Rules Updates for turn 42

[Fatebringer]

The six turn build actually assumes:

Turn 1: Constructed as Regular unit, spends turn in "exercises"
Turn 2: Trains to Veteran
Turns 3-5: Three turns in "exercises"
Turn 6: Trains to Elite

So theoretically a team could be built at a lower skill level. If this is something that is wanted, I'm not opposed in theory to adding it to the options. I suppose it lets people crank out teams fast if they really need to. I kind of assumed that no one would want a team that would be taking a penalty on every op, but then again you know what they say about assumptions...

Any unit going to Elite, used to also require GM consent. I wouldn't want to see anyone who just did training to get elite. That's just my opinion though.

The idea of "intelligence specialization" is pretty cool. Us Ravens would pay extra to show our ability to "Bend the Truth" (Counter-Intelligence - Specialty: Disseminate Disinformation) 

[GreyJaeger]

 Problem is, now the the rules are far too abstract. I recently started spending RP to improve the Viper Clan Watch. I was actually looking forward to seeing those numbers change. Granted, either way, I may not know if those resources were being wisely spent, mind you, but at least I had something quasi-tangible. I guess another issue I see is that there is nothing proactive I can do in defense, other than just hope that any would-be instigator decides I am not worth spending extra RP on.

[tassa_kay]

The idea of "intelligence specialization" is pretty cool. Us Ravens would pay extra to show our ability to "Bend the Truth" (Counter-Intelligence - Specialty: Disseminate Disinformation)  

I agree with this, actually.  I think Clans like the Spirits and the Vipers (who, at least in canon, are severely strict on the contacts their lower castes make with other Clans, which I have to assume is how a lot of Watch agents get in to begin with) could specialize in counterintelligence methods.  Hell, I'd even gladly be weaker at gathering intelligence if it meant that I was able to be better at fending off intel-gathering from others, to preserve factional flavor.

I guess another issue I see is that there is nothing proactive I can do in defense, other than just hope that any would-be instigator decides I am not worth spending extra RP on.

This touches on my point above, too.  I think we should have something like this in place, most definitely.

[chaosxtreme]

There were two critical problems with intel ratings that caused me to kill them:

The first one is mechanical; a bonus of potentially +4 (or a -4 penalty to an enemy) has too much of an impact on the bell curve of probability. This also ties into the second problem, because it causes a "weak" intel organization to actuall have a far higher operating budget than a "strong" one. Special Ops teams were deliberately limited to a +2 modifier, because any more has a massive effect on the probability of an operation's outcome.

The second is financial; a truly high-end intelligence agency costs a lot to operate. The old rules, which gave intel units a free bonus and effectively negated hundreds of RPs of spending on operational bonuses. In effect, it became a case of the CIA costing less to run then, say, Wikileaks. By getting rid of the faction freebie bonuses, things work the way they should: MIIO and ISF can still be extremely powerful agencies, but they have to pay for that superior performance by buying the +2 and +3 modifiers on their rolls. The Watch can make do with their no-mod rolls if they want, or they can choose to pay for the better rolls. Its a financial planning decision, and its a roleplaying decision, but getting rid of the free bonuses at least means that the cost-vs-result equation isn't backwards any more.

Do PFs have any use aside from increasing SF capacity, as far as intelligence ops are concerned(as metafactions won't be conducting much R&D i presume)? I just can't see Clans shunting their PFs off to increase the ICW's SF numbers, but at the same time, the whole point of the ICW is to pool resources...which the new rules definetly hamper. I'm sure the SLDF will face a similar problem, though to a lesser extent with the prevelance of PFs in the IS.

In the revised R&D rules I am working on, PFs have many additional functions that they did not previously have, including interaction with training, strategic token production, exploration, and other "non R&D" functions.

Incidentally, the new limits system actually benefits the ICW. Under the old rules, the SLDF could have up to 10 teams and the ICW count never have any. Most Clans were limited to 3 teams each, when even the TC was allowed 5. The old SF team limits were completely arbitrary and didn't have any means to be overcome.

