Damage as a Target Number

I've been crunching numbers a lot on the Barrier Armor thing recently, and a pattern emerged for me.  It is generally speaking unrealistic to expect to do more than 1 point of damage to a vehicle in a single blow, so for non-Support vehicles, the question of getting a "hit" can largely be reduced to a question of if the PC can roll a specific TN.

The TN for doing 1 point of damage to a vehicle is (2 *  BAR) - AP - BD for burst weapons.  For non-burst weapons, it becomes (BAR - AP) + 4 * (BAR-BD).  While this formula is mechanically awkward for the PC, it helps with GM-side analysis quite a bit.

Here we have the TNs for different base damages (indicated by the lines) for various armor penetration values against BAR 8 armor with a burst weapon.  Since we're usually used to thinking in terms of TN and difficulty, this help assess how hard it will be for the party to engage a vehicle with a particular weapon.  It gets much, much worse without Burst fire:

TN's don't fall into realistic ranges until AP4 at least, and that's with a very well-trained shooter.  Remembering that even a small vehicle will take at least a dozen hits before it has a reasonable chance of losing any of its capability.

This is all very interesting.  Tomorrow I think I'll look at the same values for explosives.

Barrier Armor Rating

One problem that I run into time and again with producing results for character-on-vehicle combat is coming up with a good BAR.  Support Vehicles get explicit BAR's, but BattleMech-grade armor is presumed to have a BAR of 10.  Given that Combat Vehicles have armor that behaves identically to BattleMech-grade armor in Total Warfare, it makes sense that Combat Vehicles also have a BAR of 10.

Here's the problem: During the infantry-on-vehicle combat example on page 212 of A Time of War, the Ranger being engaged by character is explicitly stated to have a BAR of 8.  I looked up the Ranger (page 26 of TRO:3085) and it is a standard Combat Vehicle.  This raises some problematic issues, specifically, that it implies BAR is not always 10 for Combat Vehicles.

Now, I understand, especially after my previous analyses, why an A Time of War GM would want to have a lower BAR for a hostile vehicle.  Vehicles are very hard to take down with man-portable weapons in this game.  That said, I worry about screwing up players' ability to analyze a tactical situation when we scramble those numbers beyond the rules.

Life Intervenes Again

My well-planned session was once again delayed due to travel complications and family obligations cropping up with too many of my players.  Such is the life of a GM -- always ready, rarely called.  The holiday season in the US (November and December) is particularly trying on people's schedules, so we try to make room where we can.

This week I'll take some more time to examine options in running the type of Ambush scenario the next game session should be.  Specifically, I'll be looking at modifiers and tactics in the rules, and how attacking an armored vehicle actually plays out.  My simulations suggest a major challenge is avoid killing a party member in a single attack, so I'll talk a bit about suggesting tactics to the party, and how to do a little slight of hand with the on-table die rolls to make it look like the danger is real without allowing a serious blow to strike the party.

It also helps that this is the first session where I consider party member death an acceptable outcome -- I don't want to lose the whole party, but one tragic loss is not something I'll retcon if it happens.

Power Creep

Just recently XTRO: Periphery came out.  I thus far haven't been terribly impressed with the XTRO line; they've added little new weight to the BattleTech universe and seem fairly obvious plays for quick cash from the hardcore fanbase without quite resorting to asking for donations.  That said, I consider myself part of the hardcore fanbase, so I don't mind it so much.  The art assets are pretty blatantly reused.  I scanned the pictures of the Saladin and Patton variants against their pictures in TRO:3026 and TRO:3025, respectively (the second of which was double-used in that very entry for both the Patton and the Rommel) before I thought to myself that the very fact I was looking for some tiny difference in detail told me all I needed to know about the art.

I realize that the marketplace is changing and that small releases more often are the way to go these days, but I feel like relevance is being punted in the name of faster cycle times.  The Turning Points series was nice, and had some good plot information and the like in its summaries, especially when we, the fanbase, for starving for operational details of the Jihad.  Especially impressive were the BattleForce-scale planetary maps in the back.

The Field Reports series was also pretty nice, giving a snapshot of the early-3080's Inner Sphere, although they were a bit vague and inconsistent between reports.  The Dossiers were clearly an attempt to jumpstart A Time of War, but I've been unable to get them to work very well for any meaningful purpose thus far -- they tend to be extremely special-purpose NPC's, with a few Warchest missions attached.  The new Objectives line is interesting, and I feel like it is going to play well into the new Interstellar Operations book, but so far it kind of treads the same ground as Field Reports in greater detail economically.

