Author Topic: Unit differences in QS  (Read 2882 times)

Itinerant Hobbyist

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Unit differences in QS
« on: 14 April 2012, 19:43:10 »
I'm new to the Bt world an am choosing to go with QS for quickness of play. Obviously things are abstracted but do you feel there's enough differentiation in the stats of the various units that you notice a difference in how they play?

Xenon

  • Guest
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #1 on: 14 April 2012, 23:56:19 »
a few things.

first, range brackets are simplified, which really changes how some mechs work with range. this can be a serious change in tectical range for those mechs with large lasers, which are only 'medium' range in QS.

second, the simplified armor/structure rules make head shots impossible. a lucky ac/20 wont decapitate you, its damage value will hit your entire armor (with a damage bonus if they shoot your rear armor). the cost of faster combat is that we lose a lot of detail (thats why its faster).

third, heat and how it works has changed in a major way. unless your mech has the overheat quality, you should never overheat and there is no heat advantage to standing in water.

overall, this results in a slight change of tactics for your mechs. after a couple of battles it makes more sense, but the first fight with the QS rules can have a lot of false assumptions for a veteran mechwarrior.

sheeple

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
    • Field Manual: Kiiminki
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #2 on: 15 April 2012, 01:24:32 »
There is enough difference between units to notice difference in play. I have played with 'mech only so far, but as far as I can guess, vehicles and such should work fine too.

Faster gameplay also means that you can play more turns in the same amount of time compared to total warfare. When we tried quick strike, there was a lot more flanking and manoeuvring than in our regular games.

whistler

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 678
  • we out-maneuver most fortifications
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #3 on: 15 April 2012, 02:35:38 »
for years i've been one of the most ardent defenders of Classic Battletech gameplay... but recently i've really, really gotten into Quick-Strike.  it has a couple quirks, but overall i think it's an excellent system and a great tool for attracting new players.  here are the major differences i've noticed (i've played at least a half-dozen QS games and CBT for more than a decade).

  • QuickStrike can be a more strategic game than Battletech.  i want to punch myself for saying it, but it's true.  staying on the move is easier thanks to the lack of mods on the shooter's movement, and since there is no 'bonus' for standing still things are far less likely to come down to a heavy forest turret match.  while maneuvering and unit cohesion is important in CBT, it's even more important in QS.
  • speed is life.  the fact that units always have the same base TMM, regardless of how they've moved, makes lighter units much more viable.  in fact, a 7j mech like the Stealth is more likely to survive a battle then a plodding Atlas.  the notion of Medium mechs (especially 5/8/5 movers like the Big Three) being the backbone of the House armies suddenly makes sense (at a tactical level).
  • obviously, QuickStrike is a lot faster.  this isn't only because of the rules, but the fact that ranges have been standardized and (base) TMMs are fixed.  that means fewer numbers for players to keep track of.  one to-hit roll per mech, no hit charts, one damage value, no separate armor locations... it really takes alot of the strain off the players, especially the newer ones.  they'll be more likely to remember the fun of blowing up big stompies rather than doing math, and that's important.
  • conversion can be a rough process.  in fact, almost all the issues i have with QS stem from how their Battletech stats have been converted.  heat, missiles, autocannons... sometimes they'll leave you scratching your head.  case in point: the Blackwatch.  i hate the Blackwatchhate it.  it's a conflagration of my three least-favorite weapons system, and it's lackluster all-around.  however, when you convert it over to QS it transforms into a total beast.  since damage is based on... well, raw damage potential, mechs that are poorly designed in CBT terms have a chance to live up to their full potential.  suddenly the MRM 40 isn't crippled by that +1 to-hit mod, the Light Gauss gets rounded up to a 10-point strike, and the UAC/10's damage is now 15 points at all times.  overall, abstraction levels the playing field and really does wonders for some machines.
  • thanks to QS stats, i've found myself using machines i've never touched in CBT.  personally, i love playing new machines... variety is the spice of life, after all.
  • if you play QS with Clan units, its easy to see why the invasion was so successful.  Clan weapons are brutal, but their unit's faster overall speeds are what make them truly deadly.  the Timberwolf A dishes out seven points of damage a hit at medium range, eight if you overheat.  that's enough to take out an Enforcer III in one shot, without the overheat.  oh, and it has a +3 TMM.  fights between Clan mechs can be pretty short, which makes Zell make perfect sence... even if half the mechs missed, a star of Clanners can kill just about anything in one shot.

