Interstellar Operations Open Beta Test: Creating A Force: Discussion

[doulos05]

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

This is actually an issue I noticed to. I feel like the acquisition numbers should be flipped, or at least equal. I feel like every jumpship should require at 10+ whereas dropships should start somewhere between 5 and 7 (I'm not exactly sure where in there) and that basically only the Fortress and the Behemoth should have 10s for their acquisition numbers (maybe the Overlord also).

[cray]

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?

Inability to completely analyze the effects of proposed availability equations. I'll try to tweak them to make JumpShips harder to acquire. Any suggestions?

[Crunch]

Inability to completely analyze the effects of proposed availability equations. I'll try to tweak them to make JumpShips harder to acquire. Any suggestions?

Add a flat +3 or +4 to the availability number, and then increase the bonus for government and clan forces to keep them right about where they are.

I'd also strongly suggest not giving a green crew modifier for Jumpships.

[Meow Liao]

Remember, jumpship costs have been jacked by the addition of support systems cost in Strategic Operations.  That adds 150m to a Merchant and 190m to the Invader to their old costs.  I have not seen any other major cost change.

Before any modifiers, Merchant should have a target number of 8 (534mil/100 round up +2), and Invader a target number of  10(670mil/100 round up +3).  Monolith starts at 26+.  Good luck getting one of those.

Meow Liao

[Crunch]

Remember, jumpship costs have been jacked by the addition of support systems cost in Strategic Operations.  That adds 150m to a Merchant and 190m to the Invader to their old costs.  I have not seen any other major cost change.

Before any modifiers, Merchant should have a target number of 8 (534mil/100 round up +2), and Invader a target number of  10(670mil/100 round up +3).  Monolith starts at 26+.  Good luck getting one of those.

Meow Liao

I just did. In the Jihad (-2) the Merchant (which is common -1) with a green crew (-1) has an availability of 5. Lower for governmental forces.

[BirdofPrey]

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?

The statement I was replying to regarded era based stuff rather than tech base and unit type.

It is a different issue, of course, but there are already modifiers for equipment tech rating (there's a penalty for E anf F rated equipment), clan tech base, and XLFEs, so you pretty much have to have the record sheet on hand.  If you need to know all that, it's a simple matter to be  asking you to know  if the mech you want is a primitive or industrial mech. 


On a side note, just what IS up with the availability in the MUL?  I checked the WAM-B and it says it is available to multiple factions during the Jihad, and even dark age eras.  That makes no sense for something that is by all rights a museum piece.

[Jackson_Pryde]

My suspicion is that the WAM-B like most of the units in that section of TRO 3075 are put back into production during the jihad for a variety of reasons.  Since they were put back into production, it stands to reason that some of them would survive and be available for acquisition in later eras. 


On a side note, still trying to figure out how to requisition units without pilots and vice versa. 

[BirdofPrey]

Hard to tell without other eras if something was never extinct or just put back into production.

[Jackson_Pryde]

Very very true, that's a check the TRO for the mech in question for ideas

[doulos05]

Add a flat +3 or +4 to the availability number, and then increase the bonus for government and clan forces to keep them right about where they are.

I'd also strongly suggest not giving a green crew modifier for Jumpships.

I second that. A flat +3 or +4 and no green crew modifier for Jumpships.

[Sandslice]

Remember, jumpship costs have been jacked by the addition of support systems cost in Strategic Operations.  That adds 150m to a Merchant and 190m to the Invader to their old costs.  I have not seen any other major cost change.

Before any modifiers, Merchant should have a target number of 8 (534mil/100 round up +2), and Invader a target number of  10(670mil/100 round up +3).  Monolith starts at 26+.  Good luck getting one of those.

Meow Liao

Admittedly, I was using numbers taken from Megamek, which are a bit closer to the old DS+JS values.  Those numbers make more sense.

Warships also get rather interesting.  I'll work up a spreadsheet with some sample classes some time.

[kato]

I second that. A flat +3 or +4 and no green crew modifier for Jumpships.

Or just only roll for jumpships if your force already possesses at minimum one dropship. Due to the rarity portrayed in fluff it would be highly unusual for a force to possess a jumpship but rely on contractors for dropships. Unless the force is a spacer group out for transport/escort merc missions, but in that case you don't roll your stuff anyway.

