Intelser Forums

Hi everyone :)

I have two significant rules changes I am planning to introduce for Turn 39. Please review and comment:

1) Blockades - I am planning to roll back the Blockade rules to the original (less deadly) version that is listed in the original rules PDF. I will also be replacing the prose description of the results with a table.

1a) Pirate insertion interaction with Blockades - Successful pirate insertion would provide a -2 bonus (or is it  +2? - don't have the PDF with me at work) on the blockade running results roll.

2) Resource Raids - RP gain would be equal to the maximum output of the hex or the FP of the unit used on the raid, whichever is less.

2a) Along with this, errata #31 which capped maximum raid income, will be abolished since this revision would reduce the effectiveness of micro-raids against rich hexes.


Please review and comment  :)

I just wanted to ask a few questions about colonization.

1) Does the cost of colonization include getting a HPG? I know that there was discussion to change the "free" status of this, but at least at one time this was considered too much detail (just like paying maintance fees for FP).

1a) If it is free, what level of HPG is put in? I know at one time it was decided it was a Class A for this era, but I can't devine it from the rules.

1b) If it ISN'T free, what is the proceedure to getting them? Just ask around to the various parties that can do so? While in theory I have an example of a HPG from a clan, I can't use it, nor learn anything from it, but could it still be integrated with the rest of the WoB/Comstar network, or does another purchase have to be made from them?

1c) In theory the HPG is being bought from someone, so if I post a 100 word post on the puppy, do they get a bonus .25 RP (or if a deal could be worked out with the provider to split the effort). I ask as every RP fraction counts, so since I have 2 new worlds with the new group, I don't mind splitting the effort to get a kickback, no matter how small.  :)

2) Since we are going to have the rules being reviewed for future changes, is there any chance of a "colonization" tech tree? Understood if the answer is no, but I thought I would ask, as I was told last time to ask later.

3) Can the requirements for getting the "canon" worlds for recolonization (and attached bonus) be clearified for the start-up? I'm still not sure exactly what is needed for this.

Not in any way negatives, just wanted to ask about this for a while.

Quote from: Jeyar on April 22, 2010, 04:18:47 AM
I just wanted to ask a few questions about colonization.

1) Does the cost of colonization include getting a HPG? I know that there was discussion to change the "free" status of this, but at least at one time this was considered too much detail (just like paying maintance fees for FP).

No. This was never supposed to have been free, but the rule was never enforced under the old adminstration. However, seperate payment for HPGs may go away altogether in the future, for the reasons you mentioned - I'm looking at options to get rid of some of the "detail" items that don't actually serve any game purpose.

1a) If it is free, what level of HPG is put in? I know at one time it was decided it was a Class A for this era, but I can't devine it from the rules.

N/A

1b) If it ISN'T free, what is the proceedure to getting them? Just ask around to the various parties that can do so? While in theory I have an example of a HPG from a clan, I can't use it, nor learn anything from it, but could it still be integrated with the rest of the WoB/Comstar network, or does another purchase have to be made from them?

The underlined section above is true. Of course, if you were to, say, start buying HPG tech from the Clans, the TH might have a thing or two to say, but that's purely a roleplaying issue as opposed to a game mechanical one.

1c) In theory the HPG is being bought from someone, so if I post a 100 word post on the puppy, do they get a bonus .25 RP (or if a deal could be worked out with the provider to split the effort). I ask as every RP fraction counts, so since I have 2 new worlds with the new group, I don't mind splitting the effort to get a kickback, no matter how small.  :)

Yes, the "100 word rule" still exists.

2) Since we are going to have the rules being reviewed for future changes, is there any chance of a "colonization" tech tree? Understood if the answer is no, but I thought I would ask, as I was told last time to ask later.

Most likely, colonization will be totally overhauled when I get around to revising how the R&D rules work.

3) Can the requirements for getting the "canon" worlds for recolonization (and attached bonus) be clearified for the start-up? I'm still not sure exactly what is needed for this.

This is one thing that I plan to do going forward, but other issues have to be resolved first before I can implement a change on this. Basically, its going to boil down to "it needs good RP to back it up; a sourcebook reference is not enough"

Not in any way negatives, just wanted to ask about this for a while.

Let me know if that covers your questions or if I can clarify further.

One Question: Can PFs be moved?

I would say if yes, then we should change that as the PF should be tied to its location, be it a space Station or a Planet. So, moving a PF destroys its purpose IMO.

What do you think, fellas?

I agree with this 100% Marlin. I will mention it do Dave later.

Quote from: Marlin on May 03, 2010, 10:16:11 AM
One Question: Can PFs be moved?

I would say if yes, then we should change that as the PF should be tied to its location, be it a space Station or a Planet. So, moving a PF destroys its purpose IMO.

What do you think, fellas?

Currently, there is nothing in the rule that restricts moving PFs:

Quote
Infrastructure Movement

Hex Improvements (MF, SY, IC, etc) can be moved but require extensive preparations.

One turn before the move is to be executed, the facility must be taken offline for packing. The following turn it is removed from the map and becomes a transported unit with FP equal to its RP construction cost. These transport units may not initiate combat but they may be attacked. Infrastructure transport units move per the normal rules.

Once a transport unit arrives at its destination, it must spend one full turn unpacking, at which point the Hex Improvement will come back online at the new location.

If there is consensus that this should be changed, I have no problem doing so. There is past precedent for relocating a PF (Focht War College), but the circumstances of the ruling are such that I am more than willing to write it off as a one-off special case.

Errr...I thought it was ruled pfs could not move

I'm not sure about the rule, but it would seen that the "Free PF" that comes with a spacestation that has 3 elements should A.) Not be allowed to move from the Spacestation, and B.) be removed if the number dips below 3 Elements.

Does anyone know why Spacestations get this bonus? If it were just a matter of getting a certain number of facilities, there would be places that shouldn't have it, and places that should.

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 03, 2010, 06:05:32 PM
I'm not sure about the rule, but it would seen that the "Free PF" that comes with a spacestation that has 3 elements should A.) Not be allowed to move from the Spacestation, and B.) be removed if the number dips below 3 Elements.

Does anyone know why Spacestations get this bonus? If it were just a matter of getting a certain number of facilities, there would be places that shouldn't have it, and places that should.

If I recall, it was to provide a way to get PFs outside of the very rare roll.

Hey there, I was hit with some rules that made no sense to me and figured to bring it up here.

QuoteIf a WarShip unit takes any damage during simple resolution (but not enough to destroy the entire unit), roll 2d6. On a roll of 5 or less, apply all available damage to the portion of the unit's FP representing the WarShip itself (bypassing fighters, dropships, and other support units). If enough damage was sustained to deplete the WarShip's FP to zero, the WarShip is destroyed.

If a WarShip is lost in this fashion but the overall unit still has FP (from support units), these units become a separate transported 'survivor' unit.

Quote from: Dave Baughman on April 30, 2010, 09:27:08 PM
The damage should be applied to the threatened ships first before any other damage is allocated, so basically the 11.50 FP needed to sink those ships would be consumed first, then the remaining 19.25 would be split evenly over your force.

The second part is the inherant cause of my first issue, so I shall reorganize my comments so that the second issue is first.

The wording of this does make sense in the fact that when facing another navy in a battle, odds are they will try to focus fire on certain warships to bring it down. But I think that to allow Simple Resolution to dictate method of attack is giving it a power that it should not have. I feel that damage from simple resolution should be spread by the % of damage dealt to each Unit on the other side and when a ship is threatened, apply all of the damage for that battlegroup to the Warship first and then the rest of the battlegroup. As this costs me two warships I had to bring this up and am not asking for retrograde action. My ships are dead. I just think this should be the way of things in the future. For all sides.

But although I had issue with that, the main reason for me posting this is that is that I feel that Warship Escorts should be be allowed to be reassigned to other ships present of the "Same Skill" if the Warship is sunk.

IE: E/F escorts of an LF capable ship moging to another E/F LF capable ship

The current ruling destroys the MP associated with these units because the base warship was destroyed. I feel that if there is room for the escorts to replace losses on another equivalant warships in the battle, that reassigned fighters would just fill their natural role instead of saying. "Sorry kiddo, you have to walk even though there's room in the cart."

My interpretation of the rule is that every warship is filled to capacity DS/ASF wise, so loosing the warship means the DS/ASF no longer have a ride, making them use jumpships to move around (transported). Since every warship is always filled those surviving DS/ASF cant hitch a ride on anything else, jumpships cannot be created from nothing so they cannot remain mobile or LiFu equipped.

[Edit]
The replacing of lost units of the same skill can also be done by just repairing a unit and depending on the damage; keep its rating. Though i am not against using orphaned units to replace lost FP right after the battle, keeping caches of replacements floating around would not be a good idea.

Quote from: NVA on May 03, 2010, 06:39:28 PM

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 03, 2010, 06:05:32 PM
I'm not sure about the rule, but it would seen that the "Free PF" that comes with a spacestation that has 3 elements should A.) Not be allowed to move from the Spacestation, and B.) be removed if the number dips below 3 Elements.

Does anyone know why Spacestations get this bonus? If it were just a matter of getting a certain number of facilities, there would be places that shouldn't have it, and places that should.

If I recall, it was to provide a way to get PFs outside of the very rare roll.

Yeah, but what we need to prevent from happing is have someone create a Spacestation, gain a free PF, move that PF, get a new free PF, move....

Quote from: Holt on May 03, 2010, 07:14:48 PM
My interpretation of the rule is that every warship is filled to capacity DS/ASF wise, so loosing the warship means the DS/ASF no longer have a ride, making them use jumpships to move around (transported). Since every warship is always filled those surviving DS/ASF cant hitch a ride on anything else, jumpships cannot be created from nothing so they cannot remain mobile or LiFu equipped.

[Edit]
The replacing of lost units of the same skill can also be done by just repairing a unit and depending on the damage; keep its rating. Though i am not against using orphaned units to replace lost FP right after the battle, keeping caches of replacements floating around would not be a good idea.

I'm not talking about Caching replacements, I'm talking about reassigning them to the ships that are there, replacing the losses on those ships with equivalant skills and not going above the original unit FP. The point you made that does not apply is this...

"Since every warship is always filled those surviving DS/ASF cant hitch a ride on anything else"

The idea that every warship is full, especially right after a battle, is a very big assumption. It's been 4 turns since Sudeten and at the end of Turn 39, my ships still will not be at full capacity.

I copy Fate's suggestion. Leaving Fighter groups that once were Ship based floating free, despite another ship (of same experience or below?), which has also damaged cover groups could take them over is wasteful and bloats the spreadsheets needlessly.

Hmmm...A twist on the rule.  I had thought each SS could only have the one PF.  Once you got it, that was it.  It did not go away.  If you DID move it, you did not create a new one.  But, that was me reading the understanding of the rule, not the letter of the rule.

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 03, 2010, 07:28:23 PM

Quote from: NVA on May 03, 2010, 06:39:28 PM

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 03, 2010, 06:05:32 PM
I'm not sure about the rule, but it would seen that the "Free PF" that comes with a spacestation that has 3 elements should A.) Not be allowed to move from the Spacestation, and B.) be removed if the number dips below 3 Elements.

Does anyone know why Spacestations get this bonus? If it were just a matter of getting a certain number of facilities, there would be places that shouldn't have it, and places that should.

If I recall, it was to provide a way to get PFs outside of the very rare roll.

Yeah, but what we need to prevent from happing is have someone create a Spacestation, gain a free PF, move that PF, get a new free PF, move....

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 03, 2010, 06:05:32 PM
I'm not sure about the rule, but it would seen that the "Free PF" that comes with a spacestation that has 3 elements should A.) Not be allowed to move from the Spacestation, and B.) be removed if the number dips below 3 Elements.

Does anyone know why Spacestations get this bonus? If it were just a matter of getting a certain number of facilities, there would be places that shouldn't have it, and places that should.

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 03, 2010, 07:28:23 PM

Quote from: NVA on May 03, 2010, 06:39:28 PM

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 03, 2010, 06:05:32 PM
I'm not sure about the rule, but it would seen that the "Free PF" that comes with a spacestation that has 3 elements should A.) Not be allowed to move from the Spacestation, and B.) be removed if the number dips below 3 Elements.

Does anyone know why Spacestations get this bonus? If it were just a matter of getting a certain number of facilities, there would be places that shouldn't have it, and places that should.

If I recall, it was to provide a way to get PFs outside of the very rare roll.

Yeah, but what we need to prevent from happing is have someone create a Spacestation, gain a free PF, move that PF, get a new free PF, move....

The idea with the "free PF" was to create an incentive for factions to build space stations and put hex elements on them (since space stations are so time consuming to build). The original rule was not very clear on it, but the criteria for the PF would be:

• PF is gained when three hex improvements are built - free hex elements do not count towards this achievement.
• The free PF only happens once per station. Stations cannot be turned into "PF factories" by exploiting the infrastructure movement rules.

Regarding WarShip saving throws:

The WarShip survival check is supposed to be dangerous; the reason it drops all the available damage on threatened ships first is to ensure that ships still die in large fleet actions. Under the original "Turn 20" rules, a large enough fleet will spread out the damage to the point where it is actually quite hard to kill anything - for example, a 10 ship formation that goes into battle will mean that even the weakest of ships - a 1.5 FP Vincent for example - requires 10x its FP in damage to sink.

Both in the canon literature and in MegaMek, BattleTech is not a friendly environment to WarShips. Weaponry - even that on fighters - outstrips the capabilities of defensive systems and WarShips are essentially always priority targets. The purpose of the WarShip survival roll is to simulate this in simple res without introducing an exploitable mechanism such as letting the attacker designate "priority targets."

This rule probably won't change unless something like force size limits and/or a more regulated method of tracking the composition of flotillas is implemented. Something like that is slated for the future, but is still several turns off (to coincide with the overhaul of the R&D system).


Regarding the fate of orphaned WarShip escorts:

There's no point in mincing words here: WarShip flotillas are an artifact of the 1st edition (pre-turn 20) rules and are broken. Every aspect of WarShip construction, record keeping, and in-out damage behavior is broken.

Until WarShips are fixed - which is among other things entail them losing most/all of their "built in" escorts - there are going to be issues with how survivor FP works mechanically vs. how it should work logically.

I would love to roll in and immediately fix this rule, but as with the issues surounding WarShip survival checks and the R&D system in general this ties into so many other aspects of the rules that I need to go over it carefully to avoid breaking the naval part of the game even more.

In short, please bear with me - things will get better, but to ensure the overall flow of the game isn't disrupted we need to work carefully with regard to fixing some of these issues.

For all the damage that happened in my last played out game, and the focusing fire on ships, the first thing to drop in these games were the Dropships and thruout the game, the fighters. If it takes 10 times the damage to sink the 1.5 FP Vincent, that also makes sense to me, because it would mean, the other side either didn't hit that much or was outnumbered pretty heavily. In my battle, I put my heavily armored ships up front, my more valuable ships in the middle, and my light stuff way in the back so it didn't get taken out in one turn. While some of my valuable ships didn't make it, the Soyuz did because I wasn't stupid enough to put it up front. During the simple rez, I left 3 warships out of it because they were too weak to even hold up againt 1 capitol hit.

http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=267.0

Here. Holt takes on the rule. However, there is much to clarify. Do Blockades block even friendly economy?

Also, if a System is blockaded and subsequently invaded and eventually taken, do the invaders get the blocked (this time according to rules AND common sense) and banked RP income?

If so, some factions would likely get a boost in RP. Foster comes to mind as do all the blockaded worlds of last turn. Granted they were not really rich, but add .25 RP together.

We really need clarification about these points. Thanks.

However,

Quote from: Marlin on May 08, 2010, 07:24:22 PM
http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=267.0

Here. Holt takes on the rule. However, there is much to clarify. Do Blockades block even friendly economy?

Also, if a System is blockaded and subsequently invaded and eventually taken, do the invaders get the blocked (this time according to rules AND common sense) and banked RP income?

If so, some factions would likely get a boost in RP. Foster comes to mind as do all the blockaded worlds of last turn. Granted they were not really rich, but add .25 RP together.

We really need clarification about these points. Thanks.

However,

Hi guys,

First off let me apologize for not catching how unclearly this rule was written when I carried it over from the old set. Many other rules were rewritten for clarity, but it looks like this one went through almost entirely unchanged. Josh's ruling is a correct interpretation of the rules as written and will stand for the duration of this turn.

Effective turn 40, the following errata will be introduced:

• Delete the text in red and add the underlined text

QuoteBlockade
Type: Invasion Movement
Effect: No military forces or supplies can move in, out or through of the Hex any faction save the blockader's
faction. Due to stringent inspection of incoming and outgoing civilian traffic, the economy of the hex is disrupted. The Blockade remains in effect until the blockading faction chooses to cease the blockade or the blockade force is destroyed.

Blockade may be bypassed with Blockade Running orders or with Pirate Transit*

During a Blockade no RP from the target hex may be used even if the blockade force is from the faction that owns the hex. and It may only  be banked a maximum of one cycle, but any subsequent income is lost. in addition No troop or Flotilla movements will be   is allowed in, out or through the hex unless Blockade Running, Pirate Transit*, or Allied Movement is used.

*The presence of a Blockade imposes a -2 penalty on pirate transit attempts. A failed transit into or out of a blockade hex allows the blockade force the option of immediately attacking the interlopers.

Please let me know if this resolves the questions about the intended process flow for blockade behavior or if I can further clear things up.

so basiclly, trying to defend a hex with a blockade means you trade your planet's entire RP income, to impose a -2 on pirate transit rolls...

for a single turn, because otherwise you lose all income. Could i sugest something?

Instead of being able to only bank a single turn's RP, and then loose everything, allow the RPs from the planet to be used for projects on that planet(hex improvments on the planet, building units with SY or MFs), or be allowed to bank it indefinetly. You wouldn't lose the raw materials that would be getting shipped off planet, they'd just sit in a warehouse.


I just think that it doesnt make sense that in attempting to defend your planet, you are forced to embargo it. You might aswell just let someone raid it. Either that, or change Defensive Interdiction to grant the -2 against Pirate Transits, and make Defensive Blockade a more powerful version. Because it's negetives far outweigh a -2 to pirates imo.

So there is no such thing as a "Defensive" Blockade, to try to only hurts you.
Interdictions only apply to stopping forces during battles where Pirate Points were not used.
And no amount of preparing for raids can help defend against them?

I understand that it would really hurt raiders if a -2 penalty was applied to Raid Insertion rolls making it a lot harder for raids to be initiated thereby reducing the amount of play we get.

I do not have nearly as much issue with there being no defensive action you can take to improve your raid defense, be it with engaging the raiders before landfall or after, as I do with the current way the Resource Raids are handled.

Even with the new wording being put into play for raids, the wording would allowing ground assets to take space assets and assets on other planets in a system so that in essense, a raid unit attacking a three planet system such as Alphard can raid Stafford, a non-control world that probably has militia only with 10 FP and walk away from the system with tons of goods from planets that had defenders such as Alphard and Suetonius, and sometimes, even assets from a faction you didn't even declare you were attacking against.

Quick question that is probably in the rules but I missed... What do the Dark count as for dealing with posting attacks - IS or Clan?

I'd prefer IS, but I'm flexible.

Quote from: Daemonknight on May 10, 2010, 01:44:08 PM
so basiclly, trying to defend a hex with a blockade means you trade your planet's entire RP income, to impose a -2 on pirate transit rolls...

The was blockade was written, it isn't even legal as a defensive measure - which is not/not what was intended. The errata changes blockade from an invasion order to a movement order, which means it can be used in friendly hexes, or against empty hexes or hexes that only contain member worlds.

The tradeoff for "defensive" blockade, however, is that it prevents normal mercanitle activity from taking place. Thus, "defensively" blockading a capital isn't a good long-term solution because it will eventually shut down your RP gain from that hex - but a long-term blockade on a border region is more viable because the .25 RP/turn or whatever the control world there is giving you is a viable trade-off for the major defensive bonus granted by the blockade.


for a single turn, because otherwise you lose all income. Could i sugest something?

Instead of being able to only bank a single turn's RP, and then loose everything, allow the RPs from the planet to be used for projects on that planet(hex improvments on the planet, building units with SY or MFs), or be allowed to bank it indefinetly. You wouldn't lose the raw materials that would be getting shipped off planet, they'd just sit in a warehouse.

Currently, I'm not planning on removing the RP dropoff from blockades, but it is worth noting that this only affects RP. Military production, R&D, and all other functions of the hex are not impeded by the rule as written, so you can still "funnel" RP into the hex from other locations to run its MFs, SYs, and otherproduction facilities.

I just think that it doesnt make sense that in attempting to defend your planet, you are forced to embargo it. You might aswell just let someone raid it. Either that, or change Defensive Interdiction to grant the -2 against Pirate Transits, and make Defensive Blockade a more powerful version. Because it's negetives far outweigh a -2 to pirates imo.

There are two options for system defense; interdiction doesn't cause economic issues and doesn't tie down mobile units, but also doesn't grant as large a defensive bonus. The added benefits of blockade - the extreme difficulty of bypassing the blockade and the -2 penalty on pirate rolls - are offset by the economic degredation it causes when used in highly developed hexes. Basically, its a "risk vs. reward" type equation. If you know you are going to get hit in turn X, youcan blockade it for one turn, bank the RP, and get the benefits. If on the other hand you want to use blockade as a long-term defensive strategy, its going to start to cost your faction.

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 10, 2010, 02:06:39 PM
So there is no such thing as a "Defensive" Blockade, to try to only hurts you.
Interdictions only apply to stopping forces during battles where Pirate Points were not used.
And no amount of preparing for raids can help defend against them?

the eratta should restore the defensive benefits of the blockade order.

Quote from: Jeyar on May 10, 2010, 03:09:56 PM
Quick question that is probably in the rules but I missed... What do the Dark count as for dealing with posting attacks - IS or Clan?

I'd prefer IS, but I'm flexible.

Well, not to be contrary, but I'd prefer if you treat the Dark as a Clan faction so we can keep it all in one place. They are Smoke Jaguars, after all...

In my opinion, Blockades are still not defensive measure even with the new errata. It's not worth blockading systems that only produce the .25 RP in your example, and the systems that could actually benefit from it would break some factions bank, even going to a point past the 50% limit that raiding could inter.

Can there be something in between? Sort of a: "we know a pirate point will open up so we are already looking at that point, but we're not going to stop traffic that is acting properly orderly" type thing.

So I am right in my assumption that attacking forces gain something out of it? Means foster and some other tiny RP. But I am not picky.

The current / old incarnation of the blockade rule has allowed for defensive blockades in the past.  I know the Adders lost a good bit of a cluster to the NA while raiding Niops. 

Just a question that has been nagging at the back of my mind since I joined and said, why don't the Ravens have any Recharge Stations. Are there any actual benefits for having One?

+5 MP and 1 RP generation seem pathetically insignificant compared to the investment.

No significant MP Generation, no movement bonuses.

The possibility to gain more MP per cycle, or increase maximum jump distance by 1 for KF or 2 for LF drives seems logical.

My stops at Recharge Stations in the past are little more then RP opportunities to stage a trial for charges that do no actual In-Game benefits.

Quote from: DisGruntled on May 10, 2010, 05:22:37 PM
The current / old incarnation of the blockade rule has allowed for defensive blockades in the past.  I know the Adders lost a good bit of a cluster to the NA while raiding Niops. 

This is basically the old issue we've been struggling with for a long time of the rules saying one thing and the GMs saying another. Josh correctly ruled on the Blockade rules as written - we all know this isn't how they've been run in the past, but that was part of the problem: the rules weren't enforced the way they are written.

Because this issue was brought to my attention, the rule is being changed to reflect the way it was supposed to (and the way it has) worked "unofficially" in the past... but I made a promise to certain folks on this board that I would not do mid-turn errata, so I'm going to stick to that.

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 10, 2010, 03:54:09 PM
In my opinion, Blockades are still not defensive measure even with the new errata. It's not worth blockading systems that only produce the .25 RP in your example, and the systems that could actually benefit from it would break some factions bank, even going to a point past the 50% limit that raiding could inter.

The financial costs of blockade haven't changed since the day FGC was launched - they have always disrupted the hex's RP generation. Ultimately, the decision as to whether or not to put a friendly system under blockade is going to come down to a cost/benefit decision on the part of the naval commander. For obvious reasons, the choice of whether or not to blockade a hostile system is a lot easier to make.

Quote from: Jeyar on May 10, 2010, 04:07:58 PM
Can there be something in between? Sort of a: "we know a pirate point will open up so we are already looking at that point, but we're not going to stop traffic that is acting properly orderly" type thing.

I'm open to having some sort of a "anti-piracy patrol" order. In fact, Holt and I even wrote one back in the day and were promptly ignored (lol). I will try to dig up the old rules and post it in the turn 41 rules thread once I open it.

Quote from: DisGruntled on May 10, 2010, 05:22:37 PM
The current / old incarnation of the blockade rule has allowed for defensive blockades in the past.  I know the Adders lost a good bit of a cluster to the NA while raiding Niops. 

This is absolutely correct. The combination of the "flexible" interpretation of the blockade rules and the excessively deadly blockade running rules cost many factions - even as recently as the WIE last turn - massive losses. Our issue is that we've hit a case where none of the GMs going all the way back to turn 20 were properly adjudicating "defensive" blockades by the rules as written. As I mentioned above, we're fixing the rule, but we're still trying to uphold the policy of not doing mid-turn errata, even if it seems like a good idea at the time.

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 10, 2010, 05:25:14 PM
Just a question that has been nagging at the back of my mind since I joined and said, why don't the Ravens have any Recharge Stations. Are there any actual benefits for having One?

+5 MP and 1 RP generation seem pathetically insignificant compared to the investment.

No significant MP Generation, no movement bonuses.

The possibility to gain more MP per cycle, or increase maximum jump distance by 1 for KF or 2 for LF drives seems logical.

My stops at Recharge Stations in the past are little more then RP opportunities to stage a trial for charges that do no actual In-Game benefits.

