BAVS Suggestions

Discussions, Suggestions and Questions about upcoming Berget 18
Post Reply
Panzergraf
Major
Major
Posts: 656
Joined: 01 Dec 2007, 15:04
Location: Norway

BAVS Suggestions

Post by Panzergraf » 22 Jul 2019, 06:07

Let's collect all our suggestions to improve the BAVS system in this thread :)

I don't know if all of these are technically possible, but here goes:

Small green diode on the receiver computer when the power is on. It's almost impossible to read what's on the display, and something to let the crew inside the vehicle know if their receiver is working or not would be helpful. Constantly keeping an eye on the receiver pole to see if it blinks red (once each minute) is not always possible.

Reduced range and beam-width on the AT-4. Currently it's possible to hit multiple vehicles at extremely long ranges. Realistically an AT-4 should have shorter range than a machinegun, or even a rifle. It's not a TOW.

A louder firing sound on BAVS weapons. They make a small beeping sound currently, but in a firefight you won't hear it.

A chance to miss with BAVS weapons. IRL, weapons like AT-4's and 40mm grenades aren't easy to hit with, especially not VS moving targets or at range, but the BAVS versions can't miss (if suggestion 2 is implemented, that might change though).
From what I've heard, the tanks have some kind of reactive armour that gives them a random chance to ignore some BAVS hits.
Would that be possible to implement on all BAVS receivers, maybe making it so that 50% of shots miss? The receivers could beep once to notify everyone that they were fired upon, but not hit.
The tanks could get this in addition to their reactive armour, making them live a bit longer.
Maybe, if it's at all possible, the TOW launchers could have a higher chance of hitting than the AT-4, so for example 75% rather than 50%, to simulate that they are guided. The tank guns too, as IRL tank guns are very accurate and can easily hit moving targets.

Slightly longer range on the 40mm. Currently these things are nearly useless. Maybe offset the increased range with a lower chance of hitting than the AT-4, like 30%? With longer range I would still consider it a buff, even though you would have to fire more shots to ensure a hit.

When booking the BAVS receivers, customers should be able to choose which type of battery connectors they want, either Tamiya or Deans.
Veteran of 12 Berget Games
B6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
B18 - Red Mech

Walking is for plebs.

User avatar
MiqaFox
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 45
Joined: 14 Oct 2012, 19:38

Re: BAVS Suggestions

Post by MiqaFox » 22 Jul 2019, 16:57

I definitely don't agree with the realism aspects of your comments in regards to the AT4. It is a means to an end. That is, to give infantry a fair chance against vehicles.
Panzergraf wrote:
22 Jul 2019, 06:07
Reduced range and beam-width on the AT-4. Currently it's possible to hit multiple vehicles at extremely long ranges. Realistically an AT-4 should have shorter range than a machinegun, or even a rifle. It's not a TOW.
It is obviously not operated like an real life AT4, why pretend it is? The only reason that it is specifically an AT4 is that you can make it look rather convincing with just a bit of PVC and some foam. You can think of it as a Javelin or whatever for range purposes, despite the BAVS being a reusable system. If you are supposed to decrease the range because it does not correspond realistically with in game HMGs/sniper rifles, then we might as well make all assault riles and SMGs sub-Joule guns. The possibility of multi-hits should of course be addressed.
Panzergraf wrote:
22 Jul 2019, 06:07
A chance to miss with BAVS weapons. IRL, weapons like AT-4's and 40mm grenades aren't easy to hit with, especially not VS moving targets or at range, but the BAVS versions can't miss (if suggestion 2 is implemented, that might change though).
From what I've heard, the tanks have some kind of reactive armour that gives them a random chance to ignore some BAVS hits.
Would that be possible to implement on all BAVS receivers, maybe making it so that 50% of shots miss? The receivers could beep once to notify everyone that they were fired upon, but not hit.
The tanks could get this in addition to their reactive armour, making them live a bit longer.
Maybe, if it's at all possible, the TOW launchers could have a higher chance of hitting than the AT-4, so for example 75% rather than 50%, to simulate that they are guided. The tank guns too, as IRL tank guns are very accurate and can easily hit moving targets.
Seems very unnecessary. Will just increase "time to kill". Just tweak the damage output in that case.
I guess this stems from a "need" to balance primarily the AT4. Knowing fully how effective it is, I still question that need.
From my experience, the number of vehicles seem to increase for every year. If the experience was ruined by the "OP" AT4, that wouldn't be the case. Mech still need to walk less and has the ability to completely stomp the poor ones not equipped with BAVS. In total, I'd guess they get significantly more combat than infantry. If that means they "have" to stay in respawn for longer, at times, I think that is a fair price to pay (it's not like most of the team can't walk like regular infantry while the vehicle is being repaired). Besides, BAVS only kill the driver, the majority of the force is still in play, even when the vehicle is disabled.

