Author Topic: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System  (Read 58738 times)

Kommando

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 210
  • Sweet justice!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #30 on: 19 November 2014, 23:20:07 »
non combatant elements probably shouldn't have S/M/L stats then. it causes confusion.

can transport jumpships execute in-system jumps?

why is all damage divided by 4?
What avarice!

Field Agent #522
Battletech in Brisbane, Australia.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #31 on: 19 November 2014, 23:48:17 »
non combatant elements probably shouldn't have S/M/L stats then. it causes confusion.

Hmm... see this is what happens when more than one writer works on rules. I asked AK to gin up the units for the scenarios and then didn't really look at them. So forget some of what I said. We will be figuring out how to take abstract transport and give it something to do in ACS (mostly moving targets).

Quote
can transport jumpships execute in-system jumps?


Yes , rules are in ISW.  I'm going to add this to the list of addendum I'll try and toss up shortly. Along with fixed PAM movement.

Quote
why is all damage divided by 4?

Because we love math... Simplifying the equations is on the list.
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #32 on: 20 November 2014, 00:04:56 »
Can you elaborate on your reasoning?
Well, since infantry forces are composed of a significantly larger number of individuals, it's easier for them to spread around for encirclement.
Also, as I said, infantry forces need a break in the current ACS. It doesn't matter that they're cheap, when their battlefield effectiveness is non-existent, and they get penalized when trying to swarm. From a strategic purpose, they're just taking up space, that could be utilized better by any other kind of unit. At the very least have them take less space (maybe even none) in fortifications (I can see a LOT of infantry being able to garrison a capital city) or boost weapon emplacements, or something; just throw them a bone. Maybe give them more utilitarian abilities.

Transport Squadrons are JumpShips and Carrier DropShips. They are non-combatants. They come from ISW rules where all transport is abstracted out to Transport Points. Only WarShips and Assault DropShips are purchasable combat units.

The thing is, the carrier dropships are a real game changers. Even a carriar Dropship has significantly higher firepower than your average ground units. Trying to dislodge it from a landing site, to cut an invading force retreat, would require devoting significant resources. At the same time, destroying or taking the enemy dropship, often wins the battle; in most cases in battletech where that happened, the force either surrendered or dispersed until they can be smuggled off world (often without their battlemechs and tanks).

It's not like a Jumpship, where they often surrender when the first shots are fired; droppers are a tough nut, essentially a mobile fortification. And knocking them gives a huge advantage, almost like taking the king in a chess match.
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: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #33 on: 20 November 2014, 00:11:02 »
Hmm... see this is what happens when more than one writer works on rules. I asked AK to gin up the units for the scenarios and then didn't really look at them. So forget some of what I said. We will be figuring out how to take abstract transport and give it something to do in ACS (mostly moving targets).

Have you looked at the stats for the transport units?  They are basically moving targets.  :)  Aerospace fighter wings or Stars annihilate them.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #34 on: 20 November 2014, 01:32:42 »
Adapting on the fly, Alexander Knight has devised stats for three different types of infantry units, Heavy, Standard and Recon.

The stats in the image are for one company (12 Elements) of Infantry. Cost is Resource Points from ISW.

-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40758
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #35 on: 20 November 2014, 01:58:39 »
one company (12 Elements) of Infantry.

I haven't read through the ACS yet, but assuming an Element is an Infantry platoon, 12 such elements would be a reinforced battalion under standard organization, not merely a company. Now if an Element is just a squad, then yes, that'd be a company.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4960
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #36 on: 20 November 2014, 01:59:36 »
I haven't read through the ACS yet, but assuming an Element is an Infantry platoon, 12 such elements would be a reinforced battalion under standard organization, not merely a company. Now if an Element is just a squad, then yes, that'd be a company.

It is 1 Company's / 1 Star's worth of infantry.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #37 on: 20 November 2014, 02:26:04 »
I haven't read through the ACS yet, but assuming an Element is an Infantry platoon, 12 such elements would be a reinforced battalion under standard organization, not merely a company. Now if an Element is just a squad, then yes, that'd be a company.

There's always one unit type that just breaks the stupid mold...

