ISaW Game, epic style

[The Purist]

ACS for combat.  Simplified Raid system for raids, however.

Headhunting is brutal sometimes, btw. If you want to destroy a unit, send in forces to headhunt.  It may damage the unit that is attacking, but it KILLS the unit you are assaulting if you have good intell.

This is very interesting as your group is having the exact opposite results with headhunting that ours has had. Our group has stopped using hh entirely as the results are so poor. For example, the attacker is limited in what he may bring to the battle but the defender can bring the entire team. By in large the bonuses the attacker may choose from makes scoring hits harder (but hits do hurt, most assuredly) while the defender can operate normally. The hunting command also is automatically unsupplied the next turn.

In our 3rd Succession War CG, headhunting and "infrastructure destruction" have been replaced with a simple "invasion" with superior numbers aimed at destroying commands if not conquering the planet. In some cases the planet ends up falling in any case, at least until the defender mounts a counterattack. About the only "Battles" we see now are naval battles between aerospace forces.

Very interesting observations. Have your guy's sent you any other thought on traits and flaws?

[epic]

I understand what you are saying but the average raid against an industrial target (minor in this example) will usually cost the raider more than the raided.   :))

Take your example of a veteran raiding force of two light Mech companies.  Assuming they don't vanish in a pirate point accident they  will likely land safely facing equal PV defenders drawn from tanks and infantry,  on a lucky planet maybe a company of Mechs plus tanks.

If using the quick method the plus two from and an average die roll will net 50% losses to the attacking force and a roll on the raid results table with a -2 modifier. An average dr  here nets a final result of 3 and 25% of the output (6RP on our mythical minor ind. centre). Compare this bounty to the 22RP it costs to provide combat supply to the merc or equal size small house unit. As you can see the costs greatly out weigh the benefit of the raid other than to offset the final balance of RPs by month end.  That can be a justification in itself but for the fickleness of the dice.  ;)

Dice being dice they will just as often take as much as they give and we have learned that raids are double edged swords and used with care,  especially by the cash poor CC and FS.

Your mileage may vary,  of course.

Cheers.

Weird.  For us, disruption raids and industrial raids are the way to go.  A successful pair of those raids, with a result of 1 on the success table destroys the ability to generate income (and/or produce new units) for 3 turns.  That means that a single raid on a major removes 120 rp (3*40) plus interest on that 120 over the span of the turns.  In Tikonov's or Capella's case, it's even worse. 

That's for the low cost of supplying the merc unit for combat.  Even if they fail the first time, and succeed the second time with a minimal result, they're ahead of the game. 

Don't get me wrong; a disruption/supply raid is harder to pull off.  Better used by light elite units vs green units, that sweet result of 3 or higher (stealing all the combat supply costs of all defending units on world) is a difficult achievement, but if it works, is worth every penny.  It also is useful for suicide units for the extra bonus if you really want to cripple the other players supplies on a major garrison world. 

So far, for our game, raiding has been a devastating tactic against the CC.  Doesn't work as well against everyone else precisely because most of their major worlds are farther in. 

[The Purist]

I see what you mean regarding the disruption raid but has your Capellan used cash to reduce the effect of the time the factories are offline?

Two standard commands with one light, two medium and a heavy A/S wing  also gives a -2 to the raid. If you use the aerospace garrison PV rules planets are more easily able to defend themselves as well. The Capellans could have 250PV of fighters available on a major. Then the task become one of first weakening the garrison before raids can be as effective as yours been, which I would suggest are too effective if A/S garrisons are not in use.

Our Lyrans were the first to deploy Patrol Commands - one light regiment and two A/S wings. This allows for smaller number of commands to support garrisons and adds another -2 to the raid success dr for a total of -4.

We use the garrison table on page 368 but add in the allowed A/S PV.  This makes planets tougher opponents and aerospace additions make sense. We figured a world with 5 infantry regiments 4 tank battalions and 2 Mech battalions but no fighters did not make sense,  especially since a fixed garrison has better infrastructure to maintain them than a mobile command or naval force.

((Damn but do I hate Android devices. I can't wait to get back to Canada to get my surface pro wireless drivers reinstalled.  This auto-correct is driving me nuts.   8)  ))

[epic]

I see what you mean regarding the disruption raid but has your Capellan used cash to reduce the effect of the time the factories are offline?

Two standard commands with one light, two medium and a heavy A/S wing  also gives a -2 to the raid. If you use the aerospace garrison PV rules planets are more easily able to defend themselves as well.  The Capellans could have 250PV of fighters available on a major. Then the task become one first weakening the garrison before raids can be as effective as yours been, which I would suggest are too effective if A/S garrisons are not in use.

Our Lyrans were the first to deploy Patrol Commands - one light regiment and two A/S wings. This allows for smaller number of commands to support garrisons and adds another -2 to the raid success dr for a total of -4.

We use the garrison table on page 368 but add in the allowed A/S PV.  This makes planets tougher opponents and aerospace additions make sense. We figured a world with 5 infantry regiments 4 tank battalions and 2 Mech battalions but no fighters did not make sense,  especially since a fixed garrison has better infrastructure to maintain them than a mobile command or naval force.

((Damn but do I hate Android devices.  I can't wait to get back to Canada to get my surface pro wireless drivers reinstalled.  This auto-correct is driving me nuts.   8)  ))

LOL.  also typing from Android, but still in Canada at least.  :)
We have not been using the aero garrisons, but using the advanced garrisons table without aero.  Not going to change it mid-stream, but is probably what will be done next time.   I'm divided on the issue; on one hand, I hear you; on the other, adding air to garrisons (while realistic) makes them too close to being able to stand up to a full combat command with a good roll (and thereby reduces mercs in usefulness again)

As for the Capellans no using cash, that's to bring factories back online; it has nothing to do with the lost income, which stays offline until infrastructure repaired.  In our case, that has meant little anyways; as Sian and Capella have been untouched by raids, they are where new units are being produced currently.  It's just there is so little RP to actually produce.

Now.  That being said; all players are being hyper paranoid about their counterintelligence; security RP has been spent on large scales for several categories.  That really helped the FWL this last round, incidentally, as 3 out of 4 sabotage efforts failed.  So... RP expenditure seems to differ between our two games a lot. 

