Author Topic: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)  (Read 2418 times)

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2006
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #30 on: 08 September 2024, 17:37:30 »
Currently it’s not. If you take infantry that lacks AM at face value, you are being overcharged. Not astronomically thanks to the small numbers involved, but still overcharged.
Not true.  The AM infantry equipment costs the BV of the infantry weapons.  So a foot platoon that can do AM does pay for it, while a mechanized infantry platoon that can NOT make AM, does not pay BV. 
pg 309 of Techmanual "Calculate Anti-BattleMech Battle Rating
If the unit can perform Leg and Swarm Attacks, add the
individual weapons Battle Rating. Do not include archaic
weapons."

Mech infantry that cant make AM attacks are auto set to 5, but dont pay BV for AM attacks.

So, making those infantry without AM ability skill 8 means that not only do they not pay for AM attacks, now they would get a discount on their regular attacks for no good reason.  If you cant make an AM attack, then you should be skill NA/5, which is no modifier to BV.

Now, infantry that CAN make AM attacks, but are bad at it (they lack the AM kit/training), are represented by AM skill of 8.  And these units pay for the ability to make AM in the BV calculation, but also get the discount for being bad at it.  They are mostly useful for taking out disabled/immobile things on the battlefield, where they can actually land an attack thanks to the -4 immobile bonus.  This is the foot/jump infantry and such.

I think the important bit is that a unit that lacks AM kit/training, and is skill 8, can still make AM attacks.  The only infantry that are prohibited from making AM attacks in Total Warfare are mechanized infantry, and specific battle armor... and those units dont pay BV for AM weapons.  Every other jump/motorized/foot infantry can make AM attacks, they are just bad at it without proper (and expensive cbill wise) AM training.

As for battle armor and AM, dont forget they use their AM skill for entering buildings.  So assault BA with no ability to make AM attacks still need an AM skill... they dont pay BV in the offensive weapons section for being able to make AM attacks, so its not like they pay anything for the default skill of 5.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4157
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #31 on: 08 September 2024, 18:00:10 »
As for battle armor and AM, dont forget they use their AM skill for entering buildings.  So assault BA with no ability to make AM attacks still need an AM skill... they dont pay BV in the offensive weapons section for being able to make AM attacks, so its not like they pay anything for the default skill of 5.

That's only while Jumping.  If a Kanazuchi enters a Building, it doesn't affect them, as they cannot Jump.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2006
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #32 on: 08 September 2024, 18:15:22 »
That's only while Jumping.  If a Kanazuchi enters a Building, it doesn't affect them, as they cannot Jump.
It is fortunate then that the Kanazuchi pays 0 BV for AM.  But were a Kanazuchi pilot to find himself a ride with Jumpjets, the AM skill would be needed to enter buildings, meaning it is not a dead stat... just mostly useless but thankfully also 0 cost.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4157
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #33 on: 08 September 2024, 19:51:17 »
It is fortunate then that the Kanazuchi pays 0 BV for AM.  But were a Kanazuchi pilot to find himself a ride with Jumpjets, the AM skill would be needed to enter buildings, meaning it is not a dead stat... just mostly useless but thankfully also 0 cost.

No, they still wouldn't, as the ride is responsible for the Jump.  After the Kanazuchi pilot gets out, they're back to hoofing it like any regular boot.

And if you meant get another suit of Armor, they're no longer a Kanazuchi pilot at that point.

You're also speaking of RPG considerations, which are outside of what BV attempts to address, so pretty much irrelevant.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2006
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #34 on: 08 September 2024, 20:16:44 »

And if you meant get another suit of Armor, they're no longer a Kanazuchi pilot at that point.

You're also speaking of RPG considerations, which are outside of what BV attempts to address, so pretty much irrelevant.
I do mean adding jump to the armor.  Its not an RPG consideration, but a campaign operations one, or strategic operations as it pertains to modifying equipment.  But I digress, even without jump jets, you still use AM skill on a Kanazuchi when climbing, making it a tactical operations consideration.  Fortunately or not, in Strategic Operations when making a battlearmor dropchute roll, you test against a 5, not the AM skill, so it doesnt help there.

So yeah, AM skill is 0 BV on a Kanazuchi, but the game still calls for some obscure rolls on AM, meaning its not a dead stat.  Its more useful on units with jump jets for sure though, as they can zipline and jump through buildings with AM skill, while its mostly very edge case for assault BA without jump jets.

