BattleTech PBeM Development Group From: bc@fccn01.fccn.pt (Luis Miguel Sequeira) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:04:03 +0000 ******************************************************************* B A T T L E T E C H P B e M D E V E L O P M E N T G R O U P ******************************************************************* - New developments on the last hours :-) - Perhaps the single more important thing (my opinion) is the announcement of a group of people already developing a BattleTech PBeM! Thanks Paul, hope you'll join us. One big point of controversy is the tactical game vs. political game question. I'll start with this one, as there are quite a few adepts of each view. The majority, it seems, would like a political game; but John Woolsey (wool8657@mach1.wlu.ca) correctly points out: >I would be interested in helping with the rules, but if you go battletech I >would really favour a battlefield type simulation. That really is the nicely >designed thing about battletech, and it brings in the ability for hidden >combat, which is not available in a standard battletech setting. He's right, you know. The real "core" of BattleTech are the battlefield rules. A political game, using a larger scale, would obviously spoil all the fun of what BattleTech really is. While I think that John Woolsey is certainly right, my own opinion (and this may *not* be yours) is that a political game would give the PBeM more continuity, and this is what matters most on a PBeM. I naturally agree with all of you who argue that DuelMasters, as an arena game, can last as long as any political/strategical/economical games (and a few, like Diplomacy, are finished after a preset number of turns...); on the other hand, we shouldn't forget that the BattleTech universe, just with its tabletop rules, lends itself to long campaigns (and I know a group of friends of mine who are engaged on a long-term campaign lasting for the past dozen of months or so). So, a BattleTech battlefield simulator, with an eye on the campaign rules, should be "the real thing" in terms of BattleTech universe and environment... No question about it. However, such a game is simple carnage, blood & steel fights to the end, and long live the MechWarriors who still survive. That is, an arena game, where weapons are renamed as 'mechs (this quote isn't mine). In truth, this is exactly what a BattleTech campaign is all about - and it's surely great fun! On the tabletop, I mean... However, on a PBeM, we benefit of the advantage of having a *lot* of players at the same time. I don't know how many DM players exist on an arena, but I'll judge that they must be a lot, too; still, I find that, for a group of many different people, the political game is more attractive, and lasts longer, keeping its interest. I may be viewing this totally wrongly, and I believe that many of you, including John Woolsey and perhaps others, would certainly agree that a blood & steel arena game would last as long as a political game, and perhaps be even more interesting. Thus, what I proposed since the beginning was an adaptation of the rules, keeping some of the spirit of the BattleTech game, by fighting battles on a smaller scale, but still integrated in the global game. I know the purists are yelling at me. A simplification of the BattleTech rules stripes the game of all its fun! Ok, allrighty; but, on the other hand, 90% of the BattleTech scenario will still apply, the single difference being that you aren't limited to battles on the smaller scale, but can enjoy the convolutions of power play at the political/economical level... So, if the majority out there favours the political game (as it seems to be so), I think we'll stick to it. You know, you can't please contradicory factions for very long... I hope that this won't stop you to still contribute. We can always learn from your experience with other PBeMs, your suggestions on things not directly concerned with the rules, but having to do with coding problems, etc. Stick with us; you'll be still "useful", even if you don't like the rules! (BTW, this is, I think, something which always happens when something new is created, and when one is still on the brainstorming phase. Several compromises can be found, but on contradictory matters, one of the ways must be choosed...) Well, after the initial thoughts, back to work: THE TWO-LEVEL GAME ****************** (one is the tactical level, the other is the political one, obviously) Suggestions for the tactical level: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From Adrian The Cenobite: 'Mechs would have at the tactical level the following 6 stats, with their self-explanatory meanings: o Close combat o Short range fire power o Med range fire power o Long range fire power o Movement o Armour Adrian offered himself a volunteer to convert the 3025 'mechs to this new format. Thanks, Adrian. BTW, Adrian, develop a program to do this automatically, i. e., given the "normal" BT ratings, it converts them into the new ones... and back! (This will give you more trouble... :-) Yep, I'd like to see players buying 'mechs by the BT rules, or keeping maintenance costs, or etc., and have their BT ratings converted into "our" stats for purposes of battle only. Just because I can't imagine what's a 100-point-armour, but I sure can appreciate the differences between a Warhammer armour and the Locust one! I. e., BT freaks will easily grasp our PBeM rules. I'm still missing