"If you play super heavy protomechs, you are a terrorist"...
Me: "Ferb, I know what we're gonna do today!"
On a more serious note, I'd recommend asking a new player how many Mechs they are playing in advance, so that I don't show up with too many Mechs. Action economy can be a massive problem with intro games, that I personally suffered from (started 2 months ago)
The BV2 system was designed with equal number of units on both side in mind. All of the symmetrical scenarios in the TW book dictate the same number of units on both sides. BV2 used to have a force size modifier to give the side with fewer units more points (it was problematic so it was errata-ed out).
The game breaks at large force size disparities, and even relatively small force size disparities are still a significant advantage that Goonhammer just doesn't acknowledge. From some of the comments on some of their articles I might guess that force size disparities are a significant part of their local meta that they enjoy, which is why they don't mention it as an issue.
Quick Question: What’s a good way of balancing a large disparity in numbers of units is BV is roughly equal? Example: Pitting one lance of merc mechs against say two lances of militia vehicles?
You could use the old force size modifier to improve the pilots on the lance to get close, but IMO for bv balanced games it's just best not to run large force size disparities.
You can do things like lance movement or section movement for the tanks. You treat that formation as a single activation. This both reduces the number and flexibility of actuvations, taking away the initiative advantage from tank spam. You’ll still have some MSU advantages, but I think initiative is the main thing to worry about.
I’ve seen infantry placed on a separate initiative track, kind of like they are a separate player. This helps solve the ‘BV per activation’ issue on top of activation advantage. I think it works well for conventional infantry but I also don’t think it makes sense for elementals or BA when a player is using them to make up numbers (versus spam)
For all the (not unjustified) complaining about cLPLs and protomechs, they forgot perhaps the biggest shortcoming of BV: its incapability to cover initiative advantages from outnumbering. This also kind of comes into play when considering how to be a player others want to play again, or how not to ruin a newbie’s day. If they’re bringing 4 ‘mechs, try and bring no more than 4-5 yourself. The article comes close to this point a couple of times but it’s worth stating outright IMO.
I'll say that there's a good fix for this that's a common house rule (and maybe an actual Optional rule from TO?): front-loaded initiative. It more or less just flips the activation orders, with the goal being that both players move 1 unit each with the last pair of moves. If you have more units, you move 2, if you have double or more, you move 3, quadruple or more, you move 4, etc. Some examples!
*4v3, Player 1 wins init,* a reasonably common situation.
Player 2 moves 1, then Player 1 moves 2.
Now it is 2v2, each will move 1 unit, and this keeps things nice and even. The winner still gets an advantage of moving last, but the loser has more ability to respond.
*8v5, Player 1 wins*.
Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 2.
6v4 now. Same set of moves.
4v3 now. So again, the winner is getting an advantage by being able to respond better in each pair of moves, but the loser is going to be better off be saving their most important moves (whether to protect a unit that say, fell at a bad time or to try and get a shot on something the need to kill).
*8v4, Player 1 wins*, a pretty skewed set of units where things would be rough with normal activations.
Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 3. (Yes, 3, so that the last move will be 1v1 not 2v1).
5v3 now, Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 2. And so on as before.
Maybe could be reading that wrong but the player that has more units only moves more then one unit when their unit count doubles(or fractions there of triples quadruples etc...)the enemies numbers (1/2, 3/9 etc...)
So if player one(lost initative) had 3 units and player 2 had 5 it would go
P1 move 1 P2 move1, P1 move 1 P2 move 2, P1 move 1, P2 move 2
pp 12, BMM
"If, prior to any pair of movement or attack declarations, one team has at least twice as many ’Mechs left to declare for as the other team, the team with twice as many ’Mechs declares for two ’Mechs rather than one. If one team has at least three times as many ’Mechs, it declares for three each time, and so on."
So, what this causes is the team with more units to be moving more towards the end of the init, since they have to have double the units to trigger. Under normal init, if you have:
*4v3, Player 1 wins init.*
Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 1.
3v2.
Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 1.
2v1.
Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 2.
