reorginize infantry build tables

Post here your ideas for the campaign settings

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Dwight Derringer
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:07 pm

reorginize infantry build tables

Post by Dwight Derringer » Sat Feb 04, 2017 9:59 pm

The proposed change would ensure that players are able to load their maxim transports with units.

I believe that the maxim transport is at its coolest and most effective when loaded with infantry and that foot infantry need the maxim (or other transport) to be a significant threat outside of certain map conditions. I believe that it is unreasonable to have to rely on luck to pull foot infantry for a maxim - just like it would be unreasonable to have to pull from a random ammo stockpile to rearm a HBK-4G.

My argument:

- If a maxim transport is to realize its full potential, it must be loaded with infantry that it may drop into battle.
- If some infantry can be loaded into a transport and some infantry cannot be, then they are two different subsets of units.
- If infantry is at least two distinct subsets then they should be ordered into distinct build tables.

Warning: People could roll lots of powerful infantry if the build table is split which is why infantry cost should be reevaluated.

This suggestion means something to me because I am new to this game (generally speaking) and one of the neatest units that really drew me into how deep the game could be was the maxim transport.

Please feel free to debate me on any points.

BarukKhazad
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by BarukKhazad » Sun Feb 12, 2017 1:10 am

Dwight Derringer wrote:The proposed change would ensure that players are able to load their maxim transports with units.

I believe that the maxim transport is at its coolest and most effective when loaded with infantry and that foot infantry need the maxim (or other transport) to be a significant threat outside of certain map conditions. I believe that it is unreasonable to have to rely on luck to pull foot infantry for a maxim - just like it would be unreasonable to have to pull from a random ammo stockpile to rearm a HBK-4G.

My argument:

- If a maxim transport is to realize its full potential, it must be loaded with infantry that it may drop into battle.
- If some infantry can be loaded into a transport and some infantry cannot be, then they are two different subsets of units.
- If infantry is at least two distinct subsets then they should be ordered into distinct build tables.

Warning: People could roll lots of powerful infantry if the build table is split which is why infantry cost should be reevaluated.

This suggestion means something to me because I am new to this game (generally speaking) and one of the neatest units that really drew me into how deep the game could be was the maxim transport.

Please feel free to debate me on any points.
While it would be possible to split the infantry build tables into separate tables, I think it has not been done because of the point that you made about players trying to pimp their hanger with strong infantry combinations. But, did you know that foot infantry take 0 bays? This is important in this topic because when players are buying infantry (looking for that field gun or that 5MP hover infy), they will get some foot infantry. I'd guess that 80% of players will just ignore the foot infy in their hangers and all you need to do is ask and they will give you as many as you will accept (just not those heavy support laser foot infy, those are for my urbie! :p )
I had opinions/That didn't matter/I had a brain/That felt like pancake batter
I got a backyard/With nothing in it/Except a stick/A dog/And a box with something in it
The hardest button to button/ /The hardest button to button/ /The hardest button to button

User avatar
Dwight Derringer
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by Dwight Derringer » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:59 am

BarukKhazad wrote:While it would be possible to split the infantry build tables into separate tables, I think it has not been done because of the point that you made about players trying to pimp their hanger with strong infantry combinations.
Yes, I'm sure that this is a real danger but if the cost in resources for buying infantry is modified to account for the build tables thinning I am sure that the overall number and quality of infantry could be kept at the status quo.
BarukKhazad wrote:But, did you know that foot infantry take 0 bays? This is important in this topic because when players are buying infantry (looking for that field gun or that 5MP hover infy), they will get some foot infantry. I'd guess that 80% of players will just ignore the foot infy in their hangers and all you need to do is ask and they will give you as many as you will accept (just not those heavy support laser foot infy, those are for my urbie! :p )
I didn't know this, and it is interesting information. I don't think that dismissing an issue due to the fact that it can often be worked around is right. I think that resolving the problem of not being able to load your transports with what is essentially ammo without relying on the luck of the draw or the benevolence of others is important and will make the campaign better and more fun by allowing players to more easily tailor interesting armies to play with.

As an alternate idea; perhaps upon obtaining a transport vee of any kind, the player is also awarded a unit of low-value foot infantry? That way the player will always have infantry to use with his unit and if he desires better infantry, they can always be pulled from the bays.

BarukKhazad
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by BarukKhazad » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:13 pm

Dwight Derringer wrote:As an alternate idea; perhaps upon obtaining a transport vee of any kind, the player is also awarded a unit of low-value foot infantry? That way the player will always have infantry to use with his unit and if he desires better infantry, they can always be pulled from the bays.
This would require code changes with unit production. Using the existing code, there could be an infantry factory linked directly to a separate build table with only foot infy, but then all the players would need to know to that factory produces only foot infy.