If mech played like the scenario they are actually in, then the need to repair the vehicle would dramatically decrease. That is, they are driving light armored vehicles in tight forest filled with enemy troops with anti-armor capabilities. Perhaps tread more carefully. And when under fire from that, you GTFO.
Panzergraf wrote:
22 Jul 2019, 06:07
When booking the BAVS receivers, customers should be able to choose which type of battery connectors they want, either Tamiya or Deans.
Also seems increase complexity for no gain. Either supply an adapter with all or state what plug is required and let the players supply their own adapters.
B11-12: Ravens
B13: Ikaros
B14-16: UPIR
B17: GFM
"If at first you don't succeed, go get a .50 cal" - DemolitionRanch

User avatar
grasulas
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 213
Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 14:57
Location: Bucharest / Romania
Contact:

Re: BAVS Suggestions

Post by grasulas » 23 Jul 2019, 19:42

AT4

- limited ammo (10 shots), and then get in base to be recharge it via a RFID device found ONLY in base or at a ammo box
- install a powerfull piezo buzzer like the ones in the smoke detectors, who can make a loud sound when the AT4 is used

BAVS Grenades

- Do not sell them to the persons who are unable to prove they have a grenade launcher, I`m sick to see people shooting the Bavs from their hand, guys Berget is not an Iron Man simulator ok !
_______________________________
Berget Veteran

User avatar
Arradin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Posts: 770
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 16:06
Location: Göteborg, Sweden

Re: BAVS Suggestions

Post by Arradin » 03 Nov 2019, 10:00

grasulas wrote:
23 Jul 2019, 19:42
BAVS Grenades

- Do not sell them to the persons who are unable to prove they have a grenade launcher, I`m sick to see people shooting the Bavs from their hand, guys Berget is not an Iron Man simulator ok !
This is against the rules.

In general, Bavs is extremely difficult to balance when it comes to " Sound " vs effect. Sure, it could make one huge loud bang, and then the battery is out and it need to be recharged. Realistic? Maybe, but fun?

The system already have the possibility for limited amounts of shots before it needs to be reloaded by GMs, and it's being discussed to bring this back.

But right now for balance, someone actually have to carry around an AT4, and it doesnt feel like a huge issue, we rather make improvements on the vehicle side, like we have with the Tanks ( Chance to not penetrate armor, less chance from front, greater from the back etc )
We want to reward people who come with vehicles that really look armored, and we also want to reward people who carry around 'heavy' weapons.
Please send ticket & payment questions to:

payment@berget-events.com

L4gi
Captain
Captain
Posts: 495
Joined: 26 Jun 2008, 19:19
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: BAVS Suggestions

Post by L4gi » 03 Nov 2019, 19:31

If its against the rules then why has a high level GM said "Just tape it to the barrel" if you dont have an UGL?
B7 / B8 / B9 / B10 / B11 / B12 / B13 / B14 / B15 / B16 / B17

User avatar
Arradin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Posts: 770
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 16:06
Location: Göteborg, Sweden

Re: BAVS Suggestions

Post by Arradin » 03 Nov 2019, 19:58

L4gi wrote:
03 Nov 2019, 19:31
If its against the rules then why has a high level GM said "Just tape it to the barrel" if you dont have an UGL?
Taping it to the barrel is not the same as holding it in your hand.
Holding it in your hand is against the rules.
However, taping it to the barrel wont be allowed much longer either :)
Please send ticket & payment questions to:

payment@berget-events.com

User avatar
Grape
Private
Private
Posts: 10
Joined: 02 Jul 2013, 14:52

Re: BAVS Suggestions

Post by Grape » 21 Jan 2020, 21:34

BAVS AT4 - Shortcomings Suggestions and Solutions

Most people seem to be of the opinion that the AT4 is too powerful. I would therefore mention some possible ways to improve the experience for both the shooters and the shootees.
I have divided the list into three parts, rule changes, software changes and hardware changes, each kind of change comes with its own advantages and disadvantages.
We will probably not be able to introduce any larger hardware changes this year.
The comments are my own personal opinions and I welcome suggestions.

Rule changes:
1. Limit the number of AT4's in game.
Comments: Easy to do, hard to abuse. Boring, uncreative and a waste of money.

