Register Register

Author Topic: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System  (Read 20310 times)

victor_shaw

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #120 on: 25 November 2014, 01:27:45 »
also do Garrison/Solamha/Provisional Garrison

use the A, B or C units
« Last Edit: 25 November 2014, 01:36:38 by victor_shaw »

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4520
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #121 on: 25 November 2014, 01:39:06 »
In the example, the Falcon PGC used B units

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #122 on: 26 November 2014, 18:01:28 »
Question: what happened to the force quality mechanic from strategic ops? Was it abandoned?
Making the dark age a little brighter, one explosion at a time.
Have you met the clans? Words like "Naïve" and "misguided" are not enough to describe the notion that a conquest of the IS by the clans would result in a Utopian pacifistic society.

Issamuel

  • Private
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Pirates! Bandits! Mercs! The Periphery!
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #123 on: 27 November 2014, 00:00:50 »
Just want to provide feedback, and get clarification on the IO-ISW-Pirate Points Draft.docx file.

By the way, I love the optional rules - Thanks Welshman! In particular, got a kick at the "Time Jump" 1D100 roll. O0

Just to share, during play test of the draft with "in-system jump" in the Luzerene scenario (There is no jumpships in the scenarios, so we used the warships) , using the draft rules, my gaming partner received the "Time Jump" result. Since we don't have 'Percentile dice', we decided on two separate 2D6 rolls and re-rolling results of 11 or 12 , with the first roll for the last integer in 100 (Being 1 to 10) and the second roll for the second integer in 100 (For '0' to '9' using the second rolls 1 to 10 result) which is modified with the result of the first roll.

The outcome was my partner's Sovetskii Soyuz stuck in time for 87 years... which would put it's emergence in 3146.  :D

Having said that, need the following clarification:

1) While the misjump rules apply for ISW, for the misjump result on "hex" movement in a random direction as stated in the draft, how does that apply on the PAM?

2) Does the central zone of the PAM count as a valid target for the in-system jump and misjump random direction result?

3) Does the "orbital plane" modifier apply to the inner ring around the central zone of the PAM?

The rest of the draft is actually quite readable - just need the clarification as above. Will provide additional feedback when we find any head scratchers.
Issamuel

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9598
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #124 on: 28 November 2014, 22:02:58 »
Okay a bit of a different generic combat element consideration I noticed here.  I was putting together some forces for testing when I ran into something.  The generic combat elements is set up in a way that using them for factions that do not utilize the indicated organizational structure can wind up with some confusion.

The biggest issue as far as I can put together is actually going to be with Comstar/Word of Blake* units.  I know it is currently outside the scope of this particular phase of open beta but I would recommend using a Comstar or Word of Blake unit as an example when doing the unit construction section and perhaps a small section on non-standard organizational schemes and how to reflect them with the current generic values.  Most factions can use the indicated values without issue and be close enough that any inconsistencies at this level of abstraction can be written off as above/below average equipment for the element in question.  Like for example a Clan Solhama Trinary can still use the B quality Heavy Mech generic combat element numbers that assume a formation of 12 instead of 15 as appropriate for the faction due to Solhama getting the short end of the stick in the Clans.  Or going the other way a Solhama  star of tanks can still use B Medium Tanks without issue due to even despite getting the short end of the stick they still tend to get more Clan tech Tanks and Clan Tanks tend to be that little bit better and thus 10 tanks get the stats presented for 12 tanks.

*I'll have to recheck Taurian Tank organization as I know that doesn't follow standard schemes either(it even effects their own Battalions get 4 Companies instead of 3 scheme that is easy enough to replicate with the current setup) to see if that can be a bit confusing as well when trying to recreate and there could be a couple other exotic organization schemes that may not work out to "close enough" I can't think of off the top of my head.

victor_shaw

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #125 on: 29 November 2014, 23:46:57 »

The biggest issue as far as I can put together is actually going to be with Comstar/Word of Blake* units. 


Well i kind of put together a chart to help

type                    Mech/Armor/Inf/ASF
Alpha                          5/0/0/1
beta-zeta                    4/0/1/1
eta-lambda                 3/1/1/1
mu-tau                       2/1/2/1
upsilon-phi                 1/1/3/1
omega                        0/2/3/1

now to use the chart you have to divide the stats listed for the units (except ASF and Infantry) by 2 this will give you a level II
note: thought ASF are counted in the Level III's units they work independently from it (most are deployed at the IV level and sent were needed)

hope this was helpful till we get a official rule

victor_shaw

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #126 on: 30 November 2014, 00:07:18 »
now on to the Generic Equipment Table

1. Infantry seems wrong or i just haven't figured it out
to me it should be broken down Mechanized,motor,jump and foot

2. as mentioned above Comstar/WOB should have a 1/2 element (Level II 6 units vs Company 12 units) for ComGuard construction

3. now im sure this will be in IO IAW but a few example of each groups unit construction from the table would help

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4520
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #127 on: 30 November 2014, 00:46:13 »
Infantry is more...generic, as the differences are exceptionally minimal at this scale.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9598
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #128 on: 30 November 2014, 01:39:18 »
It mostly depends on how combined arms you want to get for Comstar/Word of Blake.

