BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => General BattleTech Discussion => Topic started by: Iron Mongoose on 18 May 2017, 13:31:09
-
On reviving the Fan Council
There has been a lot of discussion over the last few days over both the history and future of the celebrated and bemoaned institution of the Fan Council, which once ran on this boards and provided a wonderful opportunity for role playing the gaming for the fans of the game. It was proposed that a thread should be started to discuss weather these games might enjoy a revival. This is no a simple question, and I think it can be broken down into several smaller questions:
1) Is the Fan Council viable?
2) If so, under what conditions?
3) If so, how can rules be found or made?
4) If so, what setting might be suitable?
One could probably do more or fewer points, but it seemed a good break down.
The first is pretty simple. I think there will be people out there who would argue that the FC is conceptually unsound. The idea of gathering together a large and diverse group for a long running game just isn’t really feasible. I don’t agree. I think the fact that versions of the game ran for years proves that such a game can have a type of stability. But, I do think that the other conditions must be factors in maintaining that stability.
As for the second question, the biggest factor to me is where the game is to be conduction and how it is to be supported. The most successful games were hosted right here on the official boards and received a limited amount of support from the boards and rumor has it from those involved with the game (I know the road ran the other way, in that many FC alums went on to work with/for the official end of the company). I think shunting the game off to an alternative site would doom the game, because it would never have enough visibility to attract the sort of player base needed. Now, that said, many who are in charge of this site have their own experiences with the game, and one can’t predict weather such support might or might not be forth coming.
As to the third point, I foresee the greatest struggle. I’d once hoped that a product like Interstellar Operations might have the sort of rules that would permit something like the FC using canon rules which, even if they were imperfect, would at least be likely to be agreeable to everyone. However, I’ve never heard anyone say anything about them being used in that application, and I don’t own the product myself (no FGCs to be a part of lately) so I can’t evaluate that. If there are no suitable canon rules… it has to call the viability of things into question. That’s no criticism of any of the various GMs from over the many years who did their best to make rules, but there never was one that didn’t attract some controversy, or be found to have unforeseen flaws, or that failed at the (probably impossible) task of achieving balance between the various factions with their wild differences in size and technology and tactical and strategic specializations.
Lastly is the question of setting. If a space could be made for the game, players could be attracted, rules found and agreed on, then it would be important to find a setting that reflected both the need to keep and attract players, and the reality of playing on the official boards and what to me would be a sort of moral obligation to try and enhance the game in some subtle way. To that end, I’d advocate using the very newest products as a starting point, so the 3145. There are, mind you, key down sides to that. The setting is explicitly out of balance, so it would be hell for many players of factions that haven’t been winning so much lately, and we also know that the setting is set up in anticipation of some serious turmoil to come with new releases that are even now in the pipeline. But, the FGC’s very genesis was in working with and on new releases and pushing into unknown spaces.
I’ll also concede that the longest running (and perhaps must successful) FGC started in 3063, not 67 which was then current. To emulate that, 3085 to me has the look of having better balance, stability, and so on, and would thus be a setting into which the players would be able to supply the drama, rather than having to step into a setting with drama already preset. The worry would be if the players chose (rationally) to be conservative and not do anything foolish (as I was wont to do) then the game could be boring, while in a 3145 game it would probably prove impossible not to have a lot of excitement right from the outset, because things are so unstable and in such flux.
Well, those are my thoughts, and mine alone. Here is, I suppose, the opportunity for any and all to say if they think such a thing should or could be done, or if it should or could not be.
-
Following the most recent iteration, the decision was made that any future versions of this needed to be done elsewhere, and not on the official forums. Suffice to say, that wasn't a fun conclusion to reach, but was one that needed to happen for a number of reasons.
I wholeheartedly hope that a new one can come around- particularly one based in the post-Jihad era, because there's no shortage of interesting things going on in there. But it's not an option here at this point.
-
Following the most recent iteration, the decision was made that any future versions of this needed to be done elsewhere, and not on the official forums.
If you are going to go anywhere, I highly recommend www.mordel.net. A small but still active site that could use an influx of new blood.
-
I understand the administration's decision on the matter. Still as much as it might complicate matters there is still some validity in the idea of hashing things out here since these forums are more likely to get the correct attention and despite how down on the Fan Councils I may have come across as being I do so dearly want to make them work.
Point 1 are the Fan Councils viable with what really should be 1a Under what conditions?
Yes if we keep the scope contained and the rules simple enough. For me this means absolutely all the book keeping/accounting should not take more than an hour per week for even the GMs. Time should be spent playing the game, not filing out spreadsheets. This may require a non-canon setting to pull off, or at the very least a very self contained canon setting and that is going to be difficult to get enough people to agree on.
Point 2 rules. Either from scratch or using Interstellar Operations Inner Sphere at War might be a good starting point if we keep things small and self contained enough. Combat is the big question. I'm still trying to decide at what point MegaMek is a deal breaker for me versus being a valid tool but makes this really just a MekHQ campaign instead.
Point 3 setting. As mentioned earlier this could be the biggest sticking point and the most difficult to decide upon and is probably the most fundamental thing to be decided upon as everything else branches off it.
-
Following the most recent iteration, the decision was made that any future versions of this needed to be done elsewhere, and not on the official forums. Suffice to say, that wasn't a fun conclusion to reach, but was one that needed to happen for a number of reasons.
I wholeheartedly hope that a new one can come around- particularly one based in the post-Jihad era, because there's no shortage of interesting things going on in there. But it's not an option here at this point.
I can't say I'm particularly surprised, nore even that I disagree. Feelings did at times run high...
What is the position on planning and recruitment here?
-
Following the most recent iteration, the decision was made that any future versions of this needed to be done elsewhere, and not on the official forums. Suffice to say, that wasn't a fun conclusion to reach, but was one that needed to happen for a number of reasons.
I get that there's something I'm not aware of here, so can I get the Cliff Notes?
-
I understand the administration's decision on the matter. Still as much as it might complicate matters there is still some validity in the idea of hashing things out here since these forums are more likely to get the correct attention and despite how down on the Fan Councils I may have come across as being I do so dearly want to make them work.
Point 1 are the Fan Councils viable with what really should be 1a Under what conditions?
Yes if we keep the scope contained and the rules simple enough. For me this means absolutely all the book keeping/accounting should not take more than an hour per week for even the GMs. Time should be spent playing the game, not filing out spreadsheets. This may require a non-canon setting to pull off, or at the very least a very self contained canon setting and that is going to be difficult to get enough people to agree on.
Point 2 rules. Either from scratch or using Interstellar Operations Inner Sphere at War might be a good starting point if we keep things small and self contained enough. Combat is the big question. I'm still trying to decide at what point MegaMek is a deal breaker for me versus being a valid tool but makes this really just a MekHQ campaign instead.
Point 3 setting. As mentioned earlier this could be the biggest sticking point and the most difficult to decide upon and is probably the most fundamental thing to be decided upon as everything else branches off it.
I wholeheartedly advocate using the Inner Sphere at War rules in Interstellar Operations, since they're a common set of rules published by Catalyst, which removes the need for us to develop the rules, and gives everyone a clear outlet to go to for rules questions. The ISaW rules were made for a strategic game, and have scalability. They may not be perfect, since nothing is, but they seem ideal for a new FGC.
Using these rules, the next question becomes what era and what location/factions are best supported under these common rules at this time? That will determine setting and scope as well.
-
I think one thing it'd be good to decide on and make clear for all players is what kind of 'tone' you would all want the whole thing to be played in. IIRC there was drama over some meta shenanigans in the last one, with factions making alliances that would be extremely unlikely on in-universe ideological grounds, but the players allied anyway for in-game strategic reasons or even just because they were buddies with each other. I believe some of it was done under the table and wasn't found out for some time. I'm not making any judgements on that other than it's a good idea for all the players to be singing from the same hymn sheet.
So I guess what it boils down to is:
- should the lore in any way determine what players can do?
- if so, how much?
- what oversight method would you use for it?
In a MW4 league I played in, the way they settled on was that any alliances needed the players involved to produce several pieces of written RP for it, and that bizarre alliances (like the Steel Viper-WoB alliance two new units tried to pull) would just be vetoed. Resources could only be traded by allied factions, and similarly free passage through owned space was only possible to allied factions. This was all coded into the league's automation though, so you might want something much more flexible for a FGC running on IS@War.
And might I just add that I for one welcome our new Clan Camel overlords.
-
I'm one of those people who believes the entire thing to be conceptually unsound.
If someone were going to attempt it, I would take measures to prevent the point buy systems from being abused. BV, BV2 and the resource point systems that have been used have all been hideously exploitable and in no way shape or form wind up resembling the way the fiction depicts the universe.
if you had a gun to my head and were forcing me to run a FGC, I would gather a group of sub-game-masters, and make each faction headed by a GM. Technological advancement and improvements would be something the GMs decide together, not something decided by raw exploitable mathematics.
At the end of the day, the game works better as a plotless pick-up-game or as a non competitive asymmetrical game, with gamemaster-and-players. BT just isn't rigorously balanced enough to work well as a purely cutthroat competitive system.