And, to not confuse my point, I brought it up because units that can make AM attacks pay for that ability in the offensive weapons portion of the BV calculation.  The Kanazuchi does not pay anything, as it does not have the ability to make AM attacks... but it also doesnt get skill 8 in antimech to give that medium laser a BV skill discount either.  So the Kanazuchi should absolutely have a skill of 5 indicating no discount, in contrast to foot infantry that by default must pay for the ability of that unit type to make AM attacks in the offensive BV portion, get a discount for being 'bad' at making AM attacks.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4157
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #35 on: 08 September 2024, 21:37:00 »
I do mean adding jump to the armor.  Its not an RPG consideration, but a campaign operations one, or strategic operations as it pertains to modifying equipment. 

That would fall under RPG considerations, i.e. game options that usually don't consider BV in its general calculations and have considerations that go from scenario to scenario.  BV is used for pick up or tournament games, not for campaign games. 

Campaign Games have other considerations in mind, like a Warrior changing equipment between scenarios, while BV games tend to focus on units that don't have continuity between scenarios.

But I digress, even without jump jets, you still use AM skill on a Kanazuchi when climbing, making it a tactical operations consideration.

If Climbing Rules are in force at all.
« Last Edit: 16 September 2024, 13:21:09 by Charistoph »
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Inxentas

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 106
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #36 on: 16 September 2024, 11:43:45 »
I'm not sure if it's a House Rule but we use a concept we call the Gentlemen's Agreement. It basically comes down to identifying "problem" units and not spamming them, and accepting loss with grace even when losing to some ungodly combination that might crop up unexpectedly. We also like to come up with a general outline of our forces before agreeing on a BV limit. We are novice players and have yet to dive into Combined Arms, but in general we approach BT as a game of great tactical potential, but also a very 80's kind of randomization lottery. RAW (using RATs and such) the game feels far more random then how we usually decide to balance forces, and I imagine most people play by choosing mechs' with a specific BV/PV limit instead of what TW proposes as an alternative. I do imagine it can be a lot of fun to switch up the way forces are selected, provided players are okay with playing with the hand they are dealt. The best balancing factor for any game, in my opinion, is simply a measure of sportsmanship.

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14274
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #37 on: 16 September 2024, 12:59:13 »
An MML 5 is also three tons, three crit slots, and three heat per shot.  An Inner Sphere LRM 5 is two tons, one crit slot, and two heat.  I feel like it doesn't have to have more BV given the other restrictions it brings.

Hate to say it, but none of that matters.
Your measuring the Combat Value of the item,  essentially  "Damage*Range".

Tonnage has NOTHING to do w/ it.

You'll get your "compensation" for being crappy/good value in "tonnage" based on the # it carries.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14274
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #38 on: 16 September 2024, 13:08:05 »

The big, obvious holes in BV 2.0

1. To-hit bonuses and penalties are not appropriately costed.

2. Over-heat-capacity firepower is not appropriately discounted

3. Situational bonuses count as always on, situational penalties count as being always off

While there are a number more issues (c3 is too expensive for how easy it is to counter,

infantry bv calculations are based on equipped weapons rather than actual damage and range,

None of this is new, and I agree w/ all of it.

The biggest issue w/ BV2 is the very first level of calculations for each "Item" as noted above.

"Hit +/-"  Are off.   I want to say they are 10% per point when math tells us that they should be closer to 15%.    (This is also why Gunnery Skill is OverPriced at 20%/Pt)

It sounds more like some of the base BV of items (or means of determining BV of those things behind the scenes) needs to be addressed more than a whole new system, honestly.

THIS ^^^


After the "Basic Values" are adjusted, I think the 1 "Upper Level" calculation that was pointed out in the past is the "Offense + Defense" values calculation towards the end of the total formula.

It gives you issues w/ "Glass Cannon" mechs being over priced.

The suggested fix was to alter the formula from being a PLUS to a MULTIPLY.

For Example:
10+10 = 20
15+5 = 20
But
10*10 = 100
15*5 = 75

The 2nd Way gives you a different value to show that an All Guns or All Armor mech is not nearly as effective as a well balanced one.

3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14274
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #39 on: 16 September 2024, 13:15:32 »
From what I remember, doesnt BV 2.0 make the design cost less if your mech runs really hot if you alpha stike for example? I remember making a custom once that for its initial purpose had really good main weapon strike, and then adding a bunch of flamers to make the heat go up which I would never use because I had tonnage to spare it them reduced the BV down a bit more.

I think that was still BV 1.0

It's both but was over-corrected from 1 to 2

The new way you still get a benefit from being MASSIVELY overheating, which is why "Bracket Mechs" cost so much.
They get a discount for overheating but not to the point that it makes up for carrying "twice" the weapons.

