A soap box on force formation for beginners. Or...

[abou]

... Scotty is right as he has mentioned the same or similar ideas elsewhere.

How many threads do we see on what 'mechs would be good for "this lance"? How many posts on social media? How many times do we see someone asking how to divide the 'mechs of the box set into lances?

See also Stars and Level IIs.

These are all great questions, but without guidance or context what does it even matter?

In many respects, it may not matter. If you generally play with an ongoing story campaign or are a GM, then your goal is different. If you are just wanting to paint your miniatures in whichever way, it may not matter because you can mix & match later. But what if you want to have a selection of lances that you can just pick up and take to a game? General use lances, special purpose lances, etc? How do you make it consistent so that someone isn't taking a medium-light lance and the other is loading up with assaults? Because you can ask for what units work well within a lance and what that fourth member should be, but if you can't field them in a game because of BV imbalances it doesn't matter. And if you really want to have that lance of matching 'mechs, then you got to have something to work with.

I never see anyone talking about BV when forming these units. It seems people tend to focus what are "the best" designs rather than putting together a functional force that you know is balanced. And that just makes it hard. We have no form of guidance in getting there, which leaves new players befuddled. Why are we not setting up a standard of making forces with certain BV ranges?

4k, 5k, 6k, etc?

For example, you make a lance with your fast scout, two mediums, and a heavy. One unit may be for fire support, another for close range. You've made a balanced force. And all this information is present on the record sheets -- you don't necessarily need to go to the MUL to find it (although why the multipliers for skills aren't included in the BMM I'll never know).

Want to have three good 'mechs, but are running short on BV and don't want to downgrade pilots? This is where you take that 'mech that isn't that great. You put that Vulcan or Hermes II in your force to make room for the Marauder.

That seems obvious, doesn't it? Why should your force be 5340 BV because you picked four Thunderbolts and now on the fly your opponent has to try and match that? But for 5k BV you can take three Thunderbolts and a Jagermech if you just absolutely have to have Thuds.

I think if BattleTech is going to expand beyond a small circle of people playing the game at their friend's house, then having a framework for force creation is the way to go. I don't think it damages creativity because you have so much to choose from, but it does force innovation on the player's part. And it makes a lot of the pre-planning easier, allowing for pick-up games. AND it helps move those players from beginners to intermediate players.

I totally understand if people just want to put whatever 'mechs together to form their lance. But let's be honest: all those "merc" lances showing up on Facebook, reddit, and here on the boards are likely not being used. I really do think it is time for CGL or the community to put together a basic framework on force building -- SINCE EVERY OTHER GAME DOES THIS.

As we enter a post-pandemic world and as BattleTech picks up in popularity, this to me seems the easiest way to make the game more accessible to players and grow the community by facilitating interactions. As I said before, I realize it isn't for everyone, but standard BV games can become our lingua franca.

[Simon Landmine]

I think that most games that aren't part of an ongoing campaign already do exactly this - the players agree beforehand what the BV limit is going to be (or other balancing method of choice), along with limitations as to tech level, year, and so on, rather than one player turning up with e.g. four Thunderbolts and requiring the other player to come up with an OpFor on the fly.

(And most of the 'merc' lances are quite likely being used, but in long-running campaigns, which are, as you note, very different.)

[Arkansas Warrior]

Edit: First draft came across a bit harsher than I meant it.


I mean, your advice is all well and good for BV games, but if folks don’t give a BV target, maybe they’re balancing other ways.  Suggesting a Hermes II to bring the BV down isn’t helpful if they’re balancing by tonnage or c-bills.

[abou]

So a couple of things:

If these are new players making their "merc" lance, I really have to question whether they are actually playing. My experience is anecdotal, but how many of these are actually playing the game? I ask that seriously. I live outside of Chicago and in my area there have been no game stores to actually play the game at in almost 20 years. Whatever the player base is here, it is very small and very fractured. Without a unified system for new players to understand, I don't think it will improve.

Now, in regards to balancing, we need to be honest here: how good is tonnage or C-Bills? The game has been trying to get away from those since the Tactical Handbook in 1994 with Combat Value. And if CGL doesn't do more to stress the importance of BV2, then who will? How to you account for skill multipliers?

Not to mention that the biggest cost of a 'mech comes from its engine. Would you rather pay 11 million for a Jagermech DD or the 6 million for a Marauder 3R.

Would you rather take that Marauder 3R or a Storm Crow because it weighs less?

