FGC options

[Crunch]

Does anyone think there would be a virtue to waiting until IO comes out to use the FGC as a showcase for the Strategic Scale rules it's supposed to include?

[Terminax]

Not really. We don't even has a tease yet of how those rules are taking shape. When IO becomes available and we have some time to digest the rules that will be presented within... maybe. I wasn't terribly impressed with the last strategic game offered via Combat Ops. In my hopes, I hope the rules can mesh with ATOW and TW while being it's own thing.

[WONC]

Well then, what about the old Inner Sphere in Flames rules? I've only ever toyed around with them, but never actually ran a game using them. I've heard they might have some issues, but could they be worked into something useful?

[Terminax]

Those are the very rules from Combat Ops I spoke about. They're very... not finished and not entire forum friendly. I know Panzerfaust150 (I'm not sure if the one here, is the same one from the Frontier but I think they're one in the same) and Dreyf ran at least one Shattered Sphere game at the Frontier using those rules or a modified set of those rules. I didn't play then so I don't know if it's worth trying. It's one of those things where someone smarter than me will have to figure out.

I think (dream/hope) IOs rules are better worked out than Inner Sphere In Flames but then, anything would be. For now, I think we could work out something between us that works with the kind of game we eventually settle on.

[Minerva]

ISIF had plenty of problems.

First problem was that 3025 Tech light mech company was most cost effective for firepower per production cost. Thus there was no point engaging in any kind of search for better Mechs. Second problem was that as far as bang for unit was concerned the heavier weight was king. If you combine that with random regiment weight tables of 3039 the Steiner army essentially walks over everyone else with "historical forces" until production numbers with light units swamps them (and everyone else).

As far as IO rules are concerned, I do not expect them to be published anytime soon.

FGC rule set should be close to grand strategy games. In my view the troops committed should be locked to system for duration of campaign unless side decides to call it quits (with associated hefty prestige losses) preventing doom stack gaming. This allows you to attack with force if you like but also means you just opened up few other systems for exploitation. Similarly you can offensively use this by sending a force to tie down enemy key unit and prevent it from action.

The Combat system should be divided into three phases: Skirmish, Maneuver and Decision. Switch from one to another should happen at the end of the turn if one side manages to out maneuver another. Both sides roll Leadership skill + Force maneuver rating + 2D6 and winning side may say if they move closer or further from decision for next turn. The beauty of this is that now light force can keep fighting in skirmish level at far longer time if it is skilled. With luck it can even hold system until additional troops arrive.

Of course there are additionally casualty rolls in each phase based on firepower and phase of campaign but heaviest casualties are reserved for Decision phase. Since each fight is a matter of simple die roll and fractional casualties the only decision per turn is if troops quit it. The rest is up to troops and GM die roll. Thus Takashi Kurita does not micromanage Wolf's Dragoons, he simply orders them to take over a planet exhorting results or ordering them back if bigger picture requires it.
 

[Arkansas Warrior]

I find it interesting that 3SW and 4SW lead the era portion of the polls, but IS Only is dead last in the section dealing with faction availability.


As for me, the more factions the better.  I'd like a post-Jihad or DA setting best, but late Clan invasion/pre-Jihad (aka, in line wih the FM series or FM:U) would be good too.  A pre-clan setting doesn't have enough viable factions to make things really fun from my perspective.  If you're not playing a Successor State you're just hoping they don't kill you while you twiddle your thumbs in the dark.  I'd much rather do a speculative clan-only game in that time period.  At least that way there's some rough balance in strength of the factions.

But in the end I'll play no matter the era or set of factions.  I've enjoyed all the FGCs I've been part of, even when I've come in in the middle and thought the game was horribly broken.

[chaosxtreme]

Im on board for whatever the majority decides let me know if you need someone for part of the GM Tasks also I hereby confirm I will have all map requirements on lock down if you guys still need someone for that.

 O0

[WONC]

I find it interesting that 3SW and 4SW lead the era portion of the polls, but IS Only is dead last in the section dealing with faction availability.


As for me, the more factions the better.  I'd like a post-Jihad or DA setting best, but late Clan invasion/pre-Jihad (aka, in line wih the FM series or FM:U) would be good too.  A pre-clan setting doesn't have enough viable factions to make things really fun from my perspective.  If you're not playing a Successor State you're just hoping they don't kill you while you twiddle your thumbs in the dark.  I'd much rather do a speculative clan-only game in that time period.  At least that way there's some rough balance in strength of the factions.

