Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post here your ideas for the campaign settings

Moderator: Moderators

SirNomad
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:51 am

Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by SirNomad » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:32 pm

So, I'd like to suggest making unarmed vehicles, or maybe all VTOLS, not count toward an army's four unit minimum. The Karnov is what comes to mind.

I think this could reduce potential use or abuse as an an "initiative sink". Or a cheap way to get an army up to four units. This has been brought up as a concern and I think this is the best way to do it without removing units that logically would have a place in armies. What comes to mind is the Karnov. It is the only effective infantry transporter for jump and certain motorized platoons that I've seen. As VTOLS they also make great scouts.

Not a whole lot of people use these to specifically make an unbalanced army, but this change would probably reduce potential bad feelings and reduce some temptation to use them in the manner described. VTOLs, are great units!


I'd really hate to see VTOLs removed, Karnovs in particular. In fact, the game's build tables are sorely lacking in personnel carriers. I'd like to suggest that instead they simply not count as a unit for army composition purposes. I believe infantry already works like this. VTOLs definitely have their place, especially when you need to scout out a city or other broken terrain. Nobody wants to play hide and seek with an opponent that isn't very eager to engage.

I'm not really sure what negative impacts there would be. I can't think of any off the top of my head. Since they'd no longer count toward army composition, including them means there'd still have to be four units. At worst, they could count as an initiative sink of sorts, but still cost you BV points and be a 5th unit.

I'd really hate to see the units removed from my ability to use them...personally. I often use VTOLs as scouts. I also feel they take a little of the "god mode" away from the LRM IDF guys.

Speaking of which...kind of related...I'd also like to suggest that management include more infantry transports that can carry a 6 "ton" platoon and more transports overall. I dislike the Maxim since it's fairly high BV and can only transport one foot platoon.

User avatar
Mole
Posts: 433
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:27 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Mole » Sun Oct 11, 2015 10:01 pm

I am not aware of any decisions to remove units other than those like Mobile HQs that gave an init advantage. A Kamov is a useful tool if you've got nasty foot infantry to bring to the fight, the opponent can load precision ammo and set anti-air if he/she wants to go bird hunting.
"Take what you can, give nothing back!"
The beard, the earrings, the rum...of course I'm a pirate.

User avatar
Bloodknight
MegamekNET PR Administrator
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:29 am
Location: Germany

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Bloodknight » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:22 pm

In fact, the game's build tables are sorely lacking in personnel carriers.
Say thanks to the people who always brought empty ones because they're cheap init sinks. I think we even had them not counting for the minimum once, but a free init step is obviously worth 150ish BV to most people, even if the unit doesn't do anything in the game, but move first.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Nastyogre » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:59 am

My only thought to the APC problem would be to rework all the units and classify them as infantry. Then they would move on their own and not be considered for BV spread or minimum combat units.
That's a little odd of course. The other question is what do you do with some of the VTOL transports which are armed and can carry troops? I suppose the units aren't any more capable than the APC's so it might not be so bad.

Spork
Mekwars Developer
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Spork » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:19 am

Mole wrote:I am not aware of any decisions to remove units other than those like Mobile HQs that gave an init advantage.
I am.
Never had much, grew up with nothing
But the music, well it was something
Been down and out, I've been on top of the world,
World that keeps on spinning on a turntable.

McMadMax
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by McMadMax » Mon Oct 12, 2015 2:46 am

Bloodknight wrote:
In fact, the game's build tables are sorely lacking in personnel carriers.
Say thanks to the people who always brought empty ones because they're cheap init sinks. I think we even had them not counting for the minimum once, but a free init step is obviously worth 150ish BV to most people, even if the unit doesn't do anything in the game, but move first.
THen we should also consider removing Savannah and Darter and some Packrat variants.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Nastyogre » Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:14 am

You could make the argument that the Gabriel, Packrats, Savanah Masters, Darters etc aren't really combat vehicles nor are APCs. Of course they are, but they aren't MAIN combat vehicles, thus we could relegate them to support status and restrict their usage. I am not advocating that really. I think it starts a slippery slope.

APC's might be properly considered infantry themselves as their entire purpose is to carry the infantry. ACtually what I like best is the requirement to take a carrier with infy, one that can fit them. That requires code and I'm not sure it's our highest priority.

