BV1, BV2..... why no improvement?

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Greyslayer
03/08/08 08:11 PM
216.14.198.51

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
We have previously played tourneys using the BV1 system and found it quite flawed when using mixed technologies (i.e. Clan, IS lvl1 and IS lvl2 in the same tourney).

I did though, back in 1999, run a tourney using bv1 purely on 3025 technology and it worked an absolute treat.

So when I finally get a look at the BV2 values for mechs I find an exaggeration of the faults that caused our active group to drop the BV1 system in the first place.

Originally a simple comparison had the GRF-1N @ 1021 bv and the TR-1 @ 1089. To me the Wraith in this exchange is far to cheap compared to the 3025 reliable Griffin (I think it was more expensive than the 3025 Archer as well). So perhaps this might be remedied in BV2, nope the Griffin's value increased by about 25% and the Wraiths by just 22-23%.

Okay the base comparison of two mech do not work so how about 'broken' mechs like the Rifleman IIC or Goshawk which despite being relatively expensive in BV were effective enough to win tourneys anyway. Both enjoyed less than 10% changes to value with the Goshawk possibly only around 6% change in value while the often 'one-shot' wonder of the Dasher H had a well over 30% increase in value.

Does it make sense to use the system? I cannot see how when the comparisons I was running last night with a large number of mechs did not make selections beyond certain broken mechs viable.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/20/08 09:55 AM
70.0.215.185

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I am glad that I don't use BVs at all. I go by what the real world cares about the dollar or CBill cost of a force. Of course thats why I rely so heavily on light tanks and light VTOLs. Why risk a 5 million CBill mech when you can get away with 4 .35 million CBill VTOLs instead.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Christopher_Perkins
06/20/08 09:45 PM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Donkey...

The Purchase Price has little to do with the Battle Effectiveness of a unit...

Tournaments only care about the Effectiveness of weapons, NOT how much you paid for something

When you are purchasing , you use c-Bills...
When you are Repairing, you use C-Bills

When you are Balancing a Battle, You DON'T use C-Bills, or Tonnage for that matter.


\if you want to tell how badly that unit of 12 Locusts will be on open terrain when that trinary of firemoths chatches up with it... BV or BV2 will tell you surer than either Tonnage or C-Bills
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/20/08 09:55 PM
68.26.130.218

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Well since I have not played, will not play, and don't care about Tournaments. BVs mean nothing to me. I play table top RP campaigns with friends.

Thats why I said what I said.

Also there are factors that are not considered in BVs. First and largest the players skill. I played with a guy that I could have a 5 to 3 advantage in BV and he would still wipe the map with me. There is the terrain. If your in a heavy forest what good is that Annihilator going to do for you? Or say a under water battle field and your in an archer? BV only considers open terrain battle fields.

Oh by the way my name is His Most Royal Highass, Donkey. See I am a royal as... I mean Donkey LOL
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!


Edited by His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey (06/20/08 10:15 PM)
Christopher_Perkins
06/21/08 06:43 AM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Well since I have not played, will not play, and don't care about Tournaments. BVs mean nothing to me. I play table top RP campaigns with friends.




and in that Campaign you need something other than C-bills to tell you when you have just gotten royally screwed by the GM

C-Bills will tell you that the unit facing you is either poor or frugal... Or built by an organization with more money than god

BV will tell you that you have a fight on your hands because the GM loadede the unit with Power House Mechs that either equal or exceed your units capabilities

BV is a GMs tool rather than a players
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
06/21/08 03:40 PM
72.58.130.251

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I GM and I decide what to throw at my players with out using BV. I decide based on what I feel like having in the area. I dont like having others to do my thinking for me.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
CrayModerator
06/23/08 09:08 AM
147.160.136.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

So when I finally get a look at the BV2 values for mechs I find an exaggeration of the faults that caused our active group to drop the BV1 system in the first place.




Do you have any proposed solutions - as in, specific equation adjustments - to the BV2 problems?

