Author Topic: Interstellar Ops feedback  (Read 39550 times)

Chunga

  • Patron Saint of Team Davion
  • Freelance Writer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1643
  • <3
Interstellar Ops feedback
« on: 13 September 2011, 15:48:36 »
The outline for IO has been posted and you can comment on it!

First visit the blog here and then give us your feedback.
"Don't think 'cos I understand, I care." - Sneakerpimps
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you tried.
I wasn't there.  If I was there, I was sleeping.  If I wasn't sleeping, I didn't hear or see anything.
Money has never been a problem for Davion. "Why waste money on social services when you can spend it on weapons instead?" - aldous

Neufeld

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2539
  • Raven, Lyran, Horse, Capellan, Canopian, Bear
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #1 on: 13 September 2011, 16:18:50 »
What about Track construction rules? Like in Wars of Reaving Campaign, but expanded to be more general in scope. Will that be included?


"Real men and women do not need Terra"
-- Grendel Roberts
"
We will be used to subdue the Capellan Confederation. We will be used to bring the Free Worlds League to heel. We will be used to
hunt bandits and support corrupt rulers and to reinforce the evils of the Inner Sphere that drove our ancestors from it so long ago."
-- Elias Crichell

Kojak

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4610
  • Melancon Lives!
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #2 on: 13 September 2011, 16:20:32 »
That seems to cover pretty much everything I want out of that book. Two suggestions, though:

1) In the General Rules section, perhaps a subsection covering covert ops (i.e. assassination, sabotage, kidnapping high-level personalities, etc.). I don't know if that's already covered under the "Communications/Intelligence" subheading, but if not, covert ops in campaign settings definitely deserves its own set of rules (outside of gaming it out AToW-style, that is).

2) Also in the General Rules section, a reprise of something like the Public Opinion rules from the old Operation Flashpoint campaign book. Those were excellent and I think they should be a part of current campaign mechanics.


"Deep down, I suspect the eject handle on the Hunchback IIC was never actually connected to anything. The regs just say it has to be there."
- Klarg1

Eldragon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 153
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #3 on: 13 September 2011, 16:22:12 »
I wonder what "Inner Sphere At War" is. Is that rules for a "Succession Wars"-esque or "Risk-like" boardgame?

I have to admit I've gotten hooked to "Warchest Points" and have no plans on every tracking individual C-bills again.

Blackjack Jones

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 853
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #4 on: 13 September 2011, 16:23:35 »
So far so good...

A question about a couple of sections under the General Rules, the Electronic Warfare and Maintenance, Salvage, Repair, and Customization sections to be specific.

Are these sections-

A) A scale above tabletop play to use with the Strategic BattleForce?
B) A Scale below tabletop play to use with AToW?
C) Additional/Addendum to Tac Ops / Strat Ops rules for same?
D) Reworking of Tac Ops / Strat Ops for same?
E) All/None of the Above?

And to add to Newfeld's comment, is there any interaction of the tract system with the new rules in IO?

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #5 on: 13 September 2011, 16:24:47 »

Creating A Force.
Will this include the possibility and/or guidelines for creating deep periphery factions? For that scale would fit well with Strategic BattleForce and Solar System Construction.

Alternate Eras.
Question: Which eras will be presented?
Suggestion: Is it possible to give each era a very short bit of fiction about a pivotal moment of that era to get people excited?
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9387
  • Just some rando
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #6 on: 13 September 2011, 16:58:39 »
I thought Maintenance, Salvage, Repair, and Customization was already covered in Strat Ops?  I guess there's going to be a more scaled version for IO.  :)
A slight misspelling with Alterante Eras.

So now it's called Inner Sphere At War eh? Is that the easier version or the more "AccountantTech" version of ruling a stellar empire?
I do agree with the others about Track construction, rules on how to scratch build them would be helpful for those who want everything written down.
However that might fit into Supporting PDF-only Material so I could be wrong.

We're getting Colonization rules?! I squee loudly at this idea! Forward into the Deep Periphery I forge onwards leaving Terra behind!  [rockon]
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24876
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #7 on: 13 September 2011, 17:54:38 »
Is there going be a standard scale force that book going go by?  Regiment?  Multi-Regiment army? Division etc?

Will the era specific equipment be listed here or just kept in their various sourcebooks.  I remember mentioning the full LAM rules were to be included in this product, or have they been cut to make room?

Will there Quick-Start Rules for some of the game sets in this book? I think it maybe needed in some cases, to help easy a player into using the game.

Will there be quick reference tables for various items people need refer to quickly?
« Last Edit: 13 September 2011, 21:12:56 by Wrangler »
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

M-Rex

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 973
  • In Ferro, Veritas.
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #8 on: 13 September 2011, 17:58:52 »
Is this 'the Battleforce book', or is it a campaign book?


"Oh bother", said Pooh, as he chambered his last round...

"Carrying stuff may be a sign of improper utilization of your minions." - 'Freelance Writer' Paul

RavensPsi

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 53
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #9 on: 13 September 2011, 18:13:36 »
Looking this over, I really like what I am seeing here. I play Battleforce instead of Battletech. I am really wanting something where we can play on a galactic scale and this sounds like it.

http://ourbattletech.com/
Clan Snow Ravens Psi Galaxy "Nevermore"

Trajan Helmer

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1277
  • Better and calmer than you
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #10 on: 13 September 2011, 19:15:42 »
Can't wait. This should be better than all the rules I made fifteen years ago doing Chaos March campaigns. First day buy for me.
Anyone can redesign the Hellbringer's base chassis.  Real men work only with the pod loadout- Natasha K (forum poster)

Do not taunt Happy Fun Aegis. http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,42045.msg968574.html#msg968574

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #11 on: 13 September 2011, 19:16:34 »
That outline is pretty dry.

I assume "creating a force," "running a force," "solar system construction" and "planetary assault" will be more or less along the lines of previous books. No thoughts on "miscellanous" or "scaling," and I never saw "Inner Sphere in Flames."

Other than having LAMs, no idea what the "alternate eras" chapter is supposed to be about. Debut of Catalyst's post-DA future era, maybe. EDIT: or is this instead a simple reprise of the "mercs in alternate eras" chapter from the Merc Supp books? /EDIT

Is the "general rules" chapter aimed at a specific scale of play, or what? Some of that stuff (campaign play, economy/infrastructure, chains of command, logistics/supplies, random encounters) looks to be from old merc handbooks. Is this the contract/mission generation & execution chapter? If it isn't, then what's "factions" about?

Interested to see what "electronic warfare" and "communications/intelligence" end up being, especially considering the limited treatment they get in Total Warfare and Tactical Operations.

What could "maintenance, salvage, repair and customization" have that wasn't covered in Strategic Operations? "Space travel," same question? (Are these repeated so that players don't have to buy two corebooks?)

"Colonization" is new. A regular topic on the forums, but it seems (to me) to be irrelevant outside of Successor State-level play. Assuming the "general rules" chapter is primarily aimed at merc battalions, I am curious what aspects of colonization are of interest to the typical 'Mech unit.

Not only do I have no idea what "supporting PDF-only material" is supposed to be about, I have no idea what that phrase is supposed to mean here. Where PDF-exclusive products fit into Catalyst's product line? What e-readers to choose, the etiquette of bringing electronic devices to the game table? How to end real-world arboricide?

Looking forward to the "strategic battleforce" chapter. Sensors, electronic warfare, recon units and other stuff with kilometer ranges ought to shine at kilometer ranges.
« Last Edit: 13 September 2011, 19:33:20 by skiltao »
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #12 on: 13 September 2011, 19:41:44 »
Well since you asked for feedback and ideas, here you go!

Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or mention of myself.

I don't remember ever seeing electronic warfare playing a part in any battle, strategic or tactical, so unless I'm just totally loosing my memory (please enlighten me) I really can't see how that would add to the game much and would just add a rule people may end up avoiding.

Looking forward to the updated solar system construction, I have an app I wrote that uses the old explorer corps rules, it'll be nice to program that update ;)

Economy/Infrastructure.  I'm not really looking forward to the economy rules, I thought they were a way to restrict/enhance factions too much in the ISIF rules posted in CO.  They really didn't add to the game much, but if they are more scalable without fixed limits they would be a nice optional rule.  I *really* think that money shouldn't be an issue, ever.  Instead planets produce a # of raw materials (type irrelevant), and factories need X number of raw materials per 1K BV output or some such.  This way the populations just don't matter, your restrictions on production are how many resources you can get from your systems and how many factories you have.  This also explains what ties up the civilian jumpship I mention later.

Factions.  It'd be really neat if each faction had some advantages/disadvantages.  Nothing significant, perhaps Davion is a bit better without a strategic commander, Liao works better when combining units, etc.  Something to give each faction some flavor would be a cool thing.  Thought with 50+ factions it would have to be either really extensive, or simplified into quirks or something.

Communications/Intelligence.  The ISIF rules in in CO were really good on this.  Some fixed limits may be necessary (perhaps based on training facilities or something), but those rules were really a step in the right direction and I hope to see them further enhanced.  Communications are rough though, on one hand you can give rules on using the HPGs for communications, but on the other hand you can't really make people write orders down in advance or you also need a ref.  It would be a neat optional rule to have say 10-20 different commands you can give to units, and then just write them on a piece of paper or something in order.  This way if communications are "lost" they would fall back to the orders previously given.  This would make communications essential if you want your units to be versatile, and would really show why the 4th SW was so successful for Davion as Hanse gave individual commanders quite a bit of leeway.

Personalities/Nobility.  These rules in ISIF were ok, but I think would need extended a bit.  Aside from just LD, also give a couple other factors, kinda like succession wars did.  Perhaps each has a Leadership, Strategy, Tactics, and Administration, which worked ok.  Some leaders are great leaders, but not so great soldiers, others may be great on the battlefield, but horrible when commanding it, etc.  Also, the list was never very complete, each region needs its leaders, each faction, and a few additional ones.  I'd avoid leaders on specific military units however, unless ya'll are willing to list all 500+ mech regiments in a dozen different eras ;)  Leaders could be abstracted as well.  You'd have a faction leader, randomly determined from a d6 roll, and each major region gets a leader, from another roll, etc.  This way its different every game, sometimes you'll have better leaders in different locations, etc.  Loyalty was neat, but I think it should be more abstracted to make playable.  Some units for example would only be loyal to their regional commanders, and if that commander was bribed, those units would in turn act differently.  There is a lot of fluff to support that (Syrtis Fusiliers, Skye Rangers, etc).  Also, to avoid needing hundreds of players, just have a bribe force a loyalty check, if that check fails have a dozen or so random events (like going after the Wolf's Dragoons with all your forces).  This way you don't get excessive with factions and who is loyal to who.

Space Travel.  Woohoo!  This should really be pretty simple tho.  1 week to recharge your jump drives (sure its more or less, but do you really want to list all 3000 systems?), 1 more week to transit to/from the planet.  I really can't see having any more detail on this, *unless* there are plans for a map or showing detail on all 3000 systems, then I'd definately welcome it and would be happy to program a computer to do it for you :)  When it comes to JS/DS though, this is weird.  The original numbers of 2500 JS and 25000 DS worked well if you discounted fasanomics, which I think IO *has* to address somehow.  If you use the updated numbers in SO, JS simply become to commonplace that moving a regiment is like hailing a cab in NYC when your in a suit and holding up a wad of $100s.  The old numbers however actually did work really well.  2500 jumpships, 5 houses, roughly 400 per house (plus periphery & corporate).  Half those are civilian, so make it down to 200.  Treat them in small groups of 3-6 that carry 10-15 dropships, and you have a number of about 50 jumpship "factors" per house.  You can take more, but you would loose the economy for the region you took them from.  The same sort of thing with Dropships, 25000, groups of "10-15", half civilian, roughly 300 "factors" per house.  As 1 jumpship factor carries 1 dropship factor, you simply can't move everything all the time.  TIkonov would have been taken with 25 JS and 25 DS factors (roughly 50% of the Davion JS's).  Group DS's into assault, mech transport, aerospace, cargo, etc flotillas.  They can easily be abstracted by house (5 assault dropship points available, pay 5 RP per turn to use or something), or tracked individually. 

Colonization.  Woohoo again!  I have no idea what would be in this part, but it would have to have some limits to avoid players colonizing those other 110,000 systems in the inner sphere.  I'd recommend just sucking up resources that normally would be used for production of units and JS/DS for a duration.  This way its simply hard to do, not impossible, but probably only going to occur in really long games.  The game shouldn't be about colonization IMO.

Random Encounters.  Pirates, plagues, viruses, tratiors, meteors, some planet that apparently once per 1000 years has a "noah's ark event", etc, etc... a few pages and a couple hundred of these could be a real element to throw into a game, perhaps some of the bad things could be avoided if adequate resources (JS/DS/Materials) were applied to prevent it.

Though it wasn't mentioned, I *REALLY* think there needs to be a way to model how war declines technology.  In my own models and math, my ideas led me to use "technical groups".  These groups are only created at "technical schools", and are needed to run every factory, repair stuff, build things, etc.  A certain number may be necessary to fix a mech regiment, another much higher number to run a factory, a MUCH higher number to run a warship facility, etc.  This way when you start loosing tech groups (which can be attacked, or even schools lost) you have to sacrifice the warships first, then the jumpships, then the dropships, etc.  Its a way to show how that warship bombarding the NAIS *reduced* the ability for Davion to build everything, especially warships.  Its a way to see direct results from excessive war.  If you want to keep your units fixed and fighting, you can't be off building tons of new stuff.

Misc.  What about buildling fortifications, creating bases, building research facilities/science academies/pilot training school/etc, caching equipment (don't want to give your elite regiments old crap, and you don't have enough schools training mechwarriors to outfit a new regiment with their old stuff, so cache it).

Planetary Assault.  Since so far all the rules have scaled from 1 person (ATOW) up to lances (BF), I really think this should be kept.  Instead of having abstract planetary assault values simply use a BV ratio and something like capital damage.  Lets say you have a company of 1500 BV mechs, thats 18000 BV, lets say there is 2000 BV per "strength point", so that heavy/assault company has a strength of 9.  A light company may be closer to 3, while the best mech company possible would be closer to 18.  These are direct BV conversions, as in PA nothing else really matters (well except speed, but that is taken into account in the BV).  Now, when you want to scale up to battalion strength, simply divided BV by 6,000 as those units are 3x as large.  This way you can easily convert between the 2 scales, and better yet, have a company vs battalion battle like so often happens.  In that case, every damage point the battalion does against the company is x3, while it takes 3 points of damage from the company to do 1 damage to the battalion.  A single piece of paper could easily hold dozens of regiments depending on the amount of other detail (fatigue, morale, quality, movement, tech base, RP, artillery, aerospace, etc).  Most battalions would simply have a type (mech) and strength (#).  Some may have an artillery value like #/#, indicating a strength that could be used to a certain range, or aerospace value indicating that unit can be used in space too.  If a full map is being produced, changing systems so they have icons to denote things like vacuum, can help show how mechs are so much more useful, as they can operate there without reduction, while a tank unit (even a fusion one) may have serious reductions in capabilities (or just take 2x or 3x the damage) if they can be used at all.  This makes mechs worth it, and without having *something* to make mechs so much more useful nobody will really notice if its a mech regiment, tank regiment, or whatever aside from its strength.  Techncial groups (mentioned above) get rated by the # of repair points they can do. 

