This is close to an actual thesis presentation. I am going to propose a thesis, discuss evidence, and then provide conclusions based on that evidence. It will probably be long, but should be worth reading and will hopefully give a lot of people insight into both the flaws and merits of mechs in this environment.


Introduction: Ever since the Origins 2003, it has become popular belief by players of MechWarrior: Dark Ages (MWDA) that battlemechs (mechs) are underpowered for their point cost. General consensus is that mechs are a liability in army construction and that for any given point cost, a collection of infantry and vehicles will always be better than a single mech. Whether this is true is difficult to prove due to other factors of the game (no situation can be examined in a void), but it is possible to do an in depth analysis of whether mech point cost is balanced.

In this thesis, I plan to examine mech point cost in relation to other units and other mechs. Then I plan to identify what flaws and merits exist in that system of point cost and identify what tactics it promotes/justifies. Finally, rather than propose solutions to the flaws, I will identify what flaws exist and provide a roadmap to what kind of solutions are feasible and what kind are not.


Theory: Mechs pay too much for their secondary weapons and too much for their primary statistics.


Evidence: I will consider three pieces of evidence in trying to support my theory. This first is the mechanic of charging. The second are mechs that have a secondary melee damage that do no damage. The third are interactions between equally (or nearly so) costed mechs.

The charging mechanic has undergone a lot of discussion recently. Most people (on MWRealms) believe that it is overpowered (rewards outweigh risks). Lately, charging has become the first strike power of mechs. The complaint has been that charge is too powerful because a single charge can all but win the game for the charging mech's player. While the complaint is probably not true, the reason is.

If a single charge can swing the game in favor of the charger, their must be a reason. Obviously the single point of damage taken by the charger or the heat gain are not the reasons. If either of these were advantages, charging would not be necessary to win. Similarly, position is not likely the answer either, because otherwise just a run could accomplish the same thing. Thus, the damage applied must be the important thing.

Looking closely at most mechs, a single click of damage is not a critical difference, so the additional click from charging must also not be what swings the game. Thus, the only remaining option is that the high damage is what swings the game. Most likely, it is the difference in damage received by the attacker and the defender that swings the game. This suggests that any from of first strike may be the problem. I will examine this more later.

Next, I would like to consider mechs with secondary 0 damage melee. These mechs seem almost perfect for charging. Charging completely ignores the secondary damage, so the 0 does not hurt the charge. Looking at mechs of this nature, most of them have either brawling SE or agility SE on that melee slot. Both of these SEs work despite the 0 damage. In fact, brawling adds to the primary damage, despite being on the secondary slot. And, overall, mechs of this setup are primarily the few mechs that are considered playable in a competitive environment.

If this is true, lets try to understand why. Obviously, mechs pay for secondary damage. What they pay is unknown, but it can't be free, or else there would be no way to balance mechs. Furthermore, it must be close to the cost of the primary damage, else mechs with high secondary damages would be signifanctly overpowered (and this is not a trend in mechs). Similarly, the range on the secondary slot must also have a cost. This means that mechs with secondary 0 damage melee are paying NOTHING for that secondary slot (0 range, 0 damage). If they have an SE there, they are paying for that, but if it is agility or brawling, it is always useful (or nearly so).

Consider Arnis Drummond compared to the SH Targe. These are similarly costed units. Arnis has 0 damage and 0 range on his secondary damage. He has agility for 6 clicks. The only cost he is paying is 6 clicks of agility. The SH Targe has a 4/14 range weapon as a secondary. It has 3 damage w/ streaks for 4 clicks, 2 damage w/ streaks for 2 clicks, 2 damage for 2 clicks, and then 1 damage for one click. They both pay for 6 clicks of SE. The Targe must also pay for a 14" range (obviously not free) and for 21 total points of damage. Furthermore, the streak SE only works when the Targe uses the secondary weapon. The Targe gets no use of it when using the primary weapon, so at those times it is just wasted points.

Arnis, unsurprisingly, is considered useful, while the Targe isn't. Other factors contribute to that, but even if all else were equal, the secondary weapon discount would still take affect.

