Master Unit List (MUL) Feedback Thread IV - READ THE FIRST POST

[Sartris]

You are correct. Fixed

[danilapal]

Units : Almost all "basic" Clan Infantry Units from TW/TM (Clan foot point , Clan jump point , etc.) .

Issue : Battle value is too high compare Inner Sphere variants. Same weapons, same movement, same armor , but LESS number of troopers.

For example Jump Platoon (Rifle, Ballistic) http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1722/jump-platoon-rifle-ballistic
21 troopers -> 89 BV
At the same time Clan Jump Point (Rifle, Ballistic) http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/614/clan-jump-point-rifle-ballistic
20 troopers -> Currenty 121 BV . Correct 85 BV (see attachments)

[Daryk]

I think the difference is accounted for by assuming the clanner infantry has a divisor of 2 instead of 1.

[danilapal]

I think the difference is accounted for by assuming the clanner infantry has a divisor of 2 instead of 1.

Yeah , noticed in Megamek . But infantry units with Armor Divisor more than "1" counts as an "Advanced".

[Sartris]

this is going to require a deeper investigation about assumptions made regarding infantry equipment. we thank you for bringing this to our attention.

[Sartris]

The clan infantry currently on the MUL assume the divisor 2 clan armor kit. They will be switched to advanced rules. We will discuss how to deal with the generic clan infantry presented in TW (which will have a lower bv)

[jasonf]

this is going to require a deeper investigation about assumptions made regarding infantry equipment. we thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Actually, I took a deep dive into the infantry on the MUL recently, and there look to be a multitude of issues, some of which might be tough to deal with given the nature of the TW rules and the MUL setup.

Some examples:
--some units have their BV listed assuming Gunnery = 4, Anti-Mech (Piloting) = 5, but the standard CI would have BV commensurate with G4/AM8
--some units have the correct BV in the G4/AM8 slot, but then lists the G4/AM5 BV at the top of the page [I'm guessing this is a MUL default, so don't know what to do about this]
--there is also the discrepancy that TW suggests to assume G4/AM5 for Mechanized units that cannot get Anti-'Mech training, but G4/AM8 for other motive types that can get training but don't have it. This makes BV calcs for Mechanized inf weird and ambiguous (to me, at least)
--there are some BV that are just calculated wrong on the MUL. Some of these look to be because of a bug in how MML calculates some special BV adjustments (they should be additive according to TacOps, but looks like MML has them included as multiplicative).

C-Bill costs have similar issues.

I can PM you a spreadsheet I put together that should have corrected BV and C-bill values for the units on the MUL (and some others, including Generic-Kit Clan infantry). I have notes in there that hopefully make it legible to others besides me, and the formulas are also hopefully transparent enough for whomever to check the math.

[nckestrel]

Because of technical reasons, the MUL should be using 4/5 as the basis for BV for all units.

[paladin2019]

Unit : Jump Platoon (Rifle, Ballistic)
http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1722/jump-platoon-rifle-ballistic

Issue : wrong Battle Value. 79 -> 89BV (see attachments)

What tonnage did you get for this unit?

Bottom Line: Techmanual construction rules cannot replicate the CI units in Total Warfare. Using decimal damage values drilled down to individual troopers simply does not easily calculate "1 damage per X troopers, round up." MegaMek uses TM, so there will always be discrepancies compared to the TW baselines.

[Hammer]

--there are some BV that are just calculated wrong on the MUL. Some of these look to be because of a bug in how MML calculates some special BV adjustments (they should be additive according to TacOps, but looks like MML has them included as multiplicative).

This should be addressed to the MegaMek team for review and possible correction.  Links in my sig.

[jasonf]

Because of technical reasons, the MUL should be using 4/5 as the basis for BV for all units.

That's what I figured. In that case, I think all but a handful of the TRO3085 infantry should probably have its Tech Manual-consistent BV listed in the G4/P8 slot of the BV table and the G4/P5 listed up top (which would be the equivalent of Anti-'Mech trained infantry BV in most cases).

This should be addressed to the MegaMek team for review and possible correction.  Links in my sig.

Will do! Though I'll try and PM you my work, too, since some of the discrepancies are way down in the weeds (and likely code).


