Author Topic: Making Alpha Strike a point system-Alpha Value, now with Protomech AV!  (Read 20568 times)

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Quote
CURRENT FORMULA
Divided numbers are always rounded up. Situational Special Abilities are NOT added into the base value; they are only added to the Alpha Value if the relevant special rules and/or units are used; i.e. a Naginata would add +1 for each 'Mech linked into its C3 network including itself, a Sylph would add +1 if it used its BOMB, +1 for each special ammo type carried, etcetera.

When calculating Protomech AV, calculate each one separately based on its individual values; for example, a single Siren-3 would be 16 (5*2+1+2+2+1) and a Point would be AV 78.

Alpha Value = Movement+Offense+Defense+Special

Movement = 2*TMM

Defense = (2*Armor+Structure)

Offense = ([Sz if BM or IM]+Short+[Medium*2]+Long+Overheat/2)

Special = (1*# of AECM, AMS, AM, ARM, BH, CNARC, ECM, INARC, MEL, MAS, OVL, PRB, RCN, SNARC, TSM, TUR) + IF Value + HT Value + (2* ARTL damage) + (2 if STL) + (1 if IT)

Situational Special

+1 AV for each unit linked into a unit's C3M computer, including itself.

+1 AV to the OpFor total for each unit linked into a C3i network.

+2 AV for each unit linked into a unit's C3MBS computer.

+2 AV to the OpFor total for each unit linked into a C3iBS network.

+1 AV if carrying any alternate munitions.

+1 AV per BOMB point if using BOMB.

Following numbers are now current.

Quote from: Current Alpha Value for stress testing Formula
Introductory Boxed Set - Succession Wars Era
COM-2D Commando - 17
SDR-5V Spider - 19
JR7-D Jenner - 21
PNT-9R Panther - 21
ASN-21 Assassin - 21
CDA-2A Cicada - 19
CLNT-2-3T Clint - 22
HER-2S Hermes II - 22
WHT-1 Whitworth - 27
VND-1R Vindicator - 28
ENF-4R Enforcer - 27
HBK-4G Hunchback - 28
TBT-5N Trebuchet - 26
DV-6M Dervish - 31
DRG-1N Dragon - 31
QKD-4D Quickdraw - 32
CPLT-C1 Catapult - 34
JM6-S JagerMech - 27
GHR-5H Grasshopper - 39
AWS-8Q Awesome - 40
ZEU-6S Zeus - 36
CP-10-Z Cyclops - 36
BNC-3E Banshee - 38
AS7-D Atlas - 52

Third Edition Boxed Set - Succession Wars Era
LCT-1V Locust: 16
STG-3R Stinger: 16
WSP-1A Wasp: 16
PXH-1 Phoenix Hawk: 26
GRF-1N Griffin: 31
SHD-2H Shadow Hawk: 30
WVR-6R Wolverine: 30
RFL-3N Rifleman: 27
CRD-3R Crusader: 32
CRD-3L Crusader: 36
TDR-5S Thunderbolt: 36
TDR-5SE Thunderbolt: 37
ARC-2R Archer: 39
WHM-6R Warhammer: 33
MAD-3R Marauder: 35
BLR-1G Battlemaster: 40

Vehicles:
Savannah Master: 14
Scorpion: 12
Maxim: 25
Pegasus: 20
Shrek PPC Carrier: 26

Infantry/Battle Armor
Jump Laser Infantry Platoon: 14
Foot Laser Infantry Platoon: 10
Elemental (AP Gauss): 19
Inner Sphere Standard BA (SRM): 15

Clan Omnimech Prime versions:
Fire Moth: 21
Mist Lynx: 22
Kit Fox: 24
Adder: 29
Viper: 30
Ice Ferret: 31
Nova: 38
Stormcrow: 38
Mad Dog: 39
Hellbringer: 37
Summoner: 41
Timber Wolf: 49
Gargoyle: 36
Warhawk: 52
Executioner: 51
Dire Wolf: 56


[EDIT: The formulae below are no longer accurate, but the text of the post is left in to represent the 'evolution' of the system, as it were.]

So, as came up in another thread (and multiple times in other threads!) the Battle Value 2.0 system which is unwieldy and flawed (at best) for Battletech is almost entirely inappropriate for Alpha Strike. It's not just bad, it's horrendous.

But how best to evaluate an Alpha Strike unit?

I submit that it should be via the stats and the special abilities of each unit, to wit the basic four stats that all Battletech units need to be judged by: Movement, Defense, Offense, and Special. It should be easily calculable and self-evident to avoid the problems of BV.

