"Game Breaking Technology"

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

What counters an array of Clan Large Pulse Lasers backed up by a Clan Targeting Computer? Possibly with Medium/Small Pulse Lasers (smaller weapons typically sacrifice range in favor of better damage per ton and/or damage per heat ratios) for anything that gets really close?

Heavy armor and more firepower.  The CPL+TC combo is good at killing fast mechs, but it's not nearly as effective against something that's big and well armored.

[Kitsune413]

Some of the Solaris VII mechs would like to point out that sixteen machine guns is a very effective weapon system. Also machine gun arrays.

The Piranha was also fond of this. Never tried one with old 2.5 second solaris rules though

[SCC]

I'm guessing that your group doesn't use much ECM either then, DarkSpade

And NOVA CEWS does have a counter, it's extreme cost for more then a few units

[ANS Kamas P81]

There are also some things that are simply going to be better anyway.  The idea that Clan stuff, generations advanced from the Star League, should be at all balanced gun-per-gun against SW-era technology is like saying it's not fair that an M1A2 Abrams TUSK would vaporize an entire Panther battalion.  Of course not; the Abrams has huge technological advantages that make it inherently BETTER.

The Clan invasion of the Inner Sphere is technologically similar to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 - there were capabilities that the Americans had that were absolutely unreachable by the Iraqi army.  One single JSOW strike, two individual weapons directed by a Marine Corps platoon wiped out nearly eighty tanks in literally three seconds.  And the one-on-one fights between tanks, well...the Inner Sphere at least accounted for some 'Mech kills among the Clans.  Sometimes you just run into a much, much nastier opponent, and if there are hugely unbalanced armies in the real world I don't have an issue with it in fiction either.

And with the way TACs, head hits, decapitations, and pilot skill checks go, nothing is invincible.  Not even a mountain.

[StCptMara]

And NOVA CEWS does have a counter, it's extreme cost for more then a few units

Which, of course, relies on you using BV. If you are not, but are, instead,doing something like
my group is doing(RATs, and when a unit is actually killed, re-rolling a new unit..currently
we have a Hell's Horses Assault Star with a Hellstar being its only 'mech, a Wolf Empire like Star
with a pair of Ammon ASF, a Kurita Heavy Lance with a Hitosume Kozo and a Dragon II, and a
Ghost Bear light star with an Usus being its only 'mech, so far, the only one sided fight has been
the Horses star against the Wolf Star, all the others have been bitterly fought..draws), then the BV
cost fails. Fortunately, the Nova CEWS units are only for specific scenario use, and are not available
outside of the Wars of Reaving.

[Auren]

Again. There is no Mech based 'cheese combo' that can't be dealt with by an angry pilot* and a 50 ton ASF.

*Said ASF is remote controlled like one of those cool pod  things from Otherland.

[CloaknDagger]

Warships

[Akalabeth]

I think part of the point I was trying to convey in the other thread is that I disagree with the assertation or the assumption that if the player falls victim of the combination, then it is his fault rather than that of the game. While I don't think that CGL conceives any ill intent, I also realize that rules and technology can have unintended consequences or scope that internal or even beta testing can not suss out. In the past it's become known that some combinations of technology or rules were not affecting the game in the intended manner, and that some adjustments would need be made.

Some of these new technologies for me are worrying, because in some respects they are creating the scenario where for some pieces of technology there is an effective counter, and that other measures don't work quite as well. Something that I would label paper-rock-scissors.

Also while a point value system exists, I understand that fundamentally such a system is going to be inaccurate.

For example, Ballistic-Reinforcecd Armour. It's effective against Ballistic and Missiles but ineffective completely against Laser Weapons. So how then do you value it? If you value it against Ballistics and Missiles then it's over-priced versus Lasers, if you value it as an average against probability of facing a certain weapon then it's going to be under-valued against Ballistics and Missiles. Point is it will be inherently unbalanced against any situation which doesn't match the guesswork of the persons behind the point value.


So in general that is also why I disagree with the notion that TSM should be countered by Plasma Rifles, because a system should not need a specific counter. If it does, it's broken. If a player is forced into the situation where their force need account for all possibilities (outside of a tournament environment) then the game becomes predictable and boring because the specialized designs become over looked.

