Battle Value tolerance range

[NeonKnight]

True, but as he said, it stops someone from bringing (for example) 700 BV in infantry. And the lowest cost infantry would things like:

17 x Clan Mechanized Wheeled Point (LRM) at 41 BV each (697 BV Total)

or

19 x Mechanized Hover Platoon (LRM) at 36 BV each (684 BV total)

That said, no one is saying one side or the other HAS to bring BA or vehicles, just that if one does bring one, they are capped at 5 total.

[Minemech]

 Games where you have to plan to deal with the prospect of well used combined arms are more cerebral, and satisfying. Leaning how to use various unit types well may require an investment of time and effort, which is rewarding to all players involved. Power gaming generally does not stand the test of time during such play.

[NeonKnight]

Games where you have to plan to deal with the prospect of well used combined arms are more cerebral, and satisfying. Leaning how to use various unit types well may require an investment of time and effort, which is rewarding to all players involved. Power gaming generally does not stand the test of time during such play.

And games where one can head -off all 'munchkinisms' before it even begins also makes games more satisfying. The point of stating upfront unit limits etc, is to make the game as enjoyable to all players involved.

If your enjoyment comes from overwhelming me with 5x the number of units I'm playing, or forcing me to play units I don;t want to, then the game is not enjoyable to me.

I'm not saying my asking you to limit your unit selection is fair to you either, but as gamers (because let's face we both play this for fun and enjoyment) we have to come to consensus at times of options that is fair to both of us.

[Weirdo]

I'll never support or recommend unit caps, it completely screws over players that might want to bring unusual or small units, especially infantry.

Instead, I highly recommend discussing with your opponents beforehand, and implementing a looser rule, called "Don't bring a swarm, and I know that you know what I mean."

[Minemech]

And games where one can head -off all 'munchkinisms' before it even begins also makes games more satisfying. The point of stating upfront unit limits etc, is to make the game as enjoyable to all players involved.

If your enjoyment comes from overwhelming me with 5x the number of units I'm playing, or forcing me to play units I don't want to, then the game is not enjoyable to me.

I'm not saying my asking you to limit your unit selection is fair to you either, but as gamers (because let's face we both play this for fun and enjoyment) we have to come to consensus at times of options that is fair to both of us.

I generally do not use the Savannah Master Sortie, unless it is for a teaching match. In teaching games I sometimes start out with exaggerated forms of situations players have to deal with, and through several matches show them how they are tempered down, yet effective within a very normal force compositions. I try to bring players from understanding an abstraction to the implementation of a simple tactical maneuver, or force building technique. I try to likewise give them general rules to guide their growth in play, such as the virtue/vice paradigm. This also shows them the limitations that even well designed forces face. Sometimes it is the best way for players to learn. In my experience, it tends to reduce munchkinism, and results in interesting builds.

[NeonKnight]

I'll be honest, most of my games are seldom if ever a 'bring X-value' as oddly most folks up here in Vancouver expect us agents to run/provide everything *sigh*

But yeah, the swarm/horde level of play is not my idea of fun. I know players who agonise over moving units with a 3/5 move o0f all things. And the faster they move, the longer the move planing for every last little bit of movement to tweak out the position/TMM/etc.

Playing against someone like this if they had 12 units to move, well, we'd be lucky to see round 3 inside a few hours.

[NeonKnight]

I generally do not use the Savannah Master Sortie, unless it is for a teaching match. In teaching games I sometimes start out with exaggerated forms of situations players have to deal with, and through several matches show them how they are tempered down, yet effective within a very normal force compositions. I try to bring players from understanding an abstraction to the implementation of a simple tactical maneuver, or force building technique. I try to likewise give them general rules to guide their growth in play, such as the virtue/vice paradigm. This also shows them the limitations that even well designed forces face. Sometimes it is the best way for players to learn. In my experience, it tends to reduce munchkinism, and results in interesting builds.

