Question on All Our Minds

[livingancestor]

Well, I guess the question on all our minds is: Are we going to finish this campaign? :confused:

I don't have the time or inclination to run it. Does anyone else want to step up to the plate and either finish this one or start another one?

Inquiring minds would like to know. :D

[costampede]

I would like to play, but I definately do not have the time to organize a campaign.

[angel_lord]

I would be willing to drop out of playing in order to run the campaign. I don't know that I could effectively do both, and I don't think it would be fair. I don't believe in winning campaigns I'm running.

I would want to wait two more weeks while we are moving into our new house in order to get things started and organised - but if you guys want to go on I sure do.

We have one player out of town right now, and I believe Forrest was poised over his planet anyway.

If we don't have enough people interested to merit continuing the campaign then I propose we build forces and jut slug it out every other weekend.

[costampede]

Hey Forrest, what was your idea that we talked about the other night, during Anachronism?

[livingancestor]

Damien had mentioned running a campaign as well. If Shawn wants to play, Damien might be willing to run something. If not, Shawn could run it.

[angel_lord]

I believe Damien is still in Florida,

I wouldn't mind playing - in fact it seems to be the only chance for B-tech these days - but I can easily run the game so that it doesn't die.

Now that we are mostly moved into he house and have both phone and Internet again, not to mention being approximately 1 1/2 miles from the shop - I have a little more flexible ability to make it over to gamer's haven.

Shawn

[Ravenclaw74]

Hey guys I am back from sunny Florida. I would not mind running a Battletech campaign. Here are a few ideas I have in mind:

- I would use the Inner Sphere in Flames rules (from Combat Operations) for strategic level actions. This means that battles over planets can continue without players actually fighting.

- I want to incorporate a way for single BT clashes can affect the entire outcome of a battle.

- The setting would be the in the Dark Age Timeline. Each player will serve a House/Clan/Merc faction during the creation of Fortress Republic

- Each player will have a type of "avatar" unit which could fight on any planet that forces are on. So people can pick and choose where they need a push or ensure a victory.

- Each player will start with a Galaxy/RCT sized force plus a WarShip. But reinforcements can be purchased

- Each player will have a series of objectives (raid a factory, take a certain planet, kill/kidnap certain people) from hi patron

- There will be espionage involved (assassinations/sabotage)




Let me know what you gentlemen think. I would like you input as well. Give me a few weeks to come up with something good. Also give everyone a chance to play some pickup games in the meantime. I would like to show you guys some Battleforce 2 in the meantime as well.

[livingancestor]

Damien,

First of all, I think you should be more careful about throwing around that whole "gentlemen" thing. You've played with these guys. You know better. :D

I really like your ideas for the campaign. Let me know what I can do to support you with this.

Forrest

[Ravenclaw74]

I will definitely work on it this week. Do you have the Inner Sphere in Flames rules from Combat Operations? If not I can send you a copy and you can review and give me you opinions. All I really have to do is add my "avatar" rules. Basically how to have a player vs player bout would affect the strategic combat rules. I think that the victory level will affect the 2d6 combat resolution roll. So a victory can help turn the tide, and inflict much damage to the enemy, but you won't be able to take on a RCT with a company of vehicles. I have a few other ideas I can toss around.

[Ravenclaw74]

I have another question, can Kinko's or some other store blow up a .jpg to almost poster sized? Or maybe I can use Heavy Metal Map? I will look into that as well. I can maybe import pictures on a blank hex map? Hmmmm.

[livingancestor]

I don't have the rules. I'm not sure if any of he others do either. Is it a PDF?

Do we want to open the campaign up to others who might want to jump in? I Know Omar expressed some interest.

I think Kinko's can blow up a JPG., but you lose some resolution when they do. They like a PDF format for some reason.

[costampede]

Whats this, you can not use a company of vehicles?????

So how does the rules work then if we are to use the IS Flames???

Do we still use the new Total war rules, or the old BT rules, or are there new rules in the IS Flames???

In the avatar rules, it sounds as if it would be 1 mech (player a) vs 1 mech (player b) and who ever wins will get bonusus on their roll for the main combat which you do not actually fight, you just compare your roll plus your modifiers to determine the winner. Is this correct???

[Ravenclaw74]

Whats this, you can not use a company of vehicles?????

So how does the rules work then if we are to use the IS Flames???

Do we still use the new Total war rules, or the old BT rules, or are there new rules in the IS Flames???

In the avatar rules, it sounds as if it would be 1 mech (player a) vs 1 mech (player b) and who ever wins will get bonusus on their roll for the main combat which you do not actually fight, you just compare your roll plus your modifiers to determine the winner. Is this correct???