The base amount of the Movement equation's portion should go off the highest TMM the unit can generate, as that IS the key part of a unit's movement - maneuvering is good, but can be accounted for as a part of this. Units which can jump should cost more, but not MUCH more - it only helps a unit move rather than adding to the TMM so maybe just a point if it has partial jump, or two if it has full jump. But what else should be judged? Should hover units cost more, or is the intrinsic vulnerability of a vehicle still balanced enough?

Movement = (TMM+[1 IF partial jump, 2 IF full jump])

Now, for Defense. It seems as though the ACTUAL armor points are more important than structure, because once you get down to structure the real damage starts happening, but how to account for that? Plus, in previous iterations the cost for lighter units was disproportionately high compared to bigger units with more armor. Items like AMS will be covered under Special. So, in this formula, I think that the formula for Defense should be:

Defense = (2*Armor+Structure)

Offense should take into account all weapons used in direct damage, I think: AC, LRM, and Melee as well. Should Indirect be included here, or in Special? However, Overheat value is VERY important, so it should be included in the formula as well.

Offense = (Melee+Short+Medium+Long+[Special short+medium+long*#Special modes]+Overheat)

Sheesh, is there a more elegant way to represent that formula? It's been almost ten years since my last algebra class and I'm not sure I'm expressing it in the clearest way.

Special is... special, and where it gets complicated. Most of the extras should be evaluated as just +1 point - like AMS, ENE, Mimetic, etcetera - to keep the formula as simple as possible. However, there are some abilities which are stronger versions, like Angel ECM versus regular ECM, so dividing them into Basic and Expanded Abilities, with Expanded abilities worth +2 points seems sensible.

IF should just add its damage to the total cost of the unit, so IF2 should be +2 points - it's handy, but not game breaking.

C3, by itself, should cost NOTHING IMHO. Its cost should be added to the C3M unit, because without that the C3 affects nothing. Adding 1 point to the cost of the C3M unit for each C3 slave/master attached to it should work, including itself! KISS, after all - Keep It Simple, Stupid - and C3 doesn't have the huge impact it does in ordinary BT games. That way, if you destroy the C3M, you get the points for destroying the network.

But how to cover the cost of C3i, which has no master unit but provides the same benefit? I think that just adding 1 point for each unit in the network to the total cost of the force would be fair. For Boosted systems, that can't be meddled with thanks to ECM, 2 points per slave unit linked or C3i unit linked should be adequate.

Artillery is a tricky beast to judge, particularly because it's possible to 'use' it without it even BEING on the battlefield! On the other hand, making it too expensive will just mean no one takes it, and that's no good either; it's strong, but it's not BROKEN. I think that, for units deployed on the table, it should be treated as IF weaponry - it adds its total damage to the cost of the unit.

For being deployed off-table, I think a bit of esoteric math might be called for. Rather than paying the cost of the unit itself, perhaps multiply the damage done by the amount of mapsheets between the artillery unit and the battlefield, with rules for sending units 'off-map' to disrupt or destroy said artillery? That way, off-map artillery is covered while still being semi-vulnerable. Discussions of those rules should be in another discussion, and needs testing.

So, the Special formula would be...

Special=(1*#Basic Abilities)+(2*#Expanded Abilities)+IF Value+(1*#C3 units networked)+(2*#C3BS units Networked)+ART Value

Now, let's see the whole thing together.

Movement = (TMM+[1 IF partial jump, 2 IF full jump])
Defense = (2*Armor+Structure)
Offense = (Melee+Short+Medium+Long+[Special short+medium+long*#Special modes]+Overheat)
Special=(1*#Basic Abilities)+(2*#Expanded Abilities)+IF Value+(1*#C3 units networked)+(2*#C3BS units networked)+ART Value

Let's test it out with my classic comparison, LCT-1V versus Timber Wolf Prime.

LCT-1V... Movement = 3 = (max TMM of +3), Defense = 6 = (2*2+2), Offense = 3 = (1+1+1+0), Special = 0 (nuffin there!). Added up, that makes an LCT-1V worth 12 points.

Timber Wolf Prime... Movement = 2 = (max TMM+2), Defense = 20 (2*8+4), Offense = 16 = (3+4+3+2+(1+1+1*1)+1), Special = 3 (CASE, OMNI, and IF1). That adds up to... 41. Huh. In terms of Alpha Strike, (NOT Battletech!) are 4 Locusts (give or take!) equal to a Timber Wolf Prime? For some reason, that doesn't exactly feel off to me. They could certainly close with a single Timby and circle it to fire at the rear...

It might not be perfect, but it feels 'better', more organic, than using the BV system, where it says that 1 Timber Wolf Prime equals 7 LCT-1Vs, and that's a matchup where they tear the Timby to pieces - while losing half their number, it's true, but it's not a 'fair' matchup.