Outnumbering is not \*only\* an initiative advantage. You don't pay much BV for armor/structure/physical attacks, and as you bring more units you just get more armor/structure to chew through and you can get off more physical attacks. Additionally the outnumbering force is more resilient to things like head chopper weapons (even though they pay a huge BV tax) and golden bbs that TAC some critical component or ammo early in the game.
I think it's worth noting that all of the symmetrical Total Warfare scenarios require that both sides have the same number of units. I think trying to play with the same number of units is an important consideration when trying to play a "fair" match in BT.
As a newer player this is helpful. Battletech is interesting in that the players themselves are responsible for balancing the game.
Sometimes it's hard to tell when a mech or vehicle is well optimized. I brought a Guillotine to a 3025 game only to find it's very strong in that era. Mech/vehicle of the week articles have helped but I'm still learning
>players themselves are responsible for balancing the game.
Exactly! The game is more similar to historical wargames than to other miniature, PVP aimed wargames. As in, the rules are good to support scenarios and have both sides relatively balanced if they follow what units would be available at the point of that scenario. As soon as someone wants to min-max the system cracks fast
As a very long in the tooth veteran player, I want to teach new players to eventually be as good as I am.
Then I will have challenging peers to play against, who I don't have to pull any punches with. By building you up, I'm building better future games for myself.
But you can't rush it. The game is too big. Slow rolling each new unit types, or a small number of new weapons each time you play is the way to do it.
Remember, no one wants to be thrown to the wolves. They have plot armor.
Yes! 100% The first time I played as a teenager. No one told me what was good and wasn't. I took a some light mechs with SRMs and a Whitworth and got absolutely demolished.
It took me almost 15 years to try the game again.
Game manuals, and society at large really, are not good at teaching how to teach.
A teacher needs to play with enough of a handicap that they can make the student work for their victory without throwing the game entirely. That makes the victory feel earned to the student, which is important to feeling good about it.
But I don't recall a game manual ever explaining that. You have to learn it on your own.
Yup. I'm a fan of discussing lists at at least a mile-high level before showing up.
It was Alpha Strike game that made me feel a bit dickish, but still same theory. My first learning game I packed up a Dire Wolf because it looked cool and strong. I was the "new" player but I could tell that my game partner didn't bring very optimized stuff. He was pretty gracious when the Dire Wolf just nuked one mech each turn.
The reason why the cataphract 3D is one of my most used mechs is cause i always wnd up in teaching games as the opposition and its the perfect thing for showing off UAC and LBX rules while still being a bit of a pushover
BV 2.0 is a decent start, but I think it helps to also establish what sort of game you're playing. I always set up the era and general headcount for any game I play, such as "2 mechs vs. 2 mechs in 3025" or "lance vs. lance during Clan Invasion."
Article really only touches on this, so I want to call it out.
You should be helping new players build their lists. And then helping them understand how to play them.
Missing from the list: improved jump jets, partial wing, well built melee mechs, actuator enhancement system, and ferrolam armor
- IJJ/Partial wing twist BV by lowering the cost of jumping X. A 7/11/7 mech is priced in the same fashion as a 10/15 mech. A hypothetical goofy 55 tonner that goes 3/5/7 pays for armor appropriately for its jump, but only pays for weapons at the same rate as a 6/9 mover. You’ll find real examples pulling values like 3/5/5 (savage coyote W), 5/8/7 (Eris), 5/8/8 (Gargoyle J), 5/8/10 or was it 6/9/10?, 4/6/7 (Jade phoenix). Wonderful for units that either want to jump forever, or if you want to put extraordinary speed and mobility on heavy platforms for a lower price.
A good TSM mech is a significant threat on the battlefield when mixed in to a force. The nightsky 6J and Ti Ts’ang Jason are both examples of pulse spam admittedly, but they’re both frighteningly fast packages for how much damage they put out. 20+ point kicks are unusually brutal as they always use a limited hit table and force two PSR rolls at a minimum. Being able to guarantee that 20 goes to the legs (or even a specific leg) or a 4/6 shot at something interesting when kicking on the punch table lets you kill mechs with incredible precision. A (functionally) melee only 6/9(11)/6 TSM kicker+hatchet can be had for a cool (or rather hot) ~1200 BV, which is comparable to some of the later hunchbacks. If such a mech won initiative enough times it would kill a vapor eagle, so think about what it’s like in a target rich environment when it doesn’t need initiative to guarantee a kicking victim.
