BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Administration and Moderation => BattleTech News => Catalyst Asks You! => Topic started by: Precentor Martial on 03 January 2013, 15:40:21
-
The following thread is for discussion of the Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Force Operations PDF (http://bg.battletech.com/download/Interstellar Operations Beta - Force Operations.pdf). You can ask questions of why rules were done in a certain way, a wish list of additions and so on.
Please note, this is NOT a thread for specific errata. Use the "Errata (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,25792.0.html)" thread for that work.
-
I have a question, will there be a chapter, "Maintaining a Force?" I had assumed I would see some things in "Force Operations" that I don't after a search of the pdf, such as a clear cut definition of a maintenance cycle.
After a skim-through I really like what I see, especially the base payment calculation for a merc contract not based on total salaries. O0
-
On a quick skim through the rules for Mission Failure seem a bit harsh, I loss one fight and the contract is finished and I don't get anymore pay? Seems somewhat unrealistic, mercs have to lose sometimes and Out of Game I should be losing 50% of the time
-
I believe there is a problem with the Experience Rating Table on p3.
The average skill value for Regular and Veteran overlap.
"8.00 to 10.99" Regular
"5.00 to 8.01" Veteran
Looking at the rest of the table I think the Veteran average skill rating should be "5.00 to 7.99"
-
And shouldn't those numbers in the Experience Ratings Table be cut in half? I thought a Piloting 6, Gunnery 7, average 6.5, was considered green, using this chart the unit is considered Veteran. By the Random Skills Table p273 in Total Warfare Piloting 6, Gunnery 7 is green.
-
And shouldn't those numbers in the Experience Ratings Table be cut in half? I thought a Piloting 6, Gunnery 7, average 6.5, was considered green, using this chart the unit is considered Veteran. By the Random Skills Table p273 in Total Warfare Piloting 6, Gunnery 7 is green.
The numbers on the table refer to total skill. A Piloting 6, Gunnery 7 is a skill 13, and is so far to Green it's not funny.
-
On a quick skim through the rules for Mission Failure seem a bit harsh, I loss one fight and the contract is finished and I don't get anymore pay? Seems somewhat unrealistic, mercs have to lose sometimes and Out of Game I should be losing 50% of the time
If the force achieves some—but not all—of the primary objectives, the mission is considered a partial success and does not affect reputation.
This section directly contradicts that. Is this a case for some errata?
EDIT: On the same page, the example on the bottom of the first column speaks of Arnold's example company. However, it mentions that it hasn't seen any combat. The problem: In order to get to the 23 rating, his force experienced several contracts and combat to increase his units' skills. Obviously, the rating cannot be 23 if the unit has not seen combat, so one of these examples is incorrect.
-
Sorry guys wrong place I shall move. Just a general comment - looks pretty much like the old mercenary rules rehashed again. Was surprised how many Independents would be your employer - in other words no matter the era shouldn't it be the Great Houses as your most likely employer? I know they get the easiest die combos but no where near as much as before.
:-[ That explains it. Thanks Scotty, was in the middle of moving it to the errata category anyway. Now it can go to the trash bin.
-
That's how long it takes to install, not its power generation.
-
I have a question, will there be a chapter, "Maintaining a Force?" I had assumed I would see some things in "Force Operations" that I don't after a search of the pdf, such as a clear cut definition of a maintenance cycle.
I thought StratOps handled maintenance cycles and repairs.
On a quick skim through the rules for Mission Failure seem a bit harsh, I loss one fight and the contract is finished and I don't get anymore pay? Seems somewhat unrealistic, mercs have to lose sometimes and Out of Game I should be losing 50% of the time
I was just repeating the failure rules from FM:Mercs. There's a lot here borrowed from FM:Mercs.
-
The numbers on the table refer to total skill. A Piloting 6, Gunnery 7 is a skill 13, and is so far to Green it's not funny.
I don't know what pdf you're looking at, but the one I'm looking at says "Skill Average" and the writeup says "find the average of its Piloting and Gunnery." After looking at the example it appears it does not match the instructions in the preceding section. The example adds all of the piloting/driving and gunnery skills and then only divides by the number of units, so the number is off by a factor of 2.
-
I don't know what pdf you're looking at, but the one I'm looking at says "Skill Average" and the writeup says "find the average of its Piloting and Gunnery." After looking at the example it appears it does not match the instructions in the preceding section. The example adds all of the piloting/driving and gunnery skills and then only divides by the number of units, so the number is off by a factor of 2.
Upon further reading, you are at least halfway correct. The table does not explicitly mention that the number is the total skill. However, being more than a little familiar with the previous FM:Mercs system, I can tell you that it's referring to total skill. The issue is in the clarity of the text.
-
I thought StratOps handled maintenance cycles and repairs.
StratOps does handle repairs very well but the time interval of a "Maintenance Cycle" has always bugged me. When StratOps came out I asked about it and, going by my memory, which isn't the best anymore, was told to expect more information in Interstellar Operations. Now, years later the developers have so far stuck by their decision to require a full 7-man squad to properly support a 'Mech so I guess they will stand by the "Time (Maintenance/Repair Cycle)" section on p166 of StratOps. That section suggests a maintenance cycle is a single day, but I've always considered the wording rather ambiguous.
-
Did you guys want to use the term rape or violation? On the table on page 2, it mentions -10 reputation points for rape, but on page 5 the bolded heading is Violation.
Given that there needs to be a catchall category for war crimes that include rape in any case (inflicting terror on the populace, destroying important resources such as water treatment facilities and hospitals, and defacing treasured historical/religious monuments, for example), maybe we should just call it "other" and leave it to the GM.
Given that Terrorism is a valid mission, type, though, I may be overstating the extent of what constitutes a war crime in the BT universe.
-
On page 10,
Reputation Factor
This is based on the force’s final Reputation Rating. It is equal to
20 percent of the final Reputation Rating plus 0.5, not rounded.
On Page 6,
Final Reputation Score: Sum up all the different applicable
bonuses and penalties to get the final Reputation Score. A
related and important value used in contract negotiations is
the reputation modifier, which is equal to the Reputation Score
divided by 10, rounded down to the nearest whole number.
I'm confused. The table on page 9 seems to be working with the first trait, but the formula on page 10 seems to be intended as a standalone. For a force as in the example with 46 points, the page 6 formula would yield a rep modifier of 4, for a 1.6 multiplier; is this IN ADDITION to (0.2*46+0.5)= x9.7? Or is it (0.2*4+0.5) = 1.3? Basically, what's the total modifier to payment due to reputation; is it x1.6? x9.7? x2.08 (1.6*1.3)? I think this needs clarification, because I'm kind of baffled.
I'll be running the force I created last thread through a few contracts in the next few day, this just caught my eye immediately.
There's a reference to Dragoons Rating on p.13-14; haven't seen anything about calculating that yet. Holdover from before it was renamed Reputation?
-
*Looks at the Contract Modifiers Table (3085) and how good the mods are and wonders what the 3025 mods are*
-
Would a force's DropShips and JumpShips be counted as combat units for purposes of determining a force's base pay for contracts?
Using Arnold's force for example and using very rough numbers total force value, excluding the Seeker DropShip and Invader JumpShip, is close to 35,000,000 C-bills using the EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY & COST TABLE in the force creation chapter. So 5% of that, is 7,000,000. For the Invader and Seeker, they roughly cost 250,000,000 C-bills each, so 5% of that is 12,500,000 C-Bills per ship. That kind of money is going to really skew contract values. With numbers like that I think a potential employer would much rather hire a force without DropShips and JumpShips and reimburse 100% of that force's travel expenses.
I would at least exclude the JumpShip from the base pay.
-
Got a problem with the contract generation, you make Protocol Skill Checks, digging up the ATOW QSR you subtract Skill Level from a base TN and then roll against that, problem is that the base TN isn't given in these rules, nor are any other modifiers (barring those from the hiring hall table, which I think modify MoS instead), please add base TN and any likely modifiers (an explanation on how to make these rolls wouldn't be a miss either)
EDIT: I'd also like a definition as to what counts as "Sufficient Support personal"
-
Would a force's DropShips and JumpShips be counted as combat units for purposes of determining a force's base pay for contracts?
I was about to post something similar.
The Reputation Score section on page 3 refers to "...the force’s combatant units (i.e., anything except JumpShips, administrators, and technical personnel)" which would suggest that only Dropships are included when calculating Base Payment, but that's still going to massively inflate payment.
I suppose that if you're going to fly something as valuable as a Dropship into a combat zone, you're gong to want extra compensation.
Unrelated:
Page 6 says "Stage 4: Negotiate terms (Payment, Length, Command Rights, Overhead Cost, Salvage Rights, Support and Transport Cost. Use the Master Contract Terms Table below.)"
Overhead is on the Supplemental Contract Terms Table, but doesn't appear anywhere else in the document. Either Overhead was accidentally left out or it's not intended to be part of the rules any more and the references were accidentally left in from the earlier versions of the rules.
-
I don't know what pdf you're looking at, but the one I'm looking at says "Skill Average" and the writeup says "find the average of its Piloting and Gunnery." After looking at the example it appears it does not match the instructions in the preceding section. The example adds all of the piloting/driving and gunnery skills and then only divides by the number of units, so the number is off by a factor of 2.
No, the text is very misleading due to a sneaky use of "average." I meant, "average sum of skills for the force," not "average, separate values of piloting and gunnery." I was trying to save some math. I'll get that clarified to make the use of the summed values listed on the table sensible.
StratOps does handle repairs very well but the time interval of a "Maintenance Cycle" has always bugged me. When StratOps came out I asked about it and, going by my memory, which isn't the best anymore, was told to expect more information in Interstellar Operations. Now, years later the developers have so far stuck by their decision to require a full 7-man squad to properly support a 'Mech so I guess they will stand by the "Time (Maintenance/Repair Cycle)" section on p166 of StratOps. That section suggests a maintenance cycle is a single day, but I've always considered the wording rather ambiguous.
Trying to re-invent the wheel on maintenance of military forces wasn't in my job description for IntOps. I'd much prefer to see StratOps errata'd. How much in the way of changes to StratOps' text do you think are required to clarify your questions about maintenance cycles?
Would a force's DropShips and JumpShips be counted as combat units for purposes of determining a force's base pay for contracts?
Using Arnold's force for example and using very rough numbers total force value, excluding the Seeker DropShip and Invader JumpShip, is close to 35,000,000 C-bills using the EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY & COST TABLE in the force creation chapter. So 5% of that, is 7,000,000. For the Invader and Seeker, they roughly cost 250,000,000 C-bills each, so 5% of that is 12,500,000 C-Bills per ship. That kind of money is going to really skew contract values. With numbers like that I think a potential employer would much rather hire a force without DropShips and JumpShips and reimburse 100% of that force's travel expenses.
I would at least exclude the JumpShip from the base pay.
A first point is that the cost calculations were trying to address a complaint from players that being a merc was not a profitable way to make a living. Prior mercenary force rules didn't seem to provide much of a profit margin, or made them a money-losing proposition. Well, a budget based on a combination of peacetime operating cost, travel time, and a small percentage of the force's total cost means that a well-run force can handsomely reward its personnel.
The specific intent of the 5% factor in base pay was to allow a force to replace all main units every 20 missions, since losses beyond salvaging were likely over that time period. In 3025, DropShips were valid targets and most BT militaries have the rather dumb idea of sending troop transports in with their aerospace superiority forces instead of cleanly separating "control the skies" from "send in the vulnerable transports." So, you have to budget for DropShip losses, and doing so over a 20-mission period seems like a reasonable one.
(This "percentage of force expenses" factor was also based on in-house playtesting comments prior to this beta. The first draft of these rules was based solely on operating costs and thus made some useful, expensive units like XL-powered 'Mechs - or even 'Mechs all together - less palatable than conventional vehicles. A company of LRM carriers could earn much more cash than a company of Penetrators. So, there had to be a reason to encourage the use of more expensive, energy-based units like 'Mechs.)
JumpShips (and WarShips, and space stations) are other matters. In the 2860 - 3067 period, JumpShips generally lasted centuries and were nigh-inviolate in both the Inner Sphere and Clans (who tended to grant safcon). On the other hand, they were prime targets during the early Succession Wars, Star League Civil War, Reunification War, Age of War, and (apparently) Jihad.
So, how about a temporal factor? Add in JumpShips by default, but exclude them from cost calculations in the 2860 - 3067 period?
Did you guys want to use the term rape or violation? On the table on page 2, it mentions -10 reputation points for rape, but on page 5 the bolded heading is Violation.
...interesting. That editing occurred after I handed off the draft document. Apparently it was okay to use the term "rape" in ATOW, but now gentler sensibilities have incompletely edited this beta test document.
Since the crime is listed in ATOW as "rape," I'll try to edit this document for consistency between core books.
Given that there needs to be a catchall category for war crimes that include rape in any case (inflicting terror on the populace, destroying important resources such as water treatment facilities and hospitals, and defacing treasured historical/religious monuments, for example), maybe we should just call it "other" and leave it to the GM.
I'll try to get in such a catchall category.
On a quick skim through the rules for Mission Failure seem a bit harsh, I loss one fight and the contract is finished and I don't get anymore pay? Seems somewhat unrealistic, mercs have to lose sometimes and Out of Game I should be losing 50% of the time
If the force achieves some—but not all—of the primary objectives, the mission is considered a partial success and does not affect reputation.
This section directly contradicts that. Is this a case for some errata?
Yep. It looks like more leeway for partial failure is need under Mission Failure.
EDIT: On the same page, the example on the bottom of the first column speaks of Arnold's example company. However, it mentions that it hasn't seen any combat. The problem: In order to get to the 23 rating, his force experienced several contracts and combat to increase his units' skills. Obviously, the rating cannot be 23 if the unit has not seen combat, so one of these examples is incorrect.
The rating can be 23 without combat in the campaign. After all, there are a number of non-combat (or not directly combat) ways to build up a reputation: Average Experience, Command Rating\, Transportation Rating, Financial Rating, etc.
The Average Experience rating and Command Rating serve to capture the force's combat experience prior to the beginning of a campaign, or the fact that the force's combatants were experienced in combat in other forces prior to joining the force being built. If you want to build an elite, century-old mercenary force that's been in dozens of battles, that's cool. But in force creation, you won't be able to add those dozens of fictional battles (i.e., battles that weren't played out on a game board) to the Reputation via the Combat Record Rating.
The Combat Record Rating only serves to capture the changes to Reputation that occur during gameplay.
*Looks at the Contract Modifiers Table (3085) and how good the mods are and wonders what the 3025 mods are*
The "(3085)" should be deleted. As noted in the text preceding the table, the table is a genericized set of modifiers meant for any era.
-
I suppose that if you're going to fly something as valuable as a Dropship into a combat zone, you're gong to want extra compensation.
I can persuaded that DropShips should be included in the base pay calc but not at 5% of value. And as expensive as a JumpShip is to buy and maintain, I think they should be as well, but again not at 5%.
I think to not include JumpShips because they are not combat units is logical. But they're very valuable, in terms of buying, operating, and providing assets to the force and the employer. They're so valuable that I think they need to be included. The only thing about a JumpShip that is relevant , in my opinion, is the number of docking collars so adding a set amount for each docking collar into the base pay sounds good to me.
The reimbursement rates for transportation expenses makes a good baseline in my opinion. Using an average of 1 jump a week and 100,000 C-Bills per collar and rounding for simplicity I think 500,000 C-Bills per month per docking collar is a good number to throw out, at least for discussion.
I also like using the transportation reimbursement rates for DropShips, perhaps with some adjustment. Please pardon me for bring the real world into this discussion, but I think the best way to explain what I'm think is to use an analogy. I think there is a difference between a 'Mech and a DropShip similar to the way there is a difference between a car and a house. In war I think a 'Mech should be considered to be a durable good like a car; if you take care of it, it will last a long time, but regardless, unless you are very lucky, you will have to replace it eventually. I think the DropShip is more like a house, which is not say say they appreciate in value over time, but to say they are a much greater, and expensive, asset that will most likely last many times longer than a 'Mech will. Although DropShips are still a potential target in a combat zone they don't seem to be at as much risk as a 'Mech, tank or fighter. I think you will have more time to get your investment back so I think using the 0.5% rate from the transportation reimbursement section is more appropriate. I hope that analogy makes sense.
Overall, I think the transportation reimbursement rates make a good baseline for handling DropShips and JumpShips that are force property that won't skew the contract numbers much if at all.
Note Mike, I posted this before I saw your post.
-
Trying to re-invent the wheel on maintenance of military forces wasn't in my job description for IntOps. I'd much prefer to see StratOps errata'd. How much in the way of changes to StratOps' text do you think are required to clarify your questions about maintenance cycles?
Yes, very good point. An errata would be a better way to clarify what a "Maintenance Cycle" is.
This is probably going to be very frustrating to read given my past complaining about it but I can accept a single day being a "Maintenance Cycle" if you do 2 things.
From the force creation beta ,p10:
Technical support personnel teams also address logistics
support for their associated combat forces. No personnel are
better for hauling tons of ammunition across a battlefield in
thinly armored support vehicles than junior astechs, a fact that all
MechWarriors and senior techs agree on.