Basically, just like the skill thing, the "consistent" team limits are designed to make the game fair for all factions.

Maybe there should be a "Joint Operations" rule or something where factions can pool their resources to carry out a specific mission at a bonus.

Something along the lines of giving certain mission-types a bonus if you have more than one source feeding them (Like a pip on the die for intel gathering-each contributing faction's SF units gain a pip on the die-roll, but only if they share the results between them.)

A real-world example would be CIA cooperating with MI6 (or MI5), the Mossad, and the DGSE to locate a specific terrorist-each has their own sources, and each has to contribute from those sources or it doesn't work-but if they all work together properly, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The natural downside (which can be codified into the mechanic) is that by cooperating closely on a mission, every faction that participates takes a penalty to resisting intel checks by the others.  Not that big a problem for the Clans, unless one is hiding something from the others, but it could be a real problem for IS states since at any time, an ally can turn enemy at the drop of a hat.

I like this idea. I will try to incorporate something like this in as long as I can keep it fairly simple. Probably something like...

Multifaction operations: Two or more factions can cooperate to carry out a single operation, each faction pays X% of the operation's cost, and the roll receives Y bonus (probably +1). Factions undertaking multinational operations also receive a +1 on operations conducted against their ally in the same turn they conduct a joint operations.

Just one idea of how to codify the rule. I'll mull this more.

Overall, I like it, save for one thing. I think the Intel Ratings are needed. Basically, in the revision, the Steel Viper Clan Watch is going to be the qualitative equivalent of the ISF, MIIO, and LIC? I don't feel that is right, and I would not think those factions would be wrong in not caring for it themselves.

Just to reiterate what I kind of buried in a mountain of text above, CSVW would only be qualitiatively equivalent to the ISF if the ISF was operating on the same shoe-string budget as CSVW and getting the same level of relatively poor support (i.e. both were running all their ops at +0). The DC is a big faction, and can afford to run +2 and +3 ops much more than CSV... plus the DC probably has more SF teams in service, greatly increasing their flexibility. So... the ISF still has an advantage, it just isn't a freebie now.

I would suggest that Legendary be a higher skill mod than Heroic; Heroes may live forever, but Legends never die.

I also want to echo the need for national intel ratings; at the very least, there should be some sort of level system for offensive and defensive ops.  An example: the Clans are a very open society with little need for secrecy, so they have a Defensive Rating of 1; the Rim is an open and democratic nation with Freedom of the Press, so they have a Defensive Rating of 2; the Draconis Combine is protected by a pervasive and all-knowing security force and have a Defensive Rating of 3.

Having set ratings determined by how open the society (for defense) and for how good your intel agencies are (for offense) cuts back on intel rating improvements.  Sure, you can make your Offensive Rating better, but no amount of money spent is going to make Google any less effective on Atreus or New Avalon.

The "super skill" ranks were from Flashpoint where Heroic was a rank that only VIP characters could reach (i.e. only the "hero" could have). However, I like your idea, and I may flip those in FGC.

You raised a good point about counterintelligence and domestic surveillance. What are your thoughts on a (fairly expensive) op to defend against enemy intelligence gathering, functioning similar to the Protect Hex Element mission?

I would suggest that Legendary be a higher skill mod than Heroic; Heroes may live forever, but Legends never die.

I also want to echo the need for national intel ratings; at the very least, there should be some sort of level system for offensive and defensive ops.  An example: the Clans are a very open society with little need for secrecy, so they have a Defensive Rating of 1; the Rim is an open and democratic nation with Freedom of the Press, so they have a Defensive Rating of 2; the Draconis Combine is protected by a pervasive and all-knowing security force and have a Defensive Rating of 3.

