BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Player Boards => BattleTech Roleplaying => Topic started by: Klingon on 27 May 2013, 15:35:06
-
Looking to test the waters for what the masses want for an FGC. Vote for as many options as you want. suggestions welcome, although the later they're added, the less impact they'll have on the outcome.
-
And I've thrown in my input. For my part, I really don't care, except that Dark Ages holds less interest for me than a week-old dead possum.
-
Thanks for the poll, Klingon! It'll be nice to gauge what sort of game people would want to play, as well as to get a rough estimate on how many people would even be interested in it.
-
And with my vote, clan only takes a big lead...
-
Ummm.... don't you think the use of megamek as it has been used in the last several FGCs should at least be an option.
-
Ummm.... don't you think the use of megamek as it has been used in the last several FGCs should at least be an option.
Wouldn't that be "Use of megamek to resolve duels/trials"?
-
I dislike Megamek immensely. I don't want to have to schedule games, figure out settings and whatnot. I'm a busy person with a wildly changing schedule (security + handyman) and I can find time to write story posts, figure out budgets and give orders during work breaks or what little downtime I've got free.
The Succession Wars to Clan Invasion are the most enticing eras to me, but I'm not terribly fussy about era. I'm also not too fussy on factions. I can run anything from a Successor State to a Clan to a Periphery nation to Independents, Pirates or Mercenaries.
Resource management, yes. It needn't be complicated just enough to force decisions between military expansion and other things.
I absolutely will not play unless I can control my own faction. I don't want to play under some faction head and be constrained to his wishes. I don't want to be told because I haven't played with some person's game before that I can't run my own faction and I have to play under somebody else to prove myself. Uh-huh. Just give me the rules, let me have a faction and I will play it. Nothing disinterests more me from playing a game more than having my hands tied before I even get to play.
-
Wouldn't that be "Use of megamek to resolve duels/trials"?
That seems to omit "use of megamek to resolve battles and invasions" as has been done in the past.
-
I dislike Megamek immensely. I don't want to have to schedule games, figure out settings and whatnot. I'm a busy person with a wildly changing schedule (security + handyman) and I can find time to write story posts, figure out budgets and give orders during work breaks or what little downtime I've got free.
While I love Megamek to death and play it nearly every free second of my life when my wife is not nagging me about the next thing I need to clean around the house; I have to agree with Terminax. I play in 2 megamek campaigns, where there is a GM and 1 player, and finding the time to get together with that one other person is sometimes daunting. I have had one campaign on hold for nearly 3 weeks now because me and that one other individual just have not had time to get together and play a game that is still on turn 6. Taking what might be as many as 20 people who live globally and expecting any two of them to be able to find time to play an hour long game during any given week, is a near improbability.
-
While I love Megamek to death and play it nearly every free second of my life when my wife is not nagging me about the next thing I need to clean around the house; I have to agree with Terminax. I play in 2 megamek campaigns, where there is a GM and 1 player, and finding the time to get together with that one other person is sometimes daunting. I have had one campaign on hold for nearly 3 weeks now because me and that one other individual just have not had time to get together and play a game that is still on turn 6. Taking what might be as many as 20 people who live globally and expecting any two of them to be able to find time to play an hour long game during any given week, is a near improbability.
The way it was handled in the FGC I was in, was that the default method was "simple resolution"; if both factions had someone that could meet and hash out a megamek battle to decide something, the results were binding, but if they either couldn't meet up sometime during the month, or either or both didn't want to, the GM's dice made the call.
-
That seems to omit "use of megamek to resolve battles and invasions" as has been done in the past.
Gotcha. Once you were more specific, I understood, and agree; it's been added. Because it is at the end, away from the other MM options, I also added a kind of footnote to make it more obvious.
-
The way it was handled in the FGC I was in, was that the default method was "simple resolution"; if both factions had someone that could meet and hash out a megamek battle to decide something, the results were binding, but if they either couldn't meet up sometime during the month, or either or both didn't want to, the GM's dice made the call.
That's similar to how I would want it used, if at all. MM should be an option for those players who agree to do so to resolve character vs character Trials, but not in any way mandatory for the game at large. The turnover time alone would be crippling to a game, without even considering all other options.