I *highly* recommend units be rated on the amount of supply it takes to do an "attack", or suffer a penalty.  This means you need supplies handy for sustained operations.  Some units may have higher attacks, but need higher supplies to use them, and if unsupplied they fall down to lesser values than those that need minimal supplies.  1 supply point may be say 1000 tons, and be enough to supply a company for a month, or something like that.  This way you can haul around supplies where necessary, and in big wars, you have to be careful not to run out in critical operations. 

Supporting PDF material.  This would be *awesome* to see all 3000 systems mapped out, heck I already have code that could do it in <1 minute, so I know its possible ;)  It would also be awesome to see a huge map, with only 1-2 systems per hex (hopefully 1), with some small details around the world (vacuum, water rich, food rich, raw materials, etc), though this is a pretty big task (computers again do it in minutes, but those values need defined and based on canon, which is FAR more time intensive).  It would be cool to see all factories in all eras, what/how much they output (1 assault 3025 mech line per week, 1 infantry platoon per week, 2 heavy omnimech 3050 mech line per week, etc).  It'd be cool to see all the units as well, though this could simply be broken down into units (Each unit has an entry for each era, like Size/Strength/Quality/Morale/Leadership/Tech/?/?/?)) but again, without a computer that'd be intensive too.

I'd love to see this game become a counter/map based game, but doing my own metrics means that even with a 10 LY per hex scale, your talking about a map 6' across (not including clans) and filled full of thousands of counters.  Federation and Empire by StarfleetGames does this, and its a great game, and I have tens of thousands of counters for it, but I kidna think that is probably out of scope a bit.... but would love to be wrong :)

Scaling will be nice, I kinda mentioned it above, I think it should be pretty seemless.  Sure, you can fight regiment on regiment, but if you throw a battalion or company in there it should be able to still interact the same (Black Widow Company did often).  One could use a rule of '3s' or something to do this.  Strategic battleforce is a company/trinary, or about 10 to 30 elements.  PA is a battalion/cluster, or about 24 to 90 or so units, ISIF regiments, etc... If SBF is a scale of 1, PA is 3, and ISIF 9.  A SBF company strength 6 vs a ISIF regiment strength 54 may get lucky and do 1 hit for every 6 hits it takes, based on leadership, tactics, etc.  This way a unit like the black widow company, when playing with particular tactics, may have a chance to do a couple hits against that regiment and escape, instead of just ignoring companies at battalion+ level, or ignoring whole battalions at ISIF level.  Many times units are deployed in battalion sizes, so battalions and regiments interacting is a *must* IMO.  Again, just use a BV scale.  This makes it really easy to detemine the strength of your unit.  Give a few other things, like if half the company or more has ECM/AEP denote it, if units have fuel limitations denote their PA range before needing supply, if a tracked unit is amphibious denote it, etc.  Basically the conversion between all 3 scales should be like a page of text, be simply, and easily allow people to fight battles in all kinds of situations, even those where one side is greatly outnumbered.

Some other notes:
 - Fixing units with lesser quality troops lowers their XP, gaining XP increases quality, pretty hard to do except in long games
 - SIL can convert easily enough:
--Technological Sophisitication.  Only higher tech planets can build higher tech units or have science schools.
--Industrial Development:  Only higher numbers can have factories that produce stuff, and the higher the number the higher its capability of producing raw materials for production
--Raw Material Dependence:  If any, it has no material output.  If really low, its the # of JS factors required to support this world (if no JS, planet can succeed)
--Industrial Output:  Mirrors the number of raw materials it creates, also the # of JS tied up in getting those materials where they need to be.
--Agricultural Dependence:  Again, # of JS necessary to keep colony from dropping morale in its region.
 - Some planetary attributes:
--Vacuum or no atmosphere:  Mechs function normally, vehicles require * to denote fusion power to function, but take x2 damage,
--Extreme Temps/Gravity (high or low):  All units gain/loose a bit of effectiveness, infantry may be unusuable unless they have XCT
 - If system details are supplied, the transit days from Z/N points, the transit days from non-standard points, and perhaps some number to denote how complicated (# of stars?) or fast (higher orbit #s?) a pirate point can be

I'd be more than happy to give up any programming skills to help with any of the mundane tasks on this for no compensation, in fact I'm nearly ready to release a new version of my cartographer that is beginning to support much of the functionality a book like this would have (system/unit generators, map of IS at any scale, etc).

Oh, and there is the old thread where something like this was asked that may have some great ideas here as well:
http://www.classicbattletech.com/forumarchive/index.php?PHPSESSID=c4f1515d8c499048b54ffde62565f5e0&topic=57726.0;all
« Last Edit: 13 September 2011, 19:56:47 by Bad_Syntax »
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

General308

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2199
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #13 on: 13 September 2011, 21:37:30 »
Electronic Warfare and the Comunication/inteligence section.

I bring these up together because I was thinking about them before I read this.  I am guessing this section could add to the the satilate section of TacOps.   IE more way's to comunicate to gain tactical bonuses and the Electronic Warfare section would give you a way to jam mechs comunications and Sat advantages.  I would also think that using Electronic Warfare could cause units to fail moral checks in a campaign game from lossing all contact with other units.

Creating a Force.....I know this has been talked about it is going to replace the create a merc from the FM.   I am really hoping this gives more options than in the past.  IE new salvage options and other misc things to negotiate on.  Example we know mercs sometimes bargan for varies size landholds.  But how many bargaining points does that cost.   I would also like some sort of a retainer contract that can be easily switched over to an offensive mission instead of just Defensive ones.

Colonization....I am guessing expanded explorer corps rules. Lots of fun things that.   I would see a lot of mining groups and Pirates needing these rules.

What does the * mean behind some of the listings?





BlazingSky

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1429
  • Ah yes, the rabble and their "Medium Mechs"
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #14 on: 13 September 2011, 22:20:15 »
I'd like to see rules that break down the individual sectors of each Power into what each produces, such as luxury goods, war materials, and so on. This would fit into what Syntax is saying, but I don't know if it needs to have a TacOps sized chapter for that.
I don't post to play nice with everyone. I post to posit my ideas. If this offends you, there's an ignore function.
I knew this day would come! The day of the stapler men has arrived!

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #15 on: 13 September 2011, 23:07:00 »
Given those general outlines it does come across that some information is being repeated from existing books.

The rest it is kind of hard to give meaningful feedback because so little information is given about what we can expect in those sections.

For now though I will say you've got my attention and I may have trouble waiting for this one.

Arcologist

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 29
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #16 on: 13 September 2011, 23:11:56 »
Most of what I saw, I liked, but I do have two concerns.  The first is how much non-battlefield sourcebook fluff there seems to be in the outlines - is this book going to eliminate the "Universe Book?"  To be honest, I was always a bit more interested in that one than IO (not that I was ever going to skip IO, especially with the alt-eras parts, but it just never had quite the draw for me that UB did).

The other big concern I have is how to integrate a supplemental PDF file into what's supposed to be a Core Rulebook.  I was disappointed to see how several items were moved from "advanced/prototypical" to "tournament legal" in an appendix to Tech Readout: Prototypes, almost as an afterthought.  That seems to me to be exactly what should go into a Core Rulebook (in my opinion, it looks like an ideal "era rule" for the Republic sub-era, in IO).  Putting what should be core rules into PDF Supplements goes even further from what the stated purpose of the CRs has been ever since Total Warfare (ie, a seven-part "one stop shop" integration of all the rules to BattleTech).

Neufeld

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2539
  • Raven, Lyran, Horse, Capellan, Canopian, Bear
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #17 on: 14 September 2011, 04:04:37 »
I hope we will see rules for factory construction: Socio-Industrial Levels needed, time to build, costs, and production rates (all factories, not just mech, also ASF, armor and so on). Also, the same for troop training centers.

Also, all the new rules spread out over non-rulebooks should be added in.

"Real men and women do not need Terra"
-- Grendel Roberts
"
We will be used to subdue the Capellan Confederation. We will be used to bring the Free Worlds League to heel. We will be used to
hunt bandits and support corrupt rulers and to reinforce the evils of the Inner Sphere that drove our ancestors from it so long ago."
-- Elias Crichell

wantec

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3874
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #18 on: 14 September 2011, 07:21:26 »
One thing I've run into in the past involves creating a Merc force. Some of the rules involved using character skills/levels from the unit commander's MW:RPG character as a bonus modifier to the ratings or dice rolls You didn't have to have a MW:RPG character to use the rules, you just missed out on any potential bonuses, making your rolls lower. I've played MW:RPG and I haven't used AToW (yet), but I'd like to see the rules set up so there's no benefit or penalty to using characters made from AToW or not.
BEN ROME YOU MAGNIFICENT BASTARD, I READ YOUR BOOK!


mbear

  • Stood Far Back When The Gravitas Was Handed Out
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4497
    • Tower of Jade
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #19 on: 14 September 2011, 07:56:43 »
Quote
Universe Introduction*
Ares Conventions sourcebook*
I hope that these two aren't just reprints of available materials (Universe PDF and Era Digest: Age of War). I understand the desire to reduce development time, but a simple copy/paste of those documents into IO would annoy me greatly.

Just a free opinion, worth exactly what it cost me to type. ;)

EDIT: Nevermind. I just saw that there were asterisks behind the topics meaning they're fiction. I'll go clean my glasses and shut up.
« Last Edit: 14 September 2011, 07:58:41 by mbear »
Be the Loremaster:

Battletech transport rules take a very feline approach to moving troops in a combat zone: If they fits, they ships.

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your BT experience. Now what? (Thanks Sartis!)

Martius

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1849
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #20 on: 14 September 2011, 10:13:07 »
Looks very good. I wonder if there will be a section about mass media and propaganda? To be able to put the right spin on certain events would be nice. Perhaps to influence the general popolation to support or rebel against a leader/government.

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6262
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #21 on: 14 September 2011, 10:18:23 »
Colonization....I am guessing expanded explorer corps rules. Lots of fun things that.   I would see a lot of mining groups and Pirates needing these rules.

Colonization would be tricky to handle. Establishing a sizable, useful colony that does something other than digging for one rare mineral is a work of generations, which runs beyond the average campaign length.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9387
  • Just some rando
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #22 on: 14 September 2011, 11:12:06 »
Looks very good. I wonder if there will be a section about mass media and propaganda? To be able to put the right spin on certain events would be nice. Perhaps to influence the general popolation to support or rebel against a leader/government.
mmmm Popular Opinion rules from Operation Stilletto or was it Flashpoint? Anyways, yes that would be nice  [applause]
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24876
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #23 on: 14 September 2011, 11:14:20 »
Colonization would be tricky to handle. Establishing a sizable, useful colony that does something other than digging for one rare mineral is a work of generations, which runs beyond the average campaign length.

Won't a solution to take care of that is to have a preset amount a time the colony was setup prior to the beginning of the campaign?  Perhaps rolling how many decades the colony been around?
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

3rdCrucisLancers

  • SAVAGE
  • Freelance Writer
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 3137
  • Smallest star in the firmament
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #24 on: 14 September 2011, 11:25:24 »
I would strongly suggest that as much fluff or non-rules background as possible be excised for use in roleplaying products or PDF-only releases. I imagine ISO is going to be a beast, and I feel like the more space allowed for all the rules, the better off things will be.
Fighter of the Nightman (ah-ah-ah)
Champion of the Sun (ah-ah-ah)

PurpleDragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #25 on: 14 September 2011, 11:32:12 »
looks like everything I might want.  I assume that force creation rules will cover something like mercenary creation? 

I agree with most of Bad_Syntax's suggestions.  The one thing I don't agree with, however is the "get rid of the c-bill" suggestion as that is what mercenaries are all about.  Many mercenary units can't make it just because they can't generate the c-bill income to maintain their expenditures.  Others just know how to make it work, till they get too big, then they seem to bottom out.  others seem to thrive as a larger unit. 

I love the scaling, but would also like to be able to quickly generate some random results between forces as well. 
« Last Edit: 14 September 2011, 12:01:31 by PurpleDragon »
give a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. 
Set him on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

The secret to winning the land/air battle is that you must always remain rigidly flexible.

I like tabletop more anyway, computer games are for nerds!  -  Knallogfall

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #26 on: 14 September 2011, 13:03:43 »
looks like everything I might want.  I assume that force creation rules will cover something like mercenary creation? 

I agree with most of Bad_Syntax's suggestions.  The one thing I don't agree with, however is the "get rid of the c-bill" suggestion as that is what mercenaries are all about.  Many mercenary units can't make it just because they can't generate the c-bill income to maintain their expenditures.  Others just know how to make it work, till they get too big, then they seem to bottom out.  others seem to thrive as a larger unit. 

I love the scaling, but would also like to be able to quickly generate some random results between forces as well.

RP, or resource points would easily be the motivating factor for mercs.  You could think of it as cash, as its used to do repairs, upgrades, but it isn't generated through taxes or paid for.  When you want a merc unit, you bid the number of RP per year they'd get.  Highest bidder wins.  You could also provide, as a house, technical support, salvage rights, and all sorts of other things that could help offset their costs.  Just don't call it C-Bills please, else fasanomics breaks the entire system down :(

Of course there could be a system for generating C-Bills from RP, or purchasing RP with C-Bills, but having C-Bills get generated by any other means would be insanity.  But the conversions would allow your ATOW mechwarrior to buy stuff worth C-Bills at his local wal-mart-tech.
« Last Edit: 14 September 2011, 13:42:52 by Bad_Syntax »
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Crunch

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #27 on: 14 September 2011, 13:47:17 »
Colonization would be tricky to handle. Establishing a sizable, useful colony that does something other than digging for one rare mineral is a work of generations, which runs beyond the average campaign length.

Unless you play Brithright the Battletech version.

Seriously though I am drooling for this sourcebook.
Quote
It's really, it's a very, very beautiful poem to giant monsters. Giant monsters versus giant robots.
G. Del Toro

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #28 on: 14 September 2011, 14:00:28 »
Unless you play Brithright the Battletech version.

Seriously though I am drooling for this sourcebook.

