Battlefield Support: Assets

[Calimehter]

You must hate battle armor then!

And as for tanks... why is Easier to Kill but Harder to Immobilize desirable?

Nah, I'm fine with Battle Armor.  I even spent a fair bit of time adapting regular infantry to the Battle Armor rules a year or two ago in the fan design forum.

For tanks, I prefer to have a life cycle that looks more like "working then dead" to "working briefly, then long term pillbox, then dead".

[CarcosanDawn]

Nah, I'm fine with Battle Armor.  I even spent a fair bit of time adapting regular infantry to the Battle Armor rules a year or two ago in the fan design forum.

For tanks, I prefer to have a life cycle that looks more like "working then dead" to "working briefly, then long term pillbox, then dead".

Interesting, because the same phenomenon works on Battle Armor as well - one shot, one guy.

As for the tank lifecycle, I guess I just don't understand why still, lol. Not that you have to justify your preferences, but with Forced Withdrawal it works the way you want it to - but tanks are almost unplayable because of this when Forced Withdrawal is played with. Imagine if a 'Mech winked out of existence the first time a limb was blown off or the like, lol.

I'd say I prefer my tanks alive more than dead, and if alive immobile is necessary, then it's still better than dead.

[DevianID]

Firstly, the BV cost: The Manticore costs 1k BV with a single PPC, an LRM 10, and an SRM6. By comparison, a Trebuchet 7k costs almost exactly the same BV

So in cost, the manticore has 4 guns, the treb 7k has 3.  Just clarifying, not the point.  The manticore is heavier with better weapons and more armor then the treb.  A lighter tank would be cheaper.  When I run random allocation tables, you get about 2x the vehicles compared to mech.  If you have the same number of vehicles as mechs, then the vehicles are heavier then the mechs.  Partly its because vehicles have discounts in BV, partly its because mechs pay for things like a gyro and mechs pay extra for their melee.  So, for a cost of 9k BV when I roll on the RATs, I get 12 vehicles or 6 mechs, +/- for variance.

You COULD take fewer, real tanks without the bloat scorpion type units.  Like, you provided a sample tank list that was only 6 units, because you took heavy or a superheavy to have a reasonable force.  Likewise you could take all min cost stingers and bloat your mech cost.  But, by just average value for the people not trying to exploit things, the random average is you get 2x the vehicles.  2x the vehicles makes the game take longer to resolve, sometimes because vees have more slipping to worry about with their faster stuff, sometimes because there is more of them.

You make a good point that a single vehicle is faster then a single mech.  I agree.  But, by the average, its 2 vees per mech.  And if you pick larger vees to try and keep unit number parity, then its more weapons instead, so while the movement phase will be faster, the shooting phase will be longer.

Vees, specifically vtols, have damage divisors.
Vees 'extra cluster rolls' is mostly down to fishing for motives being a thing--you shoot cluster versus vees more then mechs.  Also, while not a 'rule', the way tanks dont have heat on missiles and cannons pushes them more towards cluster weapons then mechs.  An archer can not move and shoot those 2 LRM20s every turn because of heat, but it pays full price for them.  A vee always shoots all of its weapons, so while it takes a second to count your heat, the result is you fire less weapons.  A tank doesnt have the heat calculation, but it shoots everything for free always.

This is just in response to "issues with TW tanks".  The point is not 'can player skill overcome the issues' by playing faster or not abusing the rules.  Since tanks average half the cost on average, but they dont play 2x as fast, time is a factor with the spam-able tanks.  They are only now in force pack plastic, so many players dont have a wide/varied tank collection compared to mechs, and many tanks are still metal only which is more expensive then force pack plastic--like the entire clan tank range currently.  Finally, the tank balance pricing means that there are some things tanks do very cheaply... mostly move fast or shoot indirect/snipe.  Vtols are standout problem units as a type, and slow 'Ogre' tanks can put silly amounts of shots out, but both get serious BV discounts in the formula despite being best in class.

When I look at events, alpha strike included, one of the common themes is cheap hover/vtols +/- transport capacity, which takes big advantage of small cheap vees to overrun scoring missions or get free backstabs.  Even if unit #s are capped, they are common 'problem' units.  Im guilty too, mind--ive taken the cheap speeders and transports and vtols for the same reason others have.  Im not even touching the TW hovercraft ram, which I believe is still the most obnoxious melee attack in the game by a wide margin.

[Cannonshop]

So in cost, the manticore has 4 guns, the treb 7k has 3.  Just clarifying, not the point.  The manticore is heavier with better weapons and more armor then the treb.  A lighter tank would be cheaper.  When I run random allocation tables, you get about 2x the vehicles compared to mech.  If you have the same number of vehicles as mechs, then the vehicles are heavier then the mechs.  Partly its because vehicles have discounts in BV, partly its because mechs pay for things like a gyro and mechs pay extra for their melee.  So, for a cost of 9k BV when I roll on the RATs, I get 12 vehicles or 6 mechs, +/- for variance.

You COULD take fewer, real tanks without the bloat scorpion type units.  Like, you provided a sample tank list that was only 6 units, because you took heavy or a superheavy to have a reasonable force.  Likewise you could take all min cost stingers and bloat your mech cost.  But, by just average value for the people not trying to exploit things, the random average is you get 2x the vehicles.  2x the vehicles makes the game take longer to resolve, sometimes because vees have more slipping to worry about with their faster stuff, sometimes because there is more of them.

You make a good point that a single vehicle is faster then a single mech.  I agree.  But, by the average, its 2 vees per mech.  And if you pick larger vees to try and keep unit number parity, then its more weapons instead, so while the movement phase will be faster, the shooting phase will be longer.

Vees, specifically vtols, have damage divisors.
Vees 'extra cluster rolls' is mostly down to fishing for motives being a thing--you shoot cluster versus vees more then mechs.  Also, while not a 'rule', the way tanks dont have heat on missiles and cannons pushes them more towards cluster weapons then mechs.  An archer can not move and shoot those 2 LRM20s every turn because of heat, but it pays full price for them.  A vee always shoots all of its weapons, so while it takes a second to count your heat, the result is you fire less weapons.  A tank doesnt have the heat calculation, but it shoots everything for free always.

This is just in response to "issues with TW tanks".  The point is not 'can player skill overcome the issues' by playing faster or not abusing the rules.  Since tanks average half the cost on average, but they dont play 2x as fast, time is a factor with the spam-able tanks.  They are only now in force pack plastic, so many players dont have a wide/varied tank collection compared to mechs, and many tanks are still metal only which is more expensive then force pack plastic--like the entire clan tank range currently.  Finally, the tank balance pricing means that there are some things tanks do very cheaply... mostly move fast or shoot indirect/snipe.  Vtols are standout problem units as a type, and slow 'Ogre' tanks can put silly amounts of shots out, but both get serious BV discounts in the formula despite being best in class.

When I look at events, alpha strike included, one of the common themes is cheap hover/vtols +/- transport capacity, which takes big advantage of small cheap vees to overrun scoring missions or get free backstabs.  Even if unit #s are capped, they are common 'problem' units.  Im guilty too, mind--ive taken the cheap speeders and transports and vtols for the same reason others have.  Im not even touching the TW hovercraft ram, which I believe is still the most obnoxious melee attack in the game by a wide margin.

ah yes, ramming.  I sacrifice a vehicle and crew entirely, to maybe damage the shin of a 'mech. 

as much as I hate the idea of adding MORE complexity, sometimes I wonder if a Morale check and Morale Score shouldn't be a standard item on all non 'mech units.

mostly because I recognize that there are an awful lot of players who think that's actually a good and useful trade.  It's even worse when you play in Aerospace, because of how many people want to be whatsername the Rassalhague pilot who rammed the Dire Wolf...only with warships.

thing is, what I've found with leaning on 'fast light cheap' vehicles like you're describing, is that they tend to die quickly without doing much that's useful if you don't have Good/effective/tough and powerful units backstopping them.  *(or even when you do).

The other thing about playing vees-at least, in my experience, is that you don't put them on the map without expecting to lose a significant number of them, either to mission-kills (immobilized in the wrong part of the map) or because despite the armor, they're really NOT all that when the other side is running things that aren't icebox flashbulbs.

you actually NEED the larger numbres or you're guaranteed a loss most of the time.

Though this HAS been eased by TW's gentler vehicle rules, and I will openly agree the Rotor hit nerf is bullshit-and that's speaking as someone who used VTOLs successfully when it did not exist outside the pages of Munchtek (Maxtech), a book that was not used at tables I was running when it was current because of the cheeze factor.

I believe I was the sole and only person in the playtest who thought incorporating that piece of shit into the main rules was a bad idea.

Some unit concepts, ought to be a bad idea.  Something you can do? sure, is it a good idea? no.

the presence of canon units being overhyped and a bad idea to actually use, gave conventional units a different feel compared to 'mechs. Some variety to play, you might say.  "You can use it, it's legal...but it's going to suck if you do" isn't a bad thing.  Highlighting why a Thorn or Hollander might be chosen over a VTOL for some roles is not a bad idea for giving the universe more 'texture'.

Kinda like showing why the Royal Navy bought Corsairs instead of more Blackburns during the 2nd world war-the Blackburn sucked.  It was in production and it sucked, hence buying Hellcats and Corsairs from the USA for the royal navy's carriers in the Med.

but I lost that argument, so the Rotor Hit Nerf went into the rules...and the Yellowjacket still sucks, but now it sucks for two turns instead of dying on the same firing phase you bring it up on.

And yes, it's now harder to kill Assault Tanks-they finally have a role they're good at besides killing the crew the first time an SRM pack (Or flamer) is close enough to light the hex on fire...but that role, is "move to a firing position, now park for the rest of the game."

it's a role, the rules are optimized for it, and that's fine, I guess.  My tactics still work, but now an Alacorn isn't an expensive luxury that I have to devote time and effort to protect from everyone who can lob an inferno at the hex it's in.

Hovers got sideslips and skidding-and that's good.  They needed to be knocked down a notch.  VTOLs got it too-and that is also good-it means you have to think your movement through a bit more, especially if you want to get close without dying.

TW vehicles need some more revisions, and some may be surprised what revisions I think they need (they don't need to be made tougher), particularly as I* AM a vehicle/infantry primary player.  I disdain the 'enhanced vehicle survival' tables in the later books. 

Because they miss the entire point of using conventionals instead of 'mechs in the first place.  the POINT of doig it, is that you're taking less versatile, less survivable, units that are socially inferior, and beating up the Nobles and the Elites.

