Author Topic: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW  (Read 40295 times)

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 343
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #60 on: 05 February 2016, 13:40:26 »
But right now as the rules are written it doesn't matter if a planet is major industrial or minor industrial, both can drop 17 RCTs (or whatever you like) in a single turn so long as you have the funds to pay for it.  And they are immediately available for orders.

You could borrow from Axis & Allies, & home-rule that the number of new combat commands that can be placed on a planet is limited to a max equal to the number of factories.

As an aside, to the banking of RPs, it's interesting that Inner Sphere in Flames (the predecessor game found in Combat Operations) only gave you a 1% increase instead of 5.  Of course, building factories was even tougher (RPs per turn were about 10% of ISAW's levels, but it cost 1000 RPs to build each factory).

ScrapYardArmory

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
    • ScrapYardArmory
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #61 on: 05 February 2016, 14:46:17 »
You could borrow from Axis & Allies, & home-rule that the number of new combat commands that can be placed on a planet is limited to a max equal to the number of factories.

I like that.  It could be a possible solution to a few issues.

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 343
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #62 on: 05 February 2016, 17:00:53 »
Also, for those that want to consider starting ISAW in different eras, but don't feel like waiting for official Catalyst products, there are some other sources to use:
  • Combat Operations expands on the list of factory worlds in ISF by also listing the factories by planet for starting years of 2570 (just prior to the Reunification War), 2750 (just prior to the Amaris Coup), 3030 (post-4SW), 3040 (post-War of 3039), 3050 (beginning of the Clan Invasion), 3052 (post-Tukkayid truce), 3060 (or possibly 3062, but essentially just after the destruction of Clan Smoke Jaguar/start of the FedCom Civil War), & 3067 (post-FedCom Civil War/pre-Jihad).  Fair warning:  the numbers don't quite match up between ISF & ISAW; some of the Five Houses in ISF have fewer factories listed on the planets for 3025 (& vice-versa for the main Periphery realms), & you may have to hunt for some of the planets that changed hands post-4SW (i.e. Quentin belonged to the FWL in 3025, but is listed in the Lyran section; Satalice, Alshain, Spittal, & other worlds held by the Clans are listed in the Clan section, even though the Clans obviously didn't exist in 2570/2750 & weren't in the Inner Sphere in 3025/3030/3040).
  • The Field Manual: 2765 lines give very detailed maps as to which planets belonged to which powers in 2765...some of which are vastly different from the setting in 3025 (i.e. the Cappies are shown to not only have Asuncion & Bernardo, but also have the "Duchy of Andurien" solidly within their boundaries).  Although the factories aren't listed, they can be cross-referenced with the newer Objectives series (as well as the old Objective Raids), along with the Technical Readout: Upgrades line to further flesh out what industrial worlds they have.

My first take is that, if you incorporate some of the 2570/2750 data into a game, you get to see exactly how devastating the Succession Wars were to the various powers.  For example, even avoiding the whole aspect of the planets they lost from 1SW to 3SW, the Cappies essentially had 7 Major & 3 Minor Industrial Worlds in 2570, but had increased to 2 Hyper, 5 Major & 2 Minor Industrial worlds by 2750.  Even the Davions & Kuritans both had a Hyper WOrld in both eras (New Avalon & Luthien, respectively), with the Mariks also having 2 in 2750 (Irian & Kalidasa, both on the cusp between Major & Hyper in 2570).  Heck, you can even see the effects of the Reunification War:  Dunianshire in the Magistracy was a Major Industrial world in 2570, but had dropped to a Minor after the war; the Taurians had 2 of their Majors (Pinard & Sterope) downgraded to Minor after "Unification Day", with Sterope not recovering until 3030 & Pinard not recovering until 3040.