Recharge stations are a waste of money and resources. Basically, they are a cheap, floppy band-aid for the factions that lack the infrastructure or the design access to make warships. If I were a player, the only RS hex improvements I would get would be ones from random events, because I would not be caught dead spending money on them.

That's just my personal opinion as a former player though.

QuoteRecharge stations are a waste of money and resources. Basically, they are a cheap, floppy band-aid for the factions that lack the infrastructure or the design access to make warships. If I were a player, the only RS hex improvements I would get would be ones from random events, because I would not be caught dead spending money on them.

That's just my personal opinion as a former player though.

Well, you have my suggestion to make them somewhat useful for the massive costs and to make the Random event mean something. At the cost of 72 RP, if you divided that by 5, you could round to 15 charges per station. Something worth something. Give the stations a +15 MP value that matches the Carrier bunus, and allow each station to add that many extra hexes to units moving thru the hex on the 1 for KF, 2 for LF bonus. Or something like that. RS stations should be something to covet. ;) <<Eyes the Sharks>>

I've long wanted to make Recharge Stations more powerful as well.  Either more MP, or more RP (its quite the stimulent to trade to have one, after all) or both would be best.  Or lower the cost.  But I'd love to see more little elements that are non millitary that are still desirable.

Using it akin to the revenue from HPG networks would be interesting.

But going back to some of the other talk, I had to reread a portion of the rules so I could effectively ask the questions regarding the Blockade vs Interdiction arguement, and with the new clear definition of Blockading, I can not find the definition of the Battle / Invasion term for Interdiction. I know that you have to do at least 25% damage to the interdiciting force to get past it, but with the hasty allowances of the intediction nature, it seems like if someone switched their Naval Engagement forces to Interdiction, that they would in effect be cancelling their Naval Engagement and switching to Blockade. Would this force an engagement? Shifting a force away from Naval Engagement would cease putting pressure on a unit to flee, unless of course the unit had the resources to split their attack.

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 10, 2010, 09:02:59 PM
Using it akin to the revenue from HPG networks would be interesting.

But going back to some of the other talk, I had to reread a portion of the rules so I could effectively ask the questions regarding the Blockade vs Interdiction arguement, and with the new clear definition of Blockading, I can not find the definition of the Battle / Invasion term for Interdiction. I know that you have to do at least 25% damage to the interdiciting force to get past it, but with the hasty allowances of the intediction nature, it seems like if someone switched their Naval Engagement forces to Interdiction, that they would in effect be cancelling their Naval Engagement and switching to Blockade. Would this force an engagement? Shifting a force away from Naval Engagement would cease putting pressure on a unit to flee, unless of course the unit had the resources to split their attack.

I'm not 100% sure I understand the question, so if I don't give you a clear enough answer please elaborate and I'll try again. Changing from naval engagement to interdiction (or some other order) or vice-versa can sometimes impact the flow of battle.

Scenario 1: Ground forces with ASF escort are trying to leave a system; the enemy's ASF indicates they will offensively interdict. In this case, the fleeing ASF escorts could switch from Move to Naval Engagement. Because of the quirks of the offensive interdiction order, this would in turn force the enemy to change from Offensive Interdiction to Defense, causing the ground forces to get away (since they aren't interdicted any more).

Scenario 2: A defending force on defensive interdiction is facing an attacker on naval engagement orders. The defending force (for whatever reason) switches from defensive interdiction to naval engagement and/or defense. This does not/not stop the battle, as a force on naval engagement can legally fight a force on naval engagement or defense.

Scenario 2a: As above, but the defender actually switches from Defensive Interdiction to Move. In this situation, the attacker could actually switch to Offensive Interdiction in response and try to prevent the defender from fleeing. This in turn could lead to Scenario 1.

Scenario 2b: A defending force on defensive interdiction is facing an attacker on Break Interdiction orders trying to brute-force through with a large ground force. In this case, if the defender switched from defensive interdiction to, say, defense the battle would be cancelled altogether as ground forces cannot use Naval Engagement. Of course, the attacker would also be able to land unopposed.

Scenario 3: Defender and/or Attacker is on any orders and wants to switch to Blockade: this cannot occur. Blockade must/must be on the orders sheet.


Does that cover the interactions you were wondering about? If not, let me know and I will try to cover more.

The definition of a Aerospace Interdiction seems to be for the purpose of blocking people from coming or going. What I'm saying is that ...

Someone comes to Invade a planet and the invaders initiate a Naval Engage a forces in space.

Clan Wombat enters the system with the CWBS Wombat Vengeance, a Nightlord Class Battleship. The House Baughman troops realize their Fox Class ADBS Big Poppa transport can't stand up to that much firepower.

Seeing there's no Blockading force, The ADS Big Poppa decides to leave the system.

However, seeing their prey leave, the CWBS Wombat Vengeance, moves to interdict their departure.

It's not a blockade, and is allowable during Battle and Invasions per the rules.

But seeing that CWBS Wombat Vengeance, is set up to hold them, the ADS Big Poppa immediately ends it run for the jump point and stays in system.

If the CWBS Wombat Vengeance, moves in, the ADS Big Poppa  makes a run for it again, rinse and repeat until you're doing the cha-cha.

OK, I follow what you are saying.

The combat orders system isn't intended to be a perpetual motion machine. Technically, the frustrating and poor-sportsmanship-full runaround that you described below would be a legal way to drag out a battle, but it would only accomplish three things:

• Pissing the GMs off
• Resulting in simple res (which would still kill Big Poppa, since every single legal orders combination in this scenario results in it fighting)
• Losing Big Poppa's player lots of karma as the other players press the smite button of the shenanigans

The situation you described is certainly a way a player could try to abuse the rules, but sooner or later the turn would end and the GMs would come in to clean up the thread - at that point, the two forces would have to clash to resolve that op round's combat.

And honestly, a much more likely outcome would be the GMs intervening earlier in the turn. I'm all about enforcing the "rules as written," but trying to 'win' by giving someone the run around until they get frustrated and give up/quit/whatever isn't cool.

After reading the Taurian main timeline history, I thought once again about loans.

I mean if the TC could ruin their economics in part due to loans, is there any chance that we could do some internal loans ourselves?

Quote from: Jeyar on May 11, 2010, 03:05:02 AM
After reading the Taurian main timeline history, I thought once again about loans.

I mean if the TC could ruin their economics in part due to loans, is there any chance that we could do some internal loans ourselves?

Well, this one has a two part answer:

• There's nothing wrong with taking a loan from a different faction - that's up to you guys to work out the terms of repayment.
• Internal loans are a different story, because FGC doesn't have any kind of deficit spending rules. Flashpoint has something like that, but we haven't carried it into FGC.

Now, if there's a consensus that FGC wants to import the Flashpoint deficit spending rules, I'd have no problem with doing so.

I have a clarification question: Trading rules no longer apply, right?

At least I did not see them.

Quote from: Marlin on May 11, 2010, 06:21:58 PM
I have a clarification question: Trading rules no longer apply, right?

At least I did not see them.

Was there a specific part you had in mind? I removed a lot of rules that had been superceded or were no longer in force regarding trade. In general the only rule for trade is that both parties have to agree to the deal and the RP should be either posted on the boards or PM'd with the GMs copied.

Only in extreme or wildly OOC situations would the GMs deny a trade.

I'm sorry if my attempt to bring a little humor into the question was annoying to you. But I'm still not clear on what the definitions of "Interdiction" the battle manuever is.

I would say to avoid the space dance I describled to fall back on the initiative roll.

But also, I wanted to know what happens when a unit tries to break thru an interdiction? As stated many times this is not a Blockade, so we can not apply the rules for Blockade to the interdiction Quiaff?

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 12, 2010, 04:27:32 PM
I'm sorry if my attempt to bring a little humor into the question was annoying to you. But I'm still not clear on what the definitions of "Interdiction" the battle manuever is.

I would say to avoid the space dance I describled to fall back on the initiative roll.

But also, I wanted to know what happens when a unit tries to break thru an interdiction? As stated many times this is not a Blockade, so we can not apply the rules for Blockade to the interdiction Quiaff?

As for the definition of interdiction, this type of action is covered by two specific orders: Offensive Interdiction and Defensive Interdiction. Both of them are defined in detail in the orders section of the rules page.

Quote
Defensive Interdiction
Type: Special
Requirement: Aerospace units
Effect: Successful interdiction prevents attacking transports from landing their troops. This is the default combat order for defensive aerospace and naval forces, and may be changed before the engagement if the defending player so chooses. If an interdiction is cancelled, there is nothing to stop the transports from landing.

Note: Naval Engagement or Break Interdiction orders can be used to penetrate interdiction. If 25% of the interdiction force is destroyed, the interdiction fails and is no longer effective.

Offensive Interdiction
Type: Special
Requirement: Aerospace units
Effect: Successful interdiction prevents defending transports from retreating from a system. Offensive Interdiction is only possible where no hostile forces are on interdicton, blockade, or naval engagement orders.

Note: Naval Engagement or Break Interdiction orders can be used to penetrate interdiction. If 25% of the interdiction force is destroyed, the interdiction fails and is no longer effective.

If a unit tries to break through an interdiction it is done in one of two ways:

• Naval Engagement - in this case the two forces fight and if the interdicting faction takes 25% or more losses, the interdiction is broken
• Break Interdiction - this order allows a force that normally couldn't do naval engagement (like ground troops) a chance to break interdiction at the cost of heavier losses. They still have to do 25% to escape.

The rules for Blockade, which are considerably less favorable - especially for units that cannot use naval engagement - don't apply at all here.

I must be blind as a bat :P Thanks for the repost. :P Will look for the Break Interdiction rules for units that have no ASF assets to learn more

I meant the loop to create boni for the trading factions. Standard trade of course is still in action.

Quote from: Dave Baughman on May 11, 2010, 07:53:49 PM

Quote from: Marlin on May 11, 2010, 06:21:58 PM
I have a clarification question: Trading rules no longer apply, right?

At least I did not see them.

Was there a specific part you had in mind? I removed a lot of rules that had been superceded or were no longer in force regarding trade. In general the only rule for trade is that both parties have to agree to the deal and the RP should be either posted on the boards or PM'd with the GMs copied.

Only in extreme or wildly OOC situations would the GMs deny a trade.

The R&D results that lead to the huge trade bonuses were eratta'd out of the game by Ashenwelt during his administration, so they haven't been in the game for a while (though the public version of the R&D charts was never updated). Overhauling R&D more thoroughly is on my 'to do' list for the future, so eventually there will be a new results chart.

I'd like to have some sort of trade incentive event like that in the future, but it'll have to be rebalanced since the version in the old rules was (I think we can all agree) overpowered.

Quote from: Marlin on May 12, 2010, 06:31:44 PM
I meant the loop to create boni for the trading factions. Standard trade of course is still in action.

Quote from: Dave Baughman on May 11, 2010, 07:53:49 PM

Quote from: Marlin on May 11, 2010, 06:21:58 PM
I have a clarification question: Trading rules no longer apply, right?

At least I did not see them.

Was there a specific part you had in mind? I removed a lot of rules that had been superceded or were no longer in force regarding trade. In general the only rule for trade is that both parties have to agree to the deal and the RP should be either posted on the boards or PM'd with the GMs copied.

Only in extreme or wildly OOC situations would the GMs deny a trade.

Ok. Thats what I wanted to know. :)

Thanks.

I have a minor question regarding Interdictions: if 2 or more factions interdict together, do they count as one group? Or should they be treated separately?

Background of my question is the Multi-faction Op, where you need to post all at once, and need commanders and then it counts as one party.

I also remember the fights of Adder Beta Naval Star, where the hunting forces were taken on separately?

Could be wrong, though.

Quote from: Marlin on May 12, 2010, 08:21:50 PM
I have a minor question regarding Interdictions: if 2 or more factions interdict together, do they count as one group? Or should they be treated separately?

Background of my question is the Multi-faction Op, where you need to post all at once, and need commanders and then it counts as one party.

I also remember the fights of Adder Beta Naval Star, where the hunting forces were taken on separately?

Could be wrong, though.

Multiple factions can only combine their forces for interdiction if they follow the rules for coordinated operations. Otherwise, they would be two separate interdiction forces.

Do interdictions stop Hostile Territory movement automatically? No Raid Transit rolls?

http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=281.msg3624#msg3624

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 17, 2010, 06:25:31 PM
Do interdictions stop Hostile Territory movement automatically? No Raid Transit rolls?

http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=281.msg3624#msg3624

Hostile Movement can be engaged by any ASF in the hex, does not matter for what purpose the movement is being done for.

Understood, but no chance at Pirate insertion or Raid Transit?

QuoteThe attacking player must identify the hexes traveled, one at a time, to the defender (via forum post or PM with a CC to the GM's). In each situation, the defender may be provided the FP value and given the option to engage or ignore. All engagements are naval/aero by nature, and are forced.

Sadly no.

Pirate transit avoids all air defense, so effectively it will prevent a hostile hex owner from stopping movement. It will not, however, prevent hostile travel from preventing combat operations based on the number of hexes moved.

Just to give everyone a heads up, I edited the Technology Transfer rule today. The rule was not changed, but I had written it in gibberish and put in wrong/incomplete information when I copied it over. The rule now reflects the correct reading of it (the way it worked prior to the move - no changes to it).

Question: Are Damage done by Orbital Bombardment still open to salvage? Those units are kinda squishy. :P It occurred to me that units that OB and never land have no chance at possible salvage.

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 18, 2010, 04:39:14 PM
Question: Are Damage done by Orbital Bombardment still open to salvage? Those units are kinda squishy. :P It occurred to me that units that OB and never land have no chance at possible salvage.

The "unofficial official" rule from the old boards that units that took more than 2x their FP are unsalvageable is currently not an official rule, so orbital attack casualties can/can currently be salvaged.

This may change in the future, as the 2x rule was actually a pretty good one. Too bad it never got documented in writing  ::)

Question: where in the rules does it discuss damage dealt by an orbital bombardment? i might have my hand forced into one...

The pertinent orders are these:

Quote
General Orbital Bombardment
Type: Battle
Effect: Damage or destroy all hex elements on a specific planet. Roll 2D6, 2 – 10, that is the number of turns that hex elements will not produce resource points, on an 11 or 12, all the hex improvements are destroyed.
Note: May only be completed by WarShips. The use of this order cannot be concealed with Disseminate Disinformation.

Quote
Tactical Orbital Bombardment
Type: Battle
Effect: Ground targets will suffer considerable damage with no ability to return fire. For every 10FP of warships, the opposing faction's ground forces suffer 2D6 damage in FP. For every roll of 2 or 3, the faction's own ground units suffer 2D6 damage in FP due to friendly fire. Defending units may react with Scatter orders to reduce damage.

also noteworthy is:

Quote
Scatter
Type: Special
Effect: Forces can be scattered to avoid orbital attacks. Scattering makes all but 2d6+5% of the force immune to orbital attacks, but also leaves 2d6% of the force out of position and unable to participate in the next round of combat (invasion scenarios).

I should bring this up, as I don't want to be cheating, even if it hurts me.

I was told a while ago that ammo types didn't count towards your unit being level 1 or 2. I believed it, even if at the time the TC didn't have cool ammo. We do now have access to such, and while I have not been accused of cheating, I just want to make sure that I am not in fact doing so.

To sum up, if you have a "level 1 unit" and you are using special ammo, does that mean you actually have a level 2 unit?

I'm hoping it is still a no, but I want to make sure.

Quote from: Jeyar on May 20, 2010, 11:38:13 PM
I should bring this up, as I don't want to be cheating, even if it hurts me.

I was told a while ago that ammo types didn't count towards your unit being level 1 or 2. I believed it, even if at the time the TC didn't have cool ammo. We do now have access to such, and while I have not been accused of cheating, I just want to make sure that I am not in fact doing so.

To sum up, if you have a "level 1 unit" and you are using special ammo, does that mean you actually have a level 2 unit?

I'm hoping it is still a no, but I want to make sure.

This was never defined one way or another in the FGC rules; if you wanted to go strictly by Total Warfare, ammo selection would be limited by rules level - but that's kind of silly for a late 3060s era campaign.

This is further complicated by the fact that there is no "Level 3" unit type available in FGC, and every faction has at least some Level 3 ammo types (and equipment for that matter) in play -- artillery. I know that some factions have also developed through R&D advanced ammo types that are in the old category of Level 3 (that is to say "Advanced Rules" and/or "Experimental Rules" under the new system).

My inclination is to say that if a faction has a certain type of ammo, any of their units can use it, even if their 'Mech or vehicle designs only contain Introductory-level technology (i.e. Level 1).

I see no problem with allowing special munitions to standard units, but must make special note that Militia are not standard units.

I do believe Jeyar's cuiosity was peaked when I saw "Where the hell did those Tandem Charges come from!?"  :o

Well, I did find my comment about that - but it was way early and in the middle of bunch of updates - but I FULLY agree that I should have stressed it until I knew it was known by you. :P As a ballance, I was shocked when I found out MM wouldn't let my infernos hit vehicles or open fields.  :o

LOL, you had that option turned off, so I didn't turn it on when I did the settings. :P

Actually, I've just learned (well, a few days ago) how easy it is to "reset" options for a new game when I gave out the password the game before. Some of the things that were in there for selections I have no idea why anyone would pick in the first place, but it does explain why the games never seemed the same.  ;D

I do have another question. I accidentally read the thread from the FWL (I try not to read threads that don't involve the Taurians), or at least part of it, and I noticed the trading of the HPG tech. It got me thinking:

1) I thought we couldn't trade HPG tech (I have a unused and nearly unusable HPG to testify to that)?

2) Just how much IS made by those in charge of a HPG network per world with a HPG? Does the world being a member vs. local capitol (or anything else) make any difference to the HPG owners (instead of the renters)?

3) Since I have had so many HPG blown up reciently, who do I go to to buy replacements? Is the fact that some nations have the ability known - or is it a secret, or do I just assume that the CA will take an order for a new HPG "at cost"? ...actually, that brings up a new question.

4) Does the cost of a replacement HPG HAVE to match the cost of the HPG makers internal production cost, and if not, which does the rules cost amount reflect: Real cost or common market cost?

Quote from: Jeyar on May 26, 2010, 09:26:02 PM
Actually, I've just learned (well, a few days ago) how easy it is to "reset" options for a new game when I gave out the password the game before. Some of the things that were in there for selections I have no idea why anyone would pick in the first place, but it does explain why the games never seemed the same.  ;D

I do have another question. I accidentally read the thread from the FWL (I try not to read threads that don't involve the Taurians), or at least part of it, and I noticed the trading of the HPG tech. It got me thinking:

1) I thought we couldn't trade HPG tech (I have a unused and nearly unusable HPG to testify to that)?

This is correct; factions cannot directly transfer their comm status to another faction under the current rules.

2) Just how much IS made by those in charge of a HPG network per world with a HPG? Does the world being a member vs. local capitol (or anything else) make any difference to the HPG owners (instead of the renters)?

2.0 RP per IC. The world type doesn't make a difference.

3) Since I have had so many HPG blown up reciently, who do I go to to buy replacements? Is the fact that some nations have the ability known - or is it a secret, or do I just assume that the CA will take an order for a new HPG "at cost"? ...actually, that brings up a new question.

Any nation that can make HPGs can sell them. ComStar and Word of Blake will build HPGs at cost, but they will not sell them to anyone - they insist that their compounds are Terran territory like an embassy or consulate, and that they retain ownership of everything inside. Last time someone challenged them on this, they blew up their own HPG cores rather than give them up. Other factions that can make HPGs can of course sell them/lease them/whatever on their own terms; that's a roleplaying issue.

4) Does the cost of a replacement HPG HAVE to match the cost of the HPG makers internal production cost, and if not, which does the rules cost amount reflect: Real cost or common market cost?

No, player-built HPGs can be sold for as much or as little as the seller wants.

Actually, in terms of what the worlds with HPG make for the HPG owner, I was more talking about the "normal" worlds - for a while I think it was 1 RP per turn (which seemed amazing as most worlds were making much less), and then the last I heard was IIRC a quarter.

I mean if HPG don't make money for anyone, then how did the CA build so much, and why resist letting others take over the burden?

Quote from: Jeyar on May 26, 2010, 09:59:14 PM
Actually, in terms of what the worlds with HPG make for the HPG owner, I was more talking about the "normal" worlds - for a while I think it was 1 RP per turn (which seemed amazing as most worlds were making much less), and then the last I heard was IIRC a quarter.

I mean if HPG don't make money for anyone, then how did the CA build so much, and why resist letting others take over the burden?

Regular HPGs (non-IC) do not generate revenue. The Terran Hegemony is so insistent on controlling them and keeping them out of the hands of others for two reasons:

• Political power and leverage (i.e. "we can threaten people with interdiction")
• Their religious beliefs

not neccessarily in that order.

Question about critical event 11 on Ground Table:
"Encircle and capture 20% of opponent's FP, add to salvage"

because this event takes place before normal combat damage is resolved, in the case of A Place where i am less than 4 FP from going into the Outnumber 2:1 table, do i inflict damage according to the Even Strength, or 2:1? Its not important for that battle(because of the other rolls and critical events, the RNG is crazy lately), but i am curious what the ruling is on if a Critical Event could potentially alter the force ratios in a future battle.

Quote from: Daemonknight on May 27, 2010, 12:04:32 PM
Question about critical event 11 on Ground Table:
"Encircle and capture 20% of opponent's FP, add to salvage"

because this event takes place before normal combat damage is resolved, in the case of A Place where i am less than 4 FP from going into the Outnumber 2:1 table, do i inflict damage according to the Even Strength, or 2:1? Its not important for that battle(because of the other rolls and critical events, the RNG is crazy lately), but i am curious what the ruling is on if a Critical Event could potentially alter the force ratios in a future battle.

Good question. At first glance it would appear to indicate that the process flow would "promote" you to a more favorable chart. In this case, however, you would still use the ratio from the start of the fight. The reason for this has to do with workflow. Basically, a (simplified) version of the combat flow is like this:

1. Identify forces doing battle.
2. Determine ratio of forces.
3. Roll on appropriate table.
4. Roll of 8+?
4a. If YES, continue to step 5.
4b. If NO, continue to step 8.
5. Crit check roll -- 8+?
5a. If YES, continue to step 6.
5b. If NO, continue to step 8.
6. Roll on critical events table.
7. Apply effects of critical event.
8. Apply damage indicated on step 3.
9. Apply damage control (if applicable).

So, the table used for simple rez (and therefor the damage % inflicted) is determined before any critical events modify the number of FP present on each side during the battle.

Does that make sense?

makes perfect sense, i was just curious what the exact order of actions/reactions was.

Quote from: Daemonknight on May 27, 2010, 02:53:02 PM
makes perfect sense, i was just curious what the exact order of actions/reactions was.

Some day, probably in the distant future, I want to create an actual flowchart for the whole combat process. I actually have a mockup of one for raid scenarios kicking around somewhere... if I find it I'll upload it.

Is there a reason you are implementing rule changes piecemeal, instead of putting the game on hold and updating them all at once?

Currently, rule changes are being made one or two at a time. Whenever a GM lets a proposed rules change slip to an individual or discusses it outside of these forums, he's opening himself to charges of favoritism. Updating the game completely would avoid that possibility. All players would know what rules we are using and could adjust our plans and strategies equally.

i dont see an issue with the current system...all rule changes are put into a thread, and dont take effect untill the following turn. That way they dont influence the situations in which they might arise.

I think Dave is doing a fine job. Besides, theres always going to be questions and dicussions. We'd never end up actually playing if we decided to stop the game every time a rule needed to be looked at. and i want to play, not wait for 2 weeks to go over a rule that affects a singular situation. A revamp of the combat rules might warrant a stopage of play, but nothing thats been brought up since i've been here has overarching, huge impacts on the way the game is played.

Quite. I think the notion that in stopping the game we could create a rules set that would be workable and functional and would not need to be constantly fixed is not sound, not on the basis that we don't have clever people making the rules, or honest players in the game, but on the basis that a game like this will always offer new and unforseen curcumstances, resualts, oppertunities that the rules do not and can not anticapate.  One can't plan for everything, one can't plan for how things will pan out.  If we had all the resorces and energy of a major game company, then we could invest countless hours playtesting, writing, revising, tweeking the rules, only to find as so many companies do that we still managed to make a mistake and we need to revise the rules again. 

Yes, this system leads to some poor outcomes sometimes.  Even in two turns on the new boards, we've seen that take place.  In thirty five on the old ones, I think almost everyone felt the sting once or twice, and some more.  But on ballance, the rules are good enough for us to have a good time, to keep the game moving, to let the RP take place, and to let the MM take place, and that's better than sitting around wirting rules all the time.

Sting once or twice... ;D

However I too have to say the: "heads up" then debate then initiate rule at a set future date system is better than most systems. I'd like the debate portion being a bit more... vigorous before things get put into place, but if I have to weigh this system vs. many of the older ones, this is way better.   8)

I'm saying this in spite of the system going into place likely is already biting me on the backside.  :D

I think the only way to make the discussion more 'vigorous' would be to extend the time before a new rule is implemented from one turn to 2...however, i don't think that's needed, as the current method allows an entire month for discussion, and Dave does an excellent job in my eyes of incorporating ideas and suggestions into the spirit of the rule he's crafted.

To be honest, i think the system we have is superior to even some of the big tabletop war games companies. Anyone here ever get into Warhammer or WH 40K? There are the core rulebooks, which sets down the rules for actually playing the game(movement, shooting, turn order, ect...). Then, there's a Codex for each individual army(and in the case of the popular Space Marines faction, there are multiple Codexes that supplement the main SM Codex that detail specific chapters).

Ok, so the game has a revolving update system. Each and every Codex gets updated periodically, the company goes down the list updating the codexes with tweaks, changes, new equipment and unit options and everything. Most armies get a new codex every 2 years, some more often or less depending on the popularity of the individual army. In addition to that, the core rulebook gets totally revamped one every 3-5 years. So basically every few years, you find yourself in possession of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars worth of models that either don't perform the way they did when you bought them, or in some cases, don't technically exist anymore...occasionally, whole armies are dropped!

