BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

BattleTech Game Systems => General BattleTech Discussion => Topic started by: Drewbacca on 19 December 2014, 18:08:38

Title: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Drewbacca on 19 December 2014, 18:08:38
Is it possible to fire an Arrow IV directly at a target mech?
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Lorcan Nagle on 19 December 2014, 18:16:04
You can't direct fire a homing round, but other than that, yes.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Fletch on 19 December 2014, 20:46:34
Such a nice way to create a 17 hex bubble
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 19 December 2014, 20:57:48
Is it possible to fire an Arrow IV directly at a target mech?

Mechs don't appreciate an area-effect round landing at their feet, but if you REALLY want to cause an enemy to panic, try throwing your missile at enemy battle armor. Guaranteed hilarity.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: serack on 19 December 2014, 22:15:21
You can't direct fire a homing round, but other than that, yes.

unless target is tagged , then you can :)
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 19 December 2014, 23:04:00
Mechs don't appreciate an area-effect round landing at their feet, but if you REALLY want to cause an enemy to panic, try throwing your missile at enemy battle armor. Guaranteed hilarity.

I was running a TDK-7KMA Thunderhawk in a game when a guy on the other side moved 3 squads of Purifiers so that they were in a line 3 hexes long.

Hilarity ensued.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 20 December 2014, 09:32:53
I was running a TDK-7KMA Thunderhawk in a game when a guy on the other side moved 3 squads of Purifiers so that they were in a line 3 hexes long.

Hilarity ensued.

That thing is just evil. Most Arrow carriers, you bum-rush it and just knock it out before it keeps throwing missiles, since they tend to have far less firepower in-close than they do at a distance (Naga, Chapparal, etc.)

This? Good, you survived the artillery barrage. Now comes the twin Gauss!

TDK-7KMA: Because planting a giant metal hand holding up a middle finger in the middle of the battlefield is a bit too gauche.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: SteveRestless on 20 December 2014, 10:30:23
That thing is just evil. Most Arrow carriers, you bum-rush it and just knock it out before it keeps throwing missiles, since they tend to have far less firepower in-close than they do at a distance (Naga, Chapparal, etc.)

This? Good, you survived the artillery barrage. Now comes the twin Gauss!

TDK-7KMA: Because planting a giant metal hand holding up a middle finger in the middle of the battlefield is a bit too gauche.

This is why I like the Huey AAA, and I have a Timber Wolf config designed to shepherd Nagas.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Sir Chaos on 20 December 2014, 11:15:53
"Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl" - Frederick the Great
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Weirdo on 20 December 2014, 15:35:54
I dunno about dignity, but it certainly ramps up the fun. And the comedy.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Frabby on 20 December 2014, 16:29:13
I was under the impression that you can only direct-fire at hexes, but not at a 'Mech?

This does make a difference at least in regards to angle of attack. Also, my understanding is that when direct-firing at a hex you need LOS which would effectively preclue you from shooting direct-fire artillery at enemy 'Mechs behind partial cover.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Maniac Actual on 20 December 2014, 16:36:34
Mechs don't appreciate an area-effect round landing at their feet, but if you REALLY want to cause an enemy to panic, try throwing your missile at enemy battle armor. Guaranteed hilarity.
Reason # 5,764 why Battle armor is usually wasted BV in a battle, IMO.  Last time I used BA in a scenario, one of my own errant Arrow 4 rounds took out two points of BA and opened a hole in my line that lost the battle.

As an aside, if you CAN directly target mechs as opposed to hexes, I think my room mate is right:  With the errata rules, arty IS under BV'd then.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: gunner on 21 December 2014, 15:08:14
the Homing round has to designated as it fires;  so no redirecting it.   A non homing round can NOT be used with a tag.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 21 December 2014, 16:07:11
the Homing round has to designated as it fires;  so no redirecting it.   A non homing round can NOT be used with a tag.

I still declare TAG even if I don't have a homing round available that turn. It's nice to keep people worrying about just what kind of special treats I have inbound this turn. ;)
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: gunner on 22 December 2014, 17:17:23
YES  you can threaten them with it, however if it wasn't launched as it  it can NOT  home it
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 December 2014, 15:00:05
I'm pretty sure Hellbie's point was that by hitting the enemy with a TAG every round, you kept them guessing about just how many Arrow IV shots you were sending their way and therefore keeping them nervous.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Question on 23 December 2014, 16:44:09
Artillery rules dont make sense to me IMHO.