On another note, here's what I found for RG33-related errata:
Technical issues:
1. Looks like Scorpion Tank C entry is missing from the MUL
2. Replace "IS Clan General" with "IS General" for Scorpion (RAC), Late Rep and Partisan HT (Refit), Early Rep eras
3. Harasser (Heavy Ferro) -- delete Jihad era (Intro date = 3091)
4. Update source for Gyrfalcon 5 to RG33.

Availability judgement calls:
5. Despite the light gausses, pretty sure the Partisan HT (Light Gauss) should have Fed Suns availability, not FWL availability.
    From RG33: "With Kirklin’s new-found flexibility regarding power plants, elite units willing to splurge can now field a new directfire variant utilizing an XL fusion engine and a quartet of light Gauss rifles."
6. For the Kallon-Nanking Partisan ADTs...
--I'm not sure the WoB should have access to any of the following variants prior to the Jihad: Company Command, Lance Command, XL. Only Fed Suns has access in these eras, suggesting they weren't exported, so WoB would only get them once they take Nanking (3071).
--For Company and Lance Command variants, should WoB have access to these at all? Seems weird they'd waste resources producing them when they use C3i.
7. Karnov (BA Stealth) -- MUL availability seems to imply that RotS exports these from Terra starting in the Dark Age. Only issue is that it is very difficult to export from Terra after 3135 (Fortress Wall). Maybe the exporting should begin in an earlier era?
8. Should Hunter Tank (Cell) also have availability for Vesper Marches, Tamar Pact in ilClan era (like most other Lyran-produced DA units)?
9. Harasser (Heavy Ferro) and (LFE) -- should these two have the same (or very similar) availabilities throughout? Specifically...
--Should RotS have access to both variants in Early Rep era?  (or does Irian start producing later than Andurien?)
--Should CC get access to LFE variant in Early Rep and/or keep it in ilClan?  (would be consistent with Heavy Ferro access)
--Should Canopus keep access to LFE variant in ilClan? (because Taurians do)
--Should SLDF Wolves get access to Heavy Ferro variant in ilClan? (because they have access to the fancier LFE variant)

[nckestrel]

That (two different BVs used for infantry) is not technically possible.  The MUL will use 4/5 for all units.

[paladin2019]

That's what I figured. In that case, I think all but a handful of the TRO3085 infantry should probably have its Tech Manual-consistent BV listed in the G4/P8 slot of the BV table and the G4/P5 listed up top (which would be the equivalent of Anti-'Mech trained infantry BV in most cases).

Unfortunately, a basic TM infantry unit can't have an AM skill better than 8; they have to be specifically given AM kits, which is assumed to be part of all TW CI units.

With the technical issue of MUL needing to baseline at 4/5, I'm curious how many TRO units become illegal at MUL's basic setting and how MUL corrects for that. Can error notes be added to MUL outputs that identify when a max AM8 unit has a better value?

[Sartris]

I have a list of infantry without AM. It’s pretty small.

[jasonf]

That (two different BVs used for infantry) is not technically possible.  The MUL will use 4/5 for all units.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I meant that, once one has the correct BV for a non-Anti-'Mech trained infantry unit, that value could be placed in the G4/P8 slot of the BV table on the unit's MUL entry, and (1/0.85) times that value would be what the MUL uses at the top of the entry (i.e., the equivalent BV for G4/P5).

The alternative would be to place the G4 BV value in the G4/P5 slot on the table regardless of whether the unit is Anti-'Mech trained or not. Now that I think about it more, this is likely the better solution since the "P" column of the BV table does not matter for non-AM-trained infantry, and since AM Skill = 5 is the "Regular" skill for AM-trained infantry (as per TW).

Either way, some infantry on the MUL have their "base" BV in the 4/8 slot of the table, while others have it in the 4/5 slot, so it needs to be standardized one way or another.
 

[Sartris]

This is a topic we’ve been looking at on and off for a bit now. I did some preliminary work on which units are affected this fall. The platform is the platform and we have to work out how to bypass those problems in a way that guarantees, as much as possible, that we won’t have to redo it in a few months when something we hadn’t considered surfaces. We’re aware of the issue (as well as our potential options) and will announce when we have a solution.

[Sartris]

On another note, here's what I found for RG33-related errata:
Technical issues:
1. Looks like Scorpion Tank C entry is missing from the MUL

Still working out a piece of data

2. Replace "IS Clan General" with "IS General" for Scorpion (RAC), Late Rep and Partisan HT (Refit), Early Rep eras

hey i only did it once this time

3. Harasser (Heavy Ferro) -- delete Jihad era (Intro date = 3091)

burp. date got moved after i entered the preliminary data.