Anyway, I'm gonna post this, and think about it some more.

Von Ether

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 906
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #1 on: 03 November 2013, 18:13:46 »
I also wonder if there should be some consideration for what I call "Handling," which is the penalty that speed and jump jets give when targeting a fast unit. Regardless, lights and mediums seem undercosted, along with some 3025 designs.

« Last Edit: 03 November 2013, 21:16:38 by Von Ether »
"New players, regardless of age, need to know two things about a wargame. How to blow stuff up and what faction is painted in his favorite color. All the rest can come later when they are hooked." -- A.G.
"But the problem is that it seems to have been made by someone who equates complication with complexity, and that just ain't so." -- iamfanboy

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #2 on: 03 November 2013, 21:12:56 »
In the games I've played the medium damage stat seems to be where most of the fighting takes place so we might give some emphasis to that band. Perhaps half for short and long but full cost for medium.

Von Ether

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 906
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #3 on: 03 November 2013, 22:15:43 »
double post
« Last Edit: 03 November 2013, 22:18:41 by Von Ether »
"New players, regardless of age, need to know two things about a wargame. How to blow stuff up and what faction is painted in his favorite color. All the rest can come later when they are hooked." -- A.G.
"But the problem is that it seems to have been made by someone who equates complication with complexity, and that just ain't so." -- iamfanboy

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #4 on: 03 November 2013, 22:45:05 »
Von Ether, isn't that part of the TMM equation? "How hard it is to hit" the targeted unit is the important part of the movement equation.

And Papabees, you're ABsoLUTELY right. I think changing the Offense equation to

Offense = (Melee+Short+Medium*2+Long+[Special Short+Medium*2+Long*#Special modes]+Overheat)

I was thinking that the OV value should be multiplied by 2 as well, but using it is as much penalty as reward, so I'm reluctant to do so right off the bat. Besides, that makes some 'Mechs, like the Nova Prime, REALLY expensive in return for little reward.

That gives a value of 13 for the LCT-1V, and 46 for the Timber Wolf Prime.


Revaluing units like this, based on their stats rather than the kinda... er... not-good Battlevalue, raises the costs of almost everything, but it also makes some weird situations go away, especially with units that are highly underpriced for what they do on the battlefield. For example, from the Hidden Gems thread the Flatbed Truck (Mortar) comes to 7 points, the Thorn-N is 15 instead of 5, the JM6-S Jagermech is 19 instead of 9...

A foot infantry laser platoon costs 9 points versus the jump laser platoon's 11 instead of costing the same despite the JLP's greater speed.

It's also VERY easy to figure out by just looking at the stats of the 'mech rather than anything else, and takes maybe 30 seconds to do.

Von Ether

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 906
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #5 on: 03 November 2013, 22:55:50 »
I'd say it's a solid start.
"New players, regardless of age, need to know two things about a wargame. How to blow stuff up and what faction is painted in his favorite color. All the rest can come later when they are hooked." -- A.G.
"But the problem is that it seems to have been made by someone who equates complication with complexity, and that just ain't so." -- iamfanboy

Netzilla

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 590
    • Facebook
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #6 on: 03 November 2013, 23:25:42 »
Considering the value of TMM in unit survival, I wonder if you should double its value.
"Everything starts as someone's daydream." -- Larry Niven

MM Bug & Feature Requests:
https://sourceforge.net/p/megamek/_list/tickets

MHQ Bug & Feature Requests:
https://sourceforge.net/p/mekhq/_list/tickets

theothersarah

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 781
  • Girls just wanna have fun
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #7 on: 03 November 2013, 23:39:04 »
This is something I thought should have been done in the transition from BattleForce/Quick Strike to Alpha Strike. There are some other tweaks here or there that I think would have been nice but this is by far the most important one.

BloodReaper

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #8 on: 04 November 2013, 12:22:50 »
You could use the defensive/offensive modifiers in the tech manual, assuming BV is good, to get some of these numbers.  However I'd think defense would be higher, as units always get the best modifier regardless of their move.

You could also use the heavy metal weapon BV calculator to determine the "effective" BV of a units attack.

But there are a lot of other factors, and each special ability would need a "BV", so this is pretty darned hard, but I think extremely necessary as the points are completely bonkers right now.

I wish you luck!

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #9 on: 04 November 2013, 15:00:20 »
No, reaper. To Hell with Battle Value. It represents the capability of a unit barely better than a tonnage system.

Basing the points off the actual STATS (rather than any kind of esoteric calculating system that the designers themselves have admitted will sometimes give two different results to two different people using the exact same methodology) has two advantages:

1) It can be easily calculated just looking at the unit's card or stats itself,

2) It directly reflects the unit's battlefield performance.