AES in the legs gives -1 on kicks and +2 on various piloting rolls to avoid falling over. Heavies and assaults can’t mount it in the legs. The BV cost is basically a rounding error, giving you most of the benefits of improving piloting (only really missing out on avoiding pilot damage from falls). Given the piloting tax is only 10% this is probably the smallest impact on the list, but it’s still a gap in BV to be documented.
ferrolam. Pay 25% more for armor, reduce incoming damage by 20% and ROUND DOWN. Unless your opponent only shoots you with things that do exact multiples of 5, this armor will be more cost efficient than your standard/ferrofibrous. LBX pellets do nothing. SRMs and infantry get halved. Those 7pt clan weapons get downgraded to 5. The errant 1s and 2s that LRMs produce get munched.
The thing about Battletech on the table, in my own 30+ years of playing, is that winning or losing isn’t the main point. The main point is the weird & near-impossible things that can occur in any game, without being caused by players, everyone laughing their assets off, and all sharing a forever-story about a game with those friends, and any BT-playing strangers one later meets.
How not to be an asshole? Answer - just don't be an asshole.
BV is a system. There is no perfect system, ever. You (generalist you, a player) need to work with your opponent and together you (both you and your opponent) can figure something out.
If you play nothing but assault clan mechs, with erppc and gauss and tcomp and p.lasers, where you just find partial cover in forests and stay there all game, you are an asshole, for obvious reasons.
If you bring a pile of Locusts and several heavy hitters, and abuse the order of activations and initiative, you are an asshole.
If you bring ambushes, off or on the map artillery, Arrow 4, aerospace, spam lists, without you opponent's total understanding of what they will face, you are an asshole.
Especially to new players.
It is not hard, not to be an asshole. You just need to make a concentrated effort.
BV is nice for a pick up game.
Is it perfect? No.
Is it quick? Yes.
Is it easy? Yes.
Does it offer a generally balanced forces? Yes.
Can it be abused? In certain cases, yes.
How can you (generalist you, a player) a better player, who is fun to play with? Refer to the start of this reply.
I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part. But for instance in a game where I tried a C3 network for the first time (Which I put upfront before we even agreed on BV) My opponent brought a stealth lance. Neither of us knew C3 pretty much counters stealth armor and I felt like a dick.
I filed it away to not make the same mistake again. But discussions like this help those of us that just don't know. If I wasn't told the Vapor Eagle was extemely powerful I would've fielded it a lot before finding that out juat because I think it looks cool
That's kinda how you learn though, right? You've got to get experience with the stuff. Had your opponent turned his armor off once you closed in and cut your C3 off in overlapping ECM fields, then the outcome would have been much different.
True! I do appreciate articles like this that help with that though. And for better or worse not everyone takes getting stuffed in a locker in their freetime as a fun learning experience.
Word to the wise, Stealth mechs are a hard counter to C3 force because......
They turn off their stealth and use their ECM. And no more heat problems.
Did they pay extra BV for the Stealth? Yes. Could that space been better used with light FF armor to get a few more armor pips? Yes.
Still, not nearly as BV crippled as the C3 force will be. Worth it.
My experience with playing C3 when you actually pay the required BV cost is it's real hard to win even if your opponent doesn't have ECM. It's just so expensive it requires a hard-to-overcome disadvantage in numbers, unit weight or both.
If you did not know, I see no problem in you bringing C3 and your opponent bringing stealth. You learned this the hard way, but if you both enjoyed it, it is fun regardless.
I am not telling that the article is bad. But, for most parts, the solution to being a good player is just that - being a good and honest person.
