Battlefield Support: Assets

[butchbird]

Battlefield support belongs in this sub-section, right?

Haven't noticed a thread on the subject yet and I just tried it so I'm eager to see what others think and learn of their experiences. Don't really have a specific point to defend...but oh well.

So we just finished a game with 240 tons per team with a limit of 4 'mechs per team (3 vs 3, two new players, one with some WH40K experience, the other with zits nada in terms of anything ressembling a wargame, though being apparently skilled in basic maths, she caught on the basics quite well) and something like...85 points worth of assets. Game lasted for approximately 7 hours before there was a clear winner (though you have to count 2 meals and the cigarette breaks), whitout all that much game changing critical hits.

Honestly I liked it. While the rules for vehicles are much less satisfying then BMR (or TW, I would presume), I was quite satisfied with how it enabled to field more units while not adding any complexity nor making any difference on the lenght of the turns. That's really the biggest pro. Playing the vehicles was really a jiffy.

The firepower they weild was also far more accuretly depicted then I tought at first glance. That Shrek really is a menace that you take out as soon as you have a chance. You don't want that Drillson on your six. While it has far less character to have a "firepower rating" then actually "using" weapons, it speed things up immensely, same thing for the fixed TMM.

But yes, the lack of character. That warrior Vtol is only a golden BB now. The firepower rating just doesn't offer the flexibility your used to. I was also a bit offput by the gimped movement points. We had an Ontos on the table (map was open terrain) and, a team being long range heavy and the other more short range oriented (Ontos on this team), that tank simplyrolled at a snail pace, never managing to keep up with the battle, merely taking long range shot at backstabbers. Now I know the Ontos ain't exactly mobile, but that was a clear limitation on its role.

The treshhold and destroy check were also...odd. Unbattletech like. Can't say I disliked it, but can't say I'm a fan.

Again, it really streamlined the use of the vehicles. Applying damage couldn't be simpler. At the same time, well, you know, didn't feel very "CBT" and was much less filling. I did like how it made vehicles go "pop" quite quickly, but then for this game we were pretty lucky on those rolls. Their was only one survival on the 7 roll of the game, might not give me the correct view on their survival rate.

All in all, very good "introductory rules" for getting the conventionals on the table and hence adding more units on the table while having absolutely no impact on the lenght of said game.

[DevianID]

How did you find the damage tracking and degrade tracking?  What did you use to keep count of the rolling damage number before the end of turn destroy roll?

The simplified movement and shooting I understand, its the damage part I get hung up on.  Tracking damage is needed, but there is no damage tracking bubbles or anything on the cards is there?

[butchbird]

Actually there is a square over the "damage treshhold" stat and next to the "destroy check" stat.

We didn't have to track the damage. Anytime we shot at a vehicle, if we hit, we'd bust the treshhold, rendering the point moot. I suppose you can track it in the square at first.

Degrade tracking is, again, in the square. It works real well really.

I suppose that if we hadn't been lucky on the destroy checks (or unlucky, depending on the owner of the unit), both the degrading and the "current turn damage" could be inserted into the grey square with a fine point marker.

Ours was a big point (one of my players said he'd bring one so I didn't take care of it myself) so that would've been out of the question, but I'm pretty sure a fine point (and by that I mean the kind of fine point you'd use for tracing for metal working and such) could enable you to fit in both variables in the square.

Do keep in mind that the treshhold is pretty low. It must be said that we used 3039 tech, but the Shreck had a...8 I believe? So a large laser can core it. Doesn't take that much to force a destroy check.

[DevianID]

As I havent got my kickstarter yet, doesnt tracking if the tank took 18 versus 23 damage still matter?  At least in the beta, you had to keep a running total from shooting phase to assault phase with kicks and stuff.  If the final rules are just 'exceed 8 threshold' and 'made the destroy check, so -1 for next time', that would be a lot simpler to track.

[butchbird]

Huh, in my haste I'd skipped a bit.

So basically, yes, you have a low treshhold to bust ( most need just a medium laser). BUT, Thinking maybe I'd misread and not wanting to mislead others, I went back to check and it seems that you also get a +1 to your dice roll for every 10 damage thereafter, or something like it (like 11 for first +1 one , read it pretty fast).

