Battlefield Support: Assets

[CarcosanDawn]

Right, Charistoph.

Combat power on the table is not purely a function of damage, range, speed, and armor/structure - which is why different formulae exist in the first place.

If combat power were purely "stick these variables in an equation and thusly combat power, regardless of all other factors" you either have a very simplistic game, or a really bad formula for measuring the actual utility of a unit on the battlefield.

[Cannonshop]

Right, Charistoph.

Combat power on the table is not purely a function of damage, range, speed, and armor/structure - which is why different formulae exist in the first place.

If combat power were purely "stick these variables in an equation and thusly combat power, regardless of all other factors" you either have a very simplistic game, or a really bad formula for measuring the actual utility of a unit on the battlefield.

Just an aside, but people who don't actually play a lot often rely on oversimplifying BV as the be-all-end-all of unit comparison.  When they were DOING Bv2.0 one of the most common suggestions on the boards, was to start accounting for terrain and player skills, in the BV calculations-two things that literally aren't objective enough to have a functional battlevalue system, but it was being suggested, because the players involved didn't really grasp what BV is supposed to measure.

They wanted subjective conditions included in what is an objective tool.

They succeeded in getting FSM incorporated, which did nothing but create complication when one stepped out of the 'at the desk theory' and into 'at the table play'.

There is a tendency for new(er) players whose groups aren't very active or interested in anything outside of the traditional 'mech duel, to over-focus on specific minutiae.

Like, for example, claiming that "X unit is OP" because it has more guns and lower BV, or because they don't account for function, only numbers and variables.

The cure I usually find, is to play TWO matches.  In the first one, he picks his units, and I pick mine.

The second match, you swap sides.

With the relevant book bookmarked and open, and helping him find all the rules that actually apply.

I ain't had to do this in a long while-our FLGS stopped existing and I 'retired' from active play for a few years, our Commando is largely inactive now (no FLGS to base out of) and I stopped volunteering sometime around 2010 or 2011, but one of the things about being an experienced player, is helping new players learn this stuff.

DevianID's example of the 50 point ramming attack is very much an 'edge of things' situation.  If there are hovers on the board and you're NOT using terrain, you're setting yourself up.

Just like when you're facing a vehicle/infantry player and you swap that LBX for an Ultra or Gauss rifle variant-you're setting yourself up.  Likewise if you're facing a combined arms player and you swap out all your machineguns for more ERMLs and double heat-sinks to get that 'icebox flashbulb' duelling machine that was so much the rage on the forums back in the early 2000s.

[Charistoph]

Likewise if you're facing a combined arms player and you swap out all your machineguns for more ERMLs and double heat-sinks to get that 'icebox flashbulb' duelling machine that was so much the rage on the forums back in the early 2000s.

To be fair, if the Combined Arms player tends to go Clan, the ERMLs are better than Machine Guns in most cases.

Still, if they're the "15 Squads of Foot Rifle for Initiative Scumming", you're not wrong.  Still not as scary as the 30ish BV hover 170 Damage Booby Trap that teleports across the map.  You get both Initiative Scumming, high Damage, and ability to limit Movement all in one package.

[Cannonshop]

To be fair, if the Combined Arms player tends to go Clan, the ERMLs are better than Machine Guns in most cases.

Still, if they're the "15 Squads of Foot Rifle for Initiative Scumming", you're not wrong.  Still not as scary as the 30ish BV hover 170 Damage Booby Trap that teleports across the map.  You get both Initiative Scumming, high Damage, and ability to limit Movement all in one package.

And where do we find the stats for your 'booby trap'? Is it...in the Optional rules?

I mean, the REALLY optional rules. 

it's an edge case.

Someone dropping 30 platoons of infantry on the map for 'initiative scumming' is interesting because of how much sheer investment has to go into that.  It's almost a joke layout at that point, especially if there IS an actual objective in play. (though it's amusing from another angle, that being how many machine-guns can I pack before getting impatient with the infernoes and artillery...)

"Initiative scumming" itself, is another subject of arguments, there's even a thread on it over in General (though it may have rolled under the fold by now).

Note that I've done this with SMALLER forces (not just lower BV), just by evaluating where my units are, can end up, and which ones will be the most useful despite being under threat.

but then, experience has told me I tend to have a higher 'risk appetite' than many players, and will more readily accept losses if it gets me closer to my objective.

[Charistoph]

And where do we find the stats for your 'booby trap'? Is it...in the Optional rules?

I mean, the REALLY optional rules. 

As optional as the Tech Manual and Tactical Operations: Advanced Units and Equipment are.

Most Platoons pretty much have to be built in a similar way, too, interestingly enough, if MegaMekLab's list is anything to go by.

it's an edge case.

As edgy as using Infernos to light woods on fire.  Possibly even less edgy these days since no one has used Fire Rules here, but those hover cars have been deployed.  Mostly for objective-grabbers, but can easily be tweaked to take on someone who needs humbling.

Still, limiting Conventional Infantry to BSP Assets is a good argument to make for those edge cases of Infantry Spam.

[Cannonshop]

As optional as the Tech Manual and Tactical Operations: Advanced Units and Equipment are.

Most Platoons pretty much have to be built in a similar way, too, interestingly enough, if MegaMekLab's list is anything to go by.

As edgy as using Infernos to light woods on fire.  Possibly even less edgy these days since no one has used Fire Rules here, but those hover cars have been deployed.  Mostly for objective-grabbers, but can easily be tweaked to take on someone who needs humbling.

Still, limiting Conventional Infantry to BSP Assets is a good argument to make for those edge cases of Infantry Spam.

How often do you actually SEE 'Infantry spam" though?

And TacOps? really? that's on the edge of using Maxtech, though they did move Artillery in there after screwing the pooch and making it both less useful and OP, then having to roll it back.

We start discussing things you need a third book to use, we might as well include all the ways to erase infantry in TacOps, because that list is even LONGER.

wait, hang on, while we're adding third books, how about those orbital bombardment spams? hmmm?

Oh, and NOOKS!! can't forget NUKES...

there are things in TW that were poorly implemented, like layout, adding untested (and at the time, untestable) unit classes, and the numerous items that had to be errata'd the day after publication...

but how often do you actually see any of it?

Those are pulling out edge cases, Charistoph, and using them as arguments as if they were common, frequent events.  It's like the guys who moaned over "Savannahmaster swarms" because they heard about it from a guy who knows a guy whose sister is dating the guy who read about it on the internet one time back in 1998.

Yes, the rules may allow it, but unless it's YOUR go-to strategy, you're likely to never see it except in a megamek test with Princess, or a single published instance.

It's like fretting over The Stackpole Maneuver (detonating your fusion engine).

[CarcosanDawn]

I will say that I find expanding to optional rules means you have to include all of them. The  270 BV booby trap doesn't work under ECM, for example, because it's a hover drone, and drones have special rules under ECM (i.e. they break).

If you're fighting 30 swarm infantry, than the pre-spaceflight fuel-air round for artillery is a nice boon...

I agree the game can get skewed if you include only some special rules though, and I also see that some special rules are more special than others because of complexity (i..e nuclear weapons)

[Charistoph]

How often do you actually SEE 'Infantry spam" though?

I've "spammed" the most in my group, barely, and that's because it was a campaign scenario.  I think the people who even have that many bases of Infantry are the oldest Demo Agent here and Campaign runners, and only for that purpose.  The newest campaign runner was using Axis & Allies figures to represent Infantry in his last scenario.

