Game Balance Question

[kisangoli78]

Hello!
Recently started playing BT from zero (didn't know anything about the universe till that day) and when I've picked the Clans.
I didn't know anything about universe and just picked because I've liked it. Now I've read some books, played some games and listened some podcasts I think that my choice was made by me heart and I don't regret it.
Painted my first 8 mechs, some elementals and 20 more mechs and 10 tank are waiting for me to paint them.

So my question is - is there any way to balance IS vs clan games? My community is playing clan invasion or civil war eras and idea of clans vs IS is seeming bad for them. Main argument - "there is no way to balance it, even Catalyst say this".

So are there ways to fix this issue? May be ilClan fixes crossfaction play?

[idea weenie]

Hello!
Recently started playing BT from zero (didn't know anything about the universe till that day) and when I've picked the Clans.
I didn't know anything about universe and just picked because I've liked it. Now I've read some books, played some games and listened some podcasts I think that my choice was made by me heart and I don't regret it.
Painted my first 8 mechs, some elementals and 20 more mechs and 10 tank are waiting for me to paint them.

So my question is - is there any way to balance IS vs clan games? My community is playing clan invasion or civil war eras and idea of clans vs IS is seeming bad for them. Main argument - "there is no way to balance it, even Catalyst say this".

So are there ways to fix this issue? May be ilClan fixes crossfaction play? 

Original Clan vs Inner Sphere was horrible for the Inner Sphere.  Even with Star League upgrades, you would expect a company of Inner Sphere Mechs to be roughly equal to 5 Clan Mechs.

You basically balance it by letting the Inner Sphere players outnumber the Clans.  The fun part is if you put 4 Inner Sphere players on one side of the board, each with a Lance of Mechs, and set up a star of Clan mechs as the opponents.  The Inner Sphere player that wins with the most kills and least damage taken is the winner.  This should allow for some fun backstabbing, killstealing, leaving someone out to dry, and all sorts of fun politics among the Inner Sphere players, while you as the Clan player will focus your fire on a single Mech at a time and smash them.

The other idea is talking to Cannonshop about his low-tech (and low-cost) militia forces, and how to fight vs Clans.

[Moonsword]

=== MODERATOR NOTICE ===

I've moved this to a more appropriate part of the forums.  Please do not post discussions or questions in the errata threads, especially unrelated ones.

[DarkISI]

BV is what you use to balance games

[FenderSaxbey]

Just going to quote my reply to this same question on Reddit:

I can't seem to reconcile "playing clan invasion or civil war eras" and "clans vs IS is seeming bad for them". That's a big part of the conflicts in those eras. At any rate, I'll just second a lot of the feedback here and say BV2 should ideally have the Clan force outnumbered 1.5-2 to 1. Use objective scenarios instead of straight up slugfests and maybe give the IS side some advantages like some BSPs to spend on air and artillery strikes.

[BATTLEMASTER]

I've had the best luck balancing by BV2 +/- 10%.  Most Clan 'mechs need to rely on superior mobility and terrain to make up for the numbers of Inner Sphere 'mechs on the other side.  Most of my success has involved using mobility to keep the opponent at range where they aren't as likely to hit me, but I'm more likely to hit them.  This, however, requires a large play space or rolling maps to work right.

[Sartris]

large play space or rolling maps

yeah

[wundergoat]

Which faction does your group feel is stronger?  That will tell us a lot about potential issues.

BV is IMO the best way to balance that doesn’t rely on subjective judgement, though it does have some limitations.  As mentioned previously, Clan forces generally need to play on sizable maps (2x2 minimum) to make use of their advantages.  IS is far more BV efficient in a slugfest.

[NavPoint]

Try bidding. One side is an Inner Sphere unit of fixed strength. The Clan side starts with way more 'Mechs than they need, and players take turns removing them from the roster. Whichever player uses the smallest force plays the Clan side.

