Monday, June 4, 2012

Some Battleforce/Quick Strike Thoughts

So I wrote my code that creates Battleforce/Quickstrike stats.  Right now its only for mechs, as I gotta finish the other vehicle code, but it appears far more accurate than any other list I could find.

Eventually, when everything is correct, you'll be able to search units on these stats, but for right now they are being generated upon every page refresh.  LAMs with bomb bays are incorrect, but I'll fix that as soon as we get bomb bay rules :)  I also assumed some stuff on the superheavy Omega SHP-X4.

So I extracted every mech into a tab delimited excel file, and found some interesting things I thought I'd share with ya'll...

  1. The Turkina Z (War of Reaving Supplemental) is by FAR, the single most powerful mech in quick strike or battle force (and the most expensive).  When I say by FAR I mean 56% more attack at short range, and 25% at extreme.  Its attack is 14-10-5-5 for SR-MR-LR-ER.  Yeah, thats right FOURTEEN.  It has 4 iATM12's and plenty of heat sinks.  As iATMs are considered streak, and can use HE ammo, that is up to 144 damage at short range.  PLUS physical attacks.  We don't know the BV of this unit, but SSW has it at 4,186 (42 Pts in BF/QS).  Just do make it worse, its got Nova so has C3I and WAT, plus is recon capable and has TAG, oh, and 9-6-3-3 of those attacks are IF (indirect) capable so it need not even expose itself!!!  I multiplied iATM max damage by .6 for indirect calculations.  This mech is a significant reason I think that quick strike at least, if not also battleforce, need rules for ammunition.  It should only have 4 attacks, at which point its attack becomes ZERO because its out of ammo.
  2. Now, if you want a mech that is just a pain to hit, but can still harass your enemy without getting hit so often, try a Shadow Cat A, with its 8/4j move and 3-3-2-2 attack it can be a real pain for anything slower.  Another really annoying one is the Pack Hunter II model 3.  It has 10 jump movement, giving it +5 to hit, and can still do a single damage point at long range.
  3. Battleforce and Quickstrike I think really need a few additional rules:
    1. Ammunition.  Maybe even just VLA (very limited ammo) or LA (limited ammo) for having just 2 or 4 turns of full attack available, at which point it could half its attack.  Perhaps LA# where # is the turns of ammo it gets.  Or combine with AB (ammo based) meaning its attack goes to 0 when ammo is consumed.  An option to this would be RLD #, which is the reload # or tons of ammo required to reload (it could be done in 1 turn, by a unit carrying ammo as cargo, making ammo carriers useful).
    2. I really think instead of a single die roll to hit, doing max damage, a single die roll should be rolled with modifiers, and a missile hit table used based on max damage (if below 2, go 1 column to left).  This just makes more sense, as lets face it, 1 die roll shouldn't mean all 36 of your shots just hit or all 36 missed, but should be representative of the # of shots between 0 and 36 that actually connected with the target.
    3. I think units should have an anti-personnel factor.  This is basically the damage that can be done against infantry.  Along with this is that conventional infantry can ONLY be attacked at short range.  As a former grunt, I know if something was big out there you kept your head down until you could get close.  Mechs with MG's would be far better against infantry, while the awesome Hellstar with 4xERPPCs wouldn't.  A LCT-1V locust would get maybe a factor of 6, while the Hellstar would only have 3.  A standard 1.0 armor divisor infantry platoon could take 4 damage (7 men = 1 AP point).
    4. The attack each range band should be calculated separately.  If you have 2xERPPCs, and 10xMedLas's, and only 30 Heat Sinks, calculations now hamper the design.  Right now it'd have 3-3-1 attack, while if calculated separately it'd be 5-3-2, a considerable difference, as it should have.  Note that I do this in my calculations, so they aren't actually canon, but the computer didn't complain ;)
    5. I'd like to see the attack factor be ammo limited (see #1) unless the ENE ability is noted.  However, ENE becomes ENE X/X/X/X when *any* energy weapons are on the unit.  This factor is also used underwater instead of the regular attack, and is used if ammo is not used in the attack.
    6. CLS (cluster) ability for units.  Basically if over maybe 66% of the attack value comes from attacks with <6 damage, you get 2 crit rolls per structure hit, and 1 free crit per 3 damage done to armor (rounded up).  
    7. On even to-hit rolls, half the armor remaining is ignored (round down) when damage is marked off.  Lets face it, you can loose a mech with an untouched arm and leg.
    8. On odd to-hit rolls, half the structure remaining is ignored (round down) when damage is marked off.  See #6.
    9. Better range brackets.  Instead of 3/15/24/99 being SR/MR/LR/ER, break it down to maybe 6/12/24/30/36 or something more equal.  It isn't like 1-2 more #s are any harder on players, but it adds a lot more diversity in designs without adding to game time.
    10. Rounding damage values up is a horrible idea, they should be rounded normally or even down.  A MG shouldn't do 1 damage, representing 30 damage over 3 turns.  Note, I round normally, not up or down, so technically this again makes my quick strike and battleforce data "non-canon".
You can download the battleforce/quick strike summary file here.


  1. Wonderful work as always! I wish you were close to me, I would buy you a cool beverage of your choice! Thanks,

  2. Clan stuff is almost always going to appear overpowered no matter what type of BT game. Friends ask me why I don't care for Clan tech in general: I tell 'em it's a plot device gone crazy. It *was* for GMs to challenge their IS players with mustache-twirling bad guys.

    Now it seems like Clan machines are used mostly by people who *say* they 'play to win' (and imply that the rest of us don't) but instead act like they play to never lose. Because, you know, losing is for losers.

    Me, I play to have fun. Sometimes that even includes winning.

  3. Loosing is more fun than winning, but only if you don't have an ego.

    For example, I'd much rather play the Texans at the battle of the Alamo (granted, I am Texan, so I may be a bit biased). Sure, I know I'll loose, but just how good can I do is the fun. The *simulation* factor, the alternate reality of it all. But so many BT players I've encountered would hate that scenario, call it stupid and no fun, and never want to play it.

    Hmm.... I don't recall ever hearing about an Alamo map for games like battlefield or call of duty, but I'd think about actually buying those games if they added one :)