Birthright...that explains why the House Lords have been in charge so long.  Divine blood!

Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

PurpleDragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #29 on: 14 September 2011, 14:05:30 »

Of course there could be a system for generating C-Bills from RP, or purchasing RP with C-Bills, but having C-Bills get generated by any other means would be insanity.  But the conversions would allow your ATOW mechwarrior to buy stuff worth C-Bills at his local wal-mart-tech.

This "1 RP = (a set number, maybe with a variable die roll or something) C-Bills would be very acceptable to me.  I learned the game with C-bills and house bills, and, since I don't do the Jihad or Dark Ages, is exactly what I would use.  When you go to a RP system, then it starts towards more abastraction. I always looked at it as "You have (insert number) C-Bills worth of resources at your disposal, now what do you want to buy?"

give a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. 
Set him on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

The secret to winning the land/air battle is that you must always remain rigidly flexible.

I like tabletop more anyway, computer games are for nerds!  -  Knallogfall

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #30 on: 14 September 2011, 17:13:37 »
This "1 RP = (a set number, maybe with a variable die roll or something) C-Bills would be very acceptable to me.  I learned the game with C-bills and house bills, and, since I don't do the Jihad or Dark Ages, is exactly what I would use.  When you go to a RP system, then it starts towards more abastraction. I always looked at it as "You have (insert number) C-Bills worth of resources at your disposal, now what do you want to buy?"

Right, in any large scale game the C-Bill amount won't really matter, what'll matter is how much production (supplies, repairs, replacements) you can get to your front line troops (using DS/JS, both of which also are limited).  But, in the off chance you want to run a merc unit within a huge game, and want that kind of detail, it can be broken down to say 1 RP = 5M C-Bills, and then you can simply purchase whatever you need, using what would probably be die roll modifiers to availability so things like a clan ERPPC aren't as common as the machine gun.  The RP are generated purely through "resource rich planets", this makes some planets more valuable, regardless of the civilians living there, and helps drive invasions and strategic maneuvering.  The RPs are used to build things.  You can build supply points (direct conversion I would think) by simply moving those RP to a factory (the movement is essentially what half your dropship fleet does that you don't see or have direct control over).  But, to build those RP's you need techs, those are created at science academies.  Then when you build it you need somebody to pilot it, those are from mechwarrior, aerospace, whatever academies (well really they would come from the training battalions, which if used prematurely prevents some replacements from going to *real* units).  This way everything has easily definable finite limits, and it keeps one side from amassing too much of anything, or sitting back and "turtling" and just building up everything (it would take over a decade to get a new school up and running, and new recruits comming out to replace those retiring at a rate fast enough to increase manpower for example).

If IO doesn't implement a system like this, which they may not, I'll probably end up doing something for the IO similar computer game I'm doing, though I may still include whatever IO rules are created as well.

I've given 10 years of thought to just how to make a game like this work.  I have maps printed at 1 hex = 7.5 LY (1 jump = 4 hexes), created counters for all mech companies/battalions, armor regiments, infantry divisions, dropship squadrons, jumpship flotillas, and warships, and then played them all out.  It would have worked better with a GM though, so we could have double-blind rules for units (necessitating good intelligence!) and order delays.

Great stuff, to me BT *is* IO, the tactical game is a spin off :)
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

cray

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6262
  • How's it sit? Pretty cunning, don't you think?
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #31 on: 14 September 2011, 17:25:23 »
Won't a solution to take care of that is to have a preset amount a time the colony was setup prior to the beginning of the campaign?  Perhaps rolling how many decades the colony been around?

Hmm. Yes, something could be done with that.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer

**"A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything." --Wash, Firefly.
**"Well, the first class name [for pocket WarShips]: 'Ship with delusions of grandeur that is going to evaporate 3.1 seconds after coming into NPPC range' tended to cause morale problems...." --Korzon77
**"Describe the Clans." "Imagine an entire civilization built out of 80’s Ric Flairs, Hulk Hogans, & Macho Man Randy Savages ruling over an entire labor force with Einstein Level Intelligence." --Jake Mikolaitis


Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #32 on: 14 September 2011, 17:28:01 »
Hmm. Yes, something could be done with that.

Maybe it will be less about colonization, and more about finding lost colonizes in the 110,000 worlds that are not on the map?  They could have depots, bases, or be a whole planet people just forgot about.  For the life of me I can't see how even 100 year game is enough to really do any actual colonization.

I guess perhaps if they give the actual year each planet is colonized (pdf supported material?) then during the first few decades of a colony they may have some negative effects or something.  This would allow playing out age of war games maybe?
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #33 on: 15 September 2011, 11:50:03 »
If colonization does end up being a rules chapter, it would be nice if they included (or could at least be co-opted for) merc dependents establishing temporary land-holds on already inhabited worlds.

EDIT:
And I suppose that pirates hiding out on a barren rock would quickly share many concerns with more legitimate colonists.

After going to the archive and actually rereading the old fan suggestion threads, that outline makes a ton more sense. Old outline + summary of fan topics, preliminary to discussing actual direction.
/EDIT
« Last Edit: 15 September 2011, 15:21:28 by skiltao »
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

Gunbunnie

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • My first mech was a...
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #34 on: 15 September 2011, 12:15:41 »
I would like to see a track creation system as well. I can not wait for this to come out.

Daryl
"Artillerymen believe the world consist of two types of people; other Artillerymen and targets."
- Unknown

TheOldGuy

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 261
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #35 on: 15 September 2011, 12:18:52 »
This may be the idea under "Force Creation" but there needs to be a much more effective, comprehensive manner to create large forces.  Having attempted to run the Liao-WoB TP campaign with accurate forces (at least in terms of battlemechs), the process is very slow and convoluted.

nova_dew

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 951
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #36 on: 15 September 2011, 13:18:28 »
@Bad_Syntax If you want RP's why not round the unit c-bill cost to the nearest 1k or 10k what ever and use that I.e Ferret Light scout VTOL 49,681 c-bill or 50RP, you get your abstract units for large formations while the people who like to use c-bills for it can?

Don't get me wrong I don't think you have a bad idea it's just that the equipment costs is already covered in the other books via c-bills, why not just put a side bar in the book saying it is an option to divide the cost by 1k or 10k and round up to make the RP's
A member of Clan Ghost Bears Legal Team

Crunch

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #37 on: 15 September 2011, 13:19:31 »
One question. Will there be any ATOW tie in to the force creation rules?
Quote
It's really, it's a very, very beautiful poem to giant monsters. Giant monsters versus giant robots.
G. Del Toro

Neufeld

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2539
  • Raven, Lyran, Horse, Capellan, Canopian, Bear
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #38 on: 15 September 2011, 14:01:02 »
One question. Will there be any ATOW tie in to the force creation rules?

I hope not. That was annoying regarding the mercenary force creation rules in FM:Mercs Update and FM:Mercs Supplemental. I like the ability to create forces without having to create characters, thanks.


"Real men and women do not need Terra"
-- Grendel Roberts
"
We will be used to subdue the Capellan Confederation. We will be used to bring the Free Worlds League to heel. We will be used to
hunt bandits and support corrupt rulers and to reinforce the evils of the Inner Sphere that drove our ancestors from it so long ago."
-- Elias Crichell

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9387
  • Just some rando
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #39 on: 15 September 2011, 14:50:20 »
I hope not. That was annoying regarding the mercenary force creation rules in FM:Mercs Update and FM:Mercs Supplemental. I like the ability to create forces without having to create characters, thanks.
You weren't forced to create a character exactly, if you wanted you could just select an origin for your merc company's leader and go from there.  I'll have to reread the rules to see where you had to make a RPG character.
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

Blackhorse 6

  • Night Stalker Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1455
  • Uh huh...
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #40 on: 15 September 2011, 19:33:59 »
[copper]

Your input here is give feedback on Randall's blog post.  Personal opinions and thoughts not related to said post is best posted in a different area.   

[copper]

Paul
« Last Edit: 15 September 2011, 19:36:18 by Blackhorse 6 »

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #41 on: 17 September 2011, 09:34:22 »
After thinking a bit on it I think colonization may be less for the big strategic games, and more to describe some of the obstacles to overcome for new colonies.  Things like hostile creatures, viruses, disease, planetary issues that weren't noticed on initial surveys, etc.  It could be really fun for RPG'ers to deal with those obstacles.  Heck, I have fond memories of a custom game a long time ago where we used genestealer miniatures against mechs.  Basically the genestealers were really large hostile organisms, and even mechs had a tough time with them.

The movie Pitch Black is a great example of what could happen too.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

BlackAce

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 313
  • Wielder of the Holy Heavy Bolter of Bethlehem
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #42 on: 17 September 2011, 09:52:57 »
*Cough* Needs a Master Warship List table in the back. *Cough*

Would save me some work, at least!  :D
Delivered from the blast,
Last of a line of lasts,
The pale princess of a palace cracked.
And now the kingdom comes;
crashing down undone,
And I am a master of a nothing place,
Of recoil and grace.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #43 on: 17 September 2011, 10:19:11 »
*Cough* Needs a Master Warship List table in the back. *Cough*

Would save me some work, at least!  :D

The problem with publishing stuff like that, just like the random unit tables in TW, is that pretty much immediately it is obsolete and prone to error.  Many users hate detail, and complain about naming things, counting things, or having too much detail.  I fear the warship lists/counts have to fall into that category.  However, for the longest time I've thought that these sorts of details in such a vast universe need an online database, kinda like sarna, but a bit more masterunitlist formatted.  This way you could simply find a warship by all sorts of criteria.  The page that comes up tells you when it was started, when it was finished, what battles it participated in, who built it, named captains, when it was mothballed, when it was destroyed, when it was upgraded, etc, etc.

Having such data means if you need information on a warship, either as a writer or a player, it is quickly and easily accessible, 100% accurate to date, and the list can be kept updated as new books come out, in fact being released on the same day.

I have the technical know-how to do such a thing, the time to implement it and keep it updated, no desire for any reimbursement, but TPTB don't like me much for my outspoken comments on what I feel is a lack of attention to detail on the products (even though I offer to help rectify it), so it'll never happen :)

I'll be happy to download your list when you finish putting it together ;)
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Werewolf

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 179
  • CWN ANNWN
    • Thomas S. Wolf - Portfolio
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #44 on: 17 September 2011, 13:55:16 »
As I am still as much into mercs and number crunching when it comes to dependents etc (like I was back then when input for the Mercs Supplemental Update was asked for),
I'm all ears for any info on how this will be handled this time during/after force creation.
Most of all, I wonder whether there's space to deal with things like "C-bill / resource point cost" for temporary encampments, forts, occupying Castle Brians, or even building new ones,
all under the aspect of getting a housing for the troops, their dependents and all machinery.

Alas, what also comes to my mind while writing the words "Castle Brian", is the question whether the rules for alternate eras will encompass the possibility to create a Hegemony,
or SLDF force too, much like was possible thanks to the rules given in Mercs Supplemental II...

Of course, as an avid AToW player, I also wonder whether it will be fully compatible and intermeshable /w AToW (without restricting non-AToW gamers to using RPG rules, of course)...

Apart from those, I'm anxious about what's coming. :) Reads good so far. :)
Cpt. Samoth Ze'ev
Unit: CŴN ANNWN, Spectre Company, Command Lance
'Mech: PKP-!A Peacekeeper

Charlie 6

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2089
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #45 on: 17 September 2011, 18:26:16 »
Sometimes I don't think TPTB get enough credit for letting us see behind the curtain and comment.  I appreciate it.

I find it interesting that “Chains of Command”, “Logistics/Supplies”, and “Communication/Intelligence” are captured under “General Rules” rather than as a subset of “Creating A Force”.  Along with fires, maneuver, and force protection the ToC essentially outlines elements every force must be capable of executing in day to day operations and as abstract concepts they define the general capabilities of a force.  Perhaps these topics are covered under “Creating a Force” and “Running a Force” and the “General Rules” are meant to cover in-game impacts on them.

I would be also interested to see if ISO is planning to cover the concepts of ‘crew day’ and embarkation.  The former constrains a player to only doing so much during a specific period of time (e.g.  a fighter squadron can only put so many planes up for a specific period of time).  The latter will expose some of the dropship-jumpship-organizational conundrums that have part and parcel to TROs and FMs.

S/F

Matt

Minerva

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #46 on: 18 September 2011, 03:55:26 »
After looking through the outline I got following issues from game design stand point:

1) There should be, if at all possible, two levels for rules:
-Easy/basic rule to do something with relatively few die rolls
-Advanced rules to really get into details.

This approach allows players to mix and use those rules that are interesting to them and drop what is not.

Second issue from game design standpoint is to answer a question: Is this a rule set for running strategic level invasions and defenses or is this a game where you rule your own noble house? I think the answer is former and Universe book is the latter. The outline currently makes little sense and satisfies neither.

TOC/Credits
Book Introduction

These are necessary for book organization standpoint.

Creating A Force
Running A Force

These were originally written in various Mercenary's Handbook style products. Division of these issues to two chapters is acceptable. However, the new rules must support not just mercenaries but also build-up and running of House, Noble, Clan, Corporate and Pirate forces. Additional material, such as rulers for installations are probably lifted from various Marcenaries Supplements. Here I strongly suggest to make installations far more expensive than they now are. I also hope you make maintenance requirements of units far higher than they now stand.

Alterante Eras

I expect some professionalism from a gaming company. However, this is most probably based on rules found in Mercenaries Supplemental II.

Solar System Construction Rules

We saw these originally in Explorer Corps. These rules come with two main approaches: Either you assume you have a main planet (that is habitable) or you do not (and just determine what kind of system it is). I strongly urge from gaming standpoint to have both approaches. It would also be good to have rules to draw continents (something design rules generally seem to forget).

General Rules
    Campaign Play
    Economy/Infrastructure
    Chains of Command
    Logistics/Supplies
    Electronic Warfare
    Factions
    Maintenance, Salvage, Repair, and Customization
    Communications/Intelligence
    Personalities/Nobility
    Space Travel
    Colonization
    Random Encounters
    Misc.
    Supporting PDF-only Material

So far all BattleTech games been scenarios with no serious support to campaign play (for 25 years). It is impossible to comment on these as outline did not include issues like scale, turn lengths or unit sizes. I expect this to be collection of existing hodge-podge rules from wide variety of sources like campaign rules of MechWarrior RPGs. The colonization and infrastucture goes beyond regular military campaigns but they are important in generational and dynastic levels.

Strategic BattleForce
Planetary Assault

Strategic Operations allready have first half of BattleForce 2 rules. Thus it is only logical that the rest (Planetary Assault rules plus Integration and Campaigns appeandixes of BattleForce 2) go here. The existing rule set was very badly organized so rearranging material and updating unit types and adding few extras here and there is vital.

