Against the Bot Scenario Generation: A rules update

[NickAragua]

After having run the same Chase (Attacker) scenario in AtB for the fiftieth time, I felt something was missing. What was it? A sense of context, that your missions were having an effect on an overall campaign?

The attached set of revisions is an attempt to improve the variety of scenarios generated by AtB, as well as create a little bit of a feeling of greater context. It also draws a sharper contrast between the various command levels and different contract types, and makes use of Princess' improved capabilities.

It replaces the weekly AtB scenario generation rules. The tables related to opfor generation, such as the Bot Lance Weights table, weather/lighting table, etc. are retained.

Having playtested this in several campaigns of my own, I've decided to open it up to the wider community for feedback and play testing. Be warned that absolutely none of this is implemented in MekHQ yet, so you'll have to generate your opfors and keep track of your campaign state "manually". Once some feedback has come in, revisions are made and things settle down, then it'll be time to code it into MekHQ.

List of major features:

• Redesigned AtB scenarios - you'll see some familiar ones but also a lot more variety.
• A campaign state system that allows the results of one scenario to affect subsequent scenarios or contracts
• Greater player control over how lances and reinforcements are deployed (unless you're under Integrated command)
• A scenario modifier system to further improve scenario variety, inspired by rules in Campaign Ops
• Better-balanced opfor generation to prevent truly runaway unfair scenarios, such as a single lance having to face a Clan Trinary
• A use for the "scrounge" skill
• The ability to request additional support from your employer, at the cost of the employer's opinion on whether or not you've done your job
• The possibility for larger battles

I'm looking for feedback on all these systems, particularly the opfor generation and distinction between contract types. Hope you folks enjoy playing it as much as I've enjoyed making it!

[edit: updated with a few extra AtB tables for convenience, hyperlink fixes and rules clarifications]
[edit 2: deployments further away from base of operations should take more time, not less time]
[edit 3: additional clarifications/corrections, introduced a mechanism to potentially allow attacking an existing enemy base even if under contract types that don't normally allow the player to manually initiate scenarios]

[yukamichi]

Looks super neat, hopefully I'll get a chance to try it out later.

For battle type 14 Riot Suppression, it says "The player may retreat after destroying all turrets." Is that a mistake? The mission doesn't specify any opfor turrets.

Edit: One more question that stands out. Where the rules say:
>We stop rolling for new scenarios when one of the following conditions is reached:
>We have made a number of d100 rolls equal to the number of contract required lances or 4, whichever is lower.
That means a complete set of d100 rolls, once on each track, right? Because otherwise even with a full company (1 required lance) you'd only ever roll on Track 0 and that's it, and after 4 rolls you'd never circle back and start again at 0 like was described earlier.

I feel like I just answered this for myself, but the wording was really ambiguous (to me, at least) without having to logic my way through it a few times :P

[NickAragua]

For battle type 14 Riot Suppression, it says "The player may retreat after destroying all turrets." Is that a mistake? The mission doesn't specify any opfor turrets.

Mistake. Will be fixed in the next revision.

Edit: One more question that stands out. Where the rules say:
>We stop rolling for new scenarios when one of the following conditions is reached:
>We have made a number of d100 rolls equal to the number of contract required lances or 4, whichever is lower.
That means a complete set of d100 rolls, once on each track, right? Because otherwise even with a full company (1 required lance) you'd only ever roll on Track 0 and that's it, and after 4 rolls you'd never circle back and start again at 0 like was described earlier.

I feel like I just answered this for myself, but the wording was really ambiguous (to me, at least) without having to logic my way through it a few times :P

I think that may be an english fail on my part. The intention is that for small-sized forces you have a maximum of 4 rolls, while for larger forces the number of rolls is greater than 4. So, it should probably be "whichever is higher."

[yukamichi]

Played a couple scenarios, really enjoying the flavor of the battles! You put together something really neat here.

A couple more questions:

A force committed to a scenario is deployed for 7 - (track # * 2) days and may not be repaired, rearmed or otherwise worked on until the deployment ends.