McMadMax
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by McMadMax » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:35 am

Nastyogre wrote:My only thought to the APC problem would be to rework all the units and classify them as infantry. Then they would move on their own and not be considered for BV spread or minimum combat units.
Are they also taking extra damage from frags\flechette\AoE arty\infernoes?
Do we enable a ram attack for mech infantry or just disable it for APC?
Should we consider Maxims\Bandit\whatever else infantry?
In fact, the game's build tables are sorely lacking in personnel carriers
I was able to collect 5 of them more or less easily, of course they don't die as they are not in use yet.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Nastyogre » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:16 pm

McMadMax wrote:
Nastyogre wrote:My only thought to the APC problem would be to rework all the units and classify them as infantry. Then they would move on their own and not be considered for BV spread or minimum combat units.
Are they also taking extra damage from frags\flechette\AoE arty\infernoes?
Do we enable a ram attack for mech infantry or just disable it for APC?
Should we consider Maxims\Bandit\whatever else infantry?
In fact, the game's build tables are sorely lacking in personnel carriers
I was able to collect 5 of them more or less easily, of course they don't die as they are not in use yet.
You hit the nail on the head MMM. It's a problem that needs coding for a specific type of unit. Perhaps the support tag would work. Still doesn't avoid the 200 point Init sink. It's like it needs to be part infy, part vee. Not a good solution.

SirNomad
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by SirNomad » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:57 pm

It seems to me that some people dislike all low BV units and think of them as initiative sinks. The question is, will admins, instead of removing units, just tell players not to play that way? Me personally, I'm nowhere near as annoyed by people with low BV units moving first as I am by people hiding LRM tanks, "moving" those first, then nailing me with indirect LRM fire. It makes no logical sense that we can't even see the direction the rockets hitting our units are coming from. This is far more abusive play than anything with an "init sink" is in my opinion. The official battletech rules for double blind play and indirect fire probably were never written with MegaMek in mind, maybe there should be an adjustment, at least give us sensor pings or something in the direction the LRMs are coming from.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by TigerShark » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:35 pm

Are "init sinks" as big an issue in 5,000+ BV games, or only at 2,000 - 3,000?

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Nastyogre » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:11 pm

It's a problem of BV AND INIT sink.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by TigerShark » Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:10 am

Nastyogre wrote:It's a problem of BV AND INIT sink.
can you give an example of an init sink at, say, 6000?

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Nastyogre » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:38 am

Vedette 2 Marauder II warhammer-D

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by TigerShark » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:58 am

Nastyogre wrote:Vedette 2 Marauder II warhammer-D
Not really an intimidating army, IMO...

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Nastyogre » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:29 am

Pillager? Thunderhawk. Granted its much tougher to do at 6000 BV. But if we can dream it, somebody will do it. We've seen a Spartan at 3500 BV which is a terror.
It is certainly more impactful at lower BV, but I've seen armies well into the 4000's with a super-unit and init and BV sinks.

Then again, you could always go with 5 units. Its not a BV sink but an init sink. Take a capable and surviveable med at higher BV (GRF) and you can take a 200 point unit that the assaults and heavies can't catch. To force your opponent to move a unit before you and you get to move 2 units any turn you win init for a paltry 200-300 BV? It's certainly an advantage.

SirNomad
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by SirNomad » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:33 am

TigerShark wrote:
Nastyogre wrote:Vedette 2 Marauder II warhammer-D
Not really an intimidating army, IMO...
Pretty much. And instead of removing the karnov, which was really the best option for moving infantry around, and not replace it with something else that can serve the same function, I get hit with false accusations (and yes, they're false) of using a karnov as an initiative sink or an IDF spotter that sits in a corner. I've never done an army around IDF, and using a VTOL as a scout is just common sense if you have one. Rather than saying to me, as a moderator "Hey, it looks like you're using that as an initiative sink, and that's against the rules." or something like that, I get accused of cheating and karnov transports are removed from the build tables. That doesn't seem like moderation...

if I have a fast unit I can use for scouting, it's unreasonable to say that I shouldn't. Moving your cheap scouts first isn't cheating or against any BattleTech rules that I've ever heard of, and certainly not along the lines of putting infantry in an invulnerable building 30 hexes away (yes, invulnerable, because you don't have LOS to the ground floor so you can't target the building) and then using IDF all day.

