Battletech

Lord Skimper wrote:Are there any new Battletech computer games for computer? I have 4 vengeance but it shows its age.

The E wrote:There will be soon

These are just more 'Mechwarrior'. They never did make a real 'Battletech' for the computer - it would be simple to just adapt Steel Pathers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steel_Panthers
to Mechs and vehicles, with heat concerns. Add phases with movement, a torso/turret phase (something missing here in SP), and weapon allocation (targeting) phase, then combat resolution/damage/heat/shutdown - all auto-resolved. AS fighters and arty are both already in there for the ground resolution. An upgrade would include Aerotech on a fighter combat level (with unit allocation to ground attack in the lower atmosphere movement phase).
Then maybe a further upgrade for full-up planetary campaign operations.
(I don't need all those fancy graphics - I want the game to play good - if I want something that looks really good but just sits there frozen, I'll make a jpeg)

I remember one game of SP3 where the computer used its system rules to screw me over: I had a platoon of Israeli M-60s sitting on a ridgeline overlooking a pass. they were positioned with their fronts facing the pass. a platoon of Syrian BMP-1s came around the hillside and popped up behind my M-60s. instead of turning their turrets (which it doesn't include) and firing at them, they all turned around (in automatic defensive movement I had no control over) backwards to shoot and pointed there butts at the T-62s coming down the pass - what a cheat! - when I lost my entire platoon & quit that game - screw that!

The new Battletech PC game is much more Battletech than Mechwarrior; you command a lance of four mechs from a bird's eye view rather than piloting one of them

MAD-4A wrote:I'm an old time BT player. I was on their site but they have horrible rules restricting free speech, the worst is an anti-politic rule. just mentioning a politicians name got me a "warning" - & I mentioned him (GWB) stating no-one was to poke fun at him, & they still gave me a warning just because I mentioned his name! so I'm posting here (hope there is no rule - like copyright or something - if so let me know) to have a free forum to discuss politics in Battletech - (if no objections) I'll direct all my BT contacts to use this forum instead of theirs, so we can post more freely. - thank you DW forum for your freer venue.

You´re gonna hate this, but i´m also an old BT/MW player, starting with computergame Crescent Hawks Inception in the 80s.
And that game was weird, had so few mechs that used so few weapons in total, yet the code included PPC, all LRMs and ACs(none of the mechs in the game ever mounted any of those), and as long as you didn´t change something in the wrong place, you could mod the mechs to use any of those weapons.
Had lots of fun walking around with a Locust with 4 LRM20 and a couple of AC20s.

And it was a challenge to get the Chameleon mech with you as a starter, had to get away from the attackers just the right way or you would face 4 Jenners alone, 140 tons of mech vs 50, not a good fight.


Anyway, if you ever played MW2M on Kali, you´ve probably seen me.

Still have a bundle of fun macros from the one channel i was on most.

[MoC]Warlord> my teacher thought I was nuts for eatin a hamburger right after disecting a cat
<${CW}>NDoomDoom> you should have eaten the cat
MoC]Warlord> I shoulda eaten it
[MoC]Warlord> but when I got home my cat would look at me weierd

<^GB>Wolverine> thats why me and my ex wife got divorced...
<^GB>Wolverine> religious differences..
<^GB>Wolverine> I am Roman Catholic, and she was satan





##########

smr wrote:The E, Tenchani, and myself would have been banned since day 2! Luckily, we are allowed a little or smidgen of freedom within this website.

*pfffttt* Speak for yourself!

After ~20 years of online activity on literally several hundreds of forums, i´ve received 4(IIRC) tempbans in total and just a few more warnings than that.
And 2 of those bans were pure bullcrap from mods who couldn´t handle someone disagreeing with them.

Lord Skimper wrote:I designed an Unarmed mech once. Pure scout too small to do anything offensive.

Are there any new Battletech computer games for computer? I have 4 vengeance but it shows its age.

