Author Topic: Interstellar Ops feedback  (Read 39548 times)

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #90 on: 08 April 2012, 08:50:00 »
Maybe if it happens, generic designs can be introduced as part of the Aerospace ships.  Small WarShip, Large WarShip, Recharge Station, etc.  Instead having worried about running into canon issues.  The scaling rules will truly be challenging, i hope the PDF supplement will help in this respect.  Personally, i think were going need spread sheet like "tools" help deal with massive amount of facts and data were handling when were doin a interstellar campaign.

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

monbvol

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

Bad_Syntax

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

Unfortunately there are only 2 ways this can be playable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VanVelding

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bad_Syntax

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psyckosama

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

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

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

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

Ryumyo

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

Ryumyo

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


Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24875
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #98 on: 02 August 2012, 15:32:26 »
Do you think they'll go ahead and seperate the Alternate Era rules from IS Ops?

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

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

FedComGirl

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

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

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

PurpleDragon

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

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

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

twycross

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

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

AishaPrince

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

HABeas2

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

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

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

Thank you,

- Herbert Beas
  BattleTech
  Catalyst Game Labs

 

Register