Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When I first began playing BattleTech in 1988, opponents agreed on a set tonnage and then chose their forces. For example, I'll take four 'Mechs totalling 200 tons and you do the same and we fight. It seemed pretty balanced to me (except for the stupidly designed Banshee, tonnage was a good and easy way to decide the value of a 'Mech).

When the Clans came out, a balanced fight might see two lances of Inner Sphere 'Mechs (8 'Mechs) with a total tonnage of 400 tons versus a Clan star (5 OmniMechs) totalling 250 tons. Being out-weighed by almost 2:1 was compensated for by the Clans far better weapons and technology.

Then Battle Values (BV) came out assigning BattleMechs complicated point values.

Which does everyone prefer to use to balance games - tonnage or BVs?

Also, do most people prefer to use the given hex battle maps or do you prefer open terrain with no hexes and the use of measuring tapes?

BV is the easier way to balance a fight given the abundance of designs.

Tonnage (and before that even heat sinks) was useful only when the mechs were from the same tech level and for pure mech vs mech battles. Nowadays it´s almost impossible to balance the games without some kind of way to point out the advantages of clan tech vs IS vs C* vs Wobbies...

M.

Yeah. I say BV's. Tonnage only really works in the 3025 environment. Even then there are some winners and losers.

I only typically play on the hex maps too. It is the way the game was designed to be played.

I would go with the third option: C-Bills. Its the most 'realistic' however C-Bill costs are not always available.

Given the flat choice I would go with tonnage, with self policing. Tonnage can be imbalanced for minimaxing, so you need to self police and take crap mechs along with the good ones. However because BV apparently balances and in fact does not it all but guarantees minimaxing.

As any Warhammer player will know balaning points needs be done by hand not formula. Battletech unfortunately needs a formula system to account for new designs but the subcomponents themselves are based on a formula and design advantages such as location of ammo and combinations such as IS case and XL engines are not taken into account.
Furthermore the weapons themselves are pointed by a formula based on damage times range.
Basically its a mess and throws as many odd designs as tonnage allocation does.

Take a personal BV favourite: the 3025 Cyclops, its has a BV of just over 900pts, about the same as an upgraded medium mech. Due to an odd quirk in armament choice with lots of cheap stuff for some reason this monster mech is a bargain basement deal. Sure it has weakneses, lots of ammo, not enough armour, but for the price its a steal. Even other 3025 assault and heavy designs usually top out 200-400pts more. 3050 refits are often far more expensive, including the ones for the Cyclops. Most of thsee double the price in BV more or less.

Miguelsan wrote:
Tonnage (and before that even heat sinks) was useful only when the mechs were from the same tech level and for pure mech vs mech battles. Nowadays it´s almost impossible to balance the games without some kind of way to point out the advantages of clan tech vs IS vs C* vs Wobbies...

That's easy play the bidding system, its what it was there for. Something BV has washed away.

IS players gets a 900 ton company, which will make an assault company. The IS player may include additional lances as vehicles, with a 50pt discount for every fuill vehicle lance they take.

Players take turns to bid, as clanners. The opening bid is your reserve bid and should be low enough to bring some measure of honour to your bloodhouse. Bidding continues and the lowest bidder takes clanners, normally winning about 400-450 tons. Limit of one star of elementals at 10 'tons' per point.




For both players for every overstrength mech design you take you must counterbalance with an understrength units of same or greater tonnage. Though policing will be on your own discretion, its a freindly game

Why not just switch sides? Draw up a scenario, select mechs with the scenario in mind, play through once, note results, switch side, play through again. If the same side wins each time, scenario is unbalanced. If the same player wins both games, you are competing against (are) a tactical genius or a dice demon.

I just purchased the Tech Manual and Total Warfare.

In the Tech Manual, calculating the BV costs of your own design of 'Mech seems to require a degree in engineering and a doctorate in mathematics.

I found playing in the older days of 3025 and even 3050/3055 so much simpler.

DeathwingCrusader wrote:I just purchased the Tech Manual and Total Warfare.

In the Tech Manual, calculating the BV costs of your own design of 'Mech seems to require a degree in engineering and a doctorate in mathematics.

I found playing in the older days of 3025 and even 3050/3055 so much simpler.

Download Solaris Skunk Works. Then you get all the BV calculations done for you. It isn't the "official" program, but it is free and more up to date than Heavy Metal Pro.

I balance by BV almost exclusively. It is technically the most fair system, even though there are glitches.

The topic is a few days old I realize, but if anyone still cares there is another option: random assignments!

Basicly, roll the random weight class and then random mechs for your faction. Friend does the same. You may get some real stinkers up versus A+ equipment, BUT that is half the fun!

IMHO battletech should not be about chess-like matches... being put in a crazy losing senario and scratching your way to even a draw can lead to a very memorable experience.