Have you tried MegaMek? (Freeware)

MAD-4A wrote:I am currently working on a revised, and detailed, TO&E for BattleTech (Inner Sphere).
Currently the books state only that; 4 Mechs = a Lance (not 3 not 5 exactly 4), 3 Lances + 2 Aerospace Fighters (trans-atmospheric) = a Company (exactly 12 Mechs + 2 Fighters), Exactly 3 Companies = a Battalion (Exactly 36 Mechs + 6 Fighters) and Exactly 3 Battalions = a Regiment (108 Mechs + 18 Fighters). No infantry, no Vehicles, no Artillery, no wiggle room. Infantry are listed as 28 men per standard platoon, 21 men per Jump (jet-pack) Platoon and 4 men per Battle armor (power-armor) platoon. No info (I’m aware of) is given for conventional vehicle units (though it’s generally assumed to parallel Mechs).

With this ‘standard’ TO&E the Regimental Commander is also the commander of 1st battalion (there is no “other” slot for him), likewise the Battalion Commander (and for 1st that’s the Regimental Commander) is also the 1st Company Commander and the commander of the 1st lance of the Company. Now on the Lance/Company levels that works, but on the higher levels, you have one guy running the entire Regiment, and 1st Battalion and 1st Company and 1st Lance all at the same time!

In some of the books they mention “Reinforced” units – which is generally taken to mean they have an extra unit of the next smaller size (4 Companies for a Reinforced Battalion) but that’s not specified anywhere. There are a couple of books that list basic unit stats, such as; 1st (So&So Guard/Dragoon etc…) Regiment, 3 Mech Battalions and 1 Infantry Battalion, or something to that effect. I’m working on a full detailed (and flexible) TO&E up to Regimental level (So 3 Mechs per “Short Lance”, 4 Mechs per “Lance”, 5 Mechs per “Reinforced Lance”) Vehicles are almost the same but use the term “Platoon” instead of “Lance”. Fighters (and conventional Aircraft – which are generally not used) are 2 Per “Flight”, 3 per “Heavy Flight” (specified not normal but the result of odd-man-out due to attrition/lack of reinforcements), Squadron instead of Company (2Flights/4 fighters for a “Light Squadron”, 3Flights/6fighters for a “Squadron”, 4 Flights/8fighters for a “Heavy Squadron”) I also specified that Battalions and Regiments have a “Command Company” in addition to those listed, these include a “Command Lance/Platoon” an “Artillery Platoon” and a “Security Platoon” (usually Infantry).
Any Ideas, I was in the Navy, I have a Strong grasp of ground warfare though, but there may be a few unit designations that I haven’t heard of yet, I did break down the Infantry into Teams and Squads and dropped the Battle armor down a peg (really they thought 4 guys in power armor is = to 4x 20-100 ton Battlemechs in relative strength ) I made 2 suites a “Team” and 3-6 suits a “Squad” (1-3 teams). That’s the # that game sheet generator (Heavy Metal Pro) prints them in so it should be kept as a firm number range. For regular infantry, I made 2-3 man “Teams” and 2-3 teams + a trooper (leader) a Squad and 2-4 Squads (14-28 men) a Platoon (which corresponds to their numbers – more or less – but doesn’t rule out a {say} 17 man – under-strength Platoon for example). I know that – like plans - no TO&E survives contact with the enemy and allowances should be made for odd numbers and flexibility.

It is mentioned in several places though that exact compositions vary greatly both between states and even locally/between individual units.
So, the stated lineup is essentially the "basic standard".


If there´s an option, i tend to use oversized 6 unit lances/platoons and either try to have more units in total or just ignore part of the enemy until my local superiority(pitting lance vs lance) have won their first battles and THEN go after the rest.


Most of all though, my most interaction with BT is modding, so i kinda have a big bunch of alternate rules mechs and the rules to build them with.
Completely revamped ACs, in my mod, anything from AC2s to AC20s have a good use and added in AC3/7/15 for extra variety.
MRMs remade into a longer ranged SRM, while Rocket Launchers replace MRM, with increased penalty to hit AND # of hits the longer the range bracket, but instead, they´re also very light and cheap...

Meh, i´m a tinker...

Tenshinai wrote:It is mentioned in several places though that exact compositions vary greatly both between states and even locally/between individual units.
So, the stated lineup is essentially the "basic standard".

Yes, but it also implys in several places that a unit always must have x#. the #s lilsted are also in error (as pointed out) with no command or support elements figured in.

