Author Topic: Interstellar Ops feedback  (Read 39555 times)

Minerva

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #60 on: 22 September 2011, 06:48:01 »
The scales have now been decided to be following:
1 Mech = 10 seconds = 30 meters
4 Mechs = 30 seconds = 90 meters
12 Mechs = 3 minutes = 500 meters
Battalion = 24 hours = 250 kilometers
Regiment = 1 week per combat phase = system (10 light-years)

The 250 km hex is obvious response to horribly badly designed planetary assault rules. That system had very coarse hex size (about 1500 km) which made mobility differences between units essentially meaningless (light and assault mech companies would meet each other within a turn in a continent).

The 250 km gives more room to maneuver which gives light units more difference. Ofcourse, the real deal here is the question of logistics. In realistic setting all Mech units strategically march the same speed as vehicle units because their logistic tails (with maintenance) move at roughly same pace.

I think that 250 km hex is bad range scale for battalion sized formations. I also find idea of abstracted range (even if it describes ability to have effect on surrounding area) misplaced at this scale.

Obvious solution is either cut down scale to more manageable scale (perhaps 25 to 50 km) or simply divide the combat to multiple steps within same hex.

Typical example would be Campaign in North Africa that had rather excellent system of dividing the combat to bombardment, maneuver and close assault phases. The idea was that attacker could always call off next phase if one thought that assault was not going on too well.

In essense the first roll set how well supporting arms delivered fire. The second roll determined how well armoured maneuver formations would slug it out with anti vehicle units and themselves and establish the control on maneuvering in area. Finally the third would determine if infantry could take over the complex terrain and get control of region (with aid of winning side of armoured units).

Alternative systems concentrating more on maneuver could concentrate on setting a scouting, skirmish and finally determining battle phases depending on commanders and units' aggression and type (tactical maneuverability).

To me the most interesting idea was attempt to keep BattleTech rule system intact in different scales. The initiative determination and alternative turns are something that works much slower than IGO-YOUGO at strategic scale games. Then again there is a point that so far any FASA rule set other than BattleTech has been a (sales) failure.

Combat Morale (In Game Play)
Combat Fatigue (In Game Play)
Combat Morale and Fatigue (Outside of Game Play)
Damage Absorption
Defensive Rating
Damage Rating
Range
Experience Rating
Leadership

The hard "Core Stats" appear relatively common sense (attack strength, protective value and ability to withstand punishment) outside range (unless range works as part of unit mobility/reaction ability in a multistepped combat at higher levels). The soft "X factors" (morale, fatique, experience and leadership) are workable concepts. Fatigue is important but it is often a sink stat. If it is so then it works as best as a optional rule.

Coriendal

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 262
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #61 on: 22 September 2011, 07:14:11 »
And where do the promised LAM rules fit into the outline?

September 29, 2009

.... because comprehensive rules for LAMs are done and will be included in the Alternate Eras section of Interstellar Operations

I saw this asked earlier and found the answer in the Battleblog.

PurpleDragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #62 on: 22 September 2011, 09:33:23 »
I had been working on my own system wherein maneuvre and range were factors used on a table that determined how many shots were made/hit random target number (whichever unit was involved in the combat). 

That might explain the weapons ranges at 250 km per hex. 
give a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. 
Set him on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

The secret to winning the land/air battle is that you must always remain rigidly flexible.

I like tabletop more anyway, computer games are for nerds!  -  Knallogfall

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7155
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #63 on: 22 September 2011, 15:19:44 »

Where is contracting? Or auxiliary forces?


Imagine that you have a force and you desperately need more units, however you don't have the infrastructure to create these units, so you need to hire mercenary units or pay an ally to help you.

However in certain circumstances they can turn on you or go rogue.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Martius

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1849
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #64 on: 23 September 2011, 01:16:08 »
First- I never read the term 'Weapon Range' in Randall's Blog, so I guess range meins how far a unit might proceed before refulling/recharging/whatever.

What I am missing is a stat for loyality. Even troops with low morale might be loyal- they might run away and hide but not turn against their Duke. Of course this stat/effect could be included in Moral of course.

What about overall 'health'? How well fed the unit is, if it suffers from some Society gene plangue or just the flue. Are the soldiers radiated? Poisoned? All this conditions lower effectiveness or vulnerability to certain types of attacks (like people who feel sick and vomit a lot won't don their breather masks with much joy making them more vulnerable against following attacks) but the unit can still put up a fight.


Devens

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 826
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #65 on: 23 September 2011, 07:21:00 »
First- I never read the term 'Weapon Range' in Randall's Blog, so I guess range meins how far a unit might proceed before refulling/recharging/whatever.

They were talking about maintaining the Standard Battletech Feel, I think its safe to assume its weapon ranges.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #66 on: 23 September 2011, 07:52:49 »
They were talking about maintaining the Standard Battletech Feel, I think its safe to assume its weapon ranges.

They also said abstract, which I think it's safe to assume won't mean hexes on a map?
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Martius

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1849
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #67 on: 23 September 2011, 11:05:24 »
They were talking about maintaining the Standard Battletech Feel, I think its safe to assume its weapon ranges.

Range in the BT boardgame is not Weapon Range only. There is also each units movement range the fuel points of ASFs that give them range and TacOps StratOps introduce this operational range for other units as well.

In most games range means only how far may a unit be away from another unit to do stuff. Weapon ranges are only a minor part of it.

BT breaks down each turn into several phases, first there is movement, then attack, ect. So you got movement range and weapon range.

Range can be simulated by number of hexes, or by the unit with the greater range inflicting damage first or/and being able to strike more often.

Anyway, I digress....  ;)

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #68 on: 23 September 2011, 16:29:23 »
Apropos of nothing: every so often, I see players ask how to generate opposing forces for their mercs. "Use the fluff" is a common response, but I don't think the merc Field Manuals have said much on the topic. (For what it's worth, in the past I've suggested rolling again on the Employer table to get your enemy or mission area and then roll again on the Mission Type table to see what the enemy's activity is.)