That would mean that Track 0 missions have you away the longest, while Track 3 ones are the shortest? But that doesn't seem to line up with the Track 0 missions being those near your home base or the explanation in the introduction about tracks corresponding to different lance types, i.e. wouldn't scout lances generally spend more time away from base?

Also, when you say that you can get Support Points by "dumb luck through monthly rolls," was that a reference to the normal AtB rolls that sometimes increase your contract score through employer contract breaches or give you bonus parts, or maybe you at one point intended to rework the AtB monthly event tables? A lot of the special mission/big battle results from AtB are reproduced in your mission modifiers (duels, ambushes, convoys), so maybe it could be worth considering making a new monthly event roll table to work with your system.

[NickAragua]

You are correct about the deployment numbers. Track 0 should have pretty much the whole week for repairs, while Track 3 would have just 1 day. It looks like I reversed my numbers.

So, it should be "... is deployed for 1 + (Track # * 2) days".

As for "dumb luck through monthly rolls", yes, I was referring to any time you get a "bonus part" or a random dependent or some such. My goal was to keep scope down by not touching systems outside of scenario generation, but you're right that it may be worthwhile to revisit the "monthly special roll" part of AtB.

[yukamichi]

For battle type 13 "Allied Supply Convoy - Escort" the primary objective and the part about secondary objective bonuses seem to have been copied over from the enemy supply convoy battle and don't really make sense in context.

Also, I don't think either explicitly states how many vehicles are in the convoy? This might have been implied somewhere else in the rules but if so I missed it.

[NickAragua]

Whoops! It should be something like "ensure more than 50% of the convoy makes it off the far map edge", and you get one support point per surviving convoy vehicle. The number of vehicles should be one per unit in the primary player forces deployed.

Also, the convoy units are bot-controlled. Basically, the two ways to win this scenario are to either get the convoy across the map or to rout the attacking force.

[Stormforge]

I like. Would at the very least like to see some of these scenarios ported to MekHQ AtB. Rest would be a nice optional rule to mix things up a bit.

Question on Facilities. Are the Facility Effects only there when a Facility mission is in a track? It says, "Until it has been destroyed or captured...", but you may end up doing neither before it leaves the track.

Or would I document that there is say, a "Supply Depot" in Track #2's region, until I capture or destroy it?

[NickAragua]

The latter. Once a facility is placed on a track, it (and its effects) stay there until captured or destroyed. Any time a scenario is run against a facility, though, the effects are suppressed for the week, regardless of the scenario outcome.

Under liaison and independent command, the player may, on a subsequent week, choose to attack an active facility. Under house or integrated command... well... they're a little bit more of a crapshoot. The employer may potentially order an attack on one. Or they may not. They don't really care if you're getting pummeled by aircraft every time you go out. :(

[Stormforge]

The latter. Once a facility is placed on a track, it (and its effects) stay there until captured or destroyed. Any time a scenario is run against a facility, though, the effects are suppressed for the week, regardless of the scenario outcome.

Under liaison and independent command, the player may, on a subsequent week, choose to attack an active facility. Under house or integrated command... well... they're a little bit more of a crapshoot. The employer may potentially order an attack on one. Or they may not. They don't really care if you're getting pummeled by aircraft every time you go out. :(

Got it, thanks.

Yes, those enemy fighters can be a real pain. xp Since Infantry and Aerospace/Conventional Fighter options were added to AtB, I have been running a Flight of Aerospace Fighters with my Companies (as reinforcements only) to counter enemy fighters randomly popping up in missions. To keep them from being abused I only allow them to be used as reinforcements in 1 mission per week.

Thought on picking the Facilities and subsequent missions. Was thinking on a d6 either a 4-6/50% or 5-6/33% chance of rolling a new Facility. Otherwise use a randomly rolled previously discovered Facility in that track? A bit less of a crapshoot.

[NickAragua]

Thought on picking the Facilities and subsequent missions. Was thinking on a d6 either a 4-6/50% or 5-6/33% chance of rolling a new Facility. Otherwise use a randomly rolled previously discovered Facility in that track? A bit less of a crapshoot.

