A soap box on force formation for beginners. Or...

[Daryk]

Roger, out.

[Charistoph]

BattleTech does not have that, at pretty much any level, which is a damn shame.

Yeah, BT isn't really set up really well to do that, especially when there are so many  different tech levels, eras, and unit types to run and all the preferences within them.

[dgorsman]

Ehhhhh... there are some benefits to standardization, but drawbacks as well.  It opens the door to a certain type of player, those who will insist that it is the 'correct' way to play and any deviation (especially that which goes against their preferred style or mode of play) is against the rules.  Plus as much as it will make it easier for some, others will feel like it's a straightjacket of restrictions and keep them away.  Having it freeform with very light (and highly optional) guidance, where groups work out how it best works for them, generates fewer of these problems.

As an aside, beginners shouldn't be spending too much time on lists, armies, scenario balancing, and so on as it gets in the way of learning the basic flow of the game and more importantly having fun blowing stuff up.  Inevitably there will be one or two players who get a faster handle on what feels right in terms of balance and game/scenario setup.  Especially in terms of the group they are playing with.

[Simon Landmine]

Generally no; Abou's OP isn't necessarily about tournament games.

Sorry, the use of the word 'tournament' was misleading in my reply. I was just trying to avoid writing "pick-up game" again because it was starting to look weird to me!

EDIT: Correcting spelling of 'tournament', because apparently I can't even do that right!

[abou]

I guess I'm just confused at the resistance to this idea. You can easily still have a GM-managed campaign, but you can just do simple pick-up games. Naturally people may find ways to exploit a BV-balanced game, but the community should be smart enough to adjust as we go. And the more games played, the more the experience the community has overall.

Without a standard play, I don't see how BattleTech moves beyond what it is now once the pandemic lifts. Sure, they are buying the minis, but are they playing the game? And what do they do when they learn that battalion they painted is something they will never play with at that scale unless they buy Alpha Strike and learn another rules set.

BattleTech does not have an active player community. It comes across right now like a bunch of collectors rather than players. Without a framework, how do we move to a community of players where you can find a game easily? How do we have tournaments?

Tournaments are not something I am crazy about. I just want to play and have players understand what goes into the game so that they can pick it up also. I, however, WOULD like to see a world where we have regional tournaments for BattleTech to raise its profile. People do like seeing that and do find that as a driver. And honestly, because of the relatively small stakes of investment, we aren't talking about a lot of money here for players.
 
You have a lance, but you find one design isn't for your playstyle? Easy investment to swap it out.

Learn a new skill or tactic and want to substitute something else? Grab a new design.

Want to just try something? Grab a new design and give it a go. It is low stakes. You aren't dropping hundreds of dollars on an army that you laboriously paint up and find out it sucks. You can do this with a Chessex box and bag for the rule books and record sheets. This game is amazingly egalitarian in that view. It's comparing soccer to American football.

Blake's blood, don't you guys just want to play the game and not stress out about it?

[Simon Landmine]

I think the mention of tournaments is muddying the waters. Tournaments are likely to be organised by someone, with an agreed era, BV, etc, etc. However, having some default 'bring-and-boom' BV counts seems more useful for turn-up-and-play events between people who don't know each other, and that's what I thought you were originally suggesting?

You have a lance, but you find one design isn't for your playstyle? Easy investment to swap it out.
Learn a new skill or tactic and want to substitute something else? Grab a new design.

You can do that already, with no expense. Remember, BT supports proxying, unlike some other wargames we could mention.

[abou]

I think the mention of tournaments is muddying the waters. Tournaments are likely to be organised by someone, with an agreed era, BV, etc, etc. However, having some default 'bring-and-boom' BV counts seems more useful for turn-up-and-play events between people who don't know each other, and that's what I thought you were originally suggesting?

I'm suggesting both, but mostly turn-up-and-play. I think having a standard game facilitates both pick up games and tournaments. They play into each other.