Throw in the Clan-controlled worlds, & you see the other effects as well.  Alshain used to be a Major world in 2570, but was a Hyper world by 2750; the Succession Wars blasted them back to Minor, but they'd just made it back to Major status by 3040...in time for the Clans to take it from the Combine.  Pandora was also a big loss for the LYrans:  Major in 2570, Hyper in 2750, back to Minor during the Succession Wars, but back up to Major by 3030.

And that's not even considering that a lot of planets were under the Hegemony's control prior to the Amaris Coup, not to mention the long-dead Rim Worlds Republic, that would make for even more "fun with factions" in an adjusted ISAW game...

Iracundus

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 514
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #63 on: 05 February 2016, 17:34:21 »
I agree, the factories/industrialization status of worlds should be the bottleneck of unit production.  Lack of resources (i.e. RP) was never the problem, but rather the lack of technical knowledge and specialized equipment to convert those resources into military equipment.  Of course for even more detailed accounting, RP (or a fraction of them representing actual commodities as opposed to cash) can be required to be actually transported around to factories or stored.  Combine that with reduced Jumpship numbers, and you might end up with the situation where Outback worlds effectively contribute nothing to the war effort because it would require the diversion of scarce Jumpships to go pick up their RP. 

NeonKnight

  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6328
  • Cause Them My Initials!
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #64 on: 05 February 2016, 17:36:45 »
You could borrow from Axis & Allies, & home-rule that the number of new combat commands that can be placed on a planet is limited to a max equal to the number of factories.

I would further house rule it to, also like A&A new units cannot be place until the end phase instead of immediately.

Not having the updated IO (still waiting to find out how to obtain my final free PDF when I purchased the BOOK BETA version which is supposed to entitle me to an Upgrade), I don't know if the rules would work with something like that but I can't see how it could not.
AGENT #575, Vancouver Canada

ScrapYardArmory

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
    • ScrapYardArmory
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #65 on: 06 February 2016, 10:29:15 »
I really like some of the ideas being presented here concerning factories.  I'd like to bring up a few quotes from one of the developers in the beta feedback thread and pose a question.

Quote
We are trying to balance the repeated requests for more detail, with the ability to be playable.

Quote
This is as designed. The ISW Campaign rules are not designed for "Beer and Pretzel" play. They are designed for players wishing to run highly detailed campaigns. No amount of simplification will do away with the need for some fairly aggressive "paperwork" requirements. Our goal was to make the system more playable and more comprehensive than the original ISIF rules. The ISIF rules were more a loose template that someone could put a game together with a lot of work. We are hoping ISW will allow a large campaign to be played without the players having to make up a fair chunk of the rules to do so.

So while we are absolutely looking for feedback on the ISW rules, "less paperwork" is not on our list. Players wanting less paperwork are encouraged to just use the War Chest system with the SBF or ACS rules.

So with this in mind, does anyone feel that adding the complexity of individual factory production/RP generation go too far into details to be playable?  It seems like a goal of ISW was to simplify where possible but try to provide a more complete ruleset than ISiF was.

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #66 on: 06 February 2016, 11:51:11 »
I've been 'lurking' this thread as I can't seem to get a response from Battleshop about a shipping glitch for international shipping on their website on my order for pdf+book (the pdf I have is one of the first so I am far out of date).

I definitely think that production needs to be more rational that what the final rules appear to state. The "drop 17 regiments in one location if you have the RPs" mentioned above would ruin a campaign game in my opinion. It is simply not reasonable to raise entire RCTs in one location so quickly. Not only should the number of factories limit the number of units that can be deployed but it may even be worth including some sort of "buy now, arrive later" house rules for both new units and replacements (sort of a basic production track). I assume that the more developed s planet is the larger the population it has to make use of the infrastructure. This doesn't need to be complicated but it would ask players to put some thought into balancing replacements and expanding over all forces with new formations.

There might be room for rules for disbanding tattered units to use as replacements or combining remnants into new units or replacement pools.

Other ideas for spreading forces out also come to mind but without the final version of the rules...

