ATN082268
02/01/20 09:10 AM
174.253.136.109
|
How long do your Battletech battles usually last?
|
Karagin
02/13/20 09:09 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Depends. If it's a mech on mech fight, it could be 1-9 turns or all the way up to the 20 or more, depending on the skill of each side.
If the force being used is larger it could take 20 plus turns to finish a battle, mainly cause a lot of turns will be moving and no firing due to distance and terrain blocking LOS.
Average for most folks for the tabletop (I don't count the unofficial computer games like MegaMek etc...) is likely 10 to 15.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
georgiawesley
04/27/20 02:05 AM
69.167.0.32
|
Post deleted by Cray
|
Karagin
04/27/20 02:26 AM
70.118.172.64
|
I don't think he is talking about the computer games.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
GalebG4
07/29/20 04:48 PM
78.106.76.228
|
I'm usually around the 14-17 turns mark; I've had battle turning into eternal slugfests like the Caporetto battles in WW1 and a game once won in 6 turns (yes, 6 turns! I thought my friend had been using weighted dice, but he just had a lucky streak), but these are the exception, not the norm.
|
Wick
07/31/20 06:16 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Under 10 if one mech per side. 10-12 if you're talking 3-4 mechs per side. I've got a Clan Trinary vs IS Battalion scenario in MegaMek that easily takes 20+.
But I've also lost in the first round thanks to the accursed Gauss Rifle headshot.
|
Karagin
07/31/20 09:15 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Quote:
Under 10 if one mech per side. 10-12 if you're talking 3-4 mechs per side. I've got a Clan Trinary vs IS Battalion scenario in MegaMek that easily takes 20+.
But I've also lost in the first round thanks to the accursed Gauss Rifle headshot.
MegaMek doesn't count, the board game is the true benchmark of how long battles run.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Wick
08/03/20 10:47 AM
173.247.25.195
|
Why would MegaMek make a significant difference in how many turns a game takes to play out? The tabletop game is only really suitable for smaller scale battles where pen and paper can be realistically used without slowing things to a crawl. Digital rolls and computer tracking helps larger scale battles. No doubt playing a Trinary vs Battalion battle on tabletop with pen and paper would take many more hours to play out, but the number of turns shouldn't be all that different. Maybe bugs and RNG flukes affect it to a small amount, but not enough to matter. You're certainly right that tabletop is the benchmark when it comes to time, but turns is format-indifferent if the rules are applied properly (which MegaMek mostly does) - and the poll specifically asks for turns, not time.
Also, finding someone/anyone to play a tabletop game with 51 units on the board is a tough sell.
|
Karagin
08/03/20 03:06 PM
70.118.172.64
|
I say it because MegaMek is NOT official. It's a third-party entity. Too many want to default to it and act like it is Battletech, it's not.
Also, I have seen folks rush to post mechs here that they have done via MegaMek and find out that they are not designed fully within the rules, that gets pointed out a lot. Yet folks still think they are posting legal playing units. As for the time to play, that was going to vary, do you have time sit in front of the computer for three hours and devote all of that to MegaMek? So is that going to be any different from the tabletop game? I mean, if you can find three hours to play a computer game, trust me, I spend several hours on Sunday playing winSPMBT, and I know it can be better spent playing the same battle via micro-armor.
Okay, it's a tough sell to get someone to play 51 units in one sitting, so you sell it as a two-day event, or a multiple evening event, no different than sitting in front of the computer. I see plenty of local gaming groups doing at the shops or their meeting at the community centers that are open. IF you hype it enough and can get them hooked to want to see what happens come next chance to play folks will come back. I have done the same, large battle, needs a full two maybe three days to complete. Took the weaker side so others would have the "cool" toys and thus want to come back. It's all about or in how you sell it.
Turns in MegaMek are going to go faster and the random chances are NOT affected by human interaction. AKA how you actually think and roll the dice. Too fast and you get crazy results, same for too slow, or the surface you use or how large or big the box is that you are using to roll the dice in. Plus MegaMek doesn't allow for those really awesome tabletop maps and board layouts.
