Author Topic: Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Strategic BattleForce  (Read 46025 times)

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6820
  • BattleTech Line Developer
Re: Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Strategic BattleForce
« Reply #30 on: 18 January 2015, 16:27:23 »
Post or PM your results regardless.
Thanks.
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Strategic BattleForce
« Reply #31 on: 19 January 2015, 00:29:50 »
Yep - I figured you have a dead-line. If something glaringly jumps out before you have your final drafts, is it possible to consider responses?

Yes
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9387
  • Just some rando
Re: Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Strategic BattleForce
« Reply #32 on: 23 January 2015, 18:59:21 »
I'm finally back, seriously I am, problems aside I did manage to read over the PDF while moments of consciousness came to me.
1- Two Detection Phases: We have the Detection Phase and then at the end of the Movement Phase we have a second round.
Question- Is there a value to the second Detection phase?
Truth be told my group likes to streamline some things, so the "Roll a 7" quick and dirty rule you made will be our standard.
Maybe if we played a flavorful scenario, we'd use the other rules.

Quote
2- Tactics Check: When determining damage, we have an opposed roll to determine who gets to decide which Unit in a formation is damaged.
Question- What do you think of this? Is it nice to have some control over what gets damaged, or is this just too cumbersome to use.
Personally I'd go with another quick and dirty idea: If the roll meets the target number, defender chooses.
If it exceeds the target number, attacker chooses.
How I look at it is the attacker was just smart enough to get me, but I had enough foresight to put a specific group in to "take the blow for the team".
Yes this means I effectively killed the tactics roll off to determine who gets to decide.

Quote
3- Alpha Strike or BattleForce?: While the game is called Strategic BattleForce, we based much of the rules on Alpha Strike. We did this because AS is both newer and more simplified.
Question- Does this create confusion? Would you not play SBF because you don't own AS but do own SO?
I like it because it gives Alpha Strike fans more meat on the game.
They can enjoy higher level games like the TW styled fans, with Battleforce being a common ground of cooperation.
Also it might be easier to translate some tactics level special abilities up to this scale, if you use Alpha Strike as the starting grounds.

Quote
4- References to other rule books: We'll be honest and up front. Pages costs money. When printing a product, the pages cost $ and as the book grows, the $$ slides up faster than the page count as a large book is harder to print. At the same time, we recognize that players having to flip between books is time consuming and not optimal.
Question- Would it be better to have more rules in IO directly, recognizing that a larger book may cost a little more to purchase?
It's either I have two books to play or one bigger book to play this out.
I could see how folks would grumble, but putting IO related stuff in IO and making it bigger would help.

For those that want to play IO but not get AS, maybe they don't like that scale. Either they get this or they won't due to their initial resistance to AS. The thing is at least it was one purchase, one grumble, instead of two because "oh now I gotta get a book I won't use outside of IO!"

For those that have AS and want to play IO, the former idea is better for them but it serves that scenario more than alternatives.

For the Mega Super Battletech fan that buys anything, pfft this is a wash. They've already thrown money at the screen as I type.

For folks like me (Mega fan, but watches wallet) I know this builds upon a LOT of things. Like a pyramid, there's plenty under it to support it, but I do appreciate the encapsulation you're doing.
If it hits the wallet a bit more, I understand.
« Last Edit: 23 January 2015, 19:02:56 by Atlas3060 »
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24878
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Strategic BattleForce
« Reply #33 on: 23 January 2015, 21:48:13 »
Has there been thoughts of using HQ Vehicles to coordinate these smaller formations?
"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

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Strategic BattleForce
« Reply #34 on: 24 January 2015, 00:39:40 »
Has there been thoughts of using HQ Vehicles to coordinate these smaller formations?

Check out the Command Rules. MHQ gives you a good bonus.

-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Strategic BattleForce
« Reply #35 on: 30 January 2015, 18:14:36 »
Thank you, Joel!
Because of these clarifications/changes, can we have through next weekend to provide feedback? That'll give us one more full weekend to go through things.

From preliminary "tests", it would seem that game-play with 4 players at a regiment each (assume 12 Formations each), will take between 6 and 10 hours of game-play, but it needs one more Satrday go-at it.
Additionally, more time will be needed (for my group) to be able to confirm that a second Detection is even necessary - after the first, a heavy/assault-laden Formation is good to go... No need to worry what's out there; just engage and bust some heads. But, this could be one of those exlpoits you're referring?  Steiner RCT's FTW.

Hythos, did you ever get this second battle fought out? We'd love to hear how it went.

Best,
Joel BC
- ISW Lead Developer
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

 

Register