Campaign Rules: Against the Bot Thread #4

[pfarland]

<snip>So my question is how have people been handling that situation?<snip>

Your people are gone, though death benefits I think would be an optional thing since they legally aren't dead (though they might end up declared dead after x number of years, lol).

"Also, Clans do not ransom back captured mercenaries or get back their own captured 'MechWarriors, so  you do not receive any bonus for captured enemy warriors and any of your own that is captured is not ransomed back. Captured Clan warriors that “defect” to your unit are instead “Bondsman”. They will work for you during 3 contracts (not counting the one where they were captured) and, after the end of the 3rd contract you should provide them with a working 'Mech (any will do) and do a 1d6 roll: If 6 they remain in the unit, if 5 they remain in the unit if you grant them officer status, 4 to 1 they leave the unit and take the 'Mech with them. If you do not give a 'Mech to a Bondsman after the 3rd contract, no more captured Clans will “defect” to your unit and all clanners currently in your unit will immediately retire taking with them their current 'Mechs."

Though, I would count those Clanners that didn't defect as free AsTechs for the 3 mission Bondsman period.  And keep lots of Locusts and Fleas around for those Clanners.  Nothing about the type, size, nor condition the mechs are in.  I would RP it away as "Hey, here's your going away present if you leave, but if you stay, you get to pilot X mech."

[Random]

Do you know if the 3 mission bondsman period is coded into MMHQ or is it a manual thing?

[pheonixstorm]

Turn some of the clan prisoners into bondsman and leave your own people as MIA. They could very well escape on their own or you could RP getting intel on where they are either being held or what clan unit they are now serving with (as they could have been taken as bondsman). Great opportunity for some random dice rolling or RP. Or.. you can write them off as dead, depends on how you want to handle it.

[Kovax]

I normally wait until the end of a contract to resolve prisoners and MIA.  Any who have defected and don't retire or quit at the end of the contract are retained as full members.  Until then, where they have a chance to freely walk away (and be dropped off on some neutral planet along the way, not where they can simply walk back to their former unit), putting them in a 'Mech or vehicle to fight their own countrymen or friends is a bad idea.

Once they've survived a retirement roll and voluntarily stuck with the unit for another contract, they've committed to being a part of the unit just like any new hire.

[Random]

Turn some of the clan prisoners into bondsman and leave your own people as MIA. They could very well escape on their own or you could RP getting intel on where they are either being held or what clan unit they are now serving with (as they could have been taken as bondsman). Great opportunity for some random dice rolling or RP. Or.. you can write them off as dead, depends on how you want to handle it.

While your still in the contract, extractions and recon raids would be good for this.
After the contract has ended well...........maybe I need to look at making a Great Escape table.

[pfarland]

While your still in the contract, extractions and recon raids would be good for this.
After the contract has ended well...........maybe I need to look at making a Great Escape table.

You could do 1d3 Recon Raids (to find your people) and then an Extraction (to get them).  The Extraction has to be done within 7 days of the first Recon Raid (otherwise they move the prisoners).

[BLOODWOLF]

Going off the atb2.31 rules where finding a drop/jumpship goes off your logistics admin skill, why not the transport admin?  Transport admin only has the ability to re-rolll the transportation clause with negotiation but, Logistics already has re-roll support(i know that isnt in HQ yet, i want it), parts availability and I think something else IRC?

[scJazz]

Going off the atb2.31 rules where finding a drop/jumpship goes off your logistics admin skill, why not the transport admin?  Transport admin only has the ability to re-rolll the transportation clause with negotiation but, Logistics already has re-roll support(i know that isnt in HQ yet, i want it), parts availability and I think something else IRC?

The problem with your idea is that DS/JS/WS are only puchased infrequently. While different AtB Campaigns play out differently, I only have 3 Dropships in mine for 19.5 years of game play. Which means only a handful of rolls per year.

Additionally, I think you might be unclear about Parts Acquisition. Every single Admin gets 2 rolls every 1 days. All of them, not just Logistics.

Reference: AtB 2.31 Campaign_System G:297

Somewhere in these 19 pages of posts there was conversation about changing all of this, or it could be in another thread entirely. I'm convinced that something better can be done and I think that finding that original convo would be a start.

Or we could just say the hell with it and start a new one :)

[BLOODWOLF]

No I said parts availability level which depends on your logistics admin skill and the contract your in.  (my acquisitions are set to scrounge but, would really be nice to designated who orders parts first so that my high level admin isn't hogging all the xp but, anyways).