As for creating Patrol Commands; that one is a work in progress.  Currently, what I am doing is giving a small discount on Combat Commands IF the player uses the standard combat command their faction uses.  It's not much - 10% off - but it's to highlight the importance of the standard formation to that faction.  One faction HAS been building commands that are smaller (not saying who as of yet as none have been revealed) and in the end, I don't think the discount is too restrictive to players who want to customize. 

Counter-question; when a raid occurs, if Combat Commands are present, do you designate one of the Combat Commands as defender, and thus pay combat supply (and gain x p)?  We are saying yes, if the defender wants x p, but can also let the militia handle it.  That's also cost the CC some RP, admittedly (but gained some units some valuable x p). 

[epic]

This is very interesting as your group is having the exact opposite results with headhunting that ours has had.  Our group has stopped using hh entirely as the results are so poor.  For example,  the attacker is limited in what he may bring to the battle but the defender can bring the entire team. By in large the bonuses the attacker may choose from makes scoring hits harder (but hits do hurt, most assuredly) while the defender can operate normally. The hunting command also is automatically unsupplied the next turn.

In our 3rd Succession War CG,  headhunting and "infrastructure destruction" have been replaced with a simple "invasion" with superior numbers aimed at destroying commands if not conquering the planet. In some cases the planet ends up falling in any case,  at least until the defender mounts a counterattack. About the only "Battles" we see now are naval battles between aerospace forces.

Very interesting observations. Have your guy's sent you any other thought on traits and flaws?

We haven't tried infrastucture destruction either; for the 3rd SW, it doesn't seem as worth it.  Maybe in the 1st or 2nd? 
As for headhunting, however; the option here was used both times by DC units that basically fit the entire description, leaving their infantry and arty behind.  All light/med mechs and vees, so these were combat commands basically designed for headhunting.  Then, sacrificing 5% of their armour for double that of damage meant that they were instantly doing a lot of damage; with the goal of making a combat going 5 rounds, so that each round they could use it, to the max of 25/50.  By controlling the engagement to be at medium or long (and thus fairly hard to hit with a high tmm), they inflict maximum damage... and then closed for the kill.  That's how the Robinson Draconis March Militia bought it, and another Draconis March Militia withdrew in the face of such tactics. 
It's not as certain whether this tactic would work as well against an elite unit but definitely worked against Regulars and/or Green. 

[epic]

Ah.  My FWL player provides feedback:

"Being the Captain-General is an exercise in frustration.  Every round, hoping that you have Parliament's support.  Knowing that if you do, you can launch invasions.  Knowing that if you over-commit, and next month you lose their support, you may not be able to afford to combat supply your invasion.  Every round, I may be as wealthy as the Lyrans, or only slightly wealthier than the Feddies.  Parliamentary Chaos rules the actions of the FWL to a degree I don't think any other faction experiences.

The GM has also engaged rules for provincial forces - first, a modifier for a discount if building a provincial force, and an increased cost for Federal forces for building.  It makes the loss of federal units very dear, but makes provincial forces useful garrisons in trouble areas.  I hate him for that."

[epic]

Working on turn 6 coming up.  Will do turn 6- 8 post by weekend hopefully.

[The Purist]

We have not been using the aero garrisons, but using the advanced garrisons table without aero.  Not going to change it mid-stream, but is probably what will be done next time.   I'm divided on the issue; on one hand, I hear you; on the other, adding air to garrisons (while realistic) makes them too close to being able to stand up to a full combat command with a good roll (and thereby reduces mercs in usefulness again)

Yet ACS/ISaW is a grand strategy game and not really a vehicle for mercenary raids.  The system appears to be designed to require players to wear down defences before effective raids can be conducted. In my view this makes perfect sense.  Raiders should not stand much of a chance against intact defences.  Consider the fact the lack of aerospace garrisons open such imposing locations such as Tikonov, a Regional Capital and major industrial centre to complete shutdown from just two light companies.

As for the Capellans no using cash,  that's to bring factories back online, it has nothing to do with lost income,  which stays offline until infrastructure is repaired.  In our case that has meant little anyways as Sian and Capella have been untouched by raids,  they are where new units are being produced currently.  It's just there is so little RP to actually produce.

This the primary reason we rarely use the quick resolution method for raids as it quite often unbalances the raid mechanics severely in favour of the attacker (perhaps a play test issue). We normally use adv  SBF where the atttacker can bring along his two combat teams (Max four Units as per the SBF formation rules)  plus the two a/s squadrons.  The battles can be played out in a couple of hours and give a more balanced outcome.  This is particularly true of supply and disruption raids. In a later post I will provide a recent example of McCarron's  Arm'd Cav  versus the garrison of Shaunavon.

Now,  that being said,  all layers are being hyper paranoid about their counterintelligence...

Oh,  I don't know.... In June 3020 Liao spent 89 RP on CI,  47 on Espionage and 74 on spec  ops. The DC 110/46/154, FS109/27/44, FWL 144/35/93, LC 142/27/127

Perhaps we are just going harder after planetary conquest.

Regarding Patrol Commands,  I try to avoid telling players how to organize their armies unless we discover something gamey.   When I saw the first one I thought it an elegant solution to a tricky problem (unit size,  mission and supply).  As these commands can move and still Patrol, knocking them out becomes another part of the strategy to wear out defences before the raiders can get in. Naval commands can play a role here as well.

Counter-question,  when a raid occurs, if Combat Commands are present,...

The defender is free to chose his forces from anyone available on the planet.  This is another reason we like to use detailed combat resolution. As the insertion table can give the defender anything from .5 to1.5 times the pv of the attacker,  it makes for interesting times.  We agreed that for a battalion to gain experience it must have at least one Lance in the battle (yes, we track experience by the battalion, the bookeeping is not that difficult). And yes, if even a single Lance is used from the CC it triggers combat supply but this can be worth the experience gain for green troops.   :thumbsup:

[epic]

hmmm.  yeah, difference then.  the average CI for the players in my group is around 150 per turn, esp is about the same.  Spec ops depends on the availability of teams, seems to be about 80ish a round. 