personally, i really enjoy QuickStrike.  i will certainly be using it to teach new players, as well as for my own scenarios that involve more than a couple lances of mechs.  i do need to try incorporating vehicles and infantry, though.
« Last Edit: 15 April 2012, 02:39:13 by whistler »
Creater of 'Name That Mech'.  glad the game is still going strong!

Quote from: 3rdCrucisLancers
Whistler is not only a noted winner, he's a man's man, a generous philanthropist, a noted big game hunter, and a lover and a dancer. If he had a mustache it would be impeccably waxed. When he marches off to war, everyone else stays home.

Itinerant Hobbyist

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #4 on: 15 April 2012, 08:08:50 »
Great answers - thanks for these - I was curious sheepie what you meant by:  "unit cohesion is important in CBT, it's even more important in QS."

In WWII games I play I get the concept of unit cohesion because they model command and control. But I don't see this modeled in what I've read in the QS rules so far.

Ratboy

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 358
    • Time Warp Comics & Games
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #5 on: 15 April 2012, 12:55:25 »
Great answers - thanks for these - I was curious sheepie what you meant by:  "unit cohesion is important in CBT, it's even more important in QS."

In WWII games I play I get the concept of unit cohesion because they model command and control. But I don't see this modeled in what I've read in the QS rules so far.


It's a game play / strategy aspect. Sending elements out on their own they are going to be more likely to get destroyed quicker than keeping elements together in units for supporting fire.
Jim Williamson - Agent #206
NJ, USA

Time Warp Comics & Games

My Battletech Photo Gallery

George_Labour

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 284
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #6 on: 15 April 2012, 21:27:19 »
@Xenon: There is a heat advantage to being in water as it reduces your heat total by 1 in the end phase. Also level 1 water gives you the partial cover advantage.

There are also several ways to overheat mechs with no OV value through the use of the HT special ability. Needless to say this has made flamer armed Longinus suits, and Plasma Cannon toting grendels primary targets in more than a few games I've played. It gets even more fun when special ammo is permitted and you can begin using inferno rounds for mechs with the SRM ability.

But it's worth keeping in mind that you can only add 2 points of heat per turn through the use of weapons fire, and that a unit can never have more than 4 heat no matter how much it builds up in one turn.

Fallen_Raven

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3417
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #7 on: 15 April 2012, 21:35:59 »

It's a game play / strategy aspect. Sending elements out on their own they are going to be more likely to get destroyed quicker than keeping elements together in units for supporting fire.

With the range brackets being what they are, a fast (usually light) 'mech getting ahead of the pack can get creamed by the "token" LRMs on heavies before they ever get into range. But if you keep a group faily close together, your opponent has to decide between killing a scout that can cause trouble later or stoping a brawler from getting into range now. Not to mention the value of being able to mass your own fire.
Subtlety is for those who lack a bigger gun.

The Battletech Forums: The best friends you'll ever fire high-powered weaponry at.-JadeHellbringer


whistler

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 678
  • we out-maneuver most fortifications
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #8 on: 17 April 2012, 01:00:12 »

It's a game play / strategy aspect. Sending elements out on their own they are going to be more likely to get destroyed quicker than keeping elements together in units for supporting fire.

pretty much.  the nature of how damage is dealt and tracked really changes things quite a bit.  in CBT a mech can survive an attack two ways (besides their opponent not having enough weapons), both of which depend on luck.  your enemy may simply miss... sometimes dice just go cold, and only one medium laser out of six hit despite favorable numbers.  or, even if all six lasers hit, the damage could be spread over five or six locations.  it may have been 30 points of damage, but it's nowhere near as devastating as 30 points to a single location.  in QuickStrike, if you hit you hit with your entire arsenal.  i consider it more realistic... you either get a weapons lock or you don't.  there is 'realistically' no reason for a laser to miss if the one mounted right beside it hit.  well, technically a laser should never miss, but that's a whole 'nother thread...  anyway, not only do you apply your full damage potential with every hit, that big number is deducted from a single armor pool.  now you can only call on luck during your opponent's to-hit roll rather than each weapon and it's hit location.

