The idea of allowing a rear arc charge to negate agility is quite sound.

First, noone should let you get in their rear. As it is, a mech with agility can ignore a potential charger setting up back there - that's sloppy mechanics and allows for sloppy play.

Second, the idea of jumping out of the way or dancing sideways like a torreador is silly. Forget the physics involved for a second. That would require the pilot to be fully aware that another mech was set up behind him and charging. He'd have to know excactly where the attacker was, what direction and how fast he was going. He'd have to precisely time his own CAM (Charge Avoidance Maneuver) so as to not allow the charger to change trajectory at the last second. In other words, he'd have to be completely and totally focused on the charger and nothing else on the battlefield. Of course, if he were that focused on him, why did he let him get the tactical position on him?

It's not so much a question of being broken as a question of not making much sense.

I know, I know, we're not talking logic in this sort of game. :rolleyes: But I still think we should strive for it.

Also, I'm assuming that if the 'Mech you're using in that scenario is important enought for you to protect it from a Charge, you'll be trying to support it by basing the would-be charger. Basing, artillery, VTOLs, whatever. And anyway, with some strategic repositioning (instead of just turning to face the opponent) you can make him run out of room pretty quickly.

That's why I think the tweak can't hurt. It only makes recklessness dangerous, as it should be.


@ Stone Mason,

My point exactly.

The fact that the change is insignificant, is another reason why it shouldn't be implemented. It will have a small, slightly negative (IMO) effect at the game and it adds unneeded complexity to the rules.

Exactly, so with a mech with Agility, you don't have the option (or rather it's not a very wise one) to charge. Therefore you have to shoot. Devising a strategy to overcome a units defenses is good. Making an attack type that ignores all defenses is not. With agility mechs, you have to shoot. If you can get to the target's rear arc all the better.

I see no gameplay reason why agility should have exceptions and that's all that interests me: gameplay. Real world sense? hehe ;) You can pound your own captured unit with artillery and it will escape unharmed. No, there's no realism, only rules and gameplay! ;)

(Btw. I understand and agree with the reasons why a captured mech doesn't take damage from arty. This is a striking example of gameplay over "realism" in the game, that's why I brought it up.)

Also, even if I accept the realism bit, you have a cascading effect. If I'm around the corner from a building how can you make the sharp turn to charge me effectively. If I have ECM how will your sensors locate me behind blocking terrain. If you're 1" away from me, how do you gather the necessary momentum to deal damage to me.

So there, three new suggestions: charge requires line of sight, straight movement and at least 1x move distance. The all make sense. They all add a bit to the game. Does that mean they should be implemented? Next thing you know, you have a new round of "realism attacks": hey, my mech's gun is *waaaayyy* over this infantry's head. why can't I shoot while he's basing me? Can I run over the peasants with my behemoth? Can I set fire in hindering terrain with my flamers? etc etc etc

Conclusion (at last lol!): you have to draw the line somewhere. If a small increase of the level of realism adds a small level of complexity, it's not worth it. Its the significant changes (like the ones we saw recently) we should strive for IMO.

So, on that note: *make abrupt elevated terrain tournament legal*!! :)

If everyone is soooo worried about agility beening allegidly "broken" (it's combonations of abilities, like on arnis that makes it strong) and how the physics don't work (this ain't Robotech were your mech can do backflips) PLAY CBT. CBT is based more on realism. You can't sidestep in CBT (only quad mechs can REALLY do that),theres no agility, and chargings one of the last things you want to do.

Obviously, Dark Age isn't based on realism. Its made to be simple, so real life physics are for the most part ignored to keep things that way. It isn't fun to read through looooong posts discussing physics in the game (take a physics class, maby that will help). Mecks move fast in a sraight line, no quik side steps, no hopping, 70 tons of metal can only move so fast. And rememder, BattleTech was created in the '80s, there were no small Japanese robots that can run in circles. Gah! now I'm starting to talk physics.

Back to the subject, AGILITY IS NOT BROKEN.

Well actually, Godfried, I would strongly advise for the changes you mentioned to be implemented - I have done so, in fact. :)

Real-world logic should be superseded by gameplay logic only when there is NO other good way to do it. That's not the case here, far from it.

As for pounding your own 'Mech with artillery, isn't that only because of the stupid rule that you can't target the capturing unit at range? 'Cause I disagree with that, too. ;)

Hehe, well, I disagree, but I see where you're coming from. Do you play CBT? If not maybe you should try it, because from what I hear about it, it's probably more close to what you'd like MW to have been.

Yes that's why. The reason why this was made though, is so you can't kill your near death captured unit to deprive your opponent from the 2x points. This is a very valid gameplay reason, since otherwise the whole point of VC2 and capturing is defeated.

Anyway, to each his own I guess. I for one, am happy with where WK has drawn the gameplay vs realism line! ;)

But we all know that the rules are always in flux. They are constantly being refined and, sometimes, outright changed. I think it's fair to say that MW 2.0 is inevitable and will bring some drastic changes.

That being the case, why not discuss what and what kind of changes we'd like to see? Most of us agree that this is a small change. But even at that, many players don't even want to consider it.

WK is considering greater changes than these. We might as well give our thoughts beforehand.

Godfried, I think the main thing to know here is that if MW were CBT with bases (to simplify all the stat-keeping and such), I'd be one happy camper.

Yes, I have played CBT, and the rules make MUCH more sense in about 95% of cases. I totally agree they're much too complex for this sort of thing, which is why I'm trying to keep them in line while keeping them simple.

Lol....I cant believe this thread reached page 7 when most of u actually disagreed on blancing Agility to make it more logical.

Hakkenshi> I need ur comment on something. DO u think its viable if i suggest that ALL Armour SE, agility and evade be ignored when the unit is attacked from his rear arc?

No, Crimson Hawk.

Armour is all-around. It's not THAT much lighter in the back arc - if unit A is more armoured than unit B, A will be more armoured even in the back.

Agility I believe could be negated by a back-arc Charge or DFA, for the aforementioned reasons.

Evade is not a problem since you can't shoot into base contact. If you could, I'd say that being shot at in the rear while boxed in by other units would negate the bonus.

Hmmm....agree. Thanks.