PV Revision Public Review - Feedback Wanted

[GoldBishop]

When did a 'Mech's size start determining how much a design is worth outside of its PV? ???

Size caps speed, and speed is the main reason this thread exists (to revise PV).

[Scotty]

But you mentioned that the unit in question is too expensive for its size (which has nothing to do with its speed) and in the same breath described Assaults or Heavies that can go as fast (meaning the speed cap doesn't really exist).

I don't follow your reasoning.  I can get an Assault for 18 points, cheaper than most light Mechs.  That doesn't mean anything at all, though, because AS doesn't generally care what size you are in any sense except mdlee.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

But you mentioned that the unit in question is too expensive for its size (which has nothing to do with its speed) and in the same breath described Assaults or Heavies that can go as fast (meaning the speed cap doesn't really exist).

I don't follow your reasoning.  I can get an Assault for 18 points, cheaper than most light Mechs.  That doesn't mean anything at all, though, because AS doesn't generally care what size you are in any sense except mdlee.

AS also cares about SZ in campaign mode, which is something I'd like to see errata'd.  Afterall, why pay 4x the price of a light when buying an assault that's cheaper than many lights? :)

As for the Ryoken Z... yeah couple damage stats usually reserved for assault mechs on a TMM3 platform, along with decent Armor/Structure and a kaboodle of various specials?  How is it NOT worth 75 points?  I get that there's sticker shock for the fast guys under the new system... but the point all along was that such fast units weren't paying for how good they truly were.

[GoldBishop]

You just laid it out for me, Scotty.

Why should I spend 75 PV for that medium-weight Ryoken Z when I can get a pair of InnerSphere assaults at 37?  Or - as was graciously pointed out - a quartet of Charger 1A1's at 18 PV a piece?

Is that really a fair price?  1 Medium mech for 2 to 4 Assaults?  Is that the balance we're looking for

Honestly, balancing shouldn't focus on fixing corner cases such as these [Ryoken Z or the Charger -1A1].  I brought up Size because Assaults *should* have more staying power - the greater ability to soak damage with armor and structure... not evade it.  Skills change; Equipment doesn't.


In the meantime, something I'd like to see that maybe Joel or the other programmers can provide: Median PV values for each weight class. 

I'd like to know how much the Average PV cost is going up [by Size] between the current and proposed systems.
I'm too frustrated and tired to figure out how, but I know there must be an easier/quicker way to Sum/divide to find those 8 totals.  Specifics I'm asking for:
- how much difference is the new system gonna be (on average) from the old
- which weight class is the most affected by the change

I have no idea if it'll help, but maybe it'll show someone something that they didn't see before.

[StingerTheRaven]

Honestly, balancing shouldn't focus on fixing corner cases such as these [Ryoken Z or the Charger -1A1].  I brought up Size because Assaults *should* have more staying power - the greater ability to soak damage with armor and structure... not evade it.

So, what just what exactly will happen if someone takes that 8/6/2 Ryoken that dodges half of the fire directed at it? It takes the Stormcrow exactly 2 consecutive hits to break the Chargers you're describing, even if we did upgrade them to 1A5s. Even the mighty Atlas falls in 3 hits, where the second will reduce it to a wimpy 2 structure. For a better equivelant, The Osteon Prime, the only unit I've mentioned that can 1-shot the Ryo at short range, only takes 3 short-range hits, or 4 med-range. And just for fun, the armour king of the Inner Sphere, the Great Turtle STILL falls in 4 short-range hits or 5 med-range.  And in the context of most IS assaults, when they're being hit by a 'mech moving, at slowest, double their speed, its medium range damage acts as little more than an extreme safety net in the event that it could be led into an alleyway of angry assaults. A safety net that can still 3-shot those Chargers and even Atlases. And that's all from a mech that can also double as a scout; it still pays extra for ECM, MHQ, PRB, RCN, and according to the NOVA special, an ECM-ignoring C3i that can only be disabled by another NOVA. Oh, and it's all done at TMM3.

