Would one charge rule change like to charge the mech must be in line of sight of the target (er victim)? Could this help out?

How could you say that +1 defense means nothing? It is an enormous difference! Look at the odds of rolling 8,9,10,11,12 and 13. There is a tremendous difference in odds between each of the average rolls used in mechwarrior. Sure, players can continue taking chances with the +1 defense but you'll find over time that charge is causing you to lose more games and eventually it will become another situational tactical tool rather than the first attack option for 90% of players out there. While most agree that charge is too powerful, over-correcting for charge is a poor idea, it will just remove a viable tactic from the game.

I happen to agree with ltrain here... my favorite proposed charge fixes are: +1 defense to mechs targeted by charge, line of sight/straight line charges only. I'm all for changes that reward tactical play and positioning over brute-force fixes like punchback. Punchback to me looks like a simple comparison of mechs and a yes/no for each matchup, where postitional fixes will allow players to maneuver to set up a charge attack. There would be a greater element of skill involved with setting up a powerful charge attack.

BTW, +2 defense is absurd (DFA anyone?). Giving up a rear arc charge is a tactical mistake in almost ALL cases. It's not like I can just move Arnis into your rear arc and expect to get a rear arc charge next turn. Come on.

And now for some pornography...(posted below)

I'm fine with #1 not with #2.

I think it's too much for a miss and not enough for a sucessful collision.

Here is my two cents.

There is a vocal segment of this gaming society that thinks that charge is a broken concept, made further 'broken' by special units, e.g. Arnis.

But the question that gets danced around and never discussed is 'what is it about charge that is considered broken?'

Is it the damage being done and received? Yes, that could be part of it, but not the whole thing? Is it the costs and penalties for charging? Maybe, but with mech to mech and mech to vehicle, can we even say there is a clear pattern to the problem?

My personal opinion is that the real problem with the charge rules is that it allows for a high-damage strike from outside normal weapons range. You can do more damage than your weapons load and never have to risk a first strike spoiling your plans. You can run in and hit without your opponent being able to disrupt that attack.

It isn't how much damage it does to the charger and chargee. We can discuss modifiers and penalties, whether armor should count or not, etc etc. for ever. Changing those will only change which units become chargers, not adress the validity of the charge tactic as a whole.

It isn't the penalties assessed to make a charge. Straight line only, the number of clicks heat it does, etc. Does it really matter whether I am 24 inches in front of you, or to the side? The mech being charged is still a sitting duck, unable to defend itself. Adjust the heat cost, and 3 vent mechs will supplant 2 vent mechs as chargers, but they still will have the same issues as now.

As long as I can sit outside of your mechs weapons range, and then make a single move-and-attack to do damage before you can react, charge will always be a trouble spot. Tweaking the bonus' and penalties will only change the players. It will still be the same play.

Of course, I may be wrong. But without properly defining the problem in specific terms, we cannot begin to address it in precise detail. And I do not believe we as a community have reached a consensus as to what SPECIFICALLY is the main issue with charge. We discuss symptoms, and maladies, and suggest remedies for those. We lament the units that seem to most overtly play on those symptoms. But we have not diagnosed the root cause.

"Captain, we have water flowing out of the toilets."
"Lieutenant, get the janitors to fix the plumbing."
"Yes sir, Captain. By the way, how IS the Titanic handling after that last little bump?"

I can clearly identify what I think is wrong with Charge. The cost/benefit ratio is way out of line.

Now, you can argue about what is the best way to fix that inequity, but that has nothing to do with what is the root problem. You can also argue about which is most broken - the cost or the benefit. But in very simple terms, that is what everyone (who thinks charge is broken) is saying.

Bravo lt_murgen...

Since I've already answered your main question of what is wrong with charge, I'll move on to more specific concerns of yours.

I couldn't disagree more! If a charger were to acrue collision damage as a direct result of the charge, this would change how and when charge is used completely. That's only one partial solution.

