Comment 1
Great feedback. We’ll look at that. Saving page count would be great.
Cool.
Comment 2
The Scouting Modifiers table seems to say that a Panther is a better scout than a Cicada, or a Charger, and that a Ferret is worse than a Locust. That can't be right. There also does not seem to be any provision for advanced sensors (Irian EAR is Tech Level D and likely better than typical Clan Omni sensors), jamming (might aid evasion as well, but probably not concealment), or a sympathetic populace (would probably also modify morale).
ACS rules are by their nature, Abstract. When working at the scale where a single game piece on the map represents hundreds of BattleMechs, Tanks or thousands of infantry you have to surrender some detail. Yes, a regiment of Panthers would not be as effective as a regiment of Chargers (there’s an image). At the ACS level thought the default is to use Generic Combat Units as the building blocks, a Tech C Light Regiment has a move of 7 and a Tech C Assault has a move of 4.
Likewise sensors end up being abstracted out at this level. A single game hex can be 2000 kilometers or more. A sensor pod with a range of 300 meters tends to be abstracted out at this level.
It makes more sense to use speed here than weight. If the game pieces *have* a movement value, why not use it?
"Advanced sensors" on scout units (see: Hussar, Hermes II) tend to have ranges a hundred times what you're claiming. How is noting "advanced sensors" more difficult than noting Tech Level? What does using Tech Level add to this table that "advanced sensors" wouldn't?
(Why is "Tech Level" being used at all? If it's the only modification that can be made to a Generic Unit, then you'd get more variety (with equal simplicity) by replacing it with a modifier to any one stat.)
Also, the sample forces included in the beta doc did not include weight class. The ComStar forces didn't specify unit type.
Comment 3
Scouting points are currently assigned, then multiplied by 3 before being spent. Instead: assign them in multiples of 3 to start with. Then the player won't have to multiply them.
Valid, however we would then need to triple all the modifiers as well and that starts to get cumbersome just to make figuring out a target number easier. Am I missing something?
You should always,
always simplify the algebra of a calculation when you can. It's a little bit of math now to save a lot of math every turn of every game from now until eternity, and I doubt the hunting/shielding rolls have been calibrated so precisely that they can't accomodate the change. One roll of 2d6+5 is pretty close to 3 rolls of 1d6+1 for instance.
Comment 4
Scout Hunting damage currently has nothing to do with the hunters' actual firepower. I don't want Hi-Scout Drone Carriers to be effective scout hunters. The damage calculation should be brought more in line with standard combat damage.
We’re dealing at the abstraction level again. The points you invest in Scout Hunting come from your total scout pool which can be Hi-Scouts, Spiders, Pegasus hovertanks. The abstraction also covers such things as said Hi-Scout finding an enemy scout force and temporarily tasking a company from one of the Combat Formations to wipe it out.
That's assuming that there's a combat unit nearby, that the combat unit isn't otherwise occupied, and that the number (or cleverness) of scouts is small enough that wiping it out won't require a large portion of the Combat Formation. And again: the units (even a company borrowed from a Formation) *have* attack values assigned to them. Is there a reason *not* to use those values?
Question 8
Is evasion supposed to be unaffected by scouting? Should scouts have a "pursuit" option?
There are currently no “Evasion” rules in ACS. Can you elaborate on what you mean?
There is an "Evade Modifiers" table. The text alongside it says Combat Formations can attempt to evade combat as part of their movement. I would think that enemy scouts might make such evasions more difficult.
Question 9
You assign Formations (Units, Commands) to Scouting at the beginning of each Combat Turn (An ISW Sub-Turn).
Okay.
(question 9 cont'd)
I assume that formations assigned to scouting still have a location on the ground map, even though they're exempt from normal combat.
See Question 1 above.
My concern is that, if scouts aren't assigned a specific location on the map, players could use "scouting" as a way to transmit units further and more safely than they could move normally.
Comment 5
Yes- Once the rules are done and we stop moving things around, they will.
Question 10
Point Value, this has been updated.
Comment 6
Nice catch. That will probably work well.
Cool.
Comment 7
Each player appears to be making separate combat rolls, such that one formation can be fighting at short range while the opposing formation fights at long range. That's weird. Not necessarily bad, just... weird.