What AK just said- 1 Company / 1 Star
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #38 on: 20 November 2014, 03:09:14 »
ok my roommate and i tried the Luzerene scenario and found some problems
1.the PCM is to small (he broke his units down to to 2 battalion each to spread the defenders)
2. transports need a carrying cap and should be able to hold there own vs fighter wings (even one Union is hard for a fighter sq to take down)
3. the example for the FWLS Raven show it getting the mvdif penalty vs aero wings yet the rules say cap or scap units dont get mvdif vs aero wings
4.does damage reduction happen in the turn it is damaged or in following turns
5. on the combat results chart the LR mods dont match the rules (/ by 3 rd)example. aerospace wing 6/3=2, 1st def wing 4/3=1 same for 5th lyran aero wing
6.most of the entries on the combat example have errors that make it hard to figure out combat
example= 5th lyran areo wing delivered=54 mod=1.6 final=22  p.s. 12x1.6 is not 22 its 19.2 so how was this figured out or is it an error ?
besides that love the Abstract Combat System so far keep up the good work!! O0
« Last Edit: 20 November 2014, 03:22:17 by victor_shaw »

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #39 on: 20 November 2014, 03:34:04 »
ok my roommate and i tried the Luzerene scenario and found some problems
1.the PCM is to small (he broke his units down to to 2 battalion each to spread the defenders)

Interesting. May explore also limiting how small a Formation can be.

Quote
2. transports need a carrying cap and should be able to hold there own vs fighter wings (even one Union is hard for a fighter sq to take down)


They are directly based on AlphaStrike stats. I can tell you from traditional aerospace play even a squadron or Sparrowhawks can pretty much own a Union. We will look into this. It is one of the age old issues, the rules for aerospace and the fiction for planetary landings don't match.

Quote
3. the example for the FWLS Raven show it getting the mvdif penalty vs aero wings yet the rules say cap or scap units dont get mvdif vs aero wings


Page references please

Quote
4.does damage reduction happen in the turn it is damaged or in following turns

 
As with all BattleTech, damage is applied immediately.

Quote
5. on the combat results chart the LR mods dont match the rules (/ by 3 rd)example. aerospace wing 6/3=2, 1st def wing 4/3=1 same for 5th lyran aero wing

Thanks

Quote
6.most of the entries on the combat example have errors that make it hard to figure out combat
example= 5th lyran areo wing delivered=54 mod=1.6 final=22  p.s. 12x1.6 is not 22 its 19.2 so how was this figured out or is it an error ?
Quote

Checking

Quote
besides that love the Abstract Combat System so far keep up the good work!! O0

Thank you!

-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #40 on: 20 November 2014, 03:36:13 »
ok my roommate and i tried the Luzerene scenario and found some problems

Oh and any thought to the stats? Would they work better divided by 10?
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #41 on: 20 November 2014, 03:46:00 »
Oh and any thought to the stats? Would they work better divided by 10?
yes  ;)

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #42 on: 20 November 2014, 03:54:27 »
 
1.They are directly based on AlphaStrike stats. I can tell you from traditional aerospace play even a squadron or Sparrowhawks can pretty much own a Union. We will look into this. It is one of the age old issues, the rules for aerospace and the fiction for planetary landings don't match.
 

2.Page references please

 
3.As with all BattleTech, damage is applied immediately.


1. Isn't that always the case lol, but i ment more the fact that a dropship is not going to stay and fight its moving at one G  to transit the system and if the fighters are not at the nadir/zenith point or in orbit they would not have a chance to engage.

2. pg 15 Aerospace Combat rules / pg 18 Combat Results Table

3.but that could change the effect of an attack lower the DR ? seems like this would cause math headaches for the players.
« Last Edit: 20 November 2014, 04:06:37 by victor_shaw »

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #43 on: 20 November 2014, 05:11:57 »
Comment 1
Great feedback. We’ll look at that. Saving page count would be great.

Cool.

Quote from: welshman
Comment 2
Quote from: skiltao
The Scouting Modifiers table seems to say that a Panther is a better scout than a Cicada, or a Charger, and that a Ferret is worse than a Locust. That can't be right. There also does not seem to be any provision for advanced sensors (Irian EAR is Tech Level D and likely better than typical Clan Omni sensors), jamming (might aid evasion as well, but probably not concealment), or a sympathetic populace (would probably also modify morale).

ACS rules are by their nature, Abstract. When working at the scale where a single game piece on the map represents hundreds of BattleMechs, Tanks or thousands of infantry you have to surrender some detail. Yes, a regiment of Panthers would not be as effective as a regiment of Chargers (there’s an image). At the ACS level thought the default is to use Generic Combat Units as the building blocks, a Tech C Light Regiment has a move of 7 and a Tech C Assault has a move of 4.
Likewise sensors end up being abstracted out at this level. A single game hex can be 2000 kilometers or more. A sensor pod with a range of 300 meters tends to be abstracted out at this level.

