info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: [tin-soldier] playtest thoughts
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Oct 8, 2013, 8:09:05 PM10/8/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>With the movement decay mechanic (which I _love_ on the board),
>there's clearly a need for a "do nothing" action. (It might even
>become a "Cool Down" action...)
Having it dissipate extra heat would be pretty handy.
>If you jump, then walk as your next action, should your movement flag
>drop to 2 or stay at 3?
2, I think.
>The Phoenix Hawk is often choosing whether to fire one large laser or
>two mediums. The two mediums do more damage and produce less heat. Why
>would it ever fire the large?
Weapon range? :-)
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Clown shoes. I hope that doesn't bother you.
Today is Second Chedday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Second Stilday, September - a weekend.
>With the movement decay mechanic (which I _love_ on the board),
>there's clearly a need for a "do nothing" action. (It might even
>become a "Cool Down" action...)
Having it dissipate extra heat would be pretty handy.
>If you jump, then walk as your next action, should your movement flag
>drop to 2 or stay at 3?
2, I think.
>The Phoenix Hawk is often choosing whether to fire one large laser or
>two mediums. The two mediums do more damage and produce less heat. Why
>would it ever fire the large?
Weapon range? :-)
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
Clown shoes. I hope that doesn't bother you.
Today is Second Chedday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Second Stilday, September - a weekend.
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Oct 11, 2013, 8:51:16 PM10/11/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>auto cooling per turn: you _only_ drop heat when you take a Cool
>Down. (Unless your heat dissipation has gone negative, in which case
>you gain heat per activation and can no longer Cool Down.)
Ah. I wonder if perchance this switches the balance between energy and
ammo weapons too much the other way? (The IS ER PPC still seems to have
been designed by a lunatic.)
It also seems like it makes a Cool Down practically unavoidable after any
serious volley, because the penalties for even 15 heat are so strong. (In
particular, a 3/5/0 will shut down at the end of the turn...)
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is First Teleute, October.
Tomorrow will be First Oneiros, October.
>On 2013-10-09, David Damerell wrote:
>>Having it dissipate extra heat would be pretty handy.
>Ah, it's nastier than that. As I've just set it up, there's no more
>>Having it dissipate extra heat would be pretty handy.
>auto cooling per turn: you _only_ drop heat when you take a Cool
>Down. (Unless your heat dissipation has gone negative, in which case
>you gain heat per activation and can no longer Cool Down.)
Ah. I wonder if perchance this switches the balance between energy and
ammo weapons too much the other way? (The IS ER PPC still seems to have
been designed by a lunatic.)
It also seems like it makes a Cool Down practically unavoidable after any
serious volley, because the penalties for even 15 heat are so strong. (In
particular, a 3/5/0 will shut down at the end of the turn...)
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is First Teleute, October.
Tomorrow will be First Oneiros, October.
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Oct 12, 2013, 9:55:22 AM10/12/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>lance on lance. So squeezing out the occasional extra action for a
>Cool Down shouldn't be a major problem, and at the company scale
>that's one of the commander's jobs, to bring in lance B to bash the
>enemy while lance A is cooling off.
Yes. On reflection, of course, a unit does usually expect more than 2
actions a turn if the command structure is working... although it does
introduce the fresh cognitive dissonance of the commander saying "Bob!
Press the heatsink button!"
>>It also seems like it makes a Cool Down practically unavoidable after any
>>serious volley, because the penalties for even 15 heat are so strong. (In
>>particular, a 3/5/0 will shut down at the end of the turn...)
>Is my BattleTech play style showing through? :-)
Mine, I confess, goes something like "Assemble as many AWS-8Qs as
possible."
I was thinking about this and the Phoenix Hawk question, and suggest that
one option might be not to derive the damage values directly from
BattleTech, with higher damage weapons getting more bang per buck, so that
hitting someone with a PPC is better than hitting them with two medium
lasers (as it is in BattleTech because of the concentration of damage, at
least until you get to critfinder weapons like the LB autocannons), either
because the damage value is greater than 10 or because the damage value of
individual shots is compared with the armour value... somehow.
This tips the balance back a bit to the big energy weapons (it also makes
the AC/20 fearsome, but it's short-ranged... and it's fearsome in
Battletech too) and further differentiates weapons. I think the difficulty
with getting it right, though, is that if both ML and LL are in range a
naive implementation results in the Phoenix Hawk doing maths for five
minutes to work out what to fire; the advantage of large weapons and
whether or not it applies has to be obvious (and, I would argue,
compelling enough that the only question for the Phoenix Hawk is "can I
afford the heat?", if the advantage does apply).
