Player Polls Discussion Thread.   Posted by PFarland.Group: 0
PFarland
 GM, 44 posts
Thu 14 Apr 2016
at 06:36
Player Polls Discussion Thread
This is the discussion of current polls, this is the current poll:

quote:
Which would everyone prefer as a mechanic for losing tech and gaining tech:

1) One based around having X number of factories for various products (including specific tech, i.e. Large Lasers and ER Large Lasers would require 2 factories)

2) One based around the A-B-C-D-F-X mechanic where certain circumstances would/could force rolls to advance or decline you base production level.  (I.E. You start out at level C tech {Access to LosTech} and certain events force a roll to see if you drop down to tech level B {basic Tech})

Those are the two options I see.  Having a mechanic where Tech is lost or gained at fixed points in time just seems artificial and forced, not to mention railroading all the players.  Plus the further the game gets from the start, the more the chance of a 'disconnect' situation happening.


Feel free to ask questions here or by PM.
Jhaelan
 player, 3 posts
Thu 14 Apr 2016
at 07:06
Player Polls Discussion Thread
Moved to Player Polls thread


Option 2

This message was last edited by the GM at 14:36, Thu 14 Apr 2016.

bblaney
 player, 10 posts
Thu 14 Apr 2016
at 12:36
Player Polls Discussion Thread
In reply to PFarland (msg # 1):

Option 2 also

Though I would feel better if we mark what factories make what that way we can guard what is more vital than others appropriately
PFarland
 GM, 47 posts
Thu 14 Apr 2016
at 14:40
Player Polls Discussion Thread
In reply to bblaney (msg # 3):

I'm going to wait to move your vote to the Poll thread.  So you're looking to have a combination of the two really?  Past the Minor/Major/Hyper Factory Worlds?




Edit:  I suppose we could introduce a tech level upgrade available to worlds.

This message was last edited by the GM at 14:41, Thu 14 Apr 2016.

bblaney
 player, 13 posts
Thu 14 Apr 2016
at 16:32
Player Polls Discussion Thread
One major problem is not all Successor states are created equal, the larger ones tending to have major advantages.

Under PC control it makes things even more so problematic, as most reasonable people will try to avoid the pitfalls of the Succession Wars.
Hendell
 player, 10 posts
Thu 14 Apr 2016
at 16:36
Player Polls Discussion Thread
Is there an option three where we try to minimize unnecessary rolls and instead use a point system that actually makes sense?
PFarland
 GM, 49 posts
Thu 14 Apr 2016
at 16:46
Re: Player Polls Discussion Thread
bblaney:
One major problem is not all Successor states are created equal, the larger ones tending to have major advantages.

Under PC control it makes things even more so problematic, as most reasonable people will try to avoid the pitfalls of the Succession Wars.


Very true.  The thing is (just like in real war) things can (and will) escalate.  Certain nations will have more incentive to go all out in an attack.  Others will have less incentive to do so, but will likely get extremely retaliatory in strikes.  What will most players do once WMDs start getting tossed around?

The larger states will be more likely to have other states ally against them.
PFarland
 GM, 50 posts
Thu 14 Apr 2016
at 16:53
Re: Player Polls Discussion Thread
Hendell:
Is there an option three where we try to minimize unnecessary rolls and instead use a point system that actually makes sense?


Really the players will be doing very little in the way of rolls, that will mostly be the bailiwick of the GM.

As for the point system, I'm not opposed to it, but if you have a suggestion post it up in the Lostech, Research, and the Helm Memory Core thread.




I see option 2 actually working as something like a point system for modifiers to a roll to determine Tech Loss/Gain.

Factories DestroyedRoll Mod
X+1
2X+2
3X+3

and so on.




Edit:  The roll would likely need a modifier to even happen, then need something like 13+ then another 13+ to happen.  Short term, this is not very likely to happen, long term things start adding up to the point where they become almost impossible to avoid unless you've been very cautious and speific in your actions.

This message was last edited by the GM at 16:56, Thu 14 Apr 2016.

Alyfox
 player, 1 post
Mon 18 Apr 2016
at 21:55
Re: Player Polls Discussion Thread
In reply to PFarland (msg # 8):

I to like the idea of some combination; it would be a huge undertaking (even with sourcebooks) to mark every single war-tech factory in each state (not to mention the locations there-of). Just hand-waving things away is rife with problems, I think we all agree.

The first option is of course the most accurate, just the most work. Im not sure what would make a good alternative system though. IF this were all done in some sort of game simulator, then I'd be all for the accuracy. But given the paperwork involved (particularly for whoever ends up GMing), I'd be ok with simplyfing things down.

If there is a mission system in place, then simply assigning units for a "Factory Strike" would work out, then the tech could be kept track of just through a table of who has what.

Also, the idea of researching tech that you dont have would be easier with a point system
Hendell
 player, 11 posts
Tue 19 Apr 2016
at 07:53
Re: Player Polls Discussion Thread
Two thoughts, The existing data for the default battletech universe is not going to be the limit of the ability of this game to work.

There is no reason for the political entities that exist as player controlled empires to be system mechanically different from the perspective of the game.