Keep that line in the force creation chapter and give us some way to get vehicles for the tech squads and I can go along with the 7-man tech squad and 1-day maintenance cycle. I interpret that line to mean that most of the support I need for the 'Mech, not just maintenance, can be accomplished with the 7-man squad: maintain it, haul the spare parts, replacement armor and ammo, even do the MechWarrior's laundry if I want to push things. That covers a broad range of support requirements I've written about that are not covered by the canon.
When you replied to Arm72's question about J-27 crews in the force creation thread by suggesting that meant double duty for the astechs hauling stuff I didn't like it because of that paragraph. Consider logistics close to the combat unit an integral part of the astech job description, and not double duty, and I can happily go along with StratOps as is.
-
A first point is that the cost calculations were trying to address a complaint from players that being a merc was not a profitable way to make a living. Prior mercenary force rules didn't seem to provide much of a profit margin, or made them a money-losing proposition. Well, a budget based on a combination of peacetime operating cost, travel time, and a small percentage of the force's total cost means that a well-run force can handsomely reward its personnel.
I agree totally with the new cost calculation thought process and the 5% value for the all combat elements, except DropShips and JumpShips.
The specific intent of the 5% factor in base pay was to allow a force to replace all main units every 20 missions, since losses beyond salvaging were likely over that time period.
Did you mean months, not missions there? For 'Mechs, tanks, etc. I think 20 months is a reasonable time frame to think you will have to replace or near totally rebuild them.
JumpShips (and WarShips, and space stations) are other matters. In the 2860 - 3067 period, JumpShips generally lasted centuries and were nigh-inviolate in both the Inner Sphere and Clans (who tended to grant safcon). On the other hand, they were prime targets during the early Succession Wars, Star League Civil War, Reunification War, Age of War, and (apparently) Jihad.
So, how about a temporal factor? Add in JumpShips by default, but exclude them from cost calculations in the 2860 - 3067 period?
I like using the transportation reimbursement rates as I suggested above, but after thinking about it 0.5% for DropShips might be too little, but I think 5% is too much. Maybe 1 or 2% of value will work?
-
Yes, very good point. An errata would be a better way to clarify what a "Maintenance Cycle" is.
What I was hoping for was a more abstract version of maintenance intended for long time periods. Using the existing rules, the example unit is going to be making 480 Maintenance rolls every month (assuming a 1 day Maintenance Cycle), and they're a small unit.
-
So!
I took the mercenary 'company' / two Level IIs that I made with the Force Creation rules, detailed over here: http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,24888.msg560219.html#msg560219 (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,24888.msg560219.html#msg560219) and decided to spin them through these rules to see how they fare. I've got, uh, a lot of questions/issues. Issues and questions I will put in ITALICS.
First Step: Calculating Reputation
Experience Rating: Easy enough. I bought 4 veteran and 8 regular mechwarriors. Average skill is 8.3 or so, so Regular. 10 points
Command Rating: The old PC I used in the force creation rules has Leadership 3, Tactics 4, Strategy 0, Negotiation 4; he also has Connections 2, Wealth 1, and Bad Reputation 2. Throw those all in a hat and I see 12 points.
Question: "Wealth or CHA 7+" means any level of wealth at all or a Charisma of 7+, right? Not wealth of 7+ or CHA of 7+?
Question: Does each level of a positive or negative trait count for a point, or does Connections 5 count equally to Connections 1?
Combat Record: They new. 0 points
Transport Rating: I have a single Union for 12 mechs and 107 non-dropship crew. Here's where things get a bit iffy. So, I have 12 mechs, and a Union has 12 mech bays and 2 vacant ASF bays.
Question: Do I have exactly enough carrying capacity (0 points) or 17% surplus capacity since I'm filling 12 of 14 slots for combat machines?
I'll say that trying to count those unused ASF bays is cheating, and award myself 0 points.
Now, the personnel issue. I have 12 mechwarriors, 12 techs, 72 astechs, and 11 Admin Personnel. The Union has 12 mech bays, 2 ASF bays that I suppose could be repurposed for crew quarters (especially since I'm not counting them as surplus combatant carrying capacity!) and... well, I can't actually find how many passenger bays the Union has, but I think it's "none". So... bay personnel I'm having a hard time finding defined. Is it just "Mechwarrior + Tech"? If so, the astechs completely ruin everything, which goes back to the arguments last thread about having to buy astechs starting out instead of just hiring them as unskilled labor wherever you go. If not, then are those 2 ASF bays enough to house 11 admin personnel? Heck, I don't know! I think based on the spirit of the rules each Mech Bay and ASF Bay counts for two bay personnel, in which case with or without the requirement to drag astechs along I don't make the requirement for support personnel. -3 points.
Question: PLEASE CLARIFY THIS. I am completely confused about personnel transportation, and nothing I'm finding in Stratops or Techmanual is helping me.
Support Rating: I made this with the Force Creation rules, which I think means I have exactly as many support personnel as I need since that's how those rules work. 0 points
Question: Is this right? Is a fresh force made with IntOps rules ever going to have anything but a 'zero' here?
Financial Rating: I made sure to begin with a year's worth of noncombat expenses, for which I get zero points. 0 points
Crimes: None! 0 points
Total Starting Reputation: 19 points (Reputation Modifier of +1)
Comment: This seems depressingly small compared to the examples, but I don't really see how I could have gotten much higher with an IntOps-made force.
Okay! So, a few thickets there, but let's move on to offer creation.
First Immediate Reaction: Protocol Skill Rolls for everything? May I ask what the reasoning was? This just opens up the thicket, because aside from the issues already noted now we're into the gory details of specialization. I'm assuming the base TN is 9 per ATOW, but... does my commander who has Protocol(Comstar)-4 and Protocol(Lyran)-1 have to roll against a 4 everywhere? 9 everywhere but hiring halls in Lyran space or Earth, where I can roll against an 8 or a 5 respectively?
I'm going to assume my highest Protocol skill rules everywhere, which is probably a poor idea but I don't want to redo every roll. Let's also say I'm at Outreach. So! I'm rolling against a TN of 5 (9-4(Protocol), and I get a +3 from being at Outreach and +1 from my reputation mod, so I'm effectively rolling against a TN of 1.
Question: Do I apply those bonuses after I roll and hit the TN, or before? If I manage to roll snake eyes, do I have a +1 result and get 1 offer or +4 (failure +4) and get 2 offers?
Happily that doesn't come up, as I roll a 9; +8 result either way, for 3 contract offers.
Comment: It seems extremely difficult to not get any contract offers.
For employer rolls, still using my highest protocol skill, I'm again rolling against a TN of 5 with a +3 to the roll, 2 from being a great all and 1 from rep rating. Rolls are 4, 9, 10; they become 7, 12, and 13, which beat the TN by 2, 7, and 8 respectively. Independent, Capellans, Kuritas. Second roll.... question: Do the same modifiers apply to this second roll as to the first? gets a 3 which after the +3 beats the TN by 1, so that's for Astrokaszy.
Missions! Question: Does Reputation Modifier apply here? It's not explicitly called out. Again a TN of 5, with a +3 modifier since I'm assuming reputation still matters what mission you're offered. Rolls are (for Astrokaszy, Capellans, Kuritans respectively) 12, 8, and 10 so they beat the TN by 10, 6, and 8. This yields Astrokaszy Garrison Duty, Capellan Objective Raid, Kuritan Extraction Raid. For the sake of digging deeper into contracts, I'll accept the Capellan Confederation's Objective Raid.
Contract Details
Capellan Confederation, circa 3057; I'll call them a "Major Power" (since Sun Tzu hasn't quite gotten them back to the mountaintop yet), "Stingy", and "Controlling". My total equipment value is 110,870,000 C-bills, and my peacetime expenses are 692,235 C-bills per month; this works out to a base payment of 6,063,000 or so C-bills per month.
Comment: This seems enormous, since it's before ANY modifiers...
Mission Length is 3 months. Without the rest of the book, there's no way to determine a length, so I just rolled 2d6 and got 9 jumps as the distance to target. This yields a 3 month transportation time, for a total mission length of 6 months.
Comment: The example in the book is a 1 month raid. I don't see any way that's possible under Rules As Written!
Operational Tempo for an Objective Raid is 1.6.
Comment: There needs to be some guidance on what "High Risk" means for Op. Tempo. Against the Clans? Who else? No hard and fast rules, but just guides for GMs.
Employer Multiplier: Given how I characterized them, 1.0
Reputation Factor: Oh boy. IF I TRUST THE TABLE, this is a -0.5, and I'm presuming I would add that to my final rating. IF I TRUST THE TEXT, this is (0.2*1+0.5) = 0.7, and I presume I would multiply that to my final rating. The way the formula looks, I'm ASSUMING that the text formula is proper, and further assuming that it's (0.2*1+0.5) and not (0.2*19+0.5). So, the reputation factor I'll say is 0.7.
Comment: This badly needs clarification.
Transportation Payment: Repeat the "Oh Boy." I have a Union, but as we saw earlier that isn't enough. I hire an Invader jumpship and the smallest personnel transport I can, the K-1 Drop Shuttle, for my transport needs. 6 months total mission duration, and 9 jumps there. The dropship costs 3% of its total price, which comes out to ~278,000 C-bills. The Jumpship, I'm using all three collars since I doubt the Capellans would let me have civvie merchant jumpships on a raid. 9 jumps, 3 collars, 2.7 million C-bills. I also want the jumpship to stick around so I can be sure of getting out before waves of irate Fedcom reinforcements... Comment: No way to determine opposition- is that in the Campaigns section of the book? so I'm also paying for 12 weeks of idleness for 3 docking collars which comes to 3.6 million. Total transportation payment: 6.58 million C-bills
Comment: I can't do support yet! Things are a little out of order..
Command Modifier: Objective raid is -1, employer is -2, reputation -1, net mod is -4; roll of 10 becomes 6 and I get House Command.
Overhead Compensation: Not mentioned anywhere in the master contract table or in the text! Is this a holdover that didn't get deleted?
Salvage Rights: Net mod is -4, a roll of 7 becomes 3 which means Exchange; assuming I apply the same rolls, a 11 becomes a 7 for the amount. 40% Exchange Rights on Salvage
Support Rights: Net mod is -1, roll of 8 becomes 7; 100% Straight Support
Transport Terms: Net mod is 0, bad roll of 5 means the Capellans will reimburse 35% of transport (2.3 million C-bills or so!)
Now, time to calculate the complete payment with this Giant Wall of Formula.
Final Payment = (602607 [base] * 3 [mission duration] * 1.6 [op tempo] * 1.0 [employer] * 0.7 [reputation]) + (602607 [base] * 3 [transport] * 1.0 [employer] * 0.7 [reputation]) + (692235 [peacetime expenses] * 3 [mission duration, NOT including transport) + (6577838 [transport cost] * 0.35 [transportation terms]) == 37,480,707 C-bills.
When you subtract out the full transport payment and peacetime expenses, you're left with a net profit of 26,750,000 C-bills for 3 months of combat. That would cover the loss of 25% of the force, neglecting any salvage. This seems... I dunno, a BIT high? Maybe in the right ballpark, though? But absolutely if you included the Union Dropship in the equipment cost this would blow up and I strongly recommend not doing so!!! If that happened, the net profit of 26.75 million cbills above would balloon to an astonishing 70 million C-bills- meaning that if I lost half my force and got zero salvage at all, I would still make more than ten million C-bills in pure profit after replacing the mechs!
Hopefully that will help give some more info to the discussions; I'd love to hear responses to the questions and comments I sprinkled through this writeup, or I can try to break them out if that helps.
-
First Immediate Reaction: Protocol Skill Rolls for everything? May I ask what the reasoning was? This just opens up the thicket, because aside from the issues already noted now we're into the gory details of specialization. I'm assuming the base TN is 9 per ATOW, but... does my commander who has Protocol(Comstar)-4 and Protocol(Lyran)-1 have to roll against a 4 everywhere? 9 everywhere but hiring halls in Lyran space or Earth, where I can roll against an 8 or a 5 respectively?
I asked this question in response to the mercenary contract rules in A Time of War Companion.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php/topic,23993.0.html
Q: For the Protocol Skill rolls used to determine number of mercenary contracts, Employer, and Mission Type, is it Protocol (Mercenary) or Protocol (Where the Hiring Hall is located)?
e.g. if working on Galatea, would it be Protocol (Mercenary) or Protocol (Lyran Commonwealth/Federated Commonwealth/Lyran Alliance/etc.)? I assume the former, but it doesn't hurt to ask.
A: The former. The latter might be used if the employer has overlap, IE, a Lyran hiring you, Protocol/Lyran may be useful. But I'd resolve that at a penalty since it's not exactly on the mark, and it means you're playing by your employer's "rules", rather than those of the merc business.
-
Using an average of 1 jump a week and 100,000 C-Bills per collar and rounding for simplicity I think 500,000 C-Bills per month per docking collar is a good number to throw out, at least for discussion.
After doing some number crunching I think 500,000 C-Bills per collar per month might be a bit low. If all of that money goes to pay an Invader it would take about 26 years to pay off the note at 0% interest. A Star Lord would take about 20 years. BTW those are using the old cost formula, I understand things got a bit more expensive in StratOps.
-
For 'Mechs, tanks, etc. I think 20 months is a reasonable time frame to think you will have to replace or near totally rebuild them.
On average, every mech will have to be rebuilt/replaced every 20 months?
Disregarding the nightmare logistics of production that would require, that flies in the face of the whole "Mechs passed through families for centuries" thing.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but a tank or fighter is NOT considered to have depreciated to 0 after twenty months of deployment.
-
On average, every mech will have to be rebuilt/replaced every 20 months?
Disregarding the nightmare logistics of production that would require, that flies in the face of the whole "Mechs passed through families for centuries" thing.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but a tank or fighter is NOT considered to have depreciated to 0 after twenty months of deployment.
If they don't enter combat for those 20 months they will be in great shape, but they're built war.
-
Assuming that "Stage Two: Determine Employer" is supposed to work the same way that "Stage Three: Determine the Mission" stage does, there seems to be some text missing from Stage Two.
"Mercenaries (and pirates seeking mercenary work) make 1 Protocol Skill Check per offer, and apply the modifiers applicable to the Protocol Skill, and also those applicable to both the Hiring Hall world (if any), as found on the Contract Modifiers Table, plus the force’s reputation modifier. A result of “Independent” requires a second roll on the Independent Employer column."
I'm guessing that there should be text similar to what's in Stage Three before the last sentence.
"Then roll 2D6 again, and add the MOS of the Protocol Skill Roll to the result to determine the...[employer]".
-
This may be me misreading....
Lets say my merc company is 12 mech pilots who are all 2/3. They would be elite, but the average is 5 and that makes them veteran? (page 3).
-
Discussion on transportation and what is desirable to a house.
It talks about transport capacity as the mech bays. But I regularly move mechs as cargo (stratOps 43). As long as I don't have to combat drop them (like a lightning raid), I have the time. I think this should count to transportation.
-
It would be nice to have some sort of table/system/rule to adjudicate without a GM the outcome of some sort of missions like Cadre mission or Retainer, Mole Hunting and some sort of rules to raise/train guerrillas. How much good is the training offered by your force? During a garrison or retainer mission what happens during a konth? it will be an almost boring garrison mission or you will have to face a planetary invasion? Without a GM/Rpg setting, how can you adjudicate the outcome of a mole hunting or espionnage mission? There will be new kinds of scenarios to reflect the far more sophisticate tastes and new aspects of the BT game?
Also it would be interesting to have rules covering aerospace-only commands.
-
Mukaikubo, thank you for going through the rules with a fine-toothed comb. You found a lot of issues that needed clarification.
Question: "Wealth or CHA 7+" means any level of wealth at all or a Charisma of 7+, right? Not wealth of 7+ or CHA of 7+?
No, it means the latter: Wealth 7+ or Cha 7+. I'll spell that out.
Question: Does each level of a positive or negative trait count for a point, or does Connections 5 count equally to Connections 1?[/i]
For purposes of the Command Rating, they are equal. This is because traits, unlike skills, do not have sweeping effects based on their rank on the Command Rating.
Transport Rating: I have a single Union for 12 mechs and 107 non-dropship crew. Here's where things get a bit iffy. So, I have 12 mechs, and a Union has 12 mech bays and 2 vacant ASF bays.
Question: Do I have exactly enough carrying capacity (0 points) or 17% surplus capacity since I'm filling 12 of 14 slots for combat machines?
Hmm. Well, what page 4 says is "compare the number of ’Mech, fighter, infantry, small craft, and other transport bays to the number of the corresponding combatant units in the force."
You compared your number of 'Mechs to the number of 'Mech bays, and have just enough of those.
But fighters? I guess I didn't address the possibility of having spare bays with no corresponding units. I guess I'll add a clarification like, "If a force has a type of transport bays (e.g., fighter bays) with no corresponding units (e.g., the force has no fighters), then those transport bays are not counted as excess."
Now, the personnel issue. I have 12 mechwarriors, 12 techs, 72 astechs, and 11 Admin Personnel. The Union has 12 mech bays, 2 ASF bays that I suppose could be repurposed for crew quarters (especially since I'm not counting them as surplus combatant carrying capacity!) and... well, I can't actually find how many passenger bays the Union has, but I think it's "none". So... bay personnel I'm having a hard time finding defined. Is it just "Mechwarrior + Tech"?