That's the point of attraction for using them-you have to work harder for your win and you can't afford to just stand at medium and roll dice.

makes the victory tastier...but you are guaranteed going to lose units. (and if you aren't losing units from that position, it means your opponent is either really bad at the game, or has worse dice than I do.)

but that's without sacrificing initiative.  Initiative is actually quite important.  If you lose initiative automatically, then the unit's literally not worth taking.

[CarcosanDawn]

The problem with moving from the rules to discussion of player behavior, DevianID, is that player behavior isn't specific to unit types.

I would say you could end up with 2x 'Mechs per 'Mech as 2 players, one running all fleas and the other running all Marauder IIs (heck that's 4 Mechs per Mech).

The "unit disparity" is entirely fabricated, just as much as it is in the Fleas Vs Marauders scenario. Yes, you might need heavier tanks to match 'Mech BV per any given unit of BV, but who cares? It isn't like people are banning Inner Sphere from play for needing 4 mediums for every Clan heavy.

The list I presented didn't *need* superheavy tanks. I wanted one. If I made it smaller (say a 1200 BV Ontos Fusion), I would upgrade the 2 Fleas to the phenomenal Wolverine 6M. I wouldn't spam more Scorpions, because the 346th is a Heavy Tank Regiment.

I don't know how to put it any better - in a game where LSW horde lists of locusts can confront Manei Domini Celestials, how is it the *tanks'* fault that unit quantity spam exists? That problem is unit-type-independent, and I still maintain that *out of the unit types*, tanks are the *least* problematic because they are actually easier to execute the rules processes for, BV for BV, than a 'Mech.

[Cannonshop]

The problem with moving from the rules to discussion of player behavior, DevianID, is that player behavior isn't specific to unit types.

I would say you could end up with 2x 'Mechs per 'Mech as 2 players, one running all fleas and the other running all Marauder IIs (heck that's 4 Mechs per Mech).

The "unit disparity" is entirely fabricated, just as much as it is in the Fleas Vs Marauders scenario. Yes, you might need heavier tanks to match 'Mech BV per any given unit of BV, but who cares? It isn't like people are banning Inner Sphere from play for needing 4 mediums for every Clan heavy.

The list I presented didn't *need* superheavy tanks. I wanted one. If I made it smaller (say a 1200 BV Ontos Fusion), I would upgrade the 2 Fleas to the phenomenal Wolverine 6M. I wouldn't spam more Scorpions, because the 346th is a Heavy Tank Regiment.

I don't know how to put it any better - in a game where LSW horde lists of locusts can confront Manei Domini Celestials, how is it the *tanks'* fault that unit quantity spam exists? That problem is unit-type-independent, and I still maintain that *out of the unit types*, tanks are the *least* problematic because they are actually easier to execute the rules processes for, BV for BV, than a 'Mech.

This, is a very good point.  It's like "Initiative Sinking" complaints-I've "Initiative sinked' with fewer units than my opponent before. It's just 'savign the unit you're GONNA use for last". (in my most hilarious case it was a nasty swarm of anti-'mech infantry that I saved for the very END of the movement phase.  His custom Dire Wolf with the icebox pulse layout was...very surprised. which is kinda the point.)

do people try the "Low quality horde" with vees? sure they do.  as you said, they do it with low quality 'mechs too.  It's integral to the game in certain eras, or with experimental players, or with players who come to the table with a plan...one that may well end up looking like Przno River rather than Fort Apache.

I mean, there's the perennial favorite Battletech Player's legend of the Savannahmaster Swarm, which I think almost everyone has tried at least once if they've played the game long enough, only to find out it's not nearly as formidable a layout as they might want to believe-especially if there's terrain on the map that isn't flat or water hazards.

And, I think I mentioned before the "Goat Path Scenario" where a company of 3025 era VTOLs can out punch a higher BV force of 'mechs-but that's only if you acutally use the sort of terrain described in the TRO entry (severe mountainous hills, that are difficult to navigate on the ground).

but that's leveraging specialist conditions, and it's more of a 'campaign/training exercise' than your standard open-BV pickup game.  (I would never take a company of VTOLs as my only force in an OPEN Battlevalue game.  too easy to find out you screwed up when the maps unroll and it's low-vegetation coastal plains with swamps and scattered woodlands.)

IOW in an "Open BV" situation, it's better to take a balanced force, just on account of you don't get to pick the whole terrain to optimize your models on....

Unless you're a dick and your group uses FSM, then you just sink every point available into one elite, optimized 'mech and watch your opponents have to downgrade their forces to match.

[Calimehter]

Interesting, because the same phenomenon works on Battle Armor as well - one shot, one guy.

Each 'row' of armor represented a squad instead of a single trooper.  There were more rules than that, but that really needs to stay in the Fan Design rules forum. :)

[CarcosanDawn]

Each 'row' of armor represented a squad instead of a single trooper.  There were more rules than that, but that really needs to stay in the Fan Design rules forum. :)

No I meant one gun can only kill one guy most of the time, they basically follow the same rules for infantry. Since you said you hate that in CI I figured you just hate Battle Armor!

[DevianID]

The problem with moving from the rules to discussion of player behavior, DevianID, is that player behavior isn't specific to unit types.

Thats kind of dismissing everything I said though.  Like, yes mechs can spam too, but I specifically mentioned that by random draw, because of BV discounts, you simply get 2x as many vees.  So, while yes player's need guardrails versus spam in every case, by the numbers there just are more vees then mechs.  Your vee list was a reasonable vee list, one I would like to play against.  But, you needed knowledge and experience to get to that vee list.  We both agree infantry are even worse.  They are even cheaper on average, so the issue with infantry is more noticable then tanks. 
By the numbers, tracked have the lowest discount (unless you are super slow for the speed discount), so are the least problematic.  Vtols have the largest discount, and have the most balance issues.  Infantry are like 10x worse then tanks by the average, so of course they are in a special category of bad.

If you just take vees at face value, without your experience to temper it, you end up with more of them or with large bunkers.

If vees cost more, or they cost the same but were simpler and took up less time/value in the game, it would be fine.  Like, part of fixing their cost might be eliminating the motive roll... it didnt exist in the past, it was just a hit location thing.  There is lots of ways to streamline vees, or to adjust their cost formula.

So yeah, you might not be spamming vtols, but the balance issues in cost with vees are a legit reason why people are uncomfortable allowing vehicles in games.  It casts a shadow over peoples perceptions, and hand waiving those legit reservations for people to try vees away with 'vee balance problems are bad players, no excuse not to let vees in' isnt being truthful to the situation.

Add to this the cost in time, and the cost in money/resources, and its not a surprise vees are a second class unit type.  They have legit hurdles in their TW presentation.  Not nearly as many as aerospace, but hurdles nonetheless.

Like, how do you all feel about Battlefield support Air assets instead of adding an aerospace fighter with bombs into your games?  The issues with vees are lessened, but all the complaints are the same... and TW aero is even more banned or disallowed.

[Cannonshop]

Thats kind of dismissing everything I said though.  Like, yes mechs can spam too, but I specifically mentioned that by random draw, because of BV discounts, you simply get 2x as many vees.  So, while yes player's need guardrails versus spam in every case, by the numbers there just are more vees then mechs.  Your vee list was a reasonable vee list, one I would like to play against.  But, you needed knowledge and experience to get to that vee list.  We both agree infantry are even worse.  They are even cheaper on average, so the issue with infantry is more noticable then tanks. 
By the numbers, tracked have the lowest discount (unless you are super slow for the speed discount), so are the least problematic.  Vtols have the largest discount, and have the most balance issues.  Infantry are like 10x worse then tanks by the average, so of course they are in a special category of bad.

If you just take vees at face value, without your experience to temper it, you end up with more of them or with large bunkers.

If vees cost more, or they cost the same but were simpler and took up less time/value in the game, it would be fine.  Like, part of fixing their cost might be eliminating the motive roll... it didnt exist in the past, it was just a hit location thing.  There is lots of ways to streamline vees, or to adjust their cost formula.

So yeah, you might not be spamming vtols, but the balance issues in cost with vees are a legit reason why people are uncomfortable allowing vehicles in games.  It casts a shadow over peoples perceptions, and hand waiving those legit reservations for people to try vees away with 'vee balance problems are bad players, no excuse not to let vees in' isnt being truthful to the situation.

Add to this the cost in time, and the cost in money/resources, and its not a surprise vees are a second class unit type.  They have legit hurdles in their TW presentation.  Not nearly as many as aerospace, but hurdles nonetheless.

Like, how do you all feel about Battlefield support Air assets instead of adding an aerospace fighter with bombs into your games?  The issues with vees are lessened, but all the complaints are the same... and TW aero is even more banned or disallowed.

YOu keep bringing up 'balance' but I'm not sure we're using the same definitions here, because I think what you mean, based on your statements, and correct me if I'm wrong, but that 'Balance issues' really translates into "I don't like being outnumbered."

Ton for ton, 'mechs are far more survivable than even TW's take on vehicles.  This, I fear, is what you  may not be grasping-that yes, you can end up with twice as many tanks, but you'lll probably end up NEEDING THEM against an equal BV of 'mechs.

See, to me, 'Balance' can be expressed thus:  40/40/20.  Where (Plus or minus 10%) each side has roughly a forty percent chance to win, with that remainder being factors like dice luck or actual skill.

To hit that, you actually DO need, ceterus paribus, about twice as many tanks as 'mechs on any map that isn't optimized for the Tanks.

in this case 'Ceterus Paribus" working out as "Equal skill on the part of players, and roughly equal dice luck, on a general map suitable for the units in question, but not optimized for them".

Keep in mind, My experiences are not yours, but I do have some extent of experience with both BV1 and BV2 systems with regards to vehicles, as well as both Total Warfare and BMR(r) (and earlier incarnations).

In general, assuming equal skill and equal dice luck, I'll lose 1.5 to 2 vehicles for every 'mech kill in any given weight class.

as a baseline, that is, acceptable losses for the game to not be a one-sided stomp.

this includes "mission Kills" such as stranding a vehicle in a bad position due to loss of mootive systems, stunned crew results, and so on.

A lot of those, are things 'mechs shrug off.  While a vehicle may have more armor, losing any location's internal structure kills the vehicle outright.  this includes Turret losses.