As for conquest vs raiding, I would beg to differ; this is the 3rd SW, the height of raiding period.  After this (and the aim of this game) is the 4th SW and whether something close to that can result.   The strategic game should be able to capture that feel, and so far, I"m not disappointed. 

[The Purist]

Yes,  the late 3rd SW saw plenty of raids but not with the effects the campaign game can give.  :o

From what I can see the garrison rules are there to make raids difficult but even a final Dr of 1 or less shuts entire planets down. I don't think you will find that in any of the fiction. 

We also have to take into account what Worktroll said,...the game is not meant to replicate actual Uni lore. 

Each to their own of course. We are using the rules as written for an "alt 3rd SW", not the actual 3rd SW (which is not possible).

When I have some time tomorrow I will post the raid results using the detailed combat system. Then I would like to move the discussion into the next phase of the rules to see how your group have interpreted them.

Very good discussion so far.  Thanks for your views.

[epic]

Sounds good to me.  I should say that large scale invasion is approaching in mine.  We made a conscious decision to simplify raiding due to the fact that we expected there to be lots. 

[Daryk]

Gentlemen, thank you for the very educational discussion!  I'll have to give these rules a try at some point...

[The Purist]

Here is the result of a raid launched by the CC against the FS in June 3020 using the detailed combat system (adv SBF in this case but BF from SO could have been used).

Battle of Shaunavon June 3020

While the Capellan Military was completing its reorganization and redeployment of forces to better balance itself to meet the Davion harassment attacks it wanted to keep some pressure on the Federated Suns. It did this by launching a number of raids from the Sian Commonality between Sendalor and Rollis. It made use of McCarron’s five regiments used in pairs or with mercenary commands such as Ambermarle’s Highlanders.

The supply raid in June 3020 against Shaunavon promised to be a good example of how elite troopers could brush aside the regular troops that make up most of the garrison forces on most of the less important planets throughout the Inner Sphere. At least that was the plan. Two medium tank companies were chosen to execute the raid supported by two squadrons from the command’s aerospace wing. Note that the two companies involved could have been reinforced to four platoons each and remain legal under the SBF rules. However, always conscious of the dangers of a dice roll, McCarron decided to keep the pv of the attack force to a minimum.

Not wanting to risk tipping off the FS by an ‘Espionage: System Reconnaissance’ mission being discovered he sent the troops in to a close pirate point, risking the entire force against a DR of 4 or less. The troops arrived as planned and escaped an aerospace interception but the insertion had problems and resulted in the defenders being 1.5 x the pv (150%) of the attacker. As the attack force consisted of 42 pv this meant the Davion defenders could field 63 pv worth of troops from the garrison.

Shaunavon is not well protected, possessing just one militia regiment (reliable/green), one infantry regiment (reliable/regular) and a single medium tank battalion (reliable/regular). The defender looked at his options and decided he would match the two medium tank companies that McCarron had sent along and build an ad hoc company with the remaining 21 pv. The remaining points were too few for the entire third company from the tank battalion but it could field the two remaining medium tank platoons along with a laser rifle platoon from the infantry regiment and a ballistic rifle platoon from the militia regiment. This third formation had just enough IT# to carry the two infantry platoon into battle without needing extra transport.

The first two turns were spent on the approach manoeuvers and soon enough the attackers were spotted and engaged. Despite wanting to avoid any long engagements the McCarron mercenaries soon found themselves caught up in a running battle. The mercenaries scored most of the early hits but could not avoid some damage in return. What was more important was the fact they could not seem to slip away and get after the building searches. As both sides began to suffer critical hits and individual platoons were shot up the McCarron troops realised they were in trouble. Around game turn 9 the mercenary CT 1 finally destroyed the last medium tanks of the Davion CT A and, despite heavy damage, dashed off into town, followed closely by the Davion CT C, who had been forced by stacking limits to stand back and lob long range shots from the adjacent hex. On game turn 11, McCarron’s CT 2 was destroy when it missed on a series of medium range shots meant to finish off the Davion CT B. The Davion gunners were more fortunate and landed every shot on target.

The remains of CT B and the still untouched CT C then caught CT 1 and Davion mediums engaged it directly while CT C again placed itself in position to lob in the long range fire. However, the difference this time was McCarron lads and lassies were already battered and bruised. For the next four turns the mercenaries kept the range open and slowly shot the remains of CT A to pieces but were reduced to their last few armour points on their last two lances. As the last Daviom mediums died they landed solid hits in return just as a cloud of LRMs blanketed what remained of McCarron’s tanks from CT C. To cap off the battle the two infantry platoons dismounted, formed up and advanced into the battle hex scoring the final kill shot with their SRM launchers.

Davion CT A and B were destroyed as were Mc Carron’s CT 1 and CT 2. Davion’s ad hoc CT C didn’t suffer so much as a scratch. McCarron’s 2nd armoured regiment’s notes its 1st battalion drops from 21 to 7 armour and with no survivors returning the battalion gains no experience. The Davion garrison manages to collect 40% of 30 armour points of damage in salvage which is recorded as part of the planets depot or can be used by the garrison for repairs. The medium garrison battalion gains 1 experience as do the regular infantry’s third battalion* and the militia’s first battalion

*I’ll explain the reasoning behind the ‘infantry battalions’ when we discuss the rules around ground units later on.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Just as a test I have since used the quick resolution method and the end results were a final DR of 10 on the raid success table.  The raid results table resulted in a final dr of 4 netting the attacker 4 RP or 12 RP if you calculate the garrisons potential combat supply. The rule is not clear if combat supply should be calculated for garrison regiments or just those belonging to combat commands. We are still knocking that one around but have generally applied the rule to just CC regiments so far.

[Daryk]

I'm glad to see the "mechanized infantry" model appears to work at this level.  I built a planetary militia combining Goblins and infantry with two platoons of infantry per platoon of Goblins (one MG variant per tank platoon increases the infantry capacity to two platoons).

[worktroll]

Quick question about the DC - what are they doing with Wolf's Dragoons?

Their presence had such an impact on the canon 4SW.

