Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Creating A Force: Discussion

[Jackson_Pryde]

And those rules tell you to refer to section 3 (Purchasing units) in the Construction rules for picking up new units, but those come with pilots.  I'm just asking about units in general.  This seemed to be the place to ask that question, as it refers back to these rules.

My thought would be whatever the base availability for the unit plus a random modifier that serves to represent the chaos of finding things in the chaos of interstellar travel, with the ability to make one roll per unit in a given month. 

[cray]

2) I'm not entirely sold on CBills as the point system. It works conceptually for mercs, but for house units its pretty arbitrary. Efficient units under a strictly CBill build system will pretty quickly shake out to be all SFE Flashbulbs and there's enough pressure in that direction already. A point buy system that encouraged more variety would be welcome at least as an option.

There was a point-buy system in Mercs 1st edition. It worked because each 'Mech and vehicle could be listed in a couple of pages of one book.

How would you address every one of the thousands of units in BT today, and give them balanced valuations? You might want to avoid SFE flashbulbs, but I'd likewise want to avoid everyone picking up XXL monstermechs.

[doulos05]

There was a point-buy system in Mercs 1st edition. It worked because each 'Mech and vehicle could be listed in a couple of pages of one book.

How would you address every one of the thousands of units in BT today, and give them balanced valuations? You might want to avoid SFE flashbulbs, but I'd likewise want to avoid everyone picking up XXL monstermechs.

What about BV? No, seriously. BV figures are released for every canon unit. And the most objectionable part of BV is definitely FSM, which wouldn't apply at all in this case because you're not building against an OPFOR. So you've got a point-based system which is internally balanced enough that the over- or under-valuation of units would be fairly minimal and we all already know how to use it (though a lot of us may not like it. But again, FSM is the main culprit there.)

[Sandslice]

What about BV? No, seriously. BV figures are released for every canon unit. And the most objectionable part of BV is definitely FSM, which wouldn't apply at all in this case because you're not building against an OPFOR. So you've got a point-based system which is internally balanced enough that the over- or under-valuation of units would be fairly minimal and we all already know how to use it (though a lot of us may not like it. But again, FSM is the main culprit there.)

I see a BattleMech lance sticking into the back of the FSM dragon... and about two meters out its belly on the other side.  FSM is dead as of TechManual Errata version 3.  :)

[Crunch]

There was a point-buy system in Mercs 1st edition. It worked because each 'Mech and vehicle could be listed in a couple of pages of one book.

How would you address every one of the thousands of units in BT today, and give them balanced valuations? You might want to avoid SFE flashbulbs, but I'd likewise want to avoid everyone picking up XXL monstermechs.

Why not just run with either the generic point per class system like the one that's already begin used for chaos campaign, or BF point value? I don't see why it would be necessary to list every unit for either of those systems any more than the book is going to list the cost of every unit under the current system. Modifiers for tech or rules level and availability shouldn't be insurmountable. Either set of numbers have a closer relationship to combat effectiveness than CBills, already exist and will yield units that look more like the universe the game is supposed to represent.

I'd suggest BV, but I know that TPTB are phasing it out.

The fact of the matter is that this system has a very small number of optimal choices. I'd like a system that encouraged more variety because that variety is what we see in the universe.

[SCC]

If you don't use exact prices you pretty much are using generic points per class

[Daryk]

I think C-Bills work.  They may be far from ideal, but once you start playing, it's how mercenaries are paid, and how House forces track expenditures.  If you de-link force creation from C-Bill costs, you open up all kinds of exploits down the road.

[Crunch]

My issue is this.

A Hatchetman 5S
6,117,840 CBills
15,000,000 CBills Under the Generic Buy System
1039 BV2
10 Points under BF

A Grasshopper 5J
6,154,074  CBills
9,000,000 CBills Under the Generic Buy System
1354 BV2
14 Points under BF

And yet canonically we know that he Hatchetman was common in house units. I understand why we're using CBills, it just seems like a system that neither mirrors the universe we're trying to depict, nor promotes any kind of parity or balance in unit creation. Rather the CBill system as a sole mechanism for creation immediately defines a set of optimal and sub optimal choices that push us farther down the road to uniform units.

As for exploits, given that you are allowed to take excess CBills out of creation as cash, that you can only sell used goods at a discount and that the generic system significantly over prices most units what exploits are you seeing?