The main issue with designing the formula for this is figuring out what stats affect battlefield performance more than others; Papabees' comment on how the Medium range band features most of the fighting, my thoughts on Armor being more important than Structure, and Netzilla's note on the TMM being highly important...

Hrm, speaking of that, let's apply it to LCT-1V versus Timby Prime.

Doubling the TMM bumps the LCT-1V to 16 points, and the Timby to 48. That's a straight 3-1 ratio. Could three Locusts take a Timby in a straight fight? I don't think they could. Curses, if only MM was configured for Alpha Strike.

BloodReaper

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 33
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #10 on: 04 November 2013, 15:35:52 »
Well technically ALL point values end up having issues with them, using them to balance games will inevitably lead to occasional issues.

However, I mentioned the BV thing as it had some numbers for defensive/offensive calculation that was probably based on some formula that made sense, and the numbers seemed to make sense.

As for a timber wolf vs a locust, the 3 locusts have the same armor, but the timber wolf more firepower.  However, if the timber wolf hits, 20% of the firepower is wasted at short/medium range as it overkills the locusts.  Including criticals it could be as much as 40% of the timber wolf firepower wasted.  And as for the locusts, once they get through 8 armor, each hit is a critical, and that makes a huge diff.

The timber wolf also has IF2, meaning it could potentially kill a locust before the locust even got in range.  It also has special munitions, which COULD help offset the superior locust maneuverability ASSUMING that players use alternate ammo.  Depending on initiative the locusts could be getting all rear shots, halving the armor values. 

I don't know how many LCT-1Vs are worth 1 timber wolf, but I'm betting its something like 1d6, not 3, as there is simply too many variables to have a static number to show what each side is worth.

it is going to be a hard number to determine, thats for sure.

NumeroFive

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #11 on: 04 November 2013, 16:29:05 »
I too have thought about a new point calculation for Alphastrike based on the unit stats.  But my idea is based more on the original BV calculations.  This is how it goes.

First calculate defensive multiplier.  Find the defensive modifier for the unit based on its movement value. If the unit has the "STL" or "MAS" specials add this modifier to the total.  Now divide this total by ten and add one. [(Defensive modifier / 10) + 1]
Next, Multiply Armor boxes by 2 and structure boxes by 1.5 and add together. If the unit has "AMS" special, add armor and structure boxes together and divide by 4, then add this number to the earlier total. Now multiply this value by the defensive multiplier you calculated earlier.
[((Armor * 2) + (Structure * 1.5) + (AMS value)) * (Defensive multiplier) = Defensive Point Value]

Now to Calculate the offensive point value, this gets a little more complicated.
Calculate Short Range value. Add together the units short range damage, Size, 1/2 OV, 1 for "MEL", 1 for "TSM", and the value of the unit's "HT#".  Then multiply that by 0.916.
[(SRD + Size + OV/2 + MEL + TSM + HT#) * 0.916]
Calculate  Medium Range value.  Add together the units Medium range damage, 1/2 OV, and the value of the unit's "HT#".  Then Multiply that total by 2.166.
[(MRD + OV/2 + HT#) * 2.166]
Calculate the units Long Range Value. If the unit has zero for long range, you are done, otherwise...Add together the unit's Long Range Damage and 1/2 its OV if the unit has the "OVL" special. I'm a little unsure about how the "HT#" special works, but it seems to me that this applies to even long range attacks.  If I'm right, then add in the HT# too, otherwise don't. Finally multiply this total by 1.666.
[(LRD + OVL/2 + HT#) * 1.666]
Now add these three values together and multiply the total by the units speed factor.  The units speed factor is equal to the units highest movement (be it ground or jump) and then dividing it by half and comparing that number to the Speed factor table on page 315 of the Tech Manual.
[(SRV + MRV + LRV) * Speed Factor Multiplier = Offensive Point Value]

Now add together the Defensive Point Value and the Offensive Point Value together and round normally.
[Defensive Point Value + Offensive Point Value = Point Value]

Special abilities
Most of the special abilities not already mentioned in the formulas involved are so limited in scope that they are worth no consideration when calculating the unit's Point Value, or at most should only increase the final Point value by 5% if the special will actually come into play in the current scenario.  Case in point is C3 Networks.  ECM specials are only effective when facing active C3 Networks. Specialty ammos for the SRM, LRM and AC specials should also be added on top of the base Point Value. RCN special only comes into play if you are using the Battlefield Intelligence rules.

Well,  that's my idea and thoughts on the subject.

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #12 on: 04 November 2013, 19:12:00 »
Well, Reaper, as long as it's closer than the current system of valuation, being as how it's rounded off from the values for an entirely different game and the system used for determining THAT is flawed... I actually think I'm gonna start using this system.


