Well, someone should have started this thread a long time ago :P, I'll start.
First Comment, officially bringing up that I would like to see something more from the 72 RP cost of a Recharge Station :P
Recharge Station Post (http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=2647.msg23348#msg23348)
In addition, I have a question regarding designs that our factions have access to. If you have the tech, and the list states you can make it, do you have to wait for an R&D roll to try and get it? Or can you pay to develope the unit?
I'm thinking about getting the RasDom's Assault Infantry to trade to the Marian Hegemony in the RP they started. Mostly just to prove it's viability, but it would have been a hard call to use my limited 10 slots at the new jump on infantry.
One idea I always liked for 'fixing' the RS hex improvement was to just change its MP generation to match a similarly-priced mobile unit. So... make it +12 (12x6=72) MP instead of +5. Maybe even make it +15 or if you want to really go out there +20 to make it competitive relative to WarShip construction.
but if it's just the same as a warship, why not build the warship and gain a combat unit and the MPs? In my mind, it has to offer something more than just it's RP value. I'd say +40, and/or the increase to a unit's maximum hexes moved(maximum 2 per turn), to make it a truly useful HI. Then it would allow for rapid repdeployment of forces, which is the point of a RS in the first place- rapidly recharge the jump drives of jumpships on critical missions.
I'd favour a multiplier instead of an additive-the more RS you have, the bigger the multiplier-that would scale with the cost, at least-
For example:
1 RS= (MP*1.25)
2 RS=(MP*1.50)
3 RS=(MP*1.75)
4 RS=(MP*2)
5 RS=(MP*2.25)
And so on. A RS may give you 1 RP of income, but it costs 72 RP to build, and you can get the same income boost with another shipyard, where you can generate units that boost your faction's MP AND can engage in combat.
5 MP isn't that big a deal-seriously, it isn't, and RS don't help you cut down on the costs of specialized movements like Command Circuits by any appreciable amount.
Interesting idea. Something like this would be easy to automate on the spreadsheet and actually depending on how its implemented it could be given a deeper planning aspect similar to how we were looking possibly going with the commo rules before the reboot.
Properly balanced to ensure it doesn't favor either large or small factions too much, this mechanic could make things really interesting.
Quote from: Cannonshop on June 16, 2011, 07:38:07 AM
I'd favour a multiplier instead of an additive-the more RS you have, the bigger the multiplier-that would scale with the cost, at least-
For example:
1 RS= (MP*1.25)
2 RS=(MP*1.50)
3 RS=(MP*1.75)
4 RS=(MP*2)
5 RS=(MP*2.25)
And so on. A RS may give you 1 RP of income, but it costs 72 RP to build, and you can get the same income boost with another shipyard, where you can generate units that boost your faction's MP AND can engage in combat.
5 MP isn't that big a deal-seriously, it isn't, and RS don't help you cut down on the costs of specialized movements like Command Circuits by any appreciable amount.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 16, 2011, 08:12:29 AM
Interesting idea. Something like this would be easy to automate on the spreadsheet and actually depending on how its implemented it could be given a deeper planning aspect similar to how we were looking possibly going with the commo rules before the reboot.
Properly balanced to ensure it doesn't favor either large or small factions too much, this mechanic could make things really interesting.
Quote from: Cannonshop on June 16, 2011, 07:38:07 AM
I'd favour a multiplier instead of an additive-the more RS you have, the bigger the multiplier-that would scale with the cost, at least-
For example:
1 RS= (MP*1.25)
2 RS=(MP*1.50)
3 RS=(MP*1.75)
4 RS=(MP*2)
5 RS=(MP*2.25)
And so on. A RS may give you 1 RP of income, but it costs 72 RP to build, and you can get the same income boost with another shipyard, where you can generate units that boost your faction's MP AND can engage in combat.
5 MP isn't that big a deal-seriously, it isn't, and RS don't help you cut down on the costs of specialized movements like Command Circuits by any appreciable amount.
Okay, so how do we balance it? (this is all just speculation at the moment, my ideas rarely get any traction...)
I have a couple of ideas on how to do the balancing act:
1. the MP multiplier bonus only applies to the cyclical pool-that is, it multiplies the cyclic pool, but not the Permanent pool. This makes RS hexes good targets for hamstringing a large, but navy-poor opponent (like many of the Great Houses).
2. Cap the bonus multiplier, and anything over, say, 5 RS just generates RP. This gives a small 'buffer' in case you lose one (esp. if you go with suggestion 1), while still making it make sense to keep building them (redundancy, see?), or, cap the multiplier at *2, and anything over that reduces the cost of a Command Circuit by a set amount per station.
It's tough to balance between small and large factions, since the additive nature of everything else (Resource generation, MP's, etc) favours bigger over smaller. One thing about adopting a multiplier is that it helps smaller factions proportionally to helping larger factions. In the deciding process between, say, building a Mjolnir and building an RS, under the current system it makes more sense to build the Mjolly, even if it's a budget-buster for two or three turns, because it provides MORE MP (by quite a lot), AND provides combat capacity (raw FP's). Making an RS economically viable (or potentially MORE viable) as an investment for a faction could be used to help limit the need for "warship races"-that is, situations where the only way a faction can achieve its strategic objectives is to build/buy more warships for the MP bonuses they generate.
I agree that it should definitely only impact cyclical pool. Your second point was sort of what I had in mind as my first knee-jerk reaction as well. Its too early in the morning (need to get to bed) where I live for me to crunch heavy math but I'm thinking that I would want a couple of different control mechanisms that would interlock to provide the actual bonus.
1) The multiplier itself would be curved with diminishing returns for people who just crank out tons and tons of RSes.
2) There would be a ceiling on the returns equal to X * # of stations to not only balance the price of the improvement relative to overall faction MP but also to ensure that small factions got a larger gain on the initial investment, while big factions end up benefitting more from larger-scale deployment. This might even be a complex mathematical formula based on the faction's cyclical MP pool creating an inverse relationship between faction cyclical MP and up-front benefit.
3) I'm almost tempted to say that for the big factions placement would be a much bigger factor, perhaps leveraging point 2 with a requirement for there to be a certain distance between RSes to gain the full benefit in for larger RS networks.
Of course, this is all predicated on keeping MP at all as a game mechanic. There's a part of me who really wishes we could dump MP altogether and instead go with 'real transport.' I was moving this way in '62 but never got around to finishing the rules. If you're not riding that crazy train though, I like the idea of a more "nuanced" RS mechanic.
I like that multiplier idea for RS. I would definately have to consider capping it though even with it only affecting the Cyclical pool probably at a *3 multiplier. I figure that multiplier would work like the PF bonus to R and D. Just my .02 C-Bills.
Putting in a minimum distance between RS actually hampers small factions, while not affecting big ones. If the min distance is say 3 hexes, the UIW could fit one or 2 RS, 3 if you count the SS; any of the Great Houses could built double digits of them because of all the internal space. I think the diminishing returns is a better method of control.
On a different subject, I want to bring my Terrorized theory here. It makes zero sense(to me) to have a terrorized hex lose all RP production, but still allow for that planet's construction capacity to function. Yeah its powerful, but only if used en masse, or against small nations. If someone terrorized Tharkad, I wouldn't much care- it doesn't generate a huge portion of my income, and I can still use all the MFs and SYs on world, so more than anything else, its an annoyance. But if I can't build units on it, now it becomes a strategic issue, where i have to get forces there, and I now have to draw them from someplace else to cover it- just incase.
Quote from: Deathrider6 on June 16, 2011, 02:31:32 PM
I like that multiplier idea for RS. I would definately have to consider capping it though even with it only affecting the Cyclical pool probably at a *3 multiplier. I figure that multiplier would work like the PF bonus to R and D. Just my .02 C-Bills.
I think that example chart is a bit extreme though. I mean, the suggestion I made was 2 or 3%, 5 at the Max. The reason why 25% per station seems so absurtd to me is that under the New Dominion MP Pool would jump to over 25K MP.
Plus, how does this compare to the R&D MP rewards?
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 16, 2011, 03:02:15 PM
On a different subject, I want to bring my Terrorized theory here. It makes zero sense(to me) to have a terrorized hex lose all RP production, but still allow for that planet's construction capacity to function. Yeah its powerful, but only if used en masse, or against small nations. If someone terrorized Tharkad, I wouldn't much care- it doesn't generate a huge portion of my income, and I can still use all the MFs and SYs on world, so more than anything else, its an annoyance. But if I can't build units on it, now it becomes a strategic issue, where i have to get forces there, and I now have to draw them from someplace else to cover it- just incase.
I've been the victim of this a lot and have never had an issue with the Terror Rules, but perhaps it could be balanced out with 50% / 50%?
Quote from: Fatebringer on June 16, 2011, 07:39:04 PM
Quote from: Deathrider6 on June 16, 2011, 02:31:32 PM
I like that multiplier idea for RS. I would definately have to consider capping it though even with it only affecting the Cyclical pool probably at a *3 multiplier. I figure that multiplier would work like the PF bonus to R and D. Just my .02 C-Bills.
I think that example chart is a bit extreme though. I mean, the suggestion I made was 2 or 3%, 5 at the Max. The reason why 25% per station seems so absurtd to me is that under the New Dominion MP Pool would jump to over 25K MP.
Plus, how does this compare to the R&D MP rewards?
The example's just an example, I pulled those numbers out of my ass as being relatively easy to handle quantities (25% bites ARE relatively easy to handle as a multiplier), but the assumption is also that there will be a 'balancing factor' on the other end of the scale-a cap seems most likely for simplicity's sake, with facilities exceeding that cap serving mainly as redundancy in the event of an attack on the network.
The problem with front-loaidng the balancing factors, is that it keeps RS's as being very expensive things that don't give you much compared to other things that are less expensive (such as shipyards, which generate the same RP income, and can be used to build fleet assets, which will generally, as a rule, exceed 5 MP gain.)
As for the R&D awards, I've never seen one actually Happen, and they're something that can be adjusted up or down (or sideways) off-stage in a manner similar to the change that invalidated the "Efficient Production" bonus the Lyrans got before the rules were re-vamped.
IOW, I really don't think they matter that much, those results are incredibly rare.
I know that "You found a Recharge Station" is on there somewhere :P
I think for an actual proposition and cap to RS, 5% per RS to a max of 50% increase could be feasible. Makes buying them useful, productive and not OP. I mean for 72 RP, I'd like to get something.
For the big realms, this gives them a good MP pool, for small realms, this still gives them a good source of income.
Rules discussion is a good thing I like the fact that this thread is getting some use. On another note it is the player's resposibility to ensure they have adequate knowledge of the rules. "I didn't know that," is not a valid excuse. I would hate to have to start using hamfisted methods of rules enforcement. You guys are all pretty good about the rules and I expect all of you to continue on that course.
Repostin' this here for the record in case there is future interest in implementing these rules (which were still in the "undeployed" stage in '62)
QuoteChemical 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
Also posting this just for reference. These are the not-100% completed, not-100% implemented, quite controversial at the time proposed revision to the communications rules. Were this to be revived, Black Box and Chatterweb rules would need to be written to go with it.
Quote
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.
Just for the record, the last two posts are in no way an effort by me to push these undeployed rules into the '91 game (though if DR6 chooses to use them more power to him - especially the plague rules :D).
That said, DR, if you decide you want to move forward with the Commo rules (or the unpublished changes I was working on for the movement system) let me know and I will try to dedicate some time to completing those projects. Same goes for the R&D revision that never quite got finished.
I'd like to see the R&D and Bioweapons rules be implemented. Then again, I wouldn't mind seeing a modified Bioweapons rule developed for nuclear weapons either- not all nukes are the same. MIRV tech, increased payload, dirty bombs...theres just as much potential for variable nuclear weapons as there are for bioweapons.
I'm not a big fan of the Commo rules, but the Network Hubs and changed provider rules I kinda like.
Frankly, I dislike that nukes were ever bought into the game, and would loathe to see the introduction of chemical and bioweapons. I don't see a place for them in this game.
Comm rules are interesting, but would have to study them more.
Whats wrong with bringing nukes into the game? The exist in cannon, and they add another element of strategy. Same thing with bio and chemical weapons- they're powerful tools for casuing large-scale disruptions, as opposed to attacking an enemy's strong point(his military). They might be morally wrong irl(and in game) but that doesn't mean the don't belong. Every weapon has a use.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 18, 2011, 03:44:26 PM
Whats wrong with bringing nukes into the game?
Basically, it's Battletech, not Nuketech.
Until it's not anymore.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 18, 2011, 03:44:26 PM
The exist in cannon, and they add another element of strategy.
The position of nukes in canon is of a culturally banned superweapon considered too horrible to contemplate much less actually use. Nobody in canon actually had a significant nuclear weapons program as of 3062 (our point of departure,) with what few started getting thrown around during the jihad being Star League leftovers and the odd anti-shipping tacnuke (canon is divided as to whether these were new and produced in very limited numbers or also Star League leftovers.)
Putting nukes in play virtually guarantees that they will be used (as indeed they have been,) in the context of a world that actively abstained from their use for hundreds of years. While you're all a great bunch of blokes, I'm not sure I can actually trust you to adequately model the psychology of a denizen of the 31st Century with regards to the demon-weapons. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've repeatedly seen that done wrong.
And the thing is that everything I just wrote about nukes applies to bioweapons and chemical weapons. Aside of the odd ancient cache, they don't exist. Nobody has them, nobody's making them, and only a madwoman would seriously contemplate their use.
So we've let the nuclear genie out of the bottle. That does not mean you want to give me license to create tailored super-bugs with Clan biotech. Same goes for any chemical weapon more lethal than tear-gas.
Yes, nuclear weapons aganst ground-based targets would be anathema to anyone whose playing sane- however, not everyone is sane, and not everyone has the same moral highground you expouse(lets not forget, the FS has a small group of Manei Domini who are not exactly moral beings in the first place). Also, smaller periphery nations might feel its their last recourse in the face of overwhelming odds that the Clans or IS can bring to bear. Some people would rather die than be enslaved, and also would prefer to cause maximum damage on their way out the door. I think nuclear and bioweapons fills their need quite well.
Also, once again, we arn't in canon-land anymore. We havn't been for almost 40 ingame years. Alot of stuff has happened that would never happen in cannon. You can't use cannon as a reason why something wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't happen in FGC. People try using Canon as a way of proving a point, but like i said- it doesn't apply anymore.
As for the Battletech-Nuketech joke, i could make a similar case for warships. 'In Canon', Battlemechs were the kings of the battlefield, with warships being few and far between, even during the Jihad. Now in our game, everyone has massive fleets, and naval power is actually more important than ground forces- the major naval powers could eschew most ground forces, in favor of huge warship fleets to defend their holdings and blast enemy naval power, then threaten a planet with orbital bombardment. Nukes offer a nice counter to massed naval power, especially for smaller nations who can't afford to sink a few hundred RPs to get 1/6th or 1/10th the FP in naval power.
However, naval ships have become so prolific, in my opinion, nukes are the perfect counter. Thats one of the reasons i'd be glad to see a Nuclear Weapons Techtree; my factions would mostly focus on increasing our nuclear tipped anti-warship stockpiles.
My POV on CBRN has always been that while no one sould be jumping out of their skin to use them, if we don't give people the opportunity (and temptation!) to stockpile and develop them, then the game is preventing the players from making a moral choice about whether or not to use them and - more importantly - preventing them from having the opportunity to roleplay how they react to others' use of these types of arms.
Ahh I was waiting to see these I like the Comms rules a lot. The CBW rules not so much but that is just because of the built in personal bias. I have I will mull over possible implementation. The bias I hold against CBW does not preclude me using them to manage R and D to cure a "super plague" outbreak.
i still say research trees should exist for expanding/upgrading the nuclear weapons. If they're going to exist, we might aswell make them useful. Downgrade the 'base'(ie what the are now), and allow players who wish to become nuclear powers to upgrade their weapon systems.
I don't know we need to downgrade the existing nuke's.
Contrary to popular belief they are remarkably inefficient weapons.
Compared to 25 FP of transported Aero which can be built for the same cost there is virtually no reason to use a Nuke instead.
For example 25 FP of Aero and 1 Nuke Fight. Even if the Nuke Roll's 12's there will still be survivor's from the 25FP of Fighters.
But im proposing to downgrade the current nukes, so that we have room for growth in the event of a nuclear weapons technology tree, similar to the one Dave B developed for Bioweapons. Bioweapons are a touchy subject, because they're almost exclusivly an anti-populace weapon. Atleast nukes are usually used to target enemy forces. I'll whip up something in a little bit, just to see what people think(of the rules, disregarding a dislike on 'special' weapons because of moral reasons).
Re: Nuke R&D its probably worth mentioning that the nuclear tokens (and the proposed chemical tokens as well) are deliberately designed to be highly abstract. If you want a token to represent a silo-launched ICBM fired into orbit to defend your planet or a crop duster spraying uranium duster over an enemy factory, it can be either to tickle your fancy as long as the RP matches the game mechanical results. Likewise, the proposed chem tokens don't just cover artillery shells with nerve agent in them - I also envisioned them (when used to get a bonus on Assassinate, for example) representing an agent poisoning an enemy VIP's food - and everything in between.
Of course, the other approach is to do them like the BW - which is fine and would probably work well, but if you guys want to walk that path you'll probably want to re-examine the rules from the top down to ensure the balance works out right.
I was indeed intending to write out a detailed list of how to construct different types of nuclear warheads and delivery systems. Having some trouble writing at the moment, pain meds are making my head a wee bit fuzzy...
I was against nukes, and definately against bio-weapons, etc because I dislike them. Do to Cannon events, Nuke use became "popular" with a certain faction. However, I think the more rules that are added, the more complex the game is, and these BioChem rules are pretty extensive and if they were added, I'd want to see some form of stat base for factions to be able to counter this. Nukes, can't do much about those, Chemical Bio attacks can be countered, especially if your faction has high quality scientific and medical knowledge. It could lead to something akin to the old intel ratings with levels of scientific knowledge battles, which were removed for a reason, I'm assuming ;P Anywho, to sum up, not a fan of the stuff, I'll roll with what happens because I have no choice.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 18, 2011, 09:06:15 PM
My POV on CBRN has always been that while no one sould be jumping out of their skin to use them, if we don't give people the opportunity (and temptation!) to stockpile and develop them, then the game is preventing the players from making a moral choice about whether or not to use them and - more importantly - preventing them from having the opportunity to roleplay how they react to others' use of these types of arms.
The thing is that I agree -- with the caveat that players
being players we do not have the cultural background to make those moral decisions in a way that is appropriate and (more importantly) fun.
That being the case we can't and shouldn't be trusted with the choice.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 18, 2011, 05:05:53 PM
Yes, nuclear weapons aganst ground-based targets would be anathema to anyone whose playing sane-
And this is exactly my point. You qualify the statement with words like "ground-based" and "sane" and as such weaken the statement from its canonical equivalent.
Not a single nuclear weapon was actually employed between the Second Succession War and the Fed Com Civil War. Not one. Not against space-based targets. Not even by mad-men and fools. Nobody built them. Nobody used them.
Nobody. Ever.And even when they came out, the people who used them became social pariahs, fit only for exile or execution. We don't have anything like a mechanism for that sort of thing in this game.
So I remain firmly in the "No BC and we should never have had N" camp.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 18, 2011, 05:05:53 PM
Also, once again, we arn't in canon-land anymore.
I agree. You brought it up.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 18, 2011, 05:05:53 PM
As for the Battletech-Nuketech joke, i could make a similar case for warships.
The case for Warship dominance is greatly exaggerated. They're overpriced, under-powered, and all they really bring to your faction is a way to put a bunch of MPs in the same too-expensive basket with a bunch of FPs. There's a reason my OWA never wanted them and my Ghost Bears never built them. To wit: Fighters and Jump/Dropships are
better.
People build warships because they're cool in exactly the way 'Mechs are cool and Nukes are not. They're more prestige than power, they're your faction's
thing, whatever, but you don't build them to win the game. They don't do that.
The position of Aerospace forces in this game actually goes along with my point. Because of mistakes (many since corrected) in the way the rules were built and players' inability to restrain themselves Aerospace forces are far more prominent than they should be.
Nukes aren't the way to put Naval forces back in their box.
To do that properly, you need to fix the rules.
'fixing' implies a breakdown in the rules. the rules are just fine on warships- they're extremely expensive, and serve mostly to boost your Cyclical MP field, and also to give you, as you said, prestigious naval assets. Added to that, the huge naval ASF flotillas are generally considered Stack of Doom units, and frowned upon. They're super cheap to build, and can do what warships do, but better. The only way to fix that, is to remove Independant Wings from the naval units. Make each and every unit in the naval tab tied to either a warship or jumpship- forcing people to pay the x6 or x10 modifier for building big ASF flotillas. That would lessen them.
However, I disagree that the warship thing is overrated. The FS for example has a huge ground force, but its almost useless against some factions, because they'd never get to the ground to fight, thanks to huge naval fleets- the FWL, the Snow Ravens, and the Sprit Cats(according to rumor anyways). Yet we don't see massive naval fleets in cannon- because they're super expensive. However, we also don't see massive aerospace fight fleets either. Take away 'independant wing', and you are now balancing out 'stack of doom' ASF units, and now only need to contend with the huge warships, or start spamming out little jumpships and stocking them with Patrol dropships.
And I'm still waiting for a good reason behind the 'I hate nukes' or 'I hate bioweapons'. Theres been many people agreeing they dislike them, but nobody has given a real reason, so I'm forced to assume its a 'moral' issue. Well, its a game folks. Some have said it should be RP-driven, which I personally disagree with, but it doesn't matter at the moment. If I'm bossing a faction, my faction leader is going to want to have every possible option availible to him, for every possible situation. That includes NBC weapons.
and the mechanism for 'social pariahs, exile, execution', Jedi, is the players. If someone uses nukes and you hate them for it- its on you to actually do something about it. the rules shouldn't punish someone for a perfectly viable and legal(mechanics wise) military strategy. Just like orbital bombardments, the only mechanism for dealing with it, is the players themselves. I'm pretty sure nukes have been used in game already. I know for a fact atleast 1 faction has threatened their use. there was no big outcry against that. Nobody really mentioned it.
I remain firmly in the 'we SHOULD have NBC, because nobody should be barred from using it, just because people don't like them on principle' camp. And if we're going to have them, there should be good rules for them, not something tossed together to say they're in, but neglected because people dislike them, and don't want to have to defend against them.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 21, 2011, 07:42:24 AMThe only way to fix that, is to remove Independant Wings from the naval units.