It makes more sense to use speed here than weight. If the game pieces *have* a movement value, why not use it?

"Advanced sensors" on scout units (see: Hussar, Hermes II) tend to have ranges a hundred times what you're claiming. How is noting "advanced sensors" more difficult than noting Tech Level? What does using Tech Level add to this table that "advanced sensors" wouldn't?

(Why is "Tech Level" being used at all? If it's the only modification that can be made to a Generic Unit, then you'd get more variety (with equal simplicity) by replacing it with a modifier to any one stat.)

Also, the sample forces included in the beta doc did not include weight class. The ComStar forces didn't specify unit type.

Quote from: Welshman
Comment 3
Quote from: skiltao
Scouting points are currently assigned, then multiplied by 3 before being spent. Instead: assign them in multiples of 3 to start with. Then the player won't have to multiply them.

Valid, however we would then need to triple all the modifiers as well and that starts to get cumbersome just to make figuring out a target number easier. Am I missing something?

You should always, always simplify the algebra of a calculation when you can. It's a little bit of math now to save a lot of math every turn of every game from now until eternity, and I doubt the hunting/shielding rolls have been calibrated so precisely that they can't accomodate the change. One roll of 2d6+5 is pretty close to 3 rolls of 1d6+1 for instance.



Quote from: welshman
Comment 4
Quote from: skiltao
Scout Hunting damage currently has nothing to do with the hunters' actual firepower. I don't want Hi-Scout Drone Carriers to be effective scout hunters. The damage calculation should be brought more in line with standard combat damage.
We’re dealing at the abstraction level again. The points you invest in Scout Hunting come from your total scout pool which can be Hi-Scouts, Spiders, Pegasus hovertanks. The abstraction also covers such things as said Hi-Scout finding an enemy scout force and temporarily tasking a company from one of the Combat Formations to wipe it out.

That's assuming that there's a combat unit nearby, that the combat unit isn't otherwise occupied, and that the number (or cleverness) of scouts is small enough that wiping it out won't require a large portion of the Combat Formation. And again: the units (even a company borrowed from a Formation) *have* attack values assigned to them. Is there a reason *not* to use those values?

Quote from: welshman
Question 8
Quote from: skiltao
Is evasion supposed to be unaffected by scouting? Should scouts have a "pursuit" option?
There are currently no “Evasion” rules in ACS. Can you elaborate on what you mean?

There is an "Evade Modifiers" table. The text alongside it says Combat Formations can attempt to evade combat as part of their movement. I would think that enemy scouts might make such evasions more difficult.

Quote from: welshman
Question 9
You assign Formations (Units, Commands) to Scouting at the beginning of each Combat Turn (An ISW Sub-Turn).

Okay.

Quote from: welshman
(question 9 cont'd)
Quote from: skiltao
I assume that formations assigned to scouting still have a location on the ground map, even though they're exempt from normal combat.

See Question 1 above.

My concern is that, if scouts aren't assigned a specific location on the map, players could use "scouting" as a way to transmit units further and more safely than they could move normally.

Quote from: welshman
Comment 5
Yes- Once the rules are done and we stop moving things around, they will.

Question 10
Point Value, this has been updated.

Comment 6
Nice catch. That will probably work well.

Cool.

Quote from: welshman
Comment 7
Quote from: skiltao
Each player appears to be making separate combat rolls, such that one formation can be fighting at short range while the opposing formation fights at long range. That's weird. Not necessarily bad, just... weird.
Abstract combat. The Combat turn is seven days long.

I'm aware. I don't think those excuse it.

You guys realize that nobody will ever attempt a Short Range attack when, at the same TN, you can do more damage by combining a Medium range attack with a 2-point "offensive" tactic, right?

Quote from: welshman
(Comment 7 cont'd)
Let us know how this plays out though. It’s really a challenge to figure out “movement” and range at this abstraction scale.

This read-through is as much as I'll be doing, unfortunately. I won't have opportunity to play test.

Quote from: welshman
Comment 8
Yes, something for us to look at.

Comment 9
Thanks, we’ll look at that.
 
Comment 10
Thanks, we’ll look at that.

Question 11
We definitely need to clean this up.
Flanking and Rear are mutually exclusive.
<snip>
All Combat is by Formation (see Question 3 for clarifications). If two formations are in the same hex, one can Formation can conduct a Flank and the other a Rear.
<snip>


Cool.

Quote from: welshman
(Question 11 cont'd)
Flanking and read can only be conducted using Offensive.
Fast Units Flanking/Rear- Good thoughts, we’ll look into this.