Yeah, I think there needs to be a mechanism like that. Originally, I had a mechanism where facility scenarios would have guaranteed follow-up scenarios against the same facility, but that turned the tracks into a nightmarish mess of facility scenarios.

Maybe allow the player to manually invoke a facility scenario under integrated and house command, subject to a negotiation roll. I'll have to think about it some.

[NickAragua]

Made some clarifications, and added a mechanism to allow players to attack existing facilities even under command clauses that don't normally allow it. Hopefully someone in the player's force has the negotiation skill!

[servo01]

This rule-set is fantastic!

I've been playing with it for a few days now. I've made a few tweaks for my house rules,

One of which I thought I might share:

Many of the "Facility" missions use bot-based turret deployment in order to designate
key buildings and objectives. While the randomization has been pretty nifty, having to
get point blank to a turret for a recon or extraction can be less than ideal when fielding 
lighter units.

My solution was to create a custom turret, named "Facility Marker," that is completely
UNARMED. I also repurposed the Beacon.png from the misc hex art, which creates
just the right effect on-board when dialed down to 50 percent opacity. (Both files are
attached if anyone is interested)

During scenario setup, I roll up conventional armed turrets as per usual but then pass
out however many Facility Markers are called for and let the bot hide them on-board.

The end result has been a quick and dirty building/objective randomization
feature with a nifty on-board graphic. 

[MoleMan]

I am really looking forward to this being implemented, thanks a lot NickAragua :)

[Battleclad]

• Better-balanced opfor generation to prevent truly runaway unfair scenarios, such as a single lance having to face a Clan Trinary

Sometimes you'll need that though, even the clans will want to reinforce sometimes if their initial bid fails. I house rule a delayed deployment to simulate that for every star over your deployed force, similar goes for the IS.

"During mission generation if the OpFor consists of more formations than you own roll 1d6. On a result of 1-2 the initial deployment is one formation less than your own (for a minimum of one formation), on a result of 3-5 the initial deployment matches your own and on a result of 6 the deployment is one formation larger then your own. For every additional formation roll 1dx (x being the number of additional formations) and 1d8 for each to determine the reinforcement order and turn delay for deployment, on a result of 7-8 deployment is simultaneous with the previous reinforcing formation.

In the case of an Aero formation roll an additional 1d3, on a result of 3 they are subject to the reinforcement rolls. On all other results they deploy at the same time as your core force. If the unit is an Aero unit then roll 1d6 instead, one a result of 1 it deploys landed with your initial force, 2-3 it deploys normal and 4-6 it reinforces."

[Ragnaphael]

One more vote for this to be implemented! Have run several campaigns now with MekHQ and have enjoyed it a lot. But it does feel rather... uninvolved. These rules make the contract feel much more alive, like there is actually things happening and there really is progress and its a real battlefield, not just a series of random battles that will in-/decrease the enemy morale.

[Mukaikubo]

First off: I do really, really like these rules, and I think they'll work significantly better in practice.

My only real qualm is in the OPFOR BV budget. Basically, you will always have somewhere between 80-150% of your own BV, depending on skill level, but in virtually every mission you'll be facing nearly the same BV. I prefer having more variability in the sizes of enemy forces you go up against in a week in week out basis; it was always quite nice accidentally tripping into a softball mission when I was down to the line, and I actually liked the occasional "Oh crap, do I do this mission even though I'm heavily outweighed, or can I afford to take a contract score hit by not doing it?" It seems like constricting the viable range of BVs you'll face removes some of those possibilities.

[yukamichi]

Player unit weight and era can definitely make a huge difference in how swingy the opfor is. If your opfor hits, say, 1000 under the BV budget, then adding one more lance of 4SW-era tanks or light mechs is going to be a significantly different challenge than adding a lance of Jihad-era heavy mechs, for example. The lower the overall average BV of the units you're expecting to see, the less likely you'll be to see huge variations.

[NickAragua]

My only real qualm is in the OPFOR BV budget. Basically, you will always have somewhere between 80-150% of your own BV, depending on skill level, but in virtually every mission you'll be facing nearly the same BV.