Nonsense. I say that because the Independent Wings themselves aren't the problem. The problem is that it's possible to construct them so quickly in such large numbers and at such minimal expense. Indeed, they cost no more per FP than 'Mechs and are built from the very same factories!
In the canon universe, aerospace fighters are actually rare and expensive, with a Warship's two dozen or so fighters generally representing a decisive force in themselves. That we got where we are in such a few short years (as it was) is a clear indicator that something was and is broken.
So there are several ways to reign this in. Yes, you can (and should) nix Independent Wings. Naval Fighters are assigned to specific ships, not just dropped off on planetary bases by passing merchant ships. While you're at it, double their cost and either give them their own factories or make them use shipyard time to build. And impose firm limits on how many a faction can have or impose some kind of upkeep system.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 21, 2011, 07:42:24 AM
However, I disagree that the warship thing is overrated. The FS for example has a huge ground force, but its almost useless against some factions, because they'd never get to the ground to fight, thanks to huge naval fleets- the FWL, the Snow Ravens, and the Sprit Cats(according to rumor anyways).
Firstly, that's less than wholly true.
Secondly, all that means is that there's an area that needs fixing. All-out interdiction of a planetary surface is next to impossible in canon.
In any case, that's not really Warships doing that. Non-warship naval power is far more cost-effective.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 21, 2011, 07:42:24 AM
Yet we don't see massive naval fleets in cannon- because they're super expensive.
More than that. They're expensive, often ineffective, and difficult to build, maintain, and staff.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 21, 2011, 07:42:24 AM
And I'm still waiting for a good reason behind the 'I hate nukes' or 'I hate bioweapons'.
To be clear, my reason was that I don't think people, including me, should be trusted with them.
Moreover, "this game will cease to be fun for me" is not a non-issue. You only have a game as long as you have players, and you only have players as long as they're having fun.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 21, 2011, 07:42:24 AM
and the mechanism for 'social pariahs, exile, execution', Jedi, is the players.
And as such, as I said, there is no such mechanism.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 21, 2011, 07:42:24 AM
the rules shouldn't punish someone for a perfectly viable and legal(mechanics wise) military strategy.
Yes they should. Because it shouldn't be a perfectly viable military strategy. It should be an horrific war crime that acts as a political third-rail and moves you cleanly over the moral event horizon. Players can't simulate that effect because as much as we might like to, we can't seize the other guy's faction and make it go to war with itself
the way it should.
We simply have no way of handling social pressure or political dissent. It's one of the greatest weaknesses this game has and it makes NBC rules totally unworkable in concept.
Yeah the fleet is not for "winning" infact I cringe when I have to use it in combat because they are just not suited for it in the game mechanics.
I build them purely for the Prestige of it.
Amen to that Chaos. ;) When it comes down to it, I wouldn't have needed to create the Raven Stack of Doom if it weren't for the need for them. Heck, the Clans wouldn't have sent us to the Inner Sphere if it wasn't a Grand Council decision, but no one seemed to complain when we kicked the TH's ass! ;) <Grumble Grumble> and they still have one of my Levi II's, the day is coming, oh yes, the day is coming when we shall right that wrong!
QuoteQuote from: Daemonknight on June 21, 2011, 07:42:24 AM
the rules shouldn't punish someone for a perfectly viable and legal(mechanics wise) military strategy.
Yes they should. Because it shouldn't be a perfectly viable military strategy. It should be an horrific war crime that acts as a political third-rail and moves you cleanly over the moral event horizon. Players can't simulate that effect because as much as we might like to, we can't seize the other guy's faction and make it go to war with itself the way it should.
We simply have no way of handling social pressure or political dissent. It's one of the greatest weaknesses this game has and it makes NBC rules totally unworkable in concept.
I think the way you put this also explains why I feel frustrated. There is no In-Game way to express the political pressure and social stigma that should be placed upon people. If a Faction Leader doesn't have the time or desire to police their own faction's actions, then it just doesn't happen.
If you lucky, someone issues another trial that normally doesn't resolve the issue because the losing party role-plays like nothing happens and the cycle continues which was one of the things that held up the Grand Council again and again.
QuoteThere is no In-Game way to express the political pressure and social stigma that should be placed upon people. If a Faction Leader doesn't have the time or desire to police their own faction's actions, then it just doesn't happen.
I suppose one solution would be to introduce Public Support rules like we did in Flashpoint. Those provided a way to set up game-mechanical penalties for certain actions without the heavy-handed method of "taking away the keys" from faction leaders.
They'd have to be rebalanced for FGC, and would require modifications to certain other aspects of the game (like unit loyalty ratings), but it might be one option to strike a balance between the "freedom of choice" camp and the "roleplaying enforcement is needed to preserve the atmosphere" camp.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 21, 2011, 03:50:27 PM
QuoteThere is no In-Game way to express the political pressure and social stigma that should be placed upon people. If a Faction Leader doesn't have the time or desire to police their own faction's actions, then it just doesn't happen.
I suppose one solution would be to introduce Public Support rules like we did in Flashpoint. Those provided a way to set up game-mechanical penalties for certain actions without the heavy-handed method of "taking away the keys" from faction leaders.
They'd have to be rebalanced for FGC, and would require modifications to certain other aspects of the game (like unit loyalty ratings), but it might be one option to strike a balance between the "freedom of choice" camp and the "roleplaying enforcement is needed to preserve the atmosphere" camp.
that sounds suspiciously like adding to Deathrider's workload by...well...lots.
On the CBRN front... We've had, in game, incidents of both Bio-weapons and Nukes, but we didn't have rules for the bioweapons at the time.
What seems to me to be forgotten in this, is that bio, unlike nukes (which can be configured for minimal fallout-at least, theoretically, and generate less long-term fallout if air-burst, rather than ground-burst deployment is used) is the gift that keeps on giving-when they're effective, or a minor annoyance when they aren't-and not much in-between the two. For example, an Ebola or Anthrax outbreak might shut down a small town for a while, or government building, but it's no "Captain Trips" that can depopulate a continent in a matter of days, and a world in a matter of weeks.
It's all about the lag time-the faster the bio acts, the smaller its actual radius of effectiveness. When we were formulating the Arluna Flu storyline back in Turn 26, we gave the virus a sixty day period of contagious-but-no-symptoms (similar to many STD's), physical contact and airborne transmission, and a patient lethality based on Influenza B.
It's probably the seminal example of a "Nightmare Bug"-it'll spread a long way (relatively-sixty days gives it about a five hex range based on typical jumpship traffic) and the impacts are cumulative-you don't get instant one-turn kills beyond the initial hex of deployment, and it's relatively easy in-game to shut down traffic...assuming you know it's out there, have control of the space, and are willing to invest in the blockade necessary.
The rules presented are basically "Nukes in a different container"-we're dealing with interstellar civilizations, with merchant traffic and trade that, per the setting, is the only thing keeping some worlds ALIVE. Bio isn't nukes, the damage isn't easily contained once it's out, living things are unpredictable, and viruses in particular are difficult to contain once they've spread to hosts outside the lab. Designer virii are worse, because they're already subject to mutation (had to be, otherwise you couldn't weaponize them.)
Point being, unless the target world's already under an iron-bound blockade, releasing them isn't the same as dropping a bomb-there's no neato remote detector going to tell you that an object or cargo is 'hot' with bio (or, say, a person, or bit of livestock, or cargo of grain...)
If the target world IS, then it raises an entirely different issue-Bio is the gift that keeps on giving, the only reason to release it, is intentional genocide-to keep that bug from spreading from the target world, you have to cordon and hold it until it burns out, for a weaponized bug, that means until everyone that is going to die of it, has died.
If you have a "Cure", you need to have it in-stock and distributed BEFORE you deploy the bug, otherwise it WILL blow back on you...and you have to update it constantly for new random strains-this could easily eat the research budget for a given faction, and then start digging into other budgets before it's over.
Which is really, really NOT like dropping even a very dirty bomb-the damage from a dirty nuke is contained in the same hex-radioactive fallout isn't going to spread offworld in the bodies of rats or refugees, and even if it does, it's unlikely to kill anyone OTHER than the rats and refugees before it can be contained.
QuoteIf you have a "Cure", you need to have it in-stock and distributed BEFORE you deploy the bug, otherwise it WILL blow back on you...and you have to update it constantly for new random strains-this could easily eat the research budget for a given faction, and then start digging into other budgets before it's over.
Which is exatly what I was saying. If you have the ability to counter this, so might other people. The only way to fairly judge something like that would be to introduce ratings again what would once again introduce an extra element that requires tracking. :P
Fate, did you read the bio rules? There was special research to counter act bioweapons. You don't need to use the Intel ratings scheme(which btw, I thought was a perfectly good system, as it meant some nations had really good intel services- ROM and Wolfnet being excellent examples of Intel Groups that basiclly had the run of the IS unless they ran into each other, and some had crap intel services- the Watch was basiclly a joke when it ran into even periphery Intel services). I never liked when the intel ratings were dropped, and now I have to pay extra to get my intelligence actions more effective. It makes less sense to spend money on individual missions, than on a larger 'expand your intelligence service cost' of building up your intel ratings.
And as for the political pressure issue, I have to point out, that the only example we have in real life of a nuclear warhead being used against an enemy, is when the US bombed Japan. And there is alot less insititutional hatred there than between some of the BT factions. Yeah sure, nukes are bad in just about every non-military sense you can think of. Then again, when it comes right down to it- if you're in a life-and-death struggle for the fate of your nation, whose going to bring up a civil war right then?
And I have to suppress a laugh at the thought of people being upset that someone isn't writing enough social backlash into their RP. There have been actions by Clan factions(myself included mind you), that NO clan warrior in the history of BT, would ever condone, or even allow to go foreward without dozens of Trials of Refusal and Grieveance. It doesn't matter for specifics, i'm sure we can all think of something someone else did, and said 'how the hell would their Warrior Council even allow that farce to take place'?
I agree that this hamstrings the GC- whats the point of issuing a ToG, if the player behind the character doesn't alter his RP, or faction goals, when his Khan loses a ToG, or is killed?
And Jedi- yes it is a perfectly viable MILITARY strategy. Its also a huge political gamble, which is what you're getting act, but from a purely military viewpoint, nuclear weapons are your best friend. The non-military backlash is likewise your worst enemy, atleast from your viewpoint. I disagree, but I have a sneaking suspicion that personal RL views on the subject are bleeding thru to the game. I personally don't have an issue with nuclear weapons, rl or otherwise, and you can view that however you like.
I would argue that the cultural and social world in the US and in Japan in 1945, and up to the present, has relitively little in common with that of 2750-3065, and on that issue none in common at all, to the point where we really can't use that as a point of refrence for how someone in 3090 should view a nuke. To simply point to semi-objective statistics rather than politics (I don't know the rules for this board, but I'd sooner say out of that issue if I could), each real atomic bombing did less damage than the fire bombings of Tokyo shortly before, and Heroshima is now a thriving city (I've never been to Nagasaki, but I'm told that apart from having a mob problem, its a lovely city again as well). Conversly, in the late 2700s multiple entire worlds were obliterated out of existance, and others made so that they had to be abandoned later on, and have never been recovered. The bombings in 1945 came after Japan had been in a relitively no holds bared war for 8 years, and only 25 years after the end of the massively distructive WWI; the Third Succession War was so civilized that mechs were alowed to go and hook up to coolant trucks in battle and not be shot, and no one would ever think of damaging a precious bit of lostech like a jumpship, lest they be made a periah and the whole Inner Sphere turn on them.
The only way to put the WS genie back into the bottle so to speak would be for me to do a rules revision...I have several changes thatg were planned for the restart but they were to combat the stack of dhoom on the other hand this turn certain players have proven that stack of doom can be rendered not effective. As for the other point (CBR class weapons) they do have a use and at least with CHemical and Biological Weapons R and D can and should help. Do I feel they should be in our game of stompy robot politics? Sure but there woudl have to be a mechanic as Dave mentioned previously to balance them out. Nukes on a planet are a bad thing and the Ares Conventions of 2412 (canon ref) do state this very clearly not that anyone here pays them more than lip service. would there be more work on my end? You Betcha there would. Is this a bad thing? Maybe yes maybe no...I will admit I'm trying to lighten things up so I have time to role-play and have fun myself but I run this game so I can't have everything. To be honest if I had this game running the way I wanted it to I would have lots of work the first week of the turn and again the last week of the turn so that I could paricipate at an RP level for the two weeks in between and be able to referee disputes make rulling etc,etc. We're getting closer to that. Do I want to add new toys for all of you to fling at each other? Yes! New stuff is good. It just needs to be balanced out so we don't have "Clan Glow in the Dark Centipede" and "House Corrosive Ooze". Just my .02 C-Bills.
I nominate the FWL for House Corrosive Ooze :P
Please the FWL is strictly nuclear in our response to such things.
Captain-General someone has used chem/bio/conventional weapons against the FWL!
C-G NUKEM!
Captain-General the Lyrans are surrendering
C-G NUKEM!
Captain-General The Lyrans are dead
C-G NUKEM!
Captain General the Lyrans have zombified and are mutating into some sort of half man, half falcon, all zombie.
C-G....wait what? Aw hell NUKEM!
Quote"Clan Glow in the Dark Centipede"
So that's what happened to the Burrocks in the FGC, I wondered about that ;)
Quote from: chaosxtreme on June 22, 2011, 06:44:28 PM
Please the FWL is strictly nuclear in our response to such things.
Captain-General someone has used chem/bio/conventional weapons against the FWL!
C-G NUKEM!
Captain-General the Lyrans are surrendering
C-G NUKEM!
Captain-General The Lyrans are dead
C-G NUKEM!
Captain General the Lyrans have zombified and are mutating into some sort of half man, half falcon, all zombie.
C-G....wait what? Aw hell NUKEM!
You are hereby to be refered to as Duke. And if you've played DNF, thats not a compliment ;)
Please I am a true follower of Duke and we recognize only 3 games.
DNF'ers are blasphemers and DNF is a false prophet.
QuoteFate, did you read the bio rules?
Of course not. Why would I read it until after it's shoved down our throats?
Quote from: Fatebringer on June 23, 2011, 02:01:37 PM
QuoteFate, did you read the bio rules?
Of course not. Why would I read it until after it's shoved down our throats?
I chuckled.
Quote from: Fatebringer on June 23, 2011, 02:01:37 PM
QuoteFate, did you read the bio rules?
Of course not. Why would I read it until after it's shoved down our throats?
I would and probably could not read it afterwards. :D
Gross.
he he he. Now you make me chuckle ;) I'm a Raven, I do the political thing which is mock it mercilessly like I'm about to do to the Vipers who lost two warships at New Hope station. :)
harsh ;)
You can join me, it will be fun ;)
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 21, 2011, 11:34:35 PM
And Jedi- yes it is a perfectly viable MILITARY strategy. Its also a huge political gamble, which is what you're getting act, but from a purely military viewpoint, nuclear weapons are your best friend. The non-military backlash is likewise your worst enemy, atleast from your viewpoint. I disagree, but I have a sneaking suspicion that personal RL views on the subject are bleeding thru to the game. I personally don't have an issue with nuclear weapons, rl or otherwise, and you can view that however you like.
I'm about as pro-nuke as you can get IRL without being a screaming lunatic. That's no part of
my argument.
My argument is based on the flavor and canon of Battletech, which is supposed to be the foundation of this game. Because, otherwise, why am I playing?
There are plenty of other settings I'd be comfortable RPing in, where nukes are an acceptable option or are even thoroughly passe. Battletech is not one of those settings.
ON the nuke question, when you're about to buy one of those shynee party-poppers, remember this:
it costs more than a factory, and it can only be used once. it costs more than some Warships and it can only be used once. You can upgrade a world to RC for less, and the nuke only can be used one time...and that one time, might not be enough.
25 RP for a one-use item may be chump-change for a faction the size of the Dominion, Terran Hegemony, or Free Worlds League, but it's a seriously large chunk of change for anyone else, and it generates no income, requires another expensive facility to build (PF's aren't cheap)...
And it isn't guaranteed to be that effective a weapon.
Beyond potential social consequences in-character, there's just the simple COST of the things, vs. their actual usefulness.
And the canon of Battletech is more or less useless in this subject. Yes, nobody ever used them in canon. Then again, the LA didn't splinter, the UIW never existed, CoPS never happened, the FedCom Civil War DID happen, the Jihad came about, the Ravens never joined the Dominion, nor the Falcons the LA... so on and so forth. So using 'canon' as a reason why we shouldn't be allowed a choice is basiclly a bad joke. I will give you flavor, but again- alot of what goes on, isn't really in the flavor/theme of how BT works either. Especially among the Clans- alot happens in the GC and between the Clanners that we don't see in any fluff or novel.
The idea that because something happened one way in an irrelevent alternate history, we should be barred from even having the choice to use a particular weapon, makes no sense. Ok sure, using nukes made people total pariahs in BT's canon. But as we've seen, there ARE consequences for in-game actions by other players. Case in point, the Hellions flying off the handle at the Falcons, though lets not go there in this thread. Marlin doesn't like my play, so he's doing something about it. I took issue with past Adder actions, I did something about it. If someone uses nuclear weapons in a way that offends you ic, its on your head to do something about it.
I'll point out a sore subject I could never touch IC- the Knights Sanguine of CBS. The whole idea was totally non-Clan in my opinion. Nor was the idea that a Clan would consider nuking Strana Mechty because of some percived impurity on our part. But that was part of the plan. And nothing was going to stop that, from an internal standpoint. However, if the other Clans found out, I'd expect the Spirits to pay dearly for even discussing such, for lack of a better word, heresy.
So, I disagree with your assessment that BT's flavor/canon should somehow bind our hands from even considering nuclear warfare. After all, there is a group of people who used nuclear weapons in BT canon. Granted they're total fanatics, they've also got quite the following. If nukes are banned, and we played out the Jihad...well, it wouldn't be nearly as horrific if it was just normal warfare, would it?
As people keep trying to impress on me, it's a roleplaying game. I disagree that the RP takes precedence over the rules, but I also don't think rules that stifle RP should ever be allowed, nor should the omission of rules be allowed to achieve the same end. Lack of NBC rules, stifles a writer from introducing them as a story piece, because they have no in-game effect. I enjoy writing RP because it has a direct correlation to the game; I'm not a fanfic writer, I don't write just to be able to have people read my writing. This isn't a fanfic website either.
Quote from: Cannonshop on June 29, 2011, 06:57:52 AM
ON the nuke question, when you're about to buy one of those shynee party-poppers, remember this:
it costs more than a factory, and it can only be used once. it costs more than some Warships and it can only be used once. You can upgrade a world to RC for less, and the nuke only can be used one time...and that one time, might not be enough.
25 RP for a one-use item may be chump-change for a faction the size of the Dominion, Terran Hegemony, or Free Worlds League, but it's a seriously large chunk of change for anyone else, and it generates no income, requires another expensive facility to build (PF's aren't cheap)...
And it isn't guaranteed to be that effective a weapon.
Beyond potential social consequences in-character, there's just the simple COST of the things, vs. their actual usefulness.
thats a function of the basic rules Dave B put down to have them exist in the game. I'm actually writing up a piece that would put them on par with the BioWar weapons, in terms of detail and whatnot. Don't know that it'll be looked at, and I'm sure they will be vehemently argued against considering how many people are against their existence at all, but its my opinion that if they're going to exist, they should exist with solid rules, and be worth their cost.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 07:06:56 AM
And the canon of Battletech is more or less useless in this subject. Yes, nobody ever used them in canon. Then again, the LA didn't splinter, the UIW never existed, CoPS never happened, the FedCom Civil War DID happen, the Jihad came about, the Ravens never joined the Dominion, nor the Falcons the LA... so on and so forth.
So what has changed between 3062 and 3091 that has made the use of the traditional battlefield boogeymen more acceptable?
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 07:06:56 AM
The idea that because something happened one way in an irrelevent alternate history, we should be barred from even having the choice to use a particular weapon, makes no sense.
Who's arguing that? It's a common feature setting that NBC weapons are considered absolutely abhorrent by all sides. Nothing has changed that.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 07:06:56 AM
Ok sure, using nukes made people total pariahs in BT's canon. But as we've seen, there ARE consequences for in-game actions by other players.
Not of the right sorts. Generally, one must eliminate a faction in order to penalyze bad behavior (itself typically just bad RP) by a player, and the game is generally worse off for it.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 07:06:56 AM
After all, there is a group of people who used nuclear weapons in BT canon.
Oh, there have been a few. Generally small bands of renegades. Are any of us actually playing any of those factions?
We are not.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 07:06:56 AMI also don't think rules that stifle RP should ever be allowed
To an extent, I agree. But quietly disposing of the NBC rules would lessen player and GM workloads while "stifling RP" in precisely the same way as not having nude models for MMO characters does.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 07:06:56 AMI enjoy writing RP because it has a direct correlation to the game;
So what's wrong with RPing without nukes?
Unless it was actually your intent to use them despite the supposed consequences.
Which pretty well makes my point for me.
And in any case I pretty much have to disagree. Some of the best RP I've done in the FGC has had absolutely nothing to do with the rules. Including one time I got to help RP the aftermath of a nuclear explosion.
Quote from: Cannonshop on June 29, 2011, 06:57:52 AM
Beyond potential social consequences in-character, there's just the simple COST of the things, vs. their actual usefulness.
That's part of why I haven't offered them real opposition before now. They might be the worst way to lose a Leviathan II, but they're not a good option in economic terms, so most players shouldn't go for them.
Maybe we could riff off this a little bit, reducing the cost to make the things (in our terms, they're cheap, low-tech weapons) but introducing a cost for using them that reflects....the social cost of using them. Naturally, this should be greater for larger, more stable factions.
Thoughts?
People are different. Just because the people in the canon universe don't use them, doesn't mean everyone, everywhere, universally hates the mere concept of nukes. I disagree with the base assumption that nukes are bad, regardless of what BT's canon has said, and seeing as how the vast majority of characters in power were not in power at the time we deviated, I see no reason why I can't RP someone being okay with nukes. You might prefer to RP that your faction universally hates nuclear weapons- thats fine, and its your call. I choose not to.
I say its not abhorrent by my side. Why? Because I choose to have characters who are not idealists. They're going to do whatever it takes, and so long as nuclear weapons arn't required, we won't use them. However, if we're better served by using nukes than expending huge ammounts of manpower and resources, we might go down that road.
I disagree that destroying a faction is the only recourse. You can reduce a faction's power by a large ammount and leave it alive, and let that faction try and rebuild itself. That sounds like punishment. I've got a feeling someone is going to try such a tactic on me in the near future, so perhaps we'll see if it works. Also, refusing to RP with a player is a form of punishment, if you can get the majority of the playerbase to agree.