Still easy enough to track .

[DevianID]

I finally got my kickstarter and was able to read the new rules for them.

The big one seems to be the loss of run speed making the 'faster' BSP units way weaker.  I crunched the numbers in the general thread, but basically the 'best' BSP assests are those that dont move very much to begin with, and have some range.  The savannah masters, for example, with its 13h BSP speed, loses 7 hexes compared to normal rules where they have 20.  A Manticore though only loses 2 hexes of speed being a 4t BSP instead of 6MP in full rules on a run.  So the Savanah overall lost more in BSP card form, and the efficiency kinda shows that.

[kaliban]

Battlefield support belongs in this sub-section, right?

Haven't noticed a thread on the subject yet and I just tried it so I'm eager to see what others think and learn of their experiences. Don't really have a specific point to defend...but oh well.

So we just finished a game with 240 tons per team with a limit of 4 'mechs per team (3 vs 3, two new players, one with some WH40K experience, the other with zits nada in terms of anything ressembling a wargame, though being apparently skilled in basic maths, she caught on the basics quite well) and something like...85 points worth of assets. Game lasted for approximately 7 hours before there was a clear winner (though you have to count 2 meals and the cigarette breaks), whitout all that much game changing critical hits.

Honestly I liked it. While the rules for vehicles are much less satisfying then BMR (or TW, I would presume), I was quite satisfied with how it enabled to field more units while not adding any complexity nor making any difference on the lenght of the turns. That's really the biggest pro. Playing the vehicles was really a jiffy.

The firepower they weild was also far more accuretly depicted then I tought at first glance. That Shrek really is a menace that you take out as soon as you have a chance. You don't want that Drillson on your six. While it has far less character to have a "firepower rating" then actually "using" weapons, it speed things up immensely, same thing for the fixed TMM.

But yes, the lack of character. That warrior Vtol is only a golden BB now. The firepower rating just doesn't offer the flexibility your used to. I was also a bit offput by the gimped movement points. We had an Ontos on the table (map was open terrain) and, a team being long range heavy and the other more short range oriented (Ontos on this team), that tank simplyrolled at a snail pace, never managing to keep up with the battle, merely taking long range shot at backstabbers. Now I know the Ontos ain't exactly mobile, but that was a clear limitation on its role.

The treshhold and destroy check were also...odd. Unbattletech like. Can't say I disliked it, but can't say I'm a fan.

Again, it really streamlined the use of the vehicles. Applying damage couldn't be simpler. At the same time, well, you know, didn't feel very "CBT" and was much less filling. I did like how it made vehicles go "pop" quite quickly, but then for this game we were pretty lucky on those rolls. Their was only one survival on the 7 roll of the game, might not give me the correct view on their survival rate.

All in all, very good "introductory rules" for getting the conventionals on the table and hence adding more units on the table while having absolutely no impact on the lenght of said game.

Have you tested the Patton, the VonLucker or the SturmFeur? I am curious on how playable they are due to the very high Dmg Check numbers they have.

[Calimehter]

We've enjoyed them quite a bit so far, though we are still using the "V2 Beta" since none of us did the kickstarter (boo, hiss, yeah, I know).

The destruction check is a bit odd sometimes, esp. when a whole vehicle or infantry platoon goes down to a single 5-pt. hit.  With that said, when I field groups of them what seems to happen is that some die very quickly and others hang in there a bit and end up causing a bit of havoc, so it seems to work out overall.  And for flow of game play, they are -much- better than TW rules while still having a fun and (often) meaningful effect on the game.

My "headcanon" for the destroy checks is that BSP vehicle crews bail out when the vehicle is immobilized (instead of becoming hard-to-kill turrets like in the TW rules) and that BSP infantry platoons sometimes fail a morale check when they realize that the hulking great war machines are actually paying attention to them enough to hit them with heavy weapons, whether those weapons are optimized for AI work or not.

[Firesprocket]

I've played with them once and wasn't very impressed.  I feel we spent more time referencing back to the rules vs. the actual comabt we used the assests.  Perhaps if used frequently we'd cut down on referencing back to the rules and smoother game play, but they bogged down the game more then speeding it up.

