Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback

[Adrian Gideon]

Hello,

Welcome to the Interstellar Operations Beta Feedback.

What are we looking for? Pretty much everything.
- Typos
- Continuity Errors
- Game play feedback
- Rules confusions
- Questions
- Requests

Please note that requests will likely be low on the totem pole for IO final. However on the Campaign side (SBF, ACS and ISAW) we already know we don't have every thing in there (we had to cut Espionage because it is practically it's own sub-game and large in size) we plan to have ISAW supplemental rules in future products. So with that, request away.

Cheers,
Joel BC
Catalyst

[Arthinas]

Page 349, "Major Periphery Powers":

The chart looks a bit confusing and could use some tweaking. There isn't much done to differentiate the total number of factories per Periphery power from the number of factory worlds, and the number of factories per world. And the line at the very bottom of the chart lists just the total for the Taurian Concordat alone.

[Deadborder]

Not errata but a thought. Placing the Wars of Reaving in a Jihad "sub-era" akin to the parallel of the Inner Sphere and Clans for the Succession Wars era would probably make the distinction between the two a bit clearer, especially when it comes to the tech used in such

[Deadborder]

Page 38, "Universal Technology Advancement Table"

Armour (Protomech) is not bolded or in a heading; it's in normal text and looks like it's a part of the Armour (Small Craft and Large Aerospace Craft) section

[monbvol]

Overall I like what I've glanced over but I am a bit concerned about other things.

1. I'm still a bit confused about what exactly it is Hyper Laser modules actually do but that could just be me not having gotten into a deep enough read on them yet.

2. Shouldn't Compact Engines be okay for LAMs as well since they reduce crits rather than increase?

3. Specialty ammunition still has not been clarified for use on LAMs.  I know I've previously suggested altering the rule for specialty ammunitions for use in Aerospace games to be along the lines "yeah you can load them but they largely won't provide their specified bonuses and a couple will do nothing at all" to solve the problem without creating logic holes for why LAMs can't use specialty ammunition.

4. Clarification for certain atmospheric conditions found in TacOps that apply damage to VTOLs and WiGE but not mechs that use jumping MP need to be made for LAMs in Air-mech mode(there may be some other atmospheric conditions that may need to have clarifications on how they apply but that specific one came up in a discussion I had a while back).

5. I am rather concerned that there is still far too much book keeping for the Inner Sphere at War rules even at their simplest levels that my glancing can parse them back to.  This will be getting the bulk of my attention for the coming weeks as this has been the most anticipated part of IO for me as I've longed for a better/easier ISiF ever since it came out in Combat Operations.

[Obvious]

p359 Raiding:
"Raids fall into four broad categories."
5 categories follow.

[ScrapYardArmory]

Page 350, first paragraph.

"The Starting Mercenary Cpombat Commands Table provides"

should be...

"The Starting Mercenary Combat Commands Table provides"

[ScrapYardArmory]

Page 351, the subtitle

"Suply and RP Deficit"

should be...

"Supply and RP Deficit"

[ScrapYardArmory]

Page 350, under the Economics and Logistics Phase...

The first sentence,
"The Economics and Logistics Phase consists of the following steps: Banking Resource Points, Supply, Transportation Pool, and Industry Infrastructure and Production."

Does not match the phases listed on page 345 nor the contents of this phase description.

[Obvious]

p364 Salvage:
"Any result under 6 means all remaining salvage is still available."
Probably should be:
"Any result under 5 means all remaining salvage is still available."

7+: all destroyed
5-6: 1/2 destroyed
4-: all available

[Obvious]

p365 Repair:
Current: "A Combat Command may r Other Morale Events and Modifiers, epair up to..."
Replace: "A Combat Command may repair up to..."


p365 Retreat:
Current: "(see Surrender beloq)"
Replace: "(see Surrender below)"

p365 Surrender:
Current: "...they may offer the honors of or they may inter the surrendering force."
Replace: "...they may offer the honors of war or they may inter the surrendering force."

[ScrapYardArmory]

Page 355.

"Transport Move: Allows a Combat Command to move oneor more Interstellar Map Hexes."

should be...

"Transport Move: Allows a Combat Command to move one or more Interstellar Map Hexes."

[Diplominator]

Alright, I know this is a long shot, but I think it's the last opportunity because if IO gets finalized, it's kinda set in stone. It maybe be too late already but I'd like to try.


I think that Re-engineered Lasers should be better, because it would make more sense and be more fun.


