Author Topic: ISaW - Spreadsheets?  (Read 774 times)

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« on: 01 February 2018, 11:04:04 »
Hi folks, rather than re-inventing the wheel, wondering if anyone on here has a good spreadsheet they've developed for economics and/or their order of battle.

Agent # 703

sfsct

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 61
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #1 on: 01 February 2018, 22:34:53 »
Im interested too

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #2 on: 05 February 2018, 15:31:26 »
Ah well.  I put together one of my own.  Built the CC already. 
Agent # 703

Alsadius

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 263
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #3 on: 05 February 2018, 16:56:09 »
Which you will of course post once it's finished, right?  ;D

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #4 on: 05 February 2018, 17:19:43 »
hmmm... in a quandary here; my excel skills are poor at best, meaning that while functional, the spreadsheet in question doesn't look very pretty.

I FEAR the judgment I shall receive...   ::)
Agent # 703

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #5 on: 10 February 2018, 20:15:25 »
Attached is a rough draft of a capcon ISaW sheet, with combat commands for 3025. 

I'm almost finished a FWL version as well. 

Yes, I'm aware it's ugly.  :p

Note that I have broken down mech regiments AND armour regiments by battalions instead, and made them cost accordingly for supplies.  I chose to not do the same for air, though I was sorely tempted.  I am doing the same for the rest of the factions.  Also note that the numbers are based on my own campaign's numbers for regiments and formations attached to each, and not all units have the same level of support (or in a few rare cases, have more than usual support) as a standard CC formation.  I used a number of sources to gain info.  There's also some additional info about various combat commands with their battalion weights, useful for ACS.  Additional info is also present for factory type and what they produce for a house rule I have about limitations on production.  Some is conjecture, but a lot I based on what info I had available from the original House Liao SB, the 4th SW Atlas, and some info gleaned from Historical:Brush Wars.  In regards to unit/battalion weight, where there was a mystery, I actually tried to keep to a formula of approx 30/40/20/10% light to assault weight for mechs.  Surprisingly, it was quite easy with the CC - the few mysteries I had, I simply worked in with that formula and voila. 

Feel free to poke at it, and I'll take constructive criticism I suppose.  I have not locked any formula at this time, as it's a draft, so be careful when looking. 

Edit:  minor updates applied to CC sheet
« Last Edit: 15 February 2018, 23:04:42 by epic »
Agent # 703

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #6 on: 15 February 2018, 23:04:03 »
Updated.  And also including the other powers...
Agent # 703

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #7 on: 15 February 2018, 23:33:54 »
Some design choices; I chose not to round off, as fractional accounting is fun.

Also, I included Brightest Minds for the FS as a Faction ability for 3025.

Consulting original 3025 sourcebooks, I gave extra battalions to all units that are stated as having them. 

Unit weights are conjectural in many cases.  While some sourcebooks were great for giving an approximate weight (Kurita, Davion, Marik) Liao and Steiner were far trickier.  Liao gave at least some assist with the "most common mechs" in the unit.
Where there were mysteries or unknowns, I simply broke down and used regional variability (non-canon) for weight distribution ratios.

Notably, I have done the trade agreements as I saw fit based on my interpret of 3025 politics. 

Morale was also conjectural; I basically went with a formula of 3 on average except with Liao at 4, then made worse/better by whether units were either green, elite, questionable or fanatical.  Occasionally, if I found a note saying the unit was at low or high morale that would also impact it.

I took some of the notes from the Purist in the production thread http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56330.0
and upgraded the LC, but did not quite go the same way.  I didn't feel that the LC needed upgrades to the same extent; that being said, I did add Son Hoa and Inarcs as minors, upgraded Tamar to a minor, Donegal to a major, and turned Hesperus II into the only Hyper Industrial world in the IS, outside of Terra.  If nothing else, I felt that having Hesperus II as a Hyper Industrial world gives the world the flavour to stand out from any other Major Industrial world, and validates it as a target.  Net result; the LC still doesn't have the production RP that it shows in IO, but it is closer... and with all that trade, the LC is huge in RP. 

I tried to find attached armour and infantry for various merc units, and where it existed, added to them.  This also means that some units lack even the basic armour and infantry.  Strategically, I think this is actually why the Houses have the mercs; to augment available House forces with extra shock troops (battlemechs) for campaigns.  Otherwise, there really is very little point to the merc forces, and they draw an inordinate amount of budget in order to retain. 

