Interstellar Ops feedback

[Bad_Syntax]

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 :)

[cray]

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.

[Bad_Syntax]

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?

[skiltao]

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

[Gunbunnie]

I would like to see a track creation system as well. I can not wait for this to come out.

Daryl

[TheOldGuy]

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]

@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

[Crunch]

One question. Will there be any ATOW tie in to the force creation rules?

[Neufeld]

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.

[Atlas3060]

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.

[Blackhorse 6]

[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

[Bad_Syntax]

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.

[BlackAce]

*Cough* Needs a Master Warship List table in the back. *Cough*

Would save me some work, at least!  :D

[Bad_Syntax]

*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 ;)

[Werewolf]

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. :)

[Charlie 6]

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]

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]

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.

[PurpleDragon]

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. 

[Minerva]

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]

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.

[RacerX]

And where do the promised LAM rules fit into the outline?

[Bad_Syntax]

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)

[Dread Moores]

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]

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 :(

[Devens]

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.

[nckestrel]

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.)

[BrokenMnemonic]

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.

[Bad_Syntax]

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 :(

[nckestrel]

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?