Side note:
I badly want the final version (and the hard cover when ready) but don't want to de-couple the saving on the combined purchase. Three emails sent so far and no response. Very disappointing.
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

ScrapYardArmory

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 316
    • ScrapYardArmory
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #67 on: 07 February 2016, 09:36:23 »
I definitely think that production needs to be more rational that what the final rules appear to state. The "drop 17 regiments in one location if you have the RPs" mentioned above would ruin a campaign game in my opinion.

I feel the same way.  Here is a relevant quote from the book.

Quote
Resource Points are an abstraction representing C-Bills, raw materials, investments and work force. Because they are an abstraction, it can be possible for certain uses of RP to cause units and infrastructure to appear out of nowhere, and with little warning.

Very sorry to hear about your BC issues. That sort of thing seems to be a recurring issue these days which is why I switched to DriveThruRPG a while back.  I'm sure there are people you can email directly that can help you out. 

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #68 on: 07 February 2016, 11:37:32 »
Kind of cringe inducing.  :o)

Expanding on the production track idea I had an idea based on an old war game that had pretty detailed production rules. That game used 'gearing up' of industry to avoid plunking down dozen of divisions, ships or air points.

In ISW a basic system might link x number of battalion slots to a factory - say 10

Each type of battalion would have a different weight (uses x number slots). Militia .75 slots , inf 1 slot, Motor Inf 1.5, heavy armour 3, Lt Mech 3,  Lt Aero/Med Mech 3.5 and so on.

On turn one a factory can produce one battalion by type to fill its slots. On turn two the factory can produce 2 of the same type of battalions as on turn one. On turn three, three battalions, and so on until the factory hits its pre-defined maximum, perhaps 5-6 battalions by type.

If on a turn a factory decides to change some slots over to a different battalion type that factory has not produced in the last run, the number drops to one battalion and must be geared up from there. This is a form of retooling.

Add in training time before battalions can be combined into regiments and you may have a system for dispersing RPs over more turns. Battalions designated as replacements may take less time to train. Battered battalions returned to factory planets could be 'rebuilt' at a discount in both RPs and time as well.

I'll admit this just a sketch but I may examine it in more detail to see if has viability.

RPs that pile up beyond factory capacity may need a means to ship to where they can be used, even if planets with little to no industry might be allowed to raise basic conventional forces by paying a penalty in RPs. For example an infantry battalion on a factory planet might cost x but on a non-industrial planet it might cost x + 50% or 100%,.... but the RPs must be moved to the planet to be used.

Cheers.

EDIT:  HAHAAAAHH! Got the download but I had to remove the order for the hardcover book. Any attempt to order the book fails on the shipping screen. I suspect it has something to do with the USPS jamming up the system but anyway,.... I got it!! Instellar war in 3025 - Perfect!!

 
« Last Edit: 07 February 2016, 14:13:12 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

Terminax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1185
  • Never despair. Never surrender.
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #69 on: 07 February 2016, 13:49:44 »
Never, ever, ever, ever do this. Only buy what you feel is worth your money. I say this as someone who really likes IO: if it's not what you want, don't buy it.

Thank the vocal minority for this.

Well I did buy it (PDF), and it's mostly good but it does feel like there's a disconnect between the front half of covering all eras and the back half covering only the 3025 era. I think it would have been much better to separate the tech stuff from what should have been the core of IO and present the tech stuff in a Tech Manual Companion or something.

But anyways, after solidly looking over the rules for ISW, I can tell you I am definitely disappointed about what I thought the focus of IO should have been. I had a rule system back in 2000 that covered /everything/ production wise. From each unit type, experience and tech base as well as point value system with resources. It worked for a two games larger than any of the Fan Councils here operated number wise and wasn't much more crunchy rule wise than ISW- the only main difference is that system didn't have a combat resolution mechanic and ISW does. Combat was done by fiat, based on orders and using common sense with a little coin tossing. That rule system is 15 years old, and clunky but it captured the feel of the universe, even so. ISW... it's hard to say because it's missing allot. Including only the 3025 era really does cut it off at the knees and I understand, there maybe more to come. I just don't get the impression it's a full game, and IO was supposed to be the book for that.

