Initiative Revamp...

[theCarthaginian]

... or, how to make fast mechs not suck.

Ok, we all know the type - the 7/11 mediummech, 5/8 heavy mech or 4/6+ assault mech. The ones that are mostly engine, so that they are viewed as sub-optimal in the current Meta.
Cicada
Dragon
Zeus
The ones that you only use when you don't have anything else to use, and only use as long as absolutely necessary. How can we make these designs more flexible and desirable?
The current 5-tier, weight-based initiative system lumps themin with their slower, more durable and more heavily-armed brethren. This provides no real incentive to retain these mechs once you get a similar weight chassis that devotes less free weight to engine size.

Since the HBS initiative scale general ly benefits faster mechs with a higher initiative, I would like to propose a somewhat more granular 8-stage system which gives these heavier the advantage based on the speed they paid for in weapon/armor tonage.

1.) Master Tactician
2.) Lights Mechs
3.) Fast Mediums
4.) Mediums
5.) Fast Heavies
5.) Heavies
7.) Fast Assaults
8.) Assaults
This would nerf Master Tactician a bit, but not too much IMO... and if it was too much, then you just increase the buff to two steps instead of one.
It would, unlike simply moving outlyers into the next higher/lower initiative category, preserve the advantages specific to lighter mechs, while giving the more maneuverable heavier designs an advantage over similar mass mechs with more weapons... a melee Dragon now can close distance on a Jagermech or Black Knight without getting shot to pieces on the way in. A Cicada can scout, but can still be out-scouted by a light... giving more utility for one without 'stealth-nerfing' the other.

 

[theCarthaginian]

Any other suggestions are welcomed - this is a brainstorm, not a sales pitch.
What can the community suggested and support that HBS might find useful?

 

[Spartakus]

Well, I can think of two possible approaches. One of them is buffing certain mechs to make them more balanced against better mechs. Since that is your initial questions here are some ideas for that:

• More variable cost for resolve actions. I have time and again suggested making the cost of a resolve action equal to the mechs weight. So a precision strike for a Locust would only deplete a fifth of your morale bar while the enormously more powerfull one for an Atlas would deplete an entire bar. This has the added benefit of giving lighter mechs a significant boost across the board.
• Chassis quirks. The mechs you mentioned have the primary purpose of hunting mechs of lower weight classes. We could embrace that for example by raising their initiative an additional level. So a Dragon with a Master Tactitian would be able to act in the light mech's phase.

But there is another approach and it is to embrace the imbalance. There is nothing wrong with having mechs that just plain suck. They make interesting opponents and a nice challenge to have them in your own lance. Problem is, they never are in your Lance unless you deliberately play suboptimal. That is due to the complete lack of scarcity that should be expected form the setting. You can almost always choose to field from a small selection of good mechs while selling undesirable mech chassis on the market for a fraction of their value. It is in fact very rare to field a mech ans be happy just for having it. After all a Cicada is better then not having a mech at all.
Unfortunately having a proper scarcity of mechs and parts would require to redesign the entire salvage system. It is IMHO something that should absolutely be done as it has been my biggest criticism of the game since launch, but it is a significant amount of work.

 

[theCarthaginian]

Unfortunately having a proper scarcity of mechs and parts would require to redesign the entire salvage system. It is IMHO something that should absolutely be done as it has been my biggest criticism of the game since launch, but it is a significant amount of work.

This is why I generally play Career on 'Easy' setting... the lower difficulty level robs me of completion points, but the lower overall lance weights makes the mech chassis selection at least a bit more Periphery-appropriate.

As for your suggestions of 'hunter' mechs vs 'embrace the suck' (which I as a Jagermech fan can get behind), I wanted to strike a balance between the two - a modest buff, but not so much we had 75 ton mechs in a foot race with a Locust. I was worried that might be a bit extreme.

 

[Blade_mercurial]

I'm all for the idea of Chassis Quirks, but with the caveat that they are very minor in effect. If Chassis Quirks are 'too good', they could easily have a sort of game-breaking feel (because suddenly a small number of very specific mechs become way better than the rest; a circumstance I think goes against the spirit of the game).