As an aspiring designer myself these are concerns that I share for all such technologies, and it seems that 3145 is somewhat rife with them. Or, at least moreso than in the past. I simlpy find the Paper-Rock-Scissors approach to gameplay to be undesirable. It's good for different units and technologies to have a counter. It's bad for the game's balance to depend upon that counter being in play.

[ColBosch]

An interesting tidbit for you all: when something is truly broken, there should be a simple and obvious fix for it. For example, the Blazer Cannon as originally published, where the heat and damage were transposed and suddenly you had the best weapon in the game, period. Now, as most of you know, I did errata for BattleTech for a time. Not once - literally never - did anyone post a suggested errata that would "fix" a "broken" weapon. Yes, a few typos here and there, usually when a C-Bill or BV cost was off, but never did anyone say, "hey, the damage X weapon does is excessive compared to Y, Z, A, and B. Here's a suggested fix." I wouldn't try it now; I hear Xotl is allergic to sarcastic laughter, so inducing it in him could be fatal.

BattleTech is not broken as a system. There are edge cases where, if everything lines up perfectly, certain extremes can be reached, but they are covered and handled just fine by the rules. If your opponent suddenly busts out some obscure rule you'd never heard of from one of the optional books, well, he should've cleared it with you beforehand. ("Hmmm, he really wants to use those advanced hull-down rules. I better be wary around Level 1 terrain.") But the core rules and equipment of BattleTech are very straight-forward. Indeed, they're simpler to use than ever before, despite their length. You can always examine your opponents' record sheets in normal play, so take your time and think your moves through. There are many deliberate breaks with reality that the game takes so that maneuvering is important, so use it!

I also think sometimes people try to do too much at once with the game. Yeah, a bunch of experienced players can handle a twenty-person game, a battalion per side, across huge maps. But most of the time it's far better to play one-on-one games, a lance/Star/etc. per side. Then you can knock out a couple games in a day and really learn the ins and outs of the system. Experiment! Don't just stick blindly by a faction, mix it up with whatever you want to use. I'd even go so far as to say that you've got to use BV2 as a balancer; there's too many variables to rely on modified tonnage or C-Bills.

Oh, and for the person who made the comment about customers being playtesters: yes, that's true. All "living" games - those in production - are constantly undergoing changes as they expand. It's the nature of the beast, and it's a good thing. Hell, over on the Steve Jackson Games forums, there's still tweaks being found for the Ogre rulebook, and that's been through six editions over thirty years. There are always things the designers overlook initially, and with a good working relationship with the fanbase, these issues can be identified and corrected...or do we want to go back to the days where Targeting Computers could be used with Pulse Lasers to make aimed shots?

[StCptMara]

I also think sometimes people try to do too much at once with the game. Yeah, a bunch of experienced players can handle a twenty-person game, a battalion per side, across huge maps. But most of the time it's far better to play one-on-one games, a lance/Star/etc. per side. Then you can knock out a couple games in a day and really learn the ins and outs of the system. Experiment! Don't just stick blindly by a faction, mix it up with whatever you want to use. I'd even go so far as to say that you've got to use BV2 as a balancer; there's too many variables to rely on modified tonnage or C-Bills.

Oh, and for the person who made the comment about customers being playtesters: yes, that's true. All "living" games - those in production - are constantly undergoing changes as they expand. It's the nature of the beast, and it's a good thing. Hell, over on the Steve Jackson Games forums, there's still tweaks being found for the Ogre rulebook, and that's been through six editions over thirty years. There are always things the designers overlook initially, and with a good working relationship with the fanbase, these issues can be identified and corrected...or do we want to go back to the days where Targeting Computers could be used with Pulse Lasers to make aimed shots?

Bosch, I completely agree with you here. In fact, my group has developed a basic split in how we handle things with
new players. We start with a demo of a Centurion AL vs a Griffin 1N, and from there, we start them in light mech
duels, then medium duels, then heavy duels, then the Rifleman Challenge, then we do them a 2 'mechs on one big
bad bruiser of a 'mech, then they get their first lance on lance fight, and we keep them at Intro Tech during this time.
We have learned that too many new players are overwhelmed by being thrown in with everything available.  At the
same time, against each other? We go at it full on. At the same time, we do not use any balancing mechanism against
ourselves. We operate on this assumption that we can win almost any fight through better use of tactics, and if we
can't, then that means our tactics need to improve. (With new players, we eye-ball the matches with the new players
demonstrated capabilities to our capabilities, and handicap ourselves that way..)