During my year as GM, I've used Infantry as Initiative Sinks once when I forgot to be a GM.  They were Jump Infantry and had APCs to help speed them through that nasty Tukayyid canyon map.  They were slaughtered to man on that map, and I felt absolutely terrible about it later as I realized what I did.

Still, I recognize what the BS Assets can be used for, and being the rather flexible guy I am, am prepared to use it in an anti-spammer technique if it becomes needed just as one of our local scenario runners is prepared to use Bomb Master spam against abusive players.

And TacOps? really? that's on the edge of using Maxtech, though they did move Artillery in there after screwing the pooch and making it both less useful and OP, then having to roll it back.

Your point?  The Booby Trap is available on some units available in Record Sheets CGL sells.  Sometimes we like to allow custom builds and go crazy in on-offs.  Some of the things in TO:AU&E are even Standard by the ilClan Era, and not even in the BMM.

We start discussing things you need a third book to use, we might as well include all the ways to erase infantry in TacOps, because that list is even LONGER.

Like the Mercenaries box book which include the rules for Battlefield Support Assets?

As it is, Total Warfare has plenty of things to erase CI with and are easier to use in most cases, such as Infernos and Plasma.

wait, hang on, while we're adding third books, how about those orbital bombardment spams? hmmm?

Oh, and NOOKS!! can't forget NUKES...

Back to hyperbole again, I see.

there are things in TW that were poorly implemented, like layout, adding untested (and at the time, untestable) unit classes, and the numerous items that had to be errata'd the day after publication...

but how often do you actually see any of it?

See any of what, actually?  Things in TW?  Quite a bit.  We run the gambit quite often.  We've been doing less of the TacOps equipment over the past year as our old FLGS shut down and we've been trying to responsibly build a good community at another store.

Those are pulling out edge cases, Charistoph, and using them as arguments as if they were common, frequent events.  It's like the guys who moaned over "Savannahmaster swarms" because they heard about it from a guy who knows a guy whose sister is dating the guy who read about it on the internet one time back in 1998.

Yes, the rules may allow it, but unless it's YOUR go-to strategy, you're likely to never see it except in a megamek test with Princess, or a single published instance.

I've seen Light Hovercraft spam that is the equivalent of the Savannah Master Swarm with the Booby Trap.  Faced it even while trying to deal with another guy who could nail head shots at will who was playing a Sniper list against my balanced list (2v2 match).  It was in the early days when we were finding all the ways to do things crazy because that craziness was a fun time in its own right.

The thing is that he didn't use the Booby Traps or Charge, though he could have.  What he did do was stop my non-Jumping units from moving so they had no TMM, allowing those Snipers to hammer them down.

Is that this guy's go-to strategy?  No (except for one specific case which hasn't come up since).  He normally plays a balanced list, or goes for goofy units that no one sees.  Why does it have to be a "go-to" strategy in order to prepare for it?  When one faces different strategies and different scenarios every week, even HAVING a "go-to" strategy is a weakness that can be exploited.

So far in this thread your "go-to" strategy has been hyperbole and being stuck 20+ years in the past.

[Cannonshop]

I've "spammed" the most in my group, barely, and that's because it was a campaign scenario.  I think the people who even have that many bases of Infantry are the oldest Demo Agent here and Campaign runners, and only for that purpose.  The newest campaign runner was using Axis & Allies figures to represent Infantry in his last scenario.

During my year as GM, I've used Infantry as Initiative Sinks once when I forgot to be a GM.  They were Jump Infantry and had APCs to help speed them through that nasty Tukayyid canyon map.  They were slaughtered to man on that map, and I felt absolutely terrible about it later as I realized what I did.

Still, I recognize what the BS Assets can be used for, and being the rather flexible guy I am, am prepared to use it in an anti-spammer technique if it becomes needed just as one of our local scenario runners is prepared to use Bomb Master spam against abusive players.

Your point?  The Booby Trap is available on some units available in Record Sheets CGL sells.  Sometimes we like to allow custom builds and go crazy in on-offs.  Some of the things in TO:AU&E are even Standard by the ilClan Era, and not even in the BMM.

Like the Mercenaries box book which include the rules for Battlefield Support Assets?

As it is, Total Warfare has plenty of things to erase CI with and are easier to use in most cases, such as Infernos and Plasma.

Back to hyperbole again, I see.

See any of what, actually?  Things in TW?  Quite a bit.  We run the gambit quite often.  We've been doing less of the TacOps equipment over the past year as our old FLGS shut down and we've been trying to responsibly build a good community at another store.

I've seen Light Hovercraft spam that is the equivalent of the Savannah Master Swarm with the Booby Trap.  Faced it even while trying to deal with another guy who could nail head shots at will who was playing a Sniper list against my balanced list (2v2 match).  It was in the early days when we were finding all the ways to do things crazy because that craziness was a fun time in its own right.

The thing is that he didn't use the Booby Traps or Charge, though he could have.  What he did do was stop my non-Jumping units from moving so they had no TMM, allowing those Snipers to hammer them down.

Is that this guy's go-to strategy?  No (except for one specific case which hasn't come up since).  He normally plays a balanced list, or goes for goofy units that no one sees.  Why does it have to be a "go-to" strategy in order to prepare for it?  When one faces different strategies and different scenarios every week, even HAVING a "go-to" strategy is a weakness that can be exploited.

So far in this thread your "go-to" strategy has been hyperbole and being stuck 20+ years in the past.

Headshots at will? That's gotta be a good story.

Can he do it with borrowed dice too?

or using a dice tower, and borrowed dice?

I know there were some things in the game that were specifically altered because people were abusing them to get those kind of called shots in the 'average' rolls, but that was..oh yeah, 'More than Twenty Years Ago'.

Dude must have some fantastic dice luck.  take him to Vegas, he'll clean up.

or are you exaggerating for effect on an incident that happened a long time ago?

Y'know, 'Hyperbole'?

I brought out the 'more than 20 years ago' stuff to show how we got here, Charistoph.  Because how we got somewhere helps clarify the problem that's being 'solved' today.

and whether it's really a problem.

You'll note, I agree with DevianID that VTOLs need another look vis-a-vis BV2.0, which also needs another look because the system was 'tuned' to use something that no longer applies (Force Size Multiplier) and has shown some other issues in terms of overvaluing and undervaluing, but the base concept is pretty solid-it needs work, not replacement.

I tried looking at the topic (BSP's) from a supporter's side, to try and grasp that side of things, because it looks like a test run for replacing conventionals.  The justification used (Mooks for scenarios) suggests a lot about the underlying thought behind it and what's really trying to be solved here.

the hazard of using optional rules, is that some of them don't play well with each other-that's often a reason why they're optional.  other reasons end up being game or logic breaking. (Stackpole's exploding fusion engines, for example, or nukes on the map...)

[Charistoph]

Headshots at will? That's gotta be a good story.

Can he do it with borrowed dice too?

or using a dice tower, and borrowed dice?

Scarily, yes.  I could roll a consistent 1 under To-Hit for half the night, he could grab the same dice and roll Head Hits just as often as I barely missed.

Thank goodness he moved to Portugal.  It was rough facing him.  Though, I got better at maneuver because of him.

I brought out the 'more than 20 years ago' stuff to show how we got here, Charistoph.  Because how we got somewhere helps clarify the problem that's being 'solved' today.