First of all the whole "wait 1 turn to land if firing at >17 hexes" thing makes it near impossible to hit anything unless the opponent is an idiot and just stands there for 2 rounds in a row.

The second problem is that indirect fire is incredibly reliant on pre-designated hexes since the battle is going to be half over by the time you use spotters to get a good hit chance on a hex.

The third problem is that firing at a hex can be much easier to hit than trying to hit the unit itself...leading to direct fire artillery creating a 17 hex no-go zone for any fast units. Feel free to jump 7 hexes into heavy woods, im still firing at a flat +4 modifier.

Then of course you have the balance problem where arrow IVs are superior to tube artillery in almost every way...and that there is no reason to use normal arrow IV rounds over cluster rounds since they both do the same damage, except that cluster uses the punch table.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 23 December 2014, 17:06:41
Arrow IVs don't have Cluster ammo.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Weirdo on 23 December 2014, 17:07:46
First of all the whole "wait 1 turn to land if firing at >17 hexes" thing makes it near impossible to hit anything unless the opponent is an idiot and just stands there for 2 rounds in a row.
If you know it will take your shot a turn or two to land, why on earth are you aiming where they are right now? To use artillery, you predict where they're going to be(a general area, not a hex) on the turn the shots will land. Then you aim for the center of that general area, and let rip, letting scatter drop shells on individual units within the lance or company you're targeting. (And if you're trying to target individual units, well that's another part of your tactics you need to fix. It won't work.)
Quote
The third problem is that firing at a hex can be much easier to hit than trying to hit the unit itself...leading to direct fire artillery creating a 17 hex no-go zone for any fast units. Feel free to jump 7 hexes into heavy woods, im still firing at a flat +4 modifier.
Yup, that's what artillery is there for. Using is to deter fast backstabbers is called using it properly.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: cavingjan on 23 December 2014, 17:27:41
Use similar considerations from mine placement for artillery plotting. Natural choke points help to funnel them. Stacking up a strong wall right in front of where you are dropping artillery typically has an enemy slow to engage you. It is all about reading what your opponent is going to do a couple turns down the road. You don't have a crystal ball but you should have a decent idea of what they intend to do.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: JadeHellbringer on 23 December 2014, 17:59:35
I'm pretty sure Hellbie's point was that by hitting the enemy with a TAG every round, you kept them guessing about just how many Arrow IV shots you were sending their way and therefore keeping them nervous.

Exactly. I don't have to tell you which kind of round is landing this turn- but if I TAG you every time, you'll always be worried that it's a 20-point 'oh crap' round coming in, at least. If I don't, you at least know that whatever dirty trick is air-mailing itself to the battlefield, it's not a homing round at least.

Remember, misdirection and subterfuge can be just as powerful as any weapon.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Question on 23 December 2014, 18:05:36
Arrow IVs don't have Cluster ammo.

But...they do?

Weirdo : My point was that the whole guessing game is quite silly, especially if you dont happen to have a pre-designated hex where the enemy is. Sure you can aim ahead of them...but what happens if they dont go there next turn, after you have fired the rounds? Your rounds hit nothing and are completely wasted.

TAG + homing of course solves this problem. But im talking about non-homing rounds.

It's too effective as a fast unit deterrant IMHO. We are talking about a 17 hex denial zone here...not even clan large pulse is that bad. It just feels strange to me that artillery (which is meant to take out fortified positions and clusters of troops) is the best at killing solitary, fast moving units (when it should be the worst at doing that).
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: SteveRestless on 23 December 2014, 18:29:33
Really, Battletech artillery is just fine. It's just that you need a large engagement and at least 8 tubes of it to be effective.

You need to be anticipating where your opponent will be in x turns, and targeting an area. not a hex, an area. Sheaf Fire changes artillery from a joke to a tool.

it's fine at assaulting fortified positions. Either they move or they take it on the chin, and buildings can't move. It's great for using against entire lances or companies at a time, so long as you anticipate. and with the travel time of artillery in the air, often you can with the right positioning and number of tubes, adequately hit more than one likely destination in a turn.

IIRC artillery cannot direct-fire at less than 17 hexes if it has line of sight on the target. at least, that's the way it's implemented in megamek and has been for a number of years without anyone filing a bug.  Thus there really isn't an instantaneous death zone for a light without proper positioning
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Weirdo on 23 December 2014, 19:06:03
Weirdo : My point was that the whole guessing game is quite silly

It might be, but until we breed all military commanders to be telepaths, it's the way it is, in games and in real life.