In regards to "players as playtesters," I fully support that CGL listens to us. Heck, my group has been responsible for
a couple significant errata over the years, simply because we push the rules in our normal play in ways that the designers
often, as knowledgable as they are, never thought of. It is not that the game is flawed, it is just that not everyone plays
the same, and some playstyles just break the devs.(As seen by how often when I submit a rules question, it takes a
few months of research, often resulting in an errata being made.)

[wundergoat]

I think most "broken" things in game are either functions of changes in metagame, improper balancing of a fight, or styles of play that are 'unfun'.

With metagame issues, you have things where one player is using new tech that the other players have not found a way to properly counter.  For example, a friend of mine loves to run a custom 100t TSM supercharger equipped melee monster with hardened armor.  Is it scary?  Yes.  Unbeatable or broken? No.  Simply, it combines tech to get horrifying melee damage on a very durable and surprisingly fast platform but is countered with AP rounds and heat causing weapons.  Similarly, the iJJ craze has yielded a ton of very mobile heavy units, but they are countered by precision rounds, pulse, and the plethora of AoE weapons (mine clearance missiles, airburst mortars, arty cannons, etc.) that are reasonable weapon choices anyways.

Improper balancing is an issue where the strength of new tech isn't well understood by all players and as a result the game is stacked from the onset.  Usually this occurs with tech that intentionally very powerful by design but the intended limits are circumvented (like rarity and BV).  Examples include Nova CEWS and Manei Domini implants, which are rare and intended for specific scenario usage.  You can get similar issues when dealing with things like off board artillery and the like.  Sometimes this issue is malicious, sometimes not.  I am of the opinion that this isn't a problem with the tech so much as it is a failure to properly balance.

Abusive or otherwise unfun playstyles are what I think most people are complaining about when they talk about broken tech.  A lot of times these are playstyles that result in the opposing player feeling like they are powerless due to being disabled or unable to do anything to the enemy.  TSEMP, heat weapons, headcappers, TSM, and the like all have the potential to be unfun when spammed as they make the player on the recieving end feel like they can't do anything and are wasting their time.  Similarly iJJ mechs are simply a new iteration of a long line of super mobile mechs, like the Wraith from the invasion era and Griffins from the succession wars.  Playing a bouncy mech is fine.  Excessively drawing out the game (like by taking everyone's TH# to 10+ every round) isn't.  Essentially you disrespect the other players by making the game take longer and ultimately wasting their time.

In all these situations, improvements in the players solve the problems most effectively.

[Maingunnery]

As an aspiring designer myself these are concerns that I share for all such technologies, and it seems that 3145 is somewhat rife with them. Or, at least moreso than in the past. I simlpy find the Paper-Rock-Scissors approach to gameplay to be undesirable. It's good for different units and technologies to have a counter. It's bad for the game's balance to depend upon that counter being in play.

A balanced force has more options available to it to counter the enemy while specialized forces (of technologies/unit-types) on the other hand are a gamble, depending upon the enemy and environment they can be highly effective or ineffective.

However counters aren't limited to other technologies, tactics are used to apply technologies, therefore there are counter tactics to blunt the effectiveness/advantages of enemy technologies/unit-types.

Also we always had 'Paper-Rock-Scissors' in the game, its just stronger now with all these new armors, which makes having a good grasp of counter tactics and/or balanced forces even more important. If I am facing a balanced force I must also take into account which enemy units are the most effective against my units and find a way to silence them or limit their ability to influence the battle. I think that this makes BT more interesting.

[StoneRhino]

Talons and TSM are not game breaking, they just hurt apparently. I don't know how many times I have said this, but the most obnoxious thing I have ever faced in a game was Clan LAMs with TSM, pulse lasers, and of course a mace with great pilots. Sorry bout TSM+Talons cannot compare. Unfortunately it just really bruised the ego of a newer player that has yet to face ultra munch designs that my friends threw at me years ago.