I'll add the clarification that a bay includes some sort of quarters for both the combatants and support personnel associated with that vehicle or infantry unit. Beyond that, you'll need to add personnel quarters or hire a liner.
Support Rating: I made this with the Force Creation rules, which I think means I have exactly as many support personnel as I need since that's how those rules work. 0 points
Question: Is this right? Is a fresh force made with IntOps rules ever going to have anything but a 'zero' here?
You can always add more support personnel if you want, or try to keep salaries low by skimping on support personnel. Thus, the value might be something other than "0."
Total Starting Reputation: 19 points (Reputation Modifier of +1)
Comment: This seems depressingly small compared to the examples, but I don't really see how I could have gotten much higher with an IntOps-made force.
You could've added extra transports and extra techs. Some merc units (Battle Magic?) were noted primarily for their excess tech capacity. In the Succession Wars, having excellent techs made a merc force stand out. That's factored into the reputation system.
First Immediate Reaction: Protocol Skill Rolls for everything? May I ask what the reasoning was?
It was copied over from FM:Mercs, and a single skill kept things simple.
This just opens up the thicket, because aside from the issues already noted now we're into the gory details of specialization. I'm assuming the base TN is 9 per ATOW, but... does my commander who has Protocol(Comstar)-4 and Protocol(Lyran)-1 have to roll against a 4 everywhere? 9 everywhere but hiring halls in Lyran space or Earth, where I can roll against an 8 or a 5 respectively?[/i]
You know, I think the ATOW skill "Negotiation" is probably a better fit than Protocol. I'll change it to that. And negotiation lacks subskills, so that simplifies matters.
For employer rolls, still using my highest protocol skill, I'm again rolling against a TN of 5 with a +3 to the roll, 2 from being a great all and 1 from rep rating. Rolls are 4, 9, 10; they become 7, 12, and 13, which beat the TN by 2, 7, and 8 respectively. Independent, Capellans, Kuritas. Second roll.... question: Do the same modifiers apply to this second roll as to the first? gets a 3 which after the +3 beats the TN by 1, so that's for Astrokaszy.
Yes. I'll spell that out.
Missions! Question: Does Reputation Modifier apply here? It's not explicitly called out.
No, it doesn't apply. The mission you get doesn't really care about reputation.
Contract Details
Capellan Confederation, circa 3057; I'll call them a "Major Power" (since Sun Tzu hasn't quite gotten them back to the mountaintop yet), "Stingy", and "Controlling". My total equipment value is 110,870,000 C-bills, and my peacetime expenses are 692,235 C-bills per month; this works out to a base payment of 6,063,000 or so C-bills per month.
Comment: This seems enormous, since it's before ANY modifiers...
Yep, I'm hoping for input to fine-tune budgets. As I mentioned earlier, in-house testing identified gross problems with the original payment system. There's still plenty of room to tweak the actual formula.
However, when considering whether it's enormous, think of a scenario where your force takes a short mission that costs it half its 'Mechs or, worse, the DropShip is shot down before it can drop its 'Mechs. If you fine-tune contract profits to within a small percentage of peacetime or wartime costs, you can't absorb the sudden, heavy losses of a bad mission unless you've had LOTS of easy missions.
Operational Tempo for an Objective Raid is 1.6.
Comment: There needs to be some guidance on what "High Risk" means for Op. Tempo. Against the Clans? Who else? No hard and fast rules, but just guides for GMs.
Noted.
Reputation Factor: Oh boy. IF I TRUST THE TABLE, this is a -0.5, and I'm presuming I would add that to my final rating. IF I TRUST THE TEXT, this is (0.2*1+0.5) = 0.7, and I presume I would multiply that to my final rating. The way the formula looks, I'm ASSUMING that the text formula is proper, and further assuming that it's (0.2*1+0.5) and not (0.2*19+0.5). So, the reputation factor I'll say is 0.7.
Comment: This badly needs clarification.
Yeah, I'll take a look at that.
Transportation Payment: Repeat the "Oh Boy." I have a Union, but as we saw earlier that isn't enough. I hire an Invader jumpship and the smallest personnel transport I can, the K-1 Drop Shuttle, for my transport needs. 6 months total mission duration, and 9 jumps there. The dropship costs 3% of its total price, which comes out to ~278,000 C-bills. The Jumpship, I'm using all three collars since I doubt the Capellans would let me have civvie merchant jumpships on a raid. 9 jumps, 3 collars, 2.7 million C-bills. I also want the jumpship to stick around so I can be sure of getting out before waves of irate Fedcom reinforcements... Comment: No way to determine opposition- is that in the Campaigns section of the book?
I have no idea. I've basically seen 3 complete chapters of the book, the ones I wrote, and received assurances about the rest.
Comment: I can't do support yet! Things are a little out of order..
What do you need to calculate support rights?
Overhead Compensation: Not mentioned anywhere in the master contract table or in the text! Is this a holdover that didn't get deleted?
Correct. It'll get deleted.
When you subtract out the full transport payment and peacetime expenses, you're left with a net profit of 26,750,000 C-bills for 3 months of combat. That would cover the loss of 25% of the force, neglecting any salvage. This seems... I dunno, a BIT high? Maybe in the right ballpark, though? But absolutely if you included the Union Dropship in the equipment cost this would blow up and I strongly recommend not doing so!!! If that happened, the net profit of 26.75 million cbills above would balloon to an astonishing 70 million C-bills- meaning that if I lost half my force and got zero salvage at all, I would still make more than ten million C-bills in pure profit after replacing the mechs!
What's the replacement cost of a Union, and how often would you lose your DropShip?
If I get an idea of how often DropShips are lost, I can fine tune their contribution to the budget.
-
On average, every mech will have to be rebuilt/replaced every 20 months?
That was the guess. Other values are welcome.
Disregarding the nightmare logistics of production that would require, that flies in the face of the whole "Mechs passed through families for centuries" thing.
In this respect, I'm more interested in real player experiences with unit loss than canonical fluff. If I stick to the fiction that 'Mechs last centuries when players in fact see their forces suffer 10-50% losses per battle, then I'm doing the players no favors.
So, in your experience, how often do you see units wrecked in your board games? Do you battle to the death of the whole force, or run after taking some armor damage, or something in between?
This may be me misreading....
Lets say my merc company is 12 mech pilots who are all 2/3. They would be elite, but the average is 5 and that makes them veteran? (page 3).
I'll tweak the table to move 2/3 pilots to elite.
It would be nice to have some sort of table/system/rule to adjudicate without a GM the outcome of some sort of missions like Cadre mission or Retainer, Mole Hunting and some sort of rules to raise/train guerrillas. How much good is the training offered by your force? During a garrison or retainer mission what happens during a konth? it will be an almost boring garrison mission or you will have to face a planetary invasion? Without a GM/Rpg setting, how can you adjudicate the outcome of a mole hunting or espionnage mission? There will be new kinds of scenarios to reflect the far more sophisticate tastes and new aspects of the BT game?
I'm told that there will be a mission generation chapter, but I'm not involved in that.
-
I don't know about you cray, but against a live human opponent I would expect to lose about half the time. Using that as a base line I expect to need a new 'Mech every second fight. Now the average for the various mission and employer types from the Master Contract Terms Table for the Salvage and Support columns come out pretty close to 0 according to Clac, so they don't effect things.
So the average rolls for Salvage and Support should be 7, meaning that 40& salvage and no BLC is the norm, considering that the 'Mechs salvaged have been heavily damaged I can probably expect to get half market value for them, meaning that using the 1 'Mech salvaged or lost per fight yardstick, over a period of 10 fights I can expect to lose 5 'Mechs and scrape together enough money from salvage to buy a single new one.
So, yes units should be needing a lots of money from somewhere to buy new 'Mechs, I don't know if 20 months is frequant enough but.
As for the Protocol skill use, page 3 says to use Negotiation and gives instruction to roll for it for non-ATOW units, but doesn't do the same for Protocol, so the switch is valid.
The Support Rating section probably needs to be made more forgiving, a good portion of fluff merc companies lack tech support at 1 team per 'Mech and I can't see people hiring that many admins when they don't DO anything. Plus most 'Mechs shouldn't need 6+ hours of repairs a day
-
I don't know about you cray, but against a live human opponent I would expect to lose about half the time. Using that as a base line I expect to need a new 'Mech every second fight.
I saw your comment earlier, but I'd like to toss in this thought: how many of your wrecked 'Mechs can be salvaged?
-
I saw your comment earlier, but I'd like to toss in this thought: how many of your wrecked 'Mechs can be salvaged?
I'm my experience, mostly fighting against the MegaMek bot, when you lose, you lose hard. If any of your mechs manage to leave the battle, you can count yourself lucky. Withdrawal is rarely an option once you're in close quarters combat, and you can take nearly any mech from pristine to salvage in 3 rounds or less.
The winner will have a lot of damaged mechs, but most of them should be fixable, barring lucky shots and destroyed center torsos. I'd say you can expect maybe 5% of your force to be gone forever in a well-fought even battle that you won. Vehicles rarely survive any combat where they become a target, in my experience.
-
Depends on what era your playing in, but in 3025 or if for some reason SFE's are very common your probably looking at cored (no CT structure) being the greatest reason for lost 'Mechs, if XLFE predominate (more modern eras) 'Mech loss is more likely to be due to gone side torso's resulting in 3 engines hits, but either way I don't see that plus salvage putting that many 'Mechs back into action, may double my previous figure
-
I don't know about you cray, but against a live human opponent I would expect to lose about half the time. Using that as a base line I expect to need a new 'Mech every second fight. Now the average for the various mission and employer types from the Master Contract Terms Table for the Salvage and Support columns come out pretty close to 0 according to Clac, so they don't effect things.
I don't know about you SCC, but if I'm playing as a mercenary commander, I expect the "lose" condition to happen well before I've lost half of my force. Hell, if it's a particularly insignificant battle in the grand scheme of things, or particularly lopsided, or even if I expect to take heavier losses later in the campaign, I might cut and run before I've lost any units, and try to minimize what damage I can.
The rules assume that mercenaries aren't going to sacrifice half of their units to achieve the victory conditions of every single battle. It's a pretty logical assumption.
-
When did I mention half of your force? I said half the TIME, as in in win 1 match in 2
-
When did I mention half of your force? I said half the TIME, as in in win 1 match in 2
Using that as a base line I expect to need a new 'Mech every second fight.
Right there is where you mentioned it. :P
-
That was the guess. Other values are welcome.
In this respect, I'm more interested in real player experiences with unit loss than canonical fluff. If I stick to the fiction that 'Mechs last centuries when players in fact see their forces suffer 10-50% losses per battle, then I'm doing the players no favors.
So, in your experience, how often do you see units wrecked in your board games? Do you battle to the death of the whole force, or run after taking some armor damage, or something in between?
So, are we assuming combat missions every month? Then that makes sense to me.
I was just envisioning a garrison force sitting on their thumbs for 20 months and getting all that bling.
Maybe a hostile action bonus would be in order then?
Please note: None of my discussion has been about the game realities, rather the In Universe ones.
I DO tend to run once vital areas start getting internal damage. If I win, I tend to keep all of my units or maybe lose 1-2; a loss is 75% saved, because I try to play as if my units were valuable instead of fodder.
-
Probably not the right way to adress this, but you may really want to have a look over the BattleBlog Entry (http://bg.battletech.com/?p=4552) again. Both the title and the link text (not the link) for the pdf are for Creating a Force, not Force Operations.
-
The rules assume that mercenaries aren't going to sacrifice half of their units to achieve the victory conditions of every single battle. It's a pretty logical assumption.
Yea, but how do you get away once you've engaged? If you're in close enough for real fighting, as opposed to careful sniping, odds are you're quite a ways from the map edge. And BT battles shift dramatically very quickly. By the time you realize you're at a disadvantage, it's already too late to run.
-
Real mercenaries don't deal with things like "map edges" and instead just move to disengage. The commander that doesn't allow a unit to disengage is either bold or stupid, depending on the severity of existing damage to his units and the damage of the withdrawing units.
Add to that, you don't have to actually be at a disadvantage to begin withdrawing. If you have only a "minor" advantage, or one that's likely to still result in the destruction of a large portion of your force, even if it ends in the complete destruction of the other, it's time to break off.
In a slightly less universal sense, I'd really like to see you try and stop a Locust or other light from disengaging from just about everything else on the field in 3025. Unit composition is important in deciding how mired in combat and what range the commander is willing to close to.
tl;dr There's a very different way of thinking between a merc CO and a BT player.
-
Got a problem here, in Force Creation Arnold's Force is Government, but in the text here it seems to be mercenary, which is correct?
-
Mukaikubo, thank you for going through the rules with a fine-toothed comb. You found a lot of issues that needed clarification.
No problem! I tossed together a merc-with-Fedcom-background combined arms BATTALION in 3025-era that I hadn't posted, and I think I'll take them through the same process to see if any special horrors jump out.
Hmm. Well, what page 4 says is "compare the number of ’Mech, fighter, infantry, small craft, and other transport bays to the number of the corresponding combatant units in the force."
You compared your number of 'Mechs to the number of 'Mech bays, and have just enough of those.
But fighters? I guess I didn't address the possibility of having spare bays with no corresponding units. I guess I'll add a clarification like, "If a force has a type of transport bays (e.g., fighter bays) with no corresponding units (e.g., the force has no fighters), then those transport bays are not counted as excess."
I'll add the clarification that a bay includes some sort of quarters for both the combatants and support personnel associated with that vehicle or infantry unit. Beyond that, you'll need to add personnel quarters or hire a liner.
The two of these combined make me a little nervous because canonically, the Union is basically "A Mech Company Transport" but unless I'm missing something it's really hard to cram everyone you need for a mech company per RAW onto a single Union with its lack of passenger accommodations. I mean for this one I had to hire one of those goofy Drop Shuttles just to carry my admin personnel, and I'm kind of dreading the full battalion with its hundreds of personnel that I need to drag along...
Yep, I'm hoping for input to fine-tune budgets. As I mentioned earlier, in-house testing identified gross problems with the original payment system. There's still plenty of room to tweak the actual formula.
However, when considering whether it's enormous, think of a scenario where your force takes a short mission that costs it half its 'Mechs or, worse, the DropShip is shot down before it can drop its 'Mechs. If you fine-tune contract profits to within a small percentage of peacetime or wartime costs, you can't absorb the sudden, heavy losses of a bad mission unless you've had LOTS of easy missions.
I'm warming up to the rules as written, just not including the dropships. As calculated out there, with not-great rolls you're looking at around (25% of total equipment cost + any salvage you get) as profit, and I think that's a pretty fair benchmark to hit; it shouldn't be too hard to build up a decent sized kitty. Besides, mercenary running should be "hard", just not the FM:Mercs "Okay, how do any actual mercenary units function, this is impossible" in my opinion- a major event like having your dropship shot down SHOULD mark the end of the unit as you know it and force the players, the ones that survive, to do some serious fundraising and retrenchment.
What do you need to calculate support rights?
Sorry- just referring to the fact that things were out of order slightly in the book- there hadn't, unless I missed it, been an explicit reference to calculating support rights yet.
What's the replacement cost of a Union, and how often would you lose your DropShip?
If I get an idea of how often DropShips are lost, I can fine tune their contribution to the budget.
Well, that's where it gets tricky, isn't it? I mean, in Force Construction, you don't "pay" for Dropships at all, which is why including them in the basic payment as equipment costs seems a bit iffy to me. If we were purchasing it it would be 160 million C-bills, which is probably going to outright cripple any company-sized mercenary unit no matter how much you tweak the payment because you could literally buy a new upgraded-tech company for that much and have money to spare. As for frequency, in all my time playing Battletech I can honestly say I've only ever lost a dropship once and had one damaged past armor chunks once- in my games it's been an exceptionally rare occurrence to put a dropship in the line of fire, let alone have one seriously threatened. I'm interested to hear what others have to say, though.
-
I too am on the fence about the dropship thing. I imagine that players playing with the "full stack" (from jump to jump) will lose dropships on a far more regular basis than someone who only plays on MegaMek against the bot and therefore can only include dropships as stationary, grounded targets (meaning they probably won't even hit the table once in twenty battles, let alone be destroyed once in twenty battles).
If you let players like me (who never game out Aero battles) include aero assets in the equipment value calculations, then we'll have far too much money. But if you don't let players playing the full stack include them, then they'll get cleaned out in the first contested landing.
Perhaps some text should be included to the effect of:
"If you and your group do not game out Aerospace battles, then do not include the value of aerospace assets when calculating equipment value. If you do, then include all aerospace assets when calculating equipment value."
That puts the decision where it belongs, with the play group.
As to the replacement rate, a 5% loss rate/month during combat operations is pretty low. If we assume 1 battle per week is an average operational tempo for BT (leaving you about 40 productive hours between battles for repairs), then that means only 1.25% losses per battle, and 1 battle per week is actually an incredibly low operational tempo. SO seems to assume 7 battles a week, which drops the loss rate/battle to an astounding 0.17%.