There's a Fan Input forum on CBT.com that takes errata comments. If you've got a good fix, it might get implemented.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Christopher_Perkins
06/25/08 12:49 AM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

I GM and I decide what to throw at my players with out using BV. I decide based on what I feel like having in the area. I dont like having others to do my thinking for me.




so how closely do you balance your fights...

or rather what do you use to balance the fights?
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Fang
06/25/08 11:49 AM
151.193.203.13

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
One thing I nvr really understood. If bt were RL, BV or tonnage of opposing forces would have nothing to do with what you hit with or defended with. I rarely used either. I would say' Here is what you have. you need to take this installation/stall advancing forces/kill the pirates/whatever' then base the defending force on what I thought they would use to defend/attack with. May not seem fair to the players at times, but made for some creative and interesting game play.
One by one, the rabbits are stealing my sanity.....
Dester
06/25/08 06:36 PM
216.57.96.1

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
if your deciding both sides of a fight and you want it to be even, BV is an ok way to go (as long as your using same tech base and equal skills). outside of that you start to have serious issues.

/shrug and like someone posted before if its a campin, it rarely would be equally matched. and woo to be the commander that actually commits to an equal fight with out damm good reason.

Dester
Christopher_Perkins
06/25/08 07:29 PM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

I GM and I decide what to throw at my players with out using BV. I decide based on what I feel like having in the area. I dont like having others to do my thinking for me.




BV doesnt do your thinking for you... it is a tool, nothing more
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Greyslayer
06/30/08 03:13 AM
216.14.198.61

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Do you have any proposed solutions - as in, specific equation adjustments - to the BV2 problems?




I had taken the final values and ran them in comparison to the mechs under BV1 to see the value changes etc. I found a compounding of errors of the past for example the GRF-1N v TR-1 etc. Many 3025 and poorly designed 3050 designs went up a large % while 'broken' units like Rifleman IIC and Goshawk hardly moved. We saw enough of them in BV tourneys when we did play them to start with least of all the leaning they got under the BV2 system.

I was looking at running GenconOz under the BV2 system but found it unworkable.

This being said the best tourney I had been a part of (which I ran so I did not play ) was using 3025 technology and the BV1 system. That seems to be the limit of the system beyond that it becomes unworkable.

Quote:

There's a Fan Input forum on CBT.com that takes errata comments. If you've got a good fix, it might get implemented.




Good for it. Not been to CBT since I gave my word not to go back there. I keep my word unlike those I was in argument over there too at the time.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/05/08 08:55 AM
99.204.31.170

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

I GM and I decide what to throw at my players with out using BV. I decide based on what I feel like having in the area. I dont like having others to do my thinking for me.




BV doesnt do your thinking for you... it is a tool, nothing more




Not the way everyone here is acting. Everyone is acting that BV is god or something. In a tournament yes its needed but in a campaign it not.

In a war you never have equal forces in a fight. One side will be the stronger and the other weaker. Any general will want to over whelm there enemy with his forces. So he can destroy his enemy with little to no losses. When I DM My players normally are stronger or weaker than the force there fighting. Some times by a great deal. I want my players to be thinking if they should be running like hell to save there selves. I love setting up ambushes where there is a weak force that my players are attacking but thats just the bait for the trap. Of course I use it so often that when they find a weak force there expecting to be jumped by a overwhelming force. I'm having a harder and harder time trying to destroy my players forces. They always have there escape plan ready.

On my planet you would be hard pressed to overwhelm my forces. It's more likely it would be the other way around. I use the ant verses the elephant strategy. Where I send a very large force of light VTALs *6-24 to one* ageist my attackers. If I can't attack my enemy away from my cities I will leave the attacking forces to hit my city defenses and wipe out there LZ. So far when I hit there LZ there forces that are attacking my cities runs back to there LZ to defend it. No one likes to be stuck on the enemy's planet with no way home. Of course its been years since I have been raided the last time. They have found that there losses are far greater than any gain. That is if they had any gains at all.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Greyslayer
07/06/08 07:47 PM
216.14.198.61

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

On my planet you would be hard pressed to overwhelm my forces. It's more likely it would be the other way around. I use the ant verses the elephant strategy. Where I send a very large force of light VTALs *6-24 to one* ageist my attackers. If I can't attack my enemy away from my cities I will leave the attacking forces to hit my city defenses and wipe out there LZ. So far when I hit there LZ there forces that are attacking my cities runs back to there LZ to defend it. No one likes to be stuck on the enemy's planet with no way home. Of course its been years since I have been raided the last time. They have found that there losses are far greater than any gain. That is if they had any gains at all.