One side had a pair of Demolishers and a pair of Pegasus.  The other side had a pair of Ontos and 2 light tanks (I can't remember what they were unfortuneately).  The lighter elements generally died pretty quickly when they took fire.  The Demoslishers and the Ontos were a different animal entirely.  The higher DC kept them alive longer than would have been expected considering the fire they took.

Unfamiliar rules aside the conclusions we drew post-game were that tanks with a higher DC, even ploding as they were accross the battlefield, played a decent value in the game.  Lighter units were less effective as they lose out on the benefit of their flanking speed and lower DC.  A game where you have a GM and they are controlling the support units could probably operate more effectively.  That isn't often how our group operates though.

[Azakael]

Infantry feels about useless, especially since their range and movement are so short. I really wish they had used this opportunity to make field guns standard on infantry instead of keeping the existing generic small arms can damage armor.
Vehicles feel okay, if a bit on the slow side.
Turrets feel undercosted, but that's from an initial first use - they're easy to hit, but they hit like bricks and have a fairly high threshold and destroy TN. I do like them, as they allow you to add turrets to a defensive position without the overhead in Tac Ops for making them. Edit: Oh. We screwed up. And used the emplacements as turrets with 360 degree arcs of fire... I might rethink my valuation of them.

I think my only complaints about Assets right now - there's only a limited number of them (where's my Alacorn?) and gaining a bonus to your destroy check is the same whether the threshold is 1 or 8. I feel like it should be for every 10 damage past the threshold. But that's my opinion.

[Charistoph]

I've only used the BSP Assets in Campaign play.

In that, they have been very useful for a variety of reasons.

Infantry aren't so bad here because in most cases, they are there as much for scenery and ambiance as they are an effective unit.  This applies whether they are Record Sheet or BSP, at least for the Infantry I don't expect/want to do Anti-Mech Attacks.  For those that are expected to use Anti-Mech Attacks, the chance to Leg a Mech is too good to exchange for 2 additional Hits.

Emplacements have been iffy.  I have used them as Turrets and not.  They are actually less dangerous than most of the Building Gun Emplacements that I built earlier.  Though, I didn't give them 360 fire as Turrets, I did allow them to change their Facing by 1 each Turn as a balance.  They are really bad at hitting anything, but they can really hurt what they hit.  I might change the MG Nests to being able to choose a Facing each Turn, but that's about all I'd switch up on this.

I've only used Vehicle BSPs once in this manner.  That was mostly because they were objectives that were trying to get off the board, and nothing more.  Very useful in tracking something that isn't expected to do much, particularly when I'm already outnumbering the player force due to them being Clan, and I'm running Inner Sphere.

One thing I wish was included were the stats for the immobile bonus BPS like the Parts Cache, Ammo Crates, and Field Hospitals.  While it isn't something that someone would normally shoot at in a BV game, it would have been nice to have those stats available and not invent them in preparation.  It could also make for interesting decisions when you ARE using BV games.

[Church14]

We’ve been using the new BSA for a Tukayyid campaign in place of the original BSP in there. In general, we’ve found it extremely swingy. Across 4 games they’ve done:

3x Light turrets did a combined 20:damage and all died

3 bulldogs did maybe 8 damage total and all died

A warrior and two drillsons used speed and moving first to create movement obstacles to bring a pursuit mission from a clean clan win to a nearly coin flip final results. Some bad luck on the destroy rolls kept the BSA alive longer than they should have been.

2 manticores were present and added to Com guards creating a no go zone in the middle of a map, but 4 MP meant they couldn’t really compensate for faster clan movement to the flanks.


3 games they did almost nothing. One game they were MVPs. Their gameplay loop is fine, but extremely swingy. Their use is its own new skill set. They feel like something entirely new and not like TW vehicles.

[Charistoph]

Effectively being in their Initiative branch definitely makes for very very swingy units.  Easy to avoid for short-ranged Assets, and easy to counter for everyone else.  Their Skill also doesn't help when even a Regular has a hard time hitting, a Greeny or worse is almost impossible.

[kaliban]

I have tested a large number of assets plus 2 Urbanmechs, equivalent to 7500 BV, against an enemy lance of 7500bvs in an urban mech
I have used mainly Sturmfeurs, PAttons and VonLuckner.