[Sartris]

In clan campaigns I’ve simulated bidding by reducing the players’ max BV for the mission. The lowest they could go without inviting total disaster was around 75%

[Rougarou Rhapsody]

Balance by BV2.  It isn't perfect but it doesn't tend to be as bad as some people make it out to be. Just keep in mind that the listed BV for all units are for a 4g/5p pilot.  When using the "typical better clan pilot" of 3/4, it increases the BV of the unit and should be considered/reflected when determining forces (clans don't get better pilots for free).  If you balance by BV2, you will either end up with better IS pilots or more IS units (maybe slightly more IS units with slightly above g/p piloting scores).

Also remember that the clans have serious range advantage and often a damage advantage ton per ton compared to IS units.  Don't charge through an open field at a Clan OpFor or try to honor dual them in "equivalent" units.  The IS player has to consider deployment and approach much more carefully than the clan player usually does.

[Hellraiser]

So my question is - is there any way to balance IS vs clan games? My community is playing clan invasion or civil war eras and idea of clans vs IS is seeming bad for them. Main argument - "there is no way to balance it, even Catalyst say this".

1.  Battle Value 2.0  (AKA - BV2) is your best bet when it comes to Balance.
Its not perfect but short of a VERY experienced GM being able to "adjust" some pre-made forces as needed, I would always default to BV2.

2.  Small Maps will always favor Slower/Bigger Mechs w/ Armor & Short Range guns.
     Congested maps w/ lots of terrain also favor the above.
     Large # of Forces on a single Map ALSO favors the above.

So with that in mind, while BV2 is a fairly solid measure of over all capability of a design, the layout of the map, terrain, & units can vastly alter that otherwise "even" match up.  (Exceptions for Overheating & C3)


So I would ask you a some questions........
   A. - How Large is your Playing Area ?    # of Maps?   #of Hexes in each Direction if using Felt cloths?
   B. - How many players/units per side are being used.


The Game recommends 4 Mechs for every Mapsheet & for "Introtech" speeds & ranges, this isn't a "bad" ratio.
I prefer to add about 1 more map in either direction than the game recommends for Introtech.
And 1 in BOTH directions for Standard tech (SLDF, Clans, Etc etc)
Tack on a 2nd Map in either direction in your breaking out a lot of Artillery, Combined Arms, Buildings, etc. 
IE.. The more complex the game is the more room you want to maneuver.

So if its a 2v2 trainer game with Introtech, they recommend 1 map, but I like 2.
If its a 4v4 SLDF era game of Standard Tech they would say 2 Maps, but I'd go at least 4-6

If its a 10(20) v 10(20) battle between 2 "SuperNovas" w/ Clan Tech...
They recommend 10 Maps (Lets call it 9 at 3v3), but I'm probably going 16/20  (4 x 4/5)

You'll note at the upper end that is a HUGE playing area that most FLGS can't fit.
Which is why you normally see either smaller games OR a game that doesn't get too many turns in because its too unwieldy.



My GM tends to have fairly small BV limits for games where its multiple players teaming up in a battle of Team v/s Team.
(Typically between 2000-6000 based on Era/Tech level played)
Game is played on a large 4x8 felt map that of 2 inch hexes that is 36*25 roughly or about 3 maps of total hex area.
# of units is also limited to be like 1-3 Min & 4-6 Max
These games start out a bit slow but "merge" quickly & can get decisive fast if someone gets isolated.
Usually though they don't get "finished" because that many people per side results in lots of talking, debating, or just waiting for others to move for next person to go.

When we break it down into 1v1 matches on a smaller 2x2 map set up we can boost the BV a bit.  (4-7)


If you can't give the clans a large maneuver area, then you might want to give them a "SMALL" edge in BV because they will get cornered fast by the edge/wall & have to deal w/ too many enemy.
Or not hold them to any sort of Zell & keep the BV even & terrain low & let their combined fire pop IS units quickly at range.

[Colt Ward]

So having done quite a few IS vs Clan, and playing on competitive MM servers on both sides of that equation . . .