You can keep fighting most 'mechs with lost arms, legs, and torsoes.  (Not ISXL, but that's a specific weakness of that particular tech, not a general rule)

further, 'mechs can overheat, and even have tech designed to leverage that into an advantage.  Tanks have to buy all but ten of their heat-sinks, and cannot mount doubles.

this makes the 'icebox pulseboat' somehting that is a bit difficult to carry out from the get-go, and most energy-primary tanks that have more than a single PPC are forced into the upper end of Heavy or Assault, or into the realm of "which location has toiletpaper for plating?" or, "my snail outruns it."  aka huge inefficiencies.

'mechs don't have this problem.  Tanks pay extra for terrain handling (hill climbing especially) when they even have the capacity to do it (not all do).  'mechs do not pay extra for this.

Vehicles also have terrain limitations that 'mechs don't (depending on motive type, this can include a broad, or narrow variety, but the key is they all suffer from it.)

In the case of some vehicles, losing motive system means losing the vehicle (VTOL), in others, being pillboxed means being rendered incapable of serving as anything (several Hover types).

Vehicles also impose vehicle bay restrictions.  Over 50 and you can't use a light.  'mechs? have only one bay type-if a dropship can carry a 'mech, it can carry any 'mech.

[CarcosanDawn]

Yeah I mean I guess I am just confused, because the point remains:

"How is one player taking twice as many units as another player a problem with vehicles specifically? This also happens with Inner Sphere vs. Clans, or Inner Sphere vs. Manei Domini, or low skill pirates vs. house elite..."

It seems hypocritical to ban tanks for having a 2-1 against 'Mechs but not ban Inner Sphere when playing Clans.

[DevianID]

Cannonshop, I brought up balance, and you latched onto vees outnumbering mechs, but missed why.  And, it means you ignored a lot of the things you already know, like init count factors and unit type mismatch.  It also ignores the bits about why they outnumber mechs--because they have discounts that can be oppressive on the top and bottom ends.  To restate, vees outnumber mechs because they get some discounts, and SOME vees are really abusing those discounts to problematic places.  Vtols and really slow turret tanks being 2 examples.

Its not that 'I dont like being outnumbered'.  Thats a personal bias towards me you assumed somehow changes math, but we are discussing vees to the 'common mech' player.  Its safe to say, a common mech player who plays a game with someone using vehicles and infantry, is going to outnumber that common mech player.  In a narrative campaign, vehicles can perform the role of 'goons' for mechs to slay by the dozens (and BSP thrive here).  But in a versus PVP pickup game, where designs are chosen for efficiency, the tank player can be assumed to not be taking meh goon vedettes, but the good vehicles and infantry that do beat mechs with relative ease.

Like, you KNOW vtols are way overtuned.  The vtol problem is part of the vehicle problem.  So yeah, having 2 to 1 vtols versus light mechs is really damning towards the other persons perception of vehicles.  A new player who plays a small game versus 'good vtols plus normal heavy mechs' should notice the other player has a big advantage almost immediately.  They have a movement and maneuver advantage, an init advantage, a spotting advantage... while often having even more % of their points in larger mechs.  Same with the 2/3 speed turret tanks, you get a very noticeable firepower increase with those, and if you take indirect attack options its not like the slow speed stops them from shooting.  It doesnt matter the vee can be immobilized and killed easier, cause it brought more guns for less, and doesnt mind hiding.

As an aside Carcosan, clan v innersphere number balancing is a big deal too.  If you are setting up balanced games, the inner sphere player should not be allowed to have 2x the numbers of the clan side just cause.  The clan player can take elementals to fix unit count disparity, which is why I believe in all the new box sets, elementals are the only non-mech type that got rules.  The battle armor rules are better balanced then infantry and vee rules in general (they are not perfect though), but even still battlearmor need moderation in the same way as vehicles and infantry... if you show up with 36 stands of inner sphere BA for your 8k game, its gonna be a problem versus a random 4 mech player.

I think it comes down to having weak match play organization as part of the problem.  Vehicles on the top and bottom end are highly asymmetric.  Infantry even more so to the bottom end.  They are all cheap as a default, with poor integration into the 'standard' game, which I think is fair to describe as 4-6 mechs per side.  I dont care that you can pick two meh Vedette tanks and they will suck versus mechs.  I care about the top and bottom end, the part of vehicles that actually see play and cause balance issues, while maintaining 2 to 1 unit advantage because of cost discounts aimed towards the meh vedette that still discounts the highly asymmetric vehicles.

My point before regarding aerospace still stands unanswered.  Aerospace's issues are similar to vehicles issues, as it pertains to this thread on BSP assets.  I dont see anyone defending TW aerospace.  I agree vehicles are not as bad as aerospace, but the reasons are all still there to have BSP asset vees and especially conventional infantry for the same reason we have BSP air and artillery.

[CarcosanDawn]

My point before regarding aerospace still stands unanswered.  Aerospace's issues are similar to vehicles issues, as it pertains to this thread on BSP assets.  I dont see anyone defending TW aerospace.  I agree vehicles are not as bad as aerospace, but the reasons are all still there to have BSP asset vees and especially conventional infantry for the same reason we have BSP air and artillery.

Negative.

Aerospace is more complicated than 'Mechs. Tanks are less complicated.

As for the rest of it, you essentially agreed with me that balancing measures were required for the "not-a-problem" BA and "not-a-problem" IS vs. Clans - and yet TW vehicles get special treatment?

I mean really. "BSP Inner Sphere 'Mechs because they can get 2x the units of the Clans" isn't something you support (I hope, it sounds absurd). Yet you think it's fine for Vehicles, not because they DO get 2x per 'Mech, but simply because they could... just like Inner Sphere vs Clans.

You're being a hypocrite, I hope you see that...

[DevianID]

Negative.

Aerospace is more complicated than 'Mechs. Tanks are less complicated.

As for the rest of it, you essentially agreed with me that balancing measures were required for the "not-a-problem" BA and "not-a-problem" IS vs. Clans - and yet TW vehicles get special treatment?

I mean really. "BSP Inner Sphere 'Mechs because they can get 2x the units of the Clans" isn't something you support (I hope, it sounds absurd). Yet you think it's fine for Vehicles, not because they DO get 2x per 'Mech, but simply because they could... just like Inner Sphere vs Clans.

You're being a hypocrite, I hope you see that...

Not at all, you just dont understand.
Inner sphere and clan mechs use the same formula, and use the same construction and gameplay rules.  An expensive innersphere mech will find itself versus 2+ cheap clan mechs for example.  You can absolutely balance clan and inner sphere numbers equally, but people have trouble because the average clan mech is higher, so often you see the clans outnumbered... but they dont need to be, and players should try and set games up to have equal unit count.  Clan versus IS balancing is a strawman/flawed logic argument to say vehicles are fine and should be accepted.  Mechs use the exact same rules and formulas, IS or clan, so there is no bias there, just preference to run expensive clan mechs on average, on top of more expensive pilots on clan machines.  But at the end, both use the same rules and cost formulas.  Cherrypicking cheap units versus expensive units of the same type and outnumbering your opponent in general is a problem, but the vehicle's cost discount making them 2x cheaper is a different problem.  Likewise, infantry's cost discount making them cheaper is a problem.

The fact is that you agree the infantry cost discount making them cheaper is a problem, but you then failing to acknowledge the vehicle cost discount being a problem is something I don't understand.

Vehicles have a different, asymmetric formula, and different rules.  If you know the mech rules, learning the TW vehicle rules make the game more complicated, and the aero rules are more complicated, as both add new things.  You say blithely that vehicles are less complicated then mechs, but they are not.  They have their own rules for heat and piloting skills and crew damage and crits and terrain on top of the rules for mechs that must be learned.

Ask yourself why people dont like to play with TW aerospace.  Its why many people prefer to play without vehicles.  And why people that do allow vehicles will want to 'vet' your vehicle list before they play it.  You cant just say 'vehicles are simple to add' and make that be a true statement.  They add rules to the game, they interact with the board and balance in an asymmetric way, and TW is a terrible book to 'fact check' people.  Did you remember to sideslip?  Does your opponent know about the sideslip rules?

You cant use bad logic to point to other, unrelated examples to handwave the core problems with vees, aerospace and infantry away.

As for battle armor, I stated that the BA formula isnt perfect.  But, BA have a 'cost' much closer to mechs.  They are simpler to run in line with their cost--no crits, simplified movement, greatly reduced checks needed, no damage division or %s.  BSPs have no crits, simplified movement, no checks of any kind, no damage division.  BA rules I think are 2 pages in the clan invasion box set?  They go from page 8 to 12 in that book, with pictures, some fluff, and some charts eating into the space.  This is not endorsing the parts of their formula that is incorrect, its to illustrate that vehicles in TW are a much greater investment in rules, in a book thats hard to get through.

Honestly, if BA were not included in the clan invasion box set, then I would understand people not wanting to use them either.

Again, in conclusion you already see why infantry and aerospace are frowned upon in the pickup game community.  TW vehicles are a part of the same package as the TW infantry and aerospace.  There are good reasons for game tables to want BSP forms of the ancillary TW units, and good reasons for tables to not want to use TW at the game table.  Especially with the top and bottom end like VTOLs.

[Charistoph]

I don't think there is a Conventional Infantry Discount.  Conventional Infantry is just less effective than all the other unit types on the board.   They don't get the Squad To-Hit bonus as Platoons, and are pretty much worthless for Anti-Mech if they do Squad up.  They take extra Damage if they aren't in Cover, and are really hard to use on the Table due to their low mobility and limited Transport options.  Their Weapon range is crap unless you go Field Guns, at which point their mobility really is crap.

I think taking Conventional Infantry in to a pick up game just for Initiative Sinking is a trash move done by people who need to compensate for a lower gaming charisma.  Including them for flavor in a scenario, objective grabbers, or as a dedicated Anti-Mech Jumping unit does have a purpose and point.

Comparing Vehicles to Aerospace is rather disingenuous.  Vehicles are part of the ground game and interact with it completely, even VTOLs (mostly).  Aerospace involves another map and MIGHT appear on the map every couple Turns if there are no other Aerospace involved.

CarcosanDawn is right, Vehicles ARE easier to operate than 'Mechs.  'Mechs are just the focus so everything revolves around them.  Vehicles are also easier to take out and disable due to having only 5 locations, of which only 4 will be Hit from incoming fire, and that's only if they have a Turret.  They are also easier to Immobilize, which can quickly take them out of the game.  The chance to Critically Hit a Vehicle is also higher due to have 2-3 times the number of TAC opportunities, as well as the lower roll point for a Critical Hit to actually manage to do something (8+ on a Mech, 6+ on a Vehicle).

