BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat

Administration and Moderation => BattleTech News => Catalyst Asks You! => Topic started by: Welshman on 18 November 2014, 13:46:55

Title: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 18 November 2014, 13:46:55
Hello all,

In the recent Catlayst Game Labs update for Instellar Operations (http://bg.battletech.com/news/battleblog/interstellar-operations-cometh/ (http://bg.battletech.com/news/battleblog/interstellar-operations-cometh/)) we provided you all with a Beta Test version of the new Abstract Combat System.

The ACS is a new system that will be directly used by the new Inner Sphere at War Strategic Game rules (ISW). During development though we realized  that there was nothing preventing these rules from being used stand alone. So we pulled them out and made a new combat system for BattleTech.

Please use this thread to provide feedback, ask questions and the like.

Please note, this is NOT a thread for specific errata. Use the "Errata (http://bg.battletech.com/forums/catalyst-asks-you!/interstellar-operations-open-beta-test-abstract-combat-system-errata/)" thread for that work.

We're looking forward to getting your feedback and comments.

Best,
Joel BC
Developer, ISW

Edit- Added ISW Draft Pirate Point rules for reference.
Edit- Added Generic Equipment Table
Edit- Map Update: Please try playtest with a Map that is 7 hexes across.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Jayof9s on 18 November 2014, 14:02:16
Thanks for putting out this beta! I did a very quick skim of the system and I'm really excited to dig further into it and hopefully wrangle some of my players into trying it out with me. Hopefully I/we will have some good feedback once we've gotten our feet wet with the new rules.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Atlas3060 on 18 November 2014, 14:12:30
Right off the bat I have a question about movement, well maybe two questions, and a side concern.
I'm basing this all off the example between Andrea and Harry.
Question #1: What is the MP calculation between moving from Peripheral ring to Outer?

Question #2: Is the MP part of the equation based on total amount at the beginning or as you start moving into each ring?
Example: Some ship with MP 3 moves from Outer into Middle. That's going to take 1 MP ( 3 MP divided by 3 makes 1).
So now the current MP value after getting into Middle is 2.
Now they want to move into Inner Ring.
Will that formula be (2MP divided by 2) or (3MP divided by 2)?

Side concern: In the example, Harry deployed two wings (Defense and Aerospace) in the Middle ring.
Yet rules say that Aerospace fighters without DropShip support may only move around the Inner Ring.
Does this mean Harry's two formations had Dropship support within them?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 18 November 2014, 15:29:55
Right off the bat I have a question about movement, well maybe two questions, and a side concern.

Atlas- Hah you found the results of last minute writing. ACS has been in development for a long time. When it was started AS Companion was also in development. ACS started with the Radar Map from SO and switched to the Capital Map for AS Companion. The Capital Map has one additional ring.

I did update the Zones and what they mean (When we had only three Zones the Inner Zone was out to 1.5 Million Klicks).

So that means that right now space combat movement is borked because I forgot to convert the MP to the four ring system.

I'll try and get an update to that posted tonight.

Thanks,
Joel
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 18 November 2014, 16:27:20
For those of your playtesting with the sample forces/scenarios, I'd like you to keep something in mind (or even try out if you'd like). What difference in gameplay do your feel there is if the main stats (Arm, S/M/L, maybe even PV) were an order of magnitude less. That is roughly 1/10 (rounded normally) what they are now. For example, here's the first lisinting in the Sarna scenario:

Quote
Name                                                                           Unit            MV     ARM        S          M          L           PV           Experience
Mech Regiment, 5th Syrtis Fusiliers RCT      5th Syrtis      4      399      97      97      36      1102      Regular
As opposed to something like (as a rough example_:
Quote
Name                                                                           Unit            MV     ARM        S          M          L           PV           Experience
Mech Regiment, 5th Syrtis Fusiliers RCT      5th Syrtis      4       40      10      10      4        110       Regular
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: nckestrel on 18 November 2014, 16:45:58
The Combat Factors table has Short Range as +0, Medium Range as -2 and Long Range as -4.  The example then has Short Range as +4, Medium Range as +2 and Long Range as +0.  Should we use the example modifiers or the table modifiers for range?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: solmanian on 18 November 2014, 17:26:16
For those of your playtesting with the sample forces/scenarios, I'd like you to keep something in mind (or even try out if you'd like). What difference in gameplay do your feel there is if the main stats (Arm, S/M/L, maybe even PV) were an order of magnitude less. That is roughly 1/10 (rounded normally) what they are now. For example, here's the first lisinting in the Sarna scenario:
As opposed to something like (as a rough example_:

I prefer the latter, in general. Anything to simplify the turns and shift focus to actual strategy and gameplay rather than "accountech".

Questions:
What are RP (resources points)? IIRC in ISIF they represented a million C-bills each.

How do we calculate the stats (armor, MV, damage) for the elements? Other than rolling 100+ units in the RATs...

Also, the conventional infantry appears to be seriously shafted in this system, especially since there's rules to discourage swarming. Is there going to be bonuses for anti-mech infantry attacking Battlemechs and Armor, maybe even trying to commandeer them?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 18 November 2014, 17:33:50
"Average" values for different formations (Infantry Company, Clan Assault 'Mech Trinary, Etc...) will be provided in the final product, along with rules for converting formations if you want yo get that detailed.

And yes, infantry do seem to get the short end of the stick.  They're also insanely cheap to produce compared to everything else.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Atlas3060 on 18 November 2014, 17:40:07
Please round, because when I noticed the damage formula I almost thought about establishing a "base line" damage.
From there I could just alter based on the percentile later.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: pheonixstorm on 18 November 2014, 17:45:22
Noticed a section for conversion but no rules. Quick question about it.

Based on this system we will be able to convert ACS -> BF2(3?) -> TW/AS/QS? If so sounds like it would end up being both fun and a bit tedious. I have played BF/BF2 in the FASA days and enjoyed faster paced regimental games. Will have to try this out for some brigade/division level games :)
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 18 November 2014, 17:47:41
Yes.  If you keep incredible records, you will be able to convert.

No, you will in no way be required to do so.  :)
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: solmanian on 18 November 2014, 19:17:58
The thing about leadership rating determined by the guy with the highest skill... Wouldn't most sufficiently large formation have an elite and higher commander, regardless of their actual average skill? The ATOW companion basically tells us that the average colonel is usually legendary or close.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Dukeroyal on 18 November 2014, 20:50:35
For the Clans shouldn't the basic unit be the Cluster since that is their equivalent of a Battalion?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Adrian Gideon on 18 November 2014, 21:15:24
For the Clans shouldn't the basic unit be the Cluster since that is their equivalent of a Battalion?
What are you referencing?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: nckestrel on 18 November 2014, 21:23:04
What are you referencing?

Under formation in the ACS beta, it says the base formation is the battalion/trinary/level III.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 18 November 2014, 21:40:15
The Combat Factors table has Short Range as +0, Medium Range as -2 and Long Range as -4.  The example then has Short Range as +4, Medium Range as +2 and Long Range as +0.  Should we use the example modifiers or the table modifiers for range?

The Table Modifiers. The Base Target Number is 2, so it's an easy target number. The modifiers lower your final 2D6 roll.

Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 18 November 2014, 21:44:54
For the Clans shouldn't the basic unit be the Cluster since that is their equivalent of a Battalion?

No- Because Clan equipment is much higher quality a Trinary of Clan machines is going to be more equal to a Battalion. A Cluster is closer to a Regiment. This is long standing comparison going back to the dawn of the Clans. Take a loot at the Tenth Lyran Guard and Falcon Guard in the sample units. 1st Battlion of the Tenth has a Short Damage of 35, The Falcon Guards Cluster has a value of 111. If you divide the Cluster by 5 (Average number of Trianry in a Cluster) you get a damage of 22.

Unfortunately there is just not a good and simple equal between IS and Clan.

Remember, this essentially represents the smallest game piece that can be put on the board. You are free to build larger formations.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Kommando on 18 November 2014, 22:51:49
isorla?

when is the bidding phase?

how do rearguard units and higiera work?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 18 November 2014, 23:35:46
isorla?

when is the bidding phase?

how do rearguard units and higiera work?

1- Isorla is covered under Surrender and Salvage in ISW Rules.

2- Bidding is a role playing function. We're not going to create rules for that.

3- Higiera is Clan surrender, which is covered under ISW rules.

Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: solmanian on 18 November 2014, 23:46:14
Since ISW is suppose to be in an even larger scale, and conquering planets suppose to be resolved simply: can we expect ISW to use an even more simplified veriation of the ACS?

Will there be rules for trying to capture warships and space stations in tact with marines? And I still wanna know how anti-mech trained infantry factor in this system. How about minefields and other "traps"?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 19 November 2014, 00:07:11
Since ISW is suppose to be in an even larger scale, and conquering planets suppose to be resolved simply: can we expect ISW to use an even more simplified veriation of the ACS?

No. The original iSIF combat system saw extensive play in the several incarnations of the Fan Council Games hosted here as well as with players around the world. Universally the feedback was "He who has the biggest stack wins." ISW is not aabout recreating RISK as a BattleTech game. It's a highly detailed campaign system for players wishing to get "into the weeds."

After several attempts to make a simple dice resolution system, we determined it was not possible to do and still maintain the flavor of an ISW campaign. When any fights just become huge piles of numbers and its all decided by a couple of dice rolls, we are no longer be true to BattleTech, which is a game of strategy and tactics.

Quote
Will there be rules for trying to capture warships and space stations in tact with marines? And I still wanna know how anti-mech trained infantry factor in this system. How about minefields and other "traps"?

We are exploring special operations missions (which fall under Intelligence Operations).

At the game scale of regiments battling regiments different kinds of infantry all even out in the stat block. Likewise, when a single hex can be a couple thousand kilometers across, mine fields and booby traps become an abstraction.

That said, there are and always will be rules for all of this. ISW supports "scaling down" to use any of the other game systems to resolve operations. It is just up to the players to decide how detailed they wish to get. If every fight devolves to AS battles, a single ISW game turn (one month) could take weeks to play out in the real world.

The power of detail will be in your hands.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: skiltao on 19 November 2014, 04:06:28
There seems to be a lot of repetition between tables. Surely some of that stuff (specifically the experience modifiers and aerospace superiority modifiers) can be pulled out into their own tables, and the base TNs adjusted to make some modifiers (specifically the Fatigue entries) simpler.


About Scouting:

The Scouting Modifiers table seems to say that a Panther is a better scout than a Cicada, or a Charger, and that a Ferret is worse than a Locust. That can't be right. There also does not seem to be any provision for advanced sensors (Irian EAR is Tech Level D and likely better than typical Clan Omni sensors), jamming (might aid evasion as well, but probably not concealment), or a sympathetic populace (would probably also modify morale).

Scouting points are currently assigned, then multiplied by 3 before being spent. Instead: assign them in multiples of 3 to start with. Then the player won't have to multiply them.

Scout Hunting damage currently has nothing to do with the hunters' actual firepower. I don't want Hi-Scout Drone Carriers to be effective scout hunters. The damage calculation should be brought more in line with standard combat damage.

Is evasion supposed to be unaffected by scouting? Should scouts have a "pursuit" option?

When in the turn does a player assign recon points to scouting, scout hunting and scout shielding? Is it the same time formations are assigned to combat and scouting (in which case, these are effectively formation types)? I assume that formations assigned to scouting still have a location on the ground map, even though they're exempt from normal combat.


About Combat:

It would be awfully helpful if the chapter followed the turn outline given under the "Combat" heading.

The "Aerospace Force" ratio on the first three combat tables seems to be the ratio of your aerospace assets to the enemy's aerospace force, but that's not specified anywhere, and it's not at all obvious how it's being calculated. Blips? Pilot headcount? Firepower? Target hex only or do adjacent spaces count?

The "Scattered beyond recovery" entry on the Combat Drops table seems like it should be equivalent to the "Disintegrated" entry on the Morale table, but there's no note to that effect.

Each player appears to be making separate combat rolls, such that one formation can be fighting at short range while the opposing formation fights at long range. That's weird. Not necessarily bad, just... weird.

I'm assuming that the loyalty ratings apply to how closely the Formation follows its immediate Leaders' orders, rather than having anything at all to do with the Field Manual loyalty ratings. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to put it on the Combat Factors table.

All elements in a formation fight at the same range, with the same tactic and with the same combat roll. So why not sum their damage together *before* applying the damage output modifier.

The damage inflicted modifier % is assigned in multiples of 10%, then divided by 4 during calculations. Again: assign in multiples of 2.5% (or multiply hit points by 4) to start with. Then the player won't have to divide later.

I tripped on the paragraph describing flanking and rear attacks: I didn't realize they gave different bonuses at first (separating it into two paragraphs would help); and (since the TN modifiers aren't mentioned in the text) it's not clear that TN modifiers are supposed to exist. Does flanking preclude a rear attack, or vice versa? Does picking one of these two preclude using "offensive" and "defensive" tactics? Can a player assign all Elements in that hex to a "flank" or "rear" attack, with none in "front?" (The TN penalty might be high enough to allow that. If not, then what proportion can be?) Why can't a fast, but numerically inferior force assign some Elements to a flank or rear attack? Hexes are huge relative to Formation size--why would it be so risky (the stacking/crowding penalty plus the flank/backstab penalty) to envelop an enemy you severely outnumber? Wouldn't outnumbering the enemy make envelopments easier?

Combat:Combat Resolution seems to imply that you can't combine offensive and defensive tactics. But what about things like blowing a dam, or setting a forest on fire to catch the enemy as they stumble out crippled and half-blind? That's both offensive and defensive (and less likely to work as your enemy's Tech Level rises, and risks permanent damage to the region).

Hiding in forests and badlands is a staple of BT fiction. I assume that's meant to be abstracted within the evasion & concealment rolls, but not all terrain is equal, and usually one part of a planet is reported as the most difficult to search. Exceptionally protective forests, badlands, (windstorms) etc could probably be accounted as "natural" fortifications.


About Troop Movements:

Combat:Ground Combat:Formation Setup and Combat:Ground Combat:Map Setup:Attack of Opportunity mention "combat orders," but "combat orders" aren't described within these rules. (Also, Resolution:Fatigue mentions "resting," and it's not clear what distinguishes "resting" from "not moving and not attacking.")

The Setup:Leadership Rating Pool:Experience Modifier Table lists a number of formations per experience level, and the Combat:Ground Combat:Hidden Formations says each Regiment costs .5 points to hide. It's not clear what portion of a "formation" this "regiment" is meant to be. Hidden Formations is also the only place to mention that troop movements are limited by the Leadership Pool.

Combat:Ground Combat:Adjusting Formations notes that Formation Adjustment costs double during Planetary Approach, but it never says a cost of *what*.

I don't understand how to move on the Planetary Approach Map. [This is slightly different from Atlas3060's comment, though it probably has the same answer.] Movement out to, in from, and within: the outer ring costs 3MP? the middle ring costs 2MP? the inner ring costs 1.5MP? What about the peripheral ring? Shouldn't the Combat:Planetary Approach Map:Long/Short Jump Point Transit option only affect the outer and peripheral rings? (This should really be back in Combat:Planetary Approach, and the Capital Radar examples really shouldn't be spread out alongside the Ground Combat stuff.)


About Combat Commands:

The terms "Combat Command" and "Formation" appear to function equivalently within the rules. It looks like the editor was in the process of converting from one term to the other?

All discussion of force scale (Setup:Determine Scale, Setup:Increasing the Base Command Scale, Combat:Ground Combat:Increased Base Command Scale, and Combat:Ground Combat:Formation Setup) should be rolled into Terminology:Combat Element. All other rules should refer only to "Combat Elements" (or to "Formations" of 1 to 18 Elements), without mention of scale or factional organization.

Combat:Ground Combat:Formation Setup should probably be rolled into Setup:Determine Forces.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Jayof9s on 19 November 2014, 11:39:46
I can't tell if I'm missing something obvious (and feel like I am) or if this is just an error:

For the Leadership table, the more skilled a command is, the lower their leadership rating is. However, a nation with superior military doctrine increases the rating, while inferior military doctrine reduces the rating. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Edit: Also, there is the Leadership Rating Pool (LRP) and Leadership Rating (LR) are these different? I just noticed that in the Leadership Rating Pool section it says "Leadership Rating (LRP)" but after that I primarily see LR used with only one instance of the abbreviation of LRP. (Sorry, I do too much tech writing)

Edit2: Was the Appendix that covered conversion rules intended to be included? Since we were given several example battles/forces, we don't necessarily need them, so I'm just curious.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 19 November 2014, 14:18:57
Hello,

Some great questions! In addition to the ones posted here, I got some other good questions from one of our internal reviews. I have answered all the questions here. Apologies, this is a wall of text but that's because of all the awesome questions.

Thanks again for everything. It is clear you are all digging right in.

Quote
Question 1

When a unit returns from recon turn, where does it go?
Does it teleport into any hex it wishes?

-   Answer: It must return to a hex with a friendly Formation. Rules will be updated.


Quote
Question 2

All clan unit lists in Scenario examples list Clusters, where the ACS rules prefer Trinaries.
ComStar Divisions are broken down into Level III, but Clusters are not.
One cluster could theoretically meet with grouping penalties. Two clusters in the same hex always will if Trinaries are the maximum sized Combat Element.


This is a flaw of the Scenario rules. Just divide all of them by 5 to get their Trinary stats. However a Formation can be up to 3 Clusters (see Formation Setup, p.5)


Quote
Question 3
Combat element has horrible description, confusing Unit with Battleforce Unit.
Needs a clear hierarchy to explain. Or diagram


Answer:
We have cleaned up this terminology in ISW and will update ACS. We are experimenting with precise names, in an attempt to keep continuity with BattleForce and AlphaStrike while adding support for the ISW Scale.

