Author Topic: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW  (Read 40286 times)

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #180 on: 04 July 2016, 07:17:01 »
I'd reckon you can make cullings. Take a reliable regiment and devide it into three battalions, one reliable, one fanatic, and one questionable.

I'm even working on a home rule to transfer experience points between two commands.
Making the dark age a little brighter, one explosion at a time.
Have you met the clans? Words like "Naïve" and "misguided" are not enough to describe the notion that a conquest of the IS by the clans would result in a Utopian pacifistic society.

Iracundus

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 514
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #181 on: 04 July 2016, 08:24:51 »
I have done some thinking and like with many of the rules, I think the time frame is just too quick for many of the actions possible.  With 1 turn representing 1 month, it is unrealistic to expect a world to become industrialized or a unit to suddenly change its Loyalty rating. 

Perhaps a 1 month change in Loyalty rating (at a cost in RP) can represent a purge, and thus carry risk of desertion or mutiny.  Purges can still happen in the more "open" societies.  They are simply called something different.  People may not disappear or be executed, but they might be cashiered or transferred to unimportant desk jobs. 

I see a 2nd option that is more time consuming (multiple turns) and costing more RP, but that can safely upgrade the Loyalty rating.  This could represent a steady bombardment of propaganda and more gradual rotating out of less loyal personnel, generous pay and more time to integrate the new personnel.  To prevent everyone from being upgraded to Fanatical, maybe make the cost much more significant.  Maybe adapt the concept of the Mercenary Retention rules (+1 bonus for every extra 10% of extra upkeep paid over and above normal upkeep), and roll.  If succeed then upgrade the force's Loyalty rating. 

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #182 on: 04 July 2016, 11:18:41 »
You can win or lose people support in less than a day. The right words are the difference between people who'll die for you, and those who will want to kill you.
Making the dark age a little brighter, one explosion at a time.
Have you met the clans? Words like "Naïve" and "misguided" are not enough to describe the notion that a conquest of the IS by the clans would result in a Utopian pacifistic society.

Iracundus

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 514
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #183 on: 04 July 2016, 16:51:24 »
You can win or lose people support in less than a day. The right words are the difference between people who'll die for you, and those who will want to kill you.

Yes but the rapid replacement of people all in 1 turn is why the unit loses experience points if it were being rebuilt after combat losses.  I would see the rapid replacement of people in 1 turn from transfers/purges having the same effect, while a more gradual process would allow for integration of the newly transferred in people (i.e. no experience loss). 

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #184 on: 04 July 2016, 17:24:50 »
Yes but the rapid replacement of people all in 1 turn is why the unit loses experience points if it were being rebuilt after combat losses.  I would see the rapid replacement of people in 1 turn from transfers/purges having the same effect, while a more gradual process would allow for integration of the newly transferred in people (i.e. no experience loss).
Well, the rapid replacement of personal from losses, is more like grabbing people of the street (or more precisely, dragooning people that had no business in a cockpit, like Astechs or even grunts). Too use it for moral changes, is literally picking up people from the street based on their political leanings...
Making the dark age a little brighter, one explosion at a time.
Have you met the clans? Words like "Naïve" and "misguided" are not enough to describe the notion that a conquest of the IS by the clans would result in a Utopian pacifistic society.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25565
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #185 on: 04 July 2016, 17:27:39 »
I'd reckon you can make cullings. Take a reliable regiment and devide it into three battalions, one reliable, one fanatic, and one questionable.

I'm even working on a home rule to transfer experience points between two commands.

Practical experience shows there's a considerable net loss from maneuvers like that. Groups/teams that worked well together and trusted each other suddenly have to mix with new people. The new people can resent these 'outsiders' brought in and placed over longer time-in-rank people (both at officer & NCO level). Then there's the likelyhood that fanatically loyal units often associate themselves with a particular grouping or sub-factional allegiance, which may be diluted when mixed with 'outsiders'.

Simple mathematical division never worked in the real world. What that approach means is instead of 21 reliable regiments - which most states are likely to have - you just issue some orders and movement plans, and end up with 7 fanatical, 7 reliable, and 7 questionable. Doesn't seem realistic.