-
Given my time constraints these days, I'm unlikely to play, but I'd really like to do so if I can free up the time. My requirements would be:
1. No clans - them being present means I'm not interested.
2. Prefer 3rd SW timeframe, but would consider something up to 3039. Not interested in replaying the 4th SW.
3. Resource management should be a factor.
4. If I have to use MegaMek, I can't be bothered. I'm writing a story, not playing a game. My lousy gaming skills should have no affect on how the story goes. I'd prefer it if whoever (person, group, whatever) runs the thing just reads everyone's contributions and then makes a fiat decision on battles. They can use MegaMek if they feel the need, but the individual contributors do not.
5. Rather than everyone taking a major faction, break it down so that we are at a lower level. Play regiments, merc units, single planets, etc. Do the invasion of a single planet, not of the CapCon. Small groups are better than big groups.
-
Given my time constraints these days, I'm unlikely to play, but I'd really like to do so if I can free up the time. My requirements would be:
1. No clans - them being present means I'm not interested.
Might be accommodated.
2. Prefer 3rd SW timeframe, but would consider something up to 3039. Not interested in replaying the 4th SW.
Might be accommodated.
3. Resource management should be a factor.
Might be accommodated.
4. If I have to use MegaMek, I can't be bothered. I'm writing a story, not playing a game. My lousy gaming skills should have no affect on how the story goes. I'd prefer it if whoever (person, group, whatever) runs the thing just reads everyone's contributions and then makes a fiat decision on battles. They can use MegaMek if they feel the need, but the individual contributors do not.
Likely to be accommodated, based on what I'm hearing so far.
5. Rather than everyone taking a major faction, break it down so that we are at a lower level. Play regiments, merc units, single planets, etc. Do the invasion of a single planet, not of the CapCon. Small groups are better than big groups.
Now you kinda leave the realm of the FGC. The whole idea is it IS the Inner Sphere, or Clans, or what have you. You might play a smaller part, but the head honchos are almost certainly going to be PCs. If you are looking for a game that's scaled down, you are probably not looking for the FGC.
-
One of the first reasons I came to this board was because I played in a Gencon game, one that per the description could affect the storyline of the actual universe. Years later I understand they do not take the results of just one game, but different cons. Still, the concept that my playing of this game could affect the big picture in our story is what led me to playing in the previous FGC's.
Clan, No Clan. That is not a deciding factor for if I will participate, but I already have places I can go if I just want to write a story. I want to be able to play the game as well and the only way to realistically represent this is thru Megamek because we cannot meet like a local group does.
As Klingon said, the FGC is not about the small scale. I like building something that I cannot manage in any other setting and based on the vote, 12 out of the 18 that have voted so far also like this part of the FGC and want it to continue. That is just my 2 Kerenskies.
-
Now you kinda leave the realm of the FGC. The whole idea is it IS the Inner Sphere, or Clans, or what have you. You might play a smaller part, but the head honchos are almost certainly going to be PCs. If you are looking for a game that's scaled down, you are probably not looking for the FGC.
Well, I see the FGC as a type of email campaign, not as a faction size determinant. That is, it's all about players taking the roles of head honchos and making strategic decisions, not doing tactical wargaming. This can be done playing out the great houses, nations in a balkanized backwater planet, or even battalion commanders in a planetary invasion. I understand that great house tend to be what have been used in the past, and now know it is what you plan to use this time, but I don't see that as a requirement of the system.
-
From what I was told, long ago the game was just a bunch of players playing the heads of the Clans, but they played the odd game to settle conflicts that inevitably arose and from there it rose into much larger Strategy and Tactical based game. That is what I jumped in on.
Sure, you can apply modifiers and roll dice for immediate resolution, but this is Battletech. Goes to figure people wanted to play the game to settle resolutions instead. I've seen many times where the conflict had to be simrezzed out because the game was never able to be played in Megamek or because people chose to let the dice decide since the only hope they had was a simple resolution critical, and that was cool too.
It all comes down to what we can agree we want and at the very least it looks like keeping track of resources and units for nation development seems to be something we want.
