BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
BattleTech Game Systems => Strategic Combat => Topic started by: The Purist on 09 February 2017, 12:16:01
-
This one might be for the members here who have been involved with the rules development.
As we have all but completed our transition to ACS/ISaW we have begun using the supply and production rules. For the first turn (Mar 3019) we simply used the values given on page 348 of IO. In my case my FWL production should be 1336 +/- the various frontier planets that have changed hands. However, when I run the totals from the charts and 'other' planets I get different numbers depending on how one reads "Regional" capital (worth 40 RP barring any sort of industry).
In the example on page 348 the rules use Robinson in the FS as an example of Regional capital (40 RP) but the map key defines Robinson as a District capital which have no intrinsic RP base. In the case of the FWL only Stewart and Tamarind have the Regional capital symbol while Marik, Regulus, Orient and Andurien have the District capital symbol.
If I use the District capitals as regional capitals (w/ 40 RP) then the FWL income shoots up to over 1500 RP. If I only use Tamarind and Stewart as Regional Capital I still have too much cash.
So the question is, should Regional capitals and District capitals be treated the same with 40 RPs or just the actual Regional capitals. This has implication for other major Houses as well as I am sure that if all the Regional and District capitals are tallied up as possessing 40 RPs the income stated on page 348 does not match.
Attached is a spreadsheet with two calculations.
The first has the Regional and District capitals each worth 40 RPs and a total of 1518 RP
The second column treats District capitals as "other" if they have no factories (Oriente and Regulus), which would be very strange, but the total is still above the page 348 totals.
Cheers.
[Edit] - ok,... so this Surface Pro I am using won't let me post any sort of attachment, quote or even bold, underline, etc. <<sigh>>
Since I can't add the excel spread sheet, the totals in the columns mentioned above are 1518 and 1362 respectively (Oriente and Regulus worth 40 RP each in the first case and only 2 RP in the second).
-
The FWL is special due to the provincial nature of its internal political setup. Regional capitals should be as follows:
Davion: Robinson, New Syrtis
Liao: Tikonov, Capella, Sarna, St. Ives
Steiner: Donegal, Skye, Tamar
Kurita: Dieron, Pesht, Galedon V, Benjamin, Rasalhague
Marik: Regulus, Oriente, Andurien
-
Now that makes perfect sense for all the major Houses. I take it Marik is left out because Atreus is the national capital.
-
Basically, yes. Regulus, Andurien, and Oriente are the major power players in FWL politics that aren't the Captain-General.
-
Except that Marik (The planet/system) has the District Capital icon on the map provided for 3025 games, which every other planet on your list has, and only those planets
-
That is true but if one goes by the letter of the rules District Capitals should not have the 40 RPs at all, only Regional capitals. This looks like a case where the rule as written was not clear enough (in the case of the Robinson example it is actually contradictory) and the map symbols and key do not match the text. Perhaps a future errata fr rules and map may deal with the issues but for now I am happy to replace "Regional capital" on the table with "District capital". The omission of the Marik system can grudgingly be explained away by having Atreus fill the political role for the Marik "province" with the symbol on the map being ignored for production purposes. You could write in the rules, "... exception - the Marik system is not considered a Regional capital for production calculations purposes", or something along those lines.
When you look deeper the confusion over regional capital and district capital actually has greater implication in the Draconis Combine. The map actually has 25 systems that are regional capitals (5 in each of the five Districts) that would generate a total of 1000 RP and completely throw off the production values. The FS and LC also have the same issue. The correction/clarification makes sense of the rule as written.
I'll plug in the changes to the spreadsheet and see if the total now comes out at 1336 RP for the FWL.
-
@The Purist that's what the map calls them, yes it's probably wrong, but it's what the map calls them
-
I am afraid the numbers still do not jive - 25 industrial/capital worlds plus 308 other worlds total 333 planets with 1400 RP (pardon the misalignment of text below).
World-----Hex-----Type-------RP-----Factories
Andurien--3223---m/D. Cap--64------2
Asuncion--2524---m-----------24------1
Atreus-----2717---m/N. Cap--104-----1
Bernardo--2523---m-----------24------1
Calloway---2922---m----------24------1
Clipperton-2914---m-----------24 -----1
Dalton-----2919---m-----------24-----1
Emris IV---2720---m-----------24-----1
Gibson-----2914---m-----------24 -----2
Irian-------2422---M-----------40------3
Kalidasa---2320---m-----------24-----1
Kendall----2910---m-----------24-----1
Keystone--2519---M-----------40-----3
Loyalty----2615---m-----------24-----2
Marik ------2717---m-----------24-----1
Oliver------2223---m----------24-----1
Oriente-----2921---D.Cap-----40-----0
Regulus----2818---D.Cap-----40-----0
Savannah--2321---m----------24-----1
Shiro III----3123---m---------24-----1
Stewart----2319---m----------24-----1
Tematagi---3114---m---------24-----1
Thermop---2416---m----------24-----1
Wallis-------2816---m---------24-----1
Westover---2912---m---------24-----1
Total 784RP
308 planets x 2 RP 616RP 30 factories
Total RP 1400
I suppose the question becomes whether the 1336 is actually a math error missed in the editing process and the total should now be 1400RP?
-
That does look like a math error somewhere. 1,400 looks correct.
-
If I were to hazard a guess I might suggest Andurien was overlooked. The 64 RP difference is exactly that which is produced by the Andurien capital.
While we are talking about the production issues, is there a list somewhere noting where the canon training centers are located? The old house books mention many training academies but what about training centers?
For now we plan on placing one on each capital and IO mentions one Combine center on Benjamin. Placing the balance of the three starting centers on district capitals seems to make sense but we would prefer to use canon locations.
Cheers.
-
The Field Manuals would be your best bet for locating training facilities, to be honest.
-
Pardon the resurrection of a older thread but the topic remains the same.
We've completed our transition to ISaW/ACS and are ready to start a full campaign turn as of Apr 3019 but the economics are still causing grief. The check of the Liao and Kurita numbers were spot on and the Davion numbers were only off by 6 RP. We have fixed this by simply adding three "other" planets to the Davion total.
On the other hand, the Lyran numbers are way, way off. There is a definite conflict between the example provided on page 348 of IO and the chart totals. Instead of 1738 RP as a base the Lyran numbers only come to 1518, which places them quite a way behind the Davion and only slightly ahead of the Kurita RPs.
I am assuming that the author of the example was going from a list containing the information but the person who prepared the chart on page 349 did not cross check the details with their colleague (old/obsolete information). Mistakes happen but we now need to correct this.
Considering the LC is supposed to have the largest economy and the economics would effect play balance there is probably a need here for a complete review and correction. As IO should be a canon source it needs to be in line with the universe (namely, a powerful Lyran economy) and not contradict itself between two pages.
