Author Topic: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System  (Read 13588 times)

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4322
  • BattleTech Assistant Line Developer
The following thread is for discussion of the Open Beta - Alpha Strike Point Value System PDF. You can ask questions of why rules were done in a certain way, suggestions and so on.

DriveThruRPG link
BattleShop: link

This .zip contains 3 files:

Beta - Alpha Strike Point Value System.pdf: This PDF contains the beta rules for unit point calculation.
PV Test 2014-02-13.xlsx: Spreadsheet contains full stats for nearly all BattleTech units for Alpha Strike, along with new point values derived by excel formulas.
New Point Values.xlsx:s above, but only containing unit names, their type, and new point value (no macros or formulas)
« Last Edit: 14 February 2014, 18:49:32 by Adrian Gideon »
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

Ivoryskull

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • Tabletop Gamers Association
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #1 on: 14 February 2014, 21:27:51 »
ProtoMechs. It looks like they are still being worked out just like every other unit even though you split the profile up in game. A Centaur is still way cheaper than a Minotaur but the spilt profile is very similar if you follow my meaning?

 
Catalyst Games Labs Agent #139
Tabletop Gamers Association Co-Founder
www.tgaperth.com
Perth's best tabletop games club!

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7813
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #2 on: 14 February 2014, 21:43:23 »
Yes, everything is costed based on their collective stats: this isn't so much an artifact of the points system as it is the gameplay.  As how Protomechs are fielded in AS is one of those things under review for the future, you may see the point calculation change in turn.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Dies Irae

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 335
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #3 on: 14 February 2014, 23:27:19 »
My local crew were considering hitting the table with a series of games to test the new point system. However, we've run into a minor hiccup.
Under the old Alpha Strike point system, we've gotten used to 160 point company level Pick-up games.

Maybe I'm blind, but with the new Beta point system being introduced and aggressive unit re-pointing across the board for testing, was it ever stated what the new "160 point" equivalent value is?

Or am I really blind?

Savage Coyote

  • CamoSpecs
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
  • 저는 미술 선생님 입니다.
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #4 on: 14 February 2014, 23:41:03 »
I'm not sure if it was stated or not.  I added up the Lyran Company from Alpha Strike and got 363 if that helps.

Dakarias

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #5 on: 15 February 2014, 00:22:20 »
This is Good, i see a kind of construction rules for it

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4322
  • BattleTech Assistant Line Developer
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #6 on: 15 February 2014, 03:01:05 »
was it ever stated what the new "160 point" equivalent value is?
Excellent question. No, it wasn't. For now it seems 375-400 is a decent equivalent.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3507
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #7 on: 15 February 2014, 08:36:27 »
was it ever stated what the new "160 point" equivalent value is?
The average point increase is about 2.28, so about 365 points.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

Klat

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1967
  • ここにキティキティ
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #8 on: 15 February 2014, 16:17:17 »
Interestingly enough the 4K and 4T Rokurokubi models have the same PV. The only difference is one special ability; ENE. At first I thought this was a sign of imbalance but now I'm thinking that with two points of structure there's little real difference.

Amusing all the same though.
Light Assault Group - An Orwellian appelation applied by the Draconis Combine to troops haphazardly equipped with whatever expendable equipment was lying around the maintenance yard, for the purpose of throwing their lives away for the greater glory of the Dragon, see also Human Bombs.

Issamuel

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Pirates! Bandits! Mercs! The Periphery!
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #9 on: 16 February 2014, 03:55:56 »
Hello. This is my first post, only got around to registering in response to the Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test. :)

Been strictly playing Alpha Strike since the rulebook was available for purchase, and have been using the stats from the MUL. The current point system was not perfect, but still usable, although me and my gaming partners do face some odd point balancing issues in our games.

Case in point, the Orion ON1-M from http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Card/2334?skill=4 versus the Orion ON1-K from http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Card/2332?skill=4 both are 14 points in the current point system.

My gaming partners tend to argue that the ON1-M should be higher in point value compared to the ON1-K in point value to offset the slightly higher attack value and additional SPECIALs on the ON1-M even though it is a little fragile in terms of armor or structure.

Now, I have got my copy of the revised BETA Point Value System, and in the BETA Point Value System, the Orion ON1-K is now 39 points versus the Orion ON1-M at 36 points - In other words, the ON1-M is slightly cheaper despite slightly higher attack value and additional SPECIALs on the ON1-M even though it is a little fragile in terms of armor or structure.

So the question is : Is the new calculation a little too harsh in penalizing structure and armor values, or is this just a fluke for the Orion ON1-M vs ON1-K?

Edit: Alternatively, am I reading the revised calculations wrongly?
Issamuel

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7813
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #10 on: 16 February 2014, 04:21:22 »
Interestingly enough the 4K and 4T Rokurokubi models have the same PV. The only difference is one special ability; ENE. At first I thought this was a sign of imbalance but now I'm thinking that with two points of structure there's little real difference.

Amusing all the same though.

There's a less than 3% chance of scoring an ammo hit in Alpha Strike, so ENE isn't worth anything for the same reason CASE isn't worth anything.  It's just too small an effect to be priced out.

Hello. This is my first post, only got around to registering in response to the Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test. :)

Welcome to the forums, and thanks for taking the time to provide feedback.

Quote
My gaming partners tend to argue that the ON1-M should be higher in point value compared to the ON1-K in point value to offset the slightly higher attack value and additional SPECIALs on the ON1-M even though it is a little fragile in terms of armor or structure.

Now, I have got my copy of the revised BETA Point Value System, and in the BETA Point Value System, the Orion ON1-K is now 39 points versus the Orion ON1-M at 36 points - In other words, the ON1-M is slightly cheaper despite slightly higher attack value and additional SPECIALs on the ON1-M even though it is a little fragile in terms of armor or structure.

So the question is : Is the new calculation a little too harsh in penalizing structure and armor values, or is this just a fluke for the Orion ON1-M vs ON1-K?

It's a fair question, but I think things are reasonable in that regard, in that 1 less point of armour, 3 less points of structure, and no OV are nothing to sneeze at: the -M has significant drawbacks here to offset SNARC and an extra point of damage at medium and long.  To put it another way, do you feel the extra one potential damage point a turn worth the ability to take 4 less damage in return?  Bear in mind that Flak and LRM aren't worth anything right now.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Issamuel

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Pirates! Bandits! Mercs! The Periphery!
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #11 on: 16 February 2014, 05:09:13 »
Thanks for the reply and thanks for the welcome!  O0

It's a fair question, but I think things are reasonable in that regard, in that 1 less point of armour, 3 less points of structure, and no OV are nothing to sneeze at: the -M has significant drawbacks here to offset SNARC and an extra point of damage at medium and long.  To put it another way, do you feel the extra one potential damage point a turn worth the ability to take 4 less damage in return?  Bear in mind that Flak and LRM aren't worth anything right now.

That is a good point - pun not intended - on the potential damage vis-a-vis absorbing more damage. Appreciate it a lot. Got something to discuss now with my gaming partners then.  :D

While we are still on topic on the calculation, I like to point out two Alpha Strike Units that my gaming group uses whose BETA Point Value is... interesting.... if compared to the current value:

Wasp WSP-3W http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/3525
Current Value: 3
Beta Value: 7
TP: BM / SZ: 1 / MOVE: 12j / S:2 M:0 L: 0 / OV: 0 / A:1 S:2 / SPECIAL: ENE

Patron PatrolMech PTN-2M  http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/4795
Current Value: 1
Beta Value: 8
TP: IM / SZ: 1 / MOVE: 4 / S:1 M:1 L: 1 / OV: 0 / A:1 S:1 / SPECIAL: AFC, FC

Granted, both unit die easily regardless of armor or structure values, but with the BETA point value, the PTN-2M with a very slow movement, inability to operate in space or underwater, with Long and Medium Range damage values, has a higher point value compared to the jumping and subjectively harder to hit WSP-3W.