Adding a modest damage absorbing effect based on the target's Armour might
do it, applying per-shot. The Phoenix Hawk is then comparing (10-2n)
damage with (8-n), which is an easy calculation. It does mean (obviously)
that combat got on average less lethal, and presumably hence that Armour
needs to come down or the hazard roll needs to change.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is First Oneiros, October.
Tomorrow will be First Mania, October.
>lance on lance. So squeezing out the occasional extra action for a
>Cool Down shouldn't be a major problem, and at the company scale
>that's one of the commander's jobs, to bring in lance B to bash the
>enemy while lance A is cooling off.
Yes. On reflection, of course, a unit does usually expect more than 2
actions a turn if the command structure is working... although it does
introduce the fresh cognitive dissonance of the commander saying "Bob!
Press the heatsink button!"
>>It also seems like it makes a Cool Down practically unavoidable after any
>>serious volley, because the penalties for even 15 heat are so strong. (In
>>particular, a 3/5/0 will shut down at the end of the turn...)
Mine, I confess, goes something like "Assemble as many AWS-8Qs as
possible."
I was thinking about this and the Phoenix Hawk question, and suggest that
one option might be not to derive the damage values directly from
BattleTech, with higher damage weapons getting more bang per buck, so that
hitting someone with a PPC is better than hitting them with two medium
lasers (as it is in BattleTech because of the concentration of damage, at
least until you get to critfinder weapons like the LB autocannons), either
because the damage value is greater than 10 or because the damage value of
individual shots is compared with the armour value... somehow.
This tips the balance back a bit to the big energy weapons (it also makes
the AC/20 fearsome, but it's short-ranged... and it's fearsome in
Battletech too) and further differentiates weapons. I think the difficulty
with getting it right, though, is that if both ML and LL are in range a
naive implementation results in the Phoenix Hawk doing maths for five
minutes to work out what to fire; the advantage of large weapons and
whether or not it applies has to be obvious (and, I would argue,
compelling enough that the only question for the Phoenix Hawk is "can I
afford the heat?", if the advantage does apply).
Adding a modest damage absorbing effect based on the target's Armour might
do it, applying per-shot. The Phoenix Hawk is then comparing (10-2n)
damage with (8-n), which is an easy calculation. It does mean (obviously)
that combat got on average less lethal, and presumably hence that Armour
needs to come down or the hazard roll needs to change.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is First Oneiros, October.
Tomorrow will be First Mania, October.
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Oct 14, 2013, 8:28:11 PM10/14/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
I think it's _easier_ to believe in the command structure pointing out a
firing opportunity, at least...
>In my ideal game, the AC/20 stays fearsome, the HBK-4P Swayback is a
>sensible variant to the Hunchback but not one you choose
>automatically, and the Gauss Rifle doesn't become the ultimate
>weapon. Oh, and all weapon stats are derived programmatically from BT
>stats rather than through my individual choice.
It may be difficult to avoid the GR becoming the ultimate weapon in a
system which has tipped the balance back towards low-heat ammo weapons. At
least it doesn't headcap anymore.
>So you have a bunch of individual damage numbers vs an armour
>total. When damage is equal or higher, hazard dice =
>int(damage/armour) as in the current system, though you lose a bit to
>rounding errors. When damage is lower, roll d6 to exceed
>int(armour/damage) in order to generate a single hazard die.
This seems heavier on arithmetic. Conversely, it's hard for the damage
reduction idea not to stiff the SRM-6 quite badly.
Idea #1: each hit from a weapon whose damage exceeds Armour causes an
automatic critical (Armour reduction and critical roll, and
terminologically, can we avoid the situation where a "critical" reduces
Armour and gives a roll that every BT player will think of as a critical,
please?) in addition to the hazard dice scored by total damage.
This is why that Griffin pilot soils himself when a Hunchback arrives, and
the Phoenix Hawk will fire his Large Laser at an undamaged Wasp because
it will burn right through if it hits. It also explains why the light
'Mechs start at 5 Armour; against medium lasers, a hit has to crack the
shell before they start to fall apart.