I was talking about the WoB actually, not a small band of renegades. Quite a popular faction last time I checked, not playable here, but its by no means a small band of renegades.
I don't see how removing the nuclear rules would lessen anyone's workload. Its not like putting * next to a unit is a huge bookeeping issue, and thats basiclly all it takes to denote the existance of a nuclear token. The difference is also that nuclear tokens serve a purpose in this game, whereas a nude model in an MMO servers no actual game-mechanical purpose.
And there is nothing wrong with RPing without nukes...unless I want to write RP about nukes. And I'd like you to point out where I said I was planning on using nuclear weapons with the intent of ignoring the consequences? For that matter, if I used a nuke, all I can write is how members of my faction respond, your response is upto you. Just because people don't use nukes, doesn't mean that the use of one will cause widespread rioting, or a massive social upheaval, or a military coup or anything like that. What happened in canon the last time the leader of a Successor State used a nuclear weapon? I'm serious, I don't know, but I assume you do since you keep saying how bad it would be.
And what are you disagreeing with anyways? I made a statement of my personal preferences...so you like writing RP thats irrelevent to the game. okay...so? I don't, I like my RP to actually have some meaning in the larger scheme of things. Its either foreshadowing future events, or adding substance to something I'm doing. Robert's speech on Tharkad was meant to be the kick-off point for the trials against the Adders. It dealt with a situation covered by the rules- combat. So I'm not really sure how you managed to write an awesome RP piece that had zero impact on the game at large.
I don't think there should be an abstract system for saying "you've done something 'bad' and now you're forced to deal with it". My faction doesn't react in the same way to 'bad event X' as the Cappies. Something might set the FedSuns off, that the Lyrans don't really care about. Introducing a 'social stability' meter means making a whole slew of new rules. Are nukes the only thing that affects it negetivly? What affects it positively? What're the drawbacks of a low number? Are there any benefits to a high number? Is there a cap on the number/benefits? Is there a bottom? Is there a way to 'attack' another faction's stability? Is there a way to abstractly defend yours? Can you proactivly counter the effects of doing something(nuking a target) that would downgrade your score?
People always say they like simplicity, but throwing in a stability scale just to scare people off from using nukes is alot more complicated than just making people police themselves, or having the GMs do it abstractly.
Far be it for me to poke my appendages in the hornet's nest, but isn't the basic premise that nukes are anathema in canon not actually borne out in recent canon?
- Great houses - even whitehat House Davion - confirmed in canon as maintaining secret stockpiles
- Nukes used in FCCW - commander of the unit that deployed them is demonized but no concrete action is taken to punish her.
- Nukes used against outreach prior to the start of the Jihad - no one bats an eyelash
- Nukes used in Jihad... houses respond by using their own nukes. In the case of the Capellans, using them vigorously and with even less discrimination than the WOB
- During the Azami/DC nukefest & orbatfest, no one seems to care. No cries of outrage over "obvious DC repression" and/or "EEEEEVIL Azami terrorists," not even from the FS.
- General attitude to WOB BW use seems to be "too bad so sad, but its not happening in my back yard" throughout the majority of the IS. WOB BW, Nuke, etc use isn't an effective propaganda tool in the hands of the allies and doesn't deter mass collaboration (often quite enthusiastic) with the WOB
Nor does the use of "lesser" WMD like orbital bombardment seem to generate any real outcry in canon. Orbital strikes are used several times in the FCCW (including against targets on important worlds like Hesperus) and no one seems to care, and there aren't exactly screaming mobs demanding revenge for Turtle Bay until the incident is used as a fig-leaf to give a more compelling reason to attack the Smoke Jaguars than "easiest logistics and/or Mike Stackpole is angry at a Smoke Jaguar player he met in a convention and wants to get some payback."
My observation on Nukes in canon is that no matter what the "official party line" of the houses and especially of ComStar is, nuclear arms aren't something that induces gut-wrenching revulsion at the mere thought of. Instead, the Houses' continuing abstinence up until the 3060s as strongly grounded in the inertia of 3rd Succession War-era honors of war that were already starting to break down in the face of the Clan Invasion and the resurgence of nationalism spherewide. By 3060, the Sphere seemed to be primarily upholding a "no first use" policy that was really better defined as "really, please, just give us an excuse tough guy."
Of course, in canon 3091 attitudes seem to have changed again in favor of strictly conventional war, but that's the result of the Jihad, which as far as I can tell was a far bloodier and destructive conflict than the Blood War - and more specifically of the truly gruesome battles for Terra, Circinus, the extermination of Gibson, the "march of death" to reclaim the CapCon, and the general economic collapse that finally "brought the war home" to most of the apathetic peasants. Even then, when nuclear arms are used in the Dark Age... get ready for it... it was mentioned in the news and no one cared.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 29, 2011, 07:07:16 PM
Far be it for me to poke my appendages in the hornet's nest, but isn't the basic premise that nukes are anathema in canon not actually borne out in recent canon?
- Nukes used against Outreach prior to the start of the Jihad - no one bats an eyelash
Of course not. Traitors can be destroyed by scum. All means possible allowed. :D[/list]
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 29, 2011, 07:07:16 PM
Far be it for me to poke my appendages in the hornet's nest, but isn't the basic premise that nukes are anathema in canon not actually borne out in recent canon?
Recent canon is itself the alternate universe. Less-recent canon is part of ours. :P
Still, there's a point there. But much of that's a matter of perception rather than reality.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 29, 2011, 07:07:16 PMGreat houses - even whitehat House Davion - confirmed in canon as maintaining secret stockpiles
- House Davion has never been written as being a White Hat faction. People just tend to confuse "Protagonist" with "Good Guy."
- Those stockpiles were ancient ("maintaining" is right, few if any were actually built,) small, and filled with low-yield weapons (the typical Successor State Nuke -- indeed, the majority of nuclear weapons in SS inventories -- is a Davy Crockett round for a the Long Tom Artillery piece. That apparently goes back even to the Star League, and is a habit shared by Peripherants, Clanners, and Wobblies.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 29, 2011, 07:07:16 PM
- Nukes used in FCCW - commander of the unit that deployed them is demonized but no concrete action is taken to punish her.
To be honest, I part ways with the canon right around here, so my knowledge of the FCCW is pretty limited.
My understanding though is that "Atomic Annie" Leyland and her unit "vanished" during the FCCW, not reappearing until civil authority had more or less totally broken down during the Jihad. Basically, there was no opportunity to punish her.
Moreover, the fella who pointed her at the nuke cache? He got the court-martial. Leyland herself seems to have been forgiven on the strength of her personal heroism against the WoB at New Avalon, but she's still not going to win any popularity contests.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 29, 2011, 07:07:16 PM
- Nukes used against outreach prior to the start of the Jihad - no one bats an eyelash
Not precisely accurate. That still stands out as a singular event, and I'd be surprised if it didn't come out in the post-war follow-up. Meanwhile, we're heading into an increasingly murky section of the canon. We're talking about a period defined by little more than tabloid reporting.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 29, 2011, 07:07:16 PM
- Nukes used in Jihad... houses respond by using their own nukes. In the case of the Capellans, using them vigorously and with even less discrimination than the WOB
While some nuclear devices were used, it's a lot less common than most fans seem to think. Outreach aside, WoB seems to have rarely used nukes, and the Houses' limited stockpiles don't seem to have made much of a bang in the end.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 29, 2011, 07:07:16 PM
- During the Azami/DC nukefest & orbatfest, no one seems to care. No cries of outrage over "obvious DC repression" and/or "EEEEEVIL Azami terrorists," not even from the FS.
- General attitude to WOB BW use seems to be "too bad so sad, but its not happening in my back yard" throughout the majority of the IS. WOB BW, Nuke, etc use isn't an effective propaganda tool in the hands of the allies and doesn't deter mass collaboration (often quite enthusiastic) with the WOB
You've got me on both of these. I'm not overly familiar with the incidents in question.
That said, the Jihad's an alternate history where we're concerned. The conditions that went into creating it never happened here.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 29, 2011, 07:07:16 PM
Nor does the use of "lesser" WMD like orbital bombardment seem to generate any real outcry in canon.
You wouldn't expect them to. Orbital bombardment got shelved in canon because the Inner Sphere ran out of ships capable of performing it, not because people didn't like it. The last act of a Successor State Warship before they went extinct for two centuries was the destruction of enemy ground forces by orbital bombardment.
The IS never ran out of nukes, nor did it lose the capability to produce them.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 29, 2011, 07:07:16 PMthere aren't exactly screaming mobs demanding revenge for Turtle Bay until the incident is used as a fig-leaf to give a more compelling reason to attack the Smoke Jaguars than "easiest logistics and/or Mike Stackpole is angry at a Smoke Jaguar player he met in a convention and wants to get some payback."
Can we avoid the Stackpole-bashing? Please? It's pretty far off-topic and suffice it to say I don't agree.
The truth is that Turtle Bay was always viewed as a defining moment in the invasion, it caused a major change in the way the Clans conducted war (at least internally) and it's significant that it is the ONLY episode of orbital bombardment from Operation Revival, despite dozens of Warships being involved in the operation and in at least one other case being tasked to take a world without ground support.
And if it wasn't significant in terms of propaganda, it's only because the Clans were terrifying and abhorrent for so many
other reasons.
Even so, there was still some pretty significant hand-wringing when IS Naval Officers were contemplating returning the favor during Operation Serpent.
And all this for what amounts to little more than "big, far-away artillery."
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 29, 2011, 07:07:16 PMBy 3060, the Sphere seemed to be primarily upholding a "no first use" policy that was really better defined as "really, please, just give us an excuse tough guy."
And yet, most commanders didn't rush to use nukes, even when the genie was unbottled, and they worked to put the genie back in its bottle as quickly as they could.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on June 29, 2011, 07:07:16 PMOf course, in canon 3091 attitudes seem to have changed again in favor of strictly conventional war, but that's the result of the Jihad,
I would say it's a result of a culture that categorically abhors nonconventional weapons having lived through a period that saw their use. If you think about it the Jihad's few small incidents don't begin to rise to the level of what we imagined during the Cold War or what the Inner Sphere lived in the Age of War or the Second Succession War. Because nobody had many devices or large devices, their impact was limited. If anything, the Jihad really makes a very good case for low-yield weapons in limited quantities being legitimate tools of war.
The few large-scale incidents -- the scouring of Outreach, for example -- may well have helped convince people to re-bottle the genie. However, that is an argument that people actually
were significantly discomfited by those incidents.
Now if people had kept on using nukes, building more and more powerful weapons and using them at the slightest provocation, then I'd say you had a point. But that's not what happened.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
People are different. Just because the people in the canon universe don't use them, doesn't mean everyone, everywhere, universally hates the mere concept of nukes.
That's a terrible argument, and if you don't know it you should. Cultural features are cultural features and the latest leader of your faction is still just the latest in a line of people who haven't used nukes, even in cases of great desperation, in centuries.
Joe Bob isn't Jimmy Sue in other words, but both are Jade Falcons. And Jade Falcons hate nukes.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
I say its not abhorrent by my side.
Which, again, is why I don't want you to have the option. To be clear.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
I disagree that destroying a faction is the only recourse.
I really don't see your point.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
I was talking about the WoB actually, not a small band of renegades.
The part of WoB that uncorked the genie
was in fact a small band of renegades.
More importantly, that faction doesn't exist here
and never has.Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
I don't see how removing the nuclear rules would lessen anyone's workload. Its not like putting * next to a unit is a huge bookeeping issue, and thats basiclly all it takes to denote the existance of a nuclear token.
I didn't claim it was a large reduction. It's a few additional items on the spreadsheet and yet another set of rules to know for combat resolution. Further, it's another dimension to think about. It's not a lot of work, but it's not no work.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
And there is nothing wrong with RPing without nukes...unless I want to write RP about nukes.
If you want to write RP about nukes, I'd really prefer if you found another venue for it.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
And what are you disagreeing with anyways? I made a statement of my personal preferences
As did I.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
I don't think there should be an abstract system for saying "you've done something 'bad' and now you're forced to deal with it".
I agree. At no point have I actually advocated such a system.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
People always say they like simplicity, but throwing in a stability scale just to scare people off from using nukes is alot more complicated than just making people police themselves, or having the GMs do it abstractly.
Or just not letting people do it.
Pretty sure the definition of Protagonist is the leading hero/heroine of a story. Hero implying 'good guy'. So I'd say that yes, it's very safe to call the Davions whitehats. And the fact they maintained a stockpile at all, even low yields, means that they're not universally hated like you keep saying.
How can you say there was no opportunity to punish Leyland, if they court-martialed the guy who showed her the cache? That implys SOMEONE was around to arrest and try the guy. And if the use of a nuke is so abhorrent, why would they give her a pass? Pretty sure that violating a nation's nuclear policy, would rank up pretty high in the War Crimes department.
And I have to vehemently disagree with your assessment that the IS as a whole, is culturally anti-nuke. If they were, people would never consider their use, and there wouldn't be a genie to unbottle. If they were so against them, everyone would've had disarmament treaties that got rid of all the nuclear weapons. ComStar obviously didn't see the need to remove the Houses nuclear stockpiles, like it did almost all other technology. And then you go and say the Jihad makes a good case for low-yield weapons being acceptable...how can they be culturally abhorrent, and yet acceptable tools in the right size?
You're switiching back and forth. Cannon that proves your theory is relevent, but anything that counters your idea, 'because it doesn't pertain to us', isn't. Then again, most of your cannon sources are 30+ years ago, in our timeline, and thats a long time to assume everything is the same. I'd argue that because of the lack of nuclear weapons, current era commanders and leaders, would be more tolerent, because they've not witnessed any significant nuclear attacks, except for the one terrorist attack on Tharkad. Or the WMD programme that ComStar was running in the FS.
Quote from: JediBear on July 01, 2011, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
People are different. Just because the people in the canon universe don't use them, doesn't mean everyone, everywhere, universally hates the mere concept of nukes.
That's a terrible argument, and if you don't know it you should. Cultural features are cultural features and the latest leader of your faction is still just the latest in a line of people who haven't used nukes, even in cases of great desperation, in centuries.
Joe Bob isn't Jimmy Sue in other words, but both are Jade Falcons. And Jade Falcons hate nukes.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
I say its not abhorrent by my side.
Which, again, is why I don't want you to have the option. To be clear.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
I disagree that destroying a faction is the only recourse.
I really don't see your point.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
I was talking about the WoB actually, not a small band of renegades.
The part of WoB that uncorked the genie was in fact a small band of renegades.
More importantly, that faction doesn't exist here and never has.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
I don't see how removing the nuclear rules would lessen anyone's workload. Its not like putting * next to a unit is a huge bookeeping issue, and thats basiclly all it takes to denote the existance of a nuclear token.
I didn't claim it was a large reduction. It's a few additional items on the spreadsheet and yet another set of rules to know for combat resolution. Further, it's another dimension to think about. It's not a lot of work, but it's not no work.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
And there is nothing wrong with RPing without nukes...unless I want to write RP about nukes.
If you want to write RP about nukes, I'd really prefer if you found another venue for it.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
And what are you disagreeing with anyways? I made a statement of my personal preferences
As did I.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
I don't think there should be an abstract system for saying "you've done something 'bad' and now you're forced to deal with it".
I agree. At no point have I actually advocated such a system.
Quote from: Daemonknight on June 29, 2011, 08:30:39 AM
People always say they like simplicity, but throwing in a stability scale just to scare people off from using nukes is alot more complicated than just making people police themselves, or having the GMs do it abstractly.
Or just not letting people do it.
No, its not a terrible argument. How many people exist in the BT universe? Infact, how many Jade Falcons are there? We're not a hive mind, if we were, the Dark Caste wouldn't exist.
And when you are the head GM, you are free to craft a nuclear weapons free game universe. Untill then, they exist in BT, should exist in our game, and if it exists, I should be allowed to use it, even if you don't like it.
You said that destroying a faction is the only way to enforce anything. I disagree, so I'm not sure what your confused about.
I don't really think the MD were renegades per se. Or really small. And they do exist in our timeline, or have you failed to notice that guy Apollyon in the 62 game, or Arthur Steiner-Davion's shiney metal haircut?
And your preference is noted, but I see no reason why I can't write about nukes if I feel like it. Were you deeply against the nuclear attack that resulted in the LC's breakup? Did you find something horrid about August's threat to pop a nuke on Arc Royal if the SLDF didn't get off? Because I certinly don't remember any outrage being given voice back then.
And yet, you've failed to give a single compelling reason for removing nukes from the game aside from "I have an issue with them". Nukes don't break the game. They're really not complicated at all, base combat has more complicated rules. Dave B has weighed in on their cannon status. Theres really not a reason to remove them.
Quote from: JediBear on July 01, 2011, 08:00:05 AM
Can we avoid the Stackpole-bashing? Please? It's pretty far off-topic and suffice it to say I don't agree.
I'm not criticizing his writing, I was just alluding to the anecdote about the remarks he made at GenCon the year before Twilight of the Clans was rolled out.
I dig what you are saying in your other remarks, and I certainly wasn't trying to stir up a big argument or anything, but I'm still not really convinced that the abhorence of nuclear arms is as deeply-ingrained as the widely-held general opinion in many forums holds. You've got a valid argument about the way that late canon definitely "clarifies" the situation with its focus on Jihad-era WMD use, but even in the old books going all the way back to the House Books and TRO 3025/3026 seem to treat the use of nuclear arms in a pretty blase, banal way. Despite coming from the (notorious for propagandizing and even outright lying to promote their agenda) ComStar, nukings, gassings, poisonings, you name are rattled off with no real excitement or drama.
Quote from: Daemonknight on July 01, 2011, 08:45:29 AM
And yet, you've failed to give a single compelling reason for removing nukes from the game aside from "I have an issue with them". Nukes don't break the game. They're really not complicated at all, base combat has more complicated rules. Dave B has weighed in on their cannon status. Theres really not a reason to remove them.
My post was just my personal opinion and observations. I'm not the GM here any more and while I've contributed a few things here and there to the canon game I hardly qualify as someone who can speak with Canon authority.
I do totally stick to my opinion that giving the players the moral choice is always better for RP; to run with the analogy of letting people take off their clothes in an MMORPG, the nice thing about FGC is that if folks feel strongly about the matter they can enforce the proverbial Indecent Exposure ordnance - which in turn is another expression of letting people make their own in-character choices rather than dictating them from on high.
Should also note, that the Ares Conventions have a 75,000km zone of exclusion around all planets, however outside of of the ZoE, nuclear weapons are permitted.
QuotePretty sure the definition of Protagonist is the leading hero/heroine of a story. Hero implying 'good guy'.
Actually, that is a largely accepted misconception. A Protagonist is usually the "Good Guy" because people like to write happy ending stories. But in truth, all Protagonist means is that someone is the central figure of a story. They are the ones that audience is supposed to follow as they push the plot ahead. In one of my favorite comic books, Bomb Queen, she's a supervillan in charge of a city of evil, and yes, she's the protagonist. ;)
QuoteShould also note, that the Ares Conventions have a 75,000km zone of exclusion around all planets, however outside of of the ZoE, nuclear weapons are permitted.
I was originally ready to use Clan Snow Raven to Orbitally bombard the forces along side the Falcons at Sudeten, but when someone told me about the Ravens signing the Ares II convetion, that's when I started to back off the OB kick. I know the strict definition allows for strategic targeting and use of nukes in certain military settings, but to cross that line at all raises issues and usually escalates exchanges until someone just says "Frak it!" and does something stupid. To avoid escelation, the New Dominion swallowed a hard pill when the DC Coordinator told us it was them who did the nuking of 4 of our ships at Tamar. It was a political decision to accept it as something that was done, but if it ever happens again, Luthien aint far from our border... ::)
Quote from: Fatebringer on July 01, 2011, 05:08:18 PM
QuotePretty sure the definition of Protagonist is the leading hero/heroine of a story. Hero implying 'good guy'.
Actually, that is a largely accepted misconception. A Protagonist is usually the "Good Guy" because people like to write happy ending stories. But in truth, all Protagonist means is that someone is the central figure of a story. They are the ones that audience is supposed to follow as they push the plot ahead. In one of my favorite comic books, Bomb Queen, she's a supervillan in charge of a city of evil, and yes, she's the protagonist. ;)
World English Dictionary
protagonist (prəʊˈtæɡənɪst) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
— n
1. the principal character in a play, story, etc
2. a supporter, esp when important or respected, of a cause, political party, etc
yes, its the primary person in a storyline, though it is generally meant to describe a heroic persona, whereas the antagonist is the main 'bad guy', in that they oppose the protagonist. Writing the story from the PoV of the 'evil' character changes the dynamic somewhat, but generally from an objective viewpoint, even if the main character is bad, in a good vs evil fight, they could be said to be the antagonist.
Again, another misconception. The definition that you gave from the dictionary meantions nothing about a protagoinst being "meant" to be a good guy.
I stand by my arguement and as Protagonist doesn't mean good guy, Antagonist doesn't mean bad guy. It is the rival to the protagonist that has a counterpoint to present to the story. Why usually, the "Bad Guy" it's not always the case. In my example for Bomb Queen, she has antagonists that are both good and evil because the good guy antagonists are usually superheros trying to change the people in "Her City" to be good and she has to step in to B-Slap the heroes, but also, there is a council of evil goverment types that created her, but lost control of her, and want her out so they can replace her with someone they can manage.
Yes, in your one example the protagonist happens to be an anti-heroine, and everyone thats against her is an antagonist. The vast majority of storywriting, does not follow that forumla. Its not a misconception, its an observation, one which you have chosen a very specific book to counter with. Should we list the number of books where the Protagonist is infact a white-hat, and the Antagonists are black hats?
I guess I'm just still in debate mode from the Grand Loremaster thread ;) I'm going to leave off there for a while to give marlin a chance to respond.
As for our debate here. A Protagonist has nothing to do with either position. The roles given to the protagonist in the story do tend to fall in line with the good guy / bad guys scenario, and I never said they didn't. My point was that applying the roles to the definition is wrong.
Though I have my views, alow me (if only for the sake of argument that we do all so love) to offer my view.
I think that because of the way the game has evolved over time, its possible that both sides have made correct points with regard to canon, and I think that is become the case.
In the early material, wicked things were just not done. Something like distroying a jumpship was feared because it would make the person or group committing the act a periah. Lostech was precious. Tsen Shang (or what ever he name was, Justen Allard's counterpart in the Mask in the Warrior books), no softy by any streatch, was horified when he learned of Max's attack on the shipyards at Kathal because he belived the whole IS would band together to take them down for such an attack.