Yes, it is just one point of difference between the BETA values of PTN-2M and WSP-3W - and different games value damage range brackets differently - but still, doesn't it feel odd that the WSP-3W is cheaper compared to the PTN-2M in the new calculation?
Issamuel

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7813
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #12 on: 16 February 2014, 14:46:38 »
The Wasp would normally be 9.5 points, rounded up to 10.  However, as it only has short range weapons and a move of 12" or less, it gets the Brawler modifier, which gives it a 25% discount.  It's meant to duplicate what I call the Charger Effect, which is that the Charger doesn't suck just because it has short range weapons, but because it has such a hard time bringing them to bear as well.

However, perhaps the effect should only kick in for units moving 10" or less, not 12" or less.  What do others think?
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3507
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #13 on: 16 February 2014, 15:07:15 »
However, perhaps the effect should only kick in for units moving 10" or less, not 12" or less.  What do others think?
Well in the normal game 5/8 is enough to get into range, only 4/6 units seem to have that problem with me. So having the Brawler modifier for units moving 8" or less would be enough for me.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

Vulp

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #14 on: 17 February 2014, 00:33:32 »

When Alpha Strike was first released, I ran a few test scenarios to get familiar with the ruleset.  For Inner Sphere vs. Inner Sphere I found the game balanced, but for a combined arms IS vs Clan battle the results were very one-sided in the favor of the Spheroids.  During the test, an elite artillery lance of LT-MOB-25 proved incredibly effective for their points.

As an exercise, I recalculated the point value of the two forces under the new system.  Previously, they were both 185 points.  Under the new system, the IS force came in at 580 points, compared to 386 points on the clan side.  This calculation much more accurately reflected the way the actual game went.

By the way, I'm primary a lurker here, but wanted to thank whomever came up with this system.  I think that this is exactly what Alpha Strike needs (assuming it is rolled into the MUL!).

Vulp

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #15 on: 17 February 2014, 00:58:12 »
I have a question on how Skill Rating calculations are done with the beta point value system.  From page 4 of the PDF:

More Experienced: for each 1 point of Skill Rating lower than 4, multiply the Final PV by 1 + (0.1 per Skill Rating below 4, min Skill Rating is 0).


Does this "for each" mean that the multiply operation is repeated more than once in cases where the skill rating difference is greater than one?  In other words, does a 10 point unit at Skill Rating 2 cost 13 (=round(10 * 1.1 * 1.2)) or 12 (=round(1.2*10))? The former seems a bit better balanced, but it was not clear from the document if this was the intent.  If it is the first one, then it might be good to include a table like that on page 26 of Alpha Strike with the final constants.

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7813
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #16 on: 17 February 2014, 01:08:59 »
No, it's not repeated.  You make a single calculation, so a Skill Rating 2 unit would be x 1.2, and Skill Rating 1 would instead be x 1.3.
« Last Edit: 17 February 2014, 04:07:48 by Xotl »
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Vulp

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #17 on: 17 February 2014, 01:44:03 »
Thanks for the clarification. This system definitely make upgrading pilots an attractive option again, and looks to really address previous shortfalls for clan forces.  Looking forward to some playtesting!

By the way, are there any plans to apply the new PV as errata to the original Alpha Strike, or is this an additional system similar to BV2?

George_Labour

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 284
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #18 on: 17 February 2014, 13:54:17 »
I've been playing with it off and on as the paint on my models dry and so far I think it's doing an adequate job of portraying raw table ability. For example the Loki Prime is 27 points in Alpha strike, while having performance that is just around the same level as a Wolverine II. New points system brings them roughly equal in points value with each other with the Wolverine ending up more expensive due to armor, jumping, and a higher defense mod.

However I think some of the smaller more fragile units end up a bit on the expensive side either because they mount artillery or have high defensive modifiers. Just off the top of my head I thought that there should be a 'dies to a sneeze' modifier similiar to the brawler one. THis way things like artillery infantry or savannah masters that both die to almost any amount of damage don't end up overcosted when compared slower and or sturdier units.

Though again that's a random though and I've yet to playtest the points in a game of alpha strike.

templarmagnus

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #19 on: 17 February 2014, 18:23:22 »
If we're just talking strictly about the points values, then I think this is a step in the right direction.  I ran the numbers for a Cluster worth of troops for a game some friends of mine and I are having this weekend and saw the points skyrocket from 410 to 746.  I understand that the changes are supposed to help with smaller point value units running roughshod over heavier, supposedly tougher units that in a normal game of Battletech wouldn't have too much to worry about from those little buggers.  I just don't see the points differential in the Beta numbers being enough to make a difference.
 If you take a look at a Gladiator Prime the Beta number becomes 50, up from 27.  That's an increase of 185%.  The raw differential is 23 points.  Lets say my opponent want to field 50 points of forces also, and fields 3 Locust-1Ms at 45 points base (a differential of 33 points from the original numbers) and decides to increase the skill ratings on two of them to be 3 apiece, taking his point total to 49.  Let's also say that he's moderately skilled and can maintain the range he wants to (Medium in the case of the 1M) so that he can do maximum damage AND lets also say that with his 3 units to my one that he is able to get 1 unit into my rear arc each turn.  Assuming no terrain factors, my Clan Assault Mech will be needing 9s to hit the Locusts (because I was unable to increase its skills because of its cost) and will destroy one each time it hits them (27.8% of the time.)  Meanwhile, my opponent will be hitting me on 8s (41.7% of the time) for two of his units and 9s on the other.  Assuming the math holds, that means that he should be have chewed through my armor and be hitting structure within 8 turns and I will only have eliminated 1 of the Locusts.  With the steep drop off in AS units once they've taken structure damage and the nature of the critical hit charts I'm not even going to pretend that my math is good enough to predict how fast my Gladiator is going down after that, but I think we all know its going to be pretty quick.
Again, I think that the Beta numbers are a step in the right direction, because before them in the example above my opponent would be able to field an army of Locusts with legendary gunners and cut me to pieces in no time flat.  I just don't think that the Beta numbers do enough to even the playing field, ESPECIALLY when you look at Clan units versus IS units.  The Locusts went up 375% apiece but the already low cost of those units means that the raw points TOTAL isn't enough to make taking the Gladiator an attractive option over the lights.  Its like the difference between a head-on collision at 100mph or 90mph; either way its not pretty.

Von Ether

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 903
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #20 on: 17 February 2014, 19:25:07 »
When Alpha Strike was first released, I ran a few test scenarios to get familiar with the ruleset.  For Inner Sphere vs. Inner Sphere I found the game balanced, but for a combined arms IS vs Clan battle the results were very one-sided in the favor of the Spheroids.  During the test, an elite artillery lance of LT-MOB-25 proved incredibly effective for their points.

As an exercise, I recalculated the point value of the two forces under the new system.  Previously, they were both 185 points.  Under the new system, the IS force came in at 580 points, compared to 386 points on the clan side.  This calculation much more accurately reflected the way the actual game went.

By the way, I'm primary a lurker here, but wanted to thank whomever came up with this system.  I think that this is exactly what Alpha Strike needs (assuming it is rolled into the MUL!).

How was Zellbrigen used in the game?
"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

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6973
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #21 on: 17 February 2014, 19:37:53 »
27.8% for the Gladiator over 8 turns is more than 1 kill.  It's got nearly a 2.15% chance of having killed all three by turn 3.  (27.8% * 27.8% * 27.8% = 2.15%?)  thats nearly 5% by turn 4 and keeps going up from there.?
Also, I don't think you considered the reduced damage the Locusts will do each time one of them is destroyed. 
And, I beleive the PVs are taking into account the proposed standing still option where that Gladiator could choose to increase its chance to hit those Locusts fairly dramatically in return for giving up its own TMM.  That would be hell for those Locusts, with the Gladiator having the option of giving itself a 50% chance of hitting one each turn?
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

RebelRunner

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 406
  • RELEASE THE KRAKEN!!!
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #22 on: 17 February 2014, 20:19:44 »
Interesting. Does the last section indicate that CGL will be officially supporting large Aerospace units in Alpha Strike??? If so, that's actually...really nice.