ACW on the other hand *seems* more functional but I'm just not an expert on Alpha Strike enough to know.

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #70 on: 08 February 2016, 15:46:47 »
But right now as the rules are written it doesn't matter if a planet is major industrial or minor industrial, both can drop 17 RCTs (or whatever you like) in a single turn so long as you have the funds to pay for it.  And they are immediately available for orders.

Again my view of this is different. Just because you popped that RCT there, doesn't mean it built and trained from scratch on that planet. If it were so, than you should only be able to produce mech units on planets with an academy. No, I think it's more a matter of infrastructure and transportation. Meaning i.e. that planet just happened to be the location where all the disparate component of the command, who were built and trained on other planets (like war machines from Hesperus and cadets from the Nagelring), coalesce into a combat ready command. And it would be really hard sending all that stuff to a rock in the middle of nowhere, without all the logistical infrastructure to handle receiving it.
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.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24881
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #71 on: 08 February 2016, 19:32:28 »
Has anyone started talking about IO's beta version of the mercenary rules? Those rules are pretty...complex.
"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

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 343
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #72 on: 08 February 2016, 20:38:21 »
I've been 'lurking' this thread as I can't seem to get a response from Battleshop about a shipping glitch for international shipping on their website on my order for pdf+book (the pdf I have is one of the first so I am far out of date).

I definitely think that production needs to be more rational that what the final rules appear to state. The "drop 17 regiments in one location if you have the RPs" mentioned above would ruin a campaign game in my opinion. It is simply not reasonable to raise entire RCTs in one location so quickly. Not only should the number of factories limit the number of units that can be deployed but it may even be worth including some sort of "buy now, arrive later" house rules for both new units and replacements (sort of a basic production track). I assume that the more developed s planet is the larger the population it has to make use of the infrastructure. This doesn't need to be complicated but it would ask players to put some thought into balancing replacements and expanding over all forces with new formations.

There might be room for rules for disbanding tattered units to use as replacements or combining remnants into new units or replacement pools.

Other ideas for spreading forces out also come to mind but without the final version of the rules...

Side note:
I badly want the final version (and the hard cover when ready) but don't want to de-couple the saving on the combined purchase. Three emails sent so far and no response. Very disappointing.

It's actually not quite like that.  I crunched the numbers, & of the various 3025 factions only the Outworlds Alliance has anywhere near the available RPs to not only send out 100% of their forces every turn but significantly build them up; the non-combat support needs for their military comes to about 9-10% of their RPs each turn, & even combat ops only bumps that up to about 37-38%.  For every other faction, at best they're spending 50-60% of their RPs just for non-combat support of their starting units...which is why, when gearing them for 100% combat means using 2-3 turns worth of RPs, you have the justification for "banking" unused RPs.

What does that mean for creating new combat commands?  Unless your "17 combat commands" are strictly Green (x1.0), Reliable (x1.5), BattleMech regiments (24 RP) -- as in "no aerospace support, no infantry support, no armor support, no JumpShips" -- then only the Lyrans have a chance of adding them in (& only because they have the best economy).  And once they do that, the support those units will require means they'll be able to add fewer & fewer units each turn.  The "sample" combat command (1 'Mech Formation, 2 Aerospace Formations, 1 Armor Formation, & 1 Infantry Formation) at Regular experience & Reliable morale with integral JumpShip support (which doubles the creation cost but halves the RP cost to move the unit) is so expensive (396 RP) that the 5 major factions can only afford to purchase 1 or 2 of those each turn (double that if they forego the integral JumpShip support).  In fact, the only way to plunk down 17-18 of those sample commands each turn is if all 5 factions worked together to do that.  Or unless you're willing to cut some corners -- drop down to Questionable Loyalty & Wet Behind the Ears, drop the JumpShips, & you get an "affordable" cost of 33 RPs to build the command.  But try that with the standard faction commands:  typical Lyran CC is 1 Mech RGT, 2 AS Wings, 5 Armor RGTs, 7 Infantry RGTs, & 1 Artillery BN.  That costs anywhere from 81 RP (Wet Behind the Ears/Questionable/no JumpShips) to 1,296 RPs (Regular/Fanatical/JumpShips), averaging about 486 RPs (Green/Reliable/JumpShips).  I suppose I could see the Cappies going the cheap route...but you're going to grind through those units quite quickly. 