See attached spreadsheet (above the red bar) for the details of disconnect between the example and chart information.
The list of errors is as follows:
1 - from example on pg 348: ...200 for Donegal, Skye and Tamar (Regional Capitals; Donegal and Skye are also Major Industrial Worlds)...
In fact Donegal is only a minor planet so the point total is off by 16 RP. This can be corrected by changing Donegal to a major planet (3 factories).
2 - from example on pg 348: ...360 for nine additional Major Industrial worlds, 144 for six Minor Industrial Worlds...
There are only 3 major planets listed outside capitals already factored in (Alarion, Coventry, Hesperus II) and 11 minor planets. The example gives a total of 15 industrial planets (9 major+6 minor) but the factory list notes 13 after the three mentioned above are removed
Which six planets should be increased to major Industrial to equal the required 9?
Which six planets should become, or remain, minor industrial worlds?
This is an important point as any planned invasions by the FWL or DC will be effected by such information. To be fair, the LC knows where the FWL and DC starting major and minor worlds are.
3 - from example on pg 348: ...and 914 for the 457 other worlds...
Using the chart information there are only 427 other worlds for a total 854 RP.
Total deficit is a whopping 220 RP.
While we will use the 1738 RP total, the disconnect between the charts list of major and minor planets and the numbers provided in the example is important for game play (strategy, etc.).
<<I play the FWL but I still want the LC to have the economy it should. :) >>
-
Please note - this is a discussion, and should not be taken as any sort of official ruling, ok?
I've inherited the role of custodian for the ISW system after the release of IO. A lot of work had to be done to fit an extremely extensive ISW ruleset into the word & page limits available for the published IO, and cuts had to be made to make it fit. Things like Intelligence, Research, etc all got cut, and there were further cuts to the base rules.
In the process, there are a number of rough edges. You just hit one. The whole duplication of effort between "number of factories" and "major/minor" is one of them - two completely separate systems that don't align neatly, or in some cases don't align. Donegal would be one case - one cerebral hemisphere considering it a "Major" world, but only 2 listed factories. (In fact, beyond Lockheed-CBM, I can't find any other major military manufacturer on-planet. Nashan Pharmaceuticals not being counted ;) )
Another is period - I'm not the one who counts the worlds, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the world numbers may be for 3030, not 3025 - and not 3019, although a 3025 figure should be 'good enough' for you. Again, this is not an official adjudication.
I do know that for the 1SW & 2SW figures I did do Excel calculations based on # of worlds, and # of major/minor/capitals etc, to get the eventual outputs (applying IndustryTech modifiers for local tech levels). Side note - as much of the loss of production over the Succession Wars comes from loss of knowledge & efficiency, as loss of factory worlds.
I'm going to be very interested in the other observations your group come up with as your game progresses. Are you likely to use the additional rules in 2SW now that they're published? I can't promise a major revision to IO, but want to keep improving the baselines we work off where possible.
Cheers,
W.
-
Please note - this is a discussion, and should not be taken as any sort of official ruling, ok?...
Don't get me wrong, I am not looking to have anyone hung from barrel of a conveniently located AC10, just some clarity on how to proceed. I have no doubt that the task for finalizing IO was daunting and filled with deadlines, oversights and shortcuts. Considering the staff levels and number of projects underway I am not surprised.
That aside, we are assuming the lists are for 3025 based on the 3025 map borders. It makes sense. In the case of the errors in the FWL economics the fixes were easy to identify and implement, increasing the FWL total to 1400 RP. That being said, to short the LC by 220 RP is asking the Archon to swallow a very large and bitter pill considering she is supposed to have the strongest economy in the inner sphere.
Rather than a major overhaul to IO (or even just ISaW) how about we focus on fixing this particular glitch. Once the LC econ base is sorted the entire section is resolved and ready for a future errata or even post.
I'll volunteer to help where I can.
Question - Is it time to create a new forum for CO/IO/ISaW?
After all, the issues are different from SO and are bound to expand as players get into the larger campaigns.
2nd SW Rules published? I'm on my way to purchase the download now :)
-
Sorry about the legalese start - you'd be suprised (or possibly not) at how a few posters take things a beemer posts, and hang universes on a word taken out of context. But I'm delighted to have people to talk to about ISW.
Speaking for the forum management, we're not seeing enough traffic on ISW to justify a separate sub-forum yet. If things change, it'll be worth re-considering.
For comparison purposes, and based on 3025 map borders,
- how many worlds do you count for the major factions having for 3025?
- Do you have an independant estimate on which worlds you'd consider major/minor in 3025?
Seriously. Not faulting the people who collected all the work published in IO, but looking for back-bearings on where the discrepancies slid in.
W.
-
Eeeeech!!! I'll admit I have not counted the LC planets as the RP totals for the other four major houses came out pretty close to perfect. Only the LC has a major flaw somewhere.
I suppose I could build a spreadsheet and 'plot' the 3025 map by hex number, # of planets and planet type. As for what should be major minor and other I am afraid I am not well enough educated in the BT Universe lore to truly add to that. However, before I undertake that task, please tell no such spread sheet exists. ;D
The first question we need to answer is whether the LC has 1738 RP. In my view, based on the RP totals of the other houses that would be a yes. We then start filling in the blanks to reach that total.
One suggestion is to de-link the source book totals of actual factories from what is in the strategic game. These totals should definitely be in the equation but perhaps, like "other" planets, other factories (or factors)might support the main factories adding to their value (count).
It may not need to be a "hard count" of factories at all. In ISaW when a player lays out 576 RP to convert an 'other' world to a 'minor' industrial world, does it now possess one or two factories? Does a world upgraded from minor to major have three or seven factories? Currently the RP total gained for Hesperus II is no different than Alarion. Perhaps a world with six or seven factories (Hesperus) in the 3rd and 4th SW eras might count as a two major industrial worlds and produce 40+40 RPs much as a planet in the 1st SW with 16 factories would count as two hyper industrial worlds.
It may have been better to pay fewer RPs for actual factories and slowly build up a planets infrastructure (and potential targets for attack) rather than simply labelling upgrades "minor" and "major". That is probably another discussion. :o
In the end,the result of the audit should be to identify the shortages. The recalibrating of which planets become other, minor or major producers of RPs can be sorted out afterwards by incorporating universe lore, ie: Donegal gets its third (or fourth) factory.
-
Well first off, going by the numbers and not the example, the LC should have a base of 1,516 RP, which is a 222 point deficit. However, they also have the Merchant King faction ability, giving a pre-trade total of 2,274 RP.
Still looking, and Inarcs can be a minor factory (level 1), for Hi-Scout production in the 3020s.