Quote
Sure you can aim ahead of them...but what happens if they dont go there next turn, after you have fired the rounds? Your rounds hit nothing and are completely wasted.

That's called a learning experience. Next time you run into that particular situation, you'll know that that particular player isn't as likely to move in that direction. Learning experiences plus learned tactical sense equals having a feel for where dropping shells will be most useful.

And for the record, it's been a VERY long time since I ever played a game with any preplotted hexes. They only make sense if the defender has had time to dial those hexes in. Therefore, in most pickup games I've ever played in, nobody will have them.

Quote
It's too effective as a fast unit deterrant IMHO. We are talking about a 17 hex denial zone here...not even clan large pulse is that bad. It just feels strange to me that artillery (which is meant to take out fortified positions and clusters of troops) is the best at killing solitary, fast moving units (when it should be the worst at doing that).

You still have to hit the hex. Even with direct-fire modifiers, it's hardly an auto-hit. Nor is a hit from even a large artillery piece an auto-kill on anything but the smallest light units. The spread-out nature of artillery means it's really easy for even light units to take hits and keep going.

IIRC artillery cannot direct-fire at less than 17 hexes if it has line of sight on the target.

Uh...firing on a target at less than 17 hexes with LOS is the definition of direct-fire artillery. If MM won't let you do that, that's a bug in MegaMek.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: SteveRestless on 23 December 2014, 20:57:46

Uh...firing on a target at less than 17 hexes with LOS is the definition of direct-fire artillery. If MM won't let you do that, that's a bug in MegaMek.

oh wait, I always forget that it's the way the phases split. this is my derp. it does let you, just not when I think it ought to.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: beachhead1985 on 24 December 2014, 13:51:10
I dunno about dignity, but it certainly ramps up the fun. And the comedy.

Nothing like a smackdown from the hand of god, eh?
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 24 December 2014, 14:18:22
Or the comedy of losing because your artillery kept drifting back into your own lines and crippled several of your most powerful mechs.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Weirdo on 24 December 2014, 14:24:01
Yup. Nothing makes an afternoon hilarious like friendly fire. O0

(Not kidding, either!)
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MAD-4A on 24 December 2014, 17:34:12
You still have to hit the hex. Even with direct-fire modifiers, it's hardly an auto-hit. Nor is a hit from even a large artillery piece an auto-kill on anything but the smallest light units. The spread-out nature of artillery means it's really easy for even light units to take hits and keep going.
right - a direct hit is basically just a LRM-20 that hits with a 12 on the missile role (how many of those have you survived?)
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MAD-4A on 24 December 2014, 17:36:41
Yup. Nothing makes an afternoon hilarious like friendly fire.
Murphy says: "Friendly Fire Isn't!"
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MAD-4A on 24 December 2014, 17:45:40
...but what happens if they dont go there next turn, after you have fired the rounds? Your rounds hit nothing and are completely wasted. TAG + homing of course solves this problem. But im talking about non-homing rounds.
unless the 1 TAG your allowed to use (because for some reason the techs can't figure out how to tune more than 1 laser to a given frequency and for some other reason a mech can power a dozen small to large combat intensity lasers but can't power 2 laser pointers at the same time  ???) misses then the homing is wasted (as well as any LRMs, GR/AC ammo or PPC blasts you sent down range and failed to connect) its part of the cost of doing business, some rounds hit & some don't.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MAD-4A on 24 December 2014, 17:47:50
Then of course you have the balance problem where arrow IVs are superior to tube artillery in almost every way...and that there is no reason to use normal arrow IV rounds over cluster rounds since they both do the same damage, except that cluster uses the punch table.
That's cause they haven't introduced advanced rounds for tub arty.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MAD-4A on 24 December 2014, 17:52:13
since the battle is going to be half over by the time you use spotters to get a good hit chance on a hex.
Thats what Swift Winds and Lt hover APCs are for (you can't fit a platoon in one what did you think it was for?)
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MAD-4A on 24 December 2014, 18:21:52
First of all the whole "wait 1 turn to land if firing at >17 hexes" thing makes it near impossible to hit anything unless the opponent is an idiot and just stands there for 2 rounds in a row.