[Crunch]

Or just only roll for jumpships if your force already possesses at minimum one dropship. Due to the rarity portrayed in fluff it would be highly unusual for a force to possess a jumpship but rely on contractors for dropships. Unless the force is a spacer group out for transport/escort merc missions, but in that case you don't roll your stuff anyway.

Given that you could potentially roll for Dropship 100s of times I don't think that's a deterrent.

[Minerva]

Back in this after time doing real work...

First, the whole view point for these rules should be put to re-thinking. For one, it is important to understand that these rules do not really work in terms of existing tournaments (no one is seriously running regiment on board with current scale and rules). Thus there is no reason to assume that there is a set "500 fantasy point" limit to build against.

Second, these rules are going to be used when players either play a campaign or build enemy/ally formation. I said it before and say it again. It must be able to build a semi-random unit out of source book. There are also players who like to build their own unit and/or hire one for their campaign. Thus there must be a support to any and all possible troop combinations (say a WarShip and a Star League Mech division).

At this moment I can build a random Mech regiment with tables in SO (p 331 to 335) to create notional units. For example a Light Lance of 1 Medium and 3 Light Mechs. Then I simply roll using suitable RAT. This is BTW how to do a "believable" house unit.

Notice that lots of special abilities of house units can also simply be added to units making them more/less costly. For example Urban specialization, better logistics/recce/fire support etc.

Since players are not tied to such elements there is no reason why you cannot have ANY formation you like which can be done easily by simply adding the units you need. However, there must be a set way to say how much resources are spent to build/buy/hire the said force. C-Bills are easiest (even if a bit artificial given how out of whack the costs are in universe) way here. I honestly hope there is complete rethought on C-Bill costs, currently they are ridiculous. And yes, there must be real modifiers in cost based on availability...

In my view the crux of balancing efforts should be in day to day operations. The costs of keeping a high quality unit running as well as high end equipment should be correspondingly high as well.

[cray]

Minerva, you gave a lot of "shoulds" and not many "hows." Can you give some specific suggestions to change the posted draft rules to support your ideas?

First, the whole view point for these rules should be put to re-thinking. For one, it is important to understand that these rules do not really work in terms of existing tournaments (no one is seriously running regiment on board with current scale and rules). Thus there is no reason to assume that there is a set "500 fantasy point" limit to build against.

Since the rules aren't going into Total Warfare, they can't be used for tournament-legal forces.

Second, these rules are going to be used when players either play a campaign or build enemy/ally formation. I said it before and say it again. It must be able to build a semi-random unit out of source book. There are also players who like to build their own unit and/or hire one for their campaign. Thus there must be a support to any and all possible troop combinations (say a WarShip and a Star League Mech division).

At this moment I can build a random Mech regiment with tables in SO (p 331 to 335) to create notional units. For example a Light Lance of 1 Medium and 3 Light Mechs. Then I simply roll using suitable RAT. This is BTW how to do a "believable" house unit.

How many RATs are needed to build any believable unit (infantry, vehicle, WarShip, BattleMech, etc.) from the 22nd Century Chesterton Trade League to the 32nd Century Hanseatic League? Once you have a ballpark number, before posting it please consider today's quote from Line Developer Herb Beas on Facebook:

Wow. Random Assignment Tables for BattleTech have become "an impossible burden". I just got the following message from a writer about them: "There is no circumstance, no price, and no amount of coercion that will ever be successful in getting me to touch RATs ever again."

No, the writer wasn't me. :)

[Sandslice]

Minerva, you gave a lot of "shoulds" and not many "hows." Can you give some specific suggestions to change the posted draft rules to support your ideas?

Since the rules aren't going into Total Warfare, they can't be used for tournament-legal forces.

How many RATs are needed to build any believable unit (infantry, vehicle, WarShip, BattleMech, etc.) from the 22nd Century Chesterton Trade League to the 32nd Century Hanseatic League? Once you have a ballpark number, before posting it please consider today's quote from Line Developer Herb Beas on Facebook:

Wow. Random Assignment Tables for BattleTech have become "an impossible burden". I just got the following message from a writer about them: "There is no circumstance, no price, and no amount of coercion that will ever be successful in getting me to touch RATs ever again."

No, the writer wasn't me. :)

Xotl, quiaff?  It sounds like something Xotl would say after those excellent (and arduous!) 3028-3039-Clan Invasion RATs.

[cray]

Xotl, quiaff?  It sounds like something Xotl would say after those excellent (and arduous!) 3028-3039-Clan Invasion RATs.

Honestly, I don't know. I only saw Herb's comment, which neglected names/handles.