[Daryk]

Just using your examples, a unit would have more C-Bills of equipment to trade/upgrade by taking Hatchetmen over Grasshoppers under a BV or BF system, discounts notwithstanding.  There are plenty of BV cheap/C-Bill expensive units.  By sticking with C-Bills, at least the incentives remain consistent from creation through operations.

[Sandslice]

My issue is this.

A Hatchetman 5S
6,117,840 CBills
15,000,000 CBills Under the Generic Buy System
1039 BV2
10 Points under BF

A Grasshopper 5J
6,154,074  CBills
9,000,000 CBills Under the Generic Buy System
1354 BV2
14 Points under BF

And yet canonically we know that he Hatchetman was common in house units. I understand why we're using CBills, it just seems like a system that neither mirrors the universe we're trying to depict, nor promotes any kind of parity or balance in unit creation. Rather the CBill system as a sole mechanism for creation immediately defines a set of optimal and sub optimal choices that push us farther down the road to uniform units.

1.  A unit's BF value is simply BV/100, rounded normally, which creates its own problems.  :P

2.  We know (see page 11 in this thread) that generic costs are a problem.  Then again, since you have exact costs (I'm guessing either from record sheets or Megamek,) why not just use exact costs?

3.  However, keep this in mind.

Any system will define its own set of optimals and suboptimals; and the nature of the campaign system, independently of force creation, also defines optimals (notably, giving your RP characters the best chance at survival involves either going balls-out on speed, or avoiding (X)XLEs and most ammo weaponry.)

Also, any choice-resource system will tend to lend itself to more optimals as you deplete the resource; after all, you would want to squeeze the most bang out of each remaining "buck," whatever the buck happens to be.  This is true whether you use BV, BF, SP, or cbills.

[Crunch]

1.  A unit's BF value is simply BV/100, rounded normally, which creates its own problems.  :P

2.  We know (see page 11 in this thread) that generic costs are a problem.  Then again, since you have exact costs (I'm guessing either from record sheets or Megamek,) why not just use exact costs?

3.  However, keep this in mind.

Any system will define its own set of optimals and suboptimals; and the nature of the campaign system, independently of force creation, also defines optimals (notably, giving your RP characters the best chance at survival involves either going balls-out on speed, or avoiding (X)XLEs and most ammo weaponry.)

Also, any choice-resource system will tend to lend itself to more optimals as you deplete the resource; after all, you would want to squeeze the most bang out of each remaining "buck," whatever the buck happens to be.  This is true whether you use BV, BF, SP, or cbills.

But wouldn't it be better if A) The direction the campaign system pushed resembled Canon and B) The Creation, table top and operational rules at the least had different optimization issues rather than all reinforcing the same mall set of optimal choices?


Oh and the exact costs are from the MUL.

[SCC]

The problems with using BV at creation from what I can see are: All future acquisitions are Salvage, exchange of kind (tonnage) for salvage or brought using C-Bills and it doesn't allow for the purchasing of items that don't have a BV

Using a C-Bill based system also means that the unit, if merc, doesn't have to take the first contract that comes it's way if it's bad.

BV will probably also encourage the belief that the campaign is or should be C-Bill balanced, which if the game is strategic or uses random OpFor's to encourage variety it won't be.

[doulos05]

The problems with using BV at creation from what I can see are: All future acquisitions are Salvage, exchange of kind (tonnage) for salvage or brought using C-Bills and it doesn't allow for the purchasing of items that don't have a BV

Using a C-Bill based system also means that the unit, if merc, doesn't have to take the first contract that comes it's way if it's bad.

BV will probably also encourage the belief that the campaign is or should be C-Bill balanced, which if the game is strategic or uses random OpFor's to encourage variety it won't be.

The other problem is converting BV to C-bills. I mean, what if I have BV left over after building the force I want (or rolled to acquire)? If it's C-bills, then lucky me, I start with a warchest. If it's BV, then... I don't know what happens.

[Sandslice]

There was a point-buy system in Mercs 1st edition. It worked because each 'Mech and vehicle could be listed in a couple of pages of one book.

How would you address every one of the thousands of units in BT today, and give them balanced valuations? You might want to avoid SFE flashbulbs, but I'd likewise want to avoid everyone picking up XXL monstermechs.

The point-buy system in Mercenary's Handbook (that is, Mercs 1st ed.) went something like this:
-You started between 10k and 600k "unit points."

-You paid for either single "squads" by weight-class and skill level, or lances by a range of weight-classes that made less sense than you'd think; as an example, two Awesomes and two bug 'Mechs = a 200-ton medium lance, while four Griffins (medium 'Mechs, of course) were 220 tons and thus a heavy lance.