[The Purist]

I'm glad to see the "mechanized infantry" model appears to work at this level.  I built a planetary militia combining Goblins and infantry with two platoons of infantry per platoon of Goblins (one MG variant per tank platoon increases the infantry capacity to two platoons).

Mechanised infantry works quite well at this level and we have introduced them as an infantry purchase option. Note that we are we are talking about infantry mounted in APCs with tank support. This infantry costs more than a light tank regiment not quite as good in combat and is twice as expensive to supply. I'll go into more detail on this 'optional' rule when discussing the pertinent rule section.

As far as Goblins go,  noting their low production rates only the Davion  Heavy Guards have a regiment (and just one) equipped with the various models. It is a very powerful regiment but the low speed makes for a poor TMM value.

There are a few specialty units spread around in our game to help spice things up without making the game to Frankenstein-ish.

[The Purist]

Quick question about the DC - what are they doing with Wolf's Dragoons?

Their presence had such an impact on the canon 4SW.

Well,  in our game they just signed on with house Steiner in May 3020 and raided three planets in hex 1824 in June. They made a mess of the defending garrison troops but suffered some losses.

They are all their,  each of the five regiment has a normal mercenary command and the independent battalions (Zeta, 7th Commando,  etc) can be attached for added fire power. The Black Widows make good raiders, of course.

We have learned that mercenary commands,  regardless of experience or name,  need large commands if going into heavy combat. It is not unusual to see merc commands augment army commands at a ratio of 1:2. Looking ahead to 3028, as GM,  I was thinking the "Misery - Death to Mercenaries" campaign might work well as a GM imposed Regimental dual  along the lines of the two "Turning Point" packets. It may be necessary to fudge a few things but we'll see.

Another question might be,  "What happens if the 4th SW is launched against the DC in the midst of DtM?     :o

[epic]

Quick question about the DC - what are they doing with Wolf's Dragoons?

Their presence had such an impact on the canon 4SW.

So far, as we are in 3025, the Dragoons have been raiding the border with the Federated Suns.  Recon raids followed by disruption and supply raids.  As the Purist says, a merc command can't stand up to a House command.  Heck, the 2 regiments of Narhal Raiders weren't even able to overcome a planetary militia on the FWL border, in an LC attempt.  The Dragoons made an abortive attempt at a counter-attack on a unit too, but lacked the aerospace support to overcome a local Combat Command that had reinforced Air, and withdrew before even getting to the world.  I didn't include 7th Kommando, but did include the Widows and Zeta Battalion.  I'm torn about 7th Kommando; they really fit the profile of being a spec ops team more than an infantry command. 

Assaults with all 5 of the Dragoon regiments and Zeta battalion could, I suppose, work; but they are better served doing raids or supporting other unit actions.  We'll see, as the DC is by far in the best position to pick their attacks. 

The DC has so far been less than impressed with their mercs, as has the FWL - but that's come down to some seriously bad luck with the dice - and mercs saved the Night Stalkers from being wiped out by the LC on Mozirje, so there's that.  The LC is LOVING their mercs, as they have the best light units available to them for raiding.  FS also has been using their mercs extensively to keep the CC busy so far.  Also, the FS shops for mercs that have their own jumpships, as I reduced the amount of House units by a small portion for them that have their own.  Anything to keep their costs down, really. 

Oddly, there was a mutiny check that happened in the Magistracy of Canopus that wiped out one merc unit, and Redfield's Renegades in the Fed Suns has come close to mutiny a couple times after some disastrous raids, which has made it all a bit interesting. 

[The Purist]

Rather than post large sections of rules for review and discussion I'll post more digestible bites so we can retain some focus.  I 'll throw in some of the house add-ons for comment, mainly additional unit types to add some flavour.   ::)

Starting Set-Up

We stuck with IO for most of this but there was debate on planets/factories. We sorted out discrepancies with the economies by adding or subtracting the planets/factories, etc. to get up to the right numbers.

Economics and Logistics

Spreadsheets are used to track economics and are a must for avoiding errors. We originally had all the income calculation and mercenary issues at the start but once we became familiar with the process the only change we have kept are as per the sequence below.

- Retained RPs
- Banking RPs
- Calculate New RPs
- Infrastructure Purchases
- R & D
- Logistics
- Merc Supply & Hiring
- Pirate Contracts

Retained RPs

Maintaining a surplus of RPs is a must unless you want to put commands out of supply. Unsupplied status is a dangerous proposition as being caught without supply can make the survival of a command, already chancy with supply, almost impossible. The 5% interest earned is not as big a bonus as many discussions have thought if only because surplus RPs are not that easy to maintain once Spec Ops, movement and combat begin. Forecasting needs becomes a necessary skill set as an unexpected enemy offensive can upset calculation very quickly. A 25% buffer over basic supply needs, mercs included + 100 RP for movement is a good rule of thumb.

Supply

If you are chronically short of money you will need to move a number commands back from the front to avoid combat and perhaps suffer ‘prolonged neglect’. However, these can be given a Repair order every month and stay up to strength at the cost of 1.5 time the armour point cost.

A favourite tactic seen so far is to throw a wave of troops at a target planet(s) on turn one of an attack. On turn two, if not pinned in combat, commands can jump away with a move/repair order. A second wave of commands then jumps into the target to continue the battle. If the commands are engaged at the end of the previous turn (ACS turn '8') and cannot leave the combat hex you run the risk of broken supply lines and the possible loss of the command. This does not happen as often as one might think as average battles often do not last more than 3-5 ACS turns before one side declares a retreat, if they can manage to disengage, or are allowed to go by the victor. The risk of “Broken Supply Lines” has created a strategy where players attempt to clean out 50% +1 of the systems in a hex so ownership changes and supplies flow freely. “Control” of hexes helps secure the supply lines and thus the survival of commands shot up in opening waves of combat.

Then again the return of RPs if supplies break down can be a good thing as long as you are prepared to pull the effected troops back.

Fortifications

Players seem very conscience of creeping maintenance costs and the effect on budgets if forts are involved in combat. Make a mistake in not supplying a Std-1 and its gone,… with 50 RPs wasted. Even a miss on supplies for a larger standard fort will cost it a level and the 5 RPs for the expansion. Considering the power of even a Std-1 fortification, no one has left forts unsupplied thus far.


