Rules Questions and Comments

[Dave Baughman]

Also posting this just for reference. These are the not-100% completed, not-100% implemented, quite controversial at the time proposed revision to the communications rules. Were this to be revived, Black Box and Chatterweb rules would need to be written to go with it.

Key ideas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Comm Provider Classes

For HPG:

Basic Client

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

Prerequisite: NONE
Upkeep: NONE

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

Advanced Client

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

Prerequisite: One of the following-

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

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

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

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

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

Prerequisite: All of the following must be fulfilled:

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

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

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

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

Advanced Provider

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

Prerequisite: The following requirements must be met

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

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

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

HPG Equipment

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

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

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

IC Hex Improvement

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

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

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

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

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

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


Network Hubs

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

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

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

[Dave Baughman]

Just for the record, the last two posts are in no way an effort by me to push these undeployed rules into the '91 game (though if DR6 chooses to use them more power to him - especially the plague rules  ).

That said, DR, if you decide you want to move forward with the Commo rules (or the unpublished changes I was working on for the movement system) let me know and I will try to dedicate some time to completing those projects. Same goes for the R&D revision that never quite got finished.

[Daemonknight]

I'd like to see the R&D and Bioweapons rules be implemented. Then again, I wouldn't mind seeing a modified Bioweapons rule developed for nuclear weapons either- not all nukes are the same. MIRV tech, increased payload, dirty bombs...theres just as much potential for variable nuclear weapons as there are for bioweapons.

I'm not a big fan of the Commo rules, but the Network Hubs and changed provider rules I kinda like.

[Parmenion]

Frankly, I dislike that nukes were ever bought into the game, and would loathe to see the introduction of chemical and bioweapons.  I don't see a place for them in this game.

Comm rules are interesting, but would have to study them more.

[Daemonknight]

Whats wrong with bringing nukes into the game? The exist in cannon, and they add another element of strategy. Same thing with bio and chemical weapons- they're powerful tools for casuing large-scale disruptions, as opposed to attacking an enemy's strong point(his military). They might be morally wrong irl(and in game) but that doesn't mean the don't belong. Every weapon has a use.

[JediBear]

Whats wrong with bringing nukes into the game?

Basically, it's Battletech, not Nuketech.

Until it's not anymore.

The exist in cannon, and they add another element of strategy.

The position of nukes in canon is of a culturally banned superweapon considered too horrible to contemplate much less actually use. Nobody in canon actually had a significant nuclear weapons program as of 3062 (our point of departure,) with what few started getting thrown around during the jihad being Star League leftovers and the odd anti-shipping tacnuke (canon is divided as to whether these were new and produced in very limited numbers or also Star League leftovers.)

Putting nukes in play virtually guarantees that they will be used (as indeed they have been,) in the context of a world that actively abstained from their use for hundreds of years. While you're all a great bunch of blokes, I'm not sure I can actually trust you to adequately model the psychology of a denizen of the 31st Century with regards to the demon-weapons. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've repeatedly seen that done wrong.

And the thing is that everything I just wrote about nukes applies to bioweapons and chemical weapons. Aside of the odd ancient cache, they don't exist. Nobody has them, nobody's making them, and only a madwoman would seriously contemplate their use.

So we've let the nuclear genie out of the bottle. That does not mean you want to give me license to create tailored super-bugs with Clan biotech. Same goes for any chemical weapon more lethal than tear-gas.

[Daemonknight]

Yes, nuclear weapons aganst ground-based targets would be anathema to anyone whose playing sane- however, not everyone is sane, and not everyone has the same moral highground you expouse(lets not forget, the FS has a small group of Manei Domini who are not exactly moral beings in the first place). Also, smaller periphery nations might feel its their last recourse in the face of overwhelming odds that the Clans or IS can bring to bear. Some people would rather die than be enslaved, and also would prefer to cause maximum damage on their way out the door. I think nuclear and bioweapons fills their need quite well.

Also, once again, we arn't in canon-land anymore. We havn't been for almost 40 ingame years. Alot of stuff has happened that would never happen in cannon. You can't use cannon as a reason why something wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't happen in FGC. People try using Canon as a way of proving a point, but like i said- it doesn't apply anymore.

