Author Topic: Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback  (Read 102828 times)

ScannerError

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 110
Re: Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback
« Reply #270 on: 31 August 2015, 19:11:24 »
Since this is almost over, I'm going to post the few more things that I noticed and also clarify and cite my previous bits of feedback.  That should make it easier to fix things. 

---------------------------------

Pg 26, 28 & 31, Faction Lists

In the faction lists, the Filtvelt coalition is noted as being allied to the Federated Suns, and the remains of the FRR are identified as being allied with Comstar.  However, other alliances (such as the Capellan/Canopian alliance) are not noted.  I am unsure if this is intentional (to note that such small factions are barely independent), or an oversight. 

---------------------------------

Pg 66, iATM, Game Rules, 2nd paragraph.

"...the iATM hits will all missiles..."
should be:
"...the iATM hits with all missiles..."

---------------------------------

Pg 67, IMP missiles

Not clear in the text if the walking MP reductions result in a recalculation of the running MP or not. 

---------------------------------

Pg 68, Direct Neural Interface

No C-bill cost is listed for the modification in the entry, unlike for the Damage Interrupt Circuit and SLDF Advanced Neurohelmet

---------------------------------

Pg 68, SLDF Advanced Neurohelmet

"...the advanced neurohelmet was developed initially for the SLDF’s most elite MechWarriors at first and eventually..."
Having "initially" and "at first" is redundant, recommend removing "at first"

---------------------------------

Pg 73, Prototype Remote Sensors, Game rules

"...but during the End Phase after each turn in which a unit has deployed prototype remote sensors, its controlling player must roll 1D6 for each sensor that has been deployed."
The current wording makes it unclear if this roll is made for every turn the sensor is deployed (as implied by the later portions of the game rules), or if this roll is only made on the turn the sensor is deployed.  Suggest changing to:
"...but during the End Phase of each turn the controlling player must roll 1D6 for each prototype sensor that has been deployed."

---------------------------------

Pg 89, Radical Heat Sinks, Radical Heat Sink Failure table

If using the same mechanics as MASC and Supercharger failure (and prior RHS rules in FM:3145), the 10 on the 5th row should be a 9. 

The first row ( 0   |   2 ) is never used, and should be deleted to avoid confusion. 

I would recommend putting a "+" next to the entries in the "avoid failure on" column to improve readability. 

---------------------------------

Pg 91, RISC APDS

There is no mention of what happens when a single-missile launcher (Such as a thunderbolt or NARC) is fired at a protected unit.  I would suggest the missile being intercepted on a D6 roll of more than 8+X, where X is the cluster hit modifier the APDS would normally impose.  For example, a 1D6 roll of 5+ would be needed to stop a Thunderbolt aimed at a unit adjacent to a mech equipped with an APDS system, or one aimed at a unit in the same hex as a 3-man battle armor squad with an APDS system. 

---------------------------------

Pg 92, RISC Emergency Coolant System

The values in the table for "number of turns used" are all one less than they should be. 

I would recommend putting a "+" next to the entries in the "avoid failure on" column to improve readability.

---------------------------------

Pg 95, RISC Viral Jammer

The disabling of effected electronics for the remainder of the scenario is inconsistent with both the Alpha Strike Companion and Mechwarrior: Dark Age depictions of this technology.  In both cases, once the Viral Jammer ceases functioning the jamming effect is removed  (page 38 of ACS, http://www.warrenborn.com/Unit.php?ID=VG-G-143 and http://www.warrenborn.com/Unit.php?ID=VG-G-145 for rules references).  Due to their extremely strong effects and low BV, I strongly suggest changing Viral Jammers to having effected electronics return to functioning when the Viral Jammer shuts down or is destroyed, both for consistency and game balance reasons. 

If this is not done, I would strongly suggest massively increasing their BV value (on the order of three to five times their current BV), and/or making it Offensive BV instead of Defensive BV as it destroys equipment, instead of temporarily protecting from it like other ECM systems.  They are currently severely under-costed compared to the Artemis, Stealth armor, and (most notably) C3 networks they easily neutralize.  I realize they are supposed to be a temporary and powerful technology, but their BV should reflect their capabilities regardless.  If it does not, it defeats the entire purpose of BV as a balancing mechanism.  Similar limited-time and powerful equipment and augmentations, such as the Nova CEWS, iATMs, and MD implants, all have appropriate BV costs. 

A few rules clarifications are needed as well:

Are checks made for every turn a unit is within range, or only upon initial exposure? 

At what point in the turn is the check for a unit's electronics made?