By the way, it took me less than 2 minutes to come up with an alternative to the Karnov in Solaris Armor Works:



Mass: 21 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Motive Type: VTOL
Rules Level: Tournament Legal
Era: Age of War/Star League
Tech Rating/Era Availability: D/C-E-D-A
Production Year: 2750
Cost: 544,850 C-Bills
Battle Value: 314

Power Plant: 70 Fusion Engine
Cruise Speed: 108.0 km/h
Flanking Speed: 162.0 km/h
Armor: Standard Armor
Armament:
1 Medium Laser
1 Flamer
1 Infantry Compartment (6.0 tons)
Manufacturer:
Primary Factory:
Communications System:
Targeting and Tracking System:

================================================================================
Equipment Type Rating Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Standard 15 points 2.50
Engine: Fusion Engine 70 3.00
Cruise MP: 10
Flank MP: 15
Heat Sinks: Single Heat Sink 10 0.00
Control Equipment: 1.50
Lift Equipment: 2.50
Armor: Standard Armor AV - 56 3.50

Armor
Factor
Front 17
Left/Right 13/13
Rear 11
Rotor 2

================================================================================
Equipment Location Heat Spaces Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flamer FR 3 1 1.00
Medium Laser FR 3 1 1.00
Infantry Compartment (6.0 tons) BD 0 1 6.00

BattleForce Statistics
MV S (+0) M (+2) L (+4) E (+6) Wt. Ov Armor: 2 Points: 3
10v 1 1 0 0 1 0 Structure: 2
Special Abilities: ENE

SirNomad
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by SirNomad » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:39 am

Nastyogre wrote:Pillager? Thunderhawk. Granted its much tougher to do at 6000 BV. But if we can dream it, somebody will do it. We've seen a Spartan at 3500 BV which is a terror.
It is certainly more impactful at lower BV, but I've seen armies well into the 4000's with a super-unit and init and BV sinks.

Then again, you could always go with 5 units. Its not a BV sink but an init sink. Take a capable and surviveable med at higher BV (GRF) and you can take a 200 point unit that the assaults and heavies can't catch. To force your opponent to move a unit before you and you get to move 2 units any turn you win init for a paltry 200-300 BV? It's certainly an advantage.
An advantage that they gave up a few hundred BV for. A 6000 BV army with a 300-400 BV light 'mech...light vee...the only thing that would "fix" that would be going back to the old bv-spread rules, which really sucked and sapped a lot of the fun from army creation.

It's not nearly as big of an advantage as having a couple of sub-100 BV infantry squads on the other side of the board in an invulnerable building bringing down a half dozen LRM launchers worth of IDF on your head...if you don't fix that, which I think is a bigger issue, then why freak out about this? Someone can always shoot the "initiative sink". Even if it's a VTOL, then hey, wild concept, set a unit to anti-air with flak.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Nastyogre » Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:19 am

I haven't freaked out. I don't consider it a big enough problem to do anything about. I've pointed out it is a problem of some kind. It's why APC's aren't hugely common or even able to be purchased at will (Bloodknight's comment) But not enough to really limit them. I proposed possible but really unacceptable solutions.

Frankly, balanced armies will handle init sinks and BV sinks most of the time or at least some of the time. Take an assault at 4000 ok, but when 4 PHX jump that player and kill the assault and they make 3000 cbills and whine about not being able to replace their expensive mech, yeah, that's going to get at "payouts working as intended" response, at least from this council member. Certainly other members could vote to change things.

IDF, yeah its kind of a jerk thing to do. I really dislike dedicated IDF forces. Patient play typically handles them however. Few maps that IDF is good on don't have enough cover to screen your force and work around the side or the back of the force.

I do have a solution for IDF forces, stalemate. The IDF player is never going to move. So you don't either. Game doesn't progress and you cancel. You tell the player. "Look, you bring that and I'm not even going to attempt to play you, legal or not" Both parties are breaking the rules.

Then again, very few IDF players are good enough to not give in to being bored when you don't present a target and shoot at long range at their buildings or work to their backside. Then they move out when you have figured out where they are and... they die.

However, if you have a suggestion, format it as a specific suggestion according to the rules and the Council of Six will consider any suggestion. Might not enact it of course. If it's outside of campaign settings, the staff can decide if they want to consider it (or anything really, being staff they can implement anything the like)

fokker
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 1:29 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by fokker » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:16 am

Nastyogre wrote:I haven't freaked out. I don't consider it a big enough problem to do anything about. I've pointed out it is a problem of some kind. It's why APC's aren't hugely common or even able to be purchased at will (Bloodknight's comment) But not enough to really limit them. I proposed possible but really unacceptable solutions.