The final thing to look at is the interaction between two approximately equally costed mechs. From the charging discussion above, we have noted that if a mech successfully charges another mech, the charging mech's player will usually win the game. This appears to be due to damage differential. Ignoring the agility SE, if a mech successfully charges a nearly equally costed mech, the above statement appears to be almost universally true.

Looking at actual statistical comparisons, for any two mechs of approximately equal cost, if one mech strikes the other mech with its highest damaging weapon, the defending mech tends to lose ~1.5 points from each of its stats. With these decreased stats, the statistical probability of the injured mech doing signficant damage decreases appreciably. There are some slight deviations from this (primarily in the SC and SW factions), but these numbers tend to hold true for most point costs of mechs.

What seems to be true is that charging is just a symptom of a larger problem. Most mechs have quick enough stat degradation that any form of first strike (from an equally costed unit) will swing the game. Thus, I must conclude that either all stats on a mech are too expensive or else the first click is too expensive. Due to the cost and stats of KotS mechs, I suspect the latter.


Conclusions: Approximately 500 - 600 pieces already exist for MWDA, of which, around 40% are mechs. It is impossible to give all old mechs new point costs or to remake them. So, the flaws that exist in the point-cost formula cannot be fixed by simply changing the formula. Or, if a fix of that nature is made, it will mostly invalidate all the old pieces.

Even more difficult, the two problems that have been identified have no common solutions. In fact, a solution to either is likely to exacerbate the other. For example, any solution that allows the secondary stats to be useful while using primary stats would almost certainly do more damage. This additional damage would simply make first strike worse. Reducing damage in some way to deal with the first strike problem would make the secondary damage less useful and even more overcosted.

Any solution to the flaws in the system must attempt make first strike less relevant AND make the cost of the secondary weapon less prohibitive. If only the first problem is dealt with, mechs without secondary damage will still dominate. If only the secondary problem is dealt with, first striking mechs (long range or longe charge ranges) will dominate. Thus, a solution, if possible, can only come from two angles. The first is to make all new mechs that have costs that take these two problems into account, thus allowing older mechs to be mostly obsolete. The second option is to develop rules that specifically deal with mechs stats and that are NOT universal to other units. Both are difficult propositions, and may not be worth doing.

-SYB

P.S.-This was done off the cuff. It could have been better, and with more time I could make it better. But, I think I have touched on most of the flaws of mechs and more importantly WHY they exist.

Pretty good. I suspected similar. I thought the same thing about the knights stats, impressive but for the cost too glassy. also the game favours points spent on just a couple of areas and dial depth is not one of them, and stat degradation on mechs is excessive, (with exceptions, like the elite ghost, veteran hatchetman, leena cochrane, you see where I'm going.) 18 clicks (with a lot of salvage in there) marks mechs out as fragile no matter what their initial stats say. and the critical number that gains a game is 4 damage, which is very easy to acieve.

interesting approach.

A strong initial analysis, but you overlooked one key fact: charge--in almost all cases-- has a longer effective range than any "ranged" attack. If mech 'A' (160 points) has the ability to apply a force of 5 Armor-Piercing damage across a 24" range, and mech 'B' (160 points) has the ability to apply a force of 5 regular damage across only 14", you begin to see where the problem with charge lies.

Its not necessarily the disparity in damage given versus damage received, it is more the ability to move from being out of range of any unit that can effectively damage it, to apply its own damage directly to the dial of the target (ignoring armor).

Your thesis would work in a world here charge range was equivalent to that of ranged attacks. However, here it is flawed.

Excellent theses, and a lot of very valid points... Though while you are comparing ~ equal point cost mechs, are you making the assumption that the "beta test" rules will be going into effect? Because, even as impressive as Arnis Drummond is, the 160 or so points spent on a pair of SS AAA, J-37's, and an Infantry screen under the current rules should pretty much always win that fight.... I know you were comparing mech vs. mech, but...

Another thing I would consider is the fact that units (and factions) without AP are effectively given that power with a charge, weakening the (probably?) expensive armor SE's to the point of uselessness...

Mind I like some of the "fixes" floated around, but I am not sure which, if any will work...

Not only that, but a charge allows a player to move and attack in the same round where as ranged combat forces a player to move their mech into range and then wait for their opponent to move their piece out of range or allow their opponent to fire first before they're able to attack.