EDIT:
Also, the text example is wrong anyway because there are only 443 worlds in the Lyran Commonwealth in 3025
-
Okay, hands up - who else forgot about "Merchant King" altogether? :-[
W.
-
Hello this is my first post on this board, but I've been a lurker for quite a while (and a very long term Battletech player) - just a bit of background - I'm slowly putting together a ISaW campaign loosely titled "Twilight of the Suns" set from 3145 - using teh forces & maps FM:3145 - basically its about either saving/destroying the FS - lots of fun research. I'm gradually putting together some thoughts/question that I hope to post at the later date.
Anyway off topic
I thought since LC RPs is being discussed here (and this is relevant to the LC) I wondered what the thoughts were around the generated RPs on Clusters (such as Enders Cluster in the LC - near New India on the Periphery Border) - this has a bracketed 10 after the name - is this 10 habitable worlds? or just stars in the cluster. My thought is just 1 per circle.
Other examples Pleiades Cluster in FS/TC has 100 - with 3 listed worlds - Brocchi's Cluster in DC has a 40, Pirates Haven 50 and then theres flannagan's Nebulea in TC
-
Welcome to the boards, Onion.
For the clusters, they generally only "count" as 1 world per circle on the map. So the Pleiades Cluster has 3 worlds.
-
Guys,... we should be looking at the base incomes - before factional modifications.
I put together this spread sheet (attached) and now I have no idea where the totals come from.
The hex map has a total of 446 planets. I worked the chart as presented and the numbers come up shy by 216 RP. I then worked the numbers from the example and, while the pain is lessened, the LC is still out 60 RP.
As I mentioned, the LC should have the strongest base economy by a significant degree and not come in just over the FS and DC.
In my opinion the industrial planets for the LC need a serious review for all reasons already discussed (balance, strategy, known at start assets, etc.). The other four houses were either spot on or the flaw was easily spotted and corrected. This situation is different.
Cheers.
[Edit: corrected a typo on the spreadsheet that may have led to confusion]
-
Ready for another reality check. ;D
A number of the economic faction traits do not make sense. At least the history of economics in our own era shows the faction abilities for State Run and Decentralized State are backwards.
The Capellans and Combine are "state run" economies and get a 25% bump with no means of countering the effect along with the claim these economies are more efficient. That's doesn't seem to connect with Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, Soviet Russia or Communist China (pre-capitalist reforms). While it is true that Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia and Communist China could mass produce basic products, and in some cases small quantities of advanced products, these were limited in scope (technologically) and inefficiencies in production were rife. In the case of the Soviet Union it could produce large numbers of limited products but shortages elsewhere where often crippling and if not provided by other sources (ie lend-lease) could not have been provide except at the cost to other production. Then there is the corruption, cronyism and inefficiencies that were inherent in all five economies and still exist today in modern versions of closed states.
The Lyrans are Merchant Kings and get a 20% bump in their economy and I suppose that makes sense but, again, there is no counter to the bonus (profiteering?).
On the other hand the Federated Suns are penalised 20% for being a decentralized economy. This is precisely what the modern western economies were that fought both world wars, the cold war and are still the most vibrant economies today. To date, the decentralized "open" economies have proven to be the most efficient at both mass production and technological advancement. Yet Davion loses 20% of its economy.
In game terms what this means is that House Liao has an economy that just about equals Davion's. This is very strange. With the Liao 25% bonus it produces 1208 RPs per turn compared to Davion's adjusted 1243 RP. Is Davion really expected to maintain its extremely large army of 3025 as well as support it large mercenary forces with an economy little larger than Liao's?
I would ask if the +25% bonus for the CC and DC, the +20% for the Lyrans and the -20% for the FS, cannot be effected by events or other flaws or bonuses,...why not simply set the economic base levels at the adjusted levels and simplify the rules?
I am wondering if this was play tested, or even considered before these rules were adopted.
Turning to (my) FWL next 8) .
The FWL is hit by Decentralized State (-20%) but is then propped up by Merchant Kings (+20%), again with no means of effecting either trait. If they cancel out, why include them at all?
Parliamentary chaos makes sense as it can give and take away. This is not something that the Merchant Kings, Decentralized States or State Run traits have built into their traits.
The other non-economic traits have some nice touches and add some flavour but short of Parliamentary Chaos the economic traits don't seem to work. Take for example the 4th SW based on the 3025 map and economic bases.
CC: 966 x 1.25 = 1208 RP
DC: 1480 x 1.25 = 1850 RP
FS: 1554 x .8 = 1243 RP
FWL: 1400 x 1.1 (or .9) = 1540 RP (or 1260 RP) a +/- 10 percent average
LC: 1516 (under discussion) x 1.2 = 1819 RP
This means the FedCom alliance (supposedly the two largest economies in the inner sphere) can only raise 3062 RP per turn to fight the 4th SW against Kapteyn Concord's 4598 RPs (on a bad turn for the FWL perhaps 4318 RPs).
Hopefully I am not the only one who sees a problem with this situation. ;)
I doubt we will use the three traits mentioned above but will likely keep Parliamentary Chaos. I am not sure why there are other economic traits but none are assigned to a faction (ie: booming economy). What am I missing?
Cheers.
-
Excellent spreadsheet, and I'm sorry to be nit picky but Tamar is actually just a regional capital in 3025, it doesnt have any factories - so the spreadsheet figure is 40 too high. So 1522 is the number - way too low.
I wonder if the numbers attached to Enders Cluster (10) and C.M.O. 26 (I know just one world) (or maybe others) upset the world counting when the 457 other worlds figure was achieved in teh example?
I'm thinking maybe Hesperus could possibly be a Hyper Industrial and a few others like Donegal, Twycross and Sudeten changed to major.
-
Excellent spreadsheet, and I'm sorry to be nit picky but Tamar is actually just a regional capital in 3025, it doesnt have any factories - so the spreadsheet figure is 40 too high. So 1522 is the number - way too low.
Actually it is 24 RP too high. Being a Regional Capital generates 40 RP. Nevertheless, the deficit is now a full 216 RPs
I wonder if the numbers attached to Enders Cluster (10) and C.M.O. 26 (I know just one world) (or maybe others) upset the world counting when the 457 other worlds figure was achieved in teh example?
I ran the numbers using 10 for Enders Cluster and the balance was still 42 RP short (with 455 planets). That is the closest I have come. I am wondering if a similar audit of the DC and FS (both have large clusters) might show a similar discrepancy and perhaps solve the problem. Are clusters counted by the bracketed values??? Hmmmm.
[Edit:Gahhhhh. it's too late in the night now to crunch any more numbers. Last correction to the spread sheet is being posted now]
I'm thinking maybe Hesperus could possibly be a Hyper Industrial and a few others like Donegal, Twycross and Sudeten changed to major.
Well, a hyper ind planet requires 8 factories and are not allowed in 3rd (and I would suppose the 4th) Succession Wars.