Since then, it has been really hard to find something that I see as game breaking. There has been a good amount of cheap tricks, or annoying nonsense, but I'm not sure about game breaking. I think it comes down to a person's tolerance level for being pushed in a game. I just played a game last night against a friend who had 1/5 pilots in all of his mechs. The first game we have played in years that was not a scenario. I had standard 4/5 pilots and needed 9s or 11s for all but 4 shots during the game, even though I had the longest range weapons. That was frustrating realizing that I can't really hit and he is getting TNs of 4.5 on average with one blitzkrieg double rating and hitting with the majority of the rounds while being scratched in return. Once I realized what the problem was I made a few jokes about what was going on and realized that I didn't have much of a chance going into that game because my friend went nuts with tweaking his pilots gunnery without balancing the piloting. I joked, "Why am I always the one playing on the challenge mode?" since I have a bad history of having bad pilots in light mechs facing elites with assaults that 1 shot limbs.

I think the most obnoxious thing I have seen in the game is the new version of Mech motars. Maybe we had the rules backwards, but it seemed that they were basically designed to go fishing for headshots, even if the description of the ammo suggests it was meant to destroy infantry as opposed to armored targets. We used to play with Maxtech rules with aiming high/low/left/right, but it had a modifier to do so, this just didn'ts eem like it required any effort. The ability of the mortars to hit the head has to be the closest thing to "game breaking" that I can recall.

[scJazz]

Just about everything introduced after CityTech version 1 :)

[StoneRhino]

Some of these new technologies for me are worrying, because in some respects they are creating the scenario where for some pieces of technology there is an effective counter, and that other measures don't work quite as well. Something that I would label paper-rock-scissors.

Also while a point value system exists, I understand that fundamentally such a system is going to be inaccurate.

 Point is it will be inherently unbalanced against any situation which doesn't match the guesswork of the persons behind the point value.


So in general that is also why I disagree with the notion that TSM should be countered by Plasma Rifles, because a system should not need a specific counter. If it does, it's broken. If a player is forced into the situation where their force need account for all possibilities (outside of a tournament environment) then the game becomes predictable and boring because the specialized designs become over looked.

The game has ALWAYS had gear and weapons that worked best in one situation or another. Large lasers are a great counter for players that keep getting killed by other players that pack tons of medium lasers. I can hit you when you can't hit me. LRMs and SRMs can be annoying, but an AMS can counter that. You can counter an AMS by going with smaller launchers but the same tube count to flood the AMS by forcing it to engage one of the smaller batches of missiles, but leaving the target vulnerable to the other launchers. There are more advanced pieces of gear that have always had a counter. I highly doubt that there will ever be a piece of gear that cannot be countered in this game.

Your understanding of a point value system is questionable in a way. If by questionable you mean that it cannot account for every situation and every possible match up that you and your friends come up with, then you are correct. Your understanding of the BV system should be based upon the idea that it is an attempt to come up with a means of balancing forces in their most raw form. The system cannot account for someone flooding the field with one piece of gear to an extent that an unprepared, low skilled, low experienced player cannot adjust. The Devs would need to create a program in which all players can go into a facility and get tested to come up with a player rating in order to help enhance the BV system by adjusting for the general skill level and knowledge of an individual player. That is never going to happen, but if you have a friend who is new to the game then giving him a 10% or more BV bonus may help him or her out. Even still they are going to make mistakes that no BV bonus is going prevent.

BV cannot adjust for the terrain that the players choose to play upon, or agree upon. If you are playing a scenario but designing your own forces then someone who knows the layout of the map will have an advantage while the other who does not know the map will be at a disadvantage. Why? Because one can adjust for the terrain while the other has to either guess and go all in with that guess, or work on a much more rounded force then the other person.

If a player relies purely upon BV to make the game balanced then he is bound to see his friends use to break any chance of giving you a fair fight. If you know the other person loves to spam LRMs and you do not use an AMS on your mechs then that is on you. If they know you rip out every MG your designs have and they flood you with infantry and swarm you to death, that is again on you. The less effort you put into your force the greater the chances are you will be overwhelmed by something. A policy of "a little bit of everything" weakens a specialized force, but it strengthens it against an over specialized force. Back in the days when we had a group I was the one that ran the most well rounded force while the others always found something to focus on. The person that people wanted eliminated from the table first was not the guys with the specialized force, it was me. Why? Could I could counter them one way or another while the guy on my team was strong in one way but they could hard counter him. I was in the way, I had to be removed from the game. It cost them games, but it would have cost them games if they didn't focus me and allowed me to counter them. BV cannot adjust for the players or terrain, nor the force composition. It can only attempt to give a raw number of value the unit represents. It is raw, like a carrot, or egg, and if you get steamed carrots or burned egg is up to you.


