As early as Turn 6, I would like to begin reducing the presence of doomstacks in FGC. This will come in three general phases:
Phase 1: limited voluntary trade-in
Phase 2: unlimited voluntary trade-in
Phase 3: GM-mandated involuntary conversion
First, lets define a doomstack.
A doomstack, for the purposes of these rules, is a single line-item that contains more than 12 company/binary-sized elements. The worst offenders are large independent wings (regardless of their movement class), and those will be the target of Phase 1.
I would like your feedback on the proposed implementation of Phase 1.
Phase 1: Independent Wing Reduction
In turn XXX, FGC record sheet 0.55 will be released. One of the changes on this sheet will be a reduction in the dropship capacity of independent wings to 6 DropShips. This will render the majority of large independent wings currently in the game invalid. These independent wings may not/not be broken into multiple, smaller independent wings - however, the lost BV will be able to be recouped. Recapture works as follows:
1. Identify the total amount of FP lost for each movement class (transported/mobile/LFB mobile)
2. Multiply the mobile and LFB mobile FP by their purchase modifier (x6/x10) and combine with transported total to get the raw RP cost of lost units.
3. This RP may be spent immediately, exempt from SY capacity restrictions, to build warships. Only warships may be built with this RP (i.e. no independent wings or Jumpship-based flotillas).
4. Warships built in this manner may not derive more than 50% of their FP from dropships or fighters. RP may be spent on marines and taxis if desired without any special restrictions as long as they are part of a warship line-item.
5. The GMs must approve each faction's recapture list, and reserve the right to disapprove purchase plans if they feel they will be disruptive or involve gaining non-faction ships or technology (i.e. faction Z builds 126 Leviathan IIs? Probably gonna be denied.)
Thoughts?
Will factions be able to purchase designs from other factions? Not be able to build it or reverse engineer them, just acquire them. I say this because some factions are very limited in the warships they can build and I am not sure people want 1,253 Vincent mk. 39s.
How does this proposal work in regards Veteran and Elite units (and dare I say Green, if there are any of those)?
For instance, if Clan Stone Lion had an Elite 50FP Independent Wing (Mobile), will the resulting Warships also be Elite rated?
In general, I'm not against the idea in principle, although once the above questions (and any that other players might think up) are answered I'll be more prepared to say one way or another.
LOL, this will be nice for those Uber Dropship stacks I have. For some reason someone had the genius idea of instead of stacking Fighters, they stacked Droppers... :P I can trade the overstack into fighters or seperated floatillas :)
Quote from: Holt on September 27, 2011, 11:57:28 AM
Will factions be able to purchase designs from other factions? Not be able to build it or reverse engineer them, just acquire them. I say this because some factions are very limited in the warships they can build and I am not sure people want 1,253 Vincent mk. 39s.
Yes, subject to GM approval. Needless to say, older designs - especially the TRO 2750 classics - are most likely to be approved as out of faction choices.
Quote from: Parmenion on September 27, 2011, 02:37:07 PM
How does this proposal work in regards Veteran and Elite units (and dare I say Green, if there are any of those)?
For instance, if Clan Stone Lion had an Elite 50FP Independent Wing (Mobile), will the resulting Warships also be Elite rated?
In general, I'm not against the idea in principle, although once the above questions (and any that other players might think up) are answered I'll be more prepared to say one way or another.
Good point. I have no problem in principle with higher-skill units coming out of this as long as the total number do not exceed the number that were traded in. For example, say you had a 100 FP elite independent wing. That wing got knocked down to 10 FP by the new rules, leaving you with 90 FP. If you used that 90 FP to buy a pair of (LFB Mobile, so x10 cost) Lola IIIs, I would have no problem with
one of them carrying over the elite skill. Beyond that, I'd have to decide on a case-by-case basis looking at the totality of the purchase.
As a rule of thumb, I'm inclined to approve buys that are well-balanced overall, and inclined to disapprove buys that lean to extremes in their composition.