You wouldn't throw your rifle at the enemy as a first strike attack method, but you might if you were out of ammo and he was comming into you foxhole. You wouldn't drive your APC into a tank as a first strike attack, but you might if it was the only way to MAYBE disable or slow down the tank and save some of your men (even though it will surely cost you your life and the APC).

If mechs suffered considerable collision damage from a charge, it would only be used when absolutely necessary. Now, we can argue whether or not that's the right way to go, but how can you argue that it wouldn't change the nature of charge. In fact that is the argument most charge advocates use as a reason NOT to make any changes - it would change when and how charge is used. If it wouldn't really change charge, why argue about it so fiercely?

You have to admit, lt_murgen's attempt to get people to sit down and talk about the problems caused by the charge before spurting out lame fixes (and you have to admit, alot of them are lame).

The more I hear about the impact damage, the more I warm up to it. I like:
-Attacker deals his/her primary +1
-Attacker recieves defender -1
-No damage on a miss
Unfourtunatley, the way agility is worded, agility mechs would only recieve 1 click, so once again agility mechs would still rule the field.

They would, Bahoom, but less so if you include this line in Agility on the SEC:

"When this 'Mech is the target of a successful Charge Attack, the damage is reduced to 1 click. However, the damage to the charger is also reduced to 1 click, regardless of this 'Mech's Primary Damage."

The reason behind this is that if you avoid most of the damage, the collision also shouldn't hurt the charger as much.

@ lt_murgen,

I have to agree with Melicien: it's the benefit-to-consequences ratio that's off. Because whatever you do to change Charge, Arnis will be the best charger (until someone better comes along, though I hope that doesn't happen). It's fine if he's the best charger, actually - it had to be SOME 'Mech or another. He just shouldn't be the best 'MECH, nor the best UNIT (though that title is arguable at best).

Impact damage is simple, logical, and fixes the problem. Yes, Charge would still punch through armour, but Arnis might think twice about charging Caden Senn if he knew he'd take 3 damage in return. And that's saying nothing about even heavier 'Mechs...

yeah but with the impact damage and the way agility is worded, arnis would charge caden senn, deal 5 clicks and only recieve 1. unless impact damage was considered a different type of damage.

i play alot of mechs with ar se's but i don't think ar should count on a charge, ar has it's own advantages, it's just in the current style of gameplay, you usually don't see what it is.

Well, I can't speak for everyone else, but to me the core problem is that it is the first attack of choice as opposed to the last attack of choice. I know its a game, but this game is supposed to be a simulation of reality and I find very little realism in a unit being able to move from outside of weapon's and slamming into a target and have the target be entirely unable to respond.

Going along with this is the fact that, because the effect of the charge on the target is so great relative to the effect on the charger, it means that often the victim of the charge can not response effectively to the charger after the charge either.

Related to this though is the price of failure. In the case of Mech vs. Mech a failure when you charge means that you've suffered a point of damage needlessly and are dangerously close to overheating, which usually makes you a ripe target for your intended victim once its his turn.

The net result of all these things taken together is that charge, as a mechanic, promotes resolution of an entire battle by a single die roll. If the charge succeeds the attacker is almost certain to win and if he fails he is almost certain to lose.

It robs the game of any semblance of strategy in favor of random luck. It makes the game like Poker when it should be more like Chess. Ideally it should be the strategy of chess combined with the luck of poker throwing you a curve now and then (your knight will not always take the pawn just because you move into its square).

For that reason I am in favor of any change to charge that encourages strategy and tactics, not just simply making it more difficult to accomplish or less effective.

I also think in looking at charge you should take a look at why charging is a desirable tactic and what it is supposed to accomplish that no other tactic can. You also need to look at the primary advantages of charge over other tactics.

In the former respect, (as much as I hate to say it as a Highlander player) it's main purpose is the piercing of armor when nothing else is available. In the latter case, its main advantage is the combination of two orders into a single one in a game where a single order is the norm.