In such a world, nukes, which damage and kill indiscriminantly, don't fit. Its pretty easy to imagine Jedi's points holding. If shooting a mech that's hooking up to a coolant truck is bad, after all...
But, in the modern era, times have changed. The nuclear attack on Gibson in 3056 or when ever it was (Ideal War) didn't cause a great jihad against the Regulans. Yes, Paul Masters and co were agast, but he's the whitest of white hats; others just took it in stride. And that is in the past of our game. More over, though the FCCW is not in our game's history, the same people that reacted to the events there populated the first years of our game, so its reasonable to apply their reactions to nuclear attacks in our game's past. Again, though there was shock and outrage, there were no mobs with torches and pitchforks screaming for blood. There was a simple courtmarshal in the one worst case. If all a nuking gets you is a pink slip, it can't be as bad as it was thirty years before, when I would infact argue that it was very, very bad.
I think there is a sense of disonance in canon. Many of us, and not unreasonably, draw our sense of where the universe is grounded from that early material, which later material should and usualy does build on, and so we have these ideas about how things should be that are, while not wrong, not entirely up to date with changes that have taken place over the decades since our cherished canon was laid down. And so I think its possible that one can argue that nukes are bad, and another can argue they are not, and for both to have merit to their case.
Quote from: Fatebringer on July 01, 2011, 09:40:21 PM
I guess I'm just still in debate mode from the Grand Loremaster thread ;) I'm going to leave off there for a while to give marlin a chance to respond.
Yeah, not fair for us to have all the fun just because we're able to respond more often.
I feel I am fighting an uphill battle. Although I have some thoughts on the matter, you know I can only try to express myself as Philippe. Not sure it will be successful. And then there is the time issue of course.
Anyway, I tried to answer. Would feel better if we just had some MM matches. :D Even if I did those too long ago.
On the subject of Nukes in game. They are a horrible, terrible weapon but they are a part of the rules. I have seen them used to varying degrees of effect. Sometimes they work as intended and sometimes they don't. Sould there be consequences for thier use? Yes. I am loathe to add a mechanic to cover that. Why? I am of the opinion that the player's factions should guide "punishments" for violations of the Ares/Ares II conventions. Economic sanctions, covert operations and even open military operations should be considered.. Use of the SLHC or GC as venues to publicize the "crime". As with Nukes...Biological and Chemical Weapons exist and are banned under the aforementioned conventions. At this time rules are being considered but I am still deciding if I will allow them in...
Well, when it comes to consiquences, I think part of what Bob is speaking about is external policing. Thus far in the game, by and large that has been handled pretty well. When a faction does something bad, other factions that are offended by it alter their dealings with them. Sometimes, it means they're not friends any more. Sometimes, they're enemies. That's realitively easy, and there's no qustion that should be left in the hands of the player base, since the game as a whole, short on players though it may be, still has a broad enough base that the over all resualt of the whole base reacting to something (nukes, chermical attacks, what ever) should be more or less on the money, even if there are one or two who's reactions we might think are perhaps a bit off.
But, there's also internal policing, and given that reduced player base, that is a lot more to ask for, since many players are in the position of having to police themselves.
Let's imagine that I determine next turn that Amy Lynn should innitate a nuclear blitzkerig against the Lyrans. Now, if I estable through role play that she's suffering massive and long term depression (due to the death of Kenshin, the loss of her Clan, and maybe her son gets killed in the fighting) then that may very well be a reasonable IC manuver, and I should rightly be alowed to carry it out (though I don't expect to take that path, so don't worry overly much).
But, its then up to Grae and I to play out the reactions of the other Adders personaly. So, if we chouse to have the other Adders realize that someone with a serious illness shouldn't be a Khan and take Amy down, then we've done our jobs. But, what if we don't? What if we chouse to have the other Adders rationalize things, somehow? Or we simply retroactively RP that Adders have been indocterinated for the past decade or so that the nuke is the ultimate extention of a warrior's arts? Not perticularly reasonable, if you ask me. Other players would and should be rightly upset.
That's the delema that's put to the rules. How does the freedom to RP as you see fit clash with the right of the other players to play in a universe that is broadly reasonable? What restrictions can be put on players to force them down "reasonable" paths?
Or, should the paths that lead to unreasonableness simply be closed off? I won't argue either point, other than to say that I think that there is a line that the sensable among us would rather not see crossed when it comes to outlandish, out of cherictor role play, and I think that game elements like nukes that can lead there need to be aproached with caution and consideration.
Quote from: Marlin on July 02, 2011, 07:48:30 AM
I feel I am fighting an uphill battle. Although I have some thoughts on the matter, you know I can only try to express myself as Philippe. Not sure it will be successful. And then there is the time issue of course.
Anyway, I tried to answer. Would feel better if we just had some MM matches. :D Even if I did those too long ago.
Jedi's judging this from Laurie's PoV, I don't know what he's looking for so I'm RPing things from Klaus's PoV which I am familiar with ;) That's the only advantage I have, I'm sure if you're sticking in there as much as you can, you'll be in the running, even if you haven't posted as much as us. ;)
I love your example IM and in my opinion something like that should be affected by GM meddling ;)
As I did not find anything to it: the Salvage generated in the Marian Horror Wars (TM) is available to the victor or not, yet?
Only thing I found is that there is no income nor functioning Hex Elements in contested Hexes.
salvage isn't collected untill someone controls the battlefield. It's currently contested, so it stays in the pool
If the world is his, it doesn't matter if the hex is contested. He should be able to get his salvage from that battle.
It doesn't matter that he won, its about control. When the hex is contested, nobody actually controls it, therefore salvage doesn't get distributed yet. Once he takes the other world in each hex, he owns the hex, and he gets all the salvage. Assuming he doesn't get pushed off(unlikely in the extreme).
Hexes are different from worlds. There is no actual battle going on. He controls the space and planet where the salvage is.
Actually, since the hex is terrorized, I don't think it generates
any salvage:
Quote
Training, Repair, and Refit
Battlefield Repair
At the end of any combat operation, all units that sustain damage recover 10% of their losses, rounded to the nearest 0.25 FP. Additionally, up to 30% of the unit's total FP may be repaired using salvaged RP (see step 7 of the combat procedure).
Hex Status Effects
T (Terrorized) - this status is caused by a number of different orders, projects, and events. A terrorized hex generated no resource points.
Am I reading this correctly? Check my logic:
Salvaged RP are resource points.
Terrorized hexes generate no resource points.
Alphard and Lothario are in terrorized hexes.
Therefore Alphard and Lothario generate no salvage.
Perhaps Clan Spirit Cat is so busy searching the planet for Blakists and nuclear booby traps that they can't be bothered with a proper salvage operation?
---
I think that would be a stretch, GI J. The generating part is about the Hex improvements.
Where is our Head GM when we need him? :(
Quote from: Fatebringer on July 08, 2011, 03:02:23 PM
Savage is not "Generated" Resource Points. Generated resource points are produced by facilities and planetary income.
Yes, but its clear that Contested hexes and Terrorized hexes affect resource points. While only planets and hex improvements explicitly "generate" RP, its unclear why other sources of RP in the hex wouldn't be affected by the hex's status.
As far as I know, there's no such thing as "Generated Resource Points" in this game. Whether it is created by economics or salvage, RP is RP. Therefore, I'm asking the GM for a clarification on how RP created by salvage is affected by Hex Status.
---
Roger that. By all means, the GM is the supreme authority on the topic. We're just chiming in for what we see as an obvious answer.
To me, Generated means, to come from where there was none before.
Salvage has an origin, it's the byproduct of a battle. It's there after the battle. It doesn't require people to put it together, or any facilities. It has it's own worth as scrap and after a battle, a unit can recouperate 30% of their strength just by sifting thru the parts and putting it back into service.
It's only the Left-Over scrap after that, which is converted into Resource Points due to the value of the scrap.
It has been ruled in the past that the salvage stays in the pool while the hex is contested. For example, Second Sudeten, where the Clans won the battle in space, but at least one of the planets fell to the Terrans. The salvage from the naval battle could not be claimed until the occupied world was recaptured, because the hex was contested.
If that's the battle I think it was, your talking about when the TH took the Levi and ran. In that battle, the TH had ground forces on Sudeten, we fixed our ships by the 30% and took the rest of the salvage to Rasalhague where we trialed the Horses for use of the Shipyards, won and got the White Terror and White Cloud repaired so they'd be ready for Sudeten 3.
I can see the issue on Lothario where there are units still around, not so much on Alphard. Sucks. Its soon that I gotta get my orders in.
Quote from: Fatebringer on July 08, 2011, 07:49:59 PM
If that's the battle I think it was, your talking about when the TH took the Levi and ran. In that battle, the TH had ground forces on Sudeten, we fixed our ships by the 30% and took the rest of the salvage to Rasalhague where we trialed the Horses for use of the Shipyards, won and got the White Terror and White Cloud repaired so they'd be ready for Sudeten 3.
I don't remember it that way, but I could be wrong. It has been known to happen.
It was actually Holt that explained the rule to me back then. One of the few times his explaining the rules to me actually helped me. Normally it's a "You can't do that, you can't do that either..." :P
Caveat: DR6 is the GM and anything he says overrules my opinion.
Assuming my interpretation is correct, you are both right.
1) Contested status prevents a hex from "spawning" RP so to speak.
2) Salvage RP is created by converting FP in the salvage pool back into useable RP. This normally happens at the end of combat operations.
3) However, contested status prevents RP from being generated, and thus prevents the conversion of the salvage pool.
4) As soon as the contestation is cleared - either by securing the hex or by making a sharing agreement - and assuming that no renewed combat operations are occuring in the hex at the start of the turn, step #2 would kick in and whoever had control of the field would extract salvage.
The only real exception here is special raid salvage, which is 'stolen' by the raider when they withdraw and thus undergoes the conversion to RP in the raiding party's final destination - which is almost always a different hex, unless the raid was executed as part of an invasion scenario or it was a case of raiders on one control world raiding another CW in the same hex...
I hope that made sense, if not I blame being sick for any ambiguity in what I said... my brain is a little scrambled right now lol
tl;dr version:
Contestation prevents the salvage process from generating RP. However, since the salvage "reaction" never happens, the salvage pool (the "fuel" for the RP-creating reaction) is still there and can be collected once the contestation is cleared.
Right. The effect of Contested hexes (or something very much like it) is described in the salvage rules.
However, it's unclear what effect Terrorized hexes have on salvage. The way it is written gives me reason to believe that it should have an effect on all RP generated in the hex including salvage RP, much like the effect of a Contested hex.
---
Salvage will be granted to the victor once the Hex loses it's contested status. That should occur at the end of combat this next cycle. Until then Salvage unclaimed. That is my take on the subject. A formal ruling will be posted tomorrow. I have an Airshow and then a birthday party to attend today.
Thanks. Please include the extra surrounded FP in the ruling.
Quote from: Fatebringer on July 08, 2011, 09:24:52 PM
It was actually Holt that explained the rule to me back then. One of the few times his explaining the rules to me actually helped me. Normally it's a "You can't do that, you can't do that either..." :P
(http://mjreed.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/mr-burns-wallpaper.gif)
Yes its big.
Damn Holt that image is huge! ;D
I guess this is our thread for posting weird ideas...
so here's a weird idea for a possible rules-change:
Hex Element: Magazines
Cost: 12 RP+
Income Generated: 0
Type: Military/Objective
Capacity: Special
What it does: A Magazine may be used, instead of a Factory site, to repair damaged ground units up to the capacity invested in the Magazine, or the maximum (pre-damage) capacity of the unit being repaired. Once used, the Magazine must be re-filled with RP=1/2 the FP it can restore.
In the event that the magazine is captured, the attacking player rolls 2d6, on a roll of 8 or 9, 1/2 the FP the magazine can re-fill is added to the salvage pool for the attacker. On a roll of 10 or 11, 75% of the magazine's FP capacity, and on a roll of 12, 100% of the magazine's capacity can be used by the victor. On a roll of 2, 0% of the Magazine's contents may be used by the victor, representing incompatibility or accidental damage to the facility.
Tech bases apply-a Clantech magazine may only repair Clantech forces, an IS magazine may only repair IS forces.
Magazines may be destroyed in a "Destroy Supplies" Special Forces mission, if the capacity of the magazine exceeds the result of a 2D6 die roll, the mission, while successful, only destroys the stockpile in the Magazine, leaving the defender's forces untouched.
The base cost to establish a Magazine is 12, plus whatever FP/2 in resources used to stock it. The stocking must occur in the turn before the turn in which the Magazine is actually used. (if established in turn 3, the magazine may not be used until the combat phase of turn 4.)
New units may not be built at Magazine sites, only existing units may be replenished/repaired from them.
Upon an agreement between the players (by PM, with CC sent to the GM staff), allies may make use of each other's magazines under whatever terms they happen to find agreeable, however only the owning player may re-stock one.
Cost/Benefit analysis:
Magazines are cheaper than Factories, but have strict limits on how they may be used, and have unique vulnerabilities. A magazine stocked with 50FP worth of materiel (at a cost of 25 RP+the establishment cost of 12) MAY be used to repair up to 50 FP of the owner's forces-this would be true even if the owner only has a normal production capacity of 2 or 4 FP-so there is an advantage to them that could counter the disadvantages if the owning player has sufficient foresight in setting one up.
supply depots.
however, its not nearly as worthwhile sending 50 RP to that mag, as it would be to spend it on building new MFs, and getting income plus production capacity from them.
And us Clanners can call them Caches. ;)
actually, caches are storage areas, not designed to be funtional for anything but holding stuff in a secure place. He's talking about something thats actually a useful facility, like a foreward repair/refit base. Not really the same thing, a cache is unlikely to be a fully functional mech repair facility.
Quote from: Daemonknight on July 13, 2011, 01:31:36 PM
supply depots.
however, its not nearly as worthwhile sending 50 RP to that mag, as it would be to spend it on building new MFs, and getting income plus production capacity from them.
Maybe. Then again, a factory can't regenerate 50FP you lost getting pushed out of systems X, Y, and Z in a single turn if your production capacity is only 20FP/turn in terms of "Capacity" as opposed to "Cost", which is the basic idea: banking around 5FP worth at a given cache each turn for, say, five turns, and you've got the ability to rebuild a unit FAST without straining the rest of your production-which can be handy if you REALLY need to counter attack after a big push, but don't have the factory-floor-space to do it even if you had the money.
I tried to model it as granting a better result to smaller factions that may need to re-build units rather than just churning out brand new ones.
I may have screwed up the balancing though...
the issue is that first, you need to build the depot. So thats money that you've flatout lost, because the Depot doesn't give you anything in return on it's own. Then, you need to throw away factory space to build up the capacity for those supply depots, instead of using it to increase your current military strength. Then, when your current units take damage, you move them back, they spend a turn refitting(and maybe training aswell), and then go out again.
Which sounds fine in theory, but in my opinion, you're better option is to forgo the Supply Depot, use the starter cash to invest in a new MF/SY, and then instead of dropping capacity into a Depot, use it to increase your total effective strength right off the cuff. don't forget, if you're winning battles, salvage is likely repairing a significant portion of your forces. And with the way this game works, rarely do you lose a battle, but escape with significant portions of your command, unless it's a Clan trial, in which case you likely didn't lose very much FP in the first place.
I can see something like Supply Depots, as you've explained them, being extremely useful in a rule set that requires logistics/supply train AND a less lethal combat system. Unless a force is totally encircled, you almost NEVER see a unit killed to the last man, in history or fiction. It just doesn't happen. Either people retreat, or surrender. Or like I said, they're backed into a corner, and either they won't give up(fanatics defending an important position, or a 'hold the line' type order- even then, its usually to buy time for others to escape), or the attacker decides to make an example and slaughters them all.
If the game had logistics requirements, I'd say your idea would be almost required. However, we don't have them, and I'll bet anything nobody wants them, because that inserts a whole new level of paperwork and complexity. Not that it's complex, it just means more stuff to track, and most people seem to balk anytime an idea is put forward that would increase the 'workload', whether its a good idea or not.
I personally see a wargame that disregards logistics as half-assed, log is more important than the fighting itself. After all, can't have a battle if the troops dont have their mechs, or if the troops don't get to their objective in time.
Well, speaking of wargaming...
I've noticed the tendency to go really, really, lethal in this game-not just in terms of tactics, but in terms of what people do-fighting to the last man even when the system's not blockaded, etc. and it makes me wonder if there was a mechanic that used to apply to the Loyalty ratings on our worksheets, and if maybe we should revisit the concept of incorporation of a forced withdrawal mechanic linked to said loyalty rating.
(again, mind that this is basically b.s.'ing around to kill time...)
Loyalty Ratings and Forced Withdrawal
When a unit suffers 50% or greater casualties, without inflicting an equivalent level of damage against an opponent, a die roll is required before the next combat phase to determine if the unit will continue to fight, or if it will attempt to escape (rout).
Units in Rout will retreat to the nearest friendly hex, and will not be capable of combat actions for the next 1d6 turns, if they are able to retreat. If a unit is unable to retreat (due to Blockade Actions, and the inability to break the Blockade) it will surrender without orders, or against orders, as if the victorious opponent rolled a 20% encircled and captured critical on the critical hits table.
Loyalty ratings modify this as follows:
Base Check: 2D6 with a target number of 10 or greater to stand their ground
Disloyal units add a -2 modifier to the result
Questionable Units: -1 modifier
Reliable: Base number only
Fanatical: +2 to resist forced withdrawal
Loyalty is determined every 6 game turns....
And that's where I run out of gas. How to determine unit loyalty in a fair manner without people just pumping their listed ratings through the roof.
I have a suspicion that units that were retreated BEFORE being crushed would probably get a small bonus or something-'cause the owner obviously cares about them, while units that were left to hang and routed, would probably drop a rating or two, depending on how savagely they were battered before bugging out.
I'm drafting a rule set for a fresh FGC campaign, and while I'm not using the system you propose above, I am putting in a system for unit loyalty/morale. I don't view the 2 as being related, at least not as most people do- for some reason, the two seem interchangeable here, and that makes little to no sense.
Unit Loyalty is a very static value, with only major swings in public opinion/deviations from the faction's 'Core Values' affecting a unit's Loyalty(assuming it's very high, or very low). Units with loyalty in the middle, 'questionable' will fluctuate often between mildly rebellious, and partial loyalty.
Unit Morale however, is much more fluid. Unit supply, recent conflict, even the odds in a battle will affect Morale(to some degree). Loyalty can have a slight affect on Morale, such that when a very loyal unit finds itself in a low-morale situation, it can 'bootstrap' itself into a higher Morale bracket, at the cost of some Loyalty. Basically a "well, they screwed us this time boys, but its not like we haven't gone through worse" uplifting speech type moment.
Various other things we don't see in the current FGC will be in the initial draft too. Most of it wont make it in, but thats the point- figure out what ideas will and will not make for the best game experience.
Belive it or not, I agree with Deamonknight on this. There are plenty of 'qustionable' or even 'disloyal' units that would still fight like cornered animals if pressed. The FWL offers us the Regulans or Sirians, who don't care for the Feds but are still first class fighters, as one example, and the Leagons of Vega under Teddy showed us that loyalty to the Coordanator and loyalty to duty don't have to be the same thing, as another. And of course, in the Clans 'loyalty' is just to the warden or crusader cause; every true Clan unit (at least in the time of the Field Manuals) is fanaticly loyal to the Clan.
That said, I've long felt that battles were too bloody. I think some of that is our sim-res tables. Just with one round, its pretty easy for a moderately larger force to wipe a smaller one out, so there's not really an oppertunity to fall back. One round, roll, and its over. If our values were half what they are, it would take longer to finish out a battle, but it would give sides that are losing more oppertunity to retreat or do other RP (winning sides too). No one's ever wanted to do that, since no one wants more work than there already is. But, I think it would offer a possible aid.
One thing that is definetlly going to be entered, is a maximum engagement size. Basiclly, making it so you can't fight at greater than 3:1 odds. So if the Falcons have 1000 FP at Somerset, but the Adders have 100, the Falcons can't actually fight battles with the full 1000. Instead, it'll be 100 vs 300. I don't know if the 3:1 ratio is the one I'll land on, but basiclly there will be rules in place(including potentially a slight tweaking of the table values) to make the battlefields a bit more realistic in terms of casualties.
Also, veterancy ratings will do more than simply increase(or decrease) your unit's FP. The difference between ranks will provide a bonus to the more skilled side's SimRes rolls. So, if the Falcons in our above situation are Regulars(it goes by the most prevalent rank), but the Adder defenders are Elite, the Adders would get a +2 bonus on their SimRes rolls, giving them a better chance of surviving(or atleast of inflicting major casualties, or getting a critical).
I had been banding around several ideas, had some written down, but never finished them.
1. For every full multiple after 3:1, the smaller force gets a +1 on SimRes. For example, 4:1 gives a +1, 5:1 +2, 6:1 +3, etc. This represents the target rich environment the defenders encounter and/or friendly fire. In MM, the "Friendly Fire" Combat option must be taken in >3:1 Battles.
2. For every full multiple over 3:1, the larger force suffers a 10% FP reduction. For example, 4:1 reduces FP by 10%, 5:1= 20%, etc. This represents friendly units simply being in the way, and the larger force simply being unable to bring its full strength to bear.
Interesting. The only thing I'd have against that, is that combined with the bonuses from Veterancy, we're looking at having a ton of modifiers. One of the cases where too many modifiers will make things a bit more complicated than I think they need to be.
The other problem is that while giving the little guy a bonus if the ratio is greater than 3:1 gives them a better chance of inflicting casualties, it still hurts their chances of survival, which is part of the reasoning behind the ratio stopping at 3:1. At 3:1 odds, if the attackers gets a 35% damage or better, the smaller guy is wiped out. At 4:1, he only needs a 25%, which makes the smaller guy's destruction almost assured.
Hmm, what do you think about this: the maximum ratio becomes 5:1. However, for every level beyond 2:1(so 3:1, 4:1, 5:1) the whole SimRes table gets a cumulative -5% damage. So if the final FP ratio is 5:1, the bigger force's results on the SimRes table are 15% less. They're still not needing much of a roll to deal heavy damage, but they're getting a big reduction in whatever they do end up dealing.
I like these ideas guys keep em coming.
Hmmm.... maybe a sliding scale for experience-say, if you SimRes a fight, it's not worth as much toward raising a unit's status one experience pip, as megamekking it does?