The only way this could be even remotely fair is if AS remains totally indifferent about size in its PV calc, which it does. That Ryoken, as I described, can run around 2-3-shotting most Assaults, or just casually gnawing off 1/2 or 1/3 of their armour for the entire game and letting the subsequent fights end in a comically lopsided manner. And it has PRB and C3i, so it can spot for friendly arty and snipers, meaning it can add even more to its already extreme damage output. It's a terrifying asset that can singlehandedly determine the outcome of most games, even if it does get hit by an enemy's lucky shot early on, and thus it deserves to be worth more than many assaults.

Don't think of it as buying "1 medium for the price of 2-4 assaults", think of it as buying "the lightning-fast angry fist of Kerensky for the price of 2 already-formidable CGR-1A5s" or whatever your preferred choice of 35-40pt asset is. Because that's precisely what it is; a super-fast anti-heavy that can 3-shot even the highest-end assaults which are too slow to run away, and reliably 2- or even 1-shot the faster assets that can stay out of short range. And it's not like it'll be doing any of this alone, what with that arty-supporting PRB and the fact that its user doesn't really want to lose 75pts of walking death to a lucky SRM Carrier or 2.

I guess Scotty summed it up already.

I don't follow your reasoning.  I can get an Assault for 18 points, cheaper than most light Mechs.  That doesn't mean anything at all, though, because AS doesn't generally care what size you are in any sense except melee.

Therefore the inverse is true, and getting a 55-tonner for 75pts, more than even the Great Turtle, doesn't actually mean anything except that the medium is just that absurdly good.

[Xotl]

You just laid it out for me, Scotty.

Why should I spend 75 PV for that medium-weight Ryoken Z when I can get a pair of InnerSphere assaults at 37?  Or - as was graciously pointed out - a quartet of Charger 1A1's at 18 PV a piece?

I have to honestly say that, if you can ask this question at all, you don't understand how balance should work.

I mean, I already literally showed in the post immediately after your first on the issue that the Ryoken will do just fine against another 75-PV opponent, so I'm baffled by how you then immediately followed that by saying it was too expensive.  But you've somehow fixated on weight as being what should determine cost, despite the fact it never has had a 100% correlation with battlefield performance, right back to 1985.  The Charger is 80 tons, and sucks.  This is the most extreme and famous example, but by no means the only; the game has always had substandard units for any given weight class, regardless of era; you have to know this if you've played BT for more than a game or two (and of course this artifact then carries over into AS).  The more technology is available, the greater the possible disparity between the weight chosen and the actual performance of the unit (i.e. the more a light or medium can punch above its weight, or a heavy/assault be non-optimal).  Expecting a weight-based ratio of any kind to determine battlefield performance is utterly impossible, and in fact counterproductive.

So why take the Ryoken instead of X Chargers?  Or two Schrek AC carriers, or whatever?  Because the Ryoken will win.  Which is the only thing a PV system should be trying to determine.

Is that really a fair price?  1 Medium mech for 2 to 4 Assaults?  Is that the balance we're looking for

Again, this is a nonsensical question.  "The balance we're looking for" is balance, regardless of the outcome.  Whatever will win on the tabletop should cost more, regardless of its weight, speed, armour, firepower, faction availability, date of release, first letter of its name -- whatever.  That's it, that's the only consideration.  We can allow for some small amount of variance, because we're not going to get perfection, and we have to allow for non-direct-engagement PV skewing results (i.e. units that sink their points into ECM, PRB, and other specials that still very much matter but don't directly kill something), but overall, balance is the only goal.

Honestly, balancing shouldn't focus on fixing corner cases such as these [Ryoken Z or the Charger -1A1].

That is untrue.  Balance should aim for addressing as many scenarios as possible that can be encountered at the tabletop, regardless of their niche status, so long as it doesn't warp more common scenarios to achieve this, or bog down the rules too far.  So far, this revision does that.  Additionally, "units with a defense mod of 3+" (what this revision was aimed at fixing) is not a corner-case: that's about 28% of all units in the game, spanning all factions and eras of play -- pretty much the opposite of "obscure scenario".

(If you want an obscure scenario, I'm making a slight change to the rules that will for now only affect one unit in the entire game: the YHC-3Y Yinghuochong -- I'll see if people can figure it out).