Mercenary Retention/Hiring

As discussed elsewhere we had to add in a Retention TN modifier in order to get players to keep mercenary commands as part of their military. This seems to have resolved the ‘too expensive for what you get” issue. Now a 20% overpayment combined with a commitment to pay (ie) 25% armour replacements, gives a House a -4 mod to the TN for retention.

While expensive to maintain their hiring cost is less than a new command of similar size, although the new command remains cheaper in the long run.


Pirates (new)

As there is no obvious need to deploy commands along the periphery we added 13 Pirate Bands spread around the map that can be hired for raiding through bidding (with a minimum opening). These commands work similarly to mercenary commands but are hired only for their specific mission and turn, are based on combat commands and keep all the proceeds of their entrepreneurship. They can be hired for raids with the usual limits of 2 CT and 2 A/S sqdns. The cost is increased the further from the pirate zone you ask them to operate from (such as asking pirates from Oberon to raid Main Street or Lost in Lyran space).

Pirates can also be paid *not* to raid. Pirates attacks average about 3-5 per month but the effect has been as intended. All the Houses now deploy small or merc commands (or a few under strength regular commands) along the periphery every three-four hexes to block raids and establish rotating patrols. One or two nasty surprises have occurred when a command is unsupplied and a pirate band comes calling. Money collected by the GM is used to rebuild pirate CUs (pirates refuse contracts if too beat up and in need of rebuilding) or add to the MRB fund (the book keeping is not that difficult).

[epic]

Starting Set-Up

We stuck with IO for most of this but there was debate on planets/factories. We sorted out discrepancies with the economies by adding or subtracting the planets/factories, etc. to get up to the right numbers.

We also had to make a minor change to the economy (see LC).  That was discussed in another thread; in the end, while we opted for a slightly different couple of planets/industry to add, the net result was the same, that it brought the economy up to what was in the book.

As mentioned previously, however, it's interesting how much RP the DC gets.  Especially if the player is a savvy trader.  In our case, the DC player played... hardball with the Outworlds Alliance, telling them that if they wouldn't trade, the OA would make a nice annexed extra district.  As GM, playing the NPC, that may have ticked off the OA, but they had to acquiesce as they are in no position to fight a war with the DC.  They also got the trade of the TC (help us fight the Davions!) and the MoC, plus their Kapteyn allies. 

[epic]

Rather than post large sections of rules for review and discussion I'll post more digestible bites so we can retain some focus.  I 'll throw in some of the house add-ons for comment, mainly additional unit types to add some flavour.   ::)


Fortifications

Players seem very conscience of creeping maintenance costs and the effect on budgets if forts are involved in combat. Make a mistake in not supplying a Std-1 and its gone,… with 50 RPs wasted. Even a miss on supplies for a larger standard fort will cost it a level and the 5 RPs for the expansion. Considering the power of even a Std-1 fortification, no one has left forts unsupplied thus far.


Mercenary Retention/Hiring

As discussed elsewhere we had to add in a Retention TN modifier in order to get players to keep mercenary commands as part of their military. This seems to have resolved the ‘too expensive for what you get” issue. Now a 20% overpayment combined with a commitment to pay (ie) 25% armour replacements, gives a House a -4 mod to the TN for retention.

While expensive to maintain their hiring cost is less than a new command of similar size, although the new command remains cheaper in the long run.


Pirates (new)

As there is no obvious need to deploy commands along the periphery we added 13 Pirate Bands spread around the map that can be hired for raiding through bidding (with a minimum opening). These commands work similarly to mercenary commands but are hired only for their specific mission and turn, are based on combat commands and keep all the proceeds of their entrepreneurship. They can be hired for raids with the usual limits of 2 CT and 2 A/S sqdns. The cost is increased the further from the pirate zone you ask them to operate from (such as asking pirates from Oberon to raid Main Street or Lost in Lyran space).

Pirates can also be paid *not* to raid. Pirates attacks average about 3-5 per month but the effect has been as intended. All the Houses now deploy small or merc commands (or a few under strength regular commands) along the periphery every three-four hexes to block raids and establish rotating patrols. One or two nasty surprises have occurred when a command is unsupplied and a pirate band comes calling. Money collected by the GM is used to rebuild pirate CUs (pirates refuse contracts if too beat up and in need of rebuilding) or add to the MRB fund (the book keeping is not that difficult).

For the part about fortifications, I agree completely.  I awarded the pirates that the Lyrans are attacking some fortifications to show how difficult it is to fight them on their home ground; it has ground the anti-piracy campaign to a halt.  The Fed Suns had built fortifications on Galtor III, which the militia used to (barely) weather an attack by 3 DC combat commands.  Admittedly, the militia was down to a mech battalion and an infantry regiment (both badly damaged) before relief arrived, but it held in the face of 3 combat commands, and that's a pretty amazing feat.  It was well worth the investment, and showed how nasty capital assaults will be without special ops to neutralize them. 

We co-opted your posted merc rules as well, btw.  So far, liking them. 

I went with a different variant for pirate raids, myself.  Mine was a bit more GM intensive, and relies on random amounts of raids more often.  That being said, pirates are also available to be bribed too.  It has kept players a bit worried about their periphery borders, but in the end, the raids are still not damaging enough to worry about as much as they should.  This is due to the fact that other than the FWL to a limited extent, there are few worlds of value on the borders.  I'm still looking at options to also prevent players from just migrating all troops off the Periphery border (and/or just annexing Periphery worlds). 

A thought was to have a % of the house commands must be on their Periphery borders; dip below that % and the pirate raids not only grow in intensity, but worlds may start simply... disappearing after a raid, no longer being able to support themselves.  I may introduce that for turn 13. 

[Daryk]

It strikes me that pirates + fortifications should be enough to keep troops on the Periphery borders.  If pirates start carving mini-states out of border planets, that should be more than enough of a wake up call...

[worktroll]

That was always something I would have liked to have seen included, but word counts are hard masters, and price points harder.

