In SBF you have to rewrite the sheets when detach?

[Mostro Joe]

In Interstellar Operations: Battleforce there is the very good system Strategic Battleforce.

In that rules system, I see that I can detach a unit from a formation. That unit will move and attack at the same moment of the parent formation it left.

When a unit detach from a formation, I have to rework the record sheet of the formation? For an exemple the main formation can lose the Indirect Fire ability or the Recon ability if the unit that confered that ability is now detached.

A detached unit can stay at every distance from the parent formation? Or there is a maximum distance that must be respected? The rules, it seems, do  not say that.

[Zematus737]

Part of the Advanced rules of 'Detaching', 'Splitting', and 'Re-Forming Units' is found on page 68 of IO:BF.  The details of which are found on page 122.  An Element, once detached, for whatever reason, should seek to reform itself at the earliest opportunity unless the detachment was intentional for independent operations.  Accidental would be, for example, when an aerospace Element is detached to avoid a crash of the entire Unit.  If that Element survives and remains operational, it should seek to reform with the Unit.  Any abilities or restrictions should take into account whether they depend on that Element remaining part of the Unit.  Variables would be movement, movement restrictions, abilities that require a minimum amount of Elements within the Unit.  Unit size is even altered by separations also.  I presume that special abilities would no longer apply if the minimum amounts are not satisfied given that even size is adjusted after a split.  A new record sheet is called for only for Ad Hoc Unit formation.

[Zematus737]

Please keep in mind that Strategic Battleforce and Battleforce share the same ground rules but play differently (mostly in movement and damage calculations) as each tier represents a higher scale of play.  You should familiarize yourself with the regular and advanced BF rules as well, as many of these rules are taken for granted within the rule definitions of higher scales.  Abstract Combat System, for example, uses or keeps many SBF rules for Engagements and various other things.

Battleforce Unit=Lance (30 second turn), SBF Formation=Company (3 minute turn), ACS Combat Team=Battalion (If Scaled, a turn can represent 12 hours) ACS Combat Unit=Regiment (3.5 day turn).  It's a lot of rules to digest, but if you wish to break down Combat Commands it is worth learning each.

[Mostro Joe]

Part of the Advanced rules of 'Detaching', 'Splitting', and 'Re-Forming Units' is found on page 68 of IO:BF.  The details of which are found on page 122.

I was more interested in the Strategic Battleforce. And yes it seems record sheets should be modified. At least when you think you are going to do that you can write something beforehand. I, for an exemple, have a formation where one of my lances is a recon lance. Having only one lance gives no recon ability to the formation, but I think I could detach that to permit it to make recon activity alone before joining the company.

So I wrote the statistics of the formation with or without the presence of that lance. The main difference is the change in speed and so it reflects in the Tactics factor. When you are skilled, you can make these fast calculations on the fly, but it's better to prepare something in advance if you can. 

[Mostro Joe]

Please keep in mind that Strategic Battleforce and Battleforce share the same ground rules but play differently (mostly in movement and damage calculations) as each tier represents a higher scale of play.  You should familiarize yourself with the regular and advanced BF rules as well, as many of these rules are taken for granted within the rule definitions of higher scales.  Abstract Combat System, for example, uses or keeps many SBF rules for Engagements and various other things.

Battleforce Unit=Lance (30 second turn), SBF Formation=Company (3 minute turn), ACS Combat Team=Battalion (If Scaled, a turn can represent 12 hours) ACS Combat Unit=Regiment (3.5 day turn).  It's a lot of rules to digest, but if you wish to break down Combat Commands it is worth learning each.

I prefer the SBF level, because that's exactly what I want if I have to play a campaign. And I really like for some particular mission the Scaled SBF. In that one in particular they say that a turn is 12 hours OR A DAY. I really prefer that scale of forces and time, while I think that ACS breaks the scaling progress of the game. Firs of all, I don't like the 3,5 day per turn scale. It's odd and it doesn't work. Days per turn should be 3 or 4. I know that this should consider the scale of an ISaW turn (28 days if I'm not wrong, I can't check now), that is 4 weeks, But why not take 30 days round, a month, so you can say that 10 ACS are one ISaW turn. It is a better breakdown, it would ever be preferable to use round numbers and multiples of 5 or 10. It permits to better fudge times and scales.