That covers most of the less-than-50-page releases Catalyst has put out of late in the BattleTech universe.  All of these works have a purpose, whether or not they succeed at fulfilling it.  The XTRO line, though, is just throwing more canon designs into the mix.  I appreciate the handful of designs showcasing new technologies available to players, but really, do we need more choices?  Look at the Master Unit List.  There's a platform in there for dealing with almost any imaginable mission profile.  Usually there are several.  I have been told that the new power curve is critical to BattleTech's survival as a game, but I'm not sure I believe it.  I still run 3025 designs against Jihad-era taskforces, and with the exception of some true capability-shockers (the Gauss Rifle in 3050, the Clan ER PPC around the same time, etc) the new toys are just providing more bookkeeping for effects that can be provided with weapons going all the way back to the Compendium.

I imagine this post makes me sound like an old man shouting for these kids and their new-fangled ATM's and Heavy Gauss Rifles to get off my lawn, but I'm really sad that so much fluff is coming out of Catalyst recently that doesn't contribute significantly to the tactical interest or the story progression of the game.

Incidentally, I'm going to be MIA next week.  Check back here 11/28, hopefully with a report on the tank battle.

The Effect of Grinding on a Tabletop

As I'm sure a lot of you have experienced, MMOs are quite popular with tabletop gamers, and I m wondering how that effects how my players view the tabletop experience.  The playtime investment for an MMO is typically much larger than for a tabletop -- often by an order of magnitude.  The signal-to-noise ratio is generally much higher for the tabletop; more plot is delivered per hour, on average.  I'm forced to wonder, though, has the MMO standard now made tabletops feel rushed?

I really don't have sessions in which the plot isn't advanced in one way or another.  There aren't a whole lot of day-in-the-life sidequests, or chances to build out the world, which seems to impress players, especially ones not already familiar with the BattleTech Universe to feel the world is somehow thinner and shallower than is the case.  I can't help but feel that it is at least partly my doing as a GM that lends this issue to them, but none the less, I wonder how much of it is the expectation that character development and skill rewards only come after scores of hours of play.

More Jokes

Because I'm late on today's entry:

A Coyote commander is watching a trial unfold between his cluster and a cluster of Hellion warriors. He turns to his XO in a fit of rage saying, "I do not remember the Hellions bidding any protomechs in this trial! Have the surats called for reinforcements?"

The XO turns to his commander and says, "Neg, sir. Those are light 'mechs." 

(drum snare) 

This year the Lyran Alliance has launched new efforts to strengthen their Battle Armor core. New Commandos and Scarabus' should be rolling off the assembly lines soon.

(drum snare)

A Kell Hound mechwarrior is squaring off against a Jade Falcon mechwarrior. Getting frustrated with the Hound pilot constantly jumping into cover or behind his mech, the Jade Falcon warrior switches open his comm link and calls out to his enemy "Stand and fight me you cowardly freebirth!"
The Kell Hound, unphased by the Falcons taunting responds, "Fat chance you son of a whore."
The Falcon warrior replies, "Freebirth surat! How dare you accuse me of having a mother!"

Thanks to Southern Coyote on the BattleTech Forums.

Toy Tanks

One thing I've been thinking about the last day or so is the idea of miniatures for A Time of War games.  Getting scale right is somewhat difficult; obviously Total Warfare-scale miniatures are much too small to represent their equivalent units on the A Time of War battlemat, but nobody manufactures BattleTech miniatures of considerably greater scale.  For instance, representing a 12-meter tall BattleMech would involve a six-inch tall miniature on a 2m/inch mat.  A large vehicle would be of similar dimension in its footprint.  The scale works out to be something on the order of 1/78th Scale.

Automobile models are commonly produced in 1/24th scale, which might be close enough to work with, but tanks are largely produced in 1/35th at most.  The latter scale is pretty close to using a scale for your BattleMat in which 1 inch equals 1 meter, instead of 1 inch equals two.  That cuts the gamespace area of your Battlemat to a quarter of its previous size, but permits considerably greater selection if one is inclined to use large-scale miniatures for their campaign.  I suspect the investment is most worth it for games being run at conventions, where production value is everything, but even for more private games that want to add a special twist to a session, using mass-produced modern tank models as stand-ins for combat vehicles seems perfectly viable.  Otherwise, the next stop is at 1/72nd, which is probably more economical, and provides more space for units on the board.

Extension!

