I've been playing (and testing) this idea working out a list of issues that would/should be addressed... and to work on some terminology. For now I'm calling the system CTE. Conventional Tonnage Equivalent. Newer technologies are 'rated' on weight as what they would be in tonnage if you could build them in 3025 technology.
The first thing to be dealt with is where 3025 technology is NOT balanced by tonnage. There aren't a lot of devices/combinations that are truly broken in this regard, but the most obvious two are ammo placement and volatility, and jump jets.
In the case of jets, I think the obvious answer is that jump is jump is jump, regardless of unit size, so just make ALL jump jets take two CTE.
To deal with volatile ammo I think the best approach is that if you don't have case, AMMO is free tonnage. 0 CTE. This makes up for the fact that running hot or one good crit, and boom you're OUT of the fight since in 3025 tech, you don't survive ammo explosions. This would also compensate for the practice some players have of just dumping stuff like machine gun ammo turn one. When it comes time to get into more advanced stuff post 3025 -- like the gauss -- The weapon's weight would likely have to be balanced accordingly. Likewise MOST 3025 conventional weapons are already ridiculously heavy for what they deliver, some more so than others. (AC-2 and AC-5 much?) so alleviating that burden helps with balance.
These two changes -- along with common sense balancing like an XL engine counting as the weight of a standard, endo costing as the weight of standard, and paying one ton per heat dissapated REGARDLESS of what sink type or tonnage got you there, alleviates a lot of the balance concerns moving onward from 3025.
See Clan 'Mechs like the Pack Hunter. Generally speaking it's not exactly broken in BV2 at 1369... but in the right hands it can go toe to toe with almost anything despite the razor thin armor.
I figure under my system the clan ERPPC would work out to 14 CTE. I use the large laser as the baseline for large weapons, it does 87.5% more damage, has a 40% increase in medium range, and is the same heat to damage ratio, so 5 * 1.875 * 1.4 == 13.125... I would round that up to 14 just because it can headcap. So for the PH we get:
3 Structure
9 Engine
14 Jump
20 Heat
3 Gyro
3 Cockpit
4 Armor
14 PPC
So 70 CTE... A little over what a 3025 Warhammer would be worth (WHM-6R == 68). I'm ok with that result...
It also makes for a simpler system as calculating the base CTE of a unit is just simple addition once a weapons chart is in place. THAT'S still my biggest problem with BV is that it is just too complex for it's own damned good -- as I've often said a lot can be learned from GW and their point system.
So once I work out a better scaling system for calculating what new weapons are worth, it's a workable baseline. The next step would be skill balancing and to that end, I think units should have their weapon value tracked separately from the rest of the chassis, since gunnery only impacts weapon effectiveness and dick-else! PILOTING on the other hand improves survivability -- from 20+ damage, from head hits, from gyro hits -- so that would be applied after.
So ((weapon CTE * gunnery adjustment) + chassis CTE) * piloting adjustment would be the deployable values. The question becomes what should the adjustment amounts actually be?
In the BV system one of my gripes was ALWAYS that gunnery was undervalued and piloting overvalued, and the amalgam of the two into a single result just wasn't balanced... the reason I say this is the numbers to me feel completely unrelated to the curve of the dice. Remember, 2d6 is 36 possible outcomes.
To that end for gunnery I think the best approach would be to -- as always -- make 4 gunner a zero modification to the weapon CTE, but to use real-world modifiers to determine the odds of hitting with that skill. To that end let's say a 1 movement modifier on self, 2 movement modifier from target, and 2 for medium range. That is the 'norm'.. so with a 4 gunner that's a 9 -- aka 5 in 18 odds.. 27.77~% chance of hitting. From there we can work up a chart:
Code:
Gunnery Multiplier
0 3
1 2.6
2 2.1
3 1.5
4 1
5 0.6
6 0.3
7 0.1
That might seem a bit harsh -- in BOTH directions, but I always felt that good gunnery was undervalued and poor gunnery was overvalued. You ever play a game with a 7 gunner? Unless you and the enemy are at point-blank and standing there like stumps, you might as well not even HAVE weapons. Meanwhile this could put a curb on the munchkins who flip out if you suggest they even field anything less than a 2 gunner.
... and it's not THAT harsh when you account for this multiplier only going towards the weapon CTE and not the chassis.
Still, perhaps that curve should be scaled. Is that overkill? There's also the issue that 8 gunner would be zero, and that's not good. Thoughts?
Piloting is a bit trickier to quantify. This is one I'm still mulling over in my head as to how much of a factor it should be. Whilst PSR's can make or break you, how do we actually rate that? I guess a start would be to just look at the odds of success without any modifiers:
Code:
PSR odds of success, no modifiers
Piloting odds of success
0 100%
1 100%
2 100%
3 97.22%
4 91.66%
5 83.33%
6 72.22%
7 58.33%
... and let's face it, the most common PSR is "hey I took twenty damage"... but SHOULD we just say "two modifier" so there is even a curve to base on?
Even then:
Code:
PSR, 2 modifier
Piloting odds of success relation to normal:
0 100% 1.714
1 97.22% 1.666
2 91.66% 1.571
3 83.33% 1.429
4 72.22% 1.238
5 58.33% 1.000
6 41.66% 0.714
7 27.77% 0.476
8 16.66% 0.285
Still looking at a pretty sharp curve... the question is how to scale this curve to match the overall importance to gameplay... and I have NO idea where to even start on that. I dislike just throwing numbers at things without a reason but... when it comes to the importance of the PSR that's really hard to put a value to. Whilst I think that on the positive side the 1.384 as the max and relatively low difference between the values is correct, there's no way dropping to a 5 pilot should make the 'mech worth 80% the total value. STILL, I kind of like that the curve up towards better piloting is a lot less harsh than going down -- it truly reflects the impact on the game since that 25% for 0 pilotalways felt like far too much of a penalty for what it does in the game, whilst the 15% savings on a 8 gunner was a serious whiskey tango foxtrot considering that even without modifiers you've got a 58.3% chance of failing every PSR. THAT IS BACKWARDS!
So... for now scale it to 15% on the better piloting?
Code:
Piloting Modifier
0 1.15
1 1.14
2 1.12
3 1.09
4 1.05
5 1.00
6 0.94
7 0.89
8 0.85
That's not too bad... I think it reflects well how going below 3 piloting has diminishing returns, whilst still having that 8 piloting being a kick to the groin. Certainly better than the seemingly arbitrary "better is 0.15% more, worse is 0.5% less" that doesn't even reflect the actual utility of said skill -- one of BV's biggest flaws.
The whole piloting/gunnery math is far, far more complex than I'd like, but it's just not a flat linear you can apply and say "close enough" given the DIRECT correlation to die-roll probability. On the flip side a FIXED value for certain equipment should have been a no-brainer from the start... and it was before the fancy 'tech was added.
I'm gonna play more with this and work up a small weapons chart for 3050 era weapons and gear just to see how a few designs build-out.
Any input on this would be nice as whilst "Vince Russo and pals" MENTIONED replacing BV2, then backtracked to give it "one more chance" I think it might be time to say screw it and DIY.