Register Register

Author Topic: ISaW Production  (Read 4260 times)

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7192
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #30 on: 30 July 2017, 07:14:53 »
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?

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #31 on: 30 July 2017, 11:11:31 »
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.
« Last Edit: 30 July 2017, 12:00:40 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

worktroll

  • Oldest and fatherless
  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20024
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #32 on: 30 July 2017, 19:04:55 »
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, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #33 on: 31 July 2017, 12:28:43 »
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.
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7192
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #34 on: 01 August 2017, 04:30:18 »
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

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #35 on: 01 August 2017, 12:31:46 »
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.   :)

« Last Edit: 01 August 2017, 12:42:29 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

skiltao

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1113
    • SkilTao's Gaming Blog
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #36 on: 01 August 2017, 14:51:11 »
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. (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?
Blog: currently working on BattleMech manufacturing rates. (Faction Intros project will resume eventually.)
History of BattleTech: Handy chart for returning players. (last updated end of 2012)

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7192
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #37 on: 01 August 2017, 16:37:41 »
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%

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #38 on: 04 August 2017, 00:19:54 »
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).
« Last Edit: 04 August 2017, 00:53:52 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #39 on: 04 August 2017, 00:48:47 »
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.
« Last Edit: 04 August 2017, 00:52:32 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4422
  • Can't you see I'm busy?
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #40 on: 04 August 2017, 03:49:32 »
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.

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7192
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #41 on: 04 August 2017, 05:23:05 »
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.

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #42 on: 04 August 2017, 10:50:56 »
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.
« Last Edit: 05 August 2017, 14:35:05 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #43 on: 04 August 2017, 11:39:40 »
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.
« Last Edit: 05 August 2017, 14:37:37 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4422
  • Can't you see I'm busy?
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #44 on: 04 August 2017, 13:46:01 »
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.

Daryk

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7749
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #45 on: 04 August 2017, 13:52:02 »
Heh... creative accounting for FTW!  ::)

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #46 on: 04 August 2017, 16:52:23 »
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. 
« Last Edit: 05 August 2017, 14:38:16 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

Alexander Knight

  • Peditum Generalis
  • Battletech Volunteer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4422
  • Can't you see I'm busy?
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #47 on: 04 August 2017, 17:16:49 »
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.

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #48 on: 04 August 2017, 17:29:44 »
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.
« Last Edit: 04 August 2017, 17:47:10 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #49 on: 04 August 2017, 17:43:59 »
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.
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1129
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #50 on: 05 February 2018, 14:47:51 »
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...

Agent # 703

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7192
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #51 on: 06 February 2018, 04:02:29 »
I'd say it works off adjusted RP

worktroll

  • Oldest and fatherless
  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20024
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #52 on: 06 February 2018, 04:12:21 »
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 ... ;)
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1129
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #53 on: 15 February 2018, 21:12:56 »
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...

Agent # 703

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #54 on: 17 February 2018, 01:22:05 »
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.
« Last Edit: 17 February 2018, 02:54:26 by The Purist »
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

worktroll

  • Oldest and fatherless
  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20024
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #55 on: 17 February 2018, 13:58:05 »
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.
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

The Purist

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 405
Re: ISaW Production
« Reply #56 on: 18 February 2018, 12:21:27 »
...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.
Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought upon the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

"...Remember also the two "prime directives" in playing BattleTech:
1. HAVE FUN
2. DON'T LET YOURSELF GET SO CAUGHT UP IN THE RULES THAT YOU STOP HAVING FUN"
Page 168 - Reunification War

 

Register