It's more that you keep going back to it as if it either mattered in today's environment or applied to the Battlefield Support question at all.  While it might matter while looking at a local group's psychology, it doesn't when looking at the rules situation.  It's been almost 20 years since Total Warfare was printed.  Even that book isn't the same any more.  Decisions made in 2006 don't have the same bearing as decisions made in 2023 or 2025.

Even worse is when you think it's trying to solve a problem you've been told several times it wasn't addressing, just could be used to address if needed.

the hazard of using optional rules, is that some of them don't play well with each other-that's often a reason why they're optional.  other reasons end up being game or logic breaking. (Stackpole's exploding fusion engines, for example, or nukes on the map...)

Most of them do work well together, though.  However, the big question is if people are up to speed on them, understand them, and are willing to play with them.  As crazy as Stackpoling and nukes are, they are nothing compared to the Fire and Smoke rules.

The topic of optional rules actually came up in regards to the League that one of our GMs posted.  He didn't post any, so I asked him what he was going to consider, and basically he was hesitant to try as there are a lot of new people he wants to bring in.

For one of the locations the League is at, we already run a bunch, like Sprinting, One-Arm Prop, and Floating Crit.  However, the other location is VERY new, as in the literally just opened the doors a few months ago, and they have a lot more players who have just gotten in to the game.  (It doesn't help that the Demo Agent who got the Advocate position at that store is rather feckless when compared to a slightly more experienced one that lives closer is a whole other topic.)

So far the league organizer has said that it's "Agreement between players for that game only".  He said he'll review as we go along.  Our oldest local Demo Agent put in a few cents, too, so he might run it at the location he's become the Battletech Advocate for (oddly enough, the same company as the second location mentioned above). 

That's 3 of the 8 local game stores that I know run regularly.  There's also a few stores that might run Battletech, too, but I'm simply to far away to know (this metro area is quite large) as well as a few local home clubs.

[DevianID]

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

So like, do you actually care about the math?  Like, if I post the math of a 42 defensive BV value infantry with 28 structure, next to a 49.5 defensive BV 20 ton mech with 33 structure, will it matter?  At one point you agreed with me that TW infantry had problematic issues, but it appears you are no longer of that assumption--at least as it pertains to infantry being too cheap for being so tough.  So, since you said in the past you agree with TW infantry issues, but not this one, what are your issues with TW infantry CarcosanDawn?

1x Ontos (Fusion) Command Tank, 3/4 (1699 BV)
1x Ontos (Fusion) 4/5 (1287)
2x Von Luckner 65N 4/5 (1100 ea.)
2x Flea mech (FLE-4 version with Large Laser) (432 ea.)

This was your take all comers list, 3025 it looks like.  If the opponent has a couple infantry in their force, are you still of the opinion that the infantry are not tougher then equal cost mechs because flamers?  The LRMs using mine clearance is 10/1, *2 for AE (same damage as just shooting normal LRM10s, but much more accurate cause AE is silly like that), so 2 damage to infantry, 4 out of cover.  The normal 6 damage to the mech from regular ammo has about a 10% chance to kill the mech, going up to 99% chance to kill the mech once ~25 LRM damage is done, which is 4 LRM10 hits.  4 LRM10 hits will deal 16/28 damage to infantry out of cover and 8/28 to infantry in cover.  (you may not know about the mine clearance ammo errata, they used to do more AE damage)

Frag LRMs, when available in the correct era post 3025, do a good job (but lose the AE huge accuracy buff, which I assume is why you mentioned them) but then make the ammo worthless versus everything else.  Its part of why I want to price infantry as if they have reflective armor, not BRA + Reflective armor... because in some eras missiles can do normal damage to infantry--though in 3025 the LRM10 does 2 damage, for a /3 divisor, which is very tough to overcome.  You also have 2 flamers and 2 machine guns, and 2 more flamers mounted the wrong direction.  But, your list will 100% kill way more mechs then it will infantry... because even though you have anti infantry weapons, they arnt THAT effective.  Your 20 medium lasers will do more work versus infantry than your AI weapons in the course of a game, by sheer volume.  But that infantry, flamer or no, is gonna be a disproportionate slog to get though.  Unlike mechs or vehicles, you have to get to point blank to hurt the infantry, right where they want to be versus you.  The whole rest of the game the 2 units of infantry can just be sitting in trees, sinking init for 160 BV, requiring a herculean effort to destroy FOR 160 BV.  Meanwhile, there is still 4 normal units, to maintain unit count parity with you, with the 5840 remaining BV.

Like, reflective armor is double damage from AE and melee, and half damage from energy.  Infantry have 90% damage reduction from energy AND melee, same double damage from AE.  I dont think its a stretch to say that the 50% BV markup of reflective should apply to infantry.  Is that crazy?

As an aside, BV is a direct count of what you bring.  PV in alpha strike is the same.  100 armor on 1 unit is the same as 50 armor on 2 units.  So if a unit (infantry) pays for 28 structure, or a vtol pays for 2 armor, but those pips count for 10x that value because of damage divisors, it needs to be reflected correctly in the units cost.  Otherwise, you WILL have people playing against TW infantry shoot their PPC, and get upset when their opponent tells them they only do 1 damage, worth 1.5 BV. 

Like, is there a player out there encountering infantry across the map on an objective for the first time that is happy with the infantry rules?  I cant imagine the casual player being excited seeing 28 infantry that clown car out of a cheap transport onto an objective from across the board in a take all comers pickup game--especially when they find out that the total package costs less then a stinger.

I cant even talk with Charistoph about it, because when presented with direct evidence that rifles get their range multiplied for free in BV, one of the things I call out as a problem with the TW infantry rules, he again dismissed with the insult

you didn't think about for more than 5 seconds.

  Is it easier when you all insult me to make dismissing my points easier?  Like he assumes LRMs multiplying the range for free makes the unit immobile, but thats factually incorrect to the example I made, and doesnt matter if it were true (look at your example of foot LRM infantry, look at their speed factor, check the speed factors in the book, and it should answer the incorrect point you were trying to make about speed reduction).  Perhaps its a problem of the infantry rules being so large and unwieldy he didnt know the rules involved, and was confused--perhaps rule confusion is a problem with TW infantry rules?

So the point I made still stands despite the casual dismissal/insult, infantry weapons get their range multiplied for free in BV, which I list as a problem and reason people might dislike TW infantry rules--the cost exploits built into basic units found in TW.  But at this point my qualms with cost issues are so casually being dismissed that I have run out of steam. 

I wish you all well in your future endeavors, and am happy you all are satisfied with how TW combined arms works and think the costs are totally fine. 
I am happy that BSPs exist and make my 3 hour gaming sessions now 2 hour sessions; its much more enjoyable then when I ran TW combined arms opfor every week for the past few years. 