I brought up Size because Assaults *should* have more staying power - the greater ability to soak damage with armor and structure... not evade it.  Skills change; Equipment doesn't.

Assaults generally do have more staying power; I'm not sure what that has to do with anything we're discussing.  It's just not the only factor in determining battlefield effectiveness, which is why despite being able to soak a lot of damage, an assault can be less effective than units lighter than it in Alpha Strike, especially given a large enough era disparity (i.e. 3025 vs. 3090 or 3145).  If you can't hit your opponent, who cares how much armour you have: you'll still eventually lose.

[Joel47]

"The balance we're looking for" is balance, regardless of the outcome.  Whatever will win on the tabletop should cost more, regardless of its weight, speed, armour, firepower, faction availability, date of release, first letter of its name -- whatever.  That's it, that's the only consideration.  We can allow for some small amount of variance, because we're not going to get perfection, and we have to allow for non-direct-engagement PV skewing results (i.e. units that sink their points into ECM, PRB, and other specials that still very much matter but don't directly kill something), but overall, balance is the only goal.

Assaults generally do have more staying power; I'm not sure what that has to do with anything we're discussing.  It's just not the only factor in determining battlefield effectiveness, which is why despite being able to soak a lot of damage, an assault can be less effective than units lighter than it in Alpha Strike, especially given a large enough era disparity (i.e. 3025 vs. 3090 or 3145).  If you can't hit your opponent, who cares how much armour you have: you'll still eventually lose.

I've found this assumption catches a lot of new-to-AS players off guard -- they think an assault can sit there and take it the way it can in standard BT. On round two they're down an assault mech because:
1. Focused fire is even more brutal in AS
2. Their return fire needed 10s

I haven't seen more than a handful of AS games won by a super heavy force, and those were either defense scenarios or ones where the assaults managed to turn it into a defense (parking in partial cover with clear shots out to long range).

Why should I spend 75 PV for that medium-weight Ryoken Z when I can get a pair of InnerSphere assaults at 37?  Or - as was graciously pointed out - a quartet of Charger 1A1's at 18 PV a piece?

2-vs-1 and 4-vs-1 is much harder to balance, granting much more tactical flexibility to the more numerous team, and often forcing the expensive unit to overkill targets.

In the meantime, something I'd like to see that maybe Joel or the other programmers can provide: Median PV values for each weight class. 

That's the realm of those who like playing with spreadsheets. Though if we end up taking a second pass at this in the future I'm going to request database-level MUL access, or at least a copy of the full database. Having a program run every unit against every other unit of the same or similar cost might prove revealing. Note that that's not "of the same weight class", that's "of the same point value." The former would, as others have stated, simply show that for a given size, the unit with more firepower + armor + speed wins.

[ianpelgrim]

I found 2 Units that should perform better than their PV I still have to run the tests.
The Flamberge 3 and The hippogriff. both have a low move resulting in TMM 1 but a JJ move that results in TMM 4. even with the -2 to Hit jumping will better your chances.
 I think these both are as effective as a TMM2 unit.

[Xotl]

I found 2 Units that should perform better than their PV I still have to run the tests.
The Flamberge 3 and The hippogriff. both have a low move resulting in TMM 1 but a JJ move that results in TMM 4. even with the -2 to Hit jumping will better your chances.
 I think these both are as effective as a TMM2 unit.

Interesting.  The system right now assumes, in terms of attacking, that the unit will never ever jump unless it has nothing to lose from jumping (i.e. is infantry), because defense mods are already very high in this game, and jumping sends your to-hit numbers through the roof.  I'm inclined to stick with that, as the unit still pays the extra PV for being able to move that fast if it needs to.  The system used to charge as if it was TMM 2, but I felt that since that scenario never actually exists, the unit should be charged combat-wise for the movement it would actually use while actively battling an enemy.

Let's run a quick test: the Flamberge (which dropped 5 points because the system thought it was overcosted due to how it now handles jumping and also split movements) and the Goshawk II (climbs 8 PV to reflect the new system's emphasis on speed; it does spend 2 PV on ECM, but it still should be close if we have this right).  This gives us a chance to test two assumptions at once.