OK. NumeroFive. I do like your math, but... well... I'm gonna get into a bit of game design philosophy here.


Part of why I think Battletech has persisted for so long when so many other game systems have collapsed in on themselves is the transparency of the game's inner workings. You can design a 'Mech. You can understand how another person designs a 'Mech. You can look at a design and, with only a bit of practice, tell if it's off its math or not.

Compare that to, say, Warhammer 40k or Malifaux or Warmachine, where no one has any idea of the thought process that goes into statting out or calculating the points value of a given unit. It's a shadow box that no one but the designers understand; a unit comes in one end and a set of stats are spit out for it without any visible reference.


The failing of Combat Value and all the systems since then has been that lack of transparency. As flawed as tonnage is as a means of balancing sides, its sole advantage is that it's intuitive. Liaofan, the inveterate lolifan of the board, has a system of modified tonnage that mostly works, and where it doesn't work, at least it's easy to grasp.

Your formulae... and BV2.0's formulae... do not make sense to me. Okay, they actually do, but they're too damned complicated.

My system has five priorities:

1) Basing value off the unit's inherent stats
2) ease of calculation (not all of us enjoy carrying around a TI-86 just to figure out a 'Mech's costs!)
3) results in whole numbers that are in the 10-100 range on average to allow for quick force creation
4) reduces redundant values for similar units with different stats (why does a Foot Laser Platoon and Jump Laser Platoon cost 1, when the JLP has 3j, making it objectively better?)
5) Is as far divorced from Battle Value as possible.


The only problem which Battletech, and some of its more, uh, grognardic players have is worshiping complication for the sake of complication without examining why or how. Every now and then, you need to dust off the old assumptions you haven't examined in years and think about them, REALLY think about them.

That's why I like Alpha Strike so much, because for years the problem that so many potential newbies have said about Battletech is, "It's sooo complicated!" and for years the response it earned from players is, "Ahhh, suck it up or go back to 40k!" It's a dismissive attitude, and one that needed to be changed if the game is going to grow.

Complication is NOT complexity. Alpha Strike is complex - it has a variety of units, can be played from small unit size to entire regiments and even space battles, is easy to understand yet deep, and the rules fit into a 100-150 page book.

Battletech is COMPLICATED. Even the basic game spans 2, 2.5 rulebooks adding up to 300+ pages of just rules. Without an index, it'd be unplayable.

Darnit, I've gotta go and cut this post short.

NumeroFive

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #13 on: 04 November 2013, 19:46:58 »
You are right, Fanboy, it is to damned complicated.  But that is really the fault of the game system more than my formulas (and BV2 that my formulas are based on.) It would be nice if there was just one simple little formula that takes into account all the base abilities that each unit has and spits out a rating between 1 and 30 that accurately represents that unit's relative strengths and weaknesses.  Unfortunately, given how complicated the game is over all, how different abilities provide different synergies to various other abilities, in order to accommodate those factors the formula gets longer and more complicated.  Indeed, my formula is basically your formula that you presented in your OP, just with additional variables taken into consideration. O0

Son of Kerenski

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 514
  • Everything is AWESOME.
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #14 on: 05 November 2013, 03:41:37 »
I thought the whole point of Alpha Strike was to keep it as simple as possible.

Another point is you can always improve on something because nothing is ever perfect. But there will be a time when you just have to let go because it just gets too complex.

Not being argumentative. Just offering a different perspective.

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #15 on: 05 November 2013, 08:47:31 »
No, reaper. To Hell with Battle Value. It represents the capability of a unit barely better than a tonnage system.

Basing the points off the actual STATS (rather than any kind of esoteric calculating system that the designers themselves have admitted will sometimes give two different results to two different people using the exact same methodology) has two advantages:

1) It can be easily calculated just looking at the unit's card or stats itself,

2) It directly reflects the unit's battlefield performance.


The main issue with designing the formula for this is figuring out what stats affect battlefield performance more than others; Papabees' comment on how the Medium range band features most of the fighting, my thoughts on Armor being more important than Structure, and Netzilla's note on the TMM being highly important...

Hrm, speaking of that, let's apply it to LCT-1V versus Timby Prime.

Doubling the TMM bumps the LCT-1V to 16 points, and the Timby to 48. That's a straight 3-1 ratio. Could three Locusts take a Timby in a straight fight? I don't think they could. Curses, if only MM was configured for Alpha Strike.

I think I like your system and I do think that 3 locusts might actually handle the Timberwolf half the time. What if you stat up a few more examples and we playtest it and then get back with results?