Not like we've seen any official words on all this input that was requested of us tho :(

The blog didn't actually request additional feedback. (Though considering that Chunga separated this thread from the discussion threads, I hope that Randall *is* looking for feedback.) What the blog did say is that they had already asked for input in the past and would again in the future. The current series of blogs seems intended to give us a more transparent view of the Developers' thought processes.
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37059
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #69 on: 24 September 2011, 17:13:33 »
Back on the old board, I had asked about non-self destructive VTOL capability for aerodyne small craft (specifically in regards to the Mark VII Landing Craft).  At the time, Welshman indicated the fix might be included in a forthcoming product.  Is there any chance the "Maintenance, Salvage, Repair, and Customization" section will have the necessary gear?

And for some positive feedback: I look forward to the LAM construction rules in the Alternate Era section.

Minerva

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 212
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #70 on: 25 September 2011, 00:47:04 »
There are two ways you can implement range in strategic level campaigns if you wish to give unit type multiple level capabilities.
1) Ground unit has range which is distance from main base it can function.
2) Air unit has range it can strike from its fixed base.

Beyond these two values the range gets awfully difficult to implement unless you have multiple step combat (see before my post on subject).


Martius

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1849
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #71 on: 04 October 2011, 14:59:53 »
Loyality is handled in a rather interesting way and the modifiers make sense. Lets see:


A Fanatical Leader takes command of a green militia on a backwater planet-  something happening in the fiction quite often (think Grayson Death Carlyle doing what he does best  :D or Nie Then Do(sp?) and the Arcade Rangers ect.)

Location Roll 1 Backwater Region

Leader Roll 12; Modifier -1 giving 11 for a Fanatical leader

Training Roll 2; Modifier +2 giving 4 for Militia

Force Loyality Roll 10 -1 fom being green as grass and another -1 for being Militia and we get an 8, meaning the Force is reliable.

Sounds good.  ;)

I hope I got the number right as I admit I should be sleeping already.....


St.George

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1184
  • there's nowhere to run
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #72 on: 04 November 2011, 04:48:23 »
Not to throw peeps off the subject,,,but is this "book" out yet?guessing that the rules set in the back of ComOp's(ISiF) was to be addressed in the InterOp's...Would like to find,as the ol'vets that play(local)are expanding their game exp to higher lvl's(Hella'Kewl),,,,Buelher,,,anyone?,,,,anyone?
"Smoke em' if ya got em' boys,,,We're goin' in"

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #73 on: 04 November 2011, 07:20:44 »
Not to throw peeps off the subject,,,but is this "book" out yet?

Nope.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24877
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #74 on: 23 November 2011, 13:16:07 »
I hope there will be a consideration about putting some of IO's content in perhaps a box form of some kind.  This thing is more a board game if anything else and needs something more physical.  I realize the economic restraints in being able to do this, but something more physical or printable will be needed.  Such as generic ICON Pieces and maps like Succession Wars.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9387
  • Just some rando
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #75 on: 23 November 2011, 13:23:53 »
Neg, I'm scared if they ever do this as a boxed set.  Consider the logistical nightmare the normal boxed set has experienced, if IO ever went box my grandchildren would be asking if it is released yet.
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

Nerroth

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2589
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #76 on: 03 February 2012, 17:30:39 »
I'd love to see this game become a counter/map based game, but doing my own metrics means that even with a 10 LY per hex scale, your talking about a map 6' across (not including clans) and filled full of thousands of counters.  Federation and Empire by StarfleetGames does this, and its a great game, and I have tens of thousands of counters for it, but I kidna think that is probably out of scope a bit.... but would love to be wrong :)

Bear in mind that Federation and Empire has its ins and outs in terms of what kind of economic and military details it presents.

Yes, there are plenty of on (and off-)map planets in the various provinces, but only the major and minor industrial worlds that have a notable impact on the strategic level (such as Earth, Mars and Vulcan) are specifically designated as locations in their own right. (And even in the case of most multi-planet capital hexes, no more than a fraction of minor/majors would be in the same star system.)

Plus from a military perspective, F&E treats each naval warship as a single unit (especially now in the 2010 edition, where the old carrier group counters have been divided up) but ground-combat regiments are more heavily abstracted, as are fighters and PFs.

Of course, that still makes larger operations (like the General War grand campaign, or the recently-published ISC Pacification) a lot of effort to set up and play; but depending on the scaling used, it could still be manageable for those willing to give it a proper go.

That said, you needn't have to dive into larger campaigns right off the bat. Presumably, the kind of smaller-scale operations that will be in F&E Civil Wars would be echoed here by, say, offering an introductory scenario looking at one of the conflicts mentioned in Historical: Brush Wars; or perhaps something more along the lines of Operation KLONDIKE for would-be Clan strategists (and maybe even SABLE SUN, to let them practice their WarShip deployments before making planetfall in the Pentagon worlds).
« Last Edit: 03 February 2012, 17:40:53 by Nerroth »

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #77 on: 03 February 2012, 18:41:08 »
Bear in mind that Federation and Empire has its ins and outs in terms of what kind of economic and military details it presents.

Yes, there are plenty of on (and off-)map planets in the various provinces, but only the major and minor industrial worlds that have a notable impact on the strategic level (such as Earth, Mars and Vulcan) are specifically designated as locations in their own right. (And even in the case of most multi-planet capital hexes, no more than a fraction of minor/majors would be in the same star system.)

Plus from a military perspective, F&E treats each naval warship as a single unit (especially now in the 2010 edition, where the old carrier group counters have been divided up) but ground-combat regiments are more heavily abstracted, as are fighters and PFs.

Of course, that still makes larger operations (like the General War grand campaign, or the recently-published ISC Pacification) a lot of effort to set up and play; but depending on the scaling used, it could still be manageable for those willing to give it a proper go.

That said, you needn't have to dive into larger campaigns right off the bat. Presumably, the kind of smaller-scale operations that will be in F&E Civil Wars would be echoed here by, say, offering an introductory scenario looking at one of the conflicts mentioned in Historical: Brush Wars; or perhaps something more along the lines of Operation KLONDIKE for would-be Clan strategists (and maybe even SABLE SUN, to let them practice their WarShip deployments before making planetfall in the Pentagon worlds).

I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that TPTB don't tend to go all out with detail and I"m pretty darned sure wouldn't want that, and I don't know sales figures of BT compared to counter games to see if there is a whole other audience out there (I suspect there is based on prices and #s of new counter type products, but may not be enough to justify to TPTB). 

