Ways to individualize mechs other than hardpoints

[Nick_S]

This came up in another thread; I think the hardpoint system works but is a little clunky, and I wanted to brainstorm alternatives.

FWIW, my experience is this, I've played through the campaign 1.5 times. I restarted after version 1.1 was released. I was really curious to see how the game would play differently with different mech salvage. What I found was that different +/++ weapons gave me an incentive to try different designs and different tactics, but mech salvage had very little effect. In part because once you have the Centurion and a Shadowhawk those are half of the lance that's fairly predictable, and there's no reason to swap something else instead of either of them.

In addition to that, I find that the hardpoints accomplish the goal of forcing different mech designs, but they're not very interesting -- they're just a constraint. So I think it's worth keeping them around (perhaps with the additional option of being able to load a SL in an energy hardpoint or a MG in a ballistic hardpoint) but it would be nice to have some additional flavor as well.

My thoughts:

I: It's possible to add flavor to mech chassis or to individual mechs. What if, each time a mech was put together from salvage there was a ~30% chance of it having a positive quirk, and a ~30% chance of it having a negative quirk. Positive quirks could be things like (+1 hit with one category of weapon; +10% stability threshold, +1 sprint movement, +2 morale on the first turn (not per turn), +10 melee damage, etc . . . ). Negative quirks could be similar but slightly worse (-1 hit with weapon category with the highest number of hardpoints, -3 morale on first turn, -10% stability threshold, +2 heat from primary weapon, etc . . . ).

The very neat thing about that would be that it could provide an incentive to use secondary mech chassis (getting a Griffin with +1 hit with energy weapons might make for a different design than the standard Shadowhawk). The disadvantage is that if the bonuses/penalties are too large it could have too much impact and, like ++ weapons just serve to provide an additional advantage for the players.

II: Adding more quirks to specific mech designs. The easiest thing to do would be to have some designs come stock with some of the 0-ton enhancements (+25M rangefinder, improved gyro, etc . . .) which would be non-removable. These could be more powerful than the random quirks mentioned above because they would be easier to vet for balance reasons.

III: Having individual mechwarriors have favorite and disfavored mechs so that they would get a bonus/penalty when piloting that design. In some ways this is my favorite idea; it would add a ton of flavor to the game. The challenges are (a) it would be a ton of work and complexity to add. (b) you'd probably want to randomize the favorites for the starting mechwarriors each game, otherwise it would get repetitive. (c) with more options to mix and match it would make it easier for the player to take advantage of the favorites and avoid the disfavored mechs so it would on-balance improve things for the player.

With that said, I'd suggest (a) having significantly more dis-favored mechs than favored mechs for each pilot. (b) Having a way for the advantages of a favorite mech improve over time the more missions that pilot completes in the mech -- so it provides an incentive to retain the earlier mechs later into the game and not immediately upgrade as soon as a heavier mech comes along.

Thoughts?

 

[Nick_S]

Continuing my train of thought . . .

My subject line was about hardpoints, but what's clear is that my thinking is more influenced by the example set by ++ weapons. As I said, for me they had a strong influence on game play & strategy. The specific weapons that I was able to salvage early gave me an incentive to try builds & strategies that I wouldn't have done otherwise. It would be neat to have some of that same dynamic with the specific mechs in the mech bay.

That said, the existence of ++ weapons also provides a significant power boost to the player, and it would push the game even further away from TT if there was another route for players to get better stuff than the vanilla version. On the third hand, if any changes from default are kept so small that they don't change the power balance they are unlikely to have much effect on play. If anything the current system is overpowered.

So, one way around that dilemma would be:

IV: Have some interaction between ++ weapons and mech chassis. For example (a) have ++ weapons tied to a weight class (using the same weight classes as jump jets) which would cut down somewhat on the number of ++ weapons (and provide a reason to keep older/smaller mechs in rotation)). (b) Have mech quirks give a bonus to weapon quality (so, for example, a Griffin could have an energy hardpoint which gives a + to a PPC, which would either make a stock PPC behave like a PPC+ or add one + to an existing weapon --so PPC+ would function like a PPC++. (c) have a granular setting which said that ++ variants could only be used in a hard point in which the stock mech carried that same weapon (so the shadowhawk could carry a LRM-5++, but not an LRM-15++). (d) Have it be fairly common but not universal that a hardpoint is capable of mounting a ++ weapon. Perhaps some would just be more limited and unable to mount variant weapons at all, or they could be tied to a range category. So a balistic hardpoint might be able to supper either AC-2/AC-5/AC-10 variants or AC-20 but not both. A missile hardpoint could support LRM or SRM variants but not both . . .