If you know it will take your shot a turn or two to land, why on earth are you aiming where they are right now? To use artillery, you predict where they're going to be(a general area, not a hex) on the turn the shots will land. Then you aim for the center of that general area, and let rip, letting scatter drop shells on individual units within the lance or company you're targeting. (And if you're trying to target individual units, well that's another part of your tactics you need to fix. It won't work.)Yup, that's what artillery is there for. Using is to deter fast backstabbers is called using it properly.

Use similar considerations from mine placement for artillery plotting. Natural choke points help to funnel them. Stacking up a strong wall right in front of where you are dropping artillery typically has an enemy slow to engage you. It is all about reading what your opponent is going to do a couple turns down the road. You don't have a crystal ball but you should have a decent idea of what they intend to do.
This is where Thunders come in - if you have no natural choke points, then you use FASCAM liberally (generally on the flanks) to create choke points (you have a choice, face my mines or face my incoming! - 20pt each either way) if you have natural choke points then you can still use the FASCAM to make them all the more dangerous (& the Swift Winds as well). I was facing a guy across a deep river with 2 bridges once (this guy couldn't play without Arty of AS bombs or something) so one day I decided to play his game (15,000 bv) I had 2 LTs, 4 CPLT-C5, & 4 AIV Demolishers (+ 4 ARC-2R & a STK-3H all with Thunders). I also had 12 SW. I took out his 2 LTs & 4 Snipers while my mechs boobie-trapped the bridges. with his Arty gone he had no choice but to come across the bridge with his assault mechs and heavy tanks (1 tank between the legs of each mech). As they reached the last hex of FASCAMs 2 of my SW charged into each hex he occupied (2 units for a side 4 total) - he of-course protested (but that's the rules), he noted that my SW would have to make mine checks as well! I said I know & if they fail to hit the mines I have 14 rounds plotted right there, incoming right now! when I told him the SWs are fusion mods (we were playing "8-bomb" rules  }:) ) he got mad and quit. what's that about heat & kitchens?
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 24 December 2014, 19:30:57
There are tactics that, while not against the rules, can't be called good sportsmanship.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Kharim on 25 December 2014, 06:56:18
Just like one time when I was fighting "Clanners". What I saw on the battlefield was three Hueys AAA with 8/8 skill(to cut down on bv), loaded full of homing ammo. They were guarded by a Nova Cat and Mad Cat. Apart of that there was a point of fast protomechs with tags and a spotter Vtol with 1/4 skill.
And all I had was an assault c3 lance
: Berserker, Sagittaire, Barghest and Avatar. Once again I had to rush enemy positions because artillery was raining down heavy this day :) Enemy mechs had of course hulled down behind some cover and some support unit was popping smoke for them.
During the charge I managed to destroy most of taggers, but I've lost Barghest and lots of armor on other mechs. So when it came to brawl I had no chance.
This wasn't the first time when lack of artillery denied victory for me.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: The Mighty ACHOO on 25 December 2014, 10:30:04
It can be quite fun to fire those nice telephone poles at your enemies! The first time I used direct fire Arrow IV my opponent kept insisting that his defensive modifier was 5 because of his movement rate and being in heavy trees. He could not wrap his head around the fact that those numbers had no application to what I was doing.
Quote
What do you mean you are firing at the hex and not my 'Mech? You can't do that!
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MAD-4A on 25 December 2014, 16:39:06
There are tactics that, while not against the rules, can't be called good sportsmanship.
yea - that's what I said - when I brought in mechs or tanks & he brought in his Arty or AS bombers, every time  & insisted repeatedly "it's something you might see on the battlefield so get use to it" - turnabouts fair play - I just did it better (with Capellan - Death Commandos) }:). oh yea - he had an AS fighter too (I took care of that with 1 salvo of Arrow IV SAMs), held my own Stuka in reserve!
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 25 December 2014, 16:59:17
Responding to poor sportsmanship with worse sportsmanship isn't really admirable behavior, either.  When stuck playing against an opponent who insists on extremely cheesed tactics like overwhelming artillery (especially if they do something like use vehicles with 8 gunners loaded exclusively with Homing ammo) or Savannah Master Swarms, I prefer to just walk away from the table.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MAD-4A on 25 December 2014, 17:01:46
oh yea - I had 14 rounds plotted incoming on the bridge - but I also had 4 more rounds to be placed that turn, my 4-CPLT-C5s had closed to 18 hexes from the edge of the mines - they jumped so I had 4 rounds direct fire (17 hexes) at the ground right in front of him with +3 jump mod (hoping to miss & scatter on-top of him!)
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MAD-4A on 25 December 2014, 17:04:25
Responding to poor sportsmanship with worse sportsmanship isn't really admirable behavior,
yea-yea "no better than them" - what-ever - teach them how it feels, then maybe they wont pull it on someone else. Artys fun to play - but don't cheese up everybody's day, every time you play, because you can't win any other way. (hey that rimed - not intended  ;D)
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Weirdo on 25 December 2014, 23:43:54
yea-yea "no better than them" - what-ever - teach them how it feels, then maybe they wont pull it on someone else.