The issue is though, if they make a system that is only for smaller regions of space, it will most likely break down if you want to do the entire inner sphere.  If they do something grand enough for the inner sphere, the detail will be so lacking that your merc company will be a meaningless number (if it even qualifies as a number).

Initially, I was thinking:
1 counter per Warship
1 counter per 3-6 jumpships (12 dropship capacity, can have a "pony express" counter with a # to signify the # of jumps the counter can handle)
1 counter per dozen dropships (various types, troop/assault or carrier/mech/cargo)
1 counter per mech battalion, with some mech companies represented
Maybe 100 counters per faction for leaders and special characters
1 counter per armor regiment, infantry brigade, attillery battalion, BA battalion, etc, again with some smaller units represented
Then you have some counters for factories... that is a couple thousand right there, and though the JS/DS factored GREAT (c100 JS and c100 DS counters per house in 3025, though I assumed 50% were merchants and not represented by counters) until SO multiplied those numbers by 10 or more, completely breaking down the fact that jumpships are rare and hard to find when you need them, and destroying dozens of pages of text on the 4th SW/privateering/etc/etc.

Now the big issue ended up how to track those units.  If you want pure counters, you need a counters for fatigue and supplies at least, if not other ones for morale and experience.  You'd need counters for damage, maybe counters for leaders.  If you say put a mech RCT or so on a business card sized piece of paper, you can have circles to represent all that, saving a LOT of counters needed and making units VERY easy to have 1 "card" per era, per unit, easy to swap between players for mercs, etc, etc.  If you want pure counters your talking thousands right there.

And finally you have intelligence type stuff.  If its tracked via paper great, no counters, but it also destroys any chance of psyching out the enemy.  I thought of having a set # of counters you can get each turn (maybe 100 per house at most) that could be used, plus lots of decoy counters to throw off the trail.  The counters would be generated at intelligence facilities, and could be placed on worlds to gain intelligence, create uprisings, assassinate leaders, all that stuff in ISIF and some more.  The decoys could let you play mind games with your opponent.

And then there are systems.  You pretty much have to be able to track ownership by counters, unless you sell everybody a blank IS map on laminate, and then provide a list of hexes where borders are for each era (not horrible, but not a pretty map either, though since many systems didn't chance hands it could be mostly colored), you would have to have hundreds of counters per faction to show who owns what systems.  AND, if you actually detail out systems at all (VERY unlikely), you'd also have to have counters saying things like "HPG destroyed", "Recharge Station Built @ Nadir Point", or whatever.

Now, if *I* had the money, and *I* was in charge of this, I would do a 100% counter game, but release it as modules.  The base module is say 3025, with military units only.  Then you'd add an intelligence module, with all those counters/rules.  Then add a supply/logistics module, then factory/production module, and so on.  Probably be 5-10 modules, each with a few hundred to a few thousand counters, each with a different map, each costing $60 or so.  Mirror F&E in that respect.  If you want to play it ALL sure, knock yourself out!  If you don't care about logistics completely leave that module out.  Combat could even be easy/detailed, allowing people to play out a campaign focusing on intelligence, that could tie into ATOW.  A political module, a "what if" module (or more), some special unit modules, the clan module, etc, etc.  Plus, you'd have a module for each war (or even each border).  Build it right and you can fight from 2596 through 3120 with the same system, and have similar results.

Regardless of what TPTB do, I am going to attempt to convert it into a computer game.  While I want to see IO out, well, a before Total Warfare, I kinda hope it doesn't come out till December as I am running for congress, expect (and hope) to loose in November, and really don't need that distracting me :)

If anybody is interested, I actually have tons of excel spreadsheets with thoughts and dynamics on how I've thought this would work.  Its been a side project of mine for like 10 years now, and I've worked through a LOT of issues.  The only thing preventing me from finishing it was a lack of 100% data for any particular year (we have that now for 3085, woohoo!), and I just haven't been sure to make it hex/counter or computer, and have a hard time sticking with it long enough to just do one or the other.  I've even done up those business card like things I mentioned.  Anyway, if anybody wants to see some of that and discuss it I'd be more than happy to, though not so much within the forums as PM's and regular old email.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

PurpleDragon

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1667
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #78 on: 05 February 2012, 17:25:57 »
what if instead of counters, they used templates that allowed you to create the counters you needed?  Just a thought I had while reading Bad-Syntax's post. 
give a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. 
Set him on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!

The secret to winning the land/air battle is that you must always remain rigidly flexible.

I like tabletop more anyway, computer games are for nerds!  -  Knallogfall

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #79 on: 05 February 2012, 19:07:35 »
what if instead of counters, they used templates that allowed you to create the counters you needed?  Just a thought I had while reading Bad-Syntax's post.

That is possible, in fact I wrote most of a counter creation program using the SO stats (though there are some issues with combining lots of abilities that broke it, but basic stuff worked).

BUT, for those of you that have ever tried to print up .5" counters, well, it really just doesn't work too well.  No paper you can get on a laser/inkjet printer can handle think enough paper that you can actually pick up with your fingers, so you have to glue lots of paper together (plus front/backs).  Add that to cutting up all the counters and it ends up being a *LOT* of work, and just not real feasible for a game with a very large map and thousands of counters, when your space maps look like http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic285852_md.jpg it ends up being pretty hard to manage.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

DirewolfV.

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 181
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #80 on: 12 February 2012, 15:45:51 »
I think the most important part will be getting the economy right. For that you will likely have to make it multi-faceted. You don't want players winning just because they are able to pump out thousands of Savannha masters for everything else the enemy throws at them. You also don't want them producing nothing but XXL or XL Mechs because cost has become an irrelevant factor. You don't want them making nothing but light mechs and jump ships and drop ships, because heavier models take too long to produce, but you don't want them winning too easily with the opposite extreme either- i.e. production time is such a non-factor that everyone just produces the largest jump ships possible. At the same time you want to make the rules flexible enough to allow for a variety of gameplay options (i.e. you don't want everyone just making medium weight Mechs, and vehicles, and drop ships and jump ships because medium is the most efficient economically) and on top of that- you have to make the economics in a way so that it makes the actual battletech universe plausible i.e. you don't want the economics so that the actual unit/regiment compositions of the various factions makes zero sense.