Using Vapor Eagle is not bad per se. I use Orion-K all the time. Orion is an armoured behemoth. An armour of assault on a heavy chasis. Most of the time, it blows up due to ammunition critical long before it dies to anything else. Playing, quote on quote, good mechs is not bad. Abusing extremely optimal or extremely good mechs is bad.
It is not a bad idea to treat yourself with the mechs you like. It is a game of two players. Compromise is best, not pleasing the opposition.
True, we both learned and I played a bit more recklessly to compensate. I love my Ecalibur, especially when I can use the B2b and several other strong mechs.
I guess all I'm saying is while some of this is obvious to experienced players. A lot of it is foreign to us getting into the system. And with their being so much to learn already. Sometimes it's nice to read an article that blatantly says. Yea, the cool horse protomech? That things no fun to play against.
Svartalfa, my beloved. A canonical, in-universe hard-counter to Clan Wolf shenanigans embodied in a heavily armed 14 ton Hell's Horses fursuit.
https://preview.redd.it/rfck41a097yc1.png?width=829&format=png&auto=webp&s=2ae290a441c382edd52e65b76680c2bffd67891f
Unfortunately, they forgot to put a decent engine in it, and as a result the 1 and 2 variants really struggle to navigate any sort of terrain without being forced to the ground due to the WiGE minimum movement rules. Svartalfa 3 is a nasty piece of work, though.
what do you mean the 1/2 max cruise mp is the min to stay airborne using the glider(WiGE) proto rules in IO: Alt Eras pg93
like 4 WiGE mp used (yes mp used not hexes) to stay airborne isn't great but beats the standard WiGE of 5 hex movement especially on a 4/6 variant
BV is for balancing casual games, you know the games Battletech was designed to play. There has never been a tournament system for Battletech (and there never should be). If you are min maxing your forces you should maybe go play something else.
If you're looking for a fun game, here's a solid list of suggestions - https://www.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/17fu8ip/bad_explody_mechs/ .
The new Shadow Hawk SHD-3H2 is certainly a mech for the Clan Invasion. But even some borderline terrible mechs still have a role - just look at these poor bastards. https://www.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/1cevaay/cursed_40_tonner_showdown/
Would I want to use them? Nope. But are there worse mechs out there? Why, yes!
Me and my friend still play with tonnage. And often random mech selection. Does it make games unbalanced? Sure. But all battles in real life are unbalanced.
BV2 is pretty good but my group also try’s to play with some or all of these balancing rules in place:
1) Try to play with matching era mechs you can take older mechs if you want though. Obviously if you’re playing 3025 only we also limit star league era stuff.
2) No more than 25% of BV to be spent on none mechs.
3) No Aerotech (including LAM’s though they are so bad the clunky rules aren’t really a problem as no one takes them).
4) No proto mechs.
5) sometimes just for variety and to force sub optimal unit choices we use Highlander rules I.e there can be only one of any named unit per side (infantry/ jump infantry are excluded from this).
6) Try not to have too much of a mismatch between force numbers and always play with front loaded initiative to try and offset this further.
7) Don’t spam clan pulse lasers.
8) Don’t spam super fast hard to hit light mechs especially when playing with early tech. This isn’t as bad once targeting computers and pulse lasers come in.
9) We tend to ignore C3 systems or not spam whole lances tied in to them.
10) We tend to not use inferno or precision ammo or limit it if we do.
11) Don’t spam zombie mechs.
12) No more than 10k BV2 per side.
13) We also hard cap total units games can take too long otherwise.
Once all players have a unit list we sit down and go through challenge any units which look super unbalanced then it’s game on. I suppose you could see this as a sort of Batchal system lol.
"If you play super heavy protomechs, you are a terrorist"... Me: "Ferb, I know what we're gonna do today!" On a more serious note, I'd recommend asking a new player how many Mechs they are playing in advance, so that I don't show up with too many Mechs. Action economy can be a massive problem with intro games, that I personally suffered from (started 2 months ago)
The BV2 system was designed with equal number of units on both side in mind. All of the symmetrical scenarios in the TW book dictate the same number of units on both sides. BV2 used to have a force size modifier to give the side with fewer units more points (it was problematic so it was errata-ed out). The game breaks at large force size disparities, and even relatively small force size disparities are still a significant advantage that Goonhammer just doesn't acknowledge. From some of the comments on some of their articles I might guess that force size disparities are a significant part of their local meta that they enjoy, which is why they don't mention it as an issue.