The Martian Death Flu has laid low one of my players, and another was off on family business, so we didn't make quorum this week.  This is perhaps just as well; I'll have some more time to run simulations on PC-vs-vehicle combat, which still seems something of a crapshoot to me, and not one that favors the PC's.  Also, I'll have a chance to pick up some good physical props to represent the ambush.

Ambush

So the mission for Session 12 is a convoy ambush; a way of getting the party used to taking it to the Word of Blake, and to start the "Active Resistance" half of the campaign.  The theory is the party ambushes the truck carrying Candidate 26 to Devil's Tower as it winds though the forests of Wyoming.  They'll be assisted by a group of Terran Resistance fighters, who will furnish them with a few support weapons, and a few extra bodies. The escort for the truck will be a couple of Word of Blake militiamen, and a light attack vehicle.  I'm thinking a Scorpion Light Tank (TRO:3026R p. 26.)

The Tactical Addendum nor the Combat section of A Time of War is terribly explicit about the BAR values of tank armor, but if we presume that tanks are running around in the same armor as 'Mechs (given they take the same damage at the Total Warfare scale), then we can presume that the Scorpion will have a BAR of 10.  To hurt that tank, that is, to do at least 1 point of armor damage, the party needs to put 20 standard damage points into it with one blow.  Let's see what can do that.

A lot of the Support Weapons have serious Burst ratings, which is all well and good if you can roll well.  At ambush ranges, the to-hit number for a vehicle is something like 1, but the highest Support Weapon skill the party has is Shin at +1.   The practical upshot is that he'll be able to do at best 11 or 12 burst damage.  With a Support Machine Gun (5B/5BD), he'd score as high as 22, but he'd need a 10 or better to do that, and they'd be looking at stacking as much as 64 damage on this beast.  He'll need something more effective.

A Heavy Recoilless rifle will put a point of damage on the tank on any success (8X/12BD).  That's nice, but it won't stop a thundering tank from killing all of them.  More likely, the party will need to lay some kind of command-detonated minefield to take out the armor asset before seizing the truck.  If the mines only disable the motive systems, though, the recoilless rifle might be very necessary.

I expect the party will have a great time planning and executing this operation, once they have a few operational details.

Planning For the Big Reveal

Session 12 is scheduled for Sunday, and plan is for the party to find out the truth about the Word of Blake's bioweapons project on Terra; that Branths are being used to develop extremely dangerous viral weapons.  They'll find out the location of the facility, and they'll find out its approximate garrison size.  Most importantly, they'll find out the entire research program is based on Clark's research.

I want this mission to be more action-oriented than ones in the past.  Simon will not be present, so we can safely bring more combat to the session than normal.  The basic premise will be the party intercepting a convoy coming from the bioweapons station somewhere in Montana to Devil's Tower.  It will be transporting a large amount of Candidate 26, the WoB Class V biological weapon, which the party will need to neutralize.  In addition to the cargo, they'll find a good deal of documentation, including a way of locating the facility itself.

Exactly how all of this will play out, I still need to write.  But I know where I'm going.

How The Puzzle Went

One interesting thing about the puzzle this week was how it threw into sharp relief the problem solving strategies of my various players.  Three of my players are definitely analytical thinkers; they saw the puzzle for a process that had a clear path to solution.  They sat down and began running a logic grid immediately.  This had two problems; it turned out that the way they were working was only practical for three or at most four people.  As a result, Cameron, the most intuitive player in the group, was rather left out.  After about half an hour, he began working the puzzle his own way; making a very intuitive analysis, using scraps and clues the party had learned about but that they wouldn't use on their logic grid because they feared going down an incorrect path.  Cameron, on the other hand, used a more guess-and-check approach, forming a potential solution, and checking it against all the clues to try to determine a viable solution that matched all the constraints.

As it turned out, he was very close when the logic grid team finished their solution.  I am sure that it would've been a near thing if they had started at the same time; I could easily believe that Cameron would've come to a solution first.

That said, rather than bringing the party together as I hoped, the puzzle split it more severely than any activity I've set them to yet.  I need to carefully consider the intuitive/analytic gap before I throw another one at them.

Session 11 Logic Puzzle

For your edification at home, here was this week's puzzle.  Formatting errors are intentional.

INTERCEPT//23123-122//ABD-3995
PARTIAL MESSAGE

TO: ALEXEI ROMANOV
FROM: [UNKNOWN SENDER]
DATE: 31 DECEMBER 3069
SUBJECT: FWD: RE: RE: FWD: RE: RE: FUTURE OPS

Alexei--

Don’t know if you’re still at this address, but your operation is before Eric’s.