Last, you don't want to solve these problems with deus ex machina's i.e. "Just make artificial rules among the group to make spamming impossible" because if you do that, you may as well not make any rules for the economy at all. You'll need a systemic way of doing this, while avoiding exploits, which is going to be very, very difficult.

IMO, creating a viable economic base for a game with so many variables to consider as battletech is going to be the most daunting and difficult task. I do not envy the people in charge of such a Herculean undertaking.

Edit: Also another thing to consider is why it would make sense, or it is economically feasible to make multi-billion dollar Jumpships, but not battalions or companies of XXL Mechs.
« Last Edit: 12 February 2012, 16:31:32 by Dermezel »
Winter is coming.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #81 on: 12 February 2012, 16:59:30 »
I actually think economy shouldn't be in there at all.  Fasanomics is broken, everybody knows that, and to try to make sense of it simply won't work.

If you let players buy new things of any type, just like in the real world, it'll eventually be abused.

Instead they need to do what fits, and IMO that is restricting production based on factories, restricting factories based on technical resources, restrict technical resources based on training, and restrict training based on technical resources.

In my vision of this, you simply have "Technical Support Groups".  These could, but don't have to be, classified by type (mech, space, tank, infantry, etc).  These are basically collections of technical resources.   Lets say you need 1 TSG for a factory line that produces 1 infantry platoon per month, you may need 4 for a mech line producing a company a month, 8 for a dropship line at 2 per month, 16 for a jumpship line at 1 per month, and 64 for a warship line at 1 per year, or whatever.  To build a new factory you would need to take excess TSG's and apply them to building a new factory.  To create new TSGs you would need technical institutions like NAIS.  Some TSG's could be better quality, and count for more #s when building/construction things.  While I love the idea of getting them specific, it'd be too much detail for what BT fans are used to.

Lets say a faction has 3 technical facilities.  These produce 1 TSG per month, however, the house actually looses 3 TSGs per month due to retirements and accidents.  This way, this faction in, say 3025, basically has a stagnant technical ability.  Maybe they have 64 TSG's total.  They have 8 mech lines, 16 armor lines, 4 aerospace lines, 4 infantry lines, 2 dropship lines, and 2 jumpship lines.  These lines total, lets just say 100 TSG's.  Now one of their technical facilities gets destroyed, like in the succession wars, they they loose 1 TSG per turn, and immediately have to close some line, and after a few decades many lines have been shut down.  This models the loss of technology over the succession wars.  Training facilities are also run by TSGs, and based on the quality of those TSGs they get a random roll each year or so, that roll can occasionally net them +1 TSG.  If they accumulate enough extra TSGs with no direct role, they can open a new line.  If they get a lot of new TSGs, they can open a new factory.  Or, they could shut down some lines for a year to produce a new factory, but would then also need additional techs to man it.  This would be "we don't want the LCT-1V anymore, we are going to halt production and open a new STG-3R line".

Optionally, these TSGs could also be what repairs units.  Without a TSG, your repairs are extremely limited.  This means that to fight, you have to dedicate TSGs to support, but if you do that, you are probably sacrificing production ability.  This may be too much paperwork though, and instead TSGs could just be allocated to "field repairs", and based on the # allocated you get X number of repair points each turn that come from this group.

And of course TSGs can be destroyed, or sometimes captured, just like combat units.  Take over a factory and some TSGs are most likely going to be killed or run off, and thus technology levels are lost.  This may work hand and hand with the field repair rule thing.  Lose a regiment in battle and there is a good chance a TSG was lost with it.

And to build things you need resources, that is what planets provide.  Need to keep that mech line open?  Then you have to supply it with X "resources" each turn, which could be 1 or more planets providing it.

I think particular types of equipment, like XXL engines or whatever, should just be based on the technology level of the faction, or even at the factory level.  This should be based on TSGs allocated to R&D or just the #/quality of TSG training faclities.  Technology levels won't matter very much in games of this scale, as its all pretty close.  In fact, the only time I think it would ever come into play would be maybe SLDF royal vs anybody else in 2750, Clan vs anybody else ever, and perhaps some periphery nations would be a slight disadvantage.  Instead of tracking a technology level factories could just gain a slight increase in output quality, but I'm not a fan of that approach and I don't think anybody (except me) wants detail on exactly what mechs are produced in what quantity by what factories in each era.

Essentially using a system like this:
- Simulates the loss of technology and production capacity over the succession wars when all the WMDs were used, facilities/factories destroyed, and TSGs lost in battle
- Limits production to the amount of resources, giving people a desire to capture planets without being a capital or having some factory on them
- Simulates how things like warships ceased production first, then jumpships, then mechs, and so-on, the more TSGs it took to make it, the more likely it was scrapped
- Gives a purpose to the major schools, and they are *key* objectives (the faculty/TSGs could be moved before invasion if desired though).

I had a similar idea for spy's.  Basically spy school create "spy points", and these points are then allocated for little counters like "sponsor uprising", "assassinate military leader", "sabotage factory", "gather intelligence" / "counter-intelligence", or whatever.  These could be treated in much the same way, except with "Spy Groups" or whatever.  I could see this as a completely separate module to the core game, as it could also include all sorts of political stuff like blowing up your mom or creating clones of an opposing faction leader's kid.

But using "money", by any means, simply doesn't work out.  Resources are not related to population in any way, New Avalon may only produce 1 resource point while Timbiqui produces 20, but New Avalon may be 1000 victory points (or some political/moral type factor if VP aren't used) while Timbiqui only 1.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

DirewolfV.

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 181
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #82 on: 12 February 2012, 17:09:30 »
I actually think economy shouldn't be in there at all.  Fasanomics is broken, everybody knows that, and to try to make sense of it simply won't work.

If you let players buy new things of any type, just like in the real world, it'll eventually be abused.

Instead they need to do what fits, and IMO that is restricting production based on factories, restricting factories based on technical resources, restrict technical resources based on training, and restrict training based on technical resources.