1-   Force- Ranging in size from a single Unit to a Regimental Combat Team—or more—depending upon the scenario, a Force is comprised of all the Units on one side of the engagement. Force is the same definition as used in BattleForce and Strategic BattleForce
2-   Formation- A formation is collection of Combat Commands which operate as a single unit (counter or miniature) on the Planetary Combat Map of the Abstract Combat System (see p. XX).
3-   Combat Command- This is a broad term to describe a collection of Elements or Units that make up a BattleTech fighting force. These are the fighting units of the game. Typically a Combat Command maps to an in universe Regiment/ Division/ Cluster. Full lists of these commands can be found in Field Manual and Field Updates series. Examples of such commands are the Second Sword of Light Regiment, ComStar 91st Division or the Jade Falcon Guards. Combat Commands are the game level used for tracking supplies, unit experience, morale, repair, etc.
4-   Combat Unit- The smallest unit that can be fielded in ISW or ACS Game play. An ISW Unit maps to a Battalion/ Level III/ Trinary of Elements.
5-   Combat Team- The building block of Combat Units and Commands. Combat units are equal to one Company / Level II/ Star. Combat Teams map directly to SBF Unit (see Strategic BattleForce p. XX) and can be used directly as an SBF playing piece. Combat Teams are not legal units for ACS game play(see Abstract Combat System p. XX).Combat Teams are the unit used when constructing Combat Commands for ISW game play (see Building Combat Equipment, p. XX).


In Universe Command Size Mapping
Company/ Level II/ Star
Battalion/ Level III/ Trinary
Regiment/ Division/ Cluster

Quote
Question 4
Formation is not really explained or defined clearly enough, and leads to difficulty setting up the game.
This is further complicated when reading the example on pp 5
We struggle to identify what an individual chit on the board represents? A combat element, a combat formation or a combat command?


A Combat Formation is intended to be a collection of Combat Commands. Because Combat Commands are not a fixed size use smaller building blocks to define the maximum size. See above the work to clean up hierarchy of components.
Here are updated guidelines:
“A Formation cannot be larger than 15 Combat Units (Battalions/ Level III / Trinary). A Formation may not be smaller than a single Combat Unit. “

Quote
Question 5
How do you build the above and this is complicated further by reinforcement and transferring of units with leadership. Does the LRP degrade as the game progresses as high leadership units are destroyed?


We are investigating. Suggestions are welcome.

Quote
Question 5
Aero dropped at zenith, can it move inwards?

Yes.

Quote
Question 6
Do we maintain merged chits (ie AS in Dropships and Warships, and Dropships on Warships) until inner system or immediately upon arrival at Jump point (because Warships cannot thurst with DS attached)...

No- For game simplicity we will probably fix this as part of deployment. As soon as a force arrives, it should be broken into Assault DropShip Units, WarShip Units,ASF Units, Non-Combat Transport Units (DropShips), an Non-Mobile JumpShip Units.

Quote
Question 7
1-   When do fighter formations separate from their transport/carrier formations?
2-   Can fighters exist in the Peripehral zone or outer ring?
3-   If a Fighter has move of 6+ can it reach the middle ring from the peripheral ring? Or are fighters MV halved to return to their carriers?
 

1-   Option 1- When you arrive in the Middle Ring. Option 2- In any Sector where combat is occurring.
2-   Yes, they just can’t move out of the sector they are deployed in. If their transport leaves or is destroyed, they are removed from play.
3-   No, we will update the PAM movement rules. Peripheral and Outer Zone take days or more to cross.


Quote
Comment 1
There seems to be a lot of repetition between tables. Surely some of that stuff (specifically the experience modifiers and aerospace superiority modifiers) can be pulled out into their own tables, and the base TNs adjusted to make some modifiers (specifically the Fatigue entries) simpler.

Great feedback. We’ll look at that. Saving page count would be great.

Quote
Comment 2
The Scouting Modifiers table seems to say that a Panther is a better scout than a Cicada, or a Charger, and that a Ferret is worse than a Locust. That can't be right. There also does not seem to be any provision for advanced sensors (Irian EAR is Tech Level D and likely better than typical Clan Omni sensors), jamming (might aid evasion as well, but probably not concealment), or a sympathetic populace (would probably also modify morale).
ACS rules are by their nature, Abstract. When working at the scale where a single game piece on the map represents hundreds of BattleMechs, Tanks or thousands of infantry you have to surrender some detail. Yes, a regiment of Panthers would not be as effective as a regiment of Chargers (there’s an image). At the ACS level thought the default is to use Generic Combat Units as the building blocks, a Tech C Light Regiment has a move of 7 and a Tech C Assault has a move of 4.
Likewise sensors end up being abstracted out at this level. A single game hex can be 2000 kilometers or more. A sensor pod with a range of 300 meters tends to be abstracted out at this level.
Good comment on sympathetic populace, I’m going to add that for consideration in our modifiers table.

Quote
Comment 3
Scouting points are currently assigned, then multiplied by 3 before being spent. Instead: assign them in multiples of 3 to start with. Then the player won't have to multiply them.
Valid, however we would then need to triple all the modifiers as well and that starts to get cumbersome just to make figuring out a target number easier. Am I missing something?

Quote
Comment 4
Scout Hunting damage currently has nothing to do with the hunters' actual firepower. I don't want Hi-Scout Drone Carriers to be effective scout hunters. The damage calculation should be brought more in line with standard combat damage.
We’re dealing at the abstraction level again. The points you invest in Scout Hunting come from your total scout pool which can be Hi-Scouts, Spiders, Pegasus hovertanks. The abstraction also covers such things as said Hi-Scout finding an enemy scout force and temporarily tasking a company from one of the Combat Formations to wipe it out.

Quote
Question 8
Is evasion supposed to be unaffected by scouting? Should scouts have a "pursuit" option?
There are currently no “Evasion” rules in ACS. Can you elaborate on what you mean?
Quote
Question 9
When in the turn does a player assign recon points to scouting, scout hunting and scout shielding? Is it the same time formations are assigned to combat and scouting (in which case, these are effectively formation types)? I assume that formations assigned to scouting still have a location on the ground map, even though they're exempt from normal combat.
You assign Formations (Units, Commands) to Scouting at the beginning of each Combat Turn (An ISW Sub-Turn). See Question 1 above.

Quote
Comment 5
It would be awfully helpful if the chapter followed the turn outline given under the "Combat" heading.

Yes- Once the rules are done and we stop moving things around, they will. 

Quote
Question 10
The "Aerospace Force" ratio on the first three combat tables seems to be the ratio of your aerospace assets to the enemy's aerospace force, but that's not specified anywhere, and it's not at all obvious how it's being calculated. Blips? Pilot headcount? Firepower? Target hex only or do adjacent spaces count?

Point Value, this has been updated.

Quote
Comment 6
The "Scattered beyond recovery" entry on the Combat Drops table seems like it should be equivalent to the "Disintegrated" entry on the Morale table, but there's no note to that effect.
Nice catch. That will probably work well.

Quote
Comment 7
Each player appears to be making separate combat rolls, such that one formation can be fighting at short range while the opposing formation fights at long range. That's weird. Not necessarily bad, just... weird.
Abstract combat. The Combat turn is seven days long. Let us know how this plays out though. It’s really a challenge to figure out “movement” and range at this abstraction scale.

Quote
Comment 8
I'm assuming that the loyalty ratings apply to how closely the Formation follows its immediate Leaders' orders, rather than having anything at all to do with the Field Manual loyalty ratings. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense to put it on the Combat Factors table.
Yes, something for us to look at.

Quote
Comment 9
All elements in a formation fight at the same range, with the same tactic and with the same combat roll. So why not sum their damage together *before* applying the damage output modifier.

Thanks, we’ll look at that.

Quote
Comment 10
The damage inflicted modifier % is assigned in multiples of 10%, then divided by 4 during calculations. Again: assign in multiples of 2.5% (or multiply hit points by 4) to start with. Then the player won't have to divide later.

Thanks, we’ll look at that.

Quote
Question 11
I tripped on the paragraph describing flanking and rear attacks: I didn't realize they gave different bonuses at first (separating it into two paragraphs would help); and (since the TN modifiers aren't mentioned in the text) it's not clear that TN modifiers are supposed to exist. Does flanking preclude a rear attack, or vice versa? Does picking one of these two preclude using "offensive" and "defensive" tactics? Can a player assign all Elements in that hex to a "flank" or "rear" attack, with none in "front?" (The TN penalty might be high enough to allow that. If not, then what proportion can be?) Why can't a fast, but numerically inferior force assign some Elements to a flank or rear attack? Hexes are huge relative to Formation size--why would it be so risky (the stacking/crowding penalty plus the flank/backstab penalty) to envelop an enemy you severely outnumber? Wouldn't outnumbering the enemy make envelopments easier?
We definitely need to clean this up.
Flanking and Rear are mutually exclusive.
Flanking and read can only be conducted using Offensive.
All Combat is by Formation (see Question 3 for clarifications). If two formations are in the same hex, one can Formation can conduct a Flank and the other a Rear.
Fast Units Flanking/Rear- Good thoughts, we’ll look into this.

Quote
Question 12
Combat:Combat Resolution seems to imply that you can't combine offensive and defensive tactics. But what about things like blowing a dam, or setting a forest on fire to catch the enemy as they stumble out crippled and half-blind? That's both offensive and defensive (and less likely to work as your enemy's Tech Level rises, and risks permanent damage to the region).
I think there may be confusion on what “Offensive” and “Defensive”. It’s about how aggressive or defensive you are. An offensive player has a chance to do more damage but at the potential cost of more damage to them. A defensive player has a chance to reduce the damage they take, but at the potential cost of reducing their return fire.

Quote
Question 13
Hiding in forests and badlands is a staple of BT fiction. I assume that's meant to be abstracted within the evasion & concealment rolls, but not all terrain is equal, and usually one part of a planet is reported as the most difficult to search. Exceptionally protective forests, badlands, (windstorms) etc could probably be accounted as "natural" fortifications.

At the abstraction level ACS is at, this would be difficult to track. The ACS Ground Map doesn’t even track water. It’s globe shaped only for visual symmetry.
Remember though that players can optionally use Turning Point Maps for more detailed game play. At that point players can agree on hexes having specific modifiers. We may explore future optional rules for this type of play, but not in IO.

Quote
Question 14
Combat:Ground Combat:Formation Setup and Combat:Ground Combat:Map Setup:Attack of Opportunity mention "combat orders," but "combat orders" aren't described within these rules. (Also, Resolution:Fatigue mentions "resting," and it's not clear what distinguishes "resting" from "not moving and not attacking.")
These are all part of ISW rules. They are not required for ACS game play.

Quote
Question 15
The Setup:Leadership Rating Pool:Experience Modifier Table lists a number of formations per experience level, and the Combat:Ground Combat:Hidden Formations says each Regiment costs .5 points to hide. It's not clear what portion of a "formation" this "regiment" is meant to be. Hidden Formations is also the only place to mention that troop movements are limited by the Leadership Pool.

We are cleaning up Formation sizing. See question 4. A regiment would be 5 Combat Units (Battalions/Level III/ Trinary). All Combat Units in a Formation must pay the hiding cost for the Formation to be Hidden.

Quote
Question 16
Combat:Ground Combat:Adjusting Formations notes that Formation Adjustment costs double during Planetary Approach, but it never says a cost of *what*.

That is also driven by the Leadership Pool

Quote
Question 16
I don't understand how to move on the Planetary Approach Map. [This is slightly different from Atlas3060's comment, though it probably has the same answer.] Movement out to, in from, and within: the outer ring costs 3MP? the middle ring costs 2MP? the inner ring costs 1.5MP? What about the peripheral ring? Shouldn't the Combat:Planetary Approach Map:Long/Short Jump Point Transit option only affect the outer and peripheral rings? (This should really be back in Combat:Planetary Approach, and the Capital Radar examples really shouldn't be spread out alongside the Ground Combat stuff.)[
PAM Movement is broken. It was designed for a three zone Radar Map, not the four zone Capital Radar Map.

Quote
Question 16
The terms "Combat Command" and "Formation" appear to function equivalently within the rules. It looks like the editor was in the process of converting from one term to the other?
Yes- See question 4. Combat Commands are normally Regiment in size. Formations can be multiple regiments in size.
Quote
Comment 11
All discussion of force scale (Setup:Determine Scale, Setup:Increasing the Base Command Scale, Combat:Ground Combat:Increased Base Command Scale, and Combat:Ground Combat:Formation Setup) should be rolled into Terminology:Combat Element. All other rules should refer only to "Combat Elements" (or to "Formations" of 1 to 18 Elements), without mention of scale or factional organization.
Good comments, we’re working on this.

Quote
Comment 12
Combat:Ground Combat:Formation Setup should probably be rolled into Setup:Determine Forces.
Thanks, we’ll look at that.
Quote
Question 17

For the Leadership table, the more skilled a command is, the lower their leadership rating is. However, a nation with superior military doctrine increases the rating, while inferior military doctrine reduces the rating. Shouldn't it be the other way around?
I’ll be honest. I’m not sure what we were thinking (and I wrote that). Let me look into this. For now flip the modifiers.

Quote
Question 18
Edit: Also, there is the Leadership Rating Pool (LRP) and Leadership Rating (LR) are these different? I just noticed that in the Leadership Rating Pool section it says "Leadership Rating (LRP)" but after that I primarily see LR used with only one instance of the abbreviation of LRP. (Sorry, I do too much tech writing)
We’re in mid process of changing the term. LRP and LR are the same thing.

Whew…. Next?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: SCC on 19 November 2014, 16:29:02
Even without playing it but just looking at it I have a complaint, the sample PCM is too small, it's only 7 hexes across. A good part of BT has always been maneuver warfare so such a small map it not very useful
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 19 November 2014, 16:58:55
Even without playing it but just looking at it I have a complaint, the sample PCM is too small, it's only 7 hexes across. A good part of BT has always been maneuver warfare so such a small map it not very useful

The original ISIF combat rules were a set of dice rolls. This was universally disliked and we heard that loud and clear. At the same time ISIF and its successor ISW are about Interstelllar Campaigns where the players are playing senior generals or even the faction leader themselves. Requiring every battle to be fought out at BattleForce or even the new Strategic BattleForce  (1 hex will equal 500 meters) would bog down all but the smallest border war.

ACS is the middle ground attempt to create a fast playing system that still has an element of the maneuver and tactics that make BattleTech, BattleTech. While growing the map by one or two hexes in width is in the possiblities (and I'd welcome playtest feedback using 8 and 9 hex maps) we are not going to make the ACS map larger.

If players want a larger map they have two options
1- Use the optional rules to use Turning Point Maps
2- Use Strategic BattleForce with it's 500 meter hexes.

Thank you,
Joel BC
ISW Lead Developer


And SCC? As a note and a suggestion, don't have a complaint. Instead ask a question "Is there a reason why the map is only seven hexes, it seems small for a proper fight." We at Catalyst welcome our fan's feedback but we are also only human so when people come with a negative instead of a positive (a complaint instead of a question) our human reaction is to become defensive. Blame it on our ape ancestors but hit a guy with a stick and he's going to be less happy than if you offer him a banana.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: solmanian on 19 November 2014, 17:57:00
Suggestion 1:
Formations with infantry elements (CI or BA) will get bonuses for flanking/rear against formations without such support.

Suggestion 2:
Critical failures in attack roles trigger a morale check, while critical success imposes a morale check for the target.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Kommando on 19 November 2014, 18:44:02
When setting up a game with Cambo we made up chits with combat command names on them. But looking at the turn order we realise that you reform your formations every turn. how do you aim to keep track of chits when their composition changes so often.

We're playing Luzurne and the IS side has a ton of commands shuffled between formations, most of which reside inside the Transport Sqn,  but still give the Sqn a better LR than the Sovetskii Soyuz.

incidentally, what makes up the transport Sqn, are they a bunch Invaders with dropships? 20 Overlords can't hang off a warship. Can  the transport Sqn make an in system jump and evade the CSJ DD/FF by approaching from below the planet? what are the rolls for in system jumps?

in the above answers you said aerospace can not move from their peripheral or outer ring location, but also said they can move in-system.
If the Warships organic aerospace launch organically at the end (or is it beginning) of turn one and become their own formation, can they follow the warship as it moves one space or do they have to be in the same formation to move?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: solmanian on 19 November 2014, 19:47:38
I would think that they would have to follow it, if it's their home base. Didn't it say that ASF can't survive by their own in deep space? Every turn is a week, they can't stay out in the cold that long.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 19 November 2014, 22:57:37
Suggestion 1:
Formations with infantry elements (CI or BA) will get bonuses for flanking/rear against formations without such support.

Can you elaborate on your reasoning?

When setting up a game with Cambo we made up chits with combat command names on them. But looking at the turn order we realise that you reform your formations every turn. how do you aim to keep track of chits when their composition changes so often.

The thought is to have Formations Chits Numbered. Then keep a tracking sheet on the side of the game surface to track what is in formations. Perhaps You could have say three formations sectioned off per standard sheet of paper and put Command Chits on the paper in the box for a given formation. That will allow easy moving of the Commands around formations and still have the Formation chits on the map.

Do you think we need to explain that in the rules or is that just best practices like movement dice next to Mechs in TW?

Quote
We're playing Luzurne and the IS side has a ton of commands shuffled between formations, most of which reside inside the Transport Sqn,  but still give the Sqn a better LR than the Sovetskii Soyuz.

Is this an issue? Is there a question?

Quote
incidentally, what makes up the transport Sqn, are they a bunch Invaders with dropships? 20 Overlords can't hang off a warship. Can  the transport Sqn make an in system jump and evade the CSJ DD/FF by approaching from below the planet? what are the rolls for in system jumps?


Transport Squadrons are JumpShips and Carrier DropShips. They are non-combatants. They come from ISW rules where all transport is abstracted out to Transport Points. Only WarShips and Assault DropShips are purchasable combat units.