the net result, and the point i am trying to make, is that mechs go down more quickly in QS.  it can still take mechs a while to wittle eachother down one-on-one, but if a lance focuses it's attention on a single target they can put it down in one or two turns.  that means that any mech that breaks from the pack is making itself a target.  while an Atlas could stand up to a medium lance in CBT for several turns, it can theoretically get smoked by a lance of Wolverine-6Ks at medium range in two turns.  when you stay together you keep all your firepower together, so your opponent has to be wary of the damage the entire lance can dish out and you can take out the enemy faster.  as Fallen Raven mentioned, it also makes it more difficult to focus on a single target when you present him four different TMMs to consider.  oh, and running in a pack also softens the blow of loosing initiative. 
« Last Edit: 17 April 2012, 01:03:57 by whistler »
Creater of 'Name That Mech'.  glad the game is still going strong!

Quote from: 3rdCrucisLancers
Whistler is not only a noted winner, he's a man's man, a generous philanthropist, a noted big game hunter, and a lover and a dancer. If he had a mustache it would be impeccably waxed. When he marches off to war, everyone else stays home.

Savage Coyote

  • CamoSpecs
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
  • 저는 미술 선생님 입니다.
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #9 on: 17 April 2012, 08:45:18 »
Excellent review whistler and it mirror's my thoughts exactly.  QS is a teamwork kind of thing and really really highlights that.  It's rare that a single element can hop around and survive for multiple turns when a team focuses on it.  Only the fast (and lucky) can manage.

The other interesting element is that, in my opinion, SFE's really, really amplify the 'mechs ability to hang around and blow stuff up.  I've never felt all that weak by using XLE in Total Warfare, but you really do feel the weakness in QS, and a lot of the times that XL doesn't really improve your damage curve and the extra point or two of armor you pick up isn't that big of a deal when a lance goes off on you.

whistler

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 678
  • we out-maneuver most fortifications
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #10 on: 17 April 2012, 15:53:40 »
thanks :)  you need to actually make it down one sunday so we can actually partake in a QuickStrike game O0  that, and i still really, really want to see those 6th Donegal Guards... not to mention the Genyosha mechs that were just posted on Camospecs.

i'm with you on the internal structure.  the AS7-D really lives up to it's reputation in QS... the thing is a walking fortress.  even if you manage to breach those ten points of armor you still have another nine to deal with before the thing goes down.  the thing is just a mountain of pain waiting to grind you down.  still, if an XL engine gives me enough of a speed boost to bump my TMM i'll take the loss of IS.

as Savage Coyote mentioned, and i pointed out earlier, teamwork and strategy is paramount in QS... that's part of why i enjoy it so much.  lucky for me my default 'dash-and-bash' tactics translate to QS nicely.  a game we played a few weeks ago was a good example... we were playing a scenario Weirdo prepared for us, a breakthrough battle from Operation Stiletto (IIRC).  my team's force had to chase down and then fight our way through a company of defenders.  they were given a two-turn head start, and were also retreating towards a box canyon map.  we traded some shots for the first few turns, dealing some equivalent damage, but things looked like they were about to get nasty when the enemy dropped back into the canyon to settle in for a delaying action... if they could keep us from getting off the map for another five turns they'd win.  i was quite lucky... not only did i get to run the cavalry lance, my teammates were willing to yield the move order to me.  our two heavy lances anchored our advance while i took mine up the right flank.  some clever maneuvering let me get up on top of the level 8 canyon walls (i used a level 2 hill as a base for the jump) and around their bottleneck.  after two turns the enemy company fell apart, with my team killing off a lance of heavy and medium machines in the last turn.