Agreed, I am applying real-world logic to BT universe, but ...

W.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Iracundus

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 514
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #186 on: 04 July 2016, 17:38:28 »
Practical experience shows there's a considerable net loss from maneuvers like that. Groups/teams that worked well together and trusted each other suddenly have to mix with new people. The new people can resent these 'outsiders' brought in and placed over longer time-in-rank people (both at officer & NCO level). Then there's the likelyhood that fanatically loyal units often associate themselves with a particular grouping or sub-factional allegiance, which may be diluted when mixed with 'outsiders'.

What is described there sounds like experience point loss (due to mixing with new people and having to learn to work well together with them) and possible risk of desertion or mutiny (due to resentment).  Hence why my idea earlier this page of having 2 options to improve Loyalty:

1.  Rapid option of paying RP and risking desertion/mutiny and experience point loss due to a rapid change in personnel.
2.  More gradual option taking multiple turns but which does not risk the above losses (or reduced risk of losses) due to time being allowed for people to integrate into the unit.  Maybe an option for paying more RP to reduce risk too (representing generous pensions or other perks being given that soothes any resentment). 

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25565
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #187 on: 04 July 2016, 17:42:52 »
Comes down to how much book-keeping you want to track.

The second approach is probably the most realistic - send the cadre, suffer a short-term loss, and after three-six months roll a D6: 1-2 improves, 3-4 stays where it was, 5-6 stays lower. If unit sees combat during the waiting period, roll - I'm torn, cinematically you'd roll before entering combat, realistically after.

The first approach is more like pay all the RP in one hit, roll the die: 1-2 improves, 3 stays the same, 4-6 drops. Same chance of positive payoff, but worse chance of degrading the unit.

W.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Iracundus

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 514
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #188 on: 04 July 2016, 17:49:16 »
Comes down to how much book-keeping you want to track.

The second approach is probably the most realistic - send the cadre, suffer a short-term loss, and after three-six months roll a D6: 1-2 improves, 3-4 stays where it was, 5-6 stays lower. If unit sees combat during the waiting period, roll - I'm torn, cinematically you'd roll before entering combat, realistically after.

The first approach is more like pay all the RP in one hit, roll the die: 1-2 improves, 3 stays the same, 4-6 drops. Same chance of positive payoff, but worse chance of degrading the unit.

I'm all for more options and actions as a House Lord, to feel like you are really ruling your state and military. 

W.

Sounds like good variation, though I was also thinking of maybe a -1 modifier to those rolls there if you pay 10% more RP over and above the normal upkeep.  This extra cost representing extra perks, generous pensions for those discharged, and expenses on general propaganda etc... that helps prevent any resentment.  I still think there should be experience point loss though for the quicker option.

I'm all for more actions and options to feel like a House Lord actually ruling a state and military.  Maybe even some integration with AToW skills so skilled rulers can pull off some actions while others fall flat.
« Last Edit: 04 July 2016, 17:51:15 by Iracundus »

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #189 on: 05 July 2016, 02:28:23 »
Technically nobody "losses" experience in personnel transfers. If you take a company of elite mech warriors and transfer them to a different elite unit, the quality rating drop of the unit is temporary - those troops don't stop being elite individuals, just get their bearings.
Making the dark age a little brighter, one explosion at a time.
Have you met the clans? Words like "Naïve" and "misguided" are not enough to describe the notion that a conquest of the IS by the clans would result in a Utopian pacifistic society.

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4960
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #190 on: 05 July 2016, 04:27:56 »
Good news, everyone.  Campaign Operations has ACS/SBF tables for 3025, similar to the 1st SW tables!

Iracundus

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 514
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #191 on: 05 July 2016, 05:05:21 »
Technically nobody "losses" experience in personnel transfers. If you take a company of elite mech warriors and transfer them to a different elite unit, the quality rating drop of the unit is temporary - those troops don't stop being elite individuals, just get their bearings.

And while they get their bearings and learn to integrate with their new unit, the effectiveness is diminished, effectively the unit experience level is reduced.  It is the same rationale for why a damaged elite unit will lose experience points when rebuilt rapidly, because the incoming new replacements will drag down the overall effectiveness of the unit, even if they are not Green recruits. 