Obviously we don't have that problem with a forum based game, but I'm illustrating the difference between a constant minor tweaking of rules by general discussion compared to a total makeover during a stoppage of play.

There's nothing wrong with a living rules system, provided all of the changes are transparent. Bringing the game to a halt isn't even necessary. I just don't like the idea that there may be rules changes in the works that aren't general knowledge. If that knowledge is being kept close hold by the GMs, that's fine. If it's public knowledge being discussed on a forum, then that's fine too. Anything in between is a grey area and can cause problems.

Pre-emptive knowledge about rules changes was a concern that was voiced to me, and I thought it worth discussing. I know how important the integrity of this game is to the organizers and wanted to raise their awareness about something that could cause the appearance of impropriety where I'm certain none is intended.

Well, even if the GMs cook up a rule in privet and try and spring it on us, then there's still a month to kick it around and weigh in on it, so there's no sense that we'll be facing down some sort of consperacy of rules changes.  For my part, I think its just a case of Dave wanting to make sure he's offered us a finished product to look at rather than just a half assed idea, so that we can coment on a well reasoned rules proposal rather than just whatever.

The reasons for why we don't just put the game on hold for six months and totally rewrite the system into something a lot more like Flashpoint are pretty complex... not the least of which being that when myself, Josh, and others started planning out contingencies for keeping FGC going if it was no longer going to be able to be hosted on CBT.com, we felt that the players had a low level of confidence in the GM staff and would not tolerate long delays, mid-turn eratta, or a lack of transparency regarding what rules are coming down the pipe.

Having said that, I dig what Joe is saying - take the nuclear weapons rules for example. Everyone knew they were coming "some time in the future" and most of you saw the early draft that was posted on CBT.com ~9 months ago, but we deliberately kept the details of the finals rules kind of under tight wraps until we were ready to commit to implementation - otherwise, those with fore-knowledge would have had to deal with the temptation of planning based on the future rule rather than the current rules.

Keeping the rules transparent is definitely one of the goals of the GM team, and while we can't always do so perfectly (sometimes we need to consult with "subject matter experts" on early drafts, for example, to get feedback well before we are ready to announce a rule is coming - or something we accidentally let the cat out of the bag discussing a related issue... I'm sure some of you have learned that chemical weapons rules are being worked on this way), we are definitely congnizant of the lack of confidence the old GM staff policies created and are trying to avoid a return to the old days of mid-turn erratas, "convenient" special scenarios, and so forth.

But I'm starting to ramble now... the short version is: the GM team is aware that rules leaks can cause issues at the player level, and we are going to try to ensure that rules discussion threads are the first place that rules drafts appear so everyone has the same level of notification.

I was thinking about the Recharge Station, and what to do to make them more desirable, and I think I have an idea.

QuoteRecharge Station
Cost:72 RP
Turns to Construct:2
RP Gain: 1.5
Special: 15 MP
A Recharge Station that is part of a Command Circuit can extend the length of the CC to 24 hexes/ decreases the cost by 1/3/ Increase Capacity to 15 IS/20 Clan.

I was just thinking that RS to have a benefit on Command Circuits will make them worth building even with the high cost. Also beefing up the RP and MP gains may do it alone, but I don't know.

Question as Interdictions get more widespread: Ground forces with support of Clan Navy (I assume all WS have HPGs) are still to roll 6+ to get out of a hex or not? Only those with WS in the same hex. Those without are stuck of course.

Could one please clarify for all?

EDIT: I am only allowed to build 1 HPG per turn. (taking double time as secondary provider) Now, can I start building another HPG in turn 2 when I paid for the 1st in turn 1 fully?

This might have repercussions for others as well. :P More and more questions come up with that. Urgs.

Quote from: Marlin on June 04, 2010, 08:00:11 PM
Question as Interdictions get more widespread: Ground forces with support of Clan Navy (I assume all WS have HPGs) are still to roll 6+ to get out of a hex or not? Only those with WS in the same hex. Those without are stuck of course.

Could one please clarify for all?

EDIT: I am only allowed to build 1 HPG per turn. (taking double time as secondary provider) Now, can I start building another HPG in turn 2 when I paid for the 1st in turn 1 fully?

This might have repercussions for others as well. :P More and more questions come up with that. Urgs.

HPG rules in general are under review right now, but the draft is not yet at a stage of completion where it can really be published for comment.

WarShips with mobile HPGs (TH, Clan, FWL for example), and transported units accompanying them, can ignore the interdicted system "bog down" check. All other units need to beat the 6+

It is legal to pay to start a second HPG before the first is done, as long as no more than one (or whatever your faction's limit if it is higher) is completed per turn.

Thanks. :)

I have another qwestion.

When conducting a raid (recon) at a hex, what happens to Init? I know Ridderkerk had a failed recon, followed by an invasion. The question is, that if the Init is done by the recon force, will the followup force always lose init?

Recon comes before invasion even  if they may show up at the same time as the attack group.

If the recon was sucessful, the attack group can show up and know what they're facing.

If the recon fails, the attack group shows up and sees if there are enemies out, that's all.

If the enemies are out there, they they have the choice to declare a defensive interdiction, let the forces thru, try to run for it.

The Attack group has the option of Leaving, Naval engagement against an intedicting force, Trying to push their forces thru against the Interdiction, or setting up an offensive interdiction to prevent people from running.

The amount of forces need not be specified until the actual declaration of a force engagement. However, it is good form to give a general picture of force size. Usually warships are kinda hard to hide.

Do we just put in our orders "buys HPG" when we want to buy... er... a HPG (plus of course say: what level, where it goes and set aside the RP for it), assuming we are buying it from the main "psycho bell"?

Quote from: Jeyar on June 09, 2010, 08:01:10 AM
Do we just put in our orders "buys HPG" when we want to buy... er... a HPG (plus of course say: what level, where it goes and set aside the RP for it), assuming we are buying it from the main "psycho bell"?

You need to conclude a trade agreement with the seller, just like any other international trade. If you are planning to buy the HPGs from the TH, shoot Josh and I a PM and we will work out a deal.

FYI

Naval Salvage incentive for MegaMek, Nuclear Weapons, and Resource Raid revisions have been merged into the main rules thread. Simple Resolution "tax," Nuclear Weapons RP hook generation, and the additional Raid revisions that were requested have not been put in yet as I don't believe they are adequately finalized.

I will be opening a Turn 41 rules discussion thread soon.

Voting on the Aero FP poll is closed and will be discussed at greater length in the 41 rules updates thread.

I would like to note that in turn 37, a nuke was used on Aerospace elements over Atreus. The result was that the planet was terrorized.

Will that be the case for Roche too or was that just a test run? (And 3 nukes are gonna do much terror, I guess. At least on the ground)

What is with use in Space, say in a space battle? How does that affect a hex or planet?

Quote from: Marlin on June 17, 2010, 07:57:40 PM
I would like to note that in turn 37, a nuke was used on Aerospace elements over Atreus. The result was that the planet was terrorized.

Will that be the case for Roche too or was that just a test run? (And 3 nukes are gonna do much terror, I guess. At least on the ground)

What is with use in Space, say in a space battle? How does that affect a hex or planet?

Yes, a Nuclear Terror roll should be made for Roche and should follow the finalized Nuclear Weapons rules to determine modifiers and effects.

That sucks for the victor. In any case a planet defends itself.

What about space battles in a hex with active planets, though?

Quote from: Marlin on June 17, 2010, 08:05:57 PM
That sucks for the victor. In any case a planet defends itself.

What about space battles in a hex with active planets, though?

The Nuclear Terror rules are probably going to need eratta since all income is generated by hex, and thus terrorizing a single planet only causes some rules issues I had not initially thought of.

I will post in the Turn 41 thread with the details but basically the chart will be revised so that the first tier of terror is for the hex the attack occured in rather than the planet.

It's been been asked before, or is in a rule somewhere, but I have a question on rounding. 

Say for instance, faction A received battlefield repairs totalling 1.375FP.   In cases of this, do we round up to 1.5FP or round down to 1.25FP.

Thanks

When you are exactly in the middle like that you round up.

Quote from: Parmenion on June 24, 2010, 12:34:52 PM
It's been been asked before, or is in a rule somewhere, but I have a question on rounding. 

Say for instance, faction A received battlefield repairs totalling 1.375FP.   In cases of this, do we round up to 1.5FP or round down to 1.25FP.

Thanks

Thanks for the quick response.  Much appreciated.

Quote from: LittleH13 on June 24, 2010, 12:58:11 PM
When you are exactly in the middle like that you round up.

Quote from: Parmenion on June 24, 2010, 12:34:52 PM
It's been been asked before, or is in a rule somewhere, but I have a question on rounding. 

Say for instance, faction A received battlefield repairs totalling 1.375FP.   In cases of this, do we round up to 1.5FP or round down to 1.25FP.

Thanks

OK, random thought:


Yardship rules

1. Delete all YardShip Rules.
2. Replace with:

• MF and SY hex improvements may be build as Mobile or LFB mobile units. Mobile factories still need a turn to pack or unpack between moves, but may follow Mobile movement rules for MP costs.
• A Yardship is a WarShip "wrapped" around a Mobile SY. A Faslane is "half" an SY (24 RP cost, 1.5 FP production per turn, 0.5 RP revenue when operating as a "half SY"), whereas a Newgrange is a "whole" SY (48 RP cost, etc etc etc).
• The Cost of a YardShip is the FP cost of (the underlying unit + any supporting units + the shipyard), modified by the movement class cost modifier.
• End of rules.

Does this sound like a more simple and straightforward way to handle Yardships? Or am I missing something that would be pertinent to game balance.

Probably worth noting, this would make YardShips somewhat more expensive to construct, but honestly I'm starting to suspect that is in its self an imbalance within the current rule.

With all the interdiction about, I've got some questions about building replacement HPGs that others might find interesting as well.

How many Type A and Type B HPGs can be built per IC per turn?  NM, One per 10 ICs.  This might be a bit low since you can build as many IC hex elements as you wish in a turn.

How far a turn can they travel?

Quote from: DisGruntled on July 02, 2010, 01:52:29 PM
With all the interdiction about, I've got some questions about building replacement HPGs that others might find interesting as well.

How many Type A and Type B HPGs can be built per IC per turn?  NM, One per 10 ICs.  This might be a bit low since you can build as many IC hex elements as you wish in a turn.

How far a turn can they travel?

They are transported units, so 5 hexes per turn or however much you pay for if you move them by command circuit.

Follow-up question: The 100 word rule to gain additional bonus, is it just for buyers of HPGs or does it count for all factions, regardless of ability? Could we change the wording then?

I mean, a Clan like the CIH would simply build the stuff, ship it, and install it. Telling the people: Here, use it.
And end.

Of course, RP should be encouraged, but I just want a clarification. After the first couple of HPGs, we shall see if the bonus is worth the trouble.

I'm guessing they'd count as 3 FP  for command circuit purposes as they cost 3 MP per hex to move normally?

So a naked Newgrange would cost [1 (Newgrange) + 0 (support) + 48 RP (mod)]* 5 (movement) = 245RP

Thats bit excessive if you ask me, right now its about 148RP for 1FP of Newgrange

Quote from: Dave Baughman on July 01, 2010, 11:07:12 PM
OK, random thought:


Yardship rules

1. Delete all YardShip Rules.
2. Replace with:

• MF and SY hex improvements may be build as Mobile or LFB mobile units. Mobile factories still need a turn to pack or unpack between moves, but may follow Mobile movement rules for MP costs.
• A Yardship is a WarShip "wrapped" around a Mobile SY. A Faslane is "half" an SY (24 RP cost, 1.5 FP production per turn, 0.5 RP revenue when operating as a "half SY"), whereas a Newgrange is a "whole" SY (48 RP cost, etc etc etc).
• The Cost of a YardShip is the FP cost of (the underlying unit + any supporting units + the shipyard), modified by the movement class cost modifier.
• End of rules.

Does this sound like a more simple and straightforward way to handle Yardships? Or am I missing something that would be pertinent to game balance.

Probably worth noting, this would make YardShips somewhat more expensive to construct, but honestly I'm starting to suspect that is in its self an imbalance within the current rule.

I thought Newgranges should be mandatory with 31ish FP company? THat would make it well over 150 RP to build, no?

Still less than the proposed rulechange. But well, it makes them worth it and even more powerful. I know my Clan wont build such a think ... probably forever.

That the problem, right now they are just not expensive, but completely out of the question. I was looking into building one and the sheer cost for something that though great isnt that great when you tally up its cost.

The Faslane is worth it, but TH onry.

If they are going to cost that much, there needs to be some big increase in their abilities. Otherwise, I think their cost needs to be cut down a bit.

Something like a Yardship SHOULD be hella expensive! I do agree that increasing it's capacity would justify the cost of such a ship.

Comparitively speaking, a Shipyard costs 48 RP and for the same cost as a New Model Yardships, you can get about 5 of them. Not only would you have 5 times the production ability, you would also be generating 5 RP a turn, but on the other side, the Yarship fills a role that nothing else can do. Mobile Production.

For example, the Incense (Cameron) is repairable but in a Periphery hex. You can't move a SY to that hex without first creating a Space Station, and once the Space Station is complete, you really won't need it there and I don't think they're one of the things you can move, can you?

With regard to the comment about the pricing change on the "Shipyard component" of the Yardship, right now the Yardships' abilities are crippled compared to the equivalent "real shipyard" - no RP production, less output capacity.

The proposed rule would eliminate this "nerf" on the YardShips and make them function identically to a normaly Shipyard - except its wrapped up inside a WarShip.

I for one support the FWL having a means to repair our damaged ship's until we can get Yardship tech off someones dead body...I mean negotiate a tech trade.

Im looking at you Star Adders.

By the way I have been wondering are there any actual economic draw backs to individual hex's being interdicted?

I mean you get enough of them and technically they should bork your Factions entire RP.

Quote from: chaosxtreme on July 02, 2010, 06:10:52 PM
I for one support the FWL having a means to repair our damaged ship's until we can get Yardship tech off someones dead body...I mean negotiate a tech trade.

Im looking at you Star Adders.

Let me throw some ideas around with the crew ;)  We been busy playing with the SAC, CDS, and a few others.

I've often thought the ruling in regards Yardships was bizarre.  Why was it mandatory to attach all the bits and pieces to a Yardship to make it hideously expensive, when no other Warship has the same imposition imposed upon it.

For my mind, factions should be able to make their respective yardships as bare-boned as they want them to be.  If they construct them with minimal defences, then they wear the risk like any other Warship.

Quote from: Dave Baughman on July 01, 2010, 11:07:12 PM
OK, random thought:


Yardship rules

1. Delete all YardShip Rules.
2. Replace with:

• MF and SY hex improvements may be build as Mobile or LFB mobile units. Mobile factories still need a turn to pack or unpack between moves, but may follow Mobile movement rules for MP costs.
• A Yardship is a WarShip "wrapped" around a Mobile SY. A Faslane is "half" an SY (24 RP cost, 1.5 FP production per turn, 0.5 RP revenue when operating as a "half SY"), whereas a Newgrange is a "whole" SY (48 RP cost, etc etc etc).
• The Cost of a YardShip is the FP cost of (the underlying unit + any supporting units + the shipyard), modified by the movement class cost modifier.
• End of rules.

Does this sound like a more simple and straightforward way to handle Yardships? Or am I missing something that would be pertinent to game balance.

Probably worth noting, this would make YardShips somewhat more expensive to construct, but honestly I'm starting to suspect that is in its self an imbalance within the current rule.

Because Shipyards are expensive.

If Yardships are as cheap as their construction cost why would I EVER build Shipyards?

I'mean other then the base # of shipyards to start cranking out Yardships.

Quote from: Parmenion on July 03, 2010, 01:32:05 PM
I've often thought the ruling in regards Yardships was bizarre.  Why was it mandatory to attach all the bits and pieces to a Yardship to make it hideously expensive, when no other Warship has the same imposition imposed upon it.

For my mind, factions should be able to make their respective yardships as bare-boned as they want them to be.  If they construct them with minimal defences, then they wear the risk like any other Warship.

Quote from: Dave Baughman on July 01, 2010, 11:07:12 PM
OK, random thought:


Yardship rules

1. Delete all YardShip Rules.
2. Replace with:

• MF and SY hex improvements may be build as Mobile or LFB mobile units. Mobile factories still need a turn to pack or unpack between moves, but may follow Mobile movement rules for MP costs.
• A Yardship is a WarShip "wrapped" around a Mobile SY. A Faslane is "half" an SY (24 RP cost, 1.5 FP production per turn, 0.5 RP revenue when operating as a "half SY"), whereas a Newgrange is a "whole" SY (48 RP cost, etc etc etc).
• The Cost of a YardShip is the FP cost of (the underlying unit + any supporting units + the shipyard), modified by the movement class cost modifier.
• End of rules.

Does this sound like a more simple and straightforward way to handle Yardships? Or am I missing something that would be pertinent to game balance.

Probably worth noting, this would make YardShips somewhat more expensive to construct, but honestly I'm starting to suspect that is in its self an imbalance within the current rule.

Well, the rules as they are proposed to be stand to make the SY in the yardship cost six times what a stationary one costs, plus the cost of the millitary components.  If it was me, I'd rather have six stationary SY and some millitary components, but perhaps that's just me.

I think the big qustion is, is that really how much they should be worth?  Do they really offer six times the benifit of a stationary yard?  Or is it more?  Or is it less?

I think that the rule fits the universe in the sense that Yarships are giant ass ships that rightly ought to be ludacrisly expensive, and do provide a very nice little bonus.  Getting some RP prodution from them, as the new rules alow, is some nice little icing on an already pretty tasty cake.  They do offer something that you can't get any other way, after all, so people will still pay for them.  But very seldom, which I think fits their in universe role.

Quote from: Iron Mongoose on July 03, 2010, 05:40:10 PM
Well, the rules as they are proposed to be stand to make the SY in the yardship cost six times what a stationary one costs, plus the cost of the millitary components.  If it was me, I'd rather have six stationary SY and some millitary components, but perhaps that's just me.

I think the big qustion is, is that really how much they should be worth?  Do they really offer six times the benifit of a stationary yard?  Or is it more?  Or is it less?

I think that the rule fits the universe in the sense that Yarships are giant ass ships that rightly ought to be ludacrisly expensive, and do provide a very nice little bonus.  Getting some RP prodution from them, as the new rules alow, is some nice little icing on an already pretty tasty cake.  They do offer something that you can't get any other way, after all, so people will still pay for them.  But very seldom, which I think fits their in universe role.

Mobility is its own reward-a Yardship can be moved-and in a state that can afford one, it's damn near impossible to keep track of if the owner/operator doesn't want you to know where it is-after all, the Yardship (unlike a SY) doesn't show up on the map. In theory, therefore, it's up to six times as survivable as a fixed yard.  It's also deployable-once you've secured a situation like, say, the Somerset/Addergrad fight, but in a place without a yard present, you can move Yardships in to salvage the wrecks instead of having to leave them there until a yard can be completed.

Quote from: Cannonshop on July 03, 2010, 06:22:37 PM
owner/operator doesn't want you to know where it is-after all, the Yardship (unlike a SY) doesn't show up on the map. In theory, therefore, it's up to six times as survivable as a fixed yard

It can be found by launching a Locate Formation mission to discover its location. Don't forget, you don't techniclly know everything IC thats on the map: the Clans don't know the exact number of shipyards over Donegal, or the number of MFs on Hesperus II, but I could go look at it on the map. So that doesn't really factor in: a yardship is just as protected from view as a shipyard, except that a shipyard would require actual military forces to jump in system, and then be subjected to interception and destruction, whereas the Locate mission can be completed without the Yardship owner's having ever known that you've drawn a target on it's hull. So in some sense, its actually a little bit less secure.

I might as well publicly post this here - I'm not trying to pull something fast, I AM trying to use something that I have as a faction, and make it useful.

Presently I have the "Sparta" habitat with 2 items on it, a MF and a SY. It also has some rules on it - the oldest I won't go into, but I really wish I hadn't asked for updating that one now days ;D. As of February this year:

A) Pay 6 and it will gain a point of FP.
B) It can't Salvage Warships.
C) It can't move and repair (which when you couple that with the fact that there isn't anything in the game other than warships that you can repair really makes me confused).
D) Every time I move the system, it becomes immobilized on an 11+, and a GM must be the one to roll it.
E) It is unique - I can't make more of them.

Now some know I REALLY want more PF's - and have for multiple years. Have posted for it, paid RP and used orders to get them - all this LONG before PF's became extra useful last turn. This also in spite of the TC only not having more PF as "we had enough already" and "they don't matter" when we went to the "present" PF form. The idea was that if I put 3 things on Sparta and send it out of TC space, I get a PF. However I haven't ever gotten confirmation even this will work for that PF.

However with these rules we have:
1)An exception to the standard rules.
2)Something not too useful for all it's cost.
3)Something I am not sure will work for even what I want.

So what I'd like to do is find out with the new rules, what can I do that would:
Alpha) Get rid of that scary "you get stuck" possibility rule.
Beta) Allow the thing to fix warships (hey – this would be a great add-on).
Gamma) Get confirmation that with one more add-on (and just what it needs to be) and jumping and resting outside TC space, I finally get another PF.

So you're trying to remove all of it's restrictions, and give it extra functionality than it already has. How does that make sense?

Quote from: Jeyar on July 03, 2010, 11:51:33 PM
I might as well publicly post this here - I'm not trying to pull something fast, I AM trying to use something that I have as a faction, and make it useful.

Presently I have the "Sparta" habitat with 2 items on it, a MF and a SY. It also has some rules on it - the oldest I won't go into, but I really wish I hadn't asked for updating that one now days ;D. As of February this year:

A) Pay 6 and it will gain a point of FP.
B) It can't Salvage Warships.
C) It can't move and repair (which when you couple that with the fact that there isn't anything in the game other than warships that you can repair really makes me confused).
D) Every time I move the system, it becomes immobilized on an 11+, and a GM must be the one to roll it.
E) It is unique - I can't make more of them.

Now some know I REALLY want more PF's - and have for multiple years. Have posted for it, paid RP and used orders to get them - all this LONG before PF's became extra useful last turn. This also in spite of the TC only not having more PF as "we had enough already" and "they don't matter" when we went to the "present" PF form. The idea was that if I put 3 things on Sparta and send it out of TC space, I get a PF. However I haven't ever gotten confirmation even this will work for that PF.

However with these rules we have:
1)An exception to the standard rules.
2)Something not too useful for all it's cost.
3)Something I am not sure will work for even what I want.

So what I'd like to do is find out with the new rules, what can I do that would:
Alpha) Get rid of that scary "you get stuck" possibility rule.
Beta) Allow the thing to fix warships (hey – this would be a great add-on).
Gamma) Get confirmation that with one more add-on (and just what it needs to be) and jumping and resting outside TC space, I finally get another PF.

Jeyar, I have two questions about Sparta:

1) Which GM came up with the special rule you posted above? I have been researching this for a while as you know and I still have not been able to find anything in my records about the rather restrictive mobile habitat rules you were given. I'm personally inclined to move away from having faction-specific rules, especially complicated ones like this, but I would like to know the background of where this came from.

2) How much did you pay for the hex improvements associated with this habitat?

If you paid the normal price (24 and 48 respectively), then I have an easy solution. If not, I will have to be a bit more "nuanced," but either way we will be putting an end to the current special rule since there is no reason for this to have its own unique rule.

Quote from: chaosxtreme on July 07, 2010, 06:02:12 PM

Quote from: Fatebringer on July 07, 2010, 04:37:53 PM
KK, for continuity sake, Please update the following.

Sudeten (2115)

1 SY (Falcon)
11 GSY (Raven)

All at the Sudeten side of the hex.

Unless the Falcons have new Shipyards, these are the only Shipyards on this Hex.

Yeah ok...Im just kicking this to Josh and Dave because this whole 2115 hex thing keeps getting changed or modified a lot. I don't think its intentional but I'd rather just get a GM ruling of what is where because Im getting a little tired of changing it this many times a turn when the hex itself hasn't changed in rl months.

Again I dont think anyone's being malicious its just a lot of people have different views on what was agreed upon and I want a final ruling on what is.

Hey improvements are by the Hex. It does not matter where in the hex they are located.

Technically, hexes should also only have one color. This is something we've been lenient on and will continue to turn a blind eye to for now because it makes the map easier to read, but if it becomes an ongoing problem we'll have to crack down and change all the shared hexes to some sort of "contested" color.

Since we are going to keep allowing multi-color hexes for now - for the purpose of determining what is and isn't a guest facility - the Sudeten hex should be considered a Jade Falcon hex (since in the RP all of the hex improvements are at Sudeten). In other words, any hex improvements that are not owned by the Jade Falcons (i.e. Snow Raven SYs) should be marked as guest facilities.

Even the 2 MF's I created ON Blair Athol?

Quote from: Fatebringer on July 07, 2010, 07:45:58 PM
Even the 2 MF's I created ON Blair Athol?

Even if they are on Blair Athol in the roleplaying fluff, they occupy the entirety of that hex. A raid against Blair Atholl can damage the shipyards on Sudeten and a raid on Sudeten can damage the MFs at Blair Athol.

I didn't say it was logical, but that's the way the rules were written - a lot of things don't zoom in deeper than the hex level.

Does that also mean that my Falcons on Sudeten can aid in the defense of Blair Atholl, and likewise the Ravens on Sudeten?

Quote from: Daemonknight on July 07, 2010, 08:10:50 PM
Does that also mean that my Falcons on Sudeten can aid in the defense of Blair Atholl, and likewise the Ravens on Sudeten?

In naval combat, yes. Not in ground combat, which does zoom in to the individual planet level.

That's why the big Clans vs. TH battle there was so gonzo huge. All three systems' naval defenders pooled together to oppose the landings.