Are Flanking/Rear attacks chosen *instead of* an Offensive modifier, or do they *stack with* the Offensive modifier? Regardless, you're basically getting free MoS for outnumbering the enemy, with the main tradeoff being the penalty for dumping too many units into the hex. I wonder if those two effects could be consolidated? Put them next to each other on the Combat chart, at least.

Quote from: welshman
Question 12
Quote from: skiltao
Combat:Combat Resolution seems to imply that you can't combine offensive and defensive tactics. But what about things like blowing a dam, or setting a forest on fire to catch the enemy as they stumble out crippled and half-blind? That's both offensive and defensive (and less likely to work as your enemy's Tech Level rises, and risks permanent damage to the region).
I think there may be confusion on what “Offensive” and “Defensive”. It’s about how aggressive or defensive you are. An offensive player has a chance to do more damage but at the potential cost of more damage to them. A defensive player has a chance to reduce the damage they take, but at the potential cost of reducing their return fire.

There are tactics (such as burning down a forest) which multiplies the damage you do to the enemy while simultaneously reducing how much damage the enemy does to you. I think such tactics are worth representing in ACS, and I think allowing players to stack an Offensive modifier with a Defensive modifier would be a very easy way to represent them.

A more complex option might give the player a bonus for sacrificing fortifications, supply dumps, etc.

Quote from: welshman
Question 13
Quote from: skiltao
Hiding in forests and badlands is a staple of BT fiction. I assume that's meant to be abstracted within the evasion & concealment rolls, but not all terrain is equal, and usually one part of a planet is reported as the most difficult to search. Exceptionally protective forests, badlands, (windstorms) etc could probably be accounted as "natural" fortifications.
At the abstraction level ACS is at, this would be difficult to track. The ACS Ground Map doesn’t even track water. It’s globe shaped only for visual symmetry.
Remember though that players can optionally use Turning Point Maps for more detailed game play. At that point players can agree on hexes having specific modifiers. We may explore future optional rules for this type of play, but not in IO.

I am proposing that you add a few rows to the Fortifications table, with the assumption that "natural" fortifications are no more numerous than standard or capital fortifications. They would not be any more difficult to track than fortifications are already.

Quote from: welshman
Question 13
These are all part of ISW rules. They are not required for ACS game play.

I take that to mean the references will be removed from the ACS chapter, then.

Quote from: welshman
Question 15
We are cleaning up Formation sizing. See question 4. A regiment would be 5 Combat Units (Battalions/Level III/ Trinary). All Combat Units in a Formation must pay the hiding cost for the Formation to be Hidden.

See my followup to Question 16c.

Quote from: welshman
Question 16a (first question numbered "16")
That is also driven by the Leadership Pool

Okay.

Quote from: welshman
Question 16b (second question numbered "16")
PAM Movement is broken. It was designed for a three zone Radar Map, not the four zone Capital Radar Map.

Okay. When you fix it, please (if at all possible) phrase it in terms of MP cost per hex, not as multipliers to the unit's thrust rating.

Quote from: welshman
Question 16c (third question numbered "16")
Yes- See question 4. Combat Commands are normally Regiment in size. Formations can be multiple regiments in size.

Everything the ACS rules do, is best done at the Combat Element level or at the Formation level. The terms "regiment" and "combat command" are unnecessary for play.

Quote from: welshman
Comment 11
Good comments, we’re working on this.

Comment 12
Thanks, we’ll look at that.

Cool.
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

james43a

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #44 on: 20 November 2014, 08:55:12 »
I have one question Where are the LAMS Rules I been waiting for years for them and I thought this was the book that they was going to be Publish in?

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #45 on: 20 November 2014, 09:18:13 »
I have one question Where are the LAMS Rules I been waiting for years for them and I thought this was the book that they was going to be Publish in?

This is only one small section of IO.  There has been no change in plans for the LAM rules that I have heard (ie. they will be in IO, presumably the Alternate Eras section).
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #46 on: 20 November 2014, 13:43:20 »
This is only one small section of IO.  There has been no change in plans for the LAM rules that I have heard (ie. they will be in IO, presumably the Alternate Eras section).

Yes, please read the IO announcement http://bg.battletech.com/news/battleblog/interstellar-operations-cometh/. There is a Table of Contents for IO.

-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #47 on: 20 November 2014, 13:55:07 »
3.but that could change the effect of an attack lower the DR ? seems like this would cause math headaches for the players.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't' clear.