I am not seeing where the -10 is coming from in the rules.
if you have 100 FP Elite Wing and you are transitioning it into warships. Shouldn't you at the end of it have 10 FP of Elite LFB Warship or 16.6FP Of Elite Mobile Warship?
Also to become balanced purchase's some of that is probably going to need to be broken up.
For example.
if someone has most of their navy in large FP Stack's. Their either ending up with several Mobile Battleships at 16.6 or they need to break it up into
An Elite Clan Essex Class Destroyer is 6.5FP if they built 2 Mobile rated Essex's out of that FP that's 13 leaving 3.6 for corvette's or escorts on the essex.
It wouldn't be fair for that second Essex and what not to now be Regular (Though I for one would try to take advantage of it if I could do Veteran as they would be cheaper and upgradeable later).
Quote from: chaosxtreme on September 27, 2011, 05:02:28 PM
I am not seeing where the -10 is coming from in the rules.
if you have 100 FP Elite Wing and you are transitioning it into warships. Shouldn't you at the end of it have 10 FP of Elite LFB Warship or 16.6FP Of Elite Mobile Warship?
The independent wings are not being deleted, they are just being reduced to a more reasonable size. The 10 FP was an arbitrary number for the sake of the example.
Oh ok so the wing's aren't going away. They are just being reduced. to 10 FP and all FP above 10 is being built into new warship's. Beautiful.
Quote from: chaosxtreme on September 27, 2011, 05:08:26 PM
Oh ok so the wing's aren't going away. They are just being reduced. to 10 FP and all FP above 10 is being built into new warship's. Beautiful.
Green part is true. Red part is going to vary from faction to faction. Indy wings are being reduced to a maximum of six dropships. This will lower their max FP across all factions, but the exact amount will vary based on the dropship choice and the composition of your dropship & fighter tables.
Ouch yeah I can see a major reduction in the FWL most of our pocket dropships are low FP.
Well, you have to think about it though, assuming the Sharks ASF list is comprable to the Raven one, the 85 FP Stacks are around 6 or 7 of these new units each.
Quote from: chaosxtreme on September 27, 2011, 05:08:26 PM
Oh ok so the wing's aren't going away. They are just being reduced. to 10 FP and all FP above 10 is being built into new warship's. Beautiful.
Yeah, will hit the FP stacks pretty hard for people who've been twinking up on ASF clusters. I mean, I know I was concerned when I went from dominating the space lanes to seeng matching floatillas in an instant.
It'd be nice to see a stack of 600 FP in fighters turned into a nice Potemkin with escorts :)
Quote from: Fatebringer on September 27, 2011, 06:21:32 PM
Quote from: chaosxtreme on September 27, 2011, 05:08:26 PM
Oh ok so the wing's aren't going away. They are just being reduced. to 10 FP and all FP above 10 is being built into new warship's. Beautiful.
Yeah, will hit the FP stacks pretty hard for people who've been twinking up on ASF clusters. I mean, I know I was concerned when I went from dominating the space lanes to seeng matching floatillas in an instant.
It'd be nice to see a stack of 600 FP in fighters turned into a nice Potemkin with escorts :)
Nicer still to see it broken into an actual warship star or three. Many Clan players felt ripped off by the distribution of 'cached' warships in the KC back around turn 26/27. Converting that fighter ARMY into 600 FP of mixed ships (Aegis, say, with Whirlwinds, Rigas, essex and Lolas) is a little more um...'stylish'. I'm sure someone out there has been eyeing a new
Nightlord or
Liberator that the trade-in would allow them to afford like...now.
Which brings ME to an interesting (at least, to me) question:
Say you have multiple 15 pointers that are going to be downchecked to 10 pointers-but you don't have much ABOVE 15 points...
can the slack be compiled to buy one or two big assets?
Quote from: chaosxtreme on September 27, 2011, 05:49:15 PM
Ouch yeah I can see a major reduction in the FWL most of our pocket dropships are low FP.