-
I'm one of those people who believes the entire thing to be conceptually unsound.
If someone were going to attempt it, I would take measures to prevent the point buy systems from being abused. BV, BV2 and the resource point systems that have been used have all been hideously exploitable and in no way shape or form wind up resembling the way the fiction depicts the universe.
if you had a gun to my head and were forcing me to run a FGC, I would gather a group of sub-game-masters, and make each faction headed by a GM. Technological advancement and improvements would be something the GMs decide together, not something decided by raw exploitable mathematics.
At the end of the day, the game works better as a plotless pick-up-game or as a non competitive asymmetrical game, with gamemaster-and-players. BT just isn't rigorously balanced enough to work well as a purely cutthroat competitive system.
That...doesn't strike me as a horrible idea.
-
It's worth mentioning that the very first "Fan Grand Council" was literally just a talking shop - an opportunity for people to role-play arguments between Khans, saKhans, and Loremasters. There may have been some Trials as a consequence, but hot air was the much enjoyed primary output.
-
I wholeheartedly advocate using the Inner Sphere at War rules in Interstellar Operations, since they're a common set of rules published by Catalyst, which removes the need for us to develop the rules, and gives everyone a clear outlet to go to for rules questions. The ISaW rules were made for a strategic game, and have scalability. They may not be perfect, since nothing is, but they seem ideal for a new FGC.
Using these rules, the next question becomes what era and what location/factions are best supported under these common rules at this time? That will determine setting and scope as well.
I kind of wish more of my recommendations for simplifying the rules had made it into the final version but I'll agree that they would be workable, might need a bit of shoring up and I do like the idea of using something official.
I'm one of those people who believes the entire thing to be conceptually unsound.
If someone were going to attempt it, I would take measures to prevent the point buy systems from being abused. BV, BV2 and the resource point systems that have been used have all been hideously exploitable and in no way shape or form wind up resembling the way the fiction depicts the universe.
if you had a gun to my head and were forcing me to run a FGC, I would gather a group of sub-game-masters, and make each faction headed by a GM. Technological advancement and improvements would be something the GMs decide together, not something decided by raw exploitable mathematics.
At the end of the day, the game works better as a plotless pick-up-game or as a non competitive asymmetrical game, with gamemaster-and-players. BT just isn't rigorously balanced enough to work well as a purely cutthroat competitive system.
*nod*
I'm not opposed to that either but yeah the demands for detail often make me think it should be a Hearts of Iron mod or something instead of a pen and paper/web forum venture.
It's worth mentioning that the very first "Fan Grand Council" was literally just a talking shop - an opportunity for people to role-play arguments between Khans, saKhans, and Loremasters. There may have been some Trials as a consequence, but hot air was the much enjoyed primary output.
And that certainly could be done again.
-
A brutally honest and scathing critic SteveRestless, i also like the idea.
Also support Gio`s proposal of using the IP rules. I may sound like a broken record, but i propose the 3000`s like a good time to set the game. 3085 (inmediatly after the Jihad) would be good too.
-
I'm one of those people who believes the entire thing to be conceptually unsound.
If someone were going to attempt it, I would take measures to prevent the point buy systems from being abused. BV, BV2 and the resource point systems that have been used have all been hideously exploitable and in no way shape or form wind up resembling the way the fiction depicts the universe.
if you had a gun to my head and were forcing me to run a FGC, I would gather a group of sub-game-masters, and make each faction headed by a GM. Technological advancement and improvements would be something the GMs decide together, not something decided by raw exploitable mathematics.
At the end of the day, the game works better as a plotless pick-up-game or as a non competitive asymmetrical game, with gamemaster-and-players. BT just isn't rigorously balanced enough to work well as a purely cutthroat competitive system.
There's some merit in that. Certainly in 3063 I think some factions were at a relative disadvantage due to having Faction Heads who wanted to play closer to canon-realistic, while others were more wide-open.
I would say, though, that BT was never supposed to be balanced. If the FS decides they're going to go whole-hog and blitzkrieg the Taurians or Outworlds, those factions are going down, period. Players know that going in, and if you pick Niops you're probably planning from the outset to use diplomacy to stay alive, since you aren't out-producing anyone. That's a lot of what makes this interesting; the factions have wildly differing starting positions, goals, etc. It's not as if everyone's just trying to achieve the same goal.
-
I would say, though, that BT was never supposed to be balanced.
Agree completely. Which is why I feel it works better when not all factions are staffed with live human players. One of the problems I saw in the FGCs were people who took it personal when their faction suffered, or when another thrived.
I'd actually go so far as to say that it's not really possible to competitively balance Battletech. at least not without turning it into a minmaxed nightmare with no variety. BV as a metric works well as a measuring stick when the intent is to try and make the fight as close to even as possible. When you start using it to try and get an advantage, and you totally can, it breaks fast. It's like a yardstick, you can measure fine with it, but if you attack someone with it, you can easily snap it over their head.
At the very least, if one can, it behooves a resurrection of the concept to make sure that players going into a disadvantaged faction are aware and acknowledge the disadvantage.
Me, I'd probably break from canon entirely for a game like this. spec out a game with factions that are roughly equal at the onset, free of canon biases.
-
Agree completely. Which is why I feel it works better when not all factions are staffed with live human players. One of the problems I saw in the FGCs were people who took it personal when their faction suffered, or when another thrived.
I'd actually go so far as to say that it's not really possible to competitively balance Battletech. at least not without turning it into a minmaxed nightmare with no variety. BV as a metric works well as a measuring stick when the intent is to try and make the fight as close to even as possible. When you start using it to try and get an advantage, and you totally can, it breaks fast. It's like a yardstick, you can measure fine with it, but if you attack someone with it, you can easily snap it over their head.
At the very least, if one can, it behooves a resurrection of the concept to make sure that players going into a disadvantaged faction are aware and acknowledge the disadvantage.
Me, I'd probably break from canon entirely for a game like this. spec out a game with factions that are roughly equal at the onset, free of canon biases.
Yeah I've noticed that once you start having tech disparities, weight disparities, and/ore number disparities BV does break down as a balancing mechanic.
I am also in complete agreement that this should break from canon completely. Doing so also has the added benefit of making sure the ISaW rules actually work or not by doing that for if things are not a on an even keel it can hide certain faults easier.
-
I guess the question that we should ask is: What is the FGC? (FC? I know it was Fan Grand Council initially, because as Worktroll reminds us it started with the Clans, but when it became a grander game it sometimes dropped the G and sometimes not).
Is it foremost a strategic game, where each faction attempts to use a mixture of diplomacy and military force to dominate the others and enrich itself?
Or is it a role play venue, where the main point is to interact and explore chosen characters and factions?
Is it a speculative venture, a chance to test questions of "what if" that surround the universe?
Or is it meant to be more of a canon simulation, where the "true natures" of established characters are to be explored?
Most of the commentators here are old FGC hands, with experience going back a decade or more. I for my part have had positive experiences all around, and I respect everyone and their view. Yet, the fact that there is yet disagreement about the fundamental nature of the game hints that perhaps Steve is more right than I was, that no group of players will ever be able to settle down with the same set of core principles to make something like this work. Yes, we have had games survive for years, but I suppose there is a difference between thriving and simply lurching from one crisis to the next.
For my money, I liked seeing the FGC explore some strange new worlds. Now, to be sure, many of them did bother me quite a bit at the time. Why did Clan Coyote defect to the Inner Sphere side (I don't know if I never learned, or just forgot)? Why did the Terran Super-faction have such a foothold in the Marian Hegemony? (probably because they knew I was out for their blood and they needed protection). Why did the FWL agree to a dynastic marrage alliance with Clan Mongoose (because we're just that sexy)? But, each propelled the game down a new and mostly interesting course, and forcing the players to deal with what came of things. Having the Fire Mandrills in the Inner Sphere, for example, probably seemed pretty silly to many, but I think that it made the game more interesting.
Now, is balance possible? Yes and no. I do agree that there will never be a setting in which there aren't strong factions and week factions. Being a small faction will always be an uphill battle for survival. A big faction will always be an 800lb gorilla. But, I do think that there are ways to set up rules that don't favor some factions or some units or something else in a way that is uneven. Speaking about BV touches on a part of this, because some very funny things were able to come to pass as a result of some of that. That said, as for rules, since as I mentioned I don't have a copy of the canon rules that have been recommended, I won't say more.
As for canon vs non-canon setting, I would sooner see any new FGC start in a canon setting, and find it's own path from there. A non-canon setting would require creating a non-canon setting, which I think would cause as much dispute as just using the admittedly unbalanced canon setting.
-
I'm with IM, more or less. I see the FGC as a chance to roleplay what-ifs, directions canon didn't go. I'm okay with massaging canon (you basically have to, unless you want some people feeling they "have to" play their characters in the way they were played in canon), but I'd prefer a canon (or at least semi-canon) starting point.
-
I am not against going against canon (IS invading Clan space in the 50´s for example), but there is "what if" as the result of a long and well worked background and roleplaying, and the "what if" of we do it because LOL it is funny to create the Confederated Suns in 3025 on Turn2!.