[Charistoph]

I think the mention of tournaments is muddying the waters. Tournaments are likely to be organised by someone, with an agreed era, BV, etc, etc. However, having some default 'bring-and-boom' BV counts seems more useful for turn-up-and-play events between people who don't know each other, and that's what I thought you were originally suggesting?

Well, in the other miniature war games that happen around here, the pick-up games are based on the tournament formats.  Want a 40K game?  I've seen it go from 1750 to 2000 as the years go by and tournaments changed.  Warmachine?  Better know Steamroller as it is almost impossible to get a game that doesn't involve it (at least until Line of Sight released Brawlmachine).  And so on.

So mentioning tournament makes sense from that perspective.

The problem is, what classifies as "tournament-level" for Battletech?  WolfNet has some tournament rules and scenarios for Alpha Strike, but not everyone plays Alpha Strike, nor does it translate well in to BV.  Then there is the concept of eras, as what is "tournament-level" for 3039, isn't the same as what is available in Clan Invasion, or IlClan eras.

For our week nights, our "Standard" is based on what tech you can find in Total Warfare and the Tech Manual, while excluding Aerospace assets.  So we'll be using stuff neither the Clans or Inner Sphere had when the Battle of Tukayyid happened, but readily available by The Hour of the Wolf.

We've been working on trying out different BV levels for the last couple months for scenarios with time limits on games.  The last two sets were 6000 BV for Introtech and 9000 BV for Standard, at about 90 minute matches.  I think that's a bit high for 90 minutes, personally, as one can bring quite a bit to the table at those levels.

We won't have another game until the 7th, probably.  The FLGS is closed the Fridays before Christmas and New Year's, the first vacation the owner's have had since they opened last January, I believe.

You can do that already, with no expense. Remember, BT supports proxying, unlike some other wargames we could mention.

Getting the new record sheets involves some costs, even if you're printing them at home from MML, SSW, MechFactory, etc.  Still, that is paltry compared to the books and WYSIWYG models of the other big games.

[Colt Ward]

I guess I'm just confused at the resistance to this idea. You can easily still have a GM-managed campaign, but you can just do simple pick-up games. Naturally people may find ways to exploit a BV-balanced game, but the community should be smart enough to adjust as we go. And the more games played, the more the experience the community has overall.

Without a standard play, I don't see how BattleTech moves beyond what it is now once the pandemic lifts. Sure, they are buying the minis, but are they playing the game? And what do they do when they learn that battalion they painted is something they will never play with at that scale unless they buy Alpha Strike and learn another rules set.

BattleTech does not have an active player community. It comes across right now like a bunch of collectors rather than players. Without a framework, how do we move to a community of players where you can find a game easily? How do we have tournaments?

Tournaments are not something I am crazy about. I just want to play and have players understand what goes into the game so that they can pick it up also. I, however, WOULD like to see a world where we have regional tournaments for BattleTech to raise its profile. People do like seeing that and do find that as a driver. And honestly, because of the relatively small stakes of investment, we aren't talking about a lot of money here for players.
 
You have a lance, but you find one design isn't for your playstyle? Easy investment to swap it out.

Learn a new skill or tactic and want to substitute something else? Grab a new design.

Want to just try something? Grab a new design and give it a go. It is low stakes. You aren't dropping hundreds of dollars on an army that you laboriously paint up and find out it sucks. You can do this with a Chessex box and bag for the rule books and record sheets. This game is amazingly egalitarian in that view. It's comparing soccer to American football.

Blake's blood, don't you guys just want to play the game and not stress out about it?

Part of the problem is many have different ideal games, with the common theme of 'no . . . '  FREX- No Clan, Nothing but mechs, No Protos, Nothing after 3050/3067/3080, No Swarms, and many more exclusions.

Instead of debating the absolute merits of the idea; perhaps throw around the criteria.  The following list is what I have found for many battle negotiations presented in ranked order.

1) BV-  The first thing, and while not perfect in conjunction with other structural elements it works.  Typical fight size I have found is 5-6k per player.