Ultimately though, I don't feel like this sort of thing is necessary. I actually really like the 4/6 movement assault mechs, the 5/8 movement mediums/heavies and even the fast moving lights, like the Spider and Jenner can be used effectively. To get good value out of the 4/6 assaults, you really need to put Jump Jets on them so they can get rear/side shots regularly (and also generate lots of evasion to help reduce return damage against them). Without the JJs, they just straight up lose a shoot-out against equivalent sized enemies, but I think that's as it should be.

If a mech has 5/8 speed or greater, then it doesn't absolutely need Jump Jets, because with a highly skilled pilot, they can usually generate enough evasion pips with their normal movement (although Jump Jets certainly make it easier). Even the 5/8 mechs can fairly regularly get in behind enemies for Precision Strikes on rear armour, simply by sprinting to get in close and then swinging around back next turn for the shot. And they have just enough firepower to take out many heavy/assault mechs in one volley (maybe two in some cases).

 

[Amechwarrior]

This falls apart once XL engines come in to play and you can have actually good 5/8 Heavies and etc. That's a bit of a far off concern, but one that probably needs to be factored in. You'd end up with good 5/8 Heavies totally supplanting 4/6 ones and still having their level of payload.

 

[theCarthaginian]

This falls apart once XL engines come in to play and you can have actually good 5/8 Heavies and etc. That's a bit of a far off concern, but one that probably needs to be factored in. You'd end up with good 5/8 Heavies totally supplanting 4/6 ones and still having their level of payload.

Well... isn't that kinda SUPPOSED to happen? ;-) XL, Ferro-Fiberous, Endo-Steel and other LosTech were designed to make 'better' mechs - at the cost of their own, crit-sucking drawbacks.
Think about how many times you crit an item in this game. Now think about how likely that XL Engine is to get slapped with a L/R Torso amputation with Precise Shot. How quickly would such a walking time-bomb supplant your Highlander? Or your Atlas? The standard engined mechs would retain a place thanks to their durability - especially once CASE rolls in to take care of those Ammo Explosion crits!
Endo-Steel and Ferro-Fiberous would allow you to gain free weight, but are a double-edged sword in that any weight available counterbalances because it must be concentrated into a lower number of weapon systems. These are 1.) easier to remove due to lower number and 2.) often a bit sub-optimal in terms of heat generated (like a LLas).

So we still have our checks and balances in place, acting to make the 'worse' choice occasionally an attractive one - 'fast and vulnerable' versus 'slower and safer.'

 

[theCarthaginian]

I'm all for the idea of Chassis Quirks, but with the caveat that they are very minor in effect. If Chassis Quirks are 'too good', they could easily have a sort of game-breaking feel (because suddenly a small number of very specific mechs become way better than the rest; a circumstance I think goes against the spirit of the game).

Ultimately though, I don't feel like this sort of thing is necessary. I actually really like the 4/6 movement assault mechs, the 5/8 movement mediums/heavies and even the fast moving lights, like the Spider and Jenner can be used effectively. To get good value out of the 4/6 assaults, you really need to put Jump Jets on them so they can get rear/side shots regularly (and also generate lots of evasion to help reduce return damage against them). Without the JJs, they just straight up lose a shoot-out against equivalent sized enemies, but I think that's as it should be.

If a mech has 5/8 speed or greater, then it doesn't absolutely need Jump Jets, because with a highly skilled pilot, they can usually generate enough evasion pips with their normal movement (although Jump Jets certainly make it easier). Even the 5/8 mechs can fairly regularly get in behind enemies for Precision Strikes on rear armour, simply by sprinting to get in close and then swinging around back next turn for the shot. And they have just enough firepower to take out many heavy/assault mechs in one volley (maybe two in some cases).

