I would tend to keep forces to a Lance or smaller on a 3X3, and that really only adds a few minutes of time to the game over a 2X2 map because you can skip most of the phases when the forces are out of range of eachother.
#Battletech urban warfare ecm overpowered full#
I have never mentioned anything about fielding full companies because I would not do that on a 3X3 map. Honestly, all that adds is another turn or two of closing to engagement range, and even that can be avoided by deploying a little ways in from the edges. The objective of a game isn't just winning, it's both sides having fun in the process - if one side doesn't have any, there won't be other games with them: you land on their No-Play-List.and that's not restricted to MM, but a real life issue. You also need 2 days to finish a game like the one you're describing and lose a couple of friends in the process (or get mechs like that houseruled out) because playing like that is not fun. Quote from: Bloodknight on 28 March 2011, 05:29:55 Yeah.
So your example, while being a funny description of what powergaming can achieve if everything is skewed in your favour, bears no real connection to how the game is usually played - and that is what the formulas really have to fit to. In reality, in nearly every game the border of the table is the end of the world. Most games would end being fought over one or two mapsheets anyway because of time constraints (and playing like a jackass would keep your chapter from getting another invititation for a fight). That said, 3x3 maps used to be the standard size for company-sized chapterfights in the club I used to play a couple of years ago (that club was at times bigger than Mechforce Germany, IIRC). In reality, you need at least a 3X3 field for better pilots to have room to maneuver around the enemy without being forced into close quarters engagements where their improved skills become insignificant. The fundamental problem I am running into here is that people are trying to claim that playing on a postage stamp validates something when you have Clan 'Mechs capable of projecting damage two full mapsheets away, or you can easily corner the mobile lights (designs like the Viper are close enough to count here) by exploiting the artificial boundaries of the map edges with weapons that can cross most of a map without entering the long range band. Having a few broken 'Mechs is far more problematic for balance than having a few underwhelming 'Mechs, so the system naturally must be structured to prevent a few exploits killing the game.
It is easy to see why paying for a better gunner in a Charger is not worth the increase, but if you balance the BV system so it is then something like the Viper B becomes horribly broken. You can get 4 of them for the price of that Viper, and your not likely to hit them when they 2 are closing at Run 14, Sprint 18, or if needed, Jump 7.Īnd I can afford to not shoot back for a turn or 3 as I close, or even a little longer if I slow down my close to also pick up Heavy Woods to make myself nigh unhitable. Its even worse with some customization, try an IS version of a Jenner-IIC armed with IS MPLs.
Or 2 Viper-Prime/A's with small gunnery upgrades. I really wanted to I can field 3 Phantoms if its a mix of C & H models. You will get at best 2-3 shots off at those 9's before I am lighting you up w/ entire batteries of MPL/ERSL fire. I will close 4/6 hexes at a Run, or 8/10 at a SPRINT every turn. Personally I enjoy the fact that shorter range guns means less BV & so, to keep things canon, for your 1/2 Viper-B, I will counter with a Phantom-C & IceFerret-D at 3/5 each. This is of course using the exact same unit. I WILL close the distance with you and then your +4 long range means nothing as we are at short & we are now exchanging at 5 v/s 7/8. Is the concept of Run 12 v/s Walk-Jump 8 not adding up for you mathematically?
0 kommentar(er)