Basically you want the BV to be close and ideally 12 IS mech/tanks vs 10 Clan mechs though it would be better as a 'nova' (5 mechs & 5 BA) which helps keep initiative close.  Typically if you go 12 IS mechs vs 10 Clan mechs of the same BV you are going to end up with IS meds & heavies vs mostly Clan lights with maybe a cheap heavy or med- I have had Warhammer 6Rs, Marauder 3Rs, Centurions, Enforcers, Wolv/Shad/Grifs, and some lights against a pair of Stars made up of mostly Adders & Kit Foxes with a single Nova IIRC . . . it was not great b/c the map was small.  Another formation to consider to keep to normal Clan formations would be to use the Wolf Command Stars- 4 mechs & 1 point of Elementals . . . this gives you 12 IS mechs vs 8 Clan mechs & 2 Elemental points.

Additionally, if you are looking at BV keep in mind some of the more BV efficient designs.  Stormcrow C, Gargoyle Prime & C, Warhawk C (I hate mentioning it but . . ) & A, others.  Main thing is, you keep away from the 'expensive' BV designs- ones that jump, headcappers, and Alpha babies though since we are talking Omnis most have a 'cheaper' option the question is does it fit with your force.

As a Clan player you will want larger maps, but I resist rolling maps b/c I think it skews it too much to the Clans- especially early in the Invasion when most of the IS heavies & meds are 4/6.  When playing Clan, I want to have the option to use my range & speed but unless the scenario calls for it my opinion is the IS would not seek battle in a position where the terrain did not help them against that speed.  IE, one side of the map would be a river to secure that flank (especially if the IS has some hovertanks) or canyons, forests or mountains for the same reason.  The IS side SHOULD seek to pin the faster Clan mechs against terrain that limits their movement options . . . this can include moving a fast mech early in the movement phase to block a 'straight' run for something like a Timber Wolf- force it to turn a few times and suddenly it's move mods match that IS Marauder.

[The Colour Red]

May be ilClan fixes crossfaction play?

ilClan fixes it by just removing all factions: you can run clan-tech along side IS-tech (on the same mech even), with some Blakist designs teaming up with a RoS superheavy, all under the Clan Wolf banner.

[garhkal]

Hello!
Recently started playing BT from zero (didn't know anything about the universe till that day) and when I've picked the Clans.
I didn't know anything about universe and just picked because I've liked it. Now I've read some books, played some games and listened some podcasts I think that my choice was made by me heart and I don't regret it.
Painted my first 8 mechs, some elementals and 20 more mechs and 10 tank are waiting for me to paint them.

So my question is - is there any way to balance IS vs clan games? My community is playing clan invasion or civil war eras and idea of clans vs IS is seeming bad for them. Main argument - "there is no way to balance it, even Catalyst say this".

So are there ways to fix this issue? May be ilClan fixes crossfaction play?

Back in the old days we had bidding wars with those of us who played.  We set a "This is the tonnage the IS forces have.  I bid ABC for the clans"..  And the next player would try to bid lower..  till someone say.. "FINE YOU get clans!"..
I remember one game was 400 tons for the IS split up into 200 each (there were three of us), and the clan player bid 190 tons..  AND HE STILL WIPED the floor with us, more cause of GREAT tactics and die rolls than anything else (such as on one of the rounds my 80 ton mech had TNS of 5s for Twin LPL's, and NEITHER HIT, but his return shots, needing 9 for his TN's he missed only ONE shot out of 6. 
Then we had a different game the following week, where we inner sphere players had the map set up how we liked..  Had the same 200 tons each, but we could mix it up vees and mechs,, the player of the clans had 220 tons..  AND we won... 

[Hellraiser]

  Main thing is, you keep away from the 'expensive' BV designs- ones that jump, headcappers, and Alpha babies

Just for the record.  Alpha Babies are NOT the high BV ones.
The Over Heating w/ too many weapons are the High BV ones

IE...  WarHawk-A = Good   ...    WarHawk-Prime = Bad

[Kovax]

Years back, our gaming group made the mistake of using Clan bidding to balance their forces against the IS.  The problem was that the losing bidders were still allowed to play on the Clan side, so there was no reason to under-bid other than being the team leader for the game.  That meant we had a couple of IS versus Clan games with equal tonnage and better Clan skills, and they were absolute massacres.