Chassis Quirks would require implementation of an entirely new system, and that was why I didn't consider adding something like that - even though all mechs have some kind of Design Quirks as optional rules in TT BT. That in and of itself means that we'd have things to draw from to implement the idea, though - which is not a bad thing.

Adding new initiative steps modified an existing mechanic - hopefully a little less work on the Devs. That was why I looked at it first.

 

[Amechwarrior]

Well... isn't that kinda SUPPOSED to happen? ;-) XL, Ferro-Fiberous, Endo-Steel and other LosTech were designed to make 'better' mechs - at the cost of their own, crit-sucking drawbacks.
Think about how many times you crit an item in this game. Now think about how likely that XL Engine is to get slapped with a L/R Torso amputation with Precise Shot. How quickly would such a walking time-bomb supplant your Highlander? Or your Atlas? The standard engined mechs would retain a place thanks to their durability - especially once CASE rolls in to take care of those Ammo Explosion crits!
Endo-Steel and Ferro-Fiberous would allow you to gain free weight, but are a double-edged sword in that any weight available counterbalances because it must be concentrated into a lower number of weapon systems. These are 1.) easier to remove due to lower number and 2.) often a bit sub-optimal in terms of heat generated (like a LLas).

So we still have our checks and balances in place, acting to make the 'worse' choice occasionally an attractive one - 'fast and vulnerable' versus 'slower and safer.'

Given how easy it already is for players to not have any internal damage by the end game, this would not be an issue even if implemented in full TT style with one torso being a kill. Players would just focus on faster XL engine designs, pack them with more stuff and be even more lethal than now, while the AI with XL engines becomes even more vulnerable to the player's custom loadouts. Units without XL would get left in the dust even without the init bonus, but now they are categorically superior for the player as they also move before slower designs.

Even with modded AI, many players here still wipe the contracts clean without any internal damage, this would be made even more powerful by also giving them free M.Tact in that the player can select their units to exploit this proposed system and the AI has a random assortment. Any init system will have winners and losers, but the current one we have presents a near minimal pool of losers across all tech levels. The fact that the system above has to not segregate fast vs slow lights is already shows that system has a loser pool so bad an entire init. phase of "slow lights" had to be handwaved away.

The system also doesn't really address the root problems. If I had a CDA vs a LCT or a DGN vs SHD and somehow each pair had the same hardpoint layouts (for even comparisons here) the lighter of each pair is still going to be the better choice in that they have comparable payloads (or less for the DGN w JJ vs SHD w JJ) but the lighter ones go a phase ahead. This isn't even tacking on the inherent to-hit advantages given to lights and meds, which the light has more of making even the CDA vs LCT a bad call in addition to the JJ disparity of a 60t mech vs 55t.

 

[theCarthaginian]

Given how easy it already is for players to not have any internal damage by the end game, this would not be an issue even if implemented in full TT style with one torso being a kill. Players would just focus on faster XL engine designs, pack them with more stuff and be even more lethal than now, while the AI with XL engines becomes even more vulnerable to the player's custom loadouts. Units without XL would get left in the dust even without the init bonus, but now they are categorically superior for the player as they also move before slower designs.

Even with modded AI, many players here still wipe the contracts clean without any internal damage, this would be made even more powerful by also giving them free M.Tact in that the player can select their units to exploit this proposed system and the AI has a random assortment. Any init system will have winners and losers, but the current one we have presents a near minimal pool of losers across all tech levels. The fact that the system above has to not segregate fast vs slow lights is already shows that system has a loser pool so bad an entire init. phase of "slow lights" had to be handwaved away.

The system also doesn't really address the root problems. If I had a CDA vs a LCT or a DGN vs SHD and somehow each pair had the same hardpoint layouts (for even comparisons here) the lighter of each pair is still going to be the better choice in that they have comparable payloads (or less for the DGN w JJ vs SHD w JJ) but the lighter ones go a phase ahead. This isn't even tacking on the inherent to-hit advantages given to lights and meds, which the light has more of making even the CDA vs LCT a bad call in addition to the JJ disparity of a 60t mech vs 55t.

