Re: Tin Soldier: a quick-playing game in the BattleTech style

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>I'm seeking feedback on my first draft of Tin Soldier, a game of mecha
>combat on a company scale which allows the use of BattleTech 'Mech
>designs. The rules and some sample record sheets are available at
>http://tekeli.li/tin-soldier/ .

This is just based on a readthrough, not a playtest.

"A typical element in the regular military will have Piloting 17,
Gunnery 18." - hooray! (I would be inclined to phrase this as "Elements
have Piloting and Gunnery skills;" (we've not all played BattleTech) " if
an element's skills are not specified, use Piloting 17, Gunnery 18.")

The Sequence gives me my usual twitch around initiative-and-move
mechanics. I appreciate you're targetting much bigger actions, but it
seems like the shuffle could badly compromise one player rather like the
downside of individual pilot initiative. The two jokers then turn-end are
reminiscent of the Activation Chit mechanic in 1805: Sea of Glory (which I
would recommend, even if it has no mecha in) - there's a pot of chits
which determine where the wind blows etc with two special ones which first
change the initiative between the sides then end the turn. I mention it
because it's a bit frustrating in 1805 when you get no suitable wind in
the North Atlantic (for example) - and there both sides get to act on the
same wind chit _and_ being at the mercy of the wind is thematically
appropriate. I recognise the Command mechanic may address this, but of
course the commander has just the same 1/4 odds of being inactive every
turn and this may represent a considerable chunk of firepower lost.

I suggest that, since an element can fire twice in an activation, that is
mentioned explicitly outside of footnote 3. I think there's a general
expectation that rules come down to "move+attack" with potential to swap
one of those out for a non-move non-attack action.

Can one take cover in a clear hex?

Exactly what constitutes "a single order" and what it might resolve to is
unclear. Can I, for example, move much further than is necessary to attack
target Delta, accomplishing my actual objective of being over _there_
while pew-pewing target Delta incidentally?

I think it produces some cognitive dissonance that an element can fire
twice in a turn... or twice as often when commanded. The same goes for
units going twice as fast because someone's yelling MOVE MOVE MOVE at them.
I'm not sure what the answer is; the idea of representing the role of the
command elements is one that generally doesn't get enough treatment.
(Heat? But eg movement heat is trivial if not jumping... hm, perhaps this
has finally given a role to high-weight low-heat ammo weapons?)

Movement: We are (perhaps intentionally?) missing the rule that a 'Mech
may always move one hex forward in any terrain regardless of MP cost.

We don't seem to have the chain-push rule (perhaps we infer it). It is no
harder to charge a 'Mech while skidding accidentally than while trying to
charge it. We can skid up a slope we lacked MP to climb.

I think we are expected to know the BattleTech rules for determining how
many levels a 'Mech has fallen (and perhaps the LOS rules, etc...)

If the B arc is displaced backwards a hex to avoid simultaneous fire from
B and FL/FR/FX weapons, suggest instead a rule that a target on those
hexrows is one or the other but not both, attacker's choice?

subtract one-third of the defender's Piloting skill - rounded
up/down/sanely?

It seems like the requirement that weapons fired together "have the same
range, accuracy and damage characteristics" is further promoting optimised
unified-armament beasts like the 3025 Awesome. But see above re
double-firing and heat. I have no idea what the balance of weapons is. :-/

There is no partial cover rule, I think, perhaps intentionally.

The damage rule is confusing, especially "For each actual critical, reduce
Armour by one point, but never below 1. Otherwise, roll dice on the
target's critical table to determine what is hit; tick off one box on the
appropriate entry". Does that mean that potential criticals either reduce
armour or cause critical rolls? It looks like it does. But from the
example, I infer that a potential critical either becomes nothing or
"actual critical plus a new potential critical", and each actual critical
reduces armour _and_ causes a critical roll.

The ammo explosion rule is even harsher than standard Btech. Conversely,
it seems like a lucky unit might sustain a very large number of internals
that do nothing.

It might be worth mentioning the need to track heat accumulation in the
Firing section.

Rear armour is considerably more vulnerable with a 180 degree arc of
exposure.

