Spend MP to change facing - a silly rule?

[Vandervecken]

One of the things that I've always felt weird about in the Total Warfare rules (and the classic rules before it) was the fact that you had to spend MP to turn. It adds to annoying movement calculus, and it makes little sense from a physical perspective. It seems like it would be pretty trivial to 'turn it off' like Alpha Strike does. Does anyone do this in TW rules? How does it work out?

[snewsom2997]

You don't have to spend a movement point if you torso twist, of you have a Shoulder or Quad Turret. Having played since the 80's it has never been an issue. Lots of newer games don't have facings, Battletech does have facings and weapons arcs.

[RoundTop]

Alpha Strike you don't pay for the facing change (just total distance), but I have noticed that back shots are even more rare in AS unless engaging multiple opponents in close range.

The problem with eliminating them, is that the average modifier for units will go up. So now running around a building I can maintain a +4 modifier rather than a +3. Or my 3/5 assault mech can maintain a +2 when moving around obstacles.

[Sartris]

I can't disagree that movement is the single biggest time waster (besides my terrible jokes), especially when you have someone that wants to map 359 perimations of every move. Just outright eliminating turning costs makes it easier for lighter units to get higher TMMs and diminishes the tactical value of jumping so I don't really agree with it as a simple change.

Now implementing Alpha Strike mapboard movement rules in a BT game is a can of worms i'd rather open

[marcussmythe]

I.)  Game Effect:  Eliminating facing change cost would make big, slow units better than they currently are, relative to small, fast units.  In general, big, slow units are already good enough.

II.)  Fluff/Setting:  A Battletech game turn is 10 seconds.  I find that taking 10 seconds for a ponderous 100 ton walking tank to pull a complete 180* turn, if doing so in an unhurried fashion (3 Walk MP) seems entirely reasonable.  Consider a classic Locust... it is hammering itself around in 2.5 seconds, pretty fast for a 20 ton war machine!

[Iceweb]

While I really don't like facing changes costing movement, I see why they are necessary. 
I would like a mod more like areo where you get a free one hex turn after a certain amount of movement. 
That way you could move in less than 60 degree facings, at least in abstractions. 

What really bothers me is that you can run north and south directly but you can't run east or west. 
I would really like an optional rule that if you pick an ending hex in a strait line from you you can move like a quad to get there without paying extra movement costs. 
You know just let me run eastwards without having to turn every hex.

[Colt Ward]

lol . . . yeah, when setting up on a map a lot of folks set up so that forward/backward are a straight line but you can only go oblique to a side . . . makes you wonder what playing on a octagon board would be like.

[Boomer8]

The problem being that octagons don't fit together neatly. They leave a square on the diagonal sides. Tho, I could see that being helpful for terrain pieces... hmmm.

[Colt Ward]

Yup, which is why I figure is part of the reason they were never entertained . . . then again, one of the classic war boardgames uses squares.

I think the movement options it gives you could be really interesting, especially since you could throw in a 'side-step' but you could only use walk.

[marcussmythe]

While I really don't like facing changes costing movement, I see why they are necessary. 
I would like a mod more like areo where you get a free one hex turn after a certain amount of movement. 
That way you could move in less than 60 degree facings, at least in abstractions. 

What really bothers me is that you can run north and south directly but you can't run east or west. 
I would really like an optional rule that if you pick an ending hex in a strait line from you you can move like a quad to get there without paying extra movement costs. 
You know just let me run eastwards without having to turn every hex.

If you play with inches instead of hexs, you can of course run due east or west.  Or a player might well let their opponet turn and 'sideslip' to run along a hex spine.  I'll grant that all cities in the BTVerse having roads that meet at hex angles is a bit... strange...

[Vandervecken]

Useful thoughts, thanks all.

Though I wonder, would it really make slow Units that much better? Are slow Units much better in Alpha Strike where this is not an issue?
On the one hand, yes, they become more mobile, but on the other, TMMs get higher, and the discrepancy between the 2 point penalty I take to run and the highest TMM I can rack up is what keeps lights relevant. So overall if TMMs go up that makes fast units better.

