Register Register

Author Topic: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?  (Read 2055 times)

DevianID

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 254
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #30 on: 04 March 2021, 03:40:26 »
EDIT**I was overly harsh and sarcastic, it was uncalled for, I removed the first part.  Sorry***

BV for weapons and armor are CHEAPER on a tank than a mech.  This point has been made by me multiple times; no one has refuted it.  A mech pays 100%.  A tracked tank pays 90%.  Wheeled pays 80%.  Hover pays 70%.  VTOLS with no motive system table, AND 10x free rotor armor, AND free +1 airborne TMM pay a ridiculous 70%.  Look at page 316 in TechManual.  A bunkered LRM carrier that doesnt need to move, doesnt need LOS and can hide behind LV1 terrain unlike mechs, and isnt paying for mobility or armor, gets AN ADDITIONAL 10% discount for its total BV.

Maybe its my fault for not being more explicit when I said that the irrefutable math proves vehicles are too good.  I never liked showing my work in math class.
« Last Edit: 04 March 2021, 03:47:43 by DevianID »

Sabelkatten

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5899
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #31 on: 04 March 2021, 07:48:39 »
Sorry, all you've shown proof of is that vehicles get a BV break. And we already know that.

To make a case you need to show that the BV reduction is wrong. That's going to take way more work (incidentally I think you're right about VTOLs, but I can't demonstrate that).

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22644
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #32 on: 04 March 2021, 08:36:17 »
VTOLs and Hovertanks just swapped places.

The offset for that cheaper BV is that they are individually weaker than mechs.  A vehicle has 4 or 5 hit locations while a mech has 11 (8 of which can be hit at a time) that it spreads the armor over . . . which also spreads where the hits land.  The BV reduction is for their increased vulnerability.

So what that LRM Carrier behind a L1 terrain is cheaper BV?  It also has a +1 TH penalty for firing IDF, making it harder to cause damage for that BV compared to a Archer standing in the same place which gets its legs protected.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

Negatorxx

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 78
  • 44th Shadow Division
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #33 on: 04 March 2021, 09:38:31 »
EDIT**I was overly harsh and sarcastic, it was uncalled for, I removed the first part.  Sorry***

BV for weapons and armor are CHEAPER on a tank than a mech.  This point has been made by me multiple times; no one has refuted it.  A mech pays 100%.  A tracked tank pays 90%.  Wheeled pays 80%.  Hover pays 70%.  VTOLS with no motive system table, AND 10x free rotor armor, AND free +1 airborne TMM pay a ridiculous 70%.  Look at page 316 in TechManual.  A bunkered LRM carrier that doesnt need to move, doesnt need LOS and can hide behind LV1 terrain unlike mechs, and isnt paying for mobility or armor, gets AN ADDITIONAL 10% discount for its total BV.

Maybe its my fault for not being more explicit when I said that the irrefutable math proves vehicles are too good.  I never liked showing my work in math class.

"Too good" and "pays less BV" are not the same. 

 In your scenario, the vehicle only becomes "too good" if the following are true:
*it has LRMs
*there is available cover
*there is a spotter
*there is no viable threat to the vehicles position

So?  I had a Phantom H in ye olde Martial Olympiad that took a LRM5 to the 2 location at 21 hexes . . . my opponent rolled a 12 . . . gyro/gyro/gyro. 

Luck happens . . . that Trajan is 85t, 2 MML7, LAC5, ERML, C3 slave, ECM, 4 LMG, 2 AMS and a 8 ton infantry bay . . . for about the same BV as a Dervish 6M while having about double the armor.