1b) Pilot Skills-  Pretty simple, are pilot skills included?  Usually they are, but this can get more detailed- no more than 2 skill levels between G/P with the exclusion being units that do not get a functional G or P.  IE, Quad BA or non Anti-Mech trained infantry get a 7 or 8 in the AM skill (equivalent of Piloting).  So a 3/5 or 2/4 is legit, but a 1/4 is not.  This is typically used to tone down pilot skill abuses and is backed by the random pilot skill rolls from TW.

2)  Number of Units-  Typically this will be dependent on BV, but for the previously suggested 5-6k BV w/ pilot skills included the usual count is 2 to 5 (5k) or 3 to 6 (6k) units.  This lets players who want to bring a star or Level 2 to a table to do it though they will have to juggle the BV while those who want to bring BV monsters the ability to bring it without also rolling in a single monster unit with a uber (0/0) pilot killing it all.  Also to be clear, this is initiative units- a protomech point (5 protos) count as a single unit for initiative.

3) Battlefield-  Basically what maps are in play and how many of them.  Setting up the battlefield maps was one of the more contentious things in the online MM servers, with more nuance than just Clans wanting bigger battlefields while the IS wanted them smaller.  MWDA had a decent battlefield set up but I am not sure it carries over to TW though it I guess it would for AS.

4) Era/Tech Level-  This will affect BV and number of units, but the way things were handled has additional things in 'standard' tech in 3132 than 'standard' does in 3061.  This also lets me know what I might see across the table.  I know I am not going to face advanced armors, mixed tech, or worry about plasma weapons if the era is Clan Invasion.  Someone says Republic or Dark Age Era, I know any battle armor I might bring can get melted in a single turn if I am unlucky- or my TSM mech might have problems keeping that perfect 9, if someone brings a Plasma weapon.

4b) Munitions-  While in some ways determined by Era/Tech, I know for ease of play & speed that a lot of tables restrict Thunder-Aug LRM ammo even if it is standard rules since it was introduced.  I have also seen a few tables restrict Swarm/Swarm-I or games restricting Prec/Semi-G/iNARC specials/Homing ammo in a single mech or side of a fight to prevent abuse.  Some of this stuff falls under the same sort of reasons (ugh) artillery was moved to advanced.

5) Rules-  TW?  BMM?  Including some TacOps rules like ECCM (I think it has to be included), Flames deal both heat & damage, Artillery, or a few other cases.  If I know I am going to face someone who likes to find some woods and shoot from there, I like to bring some artillery to say hi.  I feel ECCM should be included b/c it maintains the paper/rock/scissors nature of BT weapon systems.

[dgorsman]

Speaking of tech guidelines, I've also seen table restrictions on limiting tcomp + pulse laser and streak SRM/LRM content.  This cut down the bouncy-flashy and shoot everything every round designs, respectively, forcing a little more tactical thought and play rather than blind dice rolling.

[Hellraiser]

So a 3/5 or 2/4 is legit, but a 1/4 is not.  This is typically used to tone down pilot skill abuses and is backed by the random pilot skill rolls from TW.

What do you mean I can't have my 0/7 Alacorn or my 7/0 TSM Charger ?!?!?!  /GASP
My local commando has a rule of 2 variance.
My only complaint about that is that the "natural" skill is already a 1 variance.
So you can improve gunnery only 1x but you can improve piloting 3x before you break the "rule".
I'd like to see something w/ a 3 variance just to allow a 2/5 "Sniper" type pilot which is only 2 gunnery increases.
Possibly add something where there is a limit of no more than 2 increases before the opposite skill is adjusted. 
Since the Piloting v/s Gunnery imbalance doesn't sit well with me.
And because there are canon pilots from scenario books that are 0/3 & 3/0, etc etc.

4) Era/Tech Level-  This will affect BV and number of units, but the way things were handled has additional things in 'standard' tech in 3132 than 'standard' does in 3061.  This also lets me know what I might see across the table.  I know I am not going to face advanced armors, mixed tech, or worry about plasma weapons if the era is Clan Invasion.  Someone says Republic or Dark Age Era, I know any battle armor I might bring can get melted in a single turn if I am unlucky- or my TSM mech might have problems keeping that perfect 9, if someone brings a Plasma weapon.

