Rules Questions and Comments

[Daemonknight]

If the IS is listed by Company, it doesn't make sense to list the Clans by Star. Maybe the best option is to use Lance/Star as the 'building block'

[Dave Baughman]

If the IS is listed by Company, it doesn't make sense to list the Clans by Star. Maybe the best option is to use Lance/Star as the 'building block'

Really, the building block for the Clans should be the Trinary. The only reason I suggested stars was to allow for legacy support of binary-sized elements. Unless... is there a game mechanical advantage of supporting a lance-sized building block that I'm overlooking? Bear in mind that doing so would require fairly significant modifications to any equipment tables that are going to be used.

[chaosxtreme]

Just a note don't forget the IS can deploy forces in Combined Arms Formations as well.

So while the FWL does conform to the 4-4-4 we also deploy armor and battle armor regiments along side our mech forces.

We only segregate aerospace into homogenous formations because well it makes things easier.

[Fatebringer]

Chaos's comment brings up the same point for the Clans. The main deployment for the Snow Ravens is a Triad. I don't have a single unit that is NOT combined arms. There are ASF and Elementals everywhere.

[Dave Baughman]

True combined arms, that is at the regiment level or below, will still be fully supported and actually better supported (auto-calculation of FP). Semi-combined arms (i.e. at the brigade level and above) will still be supported, just not at the one-line-item level. You'll have to give each regiment or cluster its own line-item.

[Fatebringer]

I agree totally with the need to cut back. I'd like to see more games as playable. I am guilty of doing cool things with large factions, because I thought it would be awesome. If you heard the words, "Omega Galaxy is coming...", the proper response is to run. I've seen some of these "Mega" armies being posted up by the IS pretending to be Regiments, but people when you try and tell me your "Company' has 27 FP when it's clearly posted that the highest company value in the game is a Clantech company of 12 mechs for 2 FP Face it, that's not a company, that's a regiment, and if you have 6 of those "Companys" in one unit, it's not a regiment, it's an Army.

My Omega Galaxy was designed for fun. It's 4 "Minghinates", with over 200 FP of Munchtastic Miniature Mayhem! The "Minghan Rhimers" (Thousand Stinging Frosts) was literely 1000 units stated out with full support functions. 500 Protos, 500 Elemenentals with enough Vehicles and Mechs to carry them plus Aerospace support to Include Enough Dropships to logistically move the whole unit. So you have lots of Miraborgs, Arcadias and Sassanids. Technically, each Minghinate should be it's own Galaxy considering it carries within it it's own means to travel and minimum 40+ FP. On top of hearing the rumors back when the Dark Age stuff first came out that the Ravens had an all Proto Galaxy, I was also inspired by Starship troupers, the swarms of bugs.

[Fatebringer]

Anwyho, I've finally had time to peruse the BIG post more in depth. When Holt and I were discussing asking to run the game, one of the first things we talked about was turn length. There are too many games going to simple resolution because of time restraints or inactivity. I would support that, but on the other hand, that might lead to even more inactivity as people stop coming to the site because "I have more time." : P

In regards to Infrastructure, there have been some basic issues that seem obvious.

IC - WAY too much money for the cost. Every faction that boasts over a 200 RP income has tons of these and while there may be IC reasons for this, 1/2 your income shouldn't be from comms tech. This game has also cut out Comstar from what they do.  It's just insane.

MF - From now on, don't let MF's make ASF. You'll see A LOT less of them.

SY - Reduce production and income to match MF's, keep the cost the same. Consider them "Advanced" tech because they can produce Jump Cores, Also, if you take the suggestion I posted regarding requiring all ASF to be built as Mobile or LF Mobile, than there is another reduction in the mass transported aero floatillas. Also, offer a trade in or upgrade program. Allow units to either pay the extra cost to upgrade or trade in 3 FP for 1 FP on units. By requiring Jumpships for Mobile / LF Mobile units, you also reduce the size of the units based on the number of jump collars the Dropship has.