The problem has been that Vehicles just aren't as available, model-wise, to easily include.  Only the dedicated players have sought them out before.  Many stores which carry Ironwind models will only stock 'Mechs.  Many people will focus on getting 'Mechs they don't have before getting Tanks they don't have.  The Support ForcePacks and the Mercenaries Box WILL change that, even without considering the BSP affect.

Then there is the big problem with the BSVs and having models.  People will want to use their models more, and BSV rules are counter to that.  BSVs are harder to use effectively and more easily removed from play than RSVs.  Suddenly, having that Manticore do more than fire once and die sounds more appealing, especially when you can field that Manticore with 4 guns AND move it after someone moves their 'Mech.

Any other time-frame issue that you're bringing up with numbers comes with either being an experience issue or a jerk issue.

[Cannonshop]

I don't think there is a Conventional Infantry Discount.  Conventional Infantry is just less effective than all the other unit types on the board.   They don't get the Squad To-Hit bonus as Platoons, and are pretty much worthless for Anti-Mech if they do Squad up.  They take extra Damage if they aren't in Cover, and are really hard to use on the Table due to their low mobility and limited Transport options.  Their Weapon range is crap unless you go Field Guns, at which point their mobility really is crap.

I think taking Conventional Infantry in to a pick up game just for Initiative Sinking is a trash move done by people who need to compensate for a lower gaming charisma.  Including them for flavor in a scenario, objective grabbers, or as a dedicated Anti-Mech Jumping unit does have a purpose and point.

Comparing Vehicles to Aerospace is rather disingenuous.  Vehicles are part of the ground game and interact with it completely, even VTOLs (mostly).  Aerospace involves another map and MIGHT appear on the map every couple Turns if there are no other Aerospace involved.

CarcosanDawn is right, Vehicles ARE easier to operate than 'Mechs.  'Mechs are just the focus so everything revolves around them.  Vehicles are also easier to take out and disable due to having only 5 locations, of which only 4 will be Hit from incoming fire, and that's only if they have a Turret.  They are also easier to Immobilize, which can quickly take them out of the game.  The chance to Critically Hit a Vehicle is also higher due to have 2-3 times the number of TAC opportunities, as well as the lower roll point for a Critical Hit to actually manage to do something (8+ on a Mech, 6+ on a Vehicle).

The problem has been that Vehicles just aren't as available, model-wise, to easily include.  Only the dedicated players have sought them out before.  Many stores which carry Ironwind models will only stock 'Mechs.  Many people will focus on getting 'Mechs they don't have before getting Tanks they don't have.  The Support ForcePacks and the Mercenaries Box WILL change that, even without considering the BSP affect.

Then there is the big problem with the BSVs and having models.  People will want to use their models more, and BSV rules are counter to that.  BSVs are harder to use effectively and more easily removed from play than RSVs.  Suddenly, having that Manticore do more than fire once and die sounds more appealing, especially when you can field that Manticore with 4 guns AND move it after someone moves their 'Mech.

Any other time-frame issue that you're bringing up with numbers comes with either being an experience issue or a jerk issue.

To be fair, "Jerk issues" are a serious problem.  DevianID brings up VTOLs repeatedly, but the heavy-gun VTOLs are in practical terms worthless, and the lighter models that aren't worthless are also relatively lightly armed and mass-restricted.  Sure, those multiple SRM packs look impressive and can potentially do very impressive things-once, because at that distance you're at short for most of the weapons that can shoot right through your hull...but then, they slid in the Munchtek rotor hit nerf, and that IS a problem in that it's not accounted for properly in BV2 formulas-but that's a BV problem, it could be solved with less than a paragraph worth of Errata by adding a stiff multiplier for the rotor hit nerf.

Heavy Turrets are bunkers with some minor mobility-they can't reliably play offense unless both parties structure their forces to make that viable, their sole and only killer application is parked engagements.

Where they can still be knocked out more easily than tanks that CAN play offense, and stay in motion.  But it's at least a ROLE for the 3/5 and slower set, something they did NOT have when a single inferno strike lit the whole hex on fire and your tank crew better beat an 8 in the heat phase and get out of there or they die.

But the Jerk problem IS an issue, and it's kind of built into any wargaming community.

The reason is because there is no such thing as a ruleset that doesn't have means to exploit it, at least, until AI gets to the point it can design the perfect wargame. (which, at that point, you'll need an AI with a large database to even run, since it's going to need to track so many close details.)

So the Jerk problem will always be a problem.  So will the inexperienced player vs. the Jerk problem.

I started working on vehicle tactics that account for limits back in Compendium days-before ROW even.  Each time, I had to recalculate something., but most of the time, there were sustained, predictable trends.  Call them 'baseline assumptions implied by the rules".

By the time we were all using (or most of us were using) BMR(r) there were vees I wouldn't take, either because they were useless fire magnets, or because they were genuinely not well thought out. (I was one of those rarities that considered the Alacorn to be a waste of mass and tonnage, but the Fury was a pretty good tank. Same gun, but the fury had two less and could play offense without needing a cooperative opponent.)

In BMR play, holding still with  your tanks was suicide, and slower tanks were sincerely cripples.

but part of THAT was being aware of movement penalties, obstacles, and their impact on hexes covered (and thus, defensive movement modifiers vs. the gunnery penalty for flanking).

I've observed gaming groups who honestly did not KNOW that their hovertank couldn't shelter in those trees, or that their Rommel Gauss couldn't ford the river.

Yes, they exist, even now.

Just like I've met theorists here who think that a slow vTOL is just fine, but when you corner them, they usually admit the closest they got to testing their ideas, was using PRINCESS as opfor (thus, overlooking common sense responses real players will use.)

Since the advent of Total Warfare a lot of players don't know, or understand, how sideslip or skidding work.  this was a minor problem in BMR days, but it's gotten worse.  turns out the "all wonderful Hover' isn't, if you actually follow the book..at least, not anywhere there's actual terrain that isn't pancake flat or water.

Jerks exploit the ignorance and edge cases.  Thus, they are always going to be a problem.

[Charistoph]

To be fair, "Jerk issues" are a serious problem. 

They're only a problem when you can't get away from them and deny them a game.

Heavy Turrets are bunkers with some minor mobility-they can't reliably play offense unless both parties structure their forces to make that viable, their sole and only killer application is parked engagements.

By Heavy Turrets you mean Heavy Vehicles that carry a Turrent like a Patton or Demolisher?  Not necessarily.  You just need them to run rear guard like you would with a basic Atlas.

Where they can still be knocked out more easily than tanks that CAN play offense, and stay in motion.  But it's at least a ROLE for the 3/5 and slower set, something they did NOT have when a single inferno strike lit the whole hex on fire and your tank crew better beat an 8 in the heat phase and get out of there or they die.

Which was an optional rule at the time, and is still an optional rule today.

But the Jerk problem IS an issue, and it's kind of built into any wargaming community.

At large, yes.  In locals, only if they feel encouraged to do so.

By the time we were all using (or most of us were using) BMR(r) there were vees I wouldn't take, either because they were useless fire magnets, or because they were genuinely not well thought out. (I was one of those rarities that considered the Alacorn to be a waste of mass and tonnage, but the Fury was a pretty good tank. Same gun, but the fury had two less and could play offense without needing a cooperative opponent.)

Since we're near two decades past the BMR now (twice as long between the first BMR and TW's launch now), you need to stop using that as the standard of play, especially in considering how BSVs will work.

I've observed gaming groups who honestly did not KNOW that their hovertank couldn't shelter in those trees, or that their Rommel Gauss couldn't ford the river.

I posted on a live YouTube show with a player using a Hellfire 3 how it was a bummer that the Heat from all those Plasma Cannons could only add 15 Heat.  He was surprised at that, and had to look it up to verify it.

There are people who forget/don't know you can't Run in to lower Water.

A lot depends on their experience and what they face regularly enough.  For the first couple months of running Hovercraft/VTOLs/WiGEs, it can be easy to forget or even not know the first time.

Since the advent of Total Warfare a lot of players don't know, or understand, how sideslip or skidding work.  this was a minor problem in BMR days, but it's gotten worse.  turns out the "all wonderful Hover' isn't, if you actually follow the book..at least, not anywhere there's actual terrain that isn't pancake flat or water.

To be fair on the Skidding, how often do you deal with pavement on the average map?

After playing with Hovercraft for 2 years, I'm VERY familiar with Sideslipping, and have even wrecked more than a few Hovercraft because of it.

[CarcosanDawn]

Vehicles get a "discount" relative to 'Mechs because they've earned it. They're easier to use, but not "better."

By the same logic, Inner Sphere 'Mechs get a "discount" relative to Clan 'Mechs because they've earned it - they might be more popular, but not "better".

And Vehicles do use the same formulae as 'Mechs, by and large. They have a few extra variables (suspension mods for the engine size, etc) but it's really not as drastic as you claim, I don't think. I genuinely think you're just blind to how vehicles work, DevianID, and I'm glad Charistof sees what I see (thanks!).

TW vehicles are not a problem that makes the game worse, and therefore, BSP are not a 'fix' for them - as I said earlier in the thread, they're a solution in search of a problem.

[Cannonshop]

They're only a problem when you can't get away from them and deny them a game.

By Heavy Turrets you mean Heavy Vehicles that carry a Turrent like a Patton or Demolisher?  Not necessarily.  You just need them to run rear guard like you would with a basic Atlas.

Which was an optional rule at the time, and is still an optional rule today.

At large, yes.  In locals, only if they feel encouraged to do so.

Since we're near two decades past the BMR now (twice as long between the first BMR and TW's launch now), you need to stop using that as the standard of play, especially in considering how BSVs will work.

I posted on a live YouTube show with a player using a Hellfire 3 how it was a bummer that the Heat from all those Plasma Cannons could only add 15 Heat.  He was surprised at that, and had to look it up to verify it.

There are people who forget/don't know you can't Run in to lower Water.

A lot depends on their experience and what they face regularly enough.  For the first couple months of running Hovercraft/VTOLs/WiGEs, it can be easy to forget or even not know the first time.

To be fair on the Skidding, how often do you deal with pavement on the average map?

After playing with Hovercraft for 2 years, I'm VERY familiar with Sideslipping, and have even wrecked more than a few Hovercraft because of it.