Being brutally honest, there's no real scope for the minor periphery powers to be more than gadflies. being the PC OA player would be incredibly limiting - worse than being Saruman in the old SPI War of the Rings game (grognard points there ;) ) So what you're doing gets my seal of approval.

The other thing I like is that - to some extent, and with the odd tweak - the in-universe "logic" starts coming out of the woodwork. There's no one "optimal" approach. Forts are powerful, but static & expensive. Mercs are cheaper today, but unless you take care of them, unreliable, and if you do, expensive. Raiding is a good investment provided you organise the circumstances (hello 3SW!) Intel ops can be effective, and CI is a worthy investment. Now, how do I balance all these ... that's the Successor Lord dilemma.

And yes, people often forget that the DC was economically strong. They needed to be, with one large and one powerful state on each border. The Capellans only lasted (in Canon) until someone decided to forgo the short-term advantage of minimal investment against them, for the longer-term benefit of curb-stomping them.

Side note: the biggest reason we didn't include rules for ComStar as PCs in 4th War, is that we felt the first thing most players would do would be curb-stomp Terra. "Well, that's that out of the way. Now, back to our scheduled war!"

[Doesn't mean I don't still have the rules for being a PC ISP ;) ]

[The Purist]

One thing you might consider proposing to the publisher is to reserve 4 - 5 (or 7 - 8, or whatever) pages in future releases to include a small section that expands on,  or clarifies,  the weaknesses in the rules as they currently stand.  This worked well in both the SW books so far.  This would give time for rules "anomolies" to be spotted and clarified or new/replacement rules for oversights to be added.

Pirate rules would be a good candidate for such an addition.

I agree with you on the PC periphery powers. Unless fighting the Andurien Seccession War or the Reunification  War,  they should be GM controlled in order to give the Great Houses reason to garrison the borders and expend resources to watch for trouble on the "back porch".

[Onion2112]

With pirate Raids and maybe even all Periphery factions, in the original Brush Wars book for the ISaW scenario of the Andurien Wars there’s a rule about Border Tensions - it’s basically around a NPC F-C raiding/attacking the FWL border worlds, making sure the FWL doesn’t strip their borders.
It has a table with modifiers that are influenced by FWL raids, border garrison strength, payoffs and previous FC raids. Each turn the FWL rolls and applies the result.
These results range from nothing to minor raids up to 3 major raids - there is a table with the force composition of minor and major raiding forces (with the Andurien player choosing the world(s) to be raided).

In these rules Major Raiding forces look almost regimental strength, but this could reduced, if it’s a pirate band.

They sound like a good way to force players to garrison border regions.

Were you guys aware of these rules?
If so did you consider them?

They could be helpful without having to track pirate bands
 

[epic]

In regards to the Periphery powers, I'm not as convinced as the rest of you.  Mostly because I like playing the scrappy underdog, I guess.  Don't get me wrong; playing as the OA would suck as much as the reference about Saruman in that LotR game would be.  However, even with reduced tech, the TC and the MoC would give a helluva fight to a Successor State that was adventurous.  They'd lose but in so losing, would cripple that state and leave them open to an attack on another front, IMO. 

I am aware of the rules in Brush Wars; my first ISaW game was the Andurien Secession (though at the time we ran it, we only had access to the Beta and later the regular rules out of IO).  The trick for that one was converting it to current standards (from ISF), though it wasn't difficult.   See other posts about that game; the Anduriens lost precisely because they used too many mercs.  I am toying with something similar to that in rule scope, with perhaps 15% of total commands (thus, smaller commands are just fine) being required to keep the table in check and make raids quite infrequent.  The problem again as mentioned is that most worlds along the Periphery are just not that valuable; even a very successful raid won't do much in the way of economic damage at the Grand Strategic level. 

[epic]

Also, turns:
June through September, 3025.

Turn 6
Another series of raids takes place: now however, the Capellan Confederation is ready. Repelling continuing
Davion raids, Capellan forces begin to gather courage.

DC raids damage New Earth. 

FS raids mostly falter.

FWL experiences even worse luck with Parliament. 

LC manages to damage facilities at Irian via sabotage..

Turn 7
Sporadic raids on all fronts


Turn 8
The LC begins their operations to destroy piracy
However, at Gotterdammerung, the 12th Donegal Regulars meet their match.
A fortified position with a force that is engaging in hit and run in the field, the 12th struggles to keep up and fails to inflict any significant damage.
While the local pirates also do not do much in the way of appreciable damage, they badly draw out the Lyran forces, and begin to exhaust them. 
Pain also puts up a brief fight but in the end, the Donegal Guards prove too much for local troops.

Turn 9

FWl raid on Gienah has the newly deployed 3rd Lyran Guard there crushing the raiding party utterly of the 9th Regulan Hussars.  The 9th Regulan, continuously on the losing
end of intelligence as well as supplies, has several more units desert or outright mutiny. 
A number of SAFE operatives are found over wide sections of the Lyran border, ascertaining various troop locations.
A number of MIIO operatives are found in Capellan Space and are executed messily. 
Raids on St Ives, Ares and spec ops on Sarna do more damage to the Capellan economy.  Supply raids steal several valuable supply shipments to troops in the St Ives
Commonality as well. 
The FWL is forced to pay massive reparations due to an undisclosed incident involving Comstar technicians.  The threat of interdiction is narrowly avoided...
The FS and the LC also face similar fines. 
Pirates continue to fight against now the 11th and 12th DG on Gotterdammerung, and continue to hold off the forces in an amazing mobile campaign, slaughtering 3 infantry regiments as part of their overall fight.  Lyran forces have yet to inflict significant damage to the pirate force, and multiple assaults on their fortress have failed.  Lyran morale is low, and even more reinforcements are looked at being brought to bear in this expensive endeavour. 

Also, using intell gathered previously, the Lyran forces of Winfield's Brigade and the 30th Lyran Guard attack and occupy Czestreg in the Rasalhague District.  What will the Dragon do?