[CarcosanDawn]

So like, do you actually care about the math?  Like, if I post the math of a 42 defensive BV value infantry with 28 structure, next to a 49.5 defensive BV 20 ton mech with 33 structure, will it matter?  At one point you agreed with me that TW infantry had problematic issues, but it appears you are no longer of that assumption--at least as it pertains to infantry being too cheap for being so tough.  So, since you said in the past you agree with TW infantry issues, but not this one, what are your issues with TW infantry CarcosanDawn?This was your take all comers list, 3025 it looks like.  If the opponent has a couple infantry in their force, are you still of the opinion that the infantry are not tougher then equal cost mechs because flamers?  The LRMs using mine clearance is 10/1, *2 for AE (same damage as just shooting normal LRM10s, but much more accurate cause AE is silly like that), so 2 damage to infantry, 4 out of cover.  The normal 6 damage to the mech from regular ammo has about a 10% chance to kill the mech, going up to 99% chance to kill the mech once ~25 LRM damage is done, which is 4 LRM10 hits.  4 LRM10 hits will deal 16/28 damage to infantry out of cover and 8/28 to infantry in cover.  (you may not know about the mine clearance ammo errata, they used to do more AE damage)

Frag LRMs, when available in the correct era post 3025, do a good job (but lose the AE huge accuracy buff, which I assume is why you mentioned them) but then make the ammo worthless versus everything else.  Its part of why I want to price infantry as if they have reflective armor, not BRA + Reflective armor... because in some eras missiles can do normal damage to infantry--though in 3025 the LRM10 does 2 damage, for a /3 divisor, which is very tough to overcome.  You also have 2 flamers and 2 machine guns, and 2 more flamers mounted the wrong direction.  But, your list will 100% kill way more mechs then it will infantry... because even though you have anti infantry weapons, they arnt THAT effective.  Your 20 medium lasers will do more work versus infantry than your AI weapons in the course of a game, by sheer volume.  But that infantry, flamer or no, is gonna be a disproportionate slog to get though.  Unlike mechs or vehicles, you have to get to point blank to hurt the infantry, right where they want to be versus you.  The whole rest of the game the 2 units of infantry can just be sitting in trees, sinking init for 160 BV, requiring a herculean effort to destroy FOR 160 BV.  Meanwhile, there is still 4 normal units, to maintain unit count parity with you, with the 5840 remaining BV.

Like, reflective armor is double damage from AE and melee, and half damage from energy.  Infantry have 90% damage reduction from energy AND melee, same double damage from AE.  I dont think its a stretch to say that the 50% BV markup of reflective should apply to infantry.  Is that crazy?

As an aside, BV is a direct count of what you bring.  PV in alpha strike is the same.  100 armor on 1 unit is the same as 50 armor on 2 units.  So if a unit (infantry) pays for 28 structure, or a vtol pays for 2 armor, but those pips count for 10x that value because of damage divisors, it needs to be reflected correctly in the units cost.  Otherwise, you WILL have people playing against TW infantry shoot their PPC, and get upset when their opponent tells them they only do 1 damage, worth 1.5 BV. 

Like, is there a player out there encountering infantry across the map on an objective for the first time that is happy with the infantry rules?  I cant imagine the casual player being excited seeing 28 infantry that clown car out of a cheap transport onto an objective from across the board in a take all comers pickup game--especially when they find out that the total package costs less then a stinger.

All good points and you're probably right about infantry, I wasn't looking to get engaged, just asking if the 20 ton mech was as durable as infantry versus those things.

Let me know when you want to talk about vehicles again - you didn't really address my points about them.

[Cannonshop]

Scarily, yes.  I could roll a consistent 1 under To-Hit for half the night, he could grab the same dice and roll Head Hits just as often as I barely missed.

Thank goodness he moved to Portugal.  It was rough facing him.  Though, I got better at maneuver because of him.

It's more that you keep going back to it as if it either mattered in today's environment or applied to the Battlefield Support question at all.  While it might matter while looking at a local group's psychology, it doesn't when looking at the rules situation.  It's been almost 20 years since Total Warfare was printed.  Even that book isn't the same any more.  Decisions made in 2006 don't have the same bearing as decisions made in 2023 or 2025.

Even worse is when you think it's trying to solve a problem you've been told several times it wasn't addressing, just could be used to address if needed.

Take a look at what the STATED reason is, and really think about WHY it's a 'problem that needs to be solved'.  There are a pile of assumptions underlying that, working back from that stated purpose.  The biggest being that TW vehicles and infantry and suchlike are 'too complicated', but then there's what they do with the initiative, which is to guarantee those units will always lose initiative.

That, is also solving a 'problem' someone has, or someone has complained about, or (more likely given the BT crowd) someone has with any unit that isn't a battlemech in a duel with another battlemech.

Most of them do work well together, though.  However, the big question is if people are up to speed on them, understand them, and are willing to play with them.  As crazy as Stackpoling and nukes are, they are nothing compared to the Fire and Smoke rules.

Fire and smoke don't violate physics, Stackpoling does.  fire and smoke don't flatten the entire map, Nukes do.  Hence why I used those specific examples-one violates logic, the other just violates the whole map.

The topic of optional rules actually came up in regards to the League that one of our GMs posted.  He didn't post any, so I asked him what he was going to consider, and basically he was hesitant to try as there are a lot of new people he wants to bring in.

Your GM here is on the right page-get the newbies used to the basic rules first, then start adding details.

For one of the locations the League is at, we already run a bunch, like Sprinting, One-Arm Prop, and Floating Crit.  However, the other location is VERY new, as in the literally just opened the doors a few months ago, and they have a lot more players who have just gotten in to the game.  (It doesn't help that the Demo Agent who got the Advocate position at that store is rather feckless when compared to a slightly more experienced one that lives closer is a whole other topic.)

So far the league organizer has said that it's "Agreement between players for that game only".  He said he'll review as we go along.  Our oldest local Demo Agent put in a few cents, too, so he might run it at the location he's become the Battletech Advocate for (oddly enough, the same company as the second location mentioned above). 

That's 3 of the 8 local game stores that I know run regularly.  There's also a few stores that might run Battletech, too, but I'm simply to far away to know (this metro area is quite large) as well as a few local home clubs.

You're very lucky, you've got an active community and it's large.  I am now envying you a lot.  Just so you know.

[Cannonshop]

going back over this thread, maybe it needs to be done in the fan rules, but what would BSP'ing 'mechs actually look like? (riffing off CarcasonDawn's desire to have such a thing...)

I mean I could definitely see such a setup being useful for Hell's Horses players, or for someone doing a "Ngoverse Kowloon Miliitia", or Militia 'mechs supporting Merc units...

so what would it look like? is anyone willing to start a thread down there to see?

[Charistoph]

I cant even talk with Charistoph about it, because when presented with direct evidence that rifles get their range multiplied for free in BV, one of the things I call out as a problem with the TW infantry rules, he again dismissed with the insult   Is it easier when you all insult me to make dismissing my points easier?  Like he assumes LRMs multiplying the range for free makes the unit immobile, but thats factually incorrect to the example I made, and doesnt matter if it were true (look at your example of foot LRM infantry, look at their speed factor, check the speed factors in the book, and it should answer the incorrect point you were trying to make about speed reduction).  Perhaps its a problem of the infantry rules being so large and unwieldy he didnt know the rules involved, and was confused--perhaps rule confusion is a problem with TW infantry rules?

Except you're wrong, and you assuming that I don't know the rules so you can pull a fast one on me is rather disingenuous.

In order for the LRM range to be included they must be 2 to a Squad.  2 Support Weapons in a Squad reduces their Movement, either by 1 in cases where they have more than one Movement (Jump, Motorized, or Mechanized) or to Move or Fire in cases where they don't (i.e. Foot).    This applies to LRMs as well as Machine Guns, SRMs, and any Secondary weapon that a Conventional Infantry unit may deploy.  This is even represented on the Generic Conventional Infantry units table on TW pg 213 under the ** footnote.