I'm mostly just trying to future proof this particular section really.  I know most of the non-standard organizational schemes well enough* that I can work around some of this but IO and this section in particular can't make the assumption that everyone does know or won't be baffled with the stats as presented when trying to recreate these non-standard organizational schemes.  Plus my experiences with the Fan Councils say that such a section is going to be needed anyway even by the people who do know the schemes, especially with something along the lines of my suggestion that at this level of abstraction the presented stats can be close enough for some organizational schemes.

*Okay I may be not entirely remembering Comstar/Word of Blake organization correctly as for some reason I'm remembering that they did odd things for when they did combined arms formations that the current generic stats could have trouble replicating.  Also as previously noted Taurian Tank formations could be problematic as well.  I need to see if I still have the appropriate PDFs around to read up on these.

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4520
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #129 on: 30 November 2014, 02:47:48 »
In respect to the 208th Division IV-Eta, the six elements were composed of the following:
6 ASF squadrons (36 ASF)
12 'Mech companies (120 BattleMechs)
2 Tank companies (24 Tanks)
2 Battle Armor companies (24 Squads)
4 Infantry companies (12 Platoons)

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9598
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #130 on: 30 November 2014, 03:22:42 »
I do rather suspect for most readers it is not going to be a huge issue, especially when doing a fairly even combined arms approach like that.

It is mostly as I said that the assumption cannot be made and something I've seen come up enough times that I can't repeat enough times that if there isn't something there to address these issues it'll cause headaches that can be avoided with at absolute most 1-2 pages of text.  1 for actually addressing how to achieve said organizations with notations about how the given stats really are close enough for some as is and 1 for examples.  It is an exchange rate I'd say that is totally worth it in my opinion.

And found the Taurian Tank organization.  18 tanks in their Companies.  2-3 units one way or the other I can accept current generic stats as being close enough but that is a bit more noticeable disparity in this case.

ASFs are 8 to a Wing for them as well.  That's close enough with their tendencies and general lack of upgraded designs I can accept current stats as close enough.

Only their mech formations have 4 Companies to a Battalion and as such are really easy to replicate.

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9598
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #131 on: 30 November 2014, 15:02:33 »
Oh and a different clarification while I'm trying to do some force building stuff.

Do those generic Infantry stats also consider the possibility of them having Field Guns?

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4520
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #132 on: 30 November 2014, 16:58:51 »
The Heavy Infantry can be assumed to include the occasional Field Gun unit.

victor_shaw

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #133 on: 30 November 2014, 19:13:12 »
Infantry is more...generic, as the differences are exceptionally minimal at this scale.

was more thinking along the lines of speed which is very impotent to this level of conflict.

victor_shaw

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #134 on: 30 November 2014, 19:16:23 »
In respect to the 208th Division IV-Eta, the six elements were composed of the following:
6 ASF squadrons (36 ASF)
12 'Mech companies (120 BattleMechs)
2 Tank companies (24 Tanks)
2 Battle Armor companies (24 Squads)
4 Infantry companies (12 Platoons)

so the intent is to build from the level IV then breakdown the unit in to level III's ?
« Last Edit: 30 November 2014, 19:23:14 by victor_shaw »

victor_shaw

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #135 on: 30 November 2014, 19:22:18 »
was more thinking along the lines of speed which is very impotent to this level of conflict.

so just a question if i wanted a motor or mechanized infantry unit (jump is more then likely recon inf) would i  just slap a movement of 4 on heavy inf(mech) and,standard inf (motor) ?
this works for me but is this how to do it?

monbvol

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9598
  • Flogging will continue until morale improves
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #136 on: 30 November 2014, 21:22:26 »
Works for me.

I'm still waiting on arranging an opponent to give this a more thorough run through but I'll see what I find at the theoretical level in the mean time.

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4520
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #137 on: 30 November 2014, 23:21:06 »
so just a question if i wanted a motor or mechanized infantry unit (jump is more then likely recon inf) would i  just slap a movement of 4 on heavy inf(mech) and,standard inf (motor) ?
this works for me but is this how to do it?

Well first off, Motorized Infantry cannot go speed 4.  As for Mechanized Infantry, if you want them to have heavy firepower, they're probably only moving speed 3.

victor_shaw

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #138 on: 30 November 2014, 23:33:02 »
Well first off, Motorized Infantry cannot go speed 4.  As for Mechanized Infantry, if you want them to have heavy firepower, they're probably only moving speed 3.
i was just going off the units listed in the force write-ups for the sample scenarios.
but speed 3 sounds fine to me since it matches the battleforce stats
« Last Edit: 30 November 2014, 23:35:46 by victor_shaw »

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4520
  • O-R-E-O
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #139 on: 30 November 2014, 23:34:28 »
i was just going off the units listed in the force write-ups for the sample scenarios.