Idea #2: A roll of 1 that is a hit does not cause a hazard die. If the
first roll to hit of a volley is a 1, it causes a critical. The effect is
about the same with mid-sized volleys, better with singleton weapons but
doesn't come up very often, but does not incentivise Swayback-style spammy
weapons.
Idea #3: If the target's Armour >= 2.5 times the individual shot's
damage, criticals just reduce Armour. This is a bit drastic, but it might
reduce the "once you lose, you keep losing" factor, and explains the
Hunchback's attraction; where a medium laser has to chew the target down
to 12 armour, a large laser to 19, or even a PPC to 24 (which explains why
so many of the tougher assault 'Mechs have slightly higher values), the
HBK can do internal damage straight off the bat against anything alive.
(Of course, so can the Gauss Rifle, but I don't try to fix MunchkinTech.
:-/ )
The crits in a volley are resolved sequentially (ie, if I hit someone with
a million medium lasers, they are not then left completely naked but
otherwise unscratched because they started with 13 Armour.)
(These all go together in my head, not 3 disjoint bits).
Today is First Aponoia, October.
Tomorrow will be First Epithumia, October - a weekend.
>On 2013-10-12, David Damerell wrote:
>>Yes. On reflection, of course, a unit does usually expect more than 2
>>actions a turn if the command structure is working... although it does
>>introduce the fresh cognitive dissonance of the commander saying "Bob!
>>Press the heatsink button!"
>Yeah, well, this applies to fire too.
>>Yes. On reflection, of course, a unit does usually expect more than 2
>>actions a turn if the command structure is working... although it does
>>introduce the fresh cognitive dissonance of the commander saying "Bob!
>>Press the heatsink button!"
I think it's _easier_ to believe in the command structure pointing out a
firing opportunity, at least...
>In my ideal game, the AC/20 stays fearsome, the HBK-4P Swayback is a
>sensible variant to the Hunchback but not one you choose
>automatically, and the Gauss Rifle doesn't become the ultimate
>weapon. Oh, and all weapon stats are derived programmatically from BT
>stats rather than through my individual choice.
It may be difficult to avoid the GR becoming the ultimate weapon in a
system which has tipped the balance back towards low-heat ammo weapons. At
least it doesn't headcap anymore.
>So you have a bunch of individual damage numbers vs an armour
>total. When damage is equal or higher, hazard dice =
>int(damage/armour) as in the current system, though you lose a bit to
>rounding errors. When damage is lower, roll d6 to exceed
>int(armour/damage) in order to generate a single hazard die.
This seems heavier on arithmetic. Conversely, it's hard for the damage
reduction idea not to stiff the SRM-6 quite badly.
Idea #1: each hit from a weapon whose damage exceeds Armour causes an
automatic critical (Armour reduction and critical roll, and
terminologically, can we avoid the situation where a "critical" reduces
Armour and gives a roll that every BT player will think of as a critical,
please?) in addition to the hazard dice scored by total damage.
This is why that Griffin pilot soils himself when a Hunchback arrives, and
the Phoenix Hawk will fire his Large Laser at an undamaged Wasp because
it will burn right through if it hits. It also explains why the light
'Mechs start at 5 Armour; against medium lasers, a hit has to crack the
shell before they start to fall apart.
Idea #2: A roll of 1 that is a hit does not cause a hazard die. If the
first roll to hit of a volley is a 1, it causes a critical. The effect is
about the same with mid-sized volleys, better with singleton weapons but
doesn't come up very often, but does not incentivise Swayback-style spammy
weapons.
Idea #3: If the target's Armour >= 2.5 times the individual shot's
damage, criticals just reduce Armour. This is a bit drastic, but it might
reduce the "once you lose, you keep losing" factor, and explains the
Hunchback's attraction; where a medium laser has to chew the target down
to 12 armour, a large laser to 19, or even a PPC to 24 (which explains why
so many of the tougher assault 'Mechs have slightly higher values), the
HBK can do internal damage straight off the bat against anything alive.
(Of course, so can the Gauss Rifle, but I don't try to fix MunchkinTech.
:-/ )
The crits in a volley are resolved sequentially (ie, if I hit someone with
a million medium lasers, they are not then left completely naked but
otherwise unscratched because they started with 13 Armour.)
(These all go together in my head, not 3 disjoint bits).
Today is First Aponoia, October.
Tomorrow will be First Epithumia, October - a weekend.
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Oct 16, 2013, 6:28:59 PM10/16/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>bit.