Agree on starting canon, but any mayor change should be backed by a good RP and a minimun of rationality with the faction background.
-
In trying to reconcile Iron Mongoose's question is where I am a bit conflicted.
If all people want is the role play aspect I see no reason why we couldn't revive that right now.
For those who want more of the economic and combat micromanagement, well that is where I am with Steve Restless and think we need a non-canon setting. Mostly so we can avoid recriminations and so we can keep everything at a small enough and self contained enough scale that even ISaW's rules wouldn't get too daunting for someone to manage with what computerized aides people on these forums have been able to come up with in the past.
So where does that leave me for which I want? I have to admit it is the second option I want to see work but I do have my reservations about it.
-
One thing to point out is that the player turnover in '63 was pretty high. It went on for a good long while, but it also went through a lot of players; having a dedicated core group is going to be key.
I like the idea of a master GM with sub-GMs heading each faction - but relying on input from their faction members, perhaps having internal votes to decide what to do in broad terms and let the GM handle the details as the actual faction head. Let the players control colonels and generals, give us chances to go gonzo on the battlefield, and also encourage RP that way.
Timeframe wise, you'd want a well documented jumping off point, with at least some initial "ontological inertia" guiding the decisions made by the GMs. Don't just suddenly kick off a whole invasion, but let a raid or two go on and start to deviate that way, and let things grow slowly outward. I'd think placements would be best in the 3025 or 3085 era, since that's a very well documented timeframe and has a lot of good starting points. A second 60-year jump, 3145, also has a ton of documentation but it's wildly uneven - then again, if the results of battles turn differently everything after the start date changes.
I personally think it could be done. I don't know so much about the rule sets; perhaps between Alpha Strike's lance organization format and some of the FGC rules, it could work. I think the biggest thing comes down to having a stable core leadership of the game, and not having that game leadership running a (let alone the most powerful) faction.
-
The main problem with any of the official settings so far is that they all require tracking of well over 1,000 data points for a great house and that is even simplifying what you need to track vs ISaW.
That is simply not workable with the current available assets at our disposal.
-
It doesn't have to be Sphere-wide. Now, we do risk limiting the player base with fewer factions, but we can also greatly simplify the scale. Say, a Homeworlds game set in 3020 (or post-Reaving, even) or, as I mentioned in the other thread, a 3085-era game focusing on the shattered FWL and environs. Any of those options would drastically shrink the amount of data to be tracked even compared to a 3025 whole-IS setting.
-
To answer the lingering questions, my personal preference is for a game that begins in a canon setting, though scale doesn't matter for me. I think one of the prior-floated ideas of a Clan-only game starting with Klondike would be magnificent, and the scale would be fairly small to boot. An idea I had was the Chaos March small powers; the GMs could dictate what the Houses actually do, while the players run the little breakaway nations that had small militia armies backed by mercenary MechWarriors.
-
A Klondike game would be awesome, very small scale and we would get to use all the prototype stuff.
-
I remember taking part in the original FGC and the follow up trialing after it ended. Wasn't that organized and there wasn't any force tracking. It was just a way to organize some pick up games with some 'stakes' behind it.
Personally, I don't feel the need for an 'official' Fan Council and wouldn't play in it (No time and not that interested in the premise of strategic winners or losers). Plus even the one I was playing in there were people getting upset. There's someone on this board now that I look askew at due to an incident that happened there still, even though it was over a decade ago.
This sort of thing is best done with your friends where you can agree on what you are doing and what you are trying to get out of it. Any 'official' one with random people is going to have issues due to playstyle or goals.
For what it's worth, there was a campaign system published in an old Dragon Magazine (Late 9x or early 10x issue's I think) over two issues. One had the successor states, the other was just a generic mercenary campaign where each player owned certain generic planets (Resource, factory, etc) and a jump map was set up based on the players involved. No one started with a strategic advantage there due to choosing the 'right' faction. Granted, this was pre clan invasion time frame too ;)
-
All this is doing though is highlighting one of the problems of the Fan Councils, too many people want too many different things.
For instance I have nothing against the FWL but I also have zero interest in it either. Clans have frankly gotten boring for me too.
-
if your mainly looking for a multiplayer campaign, perhaps use the republic after the blackout.. the players can take the reigns of the various 'pirate factions', small scale merc units, rebellions, security forces, and other such groups. perhaps also the pro-republic Knights and their 'retinues', since they fill a similar role.
this leaves the gamemasters in charge of the republic forces proper, helps keep the sizes of the forces smaller (making record keeping easier), and hopefully puts tensions a bit less intense out of game.
for the RP angle, you could have the player pledging to the existing pirate factions (Swordsworn, steelwolves, Bannsons raiders, etc) or with GM permission, create one that does not exist, or only exists as a name. (presumably for example, there were pro-Capcon factions prior to the capellan invasion. and we have WoB aligned groups named but not detailed in the Era Report: Dark Age supplement.) then they can have discussions and such over the larger goals of their faction and such.
the main thing would be to establish a system by which the players can do things like insurgencies and other such "out of scope" events for standard battletech games, and have them play a factor into how the events of the game go.
-
Ooh, that sounds fun.
-
you could use the warchest system or other such campaign system for much of the record keeping, since units would probably not get above a battalion or so size (~30-40 combat units.) a couple lances of mechs, and a bunch of vehicles and infantry, most likely.
ideally things would start out liek the clix games.. with lots of basic infantry, lower tech mechs (even armed industrials) in the early stages**, and then as the game progresses forces can use resources/points obtained to obtain better gear.
** subject to player choice of course.. i suspect it would start off with players getting a certain amount of BV or warchest points, or whatever to build their initial forces. want to focus on a more grassroots force? industrials, infantry, and basic vehicles. rogue military unit? smaller number of higher quality mechs, vehicles, and BA. etc.
-
I'd be okay with the Republic break-down scenario. Sounds fun!
-
I would be down to be a independent/neutral meker. I always enjoyed meking more than rping. Plus with my schedule i don't know how much time i can invest.
-
I am down for whatever the group wants. I still think a Klondike setting is ideal because it allows for faction management as well as expansion even past the ending of Klondike.
-
Hi all,
I love the idea of a grand strategic game for BattleTech. I currently help to run the online Succession Wars game. In addition, I have played a few games of ACS and have thoroughly reviewed the ISW rules from IO.
I'd like to throw my hat in the ring as a technical resource for this game if it ever gets going. I have experience in Java as well as online based systems using PHP/MySQL.
-
Again, I highly recommend that if this were to take off the ground, head over to mordel.net.
I talked to the admin, and he is even willing to set up a private board just for this project if you guys want. Definitely check it out.
-
So this was a hot topic there for a bit. . . did anything ever come of our enthusiasm? I looked at mordel.net and didn't see anything specific to this conversation.
-
To be a bit blunt I am not really surprised.
-
I might even go so far as to say this is what I expected (even if a part of me hoped to be shown wrong).
There's only a handful of us left from the old days (for some of us, fifteen years; I was closer to the age my kids are now, than the age I am now) and while many of us miss it, we all miss different things, and we all remember the bad right along with the good.
I think if a chorus of new voices were to come out and say "FGC, what is that?" then there would have been a chance, if only an outside one. But I remember the start up for the big 63 hurrah, I didn't get my chosen Clan, because each of the 16 available Clans already had three or more players assigned (I want to say it may have been five per, hinting at 80 players at least expressing interest) so I ended up a Mandrill (and I'm better off for it, I think). Just a dozen old timers who only sort of miss a rose colored version of the old days isn't I think going to move the needle.
-
Especially when some of us are wearing shades that are tinted a far less pleasing color, as pertains to the topic at hand.
-
I think the concept is doomed if it isn't run on the official forums. There just won't be enough visibility to maintain an adequate player base anywhere else, and since its banned here, it's DOA.
-
I think the concept is doomed if it isn't run on the official forums. There just won't be enough visibility to maintain an adequate player base anywhere else, and since its banned here, it's DOA.
Is that an official word? Fan Councils are not allowed on the forums here?
-
Following the most recent iteration, the decision was made that any future versions of this needed to be done elsewhere, and not on the official forums. Suffice to say, that wasn't a fun conclusion to reach, but was one that needed to happen for a number of reasons.
I wholeheartedly hope that a new one can come around- particularly one based in the post-Jihad era, because there's no shortage of interesting things going on in there. But it's not an option here at this point.
Does seem that way, yes.
-
Following the most recent iteration, the decision was made that any future versions of this needed to be done elsewhere, and not on the official forums. Suffice to say, that wasn't a fun conclusion to reach, but was one that needed to happen for a number of reasons.
I wholeheartedly hope that a new one can come around- particularly one based in the post-Jihad era, because there's no shortage of interesting things going on in there. But it's not an option here at this point.
Seems a rather definitive no on them making a come back on these forums.
-
You have no idea how much **** went on in the latter days of the 3063 FGC. #P
-
Which was the turn where Niops and one other group both got the super-awesome research bonus thing and unintentionally parked the bonus on each other? I thought that was near the end of the game, but from where I was standing it was like "...well that was unexpected, and boy the rules interaction went all to hell"
-
Abuse of the letter of the rules was one thing, and IIRC the Niops 'science hack' was carefully planned.