Bit of advice: That approach never works. You wanna get your point across, walk away from the table.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: mbear on 02 January 2015, 08:32:56
That thing is just evil. Most Arrow carriers, you bum-rush it and just knock it out before it keeps throwing missiles, since they tend to have far less firepower in-close than they do at a distance (Naga, Chapparal, etc.)

This? Good, you survived the artillery barrage. Now comes the twin Gauss!

TDK-7KMA: Because planting a giant metal hand holding up a middle finger in the middle of the battlefield is a bit too gauche.
Sorry about the thread necro, but I just saw this and I have to ask: Does the KMA in the designation stand for "Kill My Ass"?
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MAD-4A on 02 January 2015, 08:52:10
Sorry about the thread necro, but I just saw this and I have to ask: Does the KMA in the designation stand for "Kill My Ass"?
Maybe - never met a Thunderhawk I couldn't kill  >:D (GR in side torso with IS-XLs  #P - that's just dumb!)
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: WarGod on 02 January 2015, 15:47:45
even more fun when you have arty, bombing runs all going in the same turn
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Drewbacca on 22 March 2020, 11:28:29
So for clarity, I cann shoot at targets on the same map at ranges of 17 or less?
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Sartris on 22 March 2020, 11:34:27
yes. see TacOps pg 185.

Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Weirdo on 22 March 2020, 11:38:21
If you have LoS, user the Direct-Fire rules. If you don't have LoS, use the Indirect-Fire rules.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Colt Ward on 23 March 2020, 10:27:54
And remember, its LOS to the hex not LOS to the unit sitting in the hex . . .

Had someone once approaching a Bowman thought he was clever getting behind partial . . . well, I just hit the hex behind him.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Mohammed As`Zaman Bey on 25 March 2020, 14:10:49
There are tactics that, while not against the rules, can't be called good sportsmanship.
  I'm a wargamer, been playing since the 1960s. War is not a sport...and I don't Role Play at war. My group would plan a weekend-long scenario and the rules lawyers would take the first day to iron out their definitions of the rules, even before the map was unfolded.

  My players drop mines behind the enemy to prevent them from escaping.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Drewbacca on 25 March 2020, 15:18:44
There are tactics that, while not against the rules, can't be called good sportsmanship.

For some people, that is not a concern.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Weirdo on 25 March 2020, 15:20:14
For some people, that is not a concern.

Fortunately, for me, dealing with people like that is not a concern.

Not for more than one game, at least.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: MoneyLovinOgre4Hire on 25 March 2020, 15:27:16
What Weirdo said.

I'm way past the point in my life where I'd put up with obnoxious and unpleasant people just play a game.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Colt Ward on 25 March 2020, 15:38:29
Eh, I play unbalanced campaign scenarios but both parties know that going in and there are victory conditions for the weaker side that acknowledge such a position.  We get them in canon like the breakthrough scenarios.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Retry on 25 March 2020, 15:51:16
I don't think Wierdo is talking about unbalanced campaign scenarios when he refers to sportsmanship.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Weirdo on 25 March 2020, 18:46:15
Exactly correct.

Those unbalanced scenarios with appropriate victory conditions sound fun as hell. Drastic improvement over the games my GM used to set up which was just two greatly unbalanced forces were thrown at each other and the weaker side was essentially told to suck it up.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Mohammed As`Zaman Bey on 25 March 2020, 21:40:55
Eh, I play unbalanced campaign scenarios but both parties know that going in and there are victory conditions for the weaker side that acknowledge such a position.  We get them in canon like the breakthrough scenarios.
  War is about opposing sides maneuvering to create unbalanced odds. Some commanders in the past avoided contact with the enemy and would never fight a battle that wasn't already won. If a fight is even, both sides screwed up.