Flamberge 3      BM   3   8"/14"j   7   4      5   5   0   1   45/40   CASE
Goshawk II       BM   2   14"j        5   2      4   2   2   0   32/40   ECM, ENE

These two can both move the same speed and it's jump movement in both cases.  The Goshawk can get off long range shots while the Flamberge closes, but it's going to need 12s to hit, or 1 in every 36 shots.  I think we can safely ignore that for the few turns of fire it has until the Flamberge can finally make it into medium range.

Offhand, I think the Flamberge would prefer short range.  However, with the speeds the way they are, I don't think that's happening.

Medium range, no jumping for either:
Flamberge needs 9s: ~3 hits every 10 turns.
Goshawk needs 7s: ~3 hits every 5 turns, or 1.1666 damage a turn.

The Flamberge typically wins around turn 7 or 8.  The Goshawk needs until about turn 10 to pull out a win.  Winner: one beat-up Flamberge.
Medium range, Flamberge jumps, Goshawk does not.
Flamberge now needs 11s: 1 hit every 12 turns.
Goshawk now needs 10s: 1 hit every 6 turns.

Flamberge wins by turn 24.  The Goshawk by then has hit about 4 times, causing one critical.  Winner: one Flamberge, beat up to about the same degree.

In this case, the battle ends exactly the same, but takes 2-3 times as long.  In both cases, if the Goshawk scored a lucky hit during the approach, it still loses.  If the Goshawk had spent the 2 PV it uses on ECM and bought an extra point of medium-range damage, it would actually just barely win -- sometimes losing, and always having no armour left.  Unless somebody raises an objection, I'm okay with the results here.


Now for the Hippogriff, at a modified 18 PV, another drop.  Its opponent -- another unit that went up in price -- is the classic LCT-1V Locust.

Hippogriff             PM   1   6"/14"j   5   1      0.5   0.5   0.5   0   22/18   IF0*
LCT-1V Locust      BM   1      16"      2   2        1     1      0     0   14/18

The Hippogriff is actually impossible for a Skill 4 unit to hit at long range, as it receives an extra +1 defense from being a protomech.  But the Locust has no long-range weaponry, and it would be the Hippo that's taking potshots at 12s.  As they have an extra 50% chance of doing nothing thanks to the 0.5 damage (so only a 1/72 chance of doing any damage at long range for the Hippo), we can even more safely ignore these.

Medium range is where I'll assume the battles will take place.  First, a non-jumping Hippo.
Hippo needs 9s: ~3 hits every 10 turns.
Locust needs 8s: ~2 hits every 5 turns.

However, the Hippo halves its damage rate thanks to the 0.5 damage.  As such, it needs about 29 turns to win.
The Locust, meanwhile wins on roughly turn 15.  Easy win for the Locust, if a bit tedious.

Now, with jumping Hippo.
Hippo needs 11s: 1 hit every 12 turns.
Locust needs 11s: 1 hit every 12 turns.

The Locust's ability to do reliable damage means it wins by turn 72, by which time the store is closed and the players set off the alarm system when leaving.
The Hippo would need 96 turns to win.

In both cases, jumping isn't changing the result.  I think I'm content leaving the jumping pricing as-is, even for as large disparities between jumping and non-jumping movement on the same unit as you have just pointed out.

I will say, however, that there is some indication that units with only 0.5 damage in a medium-range bracket may be overcosted: I don't think the fact that you lose 50% of your hits has really been taken into account.  I'm going to dig into that further.  Thanks!

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Now for the Hippogriff, at a modified 18 PV, another drop.  It's an opponent, another unit that went up in price, the classic LCT-1V Locust.

Hippogriff             PM   1   6"/14"j   5   1      0.5   0.5   0.5   0   22/18   IF0*
LCT-1V Locust      BM   1      16"      2   2        1     1      0     0   14/18

The Hippogriff is actually impossible for a Skill 4 unit to hit at long range, as it receives an extra +1 defense from being a protomech.  But the Locust has no long-range weaponry, and it wold be the Hippo that's taking potshots at 12s.  As they have an extra 50% chance of doing nothing thanks to the 0.5 damage (so only a 1/72 chance of doing any damage at long range for the Hippo), we can even more safely ignore these.