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #73 on: 10 February 2016, 11:58:41 »
I think your analysis would be correct if a player or team of a House threw their entire starting order of battle at the enemy on turn one (or a good portion of it shortly there after). I have a different reading of the required strategy for the game. Even in the 4th SW Davion had to hit the Capellans with a number of waves while a good proportion of it uncommitted forces watched the Draconis front.

By planning an invasion and carefully balancing supply requirements for assault waves against the needs of units left in reserve, the stock pile of RPs could grow quite markedly. As units are burnt up they can be combined/merged or rebuilt, while fresh waves move up to reinforce success or block breakthroughs all without crippling supply expenditures if planned carefully enough.

Campaign strategy is what would set up the mass drop of units at the opportune moment (even if not 17 RCTs). A way around this is to use the "Training Center" rules from page 358. The three starting centers for the five major houses (with three more capable of being added) would be logical places for combat commands. The faction capital, regional capitals and major industrial planets would be other reasonable location for mustering new commands.

Strategy that looks 'forward' a few turns could also economize on production costs of new RCTs. For example, 1 Mech, 2 AS, 3 Armour, 6 Inf, 2 Arty with green exp, questionable loyalty and no drop ships cost only 150 RP. If raised on a Training Centre and given 3 turns to train while the at start forces are conducting a wave offensive, this Command could then move up to the front as (most probably) regulars (supply costs are greatly reduced during training as well).

The FWLM, for example, could probably afford 5-6 such teams every turn and still have plenty of points left over to supply an offensive by initial forces on one front while defending another. The RPs can be stretched even further if RCTs are trimmed down further in order to keep a  steady flow of specific new units to the front as the original depleted lead units are rotated back or combined together to make stronger formations. A single mech regiment with 1 each of AS, armour, inf and arty (green, questionable, no jump ships) would cost only 66 RP and could be raised each turn on a training center. After a few turns there is a steady flow of fresh units moving up to replace losses or expand the offensive.

Ten such commands every turn uses 660 RP, or just under 50% of the monthly RPs. These ten commands (fifty regiments) would probably soundly defeat two of your sample commands which has spent 396 RPs each for one level improvement in experience and loyalty and a few drop ships.

After all, its war and you may need masses of cannon fodder over fewer but higher quality units that will still suffer attrition, if not get over run entirely.

ISW looks to be pretty well thought out but a couple tweaks here and there might help prevent the more 'gamey' strategies.
« Last Edit: 10 February 2016, 14:06:42 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #74 on: 10 February 2016, 13:17:55 »
So with this in mind, does anyone feel that adding the complexity of individual factory production/RP generation go too far into details to be playable?  It seems like a goal of ISW was to simplify where possible but try to provide a more complete ruleset than ISiF was.

I wanted to have a chance to review the final SBF/ACS/ISW rule set before commenting on this post. Now that I have had a chance to get through the meat of the I am quite pleased with detail involved.

The economics and supply are workable without being overbearing. Combat Command size being the driver between cost and supply (and rebuilding) works quite well. The only thing that stood out to me is what happens if an RCT loses its mech regiment. It is still a Command so I am assuming it operates normally as such until/if a player raises a new mech regiment to replace the one lost.

As noted above the tweak to prevent x number of Commands from suddenly showing up right in the path of an offensive's objection is something one could 'house rule' into place.