Heat, if I read it aright, will reduce a 6/9/0 to 1/4/0 but then abruptly
to shutdown - but the record sheets reflect the Battletech mechanic, not
mentioned in the rules.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!
Today is Saturday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Sunday, September - a weekend.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>The command mechanic does something to mitigate that, I think, given
>that in a typical company-scale action you have four separate
>commanders (each lance leader plus the company commander).

I think it does and it doesn't. It reduces the chance that a 'Mech will
stand paralysed while the 'Mechwarrior plays Freecell... but each
commander-activation lost represents potentially a full Lance's firepower
dropped.

Off the top of my head, after the first Joker is drawn, if a unit is
activated and it has an unactivated commander C, the player may opt to
instead give one "command" order with C. If C is then activated later it
takes one action which may not be "command". "Orders, sir?"

(I don't take it personally when people reject my rules suggestions as
overly complicated. I'm used to it. So, feel free. :-)

>"During its activation, an element may take up to two actions. These
>may be taken in any order, but only one Move is allowed, and Fast Move
>may only be combined with Attack."
>...which has the same effect but is easier to keep track of, I think.

Yes.

>>Can one take cover in a clear hex?

>Hmm. I was assuming yes, but perhaps not.

Ideas; the combat malus for Cover depends on the type of terrain; 'Mechs
can't take cover in clear hexes, vehicles can, infantry can with full
effectiveness. A 5-foot ridge is a lot better for a ground-pounder than a
BattleMaster.

>An order is for a thing that at least one of the target elements can
>achieve in a single activation of two actions. So that might be a fast
>move to go over _there_, or a slow move plus attack. What I'm after

"Shoot all the things!"

I know this seems facetious, but my experience is that someone will
honestly come up with an interpretation one didn't expect.

>rather more flexible. The basic idea is that there would actually be
>plenty of time for a little plastic god to dash about the place and
>lay waste to everything, but mere humans who worry about dying don't
>take every opportunity of which they're physically capable.

I think one believes this more for infantry than for an Atlas pilot. :-)

>>If the B arc is displaced backwards a hex to avoid simultaneous fire from
>>B and FL/FR/FX weapons, suggest instead a rule that a target on those
>>hexrows is one or the other but not both, attacker's choice?

>What is the advantage to this.

Er. Pleasant symmetry between F and B arcs? Fair question.

>Default rounding is nearest integer; I think that's in the
>introduction.

So it is. Don't halve anything. :-)

>>There is no partial cover rule, I think, perhaps intentionally.

>I may come up with one eventually, but I haven't found one I'm happy
>with yet.

We had one in classic BattleTech ("roll normally to hit and for location;
ignore leg hits, or torso hits where a die shows a 5") which is fiddly but
avoids the way that occasionally you'd maneuver to put the opponent _in_
partial cover.

>Potential and actual criticals are distinct things, and I need a
>better name for them. Your inference is correct:

"Divide the total damage by the appropriate armour value, rounding down.
The result is the attack's Penetration (plus one point for each 1 rolled
in "Roll to hit", above). For each point of Penetration, roll 1d20. A roll
of 8 or less does a point of Internal damage, and the attacker rerolls
that die. A roll of 9 or more has no effect. For each point of Internal
damage, reduce Armour and roll on the critical table." Then the example.
Except, er, as I read the example 10/4 rounded down is 2, so are we
missing the implicit "there is always one potential critical / point of
Penetration"?

>>The ammo explosion rule is even harsher than standard Btech. Conversely,
>>it seems like a lucky unit might sustain a very large number of internals
>>that do nothing.

>I'm looking at my own experience of 3025-tech: I don't believe I've
>ever seen a 'Mech survive an ammo explosion unless it had in fact
>exhausted its ammo. (I have some ideas about CASE, but those aren't in
>this draft.)

I think that's true, but... must it be so? Even "an ammo explosion
destroys all equipment in the location and reduces front and rear Armour
by 1" - well, you don't _want_ it to happen, but it's not the end of the
world.

3025ly, it's hard to believe in the "precious 'Mechs last forever, being
patched up" if the things are always being blown to shreds by ammo
explosions.