This is detailed in the Tech Manual pgs 150-152.  Pay particular attention to "Mobility Limits" on pg 151 and "Determining Final Range Values" on pg 152.

If you didn't know that, then I apologize for calling you disingenuous.

I wish you all well in your future endeavors, and am happy you all are satisfied with how TW combined arms works and think the costs are totally fine. 

I never said I was satisfied.  That's a strawman argument.  I think it's a better representation of Combined Arms than we had in the Compendium and Master Rules days, but that doesn't mean I'm satisfied. 

I think the BS version of Combined Arms is far less satisfying, though.  Useful for when a lot of Foot Infantry are to be on the table in a campaign scenario, but that's about it.

I am happy that BSPs exist and make my 3 hour gaming sessions now 2 hour sessions; its much more enjoyable then when I ran TW combined arms opfor every week for the past few years.

I don't see that happening on my end, other than the Vehicles dying much faster.

Take a look at what the STATED reason is, and really think about WHY it's a 'problem that needs to be solved'.  There are a pile of assumptions underlying that, working back from that stated purpose.  The biggest being that TW vehicles and infantry and suchlike are 'too complicated', but then there's what they do with the initiative, which is to guarantee those units will always lose initiative.

Adding your own reasons that don't pair up with the stated reasons is the problem.

One of the big problems with Classic Battletech is its level of crunchiness.  Some people enjoy it, some people don't.  It's not that Infantry and Vehicles are "too complicated", it's just that it's another set of charts to deal with.  (insert CombatMath meme here.)  For some people that can be overwhelming when first starting Battletech as it is a huge info dump.

Fire and smoke don't violate physics, Stackpoling does.  fire and smoke don't flatten the entire map, Nukes do.  Hence why I used those specific examples-one violates logic, the other just violates the whole map.

Which wasn't the point, it was the level of rules complexity in using optional rules that was the point.

Your GM here is on the right page-get the newbies used to the basic rules first, then start adding details.

Except there are rules that are relatively easy to get in to with new players.  Floating Critical is one that we introduce as part of an onboarding.  We state that it is an optional rule, but one we use as a local standard.  That it is in the BMM helps with that concept.  The BMM even has a nice little page at the back to help with all those optional rules (which include fire and smoke tracking, interestingly enough).

[Cannonshop]

Except you're wrong, and you assuming that I don't know the rules so you can pull a fast one on me is rather disingenuous.

In order for the LRM range to be included they must be 2 to a Squad.  2 Support Weapons in a Squad reduces their Movement, either by 1 in cases where they have more than one Movement (Jump, Motorized, or Mechanized) or to Move or Fire in cases where they don't (i.e. Foot).    This applies to LRMs as well as Machine Guns, SRMs, and any Secondary weapon that a Conventional Infantry unit may deploy.  This is even represented on the Generic Conventional Infantry units table on TW pg 213 under the ** footnote.

This is detailed in the Tech Manual pgs 150-152.  Pay particular attention to "Mobility Limits" on pg 151 and "Determining Final Range Values" on pg 152.

If you didn't know that, then I apologize for calling you disingenuous.

I never said I was satisfied.  That's a strawman argument.  I think it's a better representation of Combined Arms than we had in the Compendium and Master Rules days, but that doesn't mean I'm satisfied. 

I think the BS version of Combined Arms is far less satisfying, though.  Useful for when a lot of Foot Infantry are to be on the table in a campaign scenario, but that's about it.

I don't see that happening on my end, other than the Vehicles dying much faster.

Adding your own reasons that don't pair up with the stated reasons is the problem.

One of the big problems with Classic Battletech is its level of crunchiness.  Some people enjoy it, some people don't.  It's not that Infantry and Vehicles are "too complicated", it's just that it's another set of charts to deal with.  (insert CombatMath meme here.)  For some people that can be overwhelming when first starting Battletech as it is a huge info dump.

Which wasn't the point, it was the level of rules complexity in using optional rules that was the point.

Except there are rules that are relatively easy to get in to with new players.  Floating Critical is one that we introduce as part of an onboarding.  We state that it is an optional rule, but one we use as a local standard.  That it is in the BMM helps with that concept.  The BMM even has a nice little page at the back to help with all those optional rules (which include fire and smoke tracking, interestingly enough).

"Why is This Like That?"

"Oh, because we want to create mook units for flavor".

"So, you're scripting the outcome?"

"No, it's still a game, after all..."

fill it in, Charistoph.

From the start, I began with 'What does this do?'  Not 'What was the stated public desire', but 'What does it DO?"

From there, and admittedly sitting through over thirty years in the community at this point, listening to people discuss, argue, and most of all, gripe, and having had some time behind the curtain listening to the same?

Initiative is a major thing, when you pre-emptively deny the chance to win it, you render whatever you're denying irrelevant.  a pop-up target, tactically worthless from the get-go.

You're scripting the outcome, or you're prioritizing a favorite.  Listening to multiple generations of devs say "we have to hamper this or that to keep Battlemechs on Top", the thinking behind some moves becomes extremely clear.

There was actually a push around ten years ago by people who wanted everything that wasn't a 'mech to have to move before any 'mech on the board, 'for simplicity of play and to stop initiative scumming'.

aka punish combined arms players.

Now it's in an official product, as an official rule.  gee, how did that happen?  What's the underlying thought process?

Well, the official line is to 'make it easier' and 'provide mook units' -but if you need to provide mook units in your published scenarios, is it so those scenarios end up with a scripted outcome? 

seems likely, but it's equally likely you're doing it to road-test your pet theories on how the game should go for the next major rulebook that defines 'The basic game'-same way incorporating Maxtech did with Total Warfare.

What it doesn't do is actually make combined arms play accessible or desirable-because it demonstrates an attitude on the playing table, that those units are trash, to be not so gentle, that they're worthless mooks, a disposeable and dispensible extra to be ignored or wiped out because what they aren't, is useful in a tactical scenario as anything more than temporary obstacles to the real 'meat' of the fight.

and, it can and will create conflict and confusion, if somebody is rude enough to insist on taking actual TW combat vehicles or infantry into a scenario instead.

[Charistoph]

"Why is This Like That?"

"Oh, because we want to create mook units for flavor".

"So, you're scripting the outcome?"

"No, it's still a game, after all..."

fill it in, Charistoph.

From the start, I began with 'What does this do?'  Not 'What was the stated public desire', but 'What does it DO?"

First off, you're using my uses as the intended use for this.

Second, Xotl came in and said your concepts were improperly placed, but you continue on as if they are the correct ones.

Now it's in an official product, as an official rule.  gee, how did that happen?  What's the underlying thought process?

Except it isn't quite that.  It's an option to use, not a replacement.  You're treating it as a replacement.

Well, the official line is to 'make it easier' and 'provide mook units' -but if you need to provide mook units in your published scenarios, is it so those scenarios end up with a scripted outcome? 

Having an easier option is the official line.  Providing mook units was my line.  You're conflating sources and that is corrupting your conclusions.

and, it can and will create conflict and confusion, if somebody is rude enough to insist on taking actual TW combat vehicles or infantry into a scenario instead.

It would only be rude if they are acting through hyperbole like you.  This isn't like the conversion from Master Rules to Total Warfare.  This is its own thing used in very specific scenario set ups which are to be known in advance.