2a. Create an AT class, similar to medics and engineers. Only the designated AT-soldier can use the AT4 and when the AT-Soldier is shot the AT4 is
also out. This would make the AT-Soldier weaker against infantry.
Comments: It would make it easier for an infantry escort to take out an AT soldier. A bit complicated to implement, possible to abuse.

2b. An extension to 2a but to "simulate" the weight of the AT4 it also limits the armament of the AT-soldier to pistols or machine pistols (MP7's,
VZ61's, etc.) when the AT-soldier is carrying the AT4. If the AT4 is left in a vehicle or in the base the AT-soldier can use his main rifle.
Comments: Possibly a bit boring for some players, possible to abuse.

Software changes:
1. Increase the reload time between shots.
Comments: Possibly a bit frustrating for the shooter.

2. Introduce a random "lock on" time of between say 5-10 seconds forcing the shooter to keep the target in his/her sights during the whole lock
on time, it would force the shooter to show him/herself during the attack and would therefore be easier to take out.

3. Increase armour of vehicles and tanks.
Comments: Simple to do, easy to understand.

4. Limit the number of "projectiles" in the AT4. Each projectile has an automatic reload time.
Example: A four projectile magazine, each fired projectile adds 15 minutes to the reload time. If the whole magazine is emptied it would take
one hour to fill it up again, one projectile every 15 minutes.

5. Add a self repairing reactive armour to tanks and/or vehicles. A vehicle with reactive armour will be able to survive one shot of any weapon
without permanently damaging the armour, subsequent shots will damage the vehicle. After a set amount of time the reactive armour would
heal without healing the damaged armour. This would force the AT-Soldier/s to focus on the tank/vehicle and would also mean that there
would be fewer half dead vehicles.
Comments: Could make smaller vehicles too powerful but it might be an alternative for the tanks/heavy vehicles.

4. Convert a number of 40mm grenades into "Engineer tools", tools that can add hitpoints to vehicles up to the maximum of the vehicle class.
Possibly even adding time limited extra armour.

Hardware changes:
1. Limit the total number of projectiles in the AT4 and force the user to seek out a ammo box to reload. Could use either RFID or IR.

2. Add a powerful LED to the front on the AT4 to balance the range difference of the IR between day and night. During the day, when the IR range
is short the LED will be less visible and at night when the IR range is long the LED will light up the enviroment around the shooter quite a
bit.
Comment: This could pair quite well to a "lock on" time.

3. Improve the sound of the AT4 by adding a second summer/speaker directed forward.
Borduria Prevails

B7 Doctor / BAVS Crew
B8 Poldavian / BAVS Crew
B9 Driver, Ivanchuk Exports and Import / BAVS Crew
B10 BAVS Crew
B11 Tractor Mechanic / BAVS Crew
B12 Bordurian Diplomat / BAVS Crew
B13 Poldavian Officer / BAVS Crew
B14 BAVS Crew
B15 Bordurian Diplomat / BAVS Crew
B16 ??? / BAVS Crew

Gary
Newbee
Newbee
Posts: 8
Joined: 31 Oct 2009, 22:18

Re: BAVS Suggestions

Post by Gary » 27 Jan 2020, 02:57

Our company fields 10+ vehicles and we have never felt the BAVS were too powerfull in any of the bergets.

As Aradin and others said in another topic, Mechanized units are mostly done wrong. Mechanized unit is not abrahams platoon, even abrahams platoon is not abrahams platoon in small forest road. They excel in open plateau.

To force my point, here is short quote from our company's B17 combat diary. Both sides were initially mounted in cars, both knew enemy was operating in the road. We were operating with only 3 cars there, so it was quite even on numbers also.
-1330 We started moving from CP6 to west with two AT
footmobiles in front. After just 100 meters two TFC Cars
drove in. They were not prepared and we were, which
resulted in total destruction in a matter of minutes. A
Third TFC car soon also drove in and was destroyed
with couple of friendly wounded in total.
What we did better to make this 100-0(2 wounded) match? Our scouts gave us 30sec heads-up, just enough time to dismount all inf. We had them killboxed with scouts in back, rest in front.


Here are three simple things I use when in command:
1. Always use scout car. Deploy footmobiles in front of scout car if you expect contact
2. Keep your distance. If two cars get hit from 1 AT position, you often didn't. Dismount inf out of sight when possible.
3. After inf has established front line, use your vehicle in coordinated hit&run fashion. Try not to cross frontline, and if you do, accept losses.
At stage 3 you will get vehicle losses. But you have initiative. Your squads are no longer bailing burning vehicles.


But back to topic on BAVS,

I don't feel the need to nerf BAVS, but there are some great gameplay and teamwork enhancing features in Grape's post that I do support.