-
Hesperus was a Hyper-Industrial world in the 2nd Succession War. Blame Kurita and Marik for the downgrade. #P
-
Hesperus was a Hyper-Industrial world in the 2nd Succession War. Blame Kurita and Marik for the downgrade. #P
Very true, but in the original sources its alway regarded as the place where the most and biggest mechs are made, I just thought this could be a way to reflect this in the 3/4SW era
-
I presume the unassigned traits we see are for the future or other hypothetical scenarios. The FWL might be argued to have a booming economy when it was busy being the arms seller for the Inner Sphere.
The state-run trait encompasses control over the populace as well as the economy. So it can also be envisioned to encompass how the societies of the Combine and the Confederation are willing to (or forced to) accept greater civilian privation in order to free up resources for the state. The decentralized trait means also the government is more regional, which describes the unruly March Lords of the FedSuns, so resources may be spent on appeasing local interests rather than being made available to the central government.
-
I presume the unassigned traits we see are for the future or other hypothetical scenarios. The FWL might be argued to have a booming economy when it was busy being the arms seller for the Inner Sphere.
That is perfectly reasonable but please see below.
The state-run trait encompasses control over the populace as well as the economy. So it can also be envisioned to encompass how the societies of the Combine and the Confederation are willing to (or forced to) accept greater civilian privation in order to free up resources for the state. The decentralized trait means also the government is more regional, which describes the unruly March Lords of the FedSuns, so resources may be spent on appeasing local interests rather than being made available to the central government.
I'm not sure that such an 'intangible' works in this situation.
The net effect of these particular traits is that it simply bankrupts the Federated Suns right out of the starting gate.
The AFFS has 77 house commands, 38 mercenary commands, 5 capital forts, 7 standard forts. The basic non-combat supply costs (including the x 2 cost for mercenary commands) comes out to 1281 RPs. Unfortunately, with the -20% penalty the FS only brings in 1242 RPs. A deficit of 39 RPs. The FS is the only Inner Sphere House so effected.
The LCAF costs = 1336 with an income of 2086; 750 RP surplus
The CCAF costs = 716 with an income of 1245; 530 RP surplus
The DCMS costs = 1069 with an income of 1850; 781 RP surplus
The FWLM costs = 914 with an income of 1540 (or 1260); 626 RP surplus (or 346 RP surplus)
While trade will increase the FS income by a certain amount it also increases the other house incomes so the disparity is not reduced.
These trait modifications do not appear to be well thought out or were not 'play tested' to check their impact.
What we have here is the Federated Suns, arguably the most powerful House of the era, effectively crippled and not even remotely possible of fighting a war as per the canon sources (4th SW or otherwise)
At the same time, the Capellan Confederation, the one House that could not meet its expenses and was finding it difficult to maintain the forces it had, receives a healthy surplus each month. With the economics and supply rules as noted in ISaW the CC is actually capable of attacking the FS rather than vice versa.
Discard the economic traits (possible exception for Parl. Chaos) and the numbers look like this (note trade values assume no trade with immediate neighbours or Periphery):
AFFS costs = 1281 w/ income of 1554; 273 RP surplus + trade (~155)
LCAF costs = 1336 w/ income of 1738; 402 RP surplus + trade (~174)
CCAF costs = 716 w/ income of 966; 250 RP surplus + trade (~97)
DCMS costs = 1069 w/ income of 1480; 411 RP surplus + trade (~148)
FWLM costs = 914 w/ income of 1400; 486 RP surplus + trade (~140)
AFFS+LCAF surpluses = 1004 RP
CCAF+DCMS+FWLM surpluses = 1532 RP
-
After scrounging through some old source books (most of mine are old) and the web I was able to come up with these changes to get the LC economy closer to the 1738 RP mark. I wedged in a few factories based on their being supporting industries to full military facilities. I also treated Hesperus as two major factories.
Not exactly canon but it brings the numbers much closer to where they should be.
With the Hesperus fudge the total comes out to 1742 (+4 RPs). Without the Hesperus fudge the total is 1702 (-36 RPs).
The reason I feel it is so necessary to fix this issue is that the LC/FS alliance needs to be strong enough to take on the DC/FWL/CC coalition. The reduced RPs, either by the base LC economy or the FS 'trait', actually place the alliance in a near untenable position for being able to fight the late 3rd SW/4th SW era campaigns. The base numbers alone are trouble enough for the alliance without the other handicaps.
LC + FS base economy = 1738+1554 = 3292 RP
DC + FWL + CC base economy = 1480+1400+966 = 3846 RP
The two coalitions are only 554 RPs per turn apart and considering operating costs as well as replacements Operation Rat in 3028 would be a challenge. :)
Cheers.
[EDIT: ensuring the RPs are correct even more important now that the 2nd SW book has introduced tech levels and research, special ops and Comstar Interdiction rules (all of which cost RPs, sometimes quite a few). :D
-
This one might be for Worktroll or one of the other designers.
Further reviewing of the production rules it was noted that page 348 of IO states that a mech regiment cost is based on the standard 108 mechs, however, a Sword of Light regiment has four battalions totalling 144 mechs. With 33% more mechs than a standard regiment would be correct to increase the cost of such a regiment by the same 33% (ie: a medium SoL regiment would cost 32 RP compared to 24 for a 3 battalion regiment).
The answer may seem an obvious yes but the question was asked and the increase does make sense. Otherwise, in such a scenario, a Kurita player could simply declare all of his new regiments 'Sword of Light' and gain a free battalion.
Cheers.
-
Is (part of) the problem a discrepancy between the number of worlds stated for the LC and the number of dots actually on the map or something else?
-
I did an audit of the map and came up with 446 planets so the planet count is not the problem. It appears the factories are simply not there and the base Lyran economy is short ~216 RP, placing it in second place behind the FS and just in front of the DC. My understanding of other sources is that the Lyran economy should be stronger than the others by a comfortable margin.
The planet/RP chart on page 348 states 1738 RP with 443 planets, which makes sense. However, the text example on page 348 clashes with the factory chart on page 349 and the same factory chart and planet/RP chart on page 348 also disagree. So it appears there was not a proper vetting of the information on the charts and the intended final size of the Lyran economy
See the attached spreadsheets in posts 11, 20 and 28. The last being a quick suggestion on changes to the factory list to reach the 1738 RP range.
-
Common sense - and a willingness to avoid being exploitative - is always a necessity.
The regiment costs are standardised - the cost for a regiment of 108 'Mechs. If you wanted to build a Sword of Light regiment, you'd need to pay a 33% surcharge for the additional battalion.
If any of your player try that sort of nonsense, then feel free to tell them Worktroll calls them on their BS ;)
W.
