From: bc@fccn01.fccn.pt (Luis Miguel Sequeira)
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm
Subject: BattleTech PBeM Development Group
Date: 17 Nov 1992 06:04:03 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

*******************************************************************

 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
                                                                          /
_________________________________________________________________________/
Newsgroups: rec.games.pbm