Quote from: Cannonshop on July 17, 2011, 04:48:23 AM
Hmmm.... maybe a sliding scale for experience-say, if you SimRes a fight, it's not worth as much toward raising a unit's status one experience pip, as megamekking it does?
I approve of this idea.
Yes, this one is really good.
Hmmm...on the flip side adding experience rules does put a wrinkle in the sheet there a way to automate that Dave? Say a formula linked to a y/n drop down so that exp is calculated based on sim-res or mega mek or do we have to go with entering that by hand?
Just a thought.
Theoretically, even in the absence of a YES/NO dropdown, you can still use a binary (0/1) number entry for the field (0 for SimRes, 1 for MM).
Quote from: Deathrider6 on July 17, 2011, 06:24:12 PM
Hmmm...on the flip side adding experience rules does put a wrinkle in the sheet there a way to automate that Dave? Say a formula linked to a y/n drop down so that exp is calculated based on sim-res or mega mek or do we have to go with entering that by hand?
Just a thought.
I guess it depends on how complicated you want the XP system to be. The most straightforward approach might be to increase the scale of the XP system, so instead of needing one XP for Vet and 3 XP for Elite, you could instead say 3 XP for Vet and 10 XP for Elite and then redefine how much XP each battle is worth. Perhaps...
XP TableParticipated in a battle that was resolved by simple resolution: 1 XP
Participated in a battle in MegaMek where your side had a 3:1 or greater FP advatnage: 1 XP
Participated in a battle in MegaMek where your side had a 2:1 or greater FP advatnage: 2 XP
Participated in a battle in MegaMek where your side was evenly matched in terms of FP: 3 XP
Participated in a battle in MegaMek where your side had a 2:1 or worse FP disadvantage: 4 XP
Participated in a battle in MegaMek where your side had a 3:1 or worse FP disadvantage: 5 XP
Obviously, this is just a very rought idea.
Indeed but it is what I'm looking for to be honest. It also ties in with a change I was wanting to do with the FP calcs and combat mods based on experience. If units gain XP for combat operations and get better they should get a bonus on the tables (damage) and possibly to thier critical threshold roll (i.e. +1 for veteran plus two for elite and so on to a maximum of plus four. Naturally this would not affect the critical roll). Just my thoughts I have always felt that a green unit still should beable to defeat an elite one but it should be rare.
Hey there, confusion on Pirate Point Insertions. Some of the rules say Pirate Insertion, some say Pirate Transit, some say Raid Transit...
There is only one chart, the Raid Transit Chart. Please describe the proper sequence for raiding.
Since there is no Pirate Point Insertion chart, I've been using the "Raid Transit" chart and assuming if I failed, I could run for my target or proceed without knowing if there was a force available for intercept.
Some clarification would be appreciated.
There is indeed a Pirate Point Insertion, under the Movement Rules section. If you fail your Pirate insertion(but roll higher than a 3), the enemy is able to intercept you. A 3 means 50% of your force's FP is lost, a 2 means your whole force is lost, due to misjumps.
Understood, I suspected that chart was under the Tables section of Combat Rules with the rest of them, No wonder I never found it :P
I thought it was better than the Transit chart :P I made some of my pirate rolls than,.
Quote from: Holt on July 20, 2011, 07:58:30 PM
Forgot their is no more raid transit rolls, only pirate.
If there are no more Raid Transit Rolls, then why is there a chart?
You choose which type you wish to make. You have a slightly better chance of making your Pirate Insertion, but you risk losing some/all of your forces. Raid Transit is a simple pass/fail, with failure resulting in the same thing as failed Pirate Insertion: defending forces can block you. Also, successful Pirate Insertion during a raid applies a -2 to the enemy force's Raid Defense roll.
Also, you can only intercept a raid with ASF if the raid fails its insertion roll(either type), OR, if the raid targets a SS or SY(can only target such facilities with ASF or Marines)
Folks,
I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about the unit Training rule, as per:
http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=2643.0 (http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=2643.0)
Currently, factions can only train up one unit per turn, however I find this rule more than slightly bizarre. I see no valid reason why a faction cannot train up more than one unit in a cycle other than to impose some sort of skill limitation. If a faction undertook a multi world offensive (which we see all the time in this game), then they could conceivably have 20-30 regiments or clusters to train up (mostly from regular to veteran). Even with only 20 units, that is nearly three and a half years of game time till the last unit is raised to veteran level.
A case in point would be a Davion style RCT, with the following:
Mech regiment
3x armoured regiments
1x Battlearmour regiment
4x mechanized infantry regiments
2x ASF wings.
That's 11 cycles just for the one formation.
I would like to hear players thoughts on this and whether training should be open as required, or perhaps an upper limit of say 10 regiments/clusters per cycle just to give some sort of limitation, without being so very restrictive as it is at present.
One thing I made sure to take advantage of during the time jump was to train up units. Even units I just made, I figured depending on their creation date in 20 years, there was still a chance for combat given border trails with the Hellions, Falcons and occasional raids, incursions with the DC.
Before the Jump, I kept notes of what battles certain ships, units participated in. I still do, but I cleared the board for most of those units with the time jump forward. Units that had 2 battles under their belt I figured would get a third and I trained to Elite and made notes for the GMs.
I think a limit of 10 clusters, regiments a cycle is a bit high, maybe 2 or 3 and the only reason I say this is to offset the skill reduction possibility on repairs.
Before my free time evaporated and I had to turn over the reigns, I was planning on changing training so that it could be done more than once per turn, as part an overall revision of the R&D rules. The rule was a little more complex than it is now but it basically boiled down to allowing one training project per PF (assuming you did no other R&D jobs that turn). So... I'm all in favor of loosening the 1 training per turn rule.
Alternately, IIRC Flashpoint did away with training restrictions alltogether and instead required a roll that had a progressively higher difficulty for each skill rank. That might be an alternate approach.
And a Bunch of money :P
I like the idea of limiting things to the number of PF's a faction can do as "Specials" the idea of giving the PF a bigger role in the game makes it worth targeting.
Require a number of SP for creating a Nuke in addition to the RP cost. "Nuke cost 25 FP, 5 SP"? Add SP cost to making Spec Ops Teams or use them to reduce time?Instead of 12 RP over 6 Turns, 6 RP and 3 SP over 3 turns? Progressive SP cost + GM approval for Elite for the Training? Spend SP points for Tech and somehow link this into R&D? Just spewing ideas :P
Quote from: Dave Baughman on July 29, 2011, 01:00:47 AM
Before my free time evaporated and I had to turn over the reigns, I was planning on changing training so that it could be done more than once per turn, as part an overall revision of the R&D rules. The rule was a little more complex than it is now but it basically boiled down to allowing one training project per PF (assuming you did no other R&D jobs that turn). So... I'm all in favor of loosening the 1 training per turn rule.
I see where you are coming from ADB, however I think this idea of yours could be expanded on.
For instance, the Davions might want to train one of their mechanized infantry regiments from an RCT. That would be anywhere from 2FP to say 5FP (for example). On the other end of the scale, the Dracs want to train up one of their mega regiments worth 60FP. The Combine is certainly getting more value out of their PF than the Davions.
So how about instead that each PF supports the training of 'XX' FP per cycle. If it is 20FP, then if you have 3PF, then you could train up to 60FP worth of units.
Quote from: Parmenion on July 30, 2011, 02:31:24 PM
Quote from: Dave Baughman on July 29, 2011, 01:00:47 AM
Before my free time evaporated and I had to turn over the reigns, I was planning on changing training so that it could be done more than once per turn, as part an overall revision of the R&D rules. The rule was a little more complex than it is now but it basically boiled down to allowing one training project per PF (assuming you did no other R&D jobs that turn). So... I'm all in favor of loosening the 1 training per turn rule.
I see where you are coming from ADB, however I think this idea of yours could be expanded on.
For instance, the Davions might want to train one of their mechanized infantry regiments from an RCT. That would be anywhere from 2FP to say 5FP (for example). On the other end of the scale, the Dracs want to train up one of their mega regiments worth 60FP. The Combine is certainly getting more value out of their PF than the Davions.
So how about instead that each PF supports the training of 'XX' FP per cycle. If it is 20FP, then if you have 3PF, then you could train up to 60FP worth of units.
Of course, the rules for acquiring PFs need to be redone as well.
in the new game, PFs are built just like any other hex improvement. they are just extremely expensive
Quote from: Daemonknight on July 30, 2011, 06:11:55 PM
in the new game, PFs are built just like any other hex improvement. they are just extremely expensive
but that doesn't add value to the question I posed above, since it's only a hypothetical game (at this point in time).
Well, 2 things. First, its not a hypothetical game; that implies it will never be played. Its the replacement for the current game. And second- I don't see an actual question, so i fail to see what 'adding value' has to do with anything.
For that matter, my comment wasn't directed at you. Grey said the rules for building PFs need to be addressed, thats what my comment was in reference to.
To address your initial 'discussion', in terms of the rules that're being worked on: training units in the new game is quite simple. You can train a unit anywhere you wish, so long as you pay the fee, and the unit is unavailable for ANY combat actions that turn, unless you wish to waste the turn(and money).
Ex: CJF is training the Falcon Guards from Veteran to Elite, on Sudeten. They pay the cost, and the Guards are stationary for a turn. However, the Wolves launch a trial on Sudeten, and the Guards are needed to defend it. Because they are supposed to be training, and must break off that action, the money spent is lost, and the unit remains at Veteran, but it is allowed to defend the planet that turn.
You can train as many units as you want per turn aswell. However, there is a strict hierarchy in place. You need to have 'X' Regular units to support a single Veteran. And 'Y' Veteran units to support an Elite.
For the IS, each faction will have 2-3 very special formations that can move above Elite(to Heroic). The Clans have a similar number of units who can go upto Legendary.
Should also apply for Green units to support regular.
I mean I understand nobody like's the greenies but the idea that all our units are regular or better is a little silly. :-) There has to be units for people to cut their teeth in and to threaten to send the fuckup's. :-)
it does, I just didn't add that part in there.
One of the other ways in which the Clans get special bonuses(because they are vastly outnumbered by the IS), is that Clan units are built as Regulars, while IS units are built as Green. I'm taking a break from Tech/Com rules and starting work on the combat rules. Perhaps when I get a few sections done I will post them up for comment, if people are at all interested.
That may be too powerful.
My point being that Clan regular is 3/4 equal to IS Veteran.
Unless there are some pretty serious constraints on Clan Income and production. That is way to powerful.
The Clans have almost no territory to speak of, and are vastly outnumbered in just about every economic way. I don't really see what your source of concern is.
also, upkeep rules will be in effect, to keep the forces from growing to the just plain stupid levels they are currently at. Rules will also keep Stack'o'Dooms from being truly effective, aswell as keeping the number of high-XP units small, due to XP loss, among other things. There is a lot of stuff that hasn't been mentioned yet, so lets add thoughts/constructive criticism to things I do post, without making judgments like 'its way overpowered'.
I realize that might sound touchy, and I apologize, i haven't had much sleep just yet. I don't mean it to be a dick
Perhaps if you took this over to the correct thread, we could get back to the topic on hand. That being training within the 3091 game and if players had any points they want to raise on this.
Its a rules discussion thread Parm, so it's on topic.
And the 3091 rules arn't undergoing anymore rules revisions. Thats why I'm make a new ruleset
Question - I think it was the FP 3090 rules that had Pirate Point insertion bonuses based on unit skill. Was anything like that ever added to this game?
Nope, nothing like that
So, new-game-planners, what are your thoughts about a 3071 War of Reaving campaign set immediately after the ilKhan declares the policy of [read the book, its awesome]? Talk about a bug-nuts crazy scenario with lots of room for maneuver and development.
havnt read the books, so i am unable to form an opinion
Gotta get it myself, but it may take a while till its here.
I have mixed feelings about that. First off, that would take a lot of research and planning. That's the downside for people that run the game. But on the plus side, it has a beggining and an end.
As much as I like the FGC format, one of the problems I ran into when I was playing D&D was that we would get into these never ending expansive scenarios. Our party would grow and divide, grow and divide, until we had a Mercenary company that was covering the whole damn planet.
Without a GM intervening Catalyst that forces interaction treaties and stockpiling occur. In Cannon, there was the Jihad and now the WoR to break that monotony. I was kinda hoping there was a Jihad during the jump from FGC3062 to FGC3091. The fact that the bad guys were poofed out of the story meant that I had all these big stacks of doom and no enemy.
My biggest objection to that is that, we have our own house of cards here. If the GM's want a plot to make it tumble, have at it! I don't want to see FG3091 go out with a whimper. I say instead of just abandoning it for the WoR, put on your point hat and be the EVIL GM we know you can be and assume random NPC's within each faction handing out mission objectives and if people don't achieve them, generate a new plot that messes with the peace lovin hippies... ((Shrug)) That's just my opinion. You can use the WoR carnage and the Jihad stuff to get ideas.
Quote from: Fatebringer on August 04, 2011, 06:33:59 PM
I have mixed feelings about that. First off, that would take a lot of research and planning. That's the downside for people that run the game. But on the plus side, it has a beggining and an end.
As much as I like the FGC format, one of the problems I ran into when I was playing D&D was that we would get into these never ending expansive scenarios. Our party would grow and divide, grow and divide, until we had a Mercenary company that was covering the whole damn planet.
Without a GM intervening Catalyst that forces interaction treaties and stockpiling occur. In Cannon, there was the Jihad and now the WoR to break that monotony. I was kinda hoping there was a Jihad during the jump from FGC3062 to FGC3091. The fact that the bad guys were poofed out of the story meant that I had all these big stacks of doom and no enemy.
My biggest objection to that is that, we have our own house of cards here. If the GM's want a plot to make it tumble, have at it! I don't want to see FG3091 go out with a whimper. I say instead of just abandoning it for the WoR, put on your point hat and be the EVIL GM we know you can be and assume random NPC's within each faction handing out mission objectives and if people don't achieve them, generate a new plot that messes with the peace lovin hippies... ((Shrug)) That's just my opinion. You can use the WoR carnage and the Jihad stuff to get ideas.
I'd hardly characterize what I, or Marlin, or Daemonknight are doing as "Peace Hippie" activity.
However...
Fate, what HAS the Dominion done lately?
If I told ya, I'd have to kill ya ;) At the start of a new game I like to watch my borders first, then react. It just so happened that my borders weren't the ones being threatened, but I've been vocal and now there maaay be some forces on the move turn 3... but it's best just to assume there are 100 warships waiting for you if you cross the New Dominion border ;) I mean, it's just safer that way right guys? :)
I would be all for Peace Hippie within the Clans and war rather to the outside. Its my weakness.
Quote from: Marlin on August 05, 2011, 03:49:19 PM
I would be all for Peace Hippie within the Clans and war rather to the outside. Its my weakness.
Too bad you started a war with the Falcons, then, ain't it?
Yes, indeed.
when building new unit are they suppose to be green or can you build them as regular????
Quote from: Raginar on August 06, 2011, 11:32:30 PM
when building new unit are they suppose to be green or can you build them as regular????
Unless the rules changed when I was not paying attention, you can choose to build them as Green
or Regular. Building them as Green costs less (since you pay by their skill-adjusted Force Point value), but of course they are 5/6 (or at best, 4/5 fo some Clanners), which can be a real liability in MegaMek.
Me and Holt were talking about the inbalance that versatile ASF's have caused in the game and have what we think is a good system.
First off, Mobile and LF Mobile units cost too much. However Transported ASF's are cheap.
So. Step 1
Create a new cost system.
Mobile Units x 3
LF Mobile Units x 6
Step 2
Add a x3 Modifier for Warships.
Mobile Warship = x6
LF Mobile Warships = x9
Step 3
Make it so that ASF's can only be made as Mobile or LF Mobile Units.
Escorts would be created as standard ASF without the x3 warship modifier and be able to ride any like mobility unit and not kill their MP Bonus if their parent unit is destroyed.
This would increase ASF Costs to reflect their versatility and avoid Aero Stack of Doom scenarios and reduce escort costs to something reasonable.
Quote from: Fatebringer on August 10, 2011, 09:02:59 PM
Me and Holt were talking about the inbalance that versatile ASF's have caused in the game and have what we think is a good system.
First off, Mobile and LF Mobile units cost too much. However Transported ASF's are cheap.
So. Step 1
Create a new cost system.
Mobile Units x 3
LF Mobile Units x 6
Step 2
Add a x3 Modifier for Warships.
Mobile Warship = x6
LF Mobile Warships = x9
Step 3
Make it so that ASF's can only be made as Mobile or LF Mobile Units.
Escorts would be created as standard ASF without the x3 warship modifier and be able to ride any like mobility unit and not kill their MP Bonus if their parent unit is destroyed.
This would increase ASF Costs to reflect their versatility and avoid Aero Stack of Doom scenarios and reduce escort costs to something reasonable.
Funny, you know, I never generate ASF units as such on the naval tab normally-I usually build off of a ship if I want fighters and droppers to move. We've GOT standard JS available on the list, not just Warships. The only time I've actually CHOSEN to build Transported ASF, is for the integral air-support for other Transported forces on the Ground tab.
YMMV, but I think maybe "Independent Squadrons" should be isolated to Transported, and any non-warship asf's should be generated with their jumpships. That would ALSO end Aero-stakkodooming from the Naval tab, unless the faction's got a huge MP budget to cover moving that many transported units.
i.e. "Naked" Aero (that is, Aerospace that doesn't have a listed Jumpship or warship) should be limited to Transported movement, then alter the budgets-Jumpships maybe costing 3RP/Mobile and 5 RP/LFB, and Warships costing 6RP/Mobile and 10RP/LFB.
Making people account for their line-items should help eliminate STakkodhooming Aero about as effectvely as changing the costing formulae, since to load them on an existing hull for the line-item automatically goes back to limitations on what it can carry-built in, there ARE no such limitations on the current "Independent Wing" entry to the Naval tab, you can load it up to near infinity with fighters and Droppers and the like...
Of course, for flexible thinkers, such an arrangement has obvious benefits-a relatively inexpensive force can be used to cover a much wider area in Naval Recons, Engagement movements, and suchlike, while it makes organizing forces for massive high-point stak-o-dhoom battles really, really difficult.
But that was the problem, Inexpensive Aero has replaced the Battlemech in this game and many engagements have turned into the "Who has the largest Air Force?" Match ups.
When the DC lost most of it's warships, it stopped making 42 FP Aero Divisions to "Catch Up" with the Naval Powers because he could make them for the same cost as a 4 FP Clan warship. I'd asked many times why we didn't have the designs for the non-LF mobile warships anymore.
Forcing the Clanners to their ships at a x10 cost didn't make sense to me. Just like the insistence of a x10 muliplier for the LF Mobile Warships instead of the x9 cost. To me, it seems like the x10 was just implimented to use a round number. I explained why I felt my way, the other way just seems arbitrary and a "That's the way we've always done it" approach. I know it's easy to calculate that way, but if your not gonna charge a x7 for LF Mobile Aero, why charge x10?
I thought LF Mobile Aero is 10x just like warships. Thats why I have built so few of them.
They are ;) We're talking about rules proposals. ;)
Quote from: Fatebringer on August 11, 2011, 01:55:16 PM
But that was the problem, Inexpensive Aero has replaced the Battlemech in this game and many engagements have turned into the "Who has the largest Air Force?" Match ups.
When the DC lost most of it's warships, it stopped making 42 FP Aero Divisions to "Catch Up" with the Naval Powers because he could make them for the same cost as a 4 FP Clan warship. I'd asked many times why we didn't have the designs for the non-LF mobile warships anymore.
Forcing the Clanners to their ships at a x10 cost didn't make sense to me. Just like the insistence of a x10 muliplier for the LF Mobile Warships instead of the x9 cost. To me, it seems like the x10 was just implimented to use a round number. I explained why I felt my way, the other way just seems arbitrary and a "That's the way we've always done it" approach. I know it's easy to calculate that way, but if your not gonna charge a x7 for LF Mobile Aero, why charge x10?
Um...
Okay, a Monolith isn't a warship, it IS on the tables for the current sheet, as are most of the non-warship jumpships out of the 3057 book.
or are you referring to designs like the Samarkand, whose apparent absence really doesn't make sense?
as to the rest of the example...
42 point "Aero Divisions"?? Okay, that'd be
Transported, which is a great way to eat up your movement budget in a hurry unless you're only planning defensive ops.
maybe it's 'cause I don't like having to wait many, many turns to refill my movement budget, but I tend rather intensely to focus on building the cyclical pool up-when I'm setting up a force or just rebuilding one, because I don't like that "I can't move" feeling of having to either buy MP off the GM 'bank' factions or go without.
((nods)), under the new system a Samarkand would be hella cheaper to fill than before.
1.25 x 6 for the warship cost, than around 20 x 3 for the Fighters is much better than the 21.25 x 6 cost that would currently exhist.
Also, people wouldn't feel like their wasting their RP if regular Mobile Aero cost just as much as the Escort.
I think if "Independent Squadrons" are going to be on the naval tab, they should require dropships to make them "Valid" in the calculation section. I had a few in the RD side, and that bugged me so I added droppers. The only Invalid transported units I have right now are dedicated to escorts paired up with a Mobile warship and only reflects what that ship should be able to carry. :P That is still a rare occasion, but I for one got tired of paying the huge multiplier costs :P
I Pay the x10 on my LF Warship because I don't want the fighters to get left behind when my warships jump 10 hexes and they can only go 5. That was my problem with the FS Foxes.
In regards to the Transported DC Stacks, yes, they do eat up MP, when they move, but instead of moving all of them they move some, make more, the stacks keep growing. A 300 FP Aero Force that costs 300 RP still does as much damage as a 300 FP of LF Warships that cost me 3000 to make. :P I have Aero Forces, but I try to keep them mobile or LF-Mobile for my own reasons. And when there is no incentive for someone not to just make thousands of these, ... well, even Holt who made them knows it's broken :P My proposal was to make this a little more fair, not just to my warships, but also to ground units that have to try and break thru the stacks to land.
Quote from: Fatebringer on August 11, 2011, 06:21:31 PM
((nods)), under the new system a Samarkand would be hella cheaper to fill than before.
1.25 x 6 for the warship cost, than around 20 x 3 for the Fighters is much better than the 21.25 x 6 cost that would currently exhist.
Also, people wouldn't feel like their wasting their RP if regular Mobile Aero cost just as much as the Escort.