I also noticed that thrust seems to be weighted extremely low for large craft. There seems to be little meaningful difference in cost between a low-performance merchant dropper like the Buccaneer (1.5) and something insane like the Dragau (4.5). For a massive difference in combat performance, one costs three points more than the other.
*God Bless Regulus.
*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
* "Want someone out of a building for sure? Fire a magnesium parachute flare through the window. He’ll leave."

templarmagnus

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #23 on: 17 February 2014, 21:46:20 »
27.8% for the Gladiator over 8 turns is more than 1 kill.  It's got nearly a 2.15% chance of having killed all three by turn 3.  (27.8% * 27.8% * 27.8% = 2.15%?)  thats nearly 5% by turn 4 and keeps going up from there.?
Also, I don't think you considered the reduced damage the Locusts will do each time one of them is destroyed. 
And, I beleive the PVs are taking into account the proposed standing still option where that Gladiator could choose to increase its chance to hit those Locusts fairly dramatically in return for giving up its own TMM.  That would be hell for those Locusts, with the Gladiator having the option of giving itself a 50% chance of hitting one each turn?

I did take the death of a Locust into account, actually.  By turn 4 the Locusts should have hit only 3 times on 11 shots (with one of them having been killed by turn 3 or 4), and one of those shots going into he Gladiator's rear, doing an average of 2.3 damage each hit.  As for the standing still option, you are correct in that I did NOT take that into account.  I chose not to so as not to bring tactics into the equation.  I went purely off of math.  If the Gladiator stood still then the Locusts would hit on 5s and a 6, standing an 83.3% chance of doing 7 damage that turn (with one firing from the rear arc).  Assuming the Gladiator hit and killed one that turn (at only a 50% chance) he would be left with only 2 armor points, and only be able to shrug off one more hit from a Locust; which would still have a much higher chance of hitting it then the Gladiator would of hitting them.
As for the 2.5% chance of getting 3 kills in 3 turns, I'm willing to bet my chances of winning a game against those odds.

Issamuel

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Pirates! Bandits! Mercs! The Periphery!
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #24 on: 17 February 2014, 22:07:28 »
The Wasp would normally be 9.5 points, rounded up to 10.  However, as it only has short range weapons and a move of 12" or less, it gets the Brawler modifier, which gives it a 25% discount.  It's meant to duplicate what I call the Charger Effect, which is that the Charger doesn't suck just because it has short range weapons, but because it has such a hard time bringing them to bear as well.

However, perhaps the effect should only kick in for units moving 10" or less, not 12" or less.  What do others think?

Thanks for the response. Interesting description for the "Charger Effect".  :D

For that, I think 10" or less would be idea - anything less and we will throw in the rest of 8" into it, which might be a bit too much.

Also, just want to voice out that I am primarily a lurker here, but I thought I should help voice out a thing or two to help Alpha Strike - it is now my primary gaming method for BattleTech, and the BETA point system is a step in the right direction.  O0
Issamuel

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6973
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #25 on: 18 February 2014, 00:07:14 »
I did take the death of a Locust into account, actually.  By turn 4 the Locusts should have hit only 3 times on 11 shots (with one of them having been killed by turn 3 or 4), and one of those shots going into he Gladiator's rear, doing an average of 2.3 damage each hit.  As for the standing still option, you are correct in that I did NOT take that into account.  I chose not to so as not to bring tactics into the equation.  I went purely off of math.  If the Gladiator stood still then the Locusts would hit on 5s and a 6, standing an 83.3% chance of doing 7 damage that turn (with one firing from the rear arc).  Assuming the Gladiator hit and killed one that turn (at only a 50% chance) he would be left with only 2 armor points, and only be able to shrug off one more hit from a Locust; which would still have a much higher chance of hitting it then the Gladiator would of hitting them.
As for the 2.5% chance of getting 3 kills in 3 turns, I'm willing to bet my chances of winning a game against those odds.

The odds of a 5, 5, and 6 all hitting is .833 * .833 * .722 = 50.9%?  Not 83.3%.  Still not great news for the Gladiator. But neither would be the Gladiator hitting a Locust first turn, also around 50% likely. And I think shooting in the rear is a tactic.  Just as putting your back against a hill/building would be.
The Gladiator is paying for 4 long range damage.  You didn't include it at all.  If you don't use the long range, it's not going to be worth its cost.   
I think you're right the Locusts have the advantage here, but I think you might be overstating how much.
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

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7813
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #26 on: 18 February 2014, 01:21:31 »
I also noticed that thrust seems to be weighted extremely low for large craft. There seems to be little meaningful difference in cost between a low-performance merchant dropper like the Buccaneer (1.5) and something insane like the Dragau (4.5). For a massive difference in combat performance, one costs three points more than the other.

It was felt that speed wasn't actually all that valuable for aero units (other than the magic over-10-Thrust threshold), what with no TMM and no terrain to move over.  Would you disagree?  If so, why, and how might you want to fix it?  Detail is important.  Thanks.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

RebelRunner

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 406
  • RELEASE THE KRAKEN!!!
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #27 on: 18 February 2014, 09:08:31 »
It was felt that speed wasn't actually all that valuable for aero units (other than the magic over-10-Thrust threshold), what with no TMM and no terrain to move over.  Would you disagree?  If so, why, and how might you want to fix it?  Detail is important.  Thanks.

In the case of ASFs, I agree with your rationalization. However, if WarShips are being used (read: we're in a large-scale aerospace battle), I feel that thrust will have a somewhat greater impact on tactical mobility, positioning, and the like. A massively improved ability to bring your weapons to bear at effective range should be worth more than the handful of points that it is now.

A pseudoexponential solution could be nice, but I'd go with a simple multiplier. Say, (Subtotal PV)*(1 + 0.05*THR). This way, THR5 would have a multiplier of 1.25, THR7 would have 1.50, et cetera. You could tweak the number up or down if you aren't thrilled with the PVs it generates. Thanks for responding to my comment!!  :) :)
*God Bless Regulus.
*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
* "Want someone out of a building for sure? Fire a magnesium parachute flare through the window. He’ll leave."

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #28 on: 18 February 2014, 16:09:16 »
Thanks for the response. Interesting description for the "Charger Effect".  :D

For that, I think 10" or less would be idea - anything less and we will throw in the rest of 8" into it, which might be a bit too much.

It should definitely be 10" or less.

I've noticed one error in the PV provided there, so anyone using it, don't take them for granted - the Fire Moth-H is listed as costing 13 points, when (unless my math is WILDLY wrong) it should be 16.

Offensive Value = 5.5

Defensive Value = 10.25

Move Rate 6.25 = 26*.25

DIR 4 = 3*1.4, round to nearest .5

Total = 15.75, round to nearest 16

It makes sense if in an alpha version the Brawler modifier were applied, but not here - and the Fire Moth-H is bread-and-butter to me so naturally I noticed it.

Other than that, I won't have complaints until I actually test the thing, but I do like that artillery costs a fair chunk more now!

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7813
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #29 on: 18 February 2014, 16:26:02 »
I've noticed one error in the PV provided there, so anyone using it, don't take them for granted - the Fire Moth-H is listed as costing 13 points, when (unless my math is WILDLY wrong) it should be 16.

Move Rate 6.25 = 26*.25

There's your issue: AS only records per 2" of movement, so move is costed the same, i.e. you pay for every 2" of move, not every 1".  Therefore it should be 13, not 26.

You can see on the spreadsheet all the cost components broken down.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Ratboy

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 357
    • Time Warp Comics & Games
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #30 on: 19 February 2014, 03:56:24 »
On the calculations spreadsheet, Column AJ ("Blanket"), the formula references and ability AC3. That is the autocannon special ability, but it is not listed in the PDF as affecting the offensive point value.