Having set ratings determined by how open the society (for defense) and for how good your intel agencies are (for offense) cuts back on intel rating improvements.  Sure, you can make your Offensive Rating better, but no amount of money spent is going to make Google any less effective on Atreus or New Avalon.

thing is, Intel ops are by definition different from mere combat.  Consider the effectiveness of Scotland Yard vs. the FBI, for instance.  Similar societies with fairly open internal borders and free press, but the British agency is much more effective at detecting certain types of threats than the Americans are, or you could examine the difference between the Israeli agencies and the Americans, or the French vs. the Americans.

Focus Matters.  An agency that is balls-to-the-wall good at catching foreign infiltrators may be nearly incapable of defending a visiting VIP effectively, while an agency that is good at detecting native dissidents may have a blind-spot where foreign infiltration is concerned.

For simplification, a 'base number' default is probably necessary based on something similar to the intelligence ratings system-but there may be a need for some kind of 'Specialization' score to underscore where a given faction's strengths lie beyond the "Gather/counter" intelligence range.

I like the idea of "intelligence specialization," but it seems the most obvious way to introduce this would be through something like the VIP rules that were being worked on for Flashpoint (and never quite got perfected enough to post). Maybe this is something to add in the future once we ensure the 'core' intel rules are balanced and are functioning properly.

Well, specal ops skill is going to be taken care of a bit by the team ratings, though I wouldn't mind seeing the starting points for less established groups teams as Veteran (the new Watch has only been up and running for a few months, so its hard to imagine that they could put on an elite team on their first try, even if they have combat-elite troops to draw from; its just a difrent skill set to learn.  A micro nation like Randis or Mica might have similar, if not greater, troubles here, or a nation with no infrastructure, such as a Lyran fragment, or a fragment of some other nation that might come to be later on).

As for gathering and countering intel, states that are clever have ways of managing things like free or closed societies (both the USA and USSR had their share of success and falues spying on one another, yet each had a difrent society by and large).  If the ISF is good, they will make the most of their state run news and other forms of controll to keep tight.  But, if VINH is good, then they'll take advantage of the free media to spread disinformation, to obscure the good information in clouds of garbage, and keep the best stuff tightly locked away (conversly, if they're not good, it will all get out some how or another).  So I don't think societal models should really be looked at too closely.  Especaly because its not something that really has a game mechanic (though I'd love to see someone RP out such a change, as we've seen bits of over the years here and there).  Let's just focus on skill of the agency in which ever areas we want to track.

The six turn build actually assumes:

Turn 1: Constructed as Regular unit, spends turn in "exercises"
Turn 2: Trains to Veteran
Turns 3-5: Three turns in "exercises"
Turn 6: Trains to Elite

So theoretically a team could be built at a lower skill level. If this is something that is wanted, I'm not opposed in theory to adding it to the options. I suppose it lets people crank out teams fast if they really need to. I kind of assumed that no one would want a team that would be taking a penalty on every op, but then again you know what they say about assumptions...

The problem becomes one of player tracking, also, I think.  Generally, a Special Forces soldier doesn't have the same skillsets that a civilian Operator would have-in spite of James Bond and Michael Weston, the main activities of a spy revolve around skills like schmoozing, talking, smiling, and reading people.  The soviets had a spy ring inside the U.S. Navy for over twenty years-you may have heard of the case, the Walkers?

Most of what they did involved no violence or violent skills at all-'twas mostly a matter of looking not-guilty and talking one's way to access, with money involved.

Money,
Ideology,
Conscience,
Ego.

MICE was the acronym, it's the four ways you turn someone into a source.  Nowhere in there is gunplay involved.  Intel agencies using HUMINT focus on finding weaknesses-they don't send in commando if they can get it by bribing the janitor, or blackmailing the post-man, and that's really where designing rules becomes tricky-because looking over the mission types, I see one thing standing out: it's James Bond type operations, which only really exist in movies, and are best suited for action-adventure vs. spy thrillers.

Another example from history was Kim Philby-while the Walkers were money-driven, Philby was flipped by Ideology, he honestly believed Communism was the wave of the future.  He was recruited at Eaton long before he ever entered British Intelligence, and did untold amounts of damage once there, while being a highly competent spy for the British whom he was also spying ON.