I'm more talking about metagaming, personal dishonesty, abuse of privilege, falsification of results, and 'helicopter crashes'. Those who were there may remember their own perspectives on some of these events, but I think I'll draw the line there.
-
Well, if you really want to go full on rose glasses, you could think that at least folks going out and cheating means at least they were invested and wanted to do well. I don't actually think that for the cases I know we're actually talking about, of course, but compared to the deafening silence the horrifying "metagaming, personal dishonesty, abuse of privilege, falsification of results, and 'helicopter crashes' " don't seem so bad as they did.
And then you think back and remember that while there were some absolute gems, folks who I quite miss the company of and would be willing to endure all that crap just to be able to work with, there were some real problem cases who created some real problems, and it's not really that shocking that the folks who run the boards and would be left to clean up any ridiculous messes don't want to endure it again.
-
If everyone is serious, you should look up the NetBattleTech guys, they have been developing an automation backed to link up with Battle tech videogames for the last several years. Rules for planetary battles/research/etc.
I played in several NBT Classic leagues using Megamek a number of years ago, it was a fun experience
-
To be blunt that is one of the issues that has doomed Fan Councils in the past, an over-reliance on MegaMek which leads me to suspect what too many people really want is basically where MekHQ is roughly at in terms of capabilities now.
-
Which is ok, but the automation can just as easily keep track of troops/planets/research/etc without actually using any of the BT computer programs. Folks were complaining of spreadsheets and tracking movements and whatnot.
Looks like NBT is (still) not updated so my idea was basically DoA anyways.
-
I'll certainly say this for the FGCs. I miss Albie.
-
I'll certainly say this for the FGCs. I miss Albie.
:'(
-
I might even go so far as to say this is what I expected (even if a part of me hoped to be shown wrong).
There's only a handful of us left from the old days (for some of us, fifteen years; I was closer to the age my kids are now, than the age I am now) and while many of us miss it, we all miss different things, and we all remember the bad right along with the good.
I think if a chorus of new voices were to come out and say "FGC, what is that?" then there would have been a chance, if only an outside one. But I remember the start up for the big 63 hurrah, I didn't get my chosen Clan, because each of the 16 available Clans already had three or more players assigned (I want to say it may have been five per, hinting at 80 players at least expressing interest) so I ended up a Mandrill (and I'm better off for it, I think). Just a dozen old timers who only sort of miss a rose colored version of the old days isn't I think going to move the needle.
More than anything was the time required to deal with it all. As much as i would love to secede Andurien again, I barely have enough time to keep up with the stuff i need to much less the extra time this would take.
-
I'll certainly say this for the FGCs. I miss Albie.
Hear hear! I don't think I've ever learned so much in a MegaMek match as the time he handed me my ass on Rasalhague (his wolves vs my bears) despite my larger force, then had the grace to grant Hegira (though with a pledge from Ragnar that the Bears leave Rasalhague alone for five years).
-
I'll certainly say this for the FGCs. I miss Albie.
Seyla.
-
Hear hear! I don't think I've ever learned so much in a MegaMek match as the time he handed me my ass on Rasalhague (his wolves vs my bears) despite my larger force, then had the grace to grant Hegira (though with a pledge from Ragnar that the Bears leave Rasalhague alone for five years).
Kek i remember that, the bid i remember forcing you to do was down right dezgra. Then he goes off and does some protomech voodoo. We joked about that a lot together afterwards ^_^.
Random fun fact, his khan in that game ended up successfully participating in a clawing ritual.
-
Good old Albi. For years after, I'd say things like "I know a guy..." and forget he wasn't around any longer. And for all that we didn't always get along in the game, there was never a moment it got personal. Sadly, our FWL never had a civil war enough to cross swards in MM (though he won an election over me at least once)
-
Then he goes off and does some protomech voodoo.
He did that to me a few times introducing the things.
Anyway...the FGCs were fun for a time, but they ARE a lot of work and a consistent commitment. You can't just decide 'take a weekend off' for example, and there's always plots brewing and battles to deal with and a ton of paperwork and resource management. Frankly, it really IS a large-scale empire simulator, and no empire since before the Akkadians works without paperwork in some form or another.
-
Aff to that, i unabashedly chucked the record keeping on dave baughman so i could focus on recking in MM. Was a great arrangement!
Think my fav personal memory was winning with zell a star of elementals vs a elite lobo with perks.. In a raging forest fire that engulfed most of the map. I only won cause his ams ran out of ammo. To this day its the reason i love Altenmarkt. Best compliment was when kit said he couldn't duplicate the results after 5 battles.
Fav moment that i wasnt part of? Watching GbScientist use Bjorn to pimp slap the taste out of victors mouth before security could interven.
-
I miss Dan too. We would talk for hours on MSN instant messenger.
But I have to agree, I just don't see this working off the main CBT boards. There is way less traffic here than the previous boards and taking it off site would reduce traffic even more.
-
Wonder what Albatross would've thought of the Wolf Empire. Seems like it would've been right up his alley.
-
Sorry to resurrect a zombie thread, but this would have been awesome (looking through rose tinted glasses, realistically it had its ups and downs).
-
It doesn't have to be Sphere-wide. Now, we do risk limiting the player base with fewer factions, but we can also greatly simplify the scale. Say, a Homeworlds game set in 3020 (or post-Reaving, even) or, as I mentioned in the other thread, a 3085-era game focusing on the shattered FWL and environs. Any of those options would drastically shrink the amount of data to be tracked even compared to a 3025 whole-IS setting.
Not that I have a lot of dogs in the fight, not having been aware of the past FGCs' existence, but does it have to be ONE overarching Spherewide game? Could it not be a whole bunch of interconnected (or even unconnected) games under one unified umbrella? I'm thinking of the old Living Greyhawk model, where geographic regions IRL were given geographic regions in Greyhawk (SoCal and bits of Arizona and Nevada, IIRC, for instance were Nyrond), all of the groups doing their own thing with "core" modules interspersed to move the metaplot along. Maybe one group does 3025 FWL, another is Jihad Combine, another is Age of War Terra, another is Reaving Homeworlds, whatever floats the group's boat, all with the FGC overseeing and crafting, eventually, a meta.
I have to start looking at timestamps before responding... didn't realize this was a two-year-old thread.
-
I have fond memory's of the fan council game
-
The FGC was great time but it was a labor of love. I ran the St.Ives Compact and co-managed the Fire Mandrills and it was time consuming.
-
The FGC was great time but it was a labor of love. I ran the St.Ives Compact and co-managed the Fire Mandrills and it was time consuming.
I always felt bad for the GM's, dealing with us was like herding cats with no reward and all headache.
-
A lot of the problem really did come down to too many people wanted too many different things and overly complicated rules that drained the fun because of all the excessive book keeping.
-
I wonder if there would be a way of designing a Diplomacy map for it, and then seeing if any of the old Diplomacy mail daemons were still up and running.
-
overly complicated rules that drained the fun because of all the excessive book keeping.
This. This more than anything else. I loved the FCG until the rules required me to fill out three pages of spreadsheets and forms. I loved it until other players found enough flaws to break everything that made it feel like Battletech. Until you get a rules system that is simple enough for players and GM to do in a short time, but still complex enough to give the details that drove the FCG, it can't happen.
-
I’ve always been a proponent of an FGC on an extremely limited scale.
Some examples would be…
1. A very selected portion of the inner sphere say the small area surrounding the terrain corridors that each house possessed at the time pre 4th succession war.
2. Operation Klondike. A single planet like Eden, or Circe where only the 4 clans hitting the planet and the defending forces are present.
3. A small portion of a mutual border between say house Marik and Liao on the eve of the 1st succession war. It could be any border for that matter.
The first thing you do is narrow the scope. This narrows any book keeping needed. Then you concentrate on rules. Will a limited scope of battle appeal to everyone, no probably not, but I can enjoy myself running some random house marik noble in the 1st succession war waiting for my chance to run say a Clan Hell’s Horses bloodnamed warrior retaking the pentagon worlds next. This also gives the FGC an actual end point and victory goals as opposed to people getting crazy and trying to conquer a successor state with say the scant resources of the Oberon Confederation!
-
Speaking as the guy who started the first ever FGC (which was an all-Khan debating society, effectively), the second-last iteration of the FGC foundered under cheating and metagaming. The last iteration foundered under weight of rules, and insufficient players (probably due to the weight of the rules).
-
i've said to before two years ago, but limiting the scope would be the best idea on how to revive it. while it might lose some of the draw, if the players are running the "Houses Minor" (barons, counts, earls, etc) within a successor state or in states along a mutual border, you could capture the feel of the political side (as the houses make and break alliances) while avoiding the sheer extra paperwork of having to handle things like R&D and national industrial output. you can make it a bit more like a normal campaign, with the players getting a set income in whatever campaign system you use (probably the chaos campaign warchest system for simplicity) to use to repair, replace, and possibly expand whatever family armies they have. if we use the warchest system upkeep is pretty much already factored in (as in, you don't have to track it), and the GM's could set easy limits on how much you get during a given phase of the game.
this would help reduce the paperwork some, i think, especially since it would put a fair bit onto the players themselves (the actual use of the warchest points) with the GM's just acting as moderators for that aspect.
i do think that it probably won't be easy to avoid megamek though. too many of us don't live near other players, and megamek is the easy way to run games remotely. though i suppose you could face off in HBS battletech's multiplayer or even a custom MWO game if you really wanted. but megamek makes it easier since you have more options for units, can control bigger units, more scenario options ,and it allows battles using aerospace units.