Code: [Select]
...+IF(ISERROR(FIND("AC3",$P2,1))=FALSE,-0.1,0)+...


Was AC3 an error in the formula and it should be some other ability? or does an autocannon with a short range damage of 3 subtract 0.1 from the blanket value?



Jim Williamson - Agent #206
NJ, USA

Time Warp Comics & Games

My Battletech Photo Gallery

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7813
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #31 on: 19 February 2014, 04:08:17 »
This isn't a rules issue, but an Excel one, and you'll find several instances similar to it.  The issue is that it's checking for "C3".  Unfortunately Excel doesn't understand that a unit with "AC3" is not applicable, and will apply to such a unit the C3 modifier.  So we have to perform these sorts of workarounds in order for the points to work out; see "ECM" and "AECM" for another example.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #32 on: 03 March 2014, 19:26:14 »
An issue that I've bumped into repeatedly is a.... killer threshold, above which the 'Mech is extraordinarily lethal. It seems to be around 7-9 points.

Specifically, the Executioner-D is the one that I'm having doubts about. Despite costing 58 points under PV 2.0 (and this IS a situation I had under my own system!) it can regularly destroy units all out of proportion to its points cost - even worse with just a single skill upgrade. With 7/7/2 and OV1, it can deal out 8 points of damage in a single blow.

When you stack it up against the AS7-D, which costs 52 points under the new system, it seems to have a lot more than just 8 points of advantage (so far in 8 games where they've come to blows, the Executioner has come out on top 7 times even counting lancemates).

Yes, it could be down to tactics, keeping out of range etcetera, but it is rather hard to stay out of MEDIUM range - especially when you're up against a unit that goes 10/8j.

I'm thinking the advantage the Executioner has might be down to that 'killer threshold' of 7-8 damage, which lets it breach armor regularly on anything but the heaviest of designs, and outright kill most Sz2 units or smaller.

I'd want to do more testing, and track down more units that breach that damage threshold of 6 or 7 points (they are quite rare!), but perhaps adding an 'overkill' area to the PV, where if a unit deals more than X damage you increase the multiplier or something, could be a fix.

Frantic Pryde

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #33 on: 03 April 2014, 15:59:59 »
An issue that I've bumped into repeatedly is a.... killer threshold, above which the 'Mech is extraordinarily lethal. It seems to be around 7-9 points.

Specifically, the Executioner-D is the one that I'm having doubts about. Despite costing 58 points under PV 2.0 (and this IS a situation I had under my own system!) it can regularly destroy units all out of proportion to its points cost - even worse with just a single skill upgrade. With 7/7/2 and OV1, it can deal out 8 points of damage in a single blow.

When you stack it up against the AS7-D, which costs 52 points under the new system, it seems to have a lot more than just 8 points of advantage (so far in 8 games where they've come to blows, the Executioner has come out on top 7 times even counting lancemates).

Yes, it could be down to tactics, keeping out of range etcetera, but it is rather hard to stay out of MEDIUM range - especially when you're up against a unit that goes 10/8j.

I'm thinking the advantage the Executioner has might be down to that 'killer threshold' of 7-8 damage, which lets it breach armor regularly on anything but the heaviest of designs, and outright kill most Sz2 units or smaller.

I'd want to do more testing, and track down more units that breach that damage threshold of 6 or 7 points (they are quite rare!), but perhaps adding an 'overkill' area to the PV, where if a unit deals more than X damage you increase the multiplier or something, could be a fix.

We played our last game using the regular cluster hits table from TW (something sort of eluded to in the AS companion preview) and it fixed that problem right up. We also played with the TMM jumping and stationary changes and new PVs and the game felt perfect.

Papabees

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 852
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #34 on: 04 April 2014, 17:25:50 »
How many models did you have per side?

Frantic Pryde

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #35 on: 05 April 2014, 11:16:41 »
Did clan vs IS. 10 clan mechs and 5 elementals against 8 mechs 4 tanks and 4 BA squads.

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #36 on: 15 April 2014, 13:08:40 »
One thing I have noticed is that movement modifier is under-accounted for.

A mech with a +4 movement modifier and any damage value at long range can trump An assault mech every time for half of it's PV score.

Sure, precision ammo exists...but not for clan mechs.

Sure, you can take a better skill, but you're already double their BV and losing to it.

The only thing I can think of is do PV matchups by weight class, I.E.

100PV worth of lights, 150PV worth of medium, 60PV worth of heavies, and 60PV woth of assaults.

Otherwise small light mechs in a swarm are overwhelming, especially if they keep at range where you cannot hit them.

I believe either a force size disparity multiplier needs to be codified, or that movement modifiers have to cost waaaaay more (Like, PV-subtotal -TIMES- the movement modifier.)

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4322
  • BattleTech Assistant Line Developer
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #37 on: 15 April 2014, 14:07:34 »
You feel that way after using the new beta point system? Or is this based on the current published point values?
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #38 on: 16 April 2014, 00:30:46 »
You feel that way after using the new beta point system? Or is this based on the current published point values?

New PV System.  Exemplar of this is a Jenner IIC 2 and a WSP-3L.

The Jenner IIC 2 Has a movement modifier of +4 (18"J).  At long range, a skill 4 pilot needs to roll a 12 to hit it (statistically 2.77% of the time, this will happen).

Two of these cost 40PV to field under the beta system.

An AS7-K costs 45 to field.  The Jenners have the speed and manuverability to stay at long range against this Atlas forcing him to have to roll 12s, while they have to roll 9's (Statistically 27.77% of the time, this or greater will happen.)  Even though the Atls has a greater than 10% PV advantage, the Jenners will roll all over him.

This is an extreme example, but it shows the power of the to-hit modifier vividly.  Should people be forced to play fast mechs to try and compensate, or should not the PV system be able to take the agility of a mech into account for balancing purposes.  If the Jenner cost twice as many points as it does (40 instead of 20) it wouldn't outmode assaults so much, because in a balanced army, you'll see fewer of them.

Now let's look at the LCT-3L.  It's only a 12"J, but it has Stealth and ECM.  At long range, it is literally impossible to hit this mech with a skill 4 pilot UNLESS you use precision ammo (again, not an option available to clan players.).  +3 for it's movement, +4 for range, +4 for skill, and then +2 for Stealth for a total of 13 to hit it.  This mech is available under the new PV system for 18PV.  Shouldn't a lance of Atlases be able to literally steamroll over a light company of Locusts?

I mean we're talking 144PV for 8 Locusts against 180 for 4 AS-7Ks.  That match should be very one sided, and it is...in favor of the locusts, by a land slide.  I would be surprised if more than one LCT died in that fight.

Yes, I am taking things to extremes, but at the edges of the envelope we find the faults in the system, right?

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6973
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #39 on: 16 April 2014, 09:15:55 »
I believe the new point system is presented in the beta is assuming the ability to use the stand still for a -2 to hit option.  And to get the jump TMM bonus, the jper would have to take a +1 to hit penalty. 
So the Atlas, with skill 4, at long range against a +4 TMM, would need a 10 if standing still.
The jumper would need, with skill 4 and long range, 9.
That would make the point costs more appropriate?  If those rules change or end up not being used at all, then yes, I agree high TMM needs to cost more.  But do you think it needs to cost more with those two rules in particular?
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

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #40 on: 16 April 2014, 14:21:17 »
I believe the new point system is presented in the beta is assuming the ability to use the stand still for a -2 to hit option.  And to get the jump TMM bonus, the jper would have to take a +1 to hit penalty. 
So the Atlas, with skill 4, at long range against a +4 TMM, would need a 10 if standing still.
The jumper would need, with skill 4 and long range, 9.
That would make the point costs more appropriate?  If those rules change or end up not being used at all, then yes, I agree high TMM needs to cost more.  But do you think it needs to cost more with those two rules in particular?