I really don't know if there is a way to make a short game mechanic that could handle even semi-realistic intelligence ops between nations of that depth.

I actually concur that it is nearly impossible to make a "simple", non-abstract intelligence rule that is realistic. The rules can either be concrete and very complex, or abstract and simple. Since we give people a lot of leeway in writing their RP and since intel is only one facet of a larger game, my preference runs towards abstraction and playability over complexity. Honestly, I kind of think the intel rules are too long even in the draft version, but I understand that the length of that part of the rules is a neccessary evil to ensure game balance.

Cant say I am convinced by the HPG rules. And all next turn already? Will get more problems.

Intel rules are ok so far.

HPG rules will probably not be fully implemented for next turn, though some elements of them (like allowing factions to re-arrange their ICs perhaps) may start to filter in.

If you have specific concerns on the HPG rules or see weaknesses/loopholes/etc in them please post them or PM me and Josh. We don't want to replace one broken rule with another after all.

Wait has the only one unit can be trained to a higher skill level per turn rule been changed?

[Dave Baughman]

It will be changing when the R&D overhaul happens.

There were two critical problems with intel ratings that caused me to kill them:

The first one is mechanical; a bonus of potentially +4 (or a -4 penalty to an enemy) has too much of an impact on the bell curve of probability. This also ties into the second problem, because it causes a "weak" intel organization to actuall have a far higher operating budget than a "strong" one. Special Ops teams were deliberately limited to a +2 modifier, because any more has a massive effect on the probability of an operation's outcome.

The second is financial; a truly high-end intelligence agency costs a lot to operate. The old rules, which gave intel units a free bonus and effectively negated hundreds of RPs of spending on operational bonuses. In effect, it became a case of the CIA costing less to run then, say, Wikileaks. By getting rid of the faction freebie bonuses, things work the way they should: MIIO and ISF can still be extremely powerful agencies, but they have to pay for that superior performance by buying the +2 and +3 modifiers on their rolls. The Watch can make do with their no-mod rolls if they want, or they can choose to pay for the better rolls. Its a financial planning decision, and its a roleplaying decision, but getting rid of the free bonuses at least means that the cost-vs-result equation isn't backwards any more.

Do PFs have any use aside from increasing SF capacity, as far as intelligence ops are concerned(as metafactions won't be conducting much R&D i presume)? I just can't see Clans shunting their PFs off to increase the ICW's SF numbers, but at the same time, the whole point of the ICW is to pool resources...which the new rules definetly hamper. I'm sure the SLDF will face a similar problem, though to a lesser extent with the prevelance of PFs in the IS.

In the revised R&D rules I am working on, PFs have many additional functions that they did not previously have, including interaction with training, strategic token production, exploration, and other "non R&D" functions.

Incidentally, the new limits system actually benefits the ICW. Under the old rules, the SLDF could have up to 10 teams and the ICW count never have any. Most Clans were limited to 3 teams each, when even the TC was allowed 5. The old SF team limits were completely arbitrary and didn't have any means to be overcome.

Basically, just like the skill thing, the "consistent" team limits are designed to make the game fair for all factions.

Maybe there should be a "Joint Operations" rule or something where factions can pool their resources to carry out a specific mission at a bonus.

Something along the lines of giving certain mission-types a bonus if you have more than one source feeding them (Like a pip on the die for intel gathering-each contributing faction's SF units gain a pip on the die-roll, but only if they share the results between them.)

A real-world example would be CIA cooperating with MI6 (or MI5), the Mossad, and the DGSE to locate a specific terrorist-each has their own sources, and each has to contribute from those sources or it doesn't work-but if they all work together properly, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

The natural downside (which can be codified into the mechanic) is that by cooperating closely on a mission, every faction that participates takes a penalty to resisting intel checks by the others.  Not that big a problem for the Clans, unless one is hiding something from the others, but it could be a real problem for IS states since at any time, an ally can turn enemy at the drop of a hat.

I like this idea. I will try to incorporate something like this in as long as I can keep it fairly simple. Probably something like...