Frankly, balanced armies will handle init sinks and BV sinks most of the time or at least some of the time. Take an assault at 4000 ok, but when 4 PHX jump that player and kill the assault and they make 3000 cbills and whine about not being able to replace their expensive mech, yeah, that's going to get at "payouts working as intended" response, at least from this council member. Certainly other members could vote to change things.

IDF, yeah its kind of a jerk thing to do. I really dislike dedicated IDF forces. Patient play typically handles them however. Few maps that IDF is good on don't have enough cover to screen your force and work around the side or the back of the force.

I do have a solution for IDF forces, stalemate. The IDF player is never going to move. So you don't either. Game doesn't progress and you cancel. You tell the player. "Look, you bring that and I'm not even going to attempt to play you, legal or not" Both parties are breaking the rules.

Then again, very few IDF players are good enough to not give in to being bored when you don't present a target and shoot at long range at their buildings or work to their backside. Then they move out when you have figured out where they are and... they die.

However, if you have a suggestion, format it as a specific suggestion according to the rules and the Council of Six will consider any suggestion. Might not enact it of course. If it's outside of campaign settings, the staff can decide if they want to consider it (or anything really, being staff they can implement anything the like)
A good discussion, but after reading Nastyogre last comment, I do not have too much to say but +1 :-)

I'm with Nasty on this one - I believe that balanced armies have a good chance of defeating "one trick ponies" like IDF, and am so behind the next one "You lost your assault at 4000BV match and are complaining about payout?! What the hell were you expecting to make at 4000BV?? Payout works as intended."

The only thing I'd like to see is more of Infantry carriers (of any kind), simply because I love playing combined arms forces.

McMadMax
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by McMadMax » Tue Oct 13, 2015 10:57 am

Nastyogre wrote:Frankly, balanced armies will handle init sinks and BV sinks most of the time or at least some of the time. Take an assault at 4000 ok, but when 4 PHX jump that player and kill the assault and they make 3000 cbills and whine about not being able to replace their expensive mech, yeah, that's going to get at "payouts working as intended" response, at least from this council member. Certainly other members could vote to change things.

IDF, yeah its kind of a jerk thing to do. I really dislike dedicated IDF forces. Patient play typically handles them however. Few maps that IDF is good on don't have enough cover to screen your force and work around the side or the back of the force.
Theorycrafting.
I do have a solution for IDF forces, stalemate. The IDF player is never going to move. So you don't either. Game doesn't progress and you cancel. You tell the player. "Look, you bring that and I'm not even going to attempt to play you, legal or not" Both parties are breaking the rules.
As long as players are aware that's the rule and that's how it is supposed to work, because apparently many players are not aware blind really beats arranged.
IDF or not this rule will be called for pretty often pretty soon, out of the last 6 higher bv games (5500+) 3 were against a bunch of snipers sitting in the woods\heavy woods the whole game. And with the flaws to the Gx skill bv cost, penalty for standing still being removed, and no arty in all but one operation, these armies are virtually unbeatable barring RNG. Unless you actually bring a one-trick pony on a terrain specialised for it.

Tuco
MegamekNET Campaign Operator
Posts: 2816
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Tuco » Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:33 pm

SirNomad wrote: Someone can always shoot the "initiative sink". Even if it's a VTOL, then hey, wild concept, set a unit to anti-air with flak.
Let's take a look at what you wrote yesterday:
20151011 11:53:16.735 Nomad:Well, I also like it because it can be a way to fake out an opponent into picking anti-air targeting.

A Karnov is 200 BV. Because AA-Mode is a quirk and has to be balanced with another quirk by the BT rules (and in our case is short range targeting malus), the Karnov BV most of the times is paid off just by that. But on top you also get an initiative unit to move first and negate double blind in most cases.
Now, there are other 200-300 BV VTOLs but they have weapons and our Server Rules force them to use their weapons, or let's say engage in combat. The Karnov does not have any, and it's prone to a loop hole in our Server Rules and being used by such as you. In the game I saw, your Karnov was in range for your opponent but only so that it required 12 to hits and at the same time being forced to move his units devastatingly bad against your other units. While that was well played out, it was still violating the spirit of our rules.