If the Atlas stands still, it suffers a -2 to-hit it as well, aff?

So now the Locust would need a +4 for range, +4 for skill, -2 for movement, 6 to hit at long range against the Atlas.  (72.77% hit probability)

The Atlas would need +4 for range, +4 for skill,+2 for movement (no JJs used), and +2 for stealth, -2 for the Atlas not moving, for 10 (16.66% Hit probability)

The match would be a -bit- closer, as in a 2 on 1 match (36 vs. 45 points) the Atlas would need to score 4 hits to win, which SHOULD happen within 20 rolls.  However, even assuming that the first Locust dies exactly on turn 10, the Locusts have statistically dealt 14.554 Damage by that round, which is More health than the Atlas had, so with a whopping 9PV disparity, and a 60 ton advantage, the Atlas still loses, it just 'statistically' takes down one of the locusts with it some of the time.

But, with a 6 to-hit against the stationary Atlas, the Locust player would very likely use Jump jets, necessitating an 11 to hit instead of 10.

So I still think high to-hit modifier are too inexpensive, or that there needs to be a cap to it.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 28612
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #41 on: 16 April 2014, 14:28:30 »
If the Atlas stands still, it suffers a -2 to-hit it as well, aff?

Nope. The Atlas gives up it's own movement modifer, but there is no additional benefit to shooting at it.

So if the Atlas stays still and the Jenner IIC 2 uses its jumping movement, the shots are as follows:

Jenner: Skill (4) + Long Range (4) + Used Jumping Movement (1) = 9 to-hit.

Atlas: Skill (4) + Long Range (4) + Jenner's movement modifier (4) - Stood still (2) = 10 to-hit.

If the Jenner chooses not to jump, both shots go down by 1.

The advantage is towards the Jenner, but given the Atlas's far heavier armor and firepower, it can afford to take many more hits, while the Jenner can only take one or two before it is in serious trouble.
"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.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6973
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #42 on: 16 April 2014, 14:30:40 »
As Weirdo said, so the Locust would need skill 4 + long range 4 + 0 no TMM for atlas standing still = 8+.
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

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #43 on: 16 April 2014, 14:42:33 »
The Locust has Stealth Armor, so it would still be a 10, whereas the Locust would need an 8.

So Locust has a 41.66% Hit probability

The Atlas still has a 16.66% Hit probability

By Round 10, statistically the Locusts have dealt 8.332 damage before the first locust dies (again, statistically.)

That leaves the Atlas with a total health of 5.668 and about 10 rounds to finish things off.  The Remaining Locust will in this time deal another 4.166 points of damage, meaning that statistically the fight is now in the Atlas' favor.  But the Atlas has one point of health remaining after starting with a 60ton and 9 PV advantage.

If the Locust player had bumped up their skill to 3 (They have the points available to do so) The fight is once again very much in the locust player's favor and they are still 5 points under the cost of the Atlas.

P.S.  At what point do I get to not have to type in these captchas anymore?

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4322
  • BattleTech Assistant Line Developer
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #44 on: 16 April 2014, 14:52:21 »
Sounds more like Stealth armor is undervalued. Maybe a multiplier of the TMM instead of a flat amount.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #45 on: 16 April 2014, 15:12:19 »
I think the total To-hit modifier at it's max needs to be accounted for, primarily.  A Jenner IIC 2 has a +4 to-hit modifier at max, a Locust has a +5 To-hit modifier at max.  Both of these really ought to cost more than half of an assault mech, owing to their difficulty to hit.  If at the end of the calculations, you add Total max to-hit modifier times 2 to the PV, you're adding a whopping 2 points to the atlas, but 10 to the locust.

That would bring the point disparity from 18 vs 45 to 28 vs 47, you could no longer field two locusts for the cost of one Atlas.

This would close the often times very high gap that exists, and hopefully mitigate swarm tactics, while also making a locust cost far more than a point of elementals.  (as it should, being the far more useful vehicle generally speaking)

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6973
  • Painted by Mastergunz
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #46 on: 16 April 2014, 15:16:57 »
Stealth (0/1/2 modifiers) should not count as much as a "true" 2 movement modifier.
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

Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3507
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #47 on: 16 April 2014, 15:38:39 »

I think the total To-hit modifier at it's max needs to be accounted for, primarily.  A Jenner IIC 2 has a +4 to-hit modifier at max, a Locust has a +5 To-hit modifier at max.  Both of these really ought to cost more than half of an assault mech, owing to their difficulty to hit.
Wouldn't this make them also overvalued against units that are less affected by to-hit modifiers?
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #48 on: 16 April 2014, 16:37:38 »
What do you mean, can you give me an example?  The To-hit modifier is woefully under rated.  The difference between a +4 and a +5 to hit isn't a flat number like a 12.77% survivability increase.  It's a curve.

At long range against a skill 4 pilot, the modifiers give the following hit probability
+0=41.66% Hit
+1=27.77% Hit
+2=16.66% hit
+3=8.33% hit
+4=2.77% hit
+5=0% hit

That means that a difference of 1 between units on their to-hit modifier means a difference of two to three times more shots landing.  It looks the same at medium and short range too, just higher numbers.

Maingunnery

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3507
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #49 on: 16 April 2014, 18:54:56 »
What do you mean, can you give me an example?
Any unit with abilities that reduce the to-hit or ignore the to-hit. Such as:

AC ability with precision ammo
Artillery - Area of Effect (AOE) Damage
Bombing attacks
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7813
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #50 on: 16 April 2014, 19:12:55 »
Sounds more like Stealth armor is undervalued. Maybe a multiplier of the TMM instead of a flat amount.

Just to be clear, Stealth is already factored in that fashion (except for aero).  Defensive Value, Step D:

"For abilities that provide variable defensive
modifiers, such as Stealth, always use the
maximum possible benefit."

The rules assume the usual best-case scenario for valuing a defensive boost, which is why it adds 2 to the multiplier.  Considering how easy it is to raise the overall target defensive modifier, I think that's a reasonable precaution.
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4322
  • BattleTech Assistant Line Developer
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #51 on: 16 April 2014, 20:26:01 »
Right, that's not what I meant though.
Just musing that the defensive abilities could be multiplied by or in some way proportional to the TMM, instead of simply adding to.
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #52 on: 16 April 2014, 20:33:30 »
Right, by taking the Total To hit modifier and multiplying it by two, you're adding a flat slope to the value instead of shallow multiplier.  The problem with a multiplier is that 110% of a very low PV is still a very low PV.


By doubling the modifier and then adding it to the total PV you're getting a value that is more detrimental the lower the unit's PV is.

+0=0pv
+1=1pv
+2=4pv
+3=6pv
+4=8pv
+5=10pv

4 more PV isn't going to hurt the heavy mechs that have 30-40 points already, but it's proportionally much more painful to a mech that is currently at 18PV.

And a +5 modifier, such as in the case of the LCT-3L, adds half again it's BV, which I think makes sense considering that it's impossible to hit under normal conditions for a standard pilot at long range.
« Last Edit: 16 April 2014, 20:37:26 by DarkJaguar »

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #53 on: 18 April 2014, 09:26:06 »
Okay, I'm doing some more math, but after a rough pass, I have an idea.

Because the total to-hit modifier makes you harder to hit, it acts as an armor multiplier (making each point of armor worth more).

Starting with a target of 4 (Skill 4, short range, no to-hit mod) I created a baseline.

By finding the multiplier of each total to-hit modifier against this base line I come up with the following.

+0=1
+1=1.1
+2=1.3
+3=1.6
+4=2.2
+5=3.3
+6=5.5
+7=11
+8=33

So, if we multiply the unit's ACTUAL armor, by this value we get it's effective armor.  This could be plugged in to the beta calculation in place of step D of the DIR to give us...

WSP-3L Current Beta:18

WSP-3L MOD:28.3(28)

The calculation I used is...