[epic]

By the way; a thing that is common on both sides since turn 2 that hasn't even been mentioned is that units - mostly smaller scale units (such as mercs) on both sides of the border with all powers are engaged in 2 things:
Patrol Missions
Commerce Raid missions

For the Cap Con, again, if they don't have patrols up, they would lose a massive amount of economy.  Also engaging in Commerce Raid has been sporadic for them, as they can't afford the combat supply (and sometimes don't even have the reserves necessary to do both).

For the FS, with a large pool of small commands initially to draw from, commerce raid and patrol missions are their lifeblood.  It eats into the budget, but is necessary.  The DC, on the other hand, is annoyed by the necessity of it. 

Fatigue eats into the schedules of all powers units that are doing this, and it's a constant rotation of units to do patrols so that other commands can rest.  I haven't mentioned this previously as it's not very sexy, but goodness, it eats a lot of budget. 

[epic]

By the way; a thing that is common on both sides since turn 2 that hasn't even been mentioned is that units - mostly smaller scale units (such as mercs) on both sides of the border with all powers are engaged in 2 things:
Patrol Missions
Commerce Raid missions

For the Cap Con, again, if they don't have patrols up, they would lose a massive amount of economy.  Also engaging in Commerce Raid has been sporadic for them, as they can't afford the combat supply (and sometimes don't even have the reserves necessary to do both).

For the FS, with a large pool of small commands initially to draw from, commerce raid and patrol missions are their lifeblood.  It eats into the budget, but is necessary.  The DC, on the other hand, is annoyed by the necessity of it. 

Fatigue eats into the schedules of all powers units that are doing this, and it's a constant rotation of units to do patrols so that other commands can rest.  I haven't mentioned this previously as it's not very sexy, but goodness, it eats a lot of budget.

An interesting side note: the Merc forces of the FWL are (3025) positioned to be able to provide both the Commerce Raid and Patrol missions of the FWL needs along the LC border.  PERFECTLY. 

[The Purist]

Military Development Phase

This rule section is not that difficult to work with but the choices require some thought. Unfortunately, trying to squeeze a complex interstellar campaign game into just under 24 pages means they can be a bit thin on imposing what could be described as rational ‘in-uni” limits. This does not mean the GM cannot try to keep things under control himself.

The first thing to note is that the options for new commands is extensive and commands can be tailored to meet specific roles forced by the missions available to the armies. The rules as written almost require flexibility it as the economic structure could quite easily collapse if players were forced into using only large commands. At the same time, due to movement costs (a later rule), the most economical means of troop movement is in larger commands. Even more efficient are larger commands with jumpships.

Mercenary Replacements

Other than the small commands to replace mercenaries or defend quiet areas against raiders the expansion of armies has been rather limited. The FWL has deployed “Auxiliary” commands, the Combine calls theirs “Garrison” commands and names/deploys them by district. The Commonwealth has called their smaller commands “Landwehr” and named them by province (Bolan, Isle of Skye, etc.) and so on.

Patrol Commands

Patrol commands have made an appearance (1 light Mech reg’t and 2 a/s wings) to block raids into rich industrial areas. Commerce raids against minor and major systems can be reduced by placing a command on the likely targets and support them with a nearby Patrol Command. Other than these a good percentage of “new” commands are actually rebuilt commands destroyed in combat. Entire commands can be destroyed in 3-5 ACS turns if outnumbered by as little as 20% so casualties in full blown invasions are heavy for both sides. Those commands that manage to disengage a few mangled survivors are usually scrapped or mined for armour replacements. Armies can shrink fast as a single turn of heavy fighting can see 6-12 commands (nearly) destroyed depending on whether “Honours of War” are observed or not. Unfortunately, even the richest Houses can afford to replace little more than 2 to 4 standard size commands at a time unless troop quality is dropped significantly. This in turn adds to the casualty lists as green troops are at a significant disadvantage.

Check the Tables

The tables presented in Campaign Operations have some errors so players should double check the stats before using them. The FWL light tank battalion jumps out as the best example. Based on the battalion building from SBF Unit to Combat Team to CU the table is wrong in many places. The move of 9 is wrong as no sub-units have a move of 9. It has only two CTs when it should have three. The armour and damage values are off as well. Even the PV looks wrong. Building up from the SBF unit the stats should read:

Size:1; Move:8; TMM:3; Arm: 18; S:9; M:9; L:0; PV:60(?) – Special: IT9, RCN

It is effectively the same unit as the CC light battalion unless the third CT was supposed to be medium tanks but that does not appear to be the case. I suspect someone was very rushed while building the table that day.

Some Fun Stuff

We also re-jigged the infantry regiments into three battalion affairs with CAR27/IT27 (but generic tranports) and a TMM of 2. We added a jump infantry regiment with a higher TMM that could be purchased similar to infantry but in more limited numbers. We also added a mixed mechanised infantry regiment that is neither CI nor CV but a hybrid. It is more expensive than a light tank regiment and costs more to supply than motorised infantry but its real value, other than higher armour and damage values, is that it does not suffer the penalties found on page 308 under “engagement control” for either “infantry” or “vehicle” only.  I can post these ‘house’ changes in more details if anyone is interested.

Black Water Navies

Our one truly big addition is the “Naval Command”. It is not so much an addition as using the rules as written to build a naval command and then tweaking it a bit to add some extra charcter.  As per the IO rules those built from scratch have to include the obligatory Mech regiment.  The other requirements are intended to make naval commands a unit players have to give some thought to considering the cost:

-   Mech regiment (so far just light), 16 RP (or the cost added to the command)
-   Assault A/S Wings, 24 RP each
-   Lt, Med or Hvy a/s fighter wings up to the capacity of AT# in the command.
-   All the Aslt wings must have jumpships.
-   A “Carrier” Aslt wing can be included if available, 30RP

The Carrier Wing is a standard Aslt Wing with one sqdn replaced with a Vengeance carrier, an Achilles and two Avenger assault dropships converted to ACS (roughly). The stats for the wings come out as follows:

ACS Combat Unit - Mov:4; Arm: 39¹; S:11; M:13: L:9 – AT40+² [JS]³

1 - FWL and Periphery wings have somewhat different values.
FWL – Mov:4; Arm:37; S:11; M:11; L:5 – AT40+ [JS]
Periphery – Mov:4; Arm:57; S:15; M:19: L:9 – AT40+ [JS]