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Re: Redoing the points system to reflect Alpha Strike.
« Reply #16 on: 06 November 2013, 00:47:22 »
For clarity, the following numbers use THIS formula:

Alpha Value = Special+Offense+Defense+Movement

Movement = (2*TMM)

Defense = (2*Armor+Structure)

Offense = (Melee+Short+[Medium*2]+Long+[Special short+(medium*2)+long*#Special modes]+Overheat)

Special=(1*#Basic Abilities)+(2*#Expanded Abilities)+IF Value+(1*#C3 units networked)+(2*#C3BS units Networked)+ART Value

For any Specials that are not used (such as RCN, PRB, ECM, etcetera) just subtract the appropriate costs for each. For example, the Savannah Master costs 15, but if RCN is not being used than it costs 14.

Okay, here's some points costs for people to stress test:

Introductory Boxed Set
COM-2D Commando - 17
SDR-5V Spider - 20
JR7-D Jenner - 23
PNT-9R Panther - 21
ASN-21 Assassin - 21
CLNT-2-3T Clint - 20
HER-2S Hermes II - 22
WHT-1 Whitworth - 24
VND-1R Vindicator - 28
ENF-4R Enforcer - 27
HBK-4G Hunchback - 28
TBT-5N Trebuchet - 26
DV-6M Dervish - 29
DRG-1N Dragon - 30
QKD-4D Quickdraw - 32
CPLT-C1 Catapult - 33
JM6-S JagerMech - 22
GHR-5H Grasshopper - 39
AWS-8Q Awesome - 41
ZEU-6S Zeus - 36
CP-10-Z Cyclops - 37
BNC-3E Banshee - 38
AS7-D Atlas - 51

Third Edition Boxed Set (Unseen! Unseen!)
LCT-1V Locust: 16
STG-3R Stinger: 15
WSP-1A Wasp: 15
PXH-1 Phoenix Hawk: 26
GRF-1N Griffin: 31
SHD-2H Shadow Hawk: 30
WVR-6R Wolverine: 30
RFL-3N Rifleman: 27
CRD-3R Crusader: 32
TDR-5S Thunderbolt: 36
ARC-2R Archer: 37
WHM-6R Warhammer: 33
MAD-3R Marauder: 36
BLD-1G Battlemaster: 40

Vehicles:
Savannah Master: 15
Scorpion: 13
Maxim: 27
Pegasus: 21
Shrek PPC Carrier: 27

Infantry/Battle Armor
Jump Laser Infantry Platoon: 14
Foot Laser Infantry Platoon: 10
Elemental (AP Gauss): 18
Inner Sphere Standard BA (SRM): 18

Clan Omnimech Prime versions:
Fire Moth: 23
Mist Lynx: 25
Kit Fox: 26
Adder: 30
Viper: 32
Ice Ferret: 35
Nova: 42
Stormcrow: 40
Mad Dog: 47
Hellbringer: 42
Summoner: 46
Timber Wolf: 56 (Yes, I calculated VERY WRONG)
Gargoyle: 47
Warhawk: 54
Executioner: 51
Dire Wolf: 58


And honestly, each of these took me maybe, MAYBE 30 seconds to figure up just by looking at the card.

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Re: Making a points system for Alpha Strike - finding an Alpha Value.
« Reply #17 on: 07 November 2013, 01:08:52 »
So I've moved to the EXTREME of the Battletech universe: To wit, Warships and Dropships. Oh, and selected ASFs, too.

Threshold is very important - in BATTLETECH, and while it has a given value on the stat cards, I can't for the life of me FIND any rules for Threshold in Strategic Operations! So I didn't include it in my calculations.

However, the BOMB value is important only if one is using bombs, therefore it should be paid for if using the ASF as ground support.

As far as rating DropShip/WarShip special abilities, I have no real idea if things like ASF bays or the like should even be considered. I don't think that they have on the battlefield effects, so why include them in the points value for a combat-based system?

EST-0 Eisensturm: 56 (60 if using as ground support!)
EGL-R10 Eagle: 38 (42)
SYD-Z4 Seydlitz: 21 (23)
Kerghiz-Prime: 56 (60)
Avar-Prime: 36 (38)
DARO-1 Dagger: 38 (40)
Boeing Jump Bomber: 12
Avenger-3025: 87
Leopard-3025: 81
Union-3025: 101
Fox Corvette: 624
Fredasa Raider: 455

Obviously, you can't say that 8 AS7-D Atlases equal a Fredasa Raider, but since they wouldn't be going against each other... would eight Eisensturms equal a Fredasa?

If using DropShips as a grounded target, then simply removing the TMM from the points value should give a reasonable value - that might require some tweaking, though, because of artefacts such as a spheroid's nose guns being of no use on the ground!

Gods. I may not be 100% up on my Battlespace, but it does look to me like this system actually... scales up to space battles.