Never talked about teaching games. When playing against new players/teaching them I will always put myself into bad positions, suggest tactics for them to take etc. This thread is not about teaching, I thought it was about in games in general, (where all players are assumed to have equal game knowledge/skill), what is fair to have an agreed upon BV/# of units etc.

[Colt Ward]

I'd have serious issues with that limit.  Assuming 15K of that for the 'Mechs means an average of 3K per.  Normally, I prefer running lighter, faster units (primarily Mediums), with combined arms, and an 18K cap (roughly 3K per 'Mech) would mean that I'd have to resort to a lot of exotic equipment or significantly heavier units just to stay under the unit number cap.  I'd push for a limit of 8 'Mechs and/or 8 vehicles (max total of 12), perhaps stick with 5 BA/Inf.  The 5 limit per type is optimal for a Clan force, but I'd rather be able to run a combined-arms Company of IS equipment, and 5 doesn't allow that.

With him and his opponent using the base 5 it sounds like they are playing Clan, which means with 3/4 or better pilots you ARE talking about mediums around 3k (FREX Shadow Cat A 3/4 is 2930 BV) which leaves 3k BV for any vehicles and BA . . . and Elemental (L) are 447 for a single point @ 4/5.  So with 18k you can take a medium nova of Clan regulars.

For your other problem . . . Kovax I feel for you, our group when doing pick up games will vary era, weight and types . . . we do have a player I know who does not want to play combined arms himself but he will play against it.  But we also have mech-only games, like King of the Hill or grinders that mix it in or a scenario condition that includes or excludes certain types besides mechs.  We also run on consensus . . . after the forum discussion of the TacOps flamer rule, it was put up to a FB vote for the group and so now its included in our group set of rules.

[Cannonshop]

I'll never support or recommend unit caps, it completely screws over players that might want to bring unusual or small units, especially infantry.

Instead, I highly recommend discussing with your opponents beforehand, and implementing a looser rule, called "Don't bring a swarm, and I know that you know what I mean."

when you have a BV cap and a Unit cap, the outcome is a duel between identical units-in which case, you might as well just shuck the whole thing, pick one design for each side, and play out a duel.

YES, objective BV can screw up-someone can powergame it with a swarm.  sure, that's possible. It becomes LESS possible if neither side knows what the map is going to look like before it starts, in addition to not knowing what the other guy is bringing.  (and for hilarious fun, take two swarm players and pit them against each other, heheheheh.)

but here's the thing-and it's the same problem that eventually killed FSM as a concept that works.

take the hypothetical 17K bv.  Now, what is the smallest force you can build with 17,000 bv?  NOW, add in force limits, becuse that's going to push your numbers down, and your smaller number of units with more optimized stats, and optimized p/g scores will result just as surely as an unlimited by force composition game will allow somebody to game the system the other way with lots of disposable units.

I'm sorry but 0/0 p/g in an optimized Clan Assault 'mech on both sides, standing at medium range and rolling dice for four hours is boring.

Objective BV is all about "you don't know what you're facing, or how many, or what kind, you just have this number and whatever kinky tactics you want to try."

in my own experience, this tended to create game nights where the force with the broadest coverage had the best chance, (presuming equal skill between players).

IOW a little of everything, or at least, everything put together with a purpose to cover the broadest range of scenarios.  Hypespecialized units (that guy with the ultra-elite Clan pilot in his customized Clan Assault) sometimes do well, and sometimes that swarm guy with his Savannahsortie finds his key 'tactical asset' can't cross the wooded map and he's fighting crippled because he was leaning on a unit that has movement restrictions because it's cheap, or because it's vulnerable to Joe over there who's playing with thunder Lrms and indirect fire with a battery of light to medium weight artillery and spotters supporting his otherwise-3025 era lance.

The weird results are the ones you talk about weeks after the match, it's not the cookiecutter duels with ultraelites in widowmakers.