Rearranging personnel for loyalty purposes may not mean transfer to a new combat unit.  It could mean transfer to a behind the lines desk job or a discharge from the service entirely.  For some states, it may mean discharge into the afterlife (see Kuritans being invited to dine with their ancestors).

ScrapYardArmory

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
    • ScrapYardArmory
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #192 on: 05 July 2016, 06:38:54 »
Good news, everyone.  Campaign Operations has ACS/SBF tables for 3025, similar to the 1st SW tables!

That is excellent news!  These tables will vastly reduce the amount of setup work required to get things off the ground.

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #193 on: 06 July 2016, 11:03:52 »
We went a slightly less complicated route for loyalty changes. A unit that begins the game or is raised as "questionable" can become "reliable" by gaining two experience levels.  In other words, the better the unit is and performs, the less likely it is to be a discipline problem. A unit raised as "green/questionable" (likely to save RPs) can become reliable only when it becomes a veteran unit. A "regular/questionable" only when it becomes elite.

Considering the time it takes to gain an experience level and how that unit's experience can be effected by replacements, it would actually take some time for the unit to outgrow its teething problems.

On your spreadsheet the unit's loyalty is noted in bracket's so you remember that it can fluctuate. For example: "mech regimernt x - vet/(r)" would denote this unit began as 'questionable' (and green because of the 2 level rule). If loses reduced it to "reg" or "gr" it would drop to (q).

We didn't bother about reliable and fanatic tracking but have discussed putting a limit of just 15% of new builds allowed to be fanatic. There is just too much to keep track of to get much more detailed.

To be honest though, should a full campaign ever be launched would such tracking be worth it? Consider the paperwork. Tracking salvage, repair and merging as combat commands move about, are mangled, repaired, merged, etc. would likely be more work than benefit.

Cheers.
« Last Edit: 06 July 2016, 11:09:25 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #194 on: 06 July 2016, 11:07:34 »
Quote from: Alexander Knight link
Good news, everyone.  Campaign Operations has ACS/SBF tables for 3025, similar to the 1st SW tables!

Campaign Operations?

Campaign Operations?

Where might I find this wonderful addition? Would love to compare the tables against the few Marik battalions I've designed (or the Steiner and Kurita ones we are using based of the RATs)
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

ScrapYardArmory

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
    • ScrapYardArmory
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #195 on: 06 July 2016, 12:07:50 »
Campaign Operations?

Campaign Operations?

Where might I find this wonderful addition? Would love to compare the tables against the few Marik battalions I've designed (or the Steiner and Kurita ones we are using based of the RATs)

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/186964/BattleTech-Campaign-Operations?hot60=1&src=hnum

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #196 on: 14 July 2016, 13:24:58 »
Once again, pardon the long post.

With more unit tables being published the need for converting units ourselves is being reduced but mercenary units still consist of non-standard OoBs.

We have avoided changing over the aerospace side of our game from BF2 to SBF, Adv/Scale BF due to the lack of AS Cards (MUL) for drop ships. At the same time there have been a few ftr v ftr encounters between our Lyrans and Kuritans so I started looking at the conversion rules for aerospace and it raised a few questions, primarily around incorporating REAR 1/1/- specials.


To make sure we are on the right path I am including the conversion attempt for a non-standard squadron of eight Draconis medium Shilone 17AC (four flights of 2 ASF).

The base stats for the Shilone 17AC are:

Size: 2; TH: 2; Move: 6a; Arm: 6; Str: 3; S: 3; M: 3; L: 1; E: 1; Skill: 4; Specials: BOMB2, FUEL20, REAR1/1/-, SPC, VSTOL; PV 24

Flight (Unit) Conversion

 
Treating the conversion rules the same as with a mech the SBF Unit (flight) should look like this:

Size: 2; TH: 2; Move: 6a; Armor: ((6+3+.5(str3+)) x 2) /3 = 6.33 FRN to 6; S and M range damage: (3+3)/3 = 2; L and E range: (1+1)/3 = .66 FRN to 1; PV: (24*)/3 = 16

Step 1F tells us to calculate each arc separately so the REAR1/1/- special remains in place (?) with the calculation similar to the above: (1+1)/3 = .66 FRN to 1

Step1F also tells us to total the BOMB damage and also divide by 3 so the BOMB special would drop to 1 based on the following:

(BOMB2+BOMB2)/3 = 1.33 FRN to BOMB1.