if i hadn't gotten those mechs around the entrance to the canyon we wouldn't have gotten through.  we won not because of superior firepower (the flankers, a Spider and Wraith, could only muster 2 or 3 points of damage each), but because we forced the enemy mechs to split their fire and move to secure their flank.  suddenly the forces at the bottleneck were cut by 50%, which meant our heavies had enough armor to plow through the blockade.  i mentioned a Stealth earlier... an enemy Stealth bounding around in our backfield was our biggest headache, and we never managed to take him down.  in the end the firepower of our heavy mechs won the fight, but mobility won the battle.

it was really fun >:D
« Last Edit: 17 April 2012, 15:55:27 by whistler »
Creater of 'Name That Mech'.  glad the game is still going strong!

Quote from: 3rdCrucisLancers
Whistler is not only a noted winner, he's a man's man, a generous philanthropist, a noted big game hunter, and a lover and a dancer. If he had a mustache it would be impeccably waxed. When he marches off to war, everyone else stays home.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28829
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #11 on: 17 April 2012, 16:10:39 »
Glad you liked that game! I'll try to come up with more like it in the future.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
Battleforce Space is too bulky. I vote we start calling it BattleFace.

Atlas3060

  • Plodding along...
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8408
  • WHAP Wielder
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #12 on: 18 April 2012, 09:37:58 »
Also another benefit QS has that TW might not is C3.
EDIT: Meaning that TW games take too long with C3 compared to QS.
When you think about it QS is perfect for those games where you want electronic warfare but want to actually enjoy your day playing them.
The games are quick, you can have multiple units on the board, and that means you'll be able to play with C3 networks along with ECM.

I'm really glad to hear the rumors that QS is being looked at as another way to get in this Universe.
It really is another level of game play like Battleforce and whatever we'll get from IO.
The scale should be updated to incorporate it:
A warrior fighting another warrrior with a wrench for some heat sink from a dead 'Mech (AToW)
A squad of Battle Armor fighting a platoon of soldiers in the nearby radar center (AToW squad rules)
Two 'Mechs fighting their personal feud and for control of the station (Total Warfare)
A Lance of defenders protecting a small hamlet from invading forces (Quick Strike)
That same lance is part of two Companies protecting a whole state or region (Battleforce)
The Regiment defending two continents from the invaders (whatever we get from IO)
A collection of Regiments attacking a series of planetary systems encounter some resistance (whatever ISIF game IO gives us)

When put together with Randall's scaling this game is really a great expansion to Total Warfare and a fine bridge for those wanting to play Battleforce.
« Last Edit: 18 April 2012, 09:57:58 by Atlas3060 »
Kerensky: Ahh! After 300 years I'm free! It's time to conquer Terra!

Blake: Toyama-5, Kerensky's escaped. Recruit 5 House Teens with attitudes.

GO GO COMSTAR RANGERS! *Guitar Riff*
--Intercepted transmissions from children's programming on Terra 3057

truegrit

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 404
    • ChenTech
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #13 on: 18 April 2012, 09:47:35 »
I've had good experiences with QS too, but in the games I've been in, it's definitely changed people's approaches to light 'Mechs. With a constant TMM, light 'Mechs are much more willing to camp in cover. Who are you going to shoot at? That little guy with the +5 to-hit, or the big gun that's coming down the street?

dwinter

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 189
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #14 on: 18 April 2012, 13:54:27 »
I`ve managed to get a few die hard "never-play-sci-fi" gamers at our local club into playing QS and Battleforce more because of the strategy involved and the tactics needed then just a pair of big robots walking around a board as a few of them thought with TW.

For me, this is a big advantage and when I pointed out the addition of conventional forces, artillary and air support - all in one game that is easy to resolve well, fair to say, more of them are getting hooked.
Star Commander David Llywelyn, 9th Raven Striker Cluster "The Snow Hunters", 1st Nova, Alpha Galaxy

Lieutenant Robin Llywelyn, 2nd Mech Striker Company, 2nd Mech Regiment, 59th Jump Infantry Division, XXXVI Corp, Sixteenth Army

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28829
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #15 on: 18 April 2012, 13:58:55 »
I think my next QS games will introduce tanks. All the ones we've played here so far have been 'mech-only, and I think it's time to move into the combined-arms style that I love in normal play.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"The BT universe is startlingly deficient in both wisdom and hindsight." - Cray
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
Battleforce Space is too bulky. I vote we start calling it BattleFace.

