Intelser Forums

Should fix all of the outstanding procedural issues.

Version 0.50 XLSX

Movement Points Hotfix: To correct an issue with permanent MP pool allocation, change Income cell K16 to to following:

Quote
=IF(SUM(H11-K11)<0,SUM(K15+(K11-H11)),K15)

Version 0.50 legacy XLS

Movement Points Hotfix: To correct an issue with permanent MP pool allocation, change Income cell K16 to to following:

Quote
=IF(SUM(H11-K11)<0,SUM(K15+(K11-H11)),K15)

Version 0.50 ODS

Movement Points Hotfix: To correct an issue with permanent MP pool allocation, change Income cell K16 to to following:

Quote
=IF(SUM(H11-K11)<0;SUM(K15+(K11-H11));K15)

Please note that this formula is slightly different from that used on the Excel versions.

Tutorial for version 0.49-0.50

Update instructions for 0.49 -> 0.50 (reposted from previous thread)

To resolve the LFB ground forces MP issue, change Ground Forces column R3 from

Quote
=IF(E3="Static",IF((O3>0),"INVALID",0),IF(E3="Transported",IF((O3<6),SUM(O3*J3),"INVALID"),IF(E3="Mobile",IF((O3<6),0,"INVALID"),IF(E3="LFB Mobile",IF(VLOOKUP(D3,A252:B362,2,0)="Y",IF((O3>7),IF((O3<11),SUM((O3-7)*J3),"INVALID"),0),IF((O3>6),IF((O3<11),SUM((O3-7)*J3),"INVALID"),0))))))

to

Quote
=IF(E3="Static",IF((O3>0),"INVALID",0),IF(E3="Transported",IF((O3<6),SUM(O3*J3),"INVALID"),IF(E3="Mobile",IF((O3<6),0,"INVALID"),IF(E3="LFB Mobile",IF((O3>6),IF((O3<11),SUM((O3-7)*J3),"INVALID"),0)))))

Copy and paste cell R3 into all other R-rows


The issue is an artifact of the naval chart; it is trying to check the list of JumpShip types to determine if the ship is a warship and gets the free 7th hex move.





There is a known issue with fighter force validation that can be resolved by changing Naval Forces cell AG3 from:

Quote
=(SUM(H3:J3)*'C:\Users\Dave B\Documents\[TH Orders - Turn 41.xlsx]Equipment Tables (template)'!I$2)

to

Quote
=(SUM(H3:J3)*'Equipment Tables (template)'!I$2)

then copy and paste to all other AG cells in the table.



This was a result of inadvertent cross-contamination of the basic sheet with info from the TH sheet during the creation of the tutorial file.




Finally, the new copies that I will be uploading in a moment will have their fighter FP and dropship cross-capacity calculation tables updated from 30 to 60 max. To upgrade an existing sheet, paste in the new cells for 31-60 at the bottom of the naval forces tab, then update R3, AC3, and AD3 to the following:

Quote from: cell R3
=MROUND(SUM(((VLOOKUP(D3,A$252:G$362,4,FALSE)/15000)+(VLOOKUP(H3,I$252:O$312,2,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(I3,I$252:O$312,3,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(J3,I$252:O$312,4,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(K3,I$252:O$312,5,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(L3,I$252:O$312,6,FALSE))+(VLOOKUP(M3,I$252:O$312,7,FALSE))+(O3*'Equipment Tables (template)'!G$73)/15000)*(VLOOKUP(F3,AI$252:AK$259,2,0))),0.25)

Quote from: cell AC3
=SUM(VLOOKUP(D3,A$252:G$362,7,0))+(VLOOKUP(K3,Z$252:AD$312,3,0))+(VLOOKUP(L3,Z$252:AD$312,4,0))+(VLOOKUP(M3,Z$252:AD$312,5,0))

Quote from: cell AD3
=SUM(VLOOKUP(D3,A$252:G$362,5,0))+(VLOOKUP(K3,S$252:W$312,3,0))+(VLOOKUP(L3,S$252:W$312,4,0))+(VLOOKUP(M3,S$252:W$312,5,0))

Then copy each of these cells into the rest of the cells for their respective columns within the table.

So what happens when my Thera's need more then 60 Squadrons of one class of Fighters? :-) j/k

Quote from: chaosxtreme on July 06, 2010, 03:42:44 PM
So what happens when my Thera's need more then 60 Squadrons of one class of Fighters? :-) j/k

Rocks fall, FWL dies.

I must admit I am at a loss there..is there a template for a really general, bland Clan? This would help me tremendously.

This is going over my head..  :-[

Quote from: Marlin on July 06, 2010, 04:40:01 PM
I must admit I am at a loss there..is there a template for a really general, bland Clan? This would help me tremendously.

This is going over my head..  :-[

You mean like for the equipment table? If you want a "generic" Clan setup, just go into Total Warfare or Strat Ops and copy over an appropriate RAT from there.

If that doesn't help, shoot me a PM with your specific issue and I will try to help you with it.

Since this newer version seems to be humming I don't want to mess up - what is the "best" way to list territory for those with more than 9 hex spaces? Continue around, copy or insert - and is there anything that needs changes with the suggested method?

Finally getting somewhere - however I have to ask myself, was it REALLY so important for me to get all those level 1 designs....  :P

Quote from: Jeyar on July 06, 2010, 05:54:42 PM
Since this newer version seems to be humming I don't want to mess up - what is the "best" way to list territory for those with more than 9 hex spaces? Continue around, copy or insert - and is there anything that needs changes with the suggested method?

Finally getting somewhere - however I have to ask myself, was it REALLY so important for me to get all those level 1 designs....  :P

To add more rows, the easiest way to do it is probably to highlight one of the intermediate rows (i.e. not the first row, not the bottom row) and use "insert rows" until you have enough to accomodate all of your territory. That should cause the summation formulas at the bottom to automatically update.

Aaaaaaaaand. . . . . success!  All information transposed to the new sheet and all formulas working fine.  I love it when a plan comes together.

The new sheet is trim and wooks well I need to fidget with the territory tab just to make sure I get the gist of it I have been experimenting with a "test sheet.." so I at least know how it works..just need to transfer from the .49 version to the latest.

Okay I was typing my units in and I noticed a few things that I can probably answer with common sense, but I'm Taurian so...

;D

For some of the weight classes I have way more designs than I have slots. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I begged, borrowed, bought and "other things" in order to get a lot of designs (admittedly level 1 for the most part). Should I only put designs I "want" in the list, or ones that make sense for when the unit was put together? The second part is that I ALSO went and made forces that were quite nearly all one design - mainly as they were built to do certain combat missions but not ALL mission types (like the Far Looker Defender navies as an example - they have a purpose and were made to DO that purpose very, very well for all that I don't have the 8 best designs to do that particular mission type).
So... do I lose designs that I don't put in the list? Do my carefully created forces become generic?

I'm hoping missing designs don't go poof - otherwise I'm flexible, but I am ALSO willing to enter more into the sheets if that is allowed.

Edit: error fixed.

Quote from: Jeyar on July 06, 2010, 11:42:53 PM
Okay I was typing my units in and I noticed a few things that I can probably answer with common sense, but I'm Taurian so...

;D

For some of the weight classes I have way more designs than I have slots. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I begged, borrowed, bought and "other things" in order to get a lot of designs (admittedly level 1 for the most part). Should I only put designs I "want" in the list, or ones that make sense for when the unit was put together? The second part is that I ALSO went and made forces that were quite nearly all one design - mainly as they were built to do certain combat missions but not ALL mission types (like the Far Looker Defender navies as an example - they have a purpose and were made to DO that purpose very, very well for all that I don't have the 8 best designs to do that particular mission type).
So... do I lose designs that I don't put in the list? Do my carefully created forces become generic?

I'm hoping missing designs don't go poof - otherwise I'm flexible, but I am ALSO willing to enter more into is that is allowed.

Any designs you don't put on the tables are not "lost" - but not putting them there would indicate they are not widely deployed. Note that only designs which have been paid for in accordance with the technology transfer rules can be put on an equipment table; merely acquiring the design through trade is not sufficient to use it.

As for single-unit formations, there is no "grandfather clause" on these - they are converted to whatever is on your table. I myself used single-unit formations when I ran RD, but they are not workable under the equipment table system. Honestly, this is not a bad thing from a "health of the game" perspective, since the squadron rules work in such a way that gives a disprortionate benefit to squads that consist of all the same design.

