Print

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

[Black Omega]

I hadn't thought about it.  My initial reaction would be the former, with the following restriction:

Repairing a stock unit: Unit tonnage in WarChest Points (Unit tonnage/2 for units with the easy to repair/maintain quirk)
Making a unit into a custom: 5 Warchest points per system added or removed
Repairing a custom unit: Regular Cost x2 (x1.75 for units with the easy to repair/maintain quirk)
Making an OmniUnit into a custom configuration: 2 Warchest points per system added or removed
Repairing an OmniUnit in a custom configuration: Unit tonnage x1.25 (Unit tonnage for units with the easy to repair/maintain quirk)

That way there's a clear advantage to remaining with a stock config, but it's still better to use a custom Omni than it is to modify a standard unit to custom specs.  Something I'd consider would be "each custom unit after the first in a Star takes a small penalty to repair costs" - the more non-standard stuff you have, the harder your Techs have to work.  And you can only beat Techs so many times in a Circle of Equals trying to get them to work harder/faster before you experience an unforeseen and unexplainable malfunction in your life support mid-battle.

Okay, follow up question here.  Given the Omni mech standard configurations, would a pilot get to use any of the standard configs without costing any warchest points or would he be locked in to one config only?

[Darrian Wolffe]

Okay, follow up question here.  Given the Omni mech standard configurations, would a pilot get to use any of the standard configs without costing any warchest points or would he be locked in to one config only?

Small cost to reconfigure.  Same as listed in pretty much all the actual Warchest systems. It's usually in the 5-10 range, while you're dealing with rewards of Warchest Points in the low hundreds for a single mission (100-300 or so).  Comparatively, the cost to fully repair a non-destroyed Mech unit is almost always its tonnage. 

Don't sweat details on the specific numbers yet.  I'll put up a PDF for group review if we decide to go this route.

[Death or Glory]

Since there's a desire for a Clan campaign, I'm actually seriously considering bringing this general concept back.  I've had some time to think about what went wrong and what worked with it, and I've got a revision 6 ruleset that I've been working on, on and off for a few years now.

If - IF - I were to do it, it would either end up being set sometime prior to REVIVAL (3030-ish), or as modern Clan forces in the Dark Age.  The big change are:
1) Everyone runs their own force (with a cool PC commander)
2) Players are randomly paired against each other each game
3) Players bid against the other person in the pair, loser plays OPFOR
4) EVERYBODY plays the same scenario (as in, each pair of players)
5) The highest VP-scoring player decides where the campaign branches to next
6) Between games is Warchest-style maintenance/logistics

That sounds like a really cool campaign idea.  It makes me wish I was still in Ohio.

[Timberwolfd]

I could buy into this idea.

A number of variations suggest themselves for shaking things up on occasion. With an even number of players, the same process could work for # vs. # matches.  For example, 2v2 (3v3, 4v4...) for larger scenarios.

"each custom unit after the first in a Star takes a small penalty to repair costs"

One caveat I would propose for custom units, if you have multiple of the same (exact same chassis and config.) unit, the penalties don't stack for maintenance.  
I will have my streak-6's facing forward, surats.

I would vote for WoR as the period.

How do you see unit generation working?  Are we using RATs, player lists, etc.?

[phlop]

The last one there was a list and a player rolled 2 ten sided dice. 01 to 100 corresponding to some mechs. If I remember correctly. Each player rolled 3 stars, not knowing what he would get. It might have been done 2 assault, 2 hvy, 1 med, as an example. The player then would fill the star with his choice of mechs. Someone can correct me, usually am.

[Timberwolfd]

With my dice luck I will either end up with a lost star league assault force or a steiner hovercraft wing while rolling on the clan wolf table.

[Ad Hoc]

Logan, Lucas (my younger son), and I would prefer a character based campaign.  If the new idea of campaign is chosen, we are not sure about the one on one games, especially for my youngest son.  If the games were 2 on 2, 3 on 3, or 4 on 4 it would be better for us because part of us coming down is for us to play in group games.  We can play 1 on 1 games here at home.  The other month when we had two different smaller games going was great because the game play went faster and made it more exciting. We will also need help understanding how the Warchest system works and the bidding of forces. We have no problems playing our share of opfor either.

We really enjoy playing with this group and will play in whatever type of campaign that the majority and Rob agree upon.  