Honestly, none of the 3 numbers up there match my experience on the table top. My experience is only suffering 5% loss or less in a battle means you won by a landslide. In the average battle which I win, I would expect to have at least 15% of my force (2 mechs out of 12) mission ineffective for the next battle. What that means depends on era. For 3025, that's a lost main weapon (if I'm really lucky), a lost leg or head (if I'm kinda lucky) or a destroyed mech to CT-coring or ammo explosion (if I'm unlucky). For 3050+, that's more likely to be destroyed XL engines and CASE blow-outs.
Having said that, I think the numbers are fine where they are for a few reasons. 1) The whole idea is that it's hard to make money as a merc. These numbers bear that out. 2) The BT universe clearly indicates that while it may be hard, it's still possible. These numbers also bear that out. 3) These numbers will encourage those who do play to adapt their play style to more accurately reflect the style we see described in the fiction ("Life if cheap, Mechs are expensive.", etc, etc).
-
Actually the way I would handle the transport thing is this way, DropShips can have their internal-space re-configured at will so you total up the amount of space your DropShips devote to bays and the total space your force would consume in bays, then divide the former by the later. Remember each bay has room for the crew of whatever is in it and a full tech team for whatever it carry's, beyond that you're going to need extra infantry bays, admins will need to be carried in that space (if you have some free) or infantry (I guess)
-
Actually the way I would handle the transport thing is this way, DropShips can have their internal-space re-configured at will so you total up the amount of space your DropShips devote to bays and the total space your force would consume in bays, then divide the former by the later. Remember each bay has room for the crew of whatever is in it and a full tech team for whatever it carry's, beyond that you're going to need extra infantry bays, admins will need to be carried in that space (if you have some free) or infantry (I guess)
But wait, does a Mech bay have room for
1) Mechwarrior
2) Mechwarrior and Tech
3) Mechwarrior, Tech, and 7 asTechs
?
-
But wait, does a Mech bay have room for
1) Mechwarrior
2) Mechwarrior and Tech
3) Mechwarrior, Tech, and 7 asTechs
?
No. Check the errata to TechManual. Each bay has rudimentary quarters for the combat crew and one tech. Assistant techs are not included. So a Mech bay can house the MechWarrior and one Tech. A five-man BA Point bay houses five infantry and one tech. A light vehicle bay has 5 bunks: four for vehicle crew (the max crew that a standard 50ton Vee will have), plus a tech. Etc.
No asTechs or other support personnel. They have to be carried as passengers.
-
wellspring is right, up to a point. Prior to these rules asTechs were hired as needed and you didn't need to provide transport for them, now they are a permanent part of your force. So before there was no need for bays to provide accommodation for asTechs but now there is
Edit: Missing word
-
Got a problem here, in Force Creation Arnold's Force is Government, but in the text here it seems to be mercenary, which is correct?
I wouldn't be surprised if I slipped a few times. On what pages do you see Arnold's force referred in a merc-type fashion?
If you let players like me (who never game out Aero battles) include aero assets in the equipment value calculations, then we'll have far too much money. But if you don't let players playing the full stack include them, then they'll get cleaned out in the first contested landing.
Perhaps some text should be included to the effect of:
"If you and your group do not game out Aerospace battles, then do not include the value of aerospace assets when calculating equipment value. If you do, then include all aerospace assets when calculating equipment value."
I was coming to a conclusion like that, too.
No. Check the errata to TechManual. Each bay has rudimentary quarters for the combat crew and one tech. Assistant techs are not included. So a Mech bay can house the MechWarrior and one Tech.
A meta-gaming point is that TechManual was written before StratOps or, really, writers noted that tech requirements were more than "one per 'Mech." However, a search of canon says that the rule was actually quite old:
MW 1st ed. 1 tech + 5 Astechs. Each astech less then 5 gives you a
time multiplier increase of .2 (so 1.2 times normal repair time for
one missing astech), reducing the amount of repairs that can be done.
MW 2nd Ed same as 1st ed.
Field manual Mercs: 1 astech per 2 techs. (really?) missing astech cut
effective man hours in half for that tech, reducing the amount of
repairs that can be done.
StratOps: 1 tech + 6 astechs.
I've been at the forefront of encouraging installation of passenger quarters in BT spacecraft (you can find my words on the topic in StratOps), but I have to admit that BT spacecraft are not short of volume. A Union is actually less dense than an EMPTY space shuttle external tank. There are corridors for 'Mechs to march to their drop doors. You can easily put hundreds, if not thousands of people in there if you rig bunks and concede that your BattleMechs won't be able to hold their pre-drop soccer matches. (I also have an issue with how much volume BT DropShips have for their mass.)
So Tech Manual could easily be errata'd to include full tech teams, noting mistakes by writers who overlooked by prior canon. It's not a ideal solution (I'd prefer to give everyone quarters...), but it fits the old rules for tech team sizes.
wellspring is right, up to a point. Prior to these rules asTechs were hired as needed and you didn't need to provide transport for them, now they are a permanent part of your force.
No, as far back as MW1, large teams of astechs were required. It seems to be an overlooked issue.
-
Page 5 is very obvious that they are a merc command in this instance, while the tone of page 11 suggests it as well
While asTechs have been required I think this is the first time you have to transport them
-
Page 5 is very obvious that they are a merc command in this instance, while the tone of page 11 suggests it as well
While asTechs have been required I think this is the first time you have to transport them
Well, you still don't technically have to transport them. You can hire them on each planet you go to and the techs and mechwarriors on the transport can team up for daily maintenance while in transit. On a Union, between the 12 techs and 12 mechwarriors, you can piece together 3 tech teams for daily maintenance, more than enough to service every machine. Transport for asTechs is only important during raids. Because when you're just there to smash and grab stuff, you probably don't have the time to put up a "Help Wanted" poster.
As far as concerns about techs or mechwarriors objecting to pulling double-duty while in transit, has anyone here in the military (or any job for that matter) actually worked their exact MOS description for a year consecutively without any additional duty?
-
This came up before, the text of the document seems to imply that the asTechs are a permanent part of the Force and thus need to be transported
Cray, a few suggestions, on page 9, Master Contract Terms Table, add a footnote to High Risk, in cases were the contract is both High Risk and Covert Operation multiply High Risk terms by -1.
This is to reflect the fact that that the employer REALLY wouldn't want to be associated with what you do
I would bump the support for Cadre Duty contracts due to their nature
Add a High Profile mission type to represent things like the creation of the Ryuken
-
This came up before, the text of the document seems to imply that the asTechs are a permanent part of the Force and thus need to be transported
It does strongly imply that, but it doesn't say that. If there was a low (but non-trivial) roll required to hire asTechs on-world, and units without full asTech support got dinged on their support rating (perhaps Techs without full asTech teams only count as half a tech?), then there would be some sort of decision to be made there.
Cray, a few suggestions, on page 9, Master Contract Terms Table, add a footnote to High Risk, in cases were the contract is both High Risk and Covert Operation multiply High Risk terms by -1.
This is to reflect the fact that that the employer REALLY wouldn't want to be associated with what you do
Agreed, no matter how High Risk the mission is, I doubt the House is integrating disposable merc hired to do a Covert Op with high deniability directly into their command structure...
I would bump the support for Cadre Duty contracts due to their nature
Seconded, Cadre Duty and Garrison duty should be prime chances for units to make money, especially on support.
Add a High Profile mission type to represent things like the creation of the Ryuken
That sounds kind of interesting, what exactly are you thinking that would entail?
-
MW 1st ed. 1 tech + 5 Astechs. Each astech less then 5 gives you a
time multiplier increase of .2 (so 1.2 times normal repair time for
one missing astech), reducing the amount of repairs that can be done.
You learn something new everyday, I don't recall ever reading that line in MW 1ed, in over 25 years of playing this game. Wellspring, I stand corrected. And to everyone else, I withdrawal who knows how many complaints about the StratOps requirement for a 7-man tech squad. However Mike I hope you keep the line in the creating a force chapter about astechs hauling ammo and such, and give them vehicles.
I apologize to all for making such a fuss about this for so long. I will shut up about it now.
-
So! As mentioned earlier, I also back in the force creation days made a 3025-era merc combined arms battalion with some Fedcom background. Two mech companies, 1 vee company, 2 platoons of infantry and three long tom field guns. The gory details:
Company 1: Battle Company
Lance 1: AWS-8Q, THG-10E, FLS-7K, ON1-K
Lance 2: MAD-3R, WHM-6R, HBK-4G, TDR-5SE
Lance 3: HBK-4G, HBK-4G, CN9-AL, CN9-AL
Company 2: Raider Company
Lance 1: OTL-4D, WVR-6M, DV-6M, PXH-1D
Lance 2: WVR-6M, DV-6M, PXH-1D, WLF-1
Lance 3: WVR-6M, TBT-5N, PXH-1D, WLF-1
Company 3: Vehicle Company
Lance 1: Brutus-PPC, Brutus-PPC, Von Luckner, Von Luckner
Lance 2: Condor, Condor, Drillson, Drillson
Lance 3: Pegasus, Pegasus, Saracen, Saracen
Company 4: Infantry/Artillery Company
Mechanized Rifle Platoon
Foot Laser Platoon
Towed Long Tom x3
Total value of equipment is 142.8 million C-bills (note: the 1-company 3057 era unit was 111!), and peacetime operating costs came out to 1,318,000 Cbills/month; I got badly unlucky on my rolls and only got a single Gazelle dropship, so I am a landbound whale. I have plenty of cash though, 28 million C-bills in the bank at the end so I can wait for an Interesting contract. So let's go through the process. As always, comments/questions for cray in italics as I go.
Reputation
Experience Rating: All infantry/arty is regular, 13/11 veteran/regular mechs, 6/6 veteran/regular vees; that comes out to 8.07 average skill and a Regular rating, though if I didn't have infantry I'd be comfortably veteran. C'est la vie. 10 points
Command Rating: This one wasn't done with a ATOW character, so I used the 1d6+1 for all four attributes of a veteran commander. I got Leadership 5, Tactics 3, Strategy 5, Negotiation 5; no traits, so 18 points
Comment: Either I make really poor ATOW characters, or these skill levels are calibrated a bit high; 1d6+1 on average gives you 4-5 in every skill, where for my characters if I'm also points dumping to get good piloting/gunnery I usually can't raise all of them past 3 and have to prioritize one or two.
Combat, Support, and Financial are all 0 points since I did this strictly per Force Creation rules without modification and it's a new unit.
Transportation rating; let's see, I have 24 mechs, 12 vehicles, 2 platoons and effectively 1 artillery platoon and my dropship assets have room for 15 vehicles. Well, it's not nothing, so I only lose 5 points for insufficient transport of machines and 3 points for insufficient transport of personnel, since somehow I doubt I'm cramming all of my 500+ people into a Gazelle. -8 points.
Total Reputation Rating: 20 points (modifier of +2)
Now for finding offers. With cray's change to negotiation, and the rolled negotiation stat above, I'm working against a TN 3 before any bonii.
Comment: Negotiation is a TN 8, Protocol is a TN 9, unless I'm badly wrong; may need to recalibrate the tables with that skill change, since players are effectively getting a +1 bonus! Galatea in 3025 era is a Great Hall. So, the roll for offers is a TN 3 with a bonus of (3 hall, 2 rep) +5, or effectively TN (-2); I roll a 6 to beat it by 8, 3 offers.
Employer rolls are against TN 3 with a +4 (2 hall, 2 rep); rolls are 2, 2, 5. I hate you, dice. The first two are independent, and rerolls give me the Magistracy of Canopus on a 7, Corporation an an 11; the third roll's Marik.
Contract rolls are against a TN3 with a +2 bonus only (2 hall, no rep bonus per cray);' rolls of 5 7 9 respectively give:
Mission 1: Magistracy of Canopus, Planetary Assault
Mission 2: Corporation, Extraction Raid
Mission 3: Free Worlds League, Extraction Raid.
Let's stat out the Canopian Planetary Assault this time. It makes a bit of fluff sense; they're attacking the Capellans around now, and having a full merc battalion that's almost veteran but without any reputation gets them a lot of combat power quickly for relatively cheap. The Canopians in 3025; let's say major power since they're one of the big periphery states, stingy since periphery states are often resource strapped, and neither controlling nor lenient.
Contract Details!
Base Payment: 1,317,610 Cbills a month, 142,862,000 Cbill equipment without dropship; base payment is 8,131,300 C-bills per month
Mission Length: Assaults are 9 months. For the trip out, eehhhh, let's say it's 25 jumps from Galatea to a Capellan frontier planet if we have to go through the FWL and hook over across the Canopian frontier. That makes it 8 months. 17 months; 9 mission, 8 transport.
Operational Tempo: 1.5 planetary assault, not especially high risk... 1.5
Employer Tempo: A major stingy power is 1.2-0.2 = 1.0
Reputation Factor: 20% of 2 is .4, +0.5 is 0.9
Transportation Factor: After thinking about what I need, 24 mechs and personnel, I decide on an Overlord Class dropship and Invader jumpship; I figure the Overlord's vacant bays can be converted quickly and temporarily to quarters for all my spare personnel and still have room to spare. Also, given that I'm fighting on the side of the Periphery against the IS, I'd like to keep the Jumpship around for a hasty escape. So! All 3 invader collars for 25 jumps and then 9 months playing pinochle waiting for disaster, and then the Overlord for 17 months is 8.5% of its 430 million price tag. Throwing it all in the pot, the total transport costs are 54,850,000 C-bills. Woof.
Command Modifier; -2 aassault, -1 rep, -3 total modifier and roll is 6. House Command
Salvage rights; -2 employer, -2 total modifier, roll is 5 (exchange) and then 7 (20%). 20% Exchange Rights, woof.
Support rights; +2 assault, -1 employer, +1 net; roll is a 10. 60% Battle Loss Compensation. HELLO.
Transport terms: +3 assault, -2 rep, net of +1 and roll is 7. 55%
Final Payment: (8131300[base] * 9 [mission months] * 1.5 [Op tempo] * 1 [Employer] * 0.9 [Rep]) + (8131300 [base] * 8 (transport months) * 1 [employer] * 0.9 [reputation] + 0 [support payment] + (0.55 [transport terms] * 54850000 [transport]) == 187, 508,000 C-bills
Subtract out 17 months of peacetime expenses and the transport payment and you're left with a profit of 110 million C-bills. Add to that 60% BLC and a small amount of salvage, and compare to the total equipment cost of the battalion of 143 million C-bills and this is more than fair. If you added in the Gazelle to the equip cost, the profit is 150 million C-bills; I still think including the dropships is going to massively inflate contract compensation unreasonably.
As it is, this contract is a very tempting 'all in' option; if the merc battalion can take and hold their target for 9 months, the huge profits, salvage they'll accrue, and the generous battle loss compensation means that even if the battalion is reduced to a tattered lance of light mechs they'll be able to rebuild at least as strong as they were before; any decent victory will put them at the top of the mercenary heap and able to begin thinking about expansion to two battalions, or acquire their own big dropship. Of course, if they fail... but that's Battletech, right?
-
I ran through the force operations rules yesterday as Mukaikubo did, though perhaps without as fine toothed a comb. ;)
For the purposes of the run, I used a character I recently created with AToW for my commander and went with the force creation rules, as presented, with the exception of the Modifier the commander gets for traits, instead of rounding up to the nearest whole number, I went with a decimal so in this case 1.1. Also I excluded the commanders ride form the creation process, but added it back in for the force operations step.
Combined Arms Battalion 3070
Armour Company
Condor (3039), Condor (3075), Vedette (netc), Vedette (netc)
Myrmidon, Myrmidon, Myrmidon, Myrmidon
Typhoon, Typhoon, Zhukov, Manticore (All 3058 variants)
Infantry Company
Foot Laser Platoon
Foot Laser Platoon
Foot Laser Platoon
'Mech Company
Wraith TR1, Scarabus SCB-9A, Javelin JVN-10F, Wolfhound WLF-1
Garm GRM-01B, Dervish DV-7D, Stealth STH-1D, Apollo APL-1M
Atlas AS7-S, Kodiak, Black Hawk-KU BHKU-O Prime, (Last position reserved for another RPG character)
Auxillary Forces
MIT 23 MASH Vehicle, MIT 23 MASH Vehicle, Platoon of Combat Engineers, "Carbine" Construction Mech CON-7
Naval Forces
Union Dropship
Gazelle (Obselete)
Invader Jumpship
The Gazelle has plenty of room, for all the forces, techs, and administrators if bunks are set up in the heavy vehicles bays. Lets say it's customized for the purposes of this trial.
Total Personnel 453
Total Ground Force Value 134,513,659 C-bills
Total Dropship Value 410,982,976 C-bills
Invader Value 590,797,750 C-bills
Total monthly at peace cost 2,911,529 or 1,194,779 without Hydrogen Fuel costs, they will certainly be producing their own.
Obviously the naval assets dwarf the ground ones in value.
Going through the reputation:
-Nearly all the combat elements are Veteran, the commander Elite. So 20 Points for veteran average.
- The scratch built commanders seem to have an edge on most equivalent ones that I roll up here; as well.. 10 points total.
-No combat experience yet so 0 here.
-Sufficient Dropship capacity 5 Points.
Note, the table listed a penalty of 3 points for not having enough capacity for support personnel, while the text walk through on page 4 gives Arnold a 3 point bonus since he can hold all of his. It is not in the chart. It should be added or the text amended.