Itinerant Hobbyist

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 87
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #16 on: 19 April 2012, 22:25:35 »
I just finished my first solo run through a complete game - see it here - http://itineranthobbyist.blogspot.com/2012/04/first-battletech-quickstrike-battle.html...
Anyway, with some of the various weapon add-ons and other stats there's definitely a difference in mechs. Now, to get a few more games under my belt to understand them better. :-\

Thanks all for the good exchange on this post.

Kiesel

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 151
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #17 on: 24 April 2012, 14:54:04 »
My personal take on the issue is that I really have 4 problems with quickstrike/battleforce, and they ALL have to do with the conversion process being borked...

The first problem is merely one of granularity.  I think that the damage should have been divided by 5 instead of 10, since that is the most common cluster size.  Similarly the armor and structure are divided by 15 instead of 30.   This shows more variation between the chassis weights and can show single tons of armor...  giving individuality to many otherwise identical stat lines.

Second.  The engine conversion for the clan XL and light engines gives an inaccurate representation of how much more durable they are compared to the XL.   ISXL engines in battleforce tend to reduce the structure by 3, while CXL and LFEs reduce it by 2.
The statistical analysis that have been done here on the forum however, seem to indicate that the ISXL is actually 3 times more fragile than the CXL and LSE, and would indicate that the structure reduction should be 1.

3rd. the HUGE medium range bracket completely erases the niche of the range 12-15 weapons...  The ERML for example becomes completely pointless, and is now actually WORSE than the standard ML, for the following reason.

The overheating mechanic has been oversimplified and penalizes mechs which carry a battery of short range secondary weapons.   The penetrator 4d for example is designed with 2 separate sets of heat neutral weapons... 
Converted separately this gives 16 damage from the ERLLs, or 39.6 damage from the MPLs.  For a statline of 2/2/2 and 4/4/0 with the option to overheat 2 at short and medium range.
However when combined, the statline becomes 3/3/1 OV2


My solution to the last 2 problems was to first split the 3 ranges 6 in increments of 2 hexes.
0-1 = point blank +0 = 0-3 range weapons
2-3 = short  range +2 = 4-9 range weapons
4-5 = medium range +3 = 10-15 range weapons
6-7 = long range +4 = 16-21 range weapons
8-9 = very long range + 5 = 22-27 range weapons
10+ = extreme range +6 = 28+ range weapons.

an example of the effect is that IS pulse lasers fit in the same brackets as their standard counterparts, while the ER versions extend one bracket.

Then to add a second line to the damage stats giving the overheat potential for each range.

Thus the Penetrator statline goes from:
+0 +2 +4
 3 / 3 / 1 OV2
-to-
+0 +2 +3 +4
 4 / 4 / 2 / 2
 2 / 2 / 0 / 0 OV
« Last Edit: 24 April 2012, 15:21:47 by Kiesel »

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6742
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #18 on: 24 April 2012, 23:46:15 »
I'm new to the Bt world an am choosing to go with QS for quickness of play. Obviously things are abstracted but do you feel there's enough differentiation in the stats of the various units that you notice a difference in how they play? 

While its opposite reactions, Whistler & Keisel both have good points about conversion figures.
It leads to good mechs being bad and bad mechs being good.
Mostly due to overheat & range bracket simplifications.

The key things to remember about QS.

1.  Damage is massive compared to Armor........ stuff dies FAST.   Also damage doesn't "spread" so armor you start with disappears FAST when the shooting starts.
2.  Speed is LIFE,  I can not stress this enough.  (See #3)
3.  Gunnery Skill & TMM is all the target # is most of the time.  Terrain is minimal & no weapons offer to hit bonuses/penalties in QS




for years i've been one of the most ardent defenders of Classic Battletech gameplay... but recently i've really, really gotten into Quick-Strike.  it has a couple quirks, but overall i think it's an excellent system and a great tool for attracting new players.  here are the major differences i've noticed (i've played at least a half-dozen QS games and CBT for more than a decade).