We played one of the missions of the Mercenaries book. Only one Patton was destroyed and 3 enemy mechs were destroyed

Sincerely, these rules are not well playtested

[DevianID]

Yeah I have posted before the relative value, using the BV calculation in techmanual, compared to the cost (in 20 bv per BSP).  I am not surprised the heavier sturmfeurs pattons and von luckners did well, the numbers show the trio average about 120% value.

Now, being forced to run/flank, being forced to move first, and in general having few options does mean a force of all BSP shouldnt beat a force of mechs.  I think the city had a lot do to there, negating the tanks slow speed and initiative by just blasting things with their turret up close in the tight city streets.

In our games, not getting hit is the way the players overun my GM BSP tank forces.  Jump 5+ and heavy woods put my regular tanks at 11 in short range.  I demolish the 4/6 slow mechs, like I killed one players hunchback multiple games in a row, because it cant generate the defense to avoid the BSP assets damage.  Meanwhile the mechs running around with +4 combined evasion from TMM and cover are already immune to medium range fire, which means the mechs people bring are faster then normal.  No awesomes or other slow bricks, as they take too much damage from the BSP assets with their lack of evasion.

[kaliban]

So far I only played defensive missions in urban environment, probably the optimum use for this type of units. In particular, the use Indirect Fire without minimum range modifiers allow tanks to fire on enemy units at short range behind full cover.

I still need to test faster assets (VTOLs and hovercrafts) in offensive missions and rescue missions. They do not have the firepower to destroy anything else then light mechs but can still damage buildings and transport goods and troops

[DevianID]

For hovercraft the Pegasus with 21 damage is really good versus other Assets, as it gets a sweet +2 to destroy rolls.  Against mechs, the Drillson's better range means you can get more value out of it by attacking from farther back, where you hopefully dont get 1 shot.  It feels like a proper tank thanks to the longer reach. 

I havent bothered with the lighter hovers and Vtol, so if you get some results from them id love to hear it.

[CarcosanDawn]

They confuse the heck out of me.

I am intimately familiar with the TW vehicle rules - they are no worse or better than 'Mech rules and I chose a tank unit as my first canon unit to paint coming into the game.

The BSP rules are extremely variant in a distasteful way. Sometimes your tank dies to a Medium Laser, sometimes it takes a full burst from an Ultra AC20 and you roll snake eyes and it shrugs off 40 damage with only a +1 Destroy Check to show for it.

It also flips the script on what weapons are good at killing BSPs. If you bring LBXs against TW vehicles, you are likely to do well as you'll Crit and motive quite often. If you bring Ultras, less so - plonking huge damage hits into vehicles just lets their "more armor per location" absorb it. Conversely, against BSPs, you may not even hit the threshold to do anything with an LB-X on a bad cluster roll, while an ultra AC10 with a good cluster roll smashes past the threshold and even grants a +1 on the check for 10 surplus damage.

The BSPs just don't mesh well with the TW vehicle rules (or the TW infantry rules for that matter). The carefully balanced ecosystem of weapons gets a bit upended.

I always put it like this: imagine an Atlas rolling boxcars from a single medium laser hit and dying, or a Flea taking the full bore UAC20 hit and being unaffected because snakeyes exists. That's an "if 'Mechs were BSP" perspective to try to illustrate how tank BSPs feel to a tanker.

[DevianID]

The BSPs just don't mesh well with the TW vehicle rules (or the TW infantry rules for that matter). The carefully balanced ecosystem of weapons gets a bit upended.

I agree the meta of 'use cluster versus vehicles' is sadly lost versus BSP.  But, I will say that having done lots of destructive testing, the 5 damage to kill a demolisher isnt nearly as far fetched as you might think, especially when you include mission kills in that category.  It is far easier to kill a total warfare vee with 5 damage then an atlas, its part of why cluster weapons are so good versus vehicles.  Its not just motives that kill or cripple vees and make cluster weapons so effective against them.