But in the end I'll play no matter the era or set of factions.  I've enjoyed all the FGCs I've been part of, even when I've come in in the middle and thought the game was horribly broken.

Maybe splitting the game in two could work? Set it in 3047-48, and keep the Clan side of it separate from the Inner Sphere side. Let the Clan players decide if/when/where they want to invade, let them fight it out in Trials to determine which Clans are primary invaders, etc. Meanwhile, let the Inner Sphere players see if a 5th Succession War develops, if the FedCom survives long enough to be viable, if the CapCon and FWL marry into each other, etc.

If you limited players to only one faction (and kept factions at three players tops; in the Clans' case, a Khan, saKhan, and Loremaster)), kept minor factions out of it altogether (look, we all like Niops, but that doesn't mean they're a great choice for a grand strategic game), and had separate GMs (or GM teams) to run the initial different parts of play, it could make for a very dynamic game. I realize it's pretty much already been done, but it could represent one of the better ways of pleasing the most players without alienating too many people.

[Crunch]

I find it interesting that 3SW and 4SW lead the era portion of the polls, but IS Only is dead last in the section dealing with faction availability.

I'm seeing a three way tie...

[Arkansas Warrior]

I'm seeing a three way tie...

More votes were cast between my post and yours?

[Crunch]

More votes were cast between my post and yours?

Most likely. Must have been a heck of a surge.

[Klingon]

More votes is better, but the editing of the poll's options while in progress does call into question its validity. It's my poll, I have only myself to blame, but I do observe the results aren't quite reliable.

[worktroll]

Gents,

Speaking as an Admin for the moment - we'd be happy to see a well-organised FGC-type game running again, but - given the traumas associated with the last few times - we'll be far more impressed with an actual worked-out-gamesystem than a wishlist.

We all know what's paved with good intentions - we've seen it here. The more concrete your ideas become, the more people show they're involved, and the more people communicating with each other, the better.

This is good "market research".

W.

[Arkaris]

More votes is better, but the editing of the poll's options while in progress does call into question its validity. It's my poll, I have only myself to blame, but I do observe the results aren't quite reliable.

I disagree, I think there is a tremendous amount of good information.

The information on what era/who is involved never changed from the outset of the poll.  And it is clear that we are certainly divided right down the middle.  6 people who want clan vs inner sphere, 6 votes for people who want only clan, 6 people for IS only.  The way the poll is set up, that is either, only 6 people voted and didn't care which option won, or out of 21 people who voted, 18 of them voted for only one option, meaning they didn't want to play the other 2.  And that means 3 people didn't vote for either of the 3 options.  And as we have heard from certain people, some will refuse to play the game unless it is only clan or only Inner Sphere pre-clan, and if it is not their way then they won't play. 

It is up to someone who is willing to try and work out a game system that will be fair (even if exploitable) that can take place in whatever era they choose.  Honestly, I really don't care what era/faction people want to play.  That doesn't matter.  What does matter is whoever wants to take the task of building the system, to pick whatever they would enjoy running the most, and build a system to that.  If it is fun and enjoyable, people will join and play regardless of era or Megamek involved. 

This poll shows that our community loves all of Battletech, and we are equally divided on which era and faction we love most.  That shows that CGL has done a fantastic job of carrying on the game and my hat is off to them and their hard work.  Just to further prove that point, Clan Invasion and Dark Ages each have 7 votes!  We as a community love all of Battletech, and all parts of it.  That is what this poll shows.

[Terminax]

Yep, it's all good Klingon. Arkaris is dead on right about the information is helpful.

The reason why I made my own thread, is I've got concerns about the FGC format and I felt it better to do my own thing rather than to get into here.  I still support the general thrust of getting ourselves a new game but previous FGCs left me feeling cold to them. That's not the fault of anyone in particular and I hold no grudges but I don't want the same problems in a new game. At the very least the level of detail is getting too in-depth and that's coming from a guy who loves picky detail oriented games. Big spreadsheets are a symptom of the disease. We're not designing a hardcore strategy video game here.

I want to focus on players telling stories, being creative and building a shared narrative but hold enough rules detail to keep everyone interested. I don't want to bog down tracking every minutiae of the Battletech universe. It just isn't realistic for anybody to do so and keep sane.

