Calculating BV for C3 networks.

[willydstyle]

How do you do it?

[Peter Smith]

Add 5% to the BV of each unit in the networks.

[Weirdo]

So to clarify, if I have a lance of 4 units with a base BV of 100 each and I link them in a C3 network, each one would now be worth 105 BV each? Or would you add 5% from the other units in the network, leading to a total BV of 120 apice? Or am I completely wrong, and it works some other way entirely?

[A. Lurker]

TechManual p. 314, "Constructing A Battle Force" has this to say:

COMMAND, CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS (C³)
  Two or more units in a battle force equipped with C³ systems can be designated as part of a C³ network (see Total Warfare, p. 131). Add 5 percent of the total BV of all units in a C³ network to each of the units linked by each network.

Assuming that that calculation isn't supposed to be recursive ;), I'd say the "total BV of all units" in the network probably refers to their pre-networked BV -- that is, the value you'd find on your record sheet. So if we take Weirdo's lance of 4 units worth 100 BV each, their "total" BV is 400, then we'd add 5% of that -- 20 points -- to the effective BV of each unit and the total force BV would come out to 480.

[willydstyle]

So a C3 lance ends up being 20% more expensive... that seems like a lot, but when you compare it to gunnery skill increases maybe not that much.

[dirty harry]

It is massivly overpriced, inhibiting anything but lance size units.
A company of C3 networkers worth additional 60% of BV? To ANY linked unit??! No way...

Tested it several times and had to conclude: it is never ever worth the better pilots your enemy can add for that vast amount of BV.

Try to go with 2,5%, but that would be a house rule.

[willydstyle]

If you're playing with a company, and don't want to pay the cost, why not just split your company into 3 C3 networks? I feel like for a lance-sized network 2.5% is too little, considering you're often getting -2 or even -4 to hit effectively.

[dirty harry]

There are other points that could make 2,5% more reasonable:

• enemy ECMs. The later the timeline the more they are fielded. Even Wobbies using the C3i are badly tested if more than two to three ECMs enter the battlefield from the wrong direction.
• even 30% added to each C3-member in a company will give your enemy a -1 gunner for each of his mechs - without ECM-problems and even if they are close to the foe

[li]most networks depend on mastermechs, thereby vulnerable to fast enemy ECM carriers (doesn't apply to C3i). So, instead of using your BV to get better pilots you are in deer need of excellent protection of your mastermech. If you think boosted C3 will do the job, keep in mind that your enemy could field Angel ECMs as well.
[/li][/list]

Just some points on my forehead, but there might be even more.

[willydstyle]

The thing is, in order for ECM to be effective, it has to be within 6 hexes, which is short range for a lot of the weapons that my wobbie friend likes to use anyways :)

[A. Lurker]

The thing is, in order for ECM to be effective, it has to be within 6 hexes, which is short range for a lot of the weapons that my wobbie friend likes to use anyways :)

Well, technically the ECM "bubble" just has to block the LOS between master and slave to break the link (though that's harder for C3i with its notable lack of distinct master and slave units, because even if one connection is disrupted you might still have another to what's ultimately the same network).

Which, given TPTB's insistence that C3 doesn't need LOS, no way, nohow, so you can spot for the network just fine even if you can't see the target at all...strikes me as a wee bit inconsistent, but that's a separate rant of mine and probably doesn't belong in this thread. ;)

[OpacusVenatori]

 Well, we also have EC-CM and Boosted C3.

[A. Lurker]

Well, we also have EC-CM and Boosted C3.

If you're using TacOps, yes. I borrow stuff from it as the mood strikes me, and I really rather like the advanced ECM/ECCM/ghost target rules...but not everybody does, or even necessarily has the book.