Quote
in the above answers you said aerospace can not move from their peripheral or outer ring location, but also said they can move in-system.
If the Warships organic aerospace launch organically at the end (or is it beginning) of turn one and become their own formation, can they follow the warship as it moves one space or do they have to be in the same formation to move?

Aerospace move around the Peripheral and Outer Zones by being loaded on their transports (Abstract Transport typically). They then deploy to fight.

Raises a good point. With that level of abstraction ASF can move around all the zones since there is no way to target transports. Have to think on that one.

In the case of a WarShips organic assets, they would have to deploy in the WS formation in the Peiph and Outer Zones.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Kommando on 19 November 2014, 23:20:07
non combatant elements probably shouldn't have S/M/L stats then. it causes confusion.

can transport jumpships execute in-system jumps?

why is all damage divided by 4?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 19 November 2014, 23:48:17
non combatant elements probably shouldn't have S/M/L stats then. it causes confusion.

Hmm... see this is what happens when more than one writer works on rules. I asked AK to gin up the units for the scenarios and then didn't really look at them. So forget some of what I said. We will be figuring out how to take abstract transport and give it something to do in ACS (mostly moving targets).

Quote
can transport jumpships execute in-system jumps?


Yes , rules are in ISW.  I'm going to add this to the list of addendum I'll try and toss up shortly. Along with fixed PAM movement.

Quote
why is all damage divided by 4?

Because we love math... Simplifying the equations is on the list.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: solmanian on 20 November 2014, 00:04:56
Can you elaborate on your reasoning?
Well, since infantry forces are composed of a significantly larger number of individuals, it's easier for them to spread around for encirclement.
Also, as I said, infantry forces need a break in the current ACS. It doesn't matter that they're cheap, when their battlefield effectiveness is non-existent, and they get penalized when trying to swarm. From a strategic purpose, they're just taking up space, that could be utilized better by any other kind of unit. At the very least have them take less space (maybe even none) in fortifications (I can see a LOT of infantry being able to garrison a capital city) or boost weapon emplacements, or something; just throw them a bone. Maybe give them more utilitarian abilities.

Transport Squadrons are JumpShips and Carrier DropShips. They are non-combatants. They come from ISW rules where all transport is abstracted out to Transport Points. Only WarShips and Assault DropShips are purchasable combat units.

The thing is, the carrier dropships are a real game changers. Even a carriar Dropship has significantly higher firepower than your average ground units. Trying to dislodge it from a landing site, to cut an invading force retreat, would require devoting significant resources. At the same time, destroying or taking the enemy dropship, often wins the battle; in most cases in battletech where that happened, the force either surrendered or dispersed until they can be smuggled off world (often without their battlemechs and tanks).

It's not like a Jumpship, where they often surrender when the first shots are fired; droppers are a tough nut, essentially a mobile fortification. And knocking them gives a huge advantage, almost like taking the king in a chess match.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 20 November 2014, 00:11:02
Hmm... see this is what happens when more than one writer works on rules. I asked AK to gin up the units for the scenarios and then didn't really look at them. So forget some of what I said. We will be figuring out how to take abstract transport and give it something to do in ACS (mostly moving targets).

Have you looked at the stats for the transport units?  They are basically moving targets.  :)  Aerospace fighter wings or Stars annihilate them.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 20 November 2014, 01:32:42
Adapting on the fly, Alexander Knight has devised stats for three different types of infantry units, Heavy, Standard and Recon.

The stats in the image are for one company (12 Elements) of Infantry. Cost is Resource Points from ISW.

Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Weirdo on 20 November 2014, 01:58:39
one company (12 Elements) of Infantry.

I haven't read through the ACS yet, but assuming an Element is an Infantry platoon, 12 such elements would be a reinforced battalion under standard organization, not merely a company. Now if an Element is just a squad, then yes, that'd be a company.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 20 November 2014, 01:59:36
I haven't read through the ACS yet, but assuming an Element is an Infantry platoon, 12 such elements would be a reinforced battalion under standard organization, not merely a company. Now if an Element is just a squad, then yes, that'd be a company.

It is 1 Company's / 1 Star's worth of infantry.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 20 November 2014, 02:26:04
I haven't read through the ACS yet, but assuming an Element is an Infantry platoon, 12 such elements would be a reinforced battalion under standard organization, not merely a company. Now if an Element is just a squad, then yes, that'd be a company.

There's always one unit type that just breaks the stupid mold...

What AK just said- 1 Company / 1 Star
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 20 November 2014, 03:09:14
ok my roommate and i tried the Luzerene scenario and found some problems
1.the PCM is to small (he broke his units down to to 2 battalion each to spread the defenders)
2. transports need a carrying cap and should be able to hold there own vs fighter wings (even one Union is hard for a fighter sq to take down)
3. the example for the FWLS Raven show it getting the mvdif penalty vs aero wings yet the rules say cap or scap units dont get mvdif vs aero wings
4.does damage reduction happen in the turn it is damaged or in following turns
5. on the combat results chart the LR mods dont match the rules (/ by 3 rd)example. aerospace wing 6/3=2, 1st def wing 4/3=1 same for 5th lyran aero wing
6.most of the entries on the combat example have errors that make it hard to figure out combat
example= 5th lyran areo wing delivered=54 mod=1.6 final=22  p.s. 12x1.6 is not 22 its 19.2 so how was this figured out or is it an error ?
besides that love the Abstract Combat System so far keep up the good work!! O0
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 20 November 2014, 03:34:04
ok my roommate and i tried the Luzerene scenario and found some problems
1.the PCM is to small (he broke his units down to to 2 battalion each to spread the defenders)

Interesting. May explore also limiting how small a Formation can be.

Quote
2. transports need a carrying cap and should be able to hold there own vs fighter wings (even one Union is hard for a fighter sq to take down)


They are directly based on AlphaStrike stats. I can tell you from traditional aerospace play even a squadron or Sparrowhawks can pretty much own a Union. We will look into this. It is one of the age old issues, the rules for aerospace and the fiction for planetary landings don't match.

Quote
3. the example for the FWLS Raven show it getting the mvdif penalty vs aero wings yet the rules say cap or scap units dont get mvdif vs aero wings


Page references please

Quote
4.does damage reduction happen in the turn it is damaged or in following turns

 
As with all BattleTech, damage is applied immediately.

Quote
5. on the combat results chart the LR mods dont match the rules (/ by 3 rd)example. aerospace wing 6/3=2, 1st def wing 4/3=1 same for 5th lyran aero wing

Thanks

Quote
6.most of the entries on the combat example have errors that make it hard to figure out combat
example= 5th lyran areo wing delivered=54 mod=1.6 final=22  p.s. 12x1.6 is not 22 its 19.2 so how was this figured out or is it an error ?
Quote

Checking

Quote
besides that love the Abstract Combat System so far keep up the good work!! O0

Thank you!

Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 20 November 2014, 03:36:13
ok my roommate and i tried the Luzerene scenario and found some problems

Oh and any thought to the stats? Would they work better divided by 10?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 20 November 2014, 03:46:00
Oh and any thought to the stats? Would they work better divided by 10?
yes  ;)
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 20 November 2014, 03:54:27
 
1.They are directly based on AlphaStrike stats. I can tell you from traditional aerospace play even a squadron or Sparrowhawks can pretty much own a Union. We will look into this. It is one of the age old issues, the rules for aerospace and the fiction for planetary landings don't match.
 

2.Page references please

 
3.As with all BattleTech, damage is applied immediately.


1. Isn't that always the case lol, but i ment more the fact that a dropship is not going to stay and fight its moving at one G  to transit the system and if the fighters are not at the nadir/zenith point or in orbit they would not have a chance to engage.

2. pg 15 Aerospace Combat rules / pg 18 Combat Results Table

3.but that could change the effect of an attack lower the DR ? seems like this would cause math headaches for the players.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: skiltao on 20 November 2014, 05:11:57
Comment 1
Great feedback. We’ll look at that. Saving page count would be great.

Cool.

Quote from: welshman
Comment 2
Quote from: skiltao
The Scouting Modifiers table seems to say that a Panther is a better scout than a Cicada, or a Charger, and that a Ferret is worse than a Locust. That can't be right. There also does not seem to be any provision for advanced sensors (Irian EAR is Tech Level D and likely better than typical Clan Omni sensors), jamming (might aid evasion as well, but probably not concealment), or a sympathetic populace (would probably also modify morale).

ACS rules are by their nature, Abstract. When working at the scale where a single game piece on the map represents hundreds of BattleMechs, Tanks or thousands of infantry you have to surrender some detail. Yes, a regiment of Panthers would not be as effective as a regiment of Chargers (there’s an image). At the ACS level thought the default is to use Generic Combat Units as the building blocks, a Tech C Light Regiment has a move of 7 and a Tech C Assault has a move of 4.
Likewise sensors end up being abstracted out at this level. A single game hex can be 2000 kilometers or more. A sensor pod with a range of 300 meters tends to be abstracted out at this level.

It makes more sense to use speed here than weight. If the game pieces *have* a movement value, why not use it?

"Advanced sensors" on scout units (see: Hussar, Hermes II) tend to have ranges a hundred times what you're claiming. How is noting "advanced sensors" more difficult than noting Tech Level? What does using Tech Level add to this table that "advanced sensors" wouldn't?

(Why is "Tech Level" being used at all? If it's the only modification that can be made to a Generic Unit, then you'd get more variety (with equal simplicity) by replacing it with a modifier to any one stat.)

Also, the sample forces included in the beta doc did not include weight class. The ComStar forces didn't specify unit type.

Quote from: Welshman
Comment 3
Quote from: skiltao
Scouting points are currently assigned, then multiplied by 3 before being spent. Instead: assign them in multiples of 3 to start with. Then the player won't have to multiply them.

Valid, however we would then need to triple all the modifiers as well and that starts to get cumbersome just to make figuring out a target number easier. Am I missing something?

You should always, always simplify the algebra of a calculation when you can. It's a little bit of math now to save a lot of math every turn of every game from now until eternity, and I doubt the hunting/shielding rolls have been calibrated so precisely that they can't accomodate the change. One roll of 2d6+5 is pretty close to 3 rolls of 1d6+1 for instance.

(http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m306/skiltao/conversiondemo_zps7b1d04c9.png)

Quote from: welshman
Comment 4
Quote from: skiltao
Scout Hunting damage currently has nothing to do with the hunters' actual firepower. I don't want Hi-Scout Drone Carriers to be effective scout hunters. The damage calculation should be brought more in line with standard combat damage.
We’re dealing at the abstraction level again. The points you invest in Scout Hunting come from your total scout pool which can be Hi-Scouts, Spiders, Pegasus hovertanks. The abstraction also covers such things as said Hi-Scout finding an enemy scout force and temporarily tasking a company from one of the Combat Formations to wipe it out.

That's assuming that there's a combat unit nearby, that the combat unit isn't otherwise occupied, and that the number (or cleverness) of scouts is small enough that wiping it out won't require a large portion of the Combat Formation. And again: the units (even a company borrowed from a Formation) *have* attack values assigned to them. Is there a reason *not* to use those values?

Quote from: welshman
Question 8
Quote from: skiltao
Is evasion supposed to be unaffected by scouting? Should scouts have a "pursuit" option?
There are currently no “Evasion” rules in ACS. Can you elaborate on what you mean?

There is an "Evade Modifiers" table. The text alongside it says Combat Formations can attempt to evade combat as part of their movement. I would think that enemy scouts might make such evasions more difficult.

Quote from: welshman
Question 9
You assign Formations (Units, Commands) to Scouting at the beginning of each Combat Turn (An ISW Sub-Turn).

Okay.

Quote from: welshman
(question 9 cont'd)
Quote from: skiltao
I assume that formations assigned to scouting still have a location on the ground map, even though they're exempt from normal combat.

See Question 1 above.

My concern is that, if scouts aren't assigned a specific location on the map, players could use "scouting" as a way to transmit units further and more safely than they could move normally.

Quote from: welshman
Comment 5
Yes- Once the rules are done and we stop moving things around, they will.

Question 10
Point Value, this has been updated.

Comment 6
Nice catch. That will probably work well.

Cool.

Quote from: welshman
Comment 7
Quote from: skiltao
Each player appears to be making separate combat rolls, such that one formation can be fighting at short range while the opposing formation fights at long range. That's weird. Not necessarily bad, just... weird.
Abstract combat. The Combat turn is seven days long.

I'm aware. I don't think those excuse it.

You guys realize that nobody will ever attempt a Short Range attack when, at the same TN, you can do more damage by combining a Medium range attack with a 2-point "offensive" tactic, right?

Quote from: welshman
(Comment 7 cont'd)
Let us know how this plays out though. It’s really a challenge to figure out “movement” and range at this abstraction scale.

This read-through is as much as I'll be doing, unfortunately. I won't have opportunity to play test.

Quote from: welshman
Comment 8
Yes, something for us to look at.

Comment 9
Thanks, we’ll look at that.
 
Comment 10
Thanks, we’ll look at that.

Question 11
We definitely need to clean this up.
Flanking and Rear are mutually exclusive.
<snip>
All Combat is by Formation (see Question 3 for clarifications). If two formations are in the same hex, one can Formation can conduct a Flank and the other a Rear.
<snip>


Cool.

Quote from: welshman
(Question 11 cont'd)
Flanking and read can only be conducted using Offensive.
Fast Units Flanking/Rear- Good thoughts, we’ll look into this.

Are Flanking/Rear attacks chosen *instead of* an Offensive modifier, or do they *stack with* the Offensive modifier? Regardless, you're basically getting free MoS for outnumbering the enemy, with the main tradeoff being the penalty for dumping too many units into the hex. I wonder if those two effects could be consolidated? Put them next to each other on the Combat chart, at least.

Quote from: welshman
Question 12
Quote from: skiltao
Combat:Combat Resolution seems to imply that you can't combine offensive and defensive tactics. But what about things like blowing a dam, or setting a forest on fire to catch the enemy as they stumble out crippled and half-blind? That's both offensive and defensive (and less likely to work as your enemy's Tech Level rises, and risks permanent damage to the region).
I think there may be confusion on what “Offensive” and “Defensive”. It’s about how aggressive or defensive you are. An offensive player has a chance to do more damage but at the potential cost of more damage to them. A defensive player has a chance to reduce the damage they take, but at the potential cost of reducing their return fire.

There are tactics (such as burning down a forest) which multiplies the damage you do to the enemy while simultaneously reducing how much damage the enemy does to you. I think such tactics are worth representing in ACS, and I think allowing players to stack an Offensive modifier with a Defensive modifier would be a very easy way to represent them.

A more complex option might give the player a bonus for sacrificing fortifications, supply dumps, etc.

Quote from: welshman
Question 13
Quote from: skiltao
Hiding in forests and badlands is a staple of BT fiction. I assume that's meant to be abstracted within the evasion & concealment rolls, but not all terrain is equal, and usually one part of a planet is reported as the most difficult to search. Exceptionally protective forests, badlands, (windstorms) etc could probably be accounted as "natural" fortifications.
At the abstraction level ACS is at, this would be difficult to track. The ACS Ground Map doesn’t even track water. It’s globe shaped only for visual symmetry.
Remember though that players can optionally use Turning Point Maps for more detailed game play. At that point players can agree on hexes having specific modifiers. We may explore future optional rules for this type of play, but not in IO.

I am proposing that you add a few rows to the Fortifications table, with the assumption that "natural" fortifications are no more numerous than standard or capital fortifications. They would not be any more difficult to track than fortifications are already.

Quote from: welshman
Question 13
These are all part of ISW rules. They are not required for ACS game play.

I take that to mean the references will be removed from the ACS chapter, then.

Quote from: welshman
Question 15
We are cleaning up Formation sizing. See question 4. A regiment would be 5 Combat Units (Battalions/Level III/ Trinary). All Combat Units in a Formation must pay the hiding cost for the Formation to be Hidden.

See my followup to Question 16c.

Quote from: welshman
Question 16a (first question numbered "16")
That is also driven by the Leadership Pool

Okay.

Quote from: welshman
Question 16b (second question numbered "16")
PAM Movement is broken. It was designed for a three zone Radar Map, not the four zone Capital Radar Map.

Okay. When you fix it, please (if at all possible) phrase it in terms of MP cost per hex, not as multipliers to the unit's thrust rating.

Quote from: welshman
Question 16c (third question numbered "16")
Yes- See question 4. Combat Commands are normally Regiment in size. Formations can be multiple regiments in size.

Everything the ACS rules do, is best done at the Combat Element level or at the Formation level. The terms "regiment" and "combat command" are unnecessary for play.

Quote from: welshman
Comment 11
Good comments, we’re working on this.

Comment 12
Thanks, we’ll look at that.

Cool.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: james43a on 20 November 2014, 08:55:12
I have one question Where are the LAMS Rules I been waiting for years for them and I thought this was the book that they was going to be Publish in?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: nckestrel on 20 November 2014, 09:18:13
I have one question Where are the LAMS Rules I been waiting for years for them and I thought this was the book that they was going to be Publish in?

This is only one small section of IO.  There has been no change in plans for the LAM rules that I have heard (ie. they will be in IO, presumably the Alternate Eras section).
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 20 November 2014, 13:43:20
This is only one small section of IO.  There has been no change in plans for the LAM rules that I have heard (ie. they will be in IO, presumably the Alternate Eras section).

Yes, please read the IO announcement http://bg.battletech.com/news/battleblog/interstellar-operations-cometh/ (http://bg.battletech.com/news/battleblog/interstellar-operations-cometh/). There is a Table of Contents for IO.

Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 20 November 2014, 13:55:07
3.but that could change the effect of an attack lower the DR ? seems like this would cause math headaches for the players.

Sorry, perhaps I wasn't' clear.

