Clan v. IS bv balance

[Jim1701]

The percentage difference is the bonus BV the smaller force gets for improving skills only.  No extra units, just better pilots.  I believe that Battletech needs a balancing system for uneven sized forces but FSM doesn't work.  The bigger the difference the more busted it gets. 

[Porkins]

Hmm, that's too bad that it doesn't seem to work.  Oh well, I guess I'll just have to try some other approach.  Maybe I'll have to adjust the BV of clan forces by some percentage to arrive at the IS force's maximum BV or something like that.  I don't think the difference needs to be too big as it seems that the battles we've fought with equal BV for clan mechs + better pilots vs inner sphere mechs & avg pilots but greater numbers  seem to usually be like 5 clan vs 8 or 9 IS and perhaps just one more clan mech would have made the fights much more even rather than the slaughters they've usually been.  I guess we'll just work on things and see. 

Thanks for all the feedback!

[Hellraiser]

The FSM was designed to stop people from taking 100 Savanah Masters against 1 clan star and crushing them w/ rear torso shots.

It also works to penalize those people that take 1/2 dozen platoons of infantry and park them in buildings and use them as Initiative sinks to move all their mechs or SRM boat hovers last after the other guy has moved one of his precious 5 clan ubermechs.

The problem is that it really,  REALLY,  exponentially worse the more outnumbered 1 side is.
The SM is a single broken unit that doesn't represent the majority of combat vehicles.
And an initiative sink while useful doesn't translate into 50% or upwards of 200% more BV.


My GM/Commando will occationally use the FSM but uses it incombination w/ a # of units limit.
So if for example we know ahead of time that the force is Binary v/s Company he will then figure out a 10 v/s 12 ratio FSM and declare that if you choose to bring LESS and not the max 10/12 units then you don't get to RE-figure the FSM.

Mostly though we just set a BV Max & # of Units Max and its up to you to bring whatever you want inside that limit.  (Example Max 4 Units at 4500 BV limit)
If you bring a 4500 DireWolf w/ Veteran Gunner or you choose to bring 4 Medium IS L1 Mechs is up to you.

[doulos05]

Honestly, the two best suggestions i've heard for FSM fixes are these.

Mathematical: Add a log someplace to the FSM function (not sure exactly where it was), that makes for a smoother, less exponential growth of the BV bonus.

Metagamical: Calculate your FSM-modified BV against an idealized 3rd force. As in, "This game is a 5,000 BV, 4 unit game with Tournament level technology." So I calculate my 5 mech force so that with FSM against a hypothetical 4 unit opponent, my BV is 5,000 while you calculate your 2 mech force so that with FSM against a hypothetical 4 unit opponent, your BV is 5,000. When we both show up at the table, voila! We both have a 5,000 BV force!

[glitterboy2098]

not sure the metagame approach would work for actual balancing, but it would be less abusive than the current approach.

personally, i've played without the FSM alot and never really saw much of a problem with uneven forces. usually the only problem was when the smaller force was played by a less capable player.

[Crunch]

The FSM was designed to stop people from taking 100 Savanah Masters against 1 clan star and crushing them w/ rear torso shots.

It also works to penalize those people that take 1/2 dozen platoons of infantry and park them in buildings and use them as Initiative sinks to move all their mechs or SRM boat hovers last after the other guy has moved one of his precious 5 clan ubermechs.

The problem is that it really,  REALLY,  exponentially worse the more outnumbered 1 side is.
The SM is a single broken unit that doesn't represent the majority of combat vehicles.
And an initiative sink while useful doesn't translate into 50% or upwards of 200% more BV.

It should be mentioned that Savannah Masters are substantially more expensive under BV2, and that hovercraft have substantially more liabilities under TW rules. (The Savannah Master has gone from 160BV1 to 215 BV2 and is now subject to mobility crits).

Hmm, that's too bad that it doesn't seem to work.  Oh well, I guess I'll just have to try some other approach.  Maybe I'll have to adjust the BV of clan forces by some percentage to arrive at the IS force's maximum BV or something like that.  I don't think the difference needs to be too big as it seems that the battles we've fought with equal BV for clan mechs + better pilots vs inner sphere mechs & avg pilots but greater numbers  seem to usually be like 5 clan vs 8 or 9 IS and perhaps just one more clan mech would have made the fights much more even rather than the slaughters they've usually been.  I guess we'll just work on things and see. 