In my vision of this, you simply have "Technical Support Groups".  These could, but don't have to be, classified by type (mech, space, tank, infantry, etc).  These are basically collections of technical resources.   Lets say you need 1 TSG for a factory line that produces 1 infantry platoon per month, you may need 4 for a mech line producing a company a month, 8 for a dropship line at 2 per month, 16 for a jumpship line at 1 per month, and 64 for a warship line at 1 per year, or whatever.  To build a new factory you would need to take excess TSG's and apply them to building a new factory.  To create new TSGs you would need technical institutions like NAIS.  Some TSG's could be better quality, and count for more #s when building/construction things.  While I love the idea of getting them specific, it'd be too much detail for what BT fans are used to.

Lets say a faction has 3 technical facilities.  These produce 1 TSG per month, however, the house actually looses 3 TSGs per month due to retirements and accidents.  This way, this faction in, say 3025, basically has a stagnant technical ability.  Maybe they have 64 TSG's total.  They have 8 mech lines, 16 armor lines, 4 aerospace lines, 4 infantry lines, 2 dropship lines, and 2 jumpship lines.  These lines total, lets just say 100 TSG's.  Now one of their technical facilities gets destroyed, like in the succession wars, they they loose 1 TSG per turn, and immediately have to close some line, and after a few decades many lines have been shut down.  This models the loss of technology over the succession wars.  Training facilities are also run by TSGs, and based on the quality of those TSGs they get a random roll each year or so, that roll can occasionally net them +1 TSG.  If they accumulate enough extra TSGs with no direct role, they can open a new line.  If they get a lot of new TSGs, they can open a new factory.  Or, they could shut down some lines for a year to produce a new factory, but would then also need additional techs to man it.  This would be "we don't want the LCT-1V anymore, we are going to halt production and open a new STG-3R line".

Optionally, these TSGs could also be what repairs units.  Without a TSG, your repairs are extremely limited.  This means that to fight, you have to dedicate TSGs to support, but if you do that, you are probably sacrificing production ability.  This may be too much paperwork though, and instead TSGs could just be allocated to "field repairs", and based on the # allocated you get X number of repair points each turn that come from this group.

And of course TSGs can be destroyed, or sometimes captured, just like combat units.  Take over a factory and some TSGs are most likely going to be killed or run off, and thus technology levels are lost.  This may work hand and hand with the field repair rule thing.  Lose a regiment in battle and there is a good chance a TSG was lost with it.

And to build things you need resources, that is what planets provide.  Need to keep that mech line open?  Then you have to supply it with X "resources" each turn, which could be 1 or more planets providing it.

I think particular types of equipment, like XXL engines or whatever, should just be based on the technology level of the faction, or even at the factory level.  This should be based on TSGs allocated to R&D or just the #/quality of TSG training faclities.  Technology levels won't matter very much in games of this scale, as its all pretty close.  In fact, the only time I think it would ever come into play would be maybe SLDF royal vs anybody else in 2750, Clan vs anybody else ever, and perhaps some periphery nations would be a slight disadvantage.  Instead of tracking a technology level factories could just gain a slight increase in output quality, but I'm not a fan of that approach and I don't think anybody (except me) wants detail on exactly what mechs are produced in what quantity by what factories in each era.

Essentially using a system like this:
- Simulates the loss of technology and production capacity over the succession wars when all the WMDs were used, facilities/factories destroyed, and TSGs lost in battle
- Limits production to the amount of resources, giving people a desire to capture planets without being a capital or having some factory on them
- Simulates how things like warships ceased production first, then jumpships, then mechs, and so-on, the more TSGs it took to make it, the more likely it was scrapped
- Gives a purpose to the major schools, and they are *key* objectives (the faculty/TSGs could be moved before invasion if desired though).

I had a similar idea for spy's.  Basically spy school create "spy points", and these points are then allocated for little counters like "sponsor uprising", "assassinate military leader", "sabotage factory", "gather intelligence" / "counter-intelligence", or whatever.  These could be treated in much the same way, except with "Spy Groups" or whatever.  I could see this as a completely separate module to the core game, as it could also include all sorts of political stuff like blowing up your mom or creating clones of an opposing faction leader's kid.

But using "money", by any means, simply doesn't work out.  Resources are not related to population in any way, New Avalon may only produce 1 resource point while Timbiqui produces 20, but New Avalon may be 1000 victory points (or some political/moral type factor if VP aren't used) while Timbiqui only 1.

Indeed, but that sounds very much like the RP system of the old "Combat Operations" and that largely degenerated into making nothing but Light Mechs. Also I think you need to include money because it is there. Why have all these stats on C-bill costs, and calculations, and gameplay fiction mechanics like MRMs are developed due to their low cost of reload when money doesn't matter at all?

To me it sounds like a well rounded b-tech economy will have roughly 4 factors: 1- Population base. 2- Money. 3- Production power (similar to the TSGs). and 4- Dropship/Jumpship capacity (since building units makes little sense unless you can move them. )

It is similar to how units are limited in RTS games like AoEs and Starcraft- the ability to abuse production is limited by the sheer amount of economic variables that needed to be taken into account. So for example, while Savannah Masters may be super cheap in terms of C-Bills, they may take as much time to make as 100 ton tanks. That, plus the fact that they take up just as much space on a Dropship as a much larger vehicle design could make it so that just spamming low C-cost units is basically prohibited as a viable strategic option.
Winter is coming.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #83 on: 12 February 2012, 18:13:34 »
Indeed, but that sounds very much like the RP system of the old "Combat Operations" and that largely degenerated into making nothing but Light Mechs. Also I think you need to include money because it is there. Why have all these stats on C-bill costs, and calculations, and gameplay fiction mechanics like MRMs are developed due to their low cost of reload when money doesn't matter at all?

To me it sounds like a well rounded b-tech economy will have roughly 4 factors: 1- Population base. 2- Money. 3- Production power (similar to the TSGs). and 4- Dropship/Jumpship capacity (since building units makes little sense unless you can move them. )

It is similar to how units are limited in RTS games like AoEs and Starcraft- the ability to abuse production is limited by the sheer amount of economic variables that needed to be taken into account. So for example, while Savannah Masters may be super cheap in terms of C-Bills, they may take as much time to make as 100 ton tanks. That, plus the fact that they take up just as much space on a Dropship as a much larger vehicle design could make it so that just spamming low C-cost units is basically prohibited as a viable strategic option.