4. Update source for Gyrfalcon 5 to RG33.

the shrapnel article is much more comprehensive so we'll leave it there

Availability judgement calls:
5. Despite the light gausses, pretty sure the Partisan HT (Light Gauss) should have Fed Suns availability, not FWL availability.
    From RG33: "With Kirklin’s new-found flexibility regarding power plants, elite units willing to splurge can now field a new directfire variant utilizing an XL fusion engine and a quartet of light Gauss rifles."

it's not a pavlovian response. FS and merc were omitted by mistake

6. For the Kallon-Nanking Partisan ADTs...
--I'm not sure the WoB should have access to any of the following variants prior to the Jihad: Company Command, Lance Command, XL. Only Fed Suns has access in these eras, suggesting they weren't exported, so WoB would only get them once they take Nanking (3071).

Believe it or not, before the wobbies went full nuclear on the inner sphere, people sold the Protectorate Militia gear. Trying to read the tea leaves like that isn't usually the best approach

--For Company and Lance Command variants, should WoB have access to these at all? Seems weird they'd waste resources producing them when they use C3i.

the protectorate militia used standard c3

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=&MaxBV=&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&HasBFAbility=c3s&MinPV=&MaxPV=&BookAuto=&FactionAuto=&Factions=48&AvailableEras=247&AvailableEras=14

plus

http://masterunitlist.info/Unit/Filter?Name=&HasBV=false&MinTons=&MaxTons=&MinBV=&MaxBV=&MinIntro=&MaxIntro=&MinCost=&MaxCost=&HasBFAbility=c3s&MinPV=&MaxPV=&BookAuto=&FactionAuto=&Factions=55&AvailableEras=247&AvailableEras=14

7. Karnov (BA Stealth) -- MUL availability seems to imply that RotS exports these from Terra starting in the Dark Age. Only issue is that it is very difficult to export from Terra after 3135 (Fortress Wall). Maybe the exporting should begin in an earlier era?

later. text has the foxes wanting to expand export after the ilclan trial was over. i must have done a bad copy/paste on the review sheet

8. Should Hunter Tank (Cell) also have availability for Vesper Marches, Tamar Pact in ilClan era (like most other Lyran-produced DA units)? [/size]

no

9. Harasser (Heavy Ferro) and (LFE) -- should these two have the same (or very similar) availabilities throughout?

not necessarily

Specifically...
--Should RotS have access to both variants in Early Rep era?  (or does Irian start producing later than Andurien?)

no

--Should CC get access to LFE variant in Early Rep and/or keep it in ilClan?  (would be consistent with Heavy Ferro access)
--Should Canopus keep access to LFE variant in ilClan? (because Taurians do)

data entry issues. when the site is running slow sometimes it times out and fails to catch some things.

--Should SLDF Wolves get access to Heavy Ferro variant in ilClan? (because they have access to the fancier LFE variant)

they have enough other options

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

The Hierofalcon C is listed as a Striker.  According to Rec Guide 03, it should be a Sniper.

[Sartris]

reassigned

[pokefan548]

Is it intentional that the 3055 Union never becomes available to Mercs, despite being IS General since the Civil War?

[DoubleScion]

Hi there, I think this got lost in the holiday shuffle:

I think it looks like the Jenner JR7-F should be added to ComStar's availability on MUL. In the CGL Battle of Tukayyid book on page 152, it describes anti-Elemental Level II formations: "These Level IIs consisted of three Shadow Hawk -2Ht and three Jenner -F BattleMechs, and would be assigned to a Division to respond to heavy concentrations of Elementals anywhere in that Division's operational area." But in the MUL entry below, ComStar is not listed.

Jenner JR7-F:
http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1693/jenner-jr7-f

Thanks!

[danilapal]

What tonnage did you get for this unit?

Bottom Line: Techmanual construction rules cannot replicate the CI units in Total Warfare. Using decimal damage values drilled down to individual troopers simply does not easily calculate "1 damage per X troopers, round up." MegaMek uses TM, so there will always be discrepancies compared to the TW baselines.