Edited to highlight option (c) which, I think, would be a fantastic option to have if it was reasonably easy to implement.

 

[Almond_Brown]

It seems that favorite Mech for Pilot idea is sort of in place as is. If you take Stock Mechs, then you Skill up a Pilot accordingly. Or if you skill up Pilots in specific ways, then you can follow up with Mech builds that suit that Skill set.
It is not the same but it seems the Dev have left the Mix and Match option up to the player rather than the RNG, of which there is plenty of that already.

 

[MeiSooHaityu]

I like the ideas behind I and II, but am not sure how I feel about III.


A bit of brainstorming to expand on idea I...

When a mech is assembled from parts, and it's quirks (both negative and/or positive) are assigned, the source of the parts could be taken into effect when generating quirks. So, if certain parts were obtained from pirates or Independent Planets, especially with poorly maintained mechs, then a mech would be more likely to have a negative quirk. If parts were obtained from an organized military force like a House Government or Periphery Government (Directorate, Magistracy, Taurians, etc...) with well maintained mechs, then it would be more likely to generate positive quirks. The idea being that the better the source of parts, the more likely the parts would contain positive quirks. The more poorly maintained (and controlled by a fly-by-night organization), the more of a chance negative quirks would be assigned.

These quirks would just be weighted one way or another during random generation upon completion of a mech, not guaranteed. Essentially you could have a mech with mostly pirate parts, and still not have negative quirks, it is just the chances of getting those negative quirks were higher than usual.

P.S. Maybe the machine shop on the Argo could be used to adjust one quirk on the mech if the player wanted to invest some money and time into it.

As for point II...

I like the idea as a whole. We have it a bit already, but it is mostly just tied to melee only. If chassis had some more unique chassis quirks, it would help add some additional variety when compared to what is there. It would be interesting to see something a long those lines.

Point III...

Not the biggest fan only because I think it limits the player too much as the game goes on. I don't think it is a bad idea, however I think it might be too limiting (especially when MechWarriors are trained up to a high level, but you just can't find a mech they like).

I think in many ways that ideas I and II could add enough flavor without having to add III.

 

[RealCadaver]

They did talk about mech quirks during development and pre-release. So maybe in success?

 

[scJazz]

Item III was a part of Beta. The pre-generated test pilots (aka Ronin types) included verbiage regarding Mech and Weapons that they like. Working from memory here as ATM I don't happen to have a Ronin. So HBS clearly considered it and hopefully they continue working towards.

Item II touches on an element already present but like III is not at well developed at the moment. There are quite a few quirks existing in TT. Only one is represented in BATTLETECH. The Melee damage quirk. It is not even particularly well done but that is because Melee is very abstracted (can't Punch, Kick, Charge, DFA, Push, Trip, No Melee Weapons, etc, ad nauseum). I will not go into details regarding Physicals. Some of the Equipment that you mentioned does touch on Quirks. Care must be taken with your "Built-In, Free" equipment idea. It might not even be the best approach. Though it pains me to even mention this game...MWO included the idea of EWAR Hardpoints. You could not stuff an ECM on a Jagermech for instance. This concept could become the basis of your item II. I might modify it by making these items not "Free" but "Unpaid" or "Cheaper". Add a slot in the Head for instance, the only thing that can go there is some type of EWAR like a Rangefinder and this free slot only exists on certain Chassis/Models. I use the Rangefinder here as a simple example.

Item I is just too crazy random. I do not like it at all. Sorry.

 

[Nick_S]

I like the ideas behind I and II, but am not sure how I feel about III.

That's fine. I'm clearly brainstorming. At the moment, I'm more excited about IV than I am about III (because III, while neat, would add an enormous amount of minutia for limited benefit), but I'm also trying to think out-loud because I don't pretend that I have a clear answer.

This concept could become the basis of your item II. I might modify it by making these items not "Free" but "Unpaid" or "Cheaper". Add a slot in the Head for instance, the only thing that can go there is some type of EWAR like a Rangefinder and this free slot only exists on certain Chassis/Models. I use the Rangefinder here as a simple example.