[Nibs]

I was one of those flaky players who disappeared in the middle of the game last time - Though there were circumstances that I would like to think permit that. Nonetheless, that was one of the biggest problems: People who didn't have time for the amount required. Especially for the paperwork. I'll throw my voice into the argument that it needs to be made simpler. Yes, a large-scale strategic exercise is a great idea, but in practice it can be very problematic (as we have seen). As some have mentioned, having one player per faction is a good idea, because teamwork, time committed, and having something to do (in comparison to the faction head) are all issues.

Therefore, it needs to contain the aspects that we've enjoyed in the past, but simplify! For example, instead of tracking every last 'Mech and fighter by force points and their movement, use a more abstract system. To extend the example a little more, let's say the Federated Suns have taken extensive damage in their last offensive. The player chooses the option to 'Focus on Mech Production', instead of 'Focus on Fighter Production' or 'Focus on Industrial Production'. This system could also work for other things, like officer training, economy, etc.

Overall, the point I mean to make is that if there are orders every week, it should take no more than twenty minutes to make. That includes decision time. It makes things easy. As we have discussed, unfortunately not everyone will be perfectly happy. But I feel this will keep the game open for everyone, including the casual players.

Those reasons are why I voted for Tech and Resource Advancements. Though, as I said, abstract is better that tedious detail.

I'm also in strong agreement with monbvol about MegaMek. Having matches is simply too tough for a huge game. A small roleplaying group could, but not with the number of players and how long we run these games. Therefore, I voted for the use of MegaMek to resolve duels/trials. As some have said, it only works well for Clan games, especially very political ones. We should not rule out entirely MegaMek, but keep it as an option for certain games.

Faction-wise, I'm happy with Clan or IS or anything! So, I'm content with whatever anyone wants. However, for ideas that intrigue me, I loved the entirely political RP FWL Parliament idea. Naturally, some players must have combat, but I really like this idea. In addition, any Clan ones are good. Especially ones that involve a single player per Clan, starting a year after Klondike or at the death of Nicholas or at the start of OmniMech technology. It keeps Trials small (not Reaving size!), has many rather equal Clans, has many personalities already established in Historical: Operation Klondike, is very political, and has lots of room for tech advancements.

Lastly, I indicated I would be willing to GM if necessary. As with lack of strong opinion on era, I'd just like to see a game started no matter how. However, with my schedule and lack of smartphone, I couldn't be a primary one, but if necessary, I can help out in this area.

[WONC]

Gents,

Speaking as an Admin for the moment - we'd be happy to see a well-organised FGC-type game running again, but - given the traumas associated with the last few times - we'll be far more impressed with an actual worked-out-gamesystem than a wishlist.

We all know what's paved with good intentions - we've seen it here. The more concrete your ideas become, the more people show they're involved, and the more people communicating with each other, the better.

This is good "market research".

W.

Agreed. I'm still knocking about on seeing if I can throw together a simplified grand-strategy/RP/factional system, but for my own curiosity more than anything. Simplicity really does seem to be the key, as the more complexity I try to add in to it, the more I want to scream and hurl my laptop through the window. It really makes me appreciate how much the GMs went through in previous games, that lasted for more than a month or so.

*snip*

Exactly!  :)

[Crunch]

Having multiple people per faction gives you an option if one player bales or goes awol.

[Klingon]

Agreed. I'm still knocking about on seeing if I can throw together a simplified grand-strategy/RP/factional system, but for my own curiosity more than anything. Simplicity really does seem to be the key, as the more complexity I try to add in to it, the more I want to scream and hurl my laptop through the window. It really makes me appreciate how much the GMs went through in previous games, that lasted for more than a month or so.

Exactly!  :)

What'll drive you nuts is the folks wanting kitchen sink after kitchen sink added in for more realism, completely uncognizant of the hell it's putting the GMs through.

[Arkaris]

We have an admin in another large massive online game that I play in who's signature quote is "Quality means knowing when to say No."

[Fatebringer]

I think it goes back to, "Whose willing to run, and what do they propose?" I've played in a lot of LARP games, and when it came down to choosing which games we would play, the different proposed "Storyteller Teams" would pitch their idea and advise what time period they were looking at. When my friends asked me to help them run, we knew right off the bat that we didn't want to run for longer than 3 years. We had 3 different stories we ran during that time, but there Gamemaster in our game should have an idea of what they want to do with the game, not just throw all the factions together and open the floodgates of interstellar chaos. Set the period / mood and give some objectives to the faction leaders with rewards for achieving their objectives.... at least that's my 2 Kerenskies. :P

[Foxx Ital]

I found it helped when we started *hates saying this* Using lables, Did you MM or rp? were you both! It made it alot easier for the bears because we had both people who were willing to take up the admin/Majority of the roleplaying and there were those of us who just wanted to bash skulls, point us in the direction and give the poor foe our server address!