Yeah, for pick up games I like keeping it to TW tech, the extra rules for TO/IO etc etc just slows things down worse than normal.

4b) Munitions-  While in some ways determined by Era/Tech, I know for ease of play & speed that a lot of tables restrict Thunder-Aug LRM ammo even if it is standard rules since it was introduced.  I have also seen a few tables restrict Swarm/Swarm-I or games restricting Prec/Semi-G/iNARC specials/Homing ammo in a single mech or side of a fight to prevent abuse.  Some of this stuff falls under the same sort of reasons (ugh) artillery was moved to advanced.

I thought Thunder was TO now since its Mines?   Same w/ Swarm, I thought they were also TO for "complexity".

[Hellraiser]

I've never seen a limit on TC/Pulse when in use w/ Canon designs, other than a "don't be a D" rule.

But I do know that many of the "Canon Only" restrictions that came about was due to everyone making a jumping TC/Pulse boat custom when clans arrived.

[StCptMara]

There are some major issues with standardization in BattleTech. First, in other games that have standardized points values or similar, generally have standardized army construction rules, balance by faction, and a fairly standardized sort of terrain rules. Second, in most of those, mobility, terrain, etc, are fairly standardized, and terrain rarely has major impact on the ability to hit or be hit.

And, now, we come to BattleTech:
Maps are not standardized, with maps that are fairly open and maps that have lots of line of sight blocking terrain, partial cover, water, etc, etc that can give one side or another a noticeable advantage. Movement abilities, whether they be inherent fast ground movement, jump capability, MASC and/or superchargers, WiGE or VTOL Movement modes, etc, etc, can significantly impact both offensive and defensive capabilities. A Fire Moth or a Locust, simply because of their speed, can be dangerous on flat terrain, but are even more dangerous when they have terrain they can duck behind when they lose initiative. An assault 'mech of equal battle value is rarely going to be able to have the movement to deny them those advantages, and the ability to hit and fade with high Target Movement Modifiers.

There are no real limits on army construction except what is agreed upon ahead of time.  My opponent takes a 3/4 Clan Assault, I take 2 Wraiths at the same Battle Value, guess who is going to come out on top...Hint: Not the Clan Assault. No matter what, someone is going to game the system using pure Battle Value, but, at the same time, players want to use the stuff they like to use. I like Protomechs, another player in my group likes vehicles.  I have another known for taking a Panther and hunting Atlases with it. Which is where we come into the final aspect that intereferes with the idea of standardization..

More than the other games, BattleTech depends as much on player skill and knowledge of the game. Sure, 40K and Warmachine, knowledge of tactics and inside knowledge of your army can help you win a battle, knowing the synergies between units, the right stratagems, the right use of Focus, etc, etc can edge out a win...but, in BattleTech, skill matters a lot. Whether it be in predicting what your opponent is going to do, or knowing when to back off, when to cool down, when to press the attack, or a myriad of other things, victory against a more experienced opponent is harder in BattleTech, regardless of what advantages you think you have. Things like making use of the blind spots, presenting less damaged armor? Those can tilt a battle in a way that an less experienced player would not know how to deal with.  To make it a fair fight between veteran players and less experienced, Battle Value isn't enough, because it cannot adequately handicap the veterans.

Ultimately, because of this, my group does not use Battle Value. We kinda eye-ball matches to see what looks fair, and, usually, it works out pretty well.

[Elmoth]

Hmmm.... weird. In Alpha Strike the standarization seems fairly normal. 150-200-250-300-400-500 point games (pick one, we play 250 but that is us), select a rules level (intro and standard are the normal ones) and bring whatever fits your style there. There are even guys (DFA) that are doing just this standarization because CGL has not done it themselves.

