New (er) Record Sheet - version 0.50

[Cannonshop]

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.

[Iron Mongoose]

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. 

[DXM]

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.

[Cannonshop]

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...)

[Daemonknight]

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

[Cannonshop]

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...

[GreyJaeger]

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

 

And we will not either!!

[Daemonknight]

policing my own post as off topic

[Holt]

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.

[Dave Baughman]

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:

=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:

=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

[Jeyar]

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.

[Daemonknight]

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.

[Jeyar]

>>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.

[Daemonknight]

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.

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.

[Cannonshop]

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.