Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Timberwolfd]

Remember to update your pilot/lance info in the skills chart as you hire/fire people and spend XP.

You are responsible for updating your PC and wingmen skills/SPAs on the Master Personnel Skill table linked below. When asked to do so, you are also responsible for updating the Mech Tracking sheet linked below (This will typically be between contracts when we need to know what is available for hot drop).

Master Personnel Skills: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LxHSicRuJkKJ6FgoP-qSbvmQybpoqjFBDC5F8c8ZAT8/edit?usp=sharing This form is freely updateable.  As you add XP and change your skills/SPAs, PLEASE change the form to match. Also note that piloting and gunnery are in skill bonus not P/G format so a 3 gunner is a +5 (entered as '+5) and a 4 pilot is a +4.

Mech Tracking: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-Pzov1Rq5byU-mZRHHJa0WKU6ME3zPw3HYvt5cIj1Ig/edit?usp=sharing

Other project: CBT Factory World List https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1UdGad4OuwaVSvAJaKN3YIZSKVsJ8FER7T3iVwsxXpV4/edit?usp=sharing

Command Structure
Alpha Company "Hammer"
Dunedain (CO/Unit CO) - COL
Reaper - LTSG
Wolverine - LTSG
Bright - LTSG

Bravo Company "Anvil"
Dragon (CO/Unit XO) - MAJ
Skaraborg - LTSG
Crusher - LTSG
Ice - LTSG

Charlie Company "Eyes"
Midnight (CO) - CPT
Freya - LTSG
Dancer - LTSG
Phoenix - LTSG

[Darrian Wolffe]

OK, so there's a new development snapshot of Against the Bot I can get (it's not a stable release yet) which brings up a question re: unit organization which I feel needs to be addressed.

In short, it's going to be possible (assuming the program doesn't crash and/or kill our savegames) for the base unit of mission assignment to be "companies" instead of "lances".  This is a huge change: it means that multiple lance TYPES can be assigned to the same company, and they all get a scenario generated together.  So, for example, the Unit could put together a Direct Fire Support Vehicle Lance and a Combat Engineer Platoon, and assign those "lances" to Bravo Company, which has 3 Mech Lances.  When Bravo Company has a mission which is generated for them, the ENTIRE Bravo Company would deploy into the mission.  The provides a way for vehicle and support assets to be a direct part of a given scenario rather than being added as reinforcements.  It *also* means that we'd start seeing a lot less cross-company deployment of Mech Lances, which would then allow us to build Mech companies with a little more focus.  The downside seems to be that once a Lance is assigned to a Company, it cannot be reassigned during a Contract, which means it becomes possible for one Company to start getting really screwed over under several sets of circumstances.

So, is this something we'd want to pursue (after the end of this contract)?  It would mean I have to download and install the devkit and the new program snapshot, and THAT means there's a chance of it screwing stuff up.  We can always walk things back if need be, but it's an interesting new option to the gameplay that seems to actually *simply* unit organization and mission deployment.

[Hat]

My general inclination is to go with the Company size unit options.  My question related to it is how does reinforcements work then if at all?  It may mean the unit needs to keep a larger reserve of resources available in case of a bad scenario as well as working to ensure all lances get up to a minimum overall size (6 mechs and pilots?) that provide cushion and insurance against missions in close timing.  Happy to hear other perspectives.

[serrate]

I think my only concerns are already addressed. I wouldn't want to see company assignments "locked in", but you've already stated that they're only locked in for a single contract. I do think it might lead to some circumstances where you consistently never fight cooperatively with some players, especially if your lances are similar in function and therefore constantly get split between two different companies. Personally, I'm of the belief that mixing up forces keeps the group harmonious. If you're always on the opposite side of the table from the same players, it can lead to grudges and hard feelings.

I'm a little worried about the potential to crash the campaign, but as long as you're confident you can fully restore w/o incident then no problem. We've built a good story here, so I don't want to see it wiped out.

As for the potential positives ("which means it becomes possible for one Company to start getting really screwed over under several sets of circumstances"), haha, that sounds awesome. I've said before that we've been too good, too rich, and too customized for my taste. At this point, we're an elite merc unit because we NEVER LOSE. Sure, we've taken some materiel losses (mechs, pilots), and we've had the occasional minor contract breach, but nothing major. We haven't ever said "screw the contract, if we don't pull out now, we're all toast". We haven't ever had a situation where 3 lances get so thoroughly crushed during an engagement that we have to come together as a unit and figure out how to turn them back into effective fighting forces. Most people's longest downtimes have been related to installing the newest shiny on their Jaime-Wolf-wannabe ride, and quite frankly we're bigger Mary Sue's than the FedSuns at this point.

(don't get me wrong, the campaign is awesome and I'm having a blast)

My point is... yea, fine, take the gloves off. If this means there's a chance the story gets more interesting, I'm all for it.  (^_^)b

[Timberwolfd]

Before you get too cavalier on that "We're bigger Mary Sue's than the FedSuns", remember that we are about to get steamrollered by the Jade Falcons... Not that I would completely disagree with your observations as a whole.  I would note that some fights have gone pretty close to the wire, especially in the solo fights.