>There aren't very many internals that do nothing. They knock out
>weapons, they penalise your attack/movement, they reduce heat
>capacity.

Indeed, but if you keep getting pounded in the same spots... I guess it's
not that likely.

>>Rear armour is considerably more vulnerable with a 180 degree arc of
>>exposure.

>But is rather stronger, because arm and leg armour are factored into
>the calculation.

Fair point.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
And now, a seemingly inexplicable shot of a passing train.
Today is Sunday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be First Gloucesterday, September.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:

>On 2013-09-27, David Damerell wrote:
>>Off the top of my head, after the first Joker is drawn, if a unit is
>>activated and it has an unactivated commander C, the player may opt to
>>instead give one "command" order with C. If C is then activated later it
>>takes one action which may not be "command". "Orders, sir?"
>>(I don't take it personally when people reject my rules suggestions as
>>overly complicated. I'm used to it. So, feel free. :-)

>I'm going to need to think about that some more, but it makes sense on
>the face of it.

I'm not actually sure why the second order cannot be "command", subject to
the usual restriction on commanding the same elements twice. (Can a
second-level commander command their first-level commanders to command
their Lances?)

>Needs some way of flagging it, though; I'm trying as
>far as possible to avoid the need to keep things in the player's
>memory. A "half activated" tag on the board, perhaps.

Or keep the cards for elements who have done such a thing separate as a
reminder?

>I may yet dump the idea of fast moves, and the 1.5x run multiplier,
>and simply say that you _can_ take two moves in succession, and you
>keep the movement tag from the most recent move you did. Then you
>simply get two actions, of any sort. Any obvious downsides to that?

Two moves with the reduced turning costs is a _lot_ of movement...
although it does get rid of the way it's much better to have odd Walk MP
and round up.

Another oddity seems to be the way that you might or might not take
movement penalties based on the order you do things in. A 'Mech which
fires then jumps doesn't seem to be to be doing anything conceptually
different to jumping then firing. What if movement tags are persistent,
but each non-movement action reduces the tag level (from
jump->run->walk->nothing)?

This breaks heat accounting... except that if a unit can already
double-move by being commanded or the mechanic above, tags don't do heat
accounting anyway.

>>Ideas; the combat malus for Cover depends on the type of terrain; 'Mechs
>>can't take cover in clear hexes, vehicles can, infantry can with full
>>effectiveness. A 5-foot ridge is a lot better for a ground-pounder than a
>>BattleMaster.

>This leads neatly into infantry being screwed if caught in the open,
>which they should be.

One thing I did in BFOR was to add "bare ground" hexes, as distinct from
normal clear hexes; you can't take cover in bare ground at all, even if
you are infantry, who probably shouldn't go there.

>"Shoot all the things" is not un-viable, I think. "Engage nearest
>targets" or "Engage that Stalker" would certainly be OK.

I think the trouble is that if "move somewhere" and "shoot all the things"
are legitimate orders, the practical effect is that a commanded unit may
do anything at all.

>In an earlier draft, I had the B arc as the mirror of the F, but I
>thought that it made the arc of F+B weapons (e.g. the Rifleman's
>swing-arms) too wide. This didn't become obvious to me until I started
>drawing diagrams.

... in particular, there is no blind spot at range 1 if B isn't displaced
backwards.

>TS no longer has "equipment in the location", which makes that harder.

Oh, fair point. Of course, we secretly know what's where, because we play
BattleTech. :-)

>I ultimately want at least three grades of ammo explosion
>survivability: unprotected, CASE, CASE II/Clan Case. At this
>unprotected level, one could allot N more hazard dice for each
>remaining box of ammo, and resolve them; it takes longer but it makes
>things a bit more survivable.

I do honestly think it would be best. The opponent will not feel robbed,
both disabling a weapon and getting a bunch of bonus damage.

>I'm not even thinking about the possibilities of salvage yet. By
>"destroyed", I mean "can no longer more or fire in this tactical
>game".

I suppose again that's channeling BattleTech, where when a single ton of
MG ammo explodes doing 380-odd damage points, it's hard to imagine the
'Mech didn't just vapourise, but of course that doesn't mean that
"happened" in TS.