               When not in a contract, the availability level will be          
Contract                   Level      according to the merc rating+logistical admin:         
Guerilla                        0      Rating   Level   Admin   Modifier
Raids                                1      F   0   None                   -2
Planetary Assault/Relief Duty      2      D   1   Green           -1
Pirate Hunting                3      C   2   Regular            0
Other Contracts                4      B   3   Veteran           +1
Not in a Contract             Rating   A   4   Elite                   +2
From 2950 to 3040 apply a -1 modifier               From 2950 to 3040 apply a -1 modifier   

*I cannot figure out for the life of me how to properly insert a spreadsheet section into posts on here.  Insert table???  ^ looks fine when creating this post, then gets all jumbled.

[BLOODWOLF]

Can anyone point me how to make a boneyard file as buying all the spares I need when starting is taking hours of clicking and selecting :)

Am going to make a FR in HQ for allowing us to shift or ctrl click multiple parts in the parts in use tab of HQ and just add GM.  Anything that makes running/setting up a unit faster regardless of how big I think we need.  And if we dont make an issue on github it will be forgotten.

[Ice_Trey]

A little question.

I would download 2.31, but I don't think that it's what I need to resolve my issues.

I am running my 2.30 AtB campaign in the Dark Age period (~3160+) and while that's fine and well, I do run into a problem every now and again... In many instances, I've found that the Dark Age stuff hasn't been included in the existing versions of Megamek that came with AtB. It's also likely that a lot of the units that used the new tech shown in Field Manual 3145 (Like TSEMP) weren't incorporated into the game at that point. I've had more than a few instances where the match-maker simply shows red text where the enemy unit would be telling me that it can't find the unit in question, or that there was an error (Sorry, it's not showing up atm, because I ended up re-adding the xotl tables to make sure nothing went missing - which I removed in the first place because it felt like in spite of being at the bottom of the list, having it there caused way too much 3025 tech to be spawned)

Now, How would I go about tinkering with this in order to get all the support I need for playing in the Dark Age era?
Side-note, did 2.31 remedy some of the issues with save-file corruption I'd heard about with Battle Armor squads? I want so badly to include BA in my forces, but am terrified I'd corrupt the game files.

[pheonixstorm]

What version of MekHQ are you using? Or if no HQ, which version of MegaMek

[Ice_Trey]

What version of MekHQ are you using? Or if no HQ, which version of MegaMek

I'm just using everything stock, trying my best to follow the instructions to make AtB work properly.
So Mek HQ 0.3.6
Megamek 0.39.3

[Jayof9s]

You're using an extremely old version of MHQ. Most of that equipment and those units have been implemented in later versions. Additionally, AtB has been incorporated into MHQ so most of those rules have been automated.

[pheonixstorm]

AtB in HQ is still being fixed, tweaked, and having missing rules added in. I *think* HQ uses 2.30 and neo was in the process of getting 2.31 added before he got sucked up by RL and lack of an internet connection.

For the most part though atb works in HQ and sets up everything for you, handling all the mission rolls etc. I am working on getting atb to play nice with the new IO rating and rules but juggling so much atm has me a bit swamped so its slow going.

[Netzilla]

Something to keep in mind is that Princess won't know how to use equipment introduced after about the FCCW era.  So, expect her to be even worse at handling more advanced units.

[Ice_Trey]

You're using an extremely old version of MHQ. Most of that equipment and those units have been implemented in later versions. Additionally, AtB has been incorporated into MHQ so most of those rules have been automated.

Had not heard that AtB has since been built into the MHQ program. That is a relief. I'll try duplicating my save files and see if it runs without major errors, first.

Have BA squads been stabilized/made to work yet? Supposedly they used to corrupt save files... so...

[scJazz]

Had not heard that AtB has since been built into the MHQ program. That is a relief. I'll try duplicating my save files and see if it runs without major errors, first.

Have BA squads been stabilized/made to work yet? Supposedly they used to corrupt save files... so...

If you are using MHQ's last stable there is nearly a 100% of errors in trying to move your Campaign to a new version. Many units, weapons etc have been updated. You might be better off just starting over.

The rules implemented in MHQ are from around version 2.17 of AtB, IIRC.

[neoancient]

The rules implemented in MHQ are from around version 2.17 of AtB, IIRC.

The first bersion of MHQ with AtB was based on AtB 2.29. The prisoner capture code, such as it is, was based on an older version (2.18, I think), since it was not in the 2.29 version. I've implemented some of the changes in 2.31 (fatigue, for example), and I've always used thenlatest set of rules when adding anyhing or fixing bugs. Infantry missions are the biggest part of 2.31 that remains unimplemented, but I would have to go through the two rule sets side-by-side to see what other differences there might be.