And frankly, apart from learning the game new players want NOT to be stomped royally. If the opposition plays the rules instead of playing the game it is easy for the new players to play once, and never again. So some orientation on what should be OK (not killer combos, just capable) should be OK.

Cheers,
Xavi

[StCptMara]

Hmmm.... weird. In Alpha Strike the standarization seems fairly normal. 150-200-250-300-400-500 point games (pick one, we play 250 but that is us), select a rules level (intro and standard are the normal ones) and bring whatever fits your style there. There are even guys (DFA) that are doing just this standarization because CGL has not done it themselves.

And frankly, apart from learning the game new players want NOT to be stomped royally. If the opposition plays the rules instead of playing the game it is easy for the new players to play once, and never again. So some orientation on what should be OK (not killer combos, just capable) should be OK.

Cheers,
Xavi

We don't play Alpha Strike. We play BattleTech!
Thing is, this is why I tend to do build scenarios to give the new players an advantage, so that it ends up being a fair fight in the end.
I have never seen BattleValue work like it is supposed to, as, if it worked, then two players on identical maps, with identical Battle Value forces,
each would win 50% of the time. It doesn't end up like that. Battle Value is a failure, and the only real way to balance a force is for a GM to look
at who is on each side, and build by eye and gut.

[CVB]

I have never seen BattleValue work like it is supposed to, as, if it worked, then two players on identical maps, with identical Battle Value forces, each would win 50% of the time.

I'm no fan of BV(2), but is it really supposed to balance matches for a 50/50% result? Take two identical lances with identical pilots skills, two identical maps, identical starting position, and identical victory conditions, and yet more often than not, one player will win more matches than the other.

You can't get much more balanced than Chess, and yet there are players that I beat 90% of the time, and others that beat me 100%. Or take Stone/Paper/Scissors. Even there the smarter player will sooner or later figure out the (unconscious) patterns and reactions of the other well enough to win more often in the long run.

Under ideal conditions, all BV can give us is a level playing field to see who the better player is on average. If you define "fair" as "will win 50% the time", we would need a tool to reliably measure player skill under a variety of conditions and introduce a system of handicaps like it's done in non-professional Golf or some horse races. Note reliably: measuring player skill can be meta-gamed itself...

[monbvol]

I'm no fan of BV(2), but is it really supposed to balance matches for a 50/50% result? Take two identical lances with identical pilots skills, two identical maps, identical starting position, and identical victory conditions, and yet more often than not, one player will win more matches than the other.

You can't get much more balanced than Chess, and yet there are players that I beat 90% of the time, and others that beat me 100%. Or take Stone/Paper/Scissors. Even there the smarter player will sooner or later figure out the (unconscious) patterns and reactions of the other well enough to win more often in the long run.

Under ideal conditions, all BV can give us is a level playing field to see who the better player is on average. If you define "fair" as "will win 50% the time", we would need a tool to reliably measure player skill under a variety of conditions and introduce a system of handicaps like it's done in non-professional Golf or some horse races. Note reliably: measuring player skill can be meta-gamed itself...

Based on my experience I'd say as long as there isn't a tonnage discrepancy of more than 5 tons when comparing any two units from either side, the number of units are even, everyone is using the same tech level, and the force selection on both sides is reasonable to the map BV2 does achieve about a 40/40 split with the remaining 20% being the randomness of dice.

Notice those are some pretty big ifs and a lot of holes.  Break any one of those constraints and it really shifts the probability quite heavily for who is going to win.

[Colt Ward]

My only complaint about that is that the "natural" skill is already a 1 variance.
So you can improve gunnery only 1x but you can improve piloting 3x before you break the "rule".
I'd like to see something w/ a 3 variance just to allow a 2/5 "Sniper" type pilot which is only 2 gunnery increases.
Possibly add something where there is a limit of no more than 2 increases before the opposite skill is adjusted. 
Since the Piloting v/s Gunnery imbalance doesn't sit well with me.
And because there are canon pilots from scenario books that are 0/3 & 3/0, etc etc.