To be fair it has to be compared with other 305x weapons, though.
>>Idea #1: each hit from a weapon whose damage exceeds Armour causes an
>>automatic critical
>This is encouragement to use the big weapons on everyone, rather than
>small weapons on small targets.
Well, not everyone, but only the very smallest targets. I know it's not
where we started trying to get to, but it does differentiate weapons.
>previous problem. I don't think anyone's ever going to find a use for
>the small laser on the Awesome (apart from heating the pilot's
>coffee).
I have! It's worth remembering the Awesome is an 80-tonner and in extremis
can put the boot in quite effectively, especially if the opponent is
sporting enough to stand next to a level-1 hill. Under those circumstances
you might as well zap them with the small laser. I am sympathetic, though,
to Keith's theory that the small laser isn't actually a weapon, it's just
that the rangefinder is stupidly overpowered on an -8Q. But I digress.
>Requires separation of the first roll from all the others. One of my
>core design principles is that you should never be in the position of
>saying "this die needs to roll _this_, those dice need to roll
>_that_", i.e. having to roll them separately. That's why you only get
>to make one sort of attack (though if a SHD-2H has a target in range
>7-9 it can use the AC/5, the ML and the LRM-5 all at once), so that
This is not how I interpreted "must all have the same range, accuracy, and
damage characteristics"...
>you don't need lots of multicoloured dice... or a Box of Death, a
>pillbox or similar container with 2d6 in each compartment to let you
>make lots of rolls but keep them ordered.
Well, a physically distinct d20 would do it.
>Possibly workable, though having to calculate that 2.5 isn't ideal.
The 2.5 can be precalculated on the 'Mech's stat sheet in the weapons
section.
>>The crits in a volley are resolved sequentially (ie, if I hit someone with
>>a million medium lasers, they are not then left completely naked but
>>otherwise unscratched because they started with 13 Armour.)
>Too slow I fear, unless hybridised. (I've got 8 crits on you from
>5-point attacks, you have 16 armour; you lose 8 armour, and take 4
>crit rolls.)
That's really all I mean.
Today is First Olethros, October - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Gaiman, October - a public holiday.
>On 2013-10-15, David Damerell wrote:
>>It may be difficult to avoid the GR becoming the ultimate weapon in a
>>system which has tipped the balance back towards low-heat ammo weapons. At
>>least it doesn't headcap anymore.
>Yeah, I think this is something I'm going to have to play with for a
>>It may be difficult to avoid the GR becoming the ultimate weapon in a
>>system which has tipped the balance back towards low-heat ammo weapons. At
>>least it doesn't headcap anymore.
>bit.
To be fair it has to be compared with other 305x weapons, though.
>>Idea #1: each hit from a weapon whose damage exceeds Armour causes an
>>automatic critical
>small weapons on small targets.
Well, not everyone, but only the very smallest targets. I know it's not
where we started trying to get to, but it does differentiate weapons.
>previous problem. I don't think anyone's ever going to find a use for
>the small laser on the Awesome (apart from heating the pilot's
>coffee).
I have! It's worth remembering the Awesome is an 80-tonner and in extremis
can put the boot in quite effectively, especially if the opponent is
sporting enough to stand next to a level-1 hill. Under those circumstances
you might as well zap them with the small laser. I am sympathetic, though,
to Keith's theory that the small laser isn't actually a weapon, it's just
that the rangefinder is stupidly overpowered on an -8Q. But I digress.
>Requires separation of the first roll from all the others. One of my
>core design principles is that you should never be in the position of
>saying "this die needs to roll _this_, those dice need to roll
>_that_", i.e. having to roll them separately. That's why you only get
>to make one sort of attack (though if a SHD-2H has a target in range
>7-9 it can use the AC/5, the ML and the LRM-5 all at once), so that
This is not how I interpreted "must all have the same range, accuracy, and
damage characteristics"...
>you don't need lots of multicoloured dice... or a Box of Death, a
>pillbox or similar container with 2d6 in each compartment to let you
>make lots of rolls but keep them ordered.
Well, a physically distinct d20 would do it.
>Possibly workable, though having to calculate that 2.5 isn't ideal.
The 2.5 can be precalculated on the 'Mech's stat sheet in the weapons
section.
>>The crits in a volley are resolved sequentially (ie, if I hit someone with
>>a million medium lasers, they are not then left completely naked but
>>otherwise unscratched because they started with 13 Armour.)