An enemy would not need to overwhelm you, just use the logic of either destroying your logistics and watch the entire army fall apart or wait for the operating costs to kill the economy.

In Battletech ants needs 10 times the support of their size not carry 10 times their size, just one of the ways they make battlemechs that little bit stronger.

Attacking during a storm would leave you with no defenses to an assault and grounded targets make great fodder for mechs. Having been through a cyclone in a military I can see what happened to standard fighting units in the approach of such weather systems and it certainly isn't operating at full capacity.

If the BV system was correctly weighted you can still have unbalanced fights for campaigns etc and it can still be incorporated. For example as a multiplier in the battles for experience afterall why should players get the same experience for a casual romp through a majorly outgunned enemy than a seat of their pants majorly outgunned run through enemy lines etc.
CrayModerator
07/07/08 04:32 PM
147.160.136.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

Do you have any proposed solutions - as in, specific equation adjustments - to the BV2 problems?




I had taken the final values and ran them in comparison to the mechs under BV1 to see the value changes etc. I found a compounding of errors of the past for example the GRF-1N v TR-1 etc. Many 3025 and poorly designed 3050 designs went up a large % while 'broken' units like Rifleman IIC and Goshawk hardly moved. We saw enough of them in BV tourneys when we did play them to start with least of all the leaning they got under the BV2 system.




Right - but what's your fix for that problem? How would you modify the BV calculations?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Greyslayer
07/07/08 08:14 PM
216.14.198.60

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Right - but what's your fix for that problem? How would you modify the BV calculations?




I wouldn't. You would need to start from scratch and rebuild the whole thing.

Armour, internal structure are all very good but no amount regigging of the basic formulae would make it better if it ignores the crits protecting ammo slots and gauss with virtually no protection (because it takes up too much space)scenario.

Say the gauss in a torso of a mech compared to a mech with two tons of explosive ammo in a torso protected by several other crits ended up with the harder to kill mech with a lower bv purely based on similar attacking damage and defensive factors (ie armour, movement etc) because only the gauss is the head-capper but the mech once it starts receiving damage is so many times easier to kill because of the ammo explosion in the torso waiting to happen.

Now we look at the -2 to pulse weapons. Under IS conditions the weapons are so short-ranged it is pretty much only suitable to either protect large gun platforms or fast swarming mechs but against mechs with minimum ranges on a majority of their weapons these units kill thus I am not sure the bv of units like the Griffin reflects the minimum ranges of all of its weapons on the 1N.

Also on the 1N all equipment are mounted on the right side thus making the mech useless in attacking BV if it loses the right torso. Hardly worth the same as the same mech with Lt and RA mounted weapon systems. Units that have weapons in the CT and H become that much harder to kill but it isn't reflected in the bv and with clan mechs having ER Large Lasers mounted in the head on occassion this is certainly a battle advantage over a mech that chooses to mount weapons in the torsos only.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/09/08 04:04 AM
70.0.129.36

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

On my planet you would be hard pressed to overwhelm my forces. It's more likely it would be the other way around. I use the ant verses the elephant strategy. Where I send a very large force of light VTALs *6-24 to one* ageist my attackers. If I can't attack my enemy away from my cities I will leave the attacking forces to hit my city defenses and wipe out there LZ. So far when I hit there LZ there forces that are attacking my cities runs back to there LZ to defend it. No one likes to be stuck on the enemy's planet with no way home. Of course its been years since I have been raided the last time. They have found that there losses are far greater than any gain. That is if they had any gains at all.