About BV calculation: I'm also double-checked them using rules from TechManual . Same results - 89 BV, 4 tons .
About CI in megamekLab: I'm also noticed some problem with Battle Value (not 100% solution : use "Show BV Calculation" button. UPD : fixed in version 0.49.17) and weapon damage in Record Sheets .   

 
 

[Hammer]

About BV calculation: I'm also double-checked them using rules from TechManual . Same results - 89 BV, 4 tons .
About CI in megamekLab: I'm also noticed some problem with Battle Value (not 100% solution : use "Show BV Calculation" button) and weapon damage in Record Sheets .

It's important to ensure you are using the most current version of MegaMekLab. There are continuous fixes and improvements every release. Especially if comparing 0.48.0 to 0.49.17

[Sartris]

Hi there, I think this got lost in the holiday shuffle:

I think it looks like the Jenner JR7-F should be added to ComStar's availability on MUL. In the CGL Battle of Tukayyid book on page 152, it describes anti-Elemental Level II formations: "These Level IIs consisted of three Shadow Hawk -2Ht and three Jenner -F BattleMechs, and would be assigned to a Division to respond to heavy concentrations of Elementals anywhere in that Division's operational area." But in the MUL entry below, ComStar is not listed.

Jenner JR7-F:
http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1693/jenner-jr7-f

Thanks!

added

[paladin2019]

About BV calculation: I'm also double-checked them using rules from TechManual . Same results - 89 BV, 4 tons .
About CI in megamekLab: I'm also noticed some problem with Battle Value (not 100% solution : use "Show BV Calculation" button) and weapon damage in Record Sheets .

I've never gotten the damage values for anything besides pure rifle units to match up to TW values using TM construction rules. Thus, the basic CI units on MUL are different units than you get coming out of TM/MML.

[Sartris]

Is it intentional that the 3055 Union never becomes available to Mercs, despite being IS General since the Civil War?

no records indicate accidental omission

[Sartris]

I've never gotten the damage values for anything besides pure rifle units to match up to TW values using TM construction rules. Thus, the basic CI units on MUL are different units than you get coming out of TM/MML.

Infantry is weird and we're stuck with the weirdness at present. Replacing or modifying said units lies outside of the MUL or rules teams' purview. If players want to build their own infantry in TM, they are welcome to do so.

Experimentation and / or discussion about said infantry weirdness can be directed to the appropriate boards.

[Hellraiser]

Hello,

I came across some odd roles for several mechs in a lance I was painting up & was told to offer suggestion/question them here.

Previous Thread:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,83680.0/topicseen.html


#1 - Every Dervish is a "Missile Boat" except the 6Mr which is a Brawler.
The 6Mr still packs Twin LRM10's & the only weapon change is swapping SRM2's for MPLs.
Meanwhile the 9D & 11DK are packing MMLs/ERMLs & Streaks/Re-Eng Lasers respectively & don't have the Brawler Tag with much more close in firepower.

Suggestions:
The 6Mr seems like a Missile Boat still to me w/ 20 LRMs & 4 lasers compared with other Dervishes (6M, 7D, 8D)
The 9D & 11DK very much seem more like Brawlers w/ the same 20 LRMs but much better Close Range firepower.


#2 - Every PhoenixHawk is a "Skirmisher or Striker".
I'm questioning/suggesting that some models feel like a Sniper roll should be applied w/ Twin-ERLL/LPPC or ERPPC/TC.
For example, 3D, 3K, 3M, 6D, or 4W.

#3 - Every Javelin is a "Striker", but, the 11A is mounting an LRM-15 instead of close range weapons.
This seems like it should be a "Missile Boat" like the Valkyrie models.

#4 - Griffins:   Lots of different Snipers/MissileBoats/Skirmishers here.
But the 3 that stood out to me as being classified "inaccurately"
3M - With LRM20 doing 12 damage on average & ERPPC doing 10, it feels like this should be a Missile Boat instead of Sniper.
5M - With Light Gauss & LRM-10 this on the other had feels more like a Sniper than a Missile Boat.
5K - With LRM10, LPPC, & ERML, this "Missile Boat" seems like it should be a "Skirmisher"

[Baldur Mekorig]

Is there any problems with the Karnov UR Transport entry? It puts its era as "Era Unknown (4000 - 4000)"

http://www.masterunitlist.info/Unit/Details/1759/karnov-ur-transport

[Sartris]

Like the goblin, the exact year of origin is unknown