We played a couple of BV-balanced games, and the one IS player chose a jungle map, while another IS player picked a dense woods map.  That cut the "playable" area down from a 2x2 mapsheet game to a 1x2, and the Clans had nowhere to run to exploit their speed or their weapon ranges, plus they were out-weighed and didn't have any significant skill advantage.  It was a massacre, reversed from the previous situation.

BV2 works reasonably well if the map is neutral, if you have room for maneuver, and if you don't take the force limit modifier at face value, but at least place some limits to prevent someone taking 20 Savannah Masters and trapping a 'Mech from moving by surrounding it with cheap, disposable units.

We did a few games using C-Bill cost, which was amusing to try in the sense that there were a lot of units you'd NEVER see in a BV or tonnage balanced game (a LOT of vehicles), but it didn't feel much like traditional Battletech.

Regardless of how you balance it, there are always going to be meta-games to exploit the weaknesses of the system, so you'll see totally different units in play under different balancing schemes.  My suggestion would be to try out different methods, and tweak them as needed until you can agree to like one or more of them.

[Charistoph]

We played a couple of BV-balanced games, and the one IS player chose a jungle map, while another IS player picked a dense woods map.  That cut the "playable" area down from a 2x2 mapsheet game to a 1x2, and the Clans had nowhere to run to exploit their speed or their weapon ranges, plus they were out-weighed and didn't have any significant skill advantage.  It was a massacre, reversed from the previous situation.

BV2 works reasonably well if the map is neutral, if you have room for maneuver, and if you don't take the force limit modifier at face value, but at least place some limits to prevent someone taking 20 Savannah Masters and trapping a 'Mech from moving by surrounding it with cheap, disposable units.

Sounds like Wolcott, actually...

[Colt Ward]

Just for the record.  Alpha Babies are NOT the high BV ones.
The Over Heating w/ too many weapons are the High BV ones

IE...  WarHawk-A = Good   ...    WarHawk-Prime = Bad

No, the Warhawk Prime suffers from 4x head-cappers, not the overheat.  You WANT the design to overheat and be a bracket firing machine, those are the better BV mechs- or just overheating period like many of the Heavy laser designs.  The Warhawk A does not even come close IIRC to using all of it's fixed heatsinks b/c it uses cooler gun & missile weapons rather than being energy heavy like the Prime or C.  The Warhawk Prime vs C is the better BV comparison- both overheat, but the C has 2 fewer headcappers, thus less BV.  Interestingly enough, the H which still has 2 headcappers but not the range has a much lower BV than the Prime or C.  Nova Cat C & D are also another example, they both overheat (C barely, but enough) but the D has those shorter ranged headcappers giving it the higher BV.

As far as bidding practices go . . . IMO the best set up that ever came out was in the original Tukkayid book- AND it can still be used to help balance IS vs Clan forces.  I had to adjust it a bit for vehicles (only had one value) and did not include Elementals- which I think I gave a value of 5 pts.  But yeah, you have to actually hold to the spirit of the two Clan commanders competing and setting a realistic cut down.

Further, if the IS force is mixing mechs and vehicles- or even foot infantry- then some of the optional rules like vehicles move as a lance (same for infantry) become mandatory.  I have re-played some of the Invasion battles from WCSB . . . to BV match you are looking at a battalion of mechs supported by a company or two of vehicles (50 individual vs 42 for movement) vs 4 or 5 mech stars & two elemental stars using the listed forces, random Wolf elite pilots which gives you 30-35 moves.

Btw-  Force Mod BV adjustment was removed from the rules over a decade ago.

[Hellraiser]

No, the Warhawk Prime suffers from 4x head-cappers, not the overheat.  You WANT the design to overheat and be a bracket firing machine, those are the better BV mechs- or just overheating period like many of the Heavy laser designs.  The Warhawk A does not even come close IIRC to using all of it's fixed heatsinks b/c it uses cooler gun & missile weapons rather than being energy heavy like the Prime or C.  The Warhawk Prime vs C is the better BV comparison- both overheat, but the C has 2 fewer headcappers, thus less BV.  Interestingly enough, the H which still has 2 headcappers but not the range has a much lower BV than the Prime or C.  Nova Cat C & D are also another example, they both overheat (C barely, but enough) but the D has those shorter ranged headcappers giving it the higher BV.