-10 points for Jumpship.
-5 points for sufficient KF transport capacity.
-0 Adjustments for support rating.
-No debt or criminal history 0 points
Net: 50 Reputation
Starting no a standard hall, say Arc Royal in 3070 (Before the Blakists hit..)
2 Offers
*Edit* forgot to add the reputation modifier there
Capellan Confederation and a Corporation
I wasn't 100% clear on the Corporation description on page 7. All all corporate missions supposed to be covert, as implied? What about a garrison contract? Perhaps a note that all offensive missions performed for corporations should be covert, to ensure confidentiality?
For the purposes of examples, I'm going to run both of these out side by side. Also, while I generated the other aspects, I'm going to stick to the finiancial ones, as I don't think there's much new to talk about with BLC vs straight support or salvage rights. Both of these contracts offer BLC.
Capellan Corporation (Frito-Lays)
Garison Duty 18 months Extraction Raid 3 months
Op Tempo 1.0 1.6 + 0.3 (covert?)
Employer 1.2 Major Power 1.1 Corporate
Reputation 2.0 2.0
From table it would be 2.0 and 1.5 from the formula, which should we use?
Transport modifiers end up with 45% transport reimbursement from Liao and 100% from Fritos.
Lets get transport costs out of the way first, for the sake of simplicity both missions are 5 jumps away.
Transport Payment
*Edit* This is not applicable, as the ships are owned by the unit, I will remove them from the calculation below.
So time to get there is 2 weeks plus 1.1 weeks per jump.
7.5 weeks / 4 = 1.875 months or 2 months for transportation costs
= 1% Dropship purchase price of 4,109,830
5 Jumps x 3 collars on the Invader = 1,500,000 C-bills
Total 5,609,830
X 45% = 2,524,423 x 100% = 5,609,830
Big question here, does the 75% peace rate include fuel usage. Can a unit really calculate a monthly peace rate of nearly 3 million, then generate it's own Hydrogen so it's costs are really 40% of that? Although if it ends up you can't generate your own.. you'd be hooped without the full rate.
Payment while in transport
So time to get there is 2 weeks plus 1.1 weeks per jump.
Base Payment = (2,911,529 X 75%) + 27,274,831 = 29,458,478
Liao = 29,458,478 X 2 (length) X 1.2 (Employer) X 2.0 (Reputation) = 141,400,695
Fritos = 29,458,478 X 2 (length) X 1.1 (Employer) X 2.0 (Reputation) = 129,617,304
Mission Payment
Liao = 29,458,478 X 18 (length) X 1 (Op Tempo) X 1.2 (Employer) X 2.0 (Reputation) = 1,272,606,255
Fritos = 29,458,478 X 3 (length) X 1.9 (Op Tempo) X 1.1 (Employer) X 2.0 (Reputation) = 369,409,316
So Total Payment would be
Liao for 18 months + 2 months travel = 141,400,695 + 1,272,606,255 = 1,414,006,950
Fritos for 3 months = 2 months travel = 129,617,304 + 369,409,316 = 499,026,620
Now that's pretty staggering.. I have a couple thoughts.
Reputation clearly plays a large part in earning the big pay days.
I also ran the numbers if I hadn't included the Dropships in the 5% payment
Liao ends up at 364,532,608 for 20 months
Fritos ends up at 128,649,633 for 5 months
Both are respectable numbers a Combined arms battalion if there are no large ship losses.
What about including 5% of the costs for the combat forces (Infantry, Tanks, 'Mechs, ASFs...) + 1% of the Large Spacecraft Costs.
That would be 624,919,636 C-bills for 20 months worth Garrison Duty or 220,544,555 for 5 months with a probably combat intensive Extraction Raid.
* I would add an exemption to the 1% rule if the units primary forces are space based and thus far more likely to see large naval losses. In that case 5% seems entirely appropriate.
Clearly you can see why Mercs saw Garrison Duty contracts as attractive.
-
Combined Arms Battalion 3070
Armour Company
Condor (3039), Condor (3075),
According to this you have a 3075 Condor in 3070
-
I ran through the force operations rules yesterday as Mukaikubo did, though perhaps without as fine toothed a comb. ;)
Then let's see if we can't help each other out!
Naval Forces
Union Dropship
Gazelle (Obselete)
Invader Jumpship
The Gazelle has plenty of room, for all the forces, techs, and administrators if bunks are set up in the heavy vehicles bays. Lets say it's customized for the purposes of this trial.
Union, or upgraded Union-X? Also, wow, did you roll for those? Because I had the devil's time getting any large spaceship with the dice (which honestly likely makes sense).
Total Personnel 453
Total Ground Force Value 134,513,659 C-bills
Total Dropship Value 410,982,976 C-bills
Invader Value 590,797,750 C-bills
Total monthly at peace cost 2,911,529 or 1,194,779 without Hydrogen Fuel costs, they will certainly be producing their own.
I'd suggest leaving it in, if just as a backdoor way for wear and tear on the reactors etc to be modeled; I left fuel costs in mine, and that's rules as written which I usually go with unless it's really horrid. Also, yeah, this kind of brings home how much of an impact including spaceships has, doesn't it?
- The scratch built commanders seem to have an edge on most equivalent ones that I roll up here; as well.. 10 points total.
Also found this- it probably needs tweaking.
2 Offers
Huh. So you beat the Negotiation/Protocol TN by what, 5 or less? And you have a net modifier to the roll of +7 (2 for the standard hall, 5 for reputation); what skill level did you have? Because if you had a skill of say 2, you'd be shooting for a TN of 7 on Protocol (6 if you used cray's idea to switch with negotiation) with a +7 bonus, so effectively a TN of 0/-1... did your dice just throw snake eyes? Ugly.
Transport Payment
So time to get there is 2 weeks plus 1.1 weeks per jump.
7.5 weeks / 4 = 1.875 months or 2 months for transportation costs = 1% Dropship purchase price of 4,109,830
5 Jumps x 3 collars on the Invader = 1,500,000 C-bills
Total 5,609,830
X 45% = 2,524,423 x 100% = 5,609,830
Big question here, does the 75% peace rate include fuel usage. Can a unit really calculate a monthly peace rate of nearly 3 million, then generate it's own Hydrogen so it's costs are really 40% of that? Although if it ends up you can't generate your own.. you'd be hooped without the full rate.
Payment while in transport
Base Payment = (2,911,529 X 75%) + 27,274,831 = 29,458,478
Liao = 29,458,478 X 2 (length) X 1.2 (Employer) X 2.0 (Reputation) = 141,400,695
Fritos = 29,458,478 X 2 (length) X 1.1 (Employer) X 2.0 (Reputation) = 129,617,304
First point: Rules as written, dropships and jumpships you own DO NOT factor into the Transport Payment, and it's explicitly for those you have chartered. This has its own issues (I'll expand on this at the end), but be aware.
Second Point: I don't believe fuel costs factor into Transport Payment; it's the flat %age of dropship price or cost-per-jump. How I interpret RAW is that fuel costs for what you own go into your peacetime costs, which you earn back as part of your base payment. Fuel costs for ships you charter, it is assumed that they cover it out of their profit margin and you don't have to care.
Third Point: Wow, it now appears to me to be reaaaallly exploitable to have long-distance travel with a decent reputation, since you have zero risk of losing equipment and get at least as much as your peacetime costs unless all your equipment is supercheap if you own your own ships. Can I start switching missions between the Magistracy of Canopus, the Outworld Alliance, and the Lyran outer border...?
Mission Payment
Liao = 29,458,478 X 18 (length) X 1 (Op Tempo) X 1.2 (Employer) X 2.0 (Reputation) = 1,272,606,255
Fritos = 29,458,478 X 3 (length) X 1.9 (Op Tempo) X 1.1 (Employer) X 2.0 (Reputation) = 369,409,316
So Total Payment would be
Liao for 18 months + 2 months travel = 2,524,423 + 141,400,695 + 1,272,606,255 = 1,416,531,373
Fritos for 3 months = 2 months travel = 5,609,830 + 129,617,304 + 369,409,316 = 504,636,449
Now that's pretty staggering.. I have a couple thoughts.
Reputation clearly plays a large part in earning the big pay days.
I also ran the numbers if I hadn't included the Dropships in the 5% payment
Liao ends up at 365,844,808 for 20 months
Fritos ends up at 129,112,730 for 5 months
The second numbers look reasonable. The first numbers look utterly absurd, to be honest. A billion and a half dollars for one battalion for a year and a half? Really? This is just another reason why I have suuuuch a hard time with including spacecraft in the equipment cost.
Here's my proposal. The problem is that people need to be compensated for using their own dropships- it has to be 'worth it' to own one. People also need to be able to either use or not use space-based assets as they like. There are two dials here-
1. Do you include Jumpships and Dropships in the base equipment cost and have them contribute to base payment?
2. Do you include Jumpships and Dropships THAT YOU OWN in the Transport Payment?
If the answer to 1 is "no" and 2 is also "no"- how I interpreted rules as written- then it makes no economic sense to ever, ever own your own spaceship. If the answer to 1 is "yes", then as soon as you manage to have a big dropship or a jumpship you're going to be swimming in more money than you can spend whether you use them or not. What I'm leading to is the following thing I think will work, and I'll go back to see the effect on the two examples I used. Something along these lines-
Dropships and Jumpships that you own do not contribute to the overall equipment cost of your force that you multiply by 5% for your base equipment cost. Dropships and Jumpships that you own do contribute to the Transport Payment as though you were chartering them. Additionally, if dropship and spaceship assets are intended to be used as combat forces during a contract, the cost of the Transport Payment during the mission duration only is doubled ('Hazard Pay').
This seems to be before play testing it to fit the bill of what's needed; if a player intends to keep their ships out of harm's way, they don't risk them in combat and they don't get appalling amounts of money just for owning them. If they do, they get double the transport payment during the time in which they're able to be used in battles, recompensating an aero-heavy player for risking his crown jewels. And finally, there's an economic incentive for mercenary units to own their own dropships, because they'll get paid for them as if they were chartering- equivalent to if the entity hiring the mercs were simultaneously chartering the ships that the mercs own. Thoughts, from other players or from Cray?
-
According to this you have a 3075 Condor in 3070
Sorry I didn't specify, it's the TRO 3075 variant. Introduction date of 3068. In the absence of a better source, I used the RAT's from Field Report 3085 and rerolled anything that wasn't available in 3070.
Union, or upgraded Union-X? Also, wow, did you roll for those? Because I had the devil's time getting any large spaceship with the dice (which honestly likely makes sense).
I used the Obsolete variant, the roll was a 9, with the era modifier I got from being in 3070. Ironically I failed the roll for my Mule which was a 6.. Gazelle was an 8 and Invader was a 7. I can't really imagine getting anything that isn't cheap, civilian and, very common in the 3025 era , which is probably the point.
Huh. So you beat the Negotiation/Protocol TN by what, 5 or less? And you have a net modifier to the roll of +7 (2 for the standard hall, 5 for reputation); what skill level did you have? Because if you had a skill of say 2, you'd be shooting for a TN of 7 on Protocol (6 if you used cray's idea to switch with negotiation) with a +7 bonus, so effectively a TN of 0/-1... did your dice just throw snake eyes? Ugly.
... I didn't add the reputation modifier.
First point: Rules as written, dropships and jumpships you own DO NOT factor into the Transport Payment, and it's explicitly for those you have chartered. This has its own issues (I'll expand on this at the end), but be aware.
Oops, better go fix that up. Seems strange that an Invader can get paid 1,200,000 on it's own, but is only worth 851,512 with a mercenary force (75% of 1,135,350 which is the cost to maintain).
Dropships and Jumpships that you own do not contribute to the overall equipment cost of your force that you multiply by 5% for your base equipment cost. Dropships and Jumpships that you own do contribute to the Transport Payment as though you were chartering them. Additionally, if dropship and spaceship assets are intended to be used as combat forces during a contract, the cost of the Transport Payment during the mission duration only is doubled ('Hazard Pay').
I like this, it works very well for the shorter in and out sort of missions. Though longer missions would definitely start to put a big drain on units for having all those expenses not contributing. Without fuel those ships would be 507,350, or over 2.2 million with fuel, per month to maintain. Of course, there are always options for enterprising mercenaries to make a little extra money with available ships.
Is there some middle ground? You could get 0.5-1% of value of a unit per month to keep it on retainer, but it isn't eligible to be included in a forces 5% or it's monthly at peace rate? Not sure how to approach this issue that would make the ground based units, ground based units with limited large spacecraft, and large space craft and aerospace units all happy.
-
Fuel's a headache of an additional question that I don't really want to think about right now. Longer missions, not really- you're still getting 75% of the peacetime operation costs from base payment, and now you're getting some percentage of what it would cost to charter a spaceship as well. It... should work out that you don't lose money via long trips still, especially when you include fuel.
For the 3057 mech company that owns a single union, peacetime support costs for the Union are about 537,000 Cbills per month. From the base payment you always get, it's 75% of that or 402,750 C-bills. It'd cost you 0.5% of the dropship cost per month to charter that Union, or 800k; now they're getting 35% of that (the transport terms) from the Capellans, which comes to 280k/month.
In total, you're getting (402,750 + 280,000) 682,750 C-bills a month from the Capellans for that Union, and it's costing 537,000 C-bills a month to operate; that's a net profit of about 150k C-bills a month during transport for owning your own Dropship.
-
In total, you're getting (402,750 + 280,000) 682,750 C-bills a month from the Capellans for that Union, and it's costing 537,000 C-bills a month to operate; that's a net profit of about 150k C-bills a month during transport for owning your own Dropship.
I think that's how it should be.
As I've said, including aero assets in your equipment total dramatically inflates payment. But putting aero assets on the gaming table dramatically increases the cost of lost equipment (and, there's a really good chance that once you've lost it, you'll never get it back given how rare aero assets are meant to be). I liked the proposal of doubling the transportation terms during combat, but that's not enough to offset the cost of losing 1 aero asset every 20 months, which is entirely possible given how deadly aero combat seems to be (note, I have extremely little experience with aero combat, and all of it has been against the bot in MM. but even with that woefully inadequate competition, I will still lose dropships on occasion). I genuinely think the best way is just to have a sentence leaving it to the discretion of the gaming group. It could even be a really generic sentence such as
"When calculating equipment value, include all assets which your gaming group plays with. If you have included infantry for 'base security' or aero assets for transport but your group doesn't use infantry rules or play aerospace battles, do not include them when calculating equipment value."
That leaves open the possibility of additional ruleset and equipment types which play groups may or may not choose to include at their gaming tables.
-
Page 5 is very obvious that they are a merc command in this instance, while the tone of page 11 suggests it as well
Oh, yep, I see it on page 5 under crimes. "Liaison officer," "employer." Funny, the crime was based on the movie "Kelly's Heroes," which is about a US government military force stealing some Nazi gold in WW2. I'll tweak the wording.
-
I ran through the force operations rules yesterday as Mukaikubo did, though perhaps without as fine toothed a comb. ;)
You turned up some good questions.
Note, the table listed a penalty of 3 points for not having enough capacity for support personnel, while the text walk through on page 4 gives Arnold a 3 point bonus since he can hold all of his. It is not in the chart. It should be added or the text amended.
Noted.
Capellan Confederation and a Corporation
I wasn't 100% clear on the Corporation description on page 7. All all corporate missions supposed to be covert, as implied? What about a garrison contract? Perhaps a note that all offensive missions performed for corporations should be covert, to ensure confidentiality?
No, not all corporate missions are covert. I'll clarify that. Defensive contracts would, IMO, tend to be fairly public as a deterrence measure ("Hey, we're now protected by Bad Ass Bob's Bruisers! Don't attack our factory or else!") unless it's handy to keep the defenses secret. But even some offensive missions might be quite public - corporate accountability varies across factions and eras in BT.
Corporation (Frito-Lays)
Heh :)
From table it would be 2.0 and 1.5 from the formula, which should we use?
I'll try to straighten that out.
Big question here, does the 75% peace rate include fuel usage. Can a unit really calculate a monthly peace rate of nearly 3 million, then generate it's own Hydrogen so it's costs are really 40% of that? Although if it ends up you can't generate your own.. you'd be hooped without the full rate.
I'd say by default, yes, fuel costs are included in the base payment. However, I'll add a clarification that if "usable water supplies are available," the hydrogen portion of the fuel element will be cut to 10% of its normal value. (10% to cover transport and storage of the hydrogen.)
What about including 5% of the costs for the combat forces (Infantry, Tanks, 'Mechs, ASFs...) + 1% of the Large Spacecraft Costs.
I could do that. I plan to add a clause like "if players rarely or never address large spacecraft combat, do not include the costs of large spacecraft in contract cost calculations."
Clearly you can see why Mercs saw Garrison Duty contracts as attractive.
Indeed.
Third Point: Wow, it now appears to me to be reaaaallly exploitable to have long-distance travel with a decent reputation, since you have zero risk of losing equipment and get at least as much as your peacetime costs unless all your equipment is supercheap if you own your own ships. Can I start switching missions between the Magistracy of Canopus, the Outworld Alliance, and the Lyran outer border...?