That's more or less accurate, but only for the base opfor size. There are many mechanisms that affect the relative size of the opfor:
- Scenario modifiers
- Reinforcements from previous linked scenarios (both yours and theirs)
- Reinforcements from facilities that haven't been engaged
- Presence of allied forces
- The ever-beloved liaison/house units/cadre guys

Remember also that you can arbitrarily reinforce a scenario with any lance you haven't committed to another scenario to drastically change the odds in your favor. This has a tradeoff, of course, but it's a great way to skew the BV ratio in your favor dramatically.

For example, I just had three scenarios pop in the same track (during a planetary assault).

Scenario 1: Convoy Escort. The opfor was an assault lance and a bunch of tanks. The allied tanks (and, uh, half the convoy) absorbed a lot of the incoming fire, so my lance (an assault, two heavies and a medium) was mostly intact while the opfor wound up with just the three assault mechs, a pair of beat-up phoenix hawks and two Vedettes. We also got three support points by preserving three out of the five convoy vehicles (I keep telling them, it's not my fault that bot-controlled pre-Star League museum piece Shadow Hawk and his "Killjoy" ordnance carrier buddy went charging at two Awesomes and a Battlemaster).

Scenario 2: Assassination. My (assault-assault-heavy-medium) lance, with the help of an allied medium mech lance, not only blew the assassination target to bits (ammo explosion), but completely exterminated the opfor. Well, there were some crippled units that got off the field, but they can't reinforce. My heavy mech took an engine/gyro combo crit, so he can't reinforce, either.

Scenario 3: Harass. The opfor is about 220% of my lance, but I roll a "good intel", so one of the opfor lances gets removed. I also choose to reinforce this scenario with the non-crippled units from the escort and assassination linked scenarios. So now, the opfor will initially be about 180% of my guys (although, it's basically a chase scenario). However, once my reinforcements from the linked scenarios show up, it'll be much closer to even. We will have to fight those three assault mechs, the beat-up pixies and the Vedettes from the convoy escort, but my guys arrive before them as my mechs are faster and my battle commander has decent strategy, so I'll be able to get set up for a good turkey shoot.

So, scenario 3 may turn from a standard chase scenario to a bloodbath. I also could have chosen to just reinforce with the units from scenario 2 if I didn't want to fight the Awesomes and Battlemaster. And, if I wanted to, I could also blow one or more support points on some allied reinforcements (except under independent command). Lacking support points, I could convert my VP/contract score to support points and call in some allied backup as well.

So, basically, what I've hopefully done is given the player more control over the difficulty and pacing of a given contract.

That being said, I may explore giving the player more ways to modify the BV budget for the opfor going forward. I'll admit that my testing has been using company and battalion-size units in the 3025 era (I'm in the middle of the Ronin Wars currently), so we'll see how I do when the clans show up.

You'll also be happy to know that it's still possible to wind up facing a mostly/all tank force and then have a tornado come up. Free win!

[Mukaikubo]

I was under the impression that allied forces and the liaison/house units counted towards the BV budget when I read it, though, so those wouldn't affect the relative size at all. Still, good to hear, but until I see it in action I'm going to fret about lowering variability.  :thumbsup:

[NickAragua]

The liaison/house attached units definitely do not affect the BV budget. The allied units generated from the command clause (the 10%/30%/50% odds ones) do, but (in the latest revision, not up here yet) you don't multiply the allied unit BV by the difficulty level (the bot doesn't get any better or worse regardless of your skill level).

[danielem]

Apologies for the thread necromancy, but this all sounded very promising. Is it still in development?

[Schugger]

@danielem, as lively as your heart bumping when starring into an AC20 muzzle :D

[NickAragua]

Yes. The most recent version of the rules is here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eej6999zlq0nmz5/AtB-Scenario-Stratcon.html?dl=0

As it turns out it takes time to develop and implement a complex scenario generation system, so ETA is still unknown. However, the scenario template feature in MekHQ is a first step, as it allows me to define pretty much any type of scenario I want without having to code it. Currently, I'm working on the UI for managing the "within a contract" campaign. Due to this being a hobby, ETA is unknown, but I'm making progress.