Ah, well those infantry regiments have light vehicle companies mixed in with them.  A motorized regiment has 7 infantry companies and 2 light tank companies.  A Mechanized regiment is 6 infantry / 3 light tank.  (APCs, ahoy!)

victor_shaw

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #140 on: 30 November 2014, 23:36:21 »
Ah, well those infantry regiments have light vehicle companies mixed in with them.  A motorized regiment has 7 infantry companies and 2 light tank companies.  A Mechanized regiment is 6 infantry / 3 light tank.  (APCs, ahoy!)
works for me

victor_shaw

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #141 on: 01 December 2014, 06:25:15 »
this may sound like a dumb question but a what level do you make morale checks
1.battlegroup
2.regiment
3.battalion

solmanian

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2465
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #142 on: 01 December 2014, 11:17:14 »
this may sound like a dumb question but a what level do you make morale checks
1.battlegroup
2.regiment
3.battalion
That would depend on scale. In SO it was on company, I'd reckon it'll be on battalion on this planetary invasion scenarios, and regiments in the ISW.
Making the dark age a little brighter, one explosion at a time.
Have you met the clans? Words like "Naïve" and "misguided" are not enough to describe the notion that a conquest of the IS by the clans would result in a Utopian pacifistic society.

Welshman

  • Chief Wrangler
  • Battletech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10188
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #143 on: 01 December 2014, 23:50:15 »
this may sound like a dumb question but a what level do you make morale checks
1.battlegroup
2.regiment
3.battalion

Good question- We'll probably do this at the Formation level and see about giving some bonus to larger formations (strength in numbers and all).

I've not been ignoring you all, was out for the holidays and not checking the boards at all.

A lot of great feedback and questions going. Alexander_Knight has all the unit stat questions covered nicely. He's our stats guy from AS on up to ISW.

For most of the rest, a lot of it is variations of existing questions and we are currently working on a new Beta update to address this all.

For the Pirate Point jump rules: Percentile dice, good point. Movement is all by the Interstellar Hex, if you miss, you miss big. We've also cleaned up language on the relation to the PAM. Near Orbit Maps to the Middle Zone and the Outer Zone is used for In System jumps. You can't jump to the Inner Ring, that's like jumping into low earth orbit, not advised for survival.
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

victor_shaw

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #144 on: 02 December 2014, 00:48:19 »
Question
how would i submit my tactics table for use without legal issues ?
P.S not looking for money or anything just to help make the ASC the best it can be (for the love of the game  O0 )

been waiting for a answer to this one so i can post my new and improved tactics table (which my roommate and i have play tested)

also we are about to launch the battle of Galtor III so after action report is forthcoming.
but we need some rule clarification first.

1. has there been a fix to the planetary systems map yet. (periphery to next ring)
2. we are still waiting for damage rule updates (will use mine if its going to be awhile)
3. was going to use the above Tactics Table if no new rule ready for playtesting.
4. was there any parts of the system that needed attention we should focus on.
5.can undamaged/mildly damaged units brakeoff from the formation to keep from getting routed
6. has there been a answer to the how many battalions to a transport squadron question (and how many fighter squadron can they carry)
7. was thinking that a unit that fails to scout would do damage randomly but a unit that has successfully scout could allot 1/2 the damage to a unit of there choice (makes scouting more imported)
 
and to Welshman happy holidays p.s. that what i figure it was or you were writing ACS ver. 2
« Last Edit: 02 December 2014, 01:04:37 by victor_shaw »

victor_shaw

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 354
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #145 on: 02 December 2014, 23:39:50 »
after a long discussion with my roommate.
we determined that ranges don't seem to matter at the scale the game is being played.
and that over the course of a week units would move in and out of all the ranges and not just stay at one
 
suggestion: add the 3 ranges together and divide by 3
or have the average of the short and medium be same hex (scrimmage range) and have long range be one hex (artillery range).

Welshman

  • Chief Wrangler
  • Battletech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10188
Re: Catalyst Asks- Abstract Combat System
« Reply #146 on: 03 December 2014, 19:57:55 »
Hello,

Victor_Shaw, to answer most of your questions, we're working on an update to the rules based on all the feedback. Major overhaul of several sections based on the play test.

Ranges- Yes, over a weeks time range really does even out. However, by keeping the ranges separated we make it possible for players to more easily convert between game systems. We are looking to improve the tactics around this so it matters more.

And with that- I'm going to officially bring the 1.0 playtest of the ACS system to a close. The feedback is generally circling around the same issues and we need to address these to move forward. We will hopefully have an updated version available soon.

Thank you all for your feedback, stay tuned for more.

Joel BC
- BattleTech
-Joel BC-
Catalyst Freelancer

"Some closets will never contain Narnia, no matter how many times we open the door." - Weirdo, in relation to the power of hope.

 

Register