Author Topic: "Abstracted" Abstract Combat System for ISaW Campaign  (Read 3633 times)

Mishkin

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 21
"Abstracted" Abstract Combat System for ISaW Campaign
« on: 20 August 2016, 18:33:26 »
Dear friends,

Another request for help and review of some proposed house rules for an Inner Sphere at War Campaign set in the middle of the Third Succession War.  As stated on pg. 362 of IO, there are no rules for Combat Resolution and campaigns are encouraged to use TW, ACS, or AS as they see fit.  We've chosen to fight out our battles using Alpha Strike, but quickly discovered that there will likely be more combats between ISaW Combat Commands than we wish to play out in a turn.  No one in the campaign, myself as GM included here, wants to play out these battles with the ACS at the moment.  My solution to the dilemma is to provide the players with an even higher level of abstraction for battles than even the ACS provides.  My rules for abstract combat at the regiment level are included below.

My question to the community has two parts.  1. Are we missing any rules from IO, SO, or CO that would solve our dilemma? 2. How good of a job do the rules below do of providing a quick resolution for abstracted combat at the regiment level?  My hope is that these rules: be easy for the players to understand, can be resolved quickly by the GM using my spreadsheet of Combat Commands and ISaW orders issued, and are somewhat balanced.  I'd like to reward players who make smart decisions with their units (coordinating attacks, out thinking opponents, bringing superior numbers to a fight, etc.) but still have some element of chance.

Quote
COMBAT SUMMARY
   Combat is resolved in one of two ways.  Either it is abstracted with a few simple dice rolls by the DM, or it is resolved with a ‘Mech Battle (Alpha Strike) game between players from two factions.  Regardless, the strength, abilities, qualities, and orders of units involved in the battle influences the abstracted combat roll or the size and strength of the units available to both sides in a ‘Mech Battle.

Combat Resolution Table (Simplified)
2d6 ResultResolution (for attacker) Attacker Damage Multiplier Defender Damage Multiplier
0 or lessComplete Defeatx0.1x3.0
1 Complete Defeatx0.1x2.0
2Overwhelming Defeatx0.25x1.75
3Overwhelming Defeatx0.5x1.3
4Defeatx0.70x1.3
5Defeatx0.75x1.25
6Marginal Defeatx0.9x1.1
7Draw x1.0x1.0
8Marginal Victoryx1.1x0.9
9Victoryx1.25x0.75
10Victoryx1.3x0.70
11Overwhelming Victoryx1.5x0.5
12Overwhelming Victoryx1.75x0.25
13Complete Victoryx2.0x0.1
14 or moreComplete Victoryx3.0x0.1
Each result (from 0 to 14+) has an equivalent victory point total.  When combat uses the Alpha Strike rules, players use the final victory point score to determine overall damage and outcome.

Abstract Combat Modifiers
Unit ModifiersModifier to Resolution RollDamage given modifierDamage taken modifier
BASE: Relative PV of forces-5 to +5Base damage given is equal to PV/10--
Leadership Rating +1 to -1----
Quality-2 to +4-0.1 to +0.40 to +0.2
Loyalty-1 to +1----
Unit Weight---0.1 to +0.2 -0.1 to 0
Current Morale0 to -50 to -0.10 to -0.4
Current Fatigue0 to -40 to -0.1--
Faction Modifiers
Superior/Inferior Doctrine +1/-1+0.1 / -0.1--
Fanatical Offense/Defense--+0.1+0.1
Order Modifiers
Defense Order--+0.1-0.1
Assault (Headhunting) Order--+0.1+0.1
Defenders Fortified -----0.1
Situational Modifiers
No Supply-1*#turns-0.1*#turns+0.1*#turns
Unprepared -1--+0.2
Uncoordinated Attack-2 to -10----
PC Leadership bonus0 to +3----
Brutal Engagement--+0.1 to +0.3+0.1
Normal Engagement------
Skirmish Engagement ---0.1-0.1
Duel --**
Depending on the outcome of the battle, units gain fatigue, lose morale, and may be forced to retreat or choose to surrender (or even mutiny).  In some cases, units may be completely obliterated in a battle.
Multiple units involved per side:  The total PV of all combat commands is used when calculating Base PV.  All other factors, such as quality, loyalty, etc., are averaged (rounding normally). 


ScrapYardArmory

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
    • ScrapYardArmory
Re: "Abstracted" Abstract Combat System for ISaW Campaign
« Reply #1 on: 22 August 2016, 08:10:06 »
I like the idea.  I even toyed with such a thing myself before resigning myself to use ACS for its tactical depth.

Can you perhaps provide an example to help me understand how it all works?  How is damage determined?  Armor?  Are you using Combat Commands as your top level unit?  Do you track armor or just PV?  An example would be most helpful.

Mishkin

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: "Abstracted" Abstract Combat System for ISaW Campaign
« Reply #2 on: 22 August 2016, 12:20:54 »
Great questions and point, Scrap!  Here are some answers and an example. 