Inner Sphere At War

I look at them and ponder if these are the infamous "The Inner Sphere in Flames" rules of BattleTech Companion or just discussion of where and when IS is in war and should these ISIF rules be actually backpedalled to Universe book (where I would keep them)?

Scaling Rules

This is boring but necessary part when existing or created force structures are changed to different era and/or scale.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #47 on: 18 September 2011, 11:49:39 »
If you go through combat operations, it really appears that most of the pieces in there (minus the construction) will be mirrored, updated, and detailed out in IO.

That includes force creation, operational stuff, ISIF ro the Strategic Game, etc.  I think they are including a lot of rules from the merc field manuals for creating/running a mercenary force, though with the amount of detail needed there I'd much rather that just be another sourcebook later that *really* detailed everything out, gave some easy to use strategic rules like the first merc book, and really dove into how you run a mercenary unit, how you create it, where you get your forces, how each faction treats you, etc.  If they try to have all that merc stuff in IO, I think it could restrict the size of many of the other chunks.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

PurpleDragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #48 on: 18 September 2011, 21:03:44 »
If you go through combat operations, it really appears that most of the pieces in there (minus the construction) will be mirrored, updated, and detailed out in IO.

That includes force creation, operational stuff, ISIF ro the Strategic Game, etc.  I think they are including a lot of rules from the merc field manuals for creating/running a mercenary force, though with the amount of detail needed there I'd much rather that just be another sourcebook later that *really* detailed everything out, gave some easy to use strategic rules like the first merc book, and really dove into how you run a mercenary unit, how you create it, where you get your forces, how each faction treats you, etc.  If they try to have all that merc stuff in IO, I think it could restrict the size of many of the other chunks.

I'm not sure, but I don't think they plan on doing another merc handbook type sourcebook.  I, for one, would be rather put out if they were to drop the ability to create/run mercs in game.  Especially if they are trying to set it up for multi-era use. 
give a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. 
Set him on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

The secret to winning the land/air battle is that you must always remain rigidly flexible.

I like tabletop more anyway, computer games are for nerds!  -  Knallogfall

Minerva

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #49 on: 19 September 2011, 05:20:19 »
I see current strategy being that all rules are published in core rules books. My logic is that this allows reprinting core rule books (almost certainly best selling part of game) with changes and additional rules whenever necessary to update material. So far a lot of IO seems to be update of old material so interest in buying public will be in campaign rules and especially unit creation/running. With so much time from last Mercenary's handbook I see it logical to put focus on these rules.

I personally think that the outline is now so poorly described that any real discussion what it is and what it should contain must really wait for further blog postings.

Ghost0402

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1267
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #50 on: 19 September 2011, 13:21:01 »
I love it.  My only question revolves around the Creating a Force and Running a Force.  Will these be updated rules similar in nature to the system introduced in FM: Mercenaries, or something completely new?  Those merc rules were a pretty nice way to set up a force and it's interactions with the universe then go off and raid to your hearts content.  They weren't perfect, but they were a really nice framework to build and then contract out a force.
"Kiss my hairy ass Falcon,"  Star Colonel Onyx,  17th Wolf Regulars Cluster, Clan Wolf  Wars of Reaving.

RacerX

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 185
    • Royal Terra Guard - MWO Home
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #51 on: 19 September 2011, 20:29:28 »
And where do the promised LAM rules fit into the outline?

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #52 on: 19 September 2011, 21:14:25 »
And where do the promised LAM rules fit into the outline?

3075 print edition, so technically they already exist and IMO, work pretty darned well :)  Not sure they need reprinted in IO, though they may want a consolidated rule book every 5 years or so with new rules that appear in all sorts of books (like ultra heavy protos for example)
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Dread Moores

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2201
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #53 on: 19 September 2011, 22:02:31 »
3075 print edition, so technically they already exist and IMO, work pretty darned well :)  Not sure they need reprinted in IO, though they may want a consolidated rule book every 5 years or so with new rules that appear in all sorts of books (like ultra heavy protos for example)

I believe the OP means the LAM construction rules. Prior blog posts mentioned that they would be handled under the Alternate Era Rules.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #54 on: 21 September 2011, 00:27:28 »
http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=blog&blog=BattleBlog

Ugh, units will have combat ranges, on 250km maps?!?!?!?

And damage "absorption"??? Guess we have shields now?  You can't ignore damage against units, it isn't like a machine gun against an M1, every single damage point is *persistent*, and requires repair time, techs, and supplies to fix.

Not liking what I'm seeing :(  Not like we've seen any official words on all this input that was requested of us tho :(
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Devens

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 826
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #55 on: 21 September 2011, 07:12:48 »
http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=blog&blog=BattleBlog
Ugh, units will have combat ranges, on 250km maps?!?!?!?

Having ranges on a 250km map scale will strech "willfull suspension of Disbeleif"(A key component of all our games we play) beyoned the breaking point when you have such short ranges on the 30m maps of the standard game.  I wont be playing with those rules.  Also, at 250km scale we are well beyond the scale of battletech units and into WWII Operation Barbarosa scale such that an individual mini would represent a Division or Corps.   

http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=blog&blog=BattleBlog
And damage "absorption"??? Guess we have shields now?  You can't ignore damage against units, it isn't like a machine gun against an M1, every single damage point is *persistent*, and requires repair time, techs, and supplies to fix.

At a 250m scale your prabably running entire regiments or battalions as individual mini's.  Though I would argue that at that scale a 3-5 Division Corps per mini would be more appropriate.  Damage absorption is prabably an abstract replacement for the Armor system at that scale.  This one is a Wait and see its overall actual effect type deal as it may be just fine and I dont know about you but I dont wanna have to mark off damage on 501ish record sheets every single combat rounds to resolve the damage done to a Typical RCT.( I assume 1 Company per infantry record sheet)

Sometimes I don't think TPTB get enough credit for letting us see behind the curtain and comment.  I appreciate it.

I find it interesting that “Chains of Command”, “Logistics/Supplies”, and “Communication/Intelligence” are captured under “General Rules” rather than as a subset of “Creating A Force”.  Along with fires, maneuver, and force protection the ToC essentially outlines elements every force must be capable of executing in day to day operations and as abstract concepts they define the general capabilities of a force.  Perhaps these topics are covered under “Creating a Force” and “Running a Force” and the “General Rules” are meant to cover in-game impacts on them.

I would be also interested to see if ISO is planning to cover the concepts of ‘crew day’ and embarkation.  The former constrains a player to only doing so much during a specific period of time (e.g.  a fighter squadron can only put so many planes up for a specific period of time).  The latter will expose some of the dropship-jumpship-organizational conundrums that have part and parcel to TROs and FMs.

S/F

Matt

This has my curiosity also.  It is nice to see them finally covering Logistice/Supply, Chain of Command, and Intelligence/Communications in game play.
« Last Edit: 21 September 2011, 07:18:05 by Devens »

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #56 on: 21 September 2011, 08:55:17 »
http://www.classicbattletech.com/index.php?action=blog&blog=BattleBlog

Ugh, units will have combat ranges, on 250km maps?!?!?!?

And damage "absorption"??? Guess we have shields now?  You can't ignore damage against units, it isn't like a machine gun against an M1, every single damage point is *persistent*, and requires repair time, techs, and supplies to fix.

Not liking what I'm seeing :(  Not like we've seen any official words on all this input that was requested of us tho :(

I don't see anywhere where they say what their decision has been, only spelling out the issues.  "range, even as an abstraction".   Why can't you just ignore range?  I can think of one reason, machine guns.  Imagine BattleForce stats conversion that ignored range....  So yes, range has to be in the somewhere.  Just how I don't see answered yet.

Damage "absorption".   Armor in battletech means you ignore any other effects until the armor is gone.  Armor absorbs damage until there is no armor left.  It's not Warhammer "saves" where armor ignores the damage completely when it works, or D&D where armor prevents a unit from being hit and doesn't ever "run out".   So a large-scale Battletech "unit" has some capability, through armor, to absorb damage up to a certain point before bad things start happening.  Therefore a damage absorption rating?   Assuming stuff like Forced Withdrawal (or the force ignoring forced withdrawal) would also change it's ability to absorb damage, even for the same amount of armor. (Note, I have no idea what's going on beyond what's posted in the blogs either, I'm just giving possibilities for what I think it might mean.)
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

BrokenMnemonic

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1447
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #57 on: 21 September 2011, 09:14:56 »
At the scale the IO maps seem to be talking about, I think the idea of "range" is more likely to be an abstract representation of "the area over which a unit can meaningfully project force within the timeframe of a turn" rather than something simply mechanical like the range of individual weapons. If a game turn is a day, a week, or an even longer period of time, I think ranges become less a "how far can my weapons shoot?" issue.

I don't have much of an issue with damage absorption either, because assuming again that the scale of these games are going to be pretty huge, "damage absorption" sounds like the quantity of damage that's not worth reporting because a unit's organic tech support/supplies will be able to mitigate that damage through quick repairs within the period of time given as a game turn. Actual damge could easily be a reflection of the erosion of a unit's ability to project force - how many 'Mechs does a Brigade have to lose in a single turn to seriously erode it's ability to project force over an area? Either you end up with a lot of book-keeping, or an abstract system that says that a unit can simply ignore a certain amount of damage because within that unit will be spare 'Mechs/bulk supplies/tech support to generate a certain constant level of operational availability, and that it's this constant level of operational availability you're seeing in the stats for that unit. If you assume that a formation has 20% of it's mechanical assets undergoing repair, servicing and maintenance at any given time even on operations, then it effectively already has a certain amount of capacity to soak damage before the actual operational effectiveness of that unit is eroded - and if we're talking big games with abstract rules for supply and logistics, then it's probably easier to talk about a level of damage absorption to reflect constant replenishment from unit stores and the supply chain rather than to generate a lot of mechanics related to moving equipment around to deal with light damage.

It's more interesting than optimal, and therefore better. O0 - Weirdo

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #58 on: 21 September 2011, 22:58:04 »
Well units have the following stats:
•Combat Morale (In Game Play)
•Combat Fatigue (In Game Play)
•Combat Morale and Fatigue (Outside of Game Play)
•Damage Absorption
•Defensive Rating
•Damage Rating
•Range
•Experience Rating
•Leadership

Though I abhor the thought of tracking, on paper, the morale and fatigue of 500+ regiments, it'd be awesome with counters, and I welcome the detail.

We have both damage rating, which I presume is more like the attack, defensive, which I guess is how hard it is to damage that unit (faster units its higher, much like BF), I think absorption would be the same as "armor" basically,  I guess its just the way it was termed.  Offense/Defense/Damage would make a bit more sense, or Attack/Defense/Mobility maybe.

But Range, ugh, there is just no way that can be a good thing to have, when each hex is FIVE HUNDRED mapbaords.  Not even artillery can go over 1 hex.  Its insane.  Mobility would make so much more sense, give units a strategic movement, which should be about a 1:3 ratio (though I'd say 1:4, as some things may obstruct movement and not really be on a strategic map).  This would mean a Locust could move 3 hexes, an Atlas 1, THAT is how range should be done, not both units moving X, but one gets to fire farther.  Maybe the "range" is abstract, it isn't like we have much to go on, and in fact would mean more of an area of effect based on movement than a weapon range, though the text really seems to indicate this is range.

And what is funny is they say how games that divulge from that don't sell, yet use battleforce 1 as an example, which DID have range, movement, and alternating combat!  The reason IMO it didn't sell is the game kinda sucked, the mechanics were broken, and the playing pieces were crazy silly. 

The simple fact is IO *should* play differently, just as 1:300 micro armor with a tiger vs a sherman plays differently than Europa where each counter is a division.  There is simply no strategic game out there that gives units ranges, and there is a reason for that.  Implementing it in IO at a 250km per hex scale will make IO fail completely IMO, as the battles will in no way match the battles published in the hundred or so BT books, it just won't match up, and it'll be silly.

May as well just do the GDW Command Decision or Corps Commander thing, and just say each mech is really a battalion or regiment, and you play it just like you would a single mech, but each kill is really "36 kills" or whatever, but if you do that you may as well just keep the BF rules.

Ugh, not sure why, when they ask for feedback, they don't seem to be very active in here :(
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #59 on: 21 September 2011, 23:23:06 »
Ugh, not sure why, when they ask for feedback, they don't seem to be very active in here :(

It's feedback, not feed back and forth.  Randall said his bit, the fans give their feedback. 

As for Range, all we know is there's a stat.  Nowhere did it say it meant range in hexes.  I've already given one way range could be used that has nothing to do with hexes on a map.  I've also pointed out at least one reason you can't just ignore range (whether there's an acutal stat for range or not).

Another possible use for Range.  L/M/S.  When dealing damage, first phase only range L units do damage, second phase long or medium, third phase everybody. 

Again, has nothing to do with hexes on a map.  Abstract.

Much better than saying a regiment of assault mechs with nothing but machine guns is the best thing?

You even gave your own alternative, where range = movement.   I don't think that solves the machine gun problem, but shows where range can mean lots of things.  Range of aerospace is often given as how far fuel wil get them?
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Minerva

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #60 on: 22 September 2011, 06:48:01 »
The scales have now been decided to be following:
1 Mech = 10 seconds = 30 meters
4 Mechs = 30 seconds = 90 meters
12 Mechs = 3 minutes = 500 meters
Battalion = 24 hours = 250 kilometers
Regiment = 1 week per combat phase = system (10 light-years)

The 250 km hex is obvious response to horribly badly designed planetary assault rules. That system had very coarse hex size (about 1500 km) which made mobility differences between units essentially meaningless (light and assault mech companies would meet each other within a turn in a continent).

The 250 km gives more room to maneuver which gives light units more difference. Ofcourse, the real deal here is the question of logistics. In realistic setting all Mech units strategically march the same speed as vehicle units because their logistic tails (with maintenance) move at roughly same pace.

I think that 250 km hex is bad range scale for battalion sized formations. I also find idea of abstracted range (even if it describes ability to have effect on surrounding area) misplaced at this scale.

Obvious solution is either cut down scale to more manageable scale (perhaps 25 to 50 km) or simply divide the combat to multiple steps within same hex.

Typical example would be Campaign in North Africa that had rather excellent system of dividing the combat to bombardment, maneuver and close assault phases. The idea was that attacker could always call off next phase if one thought that assault was not going on too well.

In essense the first roll set how well supporting arms delivered fire. The second roll determined how well armoured maneuver formations would slug it out with anti vehicle units and themselves and establish the control on maneuvering in area. Finally the third would determine if infantry could take over the complex terrain and get control of region (with aid of winning side of armoured units).

Alternative systems concentrating more on maneuver could concentrate on setting a scouting, skirmish and finally determining battle phases depending on commanders and units' aggression and type (tactical maneuverability).