You want better, that is where SPAs come in which I prefer because it will limit to one specific weapon type rather than a blanket improvement.  The 2 variance 'rule' is just using the TW random pilot set up, where you can say roll a Clan random regular pilot for a cluster and get anywhere from a 2/3 to a 4/5.  With the inhibition of physicals, the Clan 4/3 pilots always make me laugh.

[abou]

It doesn't end up like that. Battle Value is a failure, and the only real way to balance a force is for a GM to look
at who is on each side, and build by eye and gut.

You understand the very pitfalls of this statement, yes?

Your experience is not universal with BV. You can't extrapolate that experience to the whole community. And if CGL got serious about a standard set of play, major faults would be addressed. You may have had more balanced games with pre-made scenarios, but that is not the type of game most people want to play.

And finally, you are relying on an experienced GM to balance a game. This is not universal either. There aren't enough GMs out there, let alone experienced GMs, OR a GM that would have the same view on balance as another. And using a GM means you probably aren't doing pickup games. You've taken a game that is 1v1 and found a way to complicate it by pulling in a third person.

[Kovax]

With ANY balancing system, there will be a metagame, and some units or combinations of units will work better than others.  Unless you want to see the same units fielded time and time again, as happens in far too many game systems, you need more than one way of balancing a scenario.

I like the fact that BT allows balance by BV, by tonnage, by cost, or by some general eyeball indication that the players can agree is "fair".  It also makes a huge difference if the selection of units is done before or after one sees the terrain.  Making a single standard for "balance" would be a negative in my opinion.

I recall one convention game where I fielded an extremely fast medium 'Mech with short and medium-ranged weapons as a snipier/skirmisher, and the map turned out to be dominated by a giant sinkhole with absolutely no cover, as well as heavily reduced movement speeds due to rough terrain and lots of single-elevation changes.  The opponent had taken a slow, heavy unit with all long-ranged big guns and a TC.  On a typical map I'd have run rings around his 'Mech, and relied on my movement modifiers until I got within the minimum ranges of his big guns.  With nowhere to hide and no way to get a movement modifier above +1, by the time I got within weapon range, I was already taking internal damage.  The map can be as important as the units fielded.  BV doesn't take that into consideration.

[niall78]

I've never seen a limit on TC/Pulse when in use w/ Canon designs, other than a "don't be a D" rule.

But I do know that many of the "Canon Only" restrictions that came about was due to everyone making a jumping TC/Pulse boat custom when clans arrived.

MegaMek campaign servers over the years often limited certain Clan designs. The main offenders would have been 7 hex jump mechs coupled with large lasers/large pulse and maybe a tcomp.

The large laser is more annoying than the pulse as you can play 50+ rounds of "I need 11/12 and you can't hit me". I wouldn't call it abusive play because it is exactly the right way to play those mechs. It is however not conductive to a good game for either player.

Onto the main topic - I think a free pdf guide on suggestions for BV sizes for eras and what to expect for that BV would be only a good thing. 6k 3025 tech for a lance,  8k at Jihad era for a lance, 12k for a clan versus clan Star fight, etc. It can only help new players.

[abou]

I like the fact that BT allows balance by BV, by tonnage, by cost, or by some general eyeball indication that the players can agree is "fair".

In what situation will tonnage or cost make a fair game?

EDIT: Furthermore, how do you account for 'mechwarrior/crew skills if basing a game solely on tonnage or cost?

[Colt Ward]

3025 only games can be balanced-ish by tonnage.  When MegaMek originally came out, I know pick up games were balanced by tonnage though I cannot remember if the 1st server was balanced that way.  I have heard of cost also being used for 3025.

Usually I have seen tonnage used in conjunction with BV . . . so like 5k BV and 300-400 tons range, it is another method to keep someone from having four 0/1 Ostscout 7Ks or whatever while someone else is plodding around with a Griffin, Wolverine, Thunderbolt, and Jenner.