PF - There were a lots of suggestions for tying in other things from the game to these facilities. Linked Here

RS - Damn if I didn't bring this up at least 5 times. I don't think they should generate RP at all. Any "Deals" For jump charges should be done In-Game. Reduce the cost and for gods sake up the benefit from these to something useful. Lets say - 48 RP, produced 50 MP, plus give it a set number of charges that can be used by units traveling thru the hex to extend their movement. Consider Mobile and LF-Mobile, double charges for a +2 hex on LF, etc. Plus, the In-Game MP cost is as pathetic as the production from these facilities. 1 to 1? I mean, I offer a standard 50 to 1 rate with deals to trial for half / double rates. Still, offering a 20 to 1 rate is much more realistic and still better than the equally lame deal offered by mercs.

[Daemonknight]

I agree totally with the need to cut back. I'd like to see more games as playable.

can I ask what playable means exactly? Because Dave B fought about half the CJF vs CIH battles as 5 on 5, or 5 on 6 battles, and then applied that to the greater unit. So I fail to see how large formations inhibit MM play. Either way, things will be very different in the future, concerning force sizes. You'll learn more later.

Also, it's been heavily hinted and almsot confirmed, that we are working up a replacement for the MP-based movement system, which would see the end of the Transported/Mobile/LFB Mobile issue as it currently stands. So that whole concept is going to be radiclly different, and with the introduction of military upkeep, it'll curtail alot of the massive military size we currently see. Also, with the way the Corporations interact, trying to build huge individual units will be so cost prohibitive, Dave guesses that a single regiment, maybe 2 for the superpowers, will be the most output we will see in a single turn, as opposed to the whole Galaxies or RCTs that some factions can spam out currently.

PFs are to be used for research, we've been saying that right along. Research and SpecOps teams.

As for building ASF at MFs, thats largely dependant on the corporations that own the MFs. Every faction design you have availible has to be allocated to one of your Corporations, and the 'size' of a Corp will likely influence how many designs are availible to it. So if an Aerospace Corp owns mostly SYs, but has a bunch of ASF designs, theres not much chance that they'll be built at MFs, unless you want to pay the exorbitant surcharge for the joint venture.

We know the RS is a peice of crap. As you say, you've said it time and again. and again...and again. The current rules are not going to be updated, because Dave is developing the next version. So instead of XP SP4, think Win7 64-bit. Its not an update to the current rules, its basiclly a new set of rules that bear some similarities to the old ones(especially the combat rules, I don't think those are changing a whole lot).

as for the thing about turn length, I don't really see a point in that post, what're you getting at? It seems that you think we should change the turn length, but your post indicates that longer or shorter turns are equally bad options...so I'm confused. And it also sounds like you think combat going to SimRes is a bad thing...why might I ask?

[Fatebringer]

And it also sounds like you think combat going to SimRes is a bad thing...why might I ask?

Because some of us want to play Battletech, not just MechCommander.

[chaosxtreme]

Yeah I understand the necessity for simres. But it will always be treated by me as a method of last result. The two are not equal in my opinion.

Any attack I make that is significant to me I want to play it out if possible.

Any attack I make that is significant to someonelse I am up for MM. If someone needs vollunteer's I try to make time.

Now the 1FP Militia squash's yeah fine simres.


Your Vorzel's, Coventry's, Tamar's and Second Sudeten's when those are SimRes'ed it is a crying shame.


I don't know maybe there needs to be a winner and a loser incentive. The winner gets a bigger salvage haul.


Maybe if the loser got something like I don't know 20% of his destroyed forces reconstitutes on the nearest capital (regional or provincial) 3 turn's after the end of the battle we would see more people going "MM rockon".

The winner win's the loser in some case's invariably goes "darn I should have SimRes'ed" Which I don't truly understand because when things get bad for me (clear loss) I start heading for the most distant map edge alla "escape and invade".

