MekHQ - Atb Suggestions/Improvements

[Arakash]

Id like to get some feedback on some suggestions for MekHQ Atb, most are related to contract generation.

If any of them seem useful/practical ill post them on the MekHQ issue tracker. I did some preliminary searches for the suggestions on the issue tracker as well as the forum.

Suggestions:

1. An option in the unit market screen, limited to A rating units, that allows them to pay 1mil cbills (or some other figure) to get an expanded number of mechs in the unit market on the next roll. Basically just like option you get in the personnel market when outside a contract.
Id suggest having the new mechs be from the "factory line" and "mercenary auction" markets, due to them favoring newly produced mechs and mechs common with mercenary units. This would help with rebuilding units after heavy losses. It would help move a mercenary unit more towards recently produced mechs and mechs common with mercenaries rather than a more general IS layout. (Mercenary RAT rather than IS RAT)

2. After 3050, have the civilian units in Extraction missions be fast moving hover/land vehicles or fast/jumping mechs.
Making the battlefields smaller would also work, but then that would make it impossible to use Aerospace Fighters effectively on these missions.
Before 3050, most of the Extraction missions were possible due to the slower speeds and lower weapon ranges, but post 3050 that makes the old civilan unit list have a very difficult time avoiding IS forces, let alone a Clan force. In an Extraction(Attacker) mission, your likely to see the entire civilian force dead before you can even pass into medium range.

3. Have the enemy rolled in a contract occasionally be a Mercenary hired by the Faction. Have them use the Mercenary RAT with a bonus to enemy Quality in the contract. Currently by sitting on Outreach you can get mercenary contracts which have Mercenaries appear as allies in the contract. I would like to have them rolled as enemies occasionally too.

4. For Subcontracts(i.e. the ones that you get offered while on Garrison Duty), increase the number of of lances required to half of your normal max deployment. Also reduce the base pay to the same or less as the base contract.
Currently they only require 1 lance but still offer a higher rate than base pay, which isn't particularly unbalanced when your max lances deployed is 2-3, but when you have 6-8 lances deployed and a regiment sized unit, you can take several of these simultaneously and the retainer pay bonus stacks with the subcontract one, so the base pay becomes pretty absurd at times. Even reduced to the normal base pay rate they will still be lucrative and challenging for the player.

5a. Make it possible for A rating Mercenary units to roll Guerrilla contracts.
Currently in my A rating unit I never see the missions offered. If the Excel sheet is correct, I think its because A rating units get a +2 to the contract generation roll, but Guerrilla required 2 or less.

5b. In the same vein as 5a, make Riot Duty available.
I cant remember ever seeing a Riot Duty contract in my A rating unit campaign. I see them mentioned in the forums, so im not sure if they were removed or my unit rating is too high to see them. Either way, id like to see them come up ocassionally as options.

6. Make it possible to roll rebels(basically the same RAT as the employer) as an enemy on Garrison, Security Duty and Cadre Duty contracts

7. Remove the Morale bonus that you gain on monthly contract morale checks for being an A unit or penalty in the case of lower ranked units, or at least have an option to remove it. These make sense in the fluff universe, but in terms of balancing an ATB campaign, making it easier for B and A ranked units to rout forces just helps a force which is likely winning more battles anyway.

8. Make the first month of any contract force at least one battle in the first week, so you cant get contracts completed with no battles fought. (Lowered intensity in the options makes this more likely, but 7. also contributes to it)


Id also like to put my weight behind:
- (last post in this thread): https://github.com/MegaMek/mekhq/issues/348
On facing a persistent force, which the I assume the force generator might make possible, though obviously would take a lot of work.
I think this would add enormously to giving more meaning to contracts and your enemies in general.

- https://github.com/MegaMek/mekhq/issues/299
On having some sort of objectives/areas on a world to fight over. Having a map seems impractical(to me), but a few named generic objectives you need to consistently win battles to take or hold over a 4 or so month period seems more reasonable.

edit: Fixed some line spacing issues.

[Iceweb]

I have to say I love the idea of the AI hiring Mercs when your being too successful on a mission. 

Mostly I see it being used for long garrison contracts when you have routed the enemy multiple times, and it makes no sense for them to keep sending piecemeal units into your meatgrinders. 
But a house saying screw it lets hire some mercs makes great sense. 

I would really love it if there was a small chance that they hired an elite named unit to kick your ass.  (With their own impressive RAT) 
You know you have made a name for your mercs when someone hires the Kell Hounds to roust you off a planet.   