That makes sense

Item I is just too crazy random. I do not like it at all. Sorry.

So let me back up a second. I'm combining ideas about implementation and goals as a way to explore what might be possible. But let me ask you, do you think that adding more individuality to mechs is a good idea, and if so in what ways does the status quo fall short?[/QUOTE]

 

[scJazz]

So let me back up a second. I'm combining ideas about implementation and goals as a way to explore what might be possible. But let me ask you, do you think that adding more individuality to mechs is a good idea, and if so in what ways does the status quo fall short?

The answer to your question is necessarily complex. More options is always a good idea! In part, the individuality element can be covered by having more Mech Chassis/Variants to choose. However, you repeatedly touch on the idea of Quirks in your OP. In my initial response you can see that I agree with that concept. There are a lot of Quirks available in TT that could easily become BATTLETECH (Accurate Weapons, Heat Issues, Ammo Feed problems, etc.). What I do not like is the "Random Flavor" of Item I. There is no way to control Save Scumming. Which I do not mind at all but... it will just encourage everyone to Save and Reload until they get a good result. This is never a desirable choice in game design. You can see this in the random Events. You can't save before the Event and after it there is an autosave. You follow? See the problem?

P.S. Maybe the machine shop on the Argo could be used to adjust one quirk on the mech if the player wanted to invest some money and time into it.

This might be a route worth exploring but again if it includes RNG then there will be save scumming.

I know, I know, IronMan mode fixes all of that... but some of us can't play IronMan mode at all for various reasons.

So, more Mech choices == better!
More use of Quirks == better!
Random Bonus/Malus for a specific mech... do not like it.

Example: I finally after 37 missions finally got my hands on an SHD-2D. If this Mech ended up with a RNG generated Malus I would be beside myself.

 

[mjbroekman]

My $0.05 ...

1. No permanent negative quirks. Ever. Just no. For the same reason there are no weapons with negative modifiers, mechs should not get negative modifiers from their base variant. Imagine you just spent ungodly amounts of time getting together the 8 pieces for your first salvaged assault and you put it together only to find that it has an inherent negative modifier to accuracy or heat management or stability. How frustrating would that be?
   
   If you add a mechanic whereby you can have Yang spend time on a mech and remove negative quirks, then that might work. Or maybe it's just every time the mech is repaired or refit, there's a chance for the negative quirk to be removed, that might work also. But permanent, non-removable negative quirks would be a hugely frustrating thing.
   
   On the other hand, having randomized differences might be okay. Just not entirely sure how to make that work. For example, maybe you assemble a mech and there are fixed, non-removable heat sinks in some location. Not necessarily bad, but it does reduce the available tonnage. Or maybe there's a 0-tonnage item in a fixed location on the mech. Maybe the fixed items are only removable if they end up getting destroyed in a battle in the future.
   
   
2. Sounds absolutely reasonable on the face of it. Some folks have suggested that lights should get a bonus to sensor range to make them better scouts and 'tall' mechs should be a bonus to visual range. Totally reasonable for something like that. On the other hand, will those bonuses result in other mechs of the same class being relegated to the scrap heap because they don't have those bonuses? For example, some mechs have better melee damage (battlefist) than others. It's a very specific, situational quirk so it doesn't necessarily make other mechs unworthy. But something like added sensor or visual range might. Heck even something like a quirk that reduces heat from a particular weapon system on a chassis (maybe the AWS-8Q can support three PPCs so well because the chassis has an inherent -10% PPC heat 'quirk') would be potentially game changing. Not sure if it would be good or bad though...and that's the biggest problem. Also, by doing it to one chassis, you will then be forced to do similar things to MANY chassis in order to balance things out and maintain the idea that all mechs are playable. So, overall, I wouldn't support permanent changes to mech characteristics in the way that MWO does it.
   
   
3. This is something I would totally support. I know someone else suggested that pilots get tags based on how many missions they've spent in certain mechs and, based on those tags, get bonuses to hit/movement/etc when piloting them and (maybe) penalties when piloting other mechs that they don't have a ton of experience in. That would be totally cool and give much more flavor to pilots and pilot development.
   