What I want to see is suggestions that help us take that Dragon and give it a reason to be picked, even when 'better' (read 'more survivable or more firepower') mechs OF THE SAME WEIGHT CLASS become available.

I don't want to make a Cicada or Dragon more viable against lighter mechs... I want to see it have some leveling and balancing among mechs of their weight class. I'm searching for some theory-crafting to preserve their utility and identity as 'mobile strikers' while allowing the lighter mechs to still maintain a mobility advantage (by not moving them into the same initiative phase as a lighter weight class).

 

[Blade_mercurial]

I don't want to make a Cicada or Dragon more viable against lighter mechs... I want to see it have some leveling and balancing among mechs of their weight class. I'm searching for some theory-crafting to preserve their utility and identity as 'mobile strikers' while allowing the lighter mechs to still maintain a mobility advantage (by not moving them into the same initiative phase as a lighter weight class).

I feel the Dragon specifically is really not that bad. Now, I admit its been a few months since I did my 'Double Dragon' playthrough (trying to complete a campaign with two dragons----for higher skull missions, I ended up adding some Quickdraws to the mix, since two dragons alone couldn't really take on 8 assaults in the Opfor). So I might be forgetting the Dragon's hardpoints exactly, but I believe it has 2 missile, 2 energy, 2 support and 2 ballistic? So I think I was building my dragons with max armour, 2 medium lasers, 2 SRM 6s and either 2 small lasers or 2 machine guns (depending on what I had available at the time). That's over 170 damage potential with quite manageable heat levels (although I may have the build slightly wrong, it was a while ago and my memory is hazy). I do remember damage in that range, however. And with max armour, you can dash forward quite aggressively. High evasion pips keeps them from taking a ton of damage while sprinting, and then next turn, getting shots on rear armour gives you very good odds of destroying two if not three enemies in a single turn. Even if you expose your own rear armour, you can afford to take a few hits without going internal.

And while you can achieve very similar results with any of the 55 ton mediums, they aren't quite as durable (although they are a tiny bit harder to hit due to a base to-hit modifier against them), so the dragon (and the Quickdraw too) are a little bit less vulnerable to strings of bad RNG against you as compared to those 55-ers.

 

[theCarthaginian]

I feel the Dragon specifically is really not that bad. Now, I admit its been a few months since I did my 'Double Dragon' playthrough (trying to complete a campaign with two dragons----for higher skull missions, I ended up adding some Quickdraws to the mix, since two dragons alone couldn't really take on 8 assaults in the Opfor). So I might be forgetting the Dragon's hardpoints exactly, but I believe it has 2 missile, 2 energy, 2 support and 2 ballistic? So I think I was building my dragons with max armour, 2 medium lasers, 2 SRM 6s and either 2 small lasers or 2 machine guns (depending on what I had available at the time). That's over 170 damage potential with quite manageable heat levels (although I may have the build slightly wrong, it was a while ago and my memory is hazy). I do remember damage in that range, however. And with max armour, you can dash forward quite aggressively. High evasion pips keeps them from taking a ton of damage while sprinting, and then next turn, getting shots on rear armour gives you very good odds of destroying two if not three enemies in a single turn. Even if you expose your own rear armour, you can afford to take a few hits without going internal.

And while you can achieve very similar results with any of the 55 ton mediums, they aren't quite as durable (although they are a tiny bit harder to hit due to a base to-hit modifier against them), so the dragon (and the Quickdraw too) are a little bit less vulnerable to strings of bad RNG against you as compared to those 55-ers.

I too think the Dragon is not a bad Mech... it is durable, and it is this more forgiving in a slugging match (which many missions turn into) than a medium.