An enemy would not need to overwhelm you, just use the logic of either destroying your logistics and watch the entire army fall apart or wait for the operating costs to kill the economy.

In Battletech ants needs 10 times the support of their size not carry 10 times their size, just one of the ways they make battlemechs that little bit stronger.

Attacking during a storm would leave you with no defenses to an assault and grounded targets make great fodder for mechs. Having been through a cyclone in a military I can see what happened to standard fighting units in the approach of such weather systems and it certainly isn't operating at full capacity.

If the BV system was correctly weighted you can still have unbalanced fights for campaigns etc and it can still be incorporated. For example as a multiplier in the battles for experience afterall why should players get the same experience for a casual romp through a majorly outgunned enemy than a seat of their pants majorly outgunned run through enemy lines etc.




If bad weather was such a problem do you think that I would open my self up to such an attack? Timing an attack with a bad storm will not work. It takes to long to jump into system and make planet fall. The storm would be long gone before you could really do anything. You would have to be in system and wait for a storm to come along. Wile your waiting for a storm my soler system defenses would be harassing you the whole time. Also if you think using a VTAL in a storm is bad try landing a drop ship in one. My VTALs are not my only weapons at my disposal. Just the fastest ones that can be brought to bier. I have lots of tracked tanks. I also have a reinforced company of post 3050 battlemechs. Of course thats based in the capital. I am reluctant to move it from there. Just encase an attack is to pull them away so I would weaken the capitals defenses. I really don't need to protect the whole planet. Other than the continent that my capital is on. With the exception of mines and farms. The planet is mostly all wilderness. Who wants to raid a planet for basic minerals that can be found on any planet. If someone wants to raid my planet for sand. There welcome to it. Well not really. They would be going after my water and not the sand. I cant allow that. But those raids are in and out so fast. All I can do about them is hit them with my aerospace fighters.

My father started and I continue the practice of a home guard. Yes a home guard is a threat to my own power. But if I can not do good for my own people. Maybe its best that I am removed from power by force. Also if the people know that they can do it. It will keep them happier with me. The older people remember what it was like before my father freed them from the last bandit king that ruled the planet. They know a good thing when there living it. There more than willing to fight any attacker that comes along to defend there way of life.

A planetary blockade is not much of a threat since I do what ever I can to be self reliant. The one power that could pull it off easily is my best customer. So why would they? Of course the fact that I can and will slag all of my factories if they try such a thing is also a good deterrent for keeping Davon's from attacking me.

As for a prolonged attack. The defender always has the advantage there. My resources are on planet. Where the attacker has to ship his in from out side of my soler system. The same goes for a blockade or with destroying my logistics. It takes to long and is to costly. If the Davon's wanted to attack it would be very fast and very powerful. And the cost of that is more than anything that can be gained.

The cost of taking and holding large empires require a lot of infrastructure. Why do you think I don't take other soler systems to add to my power. Well add to that the extra headaches ruling more than one soler system creates. No thanks.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Greyslayer
07/09/08 10:19 AM
216.14.198.61

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

If bad weather was such a problem do you think that I would open my self up to such an attack?




Yes.

Quote:

Timing an attack with a bad storm will not work. It takes to long to jump into system and make planet fall. The storm would be long gone before you could really do anything.




Incorrect. There is generally always some storm system somewhere on a planet of that type and considering you are talking about dropships who have to deal with re-entry a gust strong enough to ground a vtol fleet in the area would not necessarily do much to a dropship that can land a deploy ahead of the front giving little time to respond for the defenders in those areas.

This though isn't really answering my question on logistical cost of maintaining the vehicles, which in the battletech universe are more expensive to keep than mechs (lets not go into the munchinism of 3050+ mechs in a individual planet either).

This question was not on the cost in battle situation but the day-to-day year-by-year cost of keeping the things running.
Dester
07/09/08 04:22 PM
216.57.96.1

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Hate to burst your bubble donkey, but your gimic VTOL army would get mowed down with a few dozen areospace, or hell even convental fighters and that would end that really quickly.