Remember that this only applies to independent wings, not to your jumpship- or warship-based forces. If there is something that can be threatened by a survival roll at the heart of the formation (i.e. the proper risk vs. reward calculus), then it is not impacted by Phase 1 of this program.
Quote from: Fatebringer on September 27, 2011, 06:21:32 PM
Quote from: chaosxtreme on September 27, 2011, 05:08:26 PM
Oh ok so the wing's aren't going away. They are just being reduced. to 10 FP and all FP above 10 is being built into new warship's. Beautiful.
Yeah, will hit the FP stacks pretty hard for people who've been twinking up on ASF clusters. I mean, I know I was concerned when I went from dominating the space lanes to seeng matching floatillas in an instant.
It'd be nice to see a stack of 600 FP in fighters turned into a nice Potemkin with escorts :)
I agree. Just be mindful of the "50% FP threshold rule" before you get too set on Potemkin supercarrier groups. Now, some nice sleek Black Lions...
Quote from: Cannonshop on September 27, 2011, 06:36:12 PM
Quote from: Fatebringer on September 27, 2011, 06:21:32 PM
Quote from: chaosxtreme on September 27, 2011, 05:08:26 PM
Oh ok so the wing's aren't going away. They are just being reduced. to 10 FP and all FP above 10 is being built into new warship's. Beautiful.
Yeah, will hit the FP stacks pretty hard for people who've been twinking up on ASF clusters. I mean, I know I was concerned when I went from dominating the space lanes to seeng matching floatillas in an instant.
It'd be nice to see a stack of 600 FP in fighters turned into a nice Potemkin with escorts :)
Nicer still to see it broken into an actual warship star or three. Many Clan players felt ripped off by the distribution of 'cached' warships in the KC back around turn 26/27. Converting that fighter ARMY into 600 FP of mixed ships (Aegis, say, with Whirlwinds, Rigas, essex and Lolas) is a little more um...'stylish'. I'm sure someone out there has been eyeing a new Nightlord or Liberator that the trade-in would allow them to afford like...now.
Which brings ME to an interesting (at least, to me) question:
Say you have multiple 15 pointers that are going to be downchecked to 10 pointers-but you don't have much ABOVE 15 points...
can the slack be compiled to buy one or two big assets?
Yes. Before you buy anything, you should pool all the lost FP and back-convert it by movement class into RP. So you'll be buying from that pool instead of from each individual unit.
So, how many times have we seen a planet with a strong garrison conquered by a huge stack of aerospace units plus a some token ground unit to hold the real estate afterwards? I know I've seen it more times than I'd like.
I am tempted to port in the Flashpoint aerospace support order more or less unchanged. If you didn't play in Flashpoint, here's how it worked:
QuoteAerospace Support
Category: Support
Prerequisite: Friendly unit in the same or adjacent theater using attack, defense, or movement
orders
Size Limit: 1 Top-level unit (ASF or Conventional Fighters only)
This order places air units on standby to assist other forces in the same or an adjacent theater.
For example, a fighter wing in the Atmo/Orbit Theater could be assigned to support an attack
occurring on the Planetary Surface.
The exact amount of support available is determined by a roll on the Curved Percentage table –
compare the percentage to the number of enemy FP engaged in the operation to determine
how many FP of friendly ASF may participate.
Example: a 50 FP ASF wing in the Atmo/Orbital Theater is assigned to support a 50 FP Patrol
Division on Interception orders in the Interplanetary Space Theater. A 40 FP enemy Transport
Division is being intercepted as it attempts to execute a Landing order. The result of the roll on
the Curved Percentage table is 20%. 8 FP of ASF support may join the Patrol Division in attacking
the enemy landing forces.
In FGC, it would look like this:
Ground SupportType: Special Scenario (used in conjuntion with a Raid or Battle order occuring in the same hex)
Requirements: Aerospace Fighter, Conventional Fighter, or DropShip FP
Effect: roll on the Interdiction/Guerilla Warfare table. You may add air FP equal to the percentage of enemy FP roll to the battle.