> On 29 DECEMBER 3069,  said:
>
> Eric is leading OPERATION SARNA.
>
>
>> On 29 DECEMBER 3069, said:
>>
>> Wait, so who is leading OPERATION SARNA then?
>>
>>
>>> On 29 DECEMBER 3069, said:
>>>
>>>
[LOST CONTENT]
>>>>> is taking place in May of 3074, not OPERATION SARNA.  Jessica >>>>> is leading one, and I don’t remember who is leading the other, >>>>> but its the Fresno op.  Look it  up.
[LOST CONTENT]
>>>>>> No, Jessica is leading the Colorado Springs operation.  We’ve >>>>>> been over this before!
[LOST CONTENT]
>>>>>>>> OPERATION NBC will be completed before Wayne’s team has even >>>>>>>> completed training.  If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be able to
[LOST CONTENT]
>>>>> OK, now I’m really, really, really confused about the timeline.
>>>>> Is the 3070 or the 3074 op in Denver?  I know they’re both in
[LOST CONTENT]
>>>>>>> is leading OPERATION MECHSTEAL, not Wayne!  Unless you’re
>>>>>>> planning to make some bass-ackwards change.  Like that never
[LOST CONTENT]
>>>>>>>> OPERATION NBC isn’t even in Montana.  Doofus.
[LOST CONTENT]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Geez, guys.  This is the team we’re kick the WoB >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offworld with?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Look, this is very simple.  There are five ops >>>>>>>>>>>>>> planned: The Gilgultch op, the 3072 op, OPERATION HPG, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jessica’s op, and the Horsehead op.
[LOST CONTENT]
>>>>> Let’s pretend, unlike you, I know operational procedures from >>>>> my own ass.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, Alexei won’t be available for Gilgultch.  We’ve been over
[LOST CONTENT]
>>>>>> Fortunately, OPERATION NBC happens before OPERATION MECHSTEAL.
[LOST CONTENT]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Way to go, ace.  You sorted each column >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separately.  A fat lot of good that table does us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 31 OCTOBER 3069, said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here’s the summary for operations over the next few years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DATE LEADER CITY NAME
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FEB 3070 ALEXEI COLORADO SPRINGS BIOWEAP
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JUN 3071 BETH DENVER HPG
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> APR 3072 ERIC FRESNO, CA MECHSTEAL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SEP 3073 JESSICA GILGULTCH, WY NBC
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MAY 3074 WAYNE HORSEHEAD, MO SARNA

Session 11

Session 11 ended up falling out a bit differently than I was expecting.  We resolved the downtime XP (which I've now created a form for, since we've reached the part of the game where we have double-digit numbers of months between session.  Then I delivered the intercept to Anthony, who began solving it while the rest of the group continued eating breakfast and chatting.  He made some progress, and people made their way over to help him as we moved forward, but I'll cover how that worked out later this week.

I solved the puzzle in 45 minutes the night before, and I figured my limitations as a single person working would just about balance out the gains I had being in practice for logic puzzles.  It turns out that was a bad assumption; it ended up taking about 90 minutes for the group to solve the puzzle to their statisfaction.  They discover the resistance will be executing an HPG operation in Denver in February of 3070, and that Alexei will be leading.  Simon lays a number of detection traps in the HPG station computer to try to get a message to Alexei when he breaks in.  The team successfully contacts Alexei and later manages to intercept the Resistance team that's breaking into the Denver HPG station.  A tense standoff ensues between Davida and Shin and the two resistance members (neither of them have ever seen Alexei, so they can't tell if one of them is him.)  The resistance members tell them they are now tapping all communications through that station, and if the party needs to get in touch with them, to just send a signal through there.

After that, the session wound down quickly.  This is the last of the "learning the threats" sessions that I planned, and Session 12 will be the first "Doing something about it" sessions.

Elementary School Busywork For The Win

I've decided to go with the Logic Puzzle approach to Sunday's session.  I've been looking for resources to suggest ways to construct logic puzzles, but thus far the algorithm seems to be "create the grid, create a clue, add clues until you can solve the puzzle yourself."  Not terribly creative, but effective.  It is also possible that I can simply hijack an existing puzzle online by replacing their category names with my own.

This latter option is the one I find myself admitting I would suggest to somebody else, which is usually my prime indicator that I should embark on that path.  To that end, I found a site, http://www.logic-puzzles.org, which simply has an archive of logic puzzles known to be solvable in about 5-10 minutes.  Now I just need to select one, replace the names of the categories with categories from my game, determine how to word in-game documents to contain the clues properly, and do the rest of the footwork to have this particular exercise ready to go for Session 11.