Also worth considering, there is no BV cost for the carry capacity of the transports. Bringing one on the field without infantry does not diminish the BV value of the unit, though I agree that carrying infy do increase the fluff value.
I had opinions/That didn't matter/I had a brain/That felt like pancake batter
I got a backyard/With nothing in it/Except a stick/A dog/And a box with something in it
The hardest button to button/ /The hardest button to button/ /The hardest button to button

User avatar
Dwight Derringer
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by Dwight Derringer » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:39 pm

BarukKhazad wrote:Also worth considering, there is no BV cost for the carry capacity of the transports. Bringing one on the field without infantry does not diminish the BV value of the unit, though I agree that carrying infy do increase the fluff value.
It might not change the BV on paper, but I would argue that the practical value of the unit in a tactical sense is increased if it is carrying infantry. A transport being loaded opens up tactical options that would not be there otherwise.

As for changing the code - if it can't be done it can't be done. It would be really nice though.

User avatar
Dwight Derringer
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by Dwight Derringer » Tue Feb 21, 2017 2:55 am

So far this cycle (without really intending to) I have pulled three Heavy Wheeled Transports, three Heavy Tracked Transports and three Maxim Heavy Hover Transports.

I have pulled at least 14 units of infantry, 2 of which were foot infantry. I am unwilling to use these transport units without being able to load them with troops and I think it is unfair and silly to bring an army full of empty transports, so even though I have a full hanger, 9 of my units might as well not be there.

I have asked my faction mates if they have any foot infantry that they could give/sell me but so far I have not have anyone respond (although I did get some Scorpion Light Tank donations (Thanks!)).

The way I see it, I have spent 280 FLU and 5,600 cbills trying to bring these units to full power, and although I have gained tracked, hover, motorized and field gun infantry units which are great to have, I have not been able to build the army I want and if trends continue and it takes 280 FLU to get 2 units of foot infantry, I will have to farm and spend another 1120 FLU on infantry (and end up with 48 units of other infantry) just so that I can put dudes in some trucks.

I really do think that keeping the mobile and field gun infantry in one build table and putting foot infantry into another while increasing the costs to pull from either table will result in more varied and interesting armies.

My proposal is this:

There are currently 128 types of infantry, 17 of which are foot infantry. 17 out of 128 is ~ 13%

The current costs of infantry are 20 FLU and 400 cbills. My goal is to keep things balanced economically and to give players the option of pulling the units they desire without cluttering their hangers with units they do not want or need. Revised, I propose the build tables once split should look like this:

Foot Infantry: 150 FLU, 3000 cbills
Other Infantry: 25 FLU, 500 cbills

gabor_kovacs
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 4:57 pm

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by gabor_kovacs » Tue Feb 21, 2017 3:16 pm

As I understand the Infantry tables has the same class as mechs, vees, or aero : Light, Medium,Heavy, Assault but now all infantry units set to Light. Maybe Foot infantry can be left at Light inf. table and the other infantry units moved to Medium table ( if more separation needed the Heavy and Assault can be used too )

regards

Gabor

BarukKhazad
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:56 pm

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by BarukKhazad » Tue Feb 21, 2017 9:07 pm

gabor_kovacs wrote:As I understand the Infantry tables has the same class as mechs, vees, or aero : Light, Medium,Heavy, Assault but now all infantry units set to Light. Maybe Foot infantry can be left at Light inf. table and the other infantry units moved to Medium table ( if more separation needed the Heavy and Assault can be used too )

regards

Gabor
Yep, a separate "medium infantry" table could be made for foot infantry. That is one way the following could be done
BarukKhazad wrote:This would require code changes with unit production. Using the existing code, there could be an infantry factory linked directly to a separate build table with only foot infy, but then all the players would need to know to that factory produces only foot infy.
It could also be done using a separate medium_infantry buildtable that can only be bought with RP.
Dwight Derringer wrote:My goal is to keep things balanced economically and to give players the option of pulling the units they desire without cluttering their hangers with units they do not want or need.
Have you ever played against an AC2/SRM vee army with HeavySupportLaser infy, AC10 field guns, and won at great cost, knowing that the player could make another 3 pulls on a specialized table and replace their lost units with the same unit? Players will gravitate towards what they desire and create specialized armies that can only be fought with other specialized armies. These are trick armies and not fun for the casual battletech players.
Dwight Derringer wrote: I really do think that keeping the mobile and field gun infantry in one build table and putting foot infantry into another while increasing the costs to pull from either table will result in more varied and interesting armies.

My proposal is this:

There are currently 128 types of infantry, 17 of which are foot infantry. 17 out of 128 is ~ 13%

The current costs of infantry are 20 FLU and 400 cbills. My goal is to keep things balanced economically and to give players the option of pulling the units they desire without cluttering their hangers with units they do not want or need. Revised, I propose the build tables once split should look like this:

Foot Infantry: 150 FLU, 3000 cbills
Other Infantry: 25 FLU, 500 cbills
There should not be a problem with keeping the costs the same, so long as players cannot farm the tables to build specialized infy armies.

Do I understand correctly that your primary interest is in being able to obtain foot infantry instead of non-foot infantry? Would a separate foot infy table (with the same buy costs), be acceptable (weighted with 45% range 3, 35% range 6, 15% range 15, 5% range 15)? While the primary infantry table would either a) still have foot infantry in the same ratio or b) replace the chance for foot infantry with range 3 non-foot infantry (to avoid the chance of field gun infantry from going up).