  I've had players plot methodically and channel their opponents (I always recruit other players to play OPFOR) and others have blundered into superior forces and paid dearly for it in ransoms and months lost as prisoners, in addition to losing 'mechs and dropships. While I can appreciate a player able to win in the face of overwhelming odds, especially when there was no choice, I have no sympathy for players who charge into a battle without even using their assets to determine the enemy's strength.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Weirdo on 26 March 2020, 00:08:01
What does that have to do with players that might want to actually enjoy playing their game?
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Cannonshop on 26 March 2020, 04:11:28
What does that have to do with players that might want to actually enjoy playing their game?
[off the cuff response]
If you don't enjoy the mental challenge,
checkers.
[/off the cuff response]

There are great reasons to use campaign rules and pre-understood victory conditions, and there is a place for the meticulously equally balanced game (We call those 'duels').

but there's also a place for the 'blind battlevalue game' (or whatever system you're using that only requires a rough approximation by some arbitrary value, whether tonnage, BV1, BV2, or magic pixie dust)

The 'Blind Battlevalue' game is where at the end of last weekend, you're given a flat BV to meet with no preconditions, and you bring in the force you're going to use based on that number, and you do NOT spend the rest of the weekend meticulously trying to 'make it equal' using arbitrary multipliers that were removed from the BV system after the second printing of Total Warfare (Because FSM turned out 'didn't work the way they thought it would'.)

what is that purpose? testing player flexibility, because sometimes what looks like 'the ultimate force' turns out to be ultimately worthless.  (a hundred plus Savannahmasters on a forest map or in vacuum, for example, or mass quantities of boeing Jump bombers in a cave network, or optimized long-range snipers in close urban, or a collection of AC/20 killers on flat, open plains...)

'blind BV' teaches players to have more than one trick in their toolbox, it also forces people to confront their own stereotypes.  (Yes, there are situations where your trinary of Widowmakers will be as close to worthless as you can get.  There are also situations where an SHD-2H is actually useful, believe it or not...)


Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Drewbacca on 26 March 2020, 04:35:32
I actually like playing unbalanced games with a specific victory condition. I even wrote scenarios for other games like that. But it is a game and should be fun for both sides. Even a campaign.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Weirdo on 26 March 2020, 09:23:15
Cannonshop - your blind BV setup just described 99% of the games I've ever played in the past decade.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Colt Ward on 26 March 2020, 11:38:17
Its a matter of play styles- and WHY you play.

When I play table top, its a more friendly game though we do have competitions.  Terms are either set by the group's Chaos Campaign or the 1 off game's conditions (king of the hill, scan & run, etc).

But when I play MegaMek its either to push boundaries- Hellstar vs Osteon D mentioned before- or now its wargaming a campaign.  I am going to be kicking off a strategic map mini-campaign that while each side has forces with some strategic balance, depending on where the sub-units are moved could end up placing a mech lance facing two or more companies in combat.  But that is wargaming it out, and both sides going in should understand the objective IS to force mis-matches as part of reaching their final objectives.  If my medium 5/8/5 & 6/9/6 lance runs into a company of enemy mechs supported by a company of Vedettes . . . well, I am going to break for the nearest rough terrain to prevent the armor from keeping up and fire up the fastest enemy mechs so I can hopefully break contact to escape.  For me, its going to be exciting b/c the question is CAN I break contact- its not even about damaging enemy units, but rather avoiding the damage while getting off a contact report.  All while thinking about what other lances or companies might be in the area to see if I can get reinforcements to trap these two companies I found before they can reinforce or seize a great defensive position.  Its wargaming BT . . . which is not what everyone does or looks for . . .

So yeah, you two are talking past each other from different 'cultures.'
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Mohammed As`Zaman Bey on 26 March 2020, 14:42:50
I actually like playing unbalanced games with a specific victory condition. I even wrote scenarios for other games like that. But it is a game and should be fun for both sides. Even a campaign.