The issue is now you have mechs like the Spider-7M v 8M,  and the Champion-1N v 1N2.

Identical mechs that just upgrade to DHS, but because their Overheat is "Only" 6 points, the BV doesn't change.
But anyone will tell you in each case the mech clearly gets better.

The "Fix" should have been to give a discount for any Overheat at all, not just 7+, BUT, in turn to make the Overheat discount smaller, so that adding a Flamer to a WarHawk doesn't make it a bunch cheaper. 
IIRC the issue is the discount comes of the most expensive gun instead of the cheapest.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14274
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #40 on: 16 September 2024, 13:20:32 »
the real power of the cLPL is not the -2, which you pay for, but the long range bands which I feel are under costed.  At the same time most BV conversations around JumpJets focus on the concrete TMM benefits, and less on the tactical befit of being to completely bypass terrain features that would like an insane amount of ground movement MP to navigate through.

I disagree.

1.  Your not paying enough for the -2 per the Math.
2.  The LR Band isn't under priced at all IIRC.
3.  Your NEVER going to get a "tactical" value on Jumpjets because every single map is different.  It just won't ever be "equal".

For #3, I think the best option would be to take a close look at the TMM values & make sure they are costed the same as the Pulse/Gunnery Skill adjustments since IIRC across the board, Weapon Value,  Gunnery Value,  Defensive (TMM) Value,  & C3 Mimicking of Gunnery, are all NOT Priced the same when they should be.
  (With Limits for C3 since it is again situation & ECM dependent)



3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14274
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #41 on: 16 September 2024, 13:23:25 »
I just leave it as 5, no modifier either way.  I'm not going to make someone pay extra to upgrade their Kanazuchi squad to 2/3, but I'm also not going to let them dump it to a 2/8 so they can squeeze their Hatamoto Chi's gunnery up to a 1.

I agree.

If there is a BV for "AM Ability" then dump stating to 7 is fine, because they paid for the "Ability" to begin with.

But any unit that totally lacks the BV ability should be treating as NOT having that 2nd skill at all, so it can't be changed at all from the 0-BV modifier of 5-Skill.

I don't mind dump stat, since Green Skill exists, I DO mind it if it is for Free on a thing that didn't have that skill.  That's just cheating/illegal.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14274
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #42 on: 16 September 2024, 13:25:06 »
Currently it’s not. If you take infantry that lacks AM at face value, you are being overcharged. Not astronomically thanks to the small numbers involved, but still overcharged.

So to my point above,  there is no BV attached to having AM ability in base BV calculations?
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 27107
  • Need a hand?
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #43 on: 16 September 2024, 16:39:19 »
Hate to say it, but none of that matters.
Your measuring the Combat Value of the item,  essentially  "Damage*Range".

Tonnage has NOTHING to do w/ it.

You'll get your "compensation" for being crappy/good value in "tonnage" based on the # it carries.

Except that it does matter because while BV doesn't take the tonnage of a piece of equipment into consideration, the equipment's tonnage still effects how much tonnage you have available on the unit for other stuff that does matter to BV, like armor, heat sinks, ammo, or other weapons.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14274
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #44 on: 16 September 2024, 16:45:22 »
Except that it does matter because while BV doesn't take the tonnage of a piece of equipment into consideration, the equipment's tonnage still effects how much tonnage you have available on the unit for other stuff that does matter to BV, like armor, heat sinks, ammo, or other weapons.

All of which have their own BV to account for.

This is why you get things like the LineBacker that are OverEngined & have Low BV because they lack the tonnage available to pile on loads of added guns.

BV isn't a measure of how "efficient" you choices are.
It's a measure of the total value of said choices.
If you lack the tonnage to pay for more weapons you'll have less BV in total.

Tonnage of the weapon has no effect on it's BV nor should it.


EDIT:

Lets put it this way.

You have a Medium Laser & then a 2-Ton Medium Laser.

They do the exact same thing.

They are the same BV.

However when the mech spends its 4 Tons on Guns, and gets 2 of 1 & 4 of the other, you'll see your BV variance there.

« Last Edit: 16 September 2024, 16:47:41 by Hellraiser »
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Geg

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1384
    • Jade Corsair
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #45 on: 17 September 2024, 08:25:24 »
1.  Your not paying enough for the -2 per the Math.

What is the Math that you are using.

A crude model using Damage, Short Range, and Gunnery puts the adjusted BV of the cLPL and the isERLL has them within 1% of each other when you scale one to match the other.  With of course the story getting more complicated once heat is added to the equation.
« Last Edit: 17 September 2024, 11:37:06 by Geg »

Agathos

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 735
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #46 on: 17 September 2024, 13:12:57 »

Lets put it this way.