Tenshinai wrote:If there´s an option, i tend to use oversized 6 unit lances/platoons

So a CS/WoB Level II

Tenshinai wrote:Most of all though, my most interaction with BT is modding, so i kinda have a big bunch of alternate rules mechs and the rules to build them with.
Completely revamped ACs, in my mod, anything from AC2s to AC20s have a good use and added in AC3/7/15 for extra variety.

When I rand my MW Campaign, one thing I did was 1/2 all AC weight (round up for AC-20) it actually made them useful. the AC-5 was only 4tn + 1tn ammo made it = to a LL with slightly less damage and a lot less heat but with added range and ammo-boom-threat so it was a viable tradeoff (rather than heavier than a PPC + ammo + 1/2 the damage - useless crap).

I have since created my own AC system. I did away with the whole "AC-2,AC-5 etc..." crap and just created "real" guns (2cm-20cm) with various barrel lengths. Each gun does damage = to it's diameter in CM (so 2cm/20mm = 2pt, 15cm/6"=15pt etc...) and range based on barrel length (ranging from 3-6-9 to Arty ranges insteps as per the original weapons) the weight and crits are based on these two factors (so a standard "AC-20" is a short barrel 20cm cannon with range 3-6-9 and appropriate weight/crit, where a LT is a 20cm with the longest barrel and corresponding weight/crit increase) There are available most calibers in-between & I have charts for various houses.

If I remember; LCAF has weapons based on the German Army/Navy 2cm, 3cm, 3.7cm (4pt round up), 5.2cm (5pt sound down), 10.5cm (11pt), 15cm (15pt)---and others--- where AFFS has weapons based on the British; 2cm, 4cm, 3"(7.6cm - 8pt), 4" (10.2cm - 10pt), 4.7" (12cm - 12pt), 6" (15.2cm - 15pt), 8" (20.3cm - 20pt) and some others. So the LCAF has a 105mm where the AFFS has a 4"(102mm) that both take the place of an "AC-10" but vary in weight and have incompatible ammo (DCMS has a 10cm-3.9" that is not compatible with the others) al have various lengths with various ranges available.

.75tn Ammo=100/damage round down (DCMS-10cm=10/tn (10*10=100) -- AFFC 4"=10/tn (10*10=100) -- LCAF-10.5cm=9/tn (9*11=99)) & requires an ammo Bay=.25tn-1crit

There are lots of posibilaties opened up. I have a really cheap Stinger with an "AC-2" 20cm with range 3-6-9 weighs 1tn 1crit + 1tn ammo 50rnds light and cheap - for Periphery /Independent /Rebel /Militia /Merc

"Rotary" is available for any caliber under 7.5cm/3" (8pt)at an increase in weight/crit (sorry no RAC-20 Long-Toms) -but a LR RAC-5 is available. LBX is a flechette/Shot-Gun round which is a type of ammo not a separate gun. Haven't addressed Ultras yet. I also gave all weapons a RoF. 2cm have a rate of 4, 5cm=3, 10cm=2, 20cm=1. these work basically the same as the RAC/Ultra/SRM so that Stinger with the 2cm AC can fire up to 4 rounds per turn (like a RAC on 4) but without the jam penalty (based on the Solaris 7 reload/recharge rules) energy weapons have a RoF as well (PPC-LL=1 ML=2,SL=3 - laser type no change - though I'm open to changes on that) all missiles are RoF=1

Tenshinai wrote:MRMs remade into a longer ranged SRM, while Rocket Launchers replace MRM, with increased penalty to hit AND # of hits the longer the range bracket, but instead, they´re also very light and cheap...

I hate the MRMs I still use Dead-Fire from the Tactical Handbook (# of Missiel roll is 3D6 drop the highest roll) I also modded the Missile rules:

There are no "standard" launchers but Standard tubes. Small, Med & Large. S=.25tn, M=.5tn & L=1Tn Crits and Heat vary with # and type of tubes.