I don't know if giving mechs a move and shoot is necessarily the answer, but the fact that everything else in the game can move and shoot doesn't help much.

-BAR

Outstanding analysis and some good conclusions.

Mr. Cain came up with some good points about charge. Any SE the effects charge has a much higher effect on playability. Agility, brawling and evade have a huge impact. They also synergize with attack and movement values so that a linear equation to determine points is not adequate.

Many feel that downgrading charge would add game balance. I do not. It would help balance mechs. But it would have a negative impact on the title of your thesis : Why mechs seem under powered.

When I did my house rules, lowering the damage done per attack was my third design goal (making mechs playable and simplicity were the other 2). This can be accomplished by:

1) Keep armor useful. AP should be the only way thru. We added rear shots just for fun.

2) Limit the bonuses of attacks. +1 for charge is the big one. Brawling we changed to make it work like IT for CC, DFA and charge.

This is important to keep the game aggressively played.

Not to mention that you completely disregard other unit types in comparison to the point cost value of mechs. Unless/until the proposed rules go in to effect the SS DI AA arty (for example) can deal out 3 AP damage out to 32" (far outranging any normal mechs ranged combat and, indeed, even charge range) ... all for a mere 32 points. Compare this with the capabilities of a typical mech which does anywhere from 1-6 damage (typically) and out to a range of 0-14" and doesn't even have AP many times for anwhere from 3 to almost TEN times the cost of that arty unit and you have to conclude that there is a disparity in the point cost between the unit types (infantry vs vehicle vs mech). Mechs try to offset this cost by their 'pushability' but the heat dial puts a maximum limit on this (and indeed, is probably considered by many to be far too short with the advent of cheap artillery). The problem then one would surmise is the advantage of pushability does not justify the cost difference for comparable stats between unit types (mechs vs vehicles for example).

I did not ignore the other aspects of charge. I incorporated charge into an overall problem. The problem is the high cost of initial stats and subsequent degradation. It puts a higher emphasis on first strike. Charge is merely a symptom of the larger problem.

And, as for comparisons to other units, it works out mostly the same. Vehicles and infantry don't have secondary damage values, therefore, they are never wasting points on them. Artillery have first strike capabilities, due to range, thus exacerbating the initial click cost problem. Basically, all non-mech units take advantage of the lack of secondary damage costing extra points.

I would wager a very high bet that just about EVERY competitive piece has no secondary damage (either infantry, vehicle, or a mech with secondary 0 melee) and has some form of first strike capability.

Changing any specific first strike mechanic (charge for example) doesn't resolve the flaw. It just changes with units currently are the best first strikers. Any solution to first strike must lessen the effect of it. Solving the secondary weapon cost problem could be nearly impossible (without destroying the game).

-SYB

Here is my short list:

BR Lego
Yuri Mash
Caden Senn
Stephanie E
Mavis
Fred Bo
Tara Bishop
Liao Targe
Skariah

These guys have a relatively low cost, high defence, good speed, or charge related SE. You just can't separate the rules of the game from the cost of the units. As far as mechs are concerned, charging is the primary battle tactic. To be a playable (ie. worth the points) mech you have to charge or take a charge well. Arnis does both.

This "0" value secondary attack is a new thing. I don't claim to know the reason. Your expanation seems plausible.

I like the analysis SYB, but I pose another point/possibility/solution:
The reason mechs seem (are) underpowered, is because you can get basically the same thing for much less points out of a formation of vehicles or infantry, or in some cases (Behemoth & Mars) just 1 tank (although you give up the ability to attack based figures). How many 100 point mechs are there that have hardenned armor, 10-11 attack, & 5 damage w/AP? None. To get those type of stats, you have to look to the more expensive heavy & assault mechs. Sure, the mechs can still attack based figures even if printed ranges do not show that they can, and they don't damage when pushing, instead, taking heat... but those abilities are usually negated by using much cheaper figures (a couple of 13 point hoverbikes) to keep the mech occupied. Therefore, I propose that mechs as a whole should be given other "perks" to make them more worth their point cost. For example:
Heavy/hardenned armor reduces charge damage done by a mech to a mech, but does NOT reduce the damage taken by the charging mech. All armor is still ignored when charging damege is assigned to a vehicle.
Non-battle armor/bike infantry pieces that find themselves in the path of a mech's movement are eliminated from the game due to being stepped on by a 20+ ton machine.
Mechs with Jump Jets CAN make CC attacks against airborne VTOLS.