It'd be an annoying complication to cost calculations, but this could be addressed by adding something like "During transport periods, do not include ammunition or non-large spacecraft fuel costs for base pay." Or "During transport periods, only include salaries and large spacecraft fuel costs in transport period reimbursements."
-
I realize this throws off the whole "reputation" table, but why would having empty transport bays be a plus for reputation? You get a bonus for carrying your mech lance around in a Union instead of a Leopard? I get that employers may want you to have extra bays to carry liaison officers, but which employers attach liaison officers at a 1:1 ratio to combat elements in a hired command?
I think that should be revised to be similar to the way it was handled previously. Perhaps you get 0 points if you can carry 120% of your combat elements (to make space for the employer's goons) and you lose 1 point for every 10% (or part thereof) you fall short of that mark.
That's been bugging me for a while and I just now got around to calculating my force's rep and it really stood out as wonky to me.
-
I realize this throws off the whole "reputation" table, but why would having empty transport bays be a plus for reputation?
Because it is a statement that the military force has an excess in a useful capability, like having extra techs, extra artillery, or extra 'Mechs. In the case of transport, not every force can make independent interstellar assaults. They have to beg from their employer, hire independent JumpShips, and so on. This means that a military force with excess transport capability is, potentially, BFFs with those poor forces that lack space transport.
After all, not every mission is conducted by a single military force. A regiment-scale assault might involve a couple of small merc forces and some militia. The guys with the spare DropShip bays are going to be very popular. You won't get your regiment-scale assault if you don't have 108 'Mech bays.
Having the transport reputation factor also supports the construction of forces noted for their aerospace capabilities, like a merc force noted for its fighters and troop transports.
-
Because it is a statement that the military force has an excess in a useful capability, like having extra techs, extra artillery, or extra 'Mechs. In the case of transport, not every force can make independent interstellar assaults. They have to beg from their employer, hire independent JumpShips, and so on. This means that a military force with excess transport capability is, potentially, BFFs with those poor forces that lack space transport.
After all, not every mission is conducted by a single military force. A regiment-scale assault might involve a couple of small merc forces and some militia. The guys with the spare DropShip bays are going to be very popular. You won't get your regiment-scale assault if you don't have 108 'Mech bays.
Having the transport reputation factor also supports the construction of forces noted for their aerospace capabilities, like a merc force noted for its fighters and troop transports.
Thank you, sir. Now I see the reasoning. I'd still like to get some points for making 100% capacity, but that's really just me being greedy. ;D
-
...
I've been at the forefront of encouraging installation of passenger quarters in BT spacecraft (you can find my words on the topic in StratOps), but I have to admit that BT spacecraft are not short of volume. A Union is actually less dense than an EMPTY space shuttle external tank. There are corridors for 'Mechs to march to their drop doors. You can easily put hundreds, if not thousands of people in there if you rig bunks and concede that your BattleMechs won't be able to hold their pre-drop soccer matches. (I also have an issue with how much volume BT DropShips have for their mass.)
So Tech Manual could easily be errata'd to include full tech teams, noting mistakes by writers who overlooked by prior canon. It's not a ideal solution (I'd prefer to give everyone quarters...), but it fits the old rules for tech team sizes.
...
I can validate the volume issue based on the Manatee deck plans I drew up. I was essentially able to stuff a combined arms company into a lance transport, including tech support.
Cray if you can get that errata into Tech Manual, you'd be even more of a hero than you already are! In my book, bay quality quarters are still quarters (and probably more in line with what we see aboard actual military ships today).
-
For determining modifiers to Base Pay (and to see if I understand the process correctly):
If my employer was a Stingy Noble, hiring my Reputation 0 unit for cadre duty, my base payment multiplier would be:
Noble (0) + Stingy (-.2) + Cadre (.8 ) + Unrated (-1.0) = -.4 multiplier?
If my base payment was 1,000,000 C-bills per month, he'd want me to pay him 400,000 Cbills (1,000,000 x -.4) monthly to do a mission for him?
Edit: I see the section that obscure factions should be treated as a 1 modifier so I should assume that the base rate for a Noble is (1) not (0). Which in case means I should treat the formula as:
Noble (1) + Stingy (-.2) + Cadre (.8 ) + Unrated (-1.0) = .6 multiplier
And thus in the example above I'd be offered 600,000 Cbills monthly.
2nd Question (reputation)
Under Reputation Factor it says to take 20% of the Final Reputation and add .5 to it to get a reputation modifier for payment.
There is also a table for reputation that has payment modifiers as well but the numbers there don't match the math in Reputation Factor section. Do I add both modifiers to my calculation?
-
It might be covered in other parts of the book that we haven't seen yet, but there don't seem to be any consequences to not having sufficient spare parts, either in Force Operations or Force Creation.
If you don't have enough ammunition, your units' bins will obviously start to run low, but there are be no effects from not having enough spare parts.
A penalty to maintenance skill checks, maybe? Lacking spare parts makes it more likely that a unit will suffer damage or quality reduction. Maybe a cumulative penalty if parts aren't available for consecutive months.
-
If you don't have enough ammunition, your units' bins will obviously start to run low, but there are be no effects from not having enough spare parts.
Oh, crap. That was something to copy-n-paste into the rules from FM:Mercs. :) There are maintenance penalties and the like that are supposed to be in there.
For determining modifiers to Base Pay (and to see if I understand the process correctly):
If my employer was a Stingy Noble, hiring my Reputation 0 unit for cadre duty, my base payment multiplier would be:
Noble (0) + Stingy (-.2) + Cadre (.8 ) + Unrated (-1.0) = -.4 multiplier?
Hmm. I guess I need some checks and balances to avoid negative results.
If my base payment was 1,000,000 C-bills per month, he'd want me to pay him 400,000 Cbills (1,000,000 x -.4) monthly to do a mission for him?
He's a noble. You should be honored to work for him. ;)
2nd Question (reputation)
Under Reputation Factor it says to take 20% of the Final Reputation and add .5 to it to get a reputation modifier for payment.
There is also a table for reputation that has payment modifiers as well but the numbers there don't match the math in Reputation Factor section. Do I add both modifiers to my calculation?
Ignore the table's reputation modifiers, just use the one in the text.
-
Does SO have notes about maintenance checks with insufficient spares (or something about 'adverse conditions')? In that case, we just need a line pointing readers to the modifier name and page number in SO.
Something like
"Each month without spares, the techs suffer the 'Mild Adverse Conditions' penalty listed on page XXX of SO."
IDHMBWM or I'd look it up.
EDIT: I checked my copy of SO, it seems the easiest way would be to have lack of spares degrade the location modifier by 1 step (since spares are one of the primary differences in the location descriptions listed on page 171)
-
the reputation payment multipliers on pg. 9 are negative for 1 and unrated, but the formula on the previous page enters them in multiplicatively which would lead to negative payment amounts. These should be positive values below one.
-
I am really glad that contract pay is going to be based on the value of combat units (i.e. capital stock) rather than labor costs. However, the base amount of 5% of the value of all combat units per month is way, way too high. Since there is no compounding going on here that equates to a 60% annual return on investment. To put it another way, without any other modifiers, paying a mercenary force for 2 years would be equivalent to purchasing all of their combat equipment at a 20% premium.
This gets even worse when you start looking at all the multipliers. An objective raid by a mid-rated (5) company for a major power is looking at 19.2% per month for three months, so close to 60% of its value for the three months of the contract.
Mercenary work is high risk and so it should offer high returns on investment, but these are out of the ballpark. I would suggest either lowering both the base amount and the size of the multipliers for unit quality, or treating these values as annual returns and then dividing by 12 to get the monthly pay. In the latter case, the base would probably need to be raised some.
-
I would suggest either lowering both the base amount and the size of the multipliers for unit quality, or treating these values as annual returns and then dividing by 12 to get the monthly pay. In the latter case, the base would probably need to be raised some.
In other words, you want about a 20-year period of return on the investment?
Even with multipliers for higher risk missions (doubling income, roughly), you're asking for a return on investment that sounds longer than it takes to seriously damage or destroy all units in the force (assuming a fairly constant stream of non-garrison missions). Can you find another value for reducing the income of a military force without leaving it destitute from battle damage after a few years?
-
Ok, I am just looking through parts procurement now and my head is spinning.
Why is the availability target for ammo based on its tech rating and not its era-specific availability rating. That makes no sense.
The idea of basing the spare part availability roll on the unit is wrong-headed and extremely problematic. Lets say I have three mechs and two vehicles that between them have 7 medium lasers. I want to get a lot of spare medium lasers. Which unit do I base my availability roll on? It makes no sense. Spare parts have tech ratings and availability codes just like ammunition - there is no need to create two separate rules for procurement of the basically the same thing.
Beyond all of this, why are you creating two different mutually exclusive and incompatible systems for parts procurement within what is supposed to be the same line of integrated rulebooks? Strat Ops already has a section on parts procurement. Why is that not used here or at least serve as a baseline?
-
In other words, you want about a 20-year period of return on the investment?
Even with multipliers for higher risk missions (doubling income, roughly), you're asking for a return on investment that sounds longer than it takes to seriously damage or destroy all units in the force (assuming a fairly constant stream of non-garrison missions). Can you find another value for reducing the income of a military force without leaving it destitute from battle damage after a few years?
I am not sure where you are getting 20 years from, since I didn't give any hard numbers. There are a lot of numbers less than 60% that get you a lower return on investment time than 20 years.
As for battle damage, BLC is still in there as are salvage rights, which help offset such losses.
-
On a quick skim through the rules for Mission Failure seem a bit harsh, I loss one fight and the contract is finished and I don't get anymore pay? Seems somewhat unrealistic, mercs have to lose sometimes and Out of Game I should be losing 50% of the time
"This section also supports play through the mission, wraps up costs and addresses changes to reputation. Most of the actual campaign rules are found in the Chaos Campaign chapter, p. XX." from the first page.
That suggests to me that a mission, in IO terms, is equivalent to a CC track (which contains multiple scenarios.) I don't think the intent was to have a failed scenario (a potential minor setback) be a full-off show-stopper.
--------
A few questions, some of which have been asked in here before.
1. On the missions table, Special contains three entries: Guerrilla, Recon Raid, and Diversionary [Raid], all marked with *. This usually points to a footnote, but the table has no footnote. What is different about rolling those?
2. Is the "pre-Succession Wars" modifier for salvage actually supposed to be -12, which virtually assures no salvage?
3. The "reputation trait" table is unclear to me. Elsewhere, the force's reputation is calculated in the same way as the FM:Mr Dragoon Rating value (because, I'm aware, force reputation is Dragoon Rating under a new name.) On this table, however, it's single digit numbers, almost like A Time of War trait. What should it be?
4. (This one was asked before) The support modifiers chart was lifted straight from FM:Mr, including a column for "overhead compensation." Will IO be retaining this mechanic; and, if so, will it be a fixed value (25k cb or so) or 5% of the contract value, as I vaguely recall it being in FM:Mr?
5. Even the short raids have a base contract length of 3 months, not counting jump and burn times; how do Wilma's Wabid Wombats have "two weeks of raiding mayhem?"
6. The section under "Finding the Reputation Score" for command rating: the second chapter details how to pseudo-create a force commander without using AToW. Would this paragraph be better under Force Creation, since a force without its commander isn't much of a force? :D In any case, "treat final results of less than 1 as 1" should be in the first paragraph, since the non-AToW method cannot produce results less than 1, even with a Green commander. (A nitpick of paragraph flow.)
------
As for actually "playing it out," I'll do so later - I'm posting this during a lunch break at work.
-
1. On the missions table, Special contains three entries: Guerrilla, Recon Raid, and Diversionary [Raid], all marked with *. This usually points to a footnote, but the table has no footnote. What is different about rolling those?
Oops. Something disappeared between the Word and .pdf versions. The footnote is:
*Offered with Planetary Assault contract, to begin immediately at termination of first contract.
2. Is the "pre-Succession Wars" modifier for salvage actually supposed to be -12, which virtually assures no salvage?
No, it should be -2. There was a typo.
3. The "reputation trait" table is unclear to me. Elsewhere, the force's reputation is calculated in the same way as the FM:Mr Dragoon Rating value (because, I'm aware, force reputation is Dragoon Rating under a new name.) On this table, however, it's single digit numbers, almost like A Time of War trait. What should it be?
See page 6 of the .pdf, Final Reputation Score.
"Final Reputation Score: Sum up all the different applicable
bonuses and penalties to get the final Reputation Score. A
related and important value used in contract negotiations is
the reputation modifier, which is equal to the Reputation Score
divided by 10, rounded down to the nearest whole number."
4. (This one was asked before) The support modifiers chart was lifted straight from FM:Mr, including a column for "overhead compensation." Will IO be retaining this mechanic; and, if so, will it be a fixed value (25k cb or so) or 5% of the contract value, as I vaguely recall it being in FM:Mr?
The overhead column will be deleted from the table.
5. Even the short raids have a base contract length of 3 months, not counting jump and burn times; how do Wilma's Wabid Wombats have "two weeks of raiding mayhem?"
Per the Length of Mission section (pg8-9 of the .pdf), the contract length is "2 weeks plus 1.1 weeks per jump to reach the site of the mission." The Wombats had a 2-week raid, plus transport time.
6. The section under "Finding the Reputation Score" for command rating: the second chapter details how to pseudo-create a force commander without using AToW. Would this paragraph be better under Force Creation, since a force without its commander isn't much of a force? :D In any case, "treat final results of less than 1 as 1" should be in the first paragraph, since the non-AToW method cannot produce results less than 1, even with a Green commander. (A nitpick of paragraph flow.)
Noted.
-
See page 6 of the .pdf, Final Reputation Score.
"Final Reputation Score: Sum up all the different applicable
bonuses and penalties to get the final Reputation Score. A
related and important value used in contract negotiations is
the reputation modifier, which is equal to the Reputation Score
divided by 10, rounded down to the nearest whole number."
I actually missed that part. Thanks!
Per the Length of Mission section (pg8-9 of the .pdf), the contract length is "2 weeks plus 1.1 weeks per jump to reach the site of the mission." The Wombats had a 2-week raid, plus transport time.
From the same session,
"The Master Contracts Table reflects the typical base duration of the mission. After determining the base duration, add in the length of time required for the force to redeploy to the mission site...
Unless the mission is on the same planet, deployment time is calculated as 2 weeks plus 1.1 weeks per jump to reach the site of the mission. Divide the number of transit weeks by four and round up to the nearest whole number to determine the number of transit months for the mission."
The first jump should not count; you aren't burning outsystem toward an uncharged JumpShip, after all. :) I suggest a change to ...deployment time is calculated as 2 weeks plus 1.1 weeks per jump after the first, to reach the site of the mission.
And even the shortest raids are 3 month contracts by default.
Thus, the Wombats' example should look like this:
"...a week to reach the JumpShip, the instantaneous jump, a week to the target planet, three months of raiding mayhem, then a week back to the JumpShip, and finally a week to the garrison planet."
It also appears that the return transit is not part of the contract time.
-
All right, found another point of confusion.
In Creating a Force page 10, you are allowed to reduce your tech (or admin) needs by having combatants pull double duty.
In Force Ops page 4, the support rating is calculated this way:
"If a force has sufficient technicians, administrators, and large spacecraft crew (not including combatants pulling double duty as technicians or administrators,) then no modifier applies to the Support Rating. For each category... that has an insufficient number of personnel, subtract 5 from the force's reputation."
The way I'm reading it is this.
Sample force: 12 'Mechs supported by a Seeker DS and Invader JS. This works out to 140 personnel: 12 MechWarriors, 84 tech-types, 44 starship crew. This is a mercenary force, so it needs 14 admins.
If I have one MechWarrior pull double duty as an admin:
Create a Force says I now need 13 admins to have my full admin load.
Support Rating says I still need 14 to count as having my full admin load.
Why are these different?
-
Sandslice, you got it wrong, you only need Admins for the MWs
-
Sandslice, you got it wrong, you only need Admins for the MWs
Page 10 of Create a Force has a list of people that need admins. It starts with techs, and pretty much includes anyone that isn't an admin or dependent.
But even if I only needed admins for the MWs, the example would apply: ru(12/10)=2, so I'd need two admins. Having one MW pull double duty would reduce that to one according to CAF, but not according to the Support Rating calculation.
-
In Creating a Force page 10, you are allowed to reduce your tech (or admin) needs by having combatants pull double duty.
In Force Ops page 4, the support rating is calculated this way:
"If a force has sufficient technicians, administrators, and large spacecraft crew (not including combatants pulling double duty as technicians or administrators,) then no modifier applies to the Support Rating. For each category... that has an insufficient number of personnel, subtract 5 from the force's reputation."
The way I'm reading it is this.
Sample force: 12 'Mechs supported by a Seeker DS and Invader JS. This works out to 140 personnel: 12 MechWarriors, 84 tech-types, 44 starship crew. This is a mercenary force, so it needs 14 admins.
If I have one MechWarrior pull double duty as an admin:
Create a Force says I now need 13 admins to have my full admin load.
Support Rating says I still need 14 to count as having my full admin load.
Per Force Creation, pg10, combat personnel can count as administrative personnel but they don't reduce the number of combatants that require administrative personnel. Is there some trick of my (probably bad) wording that you're seeing that suggests the number of effective combat personnel are reduced by double-duty combatants?