While I recognize that this is ultimately a game about giant stompy robots and the people who drive them, I'm pretty sure we can agree that there is value in things making sense. I would contend that the Federated Suns, which has been able to produce at least small quantities of full-on Clan technology for the better part of a century, should be able to produce something much more capable than the current R-e Lasers. That's the first thing that doesn't make sense to me. The second is that, if it it was the best that they could come up with, they started mounting such an inferior weapon on so many of their high-end designs. Almost anything with R-e Lasers could use pulse or X-pulse lasers instead and be substantially better against the vast majority of enemies, and I think it strains credibility for the Federated Suns to be treating them like the super-lasers that they are not. Deploying them against the Capellans in particular makes no sense, because the Capellans make almost no use of the kinds of advanced armor that would matter.

I think that tweaking R-e Lasers would also make things more fun. As it stands, their utility is almost wholly dependent on what the opponent brings. If you aren't fighting someone with the right kinds of special armor, they are just very hot lasers with a little more damage or very inaccurate pulse lasers with a little more range. If you are fighting someone with the special armors, you will do more damage than usual. Neither is especially interesting and only the latter involves any particular decision-making on the user's part.

On a more meta level, I think it will be disappointing for Federated Suns players if their units are habitually saddled with R-e Lasers. There's precedent; FWL fans still bemoan the Era Of LGRs On Everything. Making them better would alleviate this problem and make for some neat factional differences between designs without making anything quite so outright lackluster.

If any of that sounds reasonable, I've got a couple ideas on how to buff them.

Option 1: Re-Lasers are made from pulse lasers (-2) and heavy lasers (+1). Add them up and give them a -1. That'd at least make them suffer a little less in comparison to standard lasers. Accuracy bonuses are a big deal and losing them is a large part of why R-e Lasers seem so lackluster.

Option 2: They're good at punching through armor, right? Against special types, it defeats the damage reduction, but maybe against other armor types (except Anti-Ballistic Ablative!) they roll TACs like AP autocannons (with penalties based on laser size). This would make the widespread use of R-e Lasers, even against Capellans, make more sense, since they'd have interesting properties against a much wider range of opponents.

Option 3: Go the opposite direction and make them really good against special armor. Right now, their disadvantages make them poor weapons for their tonnage against normal armors, and only marginally better than most other choices against special armor. So, instead of normal damage against special armor, make them do double damage. Make units with hardened armor fear R-e Lasers. There's precedent, with physical attacks and reflective armor.

Those are my ideas; I'm sure you or others might have more. I entirely understand if it's too late to make changes of this magnitude, but I think that as they stand, R-e Lasers are a cool idea, but with too many disadvantages to be worthwhile. This is probably the last chance to make adjustments.

I really hope this kind of thing is what this thread is for.

[Xotl]

2. Shouldn't Compact Engines be okay for LAMs as well since they reduce crits rather than increase?

Yes.  I confirmed this some time ago.

[Adrian Gideon]

I think that Re-engineered Lasers should be better, because it would make more sense and be more fun.

We can take a second look at it, sure, and your post is perfectly fine.
For everyone else: please no discussion on this or any of the errata or suggestions in this thread, unless engaged by any of the developers. Just post your own feedback.

Thanks!

[monbvol]

Yes.  I confirmed this some time ago.

Okay then there is another errata to try and remember for when we do have an errata thread because the text in the LAM construction section made it sound like LAMs could not mount Compact Engines.

We can take a second look at it, sure, and your post is perfectly fine.
For everyone else: please no discussion on this or any of the errata or suggestions in this thread, unless engaged by any of the developers. Just post your own feedback.

Thanks!

Noted Adrian.

More feedback:

Between what Xotl pointed out above as an errata and all the questions I already have LAMs may need a bit of expansion really because they do have a lot of advanced rules to interact with that were written before the return of the LAM.  In fact I dare say it may get to a point with some of this that it could be an idea to split some of this stuff into a third book called Tech Manual Companion.  At least food for thought for the next time CGL decides to re-do the core book series.

More feedback as I dig in more later.

[edit]
After sleeping on it and coming back and re-reading what I wrote I really need to clarify what I mean a bit better.  With all these new unit types and all the rules that they could interact with that were written before these unit types were created could create a situation where there is enough clarification needed where it might be an idea to consider splitting all the construction rules into yet another book.
[/edit]

[bobthecoward]

I am a noon when it comes to the jihad and dark age. The following makes me really confused on the importance

-the Faction discussion of the late dark age makes no mention of the splinter factions. The omission makes it unclear if they mattered.