Missiles come in section (Warhead, guidance, fuel, Engine/Booster,) Range, Damage and guidance depends on which modules you fit together (I have a chart). S/.25tn can handle just 2 modules (Warhead & Booster) which gives you basically your MRMs (but instead of penalty to-hit you have DF rules per THB) M/.5tn=4modules (so you can have 2warheads,1guidance,1booster=SRM profile or 1WH,1Gud,1Boost,1Fuel=LRM profile etc) so the players have great flexibility with the launchers (which makes up for their RoF=1) you can load SRM,LRM and something else into any launcher which can be 1-20 tubes - so yea...LRMs from a 1-pack with MPW for harassment or SRM from a 20pack NOTE: missile grouping is based on # of tubes so no 20 roles of 2. The L-tubes allow 5 modules (basically the ER-LRMs from the THB - 4WH&1Booster would give you a 4pt missile but with no range - SR Slam-"get away from me!" weapon) Ammo= 400 modules per .75tn with an ammo bay=.25tn-1crit and can hold up to .75tn of the same ammo configuration. (to save paperwork).
Restrictions: Warheads (nor Guidance) can't be mixed. Only 1 booster/engine per missile (includes basic fuel) added fuel modules increase range.
There are some minor drawbacks, the "LRM-5" is 2.5tn so if you want a Thorn or Assassin you have to drop it to a "4 pack" or find an extra 1/2tn from somewhere else (drop the "SRM-2" and combine the ammo packs so you have "SRM's" for the 5 pack) and the "LRM-15" is 7.5tn - same effect - so a "standard" Catapult has 2x"14" packs where a T-Bolt drops the SRM-2 for more ammo for the 15-pack etc...

So a CS/WoB Level II

Nope. Oversized lance with the usual number of lance´s per company and companies per battalion etc(depending on the scale of current game), so basically everything has +50% number of mechs.

The local superiority that this nearly always establishes is nice.

When I rand my MW Campaign, one thing I did was 1/2 all AC weight (round up for AC-20) it actually made them useful. the AC-5 was only 4tn + 1tn ammo made it = to a LL with slightly less damage and a lot less heat but with added range and ammo-boom-threat so it was a viable tradeoff (rather than heavier than a PPC + ammo + 1/2 the damage - useless crap).

Sensible. I originally went with 4t for AC2, but then it also has no min rg and a max rg of 30 instead. Up all the way to AC20 at 11t(and reduced heat). And all ACs getting a +1 bonus on crit rolls. Made for some nice tradeoffs.

I have since created my own AC system. I did away with the whole "AC-2,AC-5 etc..." crap and just created "real" guns (2cm-20cm) with various barrel lengths. Each gun does damage = to it's diameter in CM (so 2cm/20mm = 2pt, 15cm/6"=15pt etc...)

The only time i found what was supposed to be a canon quote about what was normal for cannons and damage, it was a statement about how the "original AC (1)" was based on the common 105mm tank gun(same as on original M1 Abrams) except in multishot mode.
There´s also some canon stuff that rates a 20mm rotary cannon as an "MG".

If I remember; LCAF has weapons based on the German Army/Navy 2cm, 3cm, 3.7cm (4pt round up), 5.2cm (5pt sound down), 10.5cm (11pt), 15cm (15pt)---and others--- where AFFS has weapons based on the British; 2cm, 4cm, 3"(7.6cm - 8pt), 4" (10.2cm - 10pt), 4.7" (12cm - 12pt), 6" (15.2cm - 15pt), 8" (20.3cm - 20pt) and some others. So the LCAF has a 105mm where the AFFS has a 4"(102mm) that both take the place of an "AC-10" but vary in weight and have incompatible ammo (DCMS has a 10cm-3.9" that is not compatible with the others) al have various lengths with various ranges available.

Huh...

(sorry no RAC-20 Long-Toms)

No, really? Shocking i tell you!

I also modded the Missile rules

A bit more complicated than i would prefer but interesting setup none the less.



Anyway, the biggest changes i made, due to us wanting to have the ability to add some more electronic warfare stuff, and some "issues" with some mechs:
Not counting the weight of the internal structure.
All internal structure can support 3 pts of armour instead of 2.
Each class above lgt gets +1 crit per location per class higher.
Free virtual heatsinks based on class, lgt=3, med=4, hvy=5, aslt=6
Ranges against soft targets are greatly increased, and projectile and missile weapons do much more damage against them. Infantry is basically screwed against a AC or missile heavy mech if they´re seen or not in cover.