The larger great houses have more worlds, more people, more costs, but not necessarily more important things.  The smaller great houses are somewhere in the middle, and the named periphery states (or two of them combined) are smaller but also not necessarily less important.

For example each faction could start with 30 'key' factories each of which generates the same number of points, that can be spent on the same helpful things.  The larger areas have a bunch of normal factories, or food production, or just empty space none of which adds up to anything important for the game, so we ignore it and move on.

If we want to place factories on specific worlds we can do that, or we can just set up different scenarios, some target factories (capture or destroy production capability), some target raw resources (raid for cash value), some are just a distraction and target something that looks good in the news but really makes no difference.
PFarland
 GM, 54 posts
Tue 19 Apr 2016
at 15:41
Re: Player Polls Discussion Thread
The game (ISW) already has the listed factories and how many for each nation.  The listings are Other World, Minor Industrial, Major Industrial, Hyper Industrial, (you can go in multiples of Hyper, but ever Terra doesn't start off that high and it's bloody expensive.)

Each one of those levels have a number range of factories.  I was talking about using those numbers.

I.E. New Avalon (in 3025) has 4 factories (that puts it into Major Industrial).  While that number might be different before the fall of the Star League, we'll use it.  We'll set one of those factories as a line for Gauss Rifles, one for Medium Lasers, one for SRM-4s, and one for Atlases.

The game is set up to have factories on specific worlds already.  I was just talking about expanding that mechanic greatly.  The problem is to expand it in such a way that it works from 1st SW through the Clan Invasion.

The factories mentioned are just the 'wartime' products factories.  We aren't counting/looking at the factories that produce consumer goods.




Raiding
Raiding allows a Faction to conduct a limited strike against an opposing Faction, usually with a specific goal in mind. Raids fall into five broad categories.
•• Recon Raid: Used to uncover specifics on a world’s defenders.
•• Supply Raid: Targets a Supply Depot’s or Supply Centers and attempts to either steal or destroy supplies.
•• Disruption Raid: Used to disrupt a world’s economy and reduce its ability to generate resources.
•• Equipment Raid: Targets a world’s factories and attempts to steal equipment.
•• Industrial Raid: Targets a world’s factories and attempts to damage production




As for the reasons for the various entities to not be equal.  Remember, while we are likely going to end up wildly deviating from canon, up until this point it is canon.

Past that, just from a pure mechanics point of view, none of the states are the same size.  The combat system ISW uses (ACS) it's much easier to defend a position as in real life, as opposed to attacking one.  You can dig in and fortify, making that assault even harder, and you can perform guerilla tactics.  Couple that with just a smaller nation needing less to defend it and you've got why making things even won't help.  Plus, every nation should have it's own play style.

The Lyrans should be able to be heavy handed while the Taurian Concordat shouldn't.
bblaney
 player, 14 posts
Tue 19 Apr 2016
at 15:51
Re: Player Polls Discussion Thread
In reply to PFarland (msg # 11):

Well here in lies a problem.

With specific lines like that you will require an insane amount of factories to produce nearly anything

For instance let's use a 3025 Atlas

Factories
1 - Assemble the pieces of the Atlas
2 - AC/20
3 - Medium Laser
4 - SRM 6
5 - LRM 20
6 - Heat Sinks

That is 6 factories just to produce 1 mech, which is not realistic

Look at Hesperus II and Defiance Industries as an example, they get much more done with many less factories

Now if you change things to various lines instead of factories it may be more feasible
PFarland
 GM, 56 posts
Tue 19 Apr 2016
at 16:50
Re: Player Polls Discussion Thread
In reply to bblaney (msg # 12):

That's the key there.  With "basic" BTech there are 16 different weapons.  That easily is something any IS Nation, well at least the big five, can cover and have extra left over.  In 3025 (just about the lowest point) Liao, the lowest producer, had 20 factories.  The top being Steiner at 33 factories.  At the start of everything before the 1st SW, there were more factories plus only 12 tech types extra (I'm not counting LAMs nor Warships).

So, going with a straight this factory produces ___ tech, just doesn't work.  We would have to go beyond that.  I was thinking of coupling that factory issue to the whole flavor thing of X nation produces Y Mechs.  That would bring people around to an interesting choice of whether to keep advanced tech or lower the types of fieldable unit types.

When you get to the ACS level, the bonuses from advanced tech is small.  Fielding whole units full of mechs made for Striker or Recon or Brawling duty can exceed that if done right.  There is actually a point where the better idea is to let the advanced tech go.

Then you get into the area of alliances and one nation agreeing to supply X part in return for Y part.

While this method will take more work, is more fiddly, and frankly might just be unworkable; it has some advantages for long term play I just don't see with the A-B-C-D-F-X mechanic.
Hendell
 player, 12 posts
Tue 19 Apr 2016
at 17:14
Re: Player Polls Discussion Thread
I say we give it a try, but I would like to stick to the overview numbers setup as much as possible, at least in the early stages of the game.

I don't much care which worlds have which factories on them, even the question of how accessible they are for attack is largely meaningless because there will always be a 'nearest' factory and the 'farther away less protected' option to pick from.

Just toss out some data we can work with and let us get things going.