-I have no idea how common retrotech is in these eras for reading it. LAMs get into some detail about their popularity. So do colossus mechs. I feel in the dark about the retro tech.

[BirdofPrey]

Still no return of dual cockpit rules (unless it's a tripod) :(

====
Is it too late to reorder things?
The way things are laid out in the Alternate Eras units & equipment seems a bit haphazard you skip back and forth between eras, between prototype and experimental equipment (granted, there's not a huge difference between the two), and between basic equipment, and construction rules for new unit types.

Can things be ordered, for instance to group all of the prototype and experimental equipment together, possibly in order of era (multiple era categories can be slotted in the first applicable era), and also have all of the new unit types grouped together.

It might also make sense to have Advanced Piloting Interfaces, Augmented Warriors and Machina Domini proximal to each other in some way, since things like VDNI and EI have components in multiple categories.

[ScannerError]

Thermobaric weapons are currently a bit weird.  The Cannons gain increased damage by using them at no cost while in atmosphere, though I'm not sure if that's intentional or not.  More importantly, the rules for infantry annihilation on page 166 are currently broken.  Infantry fail their test on a 9 or less according to the text, while BA are said to fail on a result less than 7.  For consistency, I'd suggest rephrasing so that both use the same method (ie: a 6 or less instead of less than 7, or less than 10 instead of a 9 or less).  Additionally, as you currently subtract the distance from the impact hex from the 2D6 result, this currently makes it so that ALL infantry more than 3 hexes from the impact hex die instantly, or all BA more than 6 hexes away.  Making it so you add the distance from the impact hex to the 2D6 result should fix this.  Currently, firing a thermobaric weapon would kill all infantry and BA on the planet (and logically all the civilians and other people outside of an armored cockpit) that aren't less than 180m from the target hex, which would soundly place them with the rest of the WMDs just a bit further down in the book.

[pheonixstorm]

pg 45 (numbered 43)

Primitive K-F Core prototype date 2290, production date 2110. Should the prototype be 2090 instead?

pg 39(37)

Conventional Infantry Armor Kit (CC) listed availability BBBB but has a prototype date of ~3045

Haven't noticed any others but I am only skimming over it. Me likely likely so far.

[BrokenMnemonic]

Page 343, left hand column: "...also placed the tiny worlds of Hell’s Paradise and Heraklieone on the red list. Marik could not fathom the logic behind some of those deep strikes; he’d never even heard of Heraklieone before..."

Problem: According to other sources, the system has been named variously Herakleion and Herakleione, but not (so far) Heraklieone - although Herak-lie-one might be a deliberate pun/hint.

Page 17, Star League Era Factions List, Age of War Sub-Era (2300-2570)

I like this table (a lot) but it feels like there are a couple of entries missing. I know there's a caveat that there were other, unlisted powers that are absent because they were militarily insignificant, and some of the early history of the Age is a bit of a chaotic, but would it be possible to alter the faction list slightly? My two suggestions are that the Capellan Hegemony should be included, as the Hegemony appeared in 2270, and was responsible for conquering the Ingersoll Concordium in 2272 and attacking the St Ives Mercantile League in the 2280 before ending up at War with the Sarna Supremacy from 2304-2309/2310. It could be included by amending the Capellan Commonality line to read "Capellan Hegemony/Capellan Commonality : 2270-2366"

The other change I'd suggest is to the Tikonov Grand Union. The original Tikonov Union seems to have been a nation in its own right, as well as (later) some sort of mutual defense organization that included the Chesterton Trade Federation and the Chisholm Protectorate, and was at war with multiple factions at various points, including the Terran Alliance. Can I suggest amending the line to read "Tikonov Union/Tikonov Grand Union: 2177-2366" with a footnote stating that the Tikonov Grand Union includes the Chisholm Protectorate (2265-2335) and Chesteron Trade Federation (2193-2357)? That way, both earlier nations are incorporated from the dates they appear to have come into being up until the conquest of the Chisholm Protectorate by the Terran Hegemony and what looks to be the date the Sarna Supremacy had finished conquering the Chesterton Trade Federation (only to then be attacked by the Federated Suns, targetting former CTF worlds).