[Greatclub]

I recently ran a mini-tourney, 3 matches over 3 weeks, that had a limit of 8k, standard tech, canon units, and max four units, all 'ground,' BV got from MUL.

The reasons:

TW or BMM is the normal book people have. I didn't want somebody showing up with rifle canons (TacOps) and not know about the -3 damage.
3-4 hours, what we alloted to play, is enough for a few turns. More than 4 units can easily lead to decision paralysis. Also wanted to avoid break-the-game swarms.
I don't know the rules for air or aerospace well (at all.) I'm fairly sure neither would the other players. Let us head off that amount of rule-checking time quickly.
Canon because with the thousands of canon mechs, there should be something close enough to your choice (Unless you want to field iNARC, in which case you're kinda screwed.)
I've seen people show up with BV1 (or earlier systems) and have to be told that the jagermech is 150 bv more expensive. Plus there was the recent change to gunnery/piloting increases.

My force was, with mostly 3/4 pilots;

Malice XT
Shadowhawk 12C
Wolfhound 5
Centurion Ar

One guy showed up with a primitive wolverine. It was pretty obvious he just oops'ed out of ignorance; we let him use it for the first night, and replace it for the second.

edit - you could have something like 'for every five points or fraction thereof you go over, you loose one turns initiative.

[Cannonshop]

I recently ran a mini-tourney, 3 matches over 3 weeks, that had a limit of 8k, standard tech, canon units, and max four units, all 'ground,' BV got from MUL.

The reasons:

TW or BMM is the normal book people have. I didn't want somebody showing up with rifle canons (TacOps) and not know about the -3 damage.
3-4 hours, what we alloted to play, is enough for a few turns. More than 4 units can easily lead to decision paralysis. Also wanted to avoid break-the-game swarms.
I don't know the rules for air or aerospace well (at all.) I'm fairly sure neither would the other players. Let us head off that amount of rule-checking time quickly.
Canon because with the thousands of canon mechs, there should be something close enough to your choice (Unless you want to field iNARC, in which case you're kinda screwed.)
I've seen people show up with BV1 (or earlier systems) and have to be told that the jagermech is 150 bv more expensive. Plus there was the recent change to gunnery/piloting increases.

My force was, with mostly 3/4 pilots;

Malice XT
Shadowhawk 12C
Wolfhound 5
Centurion Ar

One guy showed up with a primitive wolverine. It was pretty obvious he just oops'ed out of ignorance; we let him use it for the first night, and replace it for the second.

edit - you could have something like 'for every five points or fraction thereof you go over, you loose one turns initiative.

the less conversant a group is with a given set of rules, the more delays you get referencing books. the less variation from "all 'mechs all the time" the more likely you are to have to go back and check not just rules, but errata to those rules.

minefields, artillery, fires-you know, things that aren't 'just 'mechs' can be enough with the wrong group.

and 'just 'mech' groups running like you propose end up being 'just duels' pretty quickly, where the only REAL difference is the cosmetics.

force limitation has that impact-you don't get any real variation, everyone ends up running either a lance or a star (depending where you set your bars) except for that one guy who made a mistake in his unit selection and printed the wrong record sheet.

[Greatclub]

One guy was planning to run a clan hover/VTOL force, but couldn't come. I'd probably do a BA/mech force if we do it again.

Normally we run scenarios, but this was a stopgap while the above guy got his campaign setup(s) in order. The fact he wasn't able to show demonstrating why he needed more time.

edit - to be clear, I had two goals in mind with these restrictions - as many turns as possible in a limited time, and trying to make sure everyone had at least passing familiarity with what was on the table.

[Calimehter]

when you have a BV cap and a Unit cap, the outcome is a duel between identical units-in which case, you might as well just shuck the whole thing, pick one design for each side, and play out a duel.

.
.
.

I'm sorry but 0/0 p/g in an optimized Clan Assault 'mech on both sides, standing at medium range and rolling dice for four hours is boring.