Thanks for all the feedback!

If you find that clan players are getting smoked regularly I'd suggest looking at a couple of things before you try fiddling BV.

1) Make sure that the problem isn't map size. Clan pays a lot for range, mobility and accuracy advantages that small maps largely mitigate.

2) Make sure that clan players are aware that if they're paying the BV for weapons like ERPPCs, Clan LRMs and Clan LPLs they need to use their advantage. I've seen way to many Clan players wade into brawl with a unit that's spending hundreds of BV for range and accuracy. BV makes you pay for everything and paying for range and accuracy and not using them will end in the same result as paying for a Wraith and then standing their. If your clan players want to brawl have them look at units with Heavy Lasers, Streak Launchers or large bore Ultra ACs.

3) Be aware that BV assumes that Zel does not exist. If you're playing with both you may want to go ahead and give clan players an advantage (If you do however be aware that Zel should not be easily dropped)

4) If all else fails try using vet pilots for the IS as well. Especially in a game with low average target numbers vet pilots can seem like a poor buy.

not sure the metagame approach would work for actual balancing, but it would be less abusive than the current approach.

personally, i've played without the FSM alot and never really saw much of a problem with uneven forces. usually the only problem was when the smaller force was played by a less capable player.

The problem with the metagamical approach is that at that point you the Marauder II Bounty Hunter Variant with a 0/0 pilot falls 6000 BV short of a hypothetical 4 unit 5000 BV force using the FSM.

[doulos05]

Right, but said hypothetical force is not the actual force the bounty hunter is fighting. The opponent may have another force which is better than a bland 5000 BV, 4 unit force which might cause problems for your bounty hunter.

[Crunch]

Right, but said hypothetical force is not the actual force the bounty hunter is fighting. The opponent may have another force which is better than a bland 5000 BV, 4 unit force which might cause problems for your bounty hunter.

If the FSM is in play the best force is always going to be the smallest number of high value units possible.

[bakija]

The percentage difference is the bonus BV the smaller force gets for improving skills only.  No extra units, just better pilots.

Yeah, see, this is what I was referring to in my post. The rules for the FSM don't actually say this. And this is where people get all cranky about FSM 'cause they go to a tournament with a 4 mech 5000 BV force, and when their opponent shows up with a 1 mech 5000 BV force, someone tells them they have to give all their mechs 7/8 pilots or whatever.

Except the rules as they were written don't actually say this is what you are supposed to do with FSM.

The rules for FSM are remarkably vague in regards to how you apply it in a given situation. And I suspect that at some point, some judge somewhere at some tournament decided that this (i.e. make someone take pilot adjustments) on the fly, and it stuck.

Using the BV rules as written (as vaguely as they are) indicates only that (using the obvious, simple example) with a 4 unit force vs a 5 unit force, the 5 unit force is penalized by 5% or the 4 unit force gets a 5% bonus (same difference). Which means that given 4000 BV (which is just a nice number to work with for example) force, the smaller force actually gets 4200 BV to spend ('cause the bigger force is actually spending 4200 BV for 4000 BV worth of stuff).

If you are setting up a game ahead of time, you can work this out, and it works fine; i.e. Dave and I are playing a game on Saturday, and we decide that it will be a 4 mech IS lance vs a 5 mech Clan star. We want to use BV and FSM, so we figure out that if we start at 8000 BV, my 4 mech IS lance will get to spend 8400 BV and his 5 mech Clan star will get 8000 BV to spend.

If you just showing up to a game with some number of units for X BV, and then trying to use FSM to balance things out after the fact, you run into all sorts of troubles, and the only thing viable to do is to adjust pilot skills, really. Or possibly, if there is a victory condition rule based on BV, you can award the smaller side a VP bonus based on the FSM, but then, I've never actually seen a BV based victory condition.

[Jim1701]

FSM is applied AFTER all other consideration IIRC.  The bigger force will NOT get worse pilots but the smaller force can improve their pilots.  No one will tell you you have to make your pilots 7/8.  I also have never heard of anyone going to a tournament where FSM was used.  Could you point me to a post?  To my knowledge FSM is not required and tournament organizers don't use it. 

