I believe that it is entirely feasible to suggest an option when pointing out a problem. So, Shiva, don't jump on us.

Also, as I mentioned, transports also could use some FAQing.

I read through the entire thread here and, so far, have to say that I agree in principle with most of the posters about the current problems with MW. Though some of arguments are quite overstated, most of them are thoroughly valid and warrant review by WK (note that I said review, not correction).

I believe, however, that there's one thing that has been overlooked: the range/movement relationship in MW is off. To explain this issue, I need to digress for a bit (bear with me, this is a tad long).

In the late ‘60s, Avalon Hill (AH) published “Panzerblitz,” (PB). PB modeled tactical combat on the Eastern Front in WWII (with the emphasis on armor-vs-armor engagements), and for all its problems, it remains the best selling board ‘true’ wargame ever (its sales figures are nearly double that of the next highest board wargame seller). [note: I say ‘true’ wargame because while games like “Risk” and “Axis & Allies” have sold more copies, I don’t classify them as attempts to simulate warfare but rather as games that are loosely based on a war theme.] PB was actually designed by the staff of the then fledgling Simulations Publications Inc (SPI), who sold the rights to PB to AH because the game would be able to get far more extensive release under their auspices.

A few years later, hoping to capitalize on the success of PB, SPI designed and published a Western Front version of the game they called “Combat Command” (CC). CC used almost the exact same game system as PB. However, due to concerns over possible copyright infringement claims by AH, SPI changed the ranges of the weapons systems in CC. All weapons ranges were reduced to roughly one third of the earlier PB ratings, while leaving all other ratings (movement, attack & defense) unchanged. In general terms, most armor units in PB had weapon ranges of 6-10 hexes and movement ratings of 6-10 hexes as well; in CC the same units had weapon ranges of 2-3 hexes but kept the earlier movement ratings of 6-10 hexes.

The result was that CC, while it was certainly playable, just didn’t feel right in modeling tactical combat. The reason? The range/movement relationship was not right and allowed players to do things that were simply unrealistic. Whereas most armor or anti-tank unit in PB were able to get at least one shot off at their enemies before they closed to contact, in CC there was almost no chance of that happening – tanks were easily able to mass well outside their enemies engagement envelopes and then rush forward with impunity and overwhelm the target using close assault tactics. There was no provision for any defensive/reaction/opportunity fire to allow units to shoot at the enemy as they moved into contact, and the shortened ranges effectively prohibited you from engaging them before they began their approach. Because of this, CC was met with subdued enthusiasm and is now largely a forgotten wargame.

A couple years after CC’s release, AH decided to publish their own Western Front tactical game. Called “Panzer Leader” (PL), it again used (with slight modification) the original PB game system, but in this case it restored the weapons ranges to the original PB ratings – unlike CC, PL “felt right.” While PL didn’t achieve the same huge level of success that PB did, it was among AH’s top selling titles.

So, how does this long story (again, I appologize for the length) tie in with MW? I submit that the range/movement mismatch issue may be the basis for a number of MW’s problems. The whole ‘BumperBots’ phenomena, and to a lesser extent the ‘Swarm’ tactic (and possibly even ‘TankDrop’), are the direct result of units with high movement rates being able to close to BtB contact before they can be effectively engaged with ranged fires. If the MW game system were modified to allow these targets to be shot at, even once, before they were able to base you, it could go a long way to restoring ranged combat to importance.

I see two ways to deal with this problem. One is by implementing some version of defensive/reaction/opportunity fire – allowing the non-phasing player to selectively shoot during his opponent’s turn. I personally don't advocate this method for MW because it complicates the clean simplicity of the game system, but it would work. The other method would be to allow MW units to fire at targets beyond their current printed range (possibly with an associated attack penalty). How far the ranges should be extended is a matter that would require extensive playtesting; make it too far and you end up with the opposite effect (noone will ever be able to close to BtB) or you’d need an absolutely huge playing field. There may be other solutions, I just can't think of any right now.

In closing, before I get flame-sprayed, I’d like to make clear that I’m not saying that range/movement mismatch is *THE* main problem in MW. I’m not even saying it *IS* a problem. I’m just suggesting that people who have more experience with the MW system, and who probably have better minds than mine for such things, might want to consider that possibility. I haven’t seen it mentioned before, and since we're supposed to be highlighting problems in this thread I thought I'd bring it up.

No CLown, no fault here. The ranges on weapons as compared to movement is quite funny at points, with Locusts outrunning Autocannon fire.

While CBT did have the range shortness in its game, it still had units firing 21 and 24 hexes away, usually further than units could move.

And again, why do infantry units move 10 and 12, much better movements than mechs, when in CBT they had significantly less movement?

OK, I'll start by saying that some of this (or all of it) may be repetitious as I have not had the time to read the entire thread, but here's my problems (and those of my players) with MW as it stands. (No solutions to be found here, even though I have several in mind, but as it has been pointed out by Warflail, making WK aware of the problems is what this thread is about.) So, here we go, in no particular order.