---------------------------------

Pg 132, Retro-Streak Missiles

It is unclear what happens if a unit carries both Retro-Streak and normal Streak ammo in its ammo bins. 

---------------------------------

Pg 166, Thermobaric Weapons, infantry

"...infantry units must also roll 2D6 and subtract their distance from the FAM’s point of impact (in hexes) from the result"
should be
"...infantry units must also roll 2D6 and add their distance from the FAM’s point of impact (in hexes) to the result"

The current wording makes it more lethal the farther away the infantry are. 

---------------------------------

Pg 199, Alternate Era Weapons and equipment BV table, Quadvees

Are the offensive and defensive BV mods for wheeled quadvees calculated using their increased movement speed in vehicle mode, or using their default mech speed?

---------------------------------

Pg 218-227, Alternate Era Weapons and Equipment table

Strongly recommend moving this table to the end of the book, to be consistent with the placement of construction data tables in Tactical Operations and Tech Manual. 

---------------------------------

Thank you for letting us give feedback on this important rulebook, and for reading through this wall of suggestions.  I'm looking forward to seeing the full, polished release in the future. 
« Last Edit: 31 August 2015, 19:18:19 by ScannerError »

Charlie 6

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2089
Re: Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback
« Reply #271 on: 31 August 2015, 19:51:46 »
Very bottom of Pg 236, The 'Transporting Infantry' section currently reads in a disjointed manner by jumping between sub-topics.  Recommend changing entire section to read as follows:

"The transporting infantry (IT#) denotes both the capability of a Formation for carrying infantry and the capacity for elements to be carried as denoted by the # symbol.  Correspondingly, an infantry Elements' capacity requirement (as noted by the CAR# special ability) must be less than or equal to the Formation IT#.  For example, the Maxim Heavy Hover Transport has the IT12 special ability. This means a Unit of Maxims (4 Elements) may transport up to 48 Elements worth of infantry, such as 12 4-trooper squads of Cavalier battle armor, each of which has the CAR4 special ability.  Infantry Elements may not be carried in part, must dismount if the carrying Formation loses capacity through Unit destruction, and are destroyed if forced into prohibited terrain (e.g., foot infantry Unit carried by a Hover Unit which is destroyed on a water hex).

Mechanized Battle Armor (MEC): Battle armor Formations with the MEC special ability may mount OmniMechs and OmniVehicles (Formations with the OMNI special ability), even if such Formations lack the Infantry Transport special ability.  Though mechanized battle armor mounts up externally on an Omni Formation, battle armor units may not attack or be directly attacked while mounted in this fashion.

Extended Mechanized Battle Armor (XMEC): Formations with the XMEC special ability are equipped to mount any type of 'Mech or vehicle (but not Fixed-wing Support Vehicles or Aerospace) in the same manner as MEC special ability Units. However, the transport mounted by these Formations will reduce Move by 1 MP for as long as the XMEC Formation remains on board.  All other MEC rules apply to XMEC Formations (and their transports) as well.

Mounting and Dismounting.
It costs an infantry transport Formation 1 MP of Move to mount (pick up) or dismount (drop off) battle armor or infantry. Mounting infantry must be done at the beginning of the transporting Formation's movement, and airborne transport Formations must be landed to take on any infantry or battle armor Formations for transport. (For aerospace units, landing is covered in Advanced Strategic Aerospace; see Aerospace Squadrons on the Ground Map, p. 251-253.)  Mounting and dismounting battle armor from an Omni Formation follows all the same movement rules as mounting and dismounting infantry from a dedicated infantry transport."

S/F

Matt

Kodiak

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback
« Reply #272 on: 31 August 2015, 21:00:40 »
Many good comments so far. I am looking forward to seeing the final product.

One typo I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere in the feedback: page 351: "Suply and RP Deficit" should be "Supply and RP Deficit"

Also, a thought about the cover art: I have read it on both an iMac and an iPad and the image seems to read very differently on the 2 screens. On iPad, the contrast is reading way off and is much too dark and over saturated. I don't know why this is because the rest of the images on the .pdf are reading nicely.   

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24876
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback
« Reply #273 on: 31 August 2015, 21:01:22 »
Hi

I originally asked this question in the Rules section, was direct this question to here.

I'm not sure if this would be cover by them or this has been answered in the past.
However, this may need to be addressed when IO is published.


Aerospace Fighters can land VTOL style (Vertical landings) in atmosphere according to Total Warfare pg 87 in the Landing section.   My question is  "Can a LAM in fighter mode only accomplish the same thing?"   