To me the most interesting idea was attempt to keep BattleTech rule system intact in different scales. The initiative determination and alternative turns are something that works much slower than IGO-YOUGO at strategic scale games. Then again there is a point that so far any FASA rule set other than BattleTech has been a (sales) failure.

Combat Morale (In Game Play)
Combat Fatigue (In Game Play)
Combat Morale and Fatigue (Outside of Game Play)
Damage Absorption
Defensive Rating
Damage Rating
Range
Experience Rating
Leadership

The hard "Core Stats" appear relatively common sense (attack strength, protective value and ability to withstand punishment) outside range (unless range works as part of unit mobility/reaction ability in a multistepped combat at higher levels). The soft "X factors" (morale, fatique, experience and leadership) are workable concepts. Fatigue is important but it is often a sink stat. If it is so then it works as best as a optional rule.

Coriendal

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 262
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #61 on: 22 September 2011, 07:14:11 »
And where do the promised LAM rules fit into the outline?

September 29, 2009

.... because comprehensive rules for LAMs are done and will be included in the Alternate Eras section of Interstellar Operations

I saw this asked earlier and found the answer in the Battleblog.

PurpleDragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #62 on: 22 September 2011, 09:33:23 »
I had been working on my own system wherein maneuvre and range were factors used on a table that determined how many shots were made/hit random target number (whichever unit was involved in the combat). 

That might explain the weapons ranges at 250 km per hex. 
give a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. 
Set him on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

The secret to winning the land/air battle is that you must always remain rigidly flexible.

I like tabletop more anyway, computer games are for nerds!  -  Knallogfall

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #63 on: 22 September 2011, 15:19:44 »

Where is contracting? Or auxiliary forces?


Imagine that you have a force and you desperately need more units, however you don't have the infrastructure to create these units, so you need to hire mercenary units or pay an ally to help you.

However in certain circumstances they can turn on you or go rogue.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Martius

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1849
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #64 on: 23 September 2011, 01:16:08 »
First- I never read the term 'Weapon Range' in Randall's Blog, so I guess range meins how far a unit might proceed before refulling/recharging/whatever.

What I am missing is a stat for loyality. Even troops with low morale might be loyal- they might run away and hide but not turn against their Duke. Of course this stat/effect could be included in Moral of course.

What about overall 'health'? How well fed the unit is, if it suffers from some Society gene plangue or just the flue. Are the soldiers radiated? Poisoned? All this conditions lower effectiveness or vulnerability to certain types of attacks (like people who feel sick and vomit a lot won't don their breather masks with much joy making them more vulnerable against following attacks) but the unit can still put up a fight.


Devens

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 826
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #65 on: 23 September 2011, 07:21:00 »
First- I never read the term 'Weapon Range' in Randall's Blog, so I guess range meins how far a unit might proceed before refulling/recharging/whatever.

They were talking about maintaining the Standard Battletech Feel, I think its safe to assume its weapon ranges.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #66 on: 23 September 2011, 07:52:49 »
They were talking about maintaining the Standard Battletech Feel, I think its safe to assume its weapon ranges.

They also said abstract, which I think it's safe to assume won't mean hexes on a map?
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Martius

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1849
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #67 on: 23 September 2011, 11:05:24 »
They were talking about maintaining the Standard Battletech Feel, I think its safe to assume its weapon ranges.

Range in the BT boardgame is not Weapon Range only. There is also each units movement range the fuel points of ASFs that give them range and TacOps StratOps introduce this operational range for other units as well.

In most games range means only how far may a unit be away from another unit to do stuff. Weapon ranges are only a minor part of it.

BT breaks down each turn into several phases, first there is movement, then attack, ect. So you got movement range and weapon range.

Range can be simulated by number of hexes, or by the unit with the greater range inflicting damage first or/and being able to strike more often.

Anyway, I digress....  ;)

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #68 on: 23 September 2011, 16:29:23 »
Apropos of nothing: every so often, I see players ask how to generate opposing forces for their mercs. "Use the fluff" is a common response, but I don't think the merc Field Manuals have said much on the topic. (For what it's worth, in the past I've suggested rolling again on the Employer table to get your enemy or mission area and then roll again on the Mission Type table to see what the enemy's activity is.)

Not like we've seen any official words on all this input that was requested of us tho :(

The blog didn't actually request additional feedback. (Though considering that Chunga separated this thread from the discussion threads, I hope that Randall *is* looking for feedback.) What the blog did say is that they had already asked for input in the past and would again in the future. The current series of blogs seems intended to give us a more transparent view of the Developers' thought processes.
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37046
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #69 on: 24 September 2011, 17:13:33 »
Back on the old board, I had asked about non-self destructive VTOL capability for aerodyne small craft (specifically in regards to the Mark VII Landing Craft).  At the time, Welshman indicated the fix might be included in a forthcoming product.  Is there any chance the "Maintenance, Salvage, Repair, and Customization" section will have the necessary gear?

And for some positive feedback: I look forward to the LAM construction rules in the Alternate Era section.

Minerva

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #70 on: 25 September 2011, 00:47:04 »
There are two ways you can implement range in strategic level campaigns if you wish to give unit type multiple level capabilities.
1) Ground unit has range which is distance from main base it can function.
2) Air unit has range it can strike from its fixed base.

Beyond these two values the range gets awfully difficult to implement unless you have multiple step combat (see before my post on subject).


Martius

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1849
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #71 on: 04 October 2011, 14:59:53 »
Loyality is handled in a rather interesting way and the modifiers make sense. Lets see:


A Fanatical Leader takes command of a green militia on a backwater planet-  something happening in the fiction quite often (think Grayson Death Carlyle doing what he does best  :D or Nie Then Do(sp?) and the Arcade Rangers ect.)

Location Roll 1 Backwater Region

Leader Roll 12; Modifier -1 giving 11 for a Fanatical leader

Training Roll 2; Modifier +2 giving 4 for Militia

Force Loyality Roll 10 -1 fom being green as grass and another -1 for being Militia and we get an 8, meaning the Force is reliable.

Sounds good.  ;)

I hope I got the number right as I admit I should be sleeping already.....


St.George

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1184
  • there's nowhere to run
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #72 on: 04 November 2011, 04:48:23 »
Not to throw peeps off the subject,,,but is this "book" out yet?guessing that the rules set in the back of ComOp's(ISiF) was to be addressed in the InterOp's...Would like to find,as the ol'vets that play(local)are expanding their game exp to higher lvl's(Hella'Kewl),,,,Buelher,,,anyone?,,,,anyone?
"Smoke em' if ya got em' boys,,,We're goin' in"

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #73 on: 04 November 2011, 07:20:44 »
Not to throw peeps off the subject,,,but is this "book" out yet?

Nope.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24876
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #74 on: 23 November 2011, 13:16:07 »
I hope there will be a consideration about putting some of IO's content in perhaps a box form of some kind.  This thing is more a board game if anything else and needs something more physical.  I realize the economic restraints in being able to do this, but something more physical or printable will be needed.  Such as generic ICON Pieces and maps like Succession Wars.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9387
  • Just some rando
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #75 on: 23 November 2011, 13:23:53 »
Neg, I'm scared if they ever do this as a boxed set.  Consider the logistical nightmare the normal boxed set has experienced, if IO ever went box my grandchildren would be asking if it is released yet.
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

Nerroth

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2589
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #76 on: 03 February 2012, 17:30:39 »
I'd love to see this game become a counter/map based game, but doing my own metrics means that even with a 10 LY per hex scale, your talking about a map 6' across (not including clans) and filled full of thousands of counters.  Federation and Empire by StarfleetGames does this, and its a great game, and I have tens of thousands of counters for it, but I kidna think that is probably out of scope a bit.... but would love to be wrong :)

Bear in mind that Federation and Empire has its ins and outs in terms of what kind of economic and military details it presents.

Yes, there are plenty of on (and off-)map planets in the various provinces, but only the major and minor industrial worlds that have a notable impact on the strategic level (such as Earth, Mars and Vulcan) are specifically designated as locations in their own right. (And even in the case of most multi-planet capital hexes, no more than a fraction of minor/majors would be in the same star system.)

Plus from a military perspective, F&E treats each naval warship as a single unit (especially now in the 2010 edition, where the old carrier group counters have been divided up) but ground-combat regiments are more heavily abstracted, as are fighters and PFs.

Of course, that still makes larger operations (like the General War grand campaign, or the recently-published ISC Pacification) a lot of effort to set up and play; but depending on the scaling used, it could still be manageable for those willing to give it a proper go.

That said, you needn't have to dive into larger campaigns right off the bat. Presumably, the kind of smaller-scale operations that will be in F&E Civil Wars would be echoed here by, say, offering an introductory scenario looking at one of the conflicts mentioned in Historical: Brush Wars; or perhaps something more along the lines of Operation KLONDIKE for would-be Clan strategists (and maybe even SABLE SUN, to let them practice their WarShip deployments before making planetfall in the Pentagon worlds).
« Last Edit: 03 February 2012, 17:40:53 by Nerroth »

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #77 on: 03 February 2012, 18:41:08 »
Bear in mind that Federation and Empire has its ins and outs in terms of what kind of economic and military details it presents.

Yes, there are plenty of on (and off-)map planets in the various provinces, but only the major and minor industrial worlds that have a notable impact on the strategic level (such as Earth, Mars and Vulcan) are specifically designated as locations in their own right. (And even in the case of most multi-planet capital hexes, no more than a fraction of minor/majors would be in the same star system.)

Plus from a military perspective, F&E treats each naval warship as a single unit (especially now in the 2010 edition, where the old carrier group counters have been divided up) but ground-combat regiments are more heavily abstracted, as are fighters and PFs.

Of course, that still makes larger operations (like the General War grand campaign, or the recently-published ISC Pacification) a lot of effort to set up and play; but depending on the scaling used, it could still be manageable for those willing to give it a proper go.

That said, you needn't have to dive into larger campaigns right off the bat. Presumably, the kind of smaller-scale operations that will be in F&E Civil Wars would be echoed here by, say, offering an introductory scenario looking at one of the conflicts mentioned in Historical: Brush Wars; or perhaps something more along the lines of Operation KLONDIKE for would-be Clan strategists (and maybe even SABLE SUN, to let them practice their WarShip deployments before making planetfall in the Pentagon worlds).

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that TPTB don't tend to go all out with detail and I"m pretty darned sure wouldn't want that, and I don't know sales figures of BT compared to counter games to see if there is a whole other audience out there (I suspect there is based on prices and #s of new counter type products, but may not be enough to justify to TPTB). 

The issue is though, if they make a system that is only for smaller regions of space, it will most likely break down if you want to do the entire inner sphere.  If they do something grand enough for the inner sphere, the detail will be so lacking that your merc company will be a meaningless number (if it even qualifies as a number).

Initially, I was thinking:
1 counter per Warship
1 counter per 3-6 jumpships (12 dropship capacity, can have a "pony express" counter with a # to signify the # of jumps the counter can handle)
1 counter per dozen dropships (various types, troop/assault or carrier/mech/cargo)
1 counter per mech battalion, with some mech companies represented
Maybe 100 counters per faction for leaders and special characters
1 counter per armor regiment, infantry brigade, attillery battalion, BA battalion, etc, again with some smaller units represented
Then you have some counters for factories... that is a couple thousand right there, and though the JS/DS factored GREAT (c100 JS and c100 DS counters per house in 3025, though I assumed 50% were merchants and not represented by counters) until SO multiplied those numbers by 10 or more, completely breaking down the fact that jumpships are rare and hard to find when you need them, and destroying dozens of pages of text on the 4th SW/privateering/etc/etc.

Now the big issue ended up how to track those units.  If you want pure counters, you need a counters for fatigue and supplies at least, if not other ones for morale and experience.  You'd need counters for damage, maybe counters for leaders.  If you say put a mech RCT or so on a business card sized piece of paper, you can have circles to represent all that, saving a LOT of counters needed and making units VERY easy to have 1 "card" per era, per unit, easy to swap between players for mercs, etc, etc.  If you want pure counters your talking thousands right there.

And finally you have intelligence type stuff.  If its tracked via paper great, no counters, but it also destroys any chance of psyching out the enemy.  I thought of having a set # of counters you can get each turn (maybe 100 per house at most) that could be used, plus lots of decoy counters to throw off the trail.  The counters would be generated at intelligence facilities, and could be placed on worlds to gain intelligence, create uprisings, assassinate leaders, all that stuff in ISIF and some more.  The decoys could let you play mind games with your opponent.

And then there are systems.  You pretty much have to be able to track ownership by counters, unless you sell everybody a blank IS map on laminate, and then provide a list of hexes where borders are for each era (not horrible, but not a pretty map either, though since many systems didn't chance hands it could be mostly colored), you would have to have hundreds of counters per faction to show who owns what systems.  AND, if you actually detail out systems at all (VERY unlikely), you'd also have to have counters saying things like "HPG destroyed", "Recharge Station Built @ Nadir Point", or whatever.

Now, if *I* had the money, and *I* was in charge of this, I would do a 100% counter game, but release it as modules.  The base module is say 3025, with military units only.  Then you'd add an intelligence module, with all those counters/rules.  Then add a supply/logistics module, then factory/production module, and so on.  Probably be 5-10 modules, each with a few hundred to a few thousand counters, each with a different map, each costing $60 or so.  Mirror F&E in that respect.  If you want to play it ALL sure, knock yourself out!  If you don't care about logistics completely leave that module out.  Combat could even be easy/detailed, allowing people to play out a campaign focusing on intelligence, that could tie into ATOW.  A political module, a "what if" module (or more), some special unit modules, the clan module, etc, etc.  Plus, you'd have a module for each war (or even each border).  Build it right and you can fight from 2596 through 3120 with the same system, and have similar results.

Regardless of what TPTB do, I am going to attempt to convert it into a computer game.  While I want to see IO out, well, a before Total Warfare, I kinda hope it doesn't come out till December as I am running for congress, expect (and hope) to loose in November, and really don't need that distracting me :)

If anybody is interested, I actually have tons of excel spreadsheets with thoughts and dynamics on how I've thought this would work.  Its been a side project of mine for like 10 years now, and I've worked through a LOT of issues.  The only thing preventing me from finishing it was a lack of 100% data for any particular year (we have that now for 3085, woohoo!), and I just haven't been sure to make it hex/counter or computer, and have a hard time sticking with it long enough to just do one or the other.  I've even done up those business card like things I mentioned.  Anyway, if anybody wants to see some of that and discuss it I'd be more than happy to, though not so much within the forums as PM's and regular old email.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

PurpleDragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #78 on: 05 February 2012, 17:25:57 »
what if instead of counters, they used templates that allowed you to create the counters you needed?  Just a thought I had while reading Bad-Syntax's post. 
give a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. 
Set him on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

The secret to winning the land/air battle is that you must always remain rigidly flexible.