Well that sucks. Are there any plans to change that to the more logical way of having the infrastructure be zoomed into the planet level?

Quote from: Daemonknight on July 07, 2010, 08:30:11 PM
Well that sucks. Are there any plans to change that to the more logical way of having the infrastructure be zoomed into the planet level?

Yes, but those changes are dependant on other changes I need to implement first so it won't be an instantaneous change.

Shipyards need to be in space because they build the Drives. The Drives can not be build on the ground or you get a big mess when you try to leave...

You know what i meant. That may not be on the surface, but they are most likly in geo-synch, and probaly on Orbital Elevators to make materials from the surface easier to transfer than boosting them with dropships unless they have to. So they'd still be zoomed into a planetary level: a ground attack on a shipyard would be attacking the orbital elevator, or the warehouses or factories surrounding it. Not every single last peice of the ships needs to be built in zero-G, and alot of it would be harder. A Shipyard represents as much stuff actually on the planet's surface as actually in orbit.

As to shipyards, one of the few canon yards we have good info on, Kathil, is very tightly tied to ground based infrastucture.  Others build dropships on the ground, and have no space based components, yet are still classed as SY for our porposes.   Conversly another, in the Titan Yards in the Sol system, is so independant that Terran and Mars can fall and yet Titan can hold out.  Some SY are in empty systems, or systems like Star's End which are largely asteroid fields. 

Quatre Bell is known to be tied into one of the moons per it's description, relying on the nearby asteroid belt for resources ;)

Quote from: Marlin on July 02, 2010, 04:16:54 PM
Follow-up question: The 100 word rule to gain additional bonus, is it just for buyers of HPGs or does it count for all factions, regardless of ability? Could we change the wording then?

I mean, a Clan like the CIH would simply build the stuff, ship it, and install it. Telling the people: Here, use it.
And end.

Of course, RP should be encouraged, but I just want a clarification. After the first couple of HPGs, we shall see if the bonus is worth the trouble.

Little bump? :)

Quote from: Marlin on July 16, 2010, 09:21:44 PM

Quote from: Marlin on July 02, 2010, 04:16:54 PM
Follow-up question: The 100 word rule to gain additional bonus, is it just for buyers of HPGs or does it count for all factions, regardless of ability? Could we change the wording then?

I mean, a Clan like the CIH would simply build the stuff, ship it, and install it. Telling the people: Here, use it.
And end.

Of course, RP should be encouraged, but I just want a clarification. After the first couple of HPGs, we shall see if the bonus is worth the trouble.

Little bump? :)

The 100-word bonus is for the original manufacturer of the equipment, and only when it is sold (i.e. actual ownership is transfered - having someone pay you to build an HPG you will retain ownership of doesn't count). This is a one-time benefit; reselling the same HPG does not generate infinite revenue.

The idea of the rule is to allow people to try to undercut ComStar/WOB and at least break even if they are willing to do the RP, since CS/WOB licenses HPG equipment "at cost," while at the same time being structured in such a way that CS/WOB cannot benefit from the rule.



In other words:

Scenario A: ComStar is hired by the Taurians to rebuild one of the HPGs the Dark destroyed. CS charges full price for the HPG, but retains ownership of the equipment (in fact, they claim that the ground the HPG is build upon becomes TH territory). Even if CS writes 100 wods of RP, they do not benefit from the 0.25 RP profit.

Scenario B: FRR challenges Clan Wolf to a trial of posession for an HPG to replace on that ComStar blew up during "Fall Röd." FRR wins the trial and Clan Wolf delivers the HPG to FRR territory, where it is administed by Clan Ghost Bear. Even if CW writes 100 words of RP, they do not gain 0.25 RP because the HPG was not sold to the FRR.

Scenario C: Clan Star Adder sells a new HPG to the Charlies for 3 RP (cost of production), which they will administer. The Charlies own the HPG station, even though the skilled technical experts and support staff are supplied by Clan Star Adder. If CSA writes 100 words of RP, the do receive 0.25 RP of profit because the HPG was sold. Even if a different faction were to admnister the station, CSA (and CSA only, regardless of who else contributed roleplaying or funds) would get the 0.25 RP.

Scenario D: FRR purchases an HPG from Clan Ghost Bear at cost. The Ghost Bears write 100 words of roleplay. After the HPG is handed off to the FRR authorities, but before it can be installed, FRR sells the HPG to Clan Wolf-in-Exile (and writes 100 words of roleplay). Only Clan Ghost Bear gets 0.25 RP of profit, because they are the original equipment manufacturer, and they only get it once because only the first sale is eligible for the incentive.

And this .25 RP is only once applicable unlike the bonus of an IC?

Thanks for the explanation. So, destroying HPGs is really impacting the economy then..


On another note: I need to clarify if there is still a trade bonus available. I hear people talking about a .5 RP bonus for a trade but cannot find the rule anymore. If it exists, I would want to profit from that as well of course, but I would need a basis for that.

(Did you receive my PM and/or the Mail? Would you send me the Orders sheet back if the formulas work for you? They dont work for me yet, so if I get it from you and they work, they should continue to do so, right? :P)

Quote from: Marlin on July 17, 2010, 08:30:20 AM
And this .25 RP is only once applicable unlike the bonus of an IC?

Thanks for the explanation. So, destroying HPGs is really impacting the economy then..


On another note: I need to clarify if there is still a trade bonus available. I hear people talking about a .5 RP bonus for a trade but cannot find the rule anymore. If it exists, I would want to profit from that as well of course, but I would need a basis for that.

(Did you receive my PM and/or the Mail? Would you send me the Orders sheet back if the formulas work for you? They dont work for me yet, so if I get it from you and they work, they should continue to do so, right? :P)

All of the trade bonuses have long since expired, both the 10% and the 50% versions - at least as far as I know.

I'm sure I did receive your PM and email, I am working on them right now but I have about 60-70 PMs and a large number of emails back up so it might be a couple hours.

I got your answers, thanks.

Just a thought. Tell me what you think.

Key ideas:

• Remove the interdiction movement rule that everyone hates
• Make interdiction penalties the same across the board
• Remove as much math as possible from the interdiction rules
• Make blowing up ICs have the possibility of causing a chain reaction that blows up in the attacker's face
• Make Commtech research easier to do but not "too easy."

Needless to say, if we do this we'll need to come up with some sort of special one-time compensation for factions who sunk huge amounts of cash into the old commtech R&D system.

• Interdiction doesn't prevent movement
• Interdiction doesn't prevent written government-level communication (i.e. couriers can still deliver messages)
• Interdiction causes a sliding loss of revenue that starts -higher- than the revene production of the interdicted hexes and gradually settles out to about 50% loss (it costs $$$ to set up a "pony express" network and so forth). Lets say, 125% loss on turn one, then 110 -> 100 -> 75 -> 50, so after six turns of interdiction things have "bottomed out"
• Hexes that are impacted by "partial comm blockage" - i.e. two or more of their six adjacent hexes cannot be communicated with - are treated as interdicted, but only at the 50% level. Note that this simplification of the PCB definition means that many periphery hexes will be under permanent partial comms blockage, but also that internal hexes will rarely be affected by this.
• Systems that are more than four hexes from the nearest friendly IC are also treated as interdicted at the 50% level
• IC disruption (just like the old rules) causes full 125% interdiction, but the turn after it hits 50% it goes away (i.e. the disruption will always last six turns now unless the IC is repaired or replaced).

To facilitate these penalties, we would add six seven columns to the territory tab:

Not Interdicted
Interdicted 125%
Interdicted 110%
Interdicted 100%
Interdicted 75%
Interdicted 50%
Terrorized 0%

Ideally these would have radio buttons that the player could click on, and a formula would automatically adjust the ownership income of that hex. We would need to add a box to the expenses or misc screen for "Communications Expenses" or "Interdiction Losses" or something like that, so we can quickly reference the amount lost for adding to the pirates revenue the following turn.

We could do the same for Terror, as shown above, to build it right in.

---

Comm Provider Classes

For HPG:

Basic Client

Basic Clients have no intrinsic HPG communications ability; instead, they must rely on an Advanced Provider to coordinate their communications.

Prerequisite: NONE
Upkeep: NONE

• Cannot run HPGs of any type
• Cannot run ICs
• Cannot build or repair HPGs
• Cannot build or repair IC
• Cannot build or repair Network Hubs
• Cannot build or repair portable HPGs
• Any ICs the faction becomes owner of go offline

Advanced Client

Advanced Clients must still rely on a foreign power to provide their HPG hardware, but have developed the practical technical skills to operate the technology. HPG technology remains largely a "black box," but this faction is capable of some independent operations. Critically, an advanced client can operate portable military HPGs - an important strategic advantage.

Prerequisite: One of the following-

• Three successful communications technology R&D projects (target 10+, 15 RP per attempt)
• Six turns of training by an ally, at a cost of 30 RP per turn to both the training faction and the trainer
• Random R&D breakthrough

Upkeep: Every six turns, the advanced client either requires an addition "training turn" as described above or another successful R&D attempt (target and cost as described above). If this requirement is not satisfied, the faction returns to Basic Client status.

• Can run local HPGs (only - not HPGs in other factions)
• Can operate portable HPGs assigned to their military
• Cannot build new HPGs but can repair damaged ones
• Can build or repair ICs (to satisfy the prerequisites to become a Basic Provider)
• Cannot run ICs (still needs at least a Basic Provider to form a network)
• Cannot build or repair Network Hubs
• Cannot build or repair portable HPGs
• Any ICs or Network Hubs the faction becomes owner of go offline

Basic Provider (this is the old Tertiary and Secondary combined into one)

A basic provider has sufficient trained technical staff and infrastructure to operate all FTL communications within the faction's own borders, as well as to extend IC networks into neighboring territory.

Prerequisite: All of the following must be fulfilled:

• At least two IC hex improvements must be built (to form a functioning HPG network circuit)
• Four successful commtech R&D rolls must be made (target 10+) at a cost of 50 RP each
• Must posess a "pristine" example of a Class B or better HPG (capture military HPGs, Class C HPGs, and/or damaged or destroyed HPGs do not satisfy this requirement) to reverse-engineer.
• Must permanently sacrifice one PF and one MF to begin the faction's HPG manufacturing industry.

Having a friendly "foreign advisor" from a Basic or Advanced Provider faction to act as a trainer reduces the R&D cost from 50 to 20 (each - total of 40) per attempt.

Upkeep: If the faction loses all of its ICs, a new one must be built within six turns. Otherwise, the faction backslides to Advanced Client status.

• Can run HPGs only in their own territory
• Can network HPGs with ICs, including outside their territory, but may only operate a single network (i.e. cannot form multiple unconnected networks)
• Can build and repair HPGs
• Can build and repair ICs
• can build or repair Network Hubs, but cannot actually use them unless they become an Advanced Provider; the NH goes offline if its owner is a Basic Provider or less.

Advanced Provider

Advanced Providers are defined by the ability to simultaneously run multiple HPG networks and to staff extremely large numbers of HPG stations, even outside their own territory. The jump from Basic Provider to Advanced Provider has more to do with infrastructure than technology.

Prerequisite: The following requirements must be met

• Build at least one Network Hub
• All of the faction's ICs must be within 30 hexes of a Network Hub

Upkeep: If the faction loses all of its Network Hubs, it immediately regresses to Basic Provider.

• Can run HPGs and ICs in any hex
• Can build or repair HPGs, ICs, and Network Hubs

---

HPG Equipment

Construction and deployment of normal ground-based HPGs is handled abstractly. If a system becomes interdicted due to destruction or damage to its HPG, that system's provider (or possibly its Advanced Client owner in the case of damage but not destruction) automatically begins the rebuilding process. This costs 1 RP (member world), 3 RP (control world), or 5 RP (capital or any world containing a Zone Map) and takes three turns to build/repair, configure, and calibrate the equipment. The provider need only record the initial expense and then report the map change three turns later.

A provider may opt to not repair or replace an HPG if it has insufficient funds or if the client has somehow invoked their displeasure.

A provider may also voluntarily attempt to destroy their own HPG equipment at any time. This may be attempted once per system per turn and is resolved as a Sabotage Hex Element mission with a +4 bonus.

IC Hex Improvement

IC Hex Improvements represent the massive specialized computer data centers that sort, route, bundle, and compress HPG traffic for retransmission along a network.

If a hex is not within four hexes (i.e. two HPG transmissions) of a friendly IC (not neccessarily one operated by the hex's owner), it is treated as if under partial communications blockage, reflecting the cumulative effects of network congestion and latency.

Providers that do not have Network Hubs must designate one IC as their network's start point. If the destruction or dismantling of an IC prevents other ICs in that faction's network from tracing an uninterrupted line of four-hex or less hops back to the prime IC, those ICs go offline.

An IC may process incoming data from any number of HPG stations, but may only connect to three other ICs at any one time. Normally this reflects one "down stream" connection towards the Prime IC, one "up stream" connection further down the circuit, and an unused third connection that is held in reserve for "patching around" network disruptions on an ad-hoc basis.

When an IC is destroyed, damaged, or goes offline, it causes a network disruption in systems that are connected to it. 2d6 hexes are affected starting with the hex directly "north" of the failed IC and then emanating out in a clockwise spiral. Each impacted hex may avoid disruption on a roll of 10+ on 2d6. Hexes with an IC gain a +5 bonus on the roll, but if they fail the IC goes offline (disrupting another 2d6 hexes).

An IC costs 24 Resource Points and requires at least 2 turns to build. ICs may be build as guest facilities within client factions. An IC generates 0.5 RP per turn of revenue. Additionally, the Provider who is running the RP earns 2.0 RP per turn regardless of whether or not the IC is a guest facility.


Network Hubs

Network Hubs are a new hex improvement that function similarly to a Basic Provider's "prime IC." Just as an IC can accept connections from any number of HPGs, a NH can accept connections from any number of ICs, allowing the creation of a "spoke" network rather than the more limited "circuit" network that ICs allow for. Normally, each spoke operates as its own "Basic Provider" network, transmitting downstream to the hub or upstream to the delivery destination, but in the event of a disruption along one spoke, downstream stations can connect to ICs in another spoke using the third connection port to maintain system integrity.

The only restriction on the scope of a Network Hub is that is cannot control HPGs more than 30 hexes from the center of the network.

A Network Hub costs 200 resource points to build and requires at least four turns for construction. Once built, it generates 5 RP per turn of revenue. A Network Hub does not on its own create Communications Provider revenue. Network Hubs may not be guest facilities.

First glance? I dont like it. I think small factions will lose out again even if they are already advanced. ANd then they must pay immense amounts of RP to keep that status?

As I see it, it cements the powerbase of the only big provider that is the TH. New Interdiction rules are nice but the rest?

Big economy is needed to become the highest level (would make some sense) and in this writing to even stay Basic provider, and PFs are needed desperately (which most Clans dont have), besides at least 200 RP and an awesome amount of luck. And then another pile of RP to start the show.

I dont like it.

There's a lot there, and I like some of the ideas, but as a whole I also don't care for it.

One worry is the need for so many ICs.  Many parts of the world now are out of range, so some factions would suffer just for showing up (the Taurian periphery, the FS outback, the DC's far north, the north west of the former LA).  That doensn't seem right.  I would echo this concern for periph hexes, as well.  Why hurt factions with long bourders with the periphery?  Some of them, such as the periph nations themselves, are some of the factions least in need of taking down a peg (others are most in need, but maybe that's just me).

More over, the recorse for that is to build IC, which disperporitionaly benifit Terra in most cases, or else are one of the Clan's big advantages in another.  So to fix a problem that didn't previously exist, you've got to give cash to the faction that least seems to need it.

I don't like the hyper expense of R and D. Before it was costly, but managable; it was more a function of luck than of bank roll, which is reasonable I think, since re working HPGs is more about cleverness than cash.  This will really limit who can do R and D, taking some that are presently doing it out of the picture, again solifying the place of a few key factions.

I do like the notion of help with reserch.  I do like the notion of blowing up ICs and chain reactions.  In principle, I even like the idea of having a big IC network that's trackable and can be interacted with.  I do worry that its going to be a record keeping nightmare, and if we were to address my other concerns we'd either have to give out free ICs or else up the range on them, which might make the idea less potent.  Worst of all, or perhaps best of all, since the Terrans run the perponderance of HPGs, it would be almost all on the GMs to keep most of the records, which might be bad since you've alrady got a lot to do.

I think we can keep thinking about how to improve these rules.  But upping costs I think is not it.

First look:

If the Terrans hadn't started off with this, they'd be unable to afford it.  Further, nobody else can afford it either.  Second, it's a huge faction-sheild for the Terran Hegemony, and additionally, it's punishment for Graegor.  (See, his entire FACTION started OFF Interdicted.  once you go beyond 100%, you're in deficit.  Where do you suppose that deficit ends up hitting?)

When I examine a rule for "Intent" I look first and foremost at consequences.  The consequences here, are that anybody who didn't invest the last ten turns' exclusively to setting up their own, separate, HPG network? 
Yeah.  Guess what guys, you're not a sovereign state, because all Terra has to do, is turn off the transmitters and you're done as a viable faction-inside of one turn.

Further, the costs make it prohibitive for the CLANS to set up nets in their OZ's, prohibitive for anyone else to set up a small faction or be part of one, esp. if that faction isn't a client state and condom for the Terran Hegemony.

The reason is because not only is it cost-prohibitive for anyone but the biggest, most industrialized single faction (or alliance of biggest industrialized factions) to build a net for themselves, it's also cost-prohibitive for ANYONE  to help you out.

The PF requirement alone is enough to prevent smaller factions-see, not everyone has one, there's no method other than the GM staff saying "Yeah, You can have it" to get one...how many factions have been around since, oh, Turn ONE and still don't have one?  Clanners???

It's a solution seeking a problem that does not exist-unless the problem is player factions being dissatisfied with the Terran Hegemony-that problem is neatly solved-nobody who isn't the Terrans can afford to deal iwth an Interdiction under this ruleset.

I will say, I think if I was still the FWL, I would tend to like this.  But I'm not, and I don't think that being right for one faction makes it right for all of them.

I know of at least one other faction doing HPG reserch, and another that wants to become a wider scale provider (that second should be easy to guess).  This rules would imedatly put the breaks on the first, and likely cripple the second as well.  I think that the role of rules changes in cases like this should be to open doors, incrsse the desirable things for factions to do, not to close them, to limit them, and in this regard these rules fall down.

Quote from: Cannonshop on July 22, 2010, 06:15:04 AM
First look:

If the Terrans hadn't started off with this, they'd be unable to afford it.  Further, nobody else can afford it either.  Second, it's a huge faction-sheild for the Terran Hegemony, and additionally, it's punishment for Graegor.  (See, his entire FACTION started OFF Interdicted.  once you go beyond 100%, you're in deficit.  Where do you suppose that deficit ends up hitting?)

When I examine a rule for "Intent" I look first and foremost at consequences.  The consequences here, are that anybody who didn't invest the last ten turns' exclusively to setting up their own, separate, HPG network? 
Yeah.  Guess what guys, you're not a sovereign state, because all Terra has to do, is turn off the transmitters and you're done as a viable faction-inside of one turn.

Further, the costs make it prohibitive for the CLANS to set up nets in their OZ's, prohibitive for anyone else to set up a small faction or be part of one, esp. if that faction isn't a client state and condom for the Terran Hegemony.

The reason is because not only is it cost-prohibitive for anyone but the biggest, most industrialized single faction (or alliance of biggest industrialized factions) to build a net for themselves, it's also cost-prohibitive for ANYONE  to help you out.

The PF requirement alone is enough to prevent smaller factions-see, not everyone has one, there's no method other than the GM staff saying "Yeah, You can have it" to get one...how many factions have been around since, oh, Turn ONE and still don't have one?  Clanners???

It's a solution seeking a problem that does not exist-unless the problem is player factions being dissatisfied with the Terran Hegemony-that problem is neatly solved-nobody who isn't the Terrans can afford to deal iwth an Interdiction under this ruleset.

Well the FWL has dumped a lot of money into the old rules for HPG. We HAVE been setting up our own HPG network and spending a lot of money getting almost nowhere.

And I can honestly say I do like this new plan and I can honestly see in 6-10 months real life time the FWL competing with the Terrans for HPG service contracts...in other states.

Also how many factions have been around since Turn 1 and have a lot? The Marians have more PF's then the Capellan Empire, a couple of clans have a few PF's too as well.

At the same time this rule change is very beneficial.

While I see the problems for the Adder Commonwealth I also see how easily solved their problems are.

#1) The Adders would only need to take one hex to connect the two networks and run it like one network. Since the Adders are providing via the RP Thread the HPG's for the Add Commonwealth anyway this would be the first merger.

#2) Building that many HPG's now becomes possible. Not easy but POSSIBLE.  Under the old rules while I started building HPG's...which is slow, multiple turns whatever. You just plump down cash and you get X # of HPGs.

#3) Interdiction hurt's but its no longer prevents you from playing the game at all. Before interdiction meant you can't RP, you can't fight MM you can't do anything but sit there and be completely passive. Which can be interesting if someone up and jumps out at you. But is boring as all get out if people ignore your interdicted self.

#4) Ok Ill say it...I don't see it as a big handicap for the Adders. If they do nothing to abrogate the interdiction. The worst thing that happens to the Adder Com is it doesn't build anything new for two turns. Thats with NO money or effort put into reversing the interdiction and just "living with it". As someone who has BEEN interdicted that is ALL kinds of awesome. Also it eventually bottoms out and yes losing half your money is bad. But its not OMG I can not continue the fight bad.

For the record, the intention of these rules wasn't to faction shield the TH or to shaft any one particular faction. In fact, the upkeep requirements and the increased impact of network disruptions were directly intended to make life tougher for the TH.

"Daring Clan Commands destroy T.H. Network Hub - ComStar in Chaos!" anyone?

Having said that, it looks like there is at least some consensus that these rules are not ready for deployment as-is. Please continue to voice your concerns and discuss, as I'm reading all of these posts and using them as feedback to determine what sort of changes/balances need to be made.

Having said that to be fair I should say that no matter what form they take, the rules are still going to be structured in such a way that it is hard to advance HPG status. The goal here is to change Comm status advance ment from "expensive and impossible" to "expensive and difficult."

I think some form of the interdiction recovery rules does need to be implemented.  Pretty much everyone but the TH only being able to build one HPG a turn is rough.  The added cost and limits on building ship HPGs doesn't help much either.

I think in order to take the teeth out of a Comstar interdiction, it really needs to be easier to make the generators ourselves. Many of our factions consider HPGs to be everyday technology, even a little old-fashioned. I realise they're expensive in universe, but I'm not sure why my factories can't crank out a dozen of them in a turn, considering what else they can build.

Advancing HPG tech needs to be hard, but by the same token, it should provide greater benefit for those of us who already have it. If the UIW wants to contract with the RasDom for HPG service, that needs to be a remotely plausible option. If the FWL wants to run its own comm network so it can control its own destiny, that needs to be possible short of doomsday.

I've also got some ideas about how to revise those rules to try to make them a little more even-handed. I'll see if I can't get them worked out a little better and then post them here.

Tamar gave us a good chance to look at the deployment of nukes.

QuoteNuclear Weapons

Units eligible to carry nuclear tokens are:
Mobile aerospace flotillas

I propose that this be amended so that a unit be required to be at least as powerful as the weapon it's carrying? Tamar and the 7 x .25 FP Mobile Floatillas really points out the flaw to leaving this undefined and sets a precident.

QuoteUnits eligible to carry nuclear tokens are:

No more than five tokens can be carried by any one unit at a time.

This kind of ties into the above. Would each .25 FP mobile unit be able to carry up to 5 Nukes?

QuoteSecondary effects of nuclear warfare

Each nuclear token used in the current turn: +1 modifier on roll (cumulative)

Each token used or Each token "Succesfully" used? Only 4 of the 7 Nukes on Tamar hit.

QuoteAdjusted roll of...

Just to make sure, we should assume results are based on a 2D6 roll plus modifiers?

I think that the new TROs comming out really put our need for more generious R+D rules into prospective.  We really need to look at rules that offer factions new designs really quite often, at least every few turns, and tech advances as well.  I have a great table in mind, by my son just deleated it, so I'll post it later, but its basicly a new mech or a new veriant down to some low numbers.

We can do some options for non-mechdesign resualts, if we really want, but really, we need to see R and D as a way to get battle tech into the game, not new farming implements and trading pacts.  Or at least I think so.

I'm in no hurry to have mech tables for the FGC. And I honestly think that getting a few new designs is less useful than the currents fruits of a successful R&D check. I mean, ok, so you have a new design every few turns: that matters only for the infrequent MM games, and the new TRO isn't in MM yet, is it?

I dunno... I'd rather see other things happen than introducing new mech designs. But I'm not big on MM, so new designs have little to no impact on my gameplay anyways.

Quote from: Fatebringer on August 04, 2010, 05:23:36 PM
Tamar gave us a good chance to look at the deployment of nukes.

QuoteNuclear Weapons

Units eligible to carry nuclear tokens are:
Mobile aerospace flotillas

I propose that this be amended so that a unit be required to be at least as powerful as the weapon it's carrying? Tamar and the 7 x .25 FP Mobile Floatillas really points out the flaw to leaving this undefined and sets a precident.


The rules deliberately didn't include any FP limits. Did you have any specific ideas in mind? To me, one light fighter squadron based off a Leopard CV (0.25 FP or so) could easily deploy multiple nukes. I follow that there is an argument that can be made purely in game balance terms, but to some extend nukes are a fundamentally unbalancing technology, which is why historically they eventually fell out of use by mutual agreement -- only after the successor states nuked themselves into near-oblivion though.

QuoteUnits eligible to carry nuclear tokens are:

No more than five tokens can be carried by any one unit at a time.

This kind of ties into the above. Would each .25 FP mobile unit be able to carry up to 5 Nukes?

Under the rules as written, yes. Though it would be kind of silly to risk 125 RP of nuclear arms on such a small formation unless they were on a one-way suicide mission or something... just hope they don't get caught in a blockade or something.