I also have a report about you being using a Karnov as spotter for IDF.
Which puts me back to another quote and your definition of hypocrisy:
20151011 16:45:11.367 Nomad:And if an admin gives me a hard time about using a karnov...yet be OK with hidden units that can continually pound my forces with impunity...that's called hypocrisy.

While I think you mixed up who is being hypo here, the owner of this server can always be and it matters not. He can rename CBills to cookies and you, not even I could complain.

I give you credit for being interested in finding a solution for the Karnov problem. But better stop playing poke-the-bear with the admins.
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.

User avatar
Nastyogre
MegamekNET Moderator
Posts: 4134
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:46 am

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Nastyogre » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:52 pm

Tuco wrote:
SirNomad wrote: Someone can always shoot the "initiative sink". Even if it's a VTOL, then hey, wild concept, set a unit to anti-air with flak.
Let's take a look at what you wrote yesterday:
20151011 11:53:16.735 Nomad:Well, I also like it because it can be a way to fake out an opponent into picking anti-air targeting.

A Karnov is 200 BV. Because AA-Mode is a quirk and has to be balanced with another quirk by the BT rules (and in our case is short range targeting malus), the Karnov BV most of the times is paid off just by that. But on top you also get an initiative unit to move first and negate double blind in most cases.
Now, there are other 200-300 BV VTOLs but they have weapons and our Server Rules force them to use their weapons, or let's say engage in combat. The Karnov does not have any, and it's prone to a loop hole in our Server Rules and being used by such as you. In the game I saw, your Karnov was in range for your opponent but only so that it required 12 to hits and at the same time being forced to move his units devastatingly bad against your other units. While that was well played out, it was still violating the spirit of our rules.

I also have a report about you being using a Karnov as spotter for IDF.
Which puts me back to another quote and your definition of hypocrisy:
20151011 16:45:11.367 Nomad:And if an admin gives me a hard time about using a karnov...yet be OK with hidden units that can continually pound my forces with impunity...that's called hypocrisy.

While I think you mixed up who is being hypo here, the owner of this server can always be and it matters not. He can rename CBills to cookies and you, not even I could complain.

I give you credit for being interested in finding a solution for the Karnov problem. But better stop playing poke-the-bear with the admins.
So, not taking two foot infantry and delivering them? Intentionally using the presence of a vtol to induce an opponent to handicap one of their units and never presenting that unit as a target. Using a Karnov as a spotter for IDF. The legitimate use of a Karnov as a transport for 2 smaller or one larger Infantry (like motorized) not being done here. So that's not hypocrisy, that's lying. That isn't what you said you did with your unarmed karnov. That IS a good reason for Spork to be testy with you. I don't like being lied to or given a "colored truth."

It's exactly this that will bring back BV spreads. It's exactly this that will have the Council consider a proposal from me to remove units sub 300 BV and perhaps Vtols altogether. We provided more flexibility and a certain segment of the players seem determined (some of my own team too) to abuse the system. Rather than using it to being interesting and balanced forces. We use it to bring a Gauss Toting 1500 BV Star League medium and 3 cheap light tanks, or A Spartan at 3500. Every day I hear and see more of this. I am beginning to understand what brought Tuco. Spork and crew to using the restrictions they did.

You all do understand when you do this it makes players not want to play? Sure YOU have a good time, but others don't. You win your game, congratulations. You may have driven a new player off or caused an existing player to get fed up and leave?

I think I will have to figure out the spread by % thing. Perhaps that might be a solution.

Spork
Mekwars Developer
Posts: 3895
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:23 pm

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Spork » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:07 pm

I am not a moderator, SirNomad.
Never had much, grew up with nothing
But the music, well it was something
Been down and out, I've been on top of the world,
World that keeps on spinning on a turntable.

User avatar
Bloodknight
MegamekNET PR Administrator
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:29 am
Location: Germany

Re: Rather than removing units, how about this?

Post by Bloodknight » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:58 pm

The official battletech rules for double blind play and indirect fire probably were never written with MegaMek in mind,
*shrug* Double-blind only really works in places like MegaMek, because it's a major pain in the butt on the tabletop since you need two sets of the same game and an umpire with a third set for himself. That also means you need three rooms to play it properly to keep up the fog of war. I'Ve seen a lot of people going at it enthusiastically in my tabletop time, but rarely did it work out more than once per group because it's such a hassle, particularly for the umpire, who doesn't really get to play, but has to do all the FASAnomics for all Mechs and inject all the RPG elements ("the Awesome's left leg looks weak").

Post Reply