I like tabletop more anyway, computer games are for nerds!  -  Knallogfall

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #79 on: 05 February 2012, 19:07:35 »
what if instead of counters, they used templates that allowed you to create the counters you needed?  Just a thought I had while reading Bad-Syntax's post.

That is possible, in fact I wrote most of a counter creation program using the SO stats (though there are some issues with combining lots of abilities that broke it, but basic stuff worked).

BUT, for those of you that have ever tried to print up .5" counters, well, it really just doesn't work too well.  No paper you can get on a laser/inkjet printer can handle think enough paper that you can actually pick up with your fingers, so you have to glue lots of paper together (plus front/backs).  Add that to cutting up all the counters and it ends up being a *LOT* of work, and just not real feasible for a game with a very large map and thousands of counters, when your space maps look like http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic285852_md.jpg it ends up being pretty hard to manage.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

DirewolfV.

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 181
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #80 on: 12 February 2012, 15:45:51 »
I think the most important part will be getting the economy right. For that you will likely have to make it multi-faceted. You don't want players winning just because they are able to pump out thousands of Savannha masters for everything else the enemy throws at them. You also don't want them producing nothing but XXL or XL Mechs because cost has become an irrelevant factor. You don't want them making nothing but light mechs and jump ships and drop ships, because heavier models take too long to produce, but you don't want them winning too easily with the opposite extreme either- i.e. production time is such a non-factor that everyone just produces the largest jump ships possible. At the same time you want to make the rules flexible enough to allow for a variety of gameplay options (i.e. you don't want everyone just making medium weight Mechs, and vehicles, and drop ships and jump ships because medium is the most efficient economically) and on top of that- you have to make the economics in a way so that it makes the actual battletech universe plausible i.e. you don't want the economics so that the actual unit/regiment compositions of the various factions makes zero sense.

Last, you don't want to solve these problems with deus ex machina's i.e. "Just make artificial rules among the group to make spamming impossible" because if you do that, you may as well not make any rules for the economy at all. You'll need a systemic way of doing this, while avoiding exploits, which is going to be very, very difficult.

IMO, creating a viable economic base for a game with so many variables to consider as battletech is going to be the most daunting and difficult task. I do not envy the people in charge of such a Herculean undertaking.

Edit: Also another thing to consider is why it would make sense, or it is economically feasible to make multi-billion dollar Jumpships, but not battalions or companies of XXL Mechs.
« Last Edit: 12 February 2012, 16:31:32 by Dermezel »
Winter is coming.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #81 on: 12 February 2012, 16:59:30 »
I actually think economy shouldn't be in there at all.  Fasanomics is broken, everybody knows that, and to try to make sense of it simply won't work.

If you let players buy new things of any type, just like in the real world, it'll eventually be abused.

Instead they need to do what fits, and IMO that is restricting production based on factories, restricting factories based on technical resources, restrict technical resources based on training, and restrict training based on technical resources.

In my vision of this, you simply have "Technical Support Groups".  These could, but don't have to be, classified by type (mech, space, tank, infantry, etc).  These are basically collections of technical resources.   Lets say you need 1 TSG for a factory line that produces 1 infantry platoon per month, you may need 4 for a mech line producing a company a month, 8 for a dropship line at 2 per month, 16 for a jumpship line at 1 per month, and 64 for a warship line at 1 per year, or whatever.  To build a new factory you would need to take excess TSG's and apply them to building a new factory.  To create new TSGs you would need technical institutions like NAIS.  Some TSG's could be better quality, and count for more #s when building/construction things.  While I love the idea of getting them specific, it'd be too much detail for what BT fans are used to.

Lets say a faction has 3 technical facilities.  These produce 1 TSG per month, however, the house actually looses 3 TSGs per month due to retirements and accidents.  This way, this faction in, say 3025, basically has a stagnant technical ability.  Maybe they have 64 TSG's total.  They have 8 mech lines, 16 armor lines, 4 aerospace lines, 4 infantry lines, 2 dropship lines, and 2 jumpship lines.  These lines total, lets just say 100 TSG's.  Now one of their technical facilities gets destroyed, like in the succession wars, they they loose 1 TSG per turn, and immediately have to close some line, and after a few decades many lines have been shut down.  This models the loss of technology over the succession wars.  Training facilities are also run by TSGs, and based on the quality of those TSGs they get a random roll each year or so, that roll can occasionally net them +1 TSG.  If they accumulate enough extra TSGs with no direct role, they can open a new line.  If they get a lot of new TSGs, they can open a new factory.  Or, they could shut down some lines for a year to produce a new factory, but would then also need additional techs to man it.  This would be "we don't want the LCT-1V anymore, we are going to halt production and open a new STG-3R line".

Optionally, these TSGs could also be what repairs units.  Without a TSG, your repairs are extremely limited.  This means that to fight, you have to dedicate TSGs to support, but if you do that, you are probably sacrificing production ability.  This may be too much paperwork though, and instead TSGs could just be allocated to "field repairs", and based on the # allocated you get X number of repair points each turn that come from this group.

And of course TSGs can be destroyed, or sometimes captured, just like combat units.  Take over a factory and some TSGs are most likely going to be killed or run off, and thus technology levels are lost.  This may work hand and hand with the field repair rule thing.  Lose a regiment in battle and there is a good chance a TSG was lost with it.

And to build things you need resources, that is what planets provide.  Need to keep that mech line open?  Then you have to supply it with X "resources" each turn, which could be 1 or more planets providing it.

I think particular types of equipment, like XXL engines or whatever, should just be based on the technology level of the faction, or even at the factory level.  This should be based on TSGs allocated to R&D or just the #/quality of TSG training faclities.  Technology levels won't matter very much in games of this scale, as its all pretty close.  In fact, the only time I think it would ever come into play would be maybe SLDF royal vs anybody else in 2750, Clan vs anybody else ever, and perhaps some periphery nations would be a slight disadvantage.  Instead of tracking a technology level factories could just gain a slight increase in output quality, but I'm not a fan of that approach and I don't think anybody (except me) wants detail on exactly what mechs are produced in what quantity by what factories in each era.

Essentially using a system like this:
- Simulates the loss of technology and production capacity over the succession wars when all the WMDs were used, facilities/factories destroyed, and TSGs lost in battle
- Limits production to the amount of resources, giving people a desire to capture planets without being a capital or having some factory on them
- Simulates how things like warships ceased production first, then jumpships, then mechs, and so-on, the more TSGs it took to make it, the more likely it was scrapped
- Gives a purpose to the major schools, and they are *key* objectives (the faculty/TSGs could be moved before invasion if desired though).

I had a similar idea for spy's.  Basically spy school create "spy points", and these points are then allocated for little counters like "sponsor uprising", "assassinate military leader", "sabotage factory", "gather intelligence" / "counter-intelligence", or whatever.  These could be treated in much the same way, except with "Spy Groups" or whatever.  I could see this as a completely separate module to the core game, as it could also include all sorts of political stuff like blowing up your mom or creating clones of an opposing faction leader's kid.

But using "money", by any means, simply doesn't work out.  Resources are not related to population in any way, New Avalon may only produce 1 resource point while Timbiqui produces 20, but New Avalon may be 1000 victory points (or some political/moral type factor if VP aren't used) while Timbiqui only 1.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

DirewolfV.

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 181
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #82 on: 12 February 2012, 17:09:30 »
I actually think economy shouldn't be in there at all.  Fasanomics is broken, everybody knows that, and to try to make sense of it simply won't work.

If you let players buy new things of any type, just like in the real world, it'll eventually be abused.

Instead they need to do what fits, and IMO that is restricting production based on factories, restricting factories based on technical resources, restrict technical resources based on training, and restrict training based on technical resources.

In my vision of this, you simply have "Technical Support Groups".  These could, but don't have to be, classified by type (mech, space, tank, infantry, etc).  These are basically collections of technical resources.   Lets say you need 1 TSG for a factory line that produces 1 infantry platoon per month, you may need 4 for a mech line producing a company a month, 8 for a dropship line at 2 per month, 16 for a jumpship line at 1 per month, and 64 for a warship line at 1 per year, or whatever.  To build a new factory you would need to take excess TSG's and apply them to building a new factory.  To create new TSGs you would need technical institutions like NAIS.  Some TSG's could be better quality, and count for more #s when building/construction things.  While I love the idea of getting them specific, it'd be too much detail for what BT fans are used to.

Lets say a faction has 3 technical facilities.  These produce 1 TSG per month, however, the house actually looses 3 TSGs per month due to retirements and accidents.  This way, this faction in, say 3025, basically has a stagnant technical ability.  Maybe they have 64 TSG's total.  They have 8 mech lines, 16 armor lines, 4 aerospace lines, 4 infantry lines, 2 dropship lines, and 2 jumpship lines.  These lines total, lets just say 100 TSG's.  Now one of their technical facilities gets destroyed, like in the succession wars, they they loose 1 TSG per turn, and immediately have to close some line, and after a few decades many lines have been shut down.  This models the loss of technology over the succession wars.  Training facilities are also run by TSGs, and based on the quality of those TSGs they get a random roll each year or so, that roll can occasionally net them +1 TSG.  If they accumulate enough extra TSGs with no direct role, they can open a new line.  If they get a lot of new TSGs, they can open a new factory.  Or, they could shut down some lines for a year to produce a new factory, but would then also need additional techs to man it.  This would be "we don't want the LCT-1V anymore, we are going to halt production and open a new STG-3R line".

Optionally, these TSGs could also be what repairs units.  Without a TSG, your repairs are extremely limited.  This means that to fight, you have to dedicate TSGs to support, but if you do that, you are probably sacrificing production ability.  This may be too much paperwork though, and instead TSGs could just be allocated to "field repairs", and based on the # allocated you get X number of repair points each turn that come from this group.

And of course TSGs can be destroyed, or sometimes captured, just like combat units.  Take over a factory and some TSGs are most likely going to be killed or run off, and thus technology levels are lost.  This may work hand and hand with the field repair rule thing.  Lose a regiment in battle and there is a good chance a TSG was lost with it.

And to build things you need resources, that is what planets provide.  Need to keep that mech line open?  Then you have to supply it with X "resources" each turn, which could be 1 or more planets providing it.

I think particular types of equipment, like XXL engines or whatever, should just be based on the technology level of the faction, or even at the factory level.  This should be based on TSGs allocated to R&D or just the #/quality of TSG training faclities.  Technology levels won't matter very much in games of this scale, as its all pretty close.  In fact, the only time I think it would ever come into play would be maybe SLDF royal vs anybody else in 2750, Clan vs anybody else ever, and perhaps some periphery nations would be a slight disadvantage.  Instead of tracking a technology level factories could just gain a slight increase in output quality, but I'm not a fan of that approach and I don't think anybody (except me) wants detail on exactly what mechs are produced in what quantity by what factories in each era.

Essentially using a system like this:
- Simulates the loss of technology and production capacity over the succession wars when all the WMDs were used, facilities/factories destroyed, and TSGs lost in battle
- Limits production to the amount of resources, giving people a desire to capture planets without being a capital or having some factory on them
- Simulates how things like warships ceased production first, then jumpships, then mechs, and so-on, the more TSGs it took to make it, the more likely it was scrapped
- Gives a purpose to the major schools, and they are *key* objectives (the faculty/TSGs could be moved before invasion if desired though).

I had a similar idea for spy's.  Basically spy school create "spy points", and these points are then allocated for little counters like "sponsor uprising", "assassinate military leader", "sabotage factory", "gather intelligence" / "counter-intelligence", or whatever.  These could be treated in much the same way, except with "Spy Groups" or whatever.  I could see this as a completely separate module to the core game, as it could also include all sorts of political stuff like blowing up your mom or creating clones of an opposing faction leader's kid.

But using "money", by any means, simply doesn't work out.  Resources are not related to population in any way, New Avalon may only produce 1 resource point while Timbiqui produces 20, but New Avalon may be 1000 victory points (or some political/moral type factor if VP aren't used) while Timbiqui only 1.

Indeed, but that sounds very much like the RP system of the old "Combat Operations" and that largely degenerated into making nothing but Light Mechs. Also I think you need to include money because it is there. Why have all these stats on C-bill costs, and calculations, and gameplay fiction mechanics like MRMs are developed due to their low cost of reload when money doesn't matter at all?

To me it sounds like a well rounded b-tech economy will have roughly 4 factors: 1- Population base. 2- Money. 3- Production power (similar to the TSGs). and 4- Dropship/Jumpship capacity (since building units makes little sense unless you can move them. )

It is similar to how units are limited in RTS games like AoEs and Starcraft- the ability to abuse production is limited by the sheer amount of economic variables that needed to be taken into account. So for example, while Savannah Masters may be super cheap in terms of C-Bills, they may take as much time to make as 100 ton tanks. That, plus the fact that they take up just as much space on a Dropship as a much larger vehicle design could make it so that just spamming low C-cost units is basically prohibited as a viable strategic option.
Winter is coming.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #83 on: 12 February 2012, 18:13:34 »
Indeed, but that sounds very much like the RP system of the old "Combat Operations" and that largely degenerated into making nothing but Light Mechs. Also I think you need to include money because it is there. Why have all these stats on C-bill costs, and calculations, and gameplay fiction mechanics like MRMs are developed due to their low cost of reload when money doesn't matter at all?

To me it sounds like a well rounded b-tech economy will have roughly 4 factors: 1- Population base. 2- Money. 3- Production power (similar to the TSGs). and 4- Dropship/Jumpship capacity (since building units makes little sense unless you can move them. )

It is similar to how units are limited in RTS games like AoEs and Starcraft- the ability to abuse production is limited by the sheer amount of economic variables that needed to be taken into account. So for example, while Savannah Masters may be super cheap in terms of C-Bills, they may take as much time to make as 100 ton tanks. That, plus the fact that they take up just as much space on a Dropship as a much larger vehicle design could make it so that just spamming low C-cost units is basically prohibited as a viable strategic option.

Actually aerospace fighters were best, as they had dual roles :)

Problem with population is any given planet has BILLIONS of people, and ya know, America in WW2 had 150M people.  By the end of the war our civilian automobile industry was pumping out more trucks, tanks, aircraft, and ships than the rest of the world.  Combat Operations was broken IMO as there was no limit to making new things, all units operated the same, and almost all planets held the same value.

And how many mechs with MRM's also have ERPPCs?  How many with Rocket Launchers and XL engines?  The stats really just don't match the fluff, and if ammo cost is that much of a big deal, medium lasers are FAR cheaper weapons over time.