Actually aerospace fighters were best, as they had dual roles :)

Problem with population is any given planet has BILLIONS of people, and ya know, America in WW2 had 150M people.  By the end of the war our civilian automobile industry was pumping out more trucks, tanks, aircraft, and ships than the rest of the world.  Combat Operations was broken IMO as there was no limit to making new things, all units operated the same, and almost all planets held the same value.

And how many mechs with MRM's also have ERPPCs?  How many with Rocket Launchers and XL engines?  The stats really just don't match the fluff, and if ammo cost is that much of a big deal, medium lasers are FAR cheaper weapons over time.

I think vehicles need different capabilities, say for example (just brainstorming, nothing thought out that much):
- Mechs can attack without a bridgehead.  They have no penalties on vacuum planets (those with a double circle) or those with rough terrain (maybe an icon on the planet circle).   Easy to repair
- Vehicles must have a bridgehead to use, cannot be used in rough terrain, far less effective in vacuums (some units could be just as effective, others worthless).  Hard to repair
- Infantry need a bridgehead, but defend at 2x strength.  Only infantry can capture facilities intact.  Casualties not repairable.
- Aerospace can be used to establish a bridgehead, deep space interceptions, with no penalty in regards to terrain.  Casualties hardly ever repairable.

And stuff like that, closing the Combat Operations loophole for producing only the best item.  Also, if using something like combat ops, factories are rated, something like:

Defiance Industries, Hesperus II, Quality A, Light Mech, 1 Company/Month, 4 TSG

So Defiance Industries on Hesperus II has a line that produces 1 light mech company a month, on with a equipment rating of 'A' (using RATs from say 3085 for that faction if you want to fight out a battle with that individual company, which would VERY rarely be done).  4 TSG's are required for this line to be active, any less and it can't produce new designs, but if at least 2 applied maybe it could do spare parts for equipment rating A units, or perhaps just light mech companies, or both.

Using this method there is no "artificial" limit imposed like command points or whatever, it is a dynamic limit that is a direct result of the base capabilities of that house.  You simply can't gain a 50% of your enemies planets and become 50% more powerful, when tracking money would let you do just that.  Sure, you may have more resources, but without the ability to make new factories they really don't do much for you (supplies are more available, but that would be it).

There is always enough money to buy all the line outputs, assuming resources are available, and you can't just throw money at a lack of facilities and get bunches of them to completely outclass your enemy.  In fact, in many cases you could take a lot of worlds from an enemy and not hurt their production at all, and would then have to spread out your defenses more.  This matches the historical borders that changed very little over the succession wars, something that would not have happened if economies was being tracked.

The resource points would be obscure, and not really mean anything in real world terms.  A lot of people on a planet may not produce anything that you need for a mech, but another planet with 5000 people on it may produce a lot of what they need.  Money simply doesn't matter there.

Also, RP/TSG/Factories are a way to make it possible to produce a warship, because firepower wise, 5000 savannah masters would be a MUCH better investment, MUCH more powerful in every way, but since you don't have 500 factories producing them nor 2000 TSG's to support them, you simply can't make them.  However, you could support 64 TSGs for your 1 jumpship line to produce a new Fox Corvette.  You could give your neighbor, the FWL, some resources to give you some of their output however, especially if their output outnumbers the amount of qualified mechwarriors/pilots/tankers that their training facilities can produce.

One completely different alternative could just be "command points", that are related to commanders.  You get 1 rank 10, 5 rank 9, 25 rank 8, and 125 rank 7.  A rank 7 can command a regiment/wing/armor or infantry/brigade, and you simply can't field any more units than you have commanders.  Commanders can command specific unit types at rank 7, but rank 8+ can command mixed commands (RCT's).  Its quite unrealistic, but it would be a *VERY* simpler alternative to the one I presented, and put more emphasis on commanders and their abilities.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

DirewolfV.

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 181
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #84 on: 12 February 2012, 18:29:51 »
Actually aerospace fighters were best, as they had dual roles :)

Problem with population is any given planet has BILLIONS of people, and ya know, America in WW2 had 150M people.  By the end of the war our civilian automobile industry was pumping out more trucks, tanks, aircraft, and ships than the rest of the world.  Combat Operations was broken IMO as there was no limit to making new things, all units operated the same, and almost all planets held the same value.

And how many mechs with MRM's also have ERPPCs?  How many with Rocket Launchers and XL engines?  The stats really just don't match the fluff, and if ammo cost is that much of a big deal, medium lasers are FAR cheaper weapons over time.

I think vehicles need different capabilities, say for example (just brainstorming, nothing thought out that much):
- Mechs can attack without a bridgehead.  They have no penalties on vacuum planets (those with a double circle) or those with rough terrain (maybe an icon on the planet circle).   Easy to repair
- Vehicles must have a bridgehead to use, cannot be used in rough terrain, far less effective in vacuums (some units could be just as effective, others worthless).  Hard to repair
- Infantry need a bridgehead, but defend at 2x strength.  Only infantry can capture facilities intact.  Casualties not repairable.
- Aerospace can be used to establish a bridgehead, deep space interceptions, with no penalty in regards to terrain.  Casualties hardly ever repairable.

And stuff like that, closing the Combat Operations loophole for producing only the best item.  Also, if using something like combat ops, factories are rated, something like:

Defiance Industries, Hesperus II, Quality A, Light Mech, 1 Company/Month, 4 TSG

So Defiance Industries on Hesperus II has a line that produces 1 light mech company a month, on with a equipment rating of 'A' (using RATs from say 3085 for that faction if you want to fight out a battle with that individual company, which would VERY rarely be done).  4 TSG's are required for this line to be active, any less and it can't produce new designs, but if at least 2 applied maybe it could do spare parts for equipment rating A units, or perhaps just light mech companies, or both.

Using this method there is no "artificial" limit imposed like command points or whatever, it is a dynamic limit that is a direct result of the base capabilities of that house.  You simply can't gain a 50% of your enemies planets and become 50% more powerful, when tracking money would let you do just that.  Sure, you may have more resources, but without the ability to make new factories they really don't do much for you (supplies are more available, but that would be it).