All damage happens in the "damage" phase at the end of the Sub-Turn, just like happens in TW. So all damage is done at the same time, then all damage takes effect at the same time.

Cool.

A lot of great feedback, thank you. Please keep it coming, I'll be looking to do an update of the rules shortly.

I know how time is limited, but if you even have time on a lunch hour to try and play out even a small campaign (a couple of regiments on a side) that would be awesome. You've already poked tons of holes in our rules and I'd like to hear more.

A couple of comments:

Forces- For ACS we will be focusing on Combat Unit and Formations as the main terms. Combat Command is important to ISW, since it maps to canon units in universe,  but we understand it is confusing here.

Tactics- We'll look at your comments more in depth.

Recon- Going to look at MP value to be the main driver here. Tech Level is relevant as the higher the Tech, the better the sensors.

Math and Dice Rolls- First off, I'll be honest, I'm not a math guy. One of the other primary authors isn't a math guy. I'm going to go out and hit a couple of our math guys over the head and drag them in to help with this stuff.

Evasion- Sorry, had a senior moment. Good comment.

Scout Locations- Valid. Something to be said for this pro and con. We'll look more.
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Dukeroyal

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #48 on: 20 November 2014, 17:53:24 »
In the Order of Battle listing for Luzerne shouldn't the WarShips have a notation that their damage is Capital scale? It doesn't really matter to the rules per se but it could have an effect on any future scenarios published using these rules involving WarShips.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #49 on: 20 November 2014, 17:56:01 »
In the Order of Battle listing for Luzerne shouldn't the WarShips have a notation that their damage is Capital scale? It doesn't really matter to the rules per se but it could have an effect on any future scenarios published using these rules involving WarShips.

That should be handled in conversion.  BattleForce practically concerts very thing to capital scale.  Higher levels of scale (strategic BF and This ACS) don't have separate scales for warships.
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: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #50 on: 20 November 2014, 18:06:56 »
As NCKestrel said, the Capital-scale vs Standard-scale damge (and armor) is already accounted for in the conversion process.

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #51 on: 20 November 2014, 18:44:42 »
As NCKestrel said, the Capital-scale vs Standard-scale damge (and armor) is already accounted for in the conversion process.

When referring to the Aerospace combat rules on page 15, it is importent to know if the ship is CAP/SCAP
« Last Edit: 20 November 2014, 18:46:41 by victor_shaw »

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #52 on: 20 November 2014, 19:30:02 »
When referring to the Aerospace combat rules on page 15, it is importent to know if the ship is CAP/SCAP

Alex?
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Kommando

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 210
  • Sweet justice!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #53 on: 20 November 2014, 19:46:06 »
CAP and SCAP get free shots. so is say yes it is important.
What avarice!

Field Agent #522
Battletech in Brisbane, Australia.

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9387
  • Just some rando
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #54 on: 20 November 2014, 19:55:54 »
I'm reading through the pdf a couple of times, but I couldn't find the answer.
Does the winner of Initiative go last when deploying formations on the PCM?
I read the PAM rules, but was unaware if this goes the same for ground forces.
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #55 on: 20 November 2014, 20:22:39 »
I'm reading through the pdf a couple of times, but I couldn't find the answer.
Does the winner of Initiative go last when deploying formations on the PCM?
I read the PAM rules, but was unaware if this goes the same for ground forces.

Okay, that's odd.

Same as TW and AS, winner goes last.
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #56 on: 20 November 2014, 20:25:04 »
Hello, folks.

I've added a word doc draft of the ISW Pirate Point rules as promised.

We also hope to have updated PAM movement to you soon.

Best,
Joel BC
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4960
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #57 on: 20 November 2014, 20:58:55 »
CAP and SCAP get free shots. so is say yes it is important.

The Warships in the scenarios should all have the CAP special listed....

Issamuel

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Pirates! Bandits! Mercs! The Periphery!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #58 on: 20 November 2014, 22:35:23 »
Oh and any thought to the stats? Would they work better divided by 10?

Yes - the "smaller" numbers make it easier to grasp.

Although I do have a concern that it may lead to the same problems like the initial AlphaStrike PV - where lower BV value units had practically the same 1PV - before it was revised to the current new AlphaStrike PV .
Issamuel

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #59 on: 20 November 2014, 22:46:04 »
Not sure if this is possible but a list of unit breakdowns would be nice to setup our own battles.
this would allow us to test the system on a large scale and give more enlighten feedback. (exp=heavy Mech company,light mech company etc.)
 O0
« Last Edit: 20 November 2014, 22:47:40 by victor_shaw »

 

Register