-The costs for 'Mechs at Normal were 460, 780, 1140, 1680 for Normal pilots.  You could reduce this to 40% by taking them as "Salvage" quality.  The pilot modifiers were x0.5 / x1 / x2.5 / x5, so yes, that Elite Assault 'Mech cost 8400 UP new.

-You were able to purchase DropShips (a Union was 16k UP); you could also purchase JumpShips, but you also had to roll availability on them.

-After that, you'd roll for your 'Mechs, with each 3025-era model having its own availability target by chassis.  Though it's not feasible now (at least without a supplemental) due to the sheer number of chassis we have, it was calibrated in a pretty canon-friendly way.  Take lights, for example: bugs were very easy to roll for, while Jenners were very difficult.

-Finally, UP were converted to cbills at 1:10k (the same conversion as Chaos Campaign SP.)

So it was similar to generic values in IO, except:
-Higher starting money (the low end is equivalent to 100 million... but...)
-More expensive units, with cost greatly affected by operator skill.
-Could buy DropShips without a roll, but had to buy any rolled-for JumpShips to get them (in IO, you have to roll for both, but they're "free" if you get them!)
-More nuanced 'Mech acquisition rolls, and those rolls are not affected by operator skill.

[cray]

What about BV? No, seriously. BV figures are released for every canon unit.

I was given to understand BV might not be around forever due to dissatisfaction with it. I don't want to gamble on a system under that sort of scrutiny.

Rather the CBill system as a sole mechanism for creation immediately defines a set of optimal and sub optimal choices that push us farther down the road to uniform units.

Availability rolls also factor in.

[Daryk]

...Rather the CBill system as a sole mechanism for creation immediately defines a set of optimal and sub optimal choices that push us farther down the road to uniform units...

Cray's quote of this also made me think: style costs money.  Sure, you can just buy the most optimal build out there, but as you point out, it's going to look exactly the same as everyone else doing it.

[Crunch]

I was given to understand BV might not be around forever due to dissatisfaction with it. I don't want to gamble on a system under that sort of scrutiny.

Availability rolls also factor in.

Under the current system availability isn't that big a factor. Allowing multiple rolls for the same unit at the same experience level as the example does and then allowing additional rolls at each decreasing factor gives a pretty good chance of being able to fill a unit of any size with three or four variants of the same SFE Flashbulb Heavy mold that this system decrees.

[Sandslice]

Under the current system availability isn't that big a factor. Allowing multiple rolls for the same unit at the same experience level as the example does and then allowing additional rolls at each decreasing factor gives a pretty good chance of being able to fill a unit of any size with three or four variants of the same SFE Flashbulb Heavy mold that this system decrees.

You're assuming that the system decrees SFE flashbulbs.  I'm only saying that campaign play itself tends to cause that, regardless of how you roll your force.

Let's say you go by BV or BFP.  While you might note that most ammo weapons tend to have lower BV relative to energy, XLEs and other weight-savers tend to inflate BVs simply due to carrying more stuff.  That's on top of the XLE's vulnerability (which is reflected by a lower-than-expected Structure value in BF.)  So SFE 'Mechs are still cheaper.

If you go by straight-tonnage (for example the Chaos Campaign system,) you'll run into an easily-illustrated problem: for the SP cost of one JR7-K, you can get two JR7-Ds... or Fs... or 3025 Firestarters.  Introtech becomes an arguable optimal if you're going for force size; and the only introtech 'Mech engine is the SFE, once again.

However, once you get into the Clantech era... suddenly introtech has a hard time keeping up, which means that despite their economy on paper, the cheaper 'Mechs become less and worthy on table.  And even during the Invasion, the best flashbulb Inner Sphere 'Mechs get taunted a second time by the Firemoth, Nova and Warhawk.

Take context into consideration, and it's not so decreed.  :)

[Crunch]

You're assuming that the system decrees SFE flashbulbs.  I'm only saying that campaign play itself tends to cause that, regardless of how you roll your force.

Let's say you go by BV or BFP.  While you might note that most ammo weapons tend to have lower BV relative to energy, XLEs and other weight-savers tend to inflate BVs simply due to carrying more stuff.  That's on top of the XLE's vulnerability (which is reflected by a lower-than-expected Structure value in BF.)  So SFE 'Mechs are still cheaper.