Hey bud,

Good to hear from you again. Of course you can use vehicles, but a company will eventually be ground down by a regiment of almost anything. Even with your unstoppable tanks of DEATH (*Grumble* I should have charged them in round one)!

Inner Sphere in Flames is the newest rules for grand strategy in the Battletech universe. You move regiments, fleets and galaxies across various worlds to conquer. The rules are not too complicated. Basically you use generic resources points to move troops, build units/bases, use esionage, and even research technology. It really is not that overwhelming. You place your orders and pick your fights. Combat is pretty much abstract. Each unit has Ground Points or Aerospace Points which are added up. You roll 2d6 which determines (from 17.5% to 40% I believe) the percentage of your GP/AP you inflict on your enemy. Combat can happen on dozens of worlds.

I want to add the avatar rules to add a personal touch to the fight. It would act as your Command Company or Clan Keshik, like a personal bodyguard. That is the unit you personally take into battle. I think it will be a BV points value instead of a static list of Mech/vehicles/fighters. Therefore you can change your forces. Much like the general coming to the front, gathering the available forces, and charging into battle. But you can use the same forces if you want to, especially if you want your Avatar to always pilot a Zeus for instance.

For rulesets the battle determine that. Mostly it will be the new Total Warfare rules. The battles can be in space, air, land or water. Heck you could even have a Battletech RPG match for espionage type battles. The victory levels will determine a bonus on the above mentioned 2d6 roll.

As a added "bonus" with the ISiF rules, you can deal with plantary rebellions, your units mutinying, and treacherous underlings. There is a Popularity rule. The more battles you win the more popular you are. Low popularity could result in planets taking up arms, junior officers taking over your position, or units deserting and going merc.

Lot of possibilities, plus I did not mention POWs, Orbital Bombardment (did I mention everyone starts with a warship?), and other goodies.


Damian

[Ravenclaw74]

Whats this, you can not use a company of vehicles?????

So how does the rules work then if we are to use the IS Flames???

Do we still use the new Total war rules, or the old BT rules, or are there new rules in the IS Flames???

In the avatar rules, it sounds as if it would be 1 mech (player a) vs 1 mech (player b) and who ever wins will get bonusus on their roll for the main combat which you do not actually fight, you just compare your roll plus your modifiers to determine the winner. Is this correct???

Hey bud,

Good to hear from you again. Of course you can use vehicles, but a company will eventually be ground down by a regiment of almost anything. Even with your unstoppable tanks of DEATH (*Grumble* I should have charged them in round one)!

Inner Sphere in Flames is the newest rules for grand strategy in the Battletech universe. You move regiments, fleets and galaxies across various worlds to conquer. The rules are not too complicated. Basically you use generic resources points to move troops, build units/bases, use esionage, and even research technology. It really is not that overwhelming. You place your orders and pick your fights. Combat is pretty much abstract. Each unit has Ground Points or Aerospace Points which are added up. You roll 2d6 which determines (from 17.5% to 40% I believe) the percentage of your GP/AP you inflict on your enemy. Combat can happen on dozens of worlds.

I want to add the avatar rules to add a personal touch to the fight. It would act as your Command Company or Clan Keshik, like a personal bodyguard. That is the unit you personally take into battle. I think it will be a BV points value instead of a static list of Mech/vehicles/fighters. Therefore you can change your forces. Much like the general coming to the front, gathering the available forces, and charging into battle. But you can use the same forces if you want to, especially if you want your Avatar to always pilot a Zeus for instance.

For rulesets the battle determine that. Mostly it will be the new Total Warfare rules. The battles can be in space, air, land or water. Heck you could even have a Battletech RPG match for espionage type battles. The victory levels will determine a bonus on the above mentioned 2d6 roll.

As a added "bonus" with the ISiF rules, you can deal with plantary rebellions, your units mutinying, and treacherous underlings. There is a Popularity rule. The more battles you win the more popular you are. Low popularity could result in planets taking up arms, junior officers taking over your position, or units deserting and going merc.

Lot of possibilities, plus I did not mention POWs, Orbital Bombardment (did I mention everyone starts with a warship?), and other goodies.


Damian

[Ravenclaw74]

I will be working on Turn Sheets and the map hopefully before this weekend. Unfortunately I have been gone for over a week and now I am playing catch-up at work.

[angel_lord]

Hey D,

I think forst is right, none of us has the rule set for innner sphere in flames. I'll check through my Batletech PDF's later, but I don't recall buying anything like that.

Anyway, the campaign sounds interesting, though it sounds as if I'll have to look elesewhere to get in any actual mech fighting since everyting is abstract in this.