[Arakash]

That's interesting, i hadn't thought of having the game switch your enemy mid contract.
My original thought was for your enemy to be a Mercenary from the start of the contract, but as you suggest, having your enemy switch mid contract would also be great.

[MoleMan]

Re. persistent force, does that mean you'd be able to see a RAT of the full enemy line up somewhere in HQ? Every mech or 'the enemy has 3 lights, 7 heavies etc'?

[Schugger]

If on garrison or cadre duty contracts, I rhink it's already possible to get a new enemy while still under the same contract, right?

[Iceweb]

If on garrison or cadre duty contracts, I rhink it's already possible to get a new enemy while still under the same contract, right?

 

Not sure what you are asking totally, but on garrison contracts if you rout the enemy after another month or so they will set their morale back to normal and attack again. 
With those contracts you can also get subcontracts to do more stuff. 

But when a garrison resets the morale it is the same enemy with the same quality level.

There is nothing for the combine to attack you and then suddenly you are fighting mercs or Lyrians

[Ragnaphael]

I have been working on a simple program that simulated the enemy force movement and your own and where not all data is readily available. Something I miss a lot in this game is the importance of scouting and intelligence gathering. I know that the big mechs are the stars of the show, but without proper tactical and strategical information, your Assault lance might just be walking somewhere whilst the enemy is already long gone.

So yes, I would definitely support both github initiatives too! Anything to make the world more persistent and the contracts and the subsequent mission more engaging/meaningful and not just 'oeh, the random numbers give you this arbitrary task to do'.

[Schugger]

 

Not sure what you are asking totally, but on garrison contracts if you rout the enemy after another month or so they will set their morale back to normal and attack again.

I may have done it wrong then ;)
I don't know how MHQ handles it know, but the last time I had to roll for new enemies during a garrison Mission I had to do so manually.
During the 24 month of contract length I had to roll up for new enemies two or three times and as I used the table in the AtB rules, I ended up with different ones each time I did so.

[CDAT]

2. After 3050, have the civilian units in Extraction missions be fast moving hover/land vehicles or fast/jumping mechs.
Making the battlefields smaller would also work, but then that would make it impossible to use Aerospace Fighters effectively on these missions.
Before 3050, most of the Extraction missions were possible due to the slower speeds and lower weapon ranges, but post 3050 that makes the old civilan unit list have a very difficult time avoiding IS forces, let alone a Clan force. In an Extraction(Attacker) mission, your likely to see the entire civilian force dead before you can even pass into medium range.

For me this (and the things like this, Star League Mek and the like) are the worst. It is so frustrating when I am tasked to defend (or destroy) them for (within) ten turn, however I do not even show up tell turn nine. Yes I know I can change that, but it is still frustrating. Then when I am trying to defend them so I put my units in position where the are better targets and such (do not move and stand in the open) the computer controlling the weak civilian unit runs right up next the the unit at one hex with a movement mod of +1, how about falling back and retreating? Same with the Star League Mek one, the tech who is operating that mek mush have a death with, as let charge in and get in there face to fight them. No how about you fall back you are not a combat troop, you are not really trained on that unit, and we are trying to save it. So you fall back I will cover for you and then when you are safe, I will either fall back myself or finish the fight depending on how it has gone.

[Groggy1]

let charge in and get in there face to fight them. No how about you fall back you are not a combat troop, you are not really trained on that unit, and we are trying to save it. So you fall back I will cover for you and then when you are safe, I will either fall back myself or finish the fight depending on how it has gone.

My feelings exactly. The way I TRY to get around this is by changing the bot settings (configure bot) to cowardly. Bravery 0, self preservation 10, aggression 0, herding 5, piloting caution 10

[CDAT]

My feelings exactly. The way I TRY to get around this is by changing the bot settings (configure bot) to cowardly. Bravery 0, self preservation 10, aggression 0, herding 5, piloting caution 10

Well now I feel stupid, never even though of trying this.

[Schugger]

Well now I feel stupid, never even though of trying this.

Yep, that's really the way to go: Set the allied bot to rather timid settings and once yor reinforcements arrive you can alter it's behaviour to be more aggressive. It took me also a while to find that out ;)

[Kovax]

Not directly an AtB issue, but I've seen far too many AI controlled Flatbed Truck(LRM) or Hover APC(LRM) suicidal idiots race up into 1 hex range of an enemy, miss the shot due to the +6 to-hit minimum range modifier, and then get kicked.