I think if "Independent Squadrons" are going to be on the naval tab, they should require dropships to make them "Valid" in the calculation section. I had a few in the RD side, and that bugged me so I added droppers. The only Invalid transported units I have right now are dedicated to escorts paired up with a Mobile warship and only reflects what that ship should be able to carry. :P That is still a rare occasion, but I for one got tired of paying the huge multiplier costs :P
I Pay the x10 on my LF Warship because I don't want the fighters to get left behind when my warships jump 10 hexes and they can only go 5. That was my problem with the FS Foxes.
In regards to the Transported DC Stacks, yes, they do eat up MP, when they move, but instead of moving all of them they move some, make more, the stacks keep growing. A 300 FP Aero Force that costs 300 RP still does as much damage as a 300 FP of LF Warships that cost me 3000 to make. :P I have Aero Forces, but I try to keep them mobile or LF-Mobile for my own reasons. And when there is no incentive for someone not to just make thousands of these, ... well, even Holt who made them knows it's broken :P My proposal was to make this a little more fair, not just to my warships, but also to ground units that have to try and break thru the stacks to land.
Any system is subject to some kind of abuse. One of the things I've toyed with, is the idea of limiting the size of "Independent Wings" to...y'know, "Wing" sizes based on the chart in the rules- meaning there's only so many fighters you can assign before you need another line-item.
(making people account more line-items for their doomstax.) Having a "Cluster" and "WING" entry similar to those entries used by ships would help-just set a fixed capacity of Droppers and make any unaccounted for bays invalid.
Think something along the lines of a DS capacity of, oh, ten, let's say for shits and giggles. Now, it has to draw from the existing naval lists for fighter capacity, which means it's going to max out at the same strength that a ten-dropship jumper has.
Which eliminates (potentially) the 200 and 300 point Aerostax as single line-items. Again, if you have to line out every one of those, it becomes enough of a pain in the ass most people won't use 'em.
Particularly if the posting guideline requiring units participating in an action to be listed by line-item, instead of raw FP is enforced (along with the stated penalty for deviation from it.)
Wait I thought transported creation provides enough MP to move 1/10th of them....sooo you know you make 100 FP of transported. you have a 90 FP defensive force and 10 FP that can move ya know a hex.
Which on an offensive is really enough.
Until your 10 runs into someone elses 90 :P
Yeah Cannon, I think a lot of balance issues could be solved with upkeep costs, it's one of the things that made the most sense in FP 3090. Except those warship costs :P No other unit had their experience figured in to the upkeep except the warship.
I think the FGC 3010 had a good idea as well with their FP vs CV. FP was the amount of equipment you had. CV was your modified Combat Value aka (FP x Experience Mod). You did damage with your CV, but took damage to your FP. It was very well balanced.
Even now with the move pause in their game, they're talking about implementing an Upkeep cost as well. But I still think the Aero idea is a good one. As long as it's applied across the board, it's very fair.
Quote from: Fatebringer on August 11, 2011, 09:14:27 PM
Until your 10 runs into someone elses 90 :P
Offense is SUPPOSED to be harder then defense.
Beside's in all my offensive's. I do broad front attacks and keep moving forward every turn. Someone want's to stack and wipe out a 10 with their 90? Good on them. THey can't do it to all 9 of the 10's I moved forward and I can send one of those defensive 90's to slap their 90+ salvage.
but when it's turn after turn.... then you have a lot of 90's to put on different hexes. So that when the attacks come in a wide, they get whiped out in a wide bredth. :P
If stratigy and tactics were easy and stright foward, we wouldn't be bothering with a stratigy and tactics game; we'd just RP our stailmates.
But as it is, any player is free to concentrate their force as they see fit and be vulnerable accoringly, and any player is free to spread their forces out and be vulnerable accordingly. I don't think either method is entirely right or wrong; you need some of each. Though that dosen't generaly stop me from using very, very large concentrations of force when I find myself in change of deployments.
All true Iron Mongoose, all true!
Me personally I keep a stack or two to move to counter another guy's stack but the spread and conquer has been working for me.
I intend to maintain it until it stops working. ;D
Quote from: Iron Mongoose on August 12, 2011, 01:01:19 AM
If stratigy and tactics were easy and stright foward, we wouldn't be bothering with a stratigy and tactics game; we'd just RP our stailmates.
But as it is, any player is free to concentrate their force as they see fit and be vulnerable accoringly, and any player is free to spread their forces out and be vulnerable accordingly. I don't think either method is entirely right or wrong; you need some of each. Though that dosen't generaly stop me from using very, very large concentrations of force when I find myself in change of deployments.
It's all in what you're doing. My tactics mostly revolve around getting the most out of very limited resources, other factions have huge resources that allow them to do things rather badly with a decent chance of success-for example, my recent offensive against the Spirit Cats-most of my forces were scaled to a much higher level of resistance than I actually encountered, but had those forces been there, I probably (likely) would have pulled out the same results because of HOW I used what I have-and more important than even that, is the way it was structured out-three potential ways to succeed, even if failure occurs in two I still come out relatively intact and ahead.
It was three days after the "Reports Day" before Deathrider told me my intel missions failed, but that would have just been a fourth possible in my approach.
I really can't afford to concentrate everything into one push like the Adders like to do-I don't have the slack in terms of territory, or manpower, to dump all my front-line naval into a single offensive on a single hex in hopes of breaking an enemy in a single turn, but I think I did okay in shutting down half the industrial base of the Spirit Cats and making it difficult on them in terms of resources-which was the whole idea behind what I was doing-interrupt commerce and industry so that he can't make back his losses easily, cripple his forces nearby, and generally wreak havoc while denying him easy means to respond in strength.
I kind of
have to fight asymmetrically, the only states "Close to" the UIW in size are the Marians and the Taurians, and both of them are bigger than I am, so going to war requires a bit of panache instead of brute force, to include limiting my strategic objectives to Political objectives-that is, using armed force to help compel someone into a desired course of action, rather than trying to just annihilate them outright.
(with the MoC openly and publicly cranking out warships like that, and the OWA being a wholly owned Clan Territory now, neither of them constitutes 'small' in the same fashion...)
Small State tactics demand a certain difference in terms of what is worth going to war over, and who to go to war on behalf of-the UIW wouldn't even be INVOLVED if they weren't getting something from an allied power with an interest in the MH territories, simply due to cost vs. Benefit analysis-going on the offensive is risky for a small state, even successfully, because of the need to maintain force levels and flexibility. large nations like the DC, Lyran-falcon/whatever, FWL and Dominion don't have the same problems or even similar solution sets TO those problems. Even with 25+ attacks per round, the Adders didn't really lose much in terms of their viability, for instance, even with two turns of that-they've still got so much territory they don't NEED to defend most of it, so dumping the navy into a single assault doesn't really put them at much risk...
Whereas, I really can't
affford to apply more as a percentage of my forces to offensive operations than I already have-because even without "Upkeep costs" I
have upkeep costs-I have to be able to replace losses and hold territories once taken, which includes needing to be able to reinforce 'at will' with the attendant RP costs, free MP, and available forces.
which makes it a lot more interesting and engaging for me, than being able to just sling huge slothing numbers around the board at will without worrying about the impacts to my own state.
For example: IF I took Mainstreet at the end of this turn, and wanted to keep it, I'd have to figure out HOW to hold it, knowing that there's a counterpunch coming in a turn or two bigger than my entire STATE.
Taking it without the intent of keeping it, however, is tactics of terrain-denial-I only need to garrison enough of it to make it expensive to retake, then negotiate with the opposition, a much more realistic set of options in the absence of major allies. Turning it over to a major ally gets me good diplomacy with that ally, and I don't have to try and work out how to hold it against the inevitable (given the value of the real-estate) counter-attack, plus it allows me to press the enemy in ways he MUST respond to-most of which attack his ability to repair or reinforce against losses-which is leverage, and why when I spent my development money, I spread it out so that loss of any single system save my National Capital would not, in itself, be a crippling or fatal blow.
Marlin appears to have taken the hint, which means most of what I took last turn, is probably going to go back to him without a fight-at least, without a fight from ME. all he has to do, is have the Cats turn up with a negotiated peace settlement signed by the Marians and the people paying the UIW-because that ends the contract, and the UIW isn't trying to grow beyond its' ability to defend itself.
Naturally, as an OOC analysis, eventually the Lyrans will end up knocking on the door with more intent to own, than to aid or trade. It's the nature of the game-once the larger threats are dealt with, tiny nations become the next target du-jour.
Hence the paradox-I can't really see the UIW affording a massive territory increase, because such an increase requires suitable garrisons to hold (and in this game, 'suitable' is a couple scales bigger for a nation that size, than it is for, say, the Federated Suns), but staying 'compact' means one has only one's own resources and infrastructural development to fill the coffers-so each system becomes rather more valuable a prize than an equivalent neighbour does.
which, in turn, requires larger and more effective-per-pound garrisons to hold relative to size of the nation.
The way to be able to 'afford' to have a military with ANY offensive capability, then, is to focus on flexible, as opposed to line-item-powerful, layouts. Task-forces instead of Transported Squadrons, for instance, because you can break a TF into a variety of roles, or recombine several into an offensive force, depending on need, and spending more on the garden-variety intel operations, and doing THOSE in large numbers before you move, and, of course, setting up any offensive so that you have more than a single objective over-all, with several ways to 'win' at each location in hopes that one of those ways will be successful enough to justify the risk.
BIG states don't have to do that, they can usually afford to go in blind, strip defenses in one area to attack another, or just not defend some territories in order to hold others.
The key is multiple alliance's for a small state.
If you have an alliance or arrangement with a single state well you have a problem because you will be attacked when it's other large neighbor attacks it.
If you have an alliance or arrangement with several? Then your not a puppet and a large state is unlikely to risk a multi-front war against two or more large state's because you could potentially attack.
They will just wait for the attack and then make you regret it.
---------
That being said Marlin making peace with the UIW is frankly your best case scenario. You can go further but he has a much more robust Touman then the UIW as he has the inviolate Clan Home World's to rely upon for resources and production.
Were he to decide to build up you would be very much in the position where turn after turn the UIW advantage would start to recede. You can not reach all of his Inner Sphere holdings before he reinforces/creates new forces on a scale you can not match.
Mind you this assumes the UIW/Spirit Cat war remains between only those two powers.
Quote from: chaosxtreme on August 12, 2011, 12:02:09 PM
The key is multiple alliance's for a small state.
That being said Marlin making peace with the UIW is frankly your best case scenario. You can go further but he has a much more robust Touman then the UIW as he has the inviolate Clan Home World's to rely upon for resources and production.
Were he to decide to build up you would be very much in the position where turn after turn the UIW advantage would start to recede. You can not reach all of his Inner Sphere holdings before he reinforces/creates new forces on a scale you can not match.
Mind you this assumes the UIW/Spirit Cat war remains between only those two powers.
That's a permanent risk with ANY Clan faction-the existence of the Homeworlds even for factions that were kicked out of them decades ago in-game provides a permanent-safe-haven. There's absolutely no risk for them. There are even still
wolf clan holdings in the HW. (look at the map!)
Its true, but at least in theroy the Homeworlds could be opened up if the situation demanded it. To that end, Grae stationed many of the Adder's best galaxies in the Homeworlds, so if anyone thought that the Adders were really milking their free ride to that account, that's not the case.
Anyway, weigh that against the great houses: is Atreus or New Avalon really that much more vulnerable than Ironhold or York or Hector? It would most probably be quicker than to march across undefended space to the Clans' homes than it would be to chew through all the IS worlds to get to the core of any proper great house (the Lyrans and Cappies are bourder line here ;) )
You think we don't feel paranoid about someone deciding to go hit the homeworlds? During the last invasion, the offensive naval groups sort of came together, but we actually had a plan in place for the defense of the homeworlds. When I heard that the TH might have over 100 FP slipping around the Dominion and making a run for us... I was like.. CRAP! What do we have? Lydia Sukhanov! You are now the Pro-tem Adjudent Senior Star Admiral, Make a plan, NOW! The biggest problem we had with that plan was when the Scorps left the homeworlds without telling anyone. They had a nice chunk of FP for our defensive plan even if they only bid one warship in the defense, they had like 4 or more aero clusters. And them vipers :P I go to deal with the second actual naval threat to the Homeworlds, the first being with TF Bulldog / Serpent, and they get pissy because I'm hunting Davions instead of helpng them out with the people that took New Kent from them :P I like the fact they RP'd their pissed offness at us for that. Even though we did help them with the retaking of New Kent when it finally came around, we were chided for being there and refused repairs from the isorla. :P Oh well, once a viper...
on resource raids do i got to do Pirate Insertion before i do the raid table? also naval recon if successful they find out what there and can not be attaked?
Quote from: Fatebringer on August 12, 2011, 11:35:31 PM
You think we don't feel paranoid about someone deciding to go hit the homeworlds? During the last invasion, the offensive naval groups sort of came together, but we actually had a plan in place for the defense of the homeworlds. When I heard that the TH might have over 100 FP slipping around the Dominion and making a run for us... I was like.. CRAP! What do we have? Lydia Sukhanov! You are now the Pro-tem Adjudent Senior Star Admiral, Make a plan, NOW! The biggest problem we had with that plan was when the Scorps left the homeworlds without telling anyone. They had a nice chunk of FP for our defensive plan even if they only bid one warship in the defense, they had like 4 or more aero clusters. And them vipers :P I go to deal with the second actual naval threat to the Homeworlds, the first being with TF Bulldog / Serpent, and they get pissy because I'm hunting Davions instead of helpng them out with the people that took New Kent from them :P I like the fact they RP'd their pissed offness at us for that. Even though we did help them with the retaking of New Kent when it finally came around, we were chided for being there and refused repairs from the isorla. :P Oh well, once a viper...
Hey the utter refusal of Clan BLood Spirit to leave York to defend "False" Clan's who had not prepared to defend their holdings was a big disruption as well. :-)
Quote from: Raginar on August 18, 2011, 10:57:02 PM
on resource raids do i got to do Pirate Insertion before i do the raid table? also naval recon if successful they find out what there and can not be attaked?
Raginar:
As long as your raiders are starting in a different star system (i.e. they are jumping into the system) you can choose to use pirate insertion. You must decide whether or not you will do so before you roll on the raid table, since pirate insertion potentially modifies the results of the raid table roll.
You are correct about Naval Recon; if the recon force succeeds in their roll, they get the intelligence and leave undetected.
so i was suppose to do incert then next reply on that post do the raid table i messed that up
Quote from: Raginar on August 19, 2011, 01:08:22 AM
so i was suppose to do incert then next reply on that post do the raid table i messed that up
Well, its not all bad. There are risks associated with pirate insertion, including the chance to disappear into hyperspace and never be seen again, so sometimes its just as good to do a normal attack. The only downside with standard insertion is that if the enemy has air defenses they might try to defensively interdict you (which is basically intercepting you as you make your run-in)
Some thoughts on addressing Hex Improvement Ratrace. What are your thoughts?
Quote
New Hex Improvements Concept
OR
The End of Hex Improvement Rat-Race
OR
Dave's Crazy Idea #5313301753086580315
Introduction
One of the systemic problems in the FGC 3062 rules set – including the current 2nd Edition Revised rules were are using, it a phenomenon I like to call "Hex Improvement Rat-Race." It boils down to three inter-related game mechanical issues:
Hex Improvements directly create income and are one of the few ways for a faction to increase its per-turn income without actually conquering more territory.
Hex Improvements directly determine the upper production limit of a faction, with no other mediating factors (other than availability of cash). This is compounded by the abstract construction system that allows all production to be funneled to any one Hex Improvement of the right type.
Hex Improvements are permanent and have the same effect regardless of their location on the map, making it a viable strategy to "hide" Hex Improvements deep inside a large faction without any downside.
Collectively, these create a situation where everyone is building hex improvements, and if they ever stop they will permanently fall behind factions who don't – unless war or sabotage damages or changes control of a hex element. In a perfect world, this might actually be OK, but there are two other issues that make it a major problem.
The prices on Hex Improvements are balanced with the largest factions in mind, making it very difficult for small factions to build Hex Improvements and thus raise their income (to, presumably build more UIs)
The largest factions (who can best afford HIs) have the greatest strategic depth (and thus the best ability to safely hide them). Until recently, they also had the cheapest intel ops, making it easier to guard their factories against sabotage – though that issue has been fixed.
So, how do we fix this? The short answer is "totally change the Hex Improvement system." The slightly longer answer is "speciate the hex improvements a bit to more clearly define their uses and add a system to reign in large faction super-spending without making the paperwork too nutty."
Hex Improvement Types
Broadly speaking, the existing classes of hex improvements (MF, SY, IC, PF, RS) all still exist; however, several of them are broken out into multiple categories.
MF & SY form the Military Production and now represent three distinct types of units:
Repair Facilities: These are easy to build and inexpensive. They do not build new units but can repair existing units of the appropriate type.
Military Factory: Factories create FP, which can be combined into units. Only Transported and Static units can be assembled by a Factory however – Shipyards are needed to assemble higher-class units.
Shipyards: Shipyards build JumpShips and WarShips; they can combine their FP production with FP from factories, but any products must be assembled at the SY.
MFs and Sys may be "built into" the appropriate WarShip hulls as YardShips (MF for Faslane, SY for Newgrange). RFs may be build into ground units as Mobile Field Bases.
MFs and SYs do not produce RP, though their products can be sold.
ICs will be revised as part of the communications rules, and are not touched on here.
PFs will be revised as part of the R&D rules and likewise are not touched on here.
Recharge Stations will be revised as part of the Trade rules.
Hex Improvement Costs
A faction's first few hex improvements are fairly inexpensive to produce, but their price escalates are more are built.
Each corporation (see Corporation rules below) that wishes to build a hex improvement must pay the following cost:
Base Cost: RF – 4 RP*, MF – 8 RP, SY – 12 RP
*RFs always belong to the Faction Army pseudo-corporation
Cost modifiers:
Multiple Improvement Modifier: T^2/10 where T equals the number of pre-existing Hex Improvements of the Military Production type belonging to the building corporation
Strategic Depth Modifier: 〖(H-1)〗^2/10 Where H is the shortest route (in hexes) to another faction
Stacked Improvement Modifier: P^2/10 where P equals the number of pre-existing hex improvement in the target Hex, regardless of ownership
Add the total of the modifier above to 1 for the cost multiplier.
Example: Eric wants to build another MF. The corporation that will build it already has four military production type hex improvements and his target site is four hexes from the nearest border and already has an SY . The MIM is 1.6, the SDM is 0.9, and the SIM is 0.1, for a total of 1+2.6 or 3.6. Eric's MF will cost 28.75 RP to build (after rounding).
RFs take 1 turn to build, MFs take 2, SYs take 3. Building them as part of a unit (RFs for ground units – i.e. Mobile Field Bases) or MF/SY as part of a mobile unit impact the production as if their adjusted production cost was part of that unit's FP but do not automatically take extra time. Note that movement class modifiers apply to this 'virtual' FP so YardShips will be quite expensive.
Corporations
Any faction may create up to 10 game mechanical corporations, two of which are pre-set. Corporations "own" Military Production unit improvements; multiple corporations can be used to keep the Multiple Improvement Modifier from getting out of control. However, corporations cannot easily combine their production output.
General rules:
A Corporation may produce or repair no more FP per turn in a single location than the total of its MFs x 2 and SYs x3.
Exceptions: Corporations may undertake joint ventures; however, for each additional corporation that participates in a venture beyond the first, there a 'cooperation surcharge' of (5(C^2 ))% of the total production cost.
For example: If two corporations cooperate on a project, they can combine their manufacturing capacity, but must pay a 10% surcharge. If three corporations combine, the surcharge is 45%, and if four do so it is 80%. While such massive ventures can quickly complete an expensive project such as a WarShip, the inefficiency is hard to afford.
The first two "corporations" a faction has is its Army and its Navy. The primary purpose of these groups is to account for mobile units such as YardShips and military owned Hex Improvements like Repair Facilities. In general, a faction will want to have its MFs and SYs owned by other corporations to reduce MIM on Repair Facilities.
[tie-ins with R&D and Trade Rules go here]
Hmmmm the board seems to have digested my numbered lists. I hope this is readable :/
Quote from: Dave Baughman on August 23, 2011, 04:51:28 AM
Some thoughts on addressing Hex Improvement Ratrace. What are your thoughts?
Quote
New Hex Improvements Concept
OR
The End of Hex Improvement Rat-Race
OR
Dave's Crazy Idea #5313301753086580315
Introduction
One of the systemic problems in the FGC 3062 rules set – including the current 2nd Edition Revised rules were are using, it a phenomenon I like to call "Hex Improvement Rat-Race." It boils down to three inter-related game mechanical issues:
Hex Improvements directly create income and are one of the few ways for a faction to increase its per-turn income without actually conquering more territory.
Hex Improvements directly determine the upper production limit of a faction, with no other mediating factors (other than availability of cash). This is compounded by the abstract construction system that allows all production to be funneled to any one Hex Improvement of the right type.
Hex Improvements are permanent and have the same effect regardless of their location on the map, making it a viable strategy to "hide" Hex Improvements deep inside a large faction without any downside.
Collectively, these create a situation where everyone is building hex improvements, and if they ever stop they will permanently fall behind factions who don't – unless war or sabotage damages or changes control of a hex element. In a perfect world, this might actually be OK, but there are two other issues that make it a major problem.
The prices on Hex Improvements are balanced with the largest factions in mind, making it very difficult for small factions to build Hex Improvements and thus raise their income (to, presumably build more UIs)
The largest factions (who can best afford HIs) have the greatest strategic depth (and thus the best ability to safely hide them). Until recently, they also had the cheapest intel ops, making it easier to guard their factories against sabotage – though that issue has been fixed.
So, how do we fix this? The short answer is "totally change the Hex Improvement system." The slightly longer answer is "speciate the hex improvements a bit to more clearly define their uses and add a system to reign in large faction super-spending without making the paperwork too nutty."
Hex Improvement Types
Broadly speaking, the existing classes of hex improvements (MF, SY, IC, PF, RS) all still exist; however, several of them are broken out into multiple categories.
MF & SY form the Military Production and now represent three distinct types of units:
Repair Facilities: These are easy to build and inexpensive. They do not build new units but can repair existing units of the appropriate type.
Military Factory: Factories create FP, which can be combined into units. Only Transported and Static units can be assembled by a Factory however – Shipyards are needed to assemble higher-class units.
Shipyards: Shipyards build JumpShips and WarShips; they can combine their FP production with FP from factories, but any products must be assembled at the SY.
MFs and Sys may be "built into" the appropriate WarShip hulls as YardShips (MF for Faslane, SY for Newgrange). RFs may be build into ground units as Mobile Field Bases.