As for the Battletech-Nuketech joke, i could make a similar case for warships. 'In Canon', Battlemechs were the kings of the battlefield, with warships being few and far between, even during the Jihad. Now in our game, everyone has massive fleets, and naval power is actually more important than ground forces- the major naval powers could eschew most ground forces, in favor of huge warship fleets to defend their holdings and blast enemy naval power, then threaten a planet with orbital bombardment. Nukes offer a nice counter to massed naval power, especially for smaller nations who can't afford to sink a few hundred RPs to get 1/6th or 1/10th the FP in naval power.


However, naval ships have become so prolific, in my opinion, nukes are the perfect counter. Thats one of the reasons i'd be glad to see a Nuclear Weapons Techtree; my factions would mostly focus on increasing our nuclear tipped anti-warship stockpiles.

[Dave Baughman]

My POV on CBRN has always been that while no one sould be jumping out of their skin to use them, if we don't give people the opportunity (and temptation!) to stockpile and develop them, then the game is preventing the players from making a moral choice about whether or not to use them and - more importantly - preventing them from having the opportunity to roleplay how they react to others' use of these types of arms.

[Deathrider6]

Ahh I was waiting to see these I like the Comms rules a lot. The CBW rules not so much but that is just because of the built in personal bias. I have I will mull over possible implementation. The bias I hold against CBW does not preclude me using them to manage R and D to cure a "super plague" outbreak.

[Daemonknight]

i still say research trees should exist for expanding/upgrading the nuclear weapons. If they're going to exist, we might aswell make them useful. Downgrade the 'base'(ie what the are now), and allow players who wish to become nuclear powers to upgrade their weapon systems.

[chaosxtreme]

I don't know we need to downgrade the existing nuke's.

Contrary to popular belief they are remarkably inefficient weapons.

Compared to 25 FP of transported Aero which can be built for the same cost there is virtually no reason to use a Nuke instead.

For example 25 FP of Aero and 1 Nuke Fight. Even if the Nuke Roll's 12's there will still be survivor's from the 25FP of Fighters.

[Daemonknight]

But im proposing to downgrade the current nukes, so that we have room for growth in the event of a nuclear weapons technology tree, similar to the one Dave B developed for Bioweapons. Bioweapons are a touchy subject, because they're almost exclusivly an anti-populace weapon. Atleast nukes are usually used to target enemy forces. I'll whip up something in a little bit, just to see what people think(of the rules, disregarding a dislike on 'special' weapons because of moral reasons).

[Dave Baughman]

Re: Nuke R&D its probably worth mentioning that the nuclear tokens (and the proposed chemical tokens as well) are deliberately designed to be highly abstract. If you want a token to represent a silo-launched ICBM fired into orbit to defend your planet or a crop duster spraying uranium duster over an enemy factory, it can be either to tickle your fancy as long as the RP matches the game mechanical results. Likewise, the proposed chem tokens don't just cover artillery shells with nerve agent in them - I also envisioned them (when used to get a bonus on Assassinate, for example) representing an agent poisoning an enemy VIP's food - and everything in between.

Of course, the other approach is to do them like the BW - which is fine and would probably work well, but if you guys want to walk that path you'll probably want to re-examine the rules from the top down to ensure the balance works out right.

[Daemonknight]

I was indeed intending to write out a detailed list of how to construct different types of nuclear warheads and delivery systems. Having some trouble writing at the moment, pain meds are making my head a wee bit fuzzy...

[Fatebringer]

I was against nukes, and definately against bio-weapons, etc because I dislike them. Do to Cannon events, Nuke use became "popular" with a certain faction. However, I think the more rules that are added, the more complex the game is, and these BioChem rules are pretty extensive and if they were added, I'd want to see some form of stat base for factions to be able to counter this. Nukes, can't do much about those, Chemical Bio attacks can be countered, especially if your faction has high quality scientific and medical knowledge. It could lead to something akin to the old intel ratings with levels of scientific knowledge battles, which were removed for a reason, I'm assuming ;P Anywho, to sum up, not a fan of the stuff, I'll roll with what happens because I have no choice.