   
4. I think there was some talk about size restrictions on hardpoints but I think that was scrapped if it was ever even tried. There is some logic to it, but overall it leads to a significant rabbit hole design-wise. For example, if a ballistic hardpoint was able to support an AC/20, why wouldn't you be able to put in AC/10 and add armor/whatever to fill the gaps? Sure, it makes some sense that you can't shoehorn an AC/20 into a hardpoint intended for an AC/2, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. At which point you start having to figure out what characteristic is going to be the gating factor for the hardpoints...is it tonnage (i.e. 14 tons of ballistic weapons vs 1 ballistic hardpoint)? is it critical slots (5 slots of ballistic weapons vs 1 ballistic hardpoint)? or is it some other non-obvious 'size' characteristic (damage, heat, lore, something else)?

On the whole, I like #3 and think it's something worthwhile to add more flavor to the game.

The addition of per-chassis permanent quirks (positive or negative) will (guaranteed) result is balance issues and a great deal of negative emotion.

Temporary randomized quirks through the use of events and tags would be something to discuss and I would get behind something like that. ("hey, we assembled this and for some reason, we don't know why, the actuators are just firing better and you should be able to move faster / farther in it" TAG_20%SPRINT added ... followed by some repairs later, "hey, you know how the actuators were working better before? well, they're just not working the same after you brought the thing back from that last mission." TAG_20%SPRINT removed). Just like we can randomly get a + weapon (or lose a weapon entirely) from a particular event, having events to add / remove tags to mechs would be an interesting addition.

Other than that, you end up in an enormous quagmire of ridiculously stinky proportions.

 

[Mechabattler]

I definitely like the idea of negative and positive quirks for salvaged mechs. It would make things more interesting when replaying the game. I would also suggest the chances of positive and negative should be effected by tech rating.

I also like you third idea. It would make the mechwarriors more distinct. And it makes more sense that mechwarriors would have a preference. They could take the idea further if mechwarriors came with their own mechs. That can't be modified or sold and only they can use. It makes sense that there would be a few freelancers out there with their ancestral mech.

 

[Ganimal]

I: It's possible to add flavor to mech chassis or to individual mechs.

I agree to an extent with this point. I think hardpoint limitations are a good way to implement mech variance without being too limiting to the player. One can go as far as make JJ slots variant specific as well (e.g. Katapult K-2 does not have JJ's, vs all other Catapults). However, I do not like the RNG based salvage quirks. I think instead, the player should be able to alter hard points / hard set stats (e.g. engine) on planets with Manufacturing tag. It will be extremely expensive, and time consuming, and your mech is out of action. So this kind of plays into lore, that one does not simply put anything they want on a mech, but although possible, will require proper time, $$ and equipment. This will allow a player some flexibility for customization, but at the cost of time and $$. Example, do you really want to give up that centurion for "3 months" after Axylus mission to turn it into an energy boat? Also, this will also tie into point #2 below.

II: Adding more quirks to specific mech designs.

Mech based quirks I think would be a wonderful addition. Your example of +1 to hit for energy on Griffins, or +X to melee (Shadowhawks already enjoy an increased base melee vs other 55T mechs in vanilla), etc. This would serve to further differentiate each chassis, even variant. This will then tie in nicely to point #1, should you want to completely alter the mech, you would have to be aware of it's design quirks.

If we combined the above 2 points, then it would give each variant something unique, but also allow players more freedom vs strict set hard points, but with a significant cost in $ and time, so you only get to do that with a few select mechs you really want to min max on.

III: Having individual mechwarriors have favorite and disfavored mechs so that they would get a bonus/penalty when piloting that design.

I like this point, but instead of chassis only (aka, Pilot quirk for Jenners), it should be tied into certain mech stats / class to give some flexibility. Example:

• Expert Scout: increase to visual and sensor ranges when piloting light / medium class battlemechs with movement speed of X or higher
• Angel of death: Like in the beta, -X to self DFA, or +X jumpjet range, etc.
• Siege expert: +X in something for assault class mechs, etc.

EDIT on point# 3: Heck you can even design a separate pilot quirk around mech classes, depending on how much that pilot has dropped in certain mechs. They can maybe start with some, or none, and you, the commander can dictate their experience gain:

• lights: gain certain pilot quirks like extra evasion, scout bonuses etc.
• JJ: use the above -X self DFA damage as one part of the tree, or anything else to do with being in jump capable mechs for long periods of time
• Assault class: spend long time driving fatties, you get some quirks to go along with that, etc.

 

[Nick_S]

This might be a route worth exploring but again if it includes RNG then there will be save scumming.

Very good point which I wasn't thinking about. I'm convinced by that..