Just being able to push and take heat instead of damage is not worth 100 extra points. The above changes would be.

Mike this is the first time I've seen you post on charge and not mention mech move and shoot(not that I'm giving you liscence to now ) :D I like you're brawling suggestion but it would make things like the SC crimson hawk obscenely versatile for it's points instead of a rather limited unit.

I don't have a problem with having armour only negated by AP, I think it should actually MEAN something. I think there are enough ways of getting around it that taking one away wouldn't hurt. as to the issue of allowing salvaded vehicals or whatever a chance to hit it...

If you best chance to get through something like hardened armour (the -1 of heavy not so problematic) is with something salvaged you f'd up badly long ago this won't matter.

the upside is damage gets reduced below crippling levels even with just heavy. to the level of an average attack, there's a lot of units that wouldn't benefit (bansonns mechs but they're repairable anyway, and there's those forestry and construction mechs....)

Is the problem just that it is too easy to put a mech past it's useable slots? even the vauted arnis has a terrible glass jaw, it's not difficult to put the hurt on him with a fah shih / arty combo. 4 clicks in his heat dial starts to look as bad as it actually is, he can't hit a thing and he does as much damage as an SM1.

<sigh>
This is not a charge thread. If you want to talk about charge, it should only be as a symptom of the flaw that is taken advantage of by first strike options.

@Havenmyst
This is why I didn't bother to try to suggest fixes, just commented on how such fixes would need to be implemented. You are choosing the second option. Make rules that are specifically targeted at mech combat. That is a possible choice, but it may overcomplicate the game to the point that it is no longer enjoyable.

@MLOTOOLE
I am not ignoring the rules. I am incorporating the rules into an analysis of cost-benefit. Mechs that don't spend extra points on secondary damage tend to be better. Mechs that can use a form of first strike tend to be better. Charge is a mechanic that ignores secondary damage and provides a form of first strike. Thus, mechs that are good at charging will obviously be better. And, on the same line of thinking, mechs that can survive charges well will be better than those that can't. Obviously, a mech like Arnis fits all of the qualifications for "good". The flaw is NOT in charge though. The mechanic of charge simply happens to take advantage of the inherent flaw in the design of the units.


In fact, if you look at it, the BR Lego practically is a tank. It has a 4 damage primary at 3/12". It has a secondary damage with brawling (starts at 3 damage). It has a 9 attack and 20 defense. It moves 10 with an SE for most of its dial. If the secondary damage were dropped to 0, it could probably afford to have 5 damage primary. The SE on secondary could be moved to primary and switched to AP (probably not as long). Suddenly for 119pts, you would have a unit with 5AP damage at 3/12" that moves 10 (and can run) with a 9 attack, 20 defense, camoflage, and no repair clicks. That just about the same cost as a tank of those stats, except that it can move twice without taking push damage. So, the only reason I think that tanks tend to be more effective than mechs (for big damage) is that mechs aren't designed like tanks.

-SYB

SYB, I just offered those specific fixes as an example of what could be done to improve the per-point value of mechs as opposed to vehicles & infantry. Those don't have to be the specific fixes put in place, but it's better than completely changing the point system to make older mechs obsolete, and those solutions would be much less complicated than alot of what has already come out in the official WK FAQ's.

SYB only problem with your uber Legionaire is its name is Tadaka. It costs 124 points has a heat dial of ammo explosions and several clicks worth of repair markers. The mech formula is and always has been a pile of #### that whiz kids created to show some kind of balance exists. Until I see an actual mathmatical formula that shows us how they point them I'm going with the dartboard and bong theory.

Bottom line for 300 points you can get a bunch of light vehicles, infantry and artillery that can out perform Levin.... The sad reality is the advantages of a mech are a fantasy that very few existing mechs can use.
________
Volcano vaporizers