Luck happens, but the context here is in the statistical parallel that needs to be in place for this to be viable.  The trajan got hit in the side, and the crit chance there is 7/36 compared to the mech's 1/36.  -1 mp motive crit chance from the side is 14/36.   I dont think 7 to 1 or 14 to 1 odds are comparable.
-Bringing Blake's Peace to megamek servers since 2009

http://www.mekwarslegends.com/Home_Page.html

DevianID

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 254
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #34 on: 04 March 2021, 12:02:03 »
I can post a statistical model of survivability if you are an a amateur math nerd like i am.  If you arnt a math nerd, consider a quick example.  Take a 60 ton mech, have it go 3/5, give it 42 heat dissipation, give it 10 srm6 with 4 tons of non-cased ammo (This reduces the bv to make the mech better in a bv balanced force) and give it 3 tons of armor.  This mech is 964 bv.  The SRM carrier is 816 bv.

So 964 versus 816, same rough capabilities.  The tank has a tiny chance of getting immoblized, the mech will suffer much worse from leg/gyro/fall damage.

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22644
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #35 on: 04 March 2021, 13:27:31 »
The mech is also twice the target (due to height) and spreads that armor over more sections if you are limiting it that little armor that makes it more susceptible to not TACs but just plain criticals b/c it goes internal.

You are still trying to compare apples and oranges, even your example is flawed.  You would be better off in the comparison armoring the locations to the same extent as the SRM Carrier . . . but that would mean more overall armor.  Addtionally, it is not just getting immobilized the SRM Carrier has to worry about . . . it is weapon jams/criticals w/o the damage going internal, other motive hits that slow the machine, crew hits, CO hits, gunner hits, etc.

A vehicle has a lower BV because it is more vulnerable period.  They deserve that lower BV because they are just not going to survive like a mech of comparable value or armament . . . further, the lower BV also reflects their lower utility.  The SRM Carrier you cited?  It will not be able to go into hexes with water.  It will not be able to travel into hexes with heavy woods (w/o a road) unlike a mech.  It cannot successfully travel through hexes on fire.  It cannot operate in a hostile environment (trace atmo, vacuum, hostile atmo) as it stands.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19557
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #36 on: 04 March 2021, 14:23:13 »
An SRM Carrier also dies the moment the internal structure in any location is reduced to zero.  And it's got substantially less internal structure than any non-head location in a 60 ton mech.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Negatorxx

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 78
  • 44th Shadow Division
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #37 on: 04 March 2021, 16:45:43 »
An SRM Carrier also dies the moment the internal structure in any location is reduced to zero.  And it's got substantially less internal structure than any non-head location in a 60 ton mech.

Yep.  Folks also dont realize that a mech has 8 hit locations, and only 2 of them can destroy the mech if removed.  5 of 8 if you are using IS xl engines.

Vehicles have 5 of 5 hit locations that will result in destruction once removed.  Every single location is effectively, a center torso.
-Bringing Blake's Peace to megamek servers since 2009

http://www.mekwarslegends.com/Home_Page.html

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22644
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #38 on: 04 March 2021, 16:57:14 »
lol, you two have been confusing . . . one says vehicles are over BV'd . . . and one says under BV'd.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

DevianID

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 254
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #39 on: 05 March 2021, 01:12:39 »
Long post trying to address peoples comments, the TLDR is that vehicles get free BV, so even immobilized they out-shoot an equal BV force because you just take slow vehicles to begin with.  We are talking BV matching, not campaign play, so no rolling mapsheets, no 300 hex long tables with RPG senarios, ECT.

Quote
You would be better off in the comparison armoring the locations to the same extent as the SRM Carrier . . . but that would mean more overall armor

Im having a hard time here... You are saying that to fairly compare an SRM carrier to a mech with the same weapons, speed, heat dissipation, etc, I also need to give the mech 129 points of armor... Isnt that you making my point for me, that tanks are more efficient (Tanks get 11% cheaper armor than mechs, and have 4-5 locations instead of 8+).

Quote
it is not just getting immobilized the SRM Carrier has to worry about . . . it is weapon jams/criticals w/o the damage going internal, other motive hits that slow the machine, crew hits, CO hits, gunner hits, etc.