>5-point attacks, you have 16 armour; you lose 8 armour, and take 4
>crit rolls.)
That's really all I mean.
Today is First Olethros, October - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Gaiman, October - a public holiday.
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Oct 25, 2013, 8:07:39 PM10/25/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
Er, well. I thought the previous rule that let you group identical weapons
and LRM/SRMs was all very well, but this does rather feel arbitary now -
in particular, the good old Medium Laser just got better because now it
groups with the AC/5.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is Monday, October.
Tomorrow will be Tuesday, October.
>On 2013-10-16, David Damerell wrote:
>>This is not how I interpreted "must all have the same range, accuracy, and
>>damage characteristics"...
>It's now "the same to-hit number and damage characteristics".
>>This is not how I interpreted "must all have the same range, accuracy, and
>>damage characteristics"...
Er, well. I thought the previous rule that let you group identical weapons
and LRM/SRMs was all very well, but this does rather feel arbitary now -
in particular, the good old Medium Laser just got better because now it
groups with the AC/5.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is Monday, October.
Tomorrow will be Tuesday, October.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Nov 6, 2013, 4:47:19 PM11/6/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>This does mean that SRMs, and even more so LRMs, don't do critical
>damage until a 'Mech is nearly dead. Using a missile boat will leave
>the enemy with armour stripped off, but a relatively intact
>'Mech. (Until the armour is down to the last few points.) Is that a
>bad thing?
I think I may have to play this before trying to comment further, but that
might counteract the "lots of chances to roll a 1" effect. In general (as
noted) TS seems to have improved ammo weapons... ha, especially since the
"number of missiles" table is gone, which unless I am mistaken has
near-doubled the effectiveness of the LRM and SRM, so perhaps this would
not be overwhelming.
Tomorrow will be Gorgonzoladay, October - a weekend.
>This does mean that SRMs, and even more so LRMs, don't do critical
>damage until a 'Mech is nearly dead. Using a missile boat will leave
>the enemy with armour stripped off, but a relatively intact
>'Mech. (Until the armour is down to the last few points.) Is that a
>bad thing?
I think I may have to play this before trying to comment further, but that
might counteract the "lots of chances to roll a 1" effect. In general (as
noted) TS seems to have improved ammo weapons... ha, especially since the
"number of missiles" table is gone, which unless I am mistaken has
near-doubled the effectiveness of the LRM and SRM, so perhaps this would
not be overwhelming.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is Stilday, October - a weekend.
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Tomorrow will be Gorgonzoladay, October - a weekend.
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Nov 6, 2013, 6:57:49 PM11/6/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>I'm much more interested in
>games where you go in with what you've got rather than what you'd like
>to have. After all, the JagerMech still turns up in 3025 force rosters
>despite being completely rubbish by those rules.
Mmm. I suppose all I'm saying is it would be nice if, under the Tin
Soldier rules, no book design is better than the Awesome is (in
3025-land) or worse than the JagerMech is under vanilla rules.
>I'm much more interested in
>games where you go in with what you've got rather than what you'd like
>to have. After all, the JagerMech still turns up in 3025 force rosters
>despite being completely rubbish by those rules.
Mmm. I suppose all I'm saying is it would be nice if, under the Tin
Soldier rules, no book design is better than the Awesome is (in
3025-land) or worse than the JagerMech is under vanilla rules.
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Nov 7, 2013, 1:38:20 PM11/7/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>That seems a legitimate goal. I'm explicitly disclaiming any
>correlation with BV (in any of its forms); I suppose I might
>eventually come up with some sort of points system, but rather than go
>for "balanced" battles I'm more inclined to use it for more realistic,
>uneven, fights -- where it may be fairly clear who's likely to win,
>but the fight is a matter of maximising enemy losses while minimising
>your own.
_Close Action_ has a lot of those. One difficulty seems to be that as
damage reduces maneuver, it almost always results in a complete massacre
of the weaker side. I wonder if the super-range weapons of TS will help by
making it difficult to advance?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Today is Gorgonzoladay, October - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Potmos, November.
>That seems a legitimate goal. I'm explicitly disclaiming any
>correlation with BV (in any of its forms); I suppose I might
>eventually come up with some sort of points system, but rather than go
>for "balanced" battles I'm more inclined to use it for more realistic,
>uneven, fights -- where it may be fairly clear who's likely to win,
>but the fight is a matter of maximising enemy losses while minimising
>your own.