-
Common sense - and a willingness to avoid being exploitative - is always a necessity.
The regiment costs are standardised - the cost for a regiment of 108 'Mechs. If you wanted to build a Sword of Light regiment, you'd need to pay a 33% surcharge for the additional battalion.
If any of your player try that sort of nonsense, then feel free to tell them Worktroll calls them on their BS ;)
W.
No worries on that front. ;D We had already agreed that 'oversized' meant more RPs whether its the Sword of Light or other large canon House formations. I just wanted to confirm, what should be, the obvious.
-
May have something, if I give the LC 429 normal worlds, the 446 from your count minus 17 worlds that have industry or capitals of some kind and upgrade Donegal from Minor to Major the output is 1538, so maybe someone put that number in wrong?
And personally I think breaking the costs down to the battalion level as the default might be good, the concept that a force is comprised of homogeneous regiments is pretty off
-
It is something of a mess but the numbers had to come from somewhere. As the Lyran economy is supposed to be the strongest in the IS, how do the numbers come out weaker than the FS and just barely better than the DC?
The numbers for all the houses were either spot on or the error was easy to fix (ie: the FWL). The LC is a different story.
EDIT: just to be clear I usually run the FWL so my argument is not based on self-interest. :)
-
It appears the factories are simply not there and the base Lyran economy is short ~216 RP, placing it in second place behind the FS and just in front of the DC. My understanding of other sources is that the Lyran economy should be stronger than the others by a comfortable margin.
Do RP represent the full economy, or just the portion which can be directed towards military campaigns? Lyran output of consumer goods is unquestionably stronger than any other state, to the point where a slow victory by trade might be possible, but I don't know if ISaW has a mechanism for that.
The old Succession Wars game gives the FS a tax base of 35, the DC 29, the LC 30, the FWL 25, and the CC 20, and those ratios are pretty consistent with the old books (http://skiltao.blogspot.com/2015/03/mw1e-mech-production-rates.html). (I believe the LC builds only 500 'Mechs/yr, like the FWL, but puts the extra 5 tax points into spare parts, coolant trucks, and other supporting material.)
a near untenable position for being able to fight the late 3rd SW/4th SW era campaigns. The base numbers alone are trouble enough for the alliance without the other handicaps.
LC + FS base economy = 1738+1554 = 3292 RP
DC + FWL + CC base economy = 1480+1400+966 = 3846 RP
I believe the FWL had trouble mustering offensive campaigns circa 3025, with the Captain-General able to rely on only the 22 regiments under his direct control. If offensive actions were more expensive in the FWL, and defensive actions cheaper, that would make Op:Rat more even.
AFFS costs = 1281 w/ income of 1554; 273 RP surplus + trade (~155)
LCAF costs = 1336 w/ income of 1738; 402 RP surplus + trade (~174)
CCAF costs = 716 w/ income of 966; 250 RP surplus + trade (~97)
...perhaps this is the wrong thread to ask this, but I'm unfamiliar with ISaW and these military costs look mighty odd. How is the AFFS cheaper than the LCAF despite being 50% bigger, or the CCAF costs half as much as the LCAF despite being only 20% smaller?
-
The reason I feel it is so necessary to fix this issue is that the LC/FS alliance needs to be strong enough to take on the DC/FWL/CC coalition. The reduced RPs, either by the base LC economy or the FS 'trait', actually place the alliance in a near untenable position for being able to fight the late 3rd SW/4th SW era campaigns. The base numbers alone are trouble enough for the alliance without the other handicaps.
LC + FS base economy = 1738+1554 = 3292 RP
DC + FWL + CC base economy = 1480+1400+966 = 3846 RP
I'd say that the FedCom Accords include an economic treaty while the Treaty of Kapteyn doesn't, so up the FC total by 10%
-
Do RP represent the full economy, or just the portion which can be directed towards military campaigns?...
Just the military. The game does include unit and factory production, Special Ops and Espionage but everything is aimed at generating RPs to fight the war(s) or denying the enemy the same
...I believe the FWL had trouble mustering offensive campaigns circa 3025, with the Captain-General able to rely on only the 22 regiments under his direct control. If offensive actions were more expensive in the FWL, and defensive actions cheaper, that would make Op:Rat more even....
ISaW does not have rules (yet ;) ) for the issues faced by the FWL regarding Federal and Provincial combat commands but they would not be hard to 'house rule' in. That being the case an RP spent on movement or supply in the FWL is worth the same as those spent in the FS or DC
...perhaps this is the wrong thread to ask this, but I'm unfamiliar with ISaW and these military costs look mighty odd. How is the AFFS cheaper than the LCAF despite being 50% bigger, or the CCAF costs half as much as the LCAF despite being only 20% smaller?
ISaW uses combat commands (RCTs) for everyone. A Lyran RCT is 1 Mech, 5 Arm'd, 7 Inf regiments, 1 Arty battalion and 2 A/S wings. The Lyran army is expensive to maintain using the ISaW CCs,... all the more reason for the economy to be properly established. The AFFS has 1/3/5/1/2 so each 'book' command is cheaper. Players are free to create CCs of different strengths (fewer regiments cost less to purchase and supply).
-
I'd say that the FedCom Accords include an economic treaty while the Treaty of Kapteyn doesn't, so up the FC total by 10%
Well, the game rules for an economic treaty allow 10% bump if you border the other partner and 5% if you don't. In the case of FS and LC treaty it will only add 5%.
At the same time the DC can gain 5% for each of the FWL and CC. The FWL can gain 10% for a treaty with the CC and 5% for a treaty with the DC. Likewise the CC gains 10% for a treaty with the FWL and 5% with the DC. So the FedCom Alliance falls further behind there as well (4th SW era at least).
With the current LC missing RPs and the FS -20% RPs for an economic trait it could very well be that the Capellans and Kuritas end up in New Avalon and the FWL/DC in Tharkad.
With this in mind we have the following:
CC - 966 RP base +25% for econ trait (241.5) + 10% for trade with FWL (96.6) + 5% for trade with DC (48.3) = 1352 RP
DC - 1480 RP base + 25% for econ trait (370) + 5% for trade with FWL (74) + 5% for trade with CC (74) = 1998 RP.
FS - 1554 RP base - 20% for econ trait (-310.8.) + 5% for trade with LC (77.7) = 1320 RP.
FWL - 1440 RP base + 20% for econ trait (288) - 20% for econ trait (-288) +/-? for econ trait (the FWL is a bit chaotic but the +/- likely balance out over time) + 10% for trade with CC (144) + 5% for trade with DC (72) = 1656 RP
LC - 1518 RP base + 20% for econ trait (303.6) + 5% for trade with FS (75.4) = 1897 RP
Kapteyn Concord receive 5006 RP
FedCom Alliance receive 3217 RP
The Kaptetn Accord is out producing the Alliance by 1789 RP
Economic power 4th SW (3025 map) - strongest to weakest =
DC - 1998 RP
LC - 1897 RP
FWL - 1656 RP
CC - 1352 RP
FS - 1320 RP
And there lies the problem.