For example: Joel is invading with a 10 FP 'Mech regiment. He has a
Leviathan II worth 85.5 FP in orbit (60 FP of that FP is fighters and dropships). The defending force is a Galaxy of Elite Clan 'Mechs worth a total of 125 FP. If Joel rolls a 7, he is entitled to 15% of the enemy force -- 18.75 FP -- in fighter support. If he rolled a 11, he would be entitled to 60% -- 75 FP -- but could only use 60 FP because the WarShip portion of his
Leviathan II's FP is not eligible to be used.
Thoughts?
Quote from: Dave Baughman on September 28, 2011, 06:25:09 AM
So, how many times have we seen a planet with a strong garrison conquered by a huge stack of aerospace units plus a some token ground unit to hold the real estate afterwards? I know I've seen it more times than I'd like.
I am tempted to port in the Flashpoint aerospace support order more or less unchanged. If you didn't play in Flashpoint, here's how it worked:
QuoteAerospace Support
Category: Support
Prerequisite: Friendly unit in the same or adjacent theater using attack, defense, or movement
orders
Size Limit: 1 Top-level unit (ASF or Conventional Fighters only)
This order places air units on standby to assist other forces in the same or an adjacent theater.
For example, a fighter wing in the Atmo/Orbit Theater could be assigned to support an attack
occurring on the Planetary Surface.
The exact amount of support available is determined by a roll on the Curved Percentage table –
compare the percentage to the number of enemy FP engaged in the operation to determine
how many FP of friendly ASF may participate.
Example: a 50 FP ASF wing in the Atmo/Orbital Theater is assigned to support a 50 FP Patrol
Division on Interception orders in the Interplanetary Space Theater. A 40 FP enemy Transport
Division is being intercepted as it attempts to execute a Landing order. The result of the roll on
the Curved Percentage table is 20%. 8 FP of ASF support may join the Patrol Division in attacking
the enemy landing forces.
In FGC, it would look like this:
Ground Support
Type: Special Scenario (used in conjuntion with a Raid or Battle order occuring in the same hex)
Requirements: Aerospace Fighter, Conventional Fighter, or DropShip FP
Effect: roll on the Interdiction/Guerilla Warfare table. You may add air FP equal to the percentage of enemy FP roll to the battle.
For example: Joel is invading with a 10 FP 'Mech regiment. He has a Leviathan II worth 85.5 FP in orbit (60 FP of that FP is fighters and dropships). The defending force is a Galaxy of Elite Clan 'Mechs worth a total of 125 FP. If Joel rolls a 7, he is entitled to 15% of the enemy force -- 18.75 FP -- in fighter support. If he rolled a 11, he would be entitled to 60% -- 75 FP -- but could only use 60 FP because the WarShip portion of his Leviathan II's FP is not eligible to be used.
Thoughts?
Dunno, some of us built our ground units with integral air-cover listed on the 'Ground' tab.
at least, I know "I" did, and some of the other sheets I've seen are similar (TC before the rebuild, CC before the rebuild...)
Generally, for instance, running an invasion scenario, my tendency against a target I "know" is going to be defended, is to have both Naval to deal with the other guy's naval, and a separate aero to provide air-cover to my ground forces. (fact is, I won't send ground units in without it.) Generally, though, I don't dhoomstax the aero-the Naval's there to either block enemy naval/aerospace from interfering, or to cover the ignominous retreat in the event of stacked 12's and other undesired events.
That all said, I'd have to agree that GS aircraft shouldn't be more than 25% of an invading force's total ground-moving capability (raiding is different), I'm just not sure that this will do what you intend, without gimping players that don't Dhoomstax.
Out of curiousity, how do you think this will have a more negative effect on players who don't doomstack then those who do?
I should point out, the percentage of aero available is based on enemy FP, not available aero FP. Under these rules, if you have a couple of FP of integral aero you'll usually be able to use it, whereas if you have 315973509871307501837581037513 FP you'll only be able to use a small amount of it.
