This is even more of a stream of consciousness than normal,
sparked by a recent playtest of MAC Attack.
 |
| With some handy unit cards |
When we finished the game my friend asked:
"Why would I ever take a Short ranged weapon? I'd
just make every weapon in my force Long ranged if I was building a new
force"
Of course, we need to test this out, but for the time being
it's given me food for thought.
Some context: In MAC Attack you have Short weapons (Max
range: 9") and Long weapons (MIN range: 6"). There are also Arc
weapons but ignore them for now.
Both weapon types cost the same, there are no other
restrictions on their use, and they function identically beyond simply having a
minimum or maximum range.
As you might imagine, if we're fighting on a big flat desert
then Long weapons are the order of the day. Likewise, if the battlefield
doesn't have any open stretches wider than 6" then Short weapons are going
to dominate. For this discussion, let's imagine we're on a more balanced
battlefield.
In fact, let's pretend my friend is right. Let's work on the
assumption that Long is broadly a better choice than Short for most
scenarios.
Is that a problem?
I've discussed
before that the purpose of balance, for me, is to preserve interesting
choices, not to make everything equal.
Now, at the very least, we can say that the choice between a
minimum range and a maximum range still feels like a choice. The advantage of
not having a minimum range is that you can collide and brawl with your target
as well as shooting at them.
Better yet, if my friend wants to create a force of
exclusively Long weapons then I'm absolutely going to double down
on Short weapons and rush inside his minimum range to dirty box him with
impunity.
Easier said than done, I suppose, as the quirks of the
initiative deck mean you can't always put every MAC where you want them to be.
Engaging at Shorter range also means there's less chance of
an annoying obstacle blocking the line of sight to your target.
So maybe the answer is to include a mix of short and long
weapons on each MAC. I deliberately left a "sweet spot" between
6-9" where both Short and Long weapons can attack for this very reason.
Could equally lead to some inefficient turns when you don't have the right
target at the right range, though.
For another angle, what could we do it we wanted to make
them feel more equal?
How does Battletech, an obvious inspiration for MAC
Attack, handle this? It actually uses range quite differently. As well as
defining a weapon's minimum and maximum range, weapons break down their range
into subcategories of short/medium/long range, with medium and long providing
penalties to hit. With a 2d6 system like Battletech these penalties
can be hugely significant, so having a longer range generally has the
side effect of making the weapon more accurate at common engagement ranges.
Totally different to what we're dealing with here.
Previously in MAC Attack, Short weapons provided a bonus to
hit, but that had some undesirable side effects. Piercing Type weapons (more
effective when you have an easy shot) felt like a little too much of an obvious
synergy with Short weapons (make your shot more likely to hit), and I wanted
every combination of range, type, and subtype to feel viable. It was also one
more modifier [shudder] to remember when calculating your target number
to hit.
I could give Short a longer maximum range, but that risks
making the distinction feel irrelevant.
I could Long an even more restrictive minimum range, but I
don't want things to end up feeling too restrictive.
Or maybe it's fine as it is.
Back to the playtesting table I suppose.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post was originally sent as a reward to all Patreon supporters, and is released freely on this site the week after its original publication.
If you want to support my blog, podcasts, and video content then head over to my Patreon.