-
per 3025, the FS was trading with the FWL but understandable if players don't want to do that.
However, that still leaves the MoC and the OWA for the Feds, and the Steiners also get the TC.
-
Well, the game rules for an economic treaty allow 10% bump if you border the other partner and 5% if you don't. In the case of FS and LC treaty it will only add 5%.
Depends upon how you view their border at Terra, I'd say it counts.
At the same time the DC can gain 5% for each of the FWL and CC. The FWL can gain 10% for a treaty with the CC and 5% for a treaty with the DC. Likewise the CC gains 10% for a treaty with the FWL and 5% with the DC. So the FedCom Alliance falls further behind there as well (4th SW era at least).
In theory, which is really all the that the Concord of Kapteyn was, a theory.
-
per 3025, the FS was trading with the FWL but understandable if players don't want to do that...
Indeed, that could annoy your allies. :) However, with the point spread being what it is the FWL would be silly to help the FS
...However, that still leaves the MoC and the OWA for the Feds, and the Steiners also get the TC.
Yes but once the lads add in their extra trade the numbers get worse (the numbers help boost the FS ahead of the CC). The point difference between the two alliances grows from 1789 RP to 2250 RP. :))
DC - 2294 - 1069 (basic expenses) = 1225 Surplus
LC - 2124 - 1336 (basic expenses) = 788 Surplus
FWL - 1944 - 914 (basic expenses) = 1030 Surplus
FS - 1630 - 1281 (basic expenses) = 349 Surplus
CC - 1544 - 716 (basic expenses) = 828 Surplus
FedCom Alliance - 3754
Kapteyn Concordat - 5782
Difference of 2028 RPs per turn.
After basic expenses -
FedCom Alliance - 1137 RP surplus
Kapteyn Concordat - 3083 RP Surplus
The final point spread after expenses is 1946 RP
Don't misunderstand the reasons for all this number crunching. I am not slamming the attempt but the economies as written make an Operation Rat extremely unlikely (the FS is barely ahead of the CC). Once the basic costs are deducted from the available RPs the remaining surpluses place the Concordat in a far better position to fight wars than the alliance, which seems to go against the Universe history.
In fact, with only 349 RPs available after expenses the FS is the weakest of IS houses despite its 115 combat commands. Without the money to use them they might as well not exist. The FS lacks the means to conduct any sort of major campaign. To be honest the FS ability to oppose a full assault by the CC and a majority of the DC is extremely limited as the RPs to move, supply and repair commands is simply not there.
Relief from an LC offensive is unlikely to help as the FWL and just 30% of the DC military more than matches LCAFs strength (84 cc vs 75 cc). Economically the same spread give the DC/CC forces 1398 RPs (368 + 1030) to the LCs 788 to conduct operations.
I am very curious as to whether a 3025 campaign game (or 4th SW) was actually play-tested or if the numbers for each house were calculated without cross references to other houses, playability and play balance.
How to fix this? We did some number crunching and a suggestion will be offered in the next post.
Cheers.
-
First off, I'll admit I am not fully aware of the factors that went into the ISaW design. Full stop. All the same, after combing through the rules over the last year and a half there are problems with the ISaW 3025 game scenario and Universe lore (as per the above post). The suggestions below help redress that apparent disconnect.
Economic Issues
1) Replace the 'Decentralized State' trait with 'Booming Economy'. This changes a -20% penalty into a +10% bonus. Other traits remain unchanged
2) Fix the Lyran production numbers at 1738 but leave other traits as they are. The location of the additional factories should be able to be sussed out. They don't all need to be mech factories, just potential targets for LC enemies to target the economy.
This generates the following RPs for a potential 4th SW scenario circa 3025.
FS: 1554 + 155.4 (trait) + 77.7 x 2 (LC & MoC trade) + 155.4 x 2 (trade with TC & OA) = 2175 RP
LC: 1738 + 347.6 (trait) = 86.9 x 4 (trade with FS, OA, MoC, TC) = 2433 RP
This closes the gap between Kapteyn (5782 RP) and FedCom (4608) alliances to 1174 RP (from 2028 RP)
The economic standings are also adjusted:
LC - 2433 RP
FS - 2175 RP
DC - 1998 RP
FWL - 1656 RP
CC - 1352 RP
The amount of surplus RPs after paying for basic expenses (supply) is also closer.
LC - 2433 RP - 1336 (basic expenses) = 1097 RP Surplus
FS - 2175 RP - 1281 (basic expenses) = 894 RP Surplus
DC - 2294 - 1069 (basic expenses) = 1225 Surplus
FWL - 1944 - 914 (basic expenses) = 1030 Surplus
CC - 1544 - 716 (basic expenses) = 828 Surplus
FedCom surplus is 1991 RPs
Kapteyn surplus is 3083 RPs
The spread drops from 1946 RP to 1092 RP
As can be seen the difference is still marked but with the FS possessing an 894 RP surplus it can now move, fight, repair (walk and chew gum) and can at least match the Capellan's net budget. A 4th SW campaign would still need to have the FS/LC launch a first strike to try and balance the final numbers. A reverse of that scenario would likely result in a FedCom Alliance defeat within 12-18 months.
-
Recall, there's also no long-term penalty for missing a month of supply, and the AFFS has all those March Militia commands. Rotate not paying supply costs for 8 March Militias every month and that adds up.
-
Heh... creative accounting for FTW! ::)
-
Recall, there's also no long-term penalty for missing a month of supply, and the AFFS has all those March Militia commands. Rotate not paying supply costs for 8 March Militias every month and that adds up.
For one turn of no supply you are correct. However, beginning on the second turn "sustained neglect" kicks in and you start losing 10% of at start armour every turn.
See next post for a quick run down of a hypothetical turn 1 and part of turn 2 for the 'historical' Operation Rat.
-
For one turn of no supply you are correct. However, beginning on the second turn "sustained neglect kicks in and you start losing 10% of at start armour every turn.
Hence "Rotate" the units not receiving supply. For an example, let's take the Crucis Lancers.
January, 3025: 1st through 4th Lancers do not receive supply, 5th through 8th Lancers do.
February, 3025: 1st through 4th Lancers receive supply, 5th through 8th do not.
March, 3025: 1st through 4th Lancers do not receive supply, 5th through 8th Lancers do.
etc...
Granted, if an out of supply unit gets attacked it's going to hurt, but that's why you use commands that aren't on the front lines.
-
It's a little more complicated than that. Forward commands must be supplied as the combat modifiers for unsupplied Combat Units in ACS (see pages 308-311) are brutal. You also need cash to rotate commands.