MFs and SYs do not produce RP, though their products can be sold.
ICs will be revised as part of the communications rules, and are not touched on here.
PFs will be revised as part of the R&D rules and likewise are not touched on here.
Recharge Stations will be revised as part of the Trade rules.
Hex Improvement Costs
A faction's first few hex improvements are fairly inexpensive to produce, but their price escalates are more are built.
Each corporation (see Corporation rules below) that wishes to build a hex improvement must pay the following cost:
Base Cost: RF – 4 RP*, MF – 8 RP, SY – 12 RP
*RFs always belong to the Faction Army pseudo-corporation
Cost modifiers:
Multiple Improvement Modifier: T^2/10 where T equals the number of pre-existing Hex Improvements of the Military Production type belonging to the building corporation
Strategic Depth Modifier: 〖(H-1)〗^2/10 Where H is the shortest route (in hexes) to another faction
Stacked Improvement Modifier: P^2/10 where P equals the number of pre-existing hex improvement in the target Hex, regardless of ownership
Add the total of the modifier above to 1 for the cost multiplier.
Example: Eric wants to build another MF. The corporation that will build it already has four military production type hex improvements and his target site is four hexes from the nearest border and already has an SY . The MIM is 1.6, the SDM is 0.9, and the SIM is 0.1, for a total of 1+2.6 or 3.6. Eric's MF will cost 28.75 RP to build (after rounding).
RFs take 1 turn to build, MFs take 2, SYs take 3. Building them as part of a unit (RFs for ground units – i.e. Mobile Field Bases) or MF/SY as part of a mobile unit impact the production as if their adjusted production cost was part of that unit's FP but do not automatically take extra time. Note that movement class modifiers apply to this 'virtual' FP so YardShips will be quite expensive.
Corporations
Any faction may create up to 10 game mechanical corporations, two of which are pre-set. Corporations "own" Military Production unit improvements; multiple corporations can be used to keep the Multiple Improvement Modifier from getting out of control. However, corporations cannot easily combine their production output.
General rules:
A Corporation may produce or repair no more FP per turn in a single location than the total of its MFs x 2 and SYs x3.
Exceptions: Corporations may undertake joint ventures; however, for each additional corporation that participates in a venture beyond the first, there a 'cooperation surcharge' of (5(C^2 ))% of the total production cost.
For example: If two corporations cooperate on a project, they can combine their manufacturing capacity, but must pay a 10% surcharge. If three corporations combine, the surcharge is 45%, and if four do so it is 80%. While such massive ventures can quickly complete an expensive project such as a WarShip, the inefficiency is hard to afford.
The first two "corporations" a faction has is its Army and its Navy. The primary purpose of these groups is to account for mobile units such as YardShips and military owned Hex Improvements like Repair Facilities. In general, a faction will want to have its MFs and SYs owned by other corporations to reduce MIM on Repair Facilities.
[tie-ins with R&D and Trade Rules go here]
Hmmmm the board seems to have digested my numbered lists. I hope this is readable :/
I don't get it...then again, I don't really see the problem with the existing infrastructure rules where industrial production boosts a faction's income. Then again, I've got a surplus of capacity in my current faction, relative to their rather small income proportionally, this really doesn't change anything except that it's even more expensive and more difficult to do...well, ANYTHING that requires money, since the resource generation basically vanishes, leaving about (oh at this point) around 6 to 9 RP/turn income assuming all territories gained in the last two turns remain.
I don't see the advantage here, except for megafactions that have scads upon scads of hexes, most running in every direction. It's pretty much structured here to punish factions that don't have density-like TAurians, whose worlds are (for the most part) exposed on at least two empty sides, or the Marians, whose holding is pretty small in any given direction, or for that matter the UIW, which doesn't have three hexes from SOMEONE ELSE in any direction.
I've got a simpler way to cure your infrastructure rat-race, that requires less studying and less math (and man-hours) to accomplish:
Change "Commerce Disruption" from an "Invasion" order, to a "Raid" or "Battle" order, so that commerce-raiders can actually hit deep into enemy territory, where those concentrated nests of MF and SY infrastructure ARE, and cut the cost of "Destroy Infrastructure Element" SF missions.
These are ONLY preliminary comments, taken in the vacuum of not knowing what you have in mind for Trade Rules that might make up for the godhammering of a faction's ability to pay for...well, anything unless they're the Dominion or something, so keep in mind this is just htat immediate first-look reaction, and not a biting nastiness telling you to STFU, nor is there intent to cause you to quit work, just concerns.
Cannon, I know you mentioned you wanted to see the developmental Trade rules... please let me know what your thoughts are (everyone else too).
I know its mentioned below but let me emphasize again here: the resource point amounts in this draft are subject to change based on a more detailed statistical analysis of faction expenses vs. desired spending ability.
Editor's note 1: Planetary Development score roughly correlates to the current planet ranks as:
Rank Type Base Revenue New Title
-2 (no equivalent) N/A (penalty) Toxic World
-1 Member World 0 Under-developed
0 Space Station 0.25 Developing
+1 Control World 0.50 Developed
+2 Regional Capital 1.00 Highly Developed
+3 National Capital 2.00 National Capital
Editor's note 2: all RP numbers are subject to change closer examination of target income levels and are here for reference purposes only.
Trade
With the elimination of hex improvement direct income, two changes in the game mechanics will replace this revenue source.
Small-scale trade
Small-scale trade is abstract and automatic. Hexes that are adjacent to trade-related hex improvements (see below) or other factions gain bonus income equal to 10(H^2 )% of their normal income.
Example #1: Robert has a hex containing two control worlds. Two of the adjacent hexes belong to a different faction, one contains a Trade Hub, and another contains a Recharge Station. 10(4^2 )=160, so instead of 1.0 RP per turn, this hex generates 2.5 RP per turn (after rounding).
Example #2: Daniel's national capital shares its hex with a control world and contains a Trade Hub. It is deep inside his territory and has no adjacent foreign hexes, but one adjacent hex has a Recharge Station. Daniel's bonus is only 10%, because the Trade Hub in his hex does not count. Daniel's capital hex gains a 0.25 RP small-scale trade bonus on top of its 2.50 base income.
Small-scale trade is considered part of a hex's normal income for game purposes, so an appropriately-sized raiding force could steal this bonus income.
Commodity Trading
Commodity Trading is the movement of large amounts of valuable goods from one star system to another. Each turn, a faction generates a random commodity somewhere in its territory (see table below). <<insert projects to create additional commodity rolls as part of R&D system>>
Under normal circumstances, factions can only buy and cash in commodities when the commodity is in their own territory. See the Trade Hub hex improvement for a partial exception.
There are two broad types of commodities: negotiables (which can be turned into resource points) and practical goods (which enhance a hex improvement).
Negotiables
Negotiables are exports that can be resold at a different location for a profit. Negotiables must be moved from where they appear to their target destination <<rules to follow pending completion of movement overhaul>>.
When Negotiables reach their target destination, they are transformed into resource points. Negotiables can also be sold to other factions at a price determined by the parties to the sale.
Base value: See Trade Goods Table
Local Competition Penalty: 10(D^2 )% where D equals six minus the number of hexes distance between the start location and sale location. If D is negative, treat it as zero; if D is over 100, (i.e. closer than 3 hexes from the star location), the negotiable cannot be cashed in.
Exotic Goods Bonus: 2d6x10% if the goods originated in a different faction. This bonus is rolled at the time of cash-in, i.e. not when the goods are bought from the foreign faction.
Practical Goods
Practical Goods enhance the operation of a hex element. They never appear within five hexes of their "native" element unless no other eligible target hexes exist.
Practical Goods grant a discount on production at the cash-in location during the turn after they are cashed in. The specific discount is equal to:
Base: 25% (of the first X RP <<exact amount TBD>>), then Y% (a sliding amount based on a falloff calculation, TBD)
Exotic Goods Bonus: 1d6x10%, rolled at time of cash-in only if the goods originated in a different faction. This bonus is applied to the base bonus as a straight add-on and as a 1.X multiplier to the falloff bonus, where X is the die roll.
Example: Tim is playing Clan Wolf-in-Exile and buys a shipment of Germanium from the Lyrans. When he cashes it in at his shipyard, he rolls a 4. This means that his base discount is 65% until he hits the cutoff, and even after his falloff discount percentage will be increased by x1.4.
Trade Goods Table
Roll (2d6) Resource Goes To? Base Value
2 Germanium Shipyards N/A
3 Luxury Goods Highly-developed Planets (+2 or +3) 25
4 Rare Chemicals PFs N/A
5 Ice Under-developed Planets (-1) 15
6 Consumer Goods Developing Planets (0 or +1) 10
7 Food Under-developed Planets (-1) 5
8 Ammunition RFs N/A
9 Colonists Under-developed Planets (-1) 10
10 Fusion Reactors MFs N/A
11 Medicine Developing Planets (0 or +1) 20
12 Precious Metals Highly-developed Planets (+2 or +3) 50
Hex Improvement
There are three trade-related hex improvements. All of the rules for construction of hex improvements and corporate ownership described in the military production section apply here.
Local Trade Hub (LH) (base cost: 4 RP)
A Local Hub is a center of trade within a faction's borders. Goods and services change hands here and these systems often serve as a stopping-off point for international trade.
An LH has the following effects:
1. The LH may "drag" commodities within a three hex radius to the LH's hex; this represents small-scale merchants buying and selling the goods and their eventual congregation at the LH.
2. The LH increases the hex's small-scale trade bonus percentage by 10.
(Improved) Recharge Station (RS) (base cost: 8 RP)
Many star systems have recharge stations, but only a few operate at the standard of quality seen during the days of the First Star League. A fully operational recharge station with an efficient staff can greatly increase a system's trade revenue.
An RS has the following effects:
1. The hex's small-scale trade bonus income is doubled (after all other modifiers are applied). If a hex contains more than one RS, each additional RS adds 10% to the final bonus income.
2. Defending aerospace units (being able to base from the RS instead of the planetary orbitals) gain a +1 initiative bonus during the first operational round of any combat operations in the hex.
3. When combined with an LH, each RS in the hex increases the "drag" range by one hex.
International Trade Hub (TH) (base cost: 12 RP)
A TH is a hex containing highly-developed facilities for trade as well as robust customs offices and many international consulates, fostering an environment where foreign merchants can do business with confidence.
A TH has the following effects:
1. Foreign factions may buy and sell commodities in hexes they do not control if that hex contains a TH.
2. A TH increases the hex's small-scale trade bonus percentage by 10.
3. The increased presence of customs-related surveillance measures in a hex with a TH reduces the likelihood of successful stealth insertion. Raid Insertion rolls (with or without pirate insertion) suffer a -1 penalty.
No comments? That bad, eh? :'(
Kidding aside, I know there are still a lot of holes here. I will post more as I make more progress on the parts that are still TBD.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on August 25, 2011, 01:31:41 AM
No comments? That bad, eh? :'(
Kidding aside, I know there are still a lot of holes here. I will post more as I make more progress on the parts that are still TBD.
I might have to actually get some help working out the basics here-say, working out a sample budget for an existing faction to see what it would look like compared to the income as it currently is.
Okay...
let's see what the UIW pulls in, based on what it has currently, under this new system...
RCW=7 (Highly Developed)
CW=16(Developed)
RS=2
SS=2(Developing)
now...real-estate numbers:
7+8+.5+2=17.5 base to start with.
One of the two RS the faction owns is located in a pretty isolated hex (five hexes from the nearest territory) so we can forget about income from THAT.
There's no reference to any impact from IC's, so we'll assume that IC's and DGIC's don't factor in here, PF's likewise aren't counted.
Now, the current UIW income:
Ownership is 57RP, mostly due to industrialization measures such as shipyards, factories, PF's, Guest IC's and Guest factories and shipyards.
17.5<57
Current borders:
Clan Star Adder, Clan Ice Hellion, some Lyran and Jade Falcon holdings, but nothing that's improved.
It's probably a vital thing, then, that I spent as much as I did on internal investment (Promoting worlds from member to control, and from control to RCW), or the UIW would be in even WORSE shape financially.
Working out the predicted small-scale trade looks to be a bit of a bear, I'm not sure what ^ is supposed to represent, whether that's division, multiplication, percentages or what.
('tis also fairly difficult to predict, when I don't rightly know how much territory I'm bordering is belonging to which faction!)
The obvious solution, is to turn around and sink any banked income after the rule's changed, into trade-related hex improvements-but those are, I would guess, of limited usage given the faction's geographical position.
(sigh) just when I thought I was finally getting to a medium size, too...oh well, back to work.
^ is the symbol for an exponent, so ^2 is "squared"
It shouldn't matter who owns a foreign hex, friendly, hostile, or indifferent they still count as being 'owned by another faction.'
I banged out a really basic spreadsheet to let you calculate your income and see how the SST bonus works. I've attached it here. The '1-6' for foreign hexes or trade-related hex improvements is referring to hex facings. So "1" is the hex directly 'north', 2 'northeast', etc
Quote from: Dave Baughman on August 25, 2011, 03:13:42 PM
^ is the symbol for an exponent, so ^2 is "squared"
It shouldn't matter who owns a foreign hex, friendly, hostile, or indifferent they still count as being 'owned by another faction.'
I banged out a really basic spreadsheet to let you calculate your income and see how the SST bonus works. I've attached it here. The '1-6' for foreign hexes or trade-related hex improvements is referring to hex facings. So "1" is the hex directly 'north', 2 'northeast', etc
hoo-boy did that change things.
25.7 RP generation just off of the map as it would exist at the end of turn 3, no additional infra.
MORE if my attacks next turn go well, based on planned infra buys for turns 4, 5, and6 (upgrading currently held real-estate.)
Tough question though-the RS currently sited at 0910 ends up being not very useful, since the station's out in the back-end of beyond (more than 1 hex off of friendly territory, and something like 3-6 hexes from any foreign sites). I'm assuming that empty-hexes count for distance here, right?
I took one look at it and was like... that's too complex for my brain to comprehend right now, <<Flips to combat pages>> "Death to the Infidels!"
Quote from: Cannonshop on August 26, 2011, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: Dave Baughman on August 25, 2011, 03:13:42 PM
^ is the symbol for an exponent, so ^2 is "squared"
It shouldn't matter who owns a foreign hex, friendly, hostile, or indifferent they still count as being 'owned by another faction.'
I banged out a really basic spreadsheet to let you calculate your income and see how the SST bonus works. I've attached it here. The '1-6' for foreign hexes or trade-related hex improvements is referring to hex facings. So "1" is the hex directly 'north', 2 'northeast', etc
hoo-boy did that change things.
25.7 RP generation just off of the map as it would exist at the end of turn 3, no additional infra.
MORE if my attacks next turn go well, based on planned infra buys for turns 4, 5, and6 (upgrading currently held real-estate.)
Tough question though-the RS currently sited at 0910 ends up being not very useful, since the station's out in the back-end of beyond (more than 1 hex off of friendly territory, and something like 3-6 hexes from any foreign sites). I'm assuming that empty-hexes count for distance here, right?
I would guess that empty hexes do count. It seems like a likely way to represent the economic bottlenecking that occurs due to transport distance (takes longer to get goods from point of production to point of consumption, which in turn effects desirability and value).
I should probably take a closer look at the proposal and weigh in with my own evaluation, but it might be a while as I'll be busy and/or away pretty much all weekend.
Quote from: Cannonshop on August 26, 2011, 09:07:45 AM
Quote from: Dave Baughman on August 25, 2011, 03:13:42 PM
^ is the symbol for an exponent, so ^2 is "squared"
It shouldn't matter who owns a foreign hex, friendly, hostile, or indifferent they still count as being 'owned by another faction.'
I banged out a really basic spreadsheet to let you calculate your income and see how the SST bonus works. I've attached it here. The '1-6' for foreign hexes or trade-related hex improvements is referring to hex facings. So "1" is the hex directly 'north', 2 'northeast', etc
hoo-boy did that change things.
25.7 RP generation just off of the map as it would exist at the end of turn 3, no additional infra.
MORE if my attacks next turn go well, based on planned infra buys for turns 4, 5, and6 (upgrading currently held real-estate.)
Tough question though-the RS currently sited at 0910 ends up being not very useful, since the station's out in the back-end of beyond (more than 1 hex off of friendly territory, and something like 3-6 hexes from any foreign sites). I'm assuming that empty-hexes count for distance here, right?
Empty hexes do count, and as with any time we radically change a core rules component there will be an opportunity to rejigger your setup a bit if/when these rules go live (kind of like what we did with Intel a while back)
The Vorzel wrap up was very thuroughly done. ;)
Random question:
What are your thoughts on taking the "nuclear terror" mechanism and turning it into a general "horror of war" type mechanic that kicks in any time huge amounts of FP get destroyed to reflect collateral damage etc? I was thinking that this might be a nice 'soft' disincentive against doomstacking and it would create a rules mechanism similar to those that other people have suggested where major strongpoints won't neccessarily be "pacified and productive" the turn after they fall.
I was thinking of importing the Nuclear Terror rules with only minor modifications, and adding a +1 to the roll for every 25 FP destroyed during the turn... so cluster- and regiment-sized engagements wouldn't really trigger this - only massive doomstack battles.
I dunno, maybe too much book-keeping involved there.
Then again, my own pet recently has been the fantasy of 'fixed values' for Regiments and Clusters to avoid the 200FP single-line-item.
see if I understand where you're going (at least, in principle) it would be to force a 'collateral damage' check for those doomstacking battles- I'd pretty much guarantee you get multiple wwII division-size conflicts happening in an industrial area, it's going to end up being about as productive as Stalingrad was, and about as expensive to repair. Figure that each hex-element needs to make a survival check when the FP>25 per side, with an increased difficulty for each additional FP>30 per side, run it from a base number that's very reasonable (say, 7 or higher) through 8, 9,10,11, or 12. Cap it at 12.
Each failed survival means a salvage roll, at 8. Failure means you want those factories, you better start building new ones, winning means 1d6x4 RP to repair and 1D6 turns of spending before it's up and running.
I really don't think expanding the "terror' effect is a good idea-there's no mechanism to un-do it if, say, the defenders actually won....
wait, how is Dave's idea more book keeping? Especially compared to yours. Dave's idea is that instead of rolling for 'Terror' only when nukes are used, you roll for it anytime more than 25 FP is destroyed on the surface of a planet(maybe also apply it to aero/naval battles if SYs, RS, SS or trade hubs are present?)
And no CS, you've run totally off the tracks to what Dave was talking about. He said take the Nuclear Terror rules and modify them to apply to large-scale conflict, not to start trashing planets anytime you have a multi-regimental battle. You could have 30 regiments per side and never fight in an industrial aera on a single planet
Quote from: Cannonshop on August 31, 2011, 06:38:11 AM
I dunno, maybe too much book-keeping involved there.
Then again, my own pet recently has been the fantasy of 'fixed values' for Regiments and Clusters to avoid the 200FP single-line-item.
see if I understand where you're going (at least, in principle) it would be to force a 'collateral damage' check for those doomstacking battles- I'd pretty much guarantee you get multiple wwII division-size conflicts happening in an industrial area, it's going to end up being about as productive as Stalingrad was, and about as expensive to repair. Figure that each hex-element needs to make a survival check when the FP>25 per side, with an increased difficulty for each additional FP>30 per side, run it from a base number that's very reasonable (say, 7 or higher) through 8, 9,10,11, or 12. Cap it at 12.
Each failed survival means a salvage roll, at 8. Failure means you want those factories, you better start building new ones, winning means 1d6x4 RP to repair and 1D6 turns of spending before it's up and running.
I really don't think expanding the "terror' effect is a good idea-there's no mechanism to un-do it if, say, the defenders actually won....
My original idea was to port over only the 'nuclear terror' part of the rule and keep collateral damage limited to WMD, though now that you mention it, bringing over that rule as part of the whole equation might actually be a good idea for the purpose of encouraging canon-like battles rather than doomstacks. After all, if
defending with 538103561365916591356815 FP would incur the possibility of losing your own hex elements even on a successful defense, maybe that will give people some pause about doing these insanely overscale battles.
I'm not sure though that either my original idea or the broader interpretation would cause a lot of paperwork though. Using this rule would involve one extra die roll at the end of any battle where more than 25 FP total (between both sides) is destroyed in a single turn. There would be an additional roll at 125 FP (the '5 token' collateral damage mark) and 250 FP if we used collateral damage, since each 25 FP increment would be equal to a single nuke token. The 5-token roll is a single roll for the hex, not a separate roll for each hex element, just like general orbital bombardment.
Unrelated to this idea, I should note that we are thinking on similar lines with regard to the composition of regimental and cluster line-items. In the future, when the sheet is updated to support specific accounting, units that are more than 25% above strength (i.e. 12 companies or 9-10 binaries *-remind me, why are we still using binaries as the Clan force increment? Gotta change that to Stars for sanity purposes) are going to have to be broken out into their component units... 1-line brigades are part of the problem with doomstacks and are not going to exist forever... not the least because they won't work right with the transport rules I am working on.
If the IS is listed by Company, it doesn't make sense to list the Clans by Star. Maybe the best option is to use Lance/Star as the 'building block'
Quote from: Daemonknight on August 31, 2011, 12:51:56 PM
If the IS is listed by Company, it doesn't make sense to list the Clans by Star. Maybe the best option is to use Lance/Star as the 'building block'
Really, the building block for the Clans should be the Trinary. The only reason I suggested stars was to allow for legacy support of binary-sized elements. Unless... is there a game mechanical advantage of supporting a lance-sized building block that I'm overlooking? Bear in mind that doing so would require fairly significant modifications to any equipment tables that are going to be used.
Just a note don't forget the IS can deploy forces in Combined Arms Formations as well.
So while the FWL does conform to the 4-4-4 we also deploy armor and battle armor regiments along side our mech forces.
We only segregate aerospace into homogenous formations because well it makes things easier.
Chaos's comment brings up the same point for the Clans. The main deployment for the Snow Ravens is a Triad. I don't have a single unit that is NOT combined arms. :P There are ASF and Elementals everywhere.
True combined arms, that is at the regiment level or below, will still be fully supported and actually better supported (auto-calculation of FP). Semi-combined arms (i.e. at the brigade level and above) will still be supported, just not at the one-line-item level. You'll have to give each regiment or cluster its own line-item.
