No more IDF?

Miscellaneous topics about the campaign

Moderator: Moderators

Stahler
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:46 am

Re: No more IDF?

Post by Stahler » Sun Nov 08, 2015 2:25 pm

I can't remember encountering an IDF force. I've used IDF before but never in obscene quantities. I just go by the face punch rule. If someone is abusing IDF I say we just deal with it on an individual basis. But one or two LRM carriers (two might make someone's face punching fist twitchy) hiding with PBI spotter is not abusive and perfectly legitimate imo. And if someone is consistently abusive with this they will probably just rack up a lot of no play slots anyway

Jackal
Posts: 1391
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: No more IDF?

Post by Jackal » Sun Nov 08, 2015 5:03 pm

I think IDF has it's place, but I also think IDF-abuse armies are a real thing. I haven't run into many personally, but I've certainly gotten an earful from players who were running into them regularly.

What I suspect is that IDF-abuse armies predominate mostly in the upper BV ranges where "standard" units are slow, don't usually have jump jets, can't easily close with the LRM units, and also have low defensive modifiers. I also suspect, that the people using IDF-abuse armies also target lower ELO players who might not be as familiar with IDF rules and therefore are easy to "seal club" with such armies.

I think on thing that will help has already happened--taking out Gx skills. On certain units Gx results in units that are VERY under BV'd. I think it would also be wise to make NAG a bit more expensive so that players have to survive longer with 4/5 units before they can get a 3/5.

We could also consider some sort of house rule that says that you can't fire more than (depending on how strict we want to be) 1 or 2 IDF units in a single round. It would basically be akin to the delay of game rule--which is designed to defeat Griffin/SDR hunts--but aimed specifically at IDF.

It may be worth keeping the no-IDF rule in place for the remainder of the cycle though. Because there are still many Gunnery Missile LRM units still out there, the second we turn IDF back on we'll be right back where we started.

Xman
Posts: 606
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:23 pm

Re: No more IDF?

Post by Xman » Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:41 pm

House rule on IDF in games?

Can only IDF 1 unit per turn or something.

Or have to declare a designated IDF unit (and tell player at game start before he even sees it)

Stahler
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:46 am

Re: No more IDF?

Post by Stahler » Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:38 pm

I haven't seen a lot of abuse with it the whole time I've been here. Do we really need another rule to restrict people or is it possible to just deal with it on an individual basis? Maybe just have general guidelines (i.e. The unofficial face punch rule). If someone starts abusing it then deal with that individual. If I keep running into someone doing it the easy solution is just NP them

BaRbArIaN
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:02 pm

Re: No more IDF?

Post by BaRbArIaN » Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:59 pm

If vtol gunnery is causing IDF abuse, simply remove leveling from vtols only. Vees should still have the options maybe, maybe limit them to 3 gunners, I don't know. You also could code in an incoming missile warning like " Incoming LRM swarm from NW" or something like that so the player could eventually narrow down where the LRM unit is. Infantry should not be invisible in a building if spotting, I also am a fan of letting some damage to the building leak through above and beyond needing it to be 10% or more of the building's remaining CF representing shattered concrete and glass that does a little damage to the infantry inside, say a d6 worth of points etc. Then you could whittle away at them even if they are ensconced in a big 120 CF structure.

Lando
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: No more IDF?

Post by Lando » Sun Nov 15, 2015 7:35 pm

BaRbArIaN wrote:If vtol gunnery is causing IDF abuse,
VTOL gunnery doesn't matter in this case. The VTOL only spots, he doesn't need a weapon at all.

I never saw an abuse with idf, maybe mainly because I play low level BVs. But it seems to be a bigger problem on higher BVs.

Silentwoe
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:07 pm

Re: No more IDF?

Post by Silentwoe » Wed Nov 25, 2015 3:53 am

I think you should just scrap BV altogether and go by tonnage.... it could have many benefits.

Also, it might make more sense... IC... based on that a dropship X can carry X meks and/or X tons.

It could reflect in OPs... QuickRaid/Skirmish... little fast jumpship and small dropship for a quick raid... but can carry <enter max meks/tons, whatever> (I mean, it could have an in game IC explanation... not just arbitrary bv rules, I think there are drops ships that carry exactly 4 meks, or/and some 200-400 tonnage). Maybe could be based on Leopold dropship...

Also it might be a requirement that every person that goes active for influence should have that x ton army active and ready to defense (in addition to any other armies they might have). ((guess you could go for specific BV here too))



Anyway, instead of optimizing to fit as much into BV... you would try to max out tons operation permits you.... except tonnage would be more fair overall without any quirks BV system has. (not saying it would solve idf issue.. but it would be far more fair, and any quirks in BV would be nullified)

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

Re: No more IDF?

Post by McMadMax » Wed Nov 25, 2015 5:12 pm

Silentwoe wrote: Anyway, instead of optimizing to fit as much into BV... you would try to max out tons operation permits you.... except tonnage would be more fair overall without any quirks BV system has.
Banshee-E vs a SL Highlander, a REALLY difficult choise.