[Iceweb]

I'll grant that all cities in the BTVerse having roads that meet at hex angles is a bit... strange...

 

I say it's an abstraction and stick my fingers in my ears to cut down on the cat girls killed. 

Still a scenario in a city or a town where some given hexes made some roads non-contiguous to represent having to jughandle or use switchbacks, so turning was harder in some spots could be a neat thing.

[Colt Ward]

The city maps I make for MM use a 3x3 hex block and fit together that way- keeps it simple and if you look in the Western US and other places that mostly developed after cars you can see they are laid out in a grid when terrain makes that possible.

[Lagbreaker]

While it is trivial to disregard MP costs to change facing the game effects that has are not.

Walking backwards becomes a bizzare exercise when you don´t have to pay MPs to change facing.
The choice between moving one hex further and getting an extra +1 to be hit or turning one hexside to face the opponent unit doesn´t exist.
Jumping is more or less pointless unless the map terrain is so broken that strings of clear terrain hexes don´t exist.
Every unit can basically camp out in the open ending their movement in the same hex generating their maximum TMM.

That rule change would has repercussions for unit construction as well.

The difference in maneuverability between a 3/5 or a 4/6 fast units in regular gameplay is immense. If you don´t have to pay MPs to turn why bother taking a 4/6 fast unit? The 4/6 fast unit just moves 1 hex further.
The same applies to a somewhat lesser extent to 5/8 vs 6/9 and 7/11 vs 8/12 fast units.


I would never want to trivialize the movement phase in that manner. It´s the game phase where player skill matters the most.

In AS this simplification works because it is a low resolution game of battletech combat.
There the movement is limit of how far you can move. In battletech MPs are a ressource one has to spend to allocate to competing requirements (facing change vs hexes moved).
In essence it reduces player decision making, which IMO is allways bad in a (competitive) game.

So if you play people who need 300+ attempts for each move to determine the best one, teach/coach them. They are obviously new to the game and very inexperienced. Eventually they will speed up in their movement and juggle the numbers faster and with less effort.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Useful thoughts, thanks all.

Though I wonder, would it really make slow Units that much better? Are slow Units much better in Alpha Strike where this is not an issue?
On the one hand, yes, they become more mobile, but on the other, TMMs get higher, and the discrepancy between the 2 point penalty I take to run and the highest TMM I can rack up is what keeps lights relevant. So overall if TMMs go up that makes fast units better.

In Alpha Strike TMM is binary:  either you didn't move enough to get any TMM at all, or you moved enough to get your full TMM even if that movement is barely enough to avoid the no TMM stationary status.

It's difficult to compare Alpha Strike's movement rules (e.g. no cost for facing changes) with Boardgame BattleTech because TMM is calculated completely differently between the two.

Speaking strictly about Boardgame Battletech however:  It always seemed like a non sequitur that you don't pay for facing changes when jumping.  Ignoring terrain and elevation change costs wasn't good enough for some reason.   Another thought: it might be a neat way to emphasize the human-like agility and in-universe supremacy of BattleMechs by making them immune to facing change costs. 

[Skyth]

Having to pay the penalty makes sense.  If you're driving up to a turn in the road, do you slow down to make the turn or are you moving the same speed the entire time?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

It makes perfect sense for tanks/CVs to pay for facing changes, yes.

Arguably less so for mechs which move in a human-like manner. 

[Hellraiser]

Turning a 180 v/s moving forward 90 meters doesn't quite seem to be the same effort when I think about it.

I think in hindsight maybe a more balanced method might have been something like 1 turn side is free, while 1MP allows you to do a full 180.

Or just call it turning is 1/2 MP rounded down.

I'd also include that in jumping too since the free turns for jumping isn't very realistic to me.   

If anything  jumping a tank forward through the air in a semi-controlled rocket blast should probably not have any turning involved, LOL.

[Retry]

Useful thoughts, thanks all.

Though I wonder, would it really make slow Units that much better? Are slow Units much better in Alpha Strike where this is not an issue?
On the one hand, yes, they become more mobile, but on the other, TMMs get higher, and the discrepancy between the 2 point penalty I take to run and the highest TMM I can rack up is what keeps lights relevant. So overall if TMMs go up that makes fast units better.