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
Cool. Thanks for the work. I'll try and get some lead on the table and see how it goes.

Trailblazer

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 648
    • Excaliburs Saga Campaign for MegaMek
That formula seems to overrate Overheat.  The heat scale in AS is extremely punishing and you have to forgo firing for a turn to undo it.  I never find it worthwhile unless a unit is clearly one turn from dead.  I would much rather have a point of structure or long-range damage than a point of Overheat, for example.

Trailblazer

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 648
    • Excaliburs Saga Campaign for MegaMek
Also, might not be ideal to count a unit with Move 14" and a unit with Move 18" as having the same Move score, which your current scale does.  Maybe TMM+1/2 Move, or 2*TMM + 1/2 Move?

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Both things I've been considering as I've been playtesting; fast-moving units are severely underrated in this system. A light/medium force (heaviest unit was a Wraith) literally took apart a formation of slow-moving heavies. That bonus damage for the rear arc...

I've actually been thinking exactly the same change to the movement formula - TMM + Move/2, since the AMOUNT of movement is very important tactically. That bumps the LCT-1V to 21 points and the Timber Wolf to 59. Keeping it at 2*TMM really hits light units disproportionately.

As far as Overheat... I don't know. Most tables I play on have at least a little water, and OV-capable units make a beeline for it, plop inside, and just use 1 point of OV-damage all day. It's especially powerful for units with Long ranges. The +1 TMM of water and the extra point of damage... taking down a CRD-3L was a nightmare.

But I do understand that that's a situation at my table, and might not apply to all tables. Maybe adding OV/2, round up, would be better? That way it's more like the other special abilities.

Trailblazer

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 648
    • Excaliburs Saga Campaign for MegaMek
Good point about water, but overheat is usually not useful at long range, I find.  Units can't overheat at long range unless they have the OVL ability (which very few units do).  So I wonder if it's a rules mistake that's making OV seem so good in your group?

TMM + 1/2 Move seems to underrate jump move, which can have a huge effect on a unit's ability to get around the board in AS.  Maybe TMM + 1/2 Move + (1/3 Move, rounding up, if you have jump)?  Or TMM + 1/2 Move if you don't have jump, 2*TMM + 1/2 Move if you do?

Trailblazer

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 648
    • Excaliburs Saga Campaign for MegaMek
In other words, Jump should cost more than 1 point, especially on units like the SDR-7M.

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Hrum. Keeping the TMM modifier for jumping, and adding (as in my original formula) +1 for partial jump and +2 for full jump? That way it's +3 for full jump altogether, and +2 for a partial-jumper.

Trailblazer

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 648
    • Excaliburs Saga Campaign for MegaMek
Yeah, it seems like the bonus should be proportional to Move, though.  A unit with 6" jump doesn't get as much benefit out of it as a unit with 16" jump.

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
New Movement formula is:

Movement = Move/2 + TMM + (1 IF partial jump) + (2 IF full jump)

(gods, I hate adding an IF statement, but...)

Well, yes, a unit with 16j gets more out of it than a 6j unit, but isn't that accounted for by adding Move/2 to the calculation? And I'd argue that the benefits are much the same overall, as a Move 6 unit is gonna be restricted by terrain a helluva lot more than a Move 16, but a Move 6j unit gains a LOT more in terms of terrain negotiation than a Move 16j.

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
So I redid the points values for all the previous 'mechs I'd done using the formula, and so far there's only two things that strike me as completely whacked: The Fire Moth and the Savannah Master are really, really high. That 26" movement means that it's 17 points just for their movement. I'll have to test it out some.

That being said, here's the new points values.


Quote
Introductory Boxed Set
COM-2D Commando - 21
SDR-5V Spider - 24
JR7-D Jenner - 27
PNT-9R Panther - 25
ASN-21 Assassin - 27
CLNT-2-3T Clint - 27
HER-2S Hermes II - 26
WHT-1 Whitworth - 31
VND-1R Vindicator - 32
ENF-4R Enforcer - 31
HBK-4G Hunchback - 31
TBT-5N Trebuchet - 31
DV-6M Dervish - 36
DRG-1N Dragon - 34
QKD-4D Quickdraw - 35
CPLT-C1 Catapult - 38
JM6-S JagerMech - 30
GHR-5H Grasshopper - 43
AWS-8Q Awesome - 43
ZEU-6S Zeus - 38
CP-10-Z Cyclops - 38
BNC-3E Banshee - 41
AS7-D Atlas - 53