[butchbird]

What it doesn't do is actually make combined arms play accessible or desirable-because it demonstrates an attitude on the playing table, that those units are trash, to be not so gentle, that they're worthless mooks, a disposeable and dispensible extra to be ignored or wiped out because what they aren't, is useful in a tactical scenario as anything more than temporary obstacles to the real 'meat' of the fight.

"Make combined arms play accessible or desirable"...

Take a minute, if you will, and put yourself in the shoes of a new CBT player who doesn't have the knowledge to calculate things like vectors. You like the game, you like tanks and infantry, but even mastering the GATOR is a chore.

Walk a mile in my shoes as they say. 'Can be hard to imagine yourself in the shoes of someone who has a hard time with maths and hadn't played a wargame in his life 'till a year or so ago, but understanding the viewpoint of such an individual is of paramount importance to understand the use of BSA.

Combined arms IS desirable. CBT IS...not necessarly inaccessible but more complex then many such hobbys. As I said, master the GATOR is already a minor difficulty. And I'm not talking about planning your moves, understanding positionement in relation to range brackets, maximizing your TMM...

But you really, REALLY, would like to use infantry and 'vees.

Enter the BSAs.

Now I don't know about scenarios, but for pick-up games with equal amount of BSA points... it works.

It works as intended in making conventionnal forces accessible to newbs for combined arms is desirable. Sure, you lose a lot of the flavour, but you have to master the GATOR and all before adding more rules.

Furthermore...

As far as initiative is concerned, you can't have these over-simplified units counting like the others. Simply wouldn't mesh, hence why they're separate and move before everybody else.

What little "real conventionnals" I've played (oh so many years ago), I did using the BMR rules. Why? Well simply because, to me, the whole battletech universe doesn't make the slightest bit of sense (as much as big culmsy magical robots can make sense) if the battlemech isn't clearly the king of the battlefield. The TW rules looked more...I dunno...complete? Had nice innovations, but the lethality of the BMR rules suited my vision of the BTU. The BSAs fit in there as well. And it's only normal for the "typical" BT fan to have a bias towards "'mechs are king of the battlefield", for what is the major draw of the BTU?

Also, calling the BSAs "mooks" isn't quite right. Last game I played (finally got my fix), the little buggers played a surprisingly large part in my opponents victory (2 in a row, either I'm regressing or my greenhorns are catching up). Now I was particularly unlucky on the dices (worth mentioning, twice in a row, missed a kick and fell...against a BSA no less), but fact is both teams landed heavy hits with the BSAs and the lighter units were major nuisances throughout the game. Major nuisances that were simple to use for my newbs.

Now, again, I get the fear that some groups might neglect TW conventionnals, which COULD lead to certain things...but again, I don't think some of our board members realise how awesome a tool of introduction the BSAs are and how they can lead to a bigger place for combined arms OUTSIDE of the BSA ruleset... Now we just need a fabled Combined Arms Supplement to build on the BMM to get those plastic vees properly rolling.

[CarcosanDawn]

The biggest issue I have with that is still that tanks are simpler than 'Mechs.

What do I tell a new player who is confused by all the maths and complication of CBT?

I tell them to use a tank, because it's genuinely easier than using a 'Mech. A new player with tanks will have an easier time running their army than a new player with 'Mechs.

As for the realism aspect, I consider 'Mechs to be kings of the battlefield because of largely off the board phenomena, rather than tactical superiority. In a straight fight in, say, a flat desert, a tank and a 'Mech should be comparable, if the tank isn't outright better given certain situations.

But transported across interstellar distances? One of them you have to carry food and life support for six or eight people, and their maintenance staff. A 'Mech only needs enough air and food for one plus support staff, while bringing similar combat power AND greater non-combat flexibility like hands.

[Daryk]

One quick rules note: the "Foot Cavalry" SPA (from the AToW Companion) allows otherwise "Shoot or Move" units to Shoot AND Move.  That's not one of my fan rules for infantry.  That's canon.

[Charistoph]

As for the realism aspect, I consider 'Mechs to be kings of the battlefield because of largely off the board phenomena, rather than tactical superiority. In a straight fight in, say, a flat desert, a tank and a 'Mech should be comparable, if the tank isn't outright better given certain situations.

Not entirely accurate.  There are a few advantages that 'Mechs have over tanks, even on a flat desert. 

One of the most notable is the sectional construction.  Outside of a Location carrying 3+ Engine Slots, the Head, or the CT, a 'Mech can lose any Location without issue.  A tank cannot lose a single Location without being killed. 

In addition, there are only 4 Locations that will be hit by incoming fire, which concentrates Damage and makes it easier to get to Structure.  A 'Mech will have 8, no matter the angle.

A Tank's firepower will always be limited and can't extend itself beyond the most basic, while a 'Mech can push with sacrificing to Heat.

Then there's mobility hits, making it much harder to slow a 'Mech down when compared to Tanks, particularly if it is Wheeled or Hover.

One quick rules note: the "Foot Cavalry" SPA (from the AToW Companion) allows otherwise "Shoot or Move" units to Shoot AND Move.  That's not one of my fan rules for infantry.  That's canon.

It's also in Campaign Ops as well.  However, that only affects the Foot Infantry.  All the rest can't take it, but will still be slowed down by carrying 2 Support Weapons per Squad (except Tracked Mechanized).

However, unless one is playing the RPG or a campaign, that Ability is generally unavailable.

[CarcosanDawn]

Not entirely accurate.  There are a few advantages that 'Mechs have over tanks, even on a flat desert. 

One of the most notable is the sectional construction.  Outside of a Location carrying 3+ Engine Slots, the Head, or the CT, a 'Mech can lose any Location without issue.  A tank cannot lose a single Location without being killed. 

In addition, there are only 4 Locations that will be hit by incoming fire, which concentrates Damage and makes it easier to get to Structure.  A 'Mech will have 8, no matter the angle.

A Tank's firepower will always be limited and can't extend itself beyond the most basic, while a 'Mech can push with sacrificing to Heat.

Then there's mobility hits, making it much harder to slow a 'Mech down when compared to Tanks, particularly if it is Wheeled or Hover.

Right, there are advantages 'Mechs have over tanks, but also advantages 'Tanks have over 'Mechs:
- more armor per location. Fewer locations is a disadvantage, ish, but it does mean the individual locations can be better armored, and if you have an IS XL engine or ammo in the side torsos, it may be better to just count "torso" as a single massive location with a huge brick of armor - maybe. The increase of armor means it may not necessarily be easier to get to structure, depending on the armor of the facing.

- no weak spots (or rarely so). I find it funny that people complain about head capping when there is an entire unit type that cannot be headcapped.

- no heat from missile or ballistic weapons means greater resiliency in hot environments (though this is balanced by the 'Mech being better in so many more other environments, e.g. water or space).

The head thing is especially critical - 3% of the shots that hit your 'Mech (and do 12+ damage, as any smart shooter will) knock it out instantly regardless of other factors. That cannot happen to a tank - but conversely it is far easier to *disable* a tank critically (e.g. mobility kills, TAC seriousness).

So again, I will repeat the word "comparable". They have different strengths and weaknesses, with the 'Mech tending towards greater flexibility and speed on hilly or complex terrain, while the tank offers more gun (and usually armor) per ton/BV.

The greatest "mismatch" between tanks and 'Mechs is the existence of double heat sinks that can't be put on tanks. Once that occurs, the 'firepower per ton' can swing the 'Mech's way fairly rapidly if the tank goes hard into energy weapons.

