After reading all those "balance IS and Clans" threads and some independent thoughts of my own, how about the following idea:
Give Clan mechs no consumables at all.
Give IS mechs more consumables (like 3-5 or something, maybe even with more than one artillery/airstrike per mech).
IMHO, this is simple and works well on various levels:
1.) Balancing
It reduces the performance of Clans without any nerfing or redesigning of Clan weapons, hardpoints, etc.
2.) Lore
Clans are tactically rigid, maybe even dull, while IS are creative, play dirty at times, etc.
Whenever a Clanner "informs" his target of his intentions to attack, I imagine an IS commander saying "Ok, great, we'll send airstrikes over, stay put". (lol)
I may be wrong (and I am too lazy to do the research right now), but afaik Clanners would never use things like artillery or airstrikes, they rather want to fight it out using mechs and only mechs, preferably in 1on1 combat.
3.) Diversity
It would bring a little tactical diversity to the sides. Not just two tactically identical sides with better tech on one side, but different tactical potential.
IS Mechs may have worse tech per se, but they have richer tactical means, also "makeshift" improvements like cool shots that clanners would probably never even think about using.
This would be a non-starter. Certain consumables, Arty and Air Strikes, and UAV are far too important in group play. Losing their use would be an insurmountable hurdle.
How would this balance lesser clan mechs which can be some of the worst in the game against the many quirked up IS juggernauts out there?
Game is fine really, what we need is more map diversity and for more people to play their mechs the way they were designed to be played. But no!! what everyone wants to do is play nascar 2015 MWO edition, brawl and peek corners from under 200m! That creates so many problems and imbalances right off the bat!
Edited by W A R K H A N, 21 March 2015 - 05:37 AM.
How would this balance lesser clan mechs which can be some of the worst in the game against the many quirked up IS juggernauts out there?
[...]
Because if IS and Clans can be balanced on a more tactical level instead of a head-on weapon stats level, many quirks (like the ridiculous 200% DPS Dragon) could be reduced.
So? If clan was better, nobody would play IS. Or at the very least, IS would slowly phase out of the game as everyone moved to clan.
What you write makes no sense. My suggestion was to take something away from clans and give more to IS.
Why would that make clans better?
Please try to understand the proposal.
For those wondering, it isn't so much that Clans don't have them, it is more that they have no real inclination to use them. You would 1) look rather weak in the eyes of your fellow Clans, especially if the situation doesn't call for them and 2) most likely be under-bid by a rival Clan, embarrasing your Clan and allowing a rival to take the glory and spoils of war...assuming said rival succeeds.
For a very basic comparison in mentality, consider this: The LRM. The original, Real reason for minimum range accuracy penalties for the IS (not min range effectiveness or safety switches; min range accuracy!)
Spoiler
The Inner Sphere LRMs, whose minimum optimal range is 180 meters, max optimal range is 660 meters, unlikely to hit anything long range 840 meters and extremely unlikely to hit range is 1020 meters, are fired at a ballistic launch angle. Upward, up and over things, and are supposed to come straight down to negate the use of cover. They're also described as virtually guidance free, in other words you don't lock standard LRMs and only certain types of broad-scanning projectile warning systems can inform targeted pilots of incoming LRM fire.
They fire like this and are dodged like this.
Their speed combined with their launch angle and ability to fire at things directly behind walls (through target-system-programmed-flight-paths rather than locks) is what gives them their range over SRMs, which are slower, heavier and more explosive.
Note this is the original 1987 description as given by the writer of the first novel as well as editors who created and wrote the first and second edition rules of BD/BT; that all changed in the 1990s.
Now in comparison: Clan mechs as per 1989 fire their LRMs directly at the enemy. They do not fire over obstacles because it would reduce the honor and prestige they receive for their performance. It isn't that they can't, but if you were to compare a Clan to a Merc, consider it that every time you did so you reduced your potential cbill earnings and were mocked by all your friends! Would you then use indirect fire for your LRMs, if you earned less and were made fun of by your friends? Not to mention it is every warrior caste Clanner's dream to one day die in battle against overwhelming odds, in what way would hiding in a corner firing missiles over things accomplish this?
As such, unlike IS LRMs which are designed to fly skyward then come straight down, the Clan LRMs are fired directly at enemies as reduced-damage "longer range rockets." (reduced-damage long range SRMs in other words, which is what they are. Longer ranged [due to being much faster than SRMs] rockets that deliver half damage according to the 1st edition BattleDroids and 2nd edition of BattleTech).