QuoteSecondary effects of nuclear warfare

Each nuclear token used in the current turn: +1 modifier on roll (cumulative)

Each token used or Each token "Succesfully" used? Only 4 of the 7 Nukes on Tamar hit.

Each token used. That the warship survived doesn't neccessarily mean the nuke missed, just that it wasn't a kill.

QuoteAdjusted roll of...

Just to make sure, we should assume results are based on a 2D6 roll plus modifiers?

Intended to be 2d6+mods.

Quote from: Iron Mongoose on August 04, 2010, 06:44:31 PM
I think that the new TROs comming out really put our need for more generious R+D rules into prospective.  We really need to look at rules that offer factions new designs really quite often, at least every few turns, and tech advances as well.  I have a great table in mind, by my son just deleated it, so I'll post it later, but its basicly a new mech or a new veriant down to some low numbers.

We can do some options for non-mechdesign resualts, if we really want, but really, we need to see R and D as a way to get battle tech into the game, not new farming implements and trading pacts.  Or at least I think so.

A major overhaul of R&D is currently being worked on, combining the good parts of the FGC R&D system with ideas that have been used successfully in Flashpoint.

Part of the rules under development are a complete overhaul of the custom design rules.

Quote from: Daemonknight on August 04, 2010, 08:12:42 PM
I'm in no hurry to have mech tables for the FGC. And I honestly think that getting a few new designs is less useful than the currents fruits of a successful R&D check. I mean, ok, so you have a new design every few turns: that matters only for the infrequent MM games, and the new TRO isn't in MM yet, is it?

I dunno... I'd rather see other things happen than introducing new mech designs. But I'm not big on MM, so new designs have little to no impact on my gameplay anyways.

Ground forces equipment tables are not currently a high priority for integration. Its something tha tI want to do eventually, and not just for force regulation - the tables make it much easier to keep tabs on what units are deployed where and allow for some (in my opinion) much-needed reforms to how the arms trade works, but that in turn is dependant on making some substantial changes to other parts of the rules that have higher priority.

QuoteTo me, one light fighter squadron based off a Leopard CV (0.25 FP or so) could easily deploy multiple nukes

Damn you spheroids and your cheap PoS Dropships! (j/k) I find your explaination adequate.

Quote7. Salvage: Determine the total actual damage sustained and roll 2d6 to determine the percentage that is salvageable. Add a +5 bonus for raids, +10 for battles, and +15 for invasions (as well as an additional +10 incentive bonus if all operations were played out in MegaMek). Salvage is claimed by the faction that ends the turn in control of the planet, except for raids where the raider may roll on the Raid Salvage chart to steal a percentage of the available salvage (apply a +2 modifier if the raid was successful)*.

*If the operation was a Clan trial, and Zellbrigen was upheld for the entire fight, salvage is automatically 50%.

I'm pretty sure the answer is no, but does the MM bonus effect Clan Trials?

(as well as an additional +10 incentive bonus if all operations were played out in MegaMek).

Just a quick disclaimer for everyone:

During the course of this turn, several players have found some interesting little "quirks" in the rules, particularly with regard to the interaction between orders types that weren't explicitly designed to interact with each other.

In general, rather than altering the rules to fit with what I suspect was the intention of the original authors, I have allowed the rules as written to stand.

Fair warning though, I am watching these 'unusual interactions' closely, and I do reserve the right to modify these rules if they get out of hand. In short:

• I support clever and imaginative uses of the rules and options by players...
• ...as long as it does not cross the line into exploiting rules loopholes.

If there's any doubt about how a particular rule works, especially if its language is ambiguous, PM the GM team before you use that interpretation in actual combat.

I have been noticing what could be short cuts in math and it may be resulting in miscalculations, based on my understanding of the rules regarding crits.  Can a GM please weigh in on which is correct?

What I have noticed is that people are taking the % of damage increased or reduced and adding it directly to the % from the rolls.  So...

1 FP v 1 FP
Roll = 50% damage Done
Crit = 10% of damage increase

Looks like most people are saying 60% damage, or .6 FP.  However, if I read the rule right, it should be .55 <.5+<10% of .5>>.

NVA. It does not matter in the example that you have shown as both cases would round to 0.50 FP of damage. Remember that we go to the 0.25 not to the 0.37345873459238. For the record though, your first example is the correct way to do it.

Quote from: NVA on August 18, 2010, 07:51:27 PM
I have been noticing what could be short cuts in math and it may be resulting in miscalculations, based on my understanding of the rules regarding crits.  Can a GM please weigh in on which is correct?

What I have noticed is that people are taking the % of damage increased or reduced and adding it directly to the % from the rolls.  So...

1 FP v 1 FP
Roll = 50% damage Done
Crit = 10% of damage increase

Looks like most people are saying 60% damage, or .6 FP.  However, if I read the rule right, it should be .55 <.5+<10% of .5>>.

So, it IS 60%?  Hmmm..

6 Valor saves the day: reduce damage done to you by 15%, increase damage done to your opponent by 10%.
7 Valor saves the day: reduce damage done to you by 20%, increase damage done to your opponent by 15%.


So, say it is 100 FP.  50% damage = 50 FP.  10% increase damage done would be 5% <10% of 50> or 10 <10% of 100>?

No...

It would be 50%+10%+15%=75%

Meaning 75FP of damage.

Quote from: NVA on August 19, 2010, 01:02:48 AM
So, it IS 60%?  Hmmm..

6 Valor saves the day: reduce damage done to you by 15%, increase damage done to your opponent by 10%.
7 Valor saves the day: reduce damage done to you by 20%, increase damage done to your opponent by 15%.


So, say it is 100 FP.  50% damage = 50 FP.  10% increase damage done would be 5% <10% of 50> or 10 <10% of 100>?

Orders Init - I would like to suggest that we look at how our orders init is set up.  I believe that the advantage of init should allow us to see what our opponent is trying to do and then react to it, similar to how movement in the game actually works.  Since Tamar is having Init orders, I am going to use it as an example.  Understand, this has nothing to do with arrival init.

CSR Wins Init - CW has to determine how we are going to set up.  So, CW puts its naval force, entirely, on Defensive Interdiction.  CSR seeing this can select the amount of force they want and push at the DI.

CW Wins Init - CSR now has to determine how to break up its force.  They decide to leave a token blockade and push forward on NAval Engagement orders.  Seeing this, CW decides to risk running the blockade, avoiding the NE.  OR...CW pushes part of its naval force forward to meet the engagement, leaving a token force behind, available for the next round of combat.

Now, one suggestion has been that this could be used to delay landing.  My answer is...Exactly.  If you won init, you control the dance card.  OR...CSR in this case, would have to risk facing a larger Defensive Interdiction and try to land their ground troops.

Simple resolution rounding:

Should we be rounding each round / step of combat or doing it at the end of all rolls / fighting?

http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=640.msg10997#msg10997

The link above is a case where it would make a difference.

I'm good either way, though the engineer in me wants to save all rounding till the end to preserve accuracy and cut down on rounding errors. ;)

OKay.  I think the wording says otherwise.  But, that is wording vs intent.  However, in the rule vamp in process, I would request we clarify that.  I, for one, believe it is more reasonable that it plays as it reads, that only the damage done is increased, so that it would be 10% of 50%, not 10% of the 100%.  But, that is just me.  :)

Quote from: LittleH13 on August 19, 2010, 01:18:45 AM
No...

It would be 50%+10%+15%=75%

Meaning 75FP of damage.

Quote from: NVA on August 19, 2010, 01:02:48 AM
So, it IS 60%?  Hmmm..

6 Valor saves the day: reduce damage done to you by 15%, increase damage done to your opponent by 10%.
7 Valor saves the day: reduce damage done to you by 20%, increase damage done to your opponent by 15%.


So, say it is 100 FP.  50% damage = 50 FP.  10% increase damage done would be 5% <10% of 50> or 10 <10% of 100>?

That is what has been happening. You increase/decrease the damage dealt.. I have never seen anyone go by the FP of the force.

Actually, it has happened against me recently.  And, so I wanted the rule clarified and it appears that Little is saying it increases the first multiplier instead of adding a second multiplier.

OFP * D% = OD = Standard Damage Calc
OFP * (D%+C%) = Little's Understanding of How the Rule Reads
(OFP * D%) + (OD * C%) = My Understanding of How the Rule Reads

OFP = Original FP
D% = Damage Percentage from Roll
C% = Crit % Bonus
OD = Original Damage

Little's results are correct and how I've been doing all my posts.

Quote from: DisGruntled on August 20, 2010, 08:26:08 PM

Simple resolution rounding:

Should we be rounding each round / step of combat or doing it at the end of all rolls / fighting?

http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=640.msg10997#msg10997

The link above is a case where it would make a difference.

I'm good either way, though the engineer in me wants to save all rounding till the end to preserve accuracy and cut down on rounding errors. ;)

Dave's reply:

Quote from: Dave Baughman
Every step. The only time rounding doesn't occur is in cases of very small trials involving forces less than 0.125 FP.

To clarify what I mean:

Clan Snow Bunny bids 0.72139 FP on defense.
Clan Cheese Rodent bids 0.7251 FP on attack.

After the requisite multi-page argument in the OOC about overbidding, both sides go to simple rez.

Both forces immediately round to 0.75 FP - before rolling for or calculating their damage output.

The damage each side takes is rounded before being applied.

Damage control is rounded before being applied (and may well round to zero)

Salvage is rounded before being added to the salvage pool.

Basically, with the specific exception of extremely small trials, and for roleplaying purposes during "down to the wire" bidding, numerical values that aren't in increments of 0.25 don't exist.

Someone was talking to me and thought that the results at Tamar were a bit cheesy. They proposed the following rules amendment.

Scattering: Should be something like damage they cause is reduced by 2d6% instead of having the FP removed from the Battlefield.

It made sense to me so I'm posting it here.

Forced Withdrawl

I feel trials should have their own rules, and that this should not apply to someone who chooses to fight at extreme odds for honor.

Also, does Forced withdrawl only apply once a Turn or each time a unit is halved? If a unit taked 50% damage one Round, then 50% of the remainder the next Round, do they have to roll again?

What happens when both sides take 50%, do the roll? What if they both fail?

I would think a sliding scale would be best.  If the occupieing force is very large, perhaps more than ten or so times the gurillas, then they can pretty much do as they please and production can go on.  If it is less, perhaps five times, then some of the world is partialy contested.  And if the occupiers are small, just two or three times, then the world can be totaly contested.  And we can play with thouse numbers as we want, so it might take twenty or fifty times the force to totaly lock a world down, if that's what we want.

We might also make the scale dependant on infrastructure.  For each bit, it takes a certan amount to defend.  So to garison a world with nothing might just take twice the gurillas, or three times, or some other number, but to do a world with a factor would take twice as many, and a world with nine factories ten times as many.

At the very least, rules such as this would encourage invaders to leave behind large garisons, and not just plow on as they do.

I like the fact that there is at least one option for a spoiler force. Although I detest them, the Forces on Flitvelt make sense. Even though I outnumber them 100 to 1 :P

Please review and comment.


Draft Material


Mercenary Pilot Program

Mercenary 'factions' operate under slightly different rules than other factions.

Territory
Mercenary factions cannot exercise control over a hex; if a mercenary faction seizes control of a hex, they may choose to turn the hex over to their employer, or the hex may become factionless (beige).

Hex improvements owned by mercenary factions, even if they are in a factionless hex, are always guest facilies.

Because of these two restrictions, mercenary factions normally do not directly collect ownership income.

Record Keeping
Player-controller mercenaries must maintain a seperate record sheet for the mercenary unit.

Intelligence Operations
Mercenary units may attempt any intelligence operation, but suffer a -2 modifier on their operation rolls reflecting their relative lack of infrastructure.

This penalty does not apply to special operations projects.

Movement
Player-controlled mercenaries follow different movement rules than standard units.

Player-controlled mercenaries do not general movement points, regardless of their composition and movement class.

Mobile and LFB-Mobile mercenaries move per the normal rules. LFB-mobile mercenary units may fast-move without paying the additional MP cost.

Transported mercenaries may move by two different methods:

1) They may move using movement points provided by their employer (representing off-camera employer transport assets)
2) They may be carried onboard one of the mercenary command's JumpShips, providing that ship's DropShips have sufficient capacity to carry the units to be moved.

For the purpose of determinig the ability of a unit to move battle armor, infantry bays may be used for either conventional infantry or BA.

Size restrictions
Player-controlled mercenary factions are limited to brigade-size formations (3-5 regiments or clusters) of ground forces supported by regiment-sized aerospace formations (3-5 batallions/trinaries). This figure does not include auxiliary units such as appropriate numbers of transport JumpShips.

Upkeep
Mercenaries have two expenses each turn: MRBC fees and Overhead.

MRBC fees are a flat 10% of the current contract fee and are paid to the MRBC on Outreach. Failing to pay MRBC fees will result in losing the command's listing with MRBC, which will have roleplaying penalties.

Overhead is based on the size and composition of the unit, and is a percentage of the unit's FP that is paid each turn to cover routine maintainence, repairs, salaries, and supply expenses.

Step 1: Calculate Upkeep Weight
Each company of troops, squadron of fighters, DropShip and JumpShip has an upkeep weight that reflects its cost of maintainence.

• 'Mechs and Aerospace: Assault 1.5, Heavy 1.25, Medium 1.00, Light 0.75.
• Tanks: Assault 0.75, Heavy 0.5, Medium 0.25, Light 0.00
• Infantry: Battle Armor 0.25, Conventional 0.00
• Small Craft: Battle Taxis 0.25 each, Others 0.00
• DropShips: ((Dropship BV/1000)^(1/3))/2
• JumpShips and WarShips: (Jump-capable unit BV/1000)^(1/2)

Step 2: Calculate actual upkeep percentage
The percentage paid per turn is equal to ((Upkeep Weight)^2)/500

Attached Spreadsheet calculates unit Upkeep Weight (and upkeep %) automatically.

Contracting
Mercenary contract terms are entirely a roleplaying matter to be settled between players.

Multi-faction control
Mercenary commands do not count as a "faction" for the purpose of membership limits, but a player may not hire his or her own mercenary unit. Each play may opt to run one mercenary command.

Available commands
(More options may be added based on demand)

Wolf Dragoons Alpha Command
-1 Overstrength Regiment of Clan 'Mechs (1 assault coy, 4 heavy coy, 4 medium coy, 2 light coy) -- 17.0 FP
-2 Regiments of IS-2 armor (3 assault coy, 6 heavy coy, 7 medium coy, 3 light coy) -- 11.75 FP
-2 Batallions of Clan Battle Armor (6 coys) -- 1.5 FP
-1 Star Lord (WDS Jaime Wolf) with 4 DP and 2 DA; 1 heavy sqn, 2 med. sqn, 1 light sqn. 4 battle taxis, 1 FP of marine Clan battle armor -- 7 FP + 2 marine FP
-1 Star Lord (WDS Misery) with 4 DP and 2 DA; 1 heavy sqn, 2 med. sqn, 1 light sqn. 4 battle taxis, 1 FP of marine Clan battle armor -- 7 FP + 2 marine FP
-1 Monolith (WDS Crossing with 9 DT) -- 1 med. sqn, 1 light sqn, 4 battle taxis, 1 FP of marine Clan battle armor -- 3.75 FP naval + 2 marine FP

Total FP: 30.25 FP ground forces, 17.75 FP aerospace, 6 FP marines


Four more Wolf Dragoons commands with identical stats (Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon) -- players can choose the JumpShip names.


Wolf Dragoons special notes:

• Won't take contracts against the TH (or with the Grand Council)
• Uses TH technology including naval tables
• Will not transfer technology

Interesting.

Might increase the number of actively played commands.

Might increase cost for Mercs. (Upkeep payment, etc.)

I think I like it. If people take that, it remains to be seen how much extra work it is. ANd of course the metagame aspect.

I don't like the "you can't hire yourself" thing.  My issue with it is simple: it gives a player access to metagame information from another faction.  Even if the merc unit isn't IC-involved in operational planning, he's going to know where his unit is stationed/being sent and generally for what purpose.  I can tell you right now that *I* won't be hiring any player-controlled mercenaries unless that's ALL that player runs.

Quote from: DXM on August 29, 2010, 12:04:00 AM
I don't like the "you can't hire yourself" thing.  My issue with it is simple: it gives a player access to metagame information from another faction.  Even if the merc unit isn't IC-involved in operational planning, he's going to know where his unit is stationed/being sent and generally for what purpose.  I can tell you right now that *I* won't be hiring any player-controlled mercenaries unless that's ALL that player runs.

Well, my thought process in not letting people hire themselves was to accomplish two things:

1) Prevent people from "hiring themselves at cost" and thus damaging the mercenary economy by eliminating competition in contract terms and pricing and...
2) Encourage situations where a player would interact with a different player in roleplaying rather than.

What are your guys' thoughts on this? Would you prefer to instead have a situation that was more like NPC mercenaries becoming more details? Maybe having a two-tab mini-orders-sheet with most of the options streamline/simplified... sort of an introductory-level faction, so to speak?

If so, we would need some sort of mechanism to ensure that the dynamics of the mercenary economy aren't totally wrecked by at-cost self-hiring. What are your thoughts on the best way to accomplish this? To me it seems like the most direct route would be to put some sort of surcharge on hiring your own merc unit, but part of me wonders about the fairness of that in a competitive bidding situation.

Well, you could make bidding public and final contracts subject to approval -- either by GMs or else set up the MRBC as another run-your-own-character deal like the TH Advisory Council.

I suppose I have 3 comments:

1) Mercs have upkeep, but no one else does. Not saying mercs shouldn't, I'm saying everyone else should.

2) Nothing should be for free (the zeros) - make them .05 and then do the rounding at the end.

3) I may have missed it, but more advanced stuff should cost extra: SL some and Clan a heap.

Quote from: Jeyar on August 29, 2010, 01:10:28 AM
I suppose I have 3 comments:

1) Mercs have upkeep, but no one else does. Not saying mercs shouldn't, I'm saying everyone else should.

Consider merc upkeep as a "dry run" for real upkeep. One of my long-term goals it to get a working military upkeep system in place for all factions, but it has some rules pre-requisites.

2) Nothing should be for free (the zeros) - make them .05 and then do the rounding at the end.

They aren't actually free, unless the entire unit is light tanks and convenional infantry. Those unit types just don't increase the Upkeep Weight, which is the 'seed' used to generate the percentage paid each turn.

3) I may have missed it, but more advanced stuff should cost extra: SL some and Clan a heap.

They do - upkeep is a percentage of FP, so higher FP units (i.e. Standard IS tech or Clan tech) will cost more in upkeep than Intro level tech units.

The key thing to remember with upkeep is that Upkeep Weight is not the same as upkeep cost.

Upkeep cost per turn is a percentage of the unit's total FP. Upkeep cost is equal to Upkeep Weight squared, divided by 500. So essentially, Upkeep Weight is a sliding scale that makes certain types of maintainence- and overhead-heavy units, such as 'Mechs, ASF, and WarShips, more expensive than more easily maintained units like tanks and infantry.

Quote from: DXM on August 29, 2010, 12:04:00 AMI can tell you right now that *I* won't be hiring any player-controlled mercenaries unless that's ALL that player runs.

I think if a player runs a merc group that is all they should run. If they want to be more then that can go through a absorption of a bigger group and then they are a player of that group or they start a new merc group

First: I really like theese rules but I'm wondering wether we can create own commands, or not?

Second: Is there a full list of avaiable commands? (Northwind Highlanders for example?) Or Snords irregulars? Or Dismal disinherited?

What is the cost to repair a destroyed "HPG", you know the ones that aren't IC's, but interdict the hex anyway when the Dark come thru?  :P

So far, there was nothing repair, only build new...

But if, I would want to know too.

Quote from: Fatebringer on September 02, 2010, 07:52:47 PM
What is the cost to repair a destroyed "HPG", you know the ones that aren't IC's, but interdict the hex anyway when the Dark come thru?  :P

Bump Still need an answer to this.

Fate the below quote from the current comms rules answers your question. FYI you have to hire the TH to do it.

QuoteHPG- Class B
Description:  A relay station that links to a Class A, that also has send and receive capabilities.
Range: 2 Hexes.
Location: fixed, any control world.
Cost:  Three RP (considered part of the cost of a Control World).
Speed of Communications:  1 Day (single batch send and receive per day unless ordered to do more urgent send by Class A).
Provider Requirements: Primary, Secondary
Construction Time: One cycle.
Construction Location: Off site, at an Improved Communication hex element and transported at a cost of 3 MP per hex.
Special: Any HPG sold which includes an RP post of over 100 words per HPG sold, will incur a profit of .25 RP.

With SimRes becoming the norm, may I suggest that Quality ratings be used as modifiers to the SimRes roll? Something like

Green -1
Regular 0
Veteran +1
Elite +2

And I also think the Combat loss charts need to be toned down a bit.5-10 per line would not be a bad start.

Quote from: LittleH13 on September 08, 2010, 01:38:41 AM
Fate the below quote from the current comms rules answers your question. FYI you have to hire the TH to do it.


Provider Requirements: Primary, Secondary

Isn't there more than one 2ndary provider now?






:D

There is the Clans and there are the Wolves in Exile for Secondary.

Fed Suns aren't even Tertiary. Only Tertiary providers to my knowledge is the FWL

I thought that level was eliminated now.  ???

It will be in the new rules. But because of all the "confusion" the new Comm Rules have not been eliminated yet.

Even under the new rules if you haven't paid in blood sweat and tears to get Tertiary, you have to buy from the TH until you invest the blood sweat and tears to gain Basic status.

Well, I have a suggestion for a rule: post the address that we are to e-mail order to there, since we'll never see them in the thread that tells the date TOO send them in.  ;)

Quote from: GreyJaeger on September 08, 2010, 01:42:15 AM
With SimRes becoming the norm, may I suggest that Quality ratings be used as modifiers to the SimRes roll? Something like

Green -1
Regular 0
Veteran +1
Elite +2

And I also think the Combat loss charts need to be toned down a bit.5-10 per line would not be a bad start.

That would kinda be like double dipping. The skill bonus is already what give your more FP to use for the roll, thereby doing more damage. It's like hit points in DnD, you don't get more of a body, just a better ability to avoid or do damage.

Quote from: Fatebringer on May 10, 2010, 05:25:14 PM
Just a question that has been nagging at the back of my mind since I joined and said, why don't the Ravens have any Recharge Stations. Are there any actual benefits for having One?

+5 MP and 1 RP generation seem pathetically insignificant compared to the investment.

No significant MP Generation, no movement bonuses.

The possibility to gain more MP per cycle, or increase maximum jump distance by 1 for KF or 2 for LF drives seems logical.

My stops at Recharge Stations in the past are little more then RP opportunities to stage a trial for charges that do no actual In-Game benefits.

Every time we get on the topic of Recharge Stations, I always remember that I brought this up, and I know there were some other rules suggestions or an actual rule update somewhere, but I couldn't find it :P I know that I wasn't the only one that thought some form of extending transported troop movements was implemented somewhere, but not to the degree of which I suggested.

I was reading about the Olympus recharge stations and how they had a capacity for 8 charges, 2 repair bays for crafts up of 100,000 and 150,000 tons and tons of storage space, they in themselves kinda reminded me of yardships. So I just wanted to ask what the status of recharge stations in the game was. It's late here and I'm rambling. Good night!  8) <<Been watching too many performers doing acts lately :P>>

Quote from: Fatebringer on September 08, 2010, 05:47:15 AM

Quote from: GreyJaeger on September 08, 2010, 01:42:15 AM
With SimRes becoming the norm, may I suggest that Quality ratings be used as modifiers to the SimRes roll? Something like

Green -1
Regular 0
Veteran +1
Elite +2

And I also think the Combat loss charts need to be toned down a bit.5-10 per line would not be a bad start.

That would kinda be like double dipping. The skill bonus is already what give your more FP to use for the roll, thereby doing more damage. It's like hit points in DnD, you don't get more of a body, just a better ability to avoid or do damage.

I do not see it that way. I see that it is completely useless to spend the RP and time to go up to Veteran or Elite. Is it possible for Veteran troops to lose to hastily raised and ill trained troops? Yep. But it is not bloody likely. However, it is happening way too often. I am seeing absolutely no incentive to take the time to train troops. I have an Elite unit that is going to drop to Veteran, but I have no intention of training it back up. I would rather drop all my units to Regular, and put the FP into new units. As it stands by your interpretation, the only use of Veterans or Elites is stack-o-doom. If stack-o-doom is going to be the only way to play and having even a modicum chance of success, I am seriously contemplating quitting.

Quote from: GreyJaeger on September 08, 2010, 12:49:12 PM

Quote from: Fatebringer on September 08, 2010, 05:47:15 AM

Quote from: GreyJaeger on September 08, 2010, 01:42:15 AM
With SimRes becoming the norm, may I suggest that Quality ratings be used as modifiers to the SimRes roll? Something like

Green -1
Regular 0
Veteran +1
Elite +2

And I also think the Combat loss charts need to be toned down a bit.5-10 per line would not be a bad start.

That would kinda be like double dipping. The skill bonus is already what give your more FP to use for the roll, thereby doing more damage. It's like hit points in DnD, you don't get more of a body, just a better ability to avoid or do damage.

I do not see it that way. I see that it is completely useless to spend the RP and time to go up to Veteran or Elite. Is it possible for Veteran troops to lose to hastily raised and ill trained troops? Yep. But it is not bloody likely. However, it is happening way too often. I am seeing absolutely no incentive to take the time to train troops. I have an Elite unit that is going to drop to Veteran, but I have no intention of training it back up. I would rather drop all my units to Regular, and put the FP into new units. As it stands by your interpretation, the only use of Veterans or Elites is stack-o-doom. If stack-o-doom is going to be the only way to play and having even a modicum chance of success, I am seriously contemplating quitting.

this!

:P

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that training up troops is a way to increase FP and overall fighting capability if you don't have the MF capacity to build new units.  Better trained troops also tend to stick around better with the bottle rolls.