The default multiplier is set at 2.6 for mercs but can be changed.  By leaving it at 2.6, it almost guarantees that all merc units will stay with that House (barring the dreaded snake-eyes and then a further 1). 

Other than the Brightest Minds faction ability being added to the FS and my ponderings on the weights of the units, the only other thing that is a bit off would be the amounts of units attached to various Combat Commands.  Here, I had to play a bit loose.  I based some units on information from various sourcebooks but as really at this point, only the FS had permanently attached units, I sometimes wince at how big Combat Commands are.  However, when I then look at the large forces attached to each command in the 4SW Atlases, it often fits.  Obviously, everyone else may have different thoughts on what units were attached to each CC - go ahead and adjust! 

I did find that the 2 powers most capable of large scale attacks are the DC and the LC using this.  The other 3 are more capable of limited action.  I'll be curious to see how it all goes...

Next up:  Periphery/minor powers for 3025 and then House Rules.


Agent # 703

Alsadius

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 263
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #8 on: 16 February 2018, 13:49:24 »
I don't even play ISAW, but I find this fascinating on principle. Keep up the good work, man.

The Purist

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 260
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #9 on: 17 February 2018, 02:37:01 »
Here is an out of date example from our game for the FWL. It shows the situation just before the FWL offensive into the Isle of Skye in Aug 3019. Being six months out of date it should not have any impact on the Mar 3020 turn wrapping up now (in case any intel ops are run by lurking/prying eyes).

It should be self explanatory but the x/y values to the bottom left of the command cells note current damage and 25% (frd) replacement cap (to avoid experience hits). Replacements over this value in one turn effects experience levels. It can also note a commands 10% damage for prolonged neglect and the x 1.5 cost to repair.

Naval commands are non-canon but they each possess a light mech regiment cost to cover the production requirements to include  a mech reg't in all builds. They also must have jumpships for the aslt wings so a command of 1 CV, two Aslt wings and their fighters can be quite expensive. Fighter wings can be added at time of purchase w/o JS as long as there is AT# capacity to lift them. The CV wing is designed based on a Vengeance, Achilles and two Avengers in one sqdn plus two regular aslt DS sqdn from CO. We like this home grown answer to navies for the 3rd-4th SW

Commands vary in size as our FWL player is conscience about the supply cost. The problem he has is the Lyran commands are generally larger, even if not canon themselves. The colour schemes note difference between Federal and Provincial commands along with casualty limits before being recalled for rebuilding.
« Last Edit: 17 February 2018, 02:44:49 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

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #10 on: 18 February 2018, 13:42:22 »
That's great!  Probably going to steal some of your ideas on there for mine.

Also, here's the Periphery powers; note that I changed them to only having Regional Capitals, rather than National, as the nations are quite small.  Doing so limits their finances substantially more.

Agent # 703

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #11 on: 18 February 2018, 13:44:04 »
Next up; a GM worksheet for pirates and minor powers.  I may split it into two - one for minor powers and the other for pirates.

Agent # 703

Hairbear541

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 84
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #12 on: 18 February 2018, 22:05:21 »
can't hardly wait .....

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7122
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #13 on: 19 February 2018, 04:31:50 »
Wait, the MoC, OA, and TC AREN'T minor powers? If this was Starfire I'd say their NPR's (Non-Player Races).

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #14 on: 19 February 2018, 11:12:07 »
I'm viewing them as Intermediate powers, and thus that was their starting level of fortifications.  However, the rp chart assumes that they have national capitals rather than regional in IO.  This makes their capital an inordinately large amount of their economy. 

The definitions are a bit loose and not present in IO, but I am going to assume that "minor power" status is for the following:
Minor powers of 3025:
Marian Hegemony
Circinus Federation
Oberon Confederation/Elysian Fields
Illyrian Palatinate
Lothian League
Micah Majority
Niops (but really, only in my head-canon)


Which leaves "tertiary powers" to be things like pirate bands and one world systems or otherwise unarmed.  Also, not even going to mention the Deep Periphery.