[Simon Landmine]

If these are new players making their "merc" lance, I really have to question whether they are actually playing. My experience is anecdotal, but how many of these are actually playing the game? I ask that seriously. I live outside of Chicago and in my area there have been no game stores to actually play the game at in almost 20 years. Whatever the player base is here, it is very small and very fractured. Without a unified system for new players to understand, I don't think it will improve.

Are they 'new' players, though? And from what I've seen on these forums and Discord, there are still clumps of real-life TT gamers still playing, often in living rooms rather than games stores. Not to mention online tools like TableTopSimulator or MegaMek (the latter of which also offers a campaign generation and management tool), both of which allowing playing online against opponents around the world (or, for MegaMek, against an AI opponent).

All of that said, I feel that one of the advantages of BT over the years is the flexibility, and the avoidance of rigid 'army lists' and suchlike, as seen in some other games.

I don't see what's so difficult about agreeing the BV you're going to use with the other players you'll be playing against, in advance, along the lines of "OK, in two weeks time, we'll do a battle. Two players per side, 5k BV per player, Inner Sphere tech only, Advanced rules, and it'll happen in 3049. We'll sort out the pizza order when you get here." The only circumstances where that wouldn't be relevant is a store offering a drop-in/pick-up game for all comers - in which case, they would most likely also define the same kind of limitations, e.g. BV, tech, era - to ensure that people turned up with suitable forces.

I don't think it needs an edict from CGL saying "You should build your forces so that they are under 5k if you are playing in the Succession Wars, or 6k for Clan Invasion, etc."

(Furthermore, if there are, as you suggest, very few game stores still around where it can be played, that makes agreement with the other players even more relevant, as there's less likely to be a need to build forces to some external limit not agreed by the player group.)

[Fear Factory]

My main problem is with force building in Campaign Operations/Alpha Strike Commander's Edition.

Units are lumped into one category or role. I've been playing around with force building for a while now and it's so constrained by it that you basically have to build the same cookie cutter lance over and over again. If some less-optimized units had more than one role (Primary and Secondary) you would see less-optimized units in use. For example, the ASN-21 could have Scout and Harasser as a primary and secondary role which would allow it to fill more formations. The AXM-2N could be Fire Support and Brawler. Right now, you have to throw a bunch of the same unit or "best" unit in a formation because the current rules actually support THAT over having a bit of imagination. It's difficult to make a force because you have to do it a certain way for the wrong reasons (if that makes sense).

[Arkansas Warrior]

If all you ever play is pick-up games and you want to balance things, BV is fine.  But in a campaign, finishing your contract and having 10 million C-Bills to spend when you get to Outreach makes a whole lot more since than finishing your contract and having 3000 BV to spend at Outreach.  And sometimes you just take a bad contract and find yourself facing a Battalion where you thought there was a lance.  Trying to use BV there would be silly.


Even in pick-up games, sometimes you do something else.  Last year my D&D group was taking a few weeks off, so I brought my kickstarter minis and taught them BT.  We lined the minis up from lightest to heaviest, started at the bottom, and played a four person grinder: get shot out of your mech, grab the next one in line and come back in.  There was no attempt to balance the game in any way, but good times were had by all.


There’s nothing wrong with using BV.  But there’s also nothing wrong with doing things a different way.

[abou]

The thing is this: flexibility is fine, but if we want to see a future where BattleTech can be picked up quickly like pretty much every other game out there and people are trying to understand how to build their formations, ground rules are ideal. Yes, BattleTech has an ongoing meta and story is often important, but I am talking about actually playing the game.

Bear in mind, I am talking about pick-up games. A world where you can bring your stuff, go to the game store, and you have your various lances/stars picked out to quickly do something. Not just throwing together a lance simply because. That is an entirely different thing than an ongoing campaign, a story, or otherwise. This is about a universality that can be enjoyed among the whole community and done so quickly. Again: as in every other tabletop game out there. I honestly do not think having a nebulous standard is going to help.

And furthermore, when it comes to balancing, BV is your best bet. Straight up. Bar none. And the only thing that will be better is a hypothetical BV3. Tonnage and cost have little bearing on actual performance. For example:

You can purchase six Hunchbacks 4G for less than it costs to purchase a single Atlas K.

Or three Atlas Ds for less than a single Dire Wolf Prime.

Or you could take two Wolfhounds 2 for the same tonnage as a Warhammer.

If you want people to understand how to form units and you want them to understand how to balance them and to make it easier for them to go pick up a game and play, I don't see how you do not go with a standard BV. And then it is easier to include things such as handicaps when there is a difference in game experience.