-
i've said to before two years ago, but limiting the scope would be the best idea on how to revive it. while it might lose some of the draw, if the players are running the "Houses Minor" (barons, counts, earls, etc) within a successor state or in states along a mutual border, you could capture the feel of the political side (as the houses make and break alliances) while avoiding the sheer extra paperwork of having to handle things like R&D and national industrial output. you can make it a bit more like a normal campaign, with the players getting a set income in whatever campaign system you use (probably the chaos campaign warchest system for simplicity) to use to repair, replace, and possibly expand whatever family armies they have. if we use the warchest system upkeep is pretty much already factored in (as in, you don't have to track it), and the GM's could set easy limits on how much you get during a given phase of the game.
this would help reduce the paperwork some, i think, especially since it would put a fair bit onto the players themselves (the actual use of the warchest points) with the GM's just acting as moderators for that aspect.
i do think that it probably won't be easy to avoid megamek though. too many of us don't live near other players, and megamek is the easy way to run games remotely. though i suppose you could face off in HBS battletech's multiplayer or even a custom MWO game if you really wanted. but megamek makes it easier since you have more options for units, can control bigger units, more scenario options ,and it allows battles using aerospace units.
Unfortunately as I pointed out too many people wanted too many different things.
As far as MegaMek it was a consistent problem across multiple versions of the FGCs getting Megamek matches resolved without causing delays. It was enough of a problem with how often it happened that I am quite convinced that MegaMek should only be used in a very narrow fashion.
Speaking as the guy who started the first ever FGC (which was an all-Khan debating society, effectively), the second-last iteration of the FGC foundered under cheating and metagaming. The last iteration foundered under weight of rules, and insufficient players (probably due to the weight of the rules).
Every version I played in I never started out in charge of the faction I joined but became in charge. Then the most recent one I became the one in charge of everything.
So with that experience in mind I think something like the original FGC could work. A highly RP driven affair where the only MegaMek needed would be to resolve personal trials of grievance.
-
I remember another hurdle was the naval combat and warships. Also it seemed it was always clan v clan and is. Not to much is v is action (which makes sense)
-
I think something like the Risk victory cards might be needed too . . .
*GM hands Liao a card, Liao flips it over to read . . . 'Get Andurien to secede from League, again'*
-
I think something like the Risk victory cards might be needed too . . .
Nothing from Risk is ever needed in any game ever, including Risk. :crash:
I remember another hurdle was the naval combat and warships.
Naval combat in 3062 was awkward because flotillas had to be "built" with the exact details. There wasn't much abstraction there even though all flotillas fought the same way: BV balancing. However, warships were indeed a problem because everybody started to build them and in mass quantities. If you were ever in doubt about their disruptive presence in canon, the 3062 FCG showed why they would be, are indeed are, insanely bad.
-
You complain that folks where playing their own games, yet reject suggesting a mechanism for channeling each faction towards a GM approved objective?
-
You complain that folks where playing their own games
I never said anything of the sort. I literally have made only two posts so its really not hard to check what I said.
yet reject suggesting a mechanism for channeling each faction towards a GM approved objective?
Even though I didn't make the claim you made up for me, I'll tell you why Risk cards are a bad idea: because they negate the story. You want the CC to have a "get Andurien to seceded" card. What does that do to the story and the game? The CC player is going to hold onto it until the very worst moment for the FWL. Does it matter if the FWL players are making Andurien into a bastion of loyalty? What if one of the players is playing as Duke/Duchess Humphries? Are that person's own efforts going to be single handedly wiped out?
There should be no "GM approved objective." The FCG is supposed to be playing a game, not acting out a preapproved scenario. The whole reason the FCG is appealing is because it lets players do what we all have claimed to want to do: affect the Battletech universe in the way we want to.
Back in the 62 game the FedSuns banished Simon Gallagher to the Marian Hegemony. I cannot tell you many positive stories Welshman and I were able to work on and tell together because of that decision. But that was a decision made by players, not GMs. Sometimes the GMs wanted to move things. I was always under threat from the FWL. So early-ish on the GMs gave me an Atreus-class battleship. That led to a huge number of stories and interactions between Albatross and myself. And the FWL never invaded.
The key part of all of those is that it was stories that made it fun, not arbitrary and capricious overly powerful cards.
The 62 game came to a crashing halt, as Worktroll said, because of metagaming. There was a member of my faction who saw a huge rule loophole. I'm not too proud to admit that he wore me down and I eventually gave in. And within two turns the Marian Hegemony was churning out a regiment of mechs every two months (in game time). I don't remember that person's name and I don't remember any stories from the last six months of the game. It was all about the Accountingtech.
The game needs rules and it needs GMs to keep everything within certain limits (see what happened to the 48 game). However, those are necessary but not sufficient. The game would need enough players to tell stories that are fun and meaningful and true to the universe. Lose those and it doesn't matter about the rules. No one will have fun and play. B
-
i don't think the risk card idea was that the cards trigger events, but rather they were objectives to be met, and which would bring an extra reward. which is something a lot of the Risk game variants use to add complexity to the gameplay by encouraging players to pursue goals that they might otherwise ignore as too risky.
in the case of "get andurien to leave the FWL", it would mean the CapCon player(s) would need to work deals and do RP to encourage the andurien player(s) to do that act. if the other FWL player(s) are trying to turn andurien into a bastion of loyalty, well that means the andurien players are getting deals and RP from both sides, and now have to make a choice of which to pursue.. including trying to run a fine line between both, if possible.
-
it would mean the CapCon player(s) would need to work deals and do RP to encourage the andurien player(s) to do that act
But why is that necessary? The players who sign up to play the CC won't be ignorant of the CC in the universe. They would know the history and motivations. And if those players don't want to go after Andurien, why force them? Why force players to do a dozen minor storylines? Perhaps the players want the FWL to think they're going after Andurien but actually have no intention of doing so so that they can attack elsewhere. There's a dozen different reasons why forcing the players to do minor tasks like that is detrimental to the ability of players to tell a good story.
that means the andurien players are getting deals and RP from both sides
Which players can do without the GM forcing them to interact. Forced interaction doesn't lend itself to good storytelling.
What in this situation were the players unable to do without GMs micromanaging their affairs?
-
I've had a game I call "Son of Inner Sphere Warlord in Successor Flames" about 2/3rds done for a decade. It's more a hex-and-counter boardgame - more detailed than Succession Wars, far far less than ISiF. Cardplay and victory qualifiers work really well when you're abstracting at that level. For the far far greater level the FGCs were run at, they probably shouldn't be needed.
The biggest issues with '62 weren't the Periphery Tulip Scheme - admittedly, an exploit - or even the AeroSpace Stack of Doom, which meant the only realistic tactic was put ALL THE AEROSPACE in a single hex. They were direct outcomes of the ruleset, and I won't blame players for honestly exploiting the rules. People manipulating the resolution of trials - insisting on MM resolution, then never turning up, blaming helicopter crashes and similar things - was IMHO far poorer. No, iit was dishonesty and behaviour behind the screen which led the forum management team to pull the plug.
For example, one could have fixed the trading scheme by declaring it to be a massive Ponzi scheme, leaving the states with less income than they started, and a bloated military that had to be supported lest it mutiny. There were possible solutiont to the Stack of Doom, in terms of support costs to concentrate all that logistics in one place. And so on. But some personalities can't be fixed.
In fairness, the massive overworkload issues meant fewer people staying in the game, which led to responsibliities being put on fewer and fewer people, which led to less constraints on some of those people.
-
I always did my best to play my megamek match's barring work comittments because I was working 12 hours a day 5 days a week or more. Someone actually used a helicopter crash excuse? Better than my grandma died!
Megameking was my favorite part, I thought there were rules for auto resolving via dice if the match wasn't played within a certain time period? One of the problems was living in different time zones and figuring out the time to play between both party's. What might work for one person might not work for the other because of the time zone and work schedule.
Kit once said he couldn't recreate a trial I won with elementals on altenmarkt ^__^.
-
I don’t remember a helicopter crash excuse. That’s pretty amazing
But why is that necessary? The players who sign up to play the CC won't be ignorant of the CC in the universe. They would know the history and motivations. And if those players don't want to go after Andurien, why force them? Why force players to do a dozen minor storylines? Perhaps the players want the FWL to think they're going after Andurien but actually have no intention of doing so so that they can attack elsewhere. There's a dozen different reasons why forcing the players to do minor tasks like that is detrimental to the ability of players to tell a good story.
Which players can do without the GM forcing them to interact. Forced interaction doesn't lend itself to good storytelling.