Here is turn 1 of Operation RAT
[Sincerest apologies for such a long post.]
Just to make sure I wasn’t crying wolf over the RP situation I dug out the old 4th SW Atlas set and sat down to figure out what turn 1 and the economic turn of turn 2 would look like using the two RP numbers (1630 and 2175). Here is the result.
Turn 1 – Fourth Succession War (Davion)
Econ Phase
Calculate RPs – 1630 (IO)/2175 (Fix?)
Banked – 0/0
Total Available: 1630/2175
Econ Expenses
Infrastructure Purchases – 0
Research Tech – 0
Supply – (((77 House Commands x 10.5 = 809 RP) + ((38 Merc Commands x 11 RP)x 1.1 [+1 to retention Bonus] = 460 RP)) + ((5 Cap Fort x 8') + (7 Std Forts x 2)= 52))) = 1321 RP
Hire Merc Commands – 0
Retention DR - 7 +1 = 8
Creating new Commands – 0
Creating New Spec Ops Teams – 0
RP Balance – 309/854
Orders
Espionage and Spec Ops - 0
Ten House and thirteen Merc commands are given Move or Assault Move orders along with an Attack/Invasion order. It is assumed the Davion Guards and Deneb Light Cav have dropships as do the Blue Star Irr, ELH, and both regiments of the Screaming Eagles. No other commands are given orders that will require the expenditure of move RPs in turn 1 or combat supply in game turn 2 (raid, patrol, etc.)
Movement Order
[NB: these 23 commands equal 20% of the total AFFS in 3028]
1st Guards RCT (js) – aslt mv from New Aragon to Shensi – 2RP
3rd Guards RCT (js) – aslt mv from Demeter to Algol – 2 RP
4th Guards RCT (js) – move 2 from Nopah to Aldebaran – 4 RP
Hvy Guards RCT (js) – aslt mv from New Aragon to Styk – 2 RP
Lt Guards RCT (js)– aslt mv from New ragon to St Andre – 2 RP
20th Av Hus RCT – aslt mv from New Aragon to Styk – 4 RP
33rd Av Huss RCT – move 2 from Nopah to Liao – 8 RP
4th Deneb Lt Cav RCT (js) – move 2 from Nopah to Aldebaran – 4 RP
1st New Ivar Chas RCT – aslt mv from Demeter to New Hessen – 4 RP
2nd New Ivar Chas RCT – aslt mv from Demeter to New Hessen – 4 RP
Blue Star Irr RCTs x 3 (js) – move 2 from Nopah to Liao – 12 RP
ELH RCTs x 3 (js) – aslt mv from Demeter to Algol – 6 RP
Redfield’s Ren RCT – move 2 from Nopah to Liao – 8 RP
Screaming Eacls RCTs x 2 (js) – aslt mv from ?? to Pleione – 4 RP
12th Vegan Rangers RCTs x 2 - aslt mv from New Aragon to St Andre – 8 RP
12th Vegan Rangers RCTs x 2 – aslt mv from New Aragon to Poznan – 8 RP
Movement costs = 80 RP
Econ Costs = 1321 RPs
Movement Costs = 80 RPs
Total Expense = 1401
Start RPs = 1630/2175
Unused RPs Turn 1: 1630 – 1401 =229/2175 - 1401 = 774
Combat ensues and the game proceeds to Turn 2 <<BOOM, Zzzzzort, Taca-taca-taca, PING, KA-BOOM>>
Turn 2 - Fourth Succession War (Davion)
Econ Phase
Calculate RPs – 1630 (IO)/2175 (Fix?) – no captured planets are producing RPs for Davion yet.
Banked – 229/774; Multiply by 1.05 = 240/813
Total available: 1870/2998
Economic Expenses
[NB: here the rules are very unclear if not quite contradictory. According to the ‘Sequence of Play’ money from all sources is collected at the start of each turn but during the upcoming supply steps the rules state that - “If insufficient RP was left over from the prior turn, a number of units must be designated as having “No Supply” in the subsequent turn”. For this example it will be assumed that supply expenditure should be listed as first action in the sequence of play for the economic phase to avoid confusion RP sources.]
Infrastructure Purchases – 0
Research Tech – 0
Supply
67 house commands expend 10.5 RPs for non-combat supply = 703.5 RP
10 house commands expend 32 RPs for combat supply = 320 RP
25 merc commands expend 11 RP for basic retention supply = 275 RP [5.5 RP x 2 for basic retention]
13 merc commands expend 22 RP for combat supply = 286 RP [5.5 x 4 for combat supply]
10% additional supply for a -1 retention TN for merc commands = 56 RP
Total supply RP required = 1641
Banked total is only 240 RP. This requirement to pay supply from the banked RPs before collecting new RPs means the AFFS is short 1401 RP with a 1630 base economy. The 4th Succession War ends there and then as only 11 merc or 7 house commands would not be considered “unsupplied”. This means more than 100 commands are out of action before the war has even begun or any commands are moved in Turn 2.
In the case of the larger 2175 RP economy and with 813 banked RPs the deficit is still 828 RPs. This would require that all 67 uncommitted house command and 13 more merc commands receive no supply on turn two (88 of 115 commands) in order to keep the 1st Wave forces fighting for with combat supply in turn 2. A total of 26 commands have supply (23 from turn 1 + 3 more with RPs for movement). However, this would leave 0 RPs for banking in turn 3 resulting 88 commands now suffering from prolonged neglect and the remaining 27 now becoming unsupplied.
All this with only 20% of the AFFS committed.
As a side note the 1st wave engaged 13 Capellan commands on Turn 1 so their combat supply would cost 299 RPs on turn two.
*****
Now here is where a rules clarification might change the entire flavour of above disaster into something more playable.
If all sequence of play is valid (RPs collected before supply expenditure) then the supply situation on turn two look like this:
1630 base RP plus 240 banked RP = 1870 RPs.
Subtract 1641 RP for supply requirements and the AFFS has 229 RP for movement and other costs in turn 2. Unless a lot of commands are left unsupplied on turn 2 Operation Rat would likely still grind to a halt for lack of cash but,…. Note that 229 RPs only goes so far if the DC attacks on the other front and drives combat supply costs up further..
With the 2175 RP base plus 813 banked RP the AFFS has 2988 RP.
Subtract the 1641 RP for supply and the FS can fight turn 2 with 1357 RP. In this case the AFFS could continue the battles on the 1st Wave planets that are not resolved, commit a few additional commands if required, reposition some units, perhaps repair a few others. Don't get too excited, Operation Rat could continue but the amount of forces engaged would decline each turn while an RP pool is built up for the 2nd Wave and beyond (to say nothing about building factories, conducting Tech research and espionage/Spec Ops.