At least with this if someone comes up to asks if you want to play a game with 5k BV, you can say, "Yes!"

But if someone comes up and says, "Hey, do you want to play? I have this a lance that is 5639 BV," then your response will be, "Hang on, I got to figure out what I can add or take away... shoot, I don't have that record sheet. Wait, maybe..."

CGL should be doing everything possible to make the game easy to play -- not frustrating or obtuse. And if we want to see further penetration in the market, and to see the game played in stores widely, this is what you need to do.

[Arkansas Warrior]

So you want CGL to what, publish official lances at pre-chosen BV benchmarks?  That seems needlessly restrictive.  If we had, like, one TRO worth of mechs, sure.   But with hundreds of designs, multiple eras and tech levels, there are just too many variables in play for it to be reasonable.  You’d end up with dozens of standard lances and most people don’t have the resources for that, or you’d end up with  a few set lances and most designs never being used, which can’t be good for the game.

[abou]

So you want CGL to what, publish official lances at pre-chosen BV benchmarks?

That isn't what I said at all.

What I want is CGL to have recommended BV totals so that people can create their own lances within those guidelines. What units and skill levels chosen are entirely up to the player as long as it is within that total

[Arkansas Warrior]

Ok, when you said "A world where you can bring your stuff, go to the game store, and you have your various lances/stars picked out to quickly do something. Not just throwing together a lance simply because." I thought you meant a pre-set unit that was picked for you, not one you put together yourself.

Also, I think this part of your argument is a bit circular: "If you want people to understand how to form units and you want them to understand how to balance them and to make it easier for them to go pick up a game and play, I don't see how you do not go with a standard BV."  The only reason you'd want people to know how to do balancing is if they're using BV.  if they're not using BV, why learn how to BV balance?  Anyway, I don't see why it's that hard to add up the value of your units.  It's pretty basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division that we all learned in elementary school.  Even if we weren't walking around with calculators in our pockets it would only take a little bit of scratch paper to work out.

I still don't really think it's that great an idea, though.  Different groups at different stores have different tables and time slots. A game that fits neatly in one's slot might leave the others with extra time, and a third unable to finish in time.  Better to let groups set their own parameters than have a standard they're "supposed to" use.  In no small part because lots of groups are going to do their own thing anyway, and having some official standard game will necessarily cause friction if there's a visitor who wants to play but gets mad that they aren't playing the game they're "supposed to."  It's not like CGL is going to send out reprimands to  groups that ignore the "standard" recommendations.


Edit: Argh.  I hate how the size gets weird any time I try to copy and paste.  Fixed, I think.

[Scotty]

First off, seeing a thread start with "...Scotty is right" out of the wide blue yonder was not what I was expecting to see today.

Different groups at different stores have different tables and time slots. A game that fits neatly in one's slot might leave the others with extra time, and a third unable to finish in time.

Second, this is actually, genuinely, without exaggeration my entire point and what abou is referring to.  Different groups at different stores have different tables and time slots.  This means that it is functionally impossible without frankly inappropriate assumptions about player preparedness for me to simply drop into a club and play a game.  That's a problem!

The suggestion is and has always been that if there is a generalized "standard" game size, that I can be travelling to a new city and then just show up and be ready to play a game without having to shuffle around record sheets or figure out a new local standard.  It means that when someone asks "how do I build a list?" when they're dipping into the game for the very first time we can say "here's what a normal list looks like" and there's a goal in mind.

Warhammer 40,000 is typically played with 2000 point armies.  X-wing is typically played with 200 point squadrons.  Star Wars Armada is typically played with 500 point fleets.  Infinity is typically played with 300 point armies.  Without knowing anyone in a given local scene ahead of time, I can show up with a list ready to go and ready to roll dice.

This is something that is flat-out impossible for BattleTech, and is a major limiter to its approachability for new players.

[Alzer]

Star Wars Armada is generally played with 400pt fleets. But your main point stands. Highly agree with having a more standardized play point. Or at least a few that you can have forces ready for in easy carry capacity.  Having an "intro game" points level, a "standard game we can finish on a weeknight" points level and a "who wants to kill an entire Saturday" points level is I feel the sweet spot for a tabletop game.  Battletech could manage an intro points level agreed by the greater community at the very least I would hope. Or if not an exact points level maybe just a Lance/Star setup? Like H,M,M,L for IS?