But, is that what we want it to be?
A 'padded medium' with worse initiative?
Or do we want to restore some of the 'melee brawler' feel that the Dragon loses by lumping it in with other heavies which can outfight it by simple 'throw weight?'
Giving mechs with higher tonnage devoted to speed a slight boost in action order (by introducing more initiative phases), we give them the ability to control an engagement with a similar weight mech by opening or closing range... which is what they were designed to do. The Dragon and Banshee were designed to get in close, and the Zeus and Cicada were designed to stay away. By adding a 'fast mech' stage for heavier mechs, you give them more room to make use of their unique attributes, and restore a powerful and interesting reason to keep them around beyond just being able to take an extra hit.

 

[Amechwarrior]

What I want to see is suggestions that help us take that Dragon and give it a reason to be picked, even when 'better' (read 'more survivable or more firepower') mechs OF THE SAME WEIGHT CLASS become available.

I don't want to make a Cicada or Dragon more viable against lighter mechs... I want to see it have some leveling and balancing among mechs of their weight class. I'm searching for some theory-crafting to preserve their utility and identity as 'mobile strikers' while allowing the lighter mechs to still maintain a mobility advantage (by not moving them into the same initiative phase as a lighter weight class).

Yes, but it still doesn't give the player a reason to pick those chassis over either 5t below or 10-15t above. Why take DGN salvage when I could have a better unit with a 55t, or over a 70t+ heavy? One goes an extra stage ahead of the DNG, the other carries significantly more payload. Even with a unique init phase it isn't a good choice to field one, it's still going to be lackluster with the current combat system regardless of initiative reworking due to the 8.5t of extra mass taken up by the engine vs something like a Rifleman.

The real root is that "mobility strikers" is a role best done with JJ supplanting ground movement with how the maps/movement costs work out vs heat, firing arcs and no gunnery malus for jumping. It's far more efficient to pile on JJ on a slightly slower unit and get better flanking options than a ground bound unit that is only 1 tier faster on foot. Even better is to just use a slightly lighter unit to get optimally efficient combinations of movement/firepower and initiative advantages. A ENF-4R vs a CRB-20 in the fast/slow init system would just be the ENF maneuvering to forests for best defense and the ground bound CRB getting bogged down in the trees. Even if it tried to reserve out, the ENF would be free to act first (lol just gave up that init advantage) and jump behind the CRB to negate any defensive reduction. Then, the ENF also maximizes Evasion Pips with a clear max distance jump over the trees and the CRB can't even move behind the ENF to exploit the laughably low armor it has there due to the trees soaking up all its movement points.

In that kind of situation, it doesn't matter who controls the initiative or who acts first, the one with the JJ is going to win at being a better mobility striker due to ignoring terrain costs. This is what I'm talking about when I say the system doesn't actually address the problem. You'd need a far greater revamp of the combat system than just shifting the init phases to favor certain chassis.

 

[theCarthaginian]

Yes, but it still doesn't give the player a reason to pick those chassis over either 5t below or 10-15t above. Why take DGN salvage when I could have a better unit with a 55t, or over a 70t+ heavy? One goes an extra stage ahead of the DNG, the other carries significantly more payload. Even with a unique init phase it isn't a good choice to field one, it's still going to be lackluster with the current combat system regardless of initiative reworking due to the 8.5t of extra mass taken up by the engine vs something like a Rifleman.

The real root is that "mobility strikers" is a role best done with JJ supplanting ground movement with how the maps/movement costs work out vs heat, firing arcs and no gunnery malus for jumping. It's far more efficient to pile on JJ on a slightly slower unit and get better flanking options than a ground bound unit that is only 1 tier faster on foot. Even better is to just use a slightly lighter unit to get optimally efficient combinations of movement/firepower and initiative advantages. A ENF-4R vs a CRB-20 in the fast/slow init system would just be the ENF maneuvering to forests for best defense and the ground bound CRB getting bogged down in the trees. Even if it tried to reserve out, the ENF would be free to act first (lol just gave up that init advantage) and jump behind the CRB to negate any defensive reduction. Then, the ENF also maximizes Evasion Pips with a clear max distance jump over the trees and the CRB can't even move behind the ENF to exploit the laughably low armor it has there due to the trees soaking up all its movement points.