A couple of other thoughts I had was regarding mixed regiments, such as those used by the Capellans for lack of enough mechs. However, considering the variety of potential versions I can understand why they are not included. The other was about formation make up (light mechs reg't versus heavy, light tank reg't versus heavy), these details can effect the final combat values of formations but again, perhaps not enough to matter at the RCT/Army level. Others may have differing opinions but, as noted, future products may deal with standardization of regiments.

A big "well done" to the developers.

Cheers.
« Last Edit: 10 February 2016, 13:41:45 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25570
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #75 on: 10 February 2016, 17:51:10 »
My first take is that, if you incorporate some of the 2570/2750 data into a game, you get to see exactly how devastating the Succession Wars were to the various powers.

Then take into account that things like technology levels could mean a major world in 2750 might have production more like a hyper world in 3025 ... So you'd have a double whammy in that case.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4960
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #76 on: 10 February 2016, 18:38:50 »
Then take into account that things like technology levels could mean a major world in 2750 might have production more like a hyper world in 3025 ... So you'd have a double whammy in that case.

<ponders a 140 ton 'mech with quad PPCs and two SRM-6s...>

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25570
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #77 on: 10 February 2016, 18:49:16 »
On a tech level scale from 1 to 10, that's turning it up to 11 ... and yes, it only comes in black, until something darker is available ;)
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Long Tom Artillery and the Trailers
« Reply #78 on: 13 February 2016, 03:48:09 »
I was converting BF units to SBF/ACS formations and I came across something I did not see in the rules.

The BF elements have these stats:

Type - CV
Size - 2/1/1 (gun/ammo carriage/support carriage)
Move - 2t (1t with trailers)
Arm - 2/2/2 (gun/ammo carriage/support carriage)
Str - 3/1/1 (gun/ammo carriage/support carriage)
Short - 1
Med - 0
Lng - 0
Ext - 0
OV - 0
Skill  - 4
PV - 28+5+5=38
Specials - ARTLT-1, EE, HTC (all 3), MHQ2, SRCH

When converting this to an SBF/ACS Unit how do you turn the gun and two carriages into one element for size and armour?
 
Take size for example. If you add the three components (gun and carriages) together you get size 4. My understanding is that the LT system is very large so this makes sense.

Armour - is it all added together to make one "strategic" level element then converted as per pgs 327-328 to and SBF/ACS Unit?

This would mean Arm 2+2+2=6, Str 3+1+1=5 for each gun combination which when converted would be:

Arm -  6 + 5 =11 times 4 elements = 44 divided by 3 = 14.6 rounded to 15. This seems a bit high for a battery (lance) but considering the number and size of the components it might reflect what it would take to destroy the entire 'Unit' or 'Formation/Combat Team'.

The ranges seem simple enough using pages 327-328:

Short - (4 x 1)+(4 x 1 ARTLT-1 special) = 8/3 = 2.66 rounds to 3
Med - 4 x 1 ARTLT-1 special = 4/3 = 1.33 rounds to 1
Long - 4 x 1 ARTLT-1 special = 4/3 = 1.33 rounds to 1
Extr - - 4 x 1 ARTLT-1 special = 4/3 = 1.33 rounds to 1

Unit Skill is no issue

Unit PV - 38 x 4 = 152/3 = 50.6 rounded to 51PV.

The ARTLT special should convert as base arty damage from page 274 (6) times the number of guns (4) divided by 3.  6 x 4 = 24 divided by 3 = ARTLT-8

The HTC special based on page 338 should work out HTC16 using the calculation of size 2 + 1+ 1 = 4 per element times 4 elements. This rule also explains the reduction in movement from 2t to 1t

The MHQ special would work out to 2 - 1 = 1 x 4 (elements) = 4 divided by 3 = 1 for SBF MHQ1 (per page 336).