I agree totally with the need to cut back. I'd like to see more games as playable. I am guilty of doing cool things with large factions, because I thought it would be awesome. If you heard the words, "Omega Galaxy is coming...", the proper response is to run. I've seen some of these "Mega" armies being posted up by the IS pretending to be Regiments, but people when you try and tell me your "Company' has 27 FP when it's clearly posted that the highest company value in the game is a Clantech company of 12 mechs for 2 FP :P Face it, that's not a company, that's a regiment, and if you have 6 of those "Companys" in one unit, it's not a regiment, it's an Army. :P
My Omega Galaxy was designed for fun. It's 4 "Minghinates", with over 200 FP of Munchtastic Miniature Mayhem! The "Minghan Rhimers" (Thousand Stinging Frosts) was literely 1000 units stated out with full support functions. 500 Protos, 500 Elemenentals with enough Vehicles and Mechs to carry them plus Aerospace support to Include Enough Dropships to logistically move the whole unit. So you have lots of Miraborgs, Arcadias and Sassanids. Technically, each Minghinate should be it's own Galaxy considering it carries within it it's own means to travel and minimum 40+ FP. On top of hearing the rumors back when the Dark Age stuff first came out that the Ravens had an all Proto Galaxy, I was also inspired by Starship troupers, the swarms of bugs. :)
Anwyho, I've finally had time to peruse the BIG post more in depth. When Holt and I were discussing asking to run the game, one of the first things we talked about was turn length. There are too many games going to simple resolution because of time restraints or inactivity. I would support that, but on the other hand, that might lead to even more inactivity as people stop coming to the site because "I have more time." : P
In regards to Infrastructure, there have been some basic issues that seem obvious.
IC - WAY too much money for the cost. Every faction that boasts over a 200 RP income has tons of these and while there may be IC reasons for this, 1/2 your income shouldn't be from comms tech. This game has also cut out Comstar from what they do. It's just insane.
MF - From now on, don't let MF's make ASF. You'll see A LOT less of them.
SY - Reduce production and income to match MF's, keep the cost the same. Consider them "Advanced" tech because they can produce Jump Cores, Also, if you take the suggestion I posted regarding requiring all ASF to be built as Mobile or LF Mobile, than there is another reduction in the mass transported aero floatillas. Also, offer a trade in or upgrade program. Allow units to either pay the extra cost to upgrade or trade in 3 FP for 1 FP on units. By requiring Jumpships for Mobile / LF Mobile units, you also reduce the size of the units based on the number of jump collars the Dropship has.
PF - There were a lots of suggestions for tying in other things from the game to these facilities. Linked Here (http://intelser.org/forums/index.php?topic=2895.msg25284#msg25284)
RS - Damn if I didn't bring this up at least 5 times. I don't think they should generate RP at all. Any "Deals" For jump charges should be done In-Game. Reduce the cost and for gods sake up the benefit from these to something useful. Lets say - 48 RP, produced 50 MP, plus give it a set number of charges that can be used by units traveling thru the hex to extend their movement. Consider Mobile and LF-Mobile, double charges for a +2 hex on LF, etc. Plus, the In-Game MP cost is as pathetic as the production from these facilities. 1 to 1? I mean, I offer a standard 50 to 1 rate with deals to trial for half / double rates. Still, offering a 20 to 1 rate is much more realistic and still better than the equally lame deal offered by mercs.
Quote from: Fatebringer on August 31, 2011, 08:02:57 PM
I agree totally with the need to cut back. I'd like to see more games as playable.
can I ask what playable means exactly? Because Dave B fought about half the CJF vs CIH battles as 5 on 5, or 5 on 6 battles, and then applied that to the greater unit. So I fail to see how large formations inhibit MM play. Either way, things will be very different in the future, concerning force sizes. You'll learn more later.
Also, it's been heavily hinted and almsot confirmed, that we are working up a replacement for the MP-based movement system, which would see the end of the Transported/Mobile/LFB Mobile issue as it currently stands. So that whole concept is going to be radiclly different, and with the introduction of military upkeep, it'll curtail alot of the massive military size we currently see. Also, with the way the Corporations interact, trying to build huge individual units will be so cost prohibitive, Dave guesses that a single regiment, maybe 2 for the superpowers, will be the most output we will see in a single turn, as opposed to the whole Galaxies or RCTs that some factions can spam out currently.
PFs are to be used for research, we've been saying that right along. Research and SpecOps teams.
As for building ASF at MFs, thats largely dependant on the corporations that own the MFs. Every faction design you have availible has to be allocated to one of your Corporations, and the 'size' of a Corp will likely influence how many designs are availible to it. So if an Aerospace Corp owns mostly SYs, but has a bunch of ASF designs, theres not much chance that they'll be built at MFs, unless you want to pay the exorbitant surcharge for the joint venture.
We know the RS is a peice of crap. As you say, you've said it time and again. and again...and again. The current rules are not going to be updated, because Dave is developing the next version. So instead of XP SP4, think Win7 64-bit. Its not an update to the current rules, its basiclly a new set of rules that bear some similarities to the old ones(especially the combat rules, I don't think those are changing a whole lot).
as for the thing about turn length, I don't really see a point in that post, what're you getting at? It seems that you think we should change the turn length, but your post indicates that longer or shorter turns are equally bad options...so I'm confused. And it also sounds like you think combat going to SimRes is a bad thing...why might I ask?
QuoteAnd it also sounds like you think combat going to SimRes is a bad thing...why might I ask?
Because some of us want to play Battletech, not just MechCommander.
Yeah I understand the necessity for simres. But it will always be treated by me as a method of last result. The two are not equal in my opinion.
Any attack I make that is significant to me I want to play it out if possible.
Any attack I make that is significant to someonelse I am up for MM. If someone needs vollunteer's I try to make time.
Now the 1FP Militia squash's yeah fine simres.
Your Vorzel's, Coventry's, Tamar's and Second Sudeten's when those are SimRes'ed it is a crying shame.
I don't know maybe there needs to be a winner and a loser incentive. The winner gets a bigger salvage haul.
Maybe if the loser got something like I don't know 20% of his destroyed forces reconstitutes on the nearest capital (regional or provincial) 3 turn's after the end of the battle we would see more people going "MM rockon".
The winner win's the loser in some case's invariably goes "darn I should have SimRes'ed" Which I don't truly understand because when things get bad for me (clear loss) I start heading for the most distant map edge alla "escape and invade".
But then the FWL is firmly in the "You don't win by dying for your country" camp.
Honestly, considering the number of Trials and invasions that've been generated these first 3 turns, if there is a lack of MegaMek going on, it is a lack of interest in playing MegaMek, not a lack of games availible to be played.
And one the other side of that coin, MegaMek might be fun for people who are good at the game, but it's decidedly NOT fun for someone who simply doesn't have alot of talent for the game. I don't enjoy MegaMeking my battles, because people want to play semi-even battles, which puts a bad player(me) at a disadvantage versus other more seasoned players which is not representative of my factions. I SimRes, because atleast then, my fate is in the hands of luck, and not in the hands of a far superior player.
Auto-fails are not fun, and thats basiclly what MM is for me. Others might feel the same way, and I feel that heavily incentivising MM play, puts those who either can't or don't wish to play, at an unfair disadvantage compared to the more highly skilled players.
Quote from: Daemonknight on September 01, 2011, 03:00:59 AM
And one the other side of that coin, MegaMek might be fun for people who are good at the game, but it's decidedly NOT fun for someone who simply doesn't have alot of talent for the game. I don't enjoy MegaMeking my battles, because people want to play semi-even battles, which puts a bad player(me) at a disadvantage versus other more seasoned players which is not representative of my factions. I SimRes, because atleast then, my fate is in the hands of luck, and not in the hands of a far superior player.
Auto-fails are not fun, and thats basiclly what MM is for me. Others might feel the same way, and I feel that heavily incentivising MM play, puts those who either can't or don't wish to play, at an unfair disadvantage compared to the more highly skilled players.
I think part of the answer is to move away from the binary "MegaMek or SimRez" setup to embrace more options. I personally think that it is totally legit to play out battles in MechWarrior 4 multiplayer, for example, as long as we can find a balanced way to run and score such games. I'd also be open to Living Legends, Assault Tech 1, Mech Assault 2, or whatever other BattleTech game floats your boat as long as its implemented into our rules in a controlled and fair way. In my mind, the more options, the merrier.
So I had an idea today. It is predicated on a couple of points:
1) Guerilla Warfare is so laden-down with restrictions that it doesn't work right. It also involves too much book-keeping.
2) The point was made at one point that other than GM fiat there is no reason for Guerilla Warfare to not work with aero units. After all, the idea of a Leopard-CV staging daring raids from some remote asteroid hideout is totally plausible within the narrative framework of the game.
3) We have this order, called Commerce Disruption, that is poorly understood by many players and rarely used.
What are your thoughts on...
1) Deleting the entire current Guerilla Warfare rule in its entirety, including the Guerilla Warfare damage table.
2) Renaming Commerce Disruption something more Guerilla-ish... or not. This is definitely an optional step.
3) Remove all of the unit type restrictions from Commerce Disruption - ground and aero units can do it with equal success.
4) Change it into a special order with some raid-like qualities, but other invasion-like qualities (10 FP force limit, can use pirate insertion for a bonus on the roll, can be used as an operational order during an Invasion scenario... but no forced return and doesn't "use" a raid order for raid limit purposes)
This would simplify the execution of guerilla warfare operations by streamlining the rule, get rid of a lot of the book-keeping, and retain its core elements. It would eliminate the highly obnoxious ability of guerillas to totally contest a hex (though this is something that needs to be clarified about commerce disruption anyway, since as written it would contest a hex if the commerce raiders stayed in their target hex at the end of the turn) without taking away their ability to be a lasting pain in the neck that neccessitates a long-term garrison by the invaders.
Very much worthy of mention, BTW - credit goes to CS for getting me thinking of possible changes to make Commerce Disruption more raid-like in its operation. While its an invasion for real in-game reasons, his discussion of a possible re-imaging of the order got me looking at ways to improve it.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on September 01, 2011, 07:03:40 AM
Very much worthy of mention, BTW - credit goes to CS for getting me thinking of possible changes to make Commerce Disruption more raid-like in its operation. While its an invasion for real in-game reasons, his discussion of a possible re-imaging of the order got me looking at ways to improve it.
Funny, my idea was really a lot simpler-limit the FP value you can use, turn it into a raid type (the rest of the mechanics of it fit more closely with a raid, than an invasion order) and done-a commerce raid in the classical military sense is a behind-the-lines move to attack teh enemy's logistical tail, which generally speaking, isn't going to be centred on the nearest border hex, but deeper in, and it should be a high-risk operational type-the Germans used it in the Atlantic AND pacific theatres in both global dust-ups. The operational principle was roving about, hitting targets of opportunity, then running away before the escorts or patrols caught you. Most of the existing rule reflects this, but it is, in my honest and not-so-humble opinion, miscategorized-'Invasion' implies control over the battlespace, making targets of opportunity by their nature a scarcity.
Anyone want to help with with a pair of projects?
1) If someone would be so kind as to take the attached spreadsheet and fill in the pertinent sections for each warship it would be greatly appreciated. Please leave any fields that don't apply blank, along with the "total lift" column.
2) If someone could go through IS Atlas, Sarna, etc and get me a list of which systems build each non-warship JumpShip, that would also be a big help. Please cover all of the jumpships listed in the attached file - you don't need to do any that are not listed.
There will be an in-game reward whoever completes each task for me first. So there's no question as to who 'won,' please post your completed project in response to this post. In the event of multiple submissions, post timestamp will determine the winner.
Bonus project: if someone can track down canonical information about jumpship production rates that would be very much appreciated too - you may need to track down the old Dropships & Jumpships sourcebook to find this information though.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on September 02, 2011, 06:42:49 AM
Bonus project: if someone can track down canonical information about jumpship production rates that would be very much appreciated too - you may need to track down the old Dropships & Jumpships sourcebook to find this information though.
Rates in that book were, ahem, ridiculously small, to the point of it speculating only 2000 jumpships active in the entire Inner Sphere-a situation that would be impossible to support an empire the size of, say, the UIW, much less the big five houses, plus OWA, Taurian Concordat, Magistracy, Marians, etc.
and this was BEFORE the resurrection of Warships, Clan Invasion, 4th Succession War, or war of '39, (all operations that required significantly MORE Jumpship capacity than JS&DS postulated).
ISTR that when presented with that question a few years ago, Randall and Herb both offered the same explanation: that they wouldn't attempt to publish hard numbers on Jumpship or Dropship production, because of the cognitive dissonance caused by previous administrations' trying to do so and failing the logic test.
(not the exact wording, mind you.)
I should clarify on the last point lest anyone read into it things that are not my intention: I am not looking for data on the total number in existence - I realize that this is fasanomics of the worst kind and that its incompatible with reality. However, I am interested in the canonical production time of the various ships. For example, I found it very interesting that it canonically takes six months to build a Black Lion, something that we aren't consistently seeing under the current warship construction rules. Depending on what the canonical numbers are, the way warship & jumpship builds are priced and timed may need to be re-examined (honestly, I've always felt that the current rules make warship production too long and jumpship production too fast, not to mention the bogus-osity of the current pricing mechanism, which is basically a kludge to balance the over-simplified MP rules).
Quote from: Dave Baughman on September 02, 2011, 04:20:33 PM
I should clarify on the last point lest anyone read into it things that are not my intention: I am not looking for data on the total number in existence - I realize that this is fasanomics of the worst kind and that its incompatible with reality. However, I am interested in the canonical production time of the various ships. For example, I found it very interesting that it canonically takes six months to build a Black Lion, something that we aren't consistently seeing under the current warship construction rules. Depending on what the canonical numbers are, the way warship & jumpship builds are priced and timed may need to be re-examined (honestly, I've always felt that the current rules make warship production too long and jumpship production too fast, not to mention the bogus-osity of the current pricing mechanism, which is basically a kludge to balance the over-simplified MP rules).
Actually, Jumpships SHOULD be cranking out significantly faster than warships-they don't have the (relatively rare) expensive
Transit drives that warships have, and are considerably simpler organisms (check crew requirements-a garden variety Jumpship has a fraction the crew needed to run even a relatively small Warship) with their lack of armour, lack of massive sensor-suites and ECM arrays, etc.
In the Canon (Entry:TRO 3057(R)) the Sylvester (a commercial Warship-style jumpship intended to supplant whole convoys) was a flop that the SLDF built the Carrack (a non-commecial vessel) based on. There's usually economic reasons for such things, the most important is probably unit cost vs. the amount of income a potential buyer can realize from the purchase. a
Monolith probably pays its purchase price off in a few months to a few years, a compact-core vessel of similar capability may not pay off its construction cost in the first few
Decades-not merely the higher cost to build, mind, but likely also the higher maintenance cost (represented, abstractly, in the BT sourcebooks as Crew complement and maint. points.)
Which kind of brings up the question of why the Clans run Carracks-and the obvious answer, is that the Clans don't care about cost, their system doesn't account costs the same way that a free market, or even a semi capitalist system accounts costs-the model presented in Clans:Warriors of Kerensky (along with Invading Clans, and both the Wolf, and Jade Falcon sourcebooks, as well as the FM:CC and FM:WC) indicates a Socialist/Monopolist economic model instead. (Which also goes a long way to explaining why the Homeworlds are hell-pits compared to even POOR Inner Sphere worlds. It's the Soviet effect.)
I'd advise that pricing should be different between dedicated purpose-built Warships (Discretionary spending, a Luxury), and general-purpose or dual purpose Jumpships (a necessity if you want an interstellar nation.)
At least, for the Inner Sphere, Jumpships should be cheaper, and the Warships more expensive, while for the Clans, it might make sense to price them much more closely due to the simple fact that the Clans are vastly more likely to invest a higher percentage of their shipyard space to Warships (as we see in the Canon) than jumpships, because of the importance in their culture and politics, of the Warrior caste (military expenditures taking priority even in times of peace, and not governed by the cost limitations that Inner Sphere nations must bear.)
Tactics TEND to be dictated by conditions, it could be said that the whole adoption of Zellbriggen is more to do with the greater percentage of GDP invested in both machines (clantech) and personnel (Breeding programme) that the Clans are centred around-honour duelling adopted as a substitute for all-out-war, because of the economic damage it does to the WINNER when a significant portion of one's production is tied up in smaller quantities of both machines, and men.
Meanwhile, the Inner Sphere stopped trying to keep the warship lines open in the 2nd succession war, because simpler, cheaper jumpship/dropship combos could do most of the same jobs, yet required a fraction of the dedicated hardware and personnel that a warship with the same lift capacity would take, meaning that for the same number of crewers dragooned/recruited/trained, you can cover more area more effectively than a single warship, at a fraction of the cost, and as a result, losses were easier to sustain-and far more likely right up to the middle of the 30th century when the strategic targets began to include non-warship-capable shipyards.
Thus we get to the 3050s and the reintroduction (via the Clans) of Warships. As the Inner Sphere began devloping, then fielding warship designs, they took a decidely different direction from Clan design (which was more influenced by SLDF and Terran Hegemony era 'big gun' design philosophy.) Inner Sphere designs tended to account for the hazards of the first and second succession war-thus, more anti-fighter capability, less reliance on guns and less speed, and even the Zechetinu (possibly the lightest corvette constructed in the new era) carries a collar to haul its own escorts.
And finally, to the game-present, where none of those factors really come in to play outside of Megamek fights. There is zero difference (with the same income/capacity) between how Clan factions build their navy, and how Inner Sphere factions build their navy, except what specific unit designs each are permitted.
which runs back into the circle:canon production rates.
The Star League, with an entire industrialized Inner Sphere to draw from, took six months to build a Black Lion. Notably, vessels like the RIGA had production numbers in the hundereds, yet production periods of only a few years. TRO 3057(r) and 2750 both made references to service periods and quantities. The differences even in the same weight classes were pretty significant, with averages that likely wouldn't make much sense unless you account for intangibles like Bureaucratic spending habits and inefficiencies due to peacetime.
More modern designs might provide a better guide; say, the lead-in-to-production and production numbers of the canon vessels in the
Fox,
Impavido, Eagle, Feng Huang, Mjolnir, and
Avalon classes-their numbers in canon can be confirmed, their cost numbers are there, they represent 'new build' rather than 'refits' (as most Clan warships do), and cost accounts for their development costs.
I dig what you are saying, and you have raised many good points about warship production and the changing role of warships in the battle line, as well as the disruptive effect of simple resolution on tactical dimorphism.
Just to reiterate though, what I'm looking for is:
A) data-entry on my stats spreadsheet
B) production locations for non-warship JumpShips
C) canonical build time for non-warship JumpShips
If you have this information, and would like to earn some rewards for UIW (or anyone else's faction if others are interested) then please have at it.
Considering my love of naval warship and non warship.
As well as the holiday weekend.
Challenge accepted.
* We might as well call the monetary equivalent of whatever the Free Worlds bonus will be as the down payment on the FWLS Illusions of Certainty.
Here
Slave Driver, i knew a lot about warships and now i think i know too much......
lol, Holt wins the race because instead of posting that he would do the work, he just went and did it ;)
well played sir
You are missing an entry however, sir Holt. The Feng Huang(Upgrade). I believe it is in Hot Spots: Sian, or one of the other Jihad books. It was actually a refit package that makes the Feng a scary little cruiser, instead of an overweight destroyer. The CC is basiclly building them as a Block II, as opposed to refitting originals(since they had no originals left)
I had the old file, but it needed the updated BV2 values :P You know, when they tweaked the BV system :P
Quote from: Daemonknight on September 02, 2011, 08:28:52 PM
lol, Holt wins the race because instead of posting that he would do the work, he just went and did it ;)
well played sir
You are missing an entry however, sir Holt. The Feng Huang(Upgrade). I believe it is in Hot Spots: Sian, or one of the other Jihad books. It was actually a refit package that makes the Feng a scary little cruiser, instead of an overweight destroyer. The CC is basiclly building them as a Block II, as opposed to refitting originals(since they had no originals left)
It was not on the sheet, i was writing a PM on it.
I've been working on trying to come up with a BV sheet for everything in megamek for the Solaris 7 game. That kinda stuff just takes time :P
Here ya go with the updated Feng Huang. As far as saying i was doing it i didnt even think about it, i read your post before work on my phone and like most long posts, i just skim.
Also;
(http://assetsus2.wordansassets.com/wordansfiles/images/2011/4/19/76601/76601_340.jpg?1303186501)
Quote from: Holt on September 02, 2011, 09:01:02 PM
Here ya go with the updated Feng Huang. As far as saying i was doing it i didnt even think about it, i read your post before work on my phone and like most long posts, i just skim.
Also;
(http://assetsus2.wordansassets.com/wordansfiles/images/2011/4/19/76601/76601_340.jpg?1303186501)
11/10, mister trollface ;)
Thank you for adding the FH2, its not in MegaMek currently and I totally forgot about it!
also, check your PMs for reward info.
To everyone else out there, we just offered a pretty awesome reward to Holt. Feel free to work on the remaining two projects as there are more goodies waiting to be given out.
Here is the Jumpship list, now the clan side of things has no info what so ever, reading over the description gives me the name of the clan that created it; but only for two.
Sources used were objective raids, TRO:57, TRO:75 for the Explorer and sarna.net of the Quetzalcoatl.
updated information with inclusions from TRO:3026 revised, sarna and IS Atlas
Will search through a few other house books. Davion mentioned two yard's not on the list but didn't list what they make. Stab their eyes.
Great work, thank you both!
Quote from: Dave Baughman on September 02, 2011, 08:15:44 PM
I dig what you are saying, and you have raised many good points about warship production and the changing role of warships in the battle line, as well as the disruptive effect of simple resolution on tactical dimorphism.
Just to reiterate though, what I'm looking for is:
A) data-entry on my stats spreadsheet
B) production locations for non-warship JumpShips
C) canonical build time for non-warship JumpShips
If you have this information, and would like to earn some rewards for UIW (or anyone else's faction if others are interested) then please have at it.
Oh, just buying time for Holt, Chaos, and everyone else who has the books I don't to get it done...Most of the articles I'd been thinking of writing aren't going to apply after the changeover.
From the old Dropships & Dropships book spine 1500:
Starlord; "House Marik production of the vessel creeps along at a rate about two a year, with about one per year coming out of the Draconis Combine."
Monolith: "Production still continues in the Federate Suns at a rate of about two new vessels every three years. Until recently, the production rate for Monolith in the Free Worlds League was one every two years. It is now believed that House Marik lost the production facilities to manufacture these starships."
Now granted this was written at the height of the Succession wars and around 3050 their was a renascence of jumpship building in the IS. I'll keep digging but their isnt much information out there.
Hi folks, I am locking this thread and splitting it into two new threads: Rules Discussion and Rules Q&A. Please carry on in the new threads.