Maintaining Momentum

Oftentimes I think that forcing myself to post here some I can at least not be too embarrassed by is the only thing that keeps this campaign at the quality level it is maintaining.  With the close of the year coming up fast, my schedule is ever-more packed, and finding room to think about Ten Years on Terra atop my myriad other responsibilities is becoming a bit of a challenge, but it keeps me honest, and makes sure that my players get the GM attention they deserve.  So thank you for continuing to read this blog; the steady stream of hits on the statistics page reminds me of my responsibility to you, and to my players.

Operational concerns aside, the last 24 hours have yielded little in the way of ideas for game elements to add to Session 11, but I also need to determine a few details regarding why the party is going there.  I know that they'll be getting a hint that will set them on Alexei's trail, a hint the feeds into the minigame that lets them find him, and by extension, the HPG station in California.  Most of my ideas have been that they find a radio beacon that leads them to him, but exactly why that comes out almost two years after he goes missing is not clear to me -- most of the explanations that spring to mind push the limits of credibility.

Likely I'll have Simon find some hint as he works.  Exactly what depends on the minigame, but I'll work that out soon enough.

Preparing for the Sarna HPG

The Sarna HPG plotline that I've developed was entirely based off fairly old (pre-Catalyst) BattleTech source material.  I was somewhat bemused to discover that the recently released Jihad: Final Reckoning sourcebook contained a number of HPG-based weapon systems that added a lot of rules, or at least guidelines, for what the Word is working on at the HPG station in California.  On Sunday I hope to explore that with the party.

I still want to develop some out-system minigame for them to solve as the first part of the session; a puzzle in which they can all participate.  I've discussed this in prior entries, but I'm still not terribly happy with any of the games I came up with.  Exactly how that will look, I'm still not sure.  Something to break the mold, make each of the players use their skills in a seriously helpful way, and contribute toward a goal that advances a party goal.  More and more, I'm convinced that I need some kind of puzzle that the character make skill checks to solve.  Something with five components, one for each character.  Maybe a logic puzzle of some description.

When I was young we used to do logic grids, in which you had two sets of data (people and rooms, for instance), and a list of hints you were supposed to use to determine which datapoints were associated with each other.  I really enjoyed them, and a few years ago I built a D&D campaign, one of the core plot points of which basically boiled down to solving one of these.  I'm thinking I might build a smaller one for Sunday if I can think of reasonable datasets to have the party correlate.

Knowing What You Don't Know

One of the more interesting interesting interactions that happened during Session 10 was when Simon, who spent the session monitoring WoB comms chatter, learned about the incoming bomber attack.  He had two-way communication with David and Shin, but could only listen  in on Clark and Alexander.  The result was that while Clark and Alexander's players knew of the impending attack, their characters did not.

Bert and Cameron (Alexander's and Clark's players, respectively) are very different sorts of players.  Bert tends to try to play optimally, so he immediately began seeking a reason for his character to get to safety.  He wasn't willing to have his character just break and run on a hunch, but there was suddenly a series of questions about exactly what he could see and hear (standing in the hulk of a ship under construction, the answer was "not much.")  He was very agitated until the air raid alarm went off and he could justify having his character run.

Cameron, on the other hand, was much more relaxed about the situation.  He concluded there was nothing his character could do until he found out that there was a threat, so he just went on roleplaying the encounter as he had been, albeit much more slowly as Bert was now constantly interjecting with ways he could preternaturally detect the incoming attack.

Now, both of these reactions are common play styles.  There was some strain, though, in the fact that suddenly Bert was chewing up a lot of time at the table; he wanted out bad, and who could blame him?  A trio of altitude bombers were bearing down on his character.  The problem was that he was now cutting into time other players, whose characters did know the attack was coming, wanted to use to get themselves repositioned and ready.

I countered this particular problem in two ways.  First, I accepted the first two or three questions as usual, but when they kept coming, I stopped Bert and asked for just a moment while I handled the other players, going around the table in order.  The "around the table in order" thing is something I've found to be important, because it gives the person who needs a lot of time a clear indication that we will be getting back to him, at a predictable time, but also lets me get actions from each other player.

Second, I moved up my schedule for the air-raid alarm.  By doing this, I was effectively giving Bert what he wanted -- a chance to run.  I gave up a bit of tension for the other players by yielding early, but the tension was going to be damaged anyways by the disruption that was being caused to the gameflow.  This second action was more cutting my losses than taking proactive steps to improve my game experience, and I feel that there was a better solution, but it has not come to me.