The BV system works but is in ways broken. Playing by tonnage is instantly broken as a Hellion easily out classes anything in its tonnage and much more.

We use a combination of BV and Tonnage. For example we will play 7000BV but limit each side to 4 mechs and 1 vehicle. Then we randomize pilots. Seems to be the most balanced system we've come up with.

robertsjf wrote:Why not just switch sides? Draw up a scenario, select mechs with the scenario in mind, play through once, note results, switch side, play through again. If the same side wins each time, scenario is unbalanced. If the same player wins both games, you are competing against (are) a tactical genius or a dice demon.

Because two play throughs aren't even remotely enough to actually determine if a scenario is unbalanced, not with as many random variables as a CBT game has.

BV is the way to go in my opinion. Sure tonnage was fun back in the early 80's but now with wildly varying tech levels balancing by tonnage is a chumps bet and really rewards min-maxing. BV has it's issues and can be gamed to a degree but it only gets truly out of hand when you start crafting custom designs to explicitly take advantage of the BV system.

I personally love C-Bills balancing as it gets everyone out of the XL engined death machines and into the most cost effective mechs you can find. It doesn't entirely discount the XL engined monsters but it does make you think about your choices a bit differently.

robertsjf wrote:
I personally love C-Bills balancing as it gets everyone out of the XL engined death machines and into the most cost effective mechs you can find. It doesn't entirely discount the XL engined monsters but it does make you think about your choices a bit differently.

What about multi variable? Your list cannot exceed X tons, Y BV, and Z cbills. That ought to limit the number of ways to game the system.

BV keeps things the most even, especially in Clan vs IS games.

As far as playing surface...I never liked the 2D map sheets, so I went for mini rules whenever possible, but the conversion was a pain. However, now that I have a ton of heroscape terrain I can get the best of both worlds. The convenience of hexes with the 3D of mini terrain.

The 3D mini rules for CBT is the most slowed way of playing Battletech.

NecronLord3 wrote:The 3D mini rules for CBT is the most slowed way of playing Battletech.

Why do you say that, if I may ask? What are the major problems with that system as opposed to playing on the map sheets?

Endgame wrote:What about multi variable? Your list cannot exceed X tons, Y BV, and Z cbills. That ought to limit the number of ways to game the system.

Ugh, no. At that point you're limiting things so much that you're starting to suck all the fun out of it. Part of the fun is working within a limitation but at that point you're putting so many limits on people that it's no longer fun.

Tyyr wrote:

Endgame wrote:What about multi variable? Your list cannot exceed X tons, Y BV, and Z cbills. That ought to limit the number of ways to game the system.

Ugh, no. At that point you're limiting things so much that you're starting to suck all the fun out of it. Part of the fun is working within a limitation but at that point you're putting so many limits on people that it's no longer fun.

Agreed. Too many limitations stifles creativity.

A good balance would be a certain number of 'Mechs and support units (vehicles or infantry) under a certain BV.

For example, for Inner Sphere, 8 'Mechs and up to 4 support units under 10 000 points. In the same game, the Clan player could take 5 'Mechs and up to 5 support units.

The BV would be used to balance the forces while the unit restrictions would be to keep the BattleTech universe flavour (IS in lances of 4 'Mechs and Clans in stars of 5).

I have now accepted BV over tonnage. I just miss the simplicity of 3025 and 3050 used to have. Any system can be abused by a power gamer. I wouldn't use C-Bills though because the C-Bill costs were not designed to be a force-balance system. The ideal would be to fine-tune BV until it actually works to balance forces.

Hordini wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:The 3D mini rules for CBT is the most slowed way of playing Battletech.

Why do you say that, if I may ask? What are the major problems with that system as opposed to playing on the map sheets?

Ranges are severely reduced using miniature rules and due to the fact that there literally is no or only inconsistent scale to the models, makes using LOS rules futile. The game is much more balanced using Mapsheets and there are extremely well defined rules as to how units interact from hex to hex, not so in miniature rules. Now there is an alternative way to play using combined Hex and 3D terrain. You basically use straight hex based rules only you use them on terrain like the plastic heroscape hexes or other hex maps and hex terrain made by alternative companies. There is even a company developing specific terrain to be used for these purposes for battletech.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tyyr wrote:

Endgame wrote:What about multi variable? Your list cannot exceed X tons, Y BV, and Z cbills. That ought to limit the number of ways to game the system.

Ugh, no. At that point you're limiting things so much that you're starting to suck all the fun out of it. Part of the fun is working within a limitation but at that point you're putting so many limits on people that it's no longer fun.

Hardly, this is exactly the same system you see using the FOC and points system in 40k. A FOC is exactly what CBT needs to fix the broken BV 2 system they are running today.

NecronLord3 wrote:Hardly, this is exactly the same system you see using the FOC and points system in 40k.