[glitterboy2098]

if anyone remembers the old Martial Olympiad's last years, that would be a good way to conceptualize it. i'll use the last year as my example, because it was the one with simplest unit build restrictions (as it was a solaris centric theme that year.) so that year, players had to pick a force of 4 mechs for each of three categories, light, medum, and heavy. light had, iirc, about 5k BV2 to work with, medium had iirc 7K, and heavy had 10k. this in theor kept the solaris matches fairly even, since the more expensive mechs couldn't afford the better pilots. (which many of the craftier players made good use of, especially when we figured out that a "light" category match did not prevent you from taking heavier mechs. the look on my opponents face when his tricked out high tech light mech force realized they were going into steiner arena against a Clan Coyote force packing a introtech Victor and other heavy hard hitting units was great.)

for pick up games, you'd do something like "5K BV, no more than 5 units" or "10k Bv, no more than 15 units", etc. a set standard point value (ideally chosen so you can combine two smaller forces to make up a larger size one, in case someone didn't make a dedicated larger one or you have an odd number of players) and a unit size limit.

having a unit count limit is to help prevent people from taking huge swarm armies or other gimmicky and annoying forces in what are meant to be casual play lists.

[Charistoph]

Our store has a guy who has basically led the way in being our "Battlemaster".  He sets the point values, tech levels, unit limits, and sometimes a scenario.  He also often helps people learn the game by giving them a quick game.

We ran 8000 BV, no tech limit, for a few weeks.  Last week was 6000 BV, no tech or pilot limit, and tomorrow (10/15) is 3000 BV, no tech or pilot limit.  Apparently we're going to be securing a Wobbie Dropship of an unusual design.

Myself, as I usually have a bit of time on my hands, usually bring 2-3 lists to work with, either in case we get done early, or someone wants to join in, but doesn't have their own list to play (second list is usually relatively simple with nothing too fancy in tech).  Of course, at 3000 BV, the only hard part is deciding which chassis to go with, as I have an Awesome IIC custom with 2 Clan ER PPCs and a Gauss Rifle with F/L armor that moves at a decent Assault pace, and give it a 3/5 pilot and done, and have that guy be the "new guy" list as nothing is more simple than that, honestly.  Meanwhile, I'll probably be trying out an Archer IIC with iATMs and trying out a 6 rack with a ton of IMP rounds for gits and shiggles.

[Hellraiser]

Our store has a guy who has basically led the way in being our "Battlemaster".  He sets the point values, tech levels, unit limits, and sometimes a scenario.  He also often helps people learn the game by giving them a quick game.

Our Commando does similar things.

For example.

Battle of Sarna - 4th SW

Attacker - AFFS+Mercs
Factions - Fed Suns, Mercs, IS Gen
BV Limit - 3500
Unit Limit - 2-5   (No Aerospace)

Defender - Big Mac
Factions - CapCon, Mercs, IS Gen
BV Limit - 3500
Unit Limit - 2-6

Scenario Limits:
Intro Tech Only
Canon Units Only
Total Warfare Rules Only   (A few Optional Tac Ops rules chosen by the GM may be in use)
NO Aerospace or Advanced Units


With this in mind you let him know what side you want to play on ahead of time or create a force for both if you don't care which "side".
Bring your force, dice, pencil, or, he will have several prebuilt forces available for either side and some loaner dice/pencils for walkups.

[Charistoph]

The closest our Battlemaster comes to eras and factions is basically keeping it to "Introtech".  We have a lot of people new to the game, and just as many coming back who dropped off around FCCW (raises hand), and there is a lot to keep track of for factions and eras.  If it is a "Standard" night, it's basically any tech in Total Warfare and the Tech Manual.  "Unlimited" nights are pretty much if you can find the rules, you can use them.

[Hellraiser]

If it is a "Standard" night, it's basically any tech in Total Warfare and the Tech Manual. 

Ours tends to do "historical" battles.....So with that you have "Factions".

4th SW battles are great for "Introtech" for beginners.
Clan Invasion Era for Clan on IS or Clan on Clan.
SLDF era or FCCW great for Standard Tech IS v IS stuff.
Jihad for full TW weapons list & optional Tac Ops stuff.
War of 3039 for when you want to allow "Minor" customization of units.
Solaris Gladiators fights for when you want to allow "Major" customs but limited to single units each.

[abou]

First off, seeing a thread start with "...Scotty is right" out of the wide blue yonder was not what I was expecting to see today.

Well, when you're right you're right.