Abstract combat. The Combat turn is seven days long.
I'm aware. I don't think those excuse it.
You guys realize that nobody will ever attempt a Short Range attack when, at the same TN, you can do more damage by combining a Medium range attack with a 2-point "offensive" tactic, right?
(Comment 7 cont'd)
Let us know how this plays out though. It’s really a challenge to figure out “movement” and range at this abstraction scale.
This read-through is as much as I'll be doing, unfortunately. I won't have opportunity to play test.
Comment 8
Yes, something for us to look at.
Comment 9
Thanks, we’ll look at that.
Comment 10
Thanks, we’ll look at that.
Question 11
We definitely need to clean this up.
Flanking and Rear are mutually exclusive.
<snip>
All Combat is by Formation (see Question 3 for clarifications). If two formations are in the same hex, one can Formation can conduct a Flank and the other a Rear.
<snip>
Cool.
(Question 11 cont'd)
Flanking and read can only be conducted using Offensive.
Fast Units Flanking/Rear- Good thoughts, we’ll look into this.
Are Flanking/Rear attacks chosen *instead of* an Offensive modifier, or do they *stack with* the Offensive modifier? Regardless, you're basically getting free MoS for outnumbering the enemy, with the main tradeoff being the penalty for dumping too many units into the hex. I wonder if those two effects could be consolidated? Put them next to each other on the Combat chart, at least.
Question 12
Combat:Combat Resolution seems to imply that you can't combine offensive and defensive tactics. But what about things like blowing a dam, or setting a forest on fire to catch the enemy as they stumble out crippled and half-blind? That's both offensive and defensive (and less likely to work as your enemy's Tech Level rises, and risks permanent damage to the region).
I think there may be confusion on what “Offensive” and “Defensive”. It’s about how aggressive or defensive you are. An offensive player has a chance to do more damage but at the potential cost of more damage to them. A defensive player has a chance to reduce the damage they take, but at the potential cost of reducing their return fire.
There are tactics (such as burning down a forest) which multiplies the damage you do to the enemy while simultaneously reducing how much damage the enemy does to you. I think such tactics are worth representing in ACS, and I think allowing players to stack an Offensive modifier with a Defensive modifier would be a very easy way to represent them.
A more complex option might give the player a bonus for sacrificing fortifications, supply dumps, etc.
Question 13
Hiding in forests and badlands is a staple of BT fiction. I assume that's meant to be abstracted within the evasion & concealment rolls, but not all terrain is equal, and usually one part of a planet is reported as the most difficult to search. Exceptionally protective forests, badlands, (windstorms) etc could probably be accounted as "natural" fortifications.
At the abstraction level ACS is at, this would be difficult to track. The ACS Ground Map doesn’t even track water. It’s globe shaped only for visual symmetry.
Remember though that players can optionally use Turning Point Maps for more detailed game play. At that point players can agree on hexes having specific modifiers. We may explore future optional rules for this type of play, but not in IO.
I am proposing that you add a few rows to the Fortifications table, with the assumption that "natural" fortifications are no more numerous than standard or capital fortifications. They would not be any more difficult to track than fortifications are already.
Question 13
These are all part of ISW rules. They are not required for ACS game play.
I take that to mean the references will be removed from the ACS chapter, then.
Question 15
We are cleaning up Formation sizing. See question 4. A regiment would be 5 Combat Units (Battalions/Level III/ Trinary). All Combat Units in a Formation must pay the hiding cost for the Formation to be Hidden.
See my followup to Question 16c.
Question 16a (first question numbered "16")
That is also driven by the Leadership Pool
Okay.
Question 16b (second question numbered "16")
PAM Movement is broken. It was designed for a three zone Radar Map, not the four zone Capital Radar Map.
Okay. When you fix it, please (if at all possible) phrase it in terms of MP cost per hex, not as multipliers to the unit's thrust rating.
Question 16c (third question numbered "16")
Yes- See question 4. Combat Commands are normally Regiment in size. Formations can be multiple regiments in size.
Everything the ACS rules do, is best done at the Combat Element level or at the Formation level. The terms "regiment" and "combat command" are unnecessary for play.
Comment 11
Good comments, we’re working on this.
Comment 12
Thanks, we’ll look at that.
Cool.