]

I don't think so. Sure there's a lot of variation now, but not all of it gets used and much of it is completely useless. Limiting the range of values should also prevent power creep.

This is absolutely a good point, I'm just a tad worried that less variety might hurt some of the tinkering charm. Being able to 'upgrade', after all, is a common motivator among gamers (for example, see the humorously popular flash game "Upgrade Complete!")

It might also, in my humble opinion, result in a little less 'world'. At the moment there are 53 overarching mecha designs, at least by my count. Currently, most of these mecha have a unique weapon-- or at least a unique version of a weapon. Granted, some of these are comparatively useless, but at the very least is does provide more character.

Despite my concerns, however, I do feel that this 'simplification' will improve and deepen the combat itself.

[Joseph Hewitt]

Oh I enjoy mecha as entertainment. ... I just have this tendency to encounter and get in big silly internet fights with people who think they're realistic, plausible, or even inevitable in reality as technology improves.

Fair enough. You won't hear me claim that giant robots are in any way realistic. But within the giant robot genre, the idea that giant robots are practical machines is pretty much the defining trope. It's something you just have to accept about these fictional universes. Superman can fly, Harry Potter can cast spells, and the RX-78-2 Gundam was the most advanced war machine in existence (at least until the introduction of the MS-14A Gelgoog).

I remember some North American mecha games from the 90s which went to great lengths to appear "realistic", either making the giant robots too clumsy + cumbersome to get out of their own way or adding contrived backstories to explain why people aren't using sensible machines. It's like the designers were simultaneously attracted to and repulsed by giant robots. I couldn't take that much cognitive dissonance. Also, it didn't help that most of the games were crap.

I suspect that a lot of this resistance came from the fact that the mecha genre isn't common in North America. People don't question tropes they're familiar with- add a telepath or FTL travel to a scifi story and nobody will bat an eye, even if it's on the hard-sf end of the spectrum.

This is absolutely a good point, I'm just a tad worried that less variety might hurt some of the tinkering charm. Being able to 'upgrade', after all, is a common motivator among gamers

True. There probably will be less upgrading than there is now, as the distance from best weapon to worst weapon shrinks. But what we lose in upgrading we'll gain in tinkering, as players try to find a perfect weapon layout for fighting a particular enemy.

As for there being less "world", never underestimate the difference names + flavor text can make.

[Telok]

I ran a quick test using the wet noodle. Number of hit to kill a 10 dmg mecha, per weapon.

Code: [Select]

            vulcan  gauss   shaka   rail   
vadel       11.9    21      17.6    15.3
zero        15.2    15.3    12.5    12.5
buru        17.6    7.1     8       9.2
pix         11.9    35.5    29.4    19.5
thor        21.4    9.6     17.6    15.3

vadel, move 6, armor 4
zero, move 5, armor 5
buru, move 1, armor 3
pixie, move 7, armor 1
thor, move 2, armor 6

vulcan, dmg 2, spd 4, pen 1
gauss, dmg 2, spd 1, pen 4
shaka, dmg 3, spd 1, pen 1
railgun, dmg 1, spd 3, pen 3

I'd like a m3/a2 mecha and  a 2/2/2 weapon in there to test. HAha! Never mind, I found it in the lua. See about moving numbers to test more. Soonish.

Speed is still better than armor. The railgun is the best single weapon.
Doing more tests after fooling with the lua.

[Telok]

Ok, new matrix.

Code: [Select]

          vulcan    gauss     shaka     rail      2/2/2     1/5/1
vadel     11.9      21        17.6      15.3      15.2      15.2
zero      15.2      15.3      12.5      12.5
buru      17.6      7.1       8         9.2       8.2       12.5
pixie     11.9      35.5      29.4      19.5      21.5      12.5
thor      21.4      9.6       17.6      15.3      15.2      27.8
m3/a2     8.1                 7.9       9.2       8.2
m4/a5     15.3                12.5      12.5                19.5
So I think that one point of damage is worth about two points of speed or penetration in general. But one each of speed and penetration together are worth about 1.5 damage. The railgun (1/3/3) and the 2/2/2 gun have very similar profiles.

Move is still much better than armor, but you need more armor to deal with the accurate weapons now. Armor has improved against weapons that are low damage and penetration, but you need more armor than move to defend equally against penetration. Move (dodging) is opposed only be weapon speed (accuracy) in this model, while armor is opposed by both damage and penetration.

A one point difference in a single attribute seems to have minimal effects. A two point difference is noticeable, and 3 points is a big deal. This seem to be true on mecha or guns and both within one attribute or across two attributes. It seems to be less of an effect in the mecha vs guns area.

Do note that I'm doing general observations and impressions from a limited data set. I haven't applied any statistics or rigorous data recording and crunching. I think I'd really have to see this sort of test next to a similar test of the current model to make any real conclusions about exactly what the change will do.

If what I think I see is correct then mecha are going to be hit more often, the ones whose armor surpasses the damage+penetration of the hitting weapons will take less damage. Since a player will be facing a full array of weapons when battling more than three mecha at once, dodging and move will still rule. Repairs will probably be more important and more frequent. As a player I would probably cut down to just three weapons, one each for accuracy, penetration, and special effects.

[Onisuzume]

Harry Potter can cast spells

I denounce that notion.
All he knows is how to use a magic wand per D&D 3.x definition.
Take away the wand and he can't do anything.

Fair enough. You won't hear me claim that giant robots are in any way realistic. But within the giant robot genre, the idea that giant robots are practical machines is pretty much the defining trope.