If you go by straight-tonnage (for example the Chaos Campaign system,) you'll run into an easily-illustrated problem: for the SP cost of one JR7-K, you can get two JR7-Ds... or Fs... or 3025 Firestarters.  Introtech becomes an arguable optimal if you're going for force size; and the only introtech 'Mech engine is the SFE, once again.

However, once you get into the Clantech era... suddenly introtech has a hard time keeping up, which means that despite their economy on paper, the cheaper 'Mechs become less and worthy on table.  And even during the Invasion, the best flashbulb Inner Sphere 'Mechs get taunted a second time by the Firemoth, Nova and Warhawk.

Take context into consideration, and it's not so decreed.  :)

Right, and adding an additional incentive to take SFE flashbulbs on top of the existing advantages of such machines doesn't particularly make sense to me.

[idea weenie]

Right, and adding an additional incentive to take SFE flashbulbs on top of the existing advantages of such machines doesn't particularly make sense to me.

The disadvantage of SFE flashbulbs vs expensive XLE Mechs is that you need more/larger drophips to carry them.  I.e. assuming an XLE is 3* as effective as a SFE Mech, the XLE force can be carried in a Leopard, vs a Union.  If the XLE force manages to get a Union as well, that is 8 Mech Bays (800 tons) that can be loaded up with spares, ammo, food, and water on the way to the target, and loot on the way back.  The SFE force loses that cargo capacity, plus has 8 extra Mechs to maintain (plus food & water for their crews as well).

On a planet, the SFE Mechs might be better, as the planet supports the Mechs quite well.  The defenders will get into trouble if they have to deploy quickly (needing more cargo capacity), but for defending a base it turns into a case of whack-a-mech, where the attackers are outnumbered, and have to be careful of their Mechs taking enough damage to put them out of a fight before they have taken out the defenders sufficiently.

Let alone the ideas about Industrial Mechs and what to do with them.

[mike19k]

Just making sure that I am reading the aberrations correctly SFE = Standard Fusion Engion?, XLE = eXtra Light Engion?

[Sandslice]

Just making sure that I am reading the aberrations correctly SFE = Standard Fusion Engion?, XLE = eXtra Light Engion?

Yes.  When we're talking engines, they could be any of these:
ICE = internal combustion
FCE = fuel cell
NFE = fission (nuclear fission)
SFE = standard fusion
XLE = extralight (fusion)
XXLE = extra-extralight (fusion)
CFE = compact fusion
LFE = light fusion

[Sandslice]

Right, and adding an additional incentive to take SFE flashbulbs on top of the existing advantages of such machines doesn't particularly make sense to me.

I'll reiterate this.  Force creation does not optimise flashbulbs.  RP-style survival does, and maintenance does.

Becky, weighing starship options for her Southern Cross Brigade, considers her maintenance cargo needs.  Having chosen use a RAT to "pick" her choices for rolling, she discovers that her 12-'Mech company weighs 595 tons and has 12 tons of ammo.  She picks up quickly that 0.1% of a 'Mech's tonnage means that a Locust's 20 tons will need 20 kilograms of parts, making the calculations very easy.
As such, the 'Mechs need 595kg, or 0.595t, of parts.  The ammo is likewise easy at a straight division by 4: 3 tons.  Becky decides to take 3.595 tons and round it up to 3.6 to keep the numbers nice and compact for her DropShip shopping needs.

You'll notice that, in terms of cargo footprint, that ammo is already far larger than parts, when it comes to small units.

Becky considers a Union Dropship, pondering how its own needs interact with its spartan 74 ton cargo capacity.  As a 3600-ton DS, it will use 3.6 tons of parts by itself; but her eyes just about bug out of her head as Becky counts up the 17(!!) tons of ammo: 12 LRM-20 ammos, and 5 AC/5.  This works out to 4.25, meaning that the Dropship's maintenance cargo footprint is a massive 7.85 tons.  Combined with the company that it would be supporting, it appears that this DropShip is just good enough for a 6 month campaign, with a measly 5.3 tons left over for extra supplies.

This is what indicates flashbulbs in IO: the weight and cost of ammo just for maintenance, let alone combat usage.  It's not a problem in the creation systems.

-------

BV does the same thing: XLEs tend to be higher BV.  Missile boats tend to be higher BV.  Gauss and LB-10x tend to drive it up.  The only thing is that using autocannons tends to drop your BV some; but it doesn't make autocannons optimal, as several threads have argued back and forth.  :)

[Crunch]

I disagree, but I'll let it stand and move on.