[serrate]

Logan, Lucas (my younger son), and I would prefer a character based campaign.  If the new idea of campaign is chosen, we are not sure about the one on one games, especially for my youngest son.  If the games were 2 on 2, 3 on 3, or 4 on 4 it would be better for us because part of us coming down is for us to play in group games.  We can play 1 on 1 games here at home.  The other month when we had two different smaller games going was great because the game play went faster and made it more exciting. We will also need help understanding how the Warchest system works and the bidding of forces. We have no problems playing our share of opfor either.

We really enjoy playing with this group and will play in whatever type of campaign that the majority and Rob agree upon.  

Those are excellent points. There are ways to accomplish the same thing while still having multiple players on the table at once. For instance, we could be bidding on who gets to take on the enemy assault force, who has to take out the power station, and who is assigned to remove the artillery threat. This could all be on the same large map, and due to the clans general competitiveness, it's plausible that they'd be working independently to accomplish various missions.

Assuming we even end up as all clans and not some sort of mixed coalition force, which would reduce the likelihood of cooperation even further.

I'm curious, for those who said they want clans involved, is the preference to actually be a clan force, or to simply be in an era that includes clans?

[Ice]

im in for whatever

[phlop]

My comment was that we have some clan's in the campaign. It wouldn't have to be all clan, whatever the GM is planning is great.

[serrate]

My comment was that we have some clan's in the campaign. It wouldn't have to be all clan, whatever the GM is planning is great.

Doesn't matter to me either, I was just curious.

Anyone else anxiously waiting for Rob to roll this out and let us start picking units? 

[Darrian Wolffe]

Logan, Lucas (my younger son), and I would prefer a character based campaign.  If the new idea of campaign is chosen, we are not sure about the one on one games, especially for my youngest son.  If the games were 2 on 2, 3 on 3, or 4 on 4 it would be better for us because part of us coming down is for us to play in group games.  We can play 1 on 1 games here at home.  The other month when we had two different smaller games going was great because the game play went faster and made it more exciting. We will also need help understanding how the Warchest system works and the bidding of forces. We have no problems playing our share of opfor either.

We really enjoy playing with this group and will play in whatever type of campaign that the majority and Rob agree upon.  

I sympathize with this.  I do.  I can't make the campaign perfect for everyone, though.  Some of what Bryan pointed out will be true (large games with sub-objectives), but that will not be the norm.

My suggestion is to create three different sub-commands within your household - one for yourself, and one for each of your kids.  See, the thing about running the 1v1 player games is that the campaign can continue whether we have 20 players in a week, or just 2.  So what creating multiple sub-commands in your household would allow you to do is give you the OPTION of each of you playing an independent game, or give you the option of playing a game with you and one son, you and your other son, or all three of you on the board at the same time playing the same command.  "1v1 player" doesn't necessarily mean "only on person allowed on the table" - it's just that the game is intended to be run with "1 person controlling 1 command".  If 2 or 3 people need to control a single command, that's totally OK too.  And since the highest-scoring player/command controls where the campaign moves to next, it's not like everybody has to be at every game.

I hope that makes sense.  It's clear in my head, but Robspeak does not always translate well.

Anyone else anxiously waiting for Rob to roll this out and let us start picking units? 

Waiting to hear back from other potential players.  This is part of the problem - a bunch of people don't check the boards regularly anymore. 

[phlop]

I am waiting, the explanation was better than I could have done.
For the warchest system, it fairly simple to keep track of. Hell if I can, then most anyone should be able to.

[Riegien]

This sounds good to me.  I have a slight preference for the modern era over revival, just as I prefer some of the newer omnis and things that have come out over the original batch, but really either one works well!

[agustaaquila]

My two thoughts:

1)  I am leery of warchest points, as the system either breaks units right off the bad or units get so much that they no longer care about the cost of anything.  Yes, a GM can limit this but that often means that limits apply to one command (to steal robs term) and not another as the forces are likely to be damaged at different times.  So if we are fie with command turnover then warchest is fine, otherwise dice luck plays a huge roll in starting out.  Fun, but once a tipping point is reached then logistics no longer matters.

(granted, this is mostly with merc units, but a command is a command)

2)  I like the slightly larger games, but I understand how taxing they are too write and execute.  I am open to the idea of 1v1 format but until the art of bidding is learned there is a potential for lots of opfor time.

3) I don't even follow my own rules, and do not care about era at all.