All damage happens in the "damage" phase at the end of the Sub-Turn, just like happens in TW. So all damage is done at the same time, then all damage takes effect at the same time.

Cool.

A lot of great feedback, thank you. Please keep it coming, I'll be looking to do an update of the rules shortly.

I know how time is limited, but if you even have time on a lunch hour to try and play out even a small campaign (a couple of regiments on a side) that would be awesome. You've already poked tons of holes in our rules and I'd like to hear more.

A couple of comments:

Forces- For ACS we will be focusing on Combat Unit and Formations as the main terms. Combat Command is important to ISW, since it maps to canon units in universe,  but we understand it is confusing here.

Tactics- We'll look at your comments more in depth.

Recon- Going to look at MP value to be the main driver here. Tech Level is relevant as the higher the Tech, the better the sensors.

Math and Dice Rolls- First off, I'll be honest, I'm not a math guy. One of the other primary authors isn't a math guy. I'm going to go out and hit a couple of our math guys over the head and drag them in to help with this stuff.

Evasion- Sorry, had a senior moment. Good comment.

Scout Locations- Valid. Something to be said for this pro and con. We'll look more.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Dukeroyal on 20 November 2014, 17:53:24
In the Order of Battle listing for Luzerne shouldn't the WarShips have a notation that their damage is Capital scale? It doesn't really matter to the rules per se but it could have an effect on any future scenarios published using these rules involving WarShips.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: nckestrel on 20 November 2014, 17:56:01
In the Order of Battle listing for Luzerne shouldn't the WarShips have a notation that their damage is Capital scale? It doesn't really matter to the rules per se but it could have an effect on any future scenarios published using these rules involving WarShips.

That should be handled in conversion.  BattleForce practically concerts very thing to capital scale.  Higher levels of scale (strategic BF and This ACS) don't have separate scales for warships.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 20 November 2014, 18:06:56
As NCKestrel said, the Capital-scale vs Standard-scale damge (and armor) is already accounted for in the conversion process.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 20 November 2014, 18:44:42
As NCKestrel said, the Capital-scale vs Standard-scale damge (and armor) is already accounted for in the conversion process.

When referring to the Aerospace combat rules on page 15, it is importent to know if the ship is CAP/SCAP
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 20 November 2014, 19:30:02
When referring to the Aerospace combat rules on page 15, it is importent to know if the ship is CAP/SCAP

Alex?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Kommando on 20 November 2014, 19:46:06
CAP and SCAP get free shots. so is say yes it is important.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Atlas3060 on 20 November 2014, 19:55:54
I'm reading through the pdf a couple of times, but I couldn't find the answer.
Does the winner of Initiative go last when deploying formations on the PCM?
I read the PAM rules, but was unaware if this goes the same for ground forces.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 20 November 2014, 20:22:39
I'm reading through the pdf a couple of times, but I couldn't find the answer.
Does the winner of Initiative go last when deploying formations on the PCM?
I read the PAM rules, but was unaware if this goes the same for ground forces.

Okay, that's odd.

Same as TW and AS, winner goes last.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 20 November 2014, 20:25:04
Hello, folks.

I've added a word doc draft of the ISW Pirate Point rules as promised.

We also hope to have updated PAM movement to you soon.

Best,
Joel BC
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 20 November 2014, 20:58:55
CAP and SCAP get free shots. so is say yes it is important.

The Warships in the scenarios should all have the CAP special listed....
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Issamuel on 20 November 2014, 22:35:23
Oh and any thought to the stats? Would they work better divided by 10?

Yes - the "smaller" numbers make it easier to grasp.

Although I do have a concern that it may lead to the same problems like the initial AlphaStrike PV - where lower BV value units had practically the same 1PV - before it was revised to the current new AlphaStrike PV .
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 20 November 2014, 22:46:04
Not sure if this is possible but a list of unit breakdowns would be nice to setup our own battles.
this would allow us to test the system on a large scale and give more enlighten feedback. (exp=heavy Mech company,light mech company etc.)
 O0
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 20 November 2014, 23:22:20
Not sure if this is possible but a list of unit breakdowns would be nice to setup our own battles.
this would allow us to test the system on a large scale and give more enlighten feedback. (exp=heavy Mech company,light mech company etc.)
 O0

Ask and you shall receive. I have attached  the ISW Generic Combat Element table to the first post. It shows the stats for each type of game unit at the Company/Star  (Combat Team)  level.

Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 21 November 2014, 00:08:44
Ask and you shall receive. I have attached  the ISW Generic Combat Element table to the first post. It shows the stats for each type of game unit at the Company/Star  (Combat Team)  level.
you now my 2nd fav person in the world (grandma first lol)
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 21 November 2014, 00:20:14
you now my 2nd fav person in the world (grandma first lol)

I'll have to take third place. Alexander Knight created the table, I just let you see it.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 21 November 2014, 02:11:31
Folks,

If you are tying more combats, please try with a Ground Map that is 7 hexes across, instead of the current 5.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 21 November 2014, 02:20:40
ok a few more ?

1. how do you figure out speed when making a unit from the IO-ISW Generic Combat Elements
a.lowest speed (if this one it hurts the clans bad ,one word elementals)
b.highest speed
c.average speed
2.are the armor/range damage added together or averaged

and the game works better on the turning point maps so far but if you needed it run on a 7 hex map i can try that.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 21 November 2014, 02:22:59
1.
B
2.
Added together.  Movement is the only thing that's averaged.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 21 November 2014, 02:39:14
and the game works better on the turning point maps so far but if you needed it run on a 7 hex map i can try that.

Thanks, great feedback. Unfortunately it won't be feasible to create enough Turning Point maps to represent even a broad sample of Inner Sphere worlds.

So will be using the generic Planetary Combat Map as our base. We just need to find the right size. A standard BattleTech map is too big, 5 hexes across is too small.

Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 21 November 2014, 03:02:03
1.
B
2.
Added together.  Movement is the only thing that's averaged.
so is it b or averaged
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 21 November 2014, 03:26:49
now on to another question
the battle of twycross list the Falcon Guard Cluster as mv=6,arm=233, s/m/l= 111/106/33
now divided by 5 thats arm=47/46,s/m/l= 22/21/7

from the battle of twycross Sourcebooks we have the OFB for the Falcon Guard
the units trinaries should be
Name        MV       Arm      S    M    L
Alpha        5/6      213      97  97  53   With command star added
Bravo        6/7      146      68  68  36
charlie       6/7      141      67  67  35
Delta         4/6      103      51  36   7
Echo         4/6      103      51  36   7
Totals       5/7      676     334 304 137
MV= average/highest

so the question is am i add the units wrong or was there a error in the stats in the ACS beta
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Blacknova on 21 November 2014, 03:51:10
Is there any chance of seeing AAR's from play tests?  I would love to see how these scenarios play play out within the system.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 21 November 2014, 11:46:35
so is it b or averaged

Sorry, should have been C.  As for the Falcon Guard, generic Trinaries were used to construct it, while the Battle of Twycross was consulted for a guide.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 21 November 2014, 14:38:40
Is there any chance of seeing AAR's from play tests?  I would love to see how these scenarios play play out within the system.

Blacknova is one of our writers on this project. What he says, we want to see AAR reports please.

Joel
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Atlas3060 on 21 November 2014, 17:57:43
Blacknova is one of our writers on this project. What he says, we want to see AAR reports please.

Joel
I'll be working on Sarna soon.
I'll post my findings in the AA part of the forum later.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 21 November 2014, 19:02:26
I'll be working on Sarna soon.
I'll post my findings in the AA part of the forum later.

Post a link here please when you do.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Atlas3060 on 22 November 2014, 03:36:44
Still working on it, found some hiccups/questions that are driving me crazy.

I'll be using the Sarna scenario from the PDF, because why the heck not!
Let's begin at the beginning with Formations.

I created a Formation named TF (Task Force) Wind:
Screaming EaglesAerospace WingRegularMV 6
Ground Support Wing5th Syrtis FusiliersRegularMV 7
Screaming Eagles'Mech RegimentRegularMV 6
Mercs count as 2 Elements for building so really out of these 3 I got my 5 limit done rather quick

As they plodded around, liberating the snot out of Sarna, they were ambushed by a hidden Formation named  DF (Defend Force) Rebels:
5th McCarron's Armored Cavalry Regiment 5th MACVeteranMV 4
Sarna Planetary Militia #1MotorGreenMV 4
Sarna Planetary Militia #2MotorGreenMV 4
Sarna Planetary Militia #3MotorGreenMV 4

Same merc unit limitations for these 4 fulfilling the 5 spots as per the rules.

Since Liao won the Initiative in my die roll, they go after the Davions start plotting their attacks.
Now for all purposes of Leadership, TF Wind is Regular and DF Rebels are Vets right?


LR for a Regular is 6, Veteran is 4
Which means the TN for Wind is 4 (2 * (6/3))
While TN for Rebels is 3 (2 * (4/3))

Rebels opt for a Medium Ranged attack, while Wind goes for Long Ranged.

Which brings up my second question: What benefits are there to a Long or Medium ranged attack over the short one?
It isn't like this will affect the enemy's roll somehow.
Might as well go short ranged to get all the damage you can on them.

Now to break down the roll modifiers for each side.
TF Wind is facing someone slower than them, because the slowest unit in Wind is 6.
4-6 = -2
Because I subtract my enemy's movement from my own.
Though shouldn't that be reversed if this is going to alter the roll and not the TN?
If anything Wind should get a bonus because they are faster.


Now the "Force Experience is" part, is that for the target?
Then it makes sense, trying to target a higher LR value target would be trickier.
I just thought some clarification could be used here too.

Same question goes for Force Loyalty.

With those assumptions, the mod to the roll will be a -10 for TF Wind.
Because the +2 for being faster than the target was canceled by the target's experience, but Wind did get the handicap of being ambushed. Since there was no indication of Loyalty on the charts, I'll assume Reliable (which gives no mod either way). Also they are fighting long ranged.

DF Rebels would get a roll mod: -6 for facing faster, Regular trooper, and fighting Medium ranged.

Assuming anyone can hit with those mods, I spread around the damages to individual elements within those forces right?

So far I'm thinking correctly, right?

Another concern I had was how Aeros just aren't maneuverable in planetary atmo.
They lose half their MP and each hex traveled is 2 MP cost.
Plus do they have to be within a range for their "home base" hex?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 22 November 2014, 04:03:24
Just saw this.... I'll try and respond tomorrow. Please remind me if I forget.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Issamuel on 22 November 2014, 09:38:04
I have been attempting to play the "Luzerene" historical campaign with my partner, but need some clarification to the rules.

Damage Phase
My questions is based on the following two passage from the rules:
...damage inflicted by each Combat Element in a Formation has been determined, it is added together and then assigned to the Formation’s target. The damage is then applied to the Combat Elements within the targeted Formation randomly, in 20 point lots...
and
....damage formula is Combat Element Damage for selected range * Damage Inflicted Modifier, all divided by 4 and rounded to the nearest whole number....

Question(s):
1) I do not understand how to distribute damage to combat elements in a formation "randomly": Does this mean the 20 point (Or 2 point lots if using the divided by 10 calculations) lots would require a separate dice roll to allocate the lots randomly to the combat elements? (E.g: 6 combat elements in a formation labeled 1 to 6. 80 points damage dealt to the formation in total, which is 4 lots. Roll 1D6, with each dice result for a corresponding combat element to be assigned the damage lot.)

2) By "randomly" assigning to the combat elements, who will be the assigner of the damage: The dealer of the damage, or the receiver of the damage?

3) For the damage formula, I do not understand the "divided by 4" part of the calculation for a combat element. Does this mean that if the element has the following stats.... (divided by 10):

4th PGC / Jaguar     - MV:5    ARM:24    S:11   M:10   L:4   PV:90 Elite

It does the following damage as an element at "Medium" range, and with "No" Tactics:

M:10 damage * 1 (For no tactics for modifiers), divide by 4 = 2.5 which is rounded up = 3 damage by the element...

...before adding to the formation total damage to be inflicted to the opponent?

4) Using the "Luzerene" historical campaign, resolving combat based on the following opposing formations, is it possible to provide an example of how the damage distribution would work as envisioned by the rules? For this case, range is "Medium" and "No" Tactics are used by either formations.

Star League Forces ( Figures divided by 10)
Formation 208th ComGuard Division
Combat elements:
A / 208th - MV:5    ARM:13    S:4   M:4   L:2   PV:37 Veteran
B / 208th - MV:6    ARM:11    S:4   M:4   L:2   PV:35 Veteran
C / 208th - MV:5    ARM:7     S:3   M:3   L:1   PV:27 Veteran
D / 208th - MV:4    ARM:12    S:4   M:4   L:2   PV:37 Veteran
E / 208th - MV:3    ARM:6     S:2   M:2   L:1   PV:22 Veteran


Clan Smoke Jaguar ( Figures divided by 10)
Formation Luzerene Garrison
Combat elements:
4th PGC / Jaguar     - MV:5    ARM:24    S:11   M:10   L:4   PV:90 Elite
6th Striker / Jaguar - MV:5    ARM:23    S:11   M:10   L:5   PV:80 Elite


As a reference, currently, I am calculating the following damage based on my shaky understanding on the rules:
Formation 208th ComGuard Division
A / 208th = 1 damage
B / 208th = 1 damage
C / 208th = 1 damage
D / 208th = 1 damage
E / 208th = 1 damage
= Total formation damage 5. Total 2 point lots = 2 . There is 1 point extra.


Formation Luzerene Garrison
4th PGC / Jaguar = 3 damage
6th Striker / Jaguar = 3 damage
= Total formation damage 6. Total 2 point lots = 3.


Damage distribution from Formation Luzerene Garrison = 6 damage, 3 lots of 2 damage , roll 1d6 for randomness (re-roll result 6), damage receiver player roll for Formation 208th ComGuard Division
B / 208th = 4 damage received from 2 lots.
D / 208th = 2 damage received from 1 lot.


Damage distribution from Formation 208th ComGuard Division = 5 damage, 2 lots of 2 damage, and 1 additional damage , roll 1d6 for randomness (Results of 1 to 3 for first element in formation, 4 to 6 for second element, damage receiver player roll for Formation Luzerene Garrison
4th PGC / Jaguar = 4 damage received from 2 lots.
6th Striker / Jaguar = 1 damage received from the leftover extra.


Am I doing it wrong completely?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Issamuel on 22 November 2014, 10:06:12
One more question before I pack up by game board that I used for the beta test and wait for replies and errata:

For Transport/Dropship Formations that are carrying ground unit Formations (Mechs, Supportive units, etc), how do we handle the damage inflicted to those Transport/Dropship Formations and their valuable cargo?

This question came as part of the "Luzerene" historical campaign : My partner's warship formation - and some bad and risky 50% offensives rolls on my part - wiped out my SLDF Troop Transport Squadron, and caused 75% damage to the Assault DropShip Squadron.... in other words, 1 ARM left (In the divide 10 stats). I was trying to find out how to decide which ground unit was "alive" for the ground combat purposes - but could not find how to resolve transported unit damage.

After discussion with my partner, we proceed with having all ground units deployed at 75% damage each.... the resulting morale rolls was.... hilarious... so to speak. For my partner that is. I was not amused. :'(

Also, good work on the ACS! O0 Can't wait to get the final official IO rule book, and be the general who changed history, and brought George Hasek's head to the Archon-Princess! (And prevented the loss of an expensive warship to a kamakazi attack.... always hated that part...). Keep it up!  O0
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 22 November 2014, 12:53:21
One thing that's missing seems to be a way for you to Screen your more imported units in a battlegroup (command elements,artillery,etc.)
my suggestion would be a new defensive action
1.Screen (defensive)=May Assign on a one for one bases one Battalion to screen another  which must be attacked before the Screened unit.
or
2.Screening unit takes 50% of all damage assigned to the screened unit.

also Troop Transport Squadrons units need a carry limit
to avoid the whole invasion for being destroyed by one lucky  shot.

In the Sarna Campaign how do the reinforcements arrive on the board
1. from orbit landing on round 4
2. just appear on the battlefield on round 4
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 22 November 2014, 16:46:59
One thing that's missing seems to be a way for you to Screen your more imported units in a battlegroup (command elements,artillery,etc.)
my suggestion would be a new defensive action
1.Screen (defensive)=May Assign on a one for one bases one Battalion to screen another  which must be attacked before the Screened unit.
or
2.Screening unit takes 50% of all damage assigned to the screened unit.

Hello,

The Shield Command from ISW is designed to cover this. I'm quoting it here.
Quote
Commands with this order protect other forces (with combat if needed). This order safeguards other combat commands from damage while repairing, resting or resupplying, so long as the command being protected makes up no more than 30% (round up) of a total force on a planet. If this condition is met (which may require more than one command on planet to be using the Shield order), the player does not need place the shielded force on the Planetary Combat Map when using the Abstract Combat System (see p. XX).
If at the start of a sub-turn, the shielded force becomes equal to 50% or more of the allied force on the world, the player must either place the unit on the Planetary Combat Map in the next Sub-Turn, Surrender, Withdrawal or Go to Ground.
A Combat Command that uses the Shield command must spend 2x its Combat Supply Point Requirement and generate 1 Fatigue even if no combat is seen and 2 Fatigue if engaged in combat
Shield costs zero order points. It must be combined with either the Attack or Defend order.


Quote
also Troop Transport Squadrons units need a carry limit
to avoid the whole invasion for being destroyed by one lucky  shot.

Generic Transport Units will generally carry 1 Combat Unit (Battalion). We'll be updating them to reflect this. For now, have as many GTUs as you have battalions.


Quote
In the Sarna Campaign how do the reinforcements arrive on the board
1. from orbit landing on round 4
2. just appear on the battlefield on round 4

Normally it would be 3. At the Zenith or Nadir JumpPoint at the start of Turn 3.