OFFENSIVE VALUE
Damage: (1*1)+(1*2)+(1*1)=4
Size: 1/2=.5
Overheat:0
Spec Abilities:n/a
Blanket Mod:n/a
Sub-total:4.5

DEFENSIVE VALUE
Move Rate: (12/2=6); 6*.25=1.5; 1.5+.5=2
Special Abilities:n/a
DIR
A:2*2=4
B:2
C:4+2=6
D:12J=+3, STL=+2; TMM +5; +5=3.3
E:6*3.3=19.8
Sub-Total:21.8

FINAL PV
Off+Def:4.5+21.8=26.3
Brawler:n/a
Force Mult:2
FINAL PV:28.3 (28)

I'll throw this at a few more mechs, but it's interesting to see that I got the same PV in this case as just adding TMM*2 at the end.

Threw this at a Mad Cat Prime

Mad Cat Prime Beta:49
Mad Cat Prime Mod:57
« Last Edit: 27 April 2014, 09:55:55 by DarkJaguar »

DarkSpade

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2070
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #54 on: 18 April 2014, 09:57:48 »
Other week we tried playing using the rules for giving up your movement mod to get +2 to hit.   It did make hits much more likely, but it also made the attacking unit a really juicy target.   Seems like a good balance of risk/reward.
Space Marines are guys who look at a chainsaw and think, “That should be balanced for parrying.”

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #55 on: 18 April 2014, 13:40:47 »
Other week we tried playing using the rules for giving up your movement mod to get +2 to hit.   It did make hits much more likely, but it also made the attacking unit a really juicy target.   Seems like a good balance of risk/reward.

Use it only on mechs that have a low to-hit mod to start with and keep them at long range.  A Masakari is perfect for that rule (5 damage at long range plus OVL3?  Heck yeah I'll take a -2 to hit to sacrifice the single point of movement mod it starts with.)

RebelRunner

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 406
  • RELEASE THE KRAKEN!!!
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #56 on: 26 April 2014, 18:42:04 »
I'm recalculating point values for some heavy Aerospace assets for a campaign and had some questions regarding special abilities. Currently, it appears that only PNT (Point Defense) is mentioned in the BattleShop PDF, but the units I'm working with have fighter and small-craft bays, marines, et cetera. How should points for those be calculated?

EDIT: Also, should Extreme range values be incorporated into the Offensive Value calculation? I only recall seeing S/M/L in the PDF.
« Last Edit: 26 April 2014, 19:14:24 by RebelRunner »
*God Bless Regulus.
*A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
* "Want someone out of a building for sure? Fire a magnesium parachute flare through the window. He’ll leave."

Sereglach

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 653
  • If it's salvagable, take it; if not, scorch it.
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #57 on: 28 April 2014, 01:53:02 »
I came here to get a feeling for the movement modifier and pilot skill debates, as it is pretty intense where I play.  To me, the current PV Beta, combined with several of the rules listed already in this discussion, seem relatively balanced.  To reiterate for clarification, those are:
-Declared Stationary (not holding position, but declaring a completely stationary unit) to gain -2 to hit while losing movement modifier.
-Declared Jumping imposes +1 to hit for attacking and +1 defense for movement modifier.
-Use of specialty munitions (precision, heat seeker vs. Heat Scale)
-Use of AOE attacks.
-12 is an automatic hit, regardless of perceived difficulty (mentioned here: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,37970.0.html, I didn't notice it in this thread, but I may have overlooked it.)

Now, I do see where one could consider the PV calculations too lenient on Movement Modifiers (MM).  On the other hand, if one were to make that argument for MM, then they must also make the argument for pilot skill, as well.  For reference:  http://anydice.com/ (be sure to put in 2d6 for probability calculations).

Baseline Combat Reference:
-Seemingly average combat scenario:  +2(Medium Range) + 2(MM) + 4(Skill) = 8 or more to hit
-Seemingly average scenario will result in a hit 41.66% of the time (add up roll chances from 8-12).
When looking at pilot skill:
-As soon as you drop the pilot skill to 3, the shot target drops to 7, which will theoretically happen 58.33% of the time (add the chance of rolling 7).
-This result is nearly a 40% boost in performance over the 41.66% (16.66% increase in hit probability) at only a 10% cost in increased PV.
-The performance boost for skill 2, going from 7 to 6 shot difficulty, is only about 24% (a 13.88% chance to hit increase up to 72.22% from 58.33%).
-The performance return drops to 15% at skill 1 (shot difficulty of 5), and  barely 10% at skill 0 (shot difficulty of 4).

To me, this honestly seems to balance each other out.  You pay 10% for this relatively significant boost in skill, just as you pay for the movement modifiers of light units.

Same Scenario as above, only looking at movement modifiers countering skill:
-With a skill of 3, on the other hand, a movement modifier of 3 pushes the shot difficulty back to 8, which costs that same 10% boost in unit PV.
-The cycle can continue to 2Skill/4MM, 1Skill/5MM, 0Skill/6MM
-OR the cycle can be altered with other attack boosters, such as the rules mentioned in the beginning of this post.

As it stands, I'm not averse to seeing something like that PV boost mentioned by Dark Jaguar tested (very interested in hearing an official word on that), but at the same token I think something would also need to be done to address skill costs on a similar scale.  This would be done with a significant cost to go to 3, with decreasing PV costs down the line.  For example, a 1.3 PV multiplier for going from skill 4 to 3, an additional .2 to go down to 2, and an additional .1 to go down to 1 and 0.  This addresses the huge early on gain while compensating for the diminishing returns of later skills.

Dark Jaguar is correct in that the movement modifiers work in a bell curve, but so does pilot skill.  Pilot skill starts at the middle and has great gains early on, with ever diminishing returns.  Movement modifiers start slow with low early gains, and have their great gains later down the scale.

On the other hand, if absolutely nothing changes, and they keep the special circumstance rules listed in the beginning of this post, I'm perfectly ok with that, as I think PV values counter each other.  Regardless of any changes, as long as the system is reasonably balanced and enjoyable at the end of the day I'm fine with any tweaks they make.
Mercenary Pyromaniac and Scorched Earth Specialist

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #58 on: 29 April 2014, 11:54:52 »
Sereglach,

After reading over and applying much consideration to your post, I have discovered a problem.

Piloting skill is calculated after PV, but the pilot skill only affects a portion of the mech's abilities (namely, it's offensive value).

Now, we could add in the pilot skill as part of the PV equation, and just multiply the pffensive value by the modifier.

Or, we could figure out what the average percent contribution the offensive value gives to the total.

That's 42%, by the way.

So, if we apply the same base-line average shot as we did to the movement modifier and calculate based on the difference from "4", we come up with the following...

SkillPV modifier
01.50
11.42
21.31
31.17
41
5.86
6.75
7.66
8.61

These modifiers should balance well, and are based on the same logic as the movement modifiers I provided earlier.

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #59 on: 29 April 2014, 14:14:36 »
Sereglach,

After reading over and applying much consideration to your post, I have discovered a problem.

Piloting skill is calculated after PV, but the pilot skill only affects a portion of the mech's abilities (namely, it's offensive value).

Now, we could add in the pilot skill as part of the PV equation, and just multiply the pffensive value by the modifier.

Or, we could figure out what the average percent contribution the offensive value gives to the total.

That's 42%, by the way.

So, if we apply the same base-line average shot as we did to the movement modifier and calculate based on the difference from "4", we come up with the following...

SkillPV modifier
01.50
11.42
21.31
31.17
41
5.86
6.75
7.66
8.61

These modifiers should balance well, and are based on the same logic as the movement modifiers I provided earlier.
To streamline pre-game play, however, if we're advocating a switch to using these numbers it'd be best to round them to the nearest imho, like so:

SkillPV modifier
01.5
11.4
21.3
31.2
41
5.9
6.8
7.7
8.6

Remember, what Alpha Strike is trying to achieve is NOT perfect mathematic accuracy of all odds involved in the game's play, but an easy-to-use and enjoyable simplification of Battletech's rules using Battleforce as a starting point. Taking the fractional accounting too far kinda ruins that.