[willydstyle]

I'm considering running a tournament with a modification of FSM.  8000 BV, and you're allowed to bring between 3-5 units. If you bring 5 units, you pick one of them to have a 3/4 pilot, if you have 4 units two of them have 3/4, and if you have 3 units, then all 3 have 3/4. I'm not quite sure how it would work out though :D

[bakija]

FSM is applied AFTER all other consideration IIRC

Maybe? The rules, as written, are amazingly vague on what you actually do with the FSM once you calculate it.

The bigger force will NOT get worse pilots but the smaller force can improve their pilots.  No one will tell you you have to make your pilots 7/8.

I have never actually run into this myself. But back before the board crashed and got reset (i.e. a couple years ago?), whenever this particular discussion came up, people seemed to be under the impression that this was how FSM was being applied (i.e. I showed up to a game with 5000 BV spent on 1 mech and you showed up with 5000 BV spent on 4 Mechs, and you'd end up having to make all your pilots horrible). Again, I'm not saying this is what you are supposed to do with this rule. But it was apparently how a bunch of folks on this here board seemed to think it worked.

[doulos05]

Maybe? The rules, as written, are amazingly vague on what you actually do with the FSM once you calculate it.

Correction, the rules, as written, are amazingly silent on what you actually do with the FSM once you calculate it.

[bakija]

Correction, the rules, as written, are amazingly silent on what you actually do with the FSM once you calculate it.

Heh. I stand corrected :-)

[Hellraiser]

This is what I love about FSM.   :D


2800 BV fight both just short of max.

Force 1  = 2767 BV = Timberwolf-Prime (4/5)

Force 2  = 2766 BV (2697+69) = Pillager-3Z (4/5) + Foot Platoon - Laser (4/5)

Apply FSM at a 2/1 advantage = 150% BV increase for Force 1.

Congratulations TimberWolf Pilot you are magically given a 2 gunnery point increase to make up for that 69 BV foot platoon which BTW has 0 ability to affect initiative in this fight. !!! 

[Sabelkatten]

FSM is never a good choice to balance fights. Never. It doesn't work, and that's the simple fact.

That said there are a number of other things one can consider when using the BV system:

1) Armor-weapon balance: The way it's designed an average SL-tech IS mech is the most efficient design BV-wise. If you're using SW-era IS mechs look for the heavily armed low-armor units, clanners should look for lightly armed high-armor units.

2) BV (with or without FSM) doesn't penalize init-sinking forces at all. Always mix cheap and expensive units.

3) Skill increases are overvalued. Make sure to only use it if it really gives you a large pay-off. If entire forces are supposed to better than 5/4 consider giving the force a ~10% BV break.

4) Quad mechs are overvalued except for a few very specialized units. Avoid them or give them a BV break.

5) Remember that BV assumes similar capabilities on all sides. It's up to the players to make sure they chose units that fit the battlefield and don't bring Urbanmechs to a fight on a salt plain!

[Devens]

I beleave you dont have to buy your units till after FSM is calculated.  All you need to know is one side has 5 Mech(1Star) vs the other sides 8 Mechs(2  Lances) for example.  You can then figure out FSM and then buy forces. 

Also, to all those out their who think FSM is broken, I dont think it was ever meant to handle 2+ vs 1 battles.  I do thiink it was meant to Punish the player who chose to take 36 Savana Masters vs 2 Lances.   I think it was meant to handle stuff like 2 Lances vs a level II or 1 Star vs 2 Lances or 1 Company vs 2 Stars.   For a reasonable fight like those FSM works just fine. 

[Devens]

This is what I love about FSM.   :D


2800 BV fight both just short of max.

Force 1  = 2767 BV = Timberwolf-Prime (4/5)

Force 2  = 2766 BV (2697+69) = Pillager-3Z (4/5) + Foot Platoon - Laser (4/5)

Apply FSM at a 2/1 advantage = 150% BV increase for Force 1.

Congratulations TimberWolf Pilot you are magically given a 2 gunnery point increase to make up for that 69 BV foot platoon which BTW has 0 ability to affect initiative in this fight. !!! 

Poor Example.  Hows about using an example involving Full Lances and Stars, thats what battletech is meant to play after all.