1) Mechs are virtually useless. This is Mechwarrior. In a 300 pt. game, a single assault mech vs. a no mech army should be virtually unstoppable; however, in this scenario, the assault mech is almost always immediately captured, end of game.

2) VTOLs. While I was and still am completely in favor of their existence, they have been designed much too powerfully. A good number of players, like myself, were introduced to the Battletech universe through the PC games, where a mech with a single medium laser (equivalent 3 damage in DA) could easily one-shot a VTOL.

3) Artillery. Again, I was and still am in favor of artillery, but it is currently too powerful in the metagame. All of the restrictions that kept it toned down have been removed...artillery hitting at base level affects elevated units (er, ok), blocking terrain no longer blocks the blast radius of artillery (er, ok), to name a couple of things. I also agree with the comment that there are too many AP artillery pieces on the cheap.

4) Transports. Yup, was an am in favor of their existence, but again, they're too powerful. Tank drop, arty drop, and in the case of some (including VTOLs) moving up and dropping infantry in the opponents deployment zone 1st or second turn. These are all broken strategies. Transports should get units up into the battle faster, but not behind enemy lines immediately.

5) Minimum ranges. Ok, I lied, I will give one suggestion as explaining the problem pretty much involves suggesting a resolution. There is no reason for ANY unit not to be able to shoot at something in base contact, regardless of "minimum range". This would help make the big tanks viable.

6) Speaking of which: big tanks. Why can't tanks just run over infantry (doing damage on their way through)? Heck, why can't mechs do the same?

7) Capturing. It's too easy. I'm afraid there are few vehicles and mechs in this game that infantry would have a logical chance at capturing. Something needs to be done to make capturing primarily a last-ditch effort attack.

8) Charging. I've seen some arguments that some factions need charging to balance the game because of short ranges on their mechs...I play all factions and that's simply not true. What's needed is a solution to make ranged combat viable and greatly reduce melee combat with mechs (for instance, move and shoot for mechs). The term "bumperbots" is not just used on these boards. I only have one player who even likes melee combat with mechs, but they all use it because there is no choice. Mechs are tanks on feet, not Star Wars gladiator droids. Charging is perhaps the most broken of all close combat forms (ok, so it's a special attack, but you know what I mean.) It is frequently game deciding (and can do so in the first or second turn of the game.)

9) Mech speed. This kind of goes hand-in-hand with charging and other mech problems. Speed as a problem is mostly evident with the Arnises, etc...why double printed speed for anything? anyone who has played any of the PC games knows that a mech at full run would probably equate to the max printed speed on a DA dial. Changing the way speed is handled for mechs would probably be a big factor in solving the charge problem too.

Well, that's all I can think of for now. If my players bring up some more good points at our tourney tomorrow, I'll throw 'em into the pool.

Clown, your post was very interesting thanks. The range phenomenon is very puzzling, hence an oft heard complaint:

"Why can he change me from farther away then I can shoot and I can't do anything about it?"

However, that's just the tip of the iceberg.
thanks.

Clown. The speed/range issue is well known ... but it is good someone mentioned it here.

In CBT mechs had ranges of 1-25 hexes (or even more if you were packing UAC2's or another light autocannon). The best a medium weight mech could hope to walk was about 7 hexes .. and running would be 11 or so. Light mechs could maybe go about 20 tops running and that was considered BLAZING fast. So there was never a time when any mech could outdistance the longest ranged weapons in the game.

In MW it's commonplace.

On the same note in CBT, Battle Armor infantry moved at most 3 hexes a turn. Most battlemechs had a walking speed from 3-7 hexes or so. So having infantry in MW that have a movement of 10" is pretty outlandishly fast compared to the mechs. So not only is MW not in scale with the game it was loosely based on (CBT)... but it doesn't even keep to scale between units in it's own environment. With most mechs moving 7-8" walking, infantry by definition should be moving an average of around 4-5" ... and that would be the fastest battle armor infantry. Normal foot infantry would be even slower ... so 10" is WAY out of scale.

Personally, I'd like to see changes in the GAME affect units rather than directly targeting a particular unit / unit type:

Tankdrop -
I haven't had much problem with it, as enough flexible units can address it, but if it must be addressed, my fix:
Vehicles released from a transport are given 1 order token. They may push to make an attack or maneuver that turn.

Chargemonkeytude-
I hate this, and my resolutions have been stated elsewhere. Pick one, not all:
1) Charging modifier- give a penalty to hit
2) Make elevated terrain legal and make a unit stop when its CENTER DOT enters and exits elevated and hindering terrain.
This would make islands of protection within these terrain pieces where mechs that rely on ranged combat can comfortably sit and fire.

I don't think WK will go for this, since they encourage mobility over static positions, but you never know.

Mega Damage Arty
Nasty. Rather than invalidating arty, why not add something to minimize their effectiveness? Some form of cover and concealment?
I'm thinking that-
- a unit in hindering terrain could roll 1d6 for each marker affecting it. On a 1-2, the unit takes no damage.
- a unit in base contact with blocking terrain (including elevated) could have the same benefit- maybe as long as the marker doesn't directly touch the base of the unit (direct hit).