Page 17, Star League Era Factions List (2571-2781)

The Illyrian Palatinate is missing from the list - although only two of its worlds appear on the 2571 map in Handbook: House Marik, it appears as a nation in the 2596 map in Historical: Reunification War (p. 158) and the maps in the two Historical: Liberation of Terra Volumes. It doesn't appear to have done much of anything, but as the Oberon Confederation gets a mention, despite apparently consisting of just three worlds before falling apart after twenty years, it seems reasonable to include the Palatinate. On a similar basis, Tortuga Prime appears on the map of 2596 in Historical: Reunification War (p. 159), and the Tortuga Dominions appears full-formed on the map of 2765 in Historical: Liberation of Terra Volume 1 (p.11), so it feels like the Dominions should get a mention too - particularly as it seems to have been a bandit kingdom forever.

Page 22, Early Succession Wars Sub-Era (2781-2900)
Again, the Oberon Confederation appears in its early-three world form, but no Illyrian Palatinate or Tortuga Dominions.

Page 22, Late Succession Wars Sub-Era (2901-3049)
Again, no Tortuga Dominions, although the Greater Valkyrate and the new Oberon Confederation both get a mention - maybe the Tortuga Dominions don't have the right press agents?

I'm also not sure what the criteria are for including the various Deep Periphery nations, but it seems a little odd that the Hanseatic League and the Castilian Principalities/Umayyad Caliphate get mentioned from the Early Succession Wars onwards, but the Chainelane Isles doesn't, given that it's been around presumably as long as the Oberon Confederation, at war with itself for most of that era, and in more recent sourcebooks has started appearing on maps of the Inner Sphere.

[bluedragon7]

p71, prototype Double Heat Sinks
(This means that either all of the “critical-free” heat sinks provided by the 'Mech's engine, per the rules found on p. 53 of TechManual, must either be standard heat sinks, or must be fully allocated on the unit's Critical Hit Table to be replaced with prototype double heat sinks.)

[Shin Yodama]

Pg 66 iATM Launchers

3rd paragraph, first line currently reads: "The iATM may also may use of indirect fire rules"

Replace with: "The iATM may also make use of indirect fire rules" OR "The iATM may also use indirect fire rules".

[Hammer]

Pg 299

League-class Talwar, ........

but on page 231

The Telwar ....

Suggestion:
Change one of the names to match the other

[ScrapYardArmory]

Page 356

"There are 3,500 PV Combat Commands are on a planet"

should probably be

"There are 3, 500 PV Combat Commands are on a planet"

The extra space makes a big difference I think.

[ScrapYardArmory]

Page 356

"at least 50 percent that of the raiding Combat Command, of if that world’s hex is within range of a Patrol (see p. 357)."

Should be

"at least 50 percent that of the raiding Combat Command, or if that world’s hex is within range of a Patrol (see p. 357)."

[skiltao]

The "units and equipment" chapter has a full book's worth of content on a single page-edge tab? Really? And the sub-headings are ordered alphabetically? Not split into chapters for each era, or even just sub-tabs by equipment category? REALLY?

[Welshman]

Overall I like what I've glanced over but I am a bit concerned about other things.

5. I am rather concerned that there is still far too much book keeping for the Inner Sphere at War rules even at their simplest levels that my glancing can parse them back to.  This will be getting the bulk of my attention for the coming weeks as this has been the most anticipated part of IO for me as I've longed for a better/easier ISiF ever since it came out in Combat Operations.

This is as designed. The ISW Campaign rules are not designed for "Beer and Pretzel" play. They are designed for players wishing to run highly detailed campaigns. No amount of simplification will do away with the need for some fairly aggressive "paperwork" requirements. Our goal was to make the system more playable and more comprehensive than the original ISIF rules. The ISIF rules were more a loose template that someone could put a game together with a lot of work. We are hoping ISW will allow a large campaign to be played without the players having to make up a fair chunk of the rules to do so.

So while we are absolutely looking for feedback on the ISW rules, "less paperwork" is not on our list. Players wanting less paperwork are encouraged to just use the War Chest system with the SBF or ACS rules.
 
Thanks,
Joel BC
ISW Developer

[skiltao]

Not trying to pre-empt Monbvol's response, but:

Players wanting less paperwork are encouraged to just use the War Chest system with the SBF or ACS rules.

It may be worth including a note to that effect, if IO's intro to ACS/SBF does not already.

[Welshman]

Not trying to pre-empt Monbvol's response, but:

It may be worth including a note to that effect, if IO's intro to ACS/SBF does not already.

Notes to that effect appear in the SBF and ACS rules