  A GM has to make a campaign interesting for as many of his players as possible. My players know that if they are looking for the "Easy" button for a reward in my campaign, it doesn't exist. Players in scout 'Mechs are given missions for scout 'Mechs, and not just act as fast, fragile targets on a battle map. If a scouting unit gets into a fight, he failed in his primary mission. To train people the value of scouting, and gathering intelligence on the enemy, scouts are sent out, usually alone, to determine the opponent's strength, numbers, location and movement, preferably without being seen, which may include some observation while out of the cockpit.
  If the scenario is PvP (and mine always are, as I recruit other players to act as OPFOR in order to make it a true double blind, even on the strategic level) then the force that does not want its position and forces revealed to the opponent assigns screening elements to prevent scouts from gathering crucial data. Aggressive commanders will send out small teams to hunt down enemy scouting units in what I call "Stooging" (from the Three Stooges eye poking routine) in order to blind the enemy. Cavalry screens were used during the Napoleonic wars to prevent the enemy from locating the main body of forces, as well as keeping the enemy from gathering data.
 
  I've had players as techs, commandos, even DS pilots, so I had to design scenarios suitable for them, as well. We had a player who had no interest in battlemechs at all, who commanded an all-vehicle unit.

  Set, balanced scenarios have a place, but reserve them for training the new people who don't know how to play.

 
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Cannonshop on 26 March 2020, 17:24:03
Cannonshop - your blind BV setup just described 99% of the games I've ever played in the past decade.

I know, right? ;D  I think most of us from a certain generation of players (pre-megamek) wound up in that style sooner or later if they were at all involved in the larger community. (Mostly because campaigns were rare, and there was a lot of churn in the playerbase in terms of being ABLE to get together everyone regularly enough to sustain a campaign)

Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Sartris on 26 March 2020, 18:13:01
I’ll leave the chess to people with time

If checkers is what I get to manage with three hours on a Saturday, that’s what I’m playing
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Cannonshop on 27 March 2020, 01:16:52
I’ll leave the chess to people with time

If checkers is what I get to manage with three hours on a Saturday, that’s what I’m playing

you do understand, if time is a problem...let's just say that I've seen duels take 8 hours to finish.
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Nav_Alpha on 27 March 2020, 01:51:54
  A GM has to make a campaign interesting for as many of his players as possible. My players know that if they are looking for the "Easy" button for a reward in my campaign, it doesn't exist. Players in scout 'Mechs are given missions for scout 'Mechs, and not just act as fast, fragile targets on a battle map. If a scouting unit gets into a fight, he failed in his primary mission. To train people the value of scouting, and gathering intelligence on the enemy, scouts are sent out, usually alone, to determine the opponent's strength, numbers, location and movement, preferably without being seen, which may include some observation while out of the cockpit.
  If the scenario is PvP (and mine always are, as I recruit other players to act as OPFOR in order to make it a true double blind, even on the strategic level) then the force that does not want its position and forces revealed to the opponent assigns screening elements to prevent scouts from gathering crucial data. Aggressive commanders will send out small teams to hunt down enemy scouting units in what I call "Stooging" (from the Three Stooges eye poking routine) in order to blind the enemy. Cavalry screens were used during the Napoleonic wars to prevent the enemy from locating the main body of forces, as well as keeping the enemy from gathering data.
 
  I've had players as techs, commandos, even DS pilots, so I had to design scenarios suitable for them, as well. We had a player who had no interest in battlemechs at all, who commanded an all-vehicle unit.

  Set, balanced scenarios have a place, but reserve them for training the new people who don't know how to play.

 

Ahhhh, that’s why I like wargaming with other vets. My wargaming group and I are a fan of smoke rounds, lots of smoke rounds, Envelopment and hull down ambushes. There’s also a lot of building of fire bases with interlocking lanes of fire and the ability to support each other.
You can tell half of us used to be tankers...

Hilariously, this is radically different to the people I role play with (D&D, Urban Shadows and such). With them, there’s a lot less planning...
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Sartris on 27 March 2020, 01:57:04
you do understand, if time is a problem...let's just say that I've seen duels take 8 hours to finish.

That’s abnormal, sorry. Not everyone gets to be so sophisticated

Sometimes a game can be fun without engaging in some kind of general staff-level simulation

If that makes me inferior I’m good with that
Title: Re: Arrow IV direct fire
Post by: Cannonshop on 27 March 2020, 14:40:29
That’s abnormal, sorry. Not everyone gets to be so sophisticated

Sometimes a game can be fun without engaging in some kind of general staff-level simulation

If that makes me inferior I’m good with that

I think we're miscommunicating.  This game, even at the simplest level of the rules, is a lot more complicated than most 'quick and easy' board games, you obviously like SOME complexity, or you'd be sticking to klikky-tek or games like CAV.