I'm thinking that the 1-2 out of d6 is a pretty common mechanic already used in MW. It offers units a chance at minimizing damage, and if necessary, it could be made into a 1-3.

VTOLs
I haven't had the problem of many, but not many players here can afford to field a fleet of the superVTOLS... I'll leave the solution to those who've experienced it.

The hoverbike harasser- 1 based infantry blocks larger mech's move or shoot order.
This is a logic issue more than an "overpowering" issue. it doesn't make sense.

If it *has to* be fixed, rather than make it an absolute shield, how about this:
Firing AT another target while based:
roll 1d6. If the target number exceeds the number of enemy units basing you, the attack resumes. (maybe... mechs count as 2...)
Firing at a target that IS based:
roll 1d6 as above, but if the roll fails, resolve the attack against one of the friendlies...
Cumbersome, maybe, but I've always been an adovcate of eliminating the "always" with "maybe" conditions.

Quellin,

Very good analysis.

I subscribe it all, and I make one more question: "Why can't all units fire and move in the same turn?" Should have a bonuses if standing still, because they're aiming.

If in a real situation, can or cannot a soldier fire it's weapon while moving?

The problem right now, is that every unit can move and fire (bumping out of a transport), except Mechs (those who should be able since the first place).

Peace... out of the game table.

What about infantry hand to hand attacks. Let us take an imaginary unit "Q.” Unit Q has a range of 3-10" and does two clicks of damage. So unit Q moves into base with another infantry unit and all of sudden attacks for two clicks of damage. The unit, which Q is in base with, is under its minimum range, so why can unit Q still do its weapon damage? This is definitely broken; it allows you to field all the ultra powerful infantry with no threat of being "under-ranged.” Anyone else agree or am I just loco?

Oh, yeah...hehe. I knew I'd forget point #10.

10) Army size. The standard game needs to be bumped up to 500 pt. minimum regardless of whatever other fixes come in. That's a gripe I and all my players had from the get-go. In a 300pt. army, if you use a mech, you hardly get to field anything. 500 pts. still runs generally within the 60 min. timeframe and, besides, who cares if a game times out? Just makes for more variety.

Agree on this, for a more telling example, consider this:

Fox Armoured Car
Cruising Speed: 151 kph (maximum speed is 226 kph)
MW: DA Movement: 14 (based on a DA unique)

Peasant Company
MW: DA Movement: 6
Does this mean that peasants can walk at 65 kph (40 mph) or more? :eek:

This is a difficult problem to solve, as it affectes All units of movement type Foot (except those with Jump Jets, maybe).

OTOH, it is less of a problem (IMHO) than some of those already mentioned.

Charles

I think the chief problem is the basing mechanic. If you removed the basing mechanic, most problems fix themselves.

1) The great advantage of Charge (tying up a dangerous unit AND damaging it) is lessened.

2) Infantry does not stop 'Mechs all that much.

3) VTOLs suddenly aren't the ultimate unit-stopper.

All you have to do is keep some mechanics that involve bases being in contact (anything to do with transports, for example).

For the moment I would have to disagree. Right now if someone wanted to play cheese and take along 2 SS Balac and 2 SS DI AA they certainly can do so in a 300 pt. army. But ... if they also take 2 J-37 to cart the arty around to avoid counter fire (as many of those type of players do) and they invest 16-20 pt. in a peasant screen for the 2 arty ... suddenly there is very little points left to them. They might have enough for a few single roving infantry or one small infantry formation but that's it. So then taking that player down boils down to how do you take down his arty and VTOLs. I'm 99% certain I now have a way to ALWAYS neutralize the arty on turn 2 ... but still haven't figured out a sure-fire way to deal with his VTOLs once the arty threat is gone (mind you I am not using any arty whatsoever in trying to do so ... so don't say arty em). If, however, you up the point cost to 500 then that player would have enough points to do 2 (or more) arty and VTOLs and STILL have enough for a good mech as well. That would be near impossible to deal with unless you resorted to using the same tactics. At least if the army is made of only 2 VTOLs and 2 arty there isn't enough teeth in that army that if you knock out part of that one-two punch (either the VTOLs or arty) there isn't firepower left to be all that ugly.

the thing is, topgun, that IF u bump the point total, u CAN do a combined arms army, and, if i'm not mistaken, that's the whole point of the game, fielding Combined-Arms armies.

In that case you're not resorting to the same strategy, you're using a variety of units to better achieve your goal, not simply using the sheesiest armies available.

I'd also like to point out that, to me, the post powerful army now as NO arttie...

Scythe, Shiva's not "jumping on you". If you want to suggest options, please post to a thread where options are being discussed. This thread is for Kevin G. and the WizKids bunch to read, and they get into sticky liability issues if people are posting new rules ideas.

THIS THREAD is for problems only. MANY OTHER threads are for solutions.