However since PAM movement is broken, have them arrive in the Inner Zone at the start of Turn 3.

Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 22 November 2014, 17:19:16
Still working on it, found some hiccups/questions that are driving me crazy.

Sorry to drive you crazy. Honestly it's not part of some secret plot.

Quote
Now for all purposes of Leadership, TF Wind is Regular and DF Rebels are Vets right?


Yes, Leadership is based on the highest rated unit in the formation.

Quote
Which brings up my second question: What benefits are there to a Long or Medium ranged attack over the short one?

Other than getting a -4 to your Combat Roll for Short range?

Quote
Though shouldn't that be reversed if this is going to alter the roll and not the TN?

Yes, General rule of thumb, if something benefits the Formation it is a positive modifier and if it doesn't, it is a negative.

Quote
Now the "Force Experience is" part, is that for the target?

Good catch. The answer is yes and no.

We will be updating the table to give split value. For example Veteran will read "+3 / - 3". If the attacker is Veteran, they get a +3 to their roll. If the Target is Veteran they get a -3 to their rolls.

Same answer for Force Loyalty

Quote
Assuming anyone can hit with those mods, I spread around the damages to individual elements within those forces right?

Yes- Remember the target number is only a 2.

Quote
Another concern I had was how Aeros just aren't maneuverable in planetary atmo.
They lose half their MP and each hex traveled is 2 MP cost.
Plus do they have to be within a range for their "home base" hex?

A game turn is seven days long. Unlike ground forces, aerospace have to go back and land after every mission. So MP is divided by 2 to represent flying from its home base and back.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 22 November 2014, 17:29:40
I have been attempting to play the "Luzerene" historical campaign with my partner, but need some clarification to the rules.

I'm sorry, I can't read all the fon't color changes. Can you please repost in normal text and I'll go through it.

Thanks,
Joel BC
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Issamuel on 22 November 2014, 18:24:25
I'm sorry, I can't read all the fon't color changes. Can you please repost in normal text and I'll go through it.

Thanks,
Joel BC

My apologies. :)

As requested, and including my other post into this reply as question 5 ) .

=========================

I have been attempting to play the "Luzerene" historical campaign with my partner, but need some clarification to the rules.

Damage Phase
My questions is based on the following two passage from the rules:
...damage inflicted by each Combat Element in a Formation has been determined, it is added together and then assigned to the Formation’s target. The damage is then applied to the Combat Elements within the targeted Formation randomly, in 20 point lots...

and
....damage formula is Combat Element Damage for selected range * Damage Inflicted Modifier, all divided by 4 and rounded to the nearest whole number....

Question(s):
1)I do not understand how to distribute damage to combat elements in a formation "randomly": Does this mean the 20 point (Or 2 point lots if using the divided by 10 calculations) lots would require a separate dice roll to allocate the lots randomly to the combat elements? (E.g: 6 combat elements in a formation labeled 1 to 6. 80 points damage dealt to the formation in total, which is 4 lots. Roll 1D6, with each dice result for a corresponding combat element to be assigned the damage lot.)

2) By "randomly" assigning to the combat elements, who will be the assigner of the damage: The dealer of the damage, or the receiver of the damage?

3) For the damage formula, I do not understand the "divided by 4" part of the calculation for a combat element. Does this mean that if the element has the following stats.... (divided by 10):

4th PGC / Jaguar     - MV:5    ARM:24    S:11   M:10   L:4   PV:90 Elite

It does the following damage as an element at "Medium" range, and with "No" Tactics:

M:10 damage * 1 (For no tactics for modifiers), divide by 4 = 2.5 which is rounded up = 3 damage by the element...


...before adding to the formation total damage to be inflicted to the opponent?

4)Using the "Luzerene" historical campaign, resolving combat based on the following opposing formations, is it possible to provide an example of how the damage distribution would work as envisioned by the rules? For this case, range is "Medium" and "No" Tactics are used by either formations.

Star League Forces ( Figures divided by 10)
Formation 208th ComGuard Division
Combat elements:
A / 208th - MV:5    ARM:13    S:4   M:4   L:2   PV:37 Veteran
B / 208th - MV:6    ARM:11    S:4   M:4   L:2   PV:35 Veteran
C / 208th - MV:5    ARM:7     S:3   M:3   L:1   PV:27 Veteran
D / 208th - MV:4    ARM:12    S:4   M:4   L:2   PV:37 Veteran
E / 208th - MV:3    ARM:6     S:2   M:2   L:1   PV:22 Veteran

Clan Smoke Jaguar ( Figures divided by 10)
Formation Luzerene Garrison
Combat elements:
4th PGC / Jaguar     - MV:5    ARM:24    S:11   M:10   L:4   PV:90 Elite
6th Striker / Jaguar - MV:5    ARM:23    S:11   M:10   L:5   PV:80 Elite


As a reference, currently, I am calculating the following damage based on my shaky understanding on the rules:
Formation 208th ComGuard Division
A / 208th = 1 damage
B / 208th = 1 damage
C / 208th = 1 damage
D / 208th = 1 damage
E / 208th = 1 damage
= Total formation damage 5. Total 2 point lots = 2 . There is 1 point extra.

Formation Luzerene Garrison
4th PGC / Jaguar = 3 damage
6th Striker / Jaguar = 3 damage
= Total formation damage 6. Total 2 point lots = 3.


Damage distribution from Formation Luzerene Garrison = 6 damage, 3 lots of 2 damage , roll 1d6 for randomness (re-roll result 6), damage receiver player roll for Formation 208th ComGuard Division
B / 208th = 4 damage received from 2 lots.
D / 208th = 2 damage received from 1 lot.



Damage distribution from Formation 208th ComGuard Division = 5 damage, 2 lots of 2 damage, and 1 additional damage , roll 1d6 for randomness (Results of 1 to 3 for first element in formation, 4 to 6 for second element, damage receiver player roll for Formation Luzerene Garrison
4th PGC / Jaguar = 4 damage received from 2 lots.
6th Striker / Jaguar = 1 damage received from the leftover extra.


Am I doing it wrong?

5) For Transport/Dropship Formations that are carrying ground unit Formations (Mechs, Supportive units, etc), how do we handle the damage inflicted to those Transport/Dropship Formations and their valuable cargo?

This question came as part of the "Luzerene" historical campaign : My partner's warship formation - and some bad and risky 50% offensives rolls on my part - wiped out my SLDF Troop Transport Squadron, and caused 75% damage to the Assault DropShip Squadron.... in other words, 1 ARM left (In the divide 10 stats). I was trying to find out how to decide which ground unit was "alive" for the ground combat purposes - but could not find how to resolve transported unit damage.

After discussion with my partner, we proceed with having all ground units deployed at 75% damage each.... the resulting morale rolls was.... hilarious... so to speak. For my partner that is. I was not amused.

==========================
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 22 November 2014, 20:34:54
Ok the battle of Sarna is 4 weeks in

and has devolved into slugging matchs for Adivasi and the Tengo Aerospace Factory

Current Losses
Davion
5th Foot D
5th Foot E

Liao
1st Foot PM
1st Mech PM
3rd Tank PM

Battle for Adivasi

5th Syrtis- 65% (Unsteady)
1st Syrtis tank- 70%
2nd Syrtis tank- 50% (Wavering)
Syrtis Foot F- 67%

3rd MAC- 66%
5th MAC- 66%
1st Motor PM- 71%
2nd Motor PM- 86 %

Battle For Tengo Aerospace

2nd Screaming Eagles- 78%
1st Crater Cobras- 78%
2nd Crater Cobras- 95% (About to pull out to Reinforce the 5th Syrtis)
Syrtis Motor G- 71%
Syrtis Motor H- 85%
5th Syrtis Artillery- 100%

2nd MAC- 59% (Wavering)
4th MAC- 53% (Unsteady)
1st Tank PM- 36% (Retreated)
2nd Tank PM- 85%
2nd Foot PM- 67%

Now for the questions/suggestions
1.dividing damage by 4 seems to make Offensive tactics useless for fighters and inf
2.with the bigger map the 1/2 MV for fighters limits there usefulness
also with 2 MV per hex makes having a 5 MV wasteful (except in combat)
3.the scouting rule seem to involved for this level of play (ie they slow the game)
4.Aerospace fighters boil down to he how has the most ARM wins, as stated before with the divide by 4 rule the most they ever due is 1 Damage.
mind you im using the divide ARM/S/M/L by 10


Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Atlas3060 on 22 November 2014, 21:55:42
Sorry to drive you crazy. Honestly it's not part of some secret plot.
I know, its all part of the playtest experience.
Besides my family members are the ones with secret plots to my insanity. ;)

Quote
Other than getting a -4 to your Combat Roll for Short range?

See I read an earlier post:
The Combat Factors table has Short Range as +0, Medium Range as -2 and Long Range as -4.  The example then has Short Range as +4, Medium Range as +2 and Long Range as +0.  Should we use the example modifiers or the table modifiers for range?
The Table Modifiers. The Base Target Number is 2, so it's an easy target number. The modifiers lower your final 2D6 roll.
And just assumed to use the Table Mods.
Which made me question the way I did.
If I followed the Table Mods, short range get no roll modifiers.

Quote
Yes- Remember the target number is only a 2.
Well yes and also the LR divided by 3, round down and added to Base TN.
The Combat Factors table does have that one thing which alters the TN.

Quote
A game turn is seven days long. Unlike ground forces, aerospace have to go back and land after every mission. So MP is divided by 2 to represent flying from its home base and back.
Fair enough, but another question I have did pop up.
What happens when enemy units reach the "home base" hex, assuming we aren't using Dropships and the like?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 22 November 2014, 23:16:02
Ignore the above report  #P
we where doing damage wrong  :'(
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 23 November 2014, 01:09:32
Ignore the above report  #P
we where doing damage wrong  :'(

Not going to ignore it completely.

If you are doing damage wrong, then we are explaining it wrong.

What happens when enemy units reach the "home base" hex, assuming we aren't using Dropships and the like?

Hmm... Well I am working on some rules for damaging Industrial and Economic Targets. We are also going to add in better rules for DropShips on the ground. We'll have to also look at the Home Hex as well.

Short answer is if the ASF can't get back up to space, then they are lost. Probably need to address supply losses as well.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 23 November 2014, 01:33:49
My apologies. :)

As requested, and including my other post into this reply as question 5 ) .

Quote
1)I do not understand how to distribute damage to combat elements in a formation "randomly":

We'll work on this. In general BattleTech does not have a hard rules for randomly choosing something. Under current rules a Formation can contain up to 15 Combat Units (Battalions) so determining which is damaged is left up to you.

Here is a suggestions, let us know how it works. Roll 1D6 two times. The first roll determines if you damaged Combat Unit 1-5 (1-2 on D6), Combat Unit 6-10 (3-4 on D6) or Combat Unit 11-15. The second roll determines which Combat Unit in that group is damaged (reroll a 6).

Quote
2) By "randomly" assigning to the combat elements, who will be the assigner of the damage: The dealer of the damage, or the receiver of the damage?


The attacker. This is in line with Total Warfare where the attacker rolls location.

Quote
3) For the damage formula, I do not understand the "divided by 4" part of the calculation for a combat element. Does this mean that if the element has the following stats.... (divided by 10):

Yes- we will be changing how damage is calculated. For now though the damage formula is <<< S/M/L * Damage Modifier / 4.

So a unit that does 50 damage at short range with a 140% damage mod would do 18 pts of ARM damage (50*1.4 / 4 = 17.5).

Quote
4)Using the "Luzerene" historical campaign, resolving combat based on the following opposing formations, is it possible to provide an example of how the damage distribution would work as envisioned by the rules? For this case, range is "Medium" and "No" Tactics are used by either formations.

In the next update of the rules Combat Units (Battalions, Level III, Trianry) will become the building block for all Formations. Once that is the case, use the suggestion I have above.

With the Luzerne example, just roll 1D6 and reroll anytime you roll 6.

Quote
5) For Transport/Dropship Formations that are carrying ground unit Formations (Mechs, Supportive units, etc), how do we handle the damage inflicted to those Transport/Dropship Formations and their valuable cargo?

We're going to leave this at a nice abstract level. As long as the transport is alive, the cargo is. Transport dies, so does all the cargo.

We are in the process of updating ISW (the basis for Transport Units) so that it is very clear what unit is in what Transport Unit. For now change the Transport Squadron ARM to 5 and give the SLDF 5 of them. Divide the combat forces evenly.


Quote

Now for the questions/suggestions
1.dividing damage by 4 seems to make Offensive tactics useless for fighters and inf
2.with the bigger map the 1/2 MV for fighters limits there usefulness
also with 2 MV per hex makes having a 5 MV wasteful (except in combat)
3.the scouting rule seem to involved for this level of play (ie they slow the game)
4.Aerospace fighters boil down to he how has the most ARM wins, as stated before with the divide by 4 rule the most they ever due is 1 Damage.
mind you im using the divide ARM/S/M/L by 10

1- Damage is being investigated.
2- We'll look at ASF
3- Can you give some more feedback on this? What is making it cumbersome? Any suggestions?
4- Assuming this was part of the doing damage wrong.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 23 November 2014, 01:36:55
THE DEVELOPER ASKS

Time for some questions back to all of you.


1- 7 hex Map, better?

2- Terrain- The goal is a fast game, which is why we don't have terrain. Is leaving the option to use Turning Point maps sufficient?

3- Value Scales, dividing all the stats by 10, how is this working for folks?

4- General game flow? We have several technical issues to work out, that's clear. How does the game feel though? Are we on the right track or is this just broken?

Thanks, more soon.
Joel BC
ISW Lead Developer
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 23 November 2014, 03:48:24
THE DEVELOPER ASKS

Time for some questions back to all of you.


1- 7 hex Map, better?

2- Terrain- The goal is a fast game, which is why we don't have terrain. Is leaving the option to use Turning Point maps sufficient?

3- Value Scales, dividing all the stats by 10, how is this working for folks?

4- General game flow? We have several technical issues to work out, that's clear. How does the game feel though? Are we on the right track or is this just broken?

Thanks, more soon.
Joel BC
ISW Lead Developer

1. yes with the exception of being to large for aerospace fighters suggestion aerospace fighters pay one per hex instead of 2

2.a random terrain generator chart would be nice

3.ten definitely better but unit chart needs to be upgraded for it.

4. one word "MATH" to much math for a large scale game (die divide by 4  >:D )

now responses to the Sarna campaign we just restarted

1. the TN generation is not flowing (would work better if all Mods were to the TN and not some to the roll)

2. a correction ASF are great at tipping the balance in a fight but we need some dog-fighting rule (air superiority is a big part of a strategic game) P.S ASF have to much ARM (in Aerotech they had thresholds and can be knocked out of the air with far less damage then in space (wing hit :'( )

3. the attackers and defenders Exp should effect the roll.

4. I could be wrong but i feed a tactics cross-reference chart with solid bonuses would work far better then the % system

5. also size of force is not the only factor in flank/rear attacks speed should also be a factor (example you need 1 less battalion for ever 2 MV over your opponent)

6. i would also suggest a hard limit of no more then 6 battalion per battle-group (seem to speedup play)

7. on the subject of scouting i think a more generic scouting system would cut time off the turn with battlegroups being able to scout one of the 6 hex around them per turn.

now for not important but would be cool

1.faction flavor (The units right now are kind of vanilla)

2.city fighting bonuses/ rules for attacking cities/factories.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Issamuel on 23 November 2014, 08:13:45
THE DEVELOPER ASKS

Time for some questions back to all of you.


1- 7 hex Map, better?

2- Terrain- The goal is a fast game, which is why we don't have terrain. Is leaving the option to use Turning Point maps sufficient?

3- Value Scales, dividing all the stats by 10, how is this working for folks?

4- General game flow? We have several technical issues to work out, that's clear. How does the game feel though? Are we on the right track or is this just broken?

Thanks, more soon.
Joel BC
ISW Lead Developer

In answer:
1) 7 hex Maps is "bigger", but after playing a few times, I won't say that it is "better".
2) Terrain : The turning point maps are sufficient should it needed for that level of detail for the terrain.

I want to provide some additional comments to 1) and 2) based on what I feel after playing a few games. With the 7 hex (And to a limited extent, the 5 hex.) Maps, I found that my games end up being a "stack" vs "stack" fight for the formations - regardless of the penalties - with no reason to "maneuver" around the other hexes, especially if there is just one objective to target (Say a capital, or a supply dump), or the objective is just to wipe out your opponent (Like in the Luzerne campaign).

As a comment/suggestion - and please bear with me, as it is just a whim on the moment and I didn't really think too far in detail about the viability of it -  how about abstracting the current 5hex/7hex generic ground hex map currently, to yet another "ring" map based on the PAM?

You can treat the centre of this hypothetical ground "ring" map as the "objective" to hit, with the first ring being very close to the objective, and the second ring being moderately far from the objective (Perhaps have secondary objectives located here), and the 3rd ring being very far from the objective, with the corresponding MP penalty as an example, with hidden units functioning normally.

Units transported from the existing PAM that is not in assault mode would land by default at the ring "edge" and have to move their way inwards via the rings to the objective. Terrain can be represented as a penalty to the MP/Supply/Fatigue for the ring section a formation is located in. So if the "objective" is in a mountain, the first ring can be "mountain". Or something.

Again, just something to share as a comment/suggestion.

3) Value Scales : Divide by 10 is the way to go - it is more manageable in my opinion.

Having said that, Formations with combat elements that deal low damage after dividing by 10 (Like Aero, or supporting Infantry) might have to be rebalanced, or the combat damage be recalculated perhaps?

4) General Game Flow : Here are some comments from my limited number of games:

There might be more, but this is what I have on the top of my head as feedback - not sure if it would be useful to the developer. :)

Edit: Corrected some spelling mistakes.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Issamuel on 23 November 2014, 08:30:27
We'll work on this. In general BattleTech does not have a hard rules for randomly choosing something. Under current rules a Formation can contain up to 15 Combat Units (Battalions) so determining which is damaged is left up to you.