Has the lack of an entry for Primitive or Industrial mechs in the availability chart been brought up?

[BirdofPrey]

I mentioned it some time ago and was promptly ignored by the ongoing discussion of SL gear.
As I mentioned before, I think there should be a modifier for extinct gear and extinct chassis, the combination of which should add up to the modifier currently in place for SL mechs, but once those techs are recovered, you only have a modifier for a specific model not being manufactured any more, but catch a break on the tech.  I am also wondering if there should be a modifier for advanced and experimental gear (including prototype equipment); if there is one be sure to have it modified by TRO:Prototypes where appropriate.

I definitely think primitive tech base (after current tech becomes the norm of course, both to represent ancient units and retrotech) possibly to include anything with the obsolete quirk (note that a modifier for out of production models would counter this out for actual Age of War mechs.  You aren't going to be able to pick up an old Firebee just anywhere) and industrial mechs (including militia mechs) should have a cost and availability modifier to make them cheaper and easier to obtain.

[CrazyBradley]

Hello everyone!

As a compulsive spreadsheet builder, I've been working on an Excel sheet for Force Creation.  This thing is a bit of a work in progress; but I've managed to build a force with it and not run into any colossal errors.  So I figure I'd release it to the community here. It attempts to automate a great deal of the data entry and calculations for you. 

The following link goes to my Google Drive.  You'll see the file in Google Doc View.  After you verify that it isn't malicious  O0 you can download it.  None of the cells are protected.  That is by design in case someone finds an error.  If you feel comfortable correcting it do so and move on.  If not please feel free to email me and I'll upload a corrected version.  However, if you decide to distribute this to players, you would be wise to lock the formulas so your players can't pull one over on you.  I hope it aids you in creating Forces with these rules!

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B69sMoH0OaFqakw2QVZfakV4eEE/edit?usp=sharing

[Sandslice]

I mentioned it some time ago and was promptly ignored by the ongoing discussion of SL gear.
As I mentioned before, I think there should be a modifier for extinct gear and extinct chassis, the combination of which should add up to the modifier currently in place for SL mechs, but once those techs are recovered, you only have a modifier for a specific model not being manufactured any more, but catch a break on the tech.  I am also wondering if there should be a modifier for advanced and experimental gear (including prototype equipment); if there is one be sure to have it modified by TRO:Prototypes where appropriate.

I definitely think primitive tech base (after current tech becomes the norm of course, both to represent ancient units and retrotech) possibly to include anything with the obsolete quirk (note that a modifier for out of production models would counter this out for actual Age of War mechs.  You aren't going to be able to pick up an old Firebee just anywhere) and industrial mechs (including militia mechs) should have a cost and availability modifier to make them cheaper and easier to obtain.

We already need to use divination and FASA-era books to get the modifiers for starships.  Your suggestion, while more precise in result, would have us doing the exact same thing for any and all 'Mech variants outside one's current era (and sometimes even within.)  It would sorta violate KISS more than we already have.

[BirdofPrey]

Hopefully at some point they can give us availabilities for other eras in the MUL, then it's a quick check to see if a model is extinct.  As for equipment, that's on the record sheet.

[Crunch]

Hopefully at some point they can give us availabilities for other eras in the MUL, then it's a quick check to see if a model is extinct.  As for equipment, that's on the record sheet.

Am I alone that thinking Industrial Mech (as a unit type) and Primitive Battlemech (as a tech base) are a different issue than availability by era?

[Sandslice]

Another thing I find interesting, which I sorta touched on while playing around with Force Ops, is how hard Dropships are to get, relative to Jumpships (not Warships.)

For example, I've got the Buccaneer, Trojan, and Mule - cargo DropShips all - pegged at 8 to acquire.  (The Mule explicitly has a common bonus.)  The Union (220m, military) is obtained on an 11!

Meanwhile, a Merchant Jumpship (300mcb, 2 collars, common) is obtained on a 4; and an Invader (500mcb, 3 collars, common) on a 7.

That's for merc forces.  Government and Clan forces, of course, have it easier; but this relationship remains.  Might I ask the reason behind this?

Am I alone that thinking Industrial Mech (as a unit type) and Primitive Battlemech (as a tech base) are a different issue than availability by era?

Primitive and IndustrialMech are tricky, because they could (in theory) mount modern equipment on top of their low-grade chassis.  Ignoring that, I agree.  :)