Multifaction operations: Two or more factions can cooperate to carry out a single operation, each faction pays X% of the operation's cost, and the roll receives Y bonus (probably +1). Factions undertaking multinational operations also receive a +1 on operations conducted against their ally in the same turn they conduct a joint operations.

Just one idea of how to codify the rule. I'll mull this more.

Overall, I like it, save for one thing. I think the Intel Ratings are needed. Basically, in the revision, the Steel Viper Clan Watch is going to be the qualitative equivalent of the ISF, MIIO, and LIC? I don't feel that is right, and I would not think those factions would be wrong in not caring for it themselves.

Just to reiterate what I kind of buried in a mountain of text above, CSVW would only be qualitiatively equivalent to the ISF if the ISF was operating on the same shoe-string budget as CSVW and getting the same level of relatively poor support (i.e. both were running all their ops at +0). The DC is a big faction, and can afford to run +2 and +3 ops much more than CSV... plus the DC probably has more SF teams in service, greatly increasing their flexibility. So... the ISF still has an advantage, it just isn't a freebie now.

I would suggest that Legendary be a higher skill mod than Heroic; Heroes may live forever, but Legends never die.

I also want to echo the need for national intel ratings; at the very least, there should be some sort of level system for offensive and defensive ops.  An example: the Clans are a very open society with little need for secrecy, so they have a Defensive Rating of 1; the Rim is an open and democratic nation with Freedom of the Press, so they have a Defensive Rating of 2; the Draconis Combine is protected by a pervasive and all-knowing security force and have a Defensive Rating of 3.

Having set ratings determined by how open the society (for defense) and for how good your intel agencies are (for offense) cuts back on intel rating improvements.  Sure, you can make your Offensive Rating better, but no amount of money spent is going to make Google any less effective on Atreus or New Avalon.

The "super skill" ranks were from Flashpoint where Heroic was a rank that only VIP characters could reach (i.e. only the "hero" could have). However, I like your idea, and I may flip those in FGC.

You raised a good point about counterintelligence and domestic surveillance. What are your thoughts on a (fairly expensive) op to defend against enemy intelligence gathering, functioning similar to the Protect Hex Element mission?

I would suggest that Legendary be a higher skill mod than Heroic; Heroes may live forever, but Legends never die.

I also want to echo the need for national intel ratings; at the very least, there should be some sort of level system for offensive and defensive ops.  An example: the Clans are a very open society with little need for secrecy, so they have a Defensive Rating of 1; the Rim is an open and democratic nation with Freedom of the Press, so they have a Defensive Rating of 2; the Draconis Combine is protected by a pervasive and all-knowing security force and have a Defensive Rating of 3.

Having set ratings determined by how open the society (for defense) and for how good your intel agencies are (for offense) cuts back on intel rating improvements.  Sure, you can make your Offensive Rating better, but no amount of money spent is going to make Google any less effective on Atreus or New Avalon.

thing is, Intel ops are by definition different from mere combat.  Consider the effectiveness of Scotland Yard vs. the FBI, for instance.  Similar societies with fairly open internal borders and free press, but the British agency is much more effective at detecting certain types of threats than the Americans are, or you could examine the difference between the Israeli agencies and the Americans, or the French vs. the Americans.

Focus Matters.  An agency that is balls-to-the-wall good at catching foreign infiltrators may be nearly incapable of defending a visiting VIP effectively, while an agency that is good at detecting native dissidents may have a blind-spot where foreign infiltration is concerned.

For simplification, a 'base number' default is probably necessary based on something similar to the intelligence ratings system-but there may be a need for some kind of 'Specialization' score to underscore where a given faction's strengths lie beyond the "Gather/counter" intelligence range.

I like the idea of "intelligence specialization," but it seems the most obvious way to introduce this would be through something like the VIP rules that were being worked on for Flashpoint (and never quite got perfected enough to post). Maybe this is something to add in the future once we ensure the 'core' intel rules are balanced and are functioning properly.