  • speed is life.  the fact that units always have the same base TMM, regardless of how they've moved, makes lighter units much more viable.  in fact, a 7j mech like the Stealth is more likely to survive a battle then a plodding Atlas.  the notion of Medium mechs (especially 5/8/5 movers like the Big Three) being the backbone of the House armies suddenly makes sense (at a tactical level).
  • obviously, QuickStrike is a lot faster.  this isn't only because of the rules, but the fact that ranges have been standardized and (base) TMMs are fixed.  that means fewer numbers for players to keep track of.  one to-hit roll per mech, no hit charts, one damage value, no separate armor locations... it really takes alot of the strain off the players, especially the newer ones.  they'll be more likely to remember the fun of blowing up big stompies rather than doing math, and that's important.
  • conversion can be a rough process.  in fact, almost all the issues i have with QS stem from how their Battletech stats have been converted.  heat, missiles, autocannons... sometimes they'll leave you scratching your head.  case in point: the Blackwatch.  i hate the Blackwatchhate it.  it's a conflagration of my three least-favorite weapons system, and it's lackluster all-around.  however, when you convert it over to QS it transforms into a total beast.  since damage is based on... well, raw damage potential, mechs that are poorly designed in CBT terms have a chance to live up to their full potential.  suddenly the MRM 40 isn't crippled by that +1 to-hit mod, the Light Gauss gets rounded up to a 10-point strike, and the UAC/10's damage is now 15 points at all times.  overall, abstraction levels the playing field and really does wonders for some machines.
[li]thanks to QS stats, i've found myself using machines i've never touched in CBT.  personally, i love playing new machines... variety is the spice of life, after all.
[/li][/list]

personally, i really enjoy QuickStrike.  i will certainly be using it to teach new players, as well as for my own scenarios that involve more than a couple lances of mechs.  i do need to try incorporating vehicles and infantry, though.


My personal take on the issue is that I really have 4 problems with quickstrike/battleforce, and they ALL have to do with the conversion process being borked...

The first problem is merely one of granularity.  I think that the damage should have been divided by 5 instead of 10, since that is the most common cluster size.  Similarly the armor and structure are divided by 15 instead of 30.   This shows more variation between the chassis weights and can show single tons of armor...  giving individuality to many otherwise identical stat lines.

The overheating mechanic has been oversimplified and penalizes mechs which carry a battery of short range secondary weapons.   

The penetrator 4d for example is designed with 2 separate sets of heat neutral weapons... 
Converted separately this gives 16 damage from the ERLLs, or 39.6 damage from the MPLs.  For a statline of 2/2/2 and 4/4/0 with the option to overheat 2 at short and medium range.
However when combined, the statline becomes 3/3/1 OV2 



My overall feel about QS comes down to a couple key ideas.

1.  Faster Turns = Perfect for Training New Folks &/or Pick up Games  =  GOOD
2.  Faster Destruction = Not good for Campaigns/Roleplaying aspects.  = OKAY (Still a need 4 CBT!)
3.  Miniatures "Scale"  =  FINALLY A USE FOR ALL THOSE MWDA UNITS !!!!  =  AWESOME  O0

So while I won't use it for a "Campaign" I do love the overall feel/idea of Quickstrike.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6988
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #19 on: 25 April 2012, 08:57:37 »
2.  Faster Destruction = Not good for Campaigns/Roleplaying aspects.  = OKAY (Still a need 4 CBT!)
So while I won't use it for a "Campaign" I do love the overall feel/idea of Quickstrike.