Oh and then i made this little list to give a reason for various nonstandards(unfinished though):

Manwalker, standard

Chickenwalker(Catapult etc), +1 to run MP, +1MP to go up and down slopes, +1 to kicking dmg, +1 Penalty to Piloting Skill Rolls, +2 modifier for Crit-rolls in legs

Reversed Chickenwalker(Hussar,Cicada etc), +1 to walk MP, +2MP to go up and down slopes, +1 to kicking dmg, +1 Penalty to Piloting Skill Rolls, +2 modifier for Crit-rolls in legs

Quad-legged, -2 Bonus to Piloting Skill Rolls, can use walk movement in any direction, can kick in any direction with the closest leg and gets -1 bonus to BTH, -1 Run MP

Non Torso Twisting, -1 BTH bonus, but any target it fires at gains a -1 BTH bonus to hit the NTT mech back

High Stance, increase height of mech by 1 level, +1 crits to each Torso and Leg, +1 Virtual heatsink

Low Stance, reduce height of mech by 1 level, -2 crits in each Torso&Leg, -1 Virtual heatsink

Extra Wide(Awesome,Atlas etc), +2 crits to each Torso, -1 bonus to hit mech from front/rear, +1 Virtual heatsink

Extra Long(Stalker etc), +2 crits to each Torso, -1 bonus to be hit from side, +1 Virtual heatsink

Oops, SC2 game coming, i´ll be back...

Tenshinai wrote:Nope. Oversized lance with the usual number of lance´s per company and companies per battalion etc(depending on the scale of current game), so basically everything has +50% number of mechs.

Well the CS/WoB Level II is 6 Mechs, though what it's called & the rest would be up to the command. A Merc unit could arrange its TO&E however it wants but would likely be required to report or correct non-standard TO&Es with the Mech commission.

Tenshinai wrote:The only time i found what was supposed to be a canon quote about what was normal for cannons and damage, it was a statement about how the "original AC (1)" was based on the common 105mm tank gun(same as on original M1 Abrams) except in multishot mode.
There´s also some canon stuff that rates a 20mm rotary cannon as an "MG".

Yea but none of those were ever "official" or complete, and the idea that the MG is a 20mm is ridiculous, its more like a 50cal, or a mini gun more likely the 1pt Lt MG is the 50cal.

Tenshinai wrote:

If I remember; LCAF has weapons based on the German Army/Navy 2cm, 3cm, 3.7cm (4pt round up), 5.2cm (5pt sound down), 10.5cm (11pt), 15cm (15pt)---and others--- where AFFS has weapons based on the British; 2cm, 4cm, 3"(7.6cm - 8pt), 4" (10.2cm - 10pt), 4.7" (12cm - 12pt), 6" (15.2cm - 15pt), 8" (20.3cm - 20pt) and some others. So the LCAF has a 105mm where the AFFS has a 4"(102mm) that both take the place of an "AC-10" but vary in weight and have incompatible ammo (DCMS has a 10cm-3.9" that is not compatible with the others) al have various lengths with various ranges available.

Huh...

I made them State Specific. (like WWII MGs; the US used a 30cal/7.62 MG, the British used a .303, Germany used a 7.92mm, Italy used am 8.8mm and Japan used both a 6.5mm and a 7.7mm) of course others were used but you get the Idea.
The 'German' LCAF has: 20mm(AC-2), 37mm(AC-4), 88mm(AC-9), 105mm(AC-11), 150mm(AC-15), 203mm(AC-20)
The 'American' FWL has: 20mm(AC-2), 40mm(AC-4), 3"(AC-8), 4"(AC-10), 5"(AC-13) 6"(AC-15), 8"(AC-20)
The 'Japanese' DCMS has: 25mm(AC-3), 40mm(AC-4), 76mm(AC-8), 100mm(AC-10), 127mm(AC-13), 140mm(AC-14), 152mm(AC-15), 200mm(AC-20) (+ others etc...)
Loosely based on their Naval & Army weapons. this means that if the LCAF captures a DCMS Centurion (with the DC produced 10cm cannon) they will have only a limited supply of ammo unless they capture more or replace the gun with a LC produced equivalent (a 105 or 88mm which will require parts/time/tech and likely some level of tinkering).

