Think about it this way: the cluster hit table already accounts for the missiles themselves scattering. That's the reason why the guided missiles also have to roll on it.
Yes, and to represent a wider spread/pattern, you can give a penalty on the cluster hits table and I think it would be perfectly in tune with the lore.
Just like the Artemis system improves your probability of hitting with more missiles per volley due to better guidance, the unguided nature of the MRM could be represented as a penalty on that table rather than the penalty on hitting at all.
I mean, you could allow both versions and have the player make a choice before the game, basically taking the to-hit penalty with a tight pattern or the penalty on missile hits table with a wide pattern.
A bit like the choice between slug and clusters in LB-X ACs (only in this case, you need to decide before the game and you can't switch during gameplay).
Both make sense to me, but I think the to-hit penalty is way too harsh, given how crap to-hit-numbers can be in this game and LB-X ACs even receive a bonus on to-hit when firing cluster ammo due to,
drumroll, firing clusters in a cone.
I really like MRMs, but I never use them, cause that penalty is just way too frustrating for me.
And as I said, most missiles in BT seem to be able to be ripple-fired, which makes it easier to walk them into the target.
Frankly, that seems like an argument in favor of my point.
The pilot aims for a mech, leads his aim to account for distance and speed of the target, fires the volley.
The first couple missiles are going to miss, so the pilot changes direction of his aim. Depending on how well he does this (and keeps the crosshair on the right spot while firing), more of his volley hits the target.
Walking the fire onto the target by definition means you miss with a few shots until you correct your aim and then hit with the rest of the volley. Ie: probability of successful attack is higher, but you will inevtiably miss with a few missiles (ie: normal to-hit and a penalty on missile hits).
But I think the idea behind MRMs is that they are fired all at once, that's at least what I interpret the -1 to represent. You hit the button, a crapton of missiles go downrange and leave their tubes so quickly, there is no time to really correct your aim.
Besides, using your logic LBXs should also have a -X penalty on the cluster hits table. They're also unguided projectiles, the difference is that they fly faster than MRMs or rockets.
The thing is: I apply that logic to LB-X ACs and think they could be treated differently. I am fine with how they work in the game, since it's way more convenient than what I have in mind and games must be abstracted down in some ways to keep them playable, but that doesn't mean that I don't think it might be neat to do things differently.
Specifically, with LB-X ACs firing cluster ammo, I think it might be interesting to treat them like this:
Rangewise, they have 0/+1/+2 (instead of -1/+1/+3) to represent that the clusters are spread out in a cone that gets wider. It means at the shortest range (when the projectiles are still flying in a tight group), you have no difference to a slug when it comes to aiming, the further out you go, the larger the effect of the spread (and thus how easy it is to hit a target with at least some clusters).
In terms of the cluster hits table, I'd opt for a bonus on short range, nothing in medium range and a penalty on long ranges. Ie: On short range, the likelihood of hitting with a larger part of the clusters is higher due to spread being at a minimum, on long range, spread is largest, so more clusters miss. How high the bonus/penalty actually are would need some balancing though.
Another change would be how damage is treated:
On short range, you apply it in 5-point clusters (like LRM fire), cause the spread is becoming noticable.
On medium and long range, you apply it in 1-point clusters, due to the wider spread.
Of course, this increases the complexity of an already complex system, but it would be a good representation of clusters being fired in a cone.
The biggest drawback is that LB-X ACs are meant as crit-seeker weapons, which would be diminished on short ranges. The biggest change in what niche they fill is the different to-hit modifiers I suggested, since it would make LB-X ACs more tempting to use for long-range fire.
I'm aware this is some German over-engineering, so I don't mind using the regular rules for LB-X ACs and I am not really opting to change anything about them. If the rules were the way I just described, I think I'd like them a tiny bit more, but it's really not a big deal.
In conclusion, I want to mention that there's a saying here in Germany when it comes to Battletech.
Whenever someone points out that the rules or lore in BT aren't very logical, the customary answer is to say:
"Well, after all, it's called Battletech and not Logitech".
I love how the Dracs were the ones to go all-in on C3. It makes perfect sense, too. "Fuck it, we'll always have someone trying to melee the enemy, might as well make everybody else benefit from it."
Yeah, it's kinda awesome in that regard. It's also a rather good counter against anyone trying to get close and personal with short range weapons like an AC/20 or medium pulse lasers.
Sure, you can get up in my grill and try to kill me via disco death light show, but any lancemate on the board with LOS will be able to shower you with their affection in return... unless you carry an ECM, in which case I might be hosed.
On a sidenote, I put together a vehicle lance with a C3 system. It's a Partisan (Air Defense version), a Manteuffel Prime, a Manticore (C3M) and a LRM Carrier (updated '55 Version with a C3 slave).
I have not yet fielded them, though, so no idea if this works out or not. I just liked the idea of having a vehicle fire support lance that brings two MBTs, some air defense and some artillery to the table.