It would be interesting to see if the same battle could be done via tabletop and then done via MegaMek and see which goes faster or longer.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Wick
08/04/20 11:53 AM
173.247.25.195
|
Not seeing any explanation for why there would be fewer TURNS in MegaMek there.
Unless the argument hinges on how you roll the dice, indicating non-random dice rolls. But if you aren't playing with dice (or rolls of dice) that produce 1/36 chance for all 36 combinations of a two dice roll, then you technically aren't playing by the rules either. Using loaded dice, sleight of hand, or other tricks to cause more 2s or 12s is illegal. If randomness and rule application is equal between the two, then tabletop and MegaMek will complete a game in roughly the same amount of *turns*, but MegaMek in much less *time* by allowing computer to record things rather than people by paper sheets.
But after some more thought on it I will concede that MegaMek provides to-hit numbers for each piloting skill roll or attack such that players can play smarter. A good player could calculate these in their head but mistakes can and will be made. I'm sure on tabletop I've miscounted hexes or did my math wrong to arrive at a solution that wasn't optimal. So I will say that if ideally and smartly played, the number of turns should be the same, but human faults are more likely to effect tabletop experience. But not necessarily to fewer turns. Mistakes could be made that cause more turns to be added just as easily as mistakes made to reduce them. Statistically speaking, the standard deviation of turns in MegaMek is probably smaller than on tabletop experience, but I maintain that the average should still be similar.
And I'm talking human vs human. If human vs AI, then MegaMek is surely shorter because the Megamek AI does some stupid things that can be exploited.
Concur MegaMek shouldn't be used for design verification. There are better tools out there.
|
ghostrider
08/04/20 01:13 PM
66.74.60.165
|
Wasn't going to chime in here, but the fact the Megamek does not create units to par is the big issue. A single thing like an extra heat sink is enough to skewer a game. Too many jump jets or some extra armor could do the same thing. Not sure if it is just the data sheet, but more then a few vehicles were missing turret armor or even turrets. And the reverse is true. Lacking one sink may well have a major impact. This is just equipment issues. Things like a weapon that shouldn't fit in a location could very well change the outcome. Being able to fit a gauss rifle when you don't really have the weight is a prime example of this.
But if both sides agree to it, then they accept the risks. The issue is most don't know of the problem.
Also, megamek allows use of things that don't exist in the game, so there is yet another issue.
|
Karagin
08/04/20 04:33 PM
70.118.172.64
|
Human mistakes leaned to dead mechs, thus the game can end up being shorting because of the human mistakes. Also, the factor of the human ego comes in more in the tabletop. You take risks in the computer game that you won't take in the tabletop, mainly because a human isn't going to react poorly to you running your mechs off in the woods for a turn and then trying to flank around to get rear shots, they are going to move so you can't do that easily. Those kinds of changes can shorten or lengthen a game. Adding in the die rolls and the rolling box cars aka 12s that head cap a mech is more likely with the tabletop game than MegaMek. Also the lose in the tabletop is more noticed right away than in the computer game. Again adding to a longer or shorter game.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
08/04/20 04:35 PM
70.118.172.64
|
And Ghostrider is on to a big point, mistakes in the way MegaMek handles mechs stats means some mechs will live longer than they should.
Side note, I have seen folks TRY to cheat at tabletop battles, but folks are always watching for that and many know the mechs and their stats pretty good. I got burned once by a player who would only mark half damage on his mechs during a convention game, he was finally called out on it in the third match. The damage was done though, and we had to start over because of his cheating.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Wick
08/09/20 07:34 PM
173.247.25.195
|
Quote:
And Ghostrider is on to a big point, mistakes in the way MegaMek handles mechs stats means some mechs will live longer than they should.
That's why I stipulated that if the rules are same, game length in turns should be same. I focus almost exclusively on Level 1 and Level 2, as its less likely to have any rules differences.