_Close Action_ has a lot of those. One difficulty seems to be that as
damage reduces maneuver, it almost always results in a complete massacre
of the weaker side. I wonder if the super-range weapons of TS will help by
making it difficult to advance?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Oil is for sissies
Today is Gorgonzoladay, October - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Potmos, November.
David Damerell
Nov 11, 2013, 2:36:18 AM11/11/13
to
I had a thought, and this seems as good a place as any. In Tin Soldier, a
commander may be more valuable commanding than firing their own guns,
especially if their subordinates are glass cannons but with plenty of
high-weight low-heat guns. What does a commander's Mech look like, then?
Rather than a fearsome weapons suite, it would ideally like to be fast
to keep the commander out of trouble and/or heavily armoured; if it has
weapons, they can be short-ranged, because trouble will come to it.
All of a sudden, the Charger has a role to play, and so does the Ostscout.
So do the 4/6/0 (and 4/6/4) assault 'Mechs. They can run away from 3/5/0s,
and they carry AC/20s or BattleMaster-ish arrays of SRMs and MLs not to
close the range and use them, but to blow the doors off light 'Mechs that
come targeting the command staff.
Today is Mania, November.
Tomorrow will be Aponoia, November.
commander may be more valuable commanding than firing their own guns,
especially if their subordinates are glass cannons but with plenty of
high-weight low-heat guns. What does a commander's Mech look like, then?
Rather than a fearsome weapons suite, it would ideally like to be fast
to keep the commander out of trouble and/or heavily armoured; if it has
weapons, they can be short-ranged, because trouble will come to it.
All of a sudden, the Charger has a role to play, and so does the Ostscout.
So do the 4/6/0 (and 4/6/4) assault 'Mechs. They can run away from 3/5/0s,
and they carry AC/20s or BattleMaster-ish arrays of SRMs and MLs not to
close the range and use them, but to blow the doors off light 'Mechs that
come targeting the command staff.
Today is Mania, November.
Tomorrow will be Aponoia, November.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Nov 11, 2013, 9:13:12 PM11/11/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>There will be some sort of lightweight campaign system for Tin
>Soldier; I just don't know what form it'll take yet. Part of the
>problem with campaigns of one force against another is that once one
>side starts losing, it tends to keep losing, producing non-fun
>battles.
For _Silent Death_ we overcame this with an explicitly gamey force
selection mechanic; all campaign battles to equal points value [1]. A force
in worse shape would enjoy a more limited force selection because of lost
or damaged units, but would still bring the same weight of metal to the
table.
Part of the difficulty, I suppose, is the 4X problem; strategically, you
spend all your time trying to make tactical battles as boring as possible.
[1] Well, a fair points value - there might be an uneven scenario with a
lesser fleet trying to escape, but then the players would bid points
budgets for one side or other.
>There will be some sort of lightweight campaign system for Tin
>Soldier; I just don't know what form it'll take yet. Part of the
>problem with campaigns of one force against another is that once one
>side starts losing, it tends to keep losing, producing non-fun
>battles.
For _Silent Death_ we overcame this with an explicitly gamey force
selection mechanic; all campaign battles to equal points value [1]. A force
in worse shape would enjoy a more limited force selection because of lost
or damaged units, but would still bring the same weight of metal to the
table.
Part of the difficulty, I suppose, is the 4X problem; strategically, you
spend all your time trying to make tactical battles as boring as possible.
[1] Well, a fair points value - there might be an uneven scenario with a
lesser fleet trying to escape, but then the players would bid points
budgets for one side or other.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Nov 12, 2013, 6:33:52 PM11/12/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>>Part of the difficulty, I suppose, is the 4X problem; strategically, you
>>spend all your time trying to make tactical battles as boring as possible.
>And the other way round: if small battles don't feed into overall
>>Part of the difficulty, I suppose, is the 4X problem; strategically, you
>>spend all your time trying to make tactical battles as boring as possible.
>campaign success, it all starts to feel a bit pointless.
I tried to address that with continuity; because crewmembers gained
experience and skills, although those figured into points value, there was
a sense of progress; giving players a facility to name crewmembers helped
with that. On top of that factions gained prestige by winning battles, so
tactical victory didn't make later tactical victory easier, but it did
make it clear who had won.