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: No more IDF?

Post by TigerShark » Wed Nov 25, 2015 5:58 pm

Tonnage works just fine. :) People have usually played it incorrectly and, as a result, had a terrible experience. (Note: Not suggesting it be used here. Purely a discussion on Tonnage as a balance system)

The problem with tech levels is that no one playing tonnage is suggesting a 1-for-1 measuring stick. And never has, really. Tech levels are given a multiplier to compensate for their equipment. This has surfaced in various ways throughout BT history. For example, the Clan Invasion was intended to be a 5-on-8 scenario, since this was during a time when there was no point value system to utilize. Different tables have also come up with a "what works for us" scenario, but in general, tonnage is played at ratios:

Example:

Clan Tech vs. IS Intro Tech (Based on a 5-vs.12 ratio)
IS Tonnage * 0.4 = Clan Tonnage
Clan Tonnage * 2.4 = IS Intro Tech Tonnage

IS Star League Tech vs. IS Intro Tech (Based on a 4-versus-6 ratio)
IS Intro Tech * 0.66 = SL Tech Unit
SL Tech * 1.5 = Intro Tech Tonnage

So in the example of a Highlander HGN-732 or something, it would be rated as 50% higher due to its tech advantage, or 135 tons. Take that same scenario with the HGN-732 vs. BNC-3E and stack on another 40-ton machine (PXH-1, for example) and you have a pretty balanced game.

Lando
Posts: 297
Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm

Re: No more IDF?

Post by Lando » Wed Nov 25, 2015 6:23 pm

TigerShark wrote:Tonnage works just fine. :) ...
I don't think that tonnage works fine, unless we play a Mech only game.

What about Vees and Infantry? do you think the tonnage is a good measure for them?

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: No more IDF?

Post by TigerShark » Wed Nov 25, 2015 6:27 pm

Lando wrote:
TigerShark wrote:Tonnage works just fine. :) ...
I don't think that tonnage works fine, unless we play a Mech only game.

What about Vees and Infantry? do you think the tonnage is a good measure for them?
Same answer as above: Multipliers. For example, in a Clan game, vehicles would be counted at 1/2 tonnage, since there are two to a single Point. You could extrapolate that same logic to Inner Sphere games. A 100-ton Mech vs. 200 tons of Vehicles.

ProtoMechs pool their tonnage to 5-to-1 Points. Infantry were, admittedly, difficult to balance out, since their 'weight' doesn't reflect their equipment or anything other than a fictional number system used to assume their mode of transport. You'd have to assign them an equivalent tonnage, much like how RPG skills are assigned an equivalent BV.

User avatar
Klingon
Posts: 1144
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:59 am
Location: Austin, Texas (on assignment from Luthien)

Re: No more IDF?

Post by Klingon » Wed Nov 25, 2015 7:08 pm

TigerShark wrote:Tonnage works just fine. :) People have usually played it incorrectly and, as a result, had a terrible experience. (Note: Not suggesting it be used here. Purely a discussion on Tonnage as a balance system)

The problem with tech levels is that no one playing tonnage is suggesting a 1-for-1 measuring stick. And never has, really. Tech levels are given a multiplier to compensate for their equipment. This has surfaced in various ways throughout BT history. For example, the Clan Invasion was intended to be a 5-on-8 scenario, since this was during a time when there was no point value system to utilize. Different tables have also come up with a "what works for us" scenario, but in general, tonnage is played at ratios:

Example:

Clan Tech vs. IS Intro Tech (Based on a 5-vs.12 ratio)
IS Tonnage * 0.4 = Clan Tonnage
Clan Tonnage * 2.4 = IS Intro Tech Tonnage

IS Star League Tech vs. IS Intro Tech (Based on a 4-versus-6 ratio)
IS Intro Tech * 0.66 = SL Tech Unit
SL Tech * 1.5 = Intro Tech Tonnage

So in the example of a Highlander HGN-732 or something, it would be rated as 50% higher due to its tech advantage, or 135 tons. Take that same scenario with the HGN-732 vs. BNC-3E and stack on another 40-ton machine (PXH-1, for example) and you have a pretty balanced game.
This is a very predominantly 3025 server, so tech level really doesn't come in to play much.
"Grasshopper, the three secrets to life are as follows. First, keep your eyes and ears open. Second... don't tell everything you know."

Got a good idea to add to MekWars? We'd love to hear about it. (from that page, go to "Tickets", then "Feature Requests")

TigerShark
Mekwars Server Operator
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:28 am

Re: No more IDF?

Post by TigerShark » Wed Nov 25, 2015 7:13 pm

Klingon wrote:This is a very predominantly 3025 server, so tech level really doesn't come in to play much.
TigerShark wrote:(Note: Not suggesting it be used here. Purely a discussion on Tonnage as a balance system)

obese pigeon
Posts: 874
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:51 am

Re: No more IDF?

Post by obese pigeon » Thu Nov 26, 2015 1:19 am

not sure if trolling or serious...

Post Reply