Author Topic: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System  (Read 58665 times)

Issamuel

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Pirates! Bandits! Mercs! The Periphery!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #90 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:
  • Combat Resolution (DIM or DRM) Combat Rolls, and calculating damage : Currently, I find that there is no incentive to actually use DIM or DRM beyond just the risk/chance of increasing/reducing damage. In my last game, me and my game partner gave up on calculating the DIM/DRM and just skipped the Combat Roll for Combat Resolution since we do not see/read any penalty on failing the Combat Roll when not using DIM/DRM. Calculating the damage for DIM/DRM is also a pain for us, especially when calculating damage to inflict when also including the Damage Reduction Modifier for a damaged combat element.
    It could be that we are still not doing combat damage properly, but still, the combat factors table is not relevant in our current game play through.
    Perhaps simplifying the damage calculation formula would help? I don't have a specific idea to suggest, although I have positive thoughts of the AlphaStrike damage system currently.
  • Keeping Track on TN modifiers from Morale, Fatigue, Leadership, Evade, Combat Factors : Even for the limited number of formations, it is still quite confusing. I am thankful that my gaming partner and me are not sticklers for "rules exact" game play, but still, the flow could be improved in terms of tracking with a proper record sheet with the "check boxes" to tick on "fullfilling" certain situations, something like the simplified heat/armor/structure/criticalhit tracking in AlphaStrike cards, or simplifying the various TN tables in a way that is easy to comprehend - or further abstracting the modifiers.
  • Aerospace Formations not effective in combat, and tracking "home base" : It could be that I misread the current beta rules, but in my games, formations that consist of Aerowings ends up being utilized as a low effectiveness ground combat unit. While there are modifiers for combat drops/scouting that depends on Aerospace formation and strength, in my games so far, it is underutilized, or ignored completely - which leads to the Aerospace formation being separated into elements and transferred into other existing formations as "padding"/"damage sponge" for the inevitable "formation stack vs formation stack" combat dice rolls.
    I don't have any idea to contribute on how to improve on this aspect for the Game Flow, but would it help to completely abstract "Air support" into a "box" for Aerospace formations only - like the "Attacker/Defender Recon/HiddenUnit" - where the combat strength of the Aerospace force will deal a fixed amount of damage to all formations, based on strength ratio between opposing Aerospace forces?

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.
« Last Edit: 23 November 2014, 08:34:53 by Issamuel »
Issamuel

Issamuel

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Pirates! Bandits! Mercs! The Periphery!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #91 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:
  • The suggestion on randomly choosing based on the 1D6, with another 1D6, works very well! And for smaller units, just a single 1D6 would be enough as you mentioned based on my given example! Thanks!  O0
  • Noted - attacker chooses. Had to clarify, as I am not fully familiar with Total Warfare, just AlphaStrike. :)
  • Noted - maintaining the current damage formula as mentioned of S/M/L * Damage Modifier / 4. Looking forward to any future modification to this formula, and future formation building at the batt/trinary/level III level.
  • Got it - transport dies, carried item dies.
  • Tried out the 5 transport at 5 ARM for the SLDF at the Luzerne campaign - works very well for the ground formation pushed through my partner's aero-force. Lost 2 transports from my transport formation (208. Mechs and 3rd Davion Mechs). Ground campaign is my remaining armor/tanks/art/inf+aero remnants. Can't say I was happy at my partner, but it is an interesting outcome nontheless
Issamuel

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9385
  • Just some rando
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #92 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:
  • Group up units
  • Move onto map
  • Confront enemy
  • Determine how aggressive or defensive the unit leaders will act
  • Lick your wounds and begin movements again
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
« Last Edit: 23 November 2014, 10:38:32 by Atlas3060 »
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 #93 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!

-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.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11025
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #94 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. 
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 #95 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.
-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.

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9385
  • Just some rando
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #96 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.
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 #97 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
-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.

Wrangler

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 24829
  • Dang it!
    • Battletech Fanon Wiki
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #98 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.
"Men, fetch the Urbanmechs.  We have an interrogation to attend to." - jklantern
"How do you defeat a Dragau? Shoot the damn thing. Lots." - Jellico 
"No, it's a "Most Awesome Blues Brothers scene Reenactment EVER" waiting to happen." VotW Destrier - Weirdo  
"It's 200 LY to Sian, we got a full load of shells, a half a platoon of Grenadiers, it's exploding outside, and we're wearing flak jackets." VoTW Destrier - Misterpants
-Editor on Battletech Fanon Wiki

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #99 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
-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.

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9385
  • Just some rando
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #100 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?
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.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13258
  • I said don't look!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #101 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.

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #102 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


-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.

Atlas3060

  • ugh this guy again
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9385
  • Just some rando
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #103 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?
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.

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #104 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

Welshman

  • Mostly Retired Has Been
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10509
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #105 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.


-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.

Issamuel

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Pirates! Bandits! Mercs! The Periphery!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #106 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. :)
Issamuel

Issamuel

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Pirates! Bandits! Mercs! The Periphery!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #107 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!")
Issamuel

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #108 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 )

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #109 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.)

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #110 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)
« Last Edit: 24 November 2014, 15:18:10 by victor_shaw »

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #111 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.
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.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13258
  • I said don't look!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #112 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.

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4957
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #113 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.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13258
  • I said don't look!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #114 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.

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4957
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #115 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.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13258
  • I said don't look!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #116 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.

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #117 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 ?
« Last Edit: 24 November 2014, 21:51:57 by victor_shaw »

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4957
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #118 on: 24 November 2014, 21:37:48 »
Basically.  Although for the Clans, the A-technology unit stats for tanks and aerospace fighters represent Stars.

victor_shaw

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1391
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #119 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
« Last Edit: 25 November 2014, 00:34:11 by victor_shaw »