Medium range is where I'll assume the battles will take place.  First, a non-jumping Hippo.
Hippo needs 9s: ~3 hits every 10 turns.
Locust needs 8s: ~2 hits every 5 turns.

However, the Hippo halves its damage rate thanks to the 0.5 damage.  As such, it needs about 29 turns to win.
The Locust, meanwhile wins on roughly turn 15.  Easy win for the Locust, if a bit tedious.

Now, with jumping Hippo.
Hippo needs 11s: 1 hit every 12 turns.
Locust needs 11s: 1 hit every 12 turns.

The Locust's ability do reliable damage means it wins by turn 72, by which time the store is closed and the players set off the alarm system when leaving.
The Hippo would need 96 turns to win.

In both cases, jumping isn't changing the result.  I think I'm content leaving the jumping pricing as-is, even for as large disparities as you have just pointed out.

I will say, however, that there is some indication that units with only 0.5 damage in a medium-range bracket may be overcosted: I don't think the fact that you lose 50% of your hits has really been taken into account.  I'm going to dig into that further.  Thanks!

Are you calculating the Hippogriff vs Locust fight with the protomech having 5 points of armor?  It's only got 1/1 A/S... if the Locust is getting ~2 hits every 5 turns, then the fight should be over in ~5 turns...

Edit: removed irrelevant portion of quoted post.

[Xotl]

Would you mind editing that quote so that you're not quoting the entire megapost just to comment on one part?  Thanks.

Yeah, my spreadsheet actually has it at 5 armour.  With only one point of armour, using the new system it would be 9 PV.  I guess it's another of those silent updates.  Unfortunately, the sheet I'm working off of is a few years old, and so things like this get missed.

Either way, the potential problem with units whose main or only weapons are 0.5 damage is still one I'll be looking at.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Would you mind editing that quote so that you're not quoting the entire megapost just to comment on one part?  Thanks.

Yeah, my spreadsheet actually has it at 5 armour.  With only one point of armour, using the new system it would be the same 9 PV as it is on the MUL.  I guess it's another of those silent updates.  Unfortunately, the sheet I'm working off of is a few years old, and so things like this get missed.

Either way, the potential problem with units whose main or only weapons are 0.5 damage is still a valid one.

Edited as requested.

it also looks like the Locust should be hitting on 9s rather than 8s (TMM3, +1 target jump, +1 target is a proto).  Still, doing twice the damage per hit and needing to do half the damage total means the Locust still wins handily.  Then again, they're not a fair comparison anymore either when the proto is priced for 1/1 A/S.  OTOH, *two* Hippogriffs vs a single Locust-1V is a PV match.  And looks to be about a perfect 50/50 odds of either side winning. (before crits factor in and tilt lightly to the protos)

I'm not as convinced as you are that the 0* damage needs a major look in the PV conversion.  Wouldn't having 0* be calculated as 0.5 rather than rounding up to 1 fix it entirely?

[Xotl]

The Locust needs 8s because 4 + 2 for range + 6" move + protomech.

As for the costing on 0* itself, I don't think saving 0.5 points would make any real difference, if a change is in fact needed.  I'm going to run some tests right now though.

[Thunder]

(If you want an obscure scenario, I'm making a slight change to the rules that will for now only affect one unit in the entire game: the YHC-3Y Yinghuochong -- I'll see if people can figure it out).

Zero combat damage, jumps,  But still has an offensive weapon that requires to hit rolls.  I am assuming you're treating its defensive modifier as if it doesn't jump, rather then the zero damage/infantry +1 for jumping.  (TAG or NARC units might need a similar ruling.)


Other "Obscure" scenarios.
Units with zero ground TMM and +5 TMM including the jumping bonus are legally possible. (And of course I have one sitting around in my custom units.  (Mechanical Jump jets.  I asked on the rules questions section of forum.  Null answer.  which leaves the MUL, and mJJ units just being treated as if it has jumping.))   Its this kind of unit being allowed to use its ground movement for PV calculation purposes that really worries me in the fair and balanced department.

