Odd number movements

[Davion]

I was in a battletech game last night and it was a it was a 4 on 4 battle and on turn 3 they got a ammo hit on my Rifleman and then it was 3 on 4. Then they said the movements will go 1 to 1 then 1 to 1 then 1 to 2 and I always played that in the end it should be 1 on 1, If they are right that gives a big advantage to the player who still have all there mechs. What is the right way?

[Weirdo]

The game was played correctly. You only move multiple units when your number of unmoved units is twice as many or more as your opponent's. At the start of the turn, 4/3 is less than 2/1, so only one unit is moved, same with the second set of movement, as 3/2 is still less than 2/1.

The moral of the story is that having more surviving units than your opponent and winning initiative are both very good things that should be encouraged whenever possible.

[Sartris]

Savannah Master and rifle infantry army! Advance!

[Weirdo]

There's a very blurry line between numerical superiority and being That Guy that nobody wants to play against... :)

[Sartris]

I’m winning impaired so I’m popular that way

[Kerfuffin(925)]

MegaMek has a unofficial rule, that me and my brother use, that front loads initiative when outnumbered. Makes it slightly less obnoxious, but when it gets down to1v2 a win is a win.

But RAW losing initiative when outnumbered is a bad idea. You should note the initiative dice that fail you and take care of them properly.

[Weirdo]

Also means that if you think you'll be outnumbered from the start, looking into TacOps command bonuses or other initiative modifiers are a good idea.

[Cannonshop]

I was in a battletech game last night and it was a it was a 4 on 4 battle and on turn 3 they got a ammo hit on my Rifleman and then it was 3 on 4. Then they said the movements will go 1 to 1 then 1 to 1 then 1 to 2 and I always played that in the end it should be 1 on 1, If they are right that gives a big advantage to the player who still have all there mechs. What is the right way?

Per the standard initiative rules, you played it correctly.  this is something that's been debated before (esp. during the run-up to Tac Ops from BMR(r) rules), and it's been a line on a hill that's had people die on it, but the  1/1, 1/1, 1/2 pattern that rear-loads the numerical has been set that way since the first printing of Battledroids.

It was one of the main drivers behind the push for force size multipliers, as it makes winning initiative less useful for the smaller force if both players are of roughly equal skill.

Megamek incorporated an alternative that a lot of us used as 'house rules' instead of FSM back in bMR days;

1/2, 1/1, 1/1.  this is called 'front loaded' initiative and it works by putting your imbalance at the START of the movement phase instead of at the END, thus making unofficial banking less rewarding, and largely eliminating the need for an FSM, since while there's still an advantage to having more forces than the other guy, it's not as unbalanced.

[Colt Ward]

MegaMek has a unofficial rule, that me and my brother use, that front loads initiative when outnumbered. Makes it slightly less obnoxious, but when it gets down to1v2 a win is a win.

All that does is encourage the TurretWarriors rather than swarms . . . I prefer the bell curve (flat as it maybe) where units are stacked in the middle.  For the case in example the turns would have been 1-1/1-2/1-.  It had been a MM option as well IIRC though I have not messed the settings in a while and thus I am not sure it is available still.

[Cannonshop]

All that does is encourage the TurretWarriors rather than swarms . . . I prefer the bell curve (flat as it maybe) where units are stacked in the middle.  For the case in example the turns would have been 1-1/1-2/1-.  It had been a MM option as well IIRC though I have not messed the settings in a while and thus I am not sure it is available still.

Dunno, I think that's dependent on your group, though it DID keep the turretwarriors from flipping the table and storming off in my  experience.

The bell curve idea looks kind of...complicated to get through, and kind of suggests a lot of arguing will result.

I'd say more than half the House Rules we used to use, were to eliminate arguments or streamline things.  Stuff like pre-arranging "Bring your best 10K BV"  blind matches  (that is, where everyone is given a fixed BV plus or minus 10%, no other restrictions, and maps selected by random roll at the venue) were pretty common when I wasn't playing referee/GM for the other guys in a campaign. (For official events, I stuck those in Deathrider_6's hands as our local Commando rep.)

as the semi-official rep for 'dirtbag militias' I usually had to give somewhere since a majority of what I brought were conventional, non-'mech forces, while most of the other players were enamored with Clan units and customs.  My 'give' was Front Loading initiative so that my gross fire supremacy and abusive use of good* canon tank designs didn't upset everyone with their custom icebox Clan 'mechs (fire supremacy because I outnumbered them from first initiative onward.)

(*Good being a relative term.  Esp. under BMR(R), there's a lot of terrain you simply can't use Savannamissiles on.)

[Colt Ward]

No, still pretty simple . . . I bring 8 to your 6? 1-1/1-2/1-2/1-2/1-2/1-1.  Instead of adding the units at the end or beginning you just place them in the middle. 

Of course when mechs are going up against a vehicle swarm (garrison commander threw the militia armor battalion with infantry support at the advancing 4 mech lances & 2 BA while they regrouped) in MM I have used vehicle 'lance' movement since you can fill in the blank . . . move 2-4+ vehicles for every 1 mech (or BA).

[Daryk]

Middle loading is by definition less simple than front (or rear) loading. It requires figuring out where the extra loading begins AND ends, vice one or the other.  That's a not insignificant matter on the table, in the heat of the moment.