Author Topic: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System  (Read 58662 times)

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« 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/) 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" 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.
« Last Edit: 21 November 2014, 02:10:44 by Welshman »
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Jayof9s

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #1 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.

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9385
  • Just some rando
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #2 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?
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #3 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
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6820
  • BattleTech Line Developer
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #4 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
« Last Edit: 18 November 2014, 17:52:58 by Adrian Gideon »
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #5 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?
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #6 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?
Making the dark age a little brighter, one explosion at a time.
Have you met the clans? Words like "Naïve" and "misguided" are not enough to describe the notion that a conquest of the IS by the clans would result in a Utopian pacifistic society.

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4957
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #7 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.

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9385
  • Just some rando
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #8 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.
It's not about winning or losing, no it's all about how many chapters have you added to the rule books after your crazy antics.

pheonixstorm

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5548
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #9 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 :)

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4957
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #10 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.  :)

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #11 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.
Making the dark age a little brighter, one explosion at a time.
Have you met the clans? Words like "Naïve" and "misguided" are not enough to describe the notion that a conquest of the IS by the clans would result in a Utopian pacifistic society.

Dukeroyal

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 156
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #12 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?

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6820
  • BattleTech Line Developer
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #13 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?
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #14 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.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #15 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.

-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #16 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.
« Last Edit: 18 November 2014, 21:48:24 by Welshman »
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

Kommando

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 210
  • Sweet justice!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #17 on: 18 November 2014, 22:51:49 »
isorla?

when is the bidding phase?

how do rearguard units and higiera work?
What avarice!

Field Agent #522
Battletech in Brisbane, Australia.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #18 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.

-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #19 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"?
Making the dark age a little brighter, one explosion at a time.
Have you met the clans? Words like "Naïve" and "misguided" are not enough to describe the notion that a conquest of the IS by the clans would result in a Utopian pacifistic society.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #20 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.
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1218
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #21 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.
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

Jayof9s

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2419
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #22 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.
« Last Edit: 19 November 2014, 12:59:35 by Jayof9s »

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #23 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?
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8378
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #24 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

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #25 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.
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #26 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.
Making the dark age a little brighter, one explosion at a time.
Have you met the clans? Words like "Naïve" and "misguided" are not enough to describe the notion that a conquest of the IS by the clans would result in a Utopian pacifistic society.

Kommando

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 210
  • Sweet justice!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #27 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?
What avarice!

Field Agent #522
Battletech in Brisbane, Australia.

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #28 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.
Making the dark age a little brighter, one explosion at a time.
Have you met the clans? Words like "Naïve" and "misguided" are not enough to describe the notion that a conquest of the IS by the clans would result in a Utopian pacifistic society.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #29 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.
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer (Inactive)

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.