[Hammer]

Have BA squads been stabilized/made to work yet? Supposedly they used to corrupt save files... so...

These should have been resolved a couple of versions ago.

[scJazz]

The first bersion of MHQ with AtB was based on AtB 2.29. The prisoner capture code, such as it is, was based on an older version (2.18, I think), since it was not in the 2.29 version. I've implemented some of the changes in 2.31 (fatigue, for example), and I've always used thenlatest set of rules when adding anyhing or fixing bugs. Infantry missions are the biggest part of 2.31 that remains unimplemented, but I would have to go through the two rule sets side-by-side to see what other differences there might be.

Heh yeah... sorry... it was the Prisoner thing that stuck in my head.

[Shin Ji]

So, Campaign Operations has been out for a while now.  Has anyone figured out how to incorporate any of the stuff in there into out AtB campaigns?  I'm still going through it myself, but it seems to run on some very different assumptions that what we're doing.

[neoancient]

So, Campaign Operations has been out for a while now.  Has anyone figured out how to incorporate any of the stuff in there into out AtB campaigns?  I'm still going through it myself, but it seems to run on some very different assumptions that what we're doing.

Which stuff in particular? Contract generation is already pretty close, since Makinus changed it to the CO system back when it was IO Beta. I haven't looked at the changes between IO Beta and CO side-by-side, but it looks like unit reputation is better integrated, and it would be good to implement it as proper alternative to dragoon rating rather than the forced fit I put in.

I would also like to overhaul (or at least provide alternatives for) the way the opfor is generated, and CO provides a bit more guidance in putting together coherent units. I still have a lot of background work to do to make that happen, but I've been working diligently on it.

There have also been several great suggestions made in this thread because I've been wanting to hold off until after thnstable release, but it's fairly clear that an unintended consequence of incorporating AtB into MHQ is that it has hindered further development of the system. It appears to me that in order to continue the growth and improvement of AtB I'm going to have to implement proposals in a series of unofficial playtesting releases. I probably won't be able to get to it for at least another month as my children are out of school for the summer and I have another significant feature I've been working on dilligently and want to get finished.

[pheonixstorm]

Your a little behind neo, I already fixed AtB for the CO reputation. I would have to look but it is either complete or partial as I haven't delved deeply into the AtB unit rating just the base CO rep rating for contracts.

School starts for us on the 8th of August. My poor poor kids... 1st and 4th grade  }:) >:D

[neoancient]

Your a little behind neo, I already fixed AtB for the CO reputation. I would have to look but it is either complete or partial as I haven't delved deeply into the AtB unit rating just the base CO rep rating for contracts.

You came up with a better way to map the reputation onto the dragoon rating for contract payments. I'm hardly behind, since I approved pulling that update in a chat exchange with Hammer as he was getting ready to build a release. I put a note in that PR to take responsibility for it. I was actually referring to the chart on CO, p. 42 that gives contract clause roll modifiers for the unit's reputation. The official system gives one or more bonuses (A-C) or a penalty (F) to random clauses based on dragoon rating.

[pheonixstorm]

err... shoddy memory.. ima go crawl back under a rock then.

[Shin Ji]

Oh, nothing in particular.  I was just assuming there would be a lot there for us to plunder, as it were.  But you're right, the contract stuff hasn't changed much since the beta.  I was really hoping for some more concrete guidance on what exactly Operations Tempo means - how many fights we should be having per week, or w/e.  Stuff like that.

Very much appreciate the work you all have been doing!

[neoancient]

The operations tempo is already accounted for in thenpayment multiplier for contract type. One thing that CO adds is an additional bonus for high risk or covert operations. The rule of thumb given in the text is that high risk is any operation in which the enemy BV is at least twice that of the player. Since AtB doesn't have a fixed enemy force, the hih-risk modifier doesn't really apply. At some point in the (hopefully near) future you will have the option of having the opposing forces set at the beginning of the contract, and it would then become a meaningful option. I don't see covert operations fitting into AtB, but with the more sophisticated victory conditions Ajkosch has been working on, that might become a real possibility.

[daskindt]

Link to the 2.31 AtB rules here:
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/megamek-games/campaign-rules-against-the-bot-thread-4/?action=dlattach;attach=29623

The link gives me a 404 error.

[pheonixstorm]

scjazz has a good link in his sig.