-2. Random lock-on time. This would be great on engaging AT crews into paying attention to fields of fire especially on angled shots, and also to promote more accurate way of taking proper aim before / during shot. Also a great way to make (long) shots more difficult and cause misses, instead of having random dice roll, which is same wether the target is 10m or 100m away. Definetly support.

-4. Projectile loadout, with some initial faster shots. This is better than longer reload times or limited ammunition. It limits power of single AT per engagement and promotes teamwork of several AT soldiers.

-5. Reactive armor. I think reactive armor propably should not be auto-generative, but it could be replenishable in the field only by mentioned "Engineer tool". More work for engineers would be nice. There should be 5-10minutes timer on that thought.
Since Berget 8 - Poldavian 3rd Mountaineers.

User avatar
Edward
Private
Private
Posts: 14
Joined: 02 Nov 2014, 23:20
Location: Finland

Re: BAVS Suggestions

Post by Edward » 27 Jan 2020, 17:34

Arradin, can you provide here exact vehicle level hitpoints and damages that AT-weapons do?
I would say that official rules havent worked for a while, because they speak of hitpoints like LVL1 - 1 hitpoint,
but last 4 years that we have had LVL1 car, HP has been "20%". Also I know that 40mm does "15%" of damage.

Vehicle levels and HPs:
LVL 1 = 20%
LVL 2 = ?%
LVL 3 = ?%

AT weapons:
40mm = 15%
AT4 = ?%
TOW = ?%

Would you kindly tell us these, I would really appreciate.
B13 - Ikaros Hades
B14 - Upir Infantry
B15 - Mercenary/Mekaniks
B16 - Mercenary
B17 - GFM Scorpions

User avatar
Grape
Private
Private
Posts: 10
Joined: 02 Jul 2013, 14:52

Re: BAVS Suggestions

Post by Grape » 27 Jan 2020, 17:45

Gary wrote:
27 Jan 2020, 02:57
-5. Reactive armor. I think reactive armor propably should not be auto-generative, but it could be replenishable in the field only by mentioned "Engineer tool". More work for engineers would be nice. There should be 5-10minutes timer on that thought.
That is pretty clever, why didn't I thing about that solution? Well done.
Borduria Prevails

B7 Doctor / BAVS Crew
B8 Poldavian / BAVS Crew
B9 Driver, Ivanchuk Exports and Import / BAVS Crew
B10 BAVS Crew
B11 Tractor Mechanic / BAVS Crew
B12 Bordurian Diplomat / BAVS Crew
B13 Poldavian Officer / BAVS Crew
B14 BAVS Crew
B15 Bordurian Diplomat / BAVS Crew
B16 ??? / BAVS Crew

User avatar
Arradin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Posts: 770
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 16:06
Location: Göteborg, Sweden

Re: BAVS Suggestions

Post by Arradin » 27 Jan 2020, 19:09

Edward wrote:
27 Jan 2020, 17:34
Arradin, can you provide here exact vehicle level hitpoints and damages that AT-weapons do?
I would say that official rules havent worked for a while, because they speak of hitpoints like LVL1 - 1 hitpoint,
but last 4 years that we have had LVL1 car, HP has been "20%". Also I know that 40mm does "15%" of damage.

Vehicle levels and HPs:
LVL 1 = 20%
LVL 2 = ?%
LVL 3 = ?%

AT weapons:
40mm = 15%
AT4 = ?%
TOW = ?%

Would you kindly tell us these, I would really appreciate.
I dont have those numbers, and even if i had them now, they would change before the game ( we always adjust things based on feedback )

I also want to clarify that things will change for this years game aswell, but how and what is yet to be decided. The changes were tested on Tanks and is being evaluated to move to other vehicles :)
Please send ticket & payment questions to:

payment@berget-events.com

User avatar
Arradin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Berget Crew & Site Admin
Posts: 770
Joined: 05 Jul 2012, 16:06
Location: Göteborg, Sweden

Re: BAVS Suggestions

Post by Arradin » 27 Jan 2020, 19:14

Grape wrote:
27 Jan 2020, 17:45
Gary wrote:
27 Jan 2020, 02:57
-5. Reactive armor. I think reactive armor propably should not be auto-generative, but it could be replenishable in the field only by mentioned "Engineer tool". More work for engineers would be nice. There should be 5-10minutes timer on that thought.
That is pretty clever, why didn't I thing about that solution? Well done.
Well clarify my previous answers and get back to you (and everyone else) in more detail :) Thanks for the suggestions!
Please send ticket & payment questions to:

payment@berget-events.com

Post Reply