You may see bits and pieces of it show up in "legacy" AtB as well - watch out for pilots with SPAs, hostile aircraft with bombs and transports packed to the gills with infantry.

[MoleMan]

"X infantry platoons deploy in the center, where X is the number of units in primary player-deployed forces. Infantry is allied with a randomly-selected planet owner. If the owner is neither the employer nor the opfor, the infantry is hostile to both sides. Each infantry unit has a 33% chance of being a field gun. Otherwise, it's generated from the standard infantry RAT for its faction."

In this case, are there commonly more than one planet owner? Or is this in the rare case that a planet is currently under attack and is half Smoke Jag and half Kurita?

[MoleMan]

Few more:

Support points - I've noticed you obtain support points in some scenarios, and with some special objectives within, are they just used for the Employer support table? I also notice that you can get them "by dumb luck through monthly rolls" - what are these monthly rolls?

How do I save a partially damaged enemy force? (For those scenarios where the enemy can bring in previously damaged forces from a previous fight on the track).

Also, am I right in thinking the special missions for Star League Caches have been removed? I can see how this is much more canonical but it makes me a little sad :(

[MoleMan]

BTW, I've just taken the time to read through the whole thing, it's a phenomenal piece of work, if/when it pays off it's going to be fantastic!

[NickAragua]

In this case, are there commonly more than one planet owner? Or is this in the rare case that a planet is currently under attack and is half Smoke Jag and half Kurita?

Sometimes, there is more than one owner. The most obvious scenarios are in the clan homeworlds area, but I've seen enough "striped" planets in MekHQ that I put that possibility in.

Support points - I've noticed you obtain support points in some scenarios, and with some special objectives within, are they just used for the Employer support table? I also notice that you can get them "by dumb luck through monthly rolls" - what are these monthly rolls?

How do I save a partially damaged enemy force? (For those scenarios where the enemy can bring in previously damaged forces from a previous fight on the track).

Also, am I right in thinking the special missions for Star League Caches have been removed? I can see how this is much more canonical but it makes me a little sad :(

For support points, any time you get "bonus parts" in a classic AtB roll, those should be treated as support points instead, and, correct, they're used to get stuff from the employer support table.

For now, a partially damaged enemy force can be acquired by saving a MUL at the end of the scenario when MegaMek asks you. I think it actually automatically saves MULs for each individual force in the savegames folder as well.

Star League caches are out for now, but I'm still thinking about how to keep them integrated. Although, in practice, most of the time, the "Star League" equipment was usually a primitive Wasp or something. I'm thinking it needs to be something with a lot more risk and a lot more reward (e.g. actual Star League tech but you actually have to work for it). The other concern is that SL caches become fairly irrelevant post-3050, and I'd like to address that somehow as well.

[danielem]

Yes. The most recent version of the rules is here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eej6999zlq0nmz5/AtB-Scenario-Stratcon.html?dl=0

As it turns out it takes time to develop and implement a complex scenario generation system, so ETA is still unknown. However, the scenario template feature in MekHQ is a first step, as it allows me to define pretty much any type of scenario I want without having to code it. Currently, I'm working on the UI for managing the "within a contract" campaign. Due to this being a hobby, ETA is unknown, but I'm making progress.

You may see bits and pieces of it show up in "legacy" AtB as well - watch out for pilots with SPAs, hostile aircraft with bombs and transports packed to the gills with infantry.

That's great to hear. I'm sure it's a lot of work, particularly as a volunteer project.

Twice I've run through an AtB campaign starting 10-15 years before the arrival of the clans, liking the idea of building up an elite force and then fighting them when they arrive, but the way clan OPFORS are generated is so completely out of whack that it just ruins the fun and I end up giving up. It's the same point many others have made: you should expect to lose more often vs the clans, but they shouldn't be outnumbering you 3:1 on top of the tech and pilot skill edge. I'm hoping that amongst the many other improvements in your model, this will also significantly help that particular imbalance.

[Rince Wind]

As has been pointed out to me: put difficulty do ultra green when fighting clans, then they should never deploy more than one star.