This scenario is about the same as what a similar test for the DC and Lyrans (with 1738 base) looks like (initial 20% quickly dropping to ~10% active commands) The FWL is very close to this level as well (20-30% committed, then declining). The CC is the odd man out. If moves are kept short they can keep 50-60% of their forces engaged (30-35 commands) and in the fight initially, then dropping to about 40% as they rest/refit commands.
Cheers.
-
I do recognize that on turn 1 the AFFS could leave 50% of its forces unsupplied to save money for turn 2. However, the 'rob Peter to pay Paul' strategy only works for so long. On turn 2 that unsupplied 50% must be supplied or lose 10% of starting armour. Add that to the required supply for the front as well as moving 'other' commands (supplied and unsupplied) forward or back and the juggling act will soon collapse.
At least for the AFFS.
The other house with much larger surpluses can maintain the juggling of commands much better. Ironically, the Capellans, supposedly the weakest house, can move and fight with the highest percentage of forces. The AFFS, as presented in the ISaW rules, has the lowest combat potential of any house primarily due to the strange -20% trait.
Cheers.
-
Thread necro!
Now that 2nd SW is out, and the advantage to FS for research is there - as one assumes that they get Brightest Minds (hello, NAIS!) trait, whereas both the CC and the DC have traits that penalize their research, would not much of the FS economic issues be resolved with a quick investment in Industrytech? Getting to level 4 would garner the extra lost 20% from Decentralized. The economic treaty that was the LC-FS alliance would also allow some sharing of their research, gaining this bonus far, far quicker than the historical Concord, which technically didn't share much at all.
FS: Cost of a DP is 9 pts, assuming Brightest Minds
CC: Cost 13.5
DC: Cost 11
FWL: Cost 10
LC Cost 10
Assuming canonical non assistance (yes, not likely in real game play, but in canon)between Concord, so they don't give each other DP.
The FS spends 15% of their RP max in first round to get 20 DP
The LC does the same - each getting the benefit of 5 extra points.
On round 5 (May, 3025), they could both be checking for industry tech level 4 to be achieved.
Meanwhile, it will be far more costly for the CC especially to get 20 DP in a single round. It's a bit unclear whether research as spent as 15% of RP is the percentage based off the treasury... or the adjusted, or unadjusted RP generated by the Faction. If we go with unadjusted rp production of the faction that can be spent, it would be favouring the FS and LC. Thus, they can each spend a max of around 225 pts towards research a round. Meanwhile the CC could at best muster 135ish, which is a measly 10 DP a round.
The FS/LC would, barring sabotage of course, attain industrytech 4 several rounds ahead of the CC and a couple rounds ahead of the DC (who could throw their research into full gear and almost keep up, only 1-2 rounds behind). The FWL could maintain near-parity with the rest (1 round behind FS/LC).
This of course assumes no nice conflicts happening in the background that are jeopardizing everyone's carefully factored treasuries...
-
I'd say it works off adjusted RP
-
The intent was (says the guy who wrote it) a limit of 15% based on that turn's income. It came in on the last revision, and was intended to represent limits on availability of researchers, facilities, coffee machines, etc.
And yes, you can invest heavily in research, trade, espionage, etc. Meanwhile, the despicable enemy has invested heavily in sub-machine guns and troop transports ... ;)
-
Having been working on ISaW material as a project for one of my own campaigns, using 3025 TO&Es I have found some interesting info for production.
Assuming that not all combat commands are actually fully enabled RCTs has provided the following:
That the LC is financially in the best shape once all trade is established, assuming canon-trade. They have by far the most amount of RP to throw around...
Followed by the DC. Interestingly, in this period, the DC also build 5 new combat commands (the Ryuken) and another combat command, the Genyosha, though it is small enough that it barely qualifies at this point.
The FWL has the next most amount of RP.
Followed by a nearly even Federated Suns and Cap Con.
Some of this is due to NOT making the free-floating regiments of the FS into full RCTs, as they are not in canon. Instead, I made them closer to merc commands, with only a couple units of support.
Also, the March militias have 1 less armoured regiment... and the Deneb Light Cav are also smaller.
It's also worth noting that the FS could free up a lot of RP if they simply let some of their merc units go, whose expense is higher than any other House for mercs...
-
The intent was (says the guy who wrote it) a limit of 15% based on that turn's income. It came in on the last revision, and was intended to represent limits on availability of researchers, facilities, coffee machines, etc.
And yes, you can invest heavily in research, trade, espionage, etc. Meanwhile, the despicable enemy has invested heavily in sub-machine guns and troop transports ... ;)
Interesting you should mention this. When we transitioned to ISaW in our game the lads started off rather conservatively with Tech, Intel and Special Ops. Within six months the expenses has gone form 100 odd points spread around Ops, Intel/Counter Intel to around 200-300 (more if an offensive is planned). Spec Ops teams dropped like flies, even when successful (which is fine). By about the seventh or eighth month a lot more defensive ops were being carried out to protect transport, research, factories (almost always a guessing game) and defend against Black Ops. Research, being expensive has thus far been more measured.
Spec Ops team operation slowed way down as all side began to replace the regular and veteran teams killed in action. Single teams would be sent out to be 'trained' up. This is expensive as they need a lot of RPs to overcome defensive ops. Research is a favourite target for sabotage as are intel ops to steal tech. The next favourite tends to be transport, just before an offensive, with defensive ops trying to block the attempt. Once trained they make a run at the choice targets (terrorism seems a favourite for the black ops exp points required). With counter intel being much cheaper than offensive the cost of building up a regular or veteran spec ops team needs to be weighed against results.
Not unsurprisingly, the Capellans turn to Spec Ops and (Counter)Intel to help offset their generally weaker military. However, without a cap, Intel and Spec Ops can become very large parts of the budget, further eroding the ability to build up treasuries for large campaigns.
The research rules are also fun and the 15% cap is a good call in putting the breaks on for the Renaissance period. Naturally, Industrial and Comm Tech are the first priority but the GM should probably run a shadow war from the periphery states to keep the Houses stretched a bit.
-
On behalf of all involved in preparing & refining those rules, thank you for the kind words! Sounds like our intentions seem to be panning out.
Are you having any issues handling the Margin of Success rolls & outcomes?
W.
-
...Are you having any issues handling the Margin of Success rolls & outcomes?...
The only thing we can't seem to make work are the propaganda ops. Trying to disseminate false information would only seem to work if the target is involved in intelligence ops seeking the same or similar information.
If a leak all of sudden lets a target know that x has moved to y or has been reinforced but he hasn't been looking for that information, the target will know its nonsense. Other than that the rules work very well.
When I have some time I'll create a thread around how ISaW works after 12 months being completed in our game over the past 6 months or so.