[A. Lurker]

Also, to all those out their who think FSM is broken, I dont think it was ever meant to handle 2+ vs 1 battles.  I do thiink it was meant to Punish the player who chose to take 36 Savana Masters vs 2 Lances.   I think it was meant to handle stuff like 2 Lances vs a level II or 1 Star vs 2 Lances or 1 Company vs 2 Stars.   For a reasonable fight like those FSM works just fine.

In other words, it works just fine where it's not needed in the first place and breaks down where it would be. That's a good indicator of a cure that's worse than the disease right there.

[Devens]

In other words, it works just fine where it's not needed in the first place and breaks down where it would be. That's a good indicator of a cure that's worse than the disease right there.

Realistically, if you are outnumbered by 2+ to 1 then you prabably already lost the fight or should not be engaging in said fight to begin with.  So I dont see a need to balance fights that by all rights should be a forgone conclusion. 

On the other hand, a 2 Lance vs 1 Star fight does need to be balanced.  The fact that a lot of people gave the Clans better pilots to balance the greater number of IS mechs with Total base mech BV being the same indicates that players see the need to balance the closer fights.

Also, if you dont think that 3%-5% can make a diffrence, it can be the diffrence between fielding a Commando or a Jenner, a Quickdraw or a Grasshopper, a Rifleman or a Warhammer, etc.  It can be a significant impact on a game.   

[A. Lurker]

Realistically, if you are outnumbered by 2+ to 1 then you prabably already lost the fight or should not be engaging in said fight to begin with.  So I dont see a need to balance fights that by all rights should be a forgone conclusion. 

On the other hand, a 2 Lance vs 1 Star fight does need to be balanced.  The fact that a lot of people gave the Clans better pilots to balance the greater number of IS mechs with Total base mech BV being the same indicates that players see the need to balance the closer fights.

Realistically, if you're faced with any sort of "balanced" fight at all, it means you've already failed to secure a solid advantage and should rethink whether engaging the enemy on those terms is even worth it in the first place. (A good canon example for this would be the final (non-)battle for Coventry.)

This is a game, though, not an actual military campaign. The whole point of BV, and the FSM with it, is to help us make even "unbalanced" scenarios reasonably "fair" for playing purposes, and if the system just throws its figurative hands up and quits in disgust beyond some trivial point...well, then it's not really doing its job, now is it?

[Crunch]

I beleave you dont have to buy your units till after FSM is calculated.  All you need to know is one side has 5 Mech(1Star) vs the other sides 8 Mechs(2  Lances) for example.  You can then figure out FSM and then buy forces. 

Also, to all those out their who think FSM is broken, I dont think it was ever meant to handle 2+ vs 1 battles.  I do thiink it was meant to Punish the player who chose to take 36 Savana Masters vs 2 Lances.   I think it was meant to handle stuff like 2 Lances vs a level II or 1 Star vs 2 Lances or 1 Company vs 2 Stars.   For a reasonable fight like those FSM works just fine.

The problem being that if its in play a player can ALWAYS force it to a manipulative conclusion by the minimum number of clan assaults.

[Devens]

The problem being that if its in play a player can ALWAYS force it to a manipulative conclusion by the minimum number of clan assaults.

Only if your dumb enough to give someone a blank slate to work with.  Their are 2 players, negotiate the Number of units per side and the BV on one of the sides before figuring out the BV on the other side.  Then let both sides pick their exact units last, if someone already has their force picked thats fine, but be smart enough to insist odd sized units be rounded up the next whole lance/Star/level II total.  Then if they choose to pick less units thats their problem, they should not get extra BV for picking 2 or 3 clan assault mechs in a 1 Star vs 2 lance fight. 

Realistically, if you're faced with any sort of "balanced" fight at all, it means you've already failed to secure a solid advantage and should rethink whether engaging the enemy on those terms is even worth it in the first place. (A good canon example for this would be the final (non-)battle for Coventry.)

This is a game, though, not an actual military campaign. The whole point of BV, and the FSM with it, is to help us make even "unbalanced" scenarios reasonably "fair" for playing purposes, and if the system just throws its figurative hands up and quits in disgust beyond some trivial point...well, then it's not really doing its job, now is it?