Quote from: Dave Baughman on September 28, 2011, 07:47:19 AM
Out of curiousity, how do you think this will have a more negative effect on players who don't doomstack then those who do?
I should point out, the percentage of aero available is based on enemy FP, not available aero FP. Under these rules, if you have a couple of FP of integral aero you'll usually be able to use it, whereas if you have 315973509871307501837581037513 FP you'll only be able to use a small amount of it.
That's...a good question. At first, for some reason (probably my distracted nature or the hour in which I was reading it) it looked almost as if...well, nevermind.
Memory Holes. (whatinhell was I thinking? I dunno.)
Cannons has been playing too much MegaAero; he suffered a memory leak
Six dropships...that puts quite a pinch on something else. I don't know about anyone else's sheet on this, but when I was building (and then updating) the UIW, I was pushed to consolidate the assault ships with bigger-than-fighter-scale weapons to the ends of the table. Presuming some of the other changes proposed go through, and minor states end up short on collar-spaces on their fleets (due to, among other things, having few to no 'big ships with lotsa collars'), up to now, the alternative was "use an Indy wing' if you wanted those items to actually be useable in a scenario. (Kowloon was a special case-there were lots of stuff floating around out there at the time, this ain't likely in future conflicts unless it's seen over someone's major worlds...)
mind that I'm just idling along, and I like the direction of this in spite of not getting anything out of it.
But...
it would almost be nice to see some way to cap the dropships by type. Patrol droppers are the big offenders here, just as they were with the Vengeance Proliferation Problem. (In my world, Patrol=Carrier) whereas, once out of the abstract and into MegaAero, assault droppers that aren't armed with cap or subcaps aren't much of a threat to even ONE warship, (even a really really cheap one) much less the sort of integrated group/fleet arrangement we saw at Kowloon in turn 4. I'm considering that under this arrangement, minus everyone churning out mass numbers of Monoliths, very few players will get to use anything on the ends of their DA table...like...ever.
Even in major actions.
Probably not a problem for WoB/Terries (whom can likely fill EVERY DA slot with a pocket warship or better), but it might be a problem for MoC, MH, TC, or any faction smaller than the LyrFalcons, Dominion, or FWL (all three of which field large fleets with few to no budget issues and a good selection of advanced designs).
just some idle thoughts.
I would say that's a quirk of running a small faction. You can't expect to measure up to a Great House or Clan, even in terms of what forces you are capable of fielding.
The solution to that may be to rearrange the DA table. If you accidentally shot yourself in the foot by putting your pocket warships and other "core" assault dropships on the outside of the table, this is something we can look into fixing on a case-by-case basis.
Thing is FWL Pocket warship's are made of fail.
If I didn't have access to pre-jump Overlord A-3.
I would have the Mule Qship and the Merlin N-Gake.
comparing either of those to a Interdictor, Aesir/Vanir, Isegrim, Agincourt or the couple of other really sweet PW's is crazy talk.
N-Gake gains some range in the nose the rest of its armament much like the Merlin is knife fight range or nothing.
Nor do any of my designs have much in the way of armor so one hit from most warship class weapon's crack's them like an egg shell.
some of it DOES come down to trying to be 'fair' in structuring out tables-that is, instead of twinking out with min/maxed designs laid out in the most advantageous way possible, some tables were structured NOT to take advantage of gray-areas and loopholes.
This becomes a problem mainly when others do that very thing, often requiring the GM and Rules designers to step in and impose policy to rebalance the situation, which we saw with the proliferation of Vengeance-class carriers hauling oodles of EST-O Eisensturms that created the need for the Rules Designers to sequester large and medium carrier dropships out of the 6/7/8 range-the GM staff had to step in and IMPOSE sensible limits, because some players would not limit themselves via things like common sense or game-balance concerns.
The same problem now exists in the single-line-item dhoomstax of Transported-it's cheap, so it gets loaded in to the point where it becomes "Bring three digits or don't come", necessitating THIS rules change.