Besides, what difference does .03 in the cost of a 40 point unit make?

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #60 on: 29 April 2014, 17:38:47 »
To streamline pre-game play, however, if we're advocating a switch to using these numbers it'd be best to round them to the nearest imho, like so:

SkillPV modifier
01.5
11.4
21.3
31.2
41
5.9
6.8
7.7
8.6

Remember, what Alpha Strike is trying to achieve is NOT perfect mathematic accuracy of all odds involved in the game's play, but an easy-to-use and enjoyable simplification of Battletech's rules using Battleforce as a starting point. Taking the fractional accounting too far kinda ruins that.

Besides, what difference does .03 in the cost of a 40 point unit make?

Agreed, though I included the 100th place for completeness (also, the 100th place was included in the original calcs provided in the book.)

Finally, the difference between 1.17 and 1.2 on a 40 point unit is the difference between 47 and 48pv
« Last Edit: 29 April 2014, 17:41:42 by DarkJaguar »

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #61 on: 29 April 2014, 18:31:29 »
And 23 and 24 points on a 20 point unit, making lighter units cheaper - but game design is all about tradeoff, and I'd be happy to trade off a point or two of value off as a way to simplify the mechanics that have to be used every day.

After all, there's a LOT of difference in quickly figuring up the difference between a 1.2 and a 1.17 multiplier - with 1.2 you can quickly just say, "Okay, one tenth of 20 points is 2, so two-tenths of it is 4... that's 24" versus having to bust out a calculator.

And frankly, I'd be happy if they got rid of the 100ths place in the calculation. Hell, I'd be happy if they got rid of the TENTHS place, but it's not my druthers to do so. :D One of the reasons I do like my system is that it's so damnably easy to calculate, not to mention that when I changed over I found a total of 20 (out of some 150 units) that had different points value, and that most of those were only 1-2 points different.


Okay, going on to my thoughts on fast units. I've been playing them a LOT lately using the new PV system, and not pikers either - 2 Fire Moths, Shadowcat, Incubus, Viper, Jenner IIC, Clint IIC, and an occasional swarm of Kungsarme Savannah Masters - and the new PV system is NOT balanced in their favor. It isn't balanced against them either; I always hesitate to say "It seems to be perfect" but with prospective new rules about needing to choose to jump, standing still to get a -2 TN, and the fact that they don't cost RIDICULOUSLY low any more (2 PV for a Savannah Master?), they seem to be perfect. While you could base an entire risky strategy around them, the cost seems well-balanced for having fast units as a component of your opfor to flank/backstab, threaten sudden movements, and change the shape of the battlefield without dominating it.

Adrian Gideon

  • Battletech Developer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4322
  • BattleTech Assistant Line Developer
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #62 on: 29 April 2014, 19:30:56 »
I always hesitate to say "It seems to be perfect"
I like the sound of that regardless :D
FYI we are still reading the new posts in this threads, weighing and testing. But I'll be locking this thread in perhaps 2 days as we're nearing the end of this cycle.

Much appreciated folks!
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

Xotl

  • Deus Errata et regulas Exsecutor
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7813
  • Professor of Errata
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #63 on: 29 April 2014, 19:41:33 »
I'm recalculating point values for some heavy Aerospace assets for a campaign and had some questions regarding special abilities. Currently, it appears that only PNT (Point Defense) is mentioned in the BattleShop PDF, but the units I'm working with have fighter and small-craft bays, marines, et cetera. How should points for those be calculated?

EDIT: Also, should Extreme range values be incorporated into the Offensive Value calculation? I only recall seeing S/M/L in the PDF.

None of that is worth anything in the current system, which is very much concerned only with direct combat capabilities.  If you're carrying fighters, for instance, you pay for them, not the ability to carry them.  Same with APCs and infantry.
« Last Edit: 29 April 2014, 19:43:16 by Xotl »
Generally absent from the forums at this time.

3028-3050 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info and Quirk lists.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #64 on: 29 April 2014, 23:27:19 »
iamfanboy,

I would disagree with you about the movement modifier point value being balanced.  I plan on playtesting the multiplier for movement mods as well as the modifier for pilot skill.  My results with the current beta though thus far is that a +4 or +5 modifier can make stuff pretty ridiculous to hit still even with the -2 for standing still, and it's still cheap as hell, even under the new beta values.

Please try out the replacement Defensive Interaction Rating "step D" that I outlined in a previous post, and let me know how it works on your end!

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #65 on: 30 April 2014, 01:08:30 »
iamfanboy,

I would disagree with you about the movement modifier point value being balanced.  I plan on playtesting the multiplier for movement mods as well as the modifier for pilot skill.  My results with the current beta though thus far is that a +4 or +5 modifier can make stuff pretty ridiculous to hit still even with the -2 for standing still, and it's still cheap as hell, even under the new beta values.

Please try out the replacement Defensive Interaction Rating "step D" that I outlined in a previous post, and let me know how it works on your end!
I really hate to be dismissive, but I think you're thinking about this like a Battletech player, where lights had literally no ability to stand up to anything heavier than themselves and had no real 'on-table' role when taken as part of a BV-balanced force. That was a problem with Battletech itself, NOT with the idea of light units: the rules themselves simply don't favor units which can't take at least 10 points of damage in a single location, and the typical size of a Battletech game (4-6 mapsheets) just didn't allow the strength of lights to reveal themselves in a game of maneuver.

I want to make this clear, though: The main reason I'm being dismissive is that I spent some 6 months with a group of cutthroat players trying as hard as I could to break my own points system and found that speed HELPS, but doesn't WIN the game. It's an issue that I had myself so I examined, dissected, and tested the hell out of it in many different permutations with the help of some real bastards. The results were conclusive: if you pay too much for speed, it does nothing to help game balance. Speed is not armor, ARMOR is armor.

Think about the roles that a light unit is supposed to play. On the tabletop, they SHOULD are skirmishers, screeners, and flankers - while they may not be able to fight a heavier unit head-on, if that heavier unit doesn't have screeners of their own then they should be punished for it by being pounded from out of range or by simply being outmaneuvered.

At first, the tactic you're describing does seem to work out fine - the ability to peck at heavier 'Mechs from 30"+ away and never get hit by anything in return is impressive, for a given value of 'impressive' (I don't call taking 3-4 turns getting through an Atlas's armor for a single structure hit impressive). However, what's less impressive is when scout hunters or even other scouts close the distance, when artillery gets to within 31", or even a cluster bomb dropped from a quick overhead pass takes care of the issue.

If my opponent were foolish enough to take NOTHING but slow line 'Mechs, then there's a problem (on his end, not mine). But the use of even a bit of combined arms and there's no issue whatsoever.


I think part of the problem is that you aren't thinking in terms of a battlefield, but of raw numbers. If a Skill 3 Atlas sat in woods and fired at a group of Fire Moth-Cs at long range in woods then yes, eventually the Atlas would come off worse unless it got really lucky. But why is it just sitting there?

DarkJaguar

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 30
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #66 on: 01 May 2014, 09:20:27 »
I really hate to be dismissive, but I think you're thinking about this like a Battletech player, where lights had literally no ability to stand up to anything heavier than themselves and had no real 'on-table' role when taken as part of a BV-balanced force. That was a problem with Battletech itself, NOT with the idea of light units: the rules themselves simply don't favor units which can't take at least 10 points of damage in a single location, and the typical size of a Battletech game (4-6 mapsheets) just didn't allow the strength of lights to reveal themselves in a game of maneuver.

If you hate to be dismissive, then don't be.  This game is still battletech, and there is no reason a unit that costs less than a third of another should be able to kill or nearly kill another unit by itself.  The current point value of light mechs completely negates assaults and many heavies.