Specialized designs are being forced out of the game? But at the same time you want to suggest that specialized designs that are meant to produce a particular effect amplified by the focus of that unit's design should not be required. You want specialized designs but you don't like the idea of it requiring a particular counter? It seems as though you want specialized designs to be countered by everything, meaning the design is not really specialized at all. It would be similar to saying that you think SRM2s should be the same as Medium lasers, you want them all to be equal instead of giving people various options.

No one is forcing you to play the game with a particular counter. You don't need to bring plasma weapons to the game in the hopes of countering the target with TSM. You could just fire everything you have at it and destroy it. That is brute force, something one person would do. Another person would adjust and bring infernos, BA with flame throwers, and plasma in abundance. Brute force works, but it takes a lot of effort to do be effective. The other way takes to much of your BV to counter something that might be in the next game. The other possibility is to realize that people are likely to use certain gear, especially if it has been successful before. If you do so then you can bring some heat inducing weapons just in case. Not your entire force, but maybe one or two units with a single weapon. If you see that TSM mech coming your way you have a counter to it without having to break your force design to simply counter. While you do that you bring something of your own to push the other player into reacting to your push.

One thing players need to learn is that simply picking the biggest mechs in the game is not a sure win. From there they can learn their other lessons. Your next lesson is to balance your force for the possibilities you will face instead of thinking that a point value system is meant to protect you from the opposing player's plans.

[Challenger]

Mech Mortar 8's on Flatbed trucks --- cheap, and you keep targeting the hex with airburst, not the mech itself.  It's not a LOT of damage, but it is almost guaranteed hits each round .... spread them out, and keep something like a Hunchback with twin Large Pulse Lasers, and a Targeting Computer right in the general area .....  Actually, anything fast with TC and Pulse Lasers, especially Clan Pulse Lasers.

Nahuris

Oh it is counterable.....though each flat bed has about 3 turns to live once it opens fire so I don't think that will work.  Remember in 3 turns that mech has covered 24hexes.

The Hunchback similarly lacks enough firepower to down it's attacker before it loses a leg and becomes easy pickings.

Fast with pulses works. As long as you can avoid being kicked the game becomes quite balanced.  But it also becomes like an old school dog fight.  Which is kinda my point, TSM + IJJ radicaly changes the feel of the resulting game, while granting a significant advantage over anyone playing by the 'old' rules.

Challenger

[DarkSpade]

I'm guessing that your group doesn't use much ECM either then, DarkSpade

And NOVA CEWS does have a counter, it's extreme cost for more then a few units

When one of us became overly fascinated with c3i, the rest began to use a lot of angel ECM.  He eventually countered it by not using c3i and letting us waste points/tonnage on the angel ECM. 

[StCptMara]

One thing players need to learn is that simply picking the biggest mechs in the game is not a sure win. From there they can learn their other lessons. Your next lesson is to balance your force for the possibilities you will face instead of thinking that a point value system is meant to protect you from the opposing player's plans.

I had a new player ask me why I don't allow assault 'mechs until they get their first Lance force. I explained to him that
Assault 'Mechs have no individual tactics on their own. Where you learn Assault 'Mech tactics is when they have Two to
Three buddies working with them. (I also find it interesting how many new players, when they pick that first Assault
for their 250 ton lance, go with an Atlas. The ones who earn a nod of approval from me are the ones who go for a Stalker
or a 733 Highlander. But it says alot about the impact of the Atlas even in the psyche of new players). And then, I take my
standard Heavy, Medium, 2 Light lance (Marauder 3M, Centurion AL, then a pair of the Intro Tech Hussars).

Overall, my general impression is that no problem is so insurmountable that it cannot be defeated through superior
tactics, or throwing your strength against your opponent's weakness. StoneRhino, you mentioned that you had 4/5
pilots against 1/5 pilots. In that situation, tactically, the thing to do would be to close behind the guy, and kick. Don't
try to play the range game. Note: that is a scenario I use as teaching(though I give one side better pilots then the
other) to see if the person figures out the trick. (Yes, my group is a little tough on new players...however, we also
explain what we are doing and why..and if a player has some huge tactical error they keep making, we will nail that
error every time until they stop making it. One player made me proud when he actually used that tendency on my part
to make that tactical error he always made into a trap.)