If I play a Scaled SBF turn, and I decide to go with the whole day scale, 3 turns of Scaled SBF are one ACS turn. And 30 of them are one ISaW turn.

Anyway, I really like the strategic game, but the ISaW scale it's not what I really want. I would prefer for campaigns the SBF or, for some missions, the Scaled SBF level played on a planetary map.

I would like to see supply rules in the Scaled SBF for an exemple, sadly they are not there. And rules to better integrate fatigue and rep/mant cycles. But they are in ISaW only and are conflicting with CO rules. Considering that I think that CO is one of the worst campaign books ever written, that's not a problem, you can simply consider what's written in IO: Battleforce, because the latter one is more consistent.

[Zematus737]

The scales can be confusing as times.  I made a post on a player aid where I go into detail on just how to convert Scaled SBF and have it play well with ACS Formations and that time scale.  You may adopt whatever helps.  There is not enough rules for scaled 12 hour turns play to be its own thing, but most of the combat and other stuff is recycled from SBF, to be fair.

The 3.5 days fits into the ISaW timeframe of 8 turns being a whole ISaW turn, it taking place every month.  I feel it is a good portion.  The SBF 3 minute keeps it its own thing and you can do as much as you like at that scale without stepping on the toes of ACS.  The 12 hour portion of Scaled BF can play well with ACS too, you just have to use one scale for movement representation and sink lower into the other scales for deployments, reinforcements, actions and combat.  There's flexibility in the rules that are pretty much thrown out like a banquet.  You just have to pick and choose.  C.O. has many things that are useful in it, most of all the Transit Times table that you can figure the travel time from zenith/nadir points from any custom system or campaign with just the distance of the planet from its star and the size or type of star.  It's hard to give someone a full rulebook sometimes.  It leads to jumbled confusion of terms and a terrible option paralysis. Or at least that's what happened to me. 

SBF is great, but you lose the shining jewel of BF, being the freedom of movement over the maps that is similar to TW core, the use of Command points that are like SPA's on steroids that can be disrupted with espionage points.  They all have their caveats and SBF truly is required for forces reaching regimental levels for planetary invasion scenarios-- yet! you can still fit these into a great campaign when you sub-divide the best of both worlds and really experience a planetary invasion as it should be experienced.  It, imo, should be a an evening affair and not something that would end so quickly as SBF scale play would make it.  What TW takes too long with several Lances, SBF makes a prompt and expedient massacre of.

If you want, some day, to have multiple planetary invasions that run into each other and share history, ISaW is the most practical tool and you can borrow only the top phases really and do the rest in lower scale SBF.  But if a single planetary invasion scenario is what you're after, ISaW is overkill and excessive paperwork.

[Mostro Joe]

The scales can be confusing as times.

They are not that confusing. The Scaled SBF is also good if you take 1 turn=1 day, because it gives you the possibility to have the automatic mant/rep cycle you read about in the campaign rules of CO.

In the standard SBF every turn is 3 minutes long, but the amount of fight a company can have is insane and it should exhaust the troops. That's why I think fatigue rules should be included.

[Mostro Joe]

SBF is great, but you lose the shining jewel of BF, being the freedom of movement over the maps that is similar to TW core, the use of Command points that are like SPA's on steroids that can be disrupted with espionage points.

I really like that part indeed. I don't use BF too much, because I prefer SBF and scaled SBF and then zooming with TW for pivotal battles. But yes, BF is a good system, I bought the original boxed set decades ago, I have ever been interested in the strategic gaming.

ISaW is not for me, and as I said I think the time scale does not fit very well with the other sub-systems.