No lie: my dream game is an ongoing meta with characters and story and struggle and all the support units and fits well into a specific era and... I can go on. But that takes A LOT of work and a dedicated, reliable group. But when it comes down to it, I just want to play the damn game. And anything that makes it easier should be done.

At the least they could put out a PDF supplement that is essentially tournament rules for building your force. I'm not crazy about tech agnosticism, but I don't think it is worth being picky at this point.

[Charistoph]

Ours tends to do "historical" battles.....So with that you have "Factions".

4th SW battles are great for "Introtech" for beginners.
Clan Invasion Era for Clan on IS or Clan on Clan.
SLDF era or FCCW great for Standard Tech IS v IS stuff.
Jihad for full TW weapons list & optional Tac Ops stuff.
War of 3039 for when you want to allow "Minor" customization of units.
Solaris Gladiators fights for when you want to allow "Major" customs but limited to single units each.

We're stuck with about a 4 hour timespan to play, and that's if we get started right away.  In addition, this is more about just playing the game and blowing each other's mechs up and laughing about all the crap talk we make as we play.  We generally don't do much in the way of official historicals because setting that up can take too long.

The closest we've gotten to that is when we were doing a Trial of Position in a Grand Melee format, and the Battlemaster dropped in a company of ComStar on us half way through.  Just this past night, he grabbed an old MW:DA dropship and partly buried it under HeroScape tiles and our objective was to either capture it, destroy it, or at least take out its inexplicable Capital Laser so reinforcements could come in.

Meanwhile, someone else has set up a biweekly campaign that has only the mildest RPG elements, and we're on the antogonist's side of the Aurigan Reformation.  We have our next mission later on today, with the last one having our heaviest mech, my Thunderbolt TDR-5S getting backstabbed by a Commando and hitting the Center Torso Lower 6, basically igniting a full ton of LRM ammo.  Fortunately, the only mech we've lost after 4 missions so far.  Pilot made it out, but he's been downgraded to a Centurion we managed to purchase along the way out.

The one running the campaign is always willing to let people come in and help him control the OpFor, so we get a little bit of both worlds.

[Hellraiser]

We're stuck with about a 4 hour timespan to play, and that's if we get started right away.  In addition, this is more about just playing the game and blowing each other's mechs up and laughing about all the crap talk we make as we play.  We generally don't do much in the way of official historicals because setting that up can take too long.

Oh there is no long set up here.
He announces the date weeks or a month ahead of time & tells you the set up.

Gives you the Factions/Techlevels/Year etc etc ahead of time so you can build forces long before the day off.
Then for anyone that doesn't want to do that he still brings some pre-made forces from minis he owns.

The longest part is more like getting the players to start moving into game mode instead of chatting.

[abou]

I wanted to revisit this topic as I have been thinking it over since I posted it. I ran all the main variants of the "Level 1" or 3rd SW era or IntroTech or whatever the hell you want to call it 'mechs into a spreadsheet and averaged their BVs by weight class. I then did this again with the Prime 3050 omnis. That gave me a rough idea of perhaps what a good BV would be for different eras. Now, here is some of my other thinking on the matter.

I recognize two different trains of thought. The first is doing a tech agnostic approach. Let people take whatever they want from any era, put together a lance, and let them play. Fairly easy. Take that Atlas D and put it next to a Timber Wolf Prime. Cool.

The second thought is concentrating on a more in-universe perspective. The lance, the Level II, the Clan Star. Although perhaps more restrictive, it allows for players to hew more closely to the canon of the game. This then brings us to 3 tiers.

1. 6,000 BV -- Level 1/IntroTech levels using 'mechs from the AGoAC and TRO3039. This comfortably allows for a light, two mediums, and a heavy/assault with mechwarrior upgrades. Many of the 3050 era IS 'mechs have BVs that would fit in this BV as well

2. 8,000 BV -- Level 2/3050+ era/tech agnostic approach

3. 16,000 BV -- A value that should allow for a Clan star with pilot upgrades considering that the regular Clan 'mechwarrior has a higher skill value than the IS counterpart. This BV also allows for 8 to 12 IS 'mechs to fight against the Star. Since many of the new Clan Stars that CGL is selling have a combined BV of 10-11k, with improved pilots the 16k total should make room for that.

The tiers are restricted enough in BV to make players look across the spectra of 'mech designs and incorporate units from across the weight classes. Designs that would formally always be overlooked may now find themselves considered because of their BV cost. A Charger is exceptionally cheap as an assault 'mech and can effectively bully medium 'mechs with higher BV costs as long as it is supported. A Hermes II can help screen the rest of the lance from fast-moving lights with its own speed and AC/5 while also being inexpensive.