As niall said, the Warhawk C, Black Python, Vapor Eagle, Nova Cat C, and a few others among the Clans and the Wraith and Phoenix Hawk 3PL were all at times limited in MM server play.  Because it is a campaign and good players can tend to accumulate elite hangers . . . with things that happen.  I had a few mechs at times that got bounties- basically players for opposing factions hated you using a mech so much they would pay for it's death.  At various times, I had a Nightstar 9FC, Nova Cat C, and a Stooping Hawk C all get bounty'd . . . but usually it was other folks pulse spammers.

[Fear Factory]

You will never be able to account for players being complete jerks. Battle value can only do so much. To me, that's essentially what "meta" is during this era of gaming. You have your MWO boaters vs fluff players. Each player is going to have a different idea on what constitutes a fun game of BattleTech. The ACTUAL problem is, there are literally no set rules that every other game has, which has been said in this thread multiple times. So without this, how do you expect to have boaters and fluff players get along on a semi-level playing field? There is no guide for what a standard game looks like.

6k as the starting point feels right and that number usually comes up among the community. I think this, combined with rules for handicaps, setting modifiers, formation guidelines (ie, fielding 2 or 3 Clan units vs an Inner Sphere lance, or 5 v 8 ), would be the best bet. With the MUL and other resources we have this is absolutely not a problem.

Sarna.net has the old Fanpro tournament rules available. It has some interesting concepts, down to even selecting maps. It's been since 2004 or so since we have seen any kind of thing like this... for a game that is now trying to push itself out there as even a miniatures game. It's pretty sad.

[Fear Factory]

For me, this is how I imagine it looking:

Game Type: Beginner (Level 1)
Rules: AGoAC, forced withdrawal
Allowed units: TRO Succession Wars
Battle Value: 6000
Allowed Handicaps:
+100 beginner player
-100 experienced player
+250 OR -250 (each) lance weight
Formations: 4 v 4 (maximum)
Map Pool:
- AGoAC
- Map Pack Deserts
- Map Pack Grasslands
- Map Pack Alien Worlds
- BattleMats
- 1x1 or 2x2 only

Then there would be the normal guidelines for deployment, map setup, objectives, etc. This is something you can do without relying on a GM or Demo Agent, and something you can pull off even if you have only AGoAC which is what I would assume most new players would start with. It's a level playing field where people can use what they already have, instead of showing up with AGoAC and getting spanked by the guy who owns about every miniature and map. If something official was put out, almost every dumb conversation about "HEY GUYZ, I GOT 3 STEINER SCOUT ATLAS NEED ONE MORE MECH FOR LANCE, PLZ HLP" would mostly end.

[Daryk]

StCptMara is not alone.  I have long advocated for GM balancing, because no rule book can ever account for the human factors.  BattleTech is a game played by humans, and that matters more than any numbers in any table anywhere.

[VensersRevenge]

But an experienced GM does not always exist. BV, while imperfect, is infinitely better than basically telling new players they are on their own.

[Daryk]

GMs have to start somewhere.  I'll take an inexperienced GM who can be trained over a straight BV fight any day.

[VensersRevenge]

I think you're drastically underestimating the value of BV in helping new GMs come up with vaguely balanced scenarios. And either way, Battletech isn't an RPG. A GM shouldn't be required.

[Scotty]

There's a fairly massive misunderstanding of what BattleValue (or any kind of balancing mechanism) is supposed to do.  What it isn't supposed to do is force the winrates of any two players to 50% each.  It's supposed to make for an even playing field given equivalent forces and players of equivalent skill.

If you have a system where your goal is for a highly skilled player to play a game against a poorly skilled player and for the winrates to be relatively even, you don't have a balancing system, you have an imbalancing system, frequently referred to in other circles as a handicap.  If I am a better player than you, hypothetically speaking, then I should beat you more often than not on an otherwise even playing field.  This should not be controversial.  If it is, you're in the wrong thread and I genuinely, sincerely would like to see a thread made so it can be discussed somewhere else that I can follow along with without meandering away from the point in this thread again.