What in this situation were the players unable to do without GMs micromanaging their affairs?
I remember a problem where players would act “ooc” from what their factions would actually do and it pissed off the other players. I think one player pretty much gave up his factions holdings etc to merge with another faction. A risk card could help prevent that from happening
-
I always did my best to play my megamek match's barring work comittments because I was working 12 hours a day 5 days a week or more. Someone actually used a helicopter crash excuse? Better than my grandma died!
Megameking was my favorite part, I thought there were rules for auto resolving via dice if the match wasn't played within a certain time period? One of the problems was living in different time zones and figuring out the time to play between both party's. What might work for one person might not work for the other because of the time zone and work schedule.
Kit once said he couldn't recreate a trial I won with elementals on altenmarkt ^__^.
Yeah there were quick resolution rules. Another problem with MM is that games took forever if it was a big engagement.
The kickstarter for the clan invasion actually got me jonesing for some MM action and was hoping that a smaller incarnation of the fgc was kicking around for some easy to find MMgames
-
Double post
-
If someone were inclined to start something like that up, it would probably be worthwhile for them to start a lot smaller than the entire inner sphere, just to get a feel for things before tackling more than they can handle.
Something like the breakdown of the republic after the HPG crash might be an idea.
-
Now I just want to be clear, for all the complaining and naysaying I’ve said, if 62 came back or another FCG was announced, I’d be there in a hot second.
-
Yeah there were quick resolution rules. Another problem with MM is that games took forever if it was a big engagement.
The kickstarter for the clan invasion actually got me jonesing for some MM action and was hoping that a smaller incarnation of the fgc was kicking around for some easy to find MMgames
Check restless server thread, there's a irc link for a room with people who are down to mek.
-
FGC: Republic 3132 would be pretty cool as far as smaller scope, an 'excuse' to have players do practically whatever they want/can get away with, and modernizing (game era) influence.
-
I must admit the idea of forcing people to play in the 3140s appeals to me. There is a lot more scope for non Mech action. Plus it will act as a big incubator for new techniques and play styles. There was a lot more practical experience around in 3067 which blossomed in TRO3085.
Shame time zones and lifestyle stops me playing.
-
Worth separating the RP, economic, and MM elements?
I could easily imagine a "Harvest Trials" MM league for those who want to game, and are happy going Clan. Set up teams for Clans Jade Falcon and Wolf. Allow people to identify with any Clan they want. Then have trials - one-on-one, or whatever people want - and rack up scores. Have the "points" be (tons you killed) / (tons you're using). Enforce Zell - any battles where Zell is broken garner no score.
I may dredge up my notes for the Parliament game. Pure chinwag set in the FWL. Each singular player represents a FWL faction (so no limit on players!) Each faction has goals and weaknesses. Anything that strengthens the federal military is good for the Marik Commonwealth and industries like Irian, but is bad for provinces like Regulus. Things that strengthen diplomatic ties with the Capellans help the Marik Commonwealth, and help non-military industries, but not the Andurians or Corean Industries, and so on. There'd be about 20 "alignments" - each faction would be assigned two positive, two negative.
Every week a bill is put forward - "Cut military spending to increase consumer goods". This is good for some factions, bad for others, and irrelevant for most. There's a week for debate on the floor, and for back-channel deal-making. Then there's a vote. This goes on and factions win or lose "points" based on the bills that pass or fail. At the end of a year (or whenever), whoever has the most points wins bragging rights.
It's designed so that metagaming is an aspect. There's no victory except bragging rights, so there's less room for cheating per se. A group can collude, and there's nothing that can stop that except the other people, and betrayals.
On the macro-economic side, a few groups have run ISiF campaigns - get in touch with them. See what they're up to.
-
I must admit the idea of forcing people to play in the 3140s appeals to me. There is a lot more scope for non action. Plus it will act as a big incubator for new techniques and play styles. There was a lot more practical experience around in 3067 which blossomed in TRO3085.
Huh?
-
I will be honest the idea of of everyone playing a Free World’s League faction or planet sounds like a ton of fun.
One of the good points of the FGC 3062 was that there were roleplay people and megamek people to suit each type.
As GWA said if a FGC were to ever get off the ground I would be there in a heartbeat as well.
-
Huh?
the "mechwarrior dark age" era is poorly received by many players due to how Wizkids mishandled the lore around the clix game releases.
I will be honest the idea of of everyone playing a Free World’s League faction or planet sounds like a ton of fun.
One of the good points of the FGC 3062 was that there were roleplay people and megamek people to suit each type.
As GWA said if a FGC were to ever get off the ground I would be there in a heartbeat as well.
if we do a FWL space centric one, i'd actually suggest using the 3130's timeframe, or even a few years earlier (so grey monday can be an ingame event). not only is it far more fractured than usual, there really isn't much info on the anything but the major powers (andurien, regulus, etc) so it is pretty blank slate.
-
Congratulations worktroll. That's perhaps the only entertaining version of "Bureaucracy: The Game" I've seen. :thumbsup:
-
It's how I'd run my office, if I had more than one direct report at the moment :wheelchair:
-
the "mechwarrior dark age" era is poorly received by many players due to how Wizkids mishandled the lore around the clix game releases.
None of which had anything to do with Jellico's statement, about how experience with the '62 game blossomed into '85.
-
I don’t remember a helicopter crash excuse. That’s pretty amazing
I remember a problem where players would act “ooc” from what their factions would actually do and it pissed off the other players. I think one player pretty much gave up his factions holdings etc to merge with another faction. A risk card could help prevent that from happening
I remember being recruited by Deathrider6 to help un-tangle that mess, then spending a year in a game where fewer and fewer people bothered to turn in their turn orders on time while my faction had a rolling "Leadership" problem. (Different faction head every few days for a while there.) the people who could actually show up and turn in their material on time were given "advisory" positions but the Faction Head never seemed to be from that pool, until so many people had quit that it landed on my lap.
I recall at least three Megamek trials where it was so large it crashed the server-repeatedly, and being outfoxed by a Clan player HARD with a space battle.
and I remember it burned me out. it wasn't an exceptionally long time after quitting FGC '62 that I also quit the moderator staff here, dropped out of the playtest pool for Catalyst, stopped trying to hook freelance work involved with the game, and saw my marriage hit critical mass and implode in a divorce.
not a cause, but definitely a correlation in terms of timing.
-
Huh?
Apologies. Some how "Non Mech Action" dropped the "Mech."
The FGC resulted in a lot of games and a lot of debriefing and reminiscing on the boards. Lots of games means lots of experimentation with the results widely spread.
A lot of the people playing with the 3067 tech of the FGC went on to be the people designing for TRO3085 and beyond.
-
the main issue i can see with a pure RP approach is the fact that, as the players debate and scheme and roleplay as the moivers and shakers of the setting (whether canon or otherwise), they will inevitably want their actions and decisions to have a resolution. which means there would have to be some way to resolve events, disputes, and rivalries that can't be worked out with words on a screen. given that this is a forum for a game, it is natural that participants would reach to said game as a way to resolve such issues.
this is how the original RP-centric FGC wound up having a megamek component, and why the games that followed had a megamek component from the beginning.
so any future FGC really needs to have some way for megamek or physical game events to be involved. even if the set up is skewed to focus more on the Character RP aspect rather than grand national control.
-
Parliamentary parties, influence peddlers, and vested interests rarely seem to resort to result in overt armed combat. And a game based on that doesn't therefore need a combat resolution system.
But giving each player a small budget, and using the Espionage rules from ISiF ... now that could be tasty! Irian decides to spread misinformation about Ceres Metals. Ceres is planting moles in the Regulan government, in hopes of reading their mail. The Marik Commonwealth attempts to sabotage cereal production in Andurian, and so on ...
-
Parliamentary parties, influence peddlers, and vested interests rarely seem to resort to result in overt armed combat. And a game based on that doesn't therefore need a combat resolution system.
But giving each player a small budget, and using the Espionage rules from ISiF ... now that could be tasty! Irian decides to spread misinformation about Ceres Metals. Ceres is planting moles in the Regulan government, in hopes of reading their mail. The Marik Commonwealth attempts to sabotage cereal production in Andurian, and so on ...
Well, to be fair . . . it started with the Clans, and they do reach for a fight in the resolution process. Or soon after. Since I called out the Jade Falcon Khan (Tel Hazen) or saKhan (MarauderCH) early in the FGC, that may have been the first leap to using MM to resolve differences.
-
Speaking as the guy who started the first ever FGC (which was an all-Khan debating society, effectively) <snip>
I remember those early days, they were fun. Then someone (or someones) had to formalize it and make rules and slowly killed all the fun.
-
*made no rules, just shot Jade Falcons, fun for all*
-
*made no rules, just shot Jade Falcons, fun for all*
The Wolf player in me applauds this sentiment.
-
Defeated the Khan, saKhan and a . . . Star Captain in Trials of Grievance, popped a Falcon heavy with a Phantom H in the Diamond Shark Refusal, wiped out a Falcon force trying to cross a creek with mostly conventional forces proxied by the saKhan, and a urban rumble where a Executioner fell to my Crossbow but the Fire Moth decorated some basement dweller's cave.