I get what you are saying here, but putting in a cap on the number of elements doesn't have to *automatically* mean that you are putting the cap # so low that all anyone can take are elite pilots in assault Mechs.

There is a happy medium here between no cap at all (i.e. open to the jump bomber/Savannah Master/infantry/etc./etc. "swarm" overload of one type of cheap unit) and a tiny cap.

[Weirdo]

That happy medium is the informal cap, where players are allowed to go high if they want to incorporate infantry or conventional fighters into their regular forces, but players know a swarm when they see it, and bringing one will get you glared away from the table.

[Calimehter]

You can go informal with that unit# cap, just like you can go informal with BV or even just eyeball balance by looking at lists without ever calculating BV. 

That sort of thing works great with established groups.  However, there are times like shop events, tournaments, etc. where it is better to set a cap for things.  I would argue, given that it is pretty clear that having numbers on someone is an advantage, that a unit# cap is just as valuable as a BV cap when you want or need to set limits like that.

Just to throw out a random example, I could see some "open" game night setting a limit of 6,000 BV *and* a unit cap of 12 units and consider that quite reasonable.  You can bring jump bombers, but you can't swarm with them.  You can go with an single heavy Mech lance, but you are giving up numbers (potentially double or triple) to anyone who brought any (or even *all*) conventional troops.

[midway]

We have been nightly play testing after work. I've stuck with a Clan Ghost Bear Nova. Executioner A, 2 Mad Dog Primes, 2 Fire Moth Primes, 5 Elemental points. He has mixed things up every night. 1st night was Dire Wolf Prime, Timber Wolf Prime, Storm Crow Prime, Adder Prime, Adder A. That was a close battle. Night 2, I faced, an IMP C, Thunderhawk 7S, 3 Piranha's, 4 squads of Infiltrator Mk II, and 4 dirt cheap Myst Lynx to carry them. Exceptional luck made that fairly lopsided in my favor. Current battle has him replacing all the Myst Lynx and BA with an Annihilator C2. Could go either way but I have 2 Piranha kills so far and his damage has been to spread out to down anything yet.

He did learn not to run a Piranha into physical combat with an Executioner that has a 1 LVL terrain advantage. Kicked his head off like a soccer ball.

[midway]

Would no hard cap on total units, with a 75% cap of any one unit type i.e, mechs, vehicles, infantry, battle armor, artillery, and aerospace be sufficient to keep the ultra cheesy tactics down? We are playing no objectives right now. Trying to get a feel of every unit type and what we prefer to play.

[Nikas_Zekeval]

One thing about unit caps.  A player has only so much mental bandwidth, even with being good about leaving notes on the sheets, to run their side.  Shifting gears okay, I jumped this mech, walked that one, the VTOL over there flanked this turn...

Games can slow down just by having to switch gears like that.  The more detailed the unit, like Mechs having to track their heat, or VTOLs the altitude, unless you are skilled or running multiples of a unit (vehicles and infantry) a large force could just bog things down trying to run it.

[midway]

One thing about unit caps.  A player has only so much mental bandwidth, even with being good about leaving notes on the sheets, to run their side.  Shifting gears okay, I jumped this mech, walked that one, the VTOL over there flanked this turn...

Games can slow down just by having to switch gears like that.  The more detailed the unit, like Mechs having to track their heat, or VTOLs the altitude, unless you are skilled or running multiples of a unit (vehicles and infantry) a large force could just bog things down trying to run it.

  I was just thinking about that. I'm pretty burnout after work. I'm thinking maybe 20 units with limit of 75% being one type would keep things reasonable while allowing some infantry and stuff for flavor.

[Weirdo]

That might be okay. So long as a player that wants to bring a few platoons of infantry isn't locked in by the cap and forced to bring big assault mechs for everything else, it could be fine.

[Colt Ward]

I would say "75% of any unit type except mechs" since some people just want to play mechs.