You have a Medium Laser & then a 2-Ton Medium Laser.

They do the exact same thing.

They are the same BV.



And the Clan & IS Gauss rifles cost exactly the same BV (320), which is as it should be.

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14274
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #47 on: 17 September 2024, 17:58:53 »
What is the Math that you are using.

A crude model using Damage, Short Range, and Gunnery puts the adjusted BV of the cLPL and the isERLL has them within 1% of each other when you scale one to match the other.  With of course the story getting more complicated once heat is added to the equation.

From what I can recall, & ithout going into detail, some very long posts were made a good while ago possibly on a previous forums that detailed how a to-hit bonus/penalty equated out to about 15% per point in terms of added damage/armor destroyed.

Yet in most cases we see 10% or 20% used as the modifier to base BV which results in Over/Under costed items.

Heat like tonnage shouldn't be part of the equation in terms of BV.   It shows up when balancing total heat to heatsinks but has no place in the basic BV of the gun.
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

Hellraiser

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 14274
  • Cry Havoc and Unleash the Gods of Fiat.
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #48 on: 17 September 2024, 17:59:29 »
And the Clan & IS Gauss rifles cost exactly the same BV (320), which is as it should be.

Exactly!  Even better example with canon items!  :)
3041: General Lance Hawkins: The Equalizers
3053: Star Colonel Rexor Kerensky: The Silver Wolves

"I don't shoot Urbanmechs, I walk up, stomp on their foot, wait for the head to pop open & drop in a hand grenade (or Elemental)" - Joel47
Against mechs, infantry have two options: Run screaming from Godzilla, or giggle under your breath as the arrogant fools blunder into your trap. - Weirdo

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2006
Re: We need BV 3.0 (maybe 2.5?)
« Reply #49 on: 18 September 2024, 05:58:53 »
So to my point above,  there is no BV attached to having AM ability in base BV calculations?

There is a BV attached to AM ability, Sartris was either wrong or misspoke, or was talking about something else.

All infantry that can make AM attacks (determined by type, and if battler armor of the right types have the hands for it), pays extra in the offensive weapons section for AM ability.  Now, if you are foot infantry that are not antimech trained/equipped, you can still make AM attacks, and still pay BV for it, but are treated as skill 8 (and thus get a discount, for being 'bad' or unequipped to make AM attacks).  For a foot rifle platoon, adjusting for speed factor, they spend 24 BV on AM equipment, and get a .85 multiplier for pilot skill 8 (which is a 13 point discount).  So 'net' their AM attack costs them 11 BV in the 77 BV you pay for them.

If you take infantry that lack AM, like Sartris mentioned, then you are taking something like mechanized infantry.  Mechanized infantry DO NOT pay for AM ability in the weapons section of the BV calculation, so in techmanual you must put them to skill 5, and can not ever change that antimech skill to get a discount or to pay extra for the skill, because mechanized infantry are not able to make AM attacks.  So because you are not allowed to change their AM skill, you cant be overcharged.

Battle armor DO still have an AM skill (it is not set to 5 even if they do not have the ability to make AM attacks).  Battle armor that lack AM attack ability do not pay anything for AM attacks (like mechanized infantry).  However, Battlearmor DO use the AM skill, even in total warfare, for things outside of AM attacks.  Its edge case stuff, but you can have/pay for AM skill 1 assault BA without being able to make AM attacks, if you really like climbing/jumping through buildings.

EDIT: I will mention as a PS, the BV costs for infantry are garbage--as in they are bad and not at all in line with every other unit or the infantries honest abilities.  Infantry drastically underpay for everything in their formula, like treating their 'bubbles/health' as structure that can be crit in the formula but not taking crits, not paying for damage reduction like reflective armor does, not paying for their bonus mobility/facing, not paying for no move mod, not paying for infinite ammo, ect ect, with the arguable exception of AM attack ability on post damage errata weapons.  So while I dont think Mauser IIC infantry should pay as much as they do for their AM attack post damage Errata, the rest of their costs are all so stupidly wrong that I have no sympathy for them with their 148 BV AM attack with Errata reduced damage versus the 24 BV AM/swarm attack of a base rifle squad because the entire infantry BV formula needs an errata to correct pretty much every single calculation in it.  Also, Mausers/all the dual guns are dumb, and the conversion formula that created them and counts you shooting 2 guns at the same time to give them that silly damage value needs to be scrapped.  Rant over LOL.
« Last Edit: 18 September 2024, 06:15:20 by DevianID »

 

Register