Note that as the timeline progresses, it could be argued that the Marian Hegemony grows from Minor to Intermediate status.
« Last Edit: 19 February 2018, 11:14:29 by epic »
Agent # 703

The Purist

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 260
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #15 on: 19 February 2018, 13:20:35 »
I would suggest you shelve any of the periphery powers in 3025 except the MoC, TC and OA, and these should be GM controlled. If you use the historical 'commands' built around the forces assigned to these minor powers in the 1st Edition periphery source book you will find their economies, modified by x0.6 per 2nd SW rules, are weak enough. As NPC entities they can conduct espionage, send out spec ops teams, defend against House sabotage. Their money goes fast and the Houses will need to divert resources to keep an eye on them and their slow growth

To these you may want to add a handful of generic pirate forces (two - six combat teams for raid missions) that can be hired (bidding system works) to strike open frontier areas. This will force players to place a number of commands in areas where they can 'patrol' to intercept raiders or suffer the consequences of the raids.

For 3025 the remaining periphery stats can be ignored. Otherwise the players may just overrun those areas with a few commands and add their new conquests to their economic power. Take, for example, the FWL - it has the ability to overrun everything on its periphery borders with just 10 or 12 commands if the periphery isn't taken out of play. The OA could easily be crushed by the FS or DC (or both) if not 'protected. These minors are probably best used to drain or distract the Houses but not a major focus of attention.

In our current game we only use the three minors and they are GM controlled. The MoC has recently been caught carrying out espionage against the FS for tech as well as sabotaging comms on New Syrtis. The capellans have also been active in trying to draw FS strength away from the Tikonov front and tried more sabotage Rimward in the Capellan march. Then, in Mar 3020, terrorism hits New Syrtis but the culprit is unknown. The FS suspects either Liao or the TC (it was the TC) and has made the case for a punitive strike against the periphery state. I may allow it but it will have certain restrictions based on timing, duration and units allowed to take part. The FS may be allowed to beat up on the TC to prove a point and 'set them back' but not crush them.

Just some thoughts.
« Last Edit: 19 February 2018, 13:36:32 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

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4816
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #16 on: 19 February 2018, 14:10:10 »
The MoC and Taurians would most likely resort to nukes if they were threatened to that degree, even in 3025.  The OA is only "protected" by the fact that if either the DC or FS tries to make a grab, the other can gut punch them hard.  In 3025, there's no way those two powers would agree to a peaceful partition of the OA.  Of course, now that I say all that out loud, I think it only bolsters your case for them all to be NPC powers.

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #17 on: 19 February 2018, 23:55:56 »
With the TC at least, the movement required to bring forces to bear on the TC and then pacifying - in the face of nukes as well as fanatical defence and dug-in - would make any conquest difficult for the FS (or the CC, I suppose).

The OA really DOES exist at the sufferance of the other two.  The only thing that really keeps it alive IMO is that if one of the powers sees resources being spent on a campaign in the OA, the other could use to do a full attack while they're wasting RP.  And they'd gain an instant ally too!

The MoC IMO has the healthiest economy to survive with.  If the FWL expanded in that direction, they've effectively gained a 3 front war. 

Can the powers invade and capture these minor Periphery places?  Yup, there's no argument.  Is the payoff worth it though?  Long term yes, but it would take a while to recoup the RP expended in such a campaign... while the main enemies would again look to prey upon it.


Ah well.  I'll draw up the minors and the bandits anyways, just to have an idea what they look like.  If nothing else, they can form the basis of the generic pirate forces.
Agent # 703

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #18 on: 20 February 2018, 00:07:52 »
out of curiousity though; would not leaving the Periphery powers capitals as actual National Capitals make them too tempting of targets to strike?  A Regional capital at least may not be worth the effort. 
Agent # 703

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4816
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #19 on: 20 February 2018, 05:20:08 »
I think leaving them National Capitals makes them exactly as tempting as they should be.  The point of leaving them as NPC powers is to make sure the cost of giving in to temptation is sufficiently high.
« Last Edit: 20 February 2018, 19:57:51 by Daryk »

epic

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 989
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #20 on: 20 February 2018, 14:33:08 »
I think leaving them National Capitals makes them exactly as tempting as they should be.  The point of leaving them as NPC powers is make sure the cost of giving in to temptation is sufficiently high.

Fair point. 
Agent # 703

Daryk

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4816
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: ISaW - Spreadsheets?
« Reply #21 on: 20 February 2018, 19:58:17 »
Thanks, especially in light of my poor grammar the first time around... :)