Chaos Campaigns - Why Bother With SP Conversion?

[pokefan548]

So, if I'm reading it right, when using the optional Support Point system with Chaos Campaigns, the only thing Warchest Points do is buy tracks, and in some versions extra objectives and some options? And basically everything else is handled by Support Points?
In that case, why separate the two currencies, if for no other reason than to suddenly have a bunch of essential functions bottlenecked by the conversion process? I can understand the in-universe idea of converting liquid assets into usable parts, supplies, et cetera, but how much does it really contribute to the quality of a campaign, for better or worse?

I know the rules in CO talk at length about how pretty much any decent custom Chaos Campaign will have some degree of homebrew, houserules, and handwaving of the template rules given, and I plan to do plenty of that, but the mechanic intrigues me, and I'd like to go in with both eyes open first.

[Kerfuffin(925)]

The tech rating/tech base and nominal unit size (4/5/6) all factor into WP to SP conversions so in some cases it would matter. Or atleast clan/comstar have different values of WP—>SP in the newest Tukkayid book. I think the full chaos campaign book has the rules for a full on figuring out the math for the real number.

It adds a bit of tedium, but I just convert SP—>WP as I am doing the things I need done and subtract immediately from WP. The table is easy enough to follow if you have a phone and don’t do too many things at once. There is a worksheet that makes it a bit easier to follow.

[nckestrel]

Warchest points are flat, they are the same regardless of whether you are playing a Lance or a regiment as your force.  You pay 500 WP to play a track, you hopefully earn more than 500 WP.

But when it comes time to buy, repair, improve skills, you are dealing with specific numbers of units (1), and the pay to a regiment should repair/buy a lot more units than the pay to a Lance for one track.  Support Poknts are scaled to always be on a single unit scale, and we have to have a conversion between a flexible scale WP and a fixed, single unit SP.

Some Chaos Campaigns assume a set size for a player’s force and set a fixed conversion rate.  Other CC products allow you to choose an initial force size, calculate the conversion rate for that force size, and some allow the force size to change over time and adjust the conversion rate as it changes (significantly).

[Daryk]

And people say C-Bills are too messy...  ::)

[pokefan548]

I'm aware that it scales with unit size and tech level (kind of), but then that just feels like there's no incentive to make significantly more money as you grow. This is, of course, assuming you're recalculating your Formation Size multiplier with growth and not using the default rule that makes it all based purely on starting size; that method has its own issues though, as a large starting force that loses most of its units will end up extremely over-funded in terms of SP, while smaller groups basically can't grow much unless the players play near-perfectly and budget very carefully.

Basically, it seems like depending on how you handle SP, the conversion process is either redundant, or encourages the unit's size to be fairly static (which is no fun for, say, a merc company with the intent to grow).

[nckestrel]

Depends on the intent of the campaign.  Tukayyid isn’t about force growth, I didn’t put changing the conversion rate in there.  You are what you are and your goal should be to succeed with that.

Most printed campaigns aren’t long-term.  They’re not trying to replicate a Lance becoming a company becoming a battalion.  At best, that’s the final result of tie campaign.

But the option does exist. If that’s what you want to do.
And is still far simpler than having to recalculate operating costs (salaries, fuel, ammo, etc) for every single unit as each changes.
I’d agree it could still use some work though. The recalculating process itself has had multiple (and conflicting) errata and isn’t very intuitive or easy to understand.

[Elmoth]

This does jot bother me much. What bothers my geoup is always the lack of resolution in the campaign system, with the option of being thrown back in the track and going back and forth until the campaign petters out. Lack of decisiveness in a certain number of battles. And it being only somewhat applicable to alpha strike. The sp/wp system is just another quirk.

[Sartris]

And people say C-Bills are too messy...  ::)

post-mission book keeping takes five minutes

[Elmoth]

That is true. Admin is certainly tight
 

[Daryk]

post-mission book keeping takes five minutes

And so does C-Bill accounting if you have your spreadsheets set up right...  ^-^

[Sartris]

i used the napkin my beer was on ususally

[Daryk]

Touché!  :D

[Sartris]

i recall testing a much straighter conversion formula that awarded more SP per WP based on total force BV after post-mission repairs, but before purchasing new units. Something like starts at 4 or 5 and you get an extra 1 per increment. i think i tried different values between 8k and 15k.

[Sir Chaos]

i used the napkin my beer was on ususally

Math and alcohol do not mix. Trust me: Don´t drink and derive!

[Sartris]

Indeed. I was cut off after two because my TM calculations went to shit after that

[Daryk]

Pace yourself brother!  :D

[jasonf]

Basically, it seems like depending on how you handle SP, the conversion process is either redundant, or encourages the unit's size to be fairly static (which is no fun for, say, a merc company with the intent to grow).

Most printed campaigns aren’t long-term.  They’re not trying to replicate a Lance becoming a company becoming a battalion.  At best, that’s the final result of tie campaign.

Yes, I think you need to view a Chaos Campaign as a prolonged mission for a force you want to keep playing, and just play that force through multiple Chaos Campaigns over time. This is essentially what I do, and do my best to integrate a simpler version of the Campaign Ops force rules to deal with growth, recruiting, replenishment, etc., between campaigns.

And I agree that the main time the SP-WP really adds anything is when forces have different tech levels (and hence different SP-WP conversions), though it also helps in that you can keep a track cost and its options fixed at a specific WP level, regardless of how many units you are playing with, while using SP alone would require it to be adjusted up for bigger forces.

This does jot bother me much. What bothers my geoup is always the lack of resolution in the campaign system, with the option of being thrown back in the track and going back and forth until the campaign petters out. Lack of decisiveness in a certain number of battles. And it being only somewhat applicable to alpha strike. The sp/wp system is just another quirk.

I deal with this by having my campaigns end one of two ways: one side wins a special Touchpoint Track, which ends the campaign regardless of the WP left, or one side loses enough tracks/spends enough SP to end up with negative WP, and therefore loses because it cannot go into any (more) warchest debt.