Again I remind you that's the 1980s original creator descriptions and breakdown. Not 3rd edition, 4th or 5th which changed all these things.
(Example in the PPC description above, PPC and ACs have minimum range penalties because ridiculously heavy and hard to maneuver = not likely to hit fast, small things at close range.
Newer editions? Field inhibitor degrades the PPC to keep it from exploding in your face, forcing a longer than normal charge-up time to fire; try hitting something small and fast with a weapon you have to charge and time versus something distant).
Of course, that is unless you had specific kinds of ammunition, such as Homing LRMs. Then you could fire your missiles and a spotter using TAG could steer them by going 'SOFLAM' on an enemy until the missile hits the target. This means that instead of predicting where a moving enemy might go and trying to cut the enemy target off by leading the missiles, you can simply fire the missile and the Spotter using TAG can steer it for you.
(Note: Without a TAG user, the 'Homing' function of the LRMs is supposed to be unusable and it'd behave like standard LRMs.
Much like this Javelin, which won't lock onto aircraft without a SOFLAM. It'd be a big risk to bring one without an ally carrying TAG.)
Or if you have Artemis, so long as you had personal line of sight... Well read the description.
Quote
Introduced in 2598 by the Terran Hegemony[1]. The Artemis IV Fire Control System is a guidance system that utilizes an infrared laser designator and tight-beam microwave transmitter which improves the accuracy of LRMs, SRMs, and MMLs by roughly thirty-five percent. The Artemis IV FCS must be mounted in the same location as the launcher it controls, taking up space and weight on a BattleMech like other components.[2] In order to actually benefit from Artemis IV, the missiles fired must be Artemis compatible, which are more expensive than standard versions, and the firing unit must have line of sight to its target; indirectly fired LRM receives no increase in accuracy.
This is the more recent Sarna description in the 2007 published "Classic BT" line by Catalyst Games. It differs in two key areas.
One, it fails to state that Artemis enables a form of lock-on system (hence the accuracy).
Two, the description references that it essentially has a built-in TAG and a Communications System to speak to the missiles, but fails to directly state that your Artemis-enabled Lock requires you to maintain that lock and line of sight, as well as a jamming-free communication line between your Launcher and your Missiles.
If your Launcher is destroyed or damaged, communication is lost, the missiles go dumb.
If the communication line is jammed at the source, the missiles receive no instructions, the missiles go dumb.
If communication is jammed anywhere along the path...
say a totally target-able ECM Raven 3L pops up at 500 meters and crosses over your 'Artemis-TAG-Beam' but doesn't cut off line of communication, your missiles would lose its intended target but could in theory (and in a certain novel) be guided manually as you still have a link to them. Don't see this coming in as a mechanic though.
Now lets say the said ECM Raven 3L does not interrupt your Artemis-Tag-Beam but instead interrupts your communication line with the missiles (blocks your personal line of sight to your own missiles, or for that matter if anything blocks your own line of sight to your missiles), the missiles will go dumb until that is restored.
Or, akin to BF4's Javelin where you have to hold the target yourself. That's akin to Artemis.
In comparison, the Homing LRMs which are 3x more expensive
Spoiler
and my god the R&R in Megamek made me never carry more than a ton of it while I have 3 tons of standard LRM ammo on a boat
than standard LRMs and considerably more expensive than Artemis LRMs. The Homing LRMs don't have a weight cost to the launcher as no equipment is added to the source mech. Instead, the LRMs feed on communication not from the HLRM-user but from the TAG-user (it's the reason for the ton; considerably less than half that ton is the actual laser and the rest is the equipment related to it). The H-LRM boat could laugh in the face of enemy ECM next to it and fire its missiles in the general direction of an intended target. The missiles would be dumb along the way until clearing the enemy ECM field, and then (if not fried lore-wise) they could pick up the TAG user's signal and then seek out the TAG user's targets.
(Basically while any Artemis missiles that would cross ECM in some way, have any interruption in LoS contact due to any LoS crossthrough between launcher, missile, and target with ECM... Artemis loses its benefits. By default TAG is unaffected by ECM. Though StratOps mentions TAG jamming by ECM if the TAG makes contact with the field -- but it has no effect if the missiles pass through the ECM provided the target is not within an ECM field, even if the origin launcher is within enemy ECM.)
The mentality of the IS with long range support fire is up and over is good. Indirect fire. Support fire. Cover-based shooting and anti-cover tactics. Scouts, recon, spotters, the whole schabang.