Generally, I use Pattons on offense-they're the bottom of the scale for 'useful' vehicle mobility on offense.  Demolishers, Alacorns and anything else with a default 3/5 or slower is just a turret you can emplace in or near the opening moves of the game.

and that's okay.  They have a use and a purpose and something they're good at, which they didn't have in previous rulesets.

as for infernoes? Dude, that was the FIRST alternate munition allowed in the core rules, going all the way back to 2nd Edition Battletech and predating tanks entirely.

They had to give 'em the critting power in TW, when redoing for Total Warfare because in TW they had to account for vehicles, and vehicle rules.  the comment about "optional" applies to that about as well as LBX cluster ammo, or even vehicles and infantry in their entire.

The rules used to be a lot more lethal when you rolled out conventional forces, yet players like me still managed to win games wihout touching Maxtech or Unbound or other truly optional rulesets.

but it wasn't with Savannahswarms, because those are more myth than reality, and always have been.

What TW did, was make some designs at least partly viable, where they were not before despite having lots of mass and size.

basically, with tanks, 4/6 is the bottom of "Can play Offense successfully" with vehicles, and that's going with tracked vehicles specifically, and that in turn has to do with the DMM and flanking penalty.  the more often you have to drive at flank, the less accurate your weapons get, and damage only counts when it hits, while vehicles are fragile and can be taken out without first having to erode everything on them, so being hit is 'not a good thing'.  Being easier to hit while having a harder time hitting back? also not a good thing.  4/6 you're at least balanced in that regard-your penalty for being hit is the same as the penalty you're eating on your gunnery.

Thus, the patton or myrmidon is the BOTTOM OF THE SCALE for vehicles you can expect to use successfully on offense. (4/6 and reasonable firepower with enough plating to take non-critical hits a few times).

Alacorn, Demolisher, and similar are really only good as semi-fixed turret systems that you park early, and leave in 'park' for the duration of the engagement.

[DevianID]

I don't think there is a Conventional Infantry Discount. 

There is multiple infantry discounts.  Infantry defensive values have a cost on bubbles like structure, but dont take crits.  Their armor likewise uses structure pricing multipliers.  Their damage divisors are free and stronger then reflective armor, while reflective armor and other damage divisors all pay.  They get an accuracy bonus, a facing bonus, a movement bonus, and a hidden 'range' bonus at point blank, all free.  Their weapons that generate their range bracket are separate from their weapons that generate squad damage, so they get to multiply their range several times for free; while for every other unit its rangeXdamage infantry instead are range+damage.

This is why a platoon of infantry is less then 100 BV, compared to a similarly tough unit with the same damage and range being multiple times that.

And yes, I suppose im including the 'jerk' issue in vehicles/infantry.  The units in the middle, vedettes and Po's and such, are everything you all say.  Simple 1 main gun, not to fast, easy to kill, and totally unoffensive on the table.  Being in the middle, they dont exploit the balance formulas, and being tracked tanks they are the least extreme with terrain and extra motive rules.  They are also the closest to what BSPs are, simple, not to fast, easy to kill units with 1 attack, and not exploitative of balance.  As for infantry sinking init, well you can call that a 'jerk' move, but every player I know that has infantry in the back field is still gonna move them first.  Right?  Like, even if you dont spam infantry, you are still gonna move them first, no matter how 'jerky' that is, cause its the obvious thing to do.  BSPs at least fix that issue with infantry init sinks.

By the same logic, Inner Sphere 'Mechs get a "discount" relative to Clan 'Mechs because they've earned it

Incorrect.  Inner sphere mechs dont get a discount.  They use the exact same formula as clan mechs.  An IS mech with 30 damage at range 9 and a clan mech with 30 damage at range 9 have the same offensive BV.

And Vehicles do use the same formulae as 'Mechs, by and large. They have a few extra variables...

So they DONT use the same formula if they have extra variables, right?  Those variables on the high and low end are what im talking about.  Calling me 'blind' to how vees work is pretty uncool.  We could 'argument of authority' fallacy or what not with examples, but lets not.  Try not to make it personal dude, im just calling out what you already acknowledge, that the variables that price down vehicles are exploitative. 

If you choose not to acknowledge the power of a cheap transport hover or vtol, or a crazy brick turret, and its role in what is called 'jerk' behavior, then its willfully absolving the vehicle's part in why the 'jerk' player takes those units.  The 'jerk' player takes those units, in numbers across the states time and again, because of just how overturned they are on the high and low end.  We dont care that the basic Po or Vedette tank is crap and not a problem.  Vehicles are judged by their actually played units, which is the high and low end. 

Cannonshop is famous for showing how crazy good the low end 434bv 15 ton Mantis attack Vtol is, splashing vtols with higher costs and earning very high margins.  The vehicles on the upper/lower margins are simply overtuned in balance cost, and form the majority of 'good' vehicles people want to take.  (I owned 2 IWM vtols in total before the latest kickstarter, and the Mantis is one of the two, the ubiquitous warrior is the other.)

The question asked that started this tangent is why someone (other then me) didnt like the infantry and vehicle rules in TW.  My answer was in cost.  The balance cost, in asymmetric discounts, the time cost of using TW vees and infantry with the terrible TW book layout and page flipping, the time cost of using so many more units that TW infantry and vees affords the so called 'jerk' player, and the accessibility cost both in needing the TW book I and other cant recommend, and a lack of model access.  Lack of model access is something charistoph agrees with.  He dismisses the 'jerk' problem, which I clearly dont think is fair. 

I dont think its a 'jerk' player that takes the high/low end vehicles, I think that is the average vehicle experience, because its not a mystery that those units are really, really good--because of cost imbalances I have mentioned.

Like, what does it take to admit something like the TW vehicle WiGE rules are bad? "Yeah, regardless of WiGE being good or bad, I dont want to play against them" feels like a pretty normal reaction, right?

[Cannonshop]

There is multiple infantry discounts.  Infantry defensive values have a cost on bubbles like structure, but dont take crits.  Their armor likewise uses structure pricing multipliers.  Their damage divisors are free and stronger then reflective armor, while reflective armor and other damage divisors all pay.  They get an accuracy bonus, a facing bonus, a movement bonus, and a hidden 'range' bonus at point blank, all free.  Their weapons that generate their range bracket are separate from their weapons that generate squad damage, so they get to multiply their range several times for free; while for every other unit its rangeXdamage infantry instead are range+damage.

EVERY hit degrades performance, they're exterminated by the lowest-damage weapon in the game (also one of the most common, and it doesn't make heat), they're also still annihilated by flamers, infernoes, there are multiple weapons that also do expanded damage to infantry including pulse lasers, and they're slow.

VERY Slow.  Infantry does not have a 'flank' speed...

This is why a platoon of infantry is less then 100 BV, compared to a similarly tough unit with the same damage and range being multiple times that.

And yes, I suppose im including the 'jerk' issue in vehicles/infantry.  The units in the middle, vedettes and Po's and such, are everything you all say.  Simple 1 main gun, not to fast, easy to kill, and totally unoffensive on the table.  Being in the middle, they dont exploit the balance formulas, and being tracked tanks they are the least extreme with terrain and extra motive rules.  They are also the closest to what BSPs are, simple, not to fast, easy to kill units with 1 attack, and not exploitative of balance.  As for infantry sinking init, well you can call that a 'jerk' move, but every player I know that has infantry in the back field is still gonna move them first.  Right?  Like, even if you dont spam infantry, you are still gonna move them first, no matter how 'jerky' that is, cause its the obvious thing to do.  BSPs at least fix that issue with infantry init sinks.
Incorrect.  Inner sphere mechs dont get a discount.  They use the exact same formula as clan mechs.  An IS mech with 30 damage at range 9 and a clan mech with 30 damage at range 9 have the same offensive BV.So they DONT use the same formula if they have extra variables, right?  Those variables on the high and low end are what im talking about.  Calling me 'blind' to how vees work is pretty uncool.  We could 'argument of authority' fallacy or what not with examples, but lets not.  Try not to make it personal dude, im just calling out what you already acknowledge, that the variables that price down vehicles are exploitative. 

We're going to disagree on this one.  YES, some things in BV2 do need changes-the rotor damage nerf to VTOLs should be a bv multiplier on its own, just on account of how large that rotor disk is (Percentage of the base hit-table it occupies) and the effective armor defense of reducing most fire to a one or at most two, point hit.  The usefulness of vTOLs is not 'general' however-so that offsets it because of what a VTOL isn't good at doing, even when you make it very heavy.

Most hardcore Vehicle users won't take a Vedette unless they're forced to.  That's true, because it's a bad design.  It's badly designed, badly implemented, and goofy looking.  The Po, however, is usually a pretty GOOD design for a tracked tank. In some ways it's superior to more expensive general purpose machines like the Patton-Ultra, because the Po has a reliable main gun that is effective, while the Ultra Autocannon on the Patton will fail you at the wrong time.

everytime.

"easy to kill" reveals your REAL problem, right there.  You wave off Carcasondawn's argument about the costing of IS vs Clan because what you have, is a problem with Vehicles being viable on the map.  Don't feel bad, some of the line developers have had the same problem over the years of wanting the game "Kept to its pure 'mech roots', but having to wrestle with, and tolerate, units that were not 'mechs, and scenarios that were not identical duels.  (Hence, the implementation of Force Size Multiplier to the original published draft of BV2.0, which was not, until later, optional to that system.)

If you choose not to acknowledge the power of a cheap transport hover or vtol, or a crazy brick turret, and its role in what is called 'jerk' behavior, then its willfully absolving the vehicle's part in why the 'jerk' player takes those units.  The 'jerk' player takes those units, in numbers across the states time and again, because of just how overturned they are on the high and low end.  We dont care that the basic Po or Vedette tank is crap and not a problem.  Vehicles are judged by their actually played units, which is the high and low end. 

Some designs ARE very good in very narrow roles.  I wouldn't try to mechanize a light infantry company using Bug 'mechs, because that's not what they're optimized to do, and they will be terrible at it.  Likewise, yes, the 'killer application' for a crazy brick tank (3/5 or slower maxed armor with a big gun or three) IS to sit there being an obstacle at a particular point in the terrain...but it can't play offense to save its ass, and if you're in open country you're done if you're relying on it.  narrow, specific situations are the only places those designs really shine when the players themselves are of equal skill.  That's what "Specialist design" means.  They're going to be good at narrowly specific jobs.