Fusion being 50% heavier per engine too seems like a drawback, but I would say it is balanced by being able to use an XL without increased vulnerability.

[Cannonshop]

Right, there are advantages 'Mechs have over tanks, but also advantages 'Tanks have over 'Mechs:
- more armor per location. Fewer locations is a disadvantage, ish, but it does mean the individual locations can be better armored, and if you have an IS XL engine or ammo in the side torsos, it may be better to just count "torso" as a single massive location with a huge brick of armor - maybe. The increase of armor means it may not necessarily be easier to get to structure, depending on the armor of the facing.

- no weak spots (or rarely so). I find it funny that people complain about head capping when there is an entire unit type that cannot be headcapped.

- no heat from missile or ballistic weapons means greater resiliency in hot environments (though this is balanced by the 'Mech being better in so many more other environments, e.g. water or space).

The head thing is especially critical - 3% of the shots that hit your 'Mech (and do 12+ damage, as any smart shooter will) knock it out instantly regardless of other factors. That cannot happen to a tank - but conversely it is far easier to *disable* a tank critically (e.g. mobility kills, TAC seriousness).

So again, I will repeat the word "comparable". They have different strengths and weaknesses, with the 'Mech tending towards greater flexibility and speed on hilly or complex terrain, while the tank offers more gun (and usually armor) per ton/BV.

The greatest "mismatch" between tanks and 'Mechs is the existence of double heat sinks that can't be put on tanks. Once that occurs, the 'firepower per ton' can swing the 'Mech's way fairly rapidly if the tank goes hard into energy weapons.

Fusion being 50% heavier per engine too seems like a drawback, but I would say it is balanced by being able to use an XL without increased vulnerability.

You might think someone thought it through or something.

[Charistoph]

- more armor per location. Fewer locations is a disadvantage, ish, but it does mean the individual locations can be better armored, and if you have an IS XL engine or ammo in the side torsos, it may be better to just count "torso" as a single massive location with a huge brick of armor - maybe. The increase of armor means it may not necessarily be easier to get to structure, depending on the armor of the facing.

It's actually less prevalent than you think.  Very few Combat Vehicles have more Armor mass than a Mech of equal mass.  While it translates to more per location, the lack of disbursement means that each section degrades faster.  Even Tanks that do carry more mass, like the Patton and J. Edgar do, don't have the Structure to survive very long once that Armor is gone.

- no weak spots (or rarely so). I find it funny that people complain about head capping when there is an entire unit type that cannot be headcapped.

Just 2-3 times the TAC Locations along with Crew Stunned being one of the more common Results.  And Motive Hits are an extreme weak spot on anything that isn't using Treads.

- no heat from missile or ballistic weapons means greater resiliency in hot environments (though this is balanced by the 'Mech being better in so many more other environments, e.g. water or space).

But having to carry more Ammo or devote more mass for Energy Weapons.

The head thing is especially critical - 3% of the shots that hit your 'Mech (and do 12+ damage, as any smart shooter will) knock it out instantly regardless of other factors. That cannot happen to a tank - but conversely it is far easier to *disable* a tank critically (e.g. mobility kills, TAC seriousness).

The same Location on a Tank is Turret Critical.  When a Turret exists, on a 6+ for the Results we have the Stabilizer being Hit, the Turret Jamming or Locked, a Weapon being disabled or destroyed, the Ammo being hit, or losing the section entirely.  So it's not as much a "lack of weakness" as one might initially think.

The greatest "mismatch" between tanks and 'Mechs is the existence of double heat sinks that can't be put on tanks. Once that occurs, the 'firepower per ton' can swing the 'Mech's way fairly rapidly if the tank goes hard into energy weapons.

That much is true.  The DHS is probably the biggest game changer when it comes to the technology side between 'Mechs and Vehicles.

Jumping is probably the next greatest advantage as 'Mechs don't have to worry about Landing when they are otherwise perfectly fine (unless you're using Prototype Jump Jets, eesh), though too few 'Mechs take advantage of this.  Even those that don't can handle any level of Woods with minimal issue, as well as the fairly common hills and valleys.

[Cannonshop]

It's actually less prevalent than you think.  Very few Combat Vehicles have more Armor mass than a Mech of equal mass.  While it translates to more per location, the lack of disbursement means that each section degrades faster.  Even Tanks that do carry more mass, like the Patton and J. Edgar do, don't have the Structure to survive very long once that Armor is gone.

It ends up being a race.  'mechs can settle in for a long brawl, Vehicle units get decisive VERY quickly-you either win, or you're out in a fairly short period of time with Tanks.

Just 2-3 times the TAC Locations along with Crew Stunned being one of the more common Results.  And Motive Hits are an extreme weak spot on anything that isn't using Treads.

But having to carry more Ammo or devote more mass for Energy Weapons.

The same Location on a Tank is Turret Critical.  When a Turret exists, on a 6+ for the Results we have the Stabilizer being Hit, the Turret Jamming or Locked, a Weapon being disabled or destroyed, the Ammo being hit, or losing the section entirely.  So it's not as much a "lack of weakness" as one might initially think.

That much is true.  The DHS is probably the biggest game changer when it comes to the technology side between 'Mechs and Vehicles.

Jumping is probably the next greatest advantage as 'Mechs don't have to worry about Landing when they are otherwise perfectly fine (unless you're using Prototype Jump Jets, eesh), though too few 'Mechs take advantage of this.  Even those that don't can handle any level of Woods with minimal issue, as well as the fairly common hills and valleys.

'mechs are more mobile (something you, me, CarcasonDawn and a few others really grasp) due to terrain handling that Tanks don't get, and as I said earlier in THIS post, the fight gets decisive very quickly-your tank either wins, or gets crippled out by things 'mechs would just kind of 'shrug off' in a much quicker manner.

Which goes back to 'Risk Appetite', and the value of Initiative that Butchbird glossed over in his defense of BSP's.  intelligent maneuvering isn't really possible, when you auto-lose all initiatives, and his examples could be just as easily shown as "Minefields are fine as a replacement for other forces!" because the general deployment strategy is the same as a result-no matter what you do, once you relegate your tanks and infantry to BSP, they're just an obstacle to sidestep, ignore, or an easy mook to eliminate as a bonus target.

They're NOT a tactical asset beyond the same 'tactical asset' you'd get laying a Thunder Minefield-only this one has a slightly wider reach and deactivates occasionally on it's own as it repositions visibly and ahead of the enemy's decision, leaving obvious gaps to exploit, while being unable to exploit mistakes.

anyway, I'm still curious what CarcasonDawn's idea of battlemech BSA's would look like-I expect they'd get some leg up on the rest of them-some special treatment to protect their status...

[CarcosanDawn]

I would just employ the conversion rules from the beta but use Battlemechs (I do not have those rules).

And I pretty much think you are spot on, Charistoph; nothing you have said is wrong!

The only point I will raise is that this kind of analysis changes based on the type of fighting that is happening. A Thawk with 3 gauss rifles shooting a tank is very different than a Hunchback - 4P.

Generally, I think 'Mechs are more scared of single big hits (any one could take off a limb or a head) while tanks are afraid of large total damage numbers (a streak SRM6 is scarier than an AC/10 because it will do 12 damage to the front armor more often than not, vice 10).