But...there are consequences. The more often rules have to be designed and implemented to deal with emergent issues, the less flexibility EVERYONE enjoys in structuring their force-whether you're talking about small factions, or large ones, or large-composite-how-in-hell-did-that-happen factions made of smaller (relatively) groups that share no common morality, common enemies, common interests, common politics, or common background...yet they somehow merge, as if by magyck (though, to be fair, they do share a common player.)
The choices of players is what it is-and some rules are needed to keep the map viable as a playspace. This is, over-all, a good change to the rules to KEEP that viability without punishing people for developing their factions.
But, to keep the game competitive, it's probably going to need some changes to the tables-and not the mechanics OF the tables, so much as their arrangement, otherwise it IS just handing out new, extra advantages to the mega and meta factions.
SMALL nations are more likely to invest heavily in combat dropships if they have shipbuilding, simply because BIG factions can churn out jump-warships at a much smaller proportional investment, in great numbers, where the logistical challenge isn't defense, but supporting an offensive-means that they don't need 'torpedo boats' as much as 'battleships', whereas the smaller factions are more likely to NEED torpedo-boat type designs in greater proportional numbers. The Marians can't shit out a Mjolnir-fully-equipped in one turn, every turn, with slack enough to build a couple corvettes on the side, their needs would dictate something more in line with lots of A3 Overlords, Mule Q-ships, various medium/small PWS, and the like-because that's what their economy can afford.
Need drives logistics. A PWS is a poor-man's warship, for a large mega/meta faction, it's very nearly a waste of money-it has standard scale armor, meaning that even a very weak proper warship can sink it (with ease, at range), it has few guns (even the SubCap models) with low damage (relative, agian, to a Warship), it can't move itself from system to system, and to take on even a a very weak proper warship, you need a lot of them (relative).
Going back to the Kowloon battle turn 4, that Blakist fleet would've been EATEN by an equal FP value of Nagas, Barons, Lola 1's and the like(equal to the defending force-aka, the UIW force). PWS gives you a SHOT at something like a Baron or Lola, but it's only a shot, and that shot is a minority outcome on the curve. For the FP value at the start of that scenario, the number of smaller actual WARSHIPS would have been a mismatch using Chanman's rules of fleet development-i.e. when Chanman was proxying for the TH many turns ago, he'd stock up on Barons, and zerg with them, because while the FP value is really low, the ships are slow, their firepower compared to other actual WARSHIPS is low...
They have Cap Scale armor, generate an EM field, fire at Cap Scale ranges, and a meta/megafaction of the size of hte TH could shit them out fro the relative price of a Dropship compared to a faction the size of the TC, MoC, UIW, or MH.
I'd like to revisit training please.
Looking at Regular rated units, currently a Inner Sphere BA Regiment (say 12 companies) is 1.5FP in strength. And then we have one of those Kuritan regiment with 4 or 5 mech battalions. They could be in the ballpark of 15-18FP (or even more). Or a Clan cluster worth around 22FP.
Under the current rules, a nation can only train up one regiment/cluster per turn. Which of the above gives you more bang for their efforts in training. Obviously the Kuritan mech regiment or Clan cluster. Which makes it silly for a nation to build small regiments, when it has such an obvious disadvantage.
Personally, I'd like to see the rule changed so that training is tied to the number of PFs a nation has. Yes this might be problematical in regards some Clans, however something can be worked out in regards them. It also makes PFs more useful from an in-game perspective.
Ideally, I'd like a PF to be able to train up a specified amount. Probably 15FP each. So if a nation had 4x PF, they can train 60FP worth of troops up to the next level per cycle (and so long as they have the RP).
Quote from: Parmenion on October 03, 2011, 12:33:06 PM
I'd like to revisit training please.
Looking at Regular rated units, currently a Inner Sphere BA Regiment (say 12 companies) is 1.5FP in strength. And then we have one of those Kuritan regiment with 4 or 5 mech battalions. They could be in the ballpark of 15-18FP (or even more). Or a Clan cluster worth around 22FP.