Cannonshop is famous for showing how crazy good the low end 434bv 15 ton Mantis attack Vtol is, splashing vtols with higher costs and earning very high margins.  The vehicles on the upper/lower margins are simply overtuned in balance cost, and form the majority of 'good' vehicles people want to take.  (I owned 2 IWM vtols in total before the latest kickstarter, and the Mantis is one of the two, the ubiquitous warrior is the other.)

You learned the wrong thing from my lectures then.  Let me clarify it for you: A Mantis is fantastic for dogfighting other VTOLs.  It largely sucks ass for any other role besides chasing other VTOLs...maybe chasing hovercraft around, but a Hovercraft can play bunker, and a VTOL can't.

The question asked that started this tangent is why someone (other then me) didnt like the infantry and vehicle rules in TW.  My answer was in cost.  The balance cost, in asymmetric discounts, the time cost of using TW vees and infantry with the terrible TW book layout and page flipping, the time cost of using so many more units that TW infantry and vees affords the so called 'jerk' player, and the accessibility cost both in needing the TW book I and other cant recommend, and a lack of model access.  Lack of model access is something charistoph agrees with.  He dismisses the 'jerk' problem, which I clearly dont think is fair. 

I dont think its a 'jerk' player that takes the high/low end vehicles, I think that is the average vehicle experience, because its not a mystery that those units are really, really good--because of cost imbalances I have mentioned.

You're rolling a lot of issues into this.  TW's layout is bad-because it was formatted on PDF with PDF search functions, so there was no driving need to notice that it was a cluster-frack.  It also hit the printer with 55 pages of Errata that had to be done, on things already found in playtesting, resolved in playtesting, then not incorporated into the copy sent to the printer before it was sent.

The Early 2000's were a mess, Catalyst was literally a couple guys working out of a garage plus people phoning in by internet with a few meetings in between, and having to wrestle with/satisfy Wizkids, then having to do it all over again with Topps when Topps Bought Wizkids.

Where you're wrong, though, is that vehicles, even with all the Munchtek add-ons, are not OP.  There is a solid argument that they're undervalued in some edge cases  (VTOLs I'm looking at YOU), but they're not OP, and some of the higher valued ones aren't actually very useful outside of very specific scenario situations (Now, I'm looking at the 3/5 and slower assault tanks).  The heaviest Tanks are among the least useful in the game.  Dohn't get me wrong, they're powerful, but they're not useful-they only have one trick, and that's roll up, put it in park and play turret until the scenario ends or it's destroyed.  a light/Medium 'mech that costs less is more generally useful than an Alacorn or Demolisher, you have to get to the BOTTOM of 'mech weight before that changes-at least, in any role that isn't 'sit parked and play speedbump'.

The tanks you say you don't see? those "middle of the road' designs like the Po, 3025 Patton, Gauss Rommel, Fury, etc?  (4/6 with a useful main gun and adequate armor, maybe a decent coax mount?)  Those ARE generally useful designs, especially in the hands of someone who's learned how to win using Vehicle units.  (aka tactics that generally work, even if you lose individual units).  I try to avoid assualt tanks unless it's a carefullly preplanned scenario, because outside of narrow conditions, the big, slow, boys aren't very useful most of the time, and losing them is costly.

Likewise, if the map's a pancake, there's no reason NOT to take hovers or quicker wheeled vehicles (or for wheeled vees, maps with lots of pavement where they can get a movement bonus to make up for being helpless in other terrain, yo.)

but you need a balanced force to make them effective.  OTOH, 'mechs can slot damn near anywhere unless they're intentionally overspecialized (Hunchback IIC).

Like, what does it take to admit something like the TW vehicle WiGE rules are bad? "Yeah, regardless of WiGE being good or bad, I dont want to play against them" feels like a pretty normal reaction, right?

"WIGE" rules were "Tested" without an example to test with-because the generation rules had to wait for TechManual.  Likewise with Airships.

What's your point?

[Charistoph]

Generally, I use Pattons on offense-they're the bottom of the scale for 'useful' vehicle mobility on offense.  Demolishers, Alacorns and anything else with a default 3/5 or slower is just a turret you can emplace in or near the opening moves of the game.

and that's okay.  They have a use and a purpose and something they're good at, which they didn't have in previous rulesets.

Pattons have the mobility to be used aggressively, but they are still a block of Armor with barely much weaponry.  They are still a defensive unit.  But considering there are actual Turrets used for buildings, maybe hold off on the hyperbole for the slower tanks.

as for infernoes? Dude, that was the FIRST alternate munition allowed in the core rules, going all the way back to 2nd Edition Battletech and predating tanks entirely.

Fire rules were optional then, and they are optional now.

Infernos were also optional from the Compendium on, at least, till Total Warfare.  I can't say about the 2nd Edition box, as I never had it, but I don't remember it in the 3rd and I've long since lost mine, and what copy I have of the 4th doesn't have them (probably because of Compendium/BMR).

but it wasn't with Savannahswarms, because those are more myth than reality, and always have been.

Mostly due to the focus on 'Mechs.

Thus, the patton or myrmidon is the BOTTOM OF THE SCALE for vehicles you can expect to use successfully on offense. (4/6 and reasonable firepower with enough plating to take non-critical hits a few times).

Alacorn, Demolisher, and similar are really only good as semi-fixed turret systems that you park early, and leave in 'park' for the duration of the engagement.

This concept of "offense vs defense" is more about position, apparently.  No one will argue that a Demolisher isn't powerful when attacking.  To which, I agree, mostly. 

A Demolisher can pressure just as well as an Atlas, depending on the environment.  In a city, they are equally as fast, same as the Ontos.  The Behemoth will definitely be straggling behind, though.

On a hilly or heavily Wooded map, though, yeah, they are what you stick behind hills that the opponent needs/wants to get behind (where fire support can be back-stabbed?) so they freak out in facing what they do when they get there.

There is multiple infantry discounts.  Infantry defensive values have a cost on bubbles like structure, but dont take crits.  Their armor likewise uses structure pricing multipliers.  Their damage divisors are free and stronger then reflective armor, while reflective armor and other damage divisors all pay.  They get an accuracy bonus, a facing bonus, a movement bonus, and a hidden 'range' bonus at point blank, all free.  Their weapons that generate their range bracket are separate from their weapons that generate squad damage, so they get to multiply their range several times for free; while for every other unit its rangeXdamage infantry instead are range+damage.

If you think about it for more than 5 seconds, I think you can easily understand just how much not a discount all those things are. 

You say that Infantry don't take Crits, but their firepower degrades just as readily as if they did.  That's because the "structure" of an Infantry Platoon is flesh and blood.

They don't get to multiply their squad damage or range for free.  The math is a little annoying, but it does exist.

This is why a platoon of infantry is less then 100 BV, compared to a similarly tough unit with the same damage and range being multiple times that.

No, it's because they are the slowest unit this side of a PXH-99 with a disabled Jump Jet and take bonus Damage from some of the weakest weapons of the game, as well as providing some of the weakest firepower in the game.

[Cannonshop]

Pattons have the mobility to be used aggressively, but they are still a block of Armor with barely much weaponry.  They are still a defensive unit.  But considering there are actual Turrets used for buildings, maybe hold off on the hyperbole for the slower tanks.

Fire rules were optional then, and they are optional now.

Infernos were also optional from the Compendium on, at least, till Total Warfare.  I can't say about the 2nd Edition box, as I never had it, but I don't remember it in the 3rd and I've long since lost mine, and what copy I have of the 4th doesn't have them (probably because of Compendium/BMR).

Mostly due to the focus on 'Mechs.

This concept of "offense vs defense" is more about position, apparently.  No one will argue that a Demolisher isn't powerful when attacking.  To which, I agree, mostly. 

A Demolisher can pressure just as well as an Atlas, depending on the environment.  In a city, they are equally as fast, same as the Ontos.  The Behemoth will definitely be straggling behind, though.

On a hilly or heavily Wooded map, though, yeah, they are what you stick behind hills that the opponent needs/wants to get behind (where fire support can be back-stabbed?) so they freak out in facing what they do when they get there.

If you think about it for more than 5 seconds, I think you can easily understand just how much not a discount all those things are. 

You say that Infantry don't take Crits, but their firepower degrades just as readily as if they did.  That's because the "structure" of an Infantry Platoon is flesh and blood.

They don't get to multiply their squad damage or range for free.  The math is a little annoying, but it does exist.

No, it's because they are the slowest unit this side of a PXH-99 with a disabled Jump Jet and take bonus Damage from some of the weakest weapons of the game, as well as providing some of the weakest firepower in the game.

For me, offense is all about position, because I'm a vehicle player primary, with IS vs. Clans experience and a lot of my mental concepts were developed during an era when vehicle play was a LOT deadlier.

AKA I actually internalized the idea of 'Acceptable Casualties' and 'tactical positioning' out of necessity, to include internalizing the idea that only accurate shots matter because only shots that hit, will actually do damage.

Thus, when I look at the movement on an Alacorn, I don't see an assault 'mech, I see a semi-mobile turret emplacement to guard a position somewhere on my rear flank, maybe to guard the LRM carrier that is also parked.

I do NOT see something good for playing offense, because it takes a penalty for moving that is higher than the bonus it gets to avoid incoming fire for moving, and it creeps up hills requiring flank to get INTO position.

On OFFENSE< on the other hand, getting to position and exerting pressure matters, while raw firepower beyond "adequate to do damage' isn't nearly as high on the list, provided it's adequate damage.

Somehting like stuffing an LBX-10 into a Patton's turret instead of the Ultra, works for me, because I'm going to be driving it right into their metaphorical teeth and the extra plating means when it finally DOES get bunkered, it's likely still going to be able to keep firing until the ammo runs out.

That's offense for me.  'Defense' is basically static, and is an Armor+firepower/movement style of equation.  Lots of armor? Lots of guns? doesn't move for shit? that's a defense unit.

for OFFENSE: you need to be as close to the middle of the Armor/speed/firepower trinity as you can reasonably get, and this can be enhanced if you're also versatile.  , because you're job is to PUSH, either by forcing an opponent to react to your movement, or by exploiting his bad movement choices.

Thus, I tend to prefer generalist designs for the MBT role instead of the biggest lump of armor and guns that can barely move I can find.


One way to look at it is that on Offense, if I'm using vehicles, those vehicles don't stay parked.  They move every turn even if I lose initiative, and they keep moving until knocked out.

on DEFENSE, I park the assault vehicles in good terrain as fast as I can get them there, and that's where they're going to stay, because that's their killer application.

with VTOL units, again, I keep them in motion because in the back of my mind, they're extremely fragile units that can't afford to sit still.