BV2 is atlast as broken as BV1 maybe more so.  BV2 is not better than BV1, it meerly has diffrent set of problems many of which we might not fully know yet.(C3 networks, Stealth Armor, etc)  And yes I include FSM's as a problem, it does need work on the 2+ vs 1 scaling.  I still think it should be used in BV2 fights under 2 vs 1 though as it is part of BV2.     

If you want 2 sides to be reasonable balanced in BV2, dont fight a 2 or more vs 1 fight.  Stick to reasonable close numbers like 10 vs 12, 6 vs 5, 8 vs 5, 4 vs 4, etc.  And pick mechs appropriate to the terrain involved.  You may like the Grasshopper, but if your in an open plain you might wanna pick something else instead, such as a Warhammer or Archer.  Similarly I would not pick an Awesome for a Heavy forest map battle, consider that Victor or Grasshoper Instead.  I dont know how many times I saw people pick poor mechs for the terrain and blame everything under the sun for their poor showing but the one true issue: Poor choice of mech for the terrain involved.

[Crunch]

In 10 vs 12 match the FSM is doing precisely nothing, and if theres a unit limit it's unnecessary. In every case the FSM is either useless or unbalancing.

[bakija]

I beleave you dont have to buy your units till after FSM is calculated.  All you need to know is one side has 5 Mech(1Star) vs the other sides 8 Mechs(2  Lances) for example.  You can then figure out FSM and then buy forces.

Well, one of the issues that most people seem to take with the FSM rule is that doesn't actually *say* what you do with FSM when it is calculated. It tells you how to come up with a FSM number. And then the rule ends. Which is a significant flaw, when you are writing a rule.

In any case, yeah, I agree that the way the only way that FSM can possibly work is if you use it to come up with points based on force size *before* you buy forces, and make them work accordingly. As note, for example, if Dave and I agree to a 4000 BV fight, where I want to be a 4 unit IS Lance and he wants to be a 5 unit Clan Star, using the FSM rule, I get 4200 BV to buy my 4 unit Lance and he gets 4000 to buy his 5 unit Star (yeah, 4000 BV isn't actually a good number for this fight, but the math works fine). But again, the rules don't say this, and this makes using the FSM (assuming it is meant to be used) completely useless for pick up games. Which is a flaw.

Also, to all those out their who think FSM is broken, I dont think it was ever meant to handle 2+ vs 1 battles.

It doesn't say not to use it for 2:1 battles. And in theory, should work for a 2:1 battle. I mean, yeah, it doesn't (as a 2:1 FSM comes out to a 150% BV increase for the 1 side), but there isn't any reason it shouldn't. Yes, it works much more reasonably in the 4:5 level (which results in a 105% BV increase) and the 10:12 level (which is a 103% increase). But that it falls apart so quickly when the disparity increases is a flaw.

[bakija]

In 10 vs 12 match the FSM is doing precisely nothing, and if theres a unit limit it's unnecessary. In every case the FSM is either useless or unbalancing.

Wha?

In a 10 vs 12 match, the FSM is giving the 10 unit side a 103% BV increase. Which, if you are using, say, 8000 BV, is giving the 10 side an extra 240 BV. Which is something.

[doulos05]

Wha?

In a 10 vs 12 match, the FSM is giving the 10 unit side a 103% BV increase. Which, if you are using, say, 8000 BV, is giving the 10 side an extra 240 BV. Which is something.

240 BV isn't really anything to write home about at 8000 BV.

[Crunch]

Wha?

In a 10 vs 12 match, the FSM is giving the 10 unit side a 103% BV increase. Which, if you are using, say, 8000 BV, is giving the 10 side an extra 240 BV. Which is something.

240 BV OUT OF 8000 is less than the inherent inaccuracy introduced by variances in terrain and initiative. It's a non factor.

[doulos05]

240 BV OUT OF 8000 is less than the inherent inaccuracy introduced by variances in terrain and initiative. It's a non factor.

Right, what he said.

[bakija]

240 BV OUT OF 8000 is less than the inherent inaccuracy introduced by variances in terrain and initiative. It's a non factor.

It is unlikely to be a complete non factor. It will give you a bigger mech than you would have otherwise. Or give someone a better pilot. Both of which are not insignificant. And better than nothing.

You probably should not have used the phrase "doing precisely nothing". Is a 3% increase in BV a huge benefit? Of course not. But it is something. And will help the side that gets it, even if only a little.