Third Edition Boxed Set (Unseen! Unseen!)
LCT-1V Locust: 21
STG-3R Stinger: 21
WSP-1A Wasp: 21
PXH-1 Phoenix Hawk: 31
GRF-1N Griffin: 35
SHD-2H Shadow Hawk: 33
WVR-6R Wolverine: 34
RFL-3N Rifleman: 29
CRD-3R Crusader: 35
CRD-3L Crusader: 41
TDR-5S Thunderbolt: 39
TDR-5SE Thunderbolt: 41
ARC-2R Archer: 42
WHM-6R Warhammer: 36
MAD-3R Marauder: 38
BLD-1G Battlemaster: 43

Vehicles:
Savannah Master: 24 (??)
Scorpion: 15
Maxim: 29
Pegasus: 26
Shrek PPC Carrier: 30

Infantry/Battle Armor
Jump Laser Infantry Platoon: 14
Foot Laser Infantry Platoon: 10
Elemental (AP Gauss): 19
Inner Sphere Standard BA (SRM): 14

Clan Omnimech Prime versions:
Fire Moth: 32 (??)
Mist Lynx: 29
Kit Fox: 30
Adder: 35
Viper: 38
Ice Ferret: 40
Nova: 44
Stormcrow: 42
Mad Dog: 42
Hellbringer: 45
Summoner: 48
Timber Wolf: 54
Gargoyle: 43
Warhawk: 57
Executioner: 55
Dire Wolf: 61

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 952
I understand your concerns. I wonder if there should just be a flat points costs for units that begin inside the range of a particular TMM? then plus jump of course. Although the new point totals may not be too far off in truth.

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1980
Okay, after some serious stress-testing of speed vs. other values (A unit of Savannah Masters and Fire Moths versus slow mediums and heavies) shows that the current formula of "Movement = Move/2 + TMM + (1 IF partial jump) + (2 IF full jump)" HEAVILY overvalues movement. Yes, it's very nice to be able to maneuver behind an opponent for that extra point of damage, but it isn't as valuable as armor and/or damage.

Evaluating the movement of a 'Mech and adding it to the points cost IS necessary IMHO above and beyond the TMM created by the 'Mech, though.

Also, I'm finding that the (+1 if partial +2 if full) is unnecessary. I think I may change it to a flat +1 for Jump, since another +1 is automatically added for the TMM benefit.

The new Movement formula is, I think, Movement = Move/4 + TMM + (1 if Jump-capable)

Remember, always round up to the nearest whole number.

Also, I've been finding which Special Abilities aren't worth adding to the cost, which ones are situational, and which ones are always good.

I believe the best system would be to omit the cost for both the not added and the situational Special Abilities on the official list, adding in the cost if using the relevant rules, special ammo, or units.

NOT ADDED
ENE and CASE aren't worth adding in the price - the benefits of either come up so rarely that it's a non-entity most of the time. Also, so many of the units with either have such low Structure that they simply don't benefit from it (the Fire Moth, for example!)

FLK and FR are tricky because its value is determined by your opponent's decisions and in an ideal tournament situation you don't know whether or not your opponent will have any, but I'm tentatively adding both of them to this category.

SITUATIONAL
TAG of all sorts, ECM of all sorts, PRB of all sorts, C3 of all sorts, MHQ, and RCN only matter if using the relevant equipment and/or rules. The basic versions of any of the above are worth +1 to each unit equipped with same, except for C3 - the cost is added to the unit with the C3 Master. The advanced versions are worth +2 for each unit. LECM, LPRB, and LTAG still add benefits to a unit, so I'm tentatively keeping them in this category. Should WAT be worth +2 for having two abilities in one, or just +1 since they're Light versions of both?

OMNI and IT only matter if deploying infantry or Battle Armor of the relevant kinds. From what I've seen it's worth +1 for each platoon of infantry or Point/squad of BA that the unit is capable of transporting.

LRM, SRM, and AC special abilities are only added if using special ammo of any kind - Swarm LRMs, Precision Ammo, etcetera. Calculate them just like ordinary damage (Short + Medium*2 + Long). BOMB is added if using Bombs, and worth one point per BOMB point - so BOMB4 costs 4 points.

ALWAYS ADDED
AMS, AM, ARM, HT, IF, MEL, MAS, OVL, STL, and TSM are always-on and are almost always of benefit. STL is worth at least 2 points for now; I'll have to test it out more to see if it's +3 or more. Other than that, HT and IF are worth 1 point for each point of either, and all the other abilities are worth 1 point.

Artillery is... wow. So far I've tested it out with two units on the field, my Naga and a Catapult, and it's BRUTAL. Combining IF with raw damage to a hex is pretty good. For now, my calculation is ARTL = (Damage*2) when using it on the tabletop; one multiple for the IF value and one for the direct damage value. It may go to *3, but I don't think it's worth THAT much.

 

Register