-
I remember those early days, they were fun. Then someone (or someones) had to formalize it and make rules and slowly killed all the fun.
Good heavens, that's been forever ago. Good times, though, even with the (inevitable?) crunch creep. At least it was until it became a major time sink full of spreadsheets and random dice rolls, just to play along.
(Mild bellyaching aside, I'd love to see the old beast brought back somehow, somewhere.)
-
Parliamentary parties, influence peddlers, and vested interests rarely seem to resort to result in overt armed combat. And a game based on that doesn't therefore need a combat resolution system.
But giving each player a small budget, and using the Espionage rules from ISiF ... now that could be tasty! Irian decides to spread misinformation about Ceres Metals. Ceres is planting moles in the Regulan government, in hopes of reading their mail. The Marik Commonwealth attempts to sabotage cereal production in Andurian, and so on ...
no offense, but even with the espionage stuff, that sounds incredibly boring. i mean, this is battletech. if the RP side isn't at least partly an excuse to arrange interesting clashes between giant stompy robots, big gun festooned tanks, and armor clad infantry, what is the point?
-
If it sounds boring to you, you are not required to participate.
-
That's kind of the thing though.
I don't see MegaMek fights as absolutely mutually exclusive with this sort of thing if the scope is properly limited on both the Role Playing side and the MegaMek side.
Two Kahns declaring a personal trial of grievance over something that was RPed out? Sounds appropriate to me.
Resolving a House Lord's conquest of a border world or a raid? That way lies trouble.
-
If it sounds boring to you, you are not required to participate.
the problem is that as a concept, it is probably going to sound boring to the majority of BT fans. and since no one is required to participate, if the idea does not appeal, you will struggle to find players.
-
I can see the appeal from a hard core role play perspective, even if that's not my thing. Oh, the backstabbing, the manipulation, the subtle power plays... It would be enough to bring a tear to the eye of a Cardassian (and yes, I'm doing a DS9 marathon at the moment).
-
Perhaps the best approach would be for the players to not be Khans or House Lords, but instead (Star) Colonels of the various factions, allowing GMs to handle the rulers and strategic concerns.
-
Perhaps the best approach would be for the players to not be Khans or House Lords, but instead (Star) Colonels of the various factions, allowing GMs to handle the rulers and strategic concerns.
which is what a lot of us kee psuggesting, although our ideas as to venue vary. houses minor along a given front, splinter factions in the dark age, whatever. smaller scale in both strategically and tactically, as the players represent minor factions against the backdrop of the grand events of the timeframe, and as they'd generally not be able to throw entire multi-regimental armies at each other, but rather company or battalion sized units at best. which if the venue is picked right could still have some pretty amazing stories and dramatic twists. which certainly sounds more interesting than fillibuster-tech.
-
Perhaps the best approach would be for the players to not be Khans or House Lords, but instead (Star) Colonels of the various factions, allowing GMs to handle the rulers and strategic concerns.
Sounds like a game I tried to cobble together for some buddies based on the Fire Mandrill kindraas feuding for dominance. Strategic yes, but on a less... intimidating scale.
-
The base problems I saw with the '62/'85 fancouncil games weren't really in the mechanics, it was in wrangling players to turn in their orders on time. (mind the spreadsheets were...not without complexity). I didn't get a faction of my own until the time-jump, mind, but 'bein on time' was something a LOT of people didn't seem to be able to do.
that, and faction heads rolling. istr we even had Worktroll covering the Lyrans for a while.
to make a serious go again, some things would have to be automated or automatable to avoid people ignoring the rule of natural consequences and throwing megastax of warships around pell-mell because they could buy, but didn't have to pay maintenance.
which is how a lot of the more extreem situations with that game came about. hate to say it, but there's definitely going to need to be a structured in-game economy with limiters and random events.
a few ideas I'd suggest include having a "local rebellion" event that becomes more certain the longer a held world is without a garrison-which can be influenced using the intelligence operations section of an orders sheet. If players have to maintain order, a lot of the god-stax become impossible, and massive offensives have to include realistic planning on not only taking, but keeping, systems.
this can also tie into public sentiment as a group equation. Investment in infrastructure raises a system's loyalty base, while neglect lowers it, unit loyalties can be raised or lost based on treatment and duration and homeworld-aka your unit of Inarcs Jaegers might lose some of that Lyran Blue loyalty if they'er constantly stuck on the ass end of the front while their homeworld is being raided by the Falcons with no support.
way I see it, the mechanic should have two possible routes for Unit loyalty;
a) lavishing "Discretionary" income on the unit itself,
b) lavishing infrastructural ad discretionary funds on a given system to retain the loyalty of soldiers from that system.
there's a C in there-doing both, but that might get expensive and lower the loyalty of surrounding tributary systems. thing being, this can be automatic to a degree, thus acting as a sort of 'sump' to prevent grotesque powercreep and keep the fighting to a manageable level-you can go all out, but doing so might result in mutiny or secessions that require pulling forces back to maintain order.
in combat: Local system Loyalty ratings that are high will result in bonuses for defensive units, and require a longer time to pacify after the system is captured, while lowered loyalty ratings make conquests easier and transitions faster-provided the invader invests in what they've taken.
it would provide a modifier to the effectiveness of Covert ops, intel ops, and invasion/defensive ops-making it easier to bribe a local lord, for example, or making a local defender dig in harder.
(This probably would have prevented the "Rim worlds take the Lyrans with the Lyrans' own troops" situation in the '62 game, and made the successive walls of invasions a bit less bizarre.)
-
I see a lot of commentary about the vast volume of rules in later edition of the FGC, but those rules were put into place for what was, at the time, damned good reasons: the sheer volume of invective and fighting and temporary forum bans being thrown around due to infighting over how the game should work, and situations the existing rules didn't cover, and resultant GM burnout.
End result: game would be reset, time periods switched to something "better", more rules would be piled on, mods would weigh in on whether they'd allow the game to continue here on the forums, and then we'd try again.
This is definitely true for FGC48, whose implosion led to FGC62, whose implosion led to it getting kicked off the board to another site where it became FGC85 or something then imploded again, while the board here tried FGC10 with even *more* rules, which imploded again.
If someone wants to do the FGC again, then there is only one option: official published rules, whether that's Interstellar Operations or Campaign Operations or whatever. Official published rulebooks, rules vagaries can be put to the game devs, etc.
Anything else is an exercise in futility.
-
The local uprising mechanism sounds similar to the one in Star Wars: Rebellion. If the popular support in a system fell below ~ 40% or so, lack of garrison forces resulted in the system turning neutral or to the other side. Lower support required more forces to avoid an uprising, which halted all production. Once a system went into uprising it took a substantial garrison force to bring it back under control.
-
Unfortunately ISaW's rules are far too demanding to be practical without heavy computerized automation.
All this though just continues to reinforce one of my points that I've been going on about a fair bit, too many people want too many different things.
-
I *might* be in a mood to help out with something like that, if it comes around.
-
Unfortunately ISaW's rules are far too demanding to be practical without heavy computerized automation.
All this though just continues to reinforce one of my points that I've been going on about a fair bit, too many people want too many different things.
Being the guy that worked on the 3010 rules, that's something that was never resolved.
From my experience playing FGC3062 and working on 3010, you could never quite square the circle between players who wanted to play a strategic game system and those who didn't. The former were interested in the minutiae of the rules, and the latter... didn't. If you strip the strategic game entirely, then... well, it's the FanFiction subforum with some megamek.
And if you try to use computer automation without first working out the rules being automated... then welcome to the #1 cause of problems in software projects ;)
-
*nod*
I know I've had thoughts about super limited versions of the ISaW rules to try and keep book keeping and complexity to a minimum by sheer dint of having microfactions. They'd literally be a National Capital with one factory line on it and as many minor worlds as needed that you could have a full mech regiment and just enough that you could be on a full war footing and suffer a few lost worlds but not many without being taken out of the game each type microfactions.
-
*nod*
I know I've had thoughts about super limited versions of the ISaW rules to try and keep book keeping and complexity to a minimum by sheer dint of having microfactions. They'd literally be a National Capital with one factory line on it and as many minor worlds as needed that you could have a full mech regiment and just enough that you could be on a full war footing and suffer a few lost worlds but not many without being taken out of the game each type microfactions.
If you make the strategic game too simplistic or give the players too little agency, it makes it rather pointless. You get authentic stalemating, but then what's the point of running a large faction? There's also the issue that factions and the game state persist when players change, leaving a mess no one really wants to touch. (FYI: I was the last Lyran faction head for 3062 at GM request)
I suspect something like running Solaris stables would be a much better fit for theme and scope. It also lets you ignore one of the big contradictions in the setting - the low production numbers and incredible destructiveness of combat (units tend to keep fighting long past the point they realistically would have been forced to withdraw) mean that you either need to inflate production and salvage or handwave away a lot of damage so that forces will actually continue to exist.
-
Yeah retreat really does not seem to be enough of an option but I do think that does come from going too far in increasing production.