-
Per Force Creation, pg10, combat personnel can count as administrative personnel but they don't reduce the number of combatants that require administrative personnel. Is there some trick of my (probably bad) wording that you're seeing that suggests the number of effective combat personnel are reduced by double-duty combatants?
First, thanks for answering a question that I did have, that I hadn't asked yet. :)
I think it's a trick of my wording. If I might rephrase.
My sample company has 12 'Mechs, one Seeker DS, one Invader JS, and is mercenary. It has 140 personnel (12 MWs, 12 techs, 72 astechs, 44 starship crew,) thus it needs 14 admins.
Per Create a Force p10, if I use one MW as a double duty admin, he counts as one admin since ru(1/3) = 1. Thus, I would only need to hire 13 dedicated admins, and all 140 of my team are covered.
Per Force Ops p4, my double duty guy doesn't count; since I hired 13 admins, I'm considered one short and take a -5 on reputation.
Is that correct and intended?
-
Now that you point it out, the Force Operations parenthetical comment weighing against double-duty personnel only seems to complicate matters as you have to more carefully separate and track double-duty personnel. It'll be deleted.
-
I was going through the PDF again, and I found more things that confused me.
On the Missions Table, three things have asterisks next to them. Why? I can't find any reference to it in the text or the table.
Why does your Command modifer go down as the Reputation increases?
Are some missions, like Recon, always Covert? Are some always High Risk?
I think that covers it for now. Thanks!
-
I was going through the PDF again, and I found more things that confused me.
On the Missions Table, three things have asterisks next to them. Why? I can't find any reference to it in the text or the table.
Why does your Command modifer go down as the Reputation increases?
Are some missions, like Recon, always Covert? Are some always High Risk?
I think that covers it for now. Thanks!
The asterisks refer to this omitted footnote:
*Offered with Planetary Assault contract, to begin immediately at termination of first contract.
In other words, if you get Guerrilla*, Recon*, or Diversionary*, you will create the first contract as usual, and then create a Planetary Assault contract with no transport terms or time modifier because it's in the same system, hopefully with you following up on your previous successes!
I suspect a typo, though it's possible that House negotiators might want a merc force's sterling reputation to rub off on the regular troops... :P
A mission is covert if it's rolled on the Covert column. Terrorism, assassination, sabotage, espionage, observation, and mole-hunting are always covert.
Recon raid, guerrilla, diversionary, and security can be rolled on other columns, so they're not always covert.
-
Got a problem here, in Force Creation Arnold's Force is Government, but in the text here it seems to be mercenary, which is correct?
That has been addressed earlier in the force creation thread.
-
A mission is covert if it's rolled on the Covert column. Terrorism, assassination, sabotage, espionage, observation, and mole-hunting are always covert.
Recon raid, guerrilla, diversionary, and security can be rolled on other columns, so they're not always covert.
Thanks Sandslice! So, we would only apply the Covert modifiers to RR, Guerrilla, Diversionary, and Security missions that happened to be Covert. Something like Terrorism would not receive those modifiers, right?
Speaking of which, what is Terrorism in this context? What does it entail? Wholesale slaughter of civilians? I was trying to think how a Terrorism mission could be distinct from the other categories, and I was coming up empty.
-
Thanks Sandslice! So, we would only apply the Covert modifiers to RR, Guerrilla, Diversionary, and Security missions that happened to be Covert. Something like Terrorism would not receive those modifiers, right?
Speaking of which, what is Terrorism in this context? What does it entail? Wholesale slaughter of civilians? I was trying to think how a Terrorism mission could be distinct from the other categories, and I was coming up empty.
Nah, the always-covert missions would still get the covert modifier (including the reduced Reputation effects.)
Terrorism is using a pinch of guerrilla tactics, a dash of sabotage and assassination, and random acts of thuggery to erode a population's faith in the local government, until they either rise up or send out a plea for help.
Basically, it is to guerrilla what espionage is to recon raid. Sneakier and more subtle, but basically similar ends.
-
So, going to try to run a force with neither DS nor JS, and then with either, and finally with both, to see how things change.
The force: a simple 12-'Mech introtech company, recalling the very old, dripping-with-unseen sourcebooks.
Peacetime op cost: 134330 cb/mo. SRMs are assumed standard; infernos are less expensive, and more expensive ammo isn't available in 3015-ish. (Yes, starships have a massive effect.)
Reputation: 26 (2). This is pretty much all on the Commander Skills (L6, S6, T6, N8, non-AToW method; lucky rolls with a Veteran commander.) +10 for Regular average skill, -10 for no DS.
Question 1: If you have no DropShips, do you apply the -10 and the -3 for not having transport for support personnel, or only the -10? It doesn't matter in my example, but could.
------
Determining number of contracts.
Question 2: Just in case someone doesn't have AToW, what is the TN for unopposed Negotiate* checks? (Luckily I have a copy of AToW: it's TN 8.)
*Using Negotiate instead of Protocol per discussion on page 2 of this thread.
Hiring Hall: Solaris VII (minor)
Roll: 7; +2 for rep mod, +1 for hall: 10, for 4 offers!
But now there's a bunch of questions on the employer roll step.
3. The description calls for a Negotiate* check, modified for hiring hall and reputation modifier. Does failure, in this case, simply mean a negative MOS and the first line on the table?
4. The table calls for a modified 2d6 roll, not an MOS. The table's distributions, moreover, suggest regular 2d6 rolls. Is a Negotiate roll and MOS intended, or would we be better served with a regular 2d6 roll?
5. Also, with a Negotiate roll, a force with enough Negotiate modifiers ends up spamming Corporate contracts. It's not hard to reach, either: you need to roll a 19 or higher.
N = Negotiate modifier = Negotiate skill + Hiring hall + Force reputation mod.
2d6+N-8 = actual result on the chart.
At N=7, you can start getting Corporate contracts.
N=12, you can no longer get Independents. Corporate is now on 7.
N=13, Marik is pushed off the table. Corporate is now on 6.
N=14, Liao is off.
N=15, Kurita is off.
N=17, you can only get Corporate.
Note that these numbers aren't hard to reach: if I had starships, I'd have +13 (or +15 on Galatea) instead of +10.
Also, because mission types are rolled on 2d6+(2d6+N-8 ), these can push you into spamming garrisons and cadres (or coverts, if you're into that.) At N=16, even in the slim chance that you get a Steiner contract, it will always be 12/12, cadre/garrison, unless you go for covert. As for covert, you can guarantee it for Corporate contracts at only N=15, since 3 is covert for corporate; N=16 guarantees it for a House, because 3 is special for Houses.
-
Editing quick. This becomes a bit saner, though not by much.
So, going to roll these four contracts. It says to do the following:
1. For employer, make a modified Negotiate check.
2. For mission, first make a modified Negotiate check without rep modifier; then...
3. Add (or optionally subtract) this with a 2d6 roll against the table.
Since my modified Negotiate is 8, the MOS is a straight 2d6 roll.
The result of this roll is added to 2d6, which means I'm rolling 4d6 (mean: 14) on a 2d6-calibrated table.
Offer 1:
Employer: 7+2=9: Davion.
Mission: MOS 9, 7+9, 5+9: Special Cadre/Garrison.
Question: As with employer, does this MOS modifier apply to the special/covert follow-up roll?
Offer 2:
Employer: 6+2=8: Kurita.
Mission: MOS 3, 6+3=9: Recon Raid
Offer 3:
Employer: 5+2=7: Liao.
Mission: MOS 10, flipping: automatic Covert Security.
Offer 4:
Employer: 4+2=6: Marik.
Mission: MOS 7, 6+7, 3+7: Special Diversionary Raid* with Planetary Assault follow-up.
Question: How do you generate contract terms for the slash contracts, ie cadre/garrison and riot/garrison?
Observation: I have an unusually strong Negotiate skill on my force commander, which is making it very easy to hit Special or Covert missions. Perhaps too easy, unless I roll rather poorly on the MOS roll.
-
Ok. Going to soldier on without the Davion contract.
Kurita recon raid. Target world is Nusakan.
Base value: 2660028.65 (51185623 x .05 + 134330 x .75)
Base time: 3 months
Transport time: 5 jumps: 7.5 weeks = 2 months.
Tempo: 1.6, Employer: 1.3.
Rep: 26/5+.5, so 5 line, for 2.0.
Mission pay multiplier: 3 x 2 x 1.6 x 1.3 = x12.48
Term rolls: Controlling Super Power on Recon Raid, rep 5. Any term-haggling would be done on a pure 2d6 vs. 2d6 roll, since both my commander and the negotiator are at 8 Negotiate.
Question: For those who don't have AToW, what is the Negotiate skill of a "soldier-level negotiator?" (It's 8, 6 Int and level 2 skill.)
Command: -3 mod: 12(!)-3=9, Liaison. Not risking.
Salvage: -3 mod: 11=3=8, 50% shared.
Support: +2 mod: 5+2=7, 100% straight support.
Transport: +1 mod: 8+1=9, 60% covered. Pushing this.
Me: 8 Kurita: 5. Full transport coverage. That simplifies things.
Contract value: 2660028.65 x 12.48 +
2660028.65 x 5.2 +
134330 x 3 =
47432296.532 rounds normally to 47 432 297 cb, plus fully compensated transport (which is a zero sum.)
Definitely not terrible, for having no starships.
-
Should'nt transport costs and transport reimbursement be doubled? In FMM:R, you would calculate cost and reimbursement based on a 1 way trip and then double it (to include the costs and reimbursement for the return trip). You may not actually return to where you left from, but should'nt these values assume that you do?
-
Should'nt transport costs and transport reimbursement be doubled? In FMM:R, you would calculate cost and reimbursement based on a 1 way trip and then double it (to include the costs and reimbursement for the return trip). You may not actually return to where you left from, but should'nt these values assume that you do?
The Wombats example does appear to, at least for reimbursement.
-------------------
Other questions, and my compiled list of my questions thus far.
1. If you don't have DropShips at all, do you apply the -3 for not having transport for your support personnel?
2. What is the TN of an unopposed Negotiate check? Not everyone has AToW.
3. What is the Negotiate skill of a Soldier-level negotiator? Not everyone has AToW.
(For the record, I do: both are 8.)
4. On the mission table, you are effectively rolling 4d6-8, plus your Negotiate skill and hall modifier, on a 2d6 table. At Negotiate+hall of 6+, 12 becomes the majority result. Is this intended?
5. On the mission table, does the MOS roll apply to the special/covert roll?
6. Defencive Campaign is not on the mission table. What causes it to be a mission option?
7. How do you roll riot/garrison and cadre/garrison mission terms?
8. The Command modifiers for high rep are negative. Is this intended?
9. The modifier for 0 rep is -1.0 and that for 1 rep is -0.5. These result in massively negative contract values.
Using a previous example, of a Stingy Noble Cadre:
T = Op Tempo: 0.8
H = Employer: 1-0.2 = 0.8
R = 0 rep unit: -1
The pay formula is:
Base pay x (T x H x R) x mission time
+ Base pay x (H x R) x transport time
+ Support + transport.
Leaving out the time aspects for the moment, your pay in this example will be -1.44 x your base pay... plus your support and transport.
Suggestion: Change the 0 rep value to 0.1, and the 1 rep value to 0.5.
-
Looking back at it, I see it in the Wombat's description. But I think it should be clarified in the rules.
Also, in FMM:R, you were able to hire a freelance negotiator. I would like to see this included so I don't have to send my commander on a several month journey just to get a new contract. I could hire the negotiator to handle contract acquisition while my commander is off fighting.
-
Under the heading - Resolving contract breaches p.13, Reputation is being refered to as Dragoon's Rating. Not a big issue, as most will know what you are talking about, but I thought for clarification purposes you might want to look at it.
-
The Master Contract Terms table lists "Defensive Campaign" as an option, but I don't see it in the Missions Table.
Also, what percentage of missions should be "High Risk," assuming a random roll? I was thinking maybe 1 in 6, with any IS/Clan engagements automatically qualifying.
-
Reputation: 26 (2). This is pretty much all on the Commander Skills (L6, S6, T6, N8, non-AToW method; lucky rolls with a Veteran commander.) +10 for Regular average skill, -10 for no DS.
Question 1: If you have no DropShips, do you apply the -10 and the -3 for not having transport for support personnel, or only the -10? It doesn't matter in my example, but could.
Just the -10. I'll clarify that.
Determining number of contracts.
Question 2: Just in case someone doesn't have AToW, what is the TN for unopposed Negotiate* checks? (Luckily I have a copy of AToW: it's TN 8.)
*Using Negotiate instead of Protocol per discussion on page 2 of this thread.
Noted, I'll put in the base TN.
3. The description calls for a Negotiate* check, modified for hiring hall and reputation modifier. Does failure, in this case, simply mean a negative MOS and the first line on the table?
My intent was, "You don't get that contract."
4. The table calls for a modified 2d6 roll, not an MOS. The table's distributions, moreover, suggest regular 2d6 rolls. Is a Negotiate roll and MOS intended, or would we be better served with a regular 2d6 roll?
Regular 2d6 roll.
5. Also, with a Negotiate roll, a force with enough Negotiate modifiers ends up spamming Corporate contracts. It's not hard to reach, either: you need to roll a 19 or higher.
N = Negotiate modifier = Negotiate skill + Hiring hall + Force reputation mod.
2d6+N-8 = actual result on the chart.
Hmm. How's this sound: Instead of taking the exact result of the roll, if the roll is successful, then the player may pick any mission equal to or less than the roll?
So, going to roll these four contracts. It says to do the following:
1. For employer, make a modified Negotiate check.
2. For mission, first make a modified Negotiate check without rep modifier; then...
3. Add (or optionally subtract) this with a 2d6 roll against the table.
Since my modified Negotiate is 8, the MOS is a straight 2d6 roll.
The result of this roll is added to 2d6, which means I'm rolling 4d6 (mean: 14) on a 2d6-calibrated table.
Nice catch. That does skew the results. Any suggestions for straightening it?
Question: How do you generate contract terms for the slash contracts, ie cadre/garrison and riot/garrison?
I suppose, "Pick the better paying one." I'll add that.
Question: For those who don't have AToW, what is the Negotiate skill of a "soldier-level negotiator?" (It's 8, 6 Int and level 2 skill.)
I'll note that in the document.
8. The Command modifiers for high rep are negative. Is this intended?
Nope. I think your suggestion will work.
Should'nt transport costs and transport reimbursement be doubled?
The round-trip travel time is noted as being calculated. I'll clarify that in the rules.
Also, in FMM:R, you were able to hire a freelance negotiator. I would like to see this included so I don't have to send my commander on a several month journey just to get a new contract. I could hire the negotiator to handle contract acquisition while my commander is off fighting.
I'll clarify that the actual negotiation may be handled by HPG or hired puppet, using the commander's skills. I was trying to avoid the FMMR complications of extra NPCs at every step in the force operation process.
Under the heading - Resolving contract breaches p.13, Reputation is being refered to as Dragoon's Rating. Not a big issue, as most will know what you are talking about, but I thought for clarification purposes you might want to look at it.
Yep. That's a holdover from copying-and-pasting.
The Master Contract Terms table lists "Defensive Campaign" as an option, but I don't see it in the Missions Table.
The Contract Terms table will be updated to eliminate "defensive campaign."
Also, what percentage of missions should be "High Risk," assuming a random roll? I was thinking maybe 1 in 6, with any IS/Clan engagements automatically qualifying.
I'll put in a qualifier or footnote. Not all mission types are high risk - garrison and cadre shouldn't be.
-
Just the -10. I'll clarify that.
Noted, I'll put in the base TN.
Good deal! :)
My intent was, "You don't get that contract."
Hmm. How's this sound: Instead of taking the exact result of the roll, if the roll is successful, then the player may pick any mission equal to or less than the roll?
The problem this would address is for employer, not mission. So on a failure, you found a dud offer / dead-end lead; and on a success, you can pick any employer equal to or less than your MOS.
I like it, and I'm sure the roleplayers / anti-X-factionists will like it too.
Nice catch. That does skew the results. Any suggestions for straightening it?
Keep it simple: just make missions (step 3) a straight 2d6 roll with only the hall modifier.
"To determine the mission for each offer, roll 2d6, applying the modifier applicable to the Hiring Hall. If the Hiring Hall modifier is positive, the players may choose to apply it as a negative modifier instead. This improves the chance of finding covert assignments."
This results in 2d6, plus/minus up to 2: 0-10 at -2, 4-14 at +2. If the Southern Cross Brigade's battlefield potential/experience (ie, reputation) doesn't matter to what mission is needed, nor should their faceman's spin-doctoring ability. Davion needs a recon raid, and you can't talk his recruiter into giving you a cushy garrison because the AFFS doesn't need cushy garrisons this month.
-
Yes, definitely, I thought that lacking DS's means you only took a -5. And if you lack DS's you ignore all penalties for lacking JS's, right?
Now lacking sufficient admins has been struck, right?
Now the rules say to To determine how many Contract Offers are available, make 1 Protocol Skill Check per month, and apply the modifiers applicable to the Protocol Skill, and also those applicable to both the Hiring Hall world you’re hiring from (if any) as well as the force’s reputation modifier. Then compare the Margin of Success (or Failure) to the Contract Modifiers Table below.