Going with the above would be another incentive for simple resolution over fighting it out, and personally I'd rather see more MM than less. (at least in close to even fights)

If we do end up with a simple res modifier, I think we'd have to drop the force point multiplier at the least.

The game has went to almost purely SimRes as it is. I would like to do MM. I am available pretty much all weekend, damn near every weekend. Hell, of last turn I was online every weekend, both on Skype and MSN, and I did not see anyone. If people don't show up, you can't MM. It is that simple.  Note, this is not a condemnation on anyone.. It is just a simple fact.

As far as the Breaking roll.. How often does that come into play? What twice in the last two turns even with all the combats, at least that I read? Most of the time a unit is completely wiped out in one turn. Again, being Vet or Elite does not make up for having more Regular units.

I have no problem dropping the FP boost, but I  think that making it more expensive, both in resources and time would be in order as an alternative, or doing both. I was thinking something like..

Regular to Veteran- 2.5 RP, 2 Turns, and surviving 5 Battles/Invasions or 10 Raids/Trials
Veteran to Elite- 5 RP, 3 Turns, and surviving an additional 5 Battles/Invasions or 10 Trials/Raids

While we are considering, how about getting rid of the auto kill scenarios.  3 to 1 and greater than 3 to 1 are ALWAYS auto kills.  It is no wonder that many fights are 3.1 to 1 or whatever.  Just enough to ensure, short of a lucky crit, an autokill.  There needs to be pain for anyone in any scenario.  Now, 100 to 1, yes, that IS an auto kill.  But, 3.1 to 1 should still result in potentially serious damage for the 3.1 and not a guaranteed victory.  Because of this, most fights appear to be a math game and nothing less.  Can I reach 3.1 so that I don't actually have to worry?

That is why I mentioned, as well as IM did several months ago, that the tables need adjusting. The tables are rather brutal, even for one on one fights.

I dont think it is needed, the new modifiers.

If you would go either by BV or even just by machine which would be the IC way, even and especially with the Skills, you would get a decisive advantage as Vet or Elite against Regulars.

Ask August as I fought a Recon at dunno 100 or 90 % against me with Vets versus Greens and despite a quite equal BV, the Greenies mostly had no chance.

It was MM, though.

If you have Elites vs lesser ones, just add the BV of Regular and then apply the Modificator.

1 Mech Regular vs 1 Elite will be a huge FP difference. And thats the bottom line. Nothing other needed.

We are not talking  about MM. Or table top. Since this game has gone to 90% SimRes, Veteran and Elite Units are completely useless. And sorry, but even in MM and tabletop, BV is no better. An equal BV battle in which fewer higher skilled troops against a larger number of less skilled pilots, as well as being quite overwhelmed by overall tonnage, is usually a loss for the better trained side. But when they do win, it is because of their skill. This skill is not in the FGC. Veteran and Elite has no use save as an FP boost, and is not worth even the tiny amount of time and resources to do training. Just ask Uncle Joe. "Quantity has a quality all its own." That is the only way the game is played at this point.

Quote from: GreyJaeger on September 08, 2010, 11:52:12 PM
We are not talking  about MM. Or table top. Since this game has gone to 90% SimRes, Veteran and Elite Units are completely useless. And sorry, but even in MM and tabletop, BV is no better. An equal BV battle in which fewer higher skilled troops against a larger number of less skilled pilots, as well as being quite overwhelmed by overall tonnage, is usually a loss for the better trained side. But when they do win, it is because of their skill. This skill is not in the FGC. Veteran and Elite has no use save as an FP boost, and is not worth even the tiny amount of time and resources to do training. Just ask Uncle Joe. "Quantity has a quality all its own." That is the only way the game is played at this point.

Wouldn't a more effective way to make skill levels "fair" in simple rez be to just fix the FP multipliers so they correspond with the Total Warfare era BV skill multipliers?

Right now its the other way around to give skilled units an edge in megamek, but perhaps its time to re-evaluate that game balance decision. What do all of you think?

I have not really looked at those rules, so I cannot comment on them yet. But just modifying FP will not change the problem as I see it. Does weight of numbers count? Absolutely, as it should. But so does training, experience, equipment, and motivation. None of these are present, or they have a severely limited presence.

Look at history, a smaller, better lead, trained, and motivated armies have regularly done very well against larger numbers of lower quality troops.

I will not lie, some of this is personal. I am sick of my Veteran and Elite units losing consistently to poorer troops based an an arbitrary number and a single flat die roll. And I imagine others feel the same way.

Quote from: GreyJaeger on September 09, 2010, 12:44:49 AM
I have not really looked at those rules, so I cannot comment on them yet. But just modifying FP will not change the problem as I see it. Does weight of numbers count? Absolutely, as it should. But so does training, experience, equipment, and motivation. None of these are present, or they have a severely limited presence.

Look at history, a smaller, better lead, trained, and motivated armies have regularly done very well against larger numbers of lower quality troops.

I will not lie, some of this is personal. I am sick of my Veteran and Elite units losing consistently to poorer troops based an an arbitrary number and a single flat die roll. And I imagine others feel the same way.

Well, there's two ways to approach this:

Option 1: take away vet/elite unit's FP bonuses and instead give them a bonus in simple res.

Option 2: give vet/elite units a bonus to FP but don't give them an artificial bonus in SR.

Basically, the way I see it giving them both an FP bonus and a simple rez bonus is giving the same bonus twice.

I covered both parts in my resume. 1 was an MM match of same FP nearly same BV with skilled troops vs unskilled. (green at that, poor suckers) Was a slugfest if you know what you are doing.

The other is pure FP.

In Simp Res, the Bonus for the skilled Troops is just only an FP addition. Where is the problem when one takes 5 Regular Mechs with an FP of 1 and you correspond in kind with 4 Elite Mechs that might have 1.5 FP?

The .5 account for the Elite Status. No one should cry foul. Even 3 Mechs might have over 1 FP in this example.

BTW, when I offered to fight our Trial out in MM, there was no response. You might have won anyway, such we had a roll and you won. Against regulars.. you might have taken more FP.. Hm.. if bidding down on the same FP, then it becomes a problem of course.. but that might just be the risk of bidding too low?

But then, with equal FP fights, there is the Breaking roll which benefits the experienced side and that is when they have a bonus..

I did answer..
http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=353.0

I see what some of you are saying about the FP buff, but it is still nothing to actually make Veteran or Elie worthwhile. In MM, 3 Veteran Mechs vs 5 Regulars, with fairly equal BV, is an uphill battle for the Vets, as they will be outmassed. In Simres, 10 FP of Vets vs 10 FP of Regulars, what benefit did the Vets have. You really think that 2 FP is an actual benefit?

But you know what, I have said my piece, and nothing is going to be done about it. So I have a choice to make.

Quote from: Marlin on September 09, 2010, 09:08:21 AM
I covered both parts in my resume. 1 was an MM match of same FP nearly same BV with skilled troops vs unskilled. (green at that, poor suckers) Was a slugfest if you know what you are doing.

The other is pure FP.

In Simp Res, the Bonus for the skilled Troops is just only an FP addition. Where is the problem when one takes 5 Regular Mechs with an FP of 1 and you correspond in kind with 4 Elite Mechs that might have 1.5 FP?

The .5 account for the Elite Status. No one should cry foul. Even 3 Mechs might have over 1 FP in this example.

BTW, when I offered to fight our Trial out in MM, there was no response. You might have won anyway, such we had a roll and you won. Against regulars.. you might have taken more FP.. Hm.. if bidding down on the same FP, then it becomes a problem of course.. but that might just be the risk of bidding too low?

But then, with equal FP fights, there is the Breaking roll which benefits the experienced side and that is when they have a bonus..

Oh come on Shane :)

Holt is showing us since turn 20 that STAC'O'DOOOOOOOM is the most succsessive 'and if you want to purely win use this' tactic.

Does not need finesse, does not need taktical skill. All it needs is a large RP background *shrug*

Quote from: GreyJaeger on September 09, 2010, 01:18:35 PM
I did answer..
http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=353.0

I see what some of you are saying about the FP buff, but it is still nothing to actually make Veteran or Elie worthwhile. In MM, 3 Veteran Mechs vs 5 Regulars, with fairly equal BV, is an uphill battle for the Vets, as they will be outmassed. In Simres, 10 FP of Vets vs 10 FP of Regulars, what benefit did the Vets have. You really think that 2 FP is an actual benefit?

But you know what, I have said my piece, and nothing is going to be done about it. So I have a choice to make.

Quote from: Marlin on September 09, 2010, 09:08:21 AM
I covered both parts in my resume. 1 was an MM match of same FP nearly same BV with skilled troops vs unskilled. (green at that, poor suckers) Was a slugfest if you know what you are doing.

The other is pure FP.

In Simp Res, the Bonus for the skilled Troops is just only an FP addition. Where is the problem when one takes 5 Regular Mechs with an FP of 1 and you correspond in kind with 4 Elite Mechs that might have 1.5 FP?

The .5 account for the Elite Status. No one should cry foul. Even 3 Mechs might have over 1 FP in this example.

BTW, when I offered to fight our Trial out in MM, there was no response. You might have won anyway, such we had a roll and you won. Against regulars.. you might have taken more FP.. Hm.. if bidding down on the same FP, then it becomes a problem of course.. but that might just be the risk of bidding too low?

But then, with equal FP fights, there is the Breaking roll which benefits the experienced side and that is when they have a bonus..

Part of the problem might be that people are bidding to equal FP.

If side X bids 10 (regular) heavy 'Mechs (1.75 FP), and side Y 'underbids' them with, say, 8 (elite) heavy 'Mechs, its 2.0 (after rounding) FP vs. 1.75.

Never mind the whole other argument about constantly bidding below the cutdown being non-canon, a "fair" bid of good warriors should still be equal or higher FP than a similar bid of less skilled troops. If the real skill mods were used, this would be even more pronounced.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should also say: I'm generally leery about anything that adds more potential "plusses" to simple rez rolls. The 2d6 bell curve is very steep, and as we saw with the obscene +4 intelligence mods a less-than-thoroughly thought out bonus can have radical and unexpected effects on game balance. For example, if elite units got a +2 on their SR rolls, they would be getting crit checks on 72% of their rolls and would have only a 3% chance of giving the enemy a crit chance, versus 42% and 17% respectively using the default curve structure. It gets even more horrifying if you take it a step further to +3 for Heroic (i.e. "Clan Elite" 1/2)... 83% chance of earning a crit roll, with no chance of giving one to the enemy.



On a semi-note, I'm going to be posting two polls in a few minutes. Please check them out.

Quote from: GreyJaeger on September 09, 2010, 01:18:35 PM
I did answer..
http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=353.0

I see what some of you are saying about the FP buff, but it is still nothing to actually make Veteran or Elie worthwhile. In MM, 3 Veteran Mechs vs 5 Regulars, with fairly equal BV, is an uphill battle for the Vets, as they will be outmassed. In Simres, 10 FP of Vets vs 10 FP of Regulars, what benefit did the Vets have. You really think that 2 FP is an actual benefit?

But you know what, I have said my piece, and nothing is going to be done about it. So I have a choice to make.

Quote from: Marlin on September 09, 2010, 09:08:21 AM
I covered both parts in my resume. 1 was an MM match of same FP nearly same BV with skilled troops vs unskilled. (green at that, poor suckers) Was a slugfest if you know what you are doing.

The other is pure FP.

In Simp Res, the Bonus for the skilled Troops is just only an FP addition. Where is the problem when one takes 5 Regular Mechs with an FP of 1 and you correspond in kind with 4 Elite Mechs that might have 1.5 FP?

The .5 account for the Elite Status. No one should cry foul. Even 3 Mechs might have over 1 FP in this example.

BTW, when I offered to fight our Trial out in MM, there was no response. You might have won anyway, such we had a roll and you won. Against regulars.. you might have taken more FP.. Hm.. if bidding down on the same FP, then it becomes a problem of course.. but that might just be the risk of bidding too low?

But then, with equal FP fights, there is the Breaking roll which benefits the experienced side and that is when they have a bonus..

Quote from: Dave Baughman on September 09, 2010, 09:23:04 PM
Part of the problem might be that people are bidding to equal FP.

If side X bids 10 (regular) heavy 'Mechs (1.75 FP), and side Y 'underbids' them with, say, 8 (elite) heavy 'Mechs, its 2.0 (after rounding) FP vs. 1.75.

Never mind the whole other argument about constantly bidding below the cutdown being non-canon, a "fair" bid of good warriors should still be equal or higher FP than a similar bid of less skilled troops. If the real skill mods were used, this would be even more pronounced.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should also say: I'm generally leery about anything that adds more potential "plusses" to simple rez rolls. The 2d6 bell curve is very steep, and as we saw with the obscene +4 intelligence mods a less-than-thoroughly thought out bonus can have radical and unexpected effects on game balance. For example, if elite units got a +2 on their SR rolls, they would be getting crit checks on 72% of their rolls and would have only a 3% chance of giving the enemy a crit chance, versus 42% and 17% respectively using the default curve structure. It gets even more horrifying if you take it a step further to +3 for Heroic (i.e. "Clan Elite" 1/2)... 83% chance of earning a crit roll, with no chance of giving one to the enemy.



On a semi-note, I'm going to be posting two polls in a few minutes. Please check them out.

Quote from: GreyJaeger on September 09, 2010, 01:18:35 PM
I did answer..
http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=353.0

I see what some of you are saying about the FP buff, but it is still nothing to actually make Veteran or Elie worthwhile. In MM, 3 Veteran Mechs vs 5 Regulars, with fairly equal BV, is an uphill battle for the Vets, as they will be outmassed. In Simres, 10 FP of Vets vs 10 FP of Regulars, what benefit did the Vets have. You really think that 2 FP is an actual benefit?

But you know what, I have said my piece, and nothing is going to be done about it. So I have a choice to make.

Quote from: Marlin on September 09, 2010, 09:08:21 AM
I covered both parts in my resume. 1 was an MM match of same FP nearly same BV with skilled troops vs unskilled. (green at that, poor suckers) Was a slugfest if you know what you are doing.

The other is pure FP.

In Simp Res, the Bonus for the skilled Troops is just only an FP addition. Where is the problem when one takes 5 Regular Mechs with an FP of 1 and you correspond in kind with 4 Elite Mechs that might have 1.5 FP?

The .5 account for the Elite Status. No one should cry foul. Even 3 Mechs might have over 1 FP in this example.

BTW, when I offered to fight our Trial out in MM, there was no response. You might have won anyway, such we had a roll and you won. Against regulars.. you might have taken more FP.. Hm.. if bidding down on the same FP, then it becomes a problem of course.. but that might just be the risk of bidding too low?

But then, with equal FP fights, there is the Breaking roll which benefits the experienced side and that is when they have a bonus..

Might I make a suggestion in this discussion?

Instead of a straight modifier that creates some really weird results (as Dave has noticed) how about setting up a modifier based on the difference between forces- say,  a +1 to the roll, and remove the FP enhancement so that an FP is an FP is an FP-but skill actually MATTERS.

For every difference past one (say, Elite vs. Regular) is +1 to the better-skilled unit's simpres results, but the actual FP value of the units isn't any different (though the cost to get that bonus is.)

It means the greenies will take a hell of a pounding, but you can still zerg as is the current practice-but you'll get hit with lots of pain and penalties if that's your only trick.

Me no like much change. The Comms Rules were enough for me..

gotta think about it.. thinking hurts.

Part of the problem as I have seen it is, what is a valid bid? If I know the opponent is using 10 Regular Heavies, and I bid ten Veteran Heavies, is that an "Honorable" bid? What constitutes the cut-off?

Let us take an example here http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=668.0

My force would have been numerically outnumbered and outmassed, the only thing taking my bid over was skill, yet I have Fate calling me out on it.

This is the first time I have heard anyone say anything like a fairly even number of warriors and weight with only skill taking the bid over is a "Good Bid."

As for whether skill mods making crits more likely, how about just natural rolls being crits. I.e. A veteran unit rolls a 7. The unit has an eight for determining damage, but no crit chance. An Elite unit rolls a 10. The unit does not get either an instant win or three crit chances, but does have a 12 for determining damage. Also skill modifiers do not come into play for determining crits. The Elite unit above rolls a 7 for determining crits. The unit does not get a 9, but ony a 7 so no crit.

Quote from: Dave Baughman on September 09, 2010, 09:23:04 PM
Part of the problem might be that people are bidding to equal FP.

If side X bids 10 (regular) heavy 'Mechs (1.75 FP), and side Y 'underbids' them with, say, 8 (elite) heavy 'Mechs, its 2.0 (after rounding) FP vs. 1.75.

Never mind the whole other argument about constantly bidding below the cutdown being non-canon, a "fair" bid of good warriors should still be equal or higher FP than a similar bid of less skilled troops. If the real skill mods were used, this would be even more pronounced.

In the interests of full disclosure, I should also say: I'm generally leery about anything that adds more potential "plusses" to simple rez rolls. The 2d6 bell curve is very steep, and as we saw with the obscene +4 intelligence mods a less-than-thoroughly thought out bonus can have radical and unexpected effects on game balance. For example, if elite units got a +2 on their SR rolls, they would be getting crit checks on 72% of their rolls and would have only a 3% chance of giving the enemy a crit chance, versus 42% and 17% respectively using the default curve structure. It gets even more horrifying if you take it a step further to +3 for Heroic (i.e. "Clan Elite" 1/2)... 83% chance of earning a crit roll, with no chance of giving one to the enemy.



On a semi-note, I'm going to be posting two polls in a few minutes. Please check them out.

Quote from: GreyJaeger on September 09, 2010, 01:18:35 PM
I did answer..
http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=353.0

I see what some of you are saying about the FP buff, but it is still nothing to actually make Veteran or Elie worthwhile. In MM, 3 Veteran Mechs vs 5 Regulars, with fairly equal BV, is an uphill battle for the Vets, as they will be outmassed. In Simres, 10 FP of Vets vs 10 FP of Regulars, what benefit did the Vets have. You really think that 2 FP is an actual benefit?

But you know what, I have said my piece, and nothing is going to be done about it. So I have a choice to make.

Quote from: Marlin on September 09, 2010, 09:08:21 AM
I covered both parts in my resume. 1 was an MM match of same FP nearly same BV with skilled troops vs unskilled. (green at that, poor suckers) Was a slugfest if you know what you are doing.

The other is pure FP.

In Simp Res, the Bonus for the skilled Troops is just only an FP addition. Where is the problem when one takes 5 Regular Mechs with an FP of 1 and you correspond in kind with 4 Elite Mechs that might have 1.5 FP?

The .5 account for the Elite Status. No one should cry foul. Even 3 Mechs might have over 1 FP in this example.

BTW, when I offered to fight our Trial out in MM, there was no response. You might have won anyway, such we had a roll and you won. Against regulars.. you might have taken more FP.. Hm.. if bidding down on the same FP, then it becomes a problem of course.. but that might just be the risk of bidding too low?

But then, with equal FP fights, there is the Breaking roll which benefits the experienced side and that is when they have a bonus..

If you treat the FP as BV-conversion (which it roughly is even on ground) then you should bid more with more skill. You may cut down and gain glory or you may lose that.

I guess the Ravens would always cry foul against a Viper, so I would not concern me with that. If you play after BV and Skill mods, the better skilled side WILL have a huge or less huge advantage even with less machines. It is just natural. Only a great MMer would go to equal or less BV. And even then, he might lose.

The Equal FP might be a leftover from the old BV Bidding practices and the attached honor account system.

This is gone for several years, I think.

Is it possible to use unplanned reinforcement on a different TURN than when an attack was initiated? I ask as I have a force I didn't move to a location in the orders, but the place was attacked last turn...

I guess the better phrasing: if combat carries over from a previous turn, can UPR be initiated before Combat Round 1 of the current turn? Because UPR says your forces have to already be engaged. It becomes a semantics question: your forces were in combat last turn, does that techniclly make them still engaged this turn?

I'd say no, it doesn't. The difference is really wether your UPR forces arrive in Combat Round 3 or 4, because they have to waste 2 Combat rounds in transit, assuming the 8-up roll is successful. Also need to balance the huge MP cost, and the loss of all RP from the hex where the reinforcing units are coming from.

So i would say that your forces won't be able to impact the fight untill Combat round 4.

Question: When you have an interdicted Hex with one Control World and a Member World, when you upgrade that Member World to Control World (giving it a HPG-B) what happens to the Interdiction?

It would go away because theres a working HPG now I should think

That is correct asked Dave and Josh about it when I started when the FWL was interdicted.

Oh I don't know.

Stack of doom makes you vulnerable across a broadfront.

Mind you it has its place but failing to adequately defend your holdings can come back to haunt you.

Especially now with this new dice roll to see if the militia even fights.

Quote from: Hugin on September 09, 2010, 04:42:57 PM
Oh come on Shane :)

Holt is showing us since turn 20 that STAC'O'DOOOOOOOM is the most succsessive 'and if you want to purely win use this' tactic.

Does not need finesse, does not need taktical skill. All it needs is a large RP background *shrug*

Quote from: GreyJaeger on September 09, 2010, 01:18:35 PM
I did answer..
http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=353.0 (http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=353.0)

I see what some of you are saying about the FP buff, but it is still nothing to actually make Veteran or Elie worthwhile. In MM, 3 Veteran Mechs vs 5 Regulars, with fairly equal BV, is an uphill battle for the Vets, as they will be outmassed. In Simres, 10 FP of Vets vs 10 FP of Regulars, what benefit did the Vets have. You really think that 2 FP is an actual benefit?

But you know what, I have said my piece, and nothing is going to be done about it. So I have a choice to make.

Quote from: Marlin on September 09, 2010, 09:08:21 AM
I covered both parts in my resume. 1 was an MM match of same FP nearly same BV with skilled troops vs unskilled. (green at that, poor suckers) Was a slugfest if you know what you are doing.

The other is pure FP.

In Simp Res, the Bonus for the skilled Troops is just only an FP addition. Where is the problem when one takes 5 Regular Mechs with an FP of 1 and you correspond in kind with 4 Elite Mechs that might have 1.5 FP?

The .5 account for the Elite Status. No one should cry foul. Even 3 Mechs might have over 1 FP in this example.

BTW, when I offered to fight our Trial out in MM, there was no response. You might have won anyway, such we had a roll and you won. Against regulars.. you might have taken more FP.. Hm.. if bidding down on the same FP, then it becomes a problem of course.. but that might just be the risk of bidding too low?

But then, with equal FP fights, there is the Breaking roll which benefits the experienced side and that is when they have a bonus..

Quote from: chaosxtreme on September 25, 2010, 02:19:48 PM
That is correct asked Dave and Josh about it when I started when the FWL was interdicted.

Excellente. :)

I know of a way to make veteran and elite troops more viable without actually changing any rules, atleast in the Trial system. As far as Doomstacks go, there really isnt any way around it, they'll appear anyways.

In Trials, when people are bidding, its always bidding by FP. The more 'realistic' way of bidding, would be to bid by unit, ie "CJF bids the Jade Falcon Guards'. Or '2 mech stars of the Jade Falcon Guards'. That way, an opponent has to try and match the bid in numbers, but doesn't always know the FP. It makes bidding a strategic element, like it should be, instead of just a way of minimizing some losses.

In my example, most people are propably aware that its an Elite unit. But say I bid the 1st Falcon Jaegers cluster. Is it Regular? Veteran? Elite? Bidding an Elite unit against a Regular might give you a better chance at winning(higher FP/skills), but then if u lose, your guys get slammed for losing to an inferior unit. Vise versa, if you win, your opponent can salvage their respect by admitting defeat from a superior opponent. I'm just saying, if the bidding process was more realistic, it would make Vet an Elite units more useful than they currently are. sure, 10FP of Elites vs 10FP of greens means nothing, but 2 Stars of Elites vs 2 Stars of Greens is a BIG difference.

That and it opens up RP for the lesser rated units to actually have bragging rights. You can't argue superiority if your 10FP green troops beat 10FP of Elites, because you have almost 2:1 odds in numbers, and as Uncle Joe said, "Quantity has a quality all it's own". But if you win that 2Star v 2Star fight, those Greens just got a huge morale and reputation boost.

Except - You share codices, so each side would be aware of the skill of the unit they are facing.

Except - There is no real honor in 10 FP of elites beating 10 FP of greens.  Elites would be unlikely to bid to fight greens.

Exception 1: you share codecies after the bids are finalized. You don't share them beforehand, or atleast if you read the books, Codex sharing happens once the bids are final. In a combat situation, the attacker sends his bid, and the defender has an internal bidding war to see which unit commander will defend against the attacker. Only once both forces have finalized their bidding are the codecies traded. We don't do this because generally one person is responsible for the whole of a faction's military at any given combat scenario. If we had enough players for each Star Colonel, or even Galaxy Commander, bidding internally would be something to consider.

Exception 2: its an example NVA, call it Veterans fighting Greens, or Elites fighting Regulars, it doesn't really matter. Unless you personally keep detailed files on an OOC peice of information, I don't see how it matters. And even if you did, you couldn't use it...because that would be metagaming to take advantage of a bidding situation. There are bound to be even Elite rated pilots in a Green unit(such as the Elite-rated Colonel sent to whip the brand new converted Militia force into a front-line combat force).

I can see charm in your solution, Daemon..

we should really try that out.. outside of the game first, though.

the thing it does is that it makes training a unit to veteran or elite useful again. We have an FP value per binary/company, which makes it easy to get an FP for a lance/star of a given weight. I'm not sure about everyone else, but I personally don't keep track of what weight was used to create each Cluster. However, we have an excellent table availible to us for use in these bidding situations: the Flashpoint rules showcase the weights of the mid-level units(Battallions/2Trinaries) in a top-level(Regiment/Cluster). The only thing needed to rectify this to Company/Star would be to add 1 mech of the correlating weight class to the IS side(because in the table, IS organization has 3 Batts to a regiment, when u need 4 mechs to a lance). Anyone who wants to see the table, needs only to look at page 21 of the Flashpoint rulebook, and pay attention to the weights that had a +(it stands for Heavy Weight in FP, it basicly means that formations have a single unit at a higher weight for that unit's designated weight).