New problem.  In the naval tab, any attempt to input a Green-rated unit results in 0 FP regardless of the number of units placed in the table.  I seriously put in 60 DS and 60 fighter squadrons with no result.

Quote from: DXM on July 07, 2010, 08:55:38 AM
New problem.  In the naval tab, any attempt to input a Green-rated unit results in 0 FP regardless of the number of units placed in the table.  I seriously put in 60 DS and 60 fighter squadrons with no result.

I think I know what the problem is, and it should be an easy fix. However, I can't use excel due to my computer problems so I won't have a fix until probably Thursday.

Quote from: DXM on July 07, 2010, 08:55:38 AM
New problem.  In the naval tab, any attempt to input a Green-rated unit results in 0 FP regardless of the number of units placed in the table.  I seriously put in 60 DS and 60 fighter squadrons with no result.

I had no problem putting in green naval units using the previous version.

The naval skills lookups were not (deliberately at least) modified between versions 0.49 and 0.50. I can't rule out the possibility that something inadvertently got out of whack, but it should be pointing to a table that gives specific modifiers.

EDIT> I was able to get into excel and check the 0.50 sheet. On the XLSX at least, green naval units seem to be working correctly.

Are you using one of the alternative versions? If so I will try to research it further.

Yes, I'm using the .ods version.

That's very strange. I just opened the ODS version and it is working correctly (other than not having drop-down menus, but that's a different issue).

Silly question, does the spelling of the unit type (in column D) exactly match the corresponding entry in the lookup table at the very bottom of that sheet? Even a one letter discrepancy would cause the symptoms you described; in the XLSX version this is controlled by forcing you to choose off a dropdown, but dropdowns don't seem to work in ODS so...

Are the marines and BT (battle taxis?) supposed to be added directly into naval FP?  If so that wasn't the case on the 050.xlsx sheet I downloaded and filled out yesterday.  Since we had no marines, getting 0.25 was a pain with the Adder charts, at least until I mapped out the low level changes per column ;)  A lot of our 2-3 FP fighter patrols got warped into dropship formations though as there was no way to get the 0.25 left over with a binary and a dropship.

Quote from: DisGruntled on July 07, 2010, 04:21:25 PM
Are the marines and BT (battle taxis?) supposed to be added directly into naval FP?  If so that wasn't the case on the 050.xlsx sheet I downloaded and filled out yesterday.  Since we had no marines, getting 0.25 was a pain with the Adder charts, at least until I mapped out the low level changes per column ;)  A lot of our 2-3 FP fighter patrols got warped into dropship formations though as there was no way to get the 0.25 left over with a binary and a dropship.

Marines and Taxis shouldn't be getting added to the ship's FP, since they don't raise its combat power in simple rez. The sheet will know they are there, however, and add to MP creation accordingly.

The TH "lost" some FP this way when we had underages in terms of FP and converted some of it to marines, but I'm sure it'll be worth it next time we get boarded.

You know i really liked the old method to track expenses specially intel because i did not have to refer to the rules thread for its cost. Could that be brought back?

Quote from: Holt on July 07, 2010, 05:43:21 PM
You know i really liked the old method to track expenses specially intel because i did not have to refer to the rules thread for its cost. Could that be brought back?

Actually yes. I am holding off because Josh and I are working on an overhaul of the intel rules that will be rolling out in the next turn or two - once that is finalized we'll be able to implement selectors that auto-calculate the costs.

I'm finding that, using open office, that the Fighter tables are not auto compleating even after all the entries are full.  Is there are way to prompt them to fill in?  Or is there something else needed for that table?

That's very strange. When I open the ODS in Excel, those calculations all appear to be working correctly, so I think the problem is with Open Office. Let me ask you two questions:

1) Are you using the latest version?

2) Is there any kind of option to update the cell when you right click on it?

UPDATE

This Link (http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=22832) appears to provide a couple of different workarounds, notably using the F9 key (I assume this updates any dependent cells). Please take a look and let me know if this resolves your issue.




DXM, this might also resolve the problem you are having with skill modifiers.

well, my computer may have just eraced the whole thing, so if I don't break it, I'll let you know when I get around to that part again

Quote from: Dave Baughman on July 07, 2010, 06:11:34 PM
That's very strange. When I open the ODS in Excel, those calculations all appear to be working correctly, so I think the problem is with Open Office. Let me ask you two questions:

1) Are you using the latest version?

2) Is there any kind of option to update the cell when you right click on it?

UPDATE

This Link (http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=22832) appears to provide a couple of different workarounds, notably using the F9 key (I assume this updates any dependent cells). Please take a look and let me know if this resolves your issue.




DXM, this might also resolve the problem you are having with skill modifiers.

Nope.  Doesn't change a thing.  And Veteran and Elite mods work fine -- I guess Fate doesn't want me to have Green units.  I can always just list them as Regular and recalculate their composition to match the Green FP.  I'm not intending to build any Green ASF units anyway, so the broken link isn't a massive problem.

Quote from: DXM on July 07, 2010, 06:32:03 PM

Quote from: Dave Baughman on July 07, 2010, 06:11:34 PM
That's very strange. When I open the ODS in Excel, those calculations all appear to be working correctly, so I think the problem is with Open Office. Let me ask you two questions:

1) Are you using the latest version?

2) Is there any kind of option to update the cell when you right click on it?

UPDATE

This Link (http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=22832) appears to provide a couple of different workarounds, notably using the F9 key (I assume this updates any dependent cells). Please take a look and let me know if this resolves your issue.




DXM, this might also resolve the problem you are having with skill modifiers.

Nope.  Doesn't change a thing.  And Veteran and Elite mods work fine -- I guess Fate doesn't want me to have Green units.  I can always just list them as Regular and recalculate their composition to match the Green FP.  I'm not intending to build any Green ASF units anyway, so the broken link isn't a massive problem.

That's certainly a viable workaround. One thing to check before you do that however - go into the feeder tables at the bottom and check to see if the "Green" skill multiplier is set to 0.8 like it should be. If its blank, or if the numbers are displaced somehow, that might be the problem.

Checked that already, and its present.  I guess I'll go the jury-rigging route.

Well, F9 is about as useless as this computer in general (which may need a new keyboard now).  Its open office 3.1, I think. 

Once I get my new PC, I'll install Open Office on it so I can directly trouble-shoot. So... worst come to worst I'll have an answer for you by the end of the week.

Ok.  I'll keep looking into it, so long as I don't get too worked up about it (again).

No issues here got it working silky smooth but I'm running office 2007.

On the Naval Tab the movement costs are not being added got a fix Dave?

Forgive me if this is an obvious question, but what goes in the "composition" column of the ground forces page?

Medium Mech binary/company, heavy vehicle binary/company, BA binary/company, etc.

I am guessing anyway.

Quote from: august on July 08, 2010, 12:44:30 AM
Forgive me if this is an obvious question, but what goes in the "composition" column of the ground forces page?

Right now it only needs enough information for you to differentiate what is in the corresponding unit. It could be as simple as "'Mech regiment" or as complex as "3 Clan Hvy Binaries, 2 Clan Med. Binaries"

So if you're the Clans and all your units are combined arms, then "Combined Arms Cluster" is enough?

Quote from: Iron Mongoose on July 08, 2010, 06:22:10 AM
So if you're the Clans and all your units are combined arms, then "Combined Arms Cluster" is enough?

Works for me.

Ok, I'm not sure if this is the sheet not working or me not putting 1 and 1 together to make 2, but. . .well, I'm confused again.  I'm plotting out my unit moves and in the Cyclical Pool, my consumed section is four times the amount of my created section and it has yet to dip into the Permanent Pool boxes.  As an experiment, I put in 5 hexes of movement for an extra four RCTs and even with six times, my MP Pool listing remained "VALID" and never dipped into the Perm. Pool.  Do I have to keep an eye on this manually or something?

Question here: How are the Clan Fighter Stars supposed to work? They should have a 10 fighter base normally, but that is not reflected in the Naval section.. or in the RAT.. as there are only numbers amounting to 6. I tried to arbitrarily add those up to 10 but naval section still counts in 6er groups.. :(

You need to change the number of fighters/ star or Lance.
1. Go to Equipment Tab.
2. Line 2, row I
3. Put in 10, or like I did 5.