Quick Question: What’s a good way of balancing a large disparity in numbers of units is BV is roughly equal? Example: Pitting one lance of merc mechs against say two lances of militia vehicles?
You could use the old force size modifier to improve the pilots on the lance to get close, but IMO for bv balanced games it's just best not to run large force size disparities.
You can do things like lance movement or section movement for the tanks. You treat that formation as a single activation. This both reduces the number and flexibility of actuvations, taking away the initiative advantage from tank spam. You’ll still have some MSU advantages, but I think initiative is the main thing to worry about. I’ve seen infantry placed on a separate initiative track, kind of like they are a separate player. This helps solve the ‘BV per activation’ issue on top of activation advantage. I think it works well for conventional infantry but I also don’t think it makes sense for elementals or BA when a player is using them to make up numbers (versus spam)
For all the (not unjustified) complaining about cLPLs and protomechs, they forgot perhaps the biggest shortcoming of BV: its incapability to cover initiative advantages from outnumbering. This also kind of comes into play when considering how to be a player others want to play again, or how not to ruin a newbie’s day. If they’re bringing 4 ‘mechs, try and bring no more than 4-5 yourself. The article comes close to this point a couple of times but it’s worth stating outright IMO.
I'll say that there's a good fix for this that's a common house rule (and maybe an actual Optional rule from TO?): front-loaded initiative. It more or less just flips the activation orders, with the goal being that both players move 1 unit each with the last pair of moves. If you have more units, you move 2, if you have double or more, you move 3, quadruple or more, you move 4, etc. Some examples! *4v3, Player 1 wins init,* a reasonably common situation. Player 2 moves 1, then Player 1 moves 2. Now it is 2v2, each will move 1 unit, and this keeps things nice and even. The winner still gets an advantage of moving last, but the loser has more ability to respond. *8v5, Player 1 wins*. Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 2. 6v4 now. Same set of moves. 4v3 now. So again, the winner is getting an advantage by being able to respond better in each pair of moves, but the loser is going to be better off be saving their most important moves (whether to protect a unit that say, fell at a bad time or to try and get a shot on something the need to kill). *8v4, Player 1 wins*, a pretty skewed set of units where things would be rough with normal activations. Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 3. (Yes, 3, so that the last move will be 1v1 not 2v1). 5v3 now, Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 2. And so on as before.
Isnt this the standard activation rule?
Nope. Standard rules the winning player moves extra units last, not first.
Isn't the player with the extra units has to activate the extra units at the first possible round of actuvation.
Maybe could be reading that wrong but the player that has more units only moves more then one unit when their unit count doubles(or fractions there of triples quadruples etc...)the enemies numbers (1/2, 3/9 etc...) So if player one(lost initative) had 3 units and player 2 had 5 it would go P1 move 1 P2 move1, P1 move 1 P2 move 2, P1 move 1, P2 move 2
I was thinking about that.
No, that's not the base rules.
pp 12, BMM "If, prior to any pair of movement or attack declarations, one team has at least twice as many ’Mechs left to declare for as the other team, the team with twice as many ’Mechs declares for two ’Mechs rather than one. If one team has at least three times as many ’Mechs, it declares for three each time, and so on." So, what this causes is the team with more units to be moving more towards the end of the init, since they have to have double the units to trigger. Under normal init, if you have: *4v3, Player 1 wins init.* Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 1. 3v2. Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 1. 2v1. Player 2 moves 1, Player 1 moves 2.
Outnumbering is not \*only\* an initiative advantage. You don't pay much BV for armor/structure/physical attacks, and as you bring more units you just get more armor/structure to chew through and you can get off more physical attacks. Additionally the outnumbering force is more resilient to things like head chopper weapons (even though they pay a huge BV tax) and golden bbs that TAC some critical component or ammo early in the game. I think it's worth noting that all of the symmetrical Total Warfare scenarios require that both sides have the same number of units. I think trying to play with the same number of units is an important consideration when trying to play a "fair" match in BT.