Under the current rules, a nation can only train up one regiment/cluster per turn. Which of the above gives you more bang for their efforts in training. Obviously the Kuritan mech regiment or Clan cluster. Which makes it silly for a nation to build small regiments, when it has such an obvious disadvantage.
Personally, I'd like to see the rule changed so that training is tied to the number of PFs a nation has. Yes this might be problematical in regards some Clans, however something can be worked out in regards them. It also makes PFs more useful from an in-game perspective.
Ideally, I'd like a PF to be able to train up a specified amount. Probably 15FP each. So if a nation had 4x PF, they can train 60FP worth of troops up to the next level per cycle (and so long as they have the RP).
In the near future, probably next turn actually, training is going to be changing into an interum form where it'll stay until the R&D system refresh is completed. The short version:
1) You can only train units that consist of 12 companies/binaries or less. "Grandfathered" doomstack units larger than this size will no longer be eligible for training.
2) You can train one unit each turn with guaranteed success
3) You can train addition units by "using" a PF. These training attempts have a chance of failure, especially when training to anything above Veteran.
Thing is that hurt's warship's like the Potemkin and Thera.
They can easily have more Dropships/Aero then the 12 companies?
Though Im guessing that will just be treated as a one off right?
12 companies/binaries or 1 warship unit.
Quote from: chaosxtreme on October 03, 2011, 08:01:47 PM
Thing is that hurt's warship's like the Potemkin and Thera.
They can easily have more Dropships/Aero then the 12 companies?
Though Im guessing that will just be treated as a one off right?
12 companies/binaries or 1 warship unit.
The bold text above is correct. The 12 company limit is for non-warship/non-jumpship units.
FP/RP/MP revaluation
In preparation for implenting equipment tables and to improve compatibility with legacy versions of MS Word, I am looking to get rid of fractional accounting next turn and also redefine the RP:BV scaling level.
Basically, effective Turn 6, 1 FP will equal 1,000 BV 2.0 instead of 15,000. Record Sheet 0.55 will fully support this and the naval, economic, etc tabs will auto-correct. The only change you will need to make here is to multiply all your ground unit FPs by 15. The rules will similarly be updated.
Additionally, fractional accounting will be going away. This will let me remove all the MROUND calls from the record sheet (improving compatibility with Excel 2003 and simplifying the formulas considerably). All number fields on the record sheet will be reformatted to have zero decimals.
Skill Modifier Correction to match Total Warfare rules
The 0.55 record sheet will automatically correct all units' quality modifiers to FP to reflect the modifiers in the Total Warfare rules. No manual edits should be required. Some units will gain FP as a result of this rules change. This does not need to be paid for.
The end of "racial" skill modifiers
When everyone updates to 0.55, Clan-trained 'Mech units all get a one-level skill boost. Clan-trained armor units get a one-level skill drop. The net change in FP will need to be compensated for. Net increase an be 'paid for' by reducing the FP of doomstack units, net loss will be able to be recaptured as resource points.
End of Hunting MP use discrepancy
Effective turn 6, Hunting no longer costs MP from units which normally do not pay MP costs. The order will be ammended accordingly.
When's the new sheet come out Dave? I have a whole turn still to break it ;)
Quote from: Dave Baughman on October 05, 2011, 07:43:10 AM
The end of "racial" skill modifiers
When everyone updates to 0.55, Clan-trained 'Mech units all get a one-level skill boost. Clan-trained armor units get a one-level skill drop. The net change in FP will need to be compensated for. Net increase an be 'paid for' by reducing the FP of doomstack units, net loss will be able to be recaptured as resource points.
I'm sorry, but I am totally opposed to any skill drop for CHH/Horse Alliance armour units. Combine arms is what makes the Horses and I have faithfully followed canon in this in regards new formations and rebuilding old. It is a core tenent of the Horses that their armoured formations are the best of the best in regards the Clans and are on a par with Inner Sphere armoured units.
And I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that Horse Alliance units have been training Clan Star Adder armoured units to our standard. This happened across the 20 year leap and if I recall correctly, undertook RP to reflect this.