[monbvol]

I do understand why TSM+Talons+IJJs are such a concern.  It is a lot easier to have a 55 ton mech move 5(6)/8(9)/8 and do 32 damage in a kick reliably and still have enough tonnage and crits left for a decent battery of weapons with range.  Forget the big 80 ton or 100 ton monsters.  Sure their numbers are scarier for what they can deliver in a kick but as noted making them mobile enough to force the kick despite an opponent's planning or experience leaves them wanting for decent ranged weaponry.  An 80 ton mech with TSM+Talons+IJJs at 5(6)/8(9)/8 gives 5 to 20.5 tons depending on how heavily you want to armor it and what type you want to use(I consider hardened right out of the running due to weight and mission goal).  While the 55 allows for 14-26 again depending on how much armor you want to put on it and what type.  That is enough I could think about putting on partial wings but then I would start running into critical slot issues, especially with that much weight left available to me.  Either way there is more then enough left tonnage wise that the 55 ton version is really going to be the much more fearsome combatant.

Likewise I also understand why Pulse+TComp is seen as a broken combination.  That's a -3 to hit against everything even under current rules.  That's Gunnery+1+AMM+TMM+Terrain/Environmental modifiers at Long Range.  I've always considered that the more "broken" element of Pulse+TComp then their ability to hit a desired location, especially with Clan Large Pulse Lasers.

Now I'll say for my own part I am fine with powerful combinations and certain items just being outright better to an extent but when they force a particular style of play, force the need for particular construction options, or a particular set of tactics that's when even I will start scratching my head and start considering something broken.

[skiltao]

I don't think there's any tech in the game that "breaks" it, per se. There're definitely some combinations of tech that are uniquely powerful, but they can be countered.

Adding to what Akalabeth and Wundergoat said:

"Game breaking" is defined by how completely the tech transforms the options and trade-offs available to the player. (Obstructing dynamics of play "breaks" them.) That an item is counterable does not guarantee it doesn't adversely affect the structure of the game.

The new and changed game can be enjoyable, sure, but desirable elements may be lost.

An interesting tidbit for you all: when something is truly broken, there should be a simple and obvious fix for it.

Excellent post! However, I do not think breakages can always be identified that way. For instance, support vehicle weapon limits are well and truly broken, and thus far lack for a simple or obvious fix.

Personally I don't think there are any, you sometimes have to adapt is all.

How does one "adapt" to cruise missiles?

[CloaknDagger]

How does one "adapt" to cruise missiles?

ICBMs or Orbital Bombardment.

[MadCapellan]

How does one "adapt" to cruise missiles?

Considering their flight times? Don't be in the same general area for more than a couple of turns in a row. Alternatively, counter-battery fire or aerospace fighters.

[LastChanceCav]

I think Catalyst has done a pretty good job of balancing new advances in technology. Even with clan tech and the like, there are rules to make sure the game can be enjoyed by anyone, regardless of the tech level they choose.

Cheers,
LCC

[Kit deSummersville]

The Xbox 360.

That can be countered by the "Honey-do" list.

[JadeHellbringer]

ICBMs or Orbital Bombardment.

Let's have a discussion that doesn't devolve into another one of these 'WMDs are everything' arguments, please?

Thank you.

[skiltao]

Considering their flight times? Don't be in the same general area for more than a couple of turns in a row. Alternatively, counter-battery fire or aerospace fighters.

And if you were playing a small ground skirmish? ;)

[evilauthor]

How about lasers that actually behave like lasers by having a "short range" bracket that goes all the way out to the horizon? Spot an enemy mech at 60 hexes? Shoot at it using short range (lack of) modifiers!  :D

[Lorcan Nagle]

And if you were playing a small ground skirmish? ;)

Well then he's either spending 800BV per shot for Kalkis, or 40,000 points for a Nekohono'o HQ, which is slightly out of the bracket for a small ground skirmish.

[Arkansas Warrior]

And if you were playing a small ground skirmish? ;)

If you were playing a small ground skirmish, why is your opponent flingng cruise missiles?

[ColBosch]

If you were playing a small ground skirmish, why is your opponent flingng cruise missiles?

He thought he was playing Ogre?