Except that in 40K it's condensed into a nice single number that you can use to buy units with. What he's proposing is using three separate numbers that have no relation to one another at all and trying to balance everything between them. It's not even remotely the same as 40K's system. In fact BV is pretty much directly analogous to 40K's system.

A FOC is exactly what CBT needs to fix the broken BV 2 system they are running today.

BV's not even close to being broken. There are a few loop holes but they rarely come up outside of custom designs. It's not perfect but given the diverse nature of the units in the game and the fact that people can make them on the fly it's a very good system.

Tyyr wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Hardly, this is exactly the same system you see using the FOC and points system in 40k.

Except that in 40K it's condensed into a nice single number that you can use to buy units with. What he's proposing is using three separate numbers that have no relation to one another at all and trying to balance everything between them. It's not even remotely the same as 40K's system. In fact BV is pretty much directly analogous to 40K's system.

40k FOC is not a single number. It is a points value combined with unit type, limited by codex. I'm not advocating using CBills + BV2 + Tonnage, but I do advocate number of units(and or units types) + BV2 + a fair pilots skill assignment. Imagine playing 40k and you could just take any units you wanted from any Codex and ignore FOC, that is basically what Battletech is.

Tyyr wrote:

A FOC is exactly what CBT needs to fix the broken BV 2 system they are running today.

BV's not even close to being broken. There are a few loop holes but they rarely come up outside of custom designs. It's not perfect but given the diverse nature of the units in the game and the fact that people can make them on the fly it's a very good system.

Try running a Hellion C against Sagataire and see how broken the BV system is.

DeathwingCrusader wrote:I wouldn't use C-Bills though because the C-Bill costs were not designed to be a force-balance system.

Exactly, it's not. It make you think outside the box with a completely new constraint to unit choice. My beloved Timberwolf is suicide under a C-Bill balancing system because of how ridiculously expensive it is. It makes you think like a merc hunting for the most bang for your buck.

The ideal would be to fine-tune BV until it actually works to balance forces.

BV works very well. Again, given just how diverse CBT is it's nothing short of amazing that it can even get things in the ball park much less as close as it actually does. People's impression of BV is pretty skewed as well given that a tremendous portion of the game is the individual player's skill, luck with the dice, and how well he chose his forces in his BV. If you took a bunch of high BV mechs with gauss rifles and LRMs and wound up losing because your opponent loaded up on large bore auto cannons, medium lasers, and SRMs because the longest shot on the map was 5 hexes it wasn't BVs fault you lost. The BV system can always use more work but it's far from broken or completely imbalanced.

We used a FOC based on Tonage when starting a New Company
1-Assualt Mech/Vehicle
3-Heavies Mechs/Vehicles
5-Medium Mechs/Vehicles
4 Light Mechs/Vehicles

For Clans it was
1 Assualt [Nova]
1 Heavy [Nova]
2 Mediums [Nova]
1 Light [Nova]
and you could field 1 Star of Elemetals
or

1 Assualt
3 Heavy
4 Mediums
2 Light

He never got around the the Comstar or Alternative CC Orginisation

NecronLord3 wrote:40k FOC is not a single number. It is a points value combined with unit type. I'm not advocating using CBills + BV2 + Tonnage, but I do advocate number of units(and or units types) + BV2 + a fair pilots skill assignment. Imagine playing 40k and you could just take any units you wanted from any Codex and ignore FOC, that is basically what Battletech is.

You're never going to get CBT players to agree to a WH40K style of unit selection, ever. I don't care if you promise them a visit from a Canopian pleasure circus they won't do it. CBT players like being able to decide what force to take all on their own.

Try running a Hellion C against Sagataire and see how broken the BV system is.

The BV system isn't supposed to hold you hand. It assumes you have some clue you know what you're doing. If you chose to do something as stupid as putting up a light mech armed with medium lasers against a pulse boat assault the BV's not going to save you. However if you know what you're doing and make use of the Hellion's speed and maneuverability in the right context it can be a potent unit.

Same thing in 40K. You take a foot slogging CC army on an open map with no terrain against a dug in shooty army and no amount of points balance is going to save you. 40K has its units that just aren't worth their points and those that are a steal. The system works when you have a clue about how to play. If you grab units at random and just toss them on the board it's not the BV system's fault when you lose.

NecronLord3 wrote:
Ranges are severely reduced using miniature rules and due to the fact that there literally is no or only inconsistent scale to the models, makes using LOS rules futile. The game is much more balanced using Mapsheets and there are extremely well defined rules as to how units interact from hex to hex, not so in miniature rules. Now there is an alternative way to play using combined Hex and 3D terrain. You basically use straight hex based rules only you use them on terrain like the plastic heroscape hexes or other hex maps and hex terrain made by alternative companies. There is even a company developing specific terrain to be used for these purposes for battletech.