There is always enough money to buy all the line outputs, assuming resources are available, and you can't just throw money at a lack of facilities and get bunches of them to completely outclass your enemy.  In fact, in many cases you could take a lot of worlds from an enemy and not hurt their production at all, and would then have to spread out your defenses more.  This matches the historical borders that changed very little over the succession wars, something that would not have happened if economies was being tracked.

The resource points would be obscure, and not really mean anything in real world terms.  A lot of people on a planet may not produce anything that you need for a mech, but another planet with 5000 people on it may produce a lot of what they need.  Money simply doesn't matter there.

Also, RP/TSG/Factories are a way to make it possible to produce a warship, because firepower wise, 5000 savannah masters would be a MUCH better investment, MUCH more powerful in every way, but since you don't have 500 factories producing them nor 2000 TSG's to support them, you simply can't make them.  However, you could support 64 TSGs for your 1 jumpship line to produce a new Fox Corvette.  You could give your neighbor, the FWL, some resources to give you some of their output however, especially if their output outnumbers the amount of qualified mechwarriors/pilots/tankers that their training facilities can produce.

One completely different alternative could just be "command points", that are related to commanders.  You get 1 rank 10, 5 rank 9, 25 rank 8, and 125 rank 7.  A rank 7 can command a regiment/wing/armor or infantry/brigade, and you simply can't field any more units than you have commanders.  Commanders can command specific unit types at rank 7, but rank 8+ can command mixed commands (RCT's).  Its quite unrealistic, but it would be a *VERY* simpler alternative to the one I presented, and put more emphasis on commanders and their abilities.

Well you could have both production cost and monetary cost, which would prevent many of the problems using a tracked economy listed above. Again my problem is that you could make it so that the only thing that makes sense is XL or XXL Mechs. I mean, why design cheaper Mechs at all if you can cover the costs no matter what?

I mean a lot of Battletech has been invested into how many C-Bills this unit costs, or that unit costs, and it wouldn't make sense fo all factions to have infinite amounts of money, or for money not to be considered at all.
Winter is coming.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #85 on: 12 February 2012, 19:18:50 »
Well you could have both production cost and monetary cost, which would prevent many of the problems using a tracked economy listed above. Again my problem is that you could make it so that the only thing that makes sense is XL or XXL Mechs. I mean, why design cheaper Mechs at all if you can cover the costs no matter what?

I mean a lot of Battletech has been invested into how many C-Bills this unit costs, or that unit costs, and it wouldn't make sense fo all factions to have infinite amounts of money, or for money not to be considered at all.

The money is for mercs mostly, and mercs could track money, as they run on money and would be very hard pressed to stay profitable in most cases.  I think thats is a perfect place to use money, but the amount of money factions have available to them is beyond staggering, and their entire militaries could easily be paid for, even if 100x the size, but a single planets yearly output.

The thing that keeps you from making XXL over XL is that the equipment rating is higher, and you need better factories to produce them, which requires more TSGs.  Not enough TSGs means you can't make XXL anymore, a few less and your stuck with ICE.  Again this could fall back back on the technology level of the faction.  I seriously don't think that TPTB want to worry about the type of engines in things being produced, that amount of micro-management is WAY beyond Interstellar Operations I think, and the amount of record keeping would be excessive. 

Plus, XXL engines can be highly vulnerable in combat, they are *experimental* rules level, which basically means that in any game they would be *very* limited production items, and may only have a company (or less!) of them allowed at any time, and lets face it, if XXL (or XL, or any other tech) was so much better everybody would always use it, and the TRO's are not representing that in any way. 

If they do have rules for factories and detailed production in IO, which I highly doubt, then you could use cost as a value that shows the rate of production on a line.  If a mech is $50M C-Bills vs $10M C-Bills, a given mech class line of a given quality could produce only 1 per 5.  Factory output could just represent millions of C-Bills per turn, and you could build anything of that class (like light mech, equipment rating A) up to the line capacity in C-Bills. 

As an example:
Factory:  Defiance Industries
Planet:  Hesperus II
Line:  Light Mech
Quality:  Equipment Rating A (allowing Advanced items, XL, ER, etc)
Resources:  8/4 (New/Parts Only)
Rate:  1 Company/Turn
Capacity:  $25M C-Bills Per Week/Turn
(this would just be a single counter, with line type/quality/capacity/resources hard-coded values, the others tracked on paper, and counters for each line placed on planets, with "damaged" on the reverse side)

That factory would let you make 12 Locusts (as limited by rate), worth 5184 BV (lets say combat power of 4, 1 per 1K), OR, you could produce a single XL mech, with a combat power of maybe 2.

So, why would you EVER make 1 mech over 12 when the combat power is so much less?

2 Reasons:
#1.  Transport.  1 Union could carry 5 combat power in old locusts, or 24 combat power in the new XL mechs
#2.  Pilots.  You only have so many mechwarrior academies, producing so many pilots per turn, if you make 10 locusts 8 of them sit there waiting on pilots


So unit production is limited on:
- Factory Line capacity
- TSG's to run those factories
- Amount of graduating MechWarriors each week from academies
- Resources available from captured worlds

I am pretty darned sure that units will be much like they were in Combat Operations, and there simply won't be any more detail in a light mech company other than "3025", "3050", "3075", or if we are lucky a bit more like "Fire", "Fast", "Prototype".  Having more detail would drag the game down into somebody nobody in their right mind would want to play, and it'd be far more complex than even the Campaign for North Africa (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4815/the-campaign-for-north-africa) which tracked every individual vehicle/aircraft/etc within the African theater in WW2 (and that is nothing compared to the size of the inner sphere) and is famous for a special rules making Italians use more water as their primary ration was pasta and water/fuel evaporation.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

DirewolfV.

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 181
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #86 on: 12 February 2012, 20:53:50 »
The money is for mercs mostly, and mercs could track money, as they run on money and would be very hard pressed to stay profitable in most cases.  I think thats is a perfect place to use money, but the amount of money factions have available to them is beyond staggering, and their entire militaries could easily be paid for, even if 100x the size, but a single planets yearly output.