I have pretty strong opinions on BSP vees, but the DCTN isnt my issue, its the 'feels bad' of big chunks of damage disappearing on a very lucky roll.  The DCTN itself maps out to total warfare destructive testing OK as long as you compare vs the correct defensive BV value, with the exception of the very edge cases of snake eyes destruction rolls after doing like 80 damage, and the negative feeling of turning 80 damage into 1 '10 damage' degrade stack.  But, that only happens like 1 in 12 games per my testing unless you go out of your way to make that scenario happen (by purposefully not dealing the final +10 damage to hit the autokill threshold to see if you can make snake eyes swings happen).  Instead, my players always just did 8+ damage to many units, or focus fired a big tank to bring it to autokill range with shooting + melee... versus TW tanks it was similar, they would shoot multiple tanks looking for motives, or would focus fire one to oblivion by stacking all player mechs on one facing of an enemy tank to avoid spreading damage.

[CarcosanDawn]

I will say I have never lost a Demolisher to a 5 damage hit, for my part. I think some of my strong opinions are colored by the fact that 'Mechs aren't BSP, so it is impossible to run a force where 'Mechs are supporting Vees. If I want mechs, they must be TW, which means that's where all my BV goes.

If I want TW tanks, I just don't get any mechs at all. Best not to have BSPs in the game and just let me spend BV on the things I want - which I know is an option in Hinterlands. I haven't had BSP use in a pickup game yet but I worry it may become expected.

[Weirdo]

I will say I have never lost a Demolisher to a 5 damage hit, for my part. I think some of my strong opinions are colored by the fact that 'Mechs aren't BSP, so it is impossible to run a force where 'Mechs are supporting Vees. If I want mechs, they must be TW, which means that's where all my BV goes.

If I want TW tanks, I just don't get any mechs at all. Best not to have BSPs in the game and just let me spend BV on the things I want - which I know is an option in Hinterlands. I haven't had BSP use in a pickup game yet but I worry it may become expected.

I'm very confused by this post. Where is the rule saying TW mechs can't be used to support TW vees?

[CarcosanDawn]

I'm very confused by this post. Where is the rule saying TW mechs can't be used to support TW vees?

That's not a rule, but think about it this way: we're playing a 3000 BV Game.
I can take 3000BV of 'Mechs and 32 BSP of vehicles.
I can take 3000BV of vehicles and 32 BSP of vehicles.
I can take 1500BV of 'Mechs and 1500BV of Vehicles, and 32 BSP of Vehicles.

What if I want 3000BV of vehicles and 32 BSP of 'Mechs?

[Cannonshop]

That's not a rule, but think about it this way: we're playing a 3000 BV Game.
I can take 3000BV of 'Mechs and 32 BSP of vehicles.
I can take 3000BV of vehicles and 32 BSP of vehicles.
I can take 1500BV of 'Mechs and 1500BV of Vehicles, and 32 BSP of Vehicles.

What if I want 3000BV of vehicles and 32 BSP of 'Mechs?

You're asking for something that was expressly not the intent of the rule there, and would be, as a result, completely unworkable.  the Intent of BSP is to highlight the importance and star status of 'mechs.

that's it.  That's what it's for.
 
The randomness of how they take damage, is to remove or eliminate tactics from the equation in favor of another random number generator, like random rolling weather events.  That's the expressed intent of how it's designed.  (as opposed to "Express intent" which requires someone involved admitting something in public).

"expressed Intent" is what it looks like when you work back from 'what happens when you do it' rather than what the designer's publicly insisted was the point.

BSP is derived from the same thinking behind "Mechanized infantry" versus having TW units with infantry bays and dismounts-which would be how real-world mechanized infantry fight- thus the cognitive dissonance of infantrymen dragging their 113's and Bradleys up stairs in commercial buildings-that is, abstracting it because it's not actually important and shouldn't be taken as important beyond soaking point value.

In 'mechwarrior Dark Age, battlemechs got an extra action over every other unit in the game, and a heat scale.  In Battletech/Total Warfare, they don't get that extra action.

but it's the same KIND Of logic.  Your vehicles are unimportant, BSP reinforces that they are unimportant, only the 'mechs matter, or can play any actual role in terms of a plan (as opposed to dumb luck).

[Xotl]

The design intent behind Assets was to create a new middle ground for people previously uninterested in vehicles and infantry.