Quote from: Marlin on July 10, 2010, 07:25:22 PM
Question here: How are the Clan Fighter Stars supposed to work? They should have a 10 fighter base normally, but that is not reflected in the Naval section.. or in the RAT.. as there are only numbers amounting to 6. I tried to arbitrarily add those up to 10 but naval section still counts in 6er groups.. :(

Quote from: GreyJaeger on July 10, 2010, 07:34:12 PM
You need to change the number of fighters/ star or Lance.
1. Go to Equipment Tab.
2. Line 2, row I
3. Put in 10, or like I did 5.

Grey is correct - if you leave the fighter increment set to six (the default), squadrons will be built to contain six ships each. If you change it to a different number, the formula that assigns fighters to the squadrons will detect this and automatically restructure your fighter forces.

As I am not completely clueless, I did just that.. :P But there was a group of 36 fighters when I did it in the naval sheet.. so.

This might be a silly question, but are you using the fixed version of the sheet that was uploaded when I started this thread? The old version of the sheet had a bug that caused all fighter groups to be multiples of 6.

If that's not the issue, email me your sheet as it is now and I will take a look at it.

I can say for certain that it is version .5 Marlin is using.

He needed help with filling out the Clan Dship RAT.

I will send it nonetheless. THe more help I get the sooner I can do it. :P

For some reason, it doesn't think I should be integrating smallcraft and Marines with Independent Squadrons...

I'll ask the stupid question.

Do you have dropships that have SC capacity? If not, then you can't add SC and Marines. If you do, you need to make sure you have them in that formation.

For example, if you look at the list below the RATs, you will see them DS listed in order as they appear. So If your SC dropship is in position 6, but you only have 4 dropships in the formation, it will not be available. So you will either need to add DS to that formation, or place the vessel in the RAT where the DS with SC capacity is in say the #4 slot.

Hopefully that is clear.

Quote from: GreyJaeger on July 11, 2010, 11:26:35 AM
I'll ask the stupid question.

Do you have dropships that have SC capacity? If not, then you can't add SC and Marines. If you do, you need to make sure you have them in that formation.

For example, if you look at the list below the RATs, you will see them DS listed in order as they appear. So If your SC dropship is in position 6, but you only have 4 dropships in the formation, it will not be available. So you will either need to add DS to that formation, or place the vessel in the RAT where the DS with SC capacity is in say the #4 slot.

Hopefully that is clear.

One small clarification - even if the dropships don't have SC capacity under the current rules they can carry marines (since "ground forces" carrying capacity isn't tracked)... they just can't carry battle taxis or other boarding craft, so the dropship would have to dock with the target craft to board them.

Also, a lot of JumpShips carry small craft, so if the unit is mobile that's one workaround.

OK, I think we have a solution for the "green units have 0 FP." It seems that Open Office is considering "Very Green" to be a close enough match to Green to stop looking and use that value -- however since Very Green units aren't in the rules yet there is no multiplier and it uses zero instead.

The problem will be fixed more comprehensively in a future update but for now the workaround is to go into the skill multiplier chart at the bottom of the sheet and put a multiplier of 0.8 next to "Very Green." This should resolve the problem.

Marlin, I examined your sheet in Open Office and I believe I found what is causing your problems. I shot you an email with the details.

I  never got an answer on my MP usage question.

Quote from: DXM on July 10, 2010, 07:00:18 PM
Ok, I'm not sure if this is the sheet not working or me not putting 1 and 1 together to make 2, but. . .well, I'm confused again.  I'm plotting out my unit moves and in the Cyclical Pool, my consumed section is four times the amount of my created section and it has yet to dip into the Permanent Pool boxes.  As an experiment, I put in 5 hexes of movement for an extra four RCTs and even with six times, my MP Pool listing remained "VALID" and never dipped into the Perm. Pool.  Do I have to keep an eye on this manually or something?

I examined the formulas and found the problem. Basically, I had a bad math day. Change cell K16 from

Quote=IF(K11<0;SUM(K15-K11);K15)

to

Quote=IF(K11>0;SUM(K15+K11);K15)

that will fix the mis-calculation and validation problems.

Yup, that fixed it.  Thanks bro.

Edit: I take that back.  It's hitting Permanent Pool, without dipping into the Cyclical Pool.

Quote from: DXM on July 11, 2010, 08:41:14 PM
Yup, that fixed it.  Thanks bro.

Edit: I take that back.  It's hitting Permanent Pool, without dipping into the Cyclical Pool.

Really? That's odd. It should only be hitting your perm pool with the overflow from your cyclical pool. Let me check it again - one sec.

ohhhhhhhhhhhhh... I see now. Silly me.

use this formula instead of the one I posted earlier:

Quote
=IF(SUM(H11-K11)<0,SUM(K15+(K11-H11)),K15)

:: Holds head in hands ::  Surely I can just do this manually -- please?  The reason I ask is that I put the new formula in K16 and now the sheet has come full circle and is back to giving me an Error:501.

Look on the bright side, this is teaching me all about Open Office...

The issue, in this case, is semicolons.

Excel uses commas to separate the segments, while OOO uses semicolons. Since you directly copied the formula in instead of having me make an XLSX and run it through the converter, I inadvertently gave you "poison" code.

The segment below works (I tested it in OOO).

Quote
=IF(SUM(H11-K11)<0;SUM(K15+(K11-H11));K15)

No it doesn't.  Error:501.

Quote from: DXM on July 12, 2010, 06:16:20 PM
No it doesn't.  Error:501.

That's extremely weird, because it works on my copy of OOO. Can you email me your sheet as it is now? Worst come to worst, go ahead and use manual calcs for this turn, but the whole point of automating the sheet is so you don't have to waste your time on that stuff :(

Now that I've read thru all of these, I have a few questions.

A.) Where does RP from Salvage go?
B.) Is there an area for Training?
C.) What was the final result from the Turn 41 Rules update regarding Recharge Stations, and were the previous suggestions for Recharge Stations being considered?

Quote from: Fatebringer on July 12, 2010, 08:32:50 PM
Now that I've read thru all of these, I have a few questions.

A.) Where does RP from Salvage go?

Trade activity for now. I will probably eventually just rename "raiding revenue" as "combat revenue" or "raiding & salvage" but for now log it as a trade.

B.) Is there an area for Training?

Log it under military construction.

C.) What was the final result from the Turn 41 Rules update regarding Recharge Stations, and were the previous suggestions for Recharge Stations being considered?

All suggestions submitted so far are being considered but there is not a final decision yet. This may be put off until the MP system is overhauled, which won't be for quite a while because of the changes to other areas that are prerequisites.

This might sound silly, but does transportable ASF go in the ground forces sheet or naval sheet?  I ask this, because a lot of ASF forces are integral to a command (ie... for example, the ASF forces which are part of a Davion style RCT).

Thanks

Two other questions...

a.  What happens when you have two Warships in the same flotilla?  For instance, a Horses flotilla contains a Volga class transport and a Lola III.  Am I supposed to split them up now?

b.  Similarly, with mobile units.  The Magistracy has a small mobile unit with 1x Star Lord, 1x Invader and 1x Merchant.  Is this now three separate lines on the naval page?  But still the same unit?

thanks

You would probably add them seperately, then list them as the same "Fleet"

Quote from: Parmenion on July 13, 2010, 02:09:10 PM
Two other questions...

a.  What happens when you have two Warships in the same flotilla?  For instance, a Horses flotilla contains a Volga class transport and a Lola III.  Am I supposed to split them up now?

b.  Similarly, with mobile units.  The Magistracy has a small mobile unit with 1x Star Lord, 1x Invader and 1x Merchant.  Is this now three separate lines on the naval page?  But still the same unit?

thanks

I'm just going to take a wild guess here and say yes on B, and maybe A (though dont take my word for it as Im still semi-figuring out the Sheet)

and judging by how the Ground Units were placed on the list I got from Little for what went over to Charlie, there are several instances where the Unit is listed in Bold print, under which are the sub-units (for lack of a better term), that comprise the parent Unit

for example:
1st Minestrone Cavaliers Regimental Combat Team
1st Minestrone Cavaliers BatteMech Bridage
1st Minestrone Cavaliers AeroSpace Brigade
1st Minestrone Cavaliers Armor Brigade
1st Minestrone Cavaliers Infantry Brigade
1st Minestrone Cavaliers Armored Infantry Brigade
1st Minestrone Cavaliers Atmospheric Brigade (VTOLs, Conventional Fighters)

the example could easily be adjusted to include a WarShip, attending JumpShips, transport DropShips and whatever else in place of the Mech, Armor, Infantry, AI and Atmospheric Brigades

Quote from: Parmenion on July 13, 2010, 01:52:30 PM
This might sound silly, but does transportable ASF go in the ground forces sheet or naval sheet?  I ask this, because a lot of ASF forces are integral to a command (ie... for example, the ASF forces which are part of a Davion style RCT).

For transported units, its pretty much your call as they can go on either tab. In general on the sheets I've been doing, I've assigned ground forces ASF to the ground forces tab unless its clear they are actually carrier-based naval fighters which don't have their own JumpShips.

Thanks

Quote from: Parmenion on July 13, 2010, 02:09:10 PM
Two other questions...

a.  What happens when you have two Warships in the same flotilla?  For instance, a Horses flotilla contains a Volga class transport and a Lola III.  Am I supposed to split them up now?

Please split them in the separate units.

b.  Similarly, with mobile units.  The Magistracy has a small mobile unit with 1x Star Lord, 1x Invader and 1x Merchant.  Is this now three separate lines on the naval page?  But still the same unit?

Correct - the way  I have been doing this is to list the unit name in the Fleet column and the individual ship's name in the Unit column.  

thanks

Quote from: GraeGor on July 13, 2010, 02:41:34 PM

Quote from: Parmenion on July 13, 2010, 02:09:10 PM
Two other questions...

a.  What happens when you have two Warships in the same flotilla?  For instance, a Horses flotilla contains a Volga class transport and a Lola III.  Am I supposed to split them up now?

b.  Similarly, with mobile units.  The Magistracy has a small mobile unit with 1x Star Lord, 1x Invader and 1x Merchant.  Is this now three separate lines on the naval page?  But still the same unit?

thanks

I'm just going to take a wild guess here and say yes on B, and maybe A (though dont take my word for it as Im still semi-figuring out the Sheet)

and judging by how the Ground Units were placed on the list I got from Little for what went over to Charlie, there are several instances where the Unit is listed in Bold print, under which are the sub-units (for lack of a better term), that comprise the parent Unit

for example:
1st Minestrone Cavaliers Regimental Combat Team
1st Minestrone Cavaliers BatteMech Bridage
1st Minestrone Cavaliers AeroSpace Brigade
1st Minestrone Cavaliers Armor Brigade
1st Minestrone Cavaliers Infantry Brigade
1st Minestrone Cavaliers Armored Infantry Brigade
1st Minestrone Cavaliers Atmospheric Brigade (VTOLs, Conventional Fighters)

the example could easily be adjusted to include a WarShip, attending JumpShips, transport DropShips and whatever else in place of the Mech, Armor, Infantry, AI and Atmospheric Brigades

This is a valid way to set up the units if you are so inclined. For naval, just make sure the "header" entry is set to "(blank)" as its unit type, to ensure no MP or FP are inadvertently added.

Argh - hate the aerospace page. Really, really hate it. Really, really, really hate it.

Really, really, really, really hate it. MM can't even allow most middling tactics, and we are doing this for what? And we've had mention of giving the techs away for FREE with this mess as is? Oh Yeah - we're doing this to prevent cheating...  :P

question: Should AeroSpace be on the Ground Forces Tab or the Naval Forces Tab?

Quote from: GraeGor on July 14, 2010, 04:21:53 AM
question: Should AeroSpace be on the Ground Forces Tab or the Naval Forces Tab?

Check the first quoted bit in Dave's most recent post.  ;)

Quote from: august on July 14, 2010, 04:34:36 AM

Quote from: GraeGor on July 14, 2010, 04:21:53 AM
question: Should AeroSpace be on the Ground Forces Tab or the Naval Forces Tab?

Check the first quoted bit in Dave's most recent post.  ;)

That'll teach me to pay more attention

Quote from: Jeyar on July 14, 2010, 04:11:54 AM
Argh - hate the aerospace page. Really, really hate it. Really, really, really hate it.

Really, really, really, really hate it. MM can't even allow most middling tactics, and we are doing this for what? And we've had mention of giving the techs away for FREE with this mess as is? Oh Yeah - we're doing this to prevent cheating...  :P

And to prevent the FS from using 5397901735807180573801758037150381758031758037580137580317580317580317508317508317508317508371508317501FP Fox flotillas next time they invade the TC ;-)

The ground portion is going to be the death of me...my sheet has over 400 lines of info for my ground units... Urgh.

Ha-ha!  Mine has 95, so meh.



. . . wait a sec.

Ground was a piece of cake for me and the tiny forces  ;D ... upsi.  :-X

ARGH!

My head is starting to hurt...

Did we ever figure out what it was about open office and the air tables compleating?  I actualy looked over Grae's orders, and they didn't load on his tables either.

I can get it done just by hand, since I know what I want to do, but I can't do that whole automated table thing by tomarrow, unless we get a fix fast.

When I opened up Grae's ODS sheet with excel 2k7, most of the automation was gone, and a lot of stuff had been hard coded.

Does mround work properly in open office?  I vaguely remember it not working, but I'm not sure and it wasn't a different function I normally use that didn't work the same.

Has any thought been given to using the excel from either google docs or possibly MSN's Sky drive?  That might be another solution for those who don't have access to MS Office.

I use open office, and I don't think its actually open office, I believe its the .ods file type that is the problem. I use OO and I have all kinds of problems with the whole file being suddenly locked by unknown user.

All you need to do is take the file, Save As a .xls file, and it'll work fine. The glory of Open Office: it can use every file extension. And .xls seems much more stable. I was having issues last night with the .ods, re-saved as .xls and behold, everything is good to go.

Might be it'll solve other people's problems aswell

Quote from: Iron Mongoose on July 14, 2010, 03:16:49 PM
Did we ever figure out what it was about open office and the air tables compleating?  I actualy looked over Grae's orders, and they didn't load on his tables either.

I can get it done just by hand, since I know what I want to do, but I can't do that whole automated table thing by tomarrow, unless we get a fix fast.

Saving, closing, and re-opening the sheet may cause everything to refresh - at least based on a discussion I had with DXM a couple days ago.

Quote from: DisGruntled on July 14, 2010, 04:15:14 PM
When I opened up Grae's ODS sheet with excel 2k7, most of the automation was gone, and a lot of stuff had been hard coded.

Does mround work properly in open office?  I vaguely remember it not working, but I'm not sure and it wasn't a different function I normally use that didn't work the same.

Has any thought been given to using the excel from either google docs or possibly MSN's Sky drive?  That might be another solution for those who don't have access to MS Office.

Opening the ODS in excel will break all the formulas. The ODS sheet is only for Open Office, and Excel does not play nice when converting it back to Excel format.

Quote from: Daemonknight on July 14, 2010, 06:16:32 PM
I use open office, and I don't think its actually open office, I believe its the .ods file type that is the problem. I use OO and I have all kinds of problems with the whole file being suddenly locked by unknown user.

All you need to do is take the file, Save As a .xls file, and it'll work fine. The glory of Open Office: it can use every file extension. And .xls seems much more stable. I was having issues last night with the .ods, re-saved as .xls and behold, everything is good to go.

Might be it'll solve other people's problems aswell

If it works, go for it.

Wow - I really hate the aerospace section: steps, philosophy and lack of answers. I wish I HADN'T sent in my concerns now before the rules went up - it's like they were a guildline for how to make this a bigger mess.

I will send out corrections when I can.

I suck at understanding tutorials, though I know that if I can see an example of some stuff regarding a breakdown of detailed Naval/ASF Fleets and Regiments, I'll go D'OH

Well, I figured out my problem: it didn't recognize the numbers generated by the 2d6 in the little chart, so no matter how many fighters I had, it thought I had zero.  I ended up just overriding the numbers with the same number as a hard amount, and it works now.  So I should be good to go, so long as I never need to change the size of my stars.

Okay...I was (hopefully) helping Graegor, and decided to post this here in case anyone else is still having issues.


If you look below the RATs you will see the DropShip lists. (You may have to click the (+) on the far left to extend it out. It should look like this...

Quote# in formation            Equipment Type   Ind. FP   Cmtv. FP   Cmtv. FC   Cmtv. SC
         1                                                      0                 0            0         0
         2                                                      0                 0            0         0
         3                                                      0                 0            0         0
         
         
         

As you fill out the Dropship RATs the "Equipment Type" will be filled in automatically.

Now suppose you are building an Independent Wing of two Patrol Dropships. Those two dropships will be #1 and #2 on the List under the Patrol RAT. This "CMTV FP" is Cumulative FP, "Cmtv FC" is Cumulative Fighter Capacity, and "Cmtv SC" is Cumulative Small Craft. The same will apply to Transports and Assault. As your list fills out, you will be able to look and see how many DropShips will be necessary to carry whatever. For example, if you want to carry a mixed Battalion of Mechs and tanks, look under the Transports List. If after three dropships you have enough capacity, you may stop. Or, suppose you just want to set a force of 10 Assault ship. Looking through spots #1-10, you will know how many FP the force will be, how many fighters can be carried, as well as Small Craft.

Still hate... so much... this form.

The worst for me was the choice between matching what I had, and doing something reasonable.  The Mandrills really only had about three difrent types of stars.  Most wings were 60% Visigoths, 40% Batus.  Others were 100% Chearoneas, and a few were Scytha/Hydasphus mixes (and I know I've spelled all the Alexandrian names wrong).  So to do a mix of difrent fighters when I already know that the only medium fighter in my wings is the Visigoth is hardly easy.  Similarly, with dropships all we ever used were Titans.  All the ships with any other deployment have been distroyed, so only the two core fleets with that design are left.

In the end, I did a compermise, with tables heavily weighted to what I know we have, but still be bit fun.

Quote from: Iron Mongoose on July 18, 2010, 05:39:16 AM
The worst for me was the choice between matching what I had, and doing something reasonable.  The Mandrills really only had about three difrent types of stars.  Most wings were 60% Visigoths, 40% Batus.  Others were 100% Chearoneas, and a few were Scytha/Hydasphus mixes (and I know I've spelled all the Alexandrian names wrong).  So to do a mix of difrent fighters when I already know that the only medium fighter in my wings is the Visigoth is hardly easy.  Similarly, with dropships all we ever used were Titans.  All the ships with any other deployment have been distroyed, so only the two core fleets with that design are left.

In the end, I did a compermise, with tables heavily weighted to what I know we have, but still be bit fun.

One way to make up the problem if you've got one light, one medium, and one heavy design, is to use variants, or in the case of omnifighters, variant configs to flesh out the tables and add variety.

Something the UIW's going to be doing, is back-filling light fighter losses with Sabre variants, because I've had the Kowloon coasties using Sabres as their primary ride for several turns now.

That's what I ended up doing.  The Visigoth is in the middle five spots, and the Streaking Mongoose is 5 and 7, with the ML on there as well some place. 

I filled a good number of my heavy fighter slots with Eisensturms, thinking that those would be least-used squadrons.  And then I got my defectors, and in order to hit their FP values and maintain something akin to a balanced number of DropShips, I had to go big on heavy squadrons.  What I had intended to be built around Sabres and Seydlitzes is now heavy on Chippewas and Eisensturms.  Oops.

Quote from: DXM on July 18, 2010, 07:29:59 AM
I filled a good number of my heavy fighter slots with Eisensturms, thinking that those would be least-used squadrons.  And then I got my defectors, and in order to hit their FP values and maintain something akin to a balanced number of DropShips, I had to go big on heavy squadrons.  What I had intended to be built around Sabres and Seydlitzes is now heavy on Chippewas and Eisensturms.  Oops.

One method to get around that (if you wanted to) would be to go with smaller transport jumpships, a higher percentage of assault droppers, and more carriers.

Not that you'd do that, since it's a record-keeping nightmare (my navy's probably a tenth your size FP wise, with probably a fifth or less your quantity of warships, but in terms of lift and coverage, it's probably got more raw shipping capacity, and can cover a broader range of missions...)

I love my heavy fighter wings :) Lots and lots of Scythas, and we dont share them!

Quote from: Daemonknight on July 18, 2010, 07:35:48 AM
I love my heavy fighter wings :) Lots and lots of Scythas, and we dont share them!

AS you take territory, you may find you wish you had smaller chunks to spread around, eventually coverage suffers...

Quote from: Daemonknight on July 18, 2010, 07:35:48 AM
I love my heavy fighter wings :) Lots and lots of Scythas, and we dont share them!

  ;D ;D ;D ;D

And we will not either!!

policing my own post as off topic

When using Hunting orders one must pay the full cost in MP to move the FP times it maximum distance.

So in the case of a LiFu unit its FP*10, well plugging in that number only pays 3 hexes because the formula takes into account its 'free' movement. When you place 17 hexes, to accurately pay the MP, it makes it 'Invalid' because the unit is moving farther than it is allowed by the rules.

Quote from: Holt on July 18, 2010, 09:24:19 PM
When using Hunting orders one must pay the full cost in MP to move the FP times it maximum distance.

So in the case of a LiFu unit its FP*10, well plugging in that number only pays 3 hexes because the formula takes into account its 'free' movement. When you place 17 hexes, to accurately pay the MP, it makes it 'Invalid' because the unit is moving farther than it is allowed by the rules.

On the naval tab, change cell AI3 to:

Quote
=IF(Z3="Hunting",SUM(T3*Y3),IF(E3="Static",IF((Y3>0),"INVALID",0),IF(E3="Transported",IF((Y3<6),SUM(Y3*T3),"INVALID"),IF(E3="Mobile",IF((Y3<6),0,"INVALID"),IF(E3="LFB Mobile",IF(VLOOKUP(D3,A$252:B$362,2,0)="Y",IF((Y3>7),IF((Y3<11),SUM((Y3-7)*T3),"INVALID"),0),IF((Y3>6),IF((Y3<11),SUM((Y3-7)*T3),"INVALID"),0)))))))

then copy and paste to the rest of the AI rows.

---

On the ground tab, change cell R3 to:

Quote
=IF(P3="Hunting",SUM(J3*O3),IF(E3="Static",IF((O3>0),"INVALID",0),IF(E3="Transported",IF((O3<6),SUM(O3*J3),"INVALID"),IF(E3="Mobile",IF((O3<6),0,"INVALID"),IF(E3="LFB Mobile",IF((O3>6),IF((O3<11),SUM((O3-7)*J3),"INVALID"),0))))))

and copy and paste to the rest of the R rows.





In the ODS version, use semicolons instead of commas.


On the ground tab, change cell

You know, I really hate this sheet. Really, really hate it.

I'd also love to know the decision tree on just when we must micromanage to the Nth degree, and when we have to entirely drop all forms of realism. Also I'd like to know the decision tree when we have to endure both "standardization" and "individual faction atributes".

It must look like a fractal on acid, and then blurred after someone tried to wipe the spittle off of it.

Micromanagement: if your upset that you have to fill out tables for 3 weight classes of fighters, and 3 types of dropship, its to enforce realism, and to stop factions from doing this like building their entire TO&E with nothing but state-of-the-art, top of the line units. No military is exclusivly made up of optimum technology, theres always older tech mixed with new. Hence having tables that require you to put both optimized and older, perhaps even near-obsolete technology into your formations.

As far as 'standardization' and 'individual faction attrbutes', I'm not really even sure what you are talking about there. The only 'standardization' is the sheet itself, and thats to make the GM's lives easier so they arn't sifting through 10 different order sheets, some of which are better made than others I'm sure.

As to your last comment, I've again, no idea what your talking about. I think the sheet is fine. Its not really complicated if you just take a few minutes and wrap your head around it. In fact, it makes things much much easier, what with all the automation and everything.

>>Micromanagement: if your upset that you have to fill out tables for 3 weight classes of fighters, and 3 types of dropship, its to enforce realism, and to stop factions from doing this like building their entire TO&E with nothing but state-of-the-art, top of the line units.

-> Yeah, but I had 20 of one "build" and 4 of another - and it DIDN'T include the "optimum build" - because GM's said "you can't trade that" so that's just nonsense. If I'd had a chance to fill out what I'd BUILT, then things would have made sense. Shoot, I'd just LOVE the explanation on how we now add on FP from defeated units with these rules. So, no realism, you're not stopping optimization (see posts on this thread), and you're not even adding to the MM game. Epic fail.

>>As far as 'standardization' and 'individual faction attributives', I'm not really even sure what you are talking about there. The only 'standardization' is the sheet itself, and thats to make the GM's lives easier so they arn't sifting through 10 different order sheets, some of which are better made than others I'm sure.

-> The GM's can't even get a sheet that WORKS, and can't explain the terms in the sheet since they don't work, and can't explain lists of questions for terms – I'm not expecting much here, either from rollout or from what exactly they are going to be "saving", since if it doesn't work, and they haven't changed the rules BEFORE making things have some bases for making this all appropriate, we're going to have a few people "win", either from being in the know, or wildly lucky.

>>As to your last comment, I've again, no idea what your talking about. I think the sheet is fine. Its not really complicated if you just take a few minutes and wrap your head around it. In fact, it makes things much much easier, what with all the automation and everything.

→ If things worked, if things were explained, if things had any flexibility for what was done (showing ANY respect to questions and actions – or even public roleplay) then it wouldn't be half as annoying. All this info could have been requested, added or what have you. However the summation of so many aspects of "bust" is hilarious – especially if you're functioning with:

1)Your worry about another series of nerfs happening... happened (however I only hope others may have been caught this time).
2)Your efforts for constructing a force that followed certain principles has been pulled.
3)You can't get answers. OR you get pithy answers that are worse.
4)You can't get a working file (when received, changed or converted).
5)You've already seen almost every aspect of the supposed CAUSE of the pain and frustration being itself bypassed or never managing to address the claimed issue.

Quote
The GM's can't even get a sheet that WORKS, and can't explain the terms in the sheet since they don't work, and can't explain lists of questions for terms – I'm not expecting much here, either from rollout or from what exactly they are going to be "saving", since if it doesn't work, and they haven't changed the rules BEFORE making things have some bases for making this all appropriate, we're going to have a few people "win", either from being in the know, or wildly lucky.

I don't know what it is that people are doing thats causing all their problems, but I filled out the sheet without a single formulae being broken. Not sure what you think isn't going to work(the sheet? or the table-based system?), but even if that was true, I don't see anyone 'winning' because they knew something that everyone else didn't.

Quote
1)Your worry about another series of nerfs happening... happened (however I only hope others may have been caught this time).
2)Your efforts for constructing a force that followed certain principles has been pulled.
3)You can't get answers. OR you get pithy answers that are worse.
4)You can't get a working file (when received, changed or converted).
5)You've already seen almost every aspect of the supposed CAUSE of the pain and frustration being itself bypassed or never managing to address the claimed issue.

I have yet to see a nerf. That implies that a single aspect of a game is drasticlly reduced in strength/efficency, and not a blanket change that is applied equally to everyone.

You can still construct forces that follow certin principles, based on how you construct your DS and Fighter tables.

I see lots of answers happening. Just because Dave can't figure out everything the first time doesn't mean he isn't trying.

Ummm...I don't get it, you put the designs you have in production on the table, then fill in the empty spaces on the ends with shit you don't have a lot of.  HOw hard is that, exactly? Also, it's editable between turns.  Those tables don't 'lock' forever.  My shit's pretty much going to devolve into three main fighter types, with a smattering of whatever's easy to fix among the rest.  Somehow, I am not lost in confusion by this, but right now, it's got a lot of randoms because a lot of my forces were 'inherited' and I had to use the Lyran RATs with only minor adjustments.

If your list of designs you have available is remarkably large, pick the ones you build domestically, and stick those in the 6, 7. and 8 tables.  That one-off import of oppositiontech (clantech or IS tech) you bought ten turns ago? it goes in the 2 and 12 columns, if you have more than one of those, you put one at 12 and the other at 2.

I don't understand the problem here. 

Quote from: Cannonshop on July 19, 2010, 10:06:47 AM
Ummm...I don't get it, you put the designs you have in production on the table, then fill in the empty spaces on the ends with shit you don't have a lot of.  HOw hard is that, exactly?

You might be surprised. I have never ordered production for my faction, and have little idea what all we have, much less what's common vs. rare. I spent most of the weekend figuring out the sheet, hammering it into allowing me to have two separate equipment tables (one for Rasalhague-style 12-fighter Squadrons and the other for Ghost Bear style 10-fighter Stars,) compressing three Random Assignment Tables into two (for fighters,) expanding two Random Assignment Tables to three (for Dropships,) and accounting for something like seven years of historical drift, much of which I have little knowledge of. It was exhausting, felt highly unfruitful, and I'm technically not done yet.

I haven't yet figured out how to account for the fact that most of my fighter bays will be going away due to the restrictions on the Dropship tables, or that I'm no longer allowed to have "free" (that is, not transported by dropships) fighter units. And once I get all THAT sorted out, I still have to figure out the rest of my orders.

And the sheet's due today. And beyond all this, I have a kinda-sorta life that I'm pretty sure takes less time than the Real Lives of many here.

Quote from: Cannonshop on July 19, 2010, 10:06:47 AM
Also, it's editable between turns.  Those tables don't 'lock' forever.

Hallelujah and Amen. But if the restrictions on them remain in place, my Navy's not going to look anything like its old self until the rules change.

Quote from: Cannonshop on July 19, 2010, 10:06:47 AM
I don't understand the problem here. 

I'm going to guess that's because your faction is tiny and simple.

On the topic of nerfs:

Faction that got nerfed the worst was the TH. Lost FP on almost every naval formation.

I am just so sad about that, you know? Thats horrible...just horrible...

:P

As someone who has no experience with any previous sheets, I can say that I wouldve had problems initially with them as well

Im gradually getting things figured out...usually with A LOT of help from other people.

Would I have done things differently, probably, most definitely, but then Ive always done that regardless of the game (anyone interested in copies of my D&D, Marvel, Gamma World, or RIFTS character sheets...lol)


I do like that if I want to micromanage, it will allow me..once I get the basics mastered I will (probably much to the frustration of the GMs...hehehe), though again, that's my nature when I actually keep records/track of shit.

Doubt anyone got nerfed since we were able to make attending jumpships to make up the FP, just individual units got lower FP, i.e those super foxes. Instead of being 26FP they are now like 15FP with an 11FP jumpship group.

The main reason i am not a fan of this system is that I spent a whole lot of RP gaining designs from others and now some of those disigns will sit idle since they didnt make it into the 12 per class. This also leads to me not wanting to purchase anymore designs from anyone, i would have to kick out another design and if it changes the FP per squadron, i would have to redo my entire naval arm; something i would not want to do, ever again.

I cant even begin to think how i would pick 12 mechs per class, since it would greatly impact a MM game.

Its not 12 per weight class, its 12 per weight class per tech level. IS factions have tech levels A-F(no E), and Clans have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line units, so that you can have more than just 12 chasis. Thats the way that Dave did flashpoint, and i've seen it in one of the CBt rulebooks.

Its not. Its 12 per weight class, so 36 fighters total.

Im sorry, I meant for Mechs.

Quote from: Holt on July 19, 2010, 05:36:46 PM
Its not. Its 12 per weight class, so 36 fighters total.

JediBear came up with a good mod for the sheet which once I get a chance to review and double-check I'll probably be adding to the "official" sheet in a future version that adds an "alternate" track of fighter RATs and squadron columns to the sheet. This is something that, going forward, will allow people more customization though I by no means plan to make it mandatory.

More work? I hate you.

Quote from: Dave Baughman on July 19, 2010, 06:05:23 PM

Quote from: Holt on July 19, 2010, 05:36:46 PM
Its not. Its 12 per weight class, so 36 fighters total.

JediBear came up with a good mod for the sheet which once I get a chance to review and double-check I'll probably be adding to the "official" sheet in a future version that adds an "alternate" track of fighter RATs and squadron columns to the sheet. This is something that, going forward, will allow people more customization though I by no means plan to make it mandatory.

You do realize that if you don't have a problem, then you probably have no basis to even start to comprehend anyone that has multiple ones? They DO have a tendancy of adding together, and not being linearily seperate. I've spent over 40 hours trying to get answers, work out what forces I have that would be SOMEWHAT sensible and DEVINE the answers to the questions I have that cannot for somewhat be anwered directly. Not work on my ORDERS, just to fill out this sheet. Hmmm... actually I'm going to be over 50. YEAH!

-------
On the topic of nerfs:

Faction that got nerfed the worst was the TH. Lost FP on almost every naval formation.
-------

Yeah - and I'd love to have your designs anyway as BV/BV2 is so far out of whack for actually playing the game. There was a REASON I only built one design aerospace fighter out of all the ones I was allowed by the GMs, and that one was only good for a slice of the methods one uses aerospce fighters.

Actually - maybe I should explain. I'm now so mad at this sheet and surrounding situation, my heart races, I somewhat shake when I allow myself to think about the thing. Since Dave can't answer questions, he takes what - 3 emails to answer one question, and nothing on this sheet that wasn't in the supposed tutorial - that every post I see of his makes me enraged. My saying I hate the sheet is a way of venting so I don't do something rash - not because I really care what it's impact is.

Meh...don't need more than one per weight class, with variants, really-just have to have a 'tactical recipe' and adequately work out your supporting arms.  


Seriously.  One per weight class is all you really need to be effective.

It doesn't even have to be Omni.

Light lances made up of, say, Jenner variants.  (Light 'mechs should be recon or harasser, not heavy combatants-trying to be heavy combatants is why the Davion front is littered with dead, broken Panthers.)

Medium Lance? Hey, the Starslayer's a good trooper 'mech and it's tough as hell, or a GRF-*N series.

Heavies?  Pick your tactical preference, there's probably a heavy that fits your bill, even if you're stuck with L1 tech.

I could outfit an effective army with as few as three designs, or as many as thirty six, I'd find it HARDER to be effective with thirty-six.  A good average is four.  Four per weight class and you've covered all the roles (if you choose carefully) that you'll ever need a 'mech to fill well.


For example (using only L1, 3025 General table!)

Lights:
Valkyrie
Jenner
Locust
Wasp(or Stinger)

Mediums:
Griffin
Wolverine
Shadowhawk
Pheonixhawk

Heavies:
Archer
Warhammer
Marauder
Orion

Assaults:
Atlas
Awesome
Victor
Battlemaster

For a "L2" army swap out one or two designs in each weight class for their L2 variants, or for designs like the ST-1C Starslayer.

These are what you might call the "Core" units-stuff that shows up on a RAT between 5 and 9 on a 2d6 table, you put something rare or exotic out in the end-spaces (2-4, 10-12)  and use that as your variable range...

...and there you are.  

More designs aren't necessarily better, unless you can actually improve your performance using them.  F'rinstance, trading out the Wasp or Scorp for a Wolfhound is a net improvement in performance in your light lances, trading out the Wolverine or Phoenixhawk for starslayers is a net improvement in performance.  If you've got C3 in a lot of places, trading the Battlemaster for the Tai-Sho might be an option, similarly if you're building to C3 net use, trading one of the lights for a Bishamon.

That's ground combat.  Aero's even simpler, you can actually BE effective with only three weights!

Light fighters:

Centurion or Sabre.  If you simpres a lot you might like the Seydlitz for its huge frakkin' gun with no gas.



Medium Fighters:

F-90, Shilone, or Corsair

Heavies:

SL-15R (SLayer) or...well, you don't need more than Slayers, really.  I guess Stukas...

Again, all off the general table, all would be appropriate as "Core" units (points 4-9 on 2D6 table) and most work well even against CLAN fighters if you're careful and know what you're doing.

Put the exotic, rare designs on either end of each weight class, with your 'core' units providing an actual Tactical mix-that is, a mix designed to your tactics.  (of course, if your tactics are "Use better tech" you're kind of screwed...)

Deployment Tactics and choosing the right ride:

You don't need to have as few transports as possible for your FP value.  Seriously, you don't...

Jumpships for Fighters:

Quetzcoatl: carries 12 fighters, cheap as hell to operate, drawbacks are it's only good for naval engagements and Simpres, but you don't have to allocate droppers for it.

Dropships:
Vengeance: Expensive, carries a lot of fighters-this is one of those "boost the FP of a Fox" designs. Advantages: you can concentrate a lot of figters in the same hex at the same time, with very few transport jumpers.  Disadvantage: you're forced to always be concentrated in one hex.  There are times when you really need "Zone Coverage" and the ability to carry out small-force actions without stripping cover from the rest of your fleet/holdings.

Titan: Terrans and Clans mostly, a nice ride, very middle-weight in terms of what it hauls, but you're paying for it.

Leopard CV: This is my favourite carrier.  I can get a lot of zone coverage with it.  Downside is, you need to either have a lot of them (and jumpships to carry them) or you need to group jumpships in 'units' when you're facing or going after stakkodoom opposition.

Notably, per the Canon, the Leopard CV is about the most common carrier-type dropship in existence.

(I'm keeping this rant non-faction-specific...mostly, anyway.)

Carriers and Assault droppers that have a fighter complement belong on your "Patrol Dropship" table, not your "Transport" or "Assault" table (well, units like the Union-X or A-3 Overlord are crossovers...)  That's fitting assignment to role.  (though I've got regular vanilla Overlords in my Assault and Patrol tables-they work across all three ranges, and they're relatively cheap compared to purpose-built assault ships...this doesn't show up in your FP values.)

Assault droppers are another kettle entirely.  there's really no "General" table for Assault ships.  (Avengers maybe work...)

Assault ships mainly exist to pump up the FP of a flotilla in Simpres, or to be massive-punch units in Mega aero for antishipping work-right alongside heavy fighters.  They don't dance, they pound.  Pick accordingly.

Jumpships (NOT Warships!!)

The most common jumpers-and they're the most common regardless of Clan, Inner Sphere, Periphery, or private contractor, are the Invader (3 collars) and the Merchant (2 Collars).  These two are followed by the Star Lord and Tramp classes, with the rarest sitting on the ends of a theoretical table (Monolith and Scout, 9 collars to the Monolith, 1 collar to the scout).

Of course, there are a few designs that are even RARER, but they're also so restricted in use tht they really don't contribute much (Explorer, which carries four smallcraft, I use these as courier and special forces boats-four smallcraft are a good choice for deploying small units of commando-style operators or flying "liason" missions where a big guard of troops is a liability. if you have BB tech, they make good relay-stations for long range missions. If you were fortunate enough to be able to operate your HPG's yourself, they're decent Interdiction breakers...)

Fitting to role is important, though.  you can load up some absolutely grotesque FP values on a Monolith, some less-grotesque values on a Star Lord, there's an LF-battery version of the Tramp that is quite nice for supporting your LF equipped warships, but most of your trash hauling is going to likely be done on the Invader or Merchant.  Having lots of these is good-provided you also put Leopard CV's at the 6,7,8 points in your Patrol Dropship column of the RAT.  If your strategic mix is slanted toward set-piece battle, go with big jumpers hauling big droppers, if it's slanted toward asymmetrical actions (lots of recon raids, commerce raiding and the like) you go with a larger number of smaller ships-that you can afford to lose if you bump smack into the middle of a stakkodoom fleet.

Quote from: Jeyar on July 19, 2010, 06:49:55 PM
Actually - maybe I should explain. I'm now so mad at this sheet and surrounding situation, my heart races, I somewhat shake when I allow myself to think about the thing. Since Dave can't answer questions, he takes what - 3 emails to answer one question, and nothing on this sheet that wasn't in the supposed tutorial - that every post I see of his makes me enraged. My saying I hate the sheet is a way of venting so I don't do something rash - not because I really care what it's impact is.

Jeyar, I'm almost spreadsheet-illiterate, maybe I can help because mine worked, and yours clearly isn't working.

Quote from: Jeyar on July 19, 2010, 06:49:55 PM
Actually - maybe I should explain. I'm now so mad at this sheet and surrounding situation, my heart races, I somewhat shake when I allow myself to think about the thing. Since Dave can't answer questions, he takes what - 3 emails to answer one question, and nothing on this sheet that wasn't in the supposed tutorial - that every post I see of his makes me enraged. My saying I hate the sheet is a way of venting so I don't do something rash - not because I really care what it's impact is.

Jeyar, I'm sorry the change in the sheet format is causing you so much frustration. I also will be the first to acknowledge that last month I was not as accessible as I should have been. There are a lot of reasons for this, not the least of which being that I was on vacation, and that even had I not been I can only sink so many hours a day into running the FGC campaign before I start to burn out. I feel also obliged to point out that I brought my PC with me to my cottage in maine and spent approximately 4-6 hours a day doing FGC and Flashpoint paperwork during the nicest, most beautiful week of my vacation. During this timeframe I was also, among other things, doing complete top-to-bottom sheet conversions of four major factions, supervised a major in-game plot event, divided up the assets of the Lyran Commonwealth into five new factions, wrote a new orders sheet from scratch and spent hours and hours and hours perfecting its formulas and doing non-game-related tech support research to assist the community in getting it to run on third-party spreadsheet applications, did a "crash" revision of the Flashpoint equipment table system to work in the FGC rules framework, data entered every single warship in MegaMek into the sheet to save the community the trouble of having to look up their ships and manually enter them (which is what they have to do in Flashpoint), added the ability to use armed small craft for the sole purpose of including TiG-15 support in the rules, and continued to do behind-the scenes work laying the groundwork for major fixes and revisions in the intelligence, R&D, custom designs, comm tech, and ground forces rules. In between all those other activites, I got behind on correspondence occasionally. You're not the only one who didn't get prompt answers from me on some issues - you need only look to DXM's frustration with a similar situation.

I fully accept responsibility for not promptly answering many of the messages that were sent to me, and for not always being very accessible over the last month, and I apologize. I hope though that the information in this post helps people put things in perspective a bit.

If you have questions that you need answered (and this is for everyone in the community, not just Jeyar) and you do not get the answer you need on the first try, please bear the following in mind:

1) I only read the orders mailboxes when orders are due, and because frankly I am kind of absent minded I don't always check my personal email account. The best way to reach me is by PMs on this board.
2) If I do not respond, or if I give you a partial answer, or if I say I will follow up and you don't hear from me by the end of the week -- send another message. I get 60-120 PMs a week easily, just counting the ones that need responses... the dozens of IC roleplaying and trade PMs that I am copied on are all on top of that, and frankly stuff gets forgotten about or just gets lost. Keep following up until you get an answer - I don't block anyone, and I will eventually get back to you even if it takes a few days and requires some prodding.
3) Always include LittleH13 on any PMs sent to me about GM stuff. He can often give you an answer even if I forget/am not around/am at work/etc.
4) Be as explicit as possible in your questions and if I miss a nuance or a case-specific point follow up with me. Sometimes - especially if I am writing from the kiosk in my office cafeteria where I am generally trying to answer 6 or more PMs in a 15-minute timeframe, I may overlook a question or not catch onto a deeper point that requires reading between the lines.
5) Understand that in past administrations, inter-GM communication was not the greatest. Please don't assume that just because another GM told you something that they also told me, or that they told me all of the details.
6) If all else fails, post your questions in the rules discussion board, the OOC board, or here.

Quote from: Jeyar on July 19, 2010, 06:39:53 PM
You do realize that if you don't have a problem, then you probably have no basis to even start to comprehend anyone that has multiple ones? They DO have a tendancy of adding together, and not being linearily seperate. I've spent over 40 hours trying to get answers, work out what forces I have that would be SOMEWHAT sensible and DEVINE the answers to the questions I have that cannot for somewhat be anwered directly. Not work on my ORDERS, just to fill out this sheet. Hmmm... actually I'm going to be over 50. YEAH!

-------
On the topic of nerfs:

Faction that got nerfed the worst was the TH. Lost FP on almost every naval formation.
-------

Yeah - and I'd love to have your designs anyway as BV/BV2 is so far out of whack for actually playing the game. There was a REASON I only built one design aerospace fighter out of all the ones I was allowed by the GMs, and that one was only good for a slice of the methods one uses aerospce fighters.

I'm sorry you don't like the Battle Value system, but its what we use in FGC and its what we have always used, even back in the old flotilla system. That isn't going to change anytime soon. I also appreciate the attractiveness of single-fighter construction; not only does it let you escew your weaknesses in favor of your strongest designs, but it breaks the hell out of the squadron system and greatly enhances the power of single-fighter units by piling all of their bays together. This is no doubt why the SLDF of the 2700s extensively used single-design units.

To be blunt, however, this isn't FGC: 2750. Single-unit designs don't really fit with the feel of the 31st Century BattleTech universe, and more importantly in AeroTech they cause the rules to function in a way that is not reflected in the balancing methods and that gives an unfair advantage to the side with properly chosen single-unit formations. I am well aware of this because I exploited it too when I was head of FRR and RD, as did many others. Just because many players exploited a weakness in the rules, however, does not mean it is something we should continue to propogate in our campaign.

A while back you asked about the logic flow that lead to the new sheets? It all started because we had two interlocking problems:

1) The game was running on BV 1.0, which did not have official scores for many units.
2) Some factions were full of bloated, over-optimized naval units that were grandfathered in from the flotilla system while others had (substantially weaker) navies that were built under the more conservative post-turn-20 rules; that dychotomy was disrupting the game. The infamous 26 FP Foxes were the poster-children of this, but so were things like 10 FP Lolas or 5 FP Vincents (and a certain 35 FP Carrack  :o). This was to some extent exacerbated by the way BV 1.0 factored in many combat-irrelevant pieces of WarShip equipment and gave certain units strangely high (or low) FPs. See also: Agamemnon vs. Luxor.

Rather than just impose my own solution by fiat, I opened a poll two months ago to give players a chance to decide how they wanted Aerospace to be handled in the game. They voted for BV 2.0 with equipment tables. I then ran a runoff poll, to ensure that this is what people really wanted, and again they voted for equipment tables.

So... blame me if you want, in retrospect there were certain things I definitely could have done better after all, but please don't portray this as the Evil GMs^TM just rolling around trying to screw the little guy. You may remember that not long ago a lot of players were saying the only way to fix FGC was to pull the plug and start fresh with a total reboot. I could go into great detail about why people felt that way, but I think we all have heard that story plenty of times already. By the end of our time on CBT.com, I too was getting pretty frustrated with the state of affairs. Despite that, however, I believe that FGC 3062 has plenty more life in it, and I believe the key to enjoying that is to fix what is wrong with the game system.

Fixing that is going to be messy at times. This is not going to be the last change that involves some front-loading of annoying work to reduce the frustration in the long run. I know not everyone agrees with me on every policy I implement (see: a certain Snow Raven's signature line  ;)), but I would hope that you would at least have enough faith in me to accept that I am overhauling the rules with the intention of improving the long-term gaming experience and most importantly moving the emphasis away from rules lawyering, OOC bullying, and constant "analog" paperwork and towards a tighter, more streamlined, more versatile, and critically more automated game system that allows people to concentrate on combat and roleplaying, the bread and butter of this universe.




Whew, I guess that was actually kind of a vent session of my own. I apologize if I seemed a little heated, but to be totally honest I have been a teensy bit frustrated today. Let me say to all of you though (and I mean all of you, who have chosen to stick with this game through the good times and the rough spots): Thank you for your patience, your great roleplaying, and your faith in Josh and I.

If anyone wants help, I'm willing to help out moving stuff to the new sheets. But chances are that in some cases, you'll have to make changes to how you planned on doing things. Especially if you thought standardization was for poor people... or, I guess, only use one type of unit.

I don't currently have any plans to play this game in any more involvement than a THAC member, or maybe something absurdly irrelevent like a private corporation. And even if there's still a worry about me seeing people's sheets... I've probably seen at least half of the game's order sheet at some point anyway. I won't remember anything after a few days.   :D

BTW I have more sheets that I have to write tonight, and I am going to be doing them in Open Office for debugging purposes, so to those of you who are using that program I may soon be sharing your pain... and if so I will hopefully find a workaround to some of the technical issues people have reported.


Hmmmm interesting. Open Office does not seem to like it when proximity-finds are disabled on the V Lookups. I notice that on the literal conversion from XLSX, the Davion II makes the max FP formula error out, but if the final check digit is changed from 0 to 1, it proximity searches and can suddenly discern the FP (the issue seems to be that Open Office can't tell the Davion 1 and Davion 2 apart... probabl the same issue it was having with Green vs. Very Green.

Update 2 -> this seems to fix the validation section when it tries to commit suicide as well.

I think this thing has been a trial for all of us. Builds character, I suppose.

I should say that I'm actually very happy with my RATs (less the Patrol Dropships -- I'd really rather have the Titan at 7, the Miraborg at 8, and the Vengeance at 6,) I think they add a nice Battletechy flavor to what was actually a pretty bland roster before.

I was going to mention that VLOOKUP was broken in openoffice calc. The problem I was having was with the multiple versions of the Lola III. I worked around that by the simple expedient of just using the Clan version (which it selects without parenthetical notation) and in the case of "Green" modding the formula to ignore the empty lines. I'll try redoing it with non-exact searches. Maybe.

Speaking of which, I'm not exactly a spreadsheet wizard myself, is there a good way to update 200+ rows of the same formula?

Fix the formula in the first cell, then click the black box in the lower right corner and drag it down the columns.  It should copy the formula changing to the appropriate cells(a->b->c etc) as needed.

No worries Dave. I've been in your shoes. Lemme know if ya need any assistance I will do what I can.