In that kind of situation, it doesn't matter who controls the initiative or who acts first, the one with the JJ is going to win at being a better mobility striker due to ignoring terrain costs. This is what I'm talking about when I say the system doesn't actually address the problem. You'd need a far greater revamp of the combat system than just shifting the init phases to favor certain chassis.

Then you're thinking about the Crab wrong. The Crab wouldn't just 'wade through the trees'... It would use other terrain features - hills, draws, and depressions - to allow or block LOS vis a vis the Enforcer. It would use it's speed advantage to open the range to the Enforcer and force it to use it's JJ just to keep track of your location - if it could even do that if you didn't want it to. It would lead that Enforcer on a merry Chase and take potshots as it could, while it's lancemates made the Enforcer pay for the chase... and while the Crab kept the Enforcer moving generally away from its own supporting mechs.

 

[Donvale]

Why not just use outright speed instead of mech weight, with as many steps as made sense. There is a pretty direct trade off between weight and available tonnage and speed. It's true it might move some mediums faster than some lights etc... but what of it?
Vehicles might need a slightly different scale to fall approximately into line as they are generally faster I think?

 

[theCarthaginian]

Why not just use outright speed instead of mech weight, with as many steps as made sense. There is a pretty direct trade off between weight and available tonnage and speed. It's true it might move some mediums faster than some lights etc... but what of it?
Vehicles might need a slightly different scale to fall approximately into line as they are generally faster I think?

Indeed, why not?
The only real problem with that would be things like Convoy missions, where the wheeled vehicles would speed off and a mech would never see them after the first turn.
That's one reason to keep mechs and vehicles constrained by weight - but that's more a 'universe lore' reason and might not be good enough for some.

 

[Spartakus]

I'm perfectly fine with weight being the the criterium for initiative. It finally gives a purpose for the light/medium/heavy classification we've known for decades but has never been more then a lable. Also if speet was the criterium we would have this very same discussion but complaining about the awefulness of the Panther, Urbie, Blackjack etc.

If speed was the criterium for anything it should be to have missions with speed lmitations (You have to be at least a 5/8 to participate etc.)

 

[Timaeus]

Why not just use outright speed instead of mech weight, with as many steps as made sense. There is a pretty direct trade off between weight and available tonnage and speed. It's true it might move some mediums faster than some lights etc... but what of it?
Vehicles might need a slightly different scale to fall approximately into line as they are generally faster I think?

Using speed, causes issues with other chassis as well. No one wants a light that only goes last.

 

[Amechwarrior]

Then you're thinking about the Crab wrong. The Crab wouldn't just 'wade through the trees'... It would use other terrain features - hills, draws, and depressions - to allow or block LOS vis a vis the Enforcer. It would use it's speed advantage to open the range to the Enforcer and force it to use it's JJ just to keep track of your location - if it could even do that if you didn't want it to. It would lead that Enforcer on a merry Chase and take potshots as it could, while it's lancemates made the Enforcer pay for the chase... and while the Crab kept the Enforcer moving generally away from its own supporting mechs.

You forget the CRB and ENF have the same max range profiles of LL/AC10 range. I picked that example as they are both the same tonnage, similar weapons profiles and both are not drastically under-armored. There is no point to "opening the range" on one or the other here, what matters will be stacking evasion. Once you bring in Lancemates it's a wash and we aren't comparing the same things anymore. I could just say "The ENF would jump up a cliff face and draw the CRB in to the ENF's Lancemates" and it's just as valid yet only cost me 2.5t vs the 7t of extra engine the CRB-20 mounts over an ENF. All of these "hill, draws and depressions" are also terrain where JJ traditionally do better than ground movement on TT and in HBS. HBS land JJ are just too good compared to a 1 tier up movement in most cases and this is why the heavier mobility strikers are not worth it unless they can also mount the very high dmg/ton support class weapons. Imagine if we had a DGN with GHR style hardpoints? That would actually be useful in either the stock or fast/slow init game the same way a GHR is useful from when it's the heaviest thing the player can field to the lightest they want to bring.