[CarcosanDawn]

So I identified the problem in communication with @DevianID.

I think of BV as a(n attempt to be a) measurement of combat power.

You, DevianID, appear to treat BV as the result of a formula and nothing more.

It is possible to change the formula, and thus the result, and still accurately measure combat power.
A "formulaic discount" (what I think you mean when you talk about vehicles) is not the same thing as an "overall discount" (which is essentially "more combat power for cheaper").

So yes, the vehicle formula is different than the 'Mech formula and will tend to result in a cheaper unit with the same armor and weapons. Formulaically/raw numbers wise, this is a "discount".

However, capability-wise (i.e. combat power-wise), it isn't a "discount" because you legitimately are getting less combat power, even with the same armor and weapons.

I don't consider it a discount because you aren't getting "more combat power for less", even if you are getting the same armor and weapons for less. Using this logic resulted in why I was saying you seemed to be implying IS 'Mechs got a discount - they have lower combat power, and are cheaper in BV (the thing that measures combat power).  Vehicles are also cheaper in BV for having lower combat power... just like IS 'Mechs. That was what I was thinking.

Does that at least help resolve our definitional issue, DevianID? And hopefully explains why I acted so strongly when you said they were discounted.

[Charistoph]

Thus, when I look at the movement on an Alacorn, I don't see an assault 'mech, I see a semi-mobile turret emplacement to guard a position somewhere on my rear flank, maybe to guard the LRM carrier that is also parked.

I don't see an Alacorn as an assault 'Mech, or even an Assault Tank.  I see it more as a sniper like the Schrek, but I tend to think of it as a Gauss Carrier more than the AC/10 Carrier.

Still, if it moves like an Atlas...

I do NOT see something good for playing offense, because it takes a penalty for moving that is higher than the bonus it gets to avoid incoming fire for moving, and it creeps up hills requiring flank to get INTO position.

As I said, it depends on terrain.  Most city maps don't have much in the way of Level changes.  On Hilly terrain, yeah, they don't get to advance much.

On OFFENSE< on the other hand, getting to position and exerting pressure matters, while raw firepower beyond "adequate to do damage' isn't nearly as high on the list, provided it's adequate damage.

I tend to use JEdgars and Savannah Masters pretty aggressively, which is offensively in your book.  They don't really do adequate Damage.  Each unit does it differently.  Some do it through Damage, some through pressure, and some through positioning. 

It's harder to apply pressure with a Demolisher rather than an Atlas if it is sufficiently hilly, though.  In most cities where the terrain is pretty much flat, a Demolisher can apply pressure just as easily (maybe even easier due to a Turret) than an Atlas.

Heck there are a few maps where you can pressure just as well, just treat the hills as buildings.   

To be fair, in the cases where I've used Demolishers and Behemoths I was playing the OpFor against Clan players during Operation Revival.  So, yeah, they are on defense, supporting the Mechs or countering objective grabbing.

[DevianID]

So I identified the problem in communication with @DevianID.
...
I don't consider it a discount because you aren't getting "more combat power for less", even if you are getting the same armor and weapons for less
....

Yes, I think that is probably a big part of the communication.  More armor and weapons for less on a tank I was calling a discount, cause its more armor and weapons for less points.  Your point is that tanks are often terrible, and not worth their cost.  So I still object to you saying 'tanks dont have a discount' because they do by formula.  However, we have long agreed that the middle of the pack tanks are not WORTH the cost, the 'discounted' cost.

Now, that 'more armor and weapons' vehicles get for less, on the 'good' vehicles, ARE worth the cost.  The game isnt played in a bubble.  Things like the mortar carrier and 3050+ LRM carriers punch way above their cost when played correctly.  Cheap vtols and Hovers punch way above their cost.  Armored slow bricks can punch way above their cost.  Something like a dual LB10 dual SSRM4 Typhoon for 1064bv punches way above its weight class--more armor and triple the firepower of the same weight class LB10x Po for only 50% more cost.  These units ARE worth their cost, and the discounts vehicles get and the rules vehicles get make them all overtuned in their area.  It doesnt matter if they are specialized, the game is played in specialized chunks--and vehicles have very inconsistent costs, like on the Po and Typhoon...  Both are heavy tanks, but one is way stronger then the other, and when used in its element costs way too little.  Thats the problem with the TW rules for vees.  Add in the rules for airships and wige that make the book layout more confusing and harder to parse, and you introduce more issues.  Like, which vee gets a road bonus?  Is it free, do they pay for it?  Ect.

If vehicles had a booklet form, where all their rules went from page 8-12 in the same depth as battle armor accomplishes in the page space, then they would be better.  But, the TW rules are not that brief, and are not laid out in a row, and in implementation the vehicles range from garbage to overtuned, leading to negative play experiences.  Someone running a WiGE is gonna have a bad time cause they are largely just the worst; someone up against a good exploity hover is gonna have a bad time when they find out they take 50 damage to a single leg in melee.  These I call rules failing with TW, and why I dont mind BSPs if it means I dont get the 50 damage hover charge.

[DevianID]

If you think about it for more than 5 seconds, I think you can easily understand just how much not a discount all those things are. 

You say that Infantry don't take Crits, but their firepower degrades just as readily as if they did.  That's because the "structure" of an Infantry Platoon is flesh and blood.

They don't get to multiply their squad damage or range for free.  The math is a little annoying, but it does exist.

So I believe I have put the most work into analyzing BV and its cost across different units.  Its fair to say I analyzed it for 'more then 5 seconds' haha.

Which is more survivable, when looking at defensive costs?  The 28 strong platoon, or a 20 ton mech with 0 armor.  Both have the same speed of 1 for this.  A 20 ton mech with 0 armor has MORE bubbles of structure then 28 infantry, 33 vs 28.  So, the mech costs more, indicating it is has a higher defensive BV.  But, and I hope this is evident, infantry for less cost are WAY WAY more survivable then a mech which costs more. 
The argument that damage degrades infantry's shooting also has no bearing on a units defensive value, as an aside.

Losing locations and weapons as you take damage is not the same thing as crits.  Yes, infantry damage degrades with damage, but yes, even without a single successful crit roll a mechs damage will degrade as it takes damage, just like infantry.  Both are fractionated as damage comes in, but the mech also has crits that can destroy it, its mobility, its weapons, or its accuracy.  You literally can not kill a mech without leaving some structure left, as if you kill the CT you didnt kill the head, and if you kill the head it died without losing all CT structure.  Infantry, on the other hand, because there is no critical component, ALWAYS live until every bubble is marked off.  Further, they dont degrade defensively in any way when hit, unlike mechs or heck even tanks that have crits that can cause more damage.  Even battle armor have an optional rule for critical hits, but there is no such mechanic for infantry--yet they pay for bubbles and armor like it was structure.

Now, given an infantry and the mech with the same speed, which one can reach more hexes for the same speed factor?  A mech can reach 2 hexes, the infantry 6.  The infantry have a larger speed factor, but the formula counts them the same.

Also, when you say 'they dont get their damage/range increased for free'. 

Code: [Select]

Offensive Battle Rating:
   Weapons:                                                           
   - 3 x Auto-Rifle (Modern, Generic)    + 3 x 1.59              = 4.77
   - 2 x LRM Launcher (Corean Farshot)   + 2 x 3.44             = 11.65
   Speed Factor:                         11.65 x 0.77           = 8.971

This is an excerpt showing how the BV for infantry is calculated.  You will note that the autorifles only cost 1.59 each, which is still undercosted for their range (there is a weapon BV calculator, and it demonstrates that this weapon is incorrect.  Its not as bad as the shrapnel weapons which dont have MUL units yet, and the errata on weapons has not updated BV yet either, so infantry weapon BV is a hot mess, but the autorifle is 'close' but not correct).  The LRM is correctly calculated at 3.44 for a range 9+1 weapon that deals .48 damage.

There is a melee attack that infantry pay for, which is tied to their weapon output for swarm damage instead of tonnage like on a mech.  The anti-mech infantry attack is a separate issue, as non-AM infantry with an AM attack count as skill 8, for a .85 cost multiplier on both offense and defense.  That cost multiplier can be gamed pretty hard--usually gunnery skill 4 piloting 8 tanks would count as 'a jerk move' but for infantry its a core TW rule, one I believe people--especially people who dont like seeing 4/8 skill anything, dont like as part of the TW infantry rules.

Now, in game play, the entire squad has a 3/6/9 range, so the rifles get their range multiplied yet dont cost extra.  The rifles are already a tiny bit undercosted, and then they get ~3x the range for no price.

[CarcosanDawn]

Yes, I think that is probably a big part of the communication.  More armor and weapons for less on a tank I was calling a discount, cause its more armor and weapons for less points.  Your point is that tanks are often terrible, and not worth their cost.  So I still object to you saying 'tanks dont have a discount' because they do by formula.  However, we have long agreed that the middle of the pack tanks are not WORTH the cost, the 'discounted' cost.

I actually think tanks are balanced, in the main. They do less, but cost less. There are some outliers, but there are outlier 'Mechs as well. I don't think BV is too terrible at what it claims to do.

Now, that 'more armor and weapons' vehicles get for less, on the 'good' vehicles, ARE worth the cost.  The game isnt played in a bubble.  Things like the mortar carrier and 3050+ LRM carriers punch way above their cost when played correctly.  Cheap vtols and Hovers punch way above their cost.  Armored slow bricks can punch way above their cost.  Something like a dual LB10 dual SSRM4 Typhoon for 1064bv punches way above its weight class--more armor and triple the firepower of the same weight class LB10x Po for only 50% more cost.  These units ARE worth their cost, and the discounts vehicles get and the rules vehicles get make them all overtuned in their area.  It doesnt matter if they are specialized, the game is played in specialized chunks--and vehicles have very inconsistent costs, like on the Po and Typhoon...  Both are heavy tanks, but one is way stronger then the other, and when used in its element costs way too little.  Thats the problem with the TW rules for vees.  Add in the rules for airships and wige that make the book layout more confusing and harder to parse, and you introduce more issues.  Like, which vee gets a road bonus?  Is it free, do they pay for it?  Ect.

So I think the problem here is "specialization". There are certain tasks (especially indirect fire support) where being small and carrying more gun per unit volume is good. In this case, tanks will be better than 'Mechs, because they are small and carry more gun per unit volume.

But what that says to me is that it's balanced, not that it's imbalanced. There are two philosophies when building an army: flexibility, or specialization.