[Fatebringer]

Having people lets that work, but you need players, and before you get players, you need a game ;)

[Fatebringer]

At least that's my opinion. It can work the other way around as well. But no offense to people. As a GM, I don't expect you to completely cater to the players needs if you have a story to tell dang nabbit! I had players that hated me as an ST and it couldn't be helped. I played a game of actions and consequences. I did warn them, they did it anyway, they got their hands slapped, then they cried. If they cried in character I wouldn't care, but they cried out of character too and that, I wouldn't stand there and listen to :P

[Foxx Ital]

At least that's my opinion. It can work the other way around as well. But no offense to people. As a GM, I don't expect you to completely cater to the players needs if you have a story to tell dang nabbit! I had players that hated me as an ST and it couldn't be helped. I played a game of actions and consequences. I did warn them, they did it anyway, they got their hands slapped, then they cried. If they cried in character I wouldn't care, but they cried out of character too and that, I wouldn't stand there and listen to :P

Expecting a clan player to not whine is like expecting something sane to come out of a fire mandrills mouth  ;)
 My suggestion is start small and work your way bigger, Games that involve spreadsheets and require a bachelors in Fasanomics make me go  #P

[Fatebringer]

See, as a Raven, we know how to throw a Tantrum ;) "DID YOU GUYS SEE THAT! THEY NUKED CIRCE!!!"

[monbvol]

Voted a while back but just now getting my thoughts out there.

What I want from a Fan Council is:

Resource management.  One of the big things about Battletech has always been that there is not enough to go around and do everything you want, especially at the strategic levels.  I want to be faced with the conundrum of do I leave a border largely unprotected and cripple my economy by transporting large portions of my army or do I settle for a smaller series of fights for limited gains?  I want to be faced with such choices.

Military control.  More a subset of the above really in my mind but I do want to have some hand in planning my nation's war movements, figuring out which units to send where, and having the results matter.

So yeah I want to actually feel like a Successor or March Lord, where my decisions matter and can change the realities of entire regions of space.

Megamek is a bugger.  I appreciate what it can do but I'm still dead set on it being the wrong tool for a Fan Council.  To a degree I'm tolerant of it being used to settle personal trials in a Clan setting but wary of even allowing that much because there will be people who want it used to determine other lesser things and it snowballing from there.  The whole MM only and Proxy thing has been tried before and combats still dragged out.  As such I'm only interested if there is no official support of Megamek in the rules anywhere.  I know it wasn't around back then but go look into the various MekWars servers or MekHQ if you want larger scale fights where MegaMek is relevant.

The ISiF rules from CombatOps were tried with various refinements, tweaks, alterations, and almost outright chucking in several Fan Councils and as indicated they met with varying degrees of success.

[chaosxtreme]

Voted a while back but just now getting my thoughts out there.

What I want from a Fan Council is:

Resource management.  One of the big things about Battletech has always been that there is not enough to go around and do everything you want, especially at the strategic levels.  I want to be faced with the conundrum of do I leave a border largely unprotected and cripple my economy by transporting large portions of my army or do I settle for a smaller series of fights for limited gains?  I want to be faced with such choices.

Military control.  More a subset of the above really in my mind but I do want to have some hand in planning my nation's war movements, figuring out which units to send where, and having the results matter.

So yeah I want to actually feel like a Successor or March Lord, where my decisions matter and can change the realities of entire regions of space.

Megamek is a bugger.  I appreciate what it can do but I'm still dead set on it being the wrong tool for a Fan Council.  To a degree I'm tolerant of it being used to settle personal trials in a Clan setting but wary of even allowing that much because there will be people who want it used to determine other lesser things and it snowballing from there.  The whole MM only and Proxy thing has been tried before and combats still dragged out.  As such I'm only interested if there is no official support of Megamek in the rules anywhere.  I know it wasn't around back then but go look into the various MekWars servers or MekHQ if you want larger scale fights where MegaMek is relevant.

The ISiF rules from CombatOps were tried with various refinements, tweaks, alterations, and almost outright chucking in several Fan Councils and as indicated they met with varying degrees of success.