If the above is all correct then a four element Unit looks like this:

Type - CV
Size - 4
Move - 1t
TMM - 0
Arm - 15 (?)
Short - 3
Med - 1
Long - 1
Extr - 1
OV - 0
Skill - 4
PV - 51
Special - ARTLT8, EE, HTC16, MHQ1, SRCH

Would this be correct?
« Last Edit: 13 February 2016, 04:01:05 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4960
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #79 on: 13 February 2016, 14:18:45 »
Technically, what you need to do is use the errata version of the Long Tom (75 tons with ammo allocated).  I'm not sure where the pdf record sheet is on the board so...here.

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #80 on: 14 February 2016, 12:42:18 »
Thanks. Although, I do have to ask,... what brought on the change??

I didn't see any problem with the gun and its support carriages. They gave it a real sci-fi feel and promised to blow apart whatever it hit, or even landed close to.

However, it is what it is. Any idea when the MUL card will be updated?

Cheers.
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #81 on: 14 February 2016, 12:46:38 »
The support and ammo carriages still exist.  The change was so the main "gun" carriage had some ammo.  There's no rules for using ammo from a trailer.  So the ammo carriage is for reloading, not firing from.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 448
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #82 on: 15 February 2016, 12:26:43 »
Ah, I see. So the ammunition trailers are left to the rear of gun/battery for any particular battle, out of the equation. Fair enough.

The gun itself has changed from Size 2 to Size 3 by increasing to 75 tons. It's a touch faster with more structure. I suppose I'll run it through the BF conversion rules from SO and see if it amounts to any significant change.

Thanks for the information.
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

DarthRads

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2184
  • Trust me...I'm the Doctor...
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #83 on: 16 February 2016, 16:03:14 »
I have a question RE the ACS.

Am I reading this right? To generate ACS stats, you need to "phone book" your entire regiment in Alpha Strike, convert to Battleforce then convert those stats to the ACS? Seems like a hell of a lot of work, determining every individual unit in say, a SLDF division...

I guess I was hoping for generic company stats to be printed like the old CombatOps

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 343
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #84 on: 16 February 2016, 16:52:06 »
I have a question RE the ACS.

Am I reading this right? To generate ACS stats, you need to "phone book" your entire regiment in Alpha Strike, convert to Battleforce then convert those stats to the ACS? Seems like a hell of a lot of work, determining every individual unit in say, a SLDF division...

I guess I was hoping for generic company stats to be printed like the old CombatOps

Yep, it goes AS --> Strategic BattleForce --> ACS.

However, unless you're using customized units, it's not so bad. Just about 99.44% (or so) of the canon units already have AS stats available on the Master Unit List site (http://masterunitlist.info, which also has an AS Force Builder option that lets you set any number of units as a force, from a lance of 4 to an entire regiment if you want. The PDF print option for the cards is unfortunately down, but the list page you get at least gives you the basic stats (size, armor, damage, etc.) that you can plug into a calculator or spreadsheet.  And if you don't want to randomly roll up all of your units, Solaris Skunk Works has a built-in Force Builder IIRC that uses the stick RATs to allow you to randomly determine the units.

If you're looking for uniformity, though, you're in the wrong spot. At best, you can maybe estimate a percentage of the forces based on the random unit generation tables from TW -- or the adjusted & unit-specific ones from the various Field Manuals -- but even that only gets you so far.  Note that you need 4 standard regiments to get enough of a mix to where at least 1 of every type of lance is possible (with a spread of 18 light, 30 medium, 54 heavy & 6 assault lances), & even then you don't have the divisible-by-36 numbers to use the standard RATs (53 light, 139 medium, 197 heavy & 43 assault 'Mechs)... which means you need 144 regiments to get true random use out of a RAT. 

Which is the point: a Kurita regiment comprise mostly of light & heavy 'Mechs will have very different stats from Lyran units (which are biased towards heavy & assault units).

 
I suppose you could always adapt the old lance types from the 4SW Atlas, where the generic BattleForce 1st Edition lances were given faction variations...