[costampede]

I personally would like to play out all my battles out, I am not keen on static/abstract fights. Then it comes down to a just a few dice rolls to see who wins, as to playing a game out where you could roll the dice 100+ times with many variables to take into account, plus you can strategize and use tactics in a played out game more than in a static/abstract fight.
I think that the campaign should stay with just IS factions no Clan. I prerfer to play Clan and, I would not have spent alot of money on all my vehicles for this campaign if Clan was available, I would have bought Clan stuff instead. :(

[livingancestor]

I guess I misunderstood some of the things Damien explained about the rules for his campaign. Just like Tony, I'd really like for any battles to be played out with miniatures. A couple of dice rolls don't really tell you who is the better player. It tells you who is the better roller. If we don't keep the miniatures in the campaign, it's not Battletech. It's, as Tony put it, an abstract simulation of the game.

As far as what factions, Clan, Merc or House, I don't care, but I certainly understand Tony's feeleings. He's spent a lot of money on IS vehicles. On the other hand, if you open it up to all factions, other players, such as Omar, may join us.

Just my 2 cents.

[Ravenclaw74]

I understand all of your concerns. True there is an abstract component to it, and the ISiF rules mostly deals with the abstract/stragtegic portion of it. But the mini game is still an essential and important part to it. The strategic part mainly shows you where your fights will happen and the overall status of your faction. It could also be used if a player is involved in a fight and cannot attend the meeting.

It would much like our old campaign. You move troops around and if two opposing sides meet on a planet, then a fight occurs. The major difference is the scale of the fight. Regiments/Battalions could clash instead on Companies/Lances.

If both sides bring only a few lances (which could happen in raids/special missions) land on a planet, a fight breaks out on the table and it is decided there.

If both sides brings regiments to a planet, the players can still play on the tabletop (or not if they decide to fight elsewhere). The tabletop battle will help determine the overall battle.

The player's avatar unit will be like a troubleshooter. You will look over the worlds that you have forces engaged on and decide where you want to personally intervene.

I kept it a points value so players can customize their forces. If you want to use all Mechs or vehicles then its up to you. You can use the same designs every fight if you want to.

I opened other Clan/House factions since I am setting the campaign in the Dark Age. If you have IS vehicles there are plenty of IS or merc factions to choose from.

Please hit me with more questions/concerns.

[angel_lord]

Have to agree with these two. I generally play Battle Tech for the mechs and the table top combat. One reason I never liked Battle Force was that it took the personal component away from directign mech forces.

I don't mind doing a strategic operations campaign, but regiments seem a bit large in scale for me to really care what is going on. But the campaign idea still sounds interesting.

[costampede]

If we can get more players to guarantee to play in the campaign, then I would be fine with any factions (IS, Clan, Mercenary, what ever).

The downside is if Clan are allowed then I have to put my IS vehicles to the side. I am a Ghost Bear first and a IS Merc second. I do not know if I should :) or :( . Either way I am fine with what the group decides.

I agree with Sean and Forrest, all games need to be played on the table and the outcome of that game determines what happens, not the game gives bonuses to your rolls to see the final outcome after the table battle has been played.

I think all games should be land based battles (mechs, vehicles, vtol), no aerotech or space combat. I do not have the time to try and learn these two new rule systems.

[Ravenclaw74]

Maybe I should reduce the scope of the campaign then? What about a Operation Bulldog / Battle of Tukayyid type of scenario with many factions fighting on the same planet or region of space?

[livingancestor]

That might be better. It would keep it in a scale we could all play/afford.

[Ravenclaw74]

That might be better. It would keep it in a scale we could all play/afford.

There goes my dreams of moderating an interstellar war! Maybe I can use the campaign rules in combat operations. Or the campaign rules in the Jihad sourcebooks. I have do a bit more reading.

[costampede]

I like the idea of smaller scale (battling over just one planet sounds cool).

[angel_lord]

There goes my dreams of moderating an interstellar war! Maybe I can use the campaign rules in combat operations. Or the campaign rules in the Jihad sourcebooks. I have do a bit more reading.

Well I don't mind the idea of interstellar war normally- but I usually like to reserve such undertakings for the rpg and not for the tabletop battles. Still, as I said - I'm open for the game - I just have reservations about the sheer scale of it all.

I do like the idea that we can gradually buy reinforcements, rather than being limited to whatever we start with.

It'll just take some time to wrap my head around the idea of a large scale conflict.