Its not just gyro hits a mech has to worry about, its weapon criticals, heat, floating crits w/o the damage going internal, 20+ damage piloting rolls, other motive hits like foot/hip that slow the machine (and make it fall lol) pilot hits (which can knock the mech out but never knock a pilot out), ect.  You cant just say that vehicles having a crew stunned possibility makes them immediately useless, just like I cant say Mechs having to make consciousness rolls makes them useless.  Both have bad things happen to them, both units bad things do not come up until significant damage has been dealt, and weapons fire is simultaneous so its not like a crew stunned or failed piloting skill role will stop the unit from shooting back.

Quote
It cannot successfully travel through hexes on fire.  It cannot operate in a hostile environment (trace atmo, vacuum, hostile atmo) as it stands.
  Fire is more or less a joke to vehicles, as the -2 crit roll is really weak--about as weak as the extra heat a mech takes.  Vacuum and all that never matter to a BV balanced game--if you cant take them you dont buy them.  You can just take a different vehicle that IS environmentally sealed.  If you are playing in a campaign or RPG game, BV balance is by its nature asymetrical so an SRM carrier being bad under water does not excuse what a 3/5 10SRT6 submarine will do to a mech force.  Just like the SRM carrier represents too much offensive BV due to the free discounts, a submarine likewise represents too much offensive BV under water, magnified even worse by being even more specialized.

I think my examples are too abstract, and people are getting tunnel vision on points that are not relavent.  Yes, an SRM carrier is easy to kill.  That is the point.  If you had to pick a unit to set up in ambush, in a BV balanced force, name literally any unit other than a vehicle that is BETTER than an equal amount of BV in vehicles.  If you want artillery support, do you want to pay 603 for an Urbanmech... well yes cause its an urbanmech the answer to urbanmechs is always yes.  But you could also get a 388 BV Arrow gun trailer, or 585 BV Vali, or 531 BV Ballista.  So even the very next cheapest (by DOUBLE) battlemech artillery (Catapult) is worse than the cheapest arty mechs (Well of cours--its no urbanmech).

If you think the SRM carrier is too fragile to compare to a mech, do we need to talk Manticores so you have something more appropriate to compare?  A lance of Manticores will maul slow mechs in BV matching games, and fast mechs cant repulse a full lance of spread out manticores with their backs to a board edge because they can only stand in 1 hex, allowing 3 others to shoot them.

Now, you'll notice I havent mentioned hover vehicles this whole time.  Hover vehicles I DO think need a rework.  Hover vehicles are in a rough spot because high speed puts a premium BV multiplier on, Hovers usually have large engines, but the high chance at being immobilized then negates their speed asset.  Basically, Hovers sitting still in a hex while immobilized dont fight efficiently, as the 8/12 speed made their 3 SRM6s cost way more than a 0 speed immobile trailer's would, even with the 70% premium.  The most efficient hover is a speed 1/2 hover with maximum armor and turret guns, so the 70% BV discount and high immobilization chance are maximized--That hover would be broken good, and Im glad it doesnt exist.

Finally, VTOLS.  Vtols die to 5 hits to the rotor as a hard cap.  You have an 11/36 chance of hitting the VTOL, and the average cluster size is 5 damage.  So VTOLS with 56 armor will, statistically, die to rotor hits and internal destruction each about half the time.  1 damage clusters (which is amazing versus mechs too), this number goes to 11 front armor, and 10 damage clusters from dueling an awesome, this number goes up to 110.  Thus, a 30 ton VTOL with 9.5 tons of armor hits the sweet spot where more armor does not improve survivability.  This 9.5 tons of all usable armor is on a platform that can walk over 10 hexes a turn, giving it a +5 TMM for a +1 movement penalty, while still mounting 20+ damage worth of weapons.  Then, you give the VTOL a 70% discount!!!  If you thought the clan Phantom ER Small spam was bad, a VTOL version is better in every way but cheaper in BV to boot.  No, flak -2 does not make VTOLS bad, they are still getting a +3 TMM for +1 after FLAK, not every weapon has flak, and the flak units are easy to focus down.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19557
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #40 on: 05 March 2021, 01:36:08 »
I think my examples are too abstract, and people are getting tunnel vision on points that are not relavent.
No, what we think is that you're specifically using only scenarios that play to the strengths of vehicles while ignoring or handwaving away all of their weaknesses.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

DevianID

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 254
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #41 on: 05 March 2021, 02:41:03 »
Yeah, its BV matching... you pick the units that work best for the BV limit...