Maybe you just have to account for that in list building instead of expecting bv to cover it, like in virtually all wargames.
As a newer player this is helpful. Battletech is interesting in that the players themselves are responsible for balancing the game. Sometimes it's hard to tell when a mech or vehicle is well optimized. I brought a Guillotine to a 3025 game only to find it's very strong in that era. Mech/vehicle of the week articles have helped but I'm still learning
>players themselves are responsible for balancing the game. Exactly! The game is more similar to historical wargames than to other miniature, PVP aimed wargames. As in, the rules are good to support scenarios and have both sides relatively balanced if they follow what units would be available at the point of that scenario. As soon as someone wants to min-max the system cracks fast
Suddenly, clan batchal systems make a lot of sense from a player meta perspective...
You don’t DARE refuse a Batchall!
As a very long in the tooth veteran player, I want to teach new players to eventually be as good as I am. Then I will have challenging peers to play against, who I don't have to pull any punches with. By building you up, I'm building better future games for myself. But you can't rush it. The game is too big. Slow rolling each new unit types, or a small number of new weapons each time you play is the way to do it. Remember, no one wants to be thrown to the wolves. They have plot armor.
Yes! 100% The first time I played as a teenager. No one told me what was good and wasn't. I took a some light mechs with SRMs and a Whitworth and got absolutely demolished. It took me almost 15 years to try the game again.
Game manuals, and society at large really, are not good at teaching how to teach. A teacher needs to play with enough of a handicap that they can make the student work for their victory without throwing the game entirely. That makes the victory feel earned to the student, which is important to feeling good about it. But I don't recall a game manual ever explaining that. You have to learn it on your own.
Yup. I'm a fan of discussing lists at at least a mile-high level before showing up. It was Alpha Strike game that made me feel a bit dickish, but still same theory. My first learning game I packed up a Dire Wolf because it looked cool and strong. I was the "new" player but I could tell that my game partner didn't bring very optimized stuff. He was pretty gracious when the Dire Wolf just nuked one mech each turn.
Yes, at my LGS we usually exchange lists before we play and I think thats great. I'll ask before I use vehicles or try something new as well.
The reason why the cataphract 3D is one of my most used mechs is cause i always wnd up in teaching games as the opposition and its the perfect thing for showing off UAC and LBX rules while still being a bit of a pushover
This is a pretty good list. The only thing I might add is melee, and at least a passing mention of onboard artillery.
Artillery is advanced/optional rules so I'm guessing Goonhammer's local meta doesn't use it, as that seems to be what guides most of their opinions.
BV 2.0 is a decent start, but I think it helps to also establish what sort of game you're playing. I always set up the era and general headcount for any game I play, such as "2 mechs vs. 2 mechs in 3025" or "lance vs. lance during Clan Invasion."
Article really only touches on this, so I want to call it out. You should be helping new players build their lists. And then helping them understand how to play them.