Example:  Say because there there no landing field/fighter bay for this vehicle to land you need make a vertical landing in Fighter Mode due to conversion equipment is broken.   
"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

Revanche

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 567
  • Fanah’s Fangs (formerly of the Talitha Division)
Re: Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback
« Reply #274 on: 31 August 2015, 21:05:55 »
While it's been stated previously, I agree the order of the chapters should be re-examined. For me, the critical factor is the relationship between ACS and ISW rules.

1) It is frustrating they are separated by the Conversion rules. With the number of times each of those two games reference the other, having to flip past the Conversion just bogs it down and complicates the search for the respective rules. As Conversion is so intricate, but not a constant feature of the game, it would make sense (to me) that it follows the ISW/ACS.

2) The role of ACS and ISW could be merged somewhat. I recognize that ACS is a tier higher than SBF and it is possible/probable some players may choose to go to ACS instead of SBF to resolve large battles, especially those aerospace campaigns that have a direct impact on concurrent operations on the planets/moons. However, as ISW depends on ACS to resolve combat, it would seem to me that ACS should fit within ISW, or follow it. It really breaks the chain of the phases when you have to skip out of the ISW chapter to resolve a specific instance of combat, which itself may refer back to a component inside the ISW chapter again. Thank the FSM for ScrapYardArmory's (SYA) sense of order that he was able to establish a process for us to at least begin to stress test both sets of rules in this abbreviated beta time.

Speaking of SYA, as one of his four part-time assistants in his online tests, I would strongly urge you to review his posts here. He got into the guts of this system and it was quite clear to me that I would have given up on the complexity of these rules (which I have been waiting on since they were announced) because they were complicated by confusing formatting and incomplete internal testing. SYA spent a lot of time these past 4 weeks trying to understand what they intended to accomplish, so that we (CGL and the invested fans) could collaborate on jointly creating a working system. You got a lot of free labor from him on this.
« Last Edit: 31 August 2015, 21:08:49 by Revanche »

FedComGirl

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4447
Re: Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback
« Reply #275 on: 01 September 2015, 04:35:35 »
A couple TSEMP and Centurion Weapon System Questions.

TSEMP can be used to attempt to shut down anything under 200 tons. Is that right? Superheavy Mechs, any vehicle up to 199 tons, Buildings. If buildings are included, does the targeted building have to be a single hex structure?

Centurion Weapon System has a nice list of ways to identify units susceptible to it. Does that include all unit types though? For example would the Centurion work against a 150 year old Building, Mobile Structure or a multi-hex sized surface ship? If they can attack such targets are their effects limited to that particular hex, or would it also depend on the equipment in that section? As in knock out the engine, knock out the whole thing. Or would it just need to hit the target for it's effects to work? 

For both I think limiting the effects against targets that 1 hex big and 199 tons or less would be consistent with no effect against Aerospace units 200 tons or more and no effect again Mobile Structures as they take up a minimum of 2 hexes.

The other question I have concern the 150 year age.

Is it possible to eliminate the 150 year old or older susceptibility? I'm guessing being refurbished in a factory would work for all but Primitives, Retrotech, FrankenMech, and possibly Prototypes. Is this right?

What about buildings and such? Can they be repaired/modernized or are they out of luck? Presuming they can be attacked in the first place. Can any such upgrades be applied to all units? Like a software patch or something that'd be take care of during routine maintenance?

Does the starting date for 150 years start from when the Centurion was introduced 2762 or is it 150 years from when the unit came off the production lines? Would a mech made in 2995 be susceptible to the Centurion in 3050 because it's older than 150 years old. Or would it not be because it was introduced after the Centurion was? Does this apply only to Inner Sphere designs or to Clan designs as well. If fired at an Imp or Coyotl Prime now would it have any effect because they're over 150 years old or no effect because they're clan designs. If there is no effect against Clan units, is there any effect against Star League-in-Exile units?

I'd recommend 150 years from when the unit came off the production lines, regardless of unit origin. Time and use does cause damage that could leave even Clan units susceptible. It'd also make the Centurion more usable.

Also does the age of the unit apply to that particular unit or the entire design? For example the design for the LCT-1V Locust is 651 years old by 3150. Are they all susceptible or just specific examples? I want to say specific examples but then why are modern Primitives and Retrotech units susceptible? Yes, to the design, but individuals may be upgraded? I'm guessing Primitives and the others aren't compatible?

Would a prototype that is mass produced, such as the Locust 1V, receive the Prototype Quirk and be susceptible regardless of age, or would this quirk be assigned on a case by case basis?
I'm thinking the case by case since some are just better than others.