>Alternatively one could start each side with several separate
>companies, and use a low-resolution map system like the one in
>http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/88884/basic-campaign-rules-for-ogre
>to determine when they meet each other. So that would be battalion to
>regiment scale, 3-9 company-sized manoeuvre units per side.
I've tried that approach once or twice. The difficulty seems to be
threefold; first of all, it's hard to avoid the bigger-hammer approach
where the right approach is to concentrate all force at one point.
Secondly, when it comes down to it, you're probably there to play the
tactical game - the function of the campaign is to provide tactical
scenarios, and it should do so as quickly as possible. Thirdly, a lot of
the tactical scenarios come out as kerb stompings.
Today is Aponoia, November.
Tomorrow will be Epithumia, November - a weekend.
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Nov 13, 2013, 2:39:09 PM11/13/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>available point value for the next battle, but they do change what
>specific units you can bring on. (On the losing end you might be stuck
>with a huge mob of militia and reservists against a small
>well-equipped force.)
Crew skill didn't have so great an effect (as it doesn't in BattleTech, to
get briefly back OT; one 2/2 Mechwarrior is perhaps a match for two 6/6s
in like machines, but surely not three...) but yes, that's the idea.
No-one should ever think they're screwed before battle begins; somewhat
vexed, perhaps, but not screwed.
>Thirdly rolls into secondly, I think -- the function of the campaign
>is to provide _fun_ tactical scenarios, which means in practice
>"battles where either side has a reasonable chance of
>winning". ("Winning" may be defined by the scenario, for example as
>"getting your smaller force off the board safely".)
I think once you've abandoned the pretence that the campaign is anything
but a scenario generator, points bidding is a pretty good way to handle
uneven scenarios; if there are no surprises, anyway, much as I like
surprises.
>A flaw: if you think you're going to lose, you give up on improving
>pilots and bring on a fresh high-sophistication force for each battle,
>so that later on you have them to choose from. A fix: charge some
>other resource for the reinforcements you actually _do_ bring in,
>possibly "favours with high command"; they'll think better of you if
>you win the campaign without needing lots of extra troops.
We did this with income which drops with maintenance (so a shattered force
can rebuild) but rises with prestige (so a victorious force has an easier
time in force selection), combined with an assertion that there was a
generally respected convention for return of captured pilots, and a rate
of pilot death high enough to be noticeable but not overwhelming; and a
rule that you bought reinforcements first, saw the scenario second. This
meant that everything you bought, you bought with a view to the long-term
uses.
Tomorrow will be Olethros, November - a weekend.
>On 2013-11-12, David Damerell wrote:
>>I tried to address that with continuity; because crewmembers gained
>>experience and skills, although those figured into points value, there was
>>a sense of progress; giving players a facility to name crewmembers helped
>>with that. On top of that factions gained prestige by winning battles, so
>>tactical victory didn't make later tactical victory easier, but it did
>>make it clear who had won.
>Interesting. So again your victories/defeats don't change the
>>I tried to address that with continuity; because crewmembers gained
>>experience and skills, although those figured into points value, there was
>>a sense of progress; giving players a facility to name crewmembers helped
>>with that. On top of that factions gained prestige by winning battles, so
>>tactical victory didn't make later tactical victory easier, but it did
>>make it clear who had won.
>available point value for the next battle, but they do change what
>specific units you can bring on. (On the losing end you might be stuck
>with a huge mob of militia and reservists against a small
>well-equipped force.)
Crew skill didn't have so great an effect (as it doesn't in BattleTech, to
get briefly back OT; one 2/2 Mechwarrior is perhaps a match for two 6/6s
in like machines, but surely not three...) but yes, that's the idea.
No-one should ever think they're screwed before battle begins; somewhat
vexed, perhaps, but not screwed.
>Thirdly rolls into secondly, I think -- the function of the campaign
>is to provide _fun_ tactical scenarios, which means in practice
>"battles where either side has a reasonable chance of
>winning". ("Winning" may be defined by the scenario, for example as
>"getting your smaller force off the board safely".)
I think once you've abandoned the pretence that the campaign is anything
but a scenario generator, points bidding is a pretty good way to handle
uneven scenarios; if there are no surprises, anyway, much as I like
surprises.