Here is a suggestions, let us know how it works. Roll 1D6 two times. The first roll determines if you damaged Combat Unit 1-5 (1-2 on D6), Combat Unit 6-10 (3-4 on D6) or Combat Unit 11-15. The second roll determines which Combat Unit in that group is damaged (reroll a 6).
 

The attacker. This is in line with Total Warfare where the attacker rolls location.

Yes- we will be changing how damage is calculated. For now though the damage formula is <<< S/M/L * Damage Modifier / 4.

So a unit that does 50 damage at short range with a 140% damage mod would do 18 pts of ARM damage (50*1.4 / 4 = 17.5).

In the next update of the rules Combat Units (Battalions, Level III, Trianry) will become the building block for all Formations. Once that is the case, use the suggestion I have above.

With the Luzerne example, just roll 1D6 and reroll anytime you roll 6.

We're going to leave this at a nice abstract level. As long as the transport is alive, the cargo is. Transport dies, so does all the cargo.

We are in the process of updating ISW (the basis for Transport Units) so that it is very clear what unit is in what Transport Unit. For now change the Transport Squadron ARM to 5 and give the SLDF 5 of them. Divide the combat forces evenly.

Thanks for the reply.  :)

Some feedback:
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Atlas3060 on 23 November 2014, 10:36:10
THE DEVELOPER ASKS

Time for some questions back to all of you.


1- 7 hex Map, better?
Oh my dice YES.
Though there's still a little quibble with me over the fact that each hex = 2MP.
After years of Battletech, I've got 1 clear hex = 1 MP drilled in my skull.
The 7 hexes allows lighter elements to still be useful, but not be a total pain.
After attempting Sarna I noticed that MV of 6 allows me to get across the map in 2 turns, 2 weeks, which feels better.

Quote
2- Terrain- The goal is a fast game, which is why we don't have terrain. Is leaving the option to use Turning Point maps sufficient?
I don't want terrain in this game mode's "basic" version.
If folks are looking for that amount of detail, they can grab Battleforce scale and take their game down that way.
Of course it is only my opinion.
Most of your time here is dedicated to how the unit plays out (defensively, offensively, etc) and adding terrain would just make a turn go longer with more modifiers we really don't need.

Quote
3- Value Scales, dividing all the stats by 10, how is this working for folks?
I didn't do that, but I assume it would make the game run faster.

Quote
4- General game flow? We have several technical issues to work out, that's clear. How does the game feel though? Are we on the right track or is this just broken?

Thanks, more soon.
Joel BC
ISW Lead Developer
Aside from the wonky issues, sorry I threw a Tac Nuke at space fights with questions  ;), the premise is workable.
What I've taken from this is the following flow:
I'm still looking over Recon stuff again, something just feels strange.
Maybe once I read over it again I'll get a better idea as to why I skipped it earlier.

I'll admit this will be the first time a pick up game will ever care about morale.
For my players we'll probably forget that a few times, but I think we'll manage.

Another thing that will throw us off, all of these modifiers to the roll result and not the TN.
That's going to require some better wording on the tables, because aside from ATOW I always think TN first.
Of course for ATOW I tend to flip the values and still put them on the TN anyways.

Short answer is if the ASF can't get back up to space, then they are lost. Probably need to address supply losses as well.
Which would mean if they were in a Formation with a Mech Regiment, or any non aero, then the ASF element in question would be considered "destroyed" regardless of how much ARM they still have?

One thing I recommend, assuming you haven't already done this, is give us the ability to set up new aerobases.
Something like any ground unit within the full flight radius of an aero element can establish a new home hex with their Supply/repair/non-combat order.

The Aero shouldn't be available for about a turn or two, representing how they are hauling butt and setting things up at their new home.
Now such a thing wouldn't really be needed too much in a 7 hex map, but I was thinking about those who want to use Planetary maps.


Also I want to thank you Devs for this opportunity.
Play tests allow us to put some questions in the product and provides great feed back.
Plus it is just overall better community building.  O0
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 23 November 2014, 16:48:14
Wow, just wow...

Guys, thank you so much for the awesome feedback. I'll be totally honest with you right now. I just piled through the wall of text from Atlas3060, Issamuel and victor_shaw and I'm literally giddy with the feedback.

So many good ideas, so much great feedback. I'm going to go through this and try and give you all some feedback. I'm going to skip the quote wall though (not sure about other people, I have a hell of a time reading quote walls).

0- I'm going to have to really remind myself that Total Warfare is not our common starting point. I've been playing since 1896 so for me Alpha Strike is this new fangled thing. Bear with me as we make sure AS is our baseline for reference.

1- Aerospace Movement: Change ASF Movement to 1 MP per hex. Aero Base still required.

2- Aero Rules:
- We'll add modifiers for fighting in atmo, you're right more dangerous.
- We'll look at moving aero to be a supporting action like scouting.
- Definately look at air bases. For now anyone combat formation can set up an aerobase in their hex if they did not move that turn and they take a -2 to their combat roll.

3- Combat Resolution
- We hear you, the modifers affecting the roll and not the TN is confusing. We'll be looking at an Margin of Success type roll like is used in Abstract Aerospace combat and a few other places.
- We will be working on it being a little more interactive. While it is going to be hard to get away from "stack of formations win" (at the end of the day, 10 regiments of Mechs in one spot are hard to beat) we will see what we can do.

4- Damage resolution
- Oh my Ghu we're working on this. Not sure how we'll resolve it yet. We're thinking.

5- Transport Units
I just finished writing completely new rules for Movement in ISW. We now have Jump Transport Units and Carrier Transport Units. They will have full ISW game stats so they can be played in the game and have clear rules on how much they can carry. Soon as Alexander Knight has created the ISW stats we will publish them here.

6- Formation Rules
- We heard you! See the first post. We have attached a document with new ACS formation rules based on Combat Teams (Battalions). We've also set minimum number of CT and lowered the maximum CTs. Let us know what you think.

7- Keeping Track
- We are planning some kind of ACS record sheet to make it easy to track your formations and their modifiers. Thanks.

8- City Fighting, industrial targets.
- We've got that in process. They will leverage the existing Fortification rules. For now, if you want to have these kinds of targets, use Level 1 fortifications for Supply and Level 2 for factories.  The defender gets no defense bonus, like a normal Fortification, but you can only damage the Supply Center or Factory if there are no defenders in the hex.

9- Terrain and Map size
- Please feel free to experiment with 8 and 9 hexes as well. We don't want to have a map larger than that.
- General consensus that if folks want terrain, they could use Turning Point Maps or regular maps? We want basic combat to be faster, which is why we are steering away from terrain by default.

10- SPEED!!!!
- We will shift scouting bonuses to the speed of the formations
- We will see about having Speed be a factor in Flanking and Rear attacks

11- Experience Modifiers
In our updated tables we will give a positive modifier to the higher the attacker's experience and a negative modifier for the defender's experience. For now just use the existing table and apply a -TN mod for attacker experience and a +TN Mod for Defender experience. So a Veteran Unit attacking a Green command would get a -3 for being a Vet and a -1 for the defender being Green for a net -4 to roll. Same Vet unit attacking a Legendary unit (Skye Rangers vs. Genyosha) would be -3 for being a Vet and +6 for attacking a Legendary for a net +3 to roll.

13- Faction Flavor: There are faction abilities and flaws in ISW. Some will apply to ACS. Players can also build ISW units using TW and AS conversion rules, instead of just using the Generic Combat Teams.

14- Generic Combat Units?
Has anyone used the Generic units document we posted to make their own units?

KEEP IT COMING!

Thank you all so much for your incredible support. These rules would not be a fraction of what they will be without your input. I appreciate the folks that have already played "multiple" battles. This is so cool!

Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: nckestrel on 23 November 2014, 17:54:03
Some terrain affects can be considered as part of the choosing range and offensive/defensive manuevers.  Hexes at this level are huge and have a ridiculous amount of terrain.  ambushing from terrain, that's covered under using short range damage values.  Using a marsh to get away from a superior enemy, defensive manuever.

perhaps you could have some terrain favor some range and/or offensive/defensive.
should fighting on a cold or hot world have any effect?  high/low gravity?  trying to think of things that affect the map at this scale. 
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 23 November 2014, 18:34:25
perhaps you could have some terrain favor some range and/or offensive/defensive.
should fighting on a cold or hot world have any effect?  high/low gravity?  trying to think of things that affect the map at this scale.

Right, which also includes time. A single game turn is seven days. A lot levels out over that amount of time.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Atlas3060 on 23 November 2014, 21:44:10
After reading through the Scouting, I think I see why I skipped it.
I ran into a question of what to do if one side has Recon Formations while the other didn't assign Formations to recon.
Also it felt like another Combat phase just before the actual one.
It even has its own way of doing damage and such.

I didn't care to play that out my first few times reading it.

Also I didn't know if the scouting modifiers in the chart were cumulative or not.
If I had a Formation set to Recon and it was two Regiments (Light Mech and Light Vehicle), would that give me a +4?

I don't have any ideas on how to make this flow better, but at least I am able to explain why I felt like I wanted to skip it.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 23 November 2014, 22:33:01
Atlas-

Okay, well if you want to skip it, we're doing something wrong. Part of this may be it doesn't support the main play properly. It is like a different combat, just as ground and aerospace battles are different but can happen in the same scenario.

You can get Scouting Points even if you don't assign Formations to Recon. You receive 1 Scouting Point for each Combat Formation (and in the next update, Aerospace Formations). So even if you assign nothing to Recon Formations, you still get scouting points.

All Scouting modifiers are cumulative. If you assign three Combat Units (Battalions) of Light Mechs to a Recon Formation you get 1 Scouting Points. If you add 3 Light Tank Combat Units you get another point. If they are all Veteran you have a total of 4 Scouting Points.

Does that help?

Any suggestions for making Scouting more interesting we're all ears.

Best,
Joel BC
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Wrangler on 23 November 2014, 22:37:36
I'm trying setup a game try Beta test this gift from CGL.  I had question, are HQ vehicles factor into this?  I know this trying keep things simple, but on this level of strategic play, I'd would imagine that communication equipment and other gear some of the more advance HQ vehicles come would add a point or two to leadership ratings pool.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 23 November 2014, 22:59:08
Wrangler-

Not at this time. Combat Units are generic so we don't track individual units. Also, when dealing with multi-regiment battles the odds of both sides having similar grade of HQ equipment tends to even things out.

We are working on Strategic BattleFoce (1 hex equals 500 meters, 1 game piece equals a company) and that will leverage AS unit abilities so will have that.

Cheers,
Joel BC
ISW Lead Developer
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Atlas3060 on 23 November 2014, 23:00:15
You can get Scouting Points even if you don't assign Formations to Recon. You receive 1 Scouting Point for each Combat Formation (and in the next update, Aerospace Formations). So even if you assign nothing to Recon Formations, you still get scouting points.
Well I understood that I get points for just having Combat Formations as well.
The problem in recon came from one side having a Recon Formation but the other does not for combat sake.
Quote
Players can spend scouting
points on scout hunting.
Each scouting point spent on
scout hunting does 5+2d6
damage to an opponent’s recon forces during the combat
phase.
So where do those scout hunting points go against a force with no scout formations?
I think that's where I skipped it. I was too busy focusing on the "real" combat of the ground forces on the Sarna scenario.
Which also brought up another question now that I think about this.
Aside from Davion Light Guards, which would probably be Light Elements, I couldn't tell what other modifiers would factor for existing Davion Regiments.
Mech Regiment, 5th Syrtis Fusiliers RCT would get what other mods besides the +1 for combat Recon?

Quote
All Scouting modifiers are cumulative. If you assign three Combat Units (Battalions) of Light Mechs to a Recon Formation you get 1 Scouting Points. If you add 3 Light Tank Combat Units you get another point. If they are all Veteran you have a total of 4 Scouting Points.
I think I did the numbers wrong in my head when I read this example.
Combat Element +1
Light Conventional Element +1
Scout Element is Veteran +1
Light BattleMech Element(if MP is at least 4) +2

So we're looking at 3 minimum or a max of 5 if the Light Mechs go vroom vroom enough?

Also does the 'Light Conventional Element' and 'Light BattleMech Element' require them to be in the Recon Formation at all?
Or can they benefit from that even if they are a Combat Element not assigned to Recon?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: monbvol on 23 November 2014, 23:42:45
Count me in for one who thinks maps do need to be a tad bit bigger.

I'll have to see about roping in Liam's Ghost for a few rounds to get much deeper in the review process as yet.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 24 November 2014, 00:00:47
Atlas,

At the start of game play all Formations are blank. You just know something is moving out there. There are two ways to find out what is in that Formation stack. Option 1- Enter the same hex as it and engage in combat, 2- Use Scouting to find out what's in the Formation.

Scout Hunting- Sorry, misunderstood you. If you have a Scouting Force on scout hunting and there are no scouts to hunt, you have a snipe hunt. Thing is, if you don't spent the money on scout hunting and they do send out scouts... Viscious spiral.

Scout Bonuses for Sarna- Unless clearly documented and approved by both players, assume every regiment has at least one battalion that is Light. So you could pull a Light Battalion from the 5th Syrtis and two more from the 1st and 2nd Tank regiment. Feel free to use the Field Manual for any specific mentions (I think one of the Big Mac is all heavies and assaults).

Scout Bonuses in general- As a reminder we're going to shift to movement based. So why don't you help us test this. (Also attached for easy reference)

Code: [Select]
Situation Modifier*
Each Combat Unit (Battalion, Level III, Trinary) +1
Has an MP of 6 or more +1
Each additional 2 MP over 6 +1
Combat Unit that is scouting is Veteran +1
Combat Unit that is scouting is Elite +2
Combat Unit that is scouting is Legendary or Heroic +3
Combat Unit that is scouting has A Level Technology +2
Combat Unit that is scouting has B Level Technology +1
Aerospace Combat Unit or Dedicated Aerial Recon Unit** +2
Satellite Recon +2
WarShip in orbit** +3
*- All Modifiers are cumulative, so a Veteran Unit with an MP of 8 generates 4 Scouting Points. Exception is Aerospace and MP bonuses which are mutually exclusive.
** May not participate in offensive actions. Receives a -2 to all combat roles if engaged


Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Atlas3060 on 24 November 2014, 00:21:32
Scout Bonuses for Sarna- Unless clearly documented and approved by both players, assume every regiment has at least one battalion that is Light. So you could pull a Light Battalion from the 5th Syrtis and two more from the 1st and 2nd Tank regiment. Feel free to use the Field Manual for any specific mentions (I think one of the Big Mac is all heavies and assaults).
So if I do pull out battalions for scouting and they take damage, do I reintegrate them for normal combat as well?
Or are they considered not available for normal fighting due to scouting?
Or is it just best to break out the Regiment in Battalions for more combat formations?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 24 November 2014, 00:25:28
Wow, just wow...

Guys, thank you so much for the awesome feedback. I'll be totally honest with you right now. I just piled through the wall of text from Atlas3060, Issamuel and victor_shaw and I'm literally giddy with the feedback.

So many good ideas, so much great feedback. I'm going to go through this and try and give you all some feedback. I'm going to skip the quote wall though (not sure about other people, I have a hell of a time reading quote walls).

0- I'm going to have to really remind myself that Total Warfare is not our common starting point. I've been playing since 1896 so for me Alpha Strike is this new fangled thing. Bear with me as we make sure AS is our baseline for reference.

1- Aerospace Movement: Change ASF Movement to 1 MP per hex. Aero Base still required.

2- Aero Rules:
- We'll add modifiers for fighting in atmo, you're right more dangerous.
- We'll look at moving aero to be a supporting action like scouting.
- Definately look at air bases. For now anyone combat formation can set up an aerobase in their hex if they did not move that turn and they take a -2 to their combat roll.

3- Combat Resolution
- We hear you, the modifers affecting the roll and not the TN is confusing. We'll be looking at an Margin of Success type roll like is used in Abstract Aerospace combat and a few other places.
- We will be working on it being a little more interactive. While it is going to be hard to get away from "stack of formations win" (at the end of the day, 10 regiments of Mechs in one spot are hard to beat) we will see what we can do.

4- Damage resolution
- Oh my Ghu we're working on this. Not sure how we'll resolve it yet. We're thinking.

5- Transport Units
I just finished writing completely new rules for Movement in ISW. We now have Jump Transport Units and Carrier Transport Units. They will have full ISW game stats so they can be played in the game and have clear rules on how much they can carry. Soon as Alexander Knight has created the ISW stats we will publish them here.

6- Formation Rules
- We heard you! See the first post. We have attached a document with new ACS formation rules based on Combat Teams (Battalions). We've also set minimum number of CT and lowered the maximum CTs. Let us know what you think.

7- Keeping Track
- We are planning some kind of ACS record sheet to make it easy to track your formations and their modifiers. Thanks.

8- City Fighting, industrial targets.
- We've got that in process. They will leverage the existing Fortification rules. For now, if you want to have these kinds of targets, use Level 1 fortifications for Supply and Level 2 for factories.  The defender gets no defense bonus, like a normal Fortification, but you can only damage the Supply Center or Factory if there are no defenders in the hex.

9- Terrain and Map size
- Please feel free to experiment with 8 and 9 hexes as well. We don't want to have a map larger than that.
- General consensus that if folks want terrain, they could use Turning Point Maps or regular maps? We want basic combat to be faster, which is why we are steering away from terrain by default.