Is iNarc included as a medium range weapon for brawler modifier calculations? (Because I have a super heavy mech with hardened armor, and like 15 iNarcs.....  That wants to claim the 50% discount.)

[Alexander Knight]

Yeah, my spreadsheet actually has it at 5 armour.  With only one point of armour, using the new system it would be 9 PV.  I guess it's another of those silent updates.  Unfortunately, the sheet I'm working off of is a few years old, and so things like this get missed.

The spreadsheet is probably working off the old assumption of entire Points, not individual Protos.

[Xotl]

Zero combat damage, jumps,  But still has an offensive weapon that requires to hit rolls.  I am assuming you're treating its defensive modifier as if it doesn't jump, rather then the zero damage/infantry +1 for jumping.  (TAG or NARC units might need a similar ruling.)

You got it.

Other "Obscure" scenarios.
Units with zero ground TMM and +5 TMM including the jumping bonus are legally possible. (And of course I have one sitting around in my custom units.  (Mechanical Jump jets.  I asked on the rules questions section of forum.  Null answer.  which leaves the MUL, and mJJ units just being treated as if it has jumping.))   Its this kind of unit being allowed to use its ground movement for PV calculation purposes that really worries me in the fair and balanced department.

Is iNarc included as a medium range weapon for brawler modifier calculations? (Because I have a super heavy mech with hardened armor, and like 15 iNarcs.....  That wants to claim the 50% discount.)

I think these fall firmly into the "does not exist and never will" section of the Alpha Strike world.  We'll never make units like that, and so I don't see any point in adding rules text to cover these scenarios; if someone wants to break the rules via customs (a long-standing issue with BT in all forms), the best response is for their opponent to hit them with a shoe.  If and when someone is high enough to create such a unit for an official TRO, I'll issue errata, but I can reasonably expect never to see such things in my lifetime.


All right, I've updated the sheet again (it's in the first post, as always).  I corrected an error with the Agile mod being applied to some slow units, fixed a few order-of-operation errors in the calculations that had rounding or certain modifiers being applied at the wrong times, and fixed a few data entry errors (mostly with the protos, as we've seen).

[Xotl]

Actually, there's one last scenario I want to run.  There's been some comment that Stealth being charged at +2 to defense is generally resulting in them being overcosted, since most combat happens at medium range, and there's no benefit at short.  I also remember the Vulpes coming out on the losing side of all its matches.  It's true that even if you don't have Long range damage yourself, you're protected from enemy Long range fire during your approach, but since no one can hit anything at Long range in AS anyways, I'm not sure if that's worth much.

I'm going to run some tests with Stealth units only being charged for +1.

[Joel47]

You might use my script with range set to random. That will give a decent simulation of a crowded combat where it's hard to force the enemy into the correct range band. It might be also interesting to do the same units using FAST_UNIT_MINIMIZES_DAMAGE; while that will probably result in Stealth units with decent long range firepower being seen as underpointed, Stealth units without long range firepower would be overpointed with Stealth = +2.

[Xotl]

It's interesting, because it's a matter of assumptions.  When I first priced out Stealth however many years ago, I just followed the Battle Value pricing guidelines, which always assume the best possible scenario.  Certainly it's possible to achieve that scenario, but at the same time, your opponent will often be working specifically to counter it, and at the same time that ignores the worst possible scenario.  Overall, I'd prefer to balance based on the most likely scenario, rather than the best, and in I think AS it's far more likely that you're either getting +1 or 0 from Stealth than you are +2, not because Short and Medium together are a bit bigger than Long, but because it's just so hard to hit at Long (you usually need from 9s to 11s and that's before cover/terrain) that I find that most combats naturally gravitate quite quickly to medium range.

But of course this requires checking to make sure things don't unravel somehow.  What do others think?

[Scotty]

Maybe try it at +1.5?

