Balancing Forces - Extra Eyeballs Appreciated

[Nips]

Hiya!

I'm going to be hosting a big AS game next month, and I'm lining up the forces for either side; see below.  After hashing it all out, I'm a little worried that even with better skills on the Oosiks side (left, 2 Companies of 'Mechs) they'll be overmatched by the numbers and potential damage output of the OpFor (right, 'Mech Company plus Armor Company each with command lances).  The terrain will be an industrial zone surrounding an HPG station, so the center of the battlefield will have a large building surrounded by (effectively) Level 1 and Level 2 high buildings scattered in most directions.

The total points (after Skill adjustments) tell me the Oosiks have the advantage, but I just have this nagging feeling it's lopsided in the OpFor's favor.  The amount of Indirect Fire on the OpFor side is terrifying, most of that coming from the LRM Carrier lance.  Era is late 1st Succession War, so there's no AMS to protect the Oosiks.

Any thoughts?  Am I being paranoid, and should I trust the numbers?

[Thunder]

It'd be nice if your chart included armor and structure.  Would make it easier to see if some quick kills could be expected.

I'll agree with your worries.  Two methods of analyzing it.

A:  Borrowing from the force size modifier rule from page 314 in tech manual,  the larger force should have it's PV adjusted upwards by 8.3%

B:  If things are left as is, I predict that the Oosiks will kill about 500PV worth of the invading force before they are defeated.  Don't know if I'm right.  I'm using

Smaller Force * (Smaller Force / Larger Force)^2

as the equation to predict how much damage the smaller side will inflict on a larger force with similar combat units.

The problem as usual is, Better skill makes it more likely to get kills, but doesn't directly make you any tougher.  Indirectly, if you can sit at medium range and get the same to hit numbers your opponent can get at short range.  You'll avoid a good chunk of damage.  But this sounds like close range city fighting.

[Weirdo]

The force size modifier was completely deleted years ago, and for very good reason. I cannot advise strongly enough that you NEVER use it.

[Thunder]

So the question becomes, what was the rational for adding the force size modifier in the first place, and is there a better system available?

[Scotty]

Force Size Modifier was removed before Alpha Strike even existed in its current form; the rationale for it is defunct and the sooner you forget it exists the happier you'll be.

The terrible secret to Indirect Fire is that it's bad.  It is at its most effective when you are able to only offer your opponent poor targets while hiding your main element.  If your opponent still has decent targets (and I see plenty) to occupy their shooting, then the sum effect of using IF# is to make your own shooting more difficult.  Once things start dying, and there are 2-3 plucky Light 'Mechs left but you still have most of your IF, that's when it makes a meaningful difference in a positive way.

I think what you have there looks pretty good, as long as the PV is close to the ratio you're looking for.

[Weirdo]

So the question becomes, what was the rational for adding the force size modifier in the first place, and is there a better system available?

I dunno what the initial rationale was, but the effect was to punish anyone trying to bring anything other than small forces of very large units. If your force wasn't all Dire Wolves, you were Doing It Wrong.

The successor system that works just fine is to ignore relative force sizes as irrelevant so long as the point values match up to your desired balance, tempered with Don't Be A Jerk.

[Nips]

I ran that Force Multiplier calculation and saw that 8.3% disparity, but I also skimmed through a/that thread here discussing it, and also noted that any sort of FM was conspicuously absent from the AS products...so in the end, I didn't really do anything with it.

Looking at the numbers again, the Oosiks have a 60 point deficit before Skill adjustments, worth exactly two Von Luckners :P.  After Skill adjustment, the Oosiks have a 32 point advantage.  I think this feels about right; I want the Oosiks to be (nominally) outnumbered, but better skilled, BUT also keep it close.  It's a swing of less than 10% either way (before/after Skills), so that's probably within the realm of "fair", right?

On the Indirect Fire: I decided to do some napkin math and refresh my memory on how it works. 
Best Case: Skill 4, standing still (-1), firing indirectly with a dedicated spotter (+1), at a slow target (TMM +1), at Short Range (+0) is 5 to hit; 83.3% Success Rate; though, short range seems....unlikely.  At Medium Range, this goes up to 7, 58.3% Success Rate
Worst Case: Skill 4, moving, firing indirectly with attacking spotter (+2), at jumping fast target (+4), at Long Range (+4) is 14 to hit; No attack
How about an advantageous middle case?  Firing at medium range at a medium 'Mech?
Skill 4, standing still (-1), firing indirectly with dedicated spotter (+1), at TMM 2 (+2), at Medium Range (+2) is 8 to hit; 41.67% Success Rate

Does my napkin math look right, or am I missing something?  I think even at 40-50% chance for success, the LRM Carrier lance is still going to be putting out about 3-6 damage a turn, likely from a safe vantage point; angry bees are still angry, best I can tell.

For the sake of completeness, I've updated my sheet with Armor/Structure values.  This has proved interesting!  The two sides are almost exactly evenly matched for "Amount Of Hardware To Chew Through", even though the IS Invaders (right) have a raw damage advantage.

[Scotty]

It's an additional +1 to both the indirect attack and the spotter's attacks if the spotter is also shooting.  If you want that to work as calculated, at least one unit per target will have to give up their shooting.

And then, when all is said and done: that's exactly as much damage as the LRM Carriers would be doing if they were firing with direct line of sight.

Indirect Fire without either some gimmick like hiding most of your units out of LOS from turn 1 or without a specific build from formations and SPAs is regular shooting, but worse.

[Ben]

Scotty, isn't your last sentence the key in this specific case, though?

The OpFor Lance 1 is a Recon Lance, so each member could take the Forward Observer SPA. The LRM carrier lance is a Fire Support Lance, so each turn half of them could get the Oblique Attacker SPA. Stacking those, half of the LRM carriers would get a -1 for IF, and the others would shoot at the same to hit as if firing direct, right?

[Scotty]

The OP did not mention formations or SPAs, and further did not include those bonuses as part of their brief mock-up odds calculation, so I didn't assume they were in use for this game.

While they do change the calculus somewhat, the net -1/0 is still only true if the spotter are giving up attacks.  Overall (and this is the important part), unless the OpFor is going to engage in such a way that there are so few targets that the players are unable to utilize all of their units (i.e. running out of targets due to LOS before running out of units to attack with), Indirect Fire is exactly matching the effectiveness of simply using the unit directly at best.  Its primary utility is ensuring that your good damage isn't taken off the board first.   Looking at the units involved, 3 damage is good but it's not going to break the game wide open.

[Nips]

For lack of a better place to ask, and since it ties into the discussion above:  What do people think about this battlefield layout?

The defending Oosiks would deploy in the top-right quarter of board in the first picture, with the attacking OpFor deploying near edges in the bottom-left.  There's some real ugly kill-lines (mostly going the length of the board due to having two folding tables next to each other), but there's certainly no lack of cover.

'Mech silhouette markers are sized per Practical LOS sizes for standard 'Mechs.




After laying this out, I'm realizing I didn't have as much terrain ready to go as I thought.  Gonna have to spend the next couple weeks bashing things together...

[Scotty]

That looks like a good amount of terrain; just about all I'd think to add are some stands of woods (green felt works) in the open areas between sections of buildings.  Not even necessarily enough to block line of sight, just to make it more of a risk/reward choice when moving in the otherwise open areas.