The skill used on the roll has changed, hasn't it? And how do I make that roll?
-
Yes, definitely, I thought that lacking DS's means you only took a -5. And if you lack DS's you ignore all penalties for lacking JS's, right?
Now lacking sufficient admins has been struck, right?
Now the rules say to The skill used on the roll has changed, hasn't it? And how do I make that roll?
It's -5 if you don't have enough Dropships for your equipment; -10 if you don't have any Dropships. The -3 applies if you have any Dropships, but they're not enough for your personnel --- but not if you have none. (Thus, -10 is the worst your transport modifier can be.)
Jumpships never had a penalty, only a bonus if you have one (and/or enough for all your Dropships.)
Admins have not been bagged yet, as far as I'm aware.
To roll the number of possible contract offers in Step 1:
-Make a Negotiate check against TN 8, modifying for hiring hall and force reputation modifier.
The only change that's been made is using Negotiate instead of Protocol. Less concern about AToW subskills, and the non-AToW commander method doesn't generate a Protocol skill anyway.
To roll for employer in step 2:
-Make a Negotiate check against TN 8, modifying for hiring hall and force rep. A failure indicates a dead-end lead; on a success, you may pick any result up to the MOS.
To roll for mission in step 3:*
-Roll 2d6, modifying for hiring hall only. You may treat a positive hall modifier as negative in order to try for covert missions.
*My proposed change. Default is make a Negotiate check against TN 8, modifying for hiring hall; then use its MOS as a modifier to another 2d6 roll.
To roll terms in step 4:
-Roll 2d6 for each term, modifying for mission, employer, and force rep.
-You may negotiate each term, by making a Negotiate check against TN 2d6+8 (that is, an Opposed Negotiate check against the recruiter, who has Negotiate 8.) This modifies the term roll by half of the player's MOS or MOF, round toward zero.
A gamemaster may choose to change the recruiter's Negotiate value; 8 is default, representing a Soldier-level NPC in AToW.
-
So for a Negotiate check I subtract from 8 my captains Negotiate skill (5) and then roll against the resulting number? Which in this case would be 3.
-
So for a Negotiate check I subtract from 8 my captains Negotiate skill (5) and then roll against the resulting number? Which in this case would be 3.
The short form: it produces the same result for unopposed rolls.
More explanation:
The way you're doing it, subtracting your skill from the base TN, is the same process used to get Total Warfare piloting/gunnery values.
Using the A Time of War method, you would add your skill to your roll, and roll against the TN.
In your example, let's say you roll a 7:
TW method: 7 against (8-5) = +4 MOS.
AToW method: (7+5) against 8: +4 MOS.
As long as you remember to properly apply your modifiers, you're ok. Say you're rolling step 1 in a Great Hall:
Pure TW: 7 against (8-5-3) = +7 MOS. The +3 bonus becomes a -3 bonus; the target is easier to hit.
Pure AToW: (7+5+3) against 8: +7 MOS.
Mixed: (7+3) against (8-5): +7 MOS.
I'd still recommend using pure AToW method regardless. It'll make things the easiest to remember.
-
I noticed in the determining reputation table that tech and admin. support are used to calculate your reputation but medical support has been dropped (it was included in FMM:R). Is this an oversight or will medical support be dropped?
-
I noticed in the determining reputation table that tech and admin. support are used to calculate your reputation but medical support has been dropped (it was included in FMM:R). Is this an oversight or will medical support be dropped?
The admin count includes a mandatory level of medical support (Create a Force p9.) You can get better medics either as Advanced infantry, or by buying MASH vehicles; but there isn't a separate reputation line for medics. From the tone in the CAF thread, I don't think there will be. :)
-
The admin count includes a mandatory level of medical support (Create a Force p9.) You can get better medics either as Advanced infantry, or by buying MASH vehicles; but there isn't a separate reputation line for medics. From the tone in the CAF thread, I don't think there will be. :)
What he said. Given that BT had introduced better rules for MASH and medics since FMMR, I thought I'd point players to that rather than incorporating an arbitrary number of doctors as unseen, under-supported background NPCs.
-
I'll spare the maths, and instead ask a simple question.
If you have your own starships, which mission term do you use to compensate for their use: support or transport?
(If transport, do you use the peacetime operating cost as your guideline, or what it would cost another company to hire your ships?)
-
Regarding "Slaughter". I realize that it suggests that the Ares convention views a single civilian death as being considered slaughter. Is there no difference between 1 death and 1,000? One could be a single stray shot, but the other could be an all out battle in the middle of a busy city with rounds landing everywhere. Also, are there any rules for a missed shot's chances of hitting a building near a target, and if that shot kills someone?
If there is a difference between killing 1 and killing 1,000, how will it scale? Also, is there any guideline of how many people, on average, would be in a particular type of building and of a specific elevation? People will likely want a guideline, especially if they are trying to have a GMed game.
-
Regarding "Slaughter". I realize that it suggests that the Ares convention views a single civilian death as being considered slaughter. Is there no difference between 1 death and 1,000? One could be a single stray shot, but the other could be an all out battle in the middle of a busy city with rounds landing everywhere. Also, are there any rules for a missed shot's chances of hitting a building near a target, and if that shot kills someone?
If there is a difference between killing 1 and killing 1,000, how will it scale? Also, is there any guideline of how many people, on average, would be in a particular type of building and of a specific elevation? People will likely want a guideline, especially if they are trying to have a GMed game.
There are rules for missed shots in TacOps, they are a little much for most games, though.
- Shane
-
One might to apply a certain quote from a Kurt Tucholsky play there that's often misattributed to Ioseph Jugasvili. Makes for a good guideline - the other way around.
The war? I can't find it too terrible! The death of one man: that is a catastrophe. One hundred thousand deaths: that is a statistic!
-
If you have your own starships, which mission term do you use to compensate for their use: support or transport?
(If transport, do you use the peacetime operating cost as your guideline, or what it would cost another company to hire your ships?)
Transport reimbursement is intended for forces lacking DropShips and/or JumpShips. Forces with JumpShips factor their costs into the force's full peacetime operating costs, which in turn factor into the Support Payment.
Hiring out your JumpShip is described under the Transport payment example on pg10-11 of the .pdf.
-
"When calculating equipment value, include all assets which your gaming group plays with. If you have included infantry for 'base security' or aero assets for transport but your group doesn't use infantry rules or play aerospace battles, do not include them when calculating equipment value."
I would limit the contract to "combat assets", ie mechs, Infantary, etc. that are directly used in combat.
This opens the door to employers saying that they only authorized the use of two companies for that combat action, not the full battalion that showed up!
-
In other words, you want about a 20-year period of return on the investment?
Even with multipliers for higher risk missions (doubling income, roughly), you're asking for a return on investment that sounds longer than it takes to seriously damage or destroy all units in the force (assuming a fairly constant stream of non-garrison missions). Can you find another value for reducing the income of a military force without leaving it destitute from battle damage after a few years?
During WW2, the idea of planned obsolescence was used to reduce the cost of creating combat aircraft, by reducing their operational lifespan to about 20 months. This idea makes sense with battlemech & aerospace fighters, but Dropships & Jumpships!?!
In the flavour text and novels some of the DS & JS have been around for decades or centuries. They are extremely valuable pieces of technology. A Dropship should have a working life of 50 years and a payback time of 20 years. Only a genius or a fool would risk that by placing it in harms way. And as to the Jumpships, there is a reason that they are non-combat vehicles protected by agreement. The working life of a JS can run in to the centuries.
-
Transport reimbursement is intended for forces lacking DropShips and/or JumpShips. Forces with JumpShips factor their costs into the force's full peacetime operating costs, which in turn factor into the Support Payment.
Hiring out your JumpShip is described under the Transport payment example on pg10-11 of the .pdf.
Ok, that's what I thought. :) And now for an example. WARNING: LONG POST.
"Full sails ahead, oceans painted red when the soldiers of fortune hunt for pirates!" Not realising that she's singing aloud, Becky settles on a Hunting Pirates... err... Pirate Hunting contract for her Southern Cross Brigade. It's time to figure out her transport costs, since she has no starships.
The mission time breakdown is this.
Transport: 3 months round-trip (4 weeks of DropShip burn, plus 4.4 weeks to do 6 jumps: the first jump each way would already be charged up. ru(8.4/4)=3. If this is not the case, then it'd be 10.4 weeks, which is still 3 months.)
Mission: 6 months (defined.)
A 12-'Mech company is best carried by a 2802 Union Dropship; though "uncommon," it is one of the more common Dropships. Since MUL has no DropShip price listing, I'll use the one Megamek supplies: 222 502 000.
x.005 = 222502 x 5 = 1 112 510 per month.
The SCB will use 32.4 tons of resource just on POC, leaving 51.6 tons of the Union's cargo capacity for extra armour, ammo, and loot. This is kinda low, and Becky considers adding a cheap Buccaneer for cargo; but then she reasons that the Marik liaison won't spring for "excess" cargo capacity, so she leaves that alone.
The JumpShip is, ideally, a Scout. They're not as common as Merchants or Invaders, but wasting jump collars makes the baby Nicky K cry. At 100k per jump, that's 600k; 6 months idle at 400k per month per collar = 2.4m, for a total of 3 million.
Becky tallies up the transport cost before compensation:
1 112 510 x 9 = 10 012 590
+3m= 13 012 590 cbills.
Finally, she estimates 53.88%* for transport compensation, because she wants to figure out long term averages of leasing vs. owning starships. Thus, her average transport cost will be 6 000 250 cbills, with a decent chance of being nil!
*Actually 53.88 repeating. I multiplied each result by the chance of getting it, and added up those results. 13012590 x 46.11...% = 6000249.8 333...
-------------
Now Becky considers what would happen if she owned the ships. The first problem she runs into is that a Union needs 72.65 tons of supplies by itself, not considering fuel mass, over a 9-month campaign - and that's more ammo than maintenance! Fortunately, three of those months are on the JumpShip, but the DS and 'Mechs still need 70 tons for 6 months, leaving 4 tons for spare ammo, armour, parts, etc. The only way around it is to make a supply run back to the JumpShip, with more cost and/or an extra risk of interference... or to get a second DropShip.
Union: 3600 tons.
Roll to acquire: 11! (22/5 = 5 base, +5 Dropship, +1 Military.) Virtually the same as a Seeker, actually.
POC: 54k (parts) + 382500 (ammo!) + 414k (fuel) + 14600 (salaries) + 500 (another admin, since personnel goes up to 110) = 865 600, less if we crack water.
Scout JS: 90k tons.
Roll to acquire: 7 (277/100 = 3 base, +1 Military, +3 Rare.)
POC: 135k (parts) + 439650 (fuel, yay 9.77t/bd!) + 13350 (salaries) + 1000 (2 more admins for 17 crew) = 589 000. That's actually kinda cheap.
Total: 1 454 600 per month: 13 091 400 for this campaign. At least with this pair of ships, the difference is pretty moot.
Becky notices that, if the compensations are equal, there's not much difference between owning and leasing, though she wishes the Union weren't such an ammo hog.
However, then she estimates the long-term value of support as she did transport, and it's eye-opening: 38.88%* repeating! Thus she would expect to drop 8 003 000 out of pocket.
*Support is odd. At no modifier, you have a better chance of a big return (15 vs. 10 rolls,) but a better chance of no direct support (16 rolls, 15 of which are BLC.) That's why support is "worth" a flat 15% less than transport.
More curiously, your best average return on direct support is at -1: 41.66% (or 5/12 of cost.) A -2 modifier gives you the best chance of getting support, at 24/36 (2/3 of the possible rolls,) at a still-solid 40% average return. That is, of course, if you want straight support instead of BLC.
I'll post more thoughts later. In short, get ships and make your own hydrogen if possible.
-
This opens the door to employers saying that they only authorized the use of two companies for that combat action, not the full battalion that showed up!
What exactly is wrong with an employer saying "hey, i only ordered two companies, i'm not gonna pay for a battalion"?
-
What exactly is wrong with an employer saying "hey, i only ordered two companies, i'm not gonna pay for a battalion"?
And what happens when the situation develops that your merc unit is facing over-whelming odds, but your employer's Liaison officer refuses to pay for the "Extra" forces, because (thanks to Sun Tzu) they know that "On desperate ground, fight."
http://suntzusaid.com/book/11 (http://suntzusaid.com/book/11)
The comment was expressing the wonderful possibilities for role-playing "contract negotiations" in combat situations. Another way to challenge the players.
-
Well, if we're quoting Sun Tzu, "Walk in the path defined by rule, and accommodate yourself to the enemy until you can fight a decisive battle". 8)
-
OK, I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I was re-reading this thread today and I cam across this...
The specific intent of the 5% factor in base pay was to allow a force to replace all main units every 20 missions
There is a very simple problem with the math here. This 5% "is paid out for each month of the contract." The shortest missions are 3 months and the longest are 24 months. So it will take well less than 20 missions to replace all main units.
Now, I know there have been discussions subsequent to this post that argue about what battle loss one would expect to see on a mission. These discussion are all irrelevant. First of all, battle loss is already covered by employers under battle loss compensation. Second, the actual tempo of battle will vary enormously by mission type, not to mention the style and skill of whoever is GMing the campaign. Those issues should not try to be meta-gamed. Rather the base percentage should be based on what is reasonable rate of return that would (a) make mercenary work attractive, and (b) make employers want to actually hire mercenaries rather than field their own armies. I implore you, Cray, lower this percentage!
-
I am looking through the loan stuff and I noticed that while there is a minimum interest rate at each level, there is no minimum collateral. Thus, it would be possible to jack up the interest rate high enough to reduce collateral to zero. Are there NINJA loans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Income_No_Asset) in the 31st century?
-
I am looking through the loan stuff and I noticed that while there is a minimum interest rate at each level, there is no minimum collateral. Thus, it would be possible to jack up the interest rate high enough to reduce collateral to zero. Are there NINJA loans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Income_No_Asset) in the 31st century?
Yes. Mercenaries without much in the way of assets can get into very abusive payment schemes.
-
Yes. Mercenaries without much in the way of assets can get into very abusive payment schemes.
But also without much reason not to default on their loans, much like the sub-prime lenders of real life.
-
The rules for procuring personnel refer back to the force creation rules. However, because personnel in those rules are assumed to be hired with their associated equipment there is no baseline target number for personnel. However, it is quite common to want to hire new personnel separately during a campaign to make up for casualties. One cannot simply use the equipment baselines themselves as these vary by the weight class of units in many cases. Perhaps it should be stated that personnel use the baseline for XXX weight class equipment as a default.
-
But also without much reason not to default on their loans, much like the sub-prime lenders of real life.
I'll add a reputation penalty for trying to dump debt in that manner.
-
An end of SL/early SW merc unit rolls a 12 for starting funds and they can put together a nice multi-regiment force. Add the optional PC Influence multiplier and you have a serious unit that would be the desire of every major house.
I believe the Force Operations process would be well served with the addition of a size modifier to the Contract Employers and Missions Tables. Maybe even add a mission length modifier for large units. This would probably require the tables be reorganized. Big Stompy Brigade should get more offers from major houses for missions better suited to their size. These contracts should offer longer terms of service to reflect the house's desire to keep their services. Big Stompy Brigade would probably prefer the stability of a long term contract. They would not want to jump multiple regiments across the sphere every six months, hauling all of the support personnel (and maybe dependents). Twelve of the twenty mission types have service terms of six months or less.
The merc rules have never had anything close to the five year Dragoon contracts. It is time that the big boys had contract offers appropriate to their size. The Big Stompy Brigade should be weighted towards a 3 or 4 year retainer/garrison contract or big assault/defense jobs, not the 3 month recon raid. The little stuff should be offers available during their retainer period.
Meow Liao
-
An end of SL/early SW merc unit rolls a 12 for starting funds and they can put together a nice multi-regiment force. Add the optional PC Influence multiplier and you have a serious unit that would be the desire of every major house.
I believe the Force Operations process would be well served with the addition of a size modifier to the Contract Employers and Missions Tables. Maybe even add a mission length modifier for large units. This would probably require the tables be reorganized. Big Stompy Brigade should get more offers from major houses for missions better suited to their size. These contracts should offer longer terms of service to reflect the house's desire to keep their services. Big Stompy Brigade would probably prefer the stability of a long term contract. They would not want to jump multiple regiments across the sphere every six months, hauling all of the support personnel (and maybe dependents). Twelve of the twenty mission types have service terms of six months or less.
The merc rules have never had anything close to the five year Dragoon contracts. It is time that the big boys had contract offers appropriate to their size. The Big Stompy Brigade should be weighted towards a 3 or 4 year retainer/garrison contract or big assault/defense jobs, not the 3 month recon raid. The little stuff should be offers available during their retainer period.
Meow Liao
I like this. You'd only need a 1d6 chart for "Regiment+" units. It could be something like:
1. Garrison
2. Garrison/Retainer
3. Retainer
4. Retainer
5. Planetary Assault/Retainer
6. Planetary Assault
Inside the retainer contracts, just have them on the normal contracts table consecutively.
-
As stated by people higher than I, this thread is locked.
Thank you for your input. [copper]