If you are testing play & tactical doctrine, I would actually suggest using some of the generic Chaos Campaign scenarios like Breakthrough, Recon, Headhunter, Objective Destruction, or others because it will let you see what mission types some units excel at compared to others.  For instance, if you have a Breakthrough mission where you have to cross two boards in 10 turns with your force, then taking a three Dire Wolves and 3 points of Gnomes is not going to get it done even without combat.

Or find the hidden spy, having several 6/9 or faster units with a Beagle Active Probe works out better in a time limit than 4/6 units without a BAP.

Weirdo a while back shared a excellent headhunter scenario a while back that pit a bunch of faster light units against a lance escorting a commander in a heavy or assault off the map- I forget the details but maybe he can share the specifics.  I think the attackers did not know which mech was the commander, just that it was a command lance or something like that from intel.

[Weirdo]

That was actually a mech-only game, and the attacker had only a single mech, a null-sig Exterminator.

[Colt Ward]

Yeah, that is ringing bells now . . . still a great description with the point of testing the Exterminator fluff.  The mystery command mech is IMO a fun variable, the same sort of game could be done pitting attacker forces of 6/9 or faster meds & lights vs a command lance that has to plod across the map.

[Weirdo]

If you want to make it a combined-arms hell, I believe there's ac similar scenario in Sorenson's Sabres where a fire support lance must cross a dense jungle map...while surrounded by hostile infantry.

[Greatclub]

For instance, if you have a Breakthrough mission where you have to cross two boards in 10 turns with your force, then taking a three Dire Wolves and 3 points of Gnomes is not going to get it done even without combat.

Actually not hard to move that far; it's just the backshots tend to do bad things since you have to let the other guy get them.

I tried to make a scenario one called Harry - a single assault mech trying to get to its supports under a time limit, half its bv in lights harrying and trying to kill it. The assault usually went down in the five games the others agreed to play.

Osteon are tough. They aren't tough enough.

Mission: Scout from Operational Turning Points: Death to Mercenaries is one of my favourites.

[Cannonshop]

One thing about unit caps.  A player has only so much mental bandwidth, even with being good about leaving notes on the sheets, to run their side.  Shifting gears okay, I jumped this mech, walked that one, the VTOL over there flanked this turn...

Games can slow down just by having to switch gears like that.  The more detailed the unit, like Mechs having to track their heat, or VTOLs the altitude, unless you are skilled or running multiples of a unit (vehicles and infantry) a large force could just bog things down trying to run it.

I'm not going to disagree completely with that, Nikas, but again, it's a VERY subjective thing.  I spent several years running 'the mooks' for a group of players and having to keep track of unusually large numbers and varieties of units.  (When you're basically running all the 'baddies' on one side of the table against four or five players on the other, you develop...tricks to keep track of things.)

basically, dealing with 4 or 5 opponents simultaneously across a very big gamestore table shifts not only what you think is 'practical' to keep track of, but also what is 'too much work'.

(this may be why I'm so irritated with TO's changes to the vehicle tables-when you're used to running battalions of vehicles and mixed units against 3 companies of 'mechs, adding die rolls and extra tables isn't something you tend to look upon with fondness).

[Nikas_Zekeval]

I'm not going to disagree completely with that, Nikas, but again, it's a VERY subjective thing.  I spent several years running 'the mooks' for a group of players and having to keep track of unusually large numbers and varieties of units.  (When you're basically running all the 'baddies' on one side of the table against four or five players on the other, you develop...tricks to keep track of things.)

basically, dealing with 4 or 5 opponents simultaneously across a very big gamestore table shifts not only what you think is 'practical' to keep track of, but also what is 'too much work'.

(this may be why I'm so irritated with TO's changes to the vehicle tables-when you're used to running battalions of vehicles and mixed units against 3 companies of 'mechs, adding die rolls and extra tables isn't something you tend to look upon with fondness).

I did admit that vehicles have a lower overhead to keep track of, particularly if you use movement dice so you can tell at a glance what your mods are.  Maybe dice for altitude on the VTOLs as well?  Infantry are probably have the least overhead of all. 