-
The FGC was an outgrowth of an old PBEM game from back in 2001-2002. It (the PBEM) was set in 3062 initially, and each player took over only one faction for the game. There was a real disconnect between those of us playing in the Homeworlds and those people playing in the Inner Sphere, however. Everything was managed through orders sent to the GM or one of his subordinates, but the overhead was terrible. Players were required to submit once per week to the Email pool, which ultimately started to be abused by players leaving those players they were attacking out of the loop. However, the Clan players (don't know about the IS players) did use an old chat program to hold live Grand Council sessions. It was a bit of a hassle, yes, but from the perspective of RPing it was amazingly fun and engaging. The first game ground to a halt after several months due to player retention issues, but it was a fun few months nonetheless. Plus, I got to experience how butt-kickingly awesome the Hell's Horses could be to play around with. Hell, I think I still have the player's copy of those rules laying around here somewhere, but they're incomplete without the GM version I'm afraid.
The second attempt to run the game moved the year back to 3055 (ran the Jags that time around). This one barely made it a month, as the GM had RL issues and rules problems manifest themselves in force. The complexity of his rules were such that it wasn't possible for him to bring in any other help, and the game ended. Shortly thereafter, a few of us on the boards decided to start up a purely RP game based a bit on the failed PBEM. The idea caught fire, the forum exploded, and a phenomenon was born. Over time, the game evolved to add the different elements the PBEM had tried to contain, but the overlarge scope & shifting player base are what, in my opinion, finally broke the beast's back.
I personally worry about making the scope so large as to include all the Successor States and Clans, based on my past experiences. Am I saying it would be impossible to do? No, just that I worry about the effects of overreaching on what we want the game to be. That's my reasoning for stressing simplicity.
-
What is the maximum player base you are looking at WONC?
And what is the maximum number of factions you would like to see?
How many additional factions do you want the GM(s) to handle?
In your scope and outlook, what do you think the minimum/maximums are for these questions... there is not a wrong answer to any of them.
-
I don't really see the need to cap how many players there are, or even necessarily how many factions are involved. If you had enough GMs set up to manage certain groups, then there'd really be no reason to limit people's options. The problem comes from trying to get enough loyal volunteers to act as GMs, so that it all doesn't fall back on a small group again. The choke point has always seemed to be how much the GMs can handle, how complex their tasks are, and how many players they are required to oversee. Ideally, a game that encompassed all of the Inner Sphere, Clan Homeworlds, and the Periphery would have a minimum of six GMs to split the workload. Preferably, a team of nine GMs (two per region with one to oversee/troubleshoot/deal with inter-region interactions) would work best, but there again getting dedicated people to step in and do the work could be a problem. That all sounds very bureaucracy heavy, though.
Again, I come back to my personal view that a smaller scope game would be the best for all sides. The Inner Sphere in 3039 could work, as would a pre-Invasion Homeworlds game (while limiting the number of people needed to function as GMs). With the Clan-only game it would be a no-brainer to have one player per faction, but there again you'd be limiting the potential for involvement (even a post-Klondike game would only have 20 factions/players to go with). The same problem exists if you play an Inner Sphere only game with one player per faction. In some cases that could be worked around (each player getting a major region/duchy/province within a faction with the faction head title being mostly honorary, or in the case of something small like Rasalhague, the whole faction is under a single player) but it still makes me wary.
-
I don't believe it is realistic to expect that large of a GM staff when gathering the three GM staff the Admin/Mods are wanting for a FCG has been a major stumbling block in moving forward.
In my experience, the only large scale games with that kind of staff I've seen work were LARPs with a dozen or more players for every staff member and they're a different kind of beast than forum gaming. From what I've seen here and elsewhere, forum gaming typically involves twelve to fifteen players in total, with maybe up to three GMs but usually just one, or two and/or players who contribute to running the game.
Here's a game model I can see working:
Quick Synopsis - A Strategic High Level Game where each player takes control of a faction - House, Clan, Periphery, Independent, Mercenary or Pirate. A Player who chooses a large faction such as a House or Clan or Periphery can (and be encouraged to) take on additional players but give those players some measure of freedom in pursuing their own agenda in concert or against the main player. Prospective things to track - military forces, transportation capabilities, worlds and industrial resources. In addition to at least one non-playing Head GM, there should be at least one additional GM for every ten players.