I think vehicles need different capabilities, say for example (just brainstorming, nothing thought out that much):
- Mechs can attack without a bridgehead.  They have no penalties on vacuum planets (those with a double circle) or those with rough terrain (maybe an icon on the planet circle).   Easy to repair
- Vehicles must have a bridgehead to use, cannot be used in rough terrain, far less effective in vacuums (some units could be just as effective, others worthless).  Hard to repair
- Infantry need a bridgehead, but defend at 2x strength.  Only infantry can capture facilities intact.  Casualties not repairable.
- Aerospace can be used to establish a bridgehead, deep space interceptions, with no penalty in regards to terrain.  Casualties hardly ever repairable.

And stuff like that, closing the Combat Operations loophole for producing only the best item.  Also, if using something like combat ops, factories are rated, something like:

Defiance Industries, Hesperus II, Quality A, Light Mech, 1 Company/Month, 4 TSG

So Defiance Industries on Hesperus II has a line that produces 1 light mech company a month, on with a equipment rating of 'A' (using RATs from say 3085 for that faction if you want to fight out a battle with that individual company, which would VERY rarely be done).  4 TSG's are required for this line to be active, any less and it can't produce new designs, but if at least 2 applied maybe it could do spare parts for equipment rating A units, or perhaps just light mech companies, or both.

Using this method there is no "artificial" limit imposed like command points or whatever, it is a dynamic limit that is a direct result of the base capabilities of that house.  You simply can't gain a 50% of your enemies planets and become 50% more powerful, when tracking money would let you do just that.  Sure, you may have more resources, but without the ability to make new factories they really don't do much for you (supplies are more available, but that would be it).

There is always enough money to buy all the line outputs, assuming resources are available, and you can't just throw money at a lack of facilities and get bunches of them to completely outclass your enemy.  In fact, in many cases you could take a lot of worlds from an enemy and not hurt their production at all, and would then have to spread out your defenses more.  This matches the historical borders that changed very little over the succession wars, something that would not have happened if economies was being tracked.

The resource points would be obscure, and not really mean anything in real world terms.  A lot of people on a planet may not produce anything that you need for a mech, but another planet with 5000 people on it may produce a lot of what they need.  Money simply doesn't matter there.

Also, RP/TSG/Factories are a way to make it possible to produce a warship, because firepower wise, 5000 savannah masters would be a MUCH better investment, MUCH more powerful in every way, but since you don't have 500 factories producing them nor 2000 TSG's to support them, you simply can't make them.  However, you could support 64 TSGs for your 1 jumpship line to produce a new Fox Corvette.  You could give your neighbor, the FWL, some resources to give you some of their output however, especially if their output outnumbers the amount of qualified mechwarriors/pilots/tankers that their training facilities can produce.

One completely different alternative could just be "command points", that are related to commanders.  You get 1 rank 10, 5 rank 9, 25 rank 8, and 125 rank 7.  A rank 7 can command a regiment/wing/armor or infantry/brigade, and you simply can't field any more units than you have commanders.  Commanders can command specific unit types at rank 7, but rank 8+ can command mixed commands (RCT's).  Its quite unrealistic, but it would be a *VERY* simpler alternative to the one I presented, and put more emphasis on commanders and their abilities.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

DirewolfV.

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 181
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #84 on: 12 February 2012, 18:29:51 »
Actually aerospace fighters were best, as they had dual roles :)

Problem with population is any given planet has BILLIONS of people, and ya know, America in WW2 had 150M people.  By the end of the war our civilian automobile industry was pumping out more trucks, tanks, aircraft, and ships than the rest of the world.  Combat Operations was broken IMO as there was no limit to making new things, all units operated the same, and almost all planets held the same value.

And how many mechs with MRM's also have ERPPCs?  How many with Rocket Launchers and XL engines?  The stats really just don't match the fluff, and if ammo cost is that much of a big deal, medium lasers are FAR cheaper weapons over time.

I think vehicles need different capabilities, say for example (just brainstorming, nothing thought out that much):
- Mechs can attack without a bridgehead.  They have no penalties on vacuum planets (those with a double circle) or those with rough terrain (maybe an icon on the planet circle).   Easy to repair
- Vehicles must have a bridgehead to use, cannot be used in rough terrain, far less effective in vacuums (some units could be just as effective, others worthless).  Hard to repair
- Infantry need a bridgehead, but defend at 2x strength.  Only infantry can capture facilities intact.  Casualties not repairable.
- Aerospace can be used to establish a bridgehead, deep space interceptions, with no penalty in regards to terrain.  Casualties hardly ever repairable.

And stuff like that, closing the Combat Operations loophole for producing only the best item.  Also, if using something like combat ops, factories are rated, something like:

Defiance Industries, Hesperus II, Quality A, Light Mech, 1 Company/Month, 4 TSG

So Defiance Industries on Hesperus II has a line that produces 1 light mech company a month, on with a equipment rating of 'A' (using RATs from say 3085 for that faction if you want to fight out a battle with that individual company, which would VERY rarely be done).  4 TSG's are required for this line to be active, any less and it can't produce new designs, but if at least 2 applied maybe it could do spare parts for equipment rating A units, or perhaps just light mech companies, or both.

Using this method there is no "artificial" limit imposed like command points or whatever, it is a dynamic limit that is a direct result of the base capabilities of that house.  You simply can't gain a 50% of your enemies planets and become 50% more powerful, when tracking money would let you do just that.  Sure, you may have more resources, but without the ability to make new factories they really don't do much for you (supplies are more available, but that would be it).

There is always enough money to buy all the line outputs, assuming resources are available, and you can't just throw money at a lack of facilities and get bunches of them to completely outclass your enemy.  In fact, in many cases you could take a lot of worlds from an enemy and not hurt their production at all, and would then have to spread out your defenses more.  This matches the historical borders that changed very little over the succession wars, something that would not have happened if economies was being tracked.

The resource points would be obscure, and not really mean anything in real world terms.  A lot of people on a planet may not produce anything that you need for a mech, but another planet with 5000 people on it may produce a lot of what they need.  Money simply doesn't matter there.

Also, RP/TSG/Factories are a way to make it possible to produce a warship, because firepower wise, 5000 savannah masters would be a MUCH better investment, MUCH more powerful in every way, but since you don't have 500 factories producing them nor 2000 TSG's to support them, you simply can't make them.  However, you could support 64 TSGs for your 1 jumpship line to produce a new Fox Corvette.  You could give your neighbor, the FWL, some resources to give you some of their output however, especially if their output outnumbers the amount of qualified mechwarriors/pilots/tankers that their training facilities can produce.

One completely different alternative could just be "command points", that are related to commanders.  You get 1 rank 10, 5 rank 9, 25 rank 8, and 125 rank 7.  A rank 7 can command a regiment/wing/armor or infantry/brigade, and you simply can't field any more units than you have commanders.  Commanders can command specific unit types at rank 7, but rank 8+ can command mixed commands (RCT's).  Its quite unrealistic, but it would be a *VERY* simpler alternative to the one I presented, and put more emphasis on commanders and their abilities.

Well you could have both production cost and monetary cost, which would prevent many of the problems using a tracked economy listed above. Again my problem is that you could make it so that the only thing that makes sense is XL or XXL Mechs. I mean, why design cheaper Mechs at all if you can cover the costs no matter what?

I mean a lot of Battletech has been invested into how many C-Bills this unit costs, or that unit costs, and it wouldn't make sense fo all factions to have infinite amounts of money, or for money not to be considered at all.
Winter is coming.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #85 on: 12 February 2012, 19:18:50 »
Well you could have both production cost and monetary cost, which would prevent many of the problems using a tracked economy listed above. Again my problem is that you could make it so that the only thing that makes sense is XL or XXL Mechs. I mean, why design cheaper Mechs at all if you can cover the costs no matter what?

I mean a lot of Battletech has been invested into how many C-Bills this unit costs, or that unit costs, and it wouldn't make sense fo all factions to have infinite amounts of money, or for money not to be considered at all.

The money is for mercs mostly, and mercs could track money, as they run on money and would be very hard pressed to stay profitable in most cases.  I think thats is a perfect place to use money, but the amount of money factions have available to them is beyond staggering, and their entire militaries could easily be paid for, even if 100x the size, but a single planets yearly output.

The thing that keeps you from making XXL over XL is that the equipment rating is higher, and you need better factories to produce them, which requires more TSGs.  Not enough TSGs means you can't make XXL anymore, a few less and your stuck with ICE.  Again this could fall back back on the technology level of the faction.  I seriously don't think that TPTB want to worry about the type of engines in things being produced, that amount of micro-management is WAY beyond Interstellar Operations I think, and the amount of record keeping would be excessive. 

Plus, XXL engines can be highly vulnerable in combat, they are *experimental* rules level, which basically means that in any game they would be *very* limited production items, and may only have a company (or less!) of them allowed at any time, and lets face it, if XXL (or XL, or any other tech) was so much better everybody would always use it, and the TRO's are not representing that in any way. 

If they do have rules for factories and detailed production in IO, which I highly doubt, then you could use cost as a value that shows the rate of production on a line.  If a mech is $50M C-Bills vs $10M C-Bills, a given mech class line of a given quality could produce only 1 per 5.  Factory output could just represent millions of C-Bills per turn, and you could build anything of that class (like light mech, equipment rating A) up to the line capacity in C-Bills. 

As an example:
Factory:  Defiance Industries
Planet:  Hesperus II
Line:  Light Mech
Quality:  Equipment Rating A (allowing Advanced items, XL, ER, etc)
Resources:  8/4 (New/Parts Only)
Rate:  1 Company/Turn
Capacity:  $25M C-Bills Per Week/Turn
(this would just be a single counter, with line type/quality/capacity/resources hard-coded values, the others tracked on paper, and counters for each line placed on planets, with "damaged" on the reverse side)

That factory would let you make 12 Locusts (as limited by rate), worth 5184 BV (lets say combat power of 4, 1 per 1K), OR, you could produce a single XL mech, with a combat power of maybe 2.

So, why would you EVER make 1 mech over 12 when the combat power is so much less?

2 Reasons:
#1.  Transport.  1 Union could carry 5 combat power in old locusts, or 24 combat power in the new XL mechs
#2.  Pilots.  You only have so many mechwarrior academies, producing so many pilots per turn, if you make 10 locusts 8 of them sit there waiting on pilots


So unit production is limited on:
- Factory Line capacity
- TSG's to run those factories
- Amount of graduating MechWarriors each week from academies
- Resources available from captured worlds

I am pretty darned sure that units will be much like they were in Combat Operations, and there simply won't be any more detail in a light mech company other than "3025", "3050", "3075", or if we are lucky a bit more like "Fire", "Fast", "Prototype".  Having more detail would drag the game down into somebody nobody in their right mind would want to play, and it'd be far more complex than even the Campaign for North Africa (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4815/the-campaign-for-north-africa) which tracked every individual vehicle/aircraft/etc within the African theater in WW2 (and that is nothing compared to the size of the inner sphere) and is famous for a special rules making Italians use more water as their primary ration was pasta and water/fuel evaporation.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

DirewolfV.

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 181
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #86 on: 12 February 2012, 20:53:50 »
The money is for mercs mostly, and mercs could track money, as they run on money and would be very hard pressed to stay profitable in most cases.  I think thats is a perfect place to use money, but the amount of money factions have available to them is beyond staggering, and their entire militaries could easily be paid for, even if 100x the size, but a single planets yearly output.

The thing that keeps you from making XXL over XL is that the equipment rating is higher, and you need better factories to produce them, which requires more TSGs.  Not enough TSGs means you can't make XXL anymore, a few less and your stuck with ICE.  Again this could fall back back on the technology level of the faction.  I seriously don't think that TPTB want to worry about the type of engines in things being produced, that amount of micro-management is WAY beyond Interstellar Operations I think, and the amount of record keeping would be excessive. 

Plus, XXL engines can be highly vulnerable in combat, they are *experimental* rules level, which basically means that in any game they would be *very* limited production items, and may only have a company (or less!) of them allowed at any time, and lets face it, if XXL (or XL, or any other tech) was so much better everybody would always use it, and the TRO's are not representing that in any way. 

If they do have rules for factories and detailed production in IO, which I highly doubt, then you could use cost as a value that shows the rate of production on a line.  If a mech is $50M C-Bills vs $10M C-Bills, a given mech class line of a given quality could produce only 1 per 5.  Factory output could just represent millions of C-Bills per turn, and you could build anything of that class (like light mech, equipment rating A) up to the line capacity in C-Bills. 

As an example:
Factory:  Defiance Industries
Planet:  Hesperus II
Line:  Light Mech
Quality:  Equipment Rating A (allowing Advanced items, XL, ER, etc)
Resources:  8/4 (New/Parts Only)
Rate:  1 Company/Turn
Capacity:  $25M C-Bills Per Week/Turn
(this would just be a single counter, with line type/quality/capacity/resources hard-coded values, the others tracked on paper, and counters for each line placed on planets, with "damaged" on the reverse side)

That factory would let you make 12 Locusts (as limited by rate), worth 5184 BV (lets say combat power of 4, 1 per 1K), OR, you could produce a single XL mech, with a combat power of maybe 2.

So, why would you EVER make 1 mech over 12 when the combat power is so much less?

2 Reasons:
#1.  Transport.  1 Union could carry 5 combat power in old locusts, or 24 combat power in the new XL mechs
#2.  Pilots.  You only have so many mechwarrior academies, producing so many pilots per turn, if you make 10 locusts 8 of them sit there waiting on pilots


So unit production is limited on:
- Factory Line capacity
- TSG's to run those factories
- Amount of graduating MechWarriors each week from academies
- Resources available from captured worlds

I am pretty darned sure that units will be much like they were in Combat Operations, and there simply won't be any more detail in a light mech company other than "3025", "3050", "3075", or if we are lucky a bit more like "Fire", "Fast", "Prototype".  Having more detail would drag the game down into somebody nobody in their right mind would want to play, and it'd be far more complex than even the Campaign for North Africa (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4815/the-campaign-for-north-africa) which tracked every individual vehicle/aircraft/etc within the African theater in WW2 (and that is nothing compared to the size of the inner sphere) and is famous for a special rules making Italians use more water as their primary ration was pasta and water/fuel evaporation.

How do you know a single planet can produce enough C-Bills to pay for the entire military? And if it can, why did Theodore Kurita call for the creation of cheaper designs (like the Akuma)?
Winter is coming.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #87 on: 12 February 2012, 21:21:46 »
1: We know the average income of entire successor states.

2: We even have a few examples of the tax rate.

3: We have planetary population data.

4: Using the above 3 bits of information we know it is not a stretch for the capitols of the Successor States to support their listed forces on their own.