I think there was some talk about size restrictions on hardpoints but I think that was scrapped if it was ever even tried. There is some logic to it, but overall it leads to a significant rabbit hole design-wise. For example, if a ballistic hardpoint was able to support an AC/20, why wouldn't you be able to put in AC/10 and add armor/whatever to fill the gaps? Sure, it makes some sense that you can't shoehorn an AC/20 into a hardpoint intended for an AC/2, but the reverse isn't necessarily true. At which point you start having to figure out what characteristic is going to be the gating factor for the hardpoints...is it tonnage (i.e. 14 tons of ballistic weapons vs 1 ballistic hardpoint)? is it critical slots (5 slots of ballistic weapons vs 1 ballistic hardpoint)? or is it some other non-obvious 'size' characteristic (damage, heat, lore, something else)?

For what it's worth, I was thinking that you could still install, say, an AC-20 on a Shadowhawk (or some other mech with a "long-range" ballistic hardpoint), you just wouldn't be able to install a +-variant and take advantage of the superior performance. The reasons would, inevitably, be hand-wavey, but the idea is that getting optimal performance from the name-brand components isn't strictly plug-and-play, it requires some additional tuning of the targeting mechanism, etc, and that additional tweaking is only possible on a chassis which was already built with that style of weapon in mind (in that option, for example, unlike option c, you could put a LRM-15++ on a shadowhawk, but you couldn't put a SRM-6++ and get the benfits).

 

[Mechabattler]

And if people don't like the idea of permanent negative quirks. You could have the option to remove the quirk, but it of course takes time and money. Adding to the work queue of your techs.

 

[Ganimal]

I agree with HBS' decision to not have certain negative quirks, as save scumming will be a thing. But again, this is just my opinion. Only exception in RNG in combat, and player choice induced events. I rather have the more freedom to do things, at cost of $$ and time. Then it comes down to a strategic decision. Spend that time / money and not have cool mech, or use it right away and wait until later to min max it, etc.

 

[mjbroekman]

For what it's worth, I was thinking that you could still install, say, an AC-20 on a Shadowhawk (or some other mech with a "long-range" ballistic hardpoint), you just wouldn't be able to install a +-variant and take advantage of the superior performance. The reasons would, inevitably, be hand-wavey, but the idea is that getting optimal performance from the name-brand components isn't strictly plug-and-play, it requires some additional tuning of the targeting mechanism, etc, and that additional tweaking is only possible on a chassis which was already built with that style of weapon in mind (in that option, for example, unlike option c, you could put a LRM-15++ on a shadowhawk, but you couldn't put a SRM-6++ and get the benfits).

In that situation, I'm tempted to say that you wouldn't limit it by + but rather, by manufacturer. So, maybe certain chassis get superior performance from the Kali Yama-brand autocannons compared to other autocannons of the same caliber. It's something worth thinking about certainly and would make it a little less arbitrary depending on what kinds of bonuses are conferred. Maybe the Dragon gets better heat dissipation (-2 heat gen) or better recoil management (reduce refire penalty by 1) with the Kali Yama autocannons because the venting in the autocannon lines up better with the chassis vents and requires less ducting than other autocannons. I dunno. It would certainly add more individualism to each chassis, but it would have to be implemented very carefully.

 

[AlexMercer78]

I am one of those people who read forum stuff a lot but never get into the talk, but this thread lighted on my mind and I want to leave my 2 cents. I like the mech quirks and the mechwarriors favorites tags brainstorming that the op did and I really want something like this in the game at some point. Hovewer I am a huge fan of customization too and I can understand fears of people that want to choose almost everything in their game and hate RNG stuff. So here it is my idea:

implement everything and make it all optional,
not only the mechanics but every single aspect of it.

At the start of the game choose what mechanic you want to have access to and be able to tweak all aspects of it. Want the quirks but hate the negatives one? Uncheck the negative quirk box, or check the removable in exchange of time and money, be able to tweak how costly that remove will be etc,etc. Tweak and choose range of probability for good best bad and worst stuff. Choose if a mech or a mechwarrior could gain more than one bad or good quirk or tag and be able to choose if you want to implement an affinity mechanic beetwen the two, if I keep doing the same stuff I get better at it, whenever is piloting some class of mechs or firing some class of weapons (something like the ability system in Skyrim).