Quote from: Parmenion on October 05, 2011, 12:15:11 PM
Quote from: Dave Baughman on October 05, 2011, 07:43:10 AM
The end of "racial" skill modifiers
When everyone updates to 0.55, Clan-trained 'Mech units all get a one-level skill boost. Clan-trained armor units get a one-level skill drop. The net change in FP will need to be compensated for. Net increase an be 'paid for' by reducing the FP of doomstack units, net loss will be able to be recaptured as resource points.
I'm sorry, but I am totally opposed to any skill drop for CHH/Horse Alliance armour units. Combine arms is what makes the Horses and I have faithfully followed canon in this in regards new formations and rebuilding old. It is a core tenent of the Horses that their armoured formations are the best of the best in regards the Clans and are on a par with Inner Sphere armoured units.
And I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that Horse Alliance units have been training Clan Star Adder armoured units to our standard. This happened across the 20 year leap and if I recall correctly, undertook RP to reflect this.
CHH, RD, SAC and other units that do not have the deficient "Clan" training programs for their armor would not be affected by this.
Quote from: Deathrider6 on October 05, 2011, 12:07:05 PM
When's the new sheet come out Dave? I have a whole turn still to break it ;)
The pre-release (i.e. not neccessarily finalized) version is attached for your amusement.
ODS version
*Note: the current version of OOO can open the XLSX version and will probably run better using the "original" sheet*
Legacy XL 2003 version
*for use only as a last resort due to excessive file size*
The only differences see to the sheets at this juncture is the splitting off the naval calculations to a new tab and the inclusion of a second teir of fighters.
I used this .55 sheet and found that the overall calculation for fighters is not right, it does not take into account the second tier of fighters; it only adds one category.
Quote from: Holt on October 05, 2011, 08:37:32 PM
I used this .55 sheet and found that the overall calculation for fighters is not right, it does not take into account the second tier of fighters; it only adds one category.
Do you mean it is using the "A" fighter stats for "B" squadrons? I will investigate this and make sure it is fixed for the release version.
This should be the formula in 'AJ':
=(SUM(H3:J3)*$'Equipment_Tables_(template)'.I$2)+(SUM(K3:M3)*$'Equipment_Tables_(template)'.I$21)
apparently I downloaded the right one...but I am showing a different problem.
The cyclical pool isn't filling off the Naval Tab into the "income" tab.
Nice parts so far, though:
the expanded tables (A and B) have let me diversify-with some interesting results: My "B" table heavies apparently punch a LOT harder than my "A" table choices.
Well being that my A and B Tables are the same...it appears to be working...just to check mulitply existing ground FP by 15 right? (I have done a direct hand copy of the CBS sheet (less HW territories) as my test subject).
I just did a base six for my B squadrons since my stars are base 10 ( works great for older SL Warship designs).
I've been looking at the rules proposition for regarding limiting floatillas to 6, but the largest Jumpship we use has 9 collars. Was just wondering if the rule should match the technology...
Quote from: Fatebringer on October 07, 2011, 09:26:22 PM
I've been looking at the rules proposition for regarding limiting floatillas to 6, but the largest Jumpship we use has 9 collars. Was just wondering if the rule should match the technology...
The six ship limit only applies to Independent Wings (i.e. units with no JumpShip). JumpShip- and WarShip-based units can have more than 6 droppers.
Damn, now I'm running into the same errors, PLUS it's not filling the cycle pool on the "income" page, AND when I trace it back, it's insisting that the MP created is somehow a blank cell at the 'totals' point.
i.e. it shows a couple grand in the total, but the total doesn't reach the income tab, somehow.
as for the patch-um...the sheet rejects it.
Yup. MP pools don't fill on the new sheet, AND the "B" table doesn't fill to column AJ on the Naval record.
Critical Event #2
Its come to my attention that critical event #2 is phrased vaguely. To clarify: in that event "unit" means "the force on the receiving end of the critical event." The language will be revised in the next rules patch to eliminate the ambiguity.