Ok, I playtested a second game. I did all brawler/sniper mechs and tanks to see what the Assets would look like in a game where units should just be beating the crap out of each other since it seemed it could test the two biggest issues I (and others) have found so far (Low DCTR and all-or-nothing damage).
I also let 2 Bots fight it out on MegaMek to simulate the TW outcome of exactly the forces I used, so I had a benchmark of what should be left on the board for the winning side, on average. I played with vehicle abandonment since it looks like these rules count Immobile = Dead for Assets.
Both sides had the same units: 1x Thunderbolt 5S, 1x Warhammer 6R, 1x Blackjack BJ-1 (all VT), 2x Shreck, 2x Ontos, 2x Manticore (all RG)
In 10 MegaMek games, the winner was random, and the Bots are a bit more timid than humans, so games lasted about 21 rounds on average. The winner had 1 or 2 'Mechs and 3 vehicles survive, on average (usually the Schreks and Ontoses).
On the tabletop with the current beta rules (I just played through once), the game ended after 10 rounds and the winner had all 3 'Mechs (though 1 would have been a Forced Withdrawal), and only 1 tank remaining (Ontos).
Main Issues so far, ranked:
After that 2nd game and after reading through others' tests, I'd rank the issues with the current version of the rules as follows:
1. DC TR is too low for most units. The big tanks in my 2nd playthrough lasted longer than expected, but for the wrong reasons. It wasn't that it took a few Turns to denigrate them then boom, it was more like... "miss, miss, miss, hit with 40pts of damage and need a 4+ to kill you... dead."
2. Damage is too all-or-nothing (see the "miss, miss, miss, hit" example above).
3. The TMM bonus for parking in the woods is a pain, as NeonKnight noted. I had a point in my game where two opposing Ontoses were adjacent to each other and both in woods and took forever to kill each other since both essentially needed an 8+ to do 40pts of damage or otherwise missed entirely.
4. Some vehicles are OP relative to what they do in TW (like the VTOL), while others seem way too weak relative to TW (BA in general, big tanks in survivability)
5. BSP Cost Points to BV is not constant across Assets and seems just way off for some. It looks like the range is between 24 BV per BSP (SRM Carrier) to 83 BV per BSP (Manticore). That's a pretty big range. I know some BSP costs should be off because of differences in rules (like BV vs. PV), but these ranges seem too wide. I like DevianID's rule of an average of 50 BV per BSP, with only a deviation of a few BSP in either direction to account for TW/BS rules differences. [Note: this really comes into play when Assets are asymmetric on each side, which will often be the case in Clan vs. IS games.]
Suggested fixes:
Here are what my suggestions are so far. I mentioned some earlier, so I won't go into much detail. I am also warming to a rule of "If we can fix a game balance issue here using a rule that already exists in Alpha Strike, then do that." If you think there's a chance of any of these being implemented, I can try and replay a playtest or two using these adjustments and see how they play.
1. Buff DC TR across the board, but also buff Denigration values (for example, to scale with amount of damage done in a round). In math terms, this is essentially increasing the mean-time-to-failure of each asset without increasing its (eventual) probability of failure. This should help the big tanks become more durable while keeping the light tanks as fast-moving target practice.
2. Nerf the base to-hit from 6 to 5, but also nerf the damage done. It seems like the math for damage is that if an Asset hits, it does about 80-100% of the damage from its turret weapons or front weapons (if no turret), assuming that clusters always roll a 7. You likely want to nerf that to 60% of weapons hit, with the same assumption on cluster damage. That would move the amount of damage an SRM carrier does from 80pts to 50pts, an LRM Carrier from 30pts to 25pts, and an Ontos from 40pts to 25pts. Some tweaks that would help balancing this fix:
--Use 5pt damage groupings for the whole BSP system (Assets, Asset Specials, and Strikes) and let the DMG(DV) value = the number of 5pt groupings it hits with. The current setup of 5 or 10 really only makes sense for big-gun Assets like the Schrek and Demolisher, but oddly turns SRM and LRM Carriers into head-cappers instead of crit-chance machines. Making all damage 5-pt intervals would make Assets dangerous enough to not ignore, but would keep the head-capping as the purview of 'Mechs vs. 'Mechs, which seems more in the spirit of the system's intent.
--You could offset the nerf in damage done with a modification of an AS rule: Rolling a natural 12 does 80-100% of the turret/front weapons' damage. So, the normal damage from a Shreck would be 20pts, and a natural 12 would make it 30pts. You could reflect this with a +# for the damage value on the card (maybe in gray parentheses). If you also went with the 5pt groupings, the Schrek's damage would be DMG: 4(+2); the SRM Carrier would be DMG: 10(+6).
3. Use the Alpha Strike rules for standing still for TMM and THM. This is essentially what NeonKnight suggested, minus the 1/2 TMM for 1/ movement (to keep it simple). Specifically, move at least 1 hex, otherwise TMM = +0, but if you do stay still, you also get -1 to-hit mod.
4. Add a few simple Specials to distinguish vehicles better. Three that I thought could be easily implemented are:
--Short #N. First, I would adjust the base damage to reflect average damage a vehicle does from its long-range turret weapons (or LR front if no turret). If it did additional damage from weapons with significantly shorter ranges (not counting 0-3 range weapons), the Short special would allow the Asset to inflict an additional #N 5pt damage groupings to any target within 6 hexes (anywhere, or in its front arc, if it also has the No Turret Special). [This would differentiate the Condor, which would now use its AC/5 as its base range & damage, and then have its 2 Med Lasers reflected in its Short Special. You could do the same thing with the Ontos, using its 2 LRM 5's as its main weapon, and its 8 Med Lasers as its Short Special.]
--Front #N. This works the same as Short #N, but the #N is the number of additional 5pt damage groupings the Asset does to a unit in its front arc (at the same range as its base damage). This would be incompatible with the No Turret Special (since it reflects damage that is in addition to the turret weapons). It would now make it foolish to stand right in front of some Assets... examples would be the Maxim (which has 2x LRM 5's in its Front) and the Behemoth (which has 4x LRM 5's in its front, not to mention it would also get a Short Special... it should be painfully dumb to stand in directly front of a Behemoth).
--Min Range(N). This would just give a minimum range to some Asset main attacks, and should just note that the attack has minimum range as described in AGoAC, with its THM adjusted as per those rules. In this case, an LRM Carrier would have a Min Range(6) Special, and a Schrek a Min Range(3) special. [It should actually be pretty smart to stand directly in front of an LRM Carrier.]
Also, when thinking of my next playtest (which is Clan vs. LosTech IS), I immediately had a couple "gut-check" thoughts:
1. Are you guys also going to include LosTech variants of the included vehicles on the back of the Asset Cards? (as with AS Cards?)
2. Sorry to rehash the Skill variation thing, but I realized that most Elemental BA are in frontline Clan forces, and most frontline Clan forces are rated "Elite." So, that's another reason for allowing greater Skill variation (though I still think it could be an optional rule and you would only need to add Green and Elite, no need for the full variation).