This about resource management. The 4th War wasn't a small thing even for the Federated Sun's it needed the help of the LC to recover from the economic disruption it caused even with it being a massive win and people were still eating shoe leather and starving to death on some worlds.

Spontaneous revolts or something.

I rather liked the reputation system that one of the last FGC variants used. It made you spend resources on making sure your people/nobles/players liked you and gave a good avenue to force settlements on a victors terms when one state was losing badly short of total conquest.

[Terminax]

Definitely don't wait for IO to make a FGC game. I asked Herb is IO's strategic rules are based on Inner Sphere in Flames or if they're going to go in another direction, and it is going to be based off of ISIF. I also asked if it could tie in to the ATOW Companion rules for landholds and he said no, because of the wider focus. And the rest of his answer indicates IO is still deep in development hell so... we're out of luck there.

A bit disappointing to me. I was really hoping it wouldn't be ISIF 2, and that there'd be something to connect to ATOW for campaign purposes. Oh well, just do my own thing I guess.

[The Eagle]

As a player of and faction leader for several various incarnations of the FGC, I have to say that -- just coming back into the game -- I'm psyched that folks are even *talking* about building a new one.  I'd be happy to provide input on how various rules mechanics worked well (and what was clunky or disliked), and I'd definitely volunteer to play (if the game needs another GM to take off, I s'pose I could forfeit playing to GM. . . but given the choice, I'd play).  I'm also happy to see some familiar names in the thread -- AW and chaosxtreme both popped out at me.

Since I'm too late to the show to vote in the poll, I'll add my two cents in here.  First, I'd like to see a SW-era IS game, preferably pre-4th so we don't have to worry about the Com Guards being represented.  ComStar is a perfect role for the GMs to play, but when the Core Alliance was created in the '67 game, it gave the GM faction entirely too much power even discounting fiat (for the uninitiated, ComStar, WoB, and the Wolf's Dragoons combined into a super-faction under a distant ancestor of the Hegemonic McKenna family, and was run by the GMs).  The last attempt we made for the game was a starting date in 3010, and if memory serves it worked well; we just had issues maintaining a playerbase (the game started without a Combine faction leader, for example).  Other ease-of-play issues that come with SW-era gameplay are:

1. No WarShips.  Building and selling these were always a point of contention, not only for their force projection capabilities but also because they were the best way to significantly increase your transport pool.  In fact, the GMs in '67 had to put an OOC moratorium on selling WarShips because of it (and we FWLers cried, since it was a major source of income for us).


2. No Clans.  The IS players in '67 learned very quickly that the Clans simply did not have the numbers to play ball with the Successor States, so the primary means of crushing Clan opposition became to build giant stacks of cheap conventional troops and throw them at the Clan OZs until the toumans were overrun by numbers.  It just wasn't fun for the Clans.  Plus, once the Homeworlds were opened back up, the players had issues playing their Clans in-character.  Clans who otherwise despised each other in canon were seen ganging up on other Clans -- even if they weren't mutual enemies -- for the simple reason of "look!  easy isorla for both of us!"


3.  No Word of Blake.  Having just a single ComStar faction for use by the GMs to help control the game -- actions taken by fiat actually ROM operations, rebalancing of the game factions via interdiction, etc -- is a simple and fairly elegant way to have the GMs be involved in the game while preventing them from abusing their quasi-omniscient overview of the game world.    The moment the toaster-lovers come into play, though, now interdiction is no longer the GM's ' "smite" button, and you need a responsible player to run them, one who can play fanatics and all that entails without abusing the kind of power the Wobbies had, especially in terms of how deeply entrenched they were in the FWLM, the ComGuards, and ROM.


4. Fewer factories.  It wasn't until after the Clan invasion that the Successor States had the technical know-how to seriously ramp up arms production to the ridiculous levels it reached prior to the Jihad.  Case in point: the League was able to add a new brigade to the Free Worlds Legions every year starting in about 3058.  Not just a 'Mech regiment, mind you, but a full combined-arms brigade.  Between 3057 and 3067, the League built or recovered (with WoB help) something like thirty WarShips.  Before 3050, this kind of industrial capacity was undreamt of, which makes things like 'Mech factories worth their weight in whatever precious metal you choose to name.  Plus, they have only a very limited ability to expand their industrial base, so no nation can become a super-industrial powerhouse just by sitting back and building factories and building new 'Mechs until they can assemble some super-juggernaut.