You also have the issue of attrition and numbers. If you have even 12 times as many of your VTOLs vs the defenders, you will be expected to lose a good number of those before you eleminate or force a withdrawl. Under convential military practice, losing more then 20% of your force is an unacceptable loss for any one battle. While convential forces have their place, gimic units, be it mech, VTOL or anything else, remain limited in usefullness and easly countered once their abilities are discovered.

Back to the topic of BV. The reason that BV doesn't work is that it tries to put a value on all the parts and sum up the parts to equal a whole value. While sound in theory its very poor in practice for any number of reasons that can make the unit either way out perform or way under perform. adding modifiers for pilots just compounds the problem.

Untill a system can be devised that takes how each part integrates into the whole, the BV system will remain broken. I am guessing that such a system would be so complicated that a computer program would have to be generated to spit out the result as hand calculating would be a total nightmare as each part must be measured against the rest of the unit.

Just my thoughts on the matter at hand.

Dester
Greyslayer
07/09/08 06:02 PM
216.14.198.60

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Back to the topic of BV. The reason that BV doesn't work is that it tries to put a value on all the parts and sum up the parts to equal a whole value. While sound in theory its very poor in practice for any number of reasons that can make the unit either way out perform or way under perform. adding modifiers for pilots just compounds the problem.




Good response to the topic.

Quote:

Untill a system can be devised that takes how each part integrates into the whole, the BV system will remain broken. I am guessing that such a system would be so complicated that a computer program would have to be generated to spit out the result as hand calculating would be a total nightmare as each part must be measured against the rest of the unit.




This issue brings to mind what happened in a sport probably few of your here understand, Cricket. Why I bring this topic up is that for years an unacceptable way of reaching a result from matches that could not finish normally was used. The simple system was purely bases on runs per over bowled so if side 2 was ahead of side 1 regardless if they were almost all out with a couple of complete bunnies at the wicket (i.e the last wicket) they still won regardless if they were still a long way from victory and vice versa if the side batting second was well ahead on number of batsmen left in the shed but just behind the run rate at time play is stopped due to the weather.

They needed a new system but one that took in all components of the game such as the loss of ability to score runs the more wickets lost and judging it across so many other variables including previous losses of overs due to early stoppages in the match. The results was the Duckworth-Lewis system, an extremely complicated and at times frustrating system that to have all the results possible in it would require a book the size of a desktop PC.

Within reason it works effectively but the complicated way it is calculated means it is out of the hands of the average official without help from say a computer program. Part of a reason this idea would not be so helpful though is that Battletech doesn't have 30 years of results to research to make a 'best fit' formulae that sits within the parameters (many as there were) given. So if it took cricket analysts 25 years to come up with a complex system like that then how on earth given the even more freeform nature of Battletech would they be able to integrate a system similar in nature?

Or perhaps it is the very nature of the belief in the freeform game that limits the creation of an effective formuale? For argument sake Mechforce North America for years used 250 tons as the basic mass for a lance on lance clash in tourneys but I doubt many players used such a system for home gaming in regards to clan v IS and other conflicts where greater numbers are wanted on the board. Would the system have been the same if players were allowed to field as many or few units as possible for the 250 tons? No as there was also a time constraint and the extra units would bog the game down further causing results mostly along the lines of draw etc.

So for Tourneys you would need to limit the number of units but allow players the ability to change numbers to represent their style of play (comstar/wobbie units are better up to six units while a Kuritan player would be at a slight disadvantage trying to get 6 units working together on a c3, so the players could select 4-8 units allowing the Kuritan player a light 2 lance c3 force or a heavy lance c3 force and the comstar/wobbie force is able to field a complete c3i network if they so wish).

Unfortunately there is no amount of modifying that can be done by the tourney organisers that can properly incorporate the BV1 or BV2 systems as they currently stand into tourneys beyond about 3025 technology. It isn't a simple thing to fix.
NeverSayNever
07/10/08 03:07 AM
78.49.153.205

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
[Warning! May contain ... Not to be taken way too seriously!]