[Xotl]

Nah, I still think RATs are fun - I just lack the time to do them right (though I get to do them in published books now, which is cool).  To stay on topic, this argues to cray's point that the workload and page count required to do a proper job of them in IO would be beyond reason, even in an abbreviated format.

[Sandslice]

Back in this after time doing real work...

First, the whole view point for these rules should be put to re-thinking. For one, it is important to understand that these rules do not really work in terms of existing tournaments (no one is seriously running regiment on board with current scale and rules). Thus there is no reason to assume that there is a set "500 fantasy point" limit to build against.

Which is why tournaments are generally either:
-Pre-calibrated by the GM; or
-Based on BV, BattleForce points (which are BV-based,) or another criterion.

These IO rules are patterned after Mercenary's Handbook (/3055) and Field Manual: Mercenaries (/(Revised.))  As such, they can interact with Chaos Campaign, StratOps, and A Time of War to play forces that you intend to keep playing longer than single pickup games or CC tracks.

Second, these rules are going to be used when players either play a campaign or build enemy/ally formation. I said it before and say it again. It must be able to build a semi-random unit out of source book. There are also players who like to build their own unit and/or hire one for their campaign. Thus there must be a support to any and all possible troop combinations (say a WarShip and a Star League Mech division).

At this moment I can build a random Mech regiment with tables in SO (p 331 to 335) to create notional units. For example a Light Lance of 1 Medium and 3 Light Mechs. Then I simply roll using suitable RAT. This is BTW how to do a "believable" house unit.

You can arguably do so with IO rules, in one of two ways:
-Agree with your table that the RAT and pilot-skill random rolls replace the availability roll, and pay either exact or generic cost for what you get; or
-Use the alternate finance rules (the Hanse Davion's 3025 AFFS example) of rolling 1d2 for having either spare cash or debt, then 2d6 for the number of months of peacetime opcost that you're ahead or behind to start.

Notice that lots of special abilities of house units can also simply be added to units making them more/less costly. For example Urban specialization, better logistics/recce/fire support etc.

That's partially implemented - the special abilities are only combat functions (initiative, piloting, gunnery, in various circumstances) and you can take two modifiers (either two -1s, two +1s, or one of each.)  It also applies to your whole force.

Suggestion: In the older books, forces that had multiple companies sometimes had different abilities / modifiers for their subforces.  For example, each of Wolf's Dragoons' five regiments had different modifiers; each battalion in Alpha Regiment might have different modifiers; and the companies within a given battalion might be different.  This did not go "smaller" than the company level though.

While it's extra book-keeping for costs and keeping them straight in the TO&E, might this be revisited as an option?

For Clan forces, this would be at the Trinary level; for C*/WoB forces, at the... man, their units are funky... the level III, I guess, even though that's about a battalion, because their training tends to be even more standardised and coordinated.

[doulos05]

Suggestion: In the older books, forces that had multiple companies sometimes had different abilities / modifiers for their subforces.  For example, each of Wolf's Dragoons' five regiments had different modifiers; each battalion in Alpha Regiment might have different modifiers; and the companies within a given battalion might be different.  This did not go "smaller" than the company level though.

While it's extra book-keeping for costs and keeping them straight in the TO&E, might this be revisited as an option?

For Clan forces, this would be at the Trinary level; for C*/WoB forces, at the... man, their units are funky... the level III, I guess, even though that's about a battalion, because their training tends to be even more standardised and coordinated.

I figured it was an option. Just only calculate the modifier for the forces to which it applies. Did I miss something that forbids that in the rules?

[Crunch]

Nah, I still think RATs are fun - I just lack the time to do them right (though I get to do them in published books now, which is cool).  To stay on topic, this argues to cray's point that the workload and page count required to do a proper job of them in IO would be beyond reason, even in an abbreviated format.

Except that the RATS are already available in Historical and FM products. Why not use this as an opportunity to cross market?

[Xotl]

Such a nod to other products might very well be included - I couldn't say.

Of course, that's a far cry for what was originally being discussed, which was proper RATs in IO for all eras and factions and unit types.  To those wondering about the feasibility, think of the size of the RAT section in FM 3085 alone.  Even if not needing to include certain factions/unit types, and/or using smaller font sizes, only 2-12 tables, and the fellest of layout sorcery, you were able to chop the page allotment for that to a quarter, that's still (IIRC) 5-6 or so pages just for one year.