Tenshinai wrote:

I also modded the Missile rules

A bit more complicated than i would prefer but interesting setup none the less.

A little but I have a chart all made out & play tested them in my MW campaign, they worked great, just a little bit more paper work but the players liked the flexibility.
One thing I found was instead of the standard fractional ammo rules (1tn AC-10 ammo=10rnds, 1/2tn=5rnds), make the "standard" load = .75tn of ammo + a .25tn/1crit "Ammo Bin" and can hold up to .75tn of ammo.
So the AC-10 would receive 7-10rnds=.75tn, 4-6rnds=.5tn, and 1-3rnds=.25tn + the .25tn bin. this makes 7-10+Bin=1tn, 4-6+bin=.75tn, and 1-3+bin=.5tn
This prevents fractional accounting abuse, such as:
3025 Hunchback with an AC-20 and 2tn of ammo: replace the 2x1tn ammo bins with 5 round each with 10 .2tn ammo bins with 1 round each so I take up 10 more crits and each time I fire a round it creates an "empty" ammo slot for a crit sink. also if I do get an ammo slot hit I only take 20pt not 20-100!
for a player to try that with my system he would be able to afford 4x.25tn bins and 4x1rnd .25tn ammo allotments, so that same 2tns would only provide 4x1=4 shots. OK if that's all you think you'll need!

Tenshinai wrote:Anyway, the biggest changes i made, due to us wanting to have the ability to add some more electronic warfare stuff, and some "issues" with some mechs:
Not counting the weight of the internal structure.
All internal structure can support 3 pts of armour instead of 2.
Each class above lgt gets +1 crit per location per class higher.
Free virtual heatsinks based on class, lgt=3, med=4, hvy=5, aslt=6
Ranges against soft targets are greatly increased, and projectile and missile weapons do much more damage against them. Infantry is basically screwed against a AC or missile heavy mech if they´re seen or not in cover.

I never really screwed with the basic rules. aside from adding twin engines (mentioned above) but abandoned them with XLs
When I was a kid I did make a mod for WP Vs Infantry but don't have it anymore.

Tenshinai wrote:Oh and then i made this little list to give a reason for...Quad-legged...

I
Interesting, they actually have Quad rules now, They never created a proper hit location chart for Quads though, the rear legs should not have the same probability to be hit from the front as a regular Mech's legs - just to name one flaw. I did create a proper chart.
There are also some non-standard rules for certain Mechs in some of the books, like the Javelin receives a -1PSR due to its awkward design. but these are not official.

Tenshinai wrote:High Stance, increase height of mech by 1 level, +1 crits to each Torso and Leg, +1 Virtual heatsink
Low Stance, reduce height of mech by 1 level, -2 crits in each Torso&Leg, -1 Virtual heatsink

Maybe it should have counter bonus/penalty such as a TH bonus/penalty to be shot at for being large/small target. problem is that vehicles would deserve the same.

Yea but none of those were ever "official" or complete, and the idea that the MG is a 20mm is ridiculous, its more like a 50cal, or a mini gun

TR 3026, one of the lighter tanks IIRC(i always forget which one), specifically lists its MG as a 20mm rotary.
Oh wait, it´s in the TR 3039 as well, the Scorpion Light tank.
"20mm Gatling Gun Machine Gun"
Oh and there´s some fluff mention somewhere that described a MG as a "quad of .50s".

And the statement about the "AC1" was by one of the developers in response to a question, it´s not in any game material, but it was given as a canon reply.
It´s also hinted at in the fluff of several TRs.

In comparison, LRMs have also been stated to be like a 1980s ATGM except with warhead "many times more effective".

Basically, BT armour is total bullshit haxx.
On the other hand, ablative armour has been reasearched for real. A Russian company tried out some rather exotic materials that were effectively layered explosives, and while eventually dropped because it was impossible to make it reliable, the few times it worked in ballistic tests, it completely stopped all tank guns in use, and the 15cm prototype tank gun the company had access to.
Despite using somewhere between half and 2/3 of the thickness and maybe half that in weight of the armour of a M1.

Last i heard, there was a Brazilian company still doing research along the same lines(and so far with similar levels of success and failure).