Im not gonna take an SRM carrier (Or a mech) in space...

Negatorxx

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 78
  • 44th Shadow Division
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #42 on: 05 March 2021, 09:05:13 »
Yeah, its BV matching... you pick the units that work best for the BV limit...

Im not gonna take an SRM carrier (Or a mech) in space...

No, its bv matching then has a list of very specific scenario criteria.  10 srm carriers against the same BV in mechs given 5 random mapboards will lose, likely every single time. 

0 move and immobed vehicles cannot produce THN deficits the way a mobile mech can.  They get turret locked, or have no turret, and become nothing but targets.  The game is more than a civil war style stand and shoot. 
-Bringing Blake's Peace to megamek servers since 2009

http://www.mekwarslegends.com/Home_Page.html

Adastra

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 131
  • ~(,, _`;;'>
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #43 on: 05 March 2021, 10:07:28 »
MMLs, especially MML 3s, do a lot for vees. Extremely low BV, can cover basically every range band +indirect fire, do interesting things with minefields and other special munitions, and their primary disadvantages, bulk and heat, are rendered mostly irrelevant on vehicles (as are XXL engines and advanced armor for the most part). An immobilized MML-based vehicle can neither be kited nor safely closed in on, though jamming the turret and staying out of firing arcs is still very relevant. Combine with something to punch holes and you have a lot of options.

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22644
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #44 on: 05 March 2021, 10:57:11 »
No, what we think is that you're specifically using only scenarios that play to the strengths of vehicles while ignoring or handwaving away all of their weaknesses.

Pretty much, I brought up the fire/water/atmo point simply b/c that is something a mech pays for in BV b/c it is a mech- and does so without a weight penalty.  A vehicle does not.  It is like the 1-off players who complain about CASE on mechs w/IS XLs.

The SRM Carrier armor vs a mech is simply that the mech has more locations it has to spread that armor . . . and just because a location gets opened does not automatically give the hit a crit.  In the comparison of crits between vehicles and mechs, a mech can absorb a lot more criticals than a vehicle can before it starts degrading its performance.  Like vehicles, some of them are instantly bad (cockpit, gyro, hip) but outside of the random lucky hit it takes a LOT more effort to get to that point- mechs can crit sink with DHS, empty ammo bins, weapons, or even arms w/o weapons.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 220
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #45 on: 05 March 2021, 11:35:50 »
What more, what if an archer just goes around the cover at 7 range, and outright kills the srm carrier on 6s while it shoots back on 11s?  Or your own javelin simply jumps into the same hex, kicks it for no reprisal and immobs it, the jumps away to trade srm shots for vastly less THNs?

Tanks have firepower on mechs, but are obscenely easy to take advantage of.

A lot of that is going to depend on initiative.  If the SRM carrier lost initiative, then yes, it might get hammered when the Archer turns the corner.  Although depending on the cover, that might be difficult to do -- remember, anything that straddles the line is "defender's choice", so the ideal "Level 1 cover" site would be one where the SRM Carrier has 3 hexes in front of it, not only making it much harder for the Archer to flank it, but unless it can truly get far behind the SRM Carrier the latter will still get the partial cover benefit.  Not to mention that, if you're truly having a 1-on-1 Archer vs. SRM Carrier duel, then with BV balancing you're probably looking at a P4/G4 pilot on the Archer & a P2/G1 crew on the SRM Carrier...so even though the Archer would only need a 6+ for its LRM launchers, the SRM Carrier probably also only needs a 6+ or 7+, & maybe even a 5+ (+4 for Long Range, but unless the Archer can move at least 4 hexes it's at best only getting a +1 TMM).  So yeah, the Archer can hammer with a couple of LRM-20s (assuming the -2R model), but it's probably got something like 20-40 SRMs coming for it.  That could easily end up being a Pyrrhic victory for the Archer