Games where forces are within ~100 BV of each other seem to be fairly tight in my experience. With stated levels, it is easy for players to have a couple of forces in their bag to bring with them and have at the ready. I don't think having different options would be a problem, but I can also see where some might balk at having 3 different varieties.

[Daryk]

I remain convinced of my previously (and repeatedly) stated position: there is no substitute for an experienced GM.

They can take a glance at a force and know "that's not going to work on this table".  I've played on tables where GMs who thought they were experienced were wrong.  You really have to be able to look players in the eye and tell them "no" (and not on the losing side), but also be able to see where the player's "play" just might work.  It's a fine balance, and not one easily achieved.

Yes, this sounds like gate keeping.  I don't care.  Enjoyment is the point of the game, and you can't assume everyone has the same level of experience.  Those who are experienced GMs can see the difference.  Without that sense, you're going to get unbalanced games.

Focusing on the player experience to the exclusion of the GM experience will inevitably result in unbalanced games, and unhappiness all around (for reference, curb stomping people who don't know what they're doing isn't all that fun: it drives them away from the game, and is less than satisfying if you're getting away with it; this is system independent). To be a superior system, you have to empower GMs and players both.  Players won't play if they think they can't win.  And GMs won't GM unless they think they can make the game fun for everyone.

[VensersRevenge]

But random games stores won't have GMs to balance fights. And there won't be experienced GMs if there aren't good balancing mechanisms. Even D&D has CR to attempt to create balanced fights. You need a vaguely functioning balance system to convince people to take a shot. It's one of the problems EDH has now. It is the most popular format, but it was designed for being played between friends who knew each other so there are massive problems with pickup games at LGS's.

[Daryk]

The last few games I played at game stores had GMs... they are the ones who posted the adverstiments...

[Simon Landmine]

It seems that the proposal is for some kind of default set-up for a "turn-up-and-play" game, when that isn't defined by the host store or a GM.
I too would expect stores hosting a "turn-up-and-play" to have defined the parameters (year, BV, tech level, size, etc) in advance. Are there many instances of folk turning up for a tournament without those parameters having been set out first?

[VensersRevenge]

The last few games I played at game stores had GMs... they are the ones who posted the adverstiments...

That's great, but can't be assumed and still doesn't negate the fact that people have to learn how to balance scenarios. Especially when Battletech is expanding over the pandemic.

[monbvol]

It seems that the proposal is for some kind of default set-up for a "turn-up-and-play" game, when that isn't defined by the host store or a GM.
I too would expect stores hosting a "turn-up-and-play" to have defined the parameters (year, BV, tech level, size, etc) in advance. Are there many instances of folk turning up for a tournament without those parameters having been set out first?

I consider it quite likely.

Something we have to remember is that people who are dissatisfied with their Battletech experience are not likely to sign up to these forums to lodge their complaints.  They are far more likely to lodge such complaints via methods we forumites will never know about or see.

That's great, but can't be assumed and still doesn't negate the fact that people have to learn how to balance scenarios. Especially when Battletech is expanding over the pandemic.

I do think it is an unwise assumption that people working, or even the regulars, at a game store are going to have the experience or take the time to make such efforts.

As flawed as BV is it is at least a starting point.  But that's it.

[Daryk]

With regard to tournaments, in the one I won it was quite clear the organizers didn't consider their rules to the degree I had as a player.  I won because I withdrew from a fight with a player who took second place... only because he had the misfortune to face me.  I chalk that up to less experienced GMs.

[Scotty]

Daryk you should consider starting a new topic about GMing and how important it is for good games between players that have GMs.  This thread isn't it.

It seems that the proposal is for some kind of default set-up for a "turn-up-and-play" game, when that isn't defined by the host store or a GM.
I too would expect stores hosting a "turn-up-and-play" to have defined the parameters (year, BV, tech level, size, etc) in advance. Are there many instances of folk turning up for a tournament without those parameters having been set out first?

Generally no; Abou's OP isn't necessarily about tournament games.  Informal standards for pick up games tend to mimic tournament formats in systems that have strong organized play ecosystems because it's easy to start with what is familiar, and common organized play results in a positive feedback loop where pick up games can be used to practice for tournaments and tournaments improve your ability to play pick up games in a timely manner.

BattleTech does not have that, at pretty much any level, which is a damn shame.