Depends on your campaign. It's not good for a "heroic" campaign where the player characters feel like they can go in to combat all the time and will have plenty of warning of their destruction.  But that's like saying A Time of War isn't good for campaigns because characters can die from a single shot.   Maybe the characters just need to be a little more worried about combat..
Master Unit List website - where to find units, what factions use them, what's their BV?
http://www.masterunitlist.info
3025-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6742
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #20 on: 25 April 2012, 14:20:08 »
Depends on your campaign. It's not good for a "heroic" campaign where the player characters feel like they can go in to combat all the time
My point was the 3x Damage to Armor ratio & no actual Salvage/Destroyed/Truly Destroyed rules means that as they stand the QS rules for combat make it deadly quickly & do not support continued operations.
Now you can create added rules for part of those but if your used to BT with the more complete rules set & added flexability of those rules, then QS comes up short.

Quote
and will have plenty of warning of their destruction.
See my note below about Gauss.
But there is more to it than that.
QS makes it very easy to see exactly how much firepower is needed to kill something & devote exactly that much to it.
The way damage locations work in CBT units last either a lot longer (usually) or much shorter (rarely), depending on spread v/s stacking.

Quote
But that's like saying A Time of War isn't good for campaigns because characters can die from a single shot.
There isn't much warning for a Gauss to the head.

Quote
Maybe the characters just need to be a little more worried about combat..
Meh, any combat in QS is fatal fast & there isn't a lot of ways to disengage once forces meet due to the way AMM & ranges work.
« Last Edit: 23 May 2012, 13:18:43 by Hellraiser »
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Cherno

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 49
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #21 on: 28 April 2012, 14:22:34 »
My personal take on the issue is that I really have 4 problems with quickstrike/battleforce, and they ALL have to do with the conversion process being borked...

The first problem is merely one of granularity.  I think that the damage should have been divided by 5 instead of 10, since that is the most common cluster size.  Similarly the armor and structure are divided by 15 instead of 30.   This shows more variation between the chassis weights and can show single tons of armor...  giving individuality to many otherwise identical stat lines.

Agreed 100%. I think QS should be for company-level engagements max, and for this a lower damage and armor divider wouldn't add too much time for a single match. And keeping the damage and armor dividers the same would'nt make it so deadly that no mech has any chance of surviving a round if it's in pristine condition before.

Maybe a project for a dedicated fan :)

Second.  The engine conversion for the clan XL and light engines gives an inaccurate representation of how much more durable they are compared to the XL.   ISXL engines in battleforce tend to reduce the structure by 3, while CXL and LFEs reduce it by 2.
The statistical analysis that have been done here on the forum however, seem to indicate that the ISXL is actually 3 times more fragile than the CXL and LSE, and would indicate that the structure reduction should be 1.

Never thought about that. Might be correct.

3rd. the HUGE medium range bracket completely erases the niche of the range 12-15 weapons...  The ERML for example becomes completely pointless, and is now actually WORSE than the standard ML, for the following reason.

Absolutely, the short and long range brackets are rarely, if ever, used. The problem here is that BT units have not one or two attack types as in most TT games but are bristling with different weapons which all have to be combined into those brackets, and listing attacks and ranges for every weapon by type would be a nightmare for mechs like a Warhammer, so I don't know how this could be solved without messing it up again.

The overheating mechanic has been oversimplified and penalizes mechs which carry a battery of short range secondary weapons.   [...]

I kinda like the idea behind the overheating mechanic, it is a nice system to represent the overly detailed heat scale in normal BT. Again, not sure how this could be made better.

Nebfer

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1319
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #22 on: 17 May 2012, 14:18:05 »
Well the one time I tried QS the every one was trying to get backshots on each other at one point we had a line of mechs...

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6742
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #23 on: 23 May 2012, 13:18:15 »
Well the one time I tried QS the every one was trying to get backshots on each other at one point we had a line of mechs...

/shouts........EVERYBODY DO THE CONGA !!
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Legion

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 305
  • Je te provoque en duel, Freebirth!
Re: Unit differences in QS
« Reply #24 on: 17 June 2012, 21:53:22 »
/shouts........EVERYBODY DO THE CONGA !!

Haha, yes this has happened for me in CBT, it feels so wrong tactically, but it's really funny to see.