If correct the final Unit (flight) stats are thus:

Size: 2; TH: 2; Move: 6a; Arm: 6; S: 2; M: 2; L: 1; E: 1; Skill: 4; Specials: BOMB1, FUEL20, REAR1/1-, SPC, VSTOL; PV: 16

 
Squadron (Combat Team) Conversion

If the above is correct the squadron (Combat Team) of four flights converts as such:

 
Size: 2; TH: 2; Move: 6a; Arm: (6x4)/3 = 8; S and M range ((2+1(rear)) x 4)/3 = 4; L and E range (1x4)/3 = 1.33 FRN to 1; Skill: 4; Specials: BOMB4*, FUEL20, SPC, VSTOL; PV: (16*4)/3 = 21.33 FRN to 21

BOMB4* - Arrived at this by following the step 5B and 5C where each Unit (Flight) adds its special ability together for both SBF Unit and ACS Combat Team.

The REAR1/1/- should now be factored into the damage values and is no longer applicable much like IF specials do for BM and CV Combat Teams.

So if all of the above correct this squadron should look like this:

Size:2; TH: 2; Move: 6a; Arm: 8; S: 4; M: 4; L: 1; E: 1; Skill: 4; Specials BOMB4, FUEL20, SPC, VSTOL; PV: 21
 
Squadron (SBF Formation) Conversion

The SBF Formation would look like this:

Size: 2; TH: 2; Move: 6a; Skill: 4; Tactics: 4; Morale: 7; Specials BOMB4, FUEL20, SPC, VSTOL; PV 64

Please let me know if I went astray anywhere.

[Yes,… we clearly missed this REAR1/1/- business with mechs so if the above is correct we have to adjust a few Formations and ACS Combat Teams]

Cheers.
« Last Edit: 14 July 2016, 13:46:23 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #197 on: 14 July 2016, 13:37:15 »
I'm not an SBF expert, but I believe REAR is not a firing arc.  Or at least, not what was Meant by firing arc there.  I think rear is dropped at SBF levels.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4960
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #198 on: 14 July 2016, 16:04:06 »
NCKestrel is correct.  REAR is not used in SBF calculations, because fighters are allowed only one "firing arc" and REAR subtracts from the primary arc's damage when used.

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #199 on: 15 July 2016, 09:23:36 »
Thanks to Nick and Alex for the clarifications! Discarding the rear specials makes life easier.
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #200 on: 24 July 2016, 00:13:13 »
Was just reading though the special abilities for ISW again and noticed something interesting in Parliamentary Chaos special: "On a result of 4–6, all forces identified as in combat receive 1 extra RP and apply a –1 modifier to Morale and +1 Initiative for any combat actions."

Am I reading this right and there's a 50% chance that your units receive supplies, no matter what? That could be really useful in invasions given some of the potential problems people have pointed out.

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4960
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #201 on: 24 July 2016, 02:24:49 »
Well, *some* supplies.  The average Combat Command requires 40 RP of supplies per month in combat after all.

ScrapYardArmory

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
    • ScrapYardArmory
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #202 on: 24 July 2016, 06:02:12 »
But with a large enough military base that will quickly add up in the long run and may help direct RP to other uses or even expanding that military base.

Neat.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #203 on: 25 July 2016, 04:33:19 »
Does anyone else think that there are some problems with the ACS Master Modifiers table? Some of them, like for having ECM, don't make any sense or line up with what's said.

ScrapYardArmory

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
    • ScrapYardArmory
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #204 on: 25 July 2016, 06:01:12 »
Does anyone else think that there are some problems with the ACS Master Modifiers table? Some of them, like for having ECM, don't make any sense or line up with what's said.

Can you be more specific?  Seems OK to me.