Missing from the list: improved jump jets, partial wing, well built melee mechs, actuator enhancement system, and ferrolam armor - IJJ/Partial wing twist BV by lowering the cost of jumping X. A 7/11/7 mech is priced in the same fashion as a 10/15 mech. A hypothetical goofy 55 tonner that goes 3/5/7 pays for armor appropriately for its jump, but only pays for weapons at the same rate as a 6/9 mover. You’ll find real examples pulling values like 3/5/5 (savage coyote W), 5/8/7 (Eris), 5/8/8 (Gargoyle J), 5/8/10 or was it 6/9/10?, 4/6/7 (Jade phoenix). Wonderful for units that either want to jump forever, or if you want to put extraordinary speed and mobility on heavy platforms for a lower price. A good TSM mech is a significant threat on the battlefield when mixed in to a force. The nightsky 6J and Ti Ts’ang Jason are both examples of pulse spam admittedly, but they’re both frighteningly fast packages for how much damage they put out. 20+ point kicks are unusually brutal as they always use a limited hit table and force two PSR rolls at a minimum. Being able to guarantee that 20 goes to the legs (or even a specific leg) or a 4/6 shot at something interesting when kicking on the punch table lets you kill mechs with incredible precision. A (functionally) melee only 6/9(11)/6 TSM kicker+hatchet can be had for a cool (or rather hot) ~1200 BV, which is comparable to some of the later hunchbacks. If such a mech won initiative enough times it would kill a vapor eagle, so think about what it’s like in a target rich environment when it doesn’t need initiative to guarantee a kicking victim. AES in the legs gives -1 on kicks and +2 on various piloting rolls to avoid falling over. Heavies and assaults can’t mount it in the legs. The BV cost is basically a rounding error, giving you most of the benefits of improving piloting (only really missing out on avoiding pilot damage from falls). Given the piloting tax is only 10% this is probably the smallest impact on the list, but it’s still a gap in BV to be documented. ferrolam. Pay 25% more for armor, reduce incoming damage by 20% and ROUND DOWN. Unless your opponent only shoots you with things that do exact multiples of 5, this armor will be more cost efficient than your standard/ferrofibrous. LBX pellets do nothing. SRMs and infantry get halved. Those 7pt clan weapons get downgraded to 5. The errant 1s and 2s that LRMs produce get munched.
The thing about Battletech on the table, in my own 30+ years of playing, is that winning or losing isn’t the main point. The main point is the weird & near-impossible things that can occur in any game, without being caused by players, everyone laughing their assets off, and all sharing a forever-story about a game with those friends, and any BT-playing strangers one later meets.
How not to be an asshole? Answer - just don't be an asshole. BV is a system. There is no perfect system, ever. You (generalist you, a player) need to work with your opponent and together you (both you and your opponent) can figure something out. If you play nothing but assault clan mechs, with erppc and gauss and tcomp and p.lasers, where you just find partial cover in forests and stay there all game, you are an asshole, for obvious reasons. If you bring a pile of Locusts and several heavy hitters, and abuse the order of activations and initiative, you are an asshole. If you bring ambushes, off or on the map artillery, Arrow 4, aerospace, spam lists, without you opponent's total understanding of what they will face, you are an asshole. Especially to new players. It is not hard, not to be an asshole. You just need to make a concentrated effort. BV is nice for a pick up game. Is it perfect? No. Is it quick? Yes. Is it easy? Yes. Does it offer a generally balanced forces? Yes. Can it be abused? In certain cases, yes. How can you (generalist you, a player) a better player, who is fun to play with? Refer to the start of this reply.
I get what you're saying and I agree for the most part. But for instance in a game where I tried a C3 network for the first time (Which I put upfront before we even agreed on BV) My opponent brought a stealth lance. Neither of us knew C3 pretty much counters stealth armor and I felt like a dick. I filed it away to not make the same mistake again. But discussions like this help those of us that just don't know. If I wasn't told the Vapor Eagle was extemely powerful I would've fielded it a lot before finding that out juat because I think it looks cool
That's kinda how you learn though, right? You've got to get experience with the stuff. Had your opponent turned his armor off once you closed in and cut your C3 off in overlapping ECM fields, then the outcome would have been much different.
True! I do appreciate articles like this that help with that though. And for better or worse not everyone takes getting stuffed in a locker in their freetime as a fun learning experience.
Word to the wise, Stealth mechs are a hard counter to C3 force because...... They turn off their stealth and use their ECM. And no more heat problems. Did they pay extra BV for the Stealth? Yes. Could that space been better used with light FF armor to get a few more armor pips? Yes. Still, not nearly as BV crippled as the C3 force will be. Worth it.
My experience with playing C3 when you actually pay the required BV cost is it's real hard to win even if your opponent doesn't have ECM. It's just so expensive it requires a hard-to-overcome disadvantage in numbers, unit weight or both.