>>Indeed, but if you keep getting pounded in the same spots... I guess it's
>>not that likely.

>I may change that to "if no more boxes, re-roll".

The big non-destruction target seems to be Leg Actuators. Perhaps when all
Leg Actuators are gone, the 'Mech always falls and is irrevocably prone.
(Perhaps I missed that rule).

The quad rules seem a bit here-and-there; particularly, should a prone
quad lose R weapons if it just bent at the knees?
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Today is First Chedday, September - a public holiday.
Tomorrow will be First Stilday, September - a weekend.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:

>On 2013-10-01, David Damerell wrote:
>>I'm not actually sure why the second order cannot be "command", subject to
>>the usual restriction on commanding the same elements twice. (Can a
>>second-level commander command their first-level commanders to command
>>their Lances?)

>Absolutely! That's the main point of having a second-level.

I mean, can it be such that the force commander can activate the entire
force (in which case the card draw luck seems to be biting us again), or
that they can activate any given Lance whose commander is asleep?

>- ground move => level++, level=min(level,2)
>- jumping move => level=3
>- anything else => level--, level=max(level,0)

I think I am now confused, since if "level=max(level,0)" then why
"level--".

>>One thing I did in BFOR was to add "bare ground" hexes, as distinct from
>>normal clear hexes; you can't take cover in bare ground at all, even if
>>you are infantry, who probably shouldn't go there.

>Should I know BFOR?

No. It never really turned into a working game.

>As long as the order can be expressed reasonably simply ("all you guys
>head for whichever building is nearest" as opposed to "Bob, go two
>left; Fred, go three forward and one right") I don't think I have a
>problem with it.

But if I can give an order "move and shoot something", Bob and Fred can
then execute those moves. Am I missing something where, say, a game
moderator interprets the orders?

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>max() puts a lower bound, min() puts an upper.

Er, yes. Brains.

>Clearly I'm not effectively communicating the idea of "excessively
>fuzzy", possibly because it seems obvious to me and so I'm having
>trouble laying it out. Would it be better to abandon completely the
>idea of group orders?

I think it's a nice idea, but (short of something like _Close Action_
where your orders are interpreted by someone else who's not allowed to ask
what you meant) does demand a formalisation of what orders or results are
acceptable, although that might be more weight of mechanics than is
desirable. eg, "If a movement order is given, all moving elements must
finish their moves within 3 hexes of each other". Absent such a
formalisation, players will inevitably push the limits of what is a
permissible order.

A requirement (as you discuss) that any element that _can_ execute an
order _must_ do so might help, as "shoot all the things" causes that
Warhammer to pop off another two PPC bolts and 20 heat whether you
wanted it to or not. (Except that if the target is in range 9 it can plink
it with the medium lasers).

Is there a piece of TeX or whatever for generating the record sheets?

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>It's Perl that takes in Solaris Skunk Werks 'Mech files (and in the
>current bleeding-edge code at least some vehicles), does the
>calculations, and spits out the PDF directly. I intend to release it
>with the next rules version

Please. :-)

>Is it reasonable to expect the typical end user to be able to select
>pages out of a PDF and print them 4-up? (Yes, those record sheets are
>scaled to fit on A6.) It seems easy enough to _me_ but I'm not using
>modern Windows.

Dunno; I do my printing on Linux, almost exclusively.

Another thing that occurred to me is the cognitive dissonance from
non-acting units is exacerbated when they continue to receive the
protective value of their previous turn's movement. This is going to be a
bit wrinkly in any game that isn't just everyone moves, everyone fires...

Backing up a bit, what I like most is the attempt to represent command and
control as a real thing, which you don't see much of; the attempt to make
the game work on a scale much bigger than BattleTech, with a streamlined
damage mechanism; and the way that I honestly don't know if energy or
ammo weapons will come out best whereas in BT proper you can point at every
pair of AC/5s and go "that should be a PPC".