order examples, but there was a hint in some mail I read (sorry, forgot the author again) to give only generic orders, e. g. Attack <Mech> or <mech type> where <mech type> is one of the following: heaviest, lightest, fastest, etc. Attack <Objective> i. e. base, factory, fuel dump, etc. Defend <Objective>, <Mech> or <Hex #> Mech stands still and awaits Ambush <Hex #> Enemy 'mechs crossing that hex will be shot! (simple!) Mech hides while ambushing. Move to <Mech>, <Objective>, <Hex #> [Avoiding | Attacking | Fleeing] As per the MechWarrior PC game... Surrender! Yep! Please add to the list, it's still too small. The political game ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Well, here I received a few more suggestions. The general opinion is to let the players take the houses. The best suggestion in doing this came from Paul Paukstelis (rdna@matt.ksu.ksu.edu): let 'em be Counts, Dukes, Barons controlling a few planets and their 'mech forces, and subject to the House Leader (another layer, of course). This would mean that some players wouldn't bother with the tactical game in itself, but just with the political one, contracting other players to do the hard work. Looks good to me. Some examples of "political" orders, as suggested by Jon Z (zamick@yoko.rutgers.edu): > If you really do want at multi level game, I'll toss you the kinds of >things you can get hirelings "characters" to do. Commands could >include things like: > >Negotiate- Contracts, Hostages (returning captured members of other >groups for money), other diplomatic things. > >Connections- Buy Mechs, But parts, Buy Title, Hire folx > >Charisma- Social Climb, Raise Connections, Increase Loyalty ratings of >hirelings, Subvert Hirelings of others. > >I think that as the game develops this will be at least as interesting >as the combat of the mechs. I see such combat involving only the >characters flying the mechs thus allowing players to expand past >individual lances. Also combat could be done like hyborian war. >Declare preferencial terrain. Use speical abilities. Next round. Set >up lines. Use special abilities. Next round combat is resolved. I think he's summarized most of the "political" game, and also added some ideas on turn order sequence. Nice job, Jon, thanks again. The planets ~~~~~~~~~~~ It seems now clear that each planet will be unique with some overall terrain characteristics, and special "features" ("facilities"). I'll sum up Paul Paukstelis' and Jesse Taylor's ideas: >It consisted of having 4 basic types of >planets: Industry, Agriculture, Water, Trade. In general, a planet would >have a major, consisting of one of these four, and a minor to be taken >from: Outpost, Base, or Industry. The system is based upon interdependence >between planets to sustain the economy. For example, and industrial planet >needs certain units of water in order to keeps its growth going. All planets >need Ag. to survive >each planet could have a certain number of "facilities", say 1-5, such as >Cities, Factories, Water Purifiers, Mech Factories (rare), Supply Dumps, >HPGs (if you want to involve ComStar in this, too), Training Camps, >Arenas. (that's all I can think of for now). So, planets have (at least) three levels of detail: 1) Terrain: Water, Plains, Rough Terrain, Hills, Forests, etc. expressed as a percentage, which has (in some obscure and as yet undefined way) an effect on the battlefields; 2) Planet Type: Industrial, Agriculture, Trade, etc. I'll get more ideas from MegaTraveller, if you wish. This is the basis for economy. It seems that Paul already has some work in progress on this area. 3) Special facilities: Starports, Cities, Bases, Factories/Industrial Plants, Power Plants, Water Purifiers, Mech Factories (rare, as Jesse puts it :-), Supply Dumps (e. g. food for the MechWarriors on Agriculture planets, 'mech parts on Industrial planets), HPGs, Training Camps, and so on. These would group together to form a strategical value for the planet in itself (and battles would inevitably be fought for control of these facilities). While a player (one of the Houses, or one merc leader) could control the whole world, most of them could control only parts of the world (i. e., the facilities). I find this a nice touch, compared to many "duller" SF PBeMs, where you only get industrial output, population & resources (this wasn't meant as a criticism on your "Galaxy" game, Russell! :-). If anyone wants to develop the interplanetary relations, i. e., ship construction & travel, let's hear about it! For the sake of simplicity, I'd suggest to stick to Adrian's 6-stats as an universal basis (but starships may lack close combat/short range stats). --- That's all folks! At least, for today. Seems that we are almost about ready to start on the rulebook, aren't we? (optimism, optimism) :-) _________________________________________________________________________ / / _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ Computer scientists do it byte by byte. _/ _/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ "Know your enemy before he knows you" _/ _/ _/ _/ - Sun Tzu misquote _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ bc@fccn01.fccn.pt Luis Miguel Sequeira Laboratorio Nacional de Engenharia Civil Phone 351-1-8482131 Ext. 2752 Centro Informatica/Grupo Sistemas Centrais "Don't call me, I'll call you" Av. Brasil, 101 - 1700 Lisboa, Portugal / _________________________________________________________________________/ Up