WarHawk-Prime suffers from Both actually.    Overheat at 66/40    (Damage Average/Cap = 40ish?/70
WarHawk-A is quite close, 37/40 on a Running Alpha.  2400 BV   (Damage Average/Cap = 51/57)
WarHawk-C overheats by 6? on Running Alpha  (Not counting Flamer = 52/46)   2900 BV   (Damage Average/Cap = 45?/50)
WarHawk-D is about perfect at 39?/40  2300 BV   (Damage Average/Cap = 47/72)

Overheating pushes BV to much higher levels for less damage per round, because while you get a discount for overheating weapons, it is no where near the full BV of the weapon & your paying for something you can't use.

The only advantage the C has over the A/D is accuracy & your paying for it with 500-600 more BV.

While I might LOVE the WarHawk-C, in a BV balanced match I've been happily curb stomping them with more efficient machines for a long time.

The only time bracket fighting is truly effective for the BV it will cost is if the brackets don't/can't overlap at all due to minimum ranges
(For example IS LRMs & MLs)
In that case your covering for the limitations of 1 weapon system w/ another lesser BV system.

Otherwise your just adding weapons that won't get used 1/2 the time but COULD be used if you had the HS to do so.
For example... some machine with 3-ERLLs +  7-ERMLs
36 heat v/s 35 heat & boatloads of extra BV for a damage boost only usable at short range.

[Colt Ward]

Prime still has a higher BV, and BV calculations take into account all weapons so you cannot leave the flamer out on the C.  The C STILL has two headcappers which you pay for in BV, which is ALSO where that 500-600 more BV still factors into account.

I also used the H, not the D.  Warhawk is also a bit of a outlier b/c of how similar 3 or 4 of it's configurations are in just exchanging a few weapons- which is why it is easiest to compare Headcapper/Overheat/Alpha.  If you overheat without the headcappers the BV works out better IMO.

The question of Alpha vs Bracket Fire machines comes down to preference, but the question is really a preference for sustained vs burst damage.  Against another Clan player the sustained fire might be best . . . against a IS player, I think Burst damage might be a better choice.

[bobthecoward]

Years back, our gaming group made the mistake of using Clan bidding to balance their forces against the IS.  The problem was that the losing bidders were still allowed to play on the Clan side, so there was no reason to under-bid other than being the team leader for the game.  That meant we had a couple of IS versus Clan games

that lasted more than one game?

[bobthecoward]

There are a lot of possible interests not represented here (player Y might not want to play clans period, player Z might want to use the minis they brought) that this might be a better question for a (economics) game theory forum.

But to give you one of the simpler solutions....player X lays out the maps, player Y makes both forces based on what they think is fair, player X chooses what force they use.

[Kovax]

There are a lot of possible interests not represented here (player Y might not want to play clans period, player Z might want to use the minis they brought) that this might be a better question for a (economics) game theory forum.

But to give you one of the simpler solutions....player X lays out the maps, player Y makes both forces based on what they think is fair, player X chooses what force they use.

When player A won't play Clan and player B won't play Inner Sphere, it does limit what you can do.  Two Clan bidders, and one of them is unwilling to play IS if he loses, which means he moans and groans for the rest of the game session about how we need to change the bidding system, so we allowed both bidders to play, and then they collaborated and fixed the bid.  We couldn't play Clan vs Clan because one of the IS players won't play Clan.  We couldn't play IS vs IS because of the one Clan-only player.

If player X chooses which force they use, and they won't play one faction, then player Y can skew the balance, knowing that player X won't take the stronger side.  The introduction of the Clans without a suitable and properly thought-out balancing mechanism did not go well, and our game group was basically destroyed by it.  Then again, FASA and "properly thought out" did not always play well together.