As for never losing in general, I think the swing between never losing and getting regularly beat like a rented mule isn't actually that big of a difficulty swing, especially in the first couple of contracts.  If our losses had been a mech or two per lance over the first couple of contracts, that would have pulled some of our customs out of the line up and forced the expenditure of money that made further customizations possible.  Given the beating we should receive in the next year, you can look at this as a soft reset. With the payroll and maintenance cost increases, a lot of the easy button/rolling in the money ought to be corrected. I would recommend being conservative with further changes, since small difficulty increases may have larger impacts on the outcome than expected.

[Hat]

<snip>Personally, I'm of the belief that mixing up forces keeps the group harmonious. If you're always on the opposite side of the table from the same players, it can lead to grudges and hard feelings.

Agreed.  Though I think it's more a matter of frequency rather than always.  In a 3 company scenario, 2 of the three times you're opposing, one you're cooperating.  With 4 companies it's 50/50.  If we can reasonably swing it, I think a 4 company arrangement would be better than three for both mixture of players and roles.  On the flip side you're only a PC every 4th game rather than 3rd on average, so we'd need to see.

<snip>
As for the potential positives ("which means it becomes possible for one Company to start getting really screwed over under several sets of circumstances"), haha, that sounds awesome. I've said before that we've been too good, too rich, and too customized for my taste. At this point, we're an elite merc unit because we NEVER LOSE. Sure, we've taken some materiel losses (mechs, pilots), and we've had the occasional minor contract breach, but nothing major.

I'm a fan of a good story and will err to that side over mechanics.  I don't have an issue with this if the unit as a whole ends up sharing the burden such as through needing to keep larger reserves of mechs for replacements.  What I'd want to avoid as much as reasonably possible are situations where some people are sitting on huge piles of cash and resources, elite everything a near maxed out stable of tricked out mechs while others are constantly struggling to field 4 mechs.  The higher firepower rides are far more likely to generate kills and XP as well as getting the nod for MVP at the table.  That just pushes the gap between the haves and have nots.  In terms of customization, once we roll to the 3050 tables and are starting to get L2 salvage, there will be far less of a need to customize as people will already be on par technology-wise with the rest.

We haven't ever said "screw the contract, if we don't pull out now, we're all toast". We haven't ever had a situation where 3 lances get so thoroughly crushed during an engagement that we have to come together as a unit and figure out how to turn them back into effective fighting forces. Most people's longest downtimes have been related to installing the newest shiny on their Jaime-Wolf-wannabe ride, and quite frankly we're bigger Mary Sue's than the FedSuns at this point.

(don't get me wrong, the campaign is awesome and I'm having a blast)

My point is... yea, fine, take the gloves off. If this means there's a chance the story gets more interesting, I'm all for it.  (^_^)b

First, Amen on continuing to keep the story interesting or make it even better.  I think it's been good so far, and I'm having a lot of fun with the campaign.  As for the unit coming together to figure out how to turn lances back into effective fighting forces, I'm curious to see how that would play out.  With the mechanic of being able to bring in a new lance between contracts, how much is the rest of the unit willing to share the pain?  I can see loaning mechs to finish a contract if the unit reserves can't meet the needs.  Maybe that's all we really need and a larger unit reserve pool is the best plan.  I'll be interested in seeing what happens with the rest of the current contract.  This first round is certainly starting off with a bang.

[Timberwolfd]

In short, it's going to be possible (assuming the program doesn't crash and/or kill our savegames) for the base unit of mission assignment to be "companies" instead of "lances".  This is a huge change: it means that multiple lance TYPES can be assigned to the same company, and they all get a scenario generated together.  So, for example, the Unit could put together a Direct Fire Support Vehicle Lance and a Combat Engineer Platoon, and assign those "lances" to Bravo Company, which has 3 Mech Lances.  When Bravo Company has a mission which is generated for them, the ENTIRE Bravo Company would deploy into the mission.  The provides a way for vehicle and support assets to be a direct part of a given scenario rather than being added as reinforcements.  It *also* means that we'd start seeing a lot less cross-company deployment of Mech Lances, which would then allow us to build Mech companies with a little more focus.  The downside seems to be that once a Lance is assigned to a Company, it cannot be reassigned during a Contract, which means it becomes possible for one Company to start getting really screwed over under several sets of circumstances.

So, I see several interaction questions that need to be addressed.
1. How would strategic assets (Arty and ASFs mostly) interact with this scheme? Would we need an arty lance/vehicle for each company in order to have support available?
2. This plan seems to imply an increased vehicle force (with its attending paperwork). Will there be more vehicles administered at the unit level? Or will lances be able to operate vehicle lances as adjuncts to their mech forces?
3. How would company assignments work with or replace the current X lances in Y role assignment system for previous AtB contracts?