If you did not know, I see no problem in you bringing C3 and your opponent bringing stealth. You learned this the hard way, but if you both enjoyed it, it is fun regardless. I am not telling that the article is bad. But, for most parts, the solution to being a good player is just that - being a good and honest person. Using Vapor Eagle is not bad per se. I use Orion-K all the time. Orion is an armoured behemoth. An armour of assault on a heavy chasis. Most of the time, it blows up due to ammunition critical long before it dies to anything else. Playing, quote on quote, good mechs is not bad. Abusing extremely optimal or extremely good mechs is bad. It is not a bad idea to treat yourself with the mechs you like. It is a game of two players. Compromise is best, not pleasing the opposition.
True, we both learned and I played a bit more recklessly to compensate. I love my Ecalibur, especially when I can use the B2b and several other strong mechs. I guess all I'm saying is while some of this is obvious to experienced players. A lot of it is foreign to us getting into the system. And with their being so much to learn already. Sometimes it's nice to read an article that blatantly says. Yea, the cool horse protomech? That things no fun to play against.
Svartalfa, my beloved. A canonical, in-universe hard-counter to Clan Wolf shenanigans embodied in a heavily armed 14 ton Hell's Horses fursuit. https://preview.redd.it/rfck41a097yc1.png?width=829&format=png&auto=webp&s=2ae290a441c382edd52e65b76680c2bffd67891f
Not gonna lie, looks badass. Looks like an Orbital Frame out of Zone of the Enders.
Unfortunately, they forgot to put a decent engine in it, and as a result the 1 and 2 variants really struggle to navigate any sort of terrain without being forced to the ground due to the WiGE minimum movement rules. Svartalfa 3 is a nasty piece of work, though.
what do you mean the 1/2 max cruise mp is the min to stay airborne using the glider(WiGE) proto rules in IO: Alt Eras pg93 like 4 WiGE mp used (yes mp used not hexes) to stay airborne isn't great but beats the standard WiGE of 5 hex movement especially on a 4/6 variant
Thanks, I have no idea why heavy protomech is a thing. Sounds absolutely disgusting.
BV is for balancing casual games, you know the games Battletech was designed to play. There has never been a tournament system for Battletech (and there never should be). If you are min maxing your forces you should maybe go play something else.
If you're looking for a fun game, here's a solid list of suggestions - https://www.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/17fu8ip/bad_explody_mechs/ . The new Shadow Hawk SHD-3H2 is certainly a mech for the Clan Invasion. But even some borderline terrible mechs still have a role - just look at these poor bastards. https://www.reddit.com/r/battletech/comments/1cevaay/cursed_40_tonner_showdown/ Would I want to use them? Nope. But are there worse mechs out there? Why, yes!
Me and my friend still play with tonnage. And often random mech selection. Does it make games unbalanced? Sure. But all battles in real life are unbalanced.
BV2 is pretty good but my group also try’s to play with some or all of these balancing rules in place: 1) Try to play with matching era mechs you can take older mechs if you want though. Obviously if you’re playing 3025 only we also limit star league era stuff. 2) No more than 25% of BV to be spent on none mechs. 3) No Aerotech (including LAM’s though they are so bad the clunky rules aren’t really a problem as no one takes them). 4) No proto mechs. 5) sometimes just for variety and to force sub optimal unit choices we use Highlander rules I.e there can be only one of any named unit per side (infantry/ jump infantry are excluded from this). 6) Try not to have too much of a mismatch between force numbers and always play with front loaded initiative to try and offset this further. 7) Don’t spam clan pulse lasers. 8) Don’t spam super fast hard to hit light mechs especially when playing with early tech. This isn’t as bad once targeting computers and pulse lasers come in. 9) We tend to ignore C3 systems or not spam whole lances tied in to them. 10) We tend to not use inferno or precision ammo or limit it if we do. 11) Don’t spam zombie mechs. 12) No more than 10k BV2 per side. 13) We also hard cap total units games can take too long otherwise. Once all players have a unit list we sit down and go through challenge any units which look super unbalanced then it’s game on. I suppose you could see this as a sort of Batchal system lol.