DarthRads

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2184
  • Trust me...I'm the Doctor...
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #85 on: 16 February 2016, 17:27:02 »
Thanks, that's what I thought.

This came about as part of the Empire Aflame field Manuals I've written. Someone asked fir ACS stats to be included.

Have begun rolling up 'average' units of each type using the rats and MUL but it takes a looooong time.

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #86 on: 16 February 2016, 18:25:44 »
That seems excessive. Frankly I'd suggest using the relevant faction RATs, that with 2d6s create a battalion's worth (36) for each weight class. Add it all up, and divide by 36 to get an average "component" stats from that weight class. I might actually do it, when I'm finished with my studies, later this year.
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.

DarthRads

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2184
  • Trust me...I'm the Doctor...
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #87 on: 16 February 2016, 18:38:26 »
One issue though, the MUL doesn't seem to give movement values in the force builder.

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4960
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #88 on: 16 February 2016, 19:56:29 »
I have come up with various "Generic" formations...but none that would fit EA's settings sadly.

theagent

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 343
Re: Interstellar Operations Final PDF Released, Lets Talk ACS and ISW
« Reply #89 on: 17 February 2016, 20:42:33 »
One issue though, the MUL doesn't seem to give movement values in the force builder.

Crap, missed that.

*sigh*  Well, I suppose we can print out the individual pages/AS cards for now.

As an aside, I was doing some more thinking on the way home from work, & I think there's something else to consider when building forces for SBF & ACS.  The RATs work fine for small-scale interactions:  one-on-one duels, lance-on-lance action, or even "large" sessions where each player is only controlling 1-4 (Inner Sphere)/1-5 (Clan)/1-6 (ComStar/WoB) units, simply because you want to have a little variety in your lance.  Taking an entire lance of Missile Boats or Snipers can bite you in the butt if you end up with a mapsheet selection skewed towards large clumps of Woods and/or lots of Level 3+ elevation changes...especially if your opponent went "light & fast" on you.  I remember how one of the suggestions for 3025-era combat was that LRM-equipped units should stay in the "sweet spot of 7 hexes out (Short range for them, Medium or Long range for everyone else, & no Minimum penalties), which is hard to do on some map configurations.

But when you start getting to the point where your players are controlling company-sized or larger formations, you have to start being more careful about your unit selections.  Take the 'Light/2 Heavy' configuration (IIRC, result of 3 on the 1D6 chart).  If you end up with 4 Sniper & Missile Boat 'Mechs spread across both Heavy lances (whether you ended up with the "Medium/2 Heavy/Assault" configuration or the "2 Heavy/2 Assault" configuration), you may want to consider consolidating those into a single lance & designate it as your Fire Lance, so that your Brawlers, Juggernauts, &/or Strikers can fill out the other Heavy lance.  Or, conversely, if you ended up with the "2 Light/Medium/Heavy" configuration for your Light lance, & your first 3 units are all jump-capable, you may want to swap out the non-jumping Heavy you ended up with for another Heavy unit with jump jets (*imagines the potential of a Stinger/Wasp/Hatchetman/Catapult lance as the "Scout" lance*).

In some ways, the 4th Succession War Atlas has some good suggestions to start from...but in some ways, it's also limited in that it uses only units from TRO: 3025 (original).  However, you do get some weird lance combos.  For example, the main Davion assault lance (Victor, Awesome & 2 Orions) is a mix of a Sniper, Skirmisher, & 2 Brawlers.  However, the main Davion light lance (all Valkyries) means you have a Missile Boat lance.  In contrast, the Steiner equivalents use paired Skirmishers & Snipers (two pairs of Victors & Zeuses) in the assault lance, while 2 Missile Boats (Whitworths) are paired up with 2 Scouts (Stinger & Wasp).  I think the bigger problem there, though, is the lack of diversity & consistency within the lances, but they do give some good starting points.

 

Register