So, now we can figure out exactly what mechs are in a given Company/Binary. We will have their veterancy the same way we always have. It will impact MM equally to its impact in SimRes, because in SimRes the FP of the better veterancy unit is higher, and in MM their skills are higher. Also, it makes questions of 'honorable' bids much easier, because they will be much more transparent. 5FP of Elites can mean a handful of Assaults, or a binary of Elite-piloted Gauss Rifle Novas... Now, the opposing player will know exactly how many mechs he has to deal with, and he has to question which of his units can best deal with that sized force.

An example bid would be:

CJF Challenges FWL/SLDF forces for possession of Coventry and it's infrastructure. We bid 1 whole Cluster, the 1st Falcon Jeagers.

Now, if the FWL or SLDF has come into contact with that unit before, and knows how skilled the pilots are, they'll have a good idea that the unit is considered Elite. Therefore, they need to bid at least a Battalion of Elite troops to be effective, or undercut the Falcons and get them to bid lower, possibly from a lesser rated unit if they bid, say Regulars.

FWL/SLDF bids 1 Company of the 10th Leauge Assault Regiment.

These are regular rated troops. The Falcons are unlikly to pit Elites against them, because even if they win, its somewhat hallow. Now the Leauge has taken control of the bid.

Conversely, if the Leauge doesn't know the skill of the Jaegers, or if the Falcons didn't know the LAR was regular, it could be dangerous for the Leauge if they bid slightly less forces, but of a lower skill level. It just adds a much more realistic and fun element of strategic play, in my mind.

I guess I always read the fic differently.  If codices weren't known before bidding, then what does it matter if the IS faked units?  I saw that faking what the unit was, when sent, misled the bidding.

Also, if no one IC makes fun of/looks down on the clan that has lost honor, what does even bidding matter?

If you want to mislead, you need a disseminate disinformation intelligence mission. Units have markings, paint schemes, and rosters, and you would need to change all/most of that to truly mislead an opponent. Its not as simple as just saying "No, we arn't Knights of the Inner Sphere, we're the recruit cadre from Bumblebee Militia". Its always required a DMI mission. And if successful, then you'd be able to say whatever you wanted to during the bidding process.

I fail to see what you mean: you personally had IC ridiculed the Clans as a whole for their loss of honor, in the eyes of the Wolves. As its been said to me, very rarely does an entire Clan lose honor. Its usually a specific person, or unit. Unless something happens consistantly(like a Clan ALWAYS overbidding, or ALWAYS breaking Zell), its rare that Clans look on each other with blanket disdain(or if they just have bad relationships in general... read Adders Wolves, as an example of blanket hatred). And the IS doesn't look at the Clans in terms of 'honorable' usually anyways, thats a moot point.

Its not going to solve every problem, because it doesn't address Doomstacking. But nothing will solve that, unless the GMs introduce a rule that deals with combat width, which I highly doubt.(CW is the idea that a force can only be engaged by so many opponents at a given time effectivly. Think the Great Gash: you couldn't have a multi-regimental force fighting a company in it. You could barely have more than company v company at a given time, because there just isn't room. Combat Width would say, that the multi-regimental force isn't able to bring its full weight against the company, thereby reducing the effective fighting strength of the larger group).

That might be a nice idea to look into, but I don't have a clue as to how you'd apply it other than making the combat ratios slide depending on the size of the smallest combating force. Which would be interesting, because theoreticlly, you could have a Company fight and defeat a Regiment, because the Regiment isn't engaging all at the same time. It'd be an interesting counter to Doomstacks.

My reference was to the BTech universe, not our game rules.  In the BTech universe, story, and novels, IS units misled clan units by sending them false codices.  Thes codices caused the clans to bid too low for the real force they faced.  My point being, codices, as I read it in the back story of the universe, are shared up front, before bidding. 

NVA is correct, at least as far as the defenders are concerned. Codices of the defending unit are shared when the defending bid is announced. This element can not really be used in Daemonknight's proposal as it would make an exception to the Disseminate Info rule. Should it be used between the Clans? Yep. But Clans do not expect the IS to play by their rules, save when it suits the IS leader's interests to do so. Hence why the Clans quit sending Batchalls.

I say we still do it that way against the IS. If someone wants to mislead during the bidding process, thats fine, but they should have to reveal the true veterancy once the bids are set. You can say you're regulars, but if you're holding strong against Elites, its not likly. Then its upto the players to decide if they want to keep track of what a unit's true skill level is, or if they even want to trust an IS nation.

An example atm is Coventry. the FWL is playing by the rules(although they seem to be trying to curry the favor of SA Folkner), so CJF would assume they arn't going to lie about the units they bid. On the other hand, the Adders might dislike the FWL to the point that they wont even respond to a batchall and just attack, or perhaps always bid a higher-rated force than the FWL, expecting deceit. I think it adds a strategic flair to the game thats kinda missing. Right now, doomstacking is the most effective way to wage war in the game, but i think it takes away from the feel of the CBT universe.

Thats only my opinion, i still love the game and think its fun. But it doesnt really require any changes to the current system, so the GM team wouldn't need to playtest or alter anything to make an attempt at fixing the whole Elite/Veteran vs Regular/Green Swarm issue.

Quick question off the currect track:

If one buys a replacement HPG, do we just assume it shows up in 1 or 2 (depending on distance from where it was made) turns, or do we wait until GM confirmation?

It moves 5 hex's a turn from your the nearest IC that YOU control.

If you don't own any IC's and arent a Secondary or better Provider


you have to work out the replacement with the Wobblies or Comstar and it has to transit at 5 hex's a turn from the Terran Hegemony (not their closest IC from the TH).

Quote from: chaosxtreme on September 26, 2010, 12:24:17 PM
It moves 5 hex's a turn from your the nearest IC that YOU control.

If you don't own any IC's and arent a Secondary or better Provider


you have to work out the replacement with the Wobblies or Comstar and it has to transit at 5 hex's a turn from the Terran Hegemony (not their closest IC from the TH).

Just to clarify, all ICs currently existing in the non-Clan factions are ComStar or WOB facilities as far as I know, and could be used as a building point for a TH-made HPG. Technically, these should all be Guest ICs to clarify their nature, but for convoluted reasons rooted in the distant past the previous GM team did not allow ICs to be guest facilities.

Follow up on the DP Station battle: How is Salvage of moving Infra treated? If they do damage or not is secondary for that, but likewise important.

Quote from: Holt on September 27, 2010, 05:17:13 PM
I sent Dave a PM about it a little earlier ago, basically i cant fathom how a moving factory can do the same damage as a 24FP ASF combat unit.

CDS has established an offensive interdiction, so CW would have to get through that before the blockade.


If moving factories can inflict damage, its going to be hell at Terra when the clans reach it, imagine ~400FP of moving infrastructure becoming basically a combat unit.

Stop giving Chaos Ideas! XP

Chaos: "I can live withut the Ontos so,... now I drop Grumman Amalgamated on Europe! Take that Terrans! Interidict ME will ya!"

Lol. Now i need to bring Olivetti Weapons on my suicide run.

Diana Pryde does a Falcon Punch! and sends Olivetti right at Geneva.

Its not the moving factory that is inflicting the damage; its the small fleet of transport dropships doing the shooting - just like when an unescorted ground unit attempts to break interdiction or run a blockade it can still inflict damage that represents its transport units in action. I suppose you could say "its the movement points doing the fighting."

This, of course, is part of why I want to get rid of movement points and massively alter the movement system, but that will take time to fine tune and make fair for everyone.

Did the research station ability to let a unit move 6 instead of 5 for non-lfb units ever go into affect?

Quote from: Dave Baughman on September 27, 2010, 07:59:56 PM
Its not the moving factory that is inflicting the damage; its the small fleet of transport dropships doing the shooting - just like when an unescorted ground unit attempts to break interdiction or run a blockade it can still inflict damage that represents its transport units in action. I suppose you could say "its the movement points doing the fighting."

This, of course, is part of why I want to get rid of movement points and massively alter the movement system, but that will take time to fine tune and make fair for everyone.

A combat unit i can agree with dealing damage, they are after all a combat unit being transported by military dropships, akin to merchant marines. A military factory would be transported by regular merchants akin to cargo ships, as you pointed out being transported by Mules in the bidding thread.

I can see the merchant marines doing damage as they are trained for combat and some ships having not just defensive armament, but the cargo ship Green Marsupial doing damage? I just dont see it at all.

Quote from: Holt on September 27, 2010, 08:09:01 PM

Quote from: Dave Baughman on September 27, 2010, 07:59:56 PM
Its not the moving factory that is inflicting the damage; its the small fleet of transport dropships doing the shooting - just like when an unescorted ground unit attempts to break interdiction or run a blockade it can still inflict damage that represents its transport units in action. I suppose you could say "its the movement points doing the fighting."

This, of course, is part of why I want to get rid of movement points and massively alter the movement system, but that will take time to fine tune and make fair for everyone.

A combat unit i can agree with dealing damage, they are after all a combat unit being transported by military dropships, akin to merchant marines. A military factory would be transported by regular merchants akin to cargo ships, as you pointed out being transported by Mules in the bidding thread.

I can see the merchant marines doing damage as they are trained for combat and some ships having not just defensive armament, but the cargo ship Green Marsupial doing damage? I just dont see it at all.

Unprotected Merchies in a pirate infested, war-zone universe?  Unlikely-they'd have their own integral escort just on the base assumption that they want to get paying work-and nobody in their right mind (not even Clans) would let them fly without some kind of trigger-puller riding shotgun...even in 'safe' areas (Which, given the map, the station does not exist within.)

This isn't the 21st Century where the "Pirates" are riding around on outboard-powered open motorboats near shore, the strategic situation is closer to 1939 with shipping mostly done in convoy, and even the Liberty ships carried SOME guns.

Liberty ship carried a 5in gun aft, 40mm AA gun fore and about 6 50cals, and in case you say wiki is a hell of a drug; i am sitting less than 100 feet from the Jerimiah O'Brien. Though they had certain defensive arms, they would do literally nothing against a surface ship.

I should point out too that the tables for break interdiction and blockade running are already skewed against the runner. Break Interdiction is particularly heinous in that the breaker often deals 0% damage, but blockade running isn't all that fun either.

At the core of the issue though, is that are the rules are written right now there's a certain level of abstration - 1 FP is 1 FP is 1 FP, regardless of whether its 15000 FP of aero, the magical "Tech 2 medium 'mech company" that has the same FP regardless of its composition, or a dozen mixed cargo ships, they pretty much behave the same (except the previously-discussed inability of abstract transports to initiate combat).

Does it get goofy and fall apart when you look at it too closely? Absolutely! I will be the first one to line up and criticize the shortcomings of the current movement system, but at the same time I have to stick by it and rule on it consistently until we get something better. If there's one lesson we can learn from some of the problems we've had in the last 40 turns, the solution isn't to impose a "case law" style rules set where every rule has dozens of sometimes-contradictory exceptions to make things 'more realistic.' Better to accept some of the quirks with a grain of salt in the name of having a properly functioning rules set - and look to the future to find a comprehensive solution (which the GM team is exploring) - then the try and fix a perceived problem like this piecemeal and break things even worse.

Anyway, I'll cut off the sermon before it gets too long-winded, but the short version is:

• Yes, the GM team is aware that when you actually try to stat out infrastructure convoys they look kind of silly, either consisting of hundreds of transports, or including built-in convoy escorts that would seem to contradict the way they are fluffed as not being escorted.
• The GM team will be the first to confirm that this is the result of the level of abstraction in the rules and is not literally true - if anything, CS's vision of liberty ships escorted by jeep carriers is probably pretty close to the 'fluff reality' if we're going to go that way.
• The GM team feels obliged to point out that the inherent weakness of abstract transports vs. normal aero units is already reflected in the way the break interdiction and blockade running charts penalize the runner's damage output.
• The GM team is currently working on a comprehensive solution to the whole problem of abstract movement which should address the vast majority of the goofiness, but it will not be ready for a while since it involves a lot of stuff that could make the rules blow up if we do it wrong.

QuoteOne turn before the move is to be executed, the facility must be taken offline for packing. The following turn it is removed from the map and becomes a transported unit with FP equal to its RP construction cost. These transport units may not initiate combat but they may be attacked. Infrastructure transport units move per the normal rules.

Seems to me, that the escorts are accounted for-it can't initiate attacks (Which fits-you don't send your security team out to fight offensively with something that valuable), and it's not very good at defending itself (which fits the Blockade rules), but it is armed. (Has an FP value equal to the construction RP spent).  Blockade running is arguably NOT an offensive manuever provided you're running it to run the hell away-which WOULD be what you would use your security team for.

Will there be a possibility to gain PFs later too?

I would have a planet in mind where I would build a new War School, like the CGuards did on Tuk.. Just they got a PF for that. :P

Not to mention very much smaller powers.

I'm trying to make sure I have my Terrorism rules correct because Tamar is no longer contested...but they seem to be missing from the rules now...

I've heard that PFs will be buildable, with a similar cost-timeline to SYs. But who knows when that rule is going to go active... prolly when the R&D rules get finalized.

Quote from: Marlin on September 28, 2010, 09:53:21 AM
Will there be a possibility to gain PFs later too?

I would have a planet in mind where I would build a new War School, like the CGuards did on Tuk.. Just they got a PF for that. :P

Not to mention very much smaller powers.

I have a question for people:

Just how many "PF's" are canon and not represented in your realms?

what do you mean?

PF is suitibly abstract, like most things in this game. The NAIS is an example of a very high-grade of PF. Techniclly, a PF can be anything from a permenant training facility, to a govornment sponsored think-tank, to a university. It doesn't have to be a renouned facility, because theres only a handful.

If you're asking how many PFs that're displayed are NAIS calibre, probably most of the PFs that exist are designed to represent well known facilities. But thats a product of their rules. In their next incarnation, they'll be a much more usefull tool, instead of just giving an abstract bonus to random research rolls.

Quote from: Jeyar on October 05, 2010, 04:37:48 AM
I have a question for people:

Just how many "PF's" are canon and not represented in your realms?

Over 9,000!

PF level over 9,000....but..but thats impossible!!!

Over 9000 Remix! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXjzqLPEaQw#ws)

OMG, you are such nerds!

you say that as if it's a bad thing

 ;D

Ok ok. I am one, too, but that's not the point.

I guess we move back to topic, I think there are still some issues unadressed.

Quote from: Fatebringer on October 05, 2010, 04:26:24 AM
I'm trying to make sure I have my Terrorism rules correct because Tamar is no longer contested...but they seem to be missing from the rules now...

Bump

Quote from: Fatebringer on October 08, 2010, 12:56:55 AM

Quote from: Fatebringer on October 05, 2010, 04:26:24 AM
I'm trying to make sure I have my Terrorism rules correct because Tamar is no longer contested...but they seem to be missing from the rules now...

Bump

Terrorized hexes do not produce resource points. When I do this turns rules update I'll clarify that point.

kk, I thought it was something like 1/2 RP and 1/2 production. So noted on the sheet. I know there used to be a better definition for Terror Effects, but I couldn't find it :p

Can we please get rid of the Thread Title guidelines' Turn number requirement?

As the turns are already in their own subforums, I see no need to add a turn number at all.

Quote from: Marlin on October 11, 2010, 06:13:06 PM
Can we please get rid of the Thread Title guidelines' Turn number requirement?

As the turns are already in their own subforums, I see no need to add a turn number at all.

The turn folders are not going to be there forever. Eventually I am going to have to compress the old ones down into a single archive folder, and then the turn numbers in the thread titles are going to be pertinent.

 :-\ But, but I loved the folders!!

Ok. So noted.

lol - I was going to this thread to suggest the same thing this very thing just now.  ;D

I propose a rules change: If a Naval Recon mission is happening, now if it fails, the "Invader" either retreats or goes to battle. Is there is nothing, he is lucky. If there is something, his Naval is likely gonna die. However, the Defender should be able to also choose if he engages the intruder or not.

Because an Invader does not want to do anything else than gather data (as happens automatically after a successful Pirate Roll) It should be this way also with a failed roll if the Defender does not move to attack. Then the Intel should be gathered as well.

No?

So basically, the Defender should make the call if he attacks the Infiltrator, or not, risking either to send too few forces against a big Ship, or dont send anything and give away the information the evil side seeks.

Would be rather logical.

:P

Noticed that Taurus has been invaded.  ;D

I expected it (actually, I expected a MUCH larger force but that is another issue) but I had a question about unplanned reinforcement. Can you finely split your forces before they try and jump to the rescue? I ask as I've been carefully keeping track of my MP and I don't have enough to move everything from one of the 2 locations I could try and send forces from. I could another, but the size of the force is noticably smaller.

It may be clear to others, but I don't want to make plans and then (even assuming I am lucky) have them come to ruin due to my not thinking about what rules mean the same as others.

each unit moves independently, no matter how many individual units are being moved. However, you can only move forces from a single Hex, and each unit requires an 8+ to even make the movement.

Quote from: Jeyar on October 12, 2010, 11:26:02 PM
Noticed that Taurus has been invaded.  ;D

I expected it (actually, I expected a MUCH larger force but that is another issue) but I had a question about unplanned reinforcement. Can you finely split your forces before they try and jump to the rescue? I ask as I've been carefully keeping track of my MP and I don't have enough to move everything from one of the 2 locations I could try and send forces from. I could another, but the size of the force is noticably smaller.

It may be clear to others, but I don't want to make plans and then (even assuming I am lucky) have them come to ruin due to my not thinking about what rules mean the same as others.

as an accomplished hair-splitter with regards to forces, I would guess the answer is 'yes' but next turn, you'd better have it annotated on your sheet.

I suppose I didn't fully read your question.


Ex: the CJF military sheet is broken down to Clusters. If I wanted elements of a single cluster in different locations, all you need to do is note which part of the unit is where. Some factions might have it broken down to Binary/Company size, but that seems excessive. Would be upto the GMs, but I would say that a single roll per Regiment or at the smallest, a Battalion, would be sufficent.

But the caveat is that you still can only move forces from a single hex, and only one Unplanned Reinforcement can be attempted per turn. Making more checks means theres the chance that you could fail more often, but it also means that if you fail a single check, you don't leave a Regiment behind.

Yeah, I've had to split forces before when I created them in one place to join their parent unit in another. :P

Just to pop in on the topic of splitting units - if a unit needs to be split for tactical purposes that's fine - just break it up on the sheet as needed. As long as all the FP is accounted for, it should be fine.

Having said that, when possible the GM Team would prefer that ground units be accounted for at the Cluster or Regiment level unless they need to be split for tactical purposes.

I normally note it and how much and where in the notes section next to the parent unit.

Because I normally put units bacvk together quickly.

What is the rule about reverse engineering Warships? I was told no way, but I see other people doing it.

I believe you need the schematics and an example to do it, but it requires ripping the example ship apart to figure out its internal workings, so you lose said example ship.

Its cost of ship x10 so extremely expensive, even having a sample of it only brings down the cost by 50%.



So a 5FP LiFu warship that costs 50RP to produce, costs 500RP to reverse engineer; 250RP if you have an example, but lose it.

Also you can't reverse engineer something from a different tech base.

I.E. if your Clan you can rip apart Clan Warships and do that. if your IS you can rip apart IS warships.

Clans can't build Mjolly's I can't build Nightlords...the horrible horrible pain.

Quote from: chaosxtreme on October 15, 2010, 08:23:06 PM
Also you can't reverse engineer something from a different tech base.

I.E. if your Clan you can rip apart Clan Warships and do that. if your IS you can rip apart IS warships.

Clans can't build Mjolly's I can't build Nightlords...the horrible horrible pain.

us clans may not build em, but we sure do steal em  ;D  :D

Hi everyone, I have just posted extremely rough VIP and gunplay rules in the rules thread, in response to a clear need for such things to be codified in light of Tharkad.

Please consider these to be draft rules that have been temporarily implemented to fill a critical rules need. If we find balance problems, loopholes, etc they will be updated appropriately -- so please post any such findings here for GM review.

Thanks - I just want to say that my action was an honest misunderstanding. I haven't been in the habit of reading all the clan RP, and I assumed that the Falcon character was a fall guy.

Quote from: august on October 25, 2010, 04:30:10 AM
Thanks - I just want to say that my action was an honest misunderstanding. I haven't been in the habit of reading all the clan RP, and I assumed that the Falcon character was a fall guy.

I totally understand; this has been a poorly-defined part of the rules for a long time, so if anything its the GM Team's fault for not making things more explicit before. Hopefully, these draft rules will work adequately for resolving these situations until I can write up something more polished.

QuoteIndividual Combat

All individual combat will be decided via best of seven D6 rolls; ties are rerolled.

In unarmed combat, the following modifiers apply


Clan Elementals recieve a +2 bonus to their roll
Clan Protomechwarriors recieve a -1 to their roll
Clan Naval/Areo pilots recieve a -2 to their rolls

Considering Protomech Warriors are Failed ASF Pilots, shouldn't they also be at a -2?

Quote from: Fatebringer on October 26, 2010, 08:46:55 PM
Considering Protomech Warriors are Failed ASF Pilots, shouldn't they also be at a -2?

Well, most ProtoMech warriors are failed ASF pilots, but not all of 'em.  And perhaps this is a reflection of their modified training as well?

I personally always assumed it reflected them having additional hand to hand combat training, kind of like the way Clan-trained MechWarriors have better skills on average. That's one aspect of the rule that came down all the way from the earliest editions of the rules pretty much unmodified, so we can always re-examine it in the future if there's a consensus that its out of whack.

Re:

Quote
Exploration and Colonization Rules

If a faction wishes to conduct exploration for habitable worlds, the following rules apply.

RP Cost: 8 RPs per hex searched, multiple searches may be conducted in the same hex.

2D6 Target number for successfully discovering a world: 9+

Die roll modifiers
General location already known (previous or rediscovered records*): +3
Each habitable world (beyond one) already in hex: +1 (Maximum modifier of +3)
Totally uncharted territory: -1

* Factions are expected to provide sufficient Role Playing to explain such an event.

I'd like to see the Exploration Rules revisited at some point in the near future.  Specifically, I would like to do away with the requirement to RP the mission.  I don't recall anywhere else within the rules that calls for RP to be undertaken for a specific ruleset.  Whether it be upgrading a member world to a control world, building a shipyard or creating a new brigade (all three valuable endeavours), none of these require a mandatory roleplay piece. 

if you look, its not mandatory for the mission. the asterisk indicates that solid RP can net you a large bonus on the roll: something that R&D or unit building don't make allowances for.

I think you will be happy with the new R&D rules then as they will include a total overhaul of Exploration. The short version is that it (and most R&D projects) will work just like intelligence missions as far as the game mechanics go, so you'll be able to tailor your spending level to match the bonus you want. The base price of the operation will go down, probably to 2.5 RP, so the cost would be 2.5 RP for a straight roll, 5 RP for a +1 bonus, 10 RP for a +2 bonus, and 20 RP for a +3 bonus. The modifier for # of planets in the hex will be going away, but there will be a +1 bonus for searching for a canon location (the -1 for exploring deep space will still apply). Base level of success will still be an 8+ on 2d6, but high rolls will result in better stuff - just like intel - while critical fails (2, 3, or 4) may result in bad stuff, like running into pirates or whatnot.

The goal is to make it simple, fair, and 'not boring.'

Note that everything I have written above is early draft material and may change in the final version.

Quote from: Parmenion on November 01, 2010, 01:10:22 PM
Re:

Quote
Exploration and Colonization Rules

If a faction wishes to conduct exploration for habitable worlds, the following rules apply.

RP Cost: 8 RPs per hex searched, multiple searches may be conducted in the same hex.

2D6 Target number for successfully discovering a world: 9+

Die roll modifiers
General location already known (previous or rediscovered records*): +3
Each habitable world (beyond one) already in hex: +1 (Maximum modifier of +3)
Totally uncharted territory: -1

* Factions are expected to provide sufficient Role Playing to explain such an event.

I'd like to see the Exploration Rules revisited at some point in the near future.  Specifically, I would like to do away with the requirement to RP the mission.  I don't recall anywhere else within the rules that calls for RP to be undertaken for a specific ruleset.  Whether it be upgrading a member world to a control world, building a shipyard or creating a new brigade (all three valuable endeavours), none of these require a mandatory roleplay piece. 

Question regarding Blockades: Just rereading tells me, no more Warships are needed to pull that one off?

If so, ok. If it was just a slip, I guess here is a headsup.

Quote from: Marlin on November 06, 2010, 02:06:37 PM
Question regarding Blockades: Just rereading tells me, no more Warships are needed to pull that one off?

If so, ok. If it was just a slip, I guess here is a headsup.

That's intentional. The requirement to use warships in a blockade was removed when we took away the "automatic instant kill" feature of the order.

Oh. I see. Well, then AR would have seen a blockade, I guess. Not needed now anymore, but a rest of troops is still there of Tharkad origin.

I was wondering about Capitol Worlds, is it possible to transfer the seats of power within a realm?

Example: The RasDom have several "Regional Capitols" but Rasalhague itself is not one of them although it used to be the National capitol. Trondheim is a Regional Capitol right next to Rasalhague, and I'd rather see Rasalhague be the actual capitol again for "Duh!" reasons.

While I certainly understand the aesthetic reasons for wanting to move the regional capital from Trondheim to Rasalhague, I'd say that one should have to pay to move any sort of capital from one world to another... and I'd even go so far as to say that it should be full-price in RPs, to cover to mechanics of "setting things up", diverting JumpShip/HPG traffic and trade routes, moving the governmental personnel from one world to the next, building new administrative buildings, et cetera.  At the most generous, I'd still say to assess half the RP cost of actually creating a capital hex in order to move it, for the reasons stated above.