But as you've provided a case for human mistakes, the point is effectively moot. A human cheating with pen and paper can shorten the game in ways computer-controlled tracking can not. Thus making computer game longer, not shorter.
|
GalebG4
08/31/20 05:53 PM
78.106.76.228
|
By the way, note to self: don't go and start a game thinking you'll have the time to finish it before the evening and that you'll then have the time to write your press review about the Cyprus investor visa https://tranio.com/cyprus/residence/. It's 0:51 am here, and I'm just starting to write it after a game that turned into a slugfest and some online procrastination.
|
Kantoken
02/16/23 11:36 AM
81.60.70.0
|
Maybe a necro after two years, but this did come up a few weeks ago in my gaming group. We started to play more scenarios from the new campaign books (Tukayyid and such) and found that since you now win on specific objectives, games tend to last shorter than before.
Yes, you can field a force and go head to head with your opponent. If you luck out, a few 'mechs will go down via headshot. If not, a game can take hours.
With clear objectives other than "kill every enemy", tactics change, strategies change, and your overall playstyle changes, leading to quicker games!
Ask the ghosts of a trillion dead if honor matters.
|
ghostrider
02/16/23 05:27 PM
45.51.181.83
|
The lack of other objectives gave rise to the 'death match' fights, like Solaris, but on other worlds.
Granted, having other objectives other then kill the enemy leads to some issues most don't want to deal with.
The he who loses initiative tends to back out, while the person who wins it wants to be aggressive. So you have the fight at 10+ to hit range, causing a very long battle.
Being forced to defend something means more tactics, as the attacker has the advantage, as they can strike at the objective, forcing you to try to prevent that.
Recon makes it hard for the defender to keep you from doing so, as they don't know where, when or how long your recon unit needs to be in the area.
It is a pain when you are used to the last mech standing games, but after a while, it shows why some mechs never were removed from the game.
The larger maps makes a game that much longer, especially if you use vehicles.
Trying to get thru an area to strike at another unit can be almost impossible, as even light woods prevents most vehicles from going thru an area. So picking the proper units is that much more important. You might hate a particular unit or even weapon, but some situations force you to use them.
The quick deaths tend to shorten the engagements, but it does pull some of the fun and thinking out of the game.
Having a single lance on lance match last 5 hours tends to get old. 40+ rounds can drag on.
|
aurora43
02/23/23 10:48 AM
172.14.48.63
|
I voted 10-14 turns. That is center-of-mass for how my board games play out.
My battles separate into three types of engagements. Skirmish, 6moves. Battle, 12moves. Campaign, 18moves.
Three Skirmishes force a Battle. Three battles force a Campaign.
For me, limiting moves makes for quicker resolution of an engagement.
|
Karagin
02/24/23 12:14 AM
38.48.39.237
|
Okay, and how many of the games still have players running into medium to short range, trying to play out brawls verses any tactical battles?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
aurora43
02/25/23 09:25 PM
172.14.48.63
|
Given that my games are short on moves, sacrificing tactics for action is unavoidable.
Skirmishes tend to run quickly into medium and short ranges. However, any tendency to brawling remains uncommon.
Battles and campaigns offer some flexibility in introducing tactics as there are more moves. But with them, larger map sheet(s) with more hexes are in use. So again, deliberate tactics fall victim to resolution of action.
|
Karagin
02/25/23 11:42 PM
38.48.39.237
|
Quote:
Given that my games are short on moves, sacrificing tactics for action is unavoidable.
Skirmishes tend to run quickly into medium and short ranges. However, any tendency to brawling remains uncommon.
Battles and campaigns offer some flexibility in introducing tactics as there are more moves. But with them, larger map sheet(s) with more hexes are in use. So again, deliberate tactics fall victim to resolution of action.
So you force your players to skip tactics to just shoot it out, got it. Thanks.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
aurora43
02/26/23 12:46 AM
172.14.48.63
|
[ Edit: delete previous reply ]
You're welcome, Karagin. For now, yes. Still fleshing out how I'm doing this. It will all build off the number of moves per battle.
Once it settles out of beta phase, I'll post something up to CCG as Non-Canon.
Thanks. a43
Edited by aurora43 (02/26/23 11:43 AM)
|
miguel
04/05/23 06:39 AM
49.12.10.9
|
Quote:
t's 0:51 am here, and I'm just starting to write it after a game that turned into a slugfest and some online procrastination.
This dull procrastination! But you should think about reasons of its appearing.
My battle can battles can continue from 10 to 20 turns, it depends on different factors.
|