The level of detail involved for each of the things to track requires more discussion but I'll put it aside for the moment because it's more important to establish the time period first, as that'll change the what needs to be tracked. In the spirit of inclusiveness, I think a time period with the Inner Sphere and Clans would be ideal as it would mesh with the greater player base.
-
"willing to GM" option added, to seee how many would be willing to GM. I know that there's a considerable amount of overlap, in that people usually wouldn't GM something they wouldn't play, but once we figure out how many would GM, we can narrow that down further. If 6 would GM for a Clan invasion, for example, and only 1 for an IS only, that's useful to know.
I can't see how to edit my poll answers, but I'd be willing to GM anything I'd play.
-
Unless there is a way to change one's voting that I am unaware of, adding that option only works for the people who haven't already voted.
I'd rather play than GM, because I rarely get to play but I can GM. With only nineteen voting people to account for there is absolutely no need for six GMs.
-
True, but the poll's only been open for two days. :P
-
The original FGC was born somewhat from Warner's PBP (play by post) roll-playing stories, that then morphed over to the clan side of the board. We bickered in character and declared duels, used MegaMek to settle them, and bragged and accepted our shame in equal measures. Once people started doing the "but, you character was a 2/3 last week and now he's a 1/1?" everything got official and GM'd. I played through, uh... three or four of them I think (the original, the 3048 one, and the 3065 one.) Once MegaMek was taken out so some of the not-so-good BattleTech players could play their faction and feel like they were actually winning, I lost interest. Anybody can run their mouth for hours on end, but it's funny when they actually have to back it up or they *gasp* have to actually earn their gains, and not just have a free hand because they chose the super uber awesome faction that wins 95% of the time in fiction for the given era.
That said, Clan/IS balance can be an issue and was always a thorn in the side, as far as MegaMek was concerned. I never played in the AccountantTech version so maybe it was handled better by abstraction? I had a lot of fun with the several I played in, but more than likely I won't have time to do another one.
-
Yes but the people who've already voted are likely the majority we're going to see. Heck out of the nineteen voters, only seven have identified themselves and posted their thoughts onto the thread and that's assuming everyone who has posted, voted. The only clear majority items we have is resource management and random events. Everything else is minority positions and it's hard to know how to read some of those answers as result of the polls format. It looks like we'll lose about half dozen players no matter which way we go though. Probably gain just as pick ups when the game format is nailed down. Assuming we lose another ten percent from the usual attrition, we're looking at around a max of 15 players plus whatever GMs we get and that's for the most popular choices only. Probably a dozen or less for the less popular choices.
I think the better way, is to talk to the pool of people willing to run a game, figure out what they'd want to run and get them to agree on a pitch to form a game around and then present that to the greater forum. If it flies it flies, if it don't it crashes down on the pile of bodies already in the abandoned games pit.
-
I think the better way, is to talk to the pool of people willing to run a game, figure out what they'd want to run and get them to agree on a pitch to form a game around and then present that to the greater forum. If it flies it flies, if it don't it crashes down on the pile of bodies already in the abandoned games pit.
I completely agree.
I am willing to co-GM any kind of game to help get this project off the ground.
-
The original FGC was born somewhat from Warner's PBP (play by post) roll-playing stories, that then morphed over to the clan side of the board. We bickered in character and declared duels, used MegaMek to settle them, and bragged and accepted our shame in equal measures. Once people started doing the "but, you character was a 2/3 last week and now he's a 1/1?" everything got official and GM'd. I played through, uh... three or four of them I think (the original, the 3048 one, and the 3065 one.) Once MegaMek was taken out so some of the not-so-good BattleTech players could play their faction and feel like they were actually winning, I lost interest. Anybody can run their mouth for hours on end, but it's funny when they actually have to back it up or they *gasp* have to actually earn their gains, and not just have a free hand because they chose the super uber awesome faction that wins 95% of the time in fiction for the given era.