There´s also that British "electric armour" thing, rejected due to needing far too much power to make it work, but capable of making the armour of a light tank capable of stopping anything that isn´t a tank maingun, and with some lucky geometry, even those.

And there´s the stuff Exote Oy already has in production, they haven´t figured out how to make it in large enough sizes(economically) to use as armour against big guns yet, but even tests with smaller pieces shows their impact to be drastic. A few mm of Exote armour on top of regular armour pretty much doubles the total protection. And this is in commercial production since several years back. Just far too expensive to use everywhere you would want it yet. This is also especially effective against modern "arrow"/Sabot ammo(APFSDS), because the Exote layer prevents(/resists) penetration by fluid mechanics and is very effective at making projectiles go "splat" instead of penetrating.
And there´s several other "superfacehardened" new materials coming along.

So basically, once someone scores a success with one of the new materials techs being tested, we are at least moving towards the kind of insanely strong armour of the BT-verse.

And that will require the offense side of things to improve again. I actually have no problem at all accepting the fictional extremes of the BT-verse, because we may not be that far away from those levels for real.

There are also some non-standard rules for certain Mechs in some of the books, like the Javelin receives a -1PSR due to its awkward design. but these are not official.

Yeah, but those were nothing you could use in a design of your own without messing things up.
My list takes realistic(as far as possible at least) or already ingame claimed effects(but without any ingame mechanics) and models them into a reasonably useful set of choices.

That list actually works surprisingly well and allows you to add advantages/disadvantages mimicing some of the ingame fluff.

Well the CS/WoB Level II is 6 Mechs, though what it's called & the rest would be up to the command. A Merc unit could arrange its TO&E however it wants but would likely be required to report or correct non-standard TO&Es with the Mech commission.

Meh, never bothered with rules that isn´t useful.

I made them State Specific.

I can certainly see the temptation for that, but with all the back and forth salvaging for centuries, everyone is going to have all/most ammo types more or less available.

Anyway, instead of adding complexity like that, i´ve added some more "standardised" weapon systems and made them "normal"/common.

So, SRMs have Rg 12, with CRMs having the same stats but Rg 8 and damage 3/missile.
ERMs, LRM launchers+50% size/weight, 36 direct fire Rg(60 max indirect) and halved ammo.
Rocket Launcher 10/20/30/40, weight 2/3/5/7t, pretty useless at long range bracket(13-18 ), but crushing close up thanks to minimal weight to damage potential.
While MRMs are doubleweight SRMs, Rg 18.
(LRMs direct fire Rg 27, indirect Rg 36, min 6)

Tenshinai wrote:TR 3026, one of the lighter tanks IIRC(i always forget which one), specifically lists its MG as a 20mm rotary.
Oh wait, it´s in the TR 3039 as well, the Scorpion Light tank.
"20mm Gatling Gun Machine Gun"
Oh and there´s some fluff mention somewhere that described a MG as a "quad of .50s".

The never really had any official ruling for these, just 'AC-(whatever)'

Tenshinai wrote:In comparison, LRMs have also been stated to be like a 1980s ATGM except with warhead "many times more effective".

But they're not 'guided' they are cluster fired unguided rockets. more like the Russian 122mm or the German Nebelwerfer. I consider the 'standard' missiles to be preset, mechanical clockwork guidance (like WWII Torpedoes)

Tenshinai wrote:

Well the CS/WoB Level II is 6 Mechs, though what it's called & the rest would be up to the command. A Merc unit could arrange its TO&E however it wants but would likely be required to report or correct non-standard TO&Es with the Mech commission.

Meh, never bothered with rules that isn´t useful.

They are quite useful in a campaign setting, and also when devising convention games

Tenshinai wrote:I can certainly see the temptation for that, but with all the back and forth salvaging for centuries, everyone is going to have all/most ammo types more or less available.

That's the official line, but in truth, without production, you would run 'captured' supplies dry in no time. You have to have some production, especially with cannon ammo.

Tenshinai wrote:Anyway, instead of adding complexity like that...

I find it useful to restrict access to supplies from my players in a MW campaign, it causes more conflict and expense on their part, having to find what they need to keep operating, rather than dump that cash into investments/accounts and 'retiring'.