As for the turret Crit, you are also correct - and the same thing applies. A little hit there won't bother a mech much but will damage a tank badly! Conversely, a big hit there on a tank will still damage it badly, but erase a 'Mech from the game outright.

I will caveat this by saying that the Vehicle Effectiveness rules are required for them to be this close! If they are not used, vehicles become considerably more vulnerable (which, again, is fine!).

[butchbird]

The biggest issue I have with that is still that tanks are simpler than 'Mechs.

What do I tell a new player who is confused by all the maths and complication of CBT?

I tell them to use a tank, because it's genuinely easier than using a 'Mech. A new player with tanks will have an easier time running their army than a new player with 'Mechs.

As for the realism aspect, I consider 'Mechs to be kings of the battlefield because of largely off the board phenomena, rather than tactical superiority. In a straight fight in, say, a flat desert, a tank and a 'Mech should be comparable, if the tank isn't outright better given certain situations.

But transported across interstellar distances? One of them you have to carry food and life support for six or eight people, and their maintenance staff. A 'Mech only needs enough air and food for one plus support staff, while bringing similar combat power AND greater non-combat flexibility like hands.

Perhaps simpler, but what draws people to battletech? If I wan't to play tanks and infantry I'll probably be drawn to a WW2 wargame or something. Big stompy robots is the "name of the game". More rules is more rules if you don't master the basics.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, the setting falls apart if a 'mech isnT clearly superior for more then mobility (strategic and tactical) and logistics over conventionnals.

Which goes back to 'Risk Appetite', and the value of Initiative that Butchbird glossed over in his defense of BSP's.  intelligent maneuvering isn't really possible, when you auto-lose all initiatives, and his examples could be just as easily shown as "Minefields are fine as a replacement for other forces!" because the general deployment strategy is the same as a result-no matter what you do, once you relegate your tanks and infantry to BSP, they're just an obstacle to sidestep, ignore, or an easy mook to eliminate as a bonus target.

The thing is you're trying to compare on an equal footing. They're not. BSAs ain't the real thing and aren't meant to be. I understand the fear of replacement, but they"re just not built with that in mind...not crunchy and satisfying as real CBT units should be. My defense of BSAs is in their worth as an additional tool,  againI whole heartedly agree that they souldn't be used as replacement for "proper combined arms".

As for minefields, you'll always sacrifice some units in terms of initiative order. That's just how it is. It argueable whether the decision to force BSAs to move first is the right one, but the fact is they're not "real units" and as the rules are "tacked on", it kind of makes sense to have them move first. But yes, minefields. Minefields aren't mobile and can't dish out 40 damage on 2 locations in the upper part of a "real unit", nor pressure your opponent with the threat of a backstabbing 20 damage in the rear torsos. They're generally fast enough not to be sidestepped and if you ignore them you'll pay dearly. For the rest, again, not "real units", just a tool for beginners, scenario building, and other such cases.

*Add-on*

I tried my best to refrain from commenting but the pressure is too great, so as for the "Minefields are fine as a replacement for other forces!" I got two words for ya: Plastic keys.

[Daryk]

I think the setting works just fine if you "confine" 'mechs to their (admittedly HUGE) advantages in mobility and logistics.  LAMs crank those advantages up to 11 but remain niche for that very reason.

[Cannonshop]

Perhaps simpler, but what draws people to battletech? If I wan't to play tanks and infantry I'll probably be drawn to a WW2 wargame or something. Big stompy robots is the "name of the game". More rules is more rules if you don't master the basics.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, the setting falls apart if a 'mech isnT clearly superior for more then mobility (strategic and tactical) and logistics over conventionnals.

The thing is you're trying to compare on an equal footing. They're not. BSAs ain't the real thing and aren't meant to be. I understand the fear of replacement, but they"re just not built with that in mind...not crunchy and satisfying as real CBT units should be. My defense of BSAs is in their worth as an additional tool,  againI whole heartedly agree that they souldn't be used as replacement for "proper combined arms".

As for minefields, you'll always sacrifice some units in terms of initiative order. That's just how it is. It argueable whether the decision to force BSAs to move first is the right one, but the fact is they're not "real units" and as the rules are "tacked on", it kind of makes sense to have them move first. But yes, minefields. Minefields aren't mobile and can't dish out 40 damage on 2 locations in the upper part of a "real unit", nor pressure your opponent with the threat of a backstabbing 20 damage in the rear torsos. They're generally fast enough not to be sidestepped and if you ignore them you'll pay dearly. For the rest, again, not "real units", just a tool for beginners, scenario building, and other such cases.

*Add-on*

I tried my best to refrain from commenting but the pressure is too great, so as for the "Minefields are fine as a replacement for other forces!" I got two words for ya: Plastic keys.

"You always sacrifice units in the move order"...

I don't always sacrifice the same units in the move order.

BSP requires me to do that.

Do you see the difference?  I 'sacrifice' units in move order based on the conditions in the current turn and my long term in-match objectives.

Aka I don't always move the same unit first, or the same unit last.

[butchbird]

I think the setting works just fine if you "confine" 'mechs to their (admittedly HUGE) advantages in mobility and logistics.  LAMs crank those advantages up to 11 but remain niche for that very reason.

Well, this is quite the complex subject that can also be influenced by interpretation of cannon, amongst many factors...I know many consider that what "front line regiments" we know of are but a fraction of that which exists, for example.

I'll just say that I can't buy into the clans steamrolling into the inner sphere using TW rules for conventionnals, amongst many other things, even with all the "suspending disbelief" buisness going on.

"You always sacrifice units in the move order"...

I don't always sacrifice the same units in the move order.

BSP requires me to do that.

Do you see the difference?  I 'sacrifice' units in move order based on the conditions in the current turn and my long term in-match objectives.

Aka I don't always move the same unit first, or the same unit last.

Indeed. Two things.

1) You could always home rule it, I guess. Would someone really object to it?

2) Yes, of course, but. Again, these aren't "proper CBT units". They gimp the equations, they use cold rolls, they react in ways no "proper cbt unit" does. Damage treshold and destroy check for crying out loud, you can't have something more against the very soul of the game.

With this considered, it becomes clear they aren't meant to be in your "battleline", so to speak. They're flavour. Now I love it as a tool for certain uses, I've repeated myself more then enough on that, but they're...well...differentAnd there you have it.

I couldn't say what made TPTB decide that they'd be cut-off from the initiative order of the "proper CBT units", but it's clear the BSAs just don't fit with those. I can't say I agree with the decision but neither does it bug me. I just feel they simply "do not belong with the others" even though they DO work for their intended purpose, or at least, what I understand it to be and has been stated. This makes it so that it somewhat feels normal to have them... shall I say, segregated in a way?

Besides, while they aren't mook, ignorable and negligible, they ARE expendable due to their mechanics. The instances where I'd move them after most of my 'mechs are pretty rare. Yes, of course, often I would've let my long range support 'mech have his turn before my BSAs...but it's kind of a moot point...And yes, in rare cases you'd make the decision to move that mobile tank BSA as your last unit to exploit rear armor instead of just pressuring with it and possibly sacrifice one of your mobile 'mechs, but again, all of the above.

But all this doesn't matter if you use TW conventionnals instead...and it's a given you should never be forced to use BSA instead of proper conventionnals if you so desire. They aren't "proper CBT units", they are an additional tool for certain circumstances and can't really be viewed as anything more then that, or so I feel.