>A flaw: if you think you're going to lose, you give up on improving
>pilots and bring on a fresh high-sophistication force for each battle,
>so that later on you have them to choose from. A fix: charge some
>other resource for the reinforcements you actually _do_ bring in,
>possibly "favours with high command"; they'll think better of you if
>you win the campaign without needing lots of extra troops.
We did this with income which drops with maintenance (so a shattered force
can rebuild) but rises with prestige (so a victorious force has an easier
time in force selection), combined with an assertion that there was a
generally respected convention for return of captured pilots, and a rate
of pilot death high enough to be noticeable but not overwhelming; and a
rule that you bought reinforcements first, saw the scenario second. This
meant that everything you bought, you bought with a view to the long-term
uses.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is Epithumia, November - a weekend.
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Tomorrow will be Olethros, November - a weekend.
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Nov 15, 2013, 5:17:33 PM11/15/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>On 2013-11-13, David Damerell wrote:
>The BV compensation for pilot skill levels (p.314 of TechManual) says
>a 2/2 is 3.05x as good as a 6/6. This reinforces my idea that it
>overvalues good pilots.
Probably depends on the class of machine. In Locusts, the 2/2 pilot can
run about the place and be basically impossible to hit; in 3/5/0s the 6/6s
can probably land enough hits to nibble down the 2/2.
>(It's somewhat unfortunate that the strategy
>I've found most effective for winning BV-balanced games in BattleTech
>is to take the oldest heaviest 'Mechs I can find, with standard
>pilots, and simply soak up damage from the uberweapons in a way that
>the opposition can't soak up damage from boring old PPCs and MLs.)
As a "hard-fighting OldTech" person, I have no problem with that.
Presumably it may depend on the map edges being fixed, or some joker with
an ERPPC can just keep backing off and zapping you.
I guess if I knew I would be facing that, and was required myself to take
a bunch of 305x tech, I'd stack my force with LB-X autocannon and use them
as critfinders; that renders the amount of armour on the opposing Mechs
largely irrelevant, because they're probably going to die to torso
criticals or repeated pilot injuries.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Monday, November.
Tomorrow will be First Tuesday, November.
>On 2013-11-13, David Damerell wrote:
>The BV compensation for pilot skill levels (p.314 of TechManual) says
>a 2/2 is 3.05x as good as a 6/6. This reinforces my idea that it
>overvalues good pilots.
Probably depends on the class of machine. In Locusts, the 2/2 pilot can
run about the place and be basically impossible to hit; in 3/5/0s the 6/6s
can probably land enough hits to nibble down the 2/2.
>(It's somewhat unfortunate that the strategy
>I've found most effective for winning BV-balanced games in BattleTech
>is to take the oldest heaviest 'Mechs I can find, with standard
>pilots, and simply soak up damage from the uberweapons in a way that
>the opposition can't soak up damage from boring old PPCs and MLs.)
As a "hard-fighting OldTech" person, I have no problem with that.
Presumably it may depend on the map edges being fixed, or some joker with
an ERPPC can just keep backing off and zapping you.
I guess if I knew I would be facing that, and was required myself to take
a bunch of 305x tech, I'd stack my force with LB-X autocannon and use them
as critfinders; that renders the amount of armour on the opposing Mechs
largely irrelevant, because they're probably going to die to torso
criticals or repeated pilot injuries.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Monday, November.
Tomorrow will be First Tuesday, November.
Message has been deleted
David Damerell
Nov 21, 2013, 8:27:30 PM11/21/13
to
Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>That seems to be the way it happens; I'm not sure I've ever played a
>floating-map BattleTech game. It may be that my opposition, usually in
>significantly lighter units than me after paying for all the shinies,
>is playing it wrong; but when I've gone the other way round it hasn't
>worked as well.
I think fixed-map makes a lot more sense in BattleTech than in open-void
space maps.
I suspect your strategy may just work; but if I was obliged to counter it,
critfinder weapons are the great equaliser. :-/
Today is First Sunday, November - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Second Monday, November.
>That seems to be the way it happens; I'm not sure I've ever played a
>floating-map BattleTech game. It may be that my opposition, usually in
>significantly lighter units than me after paying for all the shinies,
>is playing it wrong; but when I've gone the other way round it hasn't
>worked as well.
I think fixed-map makes a lot more sense in BattleTech than in open-void
space maps.
I suspect your strategy may just work; but if I was obliged to counter it,
critfinder weapons are the great equaliser. :-/
Today is First Sunday, November - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Second Monday, November.
0 new messages