-1 to enemy recon attempts (not much but something)
-0.1 incoming damage modifier

What does not make sense?

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8389
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #205 on: 25 July 2016, 15:25:42 »
Double check things, that minus on Recon rolls is bad, and that damage modifier even worse, it reduces the damage you do.

ScrapYardArmory

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
    • ScrapYardArmory
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #206 on: 25 July 2016, 17:53:02 »
So it may be that they are flipped or the chart has a poor way of differentiating effects on yourself vs effects on opposing rolls.  I think it should be obvious what they meant but it could have been done more clearly.

I'm not a fan of the one table to rule them all to be honest.  I think multiple smaller charts would have been easier to follow in a lot of instances. 

Thatguybil

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 500
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #207 on: 24 April 2017, 20:34:44 »
I would strongly suggest getting rid of the support tracking.
Baseline support can be assumed as part of the NET RP production.

It adds lots of book keeping for very little actual gain in game play.

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 343
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #208 on: 26 April 2017, 20:03:51 »
We might be overthinking the whole "experience vs. loyalty" thing.  Remember, they represent 2 very different aspects:
 -- experience is just that:  how experienced your troops are.  A successful unit that survives, if not wins, its battles is going to be a highly experience unit, whereas a unit that spends most of its time sitting around (yes, I'm looking at you, 15th Benjamin Regulars) is going to remain as Green as grass.
 -- loyalty is, again, just what it sounds like:  how dedicated are you to the faction, or how willing are you to stand & die in a no-win situation when the Coordinator/Emperor/Archon demands it?  You could have a unit that's been around for centuries with top-notch MechWarriors, but its troops are so cynical that an undercover ISF agent is in at least 1 Lance of every Company...& you could have another unit literally filled with boys & girls fresh from the academy that are ready to swallow grenades just to take out a Davion trooper if they're captured.

The book already has rules for improving the Combat Command's skill level.  For improving the reliability, I'd say you have to spend RP.  Since there's a multiplier that applies when creating the unit, you figure out what the cost to originally build the unit was, look at the difference in multipliers, & that's the RP cost to improve it.  That's going to be a lot more expensive than unit repairs, & essentially you're using up supplies and/or resources for new units, so it's a tradeoff.

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 343
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #209 on: 27 April 2017, 17:55:38 »
As a follow-up, I took a look at the costs for the DCMS Combat Commands (both regular & the "reinforced" ones like the Swords of Light regiments):
 -- House Kurita shows them having 66 "House" Combat Commands, with 9 "Questionable" (1 Green, 4 Regular, & 4 Veteran), 49 "Reliable" (18 Green, 18 Regular, 12 Veteran, & 1 Elite), & 8 "Fanatical" (2 Green, 1 Regular, 2 Veteran, & 3 Elite).
 -- The "default" (assuming x1.0 multipliers) is that you will get a Green/Reliable Combat Command (138 RP for regular, 150 for a reinforced); starting off at Regular doubles the cost, but going down to "Really Green" cuts 25% off, while "Wet Behind the Ears" is half cost
 -- Supply is only dependent on if the unit is in combat or not (12 or 49 RP for regulars, 13 or 53 RP for reinforced), whether you're Super Green or Elite as all get-out.
 -- Elevating a unit from Questionable to Reliable costs half the normal RP to purchase the same unit outright; elevating it from Questionable to Fanatical costs the same as a brand-new unit.
 -- Assuming non-combat support for the beginning units, & based on the faction's starting RP, the leftover RP is enough to elevate the 9 Questionable Combat Commands to Reliable after 4 turns...assuming zero combat by any DCMS units.  Elevating the 48 non-Elite Reliable units to Fanatical would take another 18 turns (again, no combat whatsoever).  Elevating all 57 units to Fanatical status would take 26 turns, again with no combat.
 -- Based on those costs, I could maybe see elevating the Questionable units...but otherwise, it's a lot more cost-effective to spend the RP on new units (or even on manufacturing).  Those 4 turns, for example, could have seen you add 12 additional Green/Questionable Combat Commands (or increasing your combat forces by about 15%).

So, improving your reliability rating is not going to come cheap.