But then the FWL is firmly in the "You don't win by dying for your country" camp.

[Daemonknight]

Honestly, considering the number of Trials and invasions that've been generated these first 3 turns, if there is a lack of MegaMek going on, it is a lack of interest in playing MegaMek, not a lack of games availible to be played.

[Daemonknight]

And one the other side of that coin, MegaMek might be fun for people who are good at the game, but it's decidedly NOT fun for someone who simply doesn't have alot of talent for the game. I don't enjoy MegaMeking my battles, because people want to play semi-even battles, which puts a bad player(me) at a disadvantage versus other more seasoned players which is not representative of my factions. I SimRes, because atleast then, my fate is in the hands of luck, and not in the hands of a far superior player.

Auto-fails are not fun, and thats basiclly what MM is for me. Others might feel the same way, and I feel that heavily incentivising MM play, puts those who either can't or don't wish to play, at an unfair disadvantage compared to the more highly skilled players.

[Dave Baughman]

And one the other side of that coin, MegaMek might be fun for people who are good at the game, but it's decidedly NOT fun for someone who simply doesn't have alot of talent for the game. I don't enjoy MegaMeking my battles, because people want to play semi-even battles, which puts a bad player(me) at a disadvantage versus other more seasoned players which is not representative of my factions. I SimRes, because atleast then, my fate is in the hands of luck, and not in the hands of a far superior player.

Auto-fails are not fun, and thats basiclly what MM is for me. Others might feel the same way, and I feel that heavily incentivising MM play, puts those who either can't or don't wish to play, at an unfair disadvantage compared to the more highly skilled players.

I think part of the answer is to move away from the binary "MegaMek or SimRez" setup to embrace more options. I personally think that it is totally legit to play out battles in MechWarrior 4 multiplayer, for example, as long as we can find a balanced way to run and score such games. I'd also be open to Living Legends, Assault Tech 1, Mech Assault 2, or whatever other BattleTech game floats your boat as long as its implemented into our rules in a controlled and fair way. In my mind, the more options, the merrier.

[Dave Baughman]

So I had an idea today. It is predicated on a couple of points:

1) Guerilla Warfare is so laden-down with restrictions that it doesn't work right. It also involves too much book-keeping.
2) The point was made at one point that other than GM fiat there is no reason for Guerilla Warfare to not work with aero units. After all, the idea of a Leopard-CV staging daring raids from some remote asteroid hideout is totally plausible within the narrative framework of the game.
3) We have this order, called Commerce Disruption, that is poorly understood by many players and rarely used.

What are your thoughts on...

1) Deleting the entire current Guerilla Warfare rule in its entirety, including the Guerilla Warfare damage table.
2) Renaming Commerce Disruption something more Guerilla-ish... or not. This is definitely an optional step.
3) Remove all of the unit type restrictions from Commerce Disruption - ground and aero units can do it with equal success.
4) Change it into a special order with some raid-like qualities, but other invasion-like qualities (10 FP force limit, can use pirate insertion for a bonus on the roll, can be used as an operational order during an Invasion scenario... but no forced return and doesn't "use" a raid order for raid limit purposes)

This would simplify the execution of guerilla warfare operations by streamlining the rule, get rid of a lot of the book-keeping, and retain its core elements. It would eliminate the highly obnoxious ability of guerillas to totally contest a hex (though this is something that needs to be clarified about commerce disruption anyway, since as written it would contest a hex if the commerce raiders stayed in their target hex at the end of the turn) without taking away their ability to be a lasting pain in the neck that neccessitates a long-term garrison by the invaders.

[Dave Baughman]

Very much worthy of mention, BTW - credit goes to CS for getting me thinking of possible changes to make Commerce Disruption more raid-like in its operation. While its an invasion for real in-game reasons, his discussion of a possible re-imaging of the order got me looking at ways to improve it.