2 – AT40 plus the values for the House standard Aslt wing sqdn (ie: a FWL CV wing has AT40+16+16 = 72 and could carry four A/S fighter wings plus the capacity of other assault wings)

3 – [JS] = our excel spreadsheet code noting jumpships are included in the command

Most Naval Commands so far consist of one carrier wing, two assault wings and usually two to four fighter wings. These commands are quite expensive and there is a limit to the number of Vengeance based CV wings allowed per year. At first I wondered why players did not take the plunge and fill the AT capacity when commands were built. It soon became apparent that the empty slots were being occupied by the ground command’s A/S wings. Now safely aboard dropships these fighters can fight anywhere on the SSRM

A standard Capellan naval command (reliable/green) consisting of three dropship wings and two fighter wings would cost:

Lt Mech Reg’t – 16 x 1.5 [r] x 1 (g) = 24
CV Aslt A/S wing – 30 x 1.5 [r] x 1 (g) x 2 [JS] = 90
Aslt A/S wing – 24 x 1.5 [r] x 1 (g) x 2 [JS] = 72
Aslt A/S wing - 24 x 1.5 [r] x 1 (g) x 2 [JS] = 72
Med A/S wing – 12 x 1.5 [r] x 1 (g) = 18
Hvy A/S wing – 15 x 1.5 [r] x 1 (g) = 22.5

For a total of 299 (298.5) RP

The Mechs and fighters do not require jumpships as long as the dropships have AT and MT#s sufficient to lift the passenger units. Note that three additional a/s fighter wings could have been added to this command and remained within the AT limit (AT104).

So far these commands have worked well and their appearance can greatly shift the balance of power in an area if unopposed. Their cost has led to cautious use and few have (as yet) been committed rashly to major battles. The biggest naval battle to date (Kessel) saw heavy aerospace damage/losses that have not yet been entirely replaced. Our tests with these have been interesting and show that Aslt wings with fighters are a definite must if one is going to attack a system with Black Water Navy defenders.

Transport Wings (Testing)

Rule being tested at the moment

“Transport” wings were also developed as the rules are silent on just how do you approach a planet while the aerospace battle swirls around the SSRM. These commands are configured to match the approximate size of standard ‘national’ combat commands and add some drama to the approach battle. It takes 3 ‘wings’ to lift a standard command (with some abstraction thrown in in) adjusted for the larger LC and FWL commands. The transport wings (see below) make the approach battle interesting and it should be noted they are not defenceless.

Note these wings are generic much like the assault wings presented 1st SW but contain the basics of most troopships from the diminutive Fury to the Condor and Excalibur. There is also the equivalent of an Overlord and Leopard CV built into a wing for carrying Mech and ASF CUs. Combat units must be divided equally amongst the transport wings. For every 10 CUs in a command (round normally) the command receives a transport wing. This would mean the CC, DC and FS receive 3 transport wings for a standard combat command, the FWL and LC would receive 4 wings and a mercenary command would possess a single wing. The stats for each wing are:   

Move: 4; Arm: 30; S: 9; M: 9; L: 3

Combat Teams (squadrons) work out at:  Arm: 10; S: 3; M: 3; L: 1

Rather than assign transport numbers as was done with the assault wings each wing must be assigned a proportional number of CUs. The contents of each wing would be noted on the transport wings formation tracking sheet.

The trick with the transport wings is at what point does damage begin leaking through to the cargo/passengers? For now we are looking at 50% and the usual start to critical hits being received. Besides the usual critical hits from the table we have been looking at these additions for transports:

DR: 2-4 no crit; cargo takes 10% armour damage for each instance (FRN)
DR: 5-7 Targeting damage; cargo takes 20% armour damage for each instance (FRN)
DR: 8-9 Weapons Damage; cargo takes 20% armour damage for each instance (FRN)
DR: 10-11 Movement Damage; cargo takes 20% for each instance (FRN)
DR: 12 mission kill; cargo eliminated*

*Or not depending on the results salvage rolls on page 244. Some lucky survivors may have escaped via the “dead vs truly dead” aspects in the game.

As an example: a transport wing takes 50 % damage and must roll for its first crit. The roll is a 4 so the wing itself is un effected but the passenger CUs take 10% damage to their starting armour value. If a later hit does more damage without destroying the transport wing and the player rolls an 8, the wing takes
weapons damage and the cargo CUs take an additional 20% damage to their armour based on the starting armour value.

Supply Convoys and Depots

We have also tinkered with supply convoys. These would be a block of RPs carried on a transport wing to bring supplies with an invasion force. They would need to fight their way to a planet where depot would be established in a city,  factory,  capital or fortification.  The depot would be exposed to capture. Still under discussion and yet even being tested

Innovation

Let players use their imagination and they will always surprise you. House Davion has created two “Artillery Commands” intended for fortress busting. A light Mech regiment leads 8 artillery battalions with the intention that once the defender has retreated into a fortress, a regular combat formation supports the 8 artillery battalions (keeping in mind the maximum 16 CU per hex) that enter the hex and start blasting away at long range (since the attacker can set the range when dealing with forts), all the while supported by a host of aerospace wings dropping bombs. Neither has been used yet but one has been sent to the Capellan and the other to the Draconis March.

Loyalty

Purchasing and use of ‘questionable’ commands is not as bad as one might think, at least in moderation. These troops possess a bonus in winning engagement control rolls even if they have trouble hitting the proverbial broad side of a barn. Pair them with some reliable veterans or fanatic troops and the battle for the hex could go your way. Note also that the to-hit penalties for questionable loyalty are offset by fighting fanatic troops or by achieving veteran status. Questionable troops can also pin fanatics down and prevent them disengaging, while whittling away their strength but they will suffer for their pains. Exchanging questionable loyalty troops for enemy reliable or fanatic battalions is also a viable economic weapon. The AFFS with superior combat doctrine, questionable loyalty and veteran status (6th New Syrtis Fusiliers) can really mess Capellan fanatics when they are pin formations to the ground and their disengaing from a fight to manoeuvre or withdraw.