It might be useful if you can share any shorthand or tricks used to track larger forces.

[Cannonshop]

I did admit that vehicles have a lower overhead to keep track of, particularly if you use movement dice so you can tell at a glance what your mods are.  Maybe dice for altitude on the VTOLs as well?  Infantry are probably have the least overhead of all. 

It might be useful if you can share any shorthand or tricks used to track larger forces.

you described two of those right there.  third, was number designations on units with the same sheet (Think a lance of Rommel/pattons, the mini is the same and 'generic paint scheme' tends to make them look the same as well.)  Putting a sticker with a number that corresponds to the necessary sheet is very helpful for avoiding problems later with someone claiming that a unit was destroyed "Two turns ago".  (this has happened before.)

'grouping' your sheets helps as well, as does actually paying attention to a unit's role.  a few of the tricks I found somewhat useful for dealing with swarmers (or accusations that I was swarming) included something called 'front loaded initiative order'-basically instead of saving the bulk of your imbalance for the last two moves (Which strongly favors the swarming player when numbers are unequal) 'front loading' it so that the bigger movements happen first.  (Which actually, weird enough, is something more likely to happen in a real scenario-bigger forces have slower communication and react more slowly to orders from higher.)

this is, of course, NOT endorsed as a house rule by TPTB,  and was one of those subjects that got argued about back when FSM was 'a thing'.

but it WAS available last time I had access to Megamek.

but really, the 'trick' is to walk in with a battle plan and some contingencies before the game starts.  Flagging your minis helps, movement dice and condition markers also help.  with Tanks, not gluing the turret, but instead setting it up so you can lay it over to mark a 'destroyed' unit on the map helps.  (I like magnets for mine)

[Col Toda]

In the initial example  given one or two of the other side's  mechs gunnery  should have been increased by 1.  A 600-800 point gap is ok IF the side wih the gigher bv has the  lowest  absolute numbers of units . If the higher BV has more numbers is should win period .

[StoneRhino]

The limit is 10k BV with up to 100BV as a buffer. This assumes that you do not have one or more cheap units that you can knock off to hit 10k or under. This means that someone cannot get 10k of armored units then squeeze in a few platoons of infantry by using that 100 point buffer. Normally there is no reason to not be at or under the limit considering the number of units that are available that would be very close to the unit that they want, but pushes their force over that 10k.

This means that the game would have had a set BV limit and anyone going over that buffer with the rule would be poked to adjust their value. You would be reminded of the limit for future games. That isn't to single someone out and be a jerk, but instead its meant to ensure that everyone will show up to a fair game next time. Those showing up with more BV are going to have a far more optimized force as they do not have to make as many decisions to cut back in certain areas that the other players had to so that they stayed under the limit.

If someone kept showing up with over BV forces then there's a need for that person to find another group since they clearly do not respect the other players enough to work within the same limits.

Regarding the size of the force, that is really up to the players. Yes, there is a point where someone is just trying to abuse the heck out of small cheap units. I personally prefer that players act reasonably and limit themselves. There is a minimum of a lance of armored units, but that's basically to protect people from themselves. Seeing someone dump most of their points into an assault mech, proceed to act in a careless manner only to be squashed by the same assault mech but with a few little friends and played in a far more careful manner leads to a game that is ...lopsided. Part of the problem was the player and his attitude when it came to losing. I cant fix ultra risky playstyles, i can kill them, but I can also help add a bit of bubble wrap to those that need it so that they aren't instantly eliminated or easily taken down with the loss of a single unit.

Since some people are so sensitive that they think bringing a few platoons of infantry is "cheating", of course said under their breath, a maximum force size is questionable as they will cry regardless. However, showing up with 50 of anything is a one trick pony and likely to get you some ill-will from others. 10-20 units? sure, why not? They are going to be very weak and the initiative system will regulate them.