"Realistic" would, in this case, be more like BattleTech and Armoured Trooper VOTOMS.
With Mobile Suit Gundam, Macross, etc. being good examples of "Non-Realistic".

I'm mostly familiar with BattleTech in this case, but there they mostly known the amount of energy a given laser weapon etc. produces based on the amount of armour destroyed. Or the velocity of projectile weapons. Even if a given 'Mech is capable of atmospheric re-entry (and surviving the descent+impact - most can't).
Also, a 'Mech in there *can* do a handstand (provided it has full arms, ofcourse), but it simply isn't practical on a battlefield. They also have pretty good acceleration/deceleration and mobility (some can to a speed of 200km/h within 10 seconds, and possibly go back to 0 as well within the same 10 seconds).

or a walking tank that stands upright so that everyone within 10 miles can have a clear shot at it, is ever going to be a good idea.

In BattleTech/MechWarrior, all combat vehicles carry built-in ECM powerful enough to cause enough interference so that effective ranges are reduced to within 1km. Also, I don't think that any BattleMech is actually tall enough to do that (a typical church tower will be higher).

Still, a mecha has uses that cannot be fulfilled by regular vehicles, namely their efficiency in traversing rough terrain.

Like designing a fighter plane that lugs 20 tons of extraneous arms and legs into a dogfight

Using BattleTech again for the example (it has Land-Air-'Mechs): a typical LAM is worse than a regular BattleMech/AeroSpace Fighter of the same tonnage in any given mode. The only benefit it has is where you can store it (AeroFighter Bay or BattleMech Bay are possible), as well as increased mobility/utility. On a pure combat-efficiency, its utterly worse. Oh, and LAMs are pretty much extinct in BattleTech (last known factory destroyed some 30-years before the "current year").

Tanks -------------- Battletech ----------------------- Gundam ------------------- Aircraft
______________________________________________________________
ARMOR -------------------------------- BALANCE -------------------------------- MOBILITY

As mentioned above, I'd put BattleMechs a notch higher on the mobility part - a lot higher.
The Locust LCT-6M (20-ton canon light 'Mech) can reach a speed of up to 302.4km/h and slow down back to 0 within a timespan of 10 seconds. I doubt that any Gundam can match that (pure foot-pumping action, at it). There's also 'Mechs capable of using built-in jump jets to travel some 200-300m within those 10 seconds as well (Gundams might be a better match here).

getting a groundhugger to travel >X shouldn't be terribly difficult under most circumstances

Well, it is in BattleTech.

[DudeGuyMan]

Fair enough. You won't hear me claim that giant robots are in any way realistic. But within the giant robot genre, the idea that giant robots are practical machines is pretty much the defining trope. It's something you just have to accept about these fictional universes. Superman can fly, Harry Potter can cast spells, and the RX-78-2 Gundam was the most advanced war machine in existence (at least until the introduction of the MS-14A Gelgoog).

Sure, one either suspends disbelief or not, and I have no problem doing so even with concepts a lot further from reality than anything being talked about here. Star Wars has mecha and wizards and I love it, for example. I just enjoy occasionally trying to subvert the conventions of the gameworld. If this were a Harry Potter game I'd probably be trying to kill Voldemort with a sniper rifle just because.

In BattleTech/MechWarrior, all combat vehicles carry built-in ECM powerful enough to cause enough interference so that effective ranges are reduced to within 1km.

Battletech ranges are typically 1km or less for reasons of game balance and wanting the map to be able to fit on a kitchen table, and it's really best not to ponder it any further than that. If you start trying to get realistic, you realize that any bonehead should be able to sight a laser all the way to the horizon with plain old optical sights, that even a WW2 panzer could hit things from two or three times as far aways as a Battlemech, and the whole thing breaks down. Just take Joseph's advice, realize it's not realistic, and suspend disbelief.

[Telok]

I've played with the lua. Here are the new results. I increased the number of loops in the wet noodle test to 100,000 for more accurate numbers (and so I didn't have to run the test 15 times to get basic accuracy).

Code: [Select]

          speed 5   pen 5     damage 5
armor 1   9.2       9.2       4.4
armor 3   12.5      9.2       6.0
armor 5   19.6      9.2       9.5
armor 7   46        12.5      22.1
armor 9   137.8     19.6      66.7

          speed 5   pen 5     damage 5
move  1   9.2       9.2       4.4
move  3   9.2       12.5      6.0
move  5   9.2       19.6      9.5
move  7   12.5      46        22.1
move  9   19.7      137.8     66.7

          speed 5   DMG 5     PEN 5
m&a   1   9.2       4.4       9.2
m&a   3   12.5      6.0       12.5
m&a   5   19.6      9.5       19.6
m&a   7   45.8      22.1      45.8
m&a   9   137.6     66.5      137.6

          S&P 5     D&P 5     D&S 5
armor 1   9.2       4.4       4.4
armor 3   9.2       4.4       6.0
armor 5   9.2       4.4       9.5
armor 7   12.5      6.0       22.1
armor 9   19.7      9.5       66.7

          S&P 5     D&P 5     D&S 5
move  1   9.2       4.4       4.4
move  3   9.2       6.0       4.4
move  5   9.2       9.5       4.4
move  7   12.5      22.1      6.0
move  9   19.7      66.4      9.5

          S&P 5     D&P 5     D&S 5
m&a   1   9.2       4.4       4.4
m&a   3   9.2       6.0       6.0
m&a   5   9.2       9.5       9.5
m&a   7   12.5      22.2      22.2
m&a   9   19.6      66.5     66.5
Edit: Found and fixed an error.