[livingancestor]

So Damien,

Any further thoughts on the campaign? My trigger finger is getting itchy. :D

[Ravenclaw74]

I may have to call a Battletech "conference" and talk to the potential players about how I want to do this campaign. When I talked to Shawn face-to-face he got a better understanding. The main thing is that the strategic portion will be in the background, just like our old campaign. Most of the strategic rolls I would make as the impartial Campaign Moderator. The players would make the decisions, what planets to attack, where to build supply depots/bases, where to send spies/assassins to sabotage/assassinate. I would make the rolls and provides the results to the players.

The major thing I am trying to figure out is how to integrate the tabletop. The tabletop will be the main reason to play because it is the reason of the campaign's existence. I want the table to decide the battle. The only problem would be if someone attacks a plant with a company of tanks and the planet has a full RCT on. What if on the tabletop the player with the tanks defeats the player with the RCT? Should the tank company force the RCT off the planets.

That's why I am throwing these ideas out to you guys. Not to shock anyone, but to get your inputs and make this campaign as smooth and fun as possible. I want you guys to help me make this work. If you PM me your Email, I can send you the rules to look over and help me integrate Total Warfare. Just to remind you, I would make 90% of these rolls and send you messages such as, "The 2 battalions you sent to Skye are suffering heavy casualties" or "The DEST agent you sent to Altair was unable to steal the technological data."

[costampede]

I still think that we should keep the game small. (building Lances instead of Regiments)
In the old campaign I had 12 Lances for 35,000 pts. Now if we allow a Faction to build that many Regiments you are looking at 350,000 pts+. Way to much, I think Limiting it to less than 40,000 for intial startup pts. is better, and i would even prefer starup pts at 25,000.

[Ravenclaw74]

I still think that we should keep the game small. (building Lances instead of Regiments)
In the old campaign I had 12 Lances for 35,000 pts. Now if we allow a Faction to build that many Regiments you are looking at 350,000 pts+. Way to much, I think Limiting it to less than 40,000 for intial startup pts. is better, and i would even prefer starup pts at 25,000.

I agree that the tabletop battles should be limited in scope. Myself, the largest force I normally use on the table is 2 Lances vs 2 Lances. Normally my fights are Lance on Lance. Anything larger I use Battleforce 2.

[livingancestor]

Yup. Keep the tabletop stuff small. However large the strategic scope of the campaign is doesn't matter, but tactical battles for objectives should be kept to no larger than company size.

I do like the idea of someof the behind the scenes things being a secret die roll between the player and the campaign administrator, and the affected player finding out later. "Gee, I'm sorry Forrest. Your jumpship won't jump. It seems like someone stole your flux capacitor." Cool stuff. :D

[Ravenclaw74]

Yup. Keep the tabletop stuff small. However large the strategic scope of the campaign is doesn't matter, but tactical battles for objectives should be kept to no larger than company size.

I do like the idea of someof the behind the scenes things being a secret die roll between the player and the campaign administrator, and the affected player finding out later. "Gee, I'm sorry Forrest. Your jumpship won't jump. It seems like someone stole your flux capacitor." Cool stuff. :D


I agree on that. There is a lot of behind the scene stuff. I want to bring as much as possible to the table.

[angel_lord]

Just weighing in on things that have come up in my absence.

I liked the PV of what we had before. It worked well and gave me a great variety of choices as far as how many mechs I could field.

I've played a full RCT and several battalion on battalion table top battles before and it really didn't bother me much, so doing company on company battle is no sweat.

[Ravenclaw74]

Just weighing in on things that have come up in my absence.

I liked the PV of what we had before. It worked well and gave me a great variety of choices as far as how many mechs I could field.

I've played a full RCT and several battalion on battalion table top battles before and it really didn't bother me much, so doing company on company battle is no sweat.

It will be the same Point of View but with more detail and more choices. You get more choices and I will handle the details. I am working on a set of rules to follow. The backbone will be the Inner Sphere in Flames rules with my "Avatar" add-on. I think once I get that out I can really get your inputs.

[costampede]

So I take it that we are not going to come up with anything and just call it for know. :confused:

[angel_lord]

I'm pretty sure Damien was working on some rules for us to use, but I don't know what the status on that is.

[livingancestor]

If it takes a week or a month or 6 months, it doesn't matter. The fact that Damian is willing to put something together is good enough for me.

Patience Grasshopper. :D

[angel_lord]

That's pretty much where I'm at though I woudl like to do a littel pick up now and then while we are waiting. Perhaos another mech drop or 5000 point scrum or something like that.

[Ravenclaw74]

Well I am all for pick-up games. Hell I did not want a lack of a campaign to stop that. Just to let you know, I am still working on the campaign. Major issues is a map and how to deconflict the strategic/tactical portion. But I am all for a pick up game. Great to keep the gears greased.