Oh well, (brockian ultra) cricket, sigh, okay, the following link might look slightly off-topic - at least at first sight:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brockian_Ultra-Cricket


but if you dare to take a closer look:
Quote:


It is said that the rules of Brockian Ultra-Cricket are so controversial that the civilizations which play it spend more time in a state of war over their interpretation than they do actually playing the game. The rules are so lengthy and complex that the one time they were collected in one place for reference, a black hole was formed out of their mass. It is believed that "in the long run, a good solid war is less psychologically damaging than a protracted game of Brockian Ultra-Cricket", so this may be a good thing.





you might end up agreeing with the following statement:

It is believed that in the long run, a good solid war game of classic lvl 1 Battletech (the boardgame) - without having a long discussion whether to use BV1 or BV2 for force balance - and simply using BV1 instead, because BV1 tends to work pretty well (at least if you are using lvl 1 tech only), is less psychologically damaging - and definetely much more fun I might add -, than a protracted series of discussions on the BV system and all its different incarnations, and or revised editions, and or flaws / quirks, so simply playing a game of classic lvl 1 Battletech and using good ol' classic BV to balance the forces / units involved may be a good thing ...


BTW, the answer to all your remaining BV related questions could be BV42 ...
Greyslayer
07/10/08 06:52 AM
216.14.198.60

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

BTW, the answer to all your remaining BV related questions could be BV42 ...




BV42 is the answer of life in Battletech.

Also like the old sports pros that end up commentators, when you are not playing the game nothing is better than a good whinge session.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/11/08 04:18 AM
99.200.46.178

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Hate to burst your bubble donkey, but your gimic VTOL army would get mowed down with a few dozen areospace, or hell even convental fighters and that would end that really quickly.

You also have the issue of attrition and numbers. If you have even 12 times as many of your VTOLs vs the defenders, you will be expected to lose a good number of those before you eleminate or force a withdrawl. Under convential military practice, losing more then 20% of your force is an unacceptable loss for any one battle. While convential forces have their place, gimic units, be it mech, VTOL or anything else, remain limited in usefullness and easly countered once their abilities are discovered.
Dester




Your right areospace fighters would do a lot of damage to my VTAL force. Its a good thing that I have my own areospace fighters to stop that from happing. As for conventional fighters. Ignoring the fact that in BT conventional fighters are worthless. No one would attack someone else's world with conventional fighters. conventional fighters are used only to defend a world from being attacked.

Yes, there where times that I took some very large losses. But the one thing you have to remember is if you win your the one that is writing the history books. Also don't forget the BT universe slogan. Life is cheep weapons cost money.

Quote:

Under convential military practice, losing more then 20% of your force is an unacceptable loss for any one battle.


I have no idea where you got that 20% number. I would say thats a fell good number that someone likes to throw out. I suggest you look at the casualty numbers during WWl & WWll. There are a lot of units even some armies that had greater than 100% casualties during WWl & WWll. If you really want to see some casualty numbers in WWll. Look at the battle for Stalingrad. Now there where some large casualty numbers! Stalingrad could have been called the meat grinder of WWll. Heck you can have a larger than 20% casualty number just by accidents that just happen to troops or from FF. Yes, I do have some knowledge of military history. No, I am not an expert but I have some idea what I am talking about.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Christopher_Perkins
07/12/08 08:52 AM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I GM and I decide what to throw at my players with out using BV. I decide based on what I feel like having in the area. I dont like having others to do my thinking for me.




BV doesnt do your thinking for you... it is a tool, nothing more




Not the way everyone here is acting. Everyone is acting that BV is god or something. In a tournament yes its needed but in a campaign it not.




Even in a Campaign it is needed... BV 1 & 2 are Scenario Building Tools
You as the GM know what you players will be throwing.
You choose what units you will be throwing at your players. (BV1 & 2 do not select the units for you)
You then use BV1 or BV2 to determine whither or not the units that you have chosen will be Especially tough (in an open field engagement) in comparison with the units that your Players are expected to use.