5: My pet theory behind the calls for cheaper alternatives(MRM and Akuma in this case) has more to do with the logistics than the production.  While the Medium Laser may be cheaper over the long run than keeping an MRM launcher filled with ammo you may not always have the Medium Laser and even if you do the planet your unit is on may be able to manufacture MRM ammunition but not able to meet the tight tolerances needed to produce the focusing lens that needs to be replaced periodically due to cracking.  Likewise the Akuma may be attractive because it's standard armor is easier to produce and what advanced technologies it does use actually create less strain on the logistics train.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #88 on: 12 February 2012, 23:47:44 »
How do you know a single planet can produce enough C-Bills to pay for the entire military? And if it can, why did Theodore Kurita call for the creation of cheaper designs (like the Akuma)?

Because the world military today is far larger, and our production capacity 1000 years behind, even the most conservative estimates can show that number, so its easiest just to ignore populations and the economy all together than to address it and go down a path that stops making sense almost immediately.

Like all politicians who request specific things, I'm betting he got kickbacks from the developers, or owed them a favor.

Actually, here are the prices according to HMP:
Atlas AS7-D is  9,626,000 C-Bills, and all introductory tech
Akuma AKU-1X is 9,502,280 C-Bills, and standard tech
So the price difference is.... wait for it.... 1.3%  (granted it is 16% better according to BV)

And the Akuma is NOT "cheap", it has LB10X, an ERPPC, MPL, Streak SRMs, Endo-Steel, all of which are not "cheaper components".  Sure, fluff may say things are cheaper, but like I mentioned, they'll mount rocket launchers with an ERPPC, and the entire argument for "cheaper" goes out the window.  It'd be like putting cloth seats instead of leather in your ferrari.

Also in TRO 3067 is another new DCMS mech, the No-Dachi, which is 70 tons and with its 350 XL engine, ERPPC, and 2 MRMs, cost a whopping 17.6 Million C-Bills, again, completely destroying any argument of cost meaning anything to BT manufacturers, even if its referenced often in fluff text.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5085
  • In Rory we trust
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #89 on: 07 April 2012, 15:33:22 »
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or mention of myself.
That's a good one, and will apply to this post as well. I suggest additional modifiers for weapons and equipment maintenance & refurbishing that are not made in given time/era. Like Star League tech in Succession Wars eras and difficulty of refurbishing ( = increase of Quality Rating) Double Heat Sinks, XL Engine, and ER Large Laser when those aren't made anymore. Would give some concrete reason to swap Starslayer's ER Large Laser to Tech Rating D version.
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights errant, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24876
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #90 on: 08 April 2012, 08:50:00 »
Maybe if it happens, generic designs can be introduced as part of the Aerospace ships.  Small WarShip, Large WarShip, Recharge Station, etc.  Instead having worried about running into canon issues.  The scaling rules will truly be challenging, i hope the PDF supplement will help in this respect.  Personally, i think were going need spread sheet like "tools" help deal with massive amount of facts and data were handling when were doin a interstellar campaign.

This is going be a Succession Wars (board game) on steroids.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #91 on: 08 April 2012, 09:06:43 »
If it is so complicated that it needs spreadsheets to be playable I'm affraid I've seen that path before and every time it has failed.  As such I truly hope that mistake is avoided as much as possible.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #92 on: 08 April 2012, 09:23:13 »
If it is so complicated that it needs spreadsheets to be playable I'm affraid I've seen that path before and every time it has failed.  As such I truly hope that mistake is avoided as much as possible.

Unfortunately there are only 2 ways this can be playable.

#1.  Counters, lots and lots and lots and lots of counters.  I don't think CGL likes counters, but could be wrong.
#2.  Spreadsheet, even perhaps with a computer map. 

There are 380 MECH regiments in 3025, just mech, ignoring the fact that many of those are deployed in battalions, that is 380 units to keep track of.  Just XP alone will require an awful lot of paper, or a spreadsheet.

UNLESS all you want to do is fight out a region of 10 planets against 10 planets, then maybe you can do it on 1-2 pieces of paper.  I really think this is how the game is going to be done.  I don't think it'll be capable of fighting out an entire succession war.

However, if you want to play a succession wars game, without so much abstraction that it is just risk with a new map, you *have* to have a computer help you out.

However, complication isn't the same thing as tracking data.   It isn't very complicated to have a sheet with a bunch of regiments, and fill in circles as they take damage or gain XP.  I seriously doubt the rules will be that complex, but unit tracking has to be.

There are lots of games out there that do this kinda stuff, but none are quite so big.  3000 worlds, 400+ regiments (or 10,000 in 2750) that need to be tracked, etc.  Federation and Empire is a good comparison game, with a MUCH smaller map, and I have like 10K counters for it.

Heck, a map 1000 LY across, at 10 LY per hex (the established scale, though I think 7.5 is far better to avoid so many hexes with 2+ systems), using small .5" hexes, will still easily be over 4' across, 5-6 if you have any periphery nations, up to 8 if you include clan worlds (though you can have a separate map for them, and movement tracks instead of a bunch of empty hexes).  I have no idea how THAT is even going to be done, unless it'll be completely ignored. 

We'll have a computer version though, I'm 100% sure of it ;)
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

VanVelding

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 529
    • Powered by Indifference, Focused by Caffeine
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #93 on: 08 April 2012, 15:32:43 »
Unfortunately there are only 2 ways this can be playable.

#1.  Counters, lots and lots and lots and lots of counters.  I don't think CGL likes counters, but could be wrong.
#2.  Spreadsheet, even perhaps with a computer map. 

Tracking the individual outputs of worlds, factories on a scale of the entire Inner Sphere is...impractical. Even defining a combined population/industrial rating of each planet is wildly optimistic for a game with thousands of planets.  The same goes for defining exactly what each factory is producing. What would be important is defining how those production levels affect deployment. Giving the Thug 11E unique stats for an interstellar game is ridiculously more complicated than just naming one of (or all) of your assault 'mech RAT slots "Thug 11E."

I don't know what the final product is going to look like, but I'm pretty sure it's going to be abstract enough that few--if any--regiment-sized units will be represented. At that scale, production, units, and even territory are perhaps better understood demographically, with military doctrine, economic policies, intelligence agencies, and international attitudes carrying more weight than whether a battalion is comprised of one-legged Urbanmechs or Timberwolves piloted by Natasha Kerensky clones.

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a more detailed "half-dozen planets fight" version as well, something with the nitty-gritty many Battletech players crave. It would allow for players to reenact famous border skirmishes and company-on-company engagements with the level of detail you're expecting. If there is, someone with a lot of elbow grease to spare will then scale it up to a level where it includes the entire Inner Sphere, necessitating all those pieces and parts.

However, that's all just conjecture. The only things I really expect from IO:
1) Whatever system it contains that involves the entire Inner Sphere will scale down to all other systems from Total Warfare to Interstellar Operations.
2) Fans will complain.
« Last Edit: 08 April 2012, 15:34:47 by VanVelding »
Co-host of 17 to 01 and The Beige and The Bold. I also have a dusty old blog about whatever comes to mind vanvelding.blogspot.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #94 on: 08 April 2012, 16:06:25 »
Well based on the core rulebook primer, we know that:

Strategic BattleForce has 500m hexes and 3 minute turns.  Basically, its battleforce with a max range of 2 hexes.  Each unit is 1 company.

Planetary Assault has 240km hexes, and 24 hour turns.  That means a planet would typically be around 150 hexes across, far too big to map, so I suspect planetary assault is more of a battle on a continent or state, rather than an entire planet.  Each unit is 1 battalion.  An example given is the taking of Tikonov in 3028, with 192 attacking battalions.

Then there is Inner Sphere at War.  Each unit is 1 regiment or 1 galaxy, each turn 1 week for combat or 1 month for a campaign.  The combat scale is 1 hex per 10 LY, and the campaign has no scale.

That same document also says these scales could be "tweaked slightly".

So, if you want to fight Davion vs Liao in 3028, you *must* use the ISW scale, as PA is far too large.  That war encompasses like 100 mech regiments, and even if conventional forces are ignored for simplicity (which means the entire system is broken) it is still a very large game, on a map 2-3' across.

Planets can be assigned values on the map, little numbers beside system names, and those numbers added up for production purposes.  If they use generic values like all planets are worth .5 points, except capitals which are 2, major capitals 5, and faction capitals 10, or some such, the entire system will be completely broken and not match the universe at all.  Such a system (I bring it up as I feel very confident something like this will be used) will make all planets have the same value, and lead people to completely ignore many planets entirely.  In fact, such a system may as well just remove systems entirely, and go back to the old succession wars board game method as that is how it'll play.

But even landing 8 RCT's on a planet vs over 80 other regiments, is going to require some considerable paperwork, there is simply no other way, even at a 1 unit per 10 regiment scale.  I don't believe the intent is to redo the old succession wars game in abstraction, which is the only way you won't have to track stats. 

Heck, I'm kinda worried that PA will be its own system completely, as the original in Combat Operations was.  This won't allow decent scaling for people who want to use the system for campaigns.  If your merc battalion of 3 heavy, 3 medium, and 3 assault lances, all with munchy designs so 20% or so more powerful than their standard counterparts doesn't give that same feeling when you scale it to 1 heavy, 1 medium, and 1 assault company it'll prevent the system's use.  If that same system can't scale to a single heavy battalion, again it'll break and not be usable for campaigns.

Heck, right now I have no idea how they'll even do the map.  10 LY/Hex makes for a map that is too large to reach over, but over 75 hexes will have 2-3 systems in it.  7.5 LY/Hex is even bigger, but reduces the multiple system/hex count to around 25.  If the systems aren't tracked and you conquer a hex, well, that'd be sad, as it would prevent any type of combat around jump points, pirate points, heck even recharge times become completely abstracted and break the scaling.

I am really trying to keep an open mind about the quality of IO, especially PA/ISW scales, but from what little I've seen it worries me.  That is kinda ok though, I've already put a lot of work into my own version of ISW that scales down to individual mechs, and if I don't care for IO I'll pick and choose some things out of it, and just use my own system for a computer conversion.  Heck, at current rates, I may finish my computer version before IO even comes out, without details getting me excited and confident in it, I'm loosing faith and moving my own timetable up.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Psyckosama

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 545
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #95 on: 08 April 2012, 20:57:29 »
How the hell did I miss this?

I'd like to see a reprint somewhere of the Force Arch-types Chapter of FASA 1679 Hot Spots for generating random Planetary Garrisons units and Raiding Forces.

I'd also like to see a reprint of the Public Opinion rules from FASA 1721 Operation: Flashpoint .

Both would be very useful in IO campaigns though its probably too late to include them... :(

Ryumyo

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 466
  • Out site seeing...
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #96 on: 27 July 2012, 01:36:38 »
Full LAM and Primitive unit construction rules as promised.
What else would I like to see? Interstellar Operations sitting on my bookshelf, BUT not at the cost of "rushing it through."
Even I understand that Mr. Bills has a monumental task in front of him.
Lastly, any new toys that can be squeezed in. I like tech to play with.

Ryumyo

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 466
  • Out site seeing...
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #97 on: 02 August 2012, 14:50:46 »
Almost forgot...
Full rules for CRBN warfare. (1st and 2nd Succession Wars & Word of Blake Jihad Eras)
And how to construct shipyards and their logistical support structures. (Need objectives to capture,defend or destroy)
Last but not least, rules for dropping asteroids onto planetary surfaces.
Please and Thanks.


Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24876
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #98 on: 02 August 2012, 15:32:26 »
Do you think they'll go ahead and seperate the Alternate Era rules from IS Ops?

Interstellar Operations sound more and more from suggestions being Succession Wars (Part III)/Flames of War (Part II). 

Needs to be in own box set or something, than mixed in with Tactical (scale) rules of traditional Total Warfare rules.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #99 on: 08 August 2012, 01:02:35 »
I'm looking forward to the Alternative Eras. Mostly for the construction rules and tech items. But some of the things in the General Rules look like they'd be good too. I'm really looking forward to learning what all I can build and how I can customize it even further. Not just for game units but military/para-military units as well.

I do hope though that certain problems such as; items introduced before their tech rating says they're possible and production quality tech is listed as reintroduced when it was prototype tech that was used are either fixed or explained in such a way that their current listings in TM and TO make sense. I'm also hoping there might be some optional rules treating quirks as physical items. And I really hope that all the old tech weapons and equipment that have been mentioned so far get rules for their use in the closing days of the Age of War. It probably won't happen but I can hope.

No matter what though, I hope that should IO be split into two books that the Alternate Eras section and any and all construction/maintenance/customization rules gets printed sooner rather than later. After waiting so long it'd be really frustrating having to wait longer. I want the best product possible too but its been so long there are times I doubt that it'll ever come out.

PurpleDragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #100 on: 28 August 2012, 08:45:10 »
yeah, what she said. 
give a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. 
Set him on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

The secret to winning the land/air battle is that you must always remain rigidly flexible.

I like tabletop more anyway, computer games are for nerds!  -  Knallogfall

twycross

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 185
  • Death from above! DEATH FROM ABOVE!
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #101 on: 06 October 2012, 20:49:52 »

What about "alternate supply method" (i.e. black market) rules for gaining access to otherwise unobtainable parts/equipment/ammo/supplies/et. al. during an extended campaign/siege (Both offensive and defensive)/guerilla campaign/et. al.?
Badgers? We don't need no stinkin' badgers! Now Wombat, on the other hand, would be just the ticket right about now...and guns lots and lots of guns...and nukes, lots of them, too.

AishaPrince

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #102 on: 19 October 2012, 17:44:24 »
I'd like rules for:
*LAMs  O0
*codenames  8)
*energy force fields O:-)
*an Ares Convention note that the use of minefields in space is prohibited (JumpShips could misjump into them)
*dual cockpit rules from MWRPG Companion (if they're not going to be in MW4RPG) and rules for more personnel in 'Mechs such as 0.15 tons per person (this includes his/her cushioned seat & seatbelt and is like tonnage for each infantry person in a vehicle); it's nice to have additional guards in command 'Mechs.
*a person exclusively driving or piloting any unit may increase its target movement modifier bonus by +1 (this is like dual cockpit rule for 'MechPilot)
*rules that enable personnel in units/structures armed with MW4RPG weapons to shoot shots out of them
thanks.
 
« Last Edit: 19 October 2012, 20:23:58 by AishaPrince »

HABeas2

  • Grand Vizier
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6202
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #103 on: 19 October 2012, 20:28:22 »
Hello,

Given that it has been more than a year since the initial; blog post and request for input has been posted, and given that Interstellar Operations has been in production for going on three years now, I would like to thank everyone for their support, patience, and input, and close down this thread.

Thank you for participating in this Catalyst Game Labs Managing Developer-aided production input activity.

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

 

Register