10- SPEED!!!!
- We will shift scouting bonuses to the speed of the formations
- We will see about having Speed be a factor in Flanking and Rear attacks

11- Experience Modifiers
In our updated tables we will give a positive modifier to the higher the attacker's experience and a negative modifier for the defender's experience. For now just use the existing table and apply a -TN mod for attacker experience and a +TN Mod for Defender experience. So a Veteran Unit attacking a Green command would get a -3 for being a Vet and a -1 for the defender being Green for a net -4 to roll. Same Vet unit attacking a Legendary unit (Skye Rangers vs. Genyosha) would be -3 for being a Vet and +6 for attacking a Legendary for a net +3 to roll.

13- Faction Flavor: There are faction abilities and flaws in ISW. Some will apply to ACS. Players can also build ISW units using TW and AS conversion rules, instead of just using the Generic Combat Teams.

14- Generic Combat Units?
Has anyone used the Generic units document we posted to make their own units?

KEEP IT COMING!

Thank you all so much for your incredible support. These rules would not be a fraction of what they will be without your input. I appreciate the folks that have already played "multiple" battles. This is so cool!

1. yeah !!

2. yeah again

3. cool

4. strait damage would work , it always has in battletech/aerotech/battlespace/battleforce/etc. you get the idea ( i would suggest readjusting the ARM/DAM for the units)
one other suggetion would be have all units take 1 or 2 points of damage every time they are engaged to represent the minor damage taken over the course of the week (witch is what i think you were going for in the current damage rule) and have the combat role be strait damage , would have to up ARM for this.

5. yeah

6." We have attached a document with new ACS formation rules" where?  ???

7. :D :D :D :D :D

8. your going down Tengo Aerospace  ^-^

9. Understood  O0

10. still think it should be generically build in to the units  / yeah

11. not sure im following but it looks like with the current rules being better would be bad ?

12. missed this one lol

13. cool

14.  Falcon Guard (Twycross)
 
Name        MV       Arm      S    M    L
Alpha        5          213      97  97  53   With command star added
Bravo        6          146      68  68  36
charlie       6          141      67  67  35
Delta         4          103      51  36   7
Echo         4          103      51  36   7
Jade Talon 2            97    119 119 92  Aegis class cruiser
Organic Warship Aerospace Stars
Alpha        7            33       17  17  10  Air Superiority
Beta         11           33       10  10   3   Ground Support
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 24 November 2014, 03:17:08
6." We have attached a document with new ACS formation rules" where?  ???

First post in this thread.

Quote
10. still think it should be generically build in to the units  / yeah

Check out the new table, also in the first post in this thread.

Quote
11. not sure im following but it looks like with the current rules being better would be bad ?
Quote

Here is an example:
Code: [Select]
<<<Begin table>>>    
Experience Factor Modifier*
Command Experience is Wet Behind the Ears +3 / -3
Command Experience is Really Green +2 / -2
Command Experience is Green +1 / -1
Command Experience is Regular 0
Command Experience is Veteran -1/ +1
Command Experience is Elite -2/ +2
Command Experience is Heroic -3/ +3
Command Experience is Legendary -4/ +4
*- The number before the slash is the based on the attacker’s experience, the number of the slash is based off the defender’s experience.
<<<Begin table>>>    


For example a Veteran Combat Unit targets a Wet behind the Ears command. The combined modifier would be -4 (-1 for Veteran attacker, -3 for Wet behind the Ears target). The same Veteran Combat Unit would be have a +3 if targeting a Legendary Unit.


Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Issamuel on 24 November 2014, 07:10:30
Wow, just wow...

Guys, thank you so much for the awesome feedback. I'll be totally honest with you right now. I just piled through the wall of text from Atlas3060, Issamuel and victor_shaw and I'm literally giddy with the feedback.

0- I'm going to have to really remind myself that Total Warfare is not our common starting point....
1- Aerospace Movement: Change ASF Movement to 1 MP per hex. Aero Base still required.
2- Aero Rules:
- We'll add modifiers for fighting in atmo, you're right more dangerous.
- We'll look at moving aero to be a supporting action like scouting.
- Definately look at air bases. For now anyone combat formation can set up an aerobase in their hex if they did not move that turn and they take a -2 to their combat roll.
3- Combat Resolution
- We hear you, the modifers affecting the roll and not the TN is confusing. We'll be looking at an Margin of Success type roll like is used in Abstract Aerospace combat and a few other places.
- We will be working on it being a little more interactive. While it is going to be hard to get away from "stack of formations win" (at the end of the day, 10 regiments of Mechs in one spot are hard to beat) we will see what we can do.
4- Damage resolution
- Oh my Ghu we're working on this. Not sure how we'll resolve it yet. We're thinking.
5- Transport Units
I just finished writing completely new rules for Movement in ISW. We now have Jump Transport Units and Carrier Transport Units. They will have full ISW game stats so they can be played in the game and have clear rules on how much they can carry. Soon as Alexander Knight has created the ISW stats we will publish them here.
6- Formation Rules
- We heard you! See the first post. We have attached a document with new ACS formation rules based on Combat Teams (Battalions). We've also set minimum number of CT and lowered the maximum CTs. Let us know what you think.
7- Keeping Track
- We are planning some kind of ACS record sheet to make it easy to track your formations and their modifiers. Thanks.
8- City Fighting, industrial targets.
- We've got that in process. They will leverage the existing Fortification rules. For now, if you want to have these kinds of targets, use Level 1 fortifications for Supply and Level 2 for factories.  The defender gets no defense bonus, like a normal Fortification, but you can only damage the Supply Center or Factory if there are no defenders in the hex.
9- Terrain and Map size
- Please feel free to experiment with 8 and 9 hexes as well. We don't want to have a map larger than that.
- General consensus that if folks want terrain, they could use Turning Point Maps or regular maps? We want basic combat to be faster, which is why we are steering away from terrain by default.
10- SPEED!!!!
- We will shift scouting bonuses to the speed of the formations
- We will see about having Speed be a factor in Flanking and Rear attacks
11- Experience Modifiers
In our updated tables we will give a positive modifier to the higher the attacker's experience and a negative modifier for the defender's experience. For now just use the existing table and apply a -TN mod for attacker experience and a +TN Mod for Defender experience. So a Veteran Unit attacking a Green command would get a -3 for being a Vet and a -1 for the defender being Green for a net -4 to roll. Same Vet unit attacking a Legendary unit (Skye Rangers vs. Genyosha) would be -3 for being a Vet and +6 for attacking a Legendary for a net +3 to roll.

13- Faction Flavor: There are faction abilities and flaws in ISW. Some will apply to ACS. Players can also build ISW units using TW and AS conversion rules, instead of just using the Generic Combat Teams.

14- Generic Combat Units?
Has anyone used the Generic units document we posted to make their own units?

KEEP IT COMING!

Thank you all so much for your incredible support. These rules would not be a fraction of what they will be without your input. I appreciate the folks that have already played "multiple" battles. This is so cool!

I am happy to provide feedback and contribute something. :) I also want to thank you, and the Catalyst dev team for the kind and rare opportunity. :) Thanks!

In reply:

0) I am kinda new to the "rules" part of BattleTech. For me, AlphaStrike is where I got my first "official" exposure, and AlphaStrike Companion is where I learned about the expanded rules. :) But I do understand that you have to cater to the veterans in BattleTech such as your kind self. :)

1) Okay 1MP per hex for the Aero on the PCM 8 hex. As a feedback since I got the chance to try it with another partner, the Aero formations is now fast, but still weak and ineffectual in combat - and still ends up being part of a "formation stack" as "padding".

2) Thanks!
Comment: Looking forward to modifiers in atmo and treating as a supportive action (Like Recon);

Comments on setting aerobase: For the small 5 hex map, after trying out, it end up not being that necessary since the aero formation end up playing as part of the "formation stack" in the game I tried. For the 7 hex map, thanks to the 1MP per hex as mentioned, it ends up that the "dropship/transport" is a good enough aero base to operate from, and covers all the hexes for movement, and still goes as part of a "formation stack" slugging match.

However, if using a turning point map, I believe that this rule on setting up an aerobase would be useable. Just not on a 5 hex or 7 hex map.

I believe that it would affect 8 or 9 hex as well and those extra hexes are wasted - but that is just my opinion to share. :)

3) : Cool! Looking forward to future changes, since after the last game with the aero movement changes, players having the most ARM for a "formation stack" wins - "padding" formations included. :)

4) : I do not envy the headaches you and the rest are going to have on this. All the best to you and the rest of the team.  O0

5) : COOL!!! Can't wait to try this! I have a scenario of a "desperate retreat" from a planet, and being chased by warships/aero, and survivors linking to the jumpships and being ambushed at the jumppoint before jumping out, and for scoring, counting how many surviving units are left and comparing each player. For fun.  :D

6) : Going to reply in a separate post for this.

7) : Please do!!!  :)

8 ) : Haven't tried urban combat/fortification. Will be trying on the next few games.... weekend most likely, assuming my partners are willing to play. The DIM/DRM and damage calculations part was the game breaker for them - Too complicated. Again, please bear with me/us - we are AlphaStrike guys - not Total Warfare. But I defer to the developers to decide on the proper approach, as per 4) . :)

9) : Comment - For 8 and 9 hex, as a personal opinion after trying the 7 hex, I still believe that the extra hexes are wasted as there won't be much "maneuver warfare" even with hidden units, and the extra hexes are wasted especially if the only objective is to capture/destroy a location, and will slow down the game at movement for "chasing" a formation that is "running away" if the objective is to destroy all opposition on planet.

I remember one case happening on the 7 hex map - chasing a 2 hex moving formation, with a 1 hex moving chaser, with no aero support was a pain : Had to agree with my gaming partner to end that game since it was kinda pointless.

Comment: Let the players decide if they want to use Turning Point Maps. But leave the default PCM without terrain, and perhaps fix the size at 7 hexes - or use a modified "ring" PAM for the PCM to avoid hexes. Just saying. :)

10) : Would be interesting to see the changes and effects it would have when implemented. Currently, in my games we are not using recon. Mainly because the "attacker" will be heading for a known objective which the "defender" will be defending - and since it will be "formation stack vs formation stack", it was kinda pointless to do recon - hidden units or not.

Seems that in my games, "recon" is when you walk into your opponent and beat each other to death. :)

11) : I take it that this would apply to the current DIM/DRM so that higher experienced formations can "risk" the DIM/DRM that less experience formation would not dare?

I might reconsider using the neglected DIM/DRM in my current games due to the pain and slowness of damage calculations, but I hope for a smoother solution. Sorry - too used to AlphaStrike.  O:-)

13) : Looking forward to it. :) Would be interesting to see what type of flavor playing pirates would have.....

14) : Need a separate post, also related to 6)

Thanks for the reply Welshman! Again, I am happy to be able to contribute. :)
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Issamuel on 24 November 2014, 09:38:49
Okay, this is in reply to the posted Generic Combat Elements doc for building combat elements. Been building some interesting units. Since I am a fan of the Davion LCT concept, I went and built that for this post - I am keeping my non-canon-super-heavy-pirate-battalion formation ready for a planned game with my partner  :D (Not sure if I got it correct on the structure though - or whether mixing different unit types for one element is allowed.):

Generic LCT Regiment (Non-Canon) or ComStar half-strength Level IV

Mixed Battalion/Level III - "A"
Heavy Mechs - B (Mixed) = MP:5  ARM:55  S:25  M:25  L:15  PV:200
Heavy Tanks - C (Star League) = MP:5  ARM:37  S:14  M:14  L:7  PV:115
Battle Armor - C (Star League) = MP:3  ARM:12  S:8  M:4  L:0  PV:60
Total Combat Element Values = MP: 3  ARM:104  S:47  M:43  L:22  PV:375
Div / 10 Combat Element Values = MP: 3  ARM:10  S:5  M:4  L:2  PV:37


Mixed Battalion/Level III - "B"
Medium Mechs - B (Mixed) = MP:6  ARM:39  S:16  M:17  L:6  PV:140
Medium Tanks - C (Star League) = MP:6  ARM:30  S:10  M:10  L:5  PV:93
Battle Armor - C (Star League) = MP:3  ARM:12  S:8  M:4  L:0  PV:60
Total Combat Element Values = MP: 3  ARM:81  S:34  M:31  L:11  PV:293
Div / 10 Combat Element Values = MP: 3  ARM:8  S:3  M:3  L:1  PV:29


Mixed Battalion/Level III - "C"
Light Mechs - B (Mixed) = MP:7  ARM:31  S:17  M:17  L:5  PV:131
Light Tanks - C (Star League) = MP:8  ARM:22  S:6  M:6  L:2  PV:66
Battle Armor - C (Star League) = MP:3  ARM:12  S:8  M:4  L:0  PV:60
Total Combat Element Values = MP: 3  ARM:65  S:31  M:27  L:7  PV:257
Div / 10 Combat Element Values = MP: 3  ARM:7  S:3  M:3  L:1  PV:26


Okay, questions, assuming the way I built my combat elements is valid with the unit mix:

1) MP points for elements containing battlearmor/infantry: Is there a way to simulate/calculate the final movement points for the element to take into account possible available transport from Mechs/Tanks within the element, or even formation? Right now - again, I am not sure what I did was valid - to my personal understanding, MP for a "formation" is calculated based on the slowest element.

2) Combat Element stats after dividing by 10 : I noticed that after dividing by 10, Combat elements built differently may have almost similar statistics after rounding. As an example, the "B" battalion is "medium", and the "C" battalion is "light". While this may be unavoidable, it does lead to weird results.

I am a supporter of the dividing by 10 method as it keeps the figures simple and easier to grasp, but I am concerned on scenario balancing of forces : A scenario that may be balanced for the original undivided combat element stats, may be completely different after dividing by 10.

This is especially true when building aero wings: The rounded figures for dividing by 10 will lead to little difference in stats between A, B, C Technological Level elements of different weight class , unless the aero wing is of the regimental size.

Just a comment : Maybe the stats should be fixed to one method only - Either the "full" figures, or the "divided by 10" figures should be the primary method used for the ACS and calculations instead of switching from one to another. Just my thoughts. Please ignore if nonsensical. :) While I do wish that the divide by 10 is the primary figures used, it may lead to a level of abstraction that might be unacceptable to some players.

3) How would a mixed Battalion/Level III element containing Aerospace Fighters with Infantry/Tanks/Mechs or Land-Air-Mechs be handled? Would such a combat element construction be illegal?

4) Comment: Would it be viable to track that a built Combat Element contains combined arms based on the unit mix, and provide bonuses/penalty in combat/movement etc? Or would that be adding un-needed complexity to the abstraction?

=======

Having said that, the construction is cool and very usable, and leads to unpleasant fun and abuses - like a Raiding-Reinforced-Supported-SuperHeavy-Pirate-RCT Formation!  >:D (Okay, it is unrealistic - but it is quirky and fun! And my gaming partner's reply to that formation was : "...let the nukes fly!")
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 24 November 2014, 13:09:56
Question
how would i submit my tactics table for use without legal issues ?
P.S not looking for money or anything just to help make the ASC the best it can be (for the love of the game  O0 )
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 24 November 2014, 13:24:06
First post in this thread.
were you speaking of the Generic Equipment Table
because all i see is
IO-ISW-Pirate Points_DRAFT.docx (17.97 kB - downloaded 25 times.)
IO-ISW_Generic_Combat_Elements.docx (29.17 kB - downloaded 28 times.)
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 24 November 2014, 15:15:29
suggested damage change

ARM: after dividing by 10, multiply by 2 to get final ARM (can be handled by the IO-ISW Generic Combat Elements Chart)

successful combat roll: total damage of Formation x modifier (I'm using my tactics table) = damage applied randomly in 2 point clusters
unsuccessful combat roll: 1/2 Formation Total damage rounded down x modifier= damage applied randomly in 2 point clusters

also:side with Initiative determines range of combat (stops the I'm at short but the other formation is at long issue)
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: solmanian on 24 November 2014, 17:18:24
I thought long and hard about this system in the last week. I shot down most of my own ideas because I felt they'll just complicate matters.
About the issue with ranges (S/M/L), with tactics, and underwhelming damage, I came up with something. In a nutshell, it's meant to make the ACS more like chess than backgammon, and also to make battle "quicker" (the combat turns do represent a full week of warfare after all) by allowing damage to be increased significantly (that part might require tweaking). Also did my best so that changes could be easily implemented using existing data, and not require starting from scratch.
Two mechanics I'm suggesting are

A. "battle intensity" (henceforth "BI") scale, which replaces the "range", which represents how committed the rival forces are to battle. players choose to escalate or deescalate, based on:
B. "Mobility superiority" (henceforth "MS"), representing which force can outmaneuver the other. Unless stated otherwise MS goes to the formation with the highest move (which is the MV of the slowest element).

the combat will go in this order:
Players will declare whether they act as "attacker" or "defender". This presents three different scenarios: Def Vs. Def, Atk Vs. Atk, or Atk vs. Def. Defender also has to decide whether to "hold ground" or try for a running battle. In a running battle the defender is "leading" the rival force: it can move at half speed between hexes and lose the defense bonus, and the enemy has to follow or break contact; the force with MS can increase/reduce the BI by one level. If the defender chooses to hold his ground, he cannot move to another hex and automatically lose MS, but enjoys a defensive bonus (something like -50% damage taken?); optional: if the formation contains conventional infantry element, if the formation continues to hold ground he's considered "dug in" and treated as being in Std-1 fortification until he stops holding ground (representing hastily erected entrenchments like sand walls).

1. Def Vs. Def: BI is set to "standoff", as neither force is yet willing to commit to battle, though they can still harass each other.
2. Atk Vs. Def: BI is set to "skirmish" as the battle begins in earnest..
3. Atk. Vs. Atk: BI is set to "melee" as both sides plow into each other. Forces are mixed together.

The BI scale, from least intense to highest:
0-No contact: forces have broken contact. No combat occurs.