Saint
Posts: 614
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:47 am

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by Saint » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:02 am

I like this proposal but I would go with option a.
it ain't no taint to be the Saint

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by Nastyogre » Wed Feb 22, 2017 12:59 am

Other than early in a cycle, I've never had an issue getting foot infantry for Maxims and other 3 ton only carriers.

If we were going to split, I think perhaps foot, jump, motorized, mechanized. Then there would be no real qualitative difference in the tables. No way to fish for field guns. Sure the mechanized table is the only one with them, but they are pretty rare.

I do worry about making jump infantry something we could just pull. They are supposed to represent rather rare gear and training for infantry.

I still don't see a strong need for this however.

User avatar
Dwight Derringer
Posts: 365
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by Dwight Derringer » Wed Feb 22, 2017 2:04 am

BarukKhazad wrote:Do I understand correctly that your primary interest is in being able to obtain foot infantry instead of non-foot infantry? Would a separate foot infy table (with the same buy costs), be acceptable (weighted with 45% range 3, 35% range 6, 15% range 15, 5% range 15)? While the primary infantry table would either a) still have foot infantry in the same ratio or b) replace the chance for foot infantry with range 3 non-foot infantry (to avoid the chance of field gun infantry from going up).
I don't fully understand what you are asking, but yes; my primary interest is to obtain foot infantry instead of non foot infantry. My concern with keeping the costs the same should the build tables be split is that since there are much fewer unique units of foot infantry than units of all infantry put together, a person could endlessly farm and scrap foot infantry until they have a unbeatable city-garrison army of heavy support lasers or something.
Nastyogre wrote:Other than early in a cycle, I've never had an issue getting foot infantry for Maxims and other 3 ton only carriers.

If we were going to split, I think perhaps foot, jump, motorized, mechanized. Then there would be no real qualitative difference in the tables. No way to fish for field guns. Sure the mechanized table is the only one with them, but they are pretty rare.

I do worry about making jump infantry something we could just pull. They are supposed to represent rather rare gear and training for infantry.

I still don't see a strong need for this however.


I certainly do have problems obtaining foot infantry. As a person who can only play one game a day (maybe) on weekdays I find that FLU is a very scarce resource for me, especially with so many players involved in the campaign right now. If I am attacked, I get 60 FLU which allows me to pull three times from the infantry build tables. On average, it takes six pulls to obtain one unit of foot infantry. Infantry is very squishy and the churn rate for them is high unless very cheesy tactics are employed such as sticking them in CF120 buildings and leaving them there forever.

Some people like stomping around in heavy meks. Some people like dashing around in light meks. Some people like slowly crawling forward in assault vees and devastating everything with insane firepower. It is easy for them to pull the units they need to make such armies possible, even if the best units for the purpose are hard to come by. I only ask that the same be true for people wanting to play with mobile infantry, and right now it is significantly more difficult which I don't think is right or fair.
BarukKhazad wrote:Have you ever played against an AC2/SRM vee army with HeavySupportLaser infy, AC10 field guns, and won at great cost, knowing that the player could make another 3 pulls on a specialized table and replace their lost units with the same unit? Players will gravitate towards what they desire and create specialized armies that can only be fought with other specialized armies. These are trick armies and not fun for the casual battletech players.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that gimmick armies should be curtailed, which is why I am concerned about the ability for people to pull and pull units from castrated build tables. I proposed a high cost for pulling from the foot infantry table with exactly this problem in mind. Perhaps weighting the chance for more powerful units (looking at you, laser infantry) to be more rare than they are now would help?

I am not a longtime BT player like many of you. I do not have the intuitive understanding of how unfair some armies can potentially be and so I am relying on you to help me solve what I consider a problem: it should not be as difficult as it is now to 'complete' a transport unit by getting soldiers to put into it. From a gameplay standpoint I acknowledge your concerns over gimmicky armies becoming easier to build, but I see no reason why these concerns cannot be eliminated by careful changes to pull costs and/or lowering the chance of overpowered units appearing.
Last edited by Dwight Derringer on Wed Feb 22, 2017 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4133
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by Nastyogre » Wed Feb 22, 2017 3:31 am

except most players consider foot infantry garbage. If I can't pull it, I can almost always get it from other players.

It is something to consider though. I will brood on this :wink: (assumes brooding ogre pose)

Ultimately it is for consideration of the Council of Six. Unless, of course, the admins saw overwhelming worth in the idea and they can do anything the like.

Tuco
MegamekNET Campaign Operator
Posts: 2813
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: reorginize infantry build tables

Post by Tuco » Wed Feb 22, 2017 11:22 am

To the Council it goes :)
When the injustice is great enough, Justice will lend me the strength needed to correct it.
None may stand against it.
It will shatter every barrier, sunder any shield, tear through any enchantment and lend its servant the power to pass sentence.
Know this: there is nothing on all the Planes that can stay the hand of justice when it is brought against them.
It may unmake armies. It may sunder the thrones of gods.
Know that for ALL who betray Justice, I am their fate... and fate carries an Executioner's Axe.

Post Reply