I want to make this clear, though: The main reason I'm being dismissive is that I spent some 6 months with a group of cutthroat players trying as hard as I could to break my own points system and found that speed HELPS, but doesn't WIN the game. It's an issue that I had myself so I examined, dissected, and tested the hell out of it in many different permutations with the help of some real bastards. The results were conclusive: if you pay too much for speed, it does nothing to help game balance. Speed is not armor, ARMOR is armor.

Armor is armor, and speed is an armor multiplier.  It is not currently treated as such by the points calculator.  If a unit is hit 40% less than the baseline then it's armor is worth 40% more per point than baseline.

Think about the roles that a light unit is supposed to play. On the tabletop, they SHOULD are skirmishers, screeners, and flankers - while they may not be able to fight a heavier unit head-on, if that heavier unit doesn't have screeners of their own then they should be punished for it by being pounded from out of range or by simply being outmaneuvered.

Light units absolutely can fight a heavier unit head on.  Especially in the higher tiers of movement mod.  With 26" of movement, you can literally keep yourself at long range until you win initiative and then close to short range BEHIND your target.  The current inexpensiveness of lights means that there's no down side to taking them.  The most game breaking army you could make would consist entirely of +4 and +5 to-hit mod units even if you were under points of your opponent.

Don't even try and tell me "well you can stand still and take a -2, or you could use arty, or you could use precision ammo."  1)  Standing still means that you're an easier target as well, which if you're being swarmed, you're probably going to die.  2)  Arty may not care about movement modifiers, but you still need to hit the spot you shot at, and any sort of arty that can be mounted on a mech and hit the same turn it's fired has a 2" diameter blast radius.  That means that if you miss by even the minimum value, your shot will still scatter beyond damaging the "target" mech.  3)  Precision ammo is not available to clan players at all.


At first, the tactic you're describing does seem to work out fine - the ability to peck at heavier 'Mechs from 30"+ away and never get hit by anything in return is impressive, for a given value of 'impressive' (I don't call taking 3-4 turns getting through an Atlas's armor for a single structure hit impressive). However, what's less impressive is when scout hunters or even other scouts close the distance, when artillery gets to within 31", or even a cluster bomb dropped from a quick overhead pass takes care of the issue.

It's not 'when' arty gets within 31", it's if.  Then you go on to say that I need to field assets other than mechs to counter light mechs?  Why would I ever bring a heavy or assault if the only viable counter to light mechs is aerospace assets?

If my opponent were foolish enough to take NOTHING but slow line 'Mechs, then there's a problem (on his end, not mine). But the use of even a bit of combined arms and there's no issue whatsoever.

So if I were to take a star of 3 lights and 2 mediums, and a star of 1 medium, 3 heavies, and 1 assault against a company of 5 lights, 2 mediums, 3 heavies, and 2 assaults that's foolish?  Or is the foolish part taking clan units whose light mechs are generally slower than their inner sphere counterparts?  Speed is too cheap, it allows for viable min-maxing right now.

I think part of the problem is that you aren't thinking in terms of a battlefield, but of raw numbers. If a Skill 3 Atlas sat in woods and fired at a group of Fire Moth-Cs at long range in woods then yes, eventually the Atlas would come off worse unless it got really lucky. But why is it just sitting there?

I'm thinking in terms of having played out this scenario changing one variable at a time in a controlled manner.  High to-hit modifiers are waaaaay under valued.  Also, the Atlas is probably sitting in the woods because if it closes with the Fire Moth C's, it's going to be flanked and torn apart, while being in the woods at least gives it some cover bonus as it stands still to have a prayer at hitting the little buggers (which, hilariously enough, is exactly what people who favor the light armies keep telling heavy players to do as the counter).

Sereglach

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 653
  • If it's salvagable, take it; if not, scorch it.
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #67 on: 01 May 2014, 23:05:31 »
@iamfanboy:  Thank you.  I very much agree with the statements made.  Even a single screening unit (which could be anything from a point of elementals to an assault mech taking up the rear of the formation) forces lighter units to think twice about pushing a flank, because they will probably not come out unscathed.  Once a screener gets in short range, those light mechs are quite possibly toast, because they have little in the way of real defenses to survive a hit.  Initiative has little to do with it if you're moving your units tactically to force your opponents hand, especially if he has more units on the field than you.

@DarkJaguar:  I don't think anyone here is against (from the debating I've seen) modestly increasing the impact of to-hit modifiers on the field.  However, making a light mech worth the same value of an assault or a heavy mech (or nearly the same value) by adding MM*2 to the raw PV of a unit seems overkill, and makes lights useless to bring to the battlefield.

On the other hand, your scaling factor was somewhat better, but I don't think the multipliers should be that high if you're only willing to concede a *1.2 multiplier for going from skill 4 to skill 3, which is the same as going from a MM of +2 to +3 (based on the calculations done) and then have a multiplier of 1.6 adjustment in movement for a +3MM.

Also, if two forces are just staring at each other, at long range, and trying to roll their 9's to 12's, and not have any of their other forces on the field maneuver into tactical positions to engage the enemy up close, then I ask, what game are you playing?  Most every game I've played of AS has gotten pretty up close and brutal, with the occasional outlier that needs to be hunted down and eradicated.  But they have little room or ability to stand at long range and continue to endlessly harass with all the other units herding and closing on them.

--------------------------------------------------------------

The PV's, as they stand, are pretty well balanced.  There is some room for tweaking (which I think this thread highlights rather well), and it seems as though the administrators here are taking it into sincere consideration.  I look forward to seeing the next iteration of the PV system.  As it stands, I agree that the balance is reaching the point of being near perfect.

Although, on a side note, I must admit that after testing C3's, the PV cost for the unit seems rather high.  Maybe consider +'s to the PV only if they're networked (example, +3PV per master on a network, and +1 per slave on the network, then +2 for C3i's networked together?).
Mercenary Pyromaniac and Scorched Earth Specialist

iamfanboy

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Alpha Strike Companion Open Beta Test: Point Value System
« Reply #68 on: 02 May 2014, 03:55:18 »
@DarkJaguar: Before you think about raising the points cost, instead turn the table around, literally. It's what I always do: shuffle around control of a force when I'm not sure if it's overpriced or if I start thinking I should cry, "Cheese!" Take command of a light, fast, maneuverable force and hand control of whatever type of unit you usually run to someone else. You'll quickly see that even if you are fast, the fact that one of your units disappears the moment it's hit, combined with the lesser firepower of your average light, balances that speed out nicely.

(as a side note, this philosophy is why I think the Naga is DRASTICALLY underpriced - or that the rule allowing ART units to make regular and ART attacks in the same turn needs to be banished to the land of wind and ghosts. I've lost track of the number of times the Naga has kicked to death fast units sent to 'deal' with it while raining 6 points of ART damage from 30" away. Seriously, if you're a Clanner and want to drive an opponent nuts, then get a Naga.)


My considered opinion on C3 networks is that linking it to MHQ makes them overpriced - unless you're using the Battlefield Intelligence rule, in which case it's a brutal advantage and one that actually does cost fairly (and might even be undercosted, I'll have to test out more with Battlefield Intelligence).

For example, a 400-point WoB force I put together using a C3i network has a total BI of 20 (6 C3i units + 2 RCN units + 4 AF units), whereas my Clan Ghost Bear unit (for example) has a BI of 8. That's a 5:2 ratio, and it's kinda hard to lose initiative with a +5 modifier, having 4 plotted points for artillery, and other goodies.

As it stands now, you just flat pay for MHQ, which only comes into play on one Advanced Option. It's a fair price if you're USING Battlefield Intelligence, but if you're not it's overpriced - I'm not sure how to resolve that, or even to word it properly in the rules. Maybe add MHQ/2 to the total force value? Then again, almost all the "Apply Force Modifiers" section only comes into play when using Advanced Options; C3 is the only one that does!

 

Register