I'm not so convinced (as, yes, is probably obvious) by the potential for
units to be completely paralysed. What I'd really like is for the units
most disadvantaged by the card draw to act partly or largely outside the
player's control; can only fire at closest target or same target as last
time, can't turn more than 120 degrees, something like that. The
'Mechwarrior isn't asleep, but they're acting reflexively, without
situational awareness. Those might even be the first to be drawn - at
present, going first is pretty unequivocally good, but if first to act
means a weaker action the luck of the draw might be evened out.

How about this as an example of what I'm imagining:
An element activated before the first Joker is under the movement and
firing restrictions above. It can only use overwatch if no possible
targets for fire exist. It cannot call for orders. If commanded, it could
then take normal actions.

A command element so activated cannot command. It could take a single
action, and could then be called for orders later.

Between the first and second Jokers elements act normally.

After the second Joker, an element can call for orders without using an
action. When a command element commands other elements which have not
been activated yet, they can execute any actions without reference to the
order.

So early on, you get to "get your blow in fust", but if you are so
unfortunate as to have both commander and subordinate very late in the
turn, you get the maximum value out of command actions.

There's also quite a lot of clunkiness here, like having to track who
fired at what, but I guess this is meant more as an example of the sort of
mechanic that comes to mind.

--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
If we aren't perfectly synchronised this corncob will explode!

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>So that we're all on roughly the same page, I've uploaded draft v0.2,
>which adds vehicle support and substantially changes several things
>based on this and other discussions.

I owe this a nitpicky response too, but I confess I have just now spotted
the humunguous weapon ranges. I appreciate the desire to make them longer
(and that you've actually playtested this) but... unless you've got quite
a _lot_ of BattleTech mapboards, aren't nearly all weapons' ranges over
3/6/9 pretty-well interchangeable? Also, I can't help but feel there's a
lot of potential for drawing LOS over vast distances to become
problematic, especially when Overwatch is involved.

I guess what I'm asking is "why Medium Range times ten?"
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Kill the tomato!
Today is First Stilday, September - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Gorgonzoladay, September - a weekend.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:
>Yes, most of the time there is effectively no maximum range. Indeed,
>that was what I was going to use originally, but then I thought that
>when I brought in the Clan-tech its fans would complain.

It does also imply that the IS ER PPC was designed by a lunatic (even more
so than in BattleTech)... and perhaps some of the other ER weapons?

We also end up with not SRMs and LRMs but "Long Range Missiles" and "Not
at Short Range Missiles".

>I _might_ replace the current maximum range with an "effective range"
>(the weapon's BattleTech L range), shots outside that being penalised
>to hit. Thoughts?

Perhaps then also a 'Mech which has suffered a Sensors hit cannot fire
outside that range.

>I wanted the feel of running between cover when you're well within the
>other guy's weapon range. If he can see you, he can kill you. This
>seems to be modern infantry tactics as well as armoured.

I think the obvious downside is that the long-range guns are
disproportionately expensive in weight and heat in Battletech because they
are long-ranged. If the super-efficient medium laser also reaches halfway
to the Moon, it becomes the king of weapons.

I think I meant to write this elsethread, but I rather like the idea of a
unit drawn before the first Joker being able to go right to the back of
the queue. The downside is obvious.

1.2 says the effectiveness of Cover varies with the type of element, but
it seems to be a straight -3?

A unit may not move backwards at top speed, but unless I am very much
mistaken, that's obsolete. A unit may only move backwards if it had no
movement tag before movement?

I wonder if you can skip the "different level adds range" rule by
restricting maximum VTOL flight level with an Ogre-ish rationale?

Aren't LRM-5 heavy-weapons infantry good? They must be strong if each
soldier can carry around a 'Mech-equivalent LRM-5. Am I missing something?

The conversion process still produces Walk and Run movement.
--
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.

[David Damerell]

Quoting Roger Bell_West <roger+r...@nospam.firedrake.org>:

>On 2013-10-09, David Damerell wrote:
>>A unit may not move backwards at top speed, but unless I am very much
>>mistaken, that's obsolete. A unit may only move backwards if it had no
>>movement tag before movement?

>Slightly sophisticated and put in (you can't switch between forwards
>and backwards unless you have no movement tag).

Does this not permit full-speed reverse movement?

--
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.