The thing that keeps you from making XXL over XL is that the equipment rating is higher, and you need better factories to produce them, which requires more TSGs.  Not enough TSGs means you can't make XXL anymore, a few less and your stuck with ICE.  Again this could fall back back on the technology level of the faction.  I seriously don't think that TPTB want to worry about the type of engines in things being produced, that amount of micro-management is WAY beyond Interstellar Operations I think, and the amount of record keeping would be excessive. 

Plus, XXL engines can be highly vulnerable in combat, they are *experimental* rules level, which basically means that in any game they would be *very* limited production items, and may only have a company (or less!) of them allowed at any time, and lets face it, if XXL (or XL, or any other tech) was so much better everybody would always use it, and the TRO's are not representing that in any way. 

If they do have rules for factories and detailed production in IO, which I highly doubt, then you could use cost as a value that shows the rate of production on a line.  If a mech is $50M C-Bills vs $10M C-Bills, a given mech class line of a given quality could produce only 1 per 5.  Factory output could just represent millions of C-Bills per turn, and you could build anything of that class (like light mech, equipment rating A) up to the line capacity in C-Bills. 

As an example:
Factory:  Defiance Industries
Planet:  Hesperus II
Line:  Light Mech
Quality:  Equipment Rating A (allowing Advanced items, XL, ER, etc)
Resources:  8/4 (New/Parts Only)
Rate:  1 Company/Turn
Capacity:  $25M C-Bills Per Week/Turn
(this would just be a single counter, with line type/quality/capacity/resources hard-coded values, the others tracked on paper, and counters for each line placed on planets, with "damaged" on the reverse side)

That factory would let you make 12 Locusts (as limited by rate), worth 5184 BV (lets say combat power of 4, 1 per 1K), OR, you could produce a single XL mech, with a combat power of maybe 2.

So, why would you EVER make 1 mech over 12 when the combat power is so much less?

2 Reasons:
#1.  Transport.  1 Union could carry 5 combat power in old locusts, or 24 combat power in the new XL mechs
#2.  Pilots.  You only have so many mechwarrior academies, producing so many pilots per turn, if you make 10 locusts 8 of them sit there waiting on pilots


So unit production is limited on:
- Factory Line capacity
- TSG's to run those factories
- Amount of graduating MechWarriors each week from academies
- Resources available from captured worlds

I am pretty darned sure that units will be much like they were in Combat Operations, and there simply won't be any more detail in a light mech company other than "3025", "3050", "3075", or if we are lucky a bit more like "Fire", "Fast", "Prototype".  Having more detail would drag the game down into somebody nobody in their right mind would want to play, and it'd be far more complex than even the Campaign for North Africa (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/4815/the-campaign-for-north-africa) which tracked every individual vehicle/aircraft/etc within the African theater in WW2 (and that is nothing compared to the size of the inner sphere) and is famous for a special rules making Italians use more water as their primary ration was pasta and water/fuel evaporation.

How do you know a single planet can produce enough C-Bills to pay for the entire military? And if it can, why did Theodore Kurita call for the creation of cheaper designs (like the Akuma)?
Winter is coming.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13267
  • I said don't look!
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #87 on: 12 February 2012, 21:21:46 »
1: We know the average income of entire successor states.

2: We even have a few examples of the tax rate.

3: We have planetary population data.

4: Using the above 3 bits of information we know it is not a stretch for the capitols of the Successor States to support their listed forces on their own.

5: My pet theory behind the calls for cheaper alternatives(MRM and Akuma in this case) has more to do with the logistics than the production.  While the Medium Laser may be cheaper over the long run than keeping an MRM launcher filled with ammo you may not always have the Medium Laser and even if you do the planet your unit is on may be able to manufacture MRM ammunition but not able to meet the tight tolerances needed to produce the focusing lens that needs to be replaced periodically due to cracking.  Likewise the Akuma may be attractive because it's standard armor is easier to produce and what advanced technologies it does use actually create less strain on the logistics train.

Bad_Syntax

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 918
    • Battletech Engineer
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #88 on: 12 February 2012, 23:47:44 »
How do you know a single planet can produce enough C-Bills to pay for the entire military? And if it can, why did Theodore Kurita call for the creation of cheaper designs (like the Akuma)?

Because the world military today is far larger, and our production capacity 1000 years behind, even the most conservative estimates can show that number, so its easiest just to ignore populations and the economy all together than to address it and go down a path that stops making sense almost immediately.

Like all politicians who request specific things, I'm betting he got kickbacks from the developers, or owed them a favor.

Actually, here are the prices according to HMP:
Atlas AS7-D is  9,626,000 C-Bills, and all introductory tech
Akuma AKU-1X is 9,502,280 C-Bills, and standard tech
So the price difference is.... wait for it.... 1.3%  (granted it is 16% better according to BV)

And the Akuma is NOT "cheap", it has LB10X, an ERPPC, MPL, Streak SRMs, Endo-Steel, all of which are not "cheaper components".  Sure, fluff may say things are cheaper, but like I mentioned, they'll mount rocket launchers with an ERPPC, and the entire argument for "cheaper" goes out the window.  It'd be like putting cloth seats instead of leather in your ferrari.

Also in TRO 3067 is another new DCMS mech, the No-Dachi, which is 70 tons and with its 350 XL engine, ERPPC, and 2 MRMs, cost a whopping 17.6 Million C-Bills, again, completely destroying any argument of cost meaning anything to BT manufacturers, even if its referenced often in fluff text.
Battletech Engineer
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or recognition of myself.

Matti

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5085
  • In Rory we trust
Re: Interstellar Ops feedback
« Reply #89 on: 07 April 2012, 15:33:22 »
Disclaimer:  Anything I post here, or anywhere else, can freely be used by anybody, anywhere, for any purposes without any compenstation to or mention of myself.
That's a good one, and will apply to this post as well. I suggest additional modifiers for weapons and equipment maintenance & refurbishing that are not made in given time/era. Like Star League tech in Succession Wars eras and difficulty of refurbishing ( = increase of Quality Rating) Double Heat Sinks, XL Engine, and ER Large Laser when those aren't made anymore. Would give some concrete reason to swap Starslayer's ER Large Laser to Tech Rating D version.
You know what they say, don't you? About how us MechWarriors are the modern knights errant, how warfare has become civilized now that we have to abide by conventions and rules of war. Don't believe it.