The post about civilian units reminded me about the one recent battle (more like "massacre") where I had to save a convoy made up of APCs, Ammo Carriers, and Flatbed Trucks, plus one Cooling Truck (Ooooh, scary!), escorted by a lance of 20T "bugs", from an attack by a company of mostly Medium enemy 'Mechs.  I was scheduled to come in on turn 9 with a light lance.  Despite several re-tries, the convoy never lasted more than 3-4 turns, and the escorts not much longer.  Not very entertaining when you're sent in 3-6 turns after the battle is already over.  Incidentally, the OPFOR's BV was more than double that of the combined friendly forces, and more like 5x that of the forces on the field at the time.  Realistically, not every battle is winnable, but you shouldn't be penalized for losing something that you never had even a remote chance to change.  There should be some kind of "common sense" check, and if the matchup falls outside of a playable BV range (for that type of scenario) against the player, either the battle shouldn't take place (nobody fights at drastically inferior odds unless cornered with no option to surrender), the forces need to be rerolled, or the player shouldn't be penalized for failing to meet the victory conditions.  "We're sending you out to participate in yesterday's battle, too bad you've already lost.  We're docking your pay as a result."  It may occasionally happen under real-world conditions, but it's not "fun".

A "persistent" OPFOR would be an acceptable improvement using a points system, so it fields fresh random forces from that point pool, with a very limited monthly point regeneration.  Basically, you can wear them down over time if you're even half-way decent at it, and hopefully won't wear down yourself.  A better system would include some remembered breakdown of L/M/H/A units, with losses being only partially offset by limited replacements.  An excellent system would remember the specific units that survived previous engagements, and you'd see some of them again in a later battle.  Ideally, however, it would track damage on those units, and make x number of random repairs each week, so if the enemy is low on points in its pool, it might need to send out one or two of the less-damaged units, just the way the player would be forced to do.  You'd have a chance, near the end of a contract, of seeing the 'Mech that you shot away the one arm and torso side from last week or two show up with the torso replaced, but not the arm, or still missing some of the weapons and heat sinks on that side.

The initial month of a contract too often sees a random reduction in enemy morale, so you show up, and a week later after no or 1 battle, the enemy morale drops to Low, and you're barely seeing anything happen for another month.  Next month, they rout for no discernable reason (you're never informed of any other battles between your allies and enemies), and now you're sitting there for the next 4 months with no combat.  Morale shouldn't drop randomly until/unless there have been some actions or events to change it.  Alternatively, they normally shouldn't rise unless the enemy wins or some event changes it.  Whether that means adding messages for battles outside the player's participation, or changing the way morale changes are calculated, it could use some attention.

There's been significant progress on the system, and I appreciate the effort.  Obviously, there's still a lot more that could be improved, and I'd offer to help if I could do anything more than simple text changes or data entry.

[Groggy1]

I've seen several "complaints" about deploying on round 9, including the last post about deploying with a light force on turn 9. WHY?

As far as I know, deployment is 12-walking speed, -1 if jump capable, -1/per commander's strategy level.
Those light mechs have walking speeds of 3? Nobody has strategy for their lance commanders?

Or have I been completely wrong about when to deploy my own mechs on missions? (I also roll reinforcement for EVERY battle, because the opfor usually is bigger than what I'm sending. AT LEAST two lances per battle)

[Rince Wind]

If they rout and you are not on a garrison type contract you can then end the contract with a win and get the remaining months payment. Same as a successfull attack on the enemy HQ.

[CDAT]

I've seen several "complaints" about deploying on round 9, including the last post about deploying with a light force on turn 9. WHY?

As far as I know, deployment is 12-walking speed, -1 if jump capable, -1/per commander's strategy level.
Those light mechs have walking speeds of 3? Nobody has strategy for their lance commanders?

Or have I been completely wrong about when to deploy my own mechs on missions? (I also roll reinforcement for EVERY battle, because the opfor usually is bigger than what I'm sending. AT LEAST two lances per battle)

At least with me, it was not a light force (at this stage I do not think I have any light mechs left in my force, and few mediums) so what I was sending may have been walking speed 3. I did not know that strategy affected anything so, so no I have not been spending points on it, if I got it with the pilot I had it otherwise nope.

I do not want this taken the wrong way as I think MegaMek is great, but I have found the learning curve to be very high with it. For example I did not know that you could roll for reinforcements (and side question how do you) and have been playing from about 2013 (oldest saved file that I found with quick search). I love all the features it has, but lots of them I do not know about tell someone talks about them, and then I find out about it and love the game even more, as most times they solve a problem that I have been having.