Finally, we need to look at the factors in the rule system that may make the implementation of something problematic. In this case, the order system itself is the biggest obstacle to a logical and easy fix with regards to charge, with the necessary simplicity of the game a close second.

The problem the order system imposes is that the results of what in real life would be at least several seconds of interplay between at least two units, each under the control of a different player, must be compressed into a single player's order.

Battletech solved this problem by breaking up a turn into multiple phases, first of movement (where the charge begins), then to ranged combat (where the attacker has a chance to return fire) and then to close combat where the charge is resolved and during each phase both players have a chance to act. Such is not the case with Mechwarrior, nor should it be. Making it so would violate the necessary simplicity of the game.

From these factors I've come up with two potential fixes for charge that I submit for your consideration.

OPTION ONE:
There actually does exist a mechanic of delayed resolution in the Mechwarrior game... artillery. You make your attack order and resolve it at the beginning of your next turn.

Perhaps balancing charge could be as simple as having charge work as follows. Move your mech into base contact with your attacker and declare that you are charging. Resolve the charge as normal in the current rules, except that the damage is not applied to the defender until the beginning of your next turn (you could place a die or some other numbered counter next to the charged unit to show the amount of damage it will take).

This gives the defender one turn at full strength where it can respond to the charger at their full strength if they so choose, simulating the time during which the charger is rushing in towards its target. As an option, you might be able to ignore minimum ranges and basing for this turn of attacks against the charger since the target was passing through the weapon's effective range during the charge. As another option, if you destroy the charger before the start of his next turn, the damage from the charge is negated because the charger was destroyed before he could reach you (this would be almost impossible unless the charger is already heavily damaged or you devote all your orders on that turn to multiple units attacking the charger).

From a strategy/tactics point of view, this increases the risk of charging, since unless you started in the target's rear arc its going to get a free spin and you must therefore weigh the risks of your charge hitting versus
the odds of your taking damage in return.

From a keeping the primary purpose of punching through armor when nothing else can intact, charge continues to work. Mechanically it still allows two actions for the price of one, it simply spreads the time between initiation of the order and the application of the results.

It also prevents the problem that ltrain187 suggests... that of the charger taking damage from charging, only be followed up by damage from an attack on the defender's turn. The damage may seem to disproportionate at the start of the charger's next turn, but that's simply because last turn's damage is being recorded at the end of the defender's turn (or the start of the attacker's next turn... there's little difference other than semantics), rather than during the attacker's turn.

It is something like the "impact damage" rule that I have suggested, but without the potential for doubled up damage that the impact damage followed by the defender's turn allows.

My main dissatisfaction with this proposed rule is that it does, in fact, ignore the physics of a high speed collision. When two multi-ton vehicles slam into each other with a relative velocity of up to 100 kilometers per hour it should hurt both vehicles... A LOT. With the exception of Delrio's Mech-Fu, Battlemechs have never been portrayed as especially coordinated in terms of charging. They could not slide like a running into homeplate against another Mech's legs or roll with the punch the way a human could. It was essentially two large vehicles slamming their bodies against each other at high speed.

I just have a hard time justifying the mere one click of damage that a charging unit takes from the collision.

OPTION TWO:
This is the option that grew out the "discussion of AP" board. It keeps the effectiveness of charging in terms of damage dealt, armor penetration and the combination of two actions into one order, but raises the cost of successfully charging so that you must carefully consider whether the benefit will be worth it. As a balance factor it also reduces the costs of an unsuccessful charge so that a single failed roll of the dice will not determine the results of the entire battle.

When you charge you resolve the attack as normal using an attack roll. If successful the defender takes the charger's "melee combat damage+1 (to a minimum of one)" from the impact. This damage is not reduced by armor, but is reduced by agility.