Spoiler
Support Fire concept of high mobility, difficulty to inability to fire close range. Lore-appropriate comparison MLRS. (This is the system I used as a 13Mike). This is essentially what the Catapult is for (why would one need torso twist, when you're barely 8.5 meters tall [shorter than MWO's commando by 1.2 meters minimum) and you do this for a living? Artemis-enabled comparison MLRS [GPS-guided, so the Satellite is acting as a communications system with something acting as TAG). Live Fire against Actual Target Artemis-Enabled comparison MLRS [near receiving end, infantry acting as spotters feeding GPS coordinates].
Keep in mind, the actual physical size of LRMs isn't this.
But instead this: It is described as this caliber/diameter, (70mm LRM, 70.1mm Stinger), roughly this length and is based on the 1967-designed, 1978-produced missile. (This is also the inspiration for the TAG system and Homing LRMs).
Note the size and scale of these mechs (which makes the Shadowhawk shorter than the MWO Commando [9.7 meters]...)
Side note: Can anyone see the Patlabor inspiration here?
Spoiler
The specific hangar:
Those are shots from the 2nd movie during winter, but in the series it is summer for the most part and the exterior is almost identical to that BT image from Mercenaries 3055 (written in 1993 around the time of the first Patlabor movie's Japanese production). 1988 to 1994, Patlabor heavily inspired Battletech's civilian line of mechs as well as influenced rules, weapon systems, etc.
When comparing, consider that this wheel is 9 meters in diameter, and the MWO Commando is 9.7 meters while the BT version is really close to simply 8 meters (and wasn't something you could sit in from what I understand, the entire head was part of the cockpit but not the full cockpit.)
If the missiles were any bigger, could you hope to fit more than 120 missiles (1 ton) into one of these? If anything the missiles kinda need to be shorter.
But back to mentalities. The IS mentality is use cover, fire, preserve the mechs because money, time, expenses.
Now the mentality of the Clans with long range support fire is "HEY!" FWOOSH! Win or die in battle. Glory. Even more glory for lots of triumphs in face-to-face combat. Be brave, cowards get mocked or worse. People who hide in corners get mocked. Leave that for the Freeborn, the unworthy, the inferior. Want good stuff? Be bold, be brave, be unstoppable. 4 against 1? Bring it on.
Compared to the IS LRM system, this is more akin to the Clan setup. Quickly mobile, capable of firing indirectly as well as directly. In the case of the typical Vat-born Clanner, it'd prefer to attack headon, using that artillery piece as a cannon. For the more cunning Clanner, somewhat advanced tactics could include stalling for time by destroying environment elements to delay advances or using environment elements to assist in disabling to destroying enemies. So long as the enemy was faced in superior numbers there is no loss in personal glory.
Which returns me in full circle to artillery.
Are they capable of it? That and more (see Smoke Jaguar cowardice involving orbital bombardments after losing control of a peaceful protest turned riot. Smoke Jaguar riot control, practically nuke the planet and those Inner Sphere Surats will stop being uncivilized wild beasts.)
Would they use it? Very unlikely, though if they did it'd be exclusively while on the offensive against a seemingly impregnable defense where use of their warships would seem to be overkill.
As for my opinion? I think removing consumables (especially artillery/airstrikes though all isn't a bad idea) would add a large distinction away from the IS and I'm in favor of it.
Would it affect how good or bad certain mechs are? No, no it wouldn't.
Would it affect how Clan versus IS matches are played? Most definitely.
Could PGI reliably allow consumables for Clans in Public Queues but take them away in CW? Probably not, short of disabling all consumable functions for the Clans in CW akin to disabling 3PV. I doubt PGI could really get away with targeting specific consumables.
Would people affected by it like it? Only the true Clanners (with some room for deviations). Not so much those who play the Clans because "competitive" or because "meta" or because "cool."
Taking UAV away from the clans would be a terrible burden. You'd see a lot more LRM boats on the IS side during CW. On the other hand, if they introduced the laser AMS system (which, at this point in the timeline, only the clans have access to) it might mitigate the expected LRM spam somewhat.
Plus I'd really rather not see a constant artillery/bomb strategy from IS teams. It would make CW even more boring.
How would this balance lesser clan mechs which can be some of the worst in the game against the many quirked up IS juggernauts out there?
Game is fine really, what we need is more map diversity and for more people to play their mechs the way they were designed to be played. But no!! what everyone wants to do is play nascar 2015 MWO edition, brawl and peek corners from under 200m! That creates so many problems and imbalances right off the bat!
Haha yes, change 200m to 800m though and it's more accurate
0