Maybe, but there's an upper limit to the TMMs unless you're using some advanced house rule (or the Maxtech movement mods), as you can't get higher than +4 at 10 hexes moved.  So if your new TMM system is based on MP used and not on hexes covered, there's little reason to go faster than 7/11 if you want the highest TMM, or 10/15 if you want to make hits more accurately at those high TMMs.

As far as jumping, I don't think the vehicle or 'Mech actually turns while it's jumping, it actually jumps in a straight line from one point to the other, maybe with a slight directional thrust to generate torque and change the vee/mech's facing by the time it lands.  But on a hex map the only real "straight" lines are at 60 degrees from each other, so those "free" face changings while jumping are just an abstraction to allow for them to jump anywhere within their jumping range.

[Scotty]

I'm dabbling with "'Mechs ignore the MP cost for the first facing change in each hex entered" and that makes them significantly more maneuverable while still not letting them turn and pivot on a dime without slowing down.

It's also the kind of thing that makes 'Mechs clearly superior to tanks in a way that "can't use X equipment for ~reasons~" fails at.

[Daryk]

I think we're crossing the line into fan rule territory, but I have to say Hellraiser... that's a brilliant idea.  Tweaking that rule (say, for hovers, WiGEs and VTOLs) naturally makes turn modes happen without having a separate rule for them.

[Iceweb]

I'm dabbling with "'Mechs ignore the MP cost for the first facing change in each hex entered" and that makes them significantly more maneuverable while still not letting them turn and pivot on a dime without slowing down.

It's also the kind of thing that makes 'Mechs clearly superior to tanks in a way that "can't use X equipment for ~reasons~" fails at.

 

While I like that idea giving a 3/5 100 tonne assault 3 free turns at a walk seems like a bit much

I was thinking limit it to a max number of free turns either based on weight class, or max TMM of that movement type.

[Retry]

 

While I like that idea giving a 3/5 100 tonne assault 3 free turns at a walk seems like a bit much

I was thinking limit it to a max number of free turns either based on weight class, or max TMM of that movement type.

Sounds like extra book-keeping...

[garhkal]

I'm dabbling with "'Mechs ignore the MP cost for the first facing change in each hex entered" and that makes them significantly more maneuverable while still not letting them turn and pivot on a dime without slowing down.

It's also the kind of thing that makes 'Mechs clearly superior to tanks in a way that "can't use X equipment for ~reasons~" fails at.

Would quads get a bigger shift on hex facing?

[Hellraiser]

Would quads get a bigger shift on hex facing?

I wouldn't give them that.  Instead they get the same bonus as bipeds & they still get their lateral move.

[Scotty]

His question is rooted in the idea that the quad 'Mech lateral move would be able to be accomplished with one MP by a biped under that idea.

Honestly I'd just say "nah" and let Quad 'Mechs be cheaper in whatever balancing mechanism ends up being used.

[Hellraiser]

His question is rooted in the idea that the quad 'Mech lateral move would be able to be accomplished with one MP by a biped under that idea.

Not exactly.   The quad is still facing forward.   The Biped would be facing sideways.   To be facing forward like the quad it would need to spend 2 MP,  just not 3.

At least I think that is what I'm seeing in my head map..............

[Son of Kerenski]

Maybe, but there's an upper limit to the TMMs unless you're using some advanced house rule (or the Maxtech movement mods), as you can't get higher than +4 at 10 hexes moved.

Locust 6M generates a +5TMM.

[Scotty]

The Celerity and Fireball (some models) can also get to +5 with fairly sickening reliability.

[Hellraiser]

I wish TW had kept the old MaxTech? table where you could get to a +6 TMM for the really fast sprinters (Dasher etc etc)

I feel its far too easy to get to the +4 & then a big jump to +5 with nothing after it.


I think it used to be 10/+4, 14+5, 19+6, and with that pattern I would have liked to see them keep expanding the table,  25, 32, 40.... You know, so that the XL powered Savannah Master going 23/38 has something to shoot for, hehe.