Combat Commands are my top level unit.  Using the Combat Manual Kurita and Merc. books (and my best guesses for the other houses using old books), I've made a force sheet for each faction.

Each combat command has a number of values that determine its ability to win battles.  These are PV, Damage, Quality, Loyalty, Weight, Leadership, Equipment, Upkeep, Fatigue, and Morale. 
PV represents the operational size and ability of the unit and ranges from 1 to 100.   Each point roughly translates to a single 'mech.  (While I know that a Combat Command = 1 regiment of 'mechs = 108 individual 'mechs or more for a reinforced regiment, for simplicity and to represent that every command is degraded during the Succession Wars, I've set the max as 100).  PV affects the damage a unit can inflict on an enemy command and degrades as a unit takes damage itself.  When not using the Abstract Rules (i.e. when using Alpha Strike), the GM uses these values (almost always multiplied by the type of engagement) to determine the max PV of both sides. 

Damage is simply PV/10.  It of course is modified by many factors as stated in the table in the first post. 
There is no armor rating, but units do have ways to reduce incoming damage, as indicated in the table above. 

It may be preferable to have units track both damage to armor versus 'mechs destroyed, but right now it seems like an unnecessary complication. 

An example:
Quote
The Federated Suns players order the Eridani Light Horse, 21st Strikers to attack the world Dieron, currently only by the 9th Dieron Regulars, under the control of the Draconis Combine players.

Here are the current modifiers for the abstract resolution roll for each Combat Command:
Eridani Light Horse, 21st Strikers
PV 91, Quality +1, Leadership Rating +1, Loyalty +0, Weight +0, +1 for higher relative PV, +1 for Superior Doctrine

9th Dieron Regulars
PV 73, Quality +0, Leadership Rating +0, Loyalty, Weight +0, -1 for lower relative PV

2d6 + (Attacker ELH +4 to roll) - (Defender 9DR -1 to roll)
2d6 + 4 - (-1)
2d6 + 5
GM rolls a 5 (2&3 on 2d6) and adds the total modifiers from both sides (+5) for a result of a 10 and consults the appropriate row of the resolution table.

The result is a Victory for the attack with a x1.3 multiplier to attacker damage and a x0.7 multiplier to defender damage.  The GM now calculates damage to both units from the battle.

ELH to 9DR: [9 (base, PV/10) +0.1 (Veteran quality) +0 (medium weight) +0.1 (Superior Doctrine) +0.1 (Assault order) +0.1 (def's Fanatical Defense) -0.1(def's Defend order)]*1.3 (attacker victory, 10, battle resolution multiplier)
ELH to 9DR: [9+9*0.1+9*0+9*0.1+9*0.1+9*0.1-9*0.1]*1.3
ELH to 9DR: 15.21
ELH to 9DR: 15

9DR to ELH: [7 (base, PV/10) +0.0 (Regular quality) +0.2 (Heavy weight) +0.1 (Fanatical Defense) +0.1 (Defend order)]*0.7 (attacker victory, 10, battle resolution multiplier)
9DR to ELH: [7+7*0+7*0.2+7*0.1]*0.7
9DR to ELH: 6.37
9DR to ELH: 6

The attacking ELH inflicts 15 damage on the defending 9DR (degrading their PV from 73 to 58), and the 9DR inflict 6 damage to the ELH (degrading their PV from 91 to 85).  The defenders (9DR) will now have to make a morale check or be forced to take a retreat order for the next turn (or possibly surrender if they roll very poorly), and the attackers have a chance to recover salvage from the battlefield (and possible recover some of the damage they just took. 

Lauguz

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: "Abstracted" Abstract Combat System for ISaW Campaign
« Reply #3 on: 19 October 2016, 18:20:07 »
I really like this idea and am surprised/disappointed that IO didn't include this kind of system.

However the damage system really confuses me, probably because I'm a lapsed BT player and I'm only just starting to dive into CO, SO, AS and IO.

Can someone break down the damage system for me a little more?

Mishkin

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: "Abstracted" Abstract Combat System for ISaW Campaign
« Reply #4 on: 27 April 2017, 00:30:07 »
So the old "Combat Operations" book has some pretty simple rules for exactly what I was looking to do.  They're not perfect but they seem to be a nice core to build around (pages 103-5).

ScrapYardArmory

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
    • ScrapYardArmory
Re: "Abstracted" Abstract Combat System for ISaW Campaign
« Reply #5 on: 01 May 2017, 06:47:25 »
So the old "Combat Operations" book has some pretty simple rules for exactly what I was looking to do.  They're not perfect but they seem to be a nice core to build around (pages 103-5).

The one thing that really stunk about that old Combat Ops system is the fact that combat typically devolved into "doom stacks".  He who has the bigger stack, always wins.

Something to keep in mind as you tinker with things.

Mishkin

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: "Abstracted" Abstract Combat System for ISaW Campaign
« Reply #6 on: 01 May 2017, 17:38:58 »
Good point.  I was thinking of adding in the uncoordinated attack penalty for all multiple CC battles.