For me, including Megamek kills any interest. I'm wanting it for the role-playing and collaborative story elements, not so that I can play Megamek. If playing the game is that important, lets just organize a round-robin tournament and forget the story completely. I don't see why anyone should have to back up creating a story with tactical gaming, or why the two should even be connected in any way. I don't care how good someone is at gaming, only at their ability to tell a story.
-
For me, including Megamek kills any interest.
That's fine, but that's you.
I'm wanting it for the role-playing and collaborative story elements, not so that I can play Megamek.
As things currently look like they're going to stand, no one will be required to play megamek if they don't want to, but your hangups shouldn't prohibit others from so indulging.
If playing the game is that important, lets just organize a round-robin tournament and forget the story completely. I don't see why anyone should have to back up creating a story with tactical gaming, or why the two should even be connected in any way. I don't care how good someone is at gaming, only at their ability to tell a story.
And as far as I can see, you're the only one who doesn't see how the two can be reasonably connected. Playing a game out in Megamek gives one the 'hands-on, I did it' feel that typing out "I kick his butt" in a forum post lacks. I'm not decrying your stance, only saying that the vast majority don't agree. You can play a role that won't ever get to megamek if you want, say the FS Intel chief, what have you, but if the FGC itself allows megamek, your gaming interests simply will not be served by joining the FGC. And as things stand, no one will be forced to use megamek, but will certainly be allowed to do so if they wish.
-
One reason I prefer to be a bit more hands on is that I do not abide fiat in my story. If you think your wolves can beat me just because I play a Snow Raven, prove it. I do not want people citing stories and errata. How can I play a might makes right Clan Warrior if I cannot prove mine from time to time, Quiaff? And it goes the other way too. I lost out on my chance at a Trial of Absorption against another Clan because I challenged someone to defend their bid that they could stand a chance at defeating someone at three to one odds. The lucky bastard got a TAC Ammo crit that cooked off two more ammo bins. In one shot he did a shake and bake on my pilot and I had to withdraw from the bidding because he proved his bid was valid and my objection that was based on the fact that I felt he had surpassed a reasonable cut down was not, and our story proceeded with much needed resolution for a critical conflict in the story.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
I'm seeing a three way tie...
More votes were cast between my post and yours?
-
More votes were cast between my post and yours?
Most likely. Must have been a heck of a surge.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! :)
-
Having multiple people per faction gives you an option if one player bales or goes awol.
-
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.
-
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."
-
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
-
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!
-
Having people lets that work, but you need players, and before you get players, you need a game ;)
-
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
-
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
-
See, as a Raven, we know how to throw a Tantrum ;) "DID YOU GUYS SEE THAT! THEY NUKED CIRCE!!!"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
*nod*
With some of the MegaMek/MekHQ/MekWars stuff coming on line these days I'm more and more convinced we can have something workable and it will be built on a lot of the aforementioned programs/servers.
-
I got in on the last one right near the end of it. I liked the combo of MegaMek playing contributors and non-MM contributors. I do not have the time for scheduling MM games and letting them play out. I really like the RP and strategic part of it. The only reason i am an Orloff fan is because it was the option i choose when i joined the FWL. If it got started again, i would join in a heart beat.
-
Now I've missed this topic :(
Being out of the CBT loop for quite some time...
Anyhow.
I'd not mind any of the above (although I learned to like the new (current) timeline with some clans and reduced IS strength).
Maybe there would be enough interest to keep this running?
Who else would be willing to join a Team to write up a rules and mechanics draft? (Please send PM ^^)
-
*sneaks in*
hai gaiz
*sneaks out*
-
well, the FGC 3040 is up and running. We have a GM, we have a set of rules, and we have fun. Lots of RP stuff and plenty of tactics and strategy too. No Clans (yet), no Comstar splinter groups (yet), options of simple resolution or MegaMek. it is working pretty good and i'm enjoying it. (even though i am not Orloff)
-
Plenty of room for people to join and learn the game/enjoy parts of the game/or take on a bigger roll.
-
TO be honest, we'd prefer if people didn't come here just to bump old threads. We prefer to let them sink, or rise, on their merits.
Cheers,
Worktroll, Administrator.
-
coolio. No problemo.