[bobthecoward]

When player A won't play Clan and player B won't play Inner Sphere, it does limit what you can do.  Two Clan bidders, and one of them is unwilling to play IS if he loses, which means he moans and groans for the rest of the game session about how we need to change the bidding system, so we allowed both bidders to play, and then they collaborated and fixed the bid.  We couldn't play Clan vs Clan because one of the IS players won't play Clan.  We couldn't play IS vs IS because of the one Clan-only player.

If player X chooses which force they use, and they won't play one faction, then player Y can skew the balance, knowing that player X won't take the stronger side.  The introduction of the Clans without a suitable and properly thought-out balancing mechanism did not go well, and our game group was basically destroyed by it.  Then again, FASA and "properly thought out" did not always play well together.

This reminds me back when I played more video games and played GTA4 online. In that game you could have 16 person races with helicopters! Who wouldn't want to sometimes just have a completely different experience!?!?! and when the server was set up, many people would come on and say, "do bikes, do sports cars!"

I'm not sure this example concludes much except the problem is....most people.

[Greatclub]

Clans are 40k eldar - a high skill army with few wounds. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, or get crushed like a bug.

[garhkal]

When player A won't play Clan and player B won't play Inner Sphere, it does limit what you can do.  Two Clan bidders, and one of them is unwilling to play IS if he loses, which means he moans and groans for the rest of the game session about how we need to change the bidding system, so we allowed both bidders to play, and then they collaborated and fixed the bid.  We couldn't play Clan vs Clan because one of the IS players won't play Clan.  We couldn't play IS vs IS because of the one Clan-only player.

If player X chooses which force they use, and they won't play one faction, then player Y can skew the balance, knowing that player X won't take the stronger side.  The introduction of the Clans without a suitable and properly thought-out balancing mechanism did not go well, and our game group was basically destroyed by it.  Then again, FASA and "properly thought out" did not always play well together.

Id try to find new folks to game with...

[BATTLEMASTER]

Game balancing will also depend on the scenarios and objectives being played.  For example, chase scenarios where the object of the force being chased is to flee off the other side of the map should probably face a force with at least 50% more BV.

[Cannonshop]

Game balancing will also depend on the scenarios and objectives being played.  For example, chase scenarios where the object of the force being chased is to flee off the other side of the map should probably face a force with at least 50% more BV.

Victory conditions can do a lot to influence BV selections if you post them before the match.  For example with objectives that have to be taken intact, can skew things hard away from the typical minmaxed icebox flashbulbs.

but that's kind of getting into advanced scenario design.  Putting a "cripple but don't kill" in play can also skew things-players end up risking more aimed shots when they need to bring down opponents that are fighting back, but they're not supposed to kill them outright, or when the scenario has other factors mixed into the victory conditions beyond 'blow everyone on the other side up for great justice".

The old RPG style Zellbriggen rules were kind of an attempt, but few players or GMs actually enforced them into their victory conditions, even in published scenarios.

Thing is, VC's can make for quicker and more exciting play, as can things like forced withdrawal at X% losses.

damn, got me thinking about Zell, and how to enforce it on Clan players for scenarios in that era-particularly early Clan Invasion era when it was supposedly important to them.  I found that in games where I was ref'ing instead of playing, that imposing an initiative penalty for breaking zell worked pretty well in some situations (reflecting a commander's inability to keep control of his troops through his dishonour.)

[Weirdo]

"cripple but don't kill"

That sounds like a fun way to spice up even a one-off game with no campaign or lore behind it. No special rules in play, just victory conditions as follows:

1: Everybody starts the game with victory points equal to their force's BV.

2: You lose VP equal to the full BV of every one of your units that gets destroyed, and half BV of your stuff that gets crippled.

3: You also lose VP equal to the full BV of any opposing units you destroy.

4: The only way to actually gain VP is to cripple an enemy unit but not finish it off, in which case you gain VP equal to half its BV.

This would be a good way to simulate a situation where two forces that are normally on the same side(or at least allies) are forced to fight each other, like in a civil war or something. It forces new tactics, and since it's very easy for both sides to wind up with a negative VP total, it showcases the kind of fight where nobody really wins, it's just a question of who lost the least.