If the SRM Carrier wins initiative, then it would be a pretty stupid pilot that simply sat there to take the LRM volley.  Even with only using Cruise, it should be able to either reposition itself behind cover, or even better close the range gap so the Archer is firing from minimum range while the SRM Carrier is back to Medium bracket.  Which means it's doing the hammering & less likely to suffer damage.

As for the Javelin, again, it's a pretty stupid pilot that doesn't fire at a 'Mech trying to DFA it.  Sure, its a lighter unit, so in this matchup you'd probably see a P4/G3 Javelin against a P5/G4 SRM Carrier crew, but even with that the SRM Carrier only needs 7+ to hit the Javelin, & weapons combat comes before physical combat.  So even though the Javelin will survive the onslaught & probably make its PSR (almost certainly will take 20+ points of damage, so PSR with +1 penalty means a 4+ to avoid falling pre-DFA), it's still going to be hammered.  The SRM Carrier will only need 7+ to hit the Javelin (1 hex range = Short bracket, +3 TMM for the Javelin), so chances are good for a lot of the launchers hitting the target.  And then it's only going to do 9 points of damage (tonnnage / 10 x 3, rounded up) to the SRM Carrier, which any particular facing can handle without going internal... & then takes 6 points of damage (one 5-point group, one 1-point group) to the legs.  Since most of the Javelin's locations can only handle 4 separate SRM hits (3 hits for each arm or the Head), & only has 64 points of armor total (enough for a maximum of 32 SRM hits), the Javelin will have dented the SRM Carrier while being badly torn up (& quite possibly suffering some major leg and/or other internal damage).  The smarter tactic for the Javelin would be to jump as close as possible to the SRM Carrier (possibly either right behind it or one of the 2 adjacent hexes) to a) be close enough to still kick the SRM Carrier & b) be out of the firing arc of the SRM Carrier's weapons.  That way it can easily do twice as much damage, & have a better chance of scoring critical hits.

Again, if the SRM Carrier wins initiative, then a) the Javelin pilot was stupid to attempt a DFA on a target that hadn't moved yet, & b) they can not only scoot out of the way, but can move to allow its launchers to be brought to bear.

Of course, it would also be extremely silly to see a scenario or situation where a lone SRM Carrier went up against a lone 'Mech.  You're more likely to see lances or larger forces go up against each other...which means both the Archer & Javelin pilots have to be on the lookout for the SRM Carrier's wingman (nothing like trying to score an "easy" kill on 1 target, then realize you left your back open for someone else to "easy kill" you).

Besides, hanging out behind cover & laying fire down while not moving is not really a tactic for SRM Carriers.  That works best for the LRM and AC Carriers (the latter has 5 AC/2s).  SRM Carriers don't have the range to hang back behind cover & fire all day...but they also don't have a lot of mobility or armor to necessarily duke it out either.  As oer their Alpha Strike card, they work best as an Ambusher:  coming out from hiding to make a massive attack & hope they don't get blown up too quickly.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19557
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #46 on: 05 March 2021, 12:46:10 »
DFA rules require that you win initiative.  It's literally impossible to make a DFA against a target that's won initiative against you.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Negatorxx

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 78
  • 44th Shadow Division
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #47 on: 05 March 2021, 15:05:38 »
The srm carriers vs archers and javelins was a theoretical scenario involving matched bv forces where on some part of the field, an archer or jav has to fight one. 

The javelin was never DFAing, just jumping and kicking the carrier that is waiting in cover.