[Thunder]

I think these fall firmly into the "does not exist and never will" section of the Alpha Strike world.  We'll never make units like that, and so I don't see any point in adding rules text to cover these scenarios; if someone wants to break the rules via customs (a long-standing issue with BT in all forms), the best response is for their opponent to hit them with a shoe.  If and when someone is high enough to create such a unit for an official TRO, I'll issue errata, but I can reasonably expect never to see such things in my lifetime.

A: Both examples given are from designs constructed legally using the rules governing the construction of custom units.  They are within the design space of the battletech game systems.  They're way the hell out of the story line perspective of battletech definitely.  But they are a legal possibility that could show up.  If you wanted I could show Each stage of design and conversion, but its a waste of time because.

B:  Alpha strike really doesn't care if a unit is legal or not.  it takes a block of numbers.  Runs them through the PV process and spits out how much that block of numbers is worth.  As such someone can take a completely different story universe (Say something like "Stellar Battles, or "Solar Fights" or "Giant burning balls of gas Scuffles") make up a stat conversion process to provide alpha strike cards, and PV them accordingly.  And all it takes to make this a robust feature is to close the holes in the rules rather then socially excluding a portion of the potential player base.

C:  Constructive fixes. 
Units with split movement modes check their defensive modifiers for both walking, and jumping/LAM Wige movement (Including the jump modifier).  Subtract 2 from the Jumping/LAM movement.  Use the higher of these two values.

iNarc and TSEMP count as a source of Medium range damage for brawler calculations.

[Xotl]

So far, testing Stealth at +1 vs Stealth at +2, it looks like a contest between "make almost everything more accurately priced, but the Cappies get a sweet deal in the Cataphract -4L at 42 PV" and "make almost every stealth unit a bit overpriced".

[Joel47]

What about:

if long_range_firepower > 2:
    stealth_mod = 2
else:
    stealth_mod = 1

That keeps all the small stealth units that don't have significant long range firepower from being overpointed, but stealth snipers should still be correct.

[Maingunnery]

Why firepower 2?

[Scotty]

Because 1 point plinks at long range are the Alpha Strike equivalents of LRM-5s or AC/2s in standard BattleTech, and are safely able to be ignored by 95% of the game.

[Joel47]

What Scotty said. Two is a starting point; tweak as necessary. I'm torn between > 1 and > 2, as Long 2 covers a lot of units, but the average damage/round of Long 2 is pretty low. We have to draw the line somewhere; discuss!  O0

[Xotl]

I'm just wondering if any fights really take place at Long range.  I mean, a Cataphract -4L can beat an Atlas -D if the fight only takes place at long range, but would need 22 turns of fire to do so.  Who gets 22 turns of LR fire?  Hell, many games end before 22 turns, period.  I'm not sure I'd ever buy a unit with the assumption of earning its points back in long-range fire, because even if it has a good defense and damage at long range, it's still no more accurate, and so is never going to kill anything.

Thoughts?

[Maingunnery]

What Scotty said. Two is a starting point; tweak as necessary. I'm torn between > 1 and > 2, as Long 2 covers a lot of units, but the average damage/round of Long 2 is pretty low. We have to draw the line somewhere; discuss!  O0

I was thinking of having it at Long 3, as "3" is regarded as a significant damage value and "Long 3" is what many dedicated stealth snipers have (Shen Yi, Emperor, Tian-zong).

[Joel47]

I'm just wondering if any fights really take place at Long range.

I think it would be more accurate to ask not how many battles occur at long range, but how many shots per battle are at long range. If, say, 20% of shots are at long range, 50% are at medium, and 30% at short (warning: numbers are wild guesses), we can use that to accurately point not only weapons fire but the effects of stealth. That said, a unit with significant long range firepower and stealth is going to do its damnedest to stay at long range, throwing off that calculation; additionally, how well it can accomplish that will depend on its speed vs that of its opponents.

I was thinking of having it at Long 3, as "3" is regarded as a significant damage value and "Long 3" is what many dedicated stealth snipers have (Shen Yi, Emperor, Tian-zong).

That's why I said ">2", not ">=2". 2 is annoying; 3 starts to get real.

[Maingunnery]

That's why I said ">2", not ">=2". 2 is annoying; 3 starts to get real.

Whoop sorry, missed that. I completely agree in theory and with experience.