With that information you can either change the terrain to something that would favor the players or the NPCs more, or add or subtract OPFOR units to gain the desired effect.


Quote:


In a war you never have equal forces in a fight. One side will be the stronger and the other weaker. Any general will want to over whelm there enemy with his forces. So he can destroy his enemy with little to no losses. When I DM My players normally are stronger or weaker than the force there fighting. Some times by a great deal. I want my players to be thinking if they should be running like hell to save there selves. I love setting up ambushes where there is a weak force that my players are attacking but thats just the bait for the trap.





one of the first official uses of the CV system (ancestor of BV) was in MechForce's Ranked Battles system in which a player got points for winning against a superior force and lost points for loosing against a superior force.

Use of a Balancing System does not require that the values be equally balanced... it only tells you how far out of balance the forces are...

Are your people facing 4 to 1 odds? 12 to 1 odds? Or is that massive wave of Savannah Masters just an annoyance?

BV1 & BV2 are tools to answer that question.
And they are more accurate to answer that question than Tonnage or C-bills
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Christopher_Perkins
07/12/08 09:05 AM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Conventional fighters are useful... Especially as scouting forces... units can easily transport Conventional Fighters as well as surface vehicles in transports' vehicle and cargo bays.

Conventional Fighters are also very useful... they are more maneuverable than AeroSpace Fighters, last longer on a tank than Aerospace fighters, and can carry bombs and other fun stuff.

Its much like how Modern Day Air Forces will have both Prop Driven and Jet Driven aircraft even though Jet Driven aircraft are more powerful than Prop Driven.
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/12/08 12:26 PM
72.58.171.148

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Conventional fighters are useful... Especially as scouting forces... units can easily transport Conventional Fighters as well as surface vehicles in transports' vehicle and cargo bays.

Conventional Fighters are also very useful... they are more maneuverable than AeroSpace Fighters, last longer on a tank than Aerospace fighters, and can carry bombs and other fun stuff.

Its much like how Modern Day Air Forces will have both Prop Driven and Jet Driven aircraft even though Jet Driven aircraft are more powerful than Prop Driven.




Yes, you can transport con fighters like any other weapon. I my self don't like con fighters not because what they are but because there worthless with the way the rules are bis ageist them. I think the rule that con fighters can only have one point of armor per ton of craft needs to be dropped. Con fighters are just targets. one hit and there destroyed. As for bombing VTALs can carry bomb loads also.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/12/08 12:49 PM
72.58.171.148

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I just look at what I might want to throw at the players with out bothering to look up what there BV is. The defending equipment will always be what is best for the terrain of the area. As you already know I love using tanks instead of battlelmechs. In the open I like VTALs and hovercraft. Hilly areas VTAL, wheeled, and track, woods VTALs and tracked. Of course if there is no air for VTALs or hover they will not be there.

Now I don't rule out using battlemechs.

If I remember right in the BT universe conventional regiments out number battlemech regiments at the rate of 20 to 1. Unlike a lot of campaigns I show that rate in my campaign. Now salvage ant so great in my campaign. There is not much left after a VTAL crashes.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Christopher_Perkins
07/12/08 11:45 PM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Have you ever discovered that a scenario that you set up was harder or easier for your players than you had expected?
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
07/13/08 10:45 AM
72.58.140.26

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
For the most part no. The times that things did not go as I expected was because dumb luck of dice rolls good or bad.

With the guys that I played with the most. I had to use a bit more fire power then the players had to be an even fight. They where better at tactics than I was. Me one one of the guys would build even weighted mechs and battle it out. He would win 80% of the time. The 20% I would win had more to do with he was tired or distracted with something else.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!


Edited by His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey (07/13/08 10:52 AM)
Greyslayer
07/15/08 04:43 AM
216.14.198.60

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I cannot see how discussion on the poor qualities of the Battle Value system for use in Tournies have anything to do with munch-based campaigns.
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
Extra information
1 registered and 45 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 19492


Contact Admins Sarna.net