If I get time I might run a AI vs AI skirmish, thinking:

• COM-1B + Arclight
• VND-1AA
• CRB-20
• DGN-1N

vs

• COM-1B + Arclight
• VND-1R
• ENF-4R
• TDR-5SE

Or something to that affect and edit their weight classes via mod to match the breakdown shown in the OP. With 5 stock phases and the only light in P5, I can simulate a fully realized fast/slow Med + fast/slow Hvy. Sadly, I don't have a stock slower 60t unit but the TDR-5SE is the closest brawler at 65t and w/JJ. The 1AA vs 1R I'm not to sure about, as the 1AA suffers from stock armor syndrome to make the tonnage for the engine, but hey that's the price you pay. I'd also prob set the CRB and ENF to sniper AI as that's what you mentioned, this could also greatly advantage the ammoless CRB vs the low ammo ENF, but I don't feel like making mirrored loadouts just for this. I might also have a problem with Evasion, I'd want to make sure the CRB/ENF and VNDs have pilots that can hit at least 5 pips on the ground to allow maximum stacking for the landbased ones and I don't think I have enough pilots for that without modding it in.

 

[Amechwarrior]

Ran two quick games by adjusting the weight classes in the chassisDefs to mimic the OP's system- Modded AI was used, both sides were AI controlled, both teams had the same AI role setup corresponding to the each teams opposing unit. Pilots with 6 Piloting or higher were used to ensure maximum advantage was available to the Fast Team. This also puts Paradise in the TDR/DGN to help balance out the tonnage disparity by giving them the worst shooter, the TDR CT LRM ammo was left in place. The DGN does do 10 more Melee DMG than the TDR and it did come in to play for both teams. I wanted to make sure the fast team took first strike vs both AI sides just reserving down to P1 and negating the whole thing so reserve was disabled. I also ran this twice, flipping teams so each had one game on each spawning side. In both screens the fast team is on top.



What I observed with the COM was the fast team just didn't have the firepower to drop that thing even when in both cases the COM moved in to the open in a bad position as the opening move. The Fast team COM died on the first round of fire in both games, where the Slow Team COM took 2 rounds when it was the first mover and lasted longer in to the game when it wasn't the very first unit to act.

This kind of pattern repeated itself across the match. Even with the Fast Team able to move first and both times cut the AC/10 off the ENF with concentrated shots the added armor, greater firepower and JJ capabilities of the Slow Team won out. The second match went much longer and came down to the two VNDs going crazy at each other, but on that match the Slow Team kept missing a lot of the large hit weapons in a row in previous rounds. Even then, it was easily in the VND-1R's favor, doubly so in that the 1R AI was needlessly overheating and could have just picked apart the 1AA at leisure as the 1AA's PPC was already lost.

A few rear shots did happen, maybe 3-4 fires, almost all of them on the JJ equipped side short of the TDR coming in to melee and letting the enemy DGN get a back shot on it.

I could run this test again with reserve enabled, but I feel that would just end up with both sides in Phase 1 most of the time.

Even with a hardcoded init advantage, these units are still subpar due to the massive loss of tonnage. It's not worth the cost of complicating the initiative system to accommodate units that would still be at a disadvantage in the end. All this does is add an extra layer of inconsistent complexity in to one of the more elegant and easy to grasp systems HBS created.

No one system is going to be perfect and I'm not saying the current setup is. The goal should be to both minimize the gap between the best and worst but also be easy and consistent to learn and track in top of the other combat rules and mechanics. The 8 phase system undoes the simplicity of 1 phase per class + MTac, makes the gap worse as new tech comes in to play and isn't even consistent on the Light end of the scale. On top of this, it doesn't even help level the playing field between similar units that differ in engine size within the same tonnage. I don't see where this becomes a net positive worth changing out the current scale. It's still a better choice to just keep using the 35/55/75t units you've probably already salvaged vs moving to a heavier but less capable chassis.