-
Yeah, letting players run, say, Solaris stables in 3130 might be a hell of a lot more manageable.
-
Yeah, letting players run, say, Solaris stables in 3130 might be a hell of a lot more manageable.
only the game would end with the Wold Empire taking over the place. Wolves land, everyone dies.
-
Yeah, or the more obvious thing, which is that the GMs just slightly alter the canon to say that the Wolves failed/didn't try to capture Solaris, and then people can continue to do their Solaris thing.
-
The local uprising mechanism sounds similar to the one in Star Wars: Rebellion. If the popular support in a system fell below ~ 40% or so, lack of garrison forces resulted in the system turning neutral or to the other side. Lower support required more forces to avoid an uprising, which halted all production. Once a system went into uprising it took a substantial garrison force to bring it back under control.
ways we could possibly tweak the concept, would be differentiation by faction 'character' from day one, with that involving a percentage Resource cost that has to be paid-and HOW that cost is paid at the outset.
For example, the Invading Clans would be (in a hypothetical 3050 or later game) ABLE to pay it directly from their military spending, since even Clan Police are Military entities-so the maintenance cost per system would (at the outset) be paid out of the MILITARY budget. (essentially forcing Clan players to spend less on their offense-capable units as a percentage of their over-all military budget). thus, the maintenance cost would be AFTER the rest of the budget is figured, while Inner Sphere and periphery powers would calculate that maintenance cost and deduct it FIRST before moving to discretionary spending, then applying penalties or bonuses before they get their MILITARY budget.
in both cases requiring a percentage of that budget be spent to maintain units when not in combat, and with a mechanic for 'borrowing against future production' to go over on a rate based on the average loyalty score of the worlds in a given faction. (In theory, a small faction could temporarily buy/build/repair more units than they should be able to afford, but only for a few turns before tanking their loyalty score unless they get help from someone else, or obtain a windfall of resources. This, in turn makes the ability to raid more valuable since raiding generates resources in the short term, while conquest costs resources in the short term, but generates more in the long term if you can hold the system.)
let's go further... each inhabited Star system has a 'base' resource generation of .5 RP, systems with infrastructural improvements (factories, say, or developed agriculture, or mineral wealth) gets .25 per infrastructural improvement at base loyalty (Scaled -10 to +10, each graduation representing a percentage bonus calculated on the spreadsheet).
To borrow against a basic system, you have up to twice the Resource Value. (Say, Timehri, with nothing of note and a basic population of a few million, can generate 1 resource point at the cost of -5 loyalty, if the rating is high-positive, meaning they haven't been raided lately and the faction hasn't had any public setbacks, the base loyalty is 5, meaning a generally positive view of the future and the Lyran Commonwealth. this borrowing is akin to a major tax hike, lowering to 0, or 'neutral' loyalty.)
Ratings:
10- "Xin SHENG!!!" your local populace is fanatically loyal. Units raised on Loyalty 10 worlds enter service at fanatical loyalty, they will not rout, they will fight to the last man if not withdrawn from combat and conserved.
9-7: Generally loyal, units raised here will not accept forced withdrawal on a roll lower than 10 on 2D6, and only after losing 50% or more in a single engagement.
6-4: Unmotivated. Units will retreat at 20% losses unless forced by a special commander.
3-1: shaky loyalty. While they're not in rebellion, they are likely to take additional time getting to combat, will retreat at 10% losses unless compelled to stay.
0: Extremely shaky loyalty: unit commanders will accept bribes from enemy agents, units may withdraw before combat is joined when on the offense, and will retreat if they don't have overwhelming numbers on their side in defensive combat.
-1 to -3: Subtract 10% of theoretical unit size-this is your per-turn desertion rate. Unit commanders may accept bribes from enemies and may desert their posts.
-4 to -6: Subtract 20% of theoretical unit size for desertion each turn loyalty remains this low. on a roll of 2 on 2D6 (each turn) this unit will defect or go pirate, attacking other factional units before leaving by whatever means are available.
-7 to -9: subtract 30% of theoretical unit size due to desertion, mutiny check on any roll below 4.
-10: this unit is in mutiny and will attack random targets within the owning faction (or friendly/allied targets if deployed outside the faction) before attempting to return home. it will require 3 times the theoretical unit strength in combat points to neutralize. if the unit is mercenary, it may (on 7 or higher on 2D6) make for the periphery as bandits.
obviously, keeping your army loyal is going to be important, and a great deal of that, comes from how they feel their homeworld is being treated/how the faction is governed.
obviously, for Clan players the scaling would be somewhat different. a -10 loyalty could well mean a unit goes pirate, or it could mean they make for the Khan and some internal authority rearrangement via Trial of Position, or be subject to a trial of abjuration or even annihilation.
Each National faction should, ideally, have their OWN scale 10 to -10, of how Loyalties work, but in general, they all require spending something from the resource pool, somewhere, as a maintenance cost in addition to munitions, equipment and infrastructure.
-
Actually, I think a 'Solaris LIVE!' bit could be really really good . . . you can represent your faction, you have a single mech or at most lance on lance battles, folks still manage logistics but the input of resources is GM created to keep stuff in check while being a money sink, and it still allows interaction with the BTU- for instance set in the 3120s, what happens when Danai finally shows up to take up Justin & Kai's legacy?
To be honest, its even possible the automation could already exist using the current MM companion campaign tool.
-
Every post in this thread that suggests even more rules makes me want to have anything to do with this less than ever. The insatiable need to simulate everything is a *negative* for a fan game.
-
I spend a lot of time thinking about games similar to the dgc, and one of rhe problems I run into over and over is the fact that by attracts people who are very good at finding efficient ways to break numerical systems. As a result, any system that lets you buy additional/new mech production either rapidly strays from Canon and reasonable levels, or is so difficult to achieve that it may as well not be there.
I stand by my earlier belief that factions are best headed by gms and changes to the setting, the advancement of plots and so forth are best scripted by impartial GMs. Create a setting for players to play in, not a hill for them to scramble to be king of.
-
Actually, I think a 'Solaris LIVE!' bit could be really really good . . . you can represent your faction, you have a single mech or at most lance on lance battles, folks still manage logistics but the input of resources is GM created to keep stuff in check while being a money sink, and it still allows interaction with the BTU- for instance set in the 3120s, what happens when Danai finally shows up to take up Justin & Kai's legacy?
To be honest, its even possible the automation could already exist using the current MM companion campaign tool.
i was half joking about the wolf invasion thing, but their attack would make for a pretty neat finale to such a game.
a few ideas:
the big name stables (Cenotaph, DeLon, etc) are NPC only. the Players are all part of lesser stables, the Minor Leagues. some of which are just branches of the major stables, but making the big name stables NPC avoids issues of some players getting 'advanced starts' with lots of resources.
the players that prefer the RP side more than the actual combat side can run stable owners and staff, financial backers, crime lords, reporters, etc. combat focused players should be encouraged to team up with the more RP centric players to form full stables.
some ideas for combat side.. perhaps after the open warfare in 3062, Solaris figured out that staged battles in less arena centric enviroments would be a moneymaker, and started holding such, converting run down city blocks and areas of wilderness around the planet into massive battlezones where large battles can be staged. this would give players that don't have the Solaris map pack's (are they even in megamek for example?) the option to hold larger battles from time to time.
-
only the game would end with the Wold Empire taking over the place. Wolves land, everyone dies.
Every Indication I recall seeing, says that the Wolves have allowed business to continue mostly normal on Solaris.
-
I spend a lot of time thinking about games similar to the dgc, and one of rhe problems I run into over and over is the fact that by attracts people who are very good at finding efficient ways to break numerical systems. As a result, any system that lets you buy additional/new mech production either rapidly strays from Canon and reasonable levels, or is so difficult to achieve that it may as well not be there.
I stand by my earlier belief that factions are best headed by gms and changes to the setting, the advancement of plots and so forth are best scripted by impartial GMs. Create a setting for players to play in, not a hill for them to scramble to be king of.
the main problem (and main reason for all those rules) is that one phrase: "Impartial Game Master". why? Perception.
one of the things that became abundantly clear in the FGC games, was that people will percieve bias if their faction isn't 'doing well'...even when it isn't bias, but rather, bad decisions on their part.
There's also the fact that you can't get a long-running game and not end up CREATING biases. Arguments, even feuds happen, and personalities clash. (Often these go hand in hand, creating a perception of bias, or even outright enmity.)
if you don't think this can happen, or that it can happen (or does happen) in a well-managed setting, ask some of the mod staff from the last time an FGC was held on the boards here-there's a REASON it was sent off-site, and I would wager there are still people who are holding grudges over that game, who won't talk to certain other members because of their perceptions from that game, etc. etc.
Battletech players tend to be very good at number-crunching, and rather good at finding 'gaps in the numbers' to exploit. we're also wargamers, which means we push to win as a general 'personality trait'.
makes things a bit of a chore to manage on the game-master/game-manager end.
-
Oh definitely. But I think you could get away from that a little with two changes. One, faceless GM accounts used by the whole fgc staff, and two, no one is associated with a particular faction. There's no wolf gm, there's no falcon gm, there's just GMs.