Flexibility means the army can flex to meet objectives or handle unexpected situations - a decisive advantage. A Longbow or Archer has a fair chance to fight off a close-range attacker, or survive having to trundle out to snatch an objective, and can even close with the enemy with an ammo type switch (Dead-fire let's goo) and compel the enemy to react.

An LRM carrier? It can't do any of those things. It can ONLY do indirect fire support. In the list of someone who prefers flexibility, the LRM carrier is not the best choice for IDF, because IDF isn't the ONLY TASK expected of that role.

Conversely, specialized forces tend to have less reactivity - they can't shift priorities or whatever quite as easily. They operate more formulaically or mechanically: the IDF role does the IDF task. The cavalry role units do the cavalry task. The objective campers camp on objectives.

Units like the Wolverine 6M are bad in a specialized force - they're an okay brawler, an okay cavalry mech, and an okay objective grabbing 'Mech. But they will lose at brawling to a Von Lucker, lose at cavalry to heavy hovercraft swarm, and lose at objective-camping to a Behemoth, BV for BV.

That's not a bad thing. That's just trade-offs and compromises. Specialists ought to beat generalists at the task they are optimized for, and generalists ought to be trying to force specialists to perform OUTSIDE of their purpose and task in order to defeat them. This makes specialists very sensitive to battlefield and scenario conditions, and that means that they can be optimized if the set of maps and scenarios is limited. This is why I encourage people to vary scenario and map often.

If vehicles had a booklet form, where all their rules went from page 8-12 in the same depth as battle armor accomplishes in the page space, then they would be better.  But, the TW rules are not that brief, and are not laid out in a row, and in implementation the vehicles range from garbage to overtuned, leading to negative play experiences.  Someone running a WiGE is gonna have a bad time cause they are largely just the worst; someone up against a good exploity hover is gonna have a bad time when they find out they take 50 damage to a single leg in melee.  These I call rules failing with TW, and why I dont mind BSPs if it means I dont get the 50 damage hover charge.

I do think TW's layout could be improved as I said before.

The other issue, though, is not limited to vehicles. There are overtuned and undertuned 'Mechs as well.

And someone up against a good exploity hover can, as I mentioned earlier, use the generalist 'Mech to force the hover into a situation it isn't equipped for. Vehicles can't change multiple levels at once, so stand on a hill and block the only gradual way up. Heck, stand in *woods*, and suddenly, that fifty damage charge becomes literally incapable of success. Bonus points if it's something small like a flea blocking the hill so the hovercraft still damages itself to kill something cheaper.

That's the whole reason vehicles are cheaper - they are less capable, and the less capable (and cheaper) they get, the easier they are to canalize on terrain, drop Thunder mines on, etc. Taking a 50 damage charge from a hovercraft is just like standing next to level 1 terrain against a jumpy TSM 'Mech and getting your head kicked off - it's something that's fairly easy to avoid on a normal map.

[CarcosanDawn]

So I believe I have put the most work into analyzing BV and its cost across different units.  Its fair to say I analyzed it for 'more then 5 seconds' haha.

Which is more survivable, when looking at defensive costs?  The 28 strong platoon, or a 20 ton mech with 0 armor.  Both have the same speed of 1 for this.  A 20 ton mech with 0 armor has MORE bubbles of structure then 28 infantry, 33 vs 28.  So, the mech costs more, indicating it is has a higher defensive BV.  But, and I hope this is evident, infantry for less cost are WAY WAY more survivable then a mech which costs more.

Are they, though?

Which is tougher: 28 infantrymen or one 20 ton mech against an MG? A flamer? A Thumper cannon? Mine clearance LRMs? Micro pulse lasers?

Taking anti-'Mech weapons and pointing them at infantry saying "look how tough they are" is not a valid comparison, because it is a weapon to target mismatch.

Flies are tougher than tanks, don't you know? I can't knock out a fly with a Javelin ATGM!

[Charistoph]

So I believe I have put the most work into analyzing BV and its cost across different units.  Its fair to say I analyzed it for 'more then 5 seconds' haha.

You can claim it all you want, it doesn't mean you are accurate.  You have prejudices and that will appear in your analysis.  What I see is someone who is only looking at the price tag while ignoring everything else on the field.

Which is more survivable, when looking at defensive costs?  The 28 strong platoon, or a 20 ton mech with 0 armor.  Both have the same speed of 1 for this.  A 20 ton mech with 0 armor has MORE bubbles of structure then 28 infantry, 33 vs 28.  So, the mech costs more, indicating it is has a higher defensive BV.  But, and I hope this is evident, infantry for less cost are WAY WAY more survivable then a mech which costs more. 

Are they?  It depends on the weapon deployed against them and the terrain they are in.

Sure, an Infantry Platoon will take 1-4 Damage from a PPC (depending on the type and cover) while a Mech will take 5-20 (if it hits), but a 20 ton Mech is far more survivable against a Machine Gun or Flamer, or even Artillery (well, against a Thumper, any way), than an Infantry Platoon.

'Mechs can negate Damage by being in Partial Cover.  All Infantry can do is prevent bonus Damage.

The argument that damage degrades infantry's shooting also has no bearing on a units defensive value, as an aside.

Since no one has brought that up, that's a strawman argument.

Losing locations and weapons as you take damage is not the same thing as crits.

Since losing a location effectively removes it from the 'Mech the same as a crit.  The only difference is when it comes to Explosive Crits, or Legs.

Yes, infantry damage degrades with damage, but yes, even without a single successful crit roll a mechs damage will degrade as it takes damage, just like infantry. 

Not quite.  The degradation happens at different rates and for different reasons. 

While forgetting Crit capacity, you need to remove a Location in order to Remove a 'Mech's weaponry.  And removing a Location doesn't necessarily mean that you've removed Weaponry, such as in the case of the Ost series.

An Infantry Platoon will lose, on average, 1-3 Damage for every 2 Soldiers who are killed.  There is no way to avoid this like in a Mech by putting it in to a different spot.  For example, you take a Warhammer WHM-6R, and there is a notable difference between losing a Left Arm and a Left Torso (and a bit more on the Right), but you have to go through all that Structure in order to do so.  That means hitting those Locations consistently enough to remove that Structure.  With Infantry, there are no Locations.

Both are fractionated as damage comes in, but the mech also has crits that can destroy it, its mobility, its weapons, or its accuracy.  You literally can not kill a mech without leaving some structure left, as if you kill the CT you didnt kill the head, and if you kill the head it died without losing all CT structure.  Infantry, on the other hand, because there is no critical component, ALWAYS live until every bubble is marked off.  Further, they dont degrade defensively in any way when hit, unlike mechs or heck even tanks that have crits that can cause more damage.  Even battle armor have an optional rule for critical hits, but there is no such mechanic for infantry--yet they pay for bubbles and armor like it was structure.

'Mechs don't take double Damage from Area-Affect Weapons.  'Mechs don't take double Damage from being in the open.  'Mechs don't have to deal with Burst-Fire rules.  'Mechs have means of completely negating Damage just by being in an advantageous position which also reduces their chances of being Hit in the first place as well.

You want Conventional Infantry to take Crits?  They are the most vulnerable unit out there.  For every divisor they they have, they have to deal with a multiplier (in one case, a divisor is actually a multiplier!).  All for a few Machine Guns worth of Damage capacity that usually Clusters down even further.

Now, given an infantry and the mech with the same speed, which one can reach more hexes for the same speed factor?  A mech can reach 2 hexes, the infantry 6.  The infantry have a larger speed factor, but the formula counts them the same.

Having more options doesn't mean one has a larger speed factor.  No matter which direction that Foot Infantry goes, they are only going 1 Hex, never 2 (discounting Foot Cavalry).

I'm kind of surprised that you didn't bring up Buildings which are a free pass for Infantry, but deadly to that naked 20 ton 'Mech.

Also, when you say 'they dont get their damage/range increased for free'. 

Code: [Select]

Offensive Battle Rating:
   Weapons:                                                           
   - 3 x Auto-Rifle (Modern, Generic)    + 3 x 1.59              = 4.77
   - 2 x LRM Launcher (Corean Farshot)   + 2 x 3.44             = 11.65
   Speed Factor:                         11.65 x 0.77           = 8.971

This is an excerpt showing how the BV for infantry is calculated.  You will note that the autorifles only cost 1.59 each, which is still undercosted for their range (there is a weapon BV calculator, and it demonstrates that this weapon is incorrect.  Its not as bad as the shrapnel weapons which dont have MUL units yet, and the errata on weapons has not updated BV yet either, so infantry weapon BV is a hot mess, but the autorifle is 'close' but not correct).  The LRM is correctly calculated at 3.44 for a range 9+1 weapon that deals .48 damage.

Being cheap doesn't mean that it is free, as your demonstration proves my point.  Not to mention, those LRMs will effectively negate any of their Movement.  How much does an LRM-5 slow down a 'Mech again?

Did you compare Energy Rifles with Ballistic Rifles?  In that case they swap Range for Damage.

There is a melee attack that infantry pay for, which is tied to their weapon output for swarm damage instead of tonnage like on a mech. 

Which makes sense because they are literally using their weapons for the Attack.

The anti-mech infantry attack is a separate issue, as non-AM infantry with an AM attack count as skill 8, for a .85 cost multiplier on both offense and defense.  That cost multiplier can be gamed pretty hard--usually gunnery skill 4 piloting 8 tanks would count as 'a jerk move' but for infantry its a core TW rule, one I believe people--especially people who dont like seeing 4/8 skill anything, dont like as part of the TW infantry rules.

Technically a TM rule, as TW doesn't have rules for calculating BV, but it's the same "Level" of play.

One way around this is scenario level rules which limit the difference between Skill Levels.  It's a fairly common practice.

Now, in game play, the entire squad has a 3/6/9 range, so the rifles get their range multiplied yet dont cost extra.  The rifles are already a tiny bit undercosted, and then they get ~3x the range for no price.

The rifles don't cost extra, but the unit does, which is where your point becomes disingenuous.  In addition, in order to get that range of 9, they cannot Move.  If they Move, they cannot Shoot.  In order to Move and Shoot, they have to change their Motive Type, which increases their Cost.  Even then they will still have a reduction of Movement so they can't go greater than 4.  To go that fast, they are now extremely limited in which environments they can enter.

So, there are costs that are not included in your calculations that you are ignoring and glossing over that you didn't think about for more than 5 seconds since you were so focused on the paper (BV) cost, that you ignored the field costs on the table.