The overwhelming majority of BT play is mech play.  That's fine.  Assets were an attempt to add a low-complexity, mook/video-game-type set of units that might tempt players previously uninterested in exploring this avenue of play into giving it a go.  They're deliberately simplified because we already have a perfectly good set of vehicle and infantry rules (well, the conventional infantry rules are kind of crap, but some like them all the same).  So there was no point in doing that again.  The result is that the BFS rules will never satisfy people who already like the current/standard vehicle and infantry rules, which is also fine.  They deliberately do different things as a result of completely different design decisions; it's expected that one will like either one set of rules, or the other.

[Daryk]

So... Alpha Strike Lite for vehicles?

[Charistoph]

... Assets were an attempt to add a low-complexity, mook/video-game-type set of units that might tempt players previously uninterested in exploring this avenue of play into giving it a go....

I think they do the low-complexity/mook units rather well in the few scenarios I've used them in.

It also inspired me to make a similar set up for ASF.  Sure, there are Air Strikes already in BSP, however, those can be punishing in campaign play without any means of striking back (as we've learned in another local campaign I've been playing).  They effectively use the same stats as the BSP, so all I had to really do was set a Threshold and Destroy Value for them.  They were well-received, but I still have some adjustments to make (like them being out of range of all but SRM fire from Elementals).

[CarcosanDawn]

I suppose my opinion is colored by Alpha Strike where I can go for "lite"/combined arms if I want to play a large enough game that the TW rules become a problem.

I guess I am surprised to learn that what was keeping people from being interested in vehicles was they weren't "easy' enough, since they basically just follow 'Mech rules as the charts that change are on the sheet. Or is it because they are more "mook/NPC" that makes people more interested?

Eh, doesn't matter, I will keep on keeping on in both AS and CBT.

[DevianID]

Its not just that TW vehicles are 'hard', its the asymmetry cutting into the gameplay.  For context I played with TW vees a LOT in both narrative games and competitive games.  But, when I play with and against vees in a balanced game, the first thing is '6 units max'.  TW vees and infantry spamming 40 units versus 4 mechs is just a problem.  No not everyone does this, but even if you are not spamming on purpose, you get just SO MANY MORE units with vees and infantry.  I remember in my long running campaign rolling up an infantry force for my friend's campaign lance as opfor, and I was excited for all the field guns, APCs, and different infantry units.  But the vees and infantry just were not fun in that quantity--and that was a narrative campaign without balance concerns, thus giving the infantry and vees the best shot to be fun.  Instead, it was just a chore.

Now, with BSP, im having WAY more fun putting dozens of BSP units on the field.  They play better, arnt exploit-y, and integrate MUCH better with initiative, and they play FASTER, which is huge.  2 steps to move all BSPs before mechs is a great thing to solve the unit count mismatch, and for fun games I dont have to institute hard unit limit caps to enjoy my time.

So its not so much the rules complexity, its the gameplay loop--especially with maintenance and such--that surrounds TW vees and infantry.  Also, 'hero' tanks being played per TW rules as part of your '3k' BV of player forces I think does a great job filling in the cracks, if you really want a Manticore Tank Commander for example, backed up with some BSP Manticores and a Mech. 

The Mercenaries box set campaign loop (now found in hinterlands) plays really well with the size mechanic, providing 1-2, 2-4, and 3-6 'real unit' game sizes (size 1,2,3) with BSPs for flavor that dont clutter the initiative unit count.  Having some TW vees in your 2-4 'real units' you track is fine, but the other 6 vees you would normally get are BSP to keep the game moving at a good pace.

[CarcosanDawn]

I think there's a difference in philosophy at play there. 6 elite 'Mechs vs 40 vees sounds like a lot of BV - exactly the type of game where AOE weapons like arty and arty cannons and whatnot make taking the 40 things a disadvantage.

You could probably get a similar disparity putting a bazillion Locusts or Fleas or whatever on the field vs. the six mechs; there are few non-spam-on-purpose units that are more BV than those.

Plus, I would like to play a tanks and mechs combined-arms force with tank heroes...

[Daryk]

In one TW game I played, the GM gave the OPFOR a ton of vehicles, which they promptly bunched up at a narrow spot on the map.  I dropped ALL my bombs in one fell swoop... >:D