1-Stand off: both keep each other at arms length. Use long range damage. The player with MS can choose to escalate to "skirmish" or break contact. Either player can declare a "Mexican standoff".
1.a- "Mexican standoff": forces are dancing around each other but aren't engaging. Any player can choose to break the standoff at any time, but than is considered the "attacker".

2-Skirmish: forces are engaged. Use medium range damage. Attackers do double damage (essentially negating the bonus of the defenders that held their position, and the ease of flank/rear against runners), damage from defenders is applied first though, representing "camping". Player with MS escalate to "melee" or deescalate to standoff.

3-Melee: forces are intermingled. Use short range damage. -1 for morale checks as the forces realize that this may have been a terrible mistake. Attacker do doubles damage. On the first turn defenders do triple damage (representing the ease of ambushing at this range), but if they remain at this BI their position becomes to untenable to hold and they are reclassified as attackers. Player with MS can choose deescalate to "skirmish", in which case the other player can choose to deescalate to "standoff" (to represent not pursuing the disengaging force). Alternatively the player with MS can choose to go all-in with "Bloodbath".

4-Bloodbath: the ultimate Charlie-Foxtrot. The most desperate tactics are used as the forces are engaged at knife-fight (both figuratively and literally). Both sides are considered attackers since at this point there's no defense except kill the other guy before he kills you. This is a suicidal tactic a player would use to sacrifice a cheap expandable force to sell heir lives dearly and cause severe damage to a superior force before being annihilated. Both sides do triple damage. Moral check every turn (assuming they survive more than one turn) representing the hopeless nature of the situation. In theory the player with MS can try to pull back by deescalating to melee, but the other player would receive a free attack (at triple damage). Optional: formations with infantry (conventional or BA), can trigger this at ill even without MS (still trying to make infantry viable...).

Well, it probably needs tweaking (damage might be way too high), and I probably forgot some details, but it's the best I got for now.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: monbvol on 24 November 2014, 17:25:44
While working on a game aid to make generating generic forces a bit easier I noticed that some of the medium rang attack ratings actually increase versus the short range value.  This seems counter intuitive if intentional.  Once I get this aid finished up I'll take a look at the numbers a bit closer to see if we have too much of the old "it is best to produce nothing but 3025 Light Mechs" problem from the old ISiF ruleset.

And if ISW does get an open beta I'll have plenty to say about that.

Though as a more immediate consideration to prevent the stacks of doom I would suggest looking to rules for NBC attack.  Nothing invites a tactical or even strategic nuke like putting so many juicy targets in a relatively confined area.  To keep that from going too far I'd suggest implementing morale checks on the defenders where the possible end result is some decide your regime needs to come to an end, especially the more you use such options.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 24 November 2014, 17:32:35
The reason for Medium Range values being higher is the existence of Gauss Rifles, AC/2s, AC/5s, LRMs, PPCs, and other weapons with minimum ranges.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: monbvol on 24 November 2014, 17:41:42
Which at this level of abstraction I'd argue are non-factors.  After all it is a week's worth of movement and combat.  As such I can't really see how that'd be that significant of an impact.

Once we get full conversion rules I think it will be interesting to see some things translate.  For example right now I'm not sure how Infantry Field Guns are handled.  Those can be absolute game changers for how much firepower an Infantry unit can bring to the table so to speak.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 24 November 2014, 18:03:24
Which at this level of abstraction I'd argue are non-factors.  After all it is a week's worth of movement and combat.  As such I can't really see how that'd be that significant of an impact.

The statistics are all based on AS values.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: monbvol on 24 November 2014, 18:43:24
Alpha Strike is a different level of gameplay with a different time scale.  Being that rigidly tied to a more detailed level of the game honestly seems like asking for issues, especially when we get to conversion rules.

But that will be the last I contest the issue.

For those interested I did finish my project to make putting generic forces together a bit easier to speed up testing.  I made it able to handle 6 elements for each formation with each file being intended to be it's own formation.  This should allow for any standard Inner Sphere or Clan organization.  I also included a drop down to let you choose which ARM, S, M, L values you prefer(the standard or the divide by 10 and round normally variant suggested).  Yellow cells are intended for user entry while red cells will be for drop down menus.  I didn't get too fancy with the automation so you'll still have to make sure the subtype entry is valid for what you want that element to be(so no Artillery-Heavy entries or Conventional Fighters-A for example).  I also put some padding between each entry so it can even serve as a rudimentary record sheet.

Standard disclaimers apply including if TPB want to swipe this for speeding up their own internal testing, feel free.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 24 November 2014, 21:33:29
so to clarify unit construction

getting the base combat elements
*=Base combat element in the game
Inner sphere
1 equipment element = a company
3 equipment elements = a battalion * 36 units

Comstar
1 equipment element = 2 Level II
3 equipment elements = 1 Level III * 36 units

Clans
1 equipment element = Trinary * 15 units
3-5 equipment elements = Cluster
now this leads to the question how do Novas work

wow making clan units is easy  :o
so do i have it right ?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 24 November 2014, 21:37:48
Basically.  Although for the Clans, the A-technology unit stats for tanks and aerospace fighters represent Stars.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 25 November 2014, 00:18:03
Basically.  Although for the Clans, the A-technology unit stats for tanks and aerospace fighters represent Stars.

now this leads to the question how do Novas work
Nova
1 Mech star and 1 Elemental star
normal set up in a trinary as
1 Nova
2 Elemental stars
so 1 Mech Star and 3 Elemental stars
and for the more unusual

Clan  Snow Ravens
Triads
1 Mech Star , 1 Elemental Star and one Fighter star
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 25 November 2014, 00:27:45
also do Garrison/Solamha/Provisional Garrison

use the A, B or C units
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 25 November 2014, 00:39:06
In the example, the Falcon PGC used B units
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: solmanian on 26 November 2014, 17:01:28
Question: what happened to the force quality mechanic from strategic ops? Was it abandoned?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Issamuel on 26 November 2014, 23:00:50
Just want to provide feedback, and get clarification on the IO-ISW-Pirate Points Draft.docx file.

By the way, I love the optional rules - Thanks Welshman! In particular, got a kick at the "Time Jump" 1D100 roll. O0

Just to share, during play test of the draft with "in-system jump" in the Luzerene scenario (There is no jumpships in the scenarios, so we used the warships) , using the draft rules, my gaming partner received the "Time Jump" result. Since we don't have 'Percentile dice', we decided on two separate 2D6 rolls and re-rolling results of 11 or 12 , with the first roll for the last integer in 100 (Being 1 to 10) and the second roll for the second integer in 100 (For '0' to '9' using the second rolls 1 to 10 result) which is modified with the result of the first roll.

The outcome was my partner's Sovetskii Soyuz stuck in time for 87 years... which would put it's emergence in 3146.  :D

Having said that, need the following clarification:

1) While the misjump rules apply for ISW, for the misjump result on "hex" movement in a random direction as stated in the draft, how does that apply on the PAM?

2) Does the central zone of the PAM count as a valid target for the in-system jump and misjump random direction result?

3) Does the "orbital plane" modifier apply to the inner ring around the central zone of the PAM?

The rest of the draft is actually quite readable - just need the clarification as above. Will provide additional feedback when we find any head scratchers.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: monbvol on 28 November 2014, 21:02:58
Okay a bit of a different generic combat element consideration I noticed here.  I was putting together some forces for testing when I ran into something.  The generic combat elements is set up in a way that using them for factions that do not utilize the indicated organizational structure can wind up with some confusion.

The biggest issue as far as I can put together is actually going to be with Comstar/Word of Blake* units.  I know it is currently outside the scope of this particular phase of open beta but I would recommend using a Comstar or Word of Blake unit as an example when doing the unit construction section and perhaps a small section on non-standard organizational schemes and how to reflect them with the current generic values.  Most factions can use the indicated values without issue and be close enough that any inconsistencies at this level of abstraction can be written off as above/below average equipment for the element in question.  Like for example a Clan Solhama Trinary can still use the B quality Heavy Mech generic combat element numbers that assume a formation of 12 instead of 15 as appropriate for the faction due to Solhama getting the short end of the stick in the Clans.  Or going the other way a Solhama  star of tanks can still use B Medium Tanks without issue due to even despite getting the short end of the stick they still tend to get more Clan tech Tanks and Clan Tanks tend to be that little bit better and thus 10 tanks get the stats presented for 12 tanks.

*I'll have to recheck Taurian Tank organization as I know that doesn't follow standard schemes either(it even effects their own Battalions get 4 Companies instead of 3 scheme that is easy enough to replicate with the current setup) to see if that can be a bit confusing as well when trying to recreate and there could be a couple other exotic organization schemes that may not work out to "close enough" I can't think of off the top of my head.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 29 November 2014, 22:46:57

The biggest issue as far as I can put together is actually going to be with Comstar/Word of Blake* units. 


Well i kind of put together a chart to help

type                    Mech/Armor/Inf/ASF
Alpha                          5/0/0/1
beta-zeta                    4/0/1/1
eta-lambda                 3/1/1/1
mu-tau                       2/1/2/1
upsilon-phi                 1/1/3/1
omega                        0/2/3/1

now to use the chart you have to divide the stats listed for the units (except ASF and Infantry) by 2 this will give you a level II
note: thought ASF are counted in the Level III's units they work independently from it (most are deployed at the IV level and sent were needed)

hope this was helpful till we get a official rule
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 29 November 2014, 23:07:18
now on to the Generic Equipment Table

1. Infantry seems wrong or i just haven't figured it out
to me it should be broken down Mechanized,motor,jump and foot

2. as mentioned above Comstar/WOB should have a 1/2 element (Level II 6 units vs Company 12 units) for ComGuard construction

3. now im sure this will be in IO IAW but a few example of each groups unit construction from the table would help
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 29 November 2014, 23:46:13
Infantry is more...generic, as the differences are exceptionally minimal at this scale.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: monbvol on 30 November 2014, 00:39:18
It mostly depends on how combined arms you want to get for Comstar/Word of Blake.

I'm mostly just trying to future proof this particular section really.  I know most of the non-standard organizational schemes well enough* that I can work around some of this but IO and this section in particular can't make the assumption that everyone does know or won't be baffled with the stats as presented when trying to recreate these non-standard organizational schemes.  Plus my experiences with the Fan Councils say that such a section is going to be needed anyway even by the people who do know the schemes, especially with something along the lines of my suggestion that at this level of abstraction the presented stats can be close enough for some organizational schemes.

*Okay I may be not entirely remembering Comstar/Word of Blake organization correctly as for some reason I'm remembering that they did odd things for when they did combined arms formations that the current generic stats could have trouble replicating.  Also as previously noted Taurian Tank formations could be problematic as well.  I need to see if I still have the appropriate PDFs around to read up on these.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 30 November 2014, 01:47:48
In respect to the 208th Division IV-Eta, the six elements were composed of the following:
6 ASF squadrons (36 ASF)
12 'Mech companies (120 BattleMechs)
2 Tank companies (24 Tanks)
2 Battle Armor companies (24 Squads)
4 Infantry companies (12 Platoons)
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: monbvol on 30 November 2014, 02:22:42
I do rather suspect for most readers it is not going to be a huge issue, especially when doing a fairly even combined arms approach like that.

It is mostly as I said that the assumption cannot be made and something I've seen come up enough times that I can't repeat enough times that if there isn't something there to address these issues it'll cause headaches that can be avoided with at absolute most 1-2 pages of text.  1 for actually addressing how to achieve said organizations with notations about how the given stats really are close enough for some as is and 1 for examples.  It is an exchange rate I'd say that is totally worth it in my opinion.

And found the Taurian Tank organization.  18 tanks in their Companies.  2-3 units one way or the other I can accept current generic stats as being close enough but that is a bit more noticeable disparity in this case.

ASFs are 8 to a Wing for them as well.  That's close enough with their tendencies and general lack of upgraded designs I can accept current stats as close enough.

Only their mech formations have 4 Companies to a Battalion and as such are really easy to replicate.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: monbvol on 30 November 2014, 14:02:33
Oh and a different clarification while I'm trying to do some force building stuff.

Do those generic Infantry stats also consider the possibility of them having Field Guns?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 30 November 2014, 15:58:51
The Heavy Infantry can be assumed to include the occasional Field Gun unit.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 30 November 2014, 18:13:12
Infantry is more...generic, as the differences are exceptionally minimal at this scale.

was more thinking along the lines of speed which is very impotent to this level of conflict.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 30 November 2014, 18:16:23
In respect to the 208th Division IV-Eta, the six elements were composed of the following:
6 ASF squadrons (36 ASF)
12 'Mech companies (120 BattleMechs)
2 Tank companies (24 Tanks)
2 Battle Armor companies (24 Squads)
4 Infantry companies (12 Platoons)

so the intent is to build from the level IV then breakdown the unit in to level III's ?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 30 November 2014, 18:22:18
was more thinking along the lines of speed which is very impotent to this level of conflict.

so just a question if i wanted a motor or mechanized infantry unit (jump is more then likely recon inf) would i  just slap a movement of 4 on heavy inf(mech) and,standard inf (motor) ?
this works for me but is this how to do it?
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: monbvol on 30 November 2014, 20:22:26
Works for me.

I'm still waiting on arranging an opponent to give this a more thorough run through but I'll see what I find at the theoretical level in the mean time.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 30 November 2014, 22:21:06
so just a question if i wanted a motor or mechanized infantry unit (jump is more then likely recon inf) would i  just slap a movement of 4 on heavy inf(mech) and,standard inf (motor) ?
this works for me but is this how to do it?

Well first off, Motorized Infantry cannot go speed 4.  As for Mechanized Infantry, if you want them to have heavy firepower, they're probably only moving speed 3.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 30 November 2014, 22:33:02
Well first off, Motorized Infantry cannot go speed 4.  As for Mechanized Infantry, if you want them to have heavy firepower, they're probably only moving speed 3.
i was just going off the units listed in the force write-ups for the sample scenarios.
but speed 3 sounds fine to me since it matches the battleforce stats
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Alexander Knight on 30 November 2014, 22:34:28
i was just going off the units listed in the force write-ups for the sample scenarios.

Ah, well those infantry regiments have light vehicle companies mixed in with them.  A motorized regiment has 7 infantry companies and 2 light tank companies.  A Mechanized regiment is 6 infantry / 3 light tank.  (APCs, ahoy!)
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 30 November 2014, 22:36:21
Ah, well those infantry regiments have light vehicle companies mixed in with them.  A motorized regiment has 7 infantry companies and 2 light tank companies.  A Mechanized regiment is 6 infantry / 3 light tank.  (APCs, ahoy!)
works for me
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 01 December 2014, 05:25:15
this may sound like a dumb question but a what level do you make morale checks
1.battlegroup
2.regiment
3.battalion
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: solmanian on 01 December 2014, 10:17:14
this may sound like a dumb question but a what level do you make morale checks
1.battlegroup
2.regiment
3.battalion
That would depend on scale. In SO it was on company, I'd reckon it'll be on battalion on this planetary invasion scenarios, and regiments in the ISW.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 01 December 2014, 22:50:15
this may sound like a dumb question but a what level do you make morale checks
1.battlegroup
2.regiment
3.battalion

Good question- We'll probably do this at the Formation level and see about giving some bonus to larger formations (strength in numbers and all).

I've not been ignoring you all, was out for the holidays and not checking the boards at all.

A lot of great feedback and questions going. Alexander_Knight has all the unit stat questions covered nicely. He's our stats guy from AS on up to ISW.

For most of the rest, a lot of it is variations of existing questions and we are currently working on a new Beta update to address this all.

For the Pirate Point jump rules: Percentile dice, good point. Movement is all by the Interstellar Hex, if you miss, you miss big. We've also cleaned up language on the relation to the PAM. Near Orbit Maps to the Middle Zone and the Outer Zone is used for In System jumps. You can't jump to the Inner Ring, that's like jumping into low earth orbit, not advised for survival.
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 01 December 2014, 23:48:19
Question
how would i submit my tactics table for use without legal issues ?
P.S not looking for money or anything just to help make the ASC the best it can be (for the love of the game  O0 )

been waiting for a answer to this one so i can post my new and improved tactics table (which my roommate and i have play tested)

also we are about to launch the battle of Galtor III so after action report is forthcoming.
but we need some rule clarification first.

1. has there been a fix to the planetary systems map yet. (periphery to next ring)
2. we are still waiting for damage rule updates (will use mine if its going to be awhile)
3. was going to use the above Tactics Table if no new rule ready for playtesting.
4. was there any parts of the system that needed attention we should focus on.
5.can undamaged/mildly damaged units brakeoff from the formation to keep from getting routed
6. has there been a answer to the how many battalions to a transport squadron question (and how many fighter squadron can they carry)
7. was thinking that a unit that fails to scout would do damage randomly but a unit that has successfully scout could allot 1/2 the damage to a unit of there choice (makes scouting more imported)
 
and to Welshman happy holidays p.s. that what i figure it was or you were writing ACS ver. 2
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: victor_shaw on 02 December 2014, 22:39:50
after a long discussion with my roommate.
we determined that ranges don't seem to matter at the scale the game is being played.
and that over the course of a week units would move in and out of all the ranges and not just stay at one
 
suggestion: add the 3 ranges together and divide by 3
or have the average of the short and medium be same hex (scrimmage range) and have long range be one hex (artillery range).
Title: Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
Post by: Welshman on 03 December 2014, 18:57:55
Hello,

Victor_Shaw, to answer most of your questions, we're working on an update to the rules based on all the feedback. Major overhaul of several sections based on the play test.

Ranges- Yes, over a weeks time range really does even out. However, by keeping the ranges separated we make it possible for players to more easily convert between game systems. We are looking to improve the tactics around this so it matters more.

And with that- I'm going to officially bring the 1.0 playtest of the ACS system to a close. The feedback is generally circling around the same issues and we need to address these to move forward. We will hopefully have an updated version available soon.

Thank you all for your feedback, stay tuned for more.

Joel BC
- BattleTech