Thanks :)


StCptMara

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6551
  • Looking for new Adder skin boots
Re: Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback
« Reply #276 on: 01 September 2015, 14:16:59 »
Clarification Question:
      Given: LAM Airmech mode rules are a hybrid of Aerospace and Ground Unit-
      Question: Does AirMech move in the Ground Unit Movement Phase or the Aerospace Unit Movement Phase?
"Victory or Debt!"- The Battlecry of Mercenaries everywhere

"Greetings, Mechwarrior! You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against---Oops, wrong universe" - Unknown SLDF Recruiter

Reality and Battletech go hand in hand like a drug induced hallucination and engineering a fusion reactor ;-)

ScrapYardArmory

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
    • ScrapYardArmory
Re: Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback
« Reply #277 on: 01 September 2015, 14:32:29 »
If I could outright change one thing in these rules it would be the Mercenary Retention Roll Effects.  Currently on an unmodified result of 2, ALL of a nations mercenaries decide to seek greener pastures.

I find this highly unbalancing.  I would never hire mercenaries in a game if I knew there was a 1 in 36 chance any given turn for them all to wander off.

Perhaps instead you could make a natural 2 auto-fail, but with a minimum MoF of 1.

JerseyMekWorks

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback
« Reply #278 on: 01 September 2015, 20:04:43 »
My apologies for this late feedback, but I wanted to collect my thoughts from reading the Beta material and working a couple of test turns with ScrapYardArmory.

First, this book is a very dense, detailed tome.  Very well worth the purchase price.  It covers a lot of material from technology to 3 game systems.  The developers did a lot of work on this product and it shows.  Thank you for such a work.

Unfortunately, I found this book very hard to read.  Unlike Total Warfare, Tactical Operations and Strategic Operations, there is something in the text, formatting or style that made engaging with the text difficult.  Though I made several attempts to read it cover to cover, I never got there.  The gray color palette just did not engage me as the Strategic Ops blue or TacOps yellow did.   Perhaps, as others have suggested, reordering the material will address this issue - specifically, I would mimic the order of Tactical Operations where the rules are presented first, with the technology presented later.  Additionally, the presentation of the Alternate Era technologies breaks with the format of the TechManual and TacOps where the equipment narrative is presented in the main text while construction rules and game rules are offset in a table.  I would prefer that presentation from prior books be maintained.  I'm not an author or editor, so I understand if these comments are not particularly helpful.

Having play tested ACS with ScrapYardArmory, my first reaction is that the system is overly complex.  While sizing and scope are about right - maps were the right size, the Master Modifier Table is just unwieldy and the game would not have been playable without ScrapYardArmory's web interface.  First suggestion is to determine if lines in the Master Modifier Table can be collapsed to reduce its overall size.  Secondly, and specifically, tracking which units where engaged with which units when multiple units occupied a given hex was nearly impossible (and we had only 6 units in the hex); consider changing this rule to a binary on / off - if a unit is engage by 1 enemy unit in a hex, it is engaged by all.  Thirdly, given the amount of data management required, I'm not sure ACS can be played without a web aid - I'm not sure one could keep track of everything on paper.  SYA implemented an interactive Star System Radar Map and Planetary Combat Map, complete with tokens, basic damage tracking and even RATs.  I suggest looking at the work SYA has already completed and creating a web system to package with Interstellar Ops.  ACS requires a lot of data management - if possible get the computer to do it for the player.  Finally, I support a previous suggestion to break ACS down into rule tiers, similar to vanilla Battletech - Introductory / Beginner, Standard / Tournament and Advanced.  Such a delineation would break the large and difficult to use Master Modifier table down into more manageable parts, it would also allow players and GM to select the level of detail they want to use with relative ease.  It also follows previously established rules level conventions.

With respect to Inner Sphere at War, as many others have already suggested, maintaining an online map of the Battletech universe for each era, already fitted to a hex grid would make running the game less challenging as the map would be readily available.  Additionally, researching a computer system / web application to manage all the data would greatly simplify the execution of this detailed rule set.

Again, this book is a very dense product.  There are a lot of good rules and content, but parts of it just do not feel like the rest of the CGL product line.  Aligning the formatting and product structure to conventions already established in TacOps and TechManual would improve the overall presentation of the product.  Integrating the highly complex rule sets with computer data management systems would make significant strides in helping players utilize and enjoy the ruleset - if the rules are too complex to utilize, the game will not get played.

Clearly the development team has spent a lot of effort, energy and passion developing Interstellar Operations.  Thank you for working this product as long and diligently as you have.

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6820
  • BattleTech Line Developer
Re: Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback
« Reply #279 on: 01 September 2015, 22:49:08 »
Thank you all for your participation and feedback!
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

 

Register