[Sandslice]

I figured it was an option. Just only calculate the modifier for the forces to which it applies. Did I miss something that forbids that in the rules?

It's not forbidden, no.  It just wasn't stated - I don't mind personally, but people that have fewer game resources might not be aware of it.

On the other hand, admittedly, BT play is most commonly at the company level, where it wouldn't matter.  Maybe it'd be better saved for a companion book later on, then.  :)

[Crunch]

Such a nod to other products might very well be included - I couldn't say.

Of course, that's a far cry for what was originally being discussed, which was proper RATs in IO for all eras and factions and unit types.  To those wondering about the feasibility, think of the size of the RAT section in FM 3085 alone.  Even if not needing to include certain factions/unit types, and/or using smaller font sizes, only 2-12 tables, and the fellest of layout sorcery, you were able to chop the page allotment for that to a quarter, that's still (IIRC) 5-6 or so pages just for one year.

My suggestion was simply to offer an alternate unit creation system that used the RATs to create faction appropriate forces. Since the feedback from Cray has been that Cbills are the only system under consideration I'm going to finish my current play test and probably not buy the book. I understand offering Cbills as an option, but its sub optimal to the point that it means I will probably never use the major thing I was looking forward to in the book.

The current "Cbills or the Highway" system is also hugely unfriendly to new players who DON'T have an encyclopedic knowledge of BT eras and units. One of the things I loved about the old Merc creation was that it was a great introduction to BT for new players. This system is not.

[Acolyte]

My suggestion was simply to offer an alternate unit creation system that used the RATs to create faction appropriate forces. Since the feedback from Cray has been that Cbills are the only system under consideration I'm going to finish my current play test and probably not buy the book. I understand offering Cbills as an option, but its sub optimal to the point that it means I will probably never use the major thing I was looking forward to in the book.

The current "Cbills or the Highway" system is also hugely unfriendly to new players who DON'T have an encyclopedic knowledge of BT eras and units. One of the things I loved about the old Merc creation was that it was a great introduction to BT for new players. This system is not.

RAT's aren't a simple system anymore. I do have the feeling that using the RAT's from the other sourcebooks that a player owns would be kosher and might even be supported as an alternate system within IO, but they are not going to attempt to put all RAT's in IO.

   - Shane

[Crunch]

RAT's aren't a simple system anymore. I do have the feeling that using the RAT's from the other sourcebooks that a player owns would be kosher and might even be supported as an alternate system within IO, but they are not going to attempt to put all RAT's in IO.

   - Shane

Any more than they are going to attempt to include all CBill costs in IO. Why would including all RATs have anything to do with using RATs in the creation system. RATs are already available in TW, SO and a horde of sourcebook publications. Setting up a system to use those pre existing resources is a heck of a lot simpler than the current system which requires access to the MUL and a pHd in the history of Battletech or the hand calculation of every unit.

[BirdofPrey]

That's the point of the generic costs table.  If you don't happen to have the exact price on hand, you can use an aproximate based on equipment (and if you don't know that [ie. no record sheet on hand], you can't use the unit anyways).

Beyond that, prices seem to be listed in the MUL.

[Crunch]

That's the point of the generic costs table.  If you don't happen to have the exact price on hand, you can use an aproximate based on equipment (and if you don't know that [ie. no record sheet on hand], you can't use the unit anyways).

Beyond that, prices seem to be listed in the MUL.

Which i mentioned in the post you were replying to.

I'm not sure why "available in an outside source" is an acceptable option for Cbills but not RATs. Especially since TW and SO - both of which are required for large parts of IO- already include RATs. There's no reason that a SINGLE RAT would need to be included in IO for IO's force creation to have a RAT using option.

[Acolyte]

Any more than they are going to attempt to include all CBill costs in IO. Why would including all RATs have anything to do with using RATs in the creation system. RATs are already available in TW, SO and a horde of sourcebook publications. Setting up a system to use those pre existing resources is a heck of a lot simpler than the current system which requires access to the MUL and a pHd in the history of Battletech or the hand calculation of every unit.

If you go back to pg. 9 of this very thread you'll find that cray's responce to this very suggestion is:

I can certainly do that.

   - Shane

[Crunch]

If you go back to pg. 9 of this very thread you'll find that cray's responce to this very suggestion is:

   - Shane

Which was a response to my pleading for an alternate system, which he had shot down. He's agreed to add a sentence admitting that RATS exist, not to actually support their use in creation.