I highly recommend using the heroscape terrain. There is, or used to be, a company or two that made #d hex terrain out of styrofoam. There used to be a company called Geo-Hex that made it, dont know if they are still in business.

When we went "Table Top" rather than Hexs we used to 1 Hex=2" [or sometimes 3" or 4"].
Locust runing 24" and 6" MGs make for a very exiting game.

Tyyr wrote:
You're never going to get CBT players to agree to a WH40K style of unit selection, ever. I don't care if you promise them a visit from a Canopian pleasure circus they won't do it. CBT players like being able to decide what force to take all on their own.

You're wrong, there are quite a few expressing interest in a system like this on the CBT site already.

The BV system isn't supposed to hold you hand. It assumes you have some clue you know what you're doing. If you chose to do something as stupid as putting up a light mech armed with medium lasers against a pulse boat assault the BV's not going to save you. However if you know what you're doing and make use of the Hellion's speed and maneuverability in the right context it can be a potent unit.

Same thing in 40K. You take a foot slogging CC army on an open map with no terrain against a dug in shooty army and no amount of points balance is going to save you. 40K has its units that just aren't worth their points and those that are a steal. The system works when you have a clue about how to play. If you grab units at random and just toss them on the board it's not the BV system's fault when you lose.

The whole point of a points system is that 1 game point should equal another single game point. Meaning that all things equal, 500 points should beat 500 points 50% of the time. A Hellion is going to lose every time(with the exception of lucky head shots or critical slots which the Hellion would have to achieve 2 for the former and 3 for the later), without fail no matter what; it's been proven. You aren't going to find two unbalanced units in 40k with a similar comparison. What the makers of 40k do is they have a calculation for each point value in the game and they use play testing to balance the points to make the game as balanced as possible. Battletech on the other hand has a calculation for each unit and whatever that comes out to be(which is basically impossible for you to figure out yourself) is the BV, no balancing, just math. Changes in pilot skill and the force sizes is even calculated out. Taking out any tactical advantage you should be able to achieve by playing the game. However, it just doesn't work the BV system is still broken and I'm not the first to suggest or prove that fact.

The problem with your reasoning is simple: Equal point value units in GW games aren't even either.

BV is actually more balanced that 40K points value, beccause there is consistency in Battletech. GW doesn't have balance, even amongst their own armies.

If I take two 5000 BV forces and relatively equal numbers, it will be an even fight. You can't say that of GW games unless you take the forces from the same army book or codex.

Mattlov wrote:The problem with your reasoning is simple: Equal point value units in GW games aren't even either.

BV is actually more balanced that 40K points value, beccause there is consistency in Battletech. GW doesn't have balance, even amongst their own armies.

If I take two 5000 BV forces and relatively equal numbers, it will be an even fight. You can't say that of GW games unless you take the forces from the same army book or codex.

Ummm. No it is quite the opposite. With the exception of outdated codexes 40k is much more balanced than CBT could ever hope to be. Success in 40k is generally at the hands of the player/army builder.

Yes the BattleTech BPY systeml is Ballance until Gunnereis start to in to play. Yes a 0/0 G/P cost more, but a 0/0 G/P Level 1 Marader is not going to Kill as Much as a Timber Wolf [Mad Cat] with a 4/5 G/P when aremd with 2 Clan ERPPCs even though they cost righly the same.

NecronLord3 wrote:40k FOC is not a single number. It is a points value combined with unit type, limited by codex. I'm not advocating using CBills + BV2 + Tonnage, but I do advocate number of units(and or units types) + BV2 + a fair pilots skill assignment. Imagine playing 40k and you could just take any units you wanted from any Codex and ignore FOC, that is basically what Battletech is.

Yes, a FOC is important. Imagine a 40K Eldar army with nothing but Wraithlords with Starcannons and Bright Lances!

I do advocate that IS BattleMechs be fielded in multiples of 4 (lances) and Clan 'Mechs in multiples of 5 (stars) as a rule. Vehicles and infantry organization could be somewhat looser but still limited in number.

Point systems in general tend to have issues as they only work with very narrow assumptions... if a scenario requires taking hits while running from point A to point B (the common 'Escape' scenario found in many games) then models with better movement are likely undercosted, models with heavy weapons are likely overcosted.

I don't really know a fix for this, unfortunately... It still means the system is a good baseline, and it seems like for 'league' style play for Battletech the best solution might be to allow a roster of X points that a force is picked from for each actual game after scenario selection.

So as an example, maybe your roster has a couple slow but heavily armed Assault mechs, a selection of mid-range with varying abilities, and a few low-end scouts that are fast but not very well armed. When playing a league game, the scenario might be "Escape" with a provision that X tonnage is allowed no more than Y mechs, and you can take those light, fast scouts and leave the Assaults at home (on the drop ship?).