The charger takes the defender's "melee combat damage-1 (to a minimum of one)" from the impact, but never more damage than the charger inflicted itself (thus, if you charge an agility-equipped unit you will only take one click yourself). This damage is not reduced by armor or the charger's agility. If the attack fails, the charger takes no damage, but ends his turn in base contact with the defender. Regardless of success or failure the charger takes a click of heat from running in addition to any heat from pushing.

The results of this change are that charge is a painful, but sometimes necessary tactic (much as one must sometimes sacrifice the queen to win in chess), but this pain is mitigated by the fact that you only really have to pay the price if you succeed. Further, by limiting the maximum damage the charger takes to no more than charger inflicts you prevent situations where the attacker actually takes more clicks of damage from a charge than the defender would (such as would happen if a HL Koshi charged an Atlas).

The primary drawback of this method is that, as ltrain187 has suggested, the charger may take a lot of damage from the charge only to have the defender potentially inflict more before it ever has a chance to respond.

I think this is not an entirely accurate assessment because, if the charge succeeded the attack and damage values of the defender probably will have fallen significantly. The HL Longbow, for example would still need a 12 or better to hit Arnis for more than a single point point of damage even if Arnis took four clicks of impact damage from the charge. That's a 63% chance of missing outright for the Longbow.

If, on the other hand, the charge failed... you've still got essentially the same situation. The undamaged Longbow would still need a 12 or better to hit the undamaged Arnis for more than a single point of damage. Hardly a sure thing and no different in terms of the flow of battle than a typical missed attack followed by a return attack.

Likewise, the damage you take from the charge is not going to be a surprise the way an actual against your unit would be. You simply have to take that damage and the odds of a return attack being successful into account before you decide to charge.

While this initially may make it seem like there's no benefit to charging since the odds of a return attack on the charger are the same win or lose, one must consider the effect that the charge had on your opponents as a whole. You've greatly reduced the attack value and defensive abilities of a significant portion of your opponent's battleforce (261 points worth). If you have any good combat units outside of Arnis (and you should with 290 additional points in a standard game) then those units are going to have a much easier time dealing your opponent's battleforce after that charge than they otherwise would have.

The only real change this option creates is that you can no longer count on the unit you charge with to be quite so effective after it charges and so will have to prepared to have other units pick up the slack. Thus, charge is not the first tactic for your primary units, but either a desperation tactic after your primary unit has suffered damage and is less effective overall, or the task of units that merely support your main battleforce. Likewise, it means that it will provide the most benefit when attempted against units that are far more potent than your own charger (i.e. a time when desperate measures are needed) since you can disable a much bigger portion of your opponent's force with a sacrificial charge.

wow Chris24601, i usually don't read the long ones but that was definately worth it, you definately took your time with that.

I like your option #2, a very well revised impact damage rule.

Mage Knight and Mechwarrior darkage rules become garbage when you slap down a first striking unit. Any unit or combination of units that gives you a first strike attack breaks the back of the game.
________
Herbal health shop

I beleive impact damage is to much of a draw back and to much of a rules change i would like rules changes to be simple why would any one EVER charge with that big of a draw back? i know i never would it seems most people just want to punish charge as much as possible instead of game balance they want to nerf it. it should be toned down no nerfed i agree with Ltrain +1 Def. is the best solution and the easiest to implament. The thing with balancing charge is you want to hinder it but not remove it with the rules you suggest why not just remove charging as an option period, some mechs were desinged to charge why remove them from the game for other ones? why not try a balance that includes all the mechs in the game? not just non charge mechs.
Every one ALWAYS refers to Arnis when making changes to charge when he is not the only mech its going to effect? i still like to see Chuck olis A.Kirasawa J.sterling Fasaile (sp?) these other mechs are not broken its just arnis that every one complains about and nerfing charge just cause of him is not the way to go.

I think the problem with charge comes from evade i think evade should not reduce the heat on a charge wich in it self would make charge less powerful but still viable,