Well, specal ops skill is going to be taken care of a bit by the team ratings, though I wouldn't mind seeing the starting points for less established groups teams as Veteran (the new Watch has only been up and running for a few months, so its hard to imagine that they could put on an elite team on their first try, even if they have combat-elite troops to draw from; its just a difrent skill set to learn.  A micro nation like Randis or Mica might have similar, if not greater, troubles here, or a nation with no infrastructure, such as a Lyran fragment, or a fragment of some other nation that might come to be later on).

As for gathering and countering intel, states that are clever have ways of managing things like free or closed societies (both the USA and USSR had their share of success and falues spying on one another, yet each had a difrent society by and large).  If the ISF is good, they will make the most of their state run news and other forms of controll to keep tight.  But, if VINH is good, then they'll take advantage of the free media to spread disinformation, to obscure the good information in clouds of garbage, and keep the best stuff tightly locked away (conversly, if they're not good, it will all get out some how or another).  So I don't think societal models should really be looked at too closely.  Especaly because its not something that really has a game mechanic (though I'd love to see someone RP out such a change, as we've seen bits of over the years here and there).  Let's just focus on skill of the agency in which ever areas we want to track.

The six turn build actually assumes:

Turn 1: Constructed as Regular unit, spends turn in "exercises"
Turn 2: Trains to Veteran
Turns 3-5: Three turns in "exercises"
Turn 6: Trains to Elite

So theoretically a team could be built at a lower skill level. If this is something that is wanted, I'm not opposed in theory to adding it to the options. I suppose it lets people crank out teams fast if they really need to. I kind of assumed that no one would want a team that would be taking a penalty on every op, but then again you know what they say about assumptions...

The problem becomes one of player tracking, also, I think.  Generally, a Special Forces soldier doesn't have the same skillsets that a civilian Operator would have-in spite of James Bond and Michael Weston, the main activities of a spy revolve around skills like schmoozing, talking, smiling, and reading people.  The soviets had a spy ring inside the U.S. Navy for over twenty years-you may have heard of the case, the Walkers?

Most of what they did involved no violence or violent skills at all-'twas mostly a matter of looking not-guilty and talking one's way to access, with money involved.

Money,
Ideology,
Conscience,
Ego.

MICE was the acronym, it's the four ways you turn someone into a source.  Nowhere in there is gunplay involved.  Intel agencies using HUMINT focus on finding weaknesses-they don't send in commando if they can get it by bribing the janitor, or blackmailing the post-man, and that's really where designing rules becomes tricky-because looking over the mission types, I see one thing standing out: it's James Bond type operations, which only really exist in movies, and are best suited for action-adventure vs. spy thrillers.

Another example from history was Kim Philby-while the Walkers were money-driven, Philby was flipped by Ideology, he honestly believed Communism was the wave of the future.  He was recruited at Eaton long before he ever entered British Intelligence, and did untold amounts of damage once there, while being a highly competent spy for the British whom he was also spying ON.

I really don't know if there is a way to make a short game mechanic that could handle even semi-realistic intelligence ops between nations of that depth.

I actually concur that it is nearly impossible to make a "simple", non-abstract intelligence rule that is realistic. The rules can either be concrete and very complex, or abstract and simple. Since we give people a lot of leeway in writing their RP and since intel is only one facet of a larger game, my preference runs towards abstraction and playability over complexity. Honestly, I kind of think the intel rules are too long even in the draft version, but I understand that the length of that part of the rules is a neccessary evil to ensure game balance.

Cant say I am convinced by the HPG rules. And all next turn already? Will get more problems.

Intel rules are ok so far.

HPG rules will probably not be fully implemented for next turn, though some elements of them (like allowing factions to re-arrange their ICs perhaps) may start to filter in.

If you have specific concerns on the HPG rules or see weaknesses/loopholes/etc in them please post them or PM me and Josh. We don't want to replace one broken rule with another after all.

Wait has the only one unit can be trained to a higher skill level per turn rule been changed?