I am a huge fan of the games that let the player configure almost everything when they start and the stuff that HBS made for the 1.1 update is a step in the right direction in my opinion for these type of games.
I know that a lot of players want to just play the game the way it is and a big wall of checkboxes and sliders that let you custom many aspects of it may be intimidating, but I think that all the players that now keep play the game and will keep playing in the future are the core base one and want to feel every new start special and different from the previous ones.
Just my too long 2 cents maybe but let the debate continue.

 

[scJazz]

@Nick_S , thanks for starting this idea up again. There is a lot of good stuff presented. Hat tip @Ganimal and @mjbroekman. Thanks for checking in @AlexMercer78 !

I give you the 55 ton mechs as an example of what I mean about using TT Quirks...
Kintaro KTO-18
Griffin GRF-1N and GRF-1S
Shadow Hawk SHD-2H and SHD-2D
Wolverine WVR-6R and WVR-6K

The Griffin, Kintaro, and Wolverine get a bonus to Melee +15 (???)
The Shadow Hawk gets a +30 (???) to Melee

Aside from Hardpoints... this means that Shadow Hawk > KTO, GRF, WVR. The KTO, GRF, and the WVR-6K can not even mount Ballistic weapons at all. Yes, there are useful designs for each of these 55 ton Mechs. However, the Shadow Hawk can do everything better more or less while getting the Melee bonus.

Let us add in the TT Quirks just to increase differentiation...
The Griffin is a Sniper. In TT with the Long Range Quirk it gets a +1 TH for firing at Long Range (I know the whole mid range thing got deleted in BATTLETECH) and perhaps this should be restricted to weapons with a TT range of 15+.
The Wolverine gets a long or short list of Quirks, depending on the source, in TT. The list could easily include things that can not be done in BATTLETECH like being able to, Punch a target behind you with one Arm. And/Or... inclusive Comms
The Shadow Hawk gets a bonus to Melee and some other Quirks which do not translate well from TT to BATTLETECH.
The Kintaro gets... dunno I was just doing all of this off the top of my head.

The point is... TT Quirks have not been explored in a way that is even adequate in BATTLETECH.

NOTE: I only mentioned the 55 ton mechs that we have. There are more TT Quirks and more options that I haven't even touched upon so that this post wouldn't become some multi-page wall of text.

 

[mjbroekman]

@scJazz which ruleset are those quirks from? Just wondering because I've never seen TT quirks like that. I may have left the TT scene before they came along though.

 

[Prussian Havoc]

If folks want to save and reload, I say why shouldn’t they? There is nothing wrong with the practice or the gamers who prefer to Single-Player game this way.

Let HBS develop the best game possible without diluting or eliminating known BattleTech Maluses.

Never implementing known BattleTech BattleMech Maluses - poor Ankle Joints, Weapon Feed Problems, etc just because a gamer might might feel poorly about it and reload is to me a disservice to the game itself.

BATTLETECH is a BattleTech game, I would LOVE to see BattleTech BattleMech Maluses in BATTLETECH.


Now when it comes to environmentally-produced Temporary (pending something along the lines of “Deep Maintenance” time aboard the ARGO) or Permanent Maluses? Yes, there is a very good case for not including this in Baseline BATTLETECH. But as a feature of Advanced BATTLETECH or an addition to the Granular Difficulty Settings~ yes, I would very much like to see it. : )

 

[scJazz]

If folks want to save and reload, I say why shouldn’t they? There is nothing wrong with the practice or the gamers who prefer to Single-Player game this way.

Let HBS develop the best game possible without diluting or eliminating known BattleTech Maluses.

Never implementing known BattleTech BattleMech Maluses - poor Ankle Joints, Weapon Feed Problems, etc just because a gamer might might feel poorly about it and reload is to me a disservice to the game itself.

BATTLETECH is a BattleTech game, I would LOVE to see BattleTech BattleMech Maluses in BATTLETECH.


Now when it comes to environmentally-produced Temporary (pending something along the lines of “Deep Maintenance” time aboard the ARGO) or Permanent Maluses? Yes, there is a very good case for not including this in Baseline BATTLETECH. But as a feature of Advanced BATTLETECH or an addition to the Granular Difficulty Settings~ yes, I would very much like to see it. : )

While I agree with you (Do what you want to do)... and have said as much in previous posts... it is a very bad Game Design choice to allow save and reload to change the base elements of a Unit such that an RNG Malus can become an RNG Bonus.