Nevermind the archer sitting in cover shooting at approacing srm or lrm carriers
-Bringing Blake's Peace to megamek servers since 2009

http://www.mekwarslegends.com/Home_Page.html

Hellraiser

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9538
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #48 on: 05 March 2021, 16:25:25 »
DFA rules require that you win initiative.  It's literally impossible to make a DFA against a target that's won initiative against you.
I'm Not sure that's true.   The Target might be immobilized and can't run even if you DFA it  :)    >:D

3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

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

DevianID

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 254
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #49 on: 05 March 2021, 20:16:11 »
One of my unaddressed points that hasn't been addressed:  if vehicles are not undervalued, what is the artillery mech that beats cheaper bv artillery tanks you guys are taking?

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22644
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #50 on: 05 March 2021, 21:49:23 »
One of my unaddressed points that hasn't been addressed:  if vehicles are not undervalued, what is the artillery mech that beats cheaper bv artillery tanks you guys are taking?

The artillery mech that lands with the rest of the orbital dropped battalion while the tank is still sitting packed in cargo on a dropship waiting for a secured LZ.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19557
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #51 on: 05 March 2021, 22:42:47 »
And the artillery mech that's able to travel through terrain that vehicles can't.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

DevianID

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 254
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #52 on: 06 March 2021, 04:02:15 »
I was unaware that to deploy for a BV matched game you must first be airdropped, but not from the vehicle air drop rules, and then march through terrain that doesn't exist, but is always your prohibited type just beyond the edge of the mapsheet that you also can't clear under any circumstances using the terrain modification rules.

You guys are saying the bv of vehicle NEEDS to be lower because in an rpg campaign they maybe can't deploy 100% of the time, meaning they cant deploy ever?  What bearing does that have if they ARE on the table?

Sabelkatten

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5899
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #53 on: 06 March 2021, 05:34:40 »
No, they're saying that some scenarios will not allow certain types of units.

Now, why are artillery vehicles typically better BV then artillery mechs? That actually comes down to how the game is usually played...

Basically, artillery vehicles and artillery mechs are pretty well balanced by BV. BUT for practical reasons (i.e. the only possible way to do it) BV balances units of similar capability. If you can put a unit in a position that minimizes its weaknesses then it will be "undervalued".

If you play a typical game with off-board artillery the speed and protection of the artillery carrier doesn't matter. So of course a slow tin-foil vehicle will be the best buy. Just like a Hunchback will be a WAY better buy in a city fight than a couple of AC/2 carriers. But try an artillery duel with no other units involved and the mechs will be far more attractive.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5475
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #54 on: 06 March 2021, 16:16:42 »
DFA rules require that you win initiative.  It's literally impossible to make a DFA against a target that's won initiative against you.

Only one-on-one.  In grouped movement, you hold your DFA until the other player's finished moving the target...or not moving it, because it's heavy and has a good firing pose with some cover.

remember, folks, firing happens simultaneous,damage resolves at the END fo the turn, initiative is for movement, if you know how to bank your intiative (even when your force is smaller) and the other guy gives you an opportunity, you take it.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."-Samuel Adams

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19557
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #55 on: 06 March 2021, 17:26:15 »
Only one-on-one.  In grouped movement, you hold your DFA until the other player's finished moving the target...or not moving it, because it's heavy and has a good firing pose with some cover.

remember, folks, firing happens simultaneous,damage resolves at the END fo the turn, initiative is for movement, if you know how to bank your intiative (even when your force is smaller) and the other guy gives you an opportunity, you take it.

That still requires the target to have moved before the DFA is declared.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5475
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #56 on: 07 March 2021, 13:53:36 »
That still requires the target to have moved before the DFA is declared.

YUP.  exactly.  just like with punches and kicks or weapons fire.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."-Samuel Adams

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19557
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: So when will vehicle hit tables be balanced?
« Reply #57 on: 07 March 2021, 14:10:08 »
The difference being that a DFA is declared during the movement phase instead of the weapon attack or physical attack phases.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman