Rules Questions and Comments

[Cannonshop]

Well, speaking of wargaming...

I've noticed the tendency to go really, really, lethal in this game-not just in terms of tactics, but in terms of what people do-fighting to the last man even when the system's not blockaded, etc. and it makes me wonder if there was a mechanic that used to apply to the Loyalty ratings on our worksheets, and if maybe we should revisit the concept of incorporation of a forced withdrawal mechanic linked to said loyalty rating.

(again, mind that this is basically b.s.'ing around to kill time...)

Loyalty Ratings and Forced Withdrawal

When a unit suffers 50% or greater casualties, without inflicting an equivalent level of damage against an opponent, a die roll is required before the next combat phase to determine if the unit will continue to fight, or if it will attempt to escape (rout).

Units in Rout will retreat to the nearest friendly hex, and will not be capable of combat actions for the next 1d6 turns, if they are able to retreat. If a unit is unable to retreat (due to Blockade Actions, and the inability to break the Blockade) it will surrender without orders, or against orders, as if the victorious opponent rolled a 20% encircled and captured critical on the critical hits table.

Loyalty ratings modify this as follows:

Base Check: 2D6 with a target number of 10 or greater to stand their ground
Disloyal units add a -2 modifier to the result
Questionable Units: -1 modifier
Reliable: Base number only
Fanatical: +2 to resist forced withdrawal

Loyalty is determined every 6 game turns....


And that's where I run out of gas.  How to determine unit loyalty in a fair manner without people just pumping their listed ratings through the roof.

I have a suspicion that units that were retreated BEFORE being crushed would probably get a small bonus or something-'cause the owner obviously cares about them, while units that were left to hang and routed, would probably drop a rating or two, depending on how savagely they were battered before bugging out.

[Daemonknight]

I'm drafting a rule set for a fresh FGC campaign, and while I'm not using the system you propose above, I am putting in a system for unit loyalty/morale. I don't view the 2 as being related, at least not as most people do- for some reason, the two seem interchangeable here, and that makes little to no sense.

Unit Loyalty is a very static value, with only major swings in public opinion/deviations from the faction's 'Core Values' affecting a unit's Loyalty(assuming it's very high, or very low). Units with loyalty in the middle, 'questionable' will fluctuate often between mildly rebellious, and partial loyalty.

Unit Morale however, is much more fluid. Unit supply, recent conflict, even the odds in a battle will affect Morale(to some degree). Loyalty can have a slight affect on Morale, such that when a very loyal unit finds itself in a low-morale situation, it can 'bootstrap' itself into a higher Morale bracket, at the cost of some Loyalty. Basically a "well, they screwed us this time boys, but its not like we haven't gone through worse" uplifting speech type moment.


Various other things we don't see in the current FGC will be in the initial draft too. Most of it wont make it in, but thats the point- figure out what ideas will and will not make for the best game experience.

[Iron Mongoose]

Belive it or not, I agree with Deamonknight on this.  There are plenty of 'qustionable' or even 'disloyal' units that would still fight like cornered animals if pressed.  The FWL offers us the Regulans or Sirians, who don't care for the Feds but are still first class fighters, as one example, and the Leagons of Vega under Teddy showed us that loyalty to the Coordanator and loyalty to duty don't have to be the same thing, as another.  And of course, in the Clans 'loyalty' is just to the warden or crusader cause; every true Clan unit (at least in the time of the Field Manuals) is fanaticly loyal to the Clan.

That said, I've long felt that battles were too bloody.  I think some of that is our sim-res tables.  Just with one round, its pretty easy for a moderately larger force to wipe a smaller one out, so there's not really an oppertunity to fall back.  One round, roll, and its over.  If our values were half what they are, it would take longer to finish out a battle, but it would give sides that are losing more oppertunity to retreat or do other RP (winning sides too).  No one's ever wanted to do that, since no one wants more work than there already is.  But, I think it would offer a possible aid.

[Daemonknight]

One thing that is definetlly going to be entered, is a maximum engagement size. Basiclly, making it so you can't fight at greater than 3:1 odds. So if the Falcons have 1000 FP at Somerset, but the Adders have 100, the Falcons can't actually fight battles with the full 1000. Instead, it'll be 100 vs 300. I don't know if the 3:1 ratio is the one I'll land on, but basiclly there will be rules in place(including potentially a slight tweaking of the table values) to make the battlefields a bit more realistic in terms of casualties.

Also, veterancy ratings will do more than simply increase(or decrease) your unit's FP. The difference between ranks will provide a bonus to the more skilled side's SimRes rolls. So, if the Falcons in our above situation are Regulars(it goes by the most prevalent rank), but the Adder defenders are Elite, the Adders would get a +2 bonus on their SimRes rolls, giving them a better chance of surviving(or atleast of inflicting major casualties, or getting a critical).

[GreyJaeger]

I had been banding around several ideas, had some written down, but never finished them.

1. For every full multiple after 3:1, the smaller force gets a +1 on SimRes. For example, 4:1 gives a +1, 5:1 +2, 6:1 +3, etc. This represents the target rich environment the defenders encounter and/or friendly fire. In MM, the "Friendly Fire" Combat option must be taken in >3:1 Battles.
2. For every full multiple over 3:1, the larger force suffers a 10% FP reduction. For example, 4:1 reduces FP by 10%, 5:1= 20%, etc. This represents friendly units simply being in the way, and the larger force simply being unable to bring its full strength to bear.

[Daemonknight]

Interesting. The only thing I'd have against that, is that combined with the bonuses from Veterancy, we're looking at having a ton of modifiers. One of the cases where too many modifiers will make things a bit more complicated than I think they need to be.

The other problem is that while giving the little guy a bonus if the ratio is greater than 3:1 gives them a better chance of inflicting casualties, it still hurts their chances of survival, which is part of the reasoning behind the ratio stopping at 3:1. At 3:1 odds, if the attackers gets a 35% damage or better, the smaller guy is wiped out. At 4:1, he only needs a 25%, which makes the smaller guy's destruction almost assured.

Hmm, what do you think about this: the maximum ratio becomes 5:1. However, for every level beyond 2:1(so 3:1, 4:1, 5:1) the whole SimRes table gets a cumulative -5% damage. So if the final FP ratio is 5:1, the bigger force's results on the SimRes table are 15% less. They're still not needing much of a roll to deal heavy damage, but they're getting a big reduction in whatever they do end up dealing.

[Deathrider6]

I like these ideas guys keep em coming.

[Cannonshop]

Hmmm.... maybe a sliding scale for experience-say, if you SimRes a fight, it's not worth as much toward raising a unit's status one experience pip, as megamekking it does?

[Dave Baughman]

Hmmm.... maybe a sliding scale for experience-say, if you SimRes a fight, it's not worth as much toward raising a unit's status one experience pip, as megamekking it does?

I approve of this idea.

[Marlin]

Yes, this one is really good.

[Deathrider6]

Hmmm...on the flip side adding experience rules does put a wrinkle in the sheet there a way to automate that Dave? Say a formula linked to a y/n drop down so that exp is calculated based on sim-res or mega mek or do we have to go with entering that by hand?
Just a thought.

[Avatar Zero]

Theoretically, even in the absence of a YES/NO dropdown, you can still use a binary (0/1) number entry for the field (0 for SimRes, 1 for MM).

[Dave Baughman]

Hmmm...on the flip side adding experience rules does put a wrinkle in the sheet there a way to automate that Dave? Say a formula linked to a y/n drop down so that exp is calculated based on sim-res or mega mek or do we have to go with entering that by hand?
Just a thought.

I guess it depends on how complicated you want the XP system to be. The most straightforward approach might be to increase the scale of the XP system, so instead of needing one XP for Vet and 3 XP for Elite, you could instead say 3 XP for Vet and 10 XP for Elite and then redefine how much XP each battle is worth. Perhaps...

XP Table
Participated in a battle that was resolved by simple resolution: 1 XP
Participated in a battle in MegaMek where your side had a 3:1 or greater FP advatnage: 1 XP
Participated in a battle in MegaMek where your side had a 2:1 or greater FP advatnage: 2 XP
Participated in a battle in MegaMek where your side was evenly matched in terms of FP: 3 XP
Participated in a battle in MegaMek where your side had a 2:1 or worse FP disadvantage: 4 XP
Participated in a battle in MegaMek where your side had a 3:1 or worse FP disadvantage: 5 XP

Obviously, this is just a very rought idea.

[Deathrider6]

Indeed but it is what I'm looking for to be honest. It also ties in with a change I was wanting to do with the FP calcs and combat mods based on experience. If units gain XP for combat operations and get better they should get a bonus on the tables (damage) and possibly to thier critical threshold roll (i.e. +1 for veteran plus two for elite and so on to a maximum of plus four. Naturally this would not affect the critical roll). Just my thoughts I have always felt that a green unit still should beable to defeat an elite one but it should be rare.

[Fatebringer]

Hey there, confusion on Pirate Point Insertions. Some of the rules say Pirate Insertion, some say Pirate Transit, some say Raid Transit...

There is only one chart, the Raid Transit Chart. Please describe the proper sequence for raiding.

Since there is no Pirate Point Insertion chart, I've been using the "Raid Transit" chart and assuming if I failed, I could run for my target or proceed without knowing if there was a force available for intercept.

Some clarification would be appreciated.