I also think that this is a good thing to look into, because simply being able to move one's capital from one world to another shouldn't be an easy process, and if it is, can really be abused if someone chooses to do so. 

I agree. I wouldn't expect that kind of infrastructure move to be cheap. In this situation, I would liken the re-emergence of the Rasalhague capitol to be more like unmothballing. The buildings are still there, but they need to be updated and refitted etc.

I dont expect it to be cheap, but Diverting jumpship/hpg traffic? We arnt comstar so we dont have much of a problem with our hpgs and since its not a real big change in jumpship traffic (I mean this is Rasalhague after all, the mecha holyland of the RD) Moving government personal will be tricky at first but its not like were moving them from Alshain to rasalhague. But then again, for the Roleplaying it'l be worth whatever we have to pay. Can you imagen having to pass the Fochs Jorgennson statue every day before you enter the new governmental building!!

It costs a lot of money to ship fine china across the stars.

but but, What will i do without my Capellan dishs!!!

Well, I for one will work with GM's to work on it, :P

Regarding capitals guys, some quick info:

If you want to voluntarily move your national capital, its the same as if it got blown up - you have to sacrifice all your income for a turn.

If you just want to make Rasalhague a 'regional capital,' all you have to do is pay for the upgrade. There is no "minimum distance" requirement between two regional capital (arguably, the whole "regional capital" hex improvement should have a more generic name like the Economic Zones in Flashpoint, but that's a whole other can of worms...)

I think the thing to look at for that is that the part of having that little star represents the industry and the infrastructure that springs up around your capitol just because its the seat of government.  In fudal BT land, you can govern out of the back of a Battlemaster; that's not what the capitol world is really all about, though the buracuracy that's there does help.  So, moving capitols is more than about command and controll, but its about changing the orbits of so many things that keep the government running. 

I don't think it would be bad to see the rules alow a rolling move, where in there's no black out.  But I do think it should not come cheaply or quickly.  The blackout rules are fine for an emergancy "oh crap, the Clans are here and we have to evacurate, now!" situation, but for an orderly peace time relocation?  Just make it take six turns and set the cost at 36 or 48 or something, and the other world reverts to regional status, or something like that.

Well, I thought there might be some situational issue. Despite the fact that this may cost me soooo much money, I may go ahead and do it anyway. Rasalhague is that important to the people. It used to be their National Capitol therefore, they care. But I agree, I wouldn't want Alshain to have to go back down to nothing, then work to get it back up to regional either.

Quote from: Iron Mongoose on November 13, 2010, 08:13:25 AM
I think the thing to look at for that is that the part of having that little star represents the industry and the infrastructure that springs up around your capitol just because its the seat of government.  In fudal BT land, you can govern out of the back of a Battlemaster; that's not what the capitol world is really all about, though the buracuracy that's there does help.  So, moving capitols is more than about command and controll, but its about changing the orbits of so many things that keep the government running. 

I don't think it would be bad to see the rules alow a rolling move, where in there's no black out.  But I do think it should not come cheaply or quickly.  The blackout rules are fine for an emergancy "oh crap, the Clans are here and we have to evacurate, now!" situation, but for an orderly peace time relocation?  Just make it take six turns and set the cost at 36 or 48 or something, and the other world reverts to regional status, or something like that.

I have no problem with the move being done over multiple turns as long as the full cost is paid by the end of the move. That's definitely one advantage of moving "on your own schedule" instead of in response to losing the hex. Also, you are right on the ball about why its so expensive; its not just relocating the nobility/warrior council/whatever, its moving or reconstructing all of the infrastructure that goes with the capital system.

Quote from: Dave Baughman on November 13, 2010, 07:33:53 PM

Quote from: Iron Mongoose on November 13, 2010, 08:13:25 AM
I think the thing to look at for that is that the part of having that little star represents the industry and the infrastructure that springs up around your capitol just because its the seat of government.  In fudal BT land, you can govern out of the back of a Battlemaster; that's not what the capitol world is really all about, though the buracuracy that's there does help.  So, moving capitols is more than about command and controll, but its about changing the orbits of so many things that keep the government running. 

I don't think it would be bad to see the rules alow a rolling move, where in there's no black out.  But I do think it should not come cheaply or quickly.  The blackout rules are fine for an emergancy "oh crap, the Clans are here and we have to evacurate, now!" situation, but for an orderly peace time relocation?  Just make it take six turns and set the cost at 36 or 48 or something, and the other world reverts to regional status, or something like that.

I have no problem with the move being done over multiple turns as long as the full cost is paid by the end of the move. That's definitely one advantage of moving "on your own schedule" instead of in response to losing the hex. Also, you are right on the ball about why its so expensive; its not just relocating the nobility/warrior council/whatever, its moving or reconstructing all of the infrastructure that goes with the capital system.

Hello there,

So if I understand this correctly, assuming you agreed with all of Iron Mongoose's statement, then we could spend the 70.75 RP to convert Rasalhague to a National Capitol over three turns and per Iron Mongooses suggestion, keep Alshain as a Regional capitol and appease our people?

How does the following sound?

Turn 44, pay the full amount (70.75) to get it out of the way.
Turn 45, turn Alshain into a regional, and Rasalhague into a regional
Turn 46, pay the rest, turn Rasalhague into a National

This would keep to your three turn craze for Infrastructure creation you use for ICs. Considering there is a transfer of infrastructure, shouldn't there be an MP cost involved too? Just asking.

Just a question to all:

Please read the Construction rules. They have changed in my view. Before you had to pay the x-th time of a Warship in order to build it and its additional FP, right? Now it seems you just have to HAVE the capacity of these numbers to build this and occupy those.

To me. So, you have 2 SY, capacity of 6 FP, and build a 3 FP LiFu, right? Now, you would need 30 FP Capacity, meaning you will have to wait 5 turns to build it. Pay your 3 RP in turn 1 and then wait for 4 more turns, and the ship gets out?

I mean, this would have saved me large amounts of RP if that was correct. The GMs have a hard time answering so, I send it to all. Perhaps I get a good answer in time. :P

Marlin

Quote from: Marlin on November 14, 2010, 09:56:45 AM
Just a question to all:

Please read the Construction rules. They have changed in my view. Before you had to pay the x-th time of a Warship in order to build it and its additional FP, right? Now it seems you just have to HAVE the capacity of these numbers to build this and occupy those.

To me. So, you have 2 SY, capacity of 6 FP, and build a 3 FP LiFu, right? Now, you would need 30 FP Capacity, meaning you will have to wait 5 turns to build it. Pay your 3 RP in turn 1 and then wait for 4 more turns, and the ship gets out?

I mean, this would have saved me large amounts of RP if that was correct. The GMs have a hard time answering so, I send it to all. Perhaps I get a good answer in time. :P

Marlin

It is the x10 in both RP and Construction points.

Quote from: GreyJaeger on November 14, 2010, 11:15:54 AM

Quote from: Marlin on November 14, 2010, 09:56:45 AM
Just a question to all:

Please read the Construction rules. They have changed in my view. Before you had to pay the x-th time of a Warship in order to build it and its additional FP, right? Now it seems you just have to HAVE the capacity of these numbers to build this and occupy those.

To me. So, you have 2 SY, capacity of 6 FP, and build a 3 FP LiFu, right? Now, you would need 30 FP Capacity, meaning you will have to wait 5 turns to build it. Pay your 3 RP in turn 1 and then wait for 4 more turns, and the ship gets out?

I mean, this would have saved me large amounts of RP if that was correct. The GMs have a hard time answering so, I send it to all. Perhaps I get a good answer in time. :P

Marlin

It is the x10 in both RP and Construction points.

Grey is correct, the WarShip construction costs have not changed (x6 for standard drive, x10 for LFB), they were just simplified to no longer treat the KF drive as a totally different in-game item (which didn't jive with the rest of the game system).

FYI, I have added a small section to the rules chapter on hex elements (http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=147.msg1040#msg1040). If you go to the end of that module you will now find definitions of what the watermarks mean and what their game effects are.

In light of the number of questions I've recently received about warship construction costs, the construction section has been updated and clarified.

Quote from: Dave Baughman on November 14, 2010, 10:57:28 PM
FYI, I have added a small section to the rules chapter on hex elements (http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=147.msg1040#msg1040). If you go to the end of that module you will now find definitions of what the watermarks mean and what their game effects are.

On the Capital World topic, i paid for turning Columbus into the Sharks Capital World last turn, before this new rules change. Which rule will it fall under?

Quote from: Holt on November 15, 2010, 01:56:24 AM

Quote from: Dave Baughman on November 14, 2010, 10:57:28 PM
FYI, I have added a small section to the rules chapter on hex elements (http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=147.msg1040#msg1040). If you go to the end of that module you will now find definitions of what the watermarks mean and what their game effects are.

On the Capital World topic, i paid for turning Columbus into the Sharks Capital World last turn, before this new rules change. Which rule will it fall under?

Holt, I am not 100% sure what rules change you are referring to. Can you shoot me a PM with the details?

Thats because i am 100% wrong.

Quote from: Dave Baughman on November 15, 2010, 02:17:07 AM

Quote from: Holt on November 15, 2010, 01:56:24 AM

Quote from: Dave Baughman on November 14, 2010, 10:57:28 PM
FYI, I have added a small section to the rules chapter on hex elements (http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=147.msg1040#msg1040). If you go to the end of that module you will now find definitions of what the watermarks mean and what their game effects are.

On the Capital World topic, i paid for turning Columbus into the Sharks Capital World last turn, before this new rules change. Which rule will it fall under?

Holt, I am not 100% sure what rules change you are referring to. Can you shoot me a PM with the details?

All Clan players please read this:

It has been pointed out to the GM team that some Clans do not have National Capitals. Every faction, including Clans should have one National Capital for game mechanical purposes. Please see the special case ruling on this subject that we made recently in response to a player question:

If, at this point in the game, a Clan faction does not have a national capital it must obtain one for game purposes. If the Clan had at least one Regional Capital in the Inner Sphere at the begining of turn 44, that area may be designated as a National Capital free of charge. If the Clan did not have any RCW in the Inner Sphere at the start of turn 44, then they must designate a world in the Homeworlds upon which they control all zones as their National Capital. If the faction has neither an RCW in the Inner Sphere, nor an exclusive world in the Homeworlds, they need to contact the GM team so a case-specific solution can be administered.

Any faction that does not begin turn 45 with a National Capital, either by having one already or by acquiring one for free via this special one-time ruling, will have to buy one at the normal cost described in the rules.

Unless a Clan has specifically changed its capital in the FGC (and I know quite a few have), it might be easy to default to a tiered system to determine capitals, for the sake of convenience.

1.) Whatever world in the FGC has been upgraded to Capital status (I'm sure the Dominion, for instance, has done this.).

2.) Canonically-listed capitals, even if they aren't necessarily exclusive (Ironhold for the Falcons, New Kent for the Vipers, etc.).  Warriors of Kerensky has each Clan's capital world listed under the blurb for each Clan.

3.) Barring either of these two being the case, using that Clan's enclave on Strana Mechty has also been the case for a few Clans in canon (Sharks and Wolves come to mind instantly here).

I hope that's helpful to someone.

Question regarding this:

Would this Capital in the HW also be receiving an FP bonus like in the IS? 2 RP I think it is.

Quote from: Marlin on November 21, 2010, 12:46:56 PM
Question regarding this:

Would this Capital in the HW also be receiving an FP bonus like in the IS? 2 RP I think it is.

We're going to have to review this and get back to you, as currently the planets themselves aren't granting revenue, just the HWZs. However, I see what you are getting at and we'll look at possibly adjusting the rules.

Yay, writer's block overcome. Please review and comment. This is very rough draft material, so everything is tenative and subject to change.


Chemical Weapons

Chemical Weapons tokens (#) are produced at PFs or Capital Worlds and may be attached to any "line item" unit on the orders sheet, including Special Operations Teams. CW tokens are spent during the Special Scenarios phase. Unattached CW tokens may be stockpiled or moved using the same rules previously presented for nuclear tokens.

CW uses:

When used by ground forces or aerospace units...
# may be spent to launch a CW attack, which inflicts 1d6 FP of damage. On a "1," it instead inflicts 1d6 FP on friendly forces. Scatter orders may be used to defend against CW attacks.
# may be spent to force a single hex improvement to go offline for 1d6 turns.
# may be used to deliberately attack the biosphere of a planet. Roll 2d6, on a "12" the planet is downgraded on level of development.

When used by marines...
# may be spent (by marines) to gain a +1 on simple resolution during boarding actions or combat on space stations.
# may also be spent to attack hex improvements as described above, if the hex improvement is on a space station or is a yardship.

when used by special forces...
# may be spent to add a +1 bonus to the following operations: attack special forces team, sabotage hex element, assassination
# may be spent to add a +2 bonus to the following operations: terrorism

Each token costs 5 RP to construct.

No faction begins with CW stockpiles; the Clans destroyed their stockpiles long ago, and the IS's stockpiles have been buried on "graveyard worlds" in the outer periphery. Recovering these ancient and partially decayed weapons is not cost-effective.

non-token CW activities: CW tokens represent the large-scale use of lethal chemical agents. CW tokens are not required for routine non-lethal chemical warfare such as using smoke or tear gas munitions in MegaMek.


Biological Weapons

Bioweapons have a wide variety of properties that are unlocked through R&D. Each faction must track the "recipes" they know and assign as specific recipe to every ß biological warfare token they own.

The properties of BW agents are described with three statistics: duration, spread, and strength.

• Duration is the maximum number of turns an agent will remain active once released. This can be a value from 1/6 (one operational round) to 6 (6 full rounds) or it may be X (stays active until cured).
• Spread is the bonus the agent receives each turn when determining if it spreads to adjacent hexes. This value can range from -3 to +3. The difficulty to spread to a directly adjacent hex is 8, or 10 to spread to a hex that is two hexes away. In addition to the BW agent's bonus, there is a +1 bonus to spread to a hex with an RCW, +2 to spread to a hex with a NCW, and +3 to spread to a hex with HWZs in it. There is a -1 penalty to spread to hexes with only member worlds. Spread can be counteracted with the Quarantine project (described below).
• Strength is the bonus the agent receives each turn on its damaging effects. This can be a value from -3 to +3.

BW Effects
Each turn, each hex that has obtained a BW watermark must roll to determine what impact the BW agent has:

1d6
1-2: All military units in the hex (except blockading naval units that have not been exposed) roll on the interdiction table(minus positive strength bonuses, or plus negative strength penalties) and suffer damage equal to the percentage indicated. The BW agent also attacks any special forces teams in the hex per the Attack Special Forces Team operation, using its strength as a modifier on the roll.
3-4: All hex elements in the hex are forced offline for 1d6(+/- strength) turns as if they had been attacked with a CW agent. Additionally, the hex is terrorized for the next three turns (+/- the strength modifier)
5-6: Roll for biosphere destruction on a randomly-determined planet in the hex (+/- strength) as per the CW operation. The BW agent also attempts to assassinate any VIPs in the hex, applying its strength modifier to the roll.

By default, a BW agent only attacks once per turn, but certain advanced recipes may be allowed multiple attacks.

BW R&D Path

Tier 1: Basic Projects

Quarantine
Base Cost: N/A
Uses: 1 PF or special

The quarantine project adds a -3 penalty to spread rolls emanating from the target hex. If a blockade is present in the system, the PF requirement is waived.

If any unit (including special forces teams and other clandestine movers) that has been exposed to the infected biosphere leaves the hex, the project fails and the -3 penalty is lost.

Identify Agent
Base Cost: 1
Uses: 1 PF

Samples of a BW agent are taken from an infected hex your faction owns to a PF for analysis. On an 8+, the recipe for the agent is revealed. A natural 2 is a critical failure, resulting in the release of the agent in the PF's hex.

Develop Cure
Base Cost: 10 RP
Uses: 1 PF

This operation adds the "Cure" feature to an existing recipe, and makes the cure known to the faction undertaking the project (see the "Add Feature" advanced project for full details on Cure). The difficulty of this project may be increased if the BW agent has the "Mutation" feature.

2d6
2 (natural)     Critical failure - BW agent released in the hex where the project PF is located
3-8              Failure
9-10             Add Cure/2-4 to the BW agent
11-12           Add Cure/2-3 to the BW agent
13+              Add Cure/2 to the BW agent


Launch BW Program
Base Cost: 25 RP
Uses: 1 PF

Succeeds on a 12+. Success unlocks the Tier 2 BW projects. A natural 2 is a critical failure, resulting in the release of an X/0/0 agent in the PF's hex. When successful, the faction that ran the project gains one recipe, which is always X/0/0 with no rules or features.


Tier 2: Intermediate Projects

Manufacture BW Token
Base Cost: 25 RP
Uses: 1 PF

Always succeeds. This project creates one ß token keyed to a specific recipe. ß tokens are carried, stockpile, and moved using the same rules as CW # tokens.


Create New Recipe
Base Cost: 5 RP
Uses: 1 PF

Creates a new BW recipe. Difficulty is equal to...

Base: 8+
Duration other than X: +1
Spread other than 0: +1
Strength other than 0: +1
Each Rule: +1
Each Feature: +1

Critically fails on a natural 2, releasing the agent in the target hex. Recipes may only be attempted if the faction has unlocked the desire statistics, rules, and features.


Enhanced Duration
Base Cost: 5 RP
Uses: 1 PF

Succeeds on a 10+, each success unlocks the next tier on the Duration track (factions start with X)

X -> 6 -> 5 -> 4 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> 3/6 -> 1/6

Critically fails on a natural 2, releasing one of the faction's recipes in the PF hex.


Enhanced Spread
Base Cost: 5 RP
Uses: 1 PF

Succeeds on a 10+, each success unlocks the next tier on the selected track (factions start with 0)

Bonus Track: 0 -> +1 -> +2 -> +3
Penalty Track: 0 -> -1 -> -2 -> -3


Enhanced Strength
Base Cost: 5 RP
Uses: 1 PF

Succeeds on a 10+, each success unlocks the next tier on the selected track (factions start with 0)

Bonus Track: 0 -> +1 -> +2 -> +3
Penalty Track: 0 -> -1 -> -2 -> -3


Tier 3: Advanced Projects
General Prerequisite: A faction cannot complete more Tier 3 projects than it has completed Tier 2 projects (excluding the 'manufacture BW token' project, which does not contribute to this limit).


Develop Rule
Base Cost: 10 RP
Uses: 1 PF

Succeeds on a 11+, each success unlocks a rule of choice. Some rules have prerequisites, noted in parenthesis. Critically fails on a natural 2, releasing a BW agent in the PF's hex.

Rules
Reroll first result of "1-2"
Reroll first result of "3-4"
Reroll first result of "5-6"
Reroll until a new result is obtained (prereq: any "Reroll first result")
Spread every other turn
Spread every three turns (prereq: "Spread every other turn")
Do not attack biosphere
Do not attack infrastructure
Do not attack VIPs (prereq: "do not attack biosphere")
Roll of "1" always indicates no effect


Develop Feature
Base Cost: 10 RP
Uses: 1 PF

Unlocks special features that may be added to recipes. Prerequisites are listed in parenthesis. Critically fails on a 2, releasing the agent in PF hex.

Cure/2-4: Developer has a 'silver bullet' cure that instantly removes the BW agent from any hex on a 5+ on 2d6
Cure/2-3 (prereq: Cure/2-4): As Cure/2-4, but succeeds on a 4+
Cure/2 (prereq: Cure/2-3): As Cure/2-4, but succeeds on a 3+
Mutation I: +1 penalty to Develop Cure projects
Mutation II (prereq: Mutation I): +2 penalty to Develop Cure projects
Mutation III (prereq: Mutation II): +3 penalty to Develop Cure projects
Long Incubation: Does not appear on map until two turns after it is deployed.
Delayed Symptoms (prereq: Long Incubation): As Long Incubation, except Spread rolls are made starting the turn the agent is deployed. When it appears, it appears in all hexes it has spread to.
Very Deadly: Receives a bonus to Assassinate and Attack Special Forces Team rolls as if it was a CW # token deployed by a special operations team.
Rapid Spread: Each infected hex rerolls its first failed spread check.
Horrific Symptoms: Regardless of roll, always terrorizes the affected hex as if a 3-4 was rolled. If a 3-4 is actually rolled, double the terror time.
Rapid Onset I: Attacks twice each turn
Rapid Onset II (prereq: Rapid Onset I): Attacks three times per turn
Rapid Onset III (prereq: Rapid Onset II): Attacks four times per turn

Chemical Weapons seem (too) cheap. (5 RP for up to 6 damage)

BioWar however looks like a bookkeeping nightmare. Bleh. But it seems it takes an eternity to get advanced stuff.. gotta save my Nukes then for that time.. >:(

What happened to working on the basics before adding new rules?

Granted working on communication or movement rules aren't as much fun as bio weapons. ;)

Wow, this is even more complex then the nuke rules. Looks like there will be billions more dead now.

you say that like its a bad thing.

Complex, yes.  Bad.

Dead billions, well, I think that is an overestimate of the Grand Council clans warrior population.  Though, one could consider them already biological mutations.  :)

I was thinking more along the lines of everything on the map with a certin brownish tinge to it. And that weird color that surrounds Terra, just for fun.

Quote from: NVA on November 24, 2010, 05:43:17 PM
Complex, yes.  Bad.

Dead billions, well, I think that is an overestimate of the Grand Council clans warrior population.  Though, one could consider them already biological mutations.  :)

And since when have Biological weapons every discrimated between warriors and civilians? There's a reason there's a spread chart :P

Quote from: DisGruntled on November 24, 2010, 03:30:55 PM
What happened to working on the basics before adding new rules?

Granted working on communication or movement rules aren't as much fun as bio weapons. ;)

This all kind of came to me in a sudden flash of (evil?) inspiration, so I figured I had better commit it to paper before it left me ;-)

Comms, Movement, R&D, and the like are also being worked on. I'm hoping to do a major rules update over the 3-week december break.

The Special forces rules could need a clarification: what happens to Teams in training when the PF number falls?

Can they train on or are they wasted money?

Techniclly the unit is built in the first turn, and after that it's just training. I would think they can finish their training.

Would definitely help. All we need is confirmation. :)

Quote from: Marlin on December 07, 2010, 07:52:02 PM
Would definitely help. All we need is confirmation. :)

DK is correct: you can finish a team that is "under construction" if you lose a PF, you just can't start a whole new one from scratch.

As has come up with the Coventry solution: A blockade was installed to impede movement of reinforcements, as it was just barely worth a battle, the reinforcements won this. However, it seems it did not impede movement anymore?

The reinforcements just moved on?

Is this now always so? Because it would change quite some things. :(

To be honest .25 FP of anything would be hard pressed to stop anything...Dave will probably have to post the answer you are looking for.  The call that was made since the DCMS units were on naval engagemnt was that they could engage then keep moving due to thier movement type and the distance tavelled I think but as I said he will have to clairify that.

If someone did put a .25 Blockade up, it would only serve as a delaying tactic, but not against the rules. Per the rules there's a lot someone can do with .25 FP, proven heartily at Tamar when 7 x .25 FP mobile units (Cost 3 RP each) carried off Nuclear Strikes like Kamakaze pilots because the rules specifically state any mobile unit can carry the nukes. :P

Thats correct, Fate. This seems quite overpowered but still are the rules. Now if its broken fix it, but for Coventry it might have still big impact. And for T45 as well.. urgs.

Hope Dave gets some time soon. As PMs are also still open. Not that much haste needed for them, but still. ;)

Im just happy that Im no GM.

Quote from: Marlin on January 06, 2011, 08:12:53 PM
Thats correct, Fate. This seems quite overpowered but still are the rules. Now if its broken fix it, but for Coventry it might have still big impact. And for T45 as well.. urgs.

Hope Dave gets some time soon. As PMs are also still open. Not that much haste needed for them, but still. ;)

Im just happy that Im no GM.

Just woke up. Going in to work for 10 hours of overtime now. Will try to crunch down PM backlog tonight.

Sorry I've been scarce guys, I just don't have the sort of free time I used to have  :'(

Hey, I would help if I could as I have kinda too much free time.. I guess I should look out for a job rather than watch here every hour, eh? ;)

But working at Saturdays should be outlawed as inhumane...  :P

Quote from: Marlin on January 08, 2011, 11:29:46 AM
Hey, I would help if I could as I have kinda too much free time.. I guess I should look out for a job rather than watch here every hour, eh? ;)

But working at Saturdays should be outlawed as inhumane...  :P

I can only complain so much as it while I do have mandatory overtime I can schedule it however I want, so I wasn't forced to come in on Sat, but I could use the $$$ if you know what I mean LOL

Anyway, work done, dinner done, vodka in process, time to start doing some PMs

Please do not forget the above rules thingy. ;)

Quote from: Dave Baughman on January 09, 2011, 12:55:51 AM

Quote from: Marlin on January 08, 2011, 11:29:46 AM

I can only complain so much as it while I do have mandatory overtime I can schedule it however I want, so I wasn't forced to come in on Sat, but I could use the $$$ if you know what I mean LOL

Anyway, work done, dinner done, vodka in process, time to start doing some PMs

Barbarian!!!   Whatever happened to having a wee dram of Scotland's finest??   ;)

Got a question regarding Clan Capitals:

Those that got HW Capitals, what if they miss one hex of it?

If they lose their whole Capital, the result is obvious, what if they lose only one Hex to a Trial or sth?

Quote from: Marlin on January 11, 2011, 05:23:13 PM
Got a question regarding Clan Capitals:

Those that got HW Capitals, what if they miss one hex of it?

If they lose their whole Capital, the result is obvious, what if they lose only one Hex to a Trial or sth?

There isn't a final rule for this yet, but for now I would say there would be no adverse effect as long as the majority of the zones on that planet are still owned by the faction which claims it as their capital.

I must refer to the Niops Raid incident.

A continued (for the invasion or basically all non-raid stuff) -1 to all rolls seems totally out of place. At least a codification would be good in the rules. As it has nothing to do with each other, I would opt against it, but if this will be a permanent rule, then it should be hardcoded.