[Groggy1]

There's a AtB rules file bundled with MHQ, it's worth a read. Tells what Leadership, Strategy, and Tactics do for your lance (and higher) commanders, tells about who can reinforce and how (side note, I'll add a +1 or so to my roll if the commander has high strategy) and so on.

It's worth the read, because MHQ, while GREAT, doesn't give you any of this information.

[Schugger]

@CDAT
I guess pretty much everyone is missing something out on the rules when playing AtB, as it is quite complex ;)
Generally, for your scout lances you'll be better off if you only include 'Mechs with JJs and a movement of 5 or 6. Investing a few XP to boost the Strategy Rating two pips might prove to be a rather good investment in the long run, especially for reinforcement purposes.

[Kovax]

I've seen several "complaints" about deploying on round 9, including the last post about deploying with a light force on turn 9. WHY?

As far as I know, deployment is 12-walking speed, -1 if jump capable, -1/per commander's strategy level.
Those light mechs have walking speeds of 3? Nobody has strategy for their lance commanders?

Or have I been completely wrong about when to deploy my own mechs on missions? (I also roll reinforcement for EVERY battle, because the opfor usually is bigger than what I'm sending. AT LEAST two lances per battle)

While it was a "Light" lance, the slowest unit was a vehicle with 4/6 movement (vehicles being counted at half weight), and my commander has no skill points in Strategy so far on this second contract, after raising his Administrative and Leadership skills on the first contract.  Does no skill count as -1?

PXH-1 (salvaged on first contract) = 45T
Manticore (salvaged on first contract) x 50% weight = 30T
FS-9M (purchased before first contract) = 35T
LCT-1V (purchased before first contract) = 20T
= 130 tons.

I don't know about the formula, but it didn't allow me to deploy until turn 9.  Aside from a salvaged and repairable 'Mech that's not operational yet, I've already got my heaviest 'Mech and vehicle in that lance, and going over the 130T limit to field a weak 'Mech (which I'm intending to sell) that's substantially less effective than that tank, would put me up against substantially tougher competition.

If I had replaced the Manticore with the Vulcan, that would probably have meant stronger opposition, and I'd only be deploying 2 turns earlier (6 walk instead of 4 cruise), since the LCT doesn't jump.  Showing up on Turn 7 (or 6, if the game followed the formula) would still have put me on the map AFTER all of the civilian units and most or all of their escorts had already been destroyed, with only trivial damage to the attackers.  There was no way I could have saved them OR their escorts, and no way I could take on that much opposition regardless of entry turn.  Basically, it was not even playable if I deployed at the start of the scenario with faster and more powerful forces, because the entire convoy would have evaporated before I got into weapon range with anything other than possibly an AC/2 or LRM rack.

The main problem was not the deployment turn, it was the drastic imbalance in forces deployed, in combination with the absolute lack of survival instinct for the pathetically vulnerable civilian units.

My previous complaints about frequent scenario imbalance have generally been followed by a request for my list of customs.  Here it is.  There aren't any.  In most of my campaigns, the only "customs" I've run have been modified support, recovery, and engineering vehicles that were never added to the TO&E or deployed for a battle: convert a Vedette with the turret blown off into a recovery vehicle by adding a lift hoist, cargo space, and room for a squad of techs.  If it's not on the TO&E, it shouldn't affect the OPFOR selection.  In the present campaign, I converted an immobilized and captured Flatbed Truck(LRM) into a standard Flatbed Truck for logistical support; it is not listed in the TO&E, although it has a driver and is present in the Hanger menu.

[Groggy1]

The LCT should have deployed on turn 4, the PXH on 5. Heck, the 4/6 vehicle should have deployed on turn 8. AtB won't import those turn numbers into MM, it just slaps turn 9 on and you have to change them yourself.

Sorry for assuming that was your problem. It's usually mine. Not getting onto the field in time to engage before the friendly convoy is destroyed, that is.

[Schugger]

With that lance composition I really start to ask me if weather conditions would have an effect on the reinforcements arrival?
On a side note: I don't use light weight Lances in my campaign, mostly medium classed )I believe I just have a single hvy Lance).
Those 70 extra tons you can squeece in really pay off in durability and hitting power.

[Groggy1]

On a side note: I don't use light weight Lances in my campaign, mostly medium classed )I believe I just have a single hvy Lance).

I don't like to use light lances either. I'd rather scout with a lance of PXH's (or TR-1's post 3055) than ANY bug mechs. I MIGHT put lights into a training lance, but only for the REALLY green. Heck, my current training lance is an Ostol (Vet) Wolverine, Wyvern, and Enforcer (3 green pilots)