A CONTEST: Mercenary Unit Ticket

[Hal]

I guess what I should have asked here is whether or not MERCENARY can be utilized as listed - just lifting prices for various equipment. Things like motars, specialized high explosives, etc are going to be needed by a military unit. If I have to go defensive, I am going to want to use various security oriented equipment such as mines and the like. If I am going to be engaging in combat against other "merc units" I'm going to have to consider what it takes after suffering battlefield losses - such as recruiting replacements and the like. Having this all open ended is fine but for the fact that when a unit is formed and the leaders are looking for tickets - they tend to specialize in areas where they are strong - not in general all around tickets where it is first come first serve...

Ah well. Musing as ever on my vacation (I will be off line for the next 6 days alas...) have fun guys.

 

[gardclan]

I'll field this one. Keep in mind this is subject to Bryan's overrulling.

Originally posted by far-trader:

</font>

1. Vehicle volume to dtons conversion used to figure transport issues - Do we use The Traveller's Handbook conversion of 1 vl equal 10 litres and the table in the ship design section, or do we use the TA conversion of 1 vl equal 5 litres, basically halving the values listed in the ship design section of TTB?
   

1. When TA's conflict with the THB. go with the book as a baseline. I assume your question revolves around transshipping of your vehicles?
   
   

   </font>[*]Bulk purchase - Noting that in TA1 ammunition is available in case lots (1000 rounds) at a discount of 25% may we also purchase case lots of other items in similar 1000 item lots (identical items) and 25% discount?
   
   

   You may assume that ammunition is so sold, but not so for heavy ordinance which is more typically handled in large lots. So bullets and gauss darts are ok for discount, but grenades, rockets, missiles, and shells are not. You must so note any and all ammunition expenditures so purchased.
   
   

   </font>[*]Suggestion - My earlier inquiry of masterwork weapons might be more sensible if the actual cost is calculated as:
   
   Base cost x (0.2 x DC)
   
   Where the DC is the Craft item DC for the desired masterwork item. So:
   
   Small Firearms (i.e. Handguns on the table) DC is 12 so masterwork versions will cost 2.4 times the base cost.
   
   Medium Firearms (i.e. Shotguns and Rifles on the table) DC is 15 so masterwork versions will cost 3.0 times the base cost.
   
   Machineguns (i.e. Machineguns on the table) DC is 18 so masterwork versions will cost 3.6 times the base cost.
   
   This will generate a masterwork cost of x2 or more as the text states. No masterwork Laser Weapons or High Energy Weapons.
   
   

   I'll forward this to the other judges for advisement. I wouldn't count on it going this way though. Please remain under the previous ruling RE: Masterwork weapons until advised otherwise.
   
   

   </font>[*]Used Ships - TTB states that used ships are available for purchase. Ruling? Yes or no? If yes how old? Obviously (to me anyway) financing should not be extended beyond the valued life of the ship. So a 70 year old ship for example would be discounted by 80% (unless well maintained) and any loan is going to be calculated over the remaining shortest valued life of 20 years (when it will be discounted by 100% and subject to scrapping if not well maintained).
   
   

   For the sake of this contest, please stick with published prices for the ships. This will also be forwarded to the other judges for advisement. If the ruling changes we will let you know. If the ruling does change to allow for used ships, you should expect random breakdown events which could hamper your mission.
   
   

   </font>[*]Basing - What would be the requirements for having a spaceport on base? Or do you want me to make an application for one with my desired needs and budget?
   
   

   Assume your base contains everything you require to house, train, feed, and maintain your unit and its vehicles. Starports are not included, but a landing pad / refueling point would not be out of bounds.
   
   

   </font>[*]Note for other Mercs - While looking at the turrets of the Grav APC and AFVs I noticed it may be confusing the way it's listed. If I have it figured correctly (and I think I do) the 600 vl turret breaks down as:
   
   350 vl - Actual turret volume available
   
   140 vl - Gearing and systems for turret
   
   110 vl - Gunner's station for & in turret
   
   .</font>[*]Weapons use in vacuum - This came up again recently on the boards. So what is the judges call on this issue?
   
   Simplistically (and with some detail you may not need for this) I'd say weapons with an introduction TL of 10+ are designed to function equally well in any environmental conditions.*
   
   *subject to interaction with the environment of course, low g extends your ballistics, flammable gases may be set off by some weapons, firing underwater messes things up, etc.
   
   Weapons with an introduction TL of 9- are not designed to function well in extreme environments. They will breakdown if the to hit roll is less than 20 - TL* of the weapon. Just use the to hit roll, no need to make an extra roll, just a check.
   
   *actual TL of purchase and build, not TL of intro
   
   A breakdown renders the weapon no longer able to fire until repaired. Repairs will cost 5% the value of the weapon per each point by which the breakdown check failed.
   
   Ammunition and power supplies with an intro TL10+ are not subject to extreme environment failure in normal use.
   
   Ammunition and power supplies with an intro TL9- are subject to catastrophic failure if the to hit roll is less than 15 - TL*. Again just use the same to hit roll, no need to make an extra roll, just another check.
   
   *actual TL of purchase and build
   
   Catastrophic ammunition or power supply failure results in the full remaining ammunition being destroyed and causing damage to the shooter as a 1d1 per round remaining attack that hits automatically (no crititcal). It also does (possibly additional) damage to the weapon equal to 5% the value of the weapon per round remaining.
   
   All of the above may be subject to situational DM's of +/-2 or more. For example if due care is taken or the environment is more or less extreme.</font>

Weapons specifically designed for use in vacuum will so work. Weapons not so designed will have problems. You may consider snub, accelerator, and lasers and similar to be vacuum capable weapons.

For general feedback (judges exempt) on the Weapons use in vacuum, please post to the thread here.

So noted.

 

[gardclan]

Originally posted by Hal:
I guess what I should have asked here is whether or not MERCENARY can be utilized as listed - just lifting prices for various equipment. Things like motars, specialized high explosives, etc are going to be needed by a military unit. If I have to go defensive, I am going to want to use various security oriented equipment such as mines and the like. If I am going to be engaging in combat against other "merc units" I'm going to have to consider what it takes after suffering battlefield losses - such as recruiting replacements and the like. Having this all open ended is fine but for the fact that when a unit is formed and the leaders are looking for tickets - they tend to specialize in areas where they are strong - not in general all around tickets where it is first come first serve...

Ah well. Musing as ever on my vacation (I will be off line for the next 6 days alas...) have fun guys.

The accepted rules set, as discussed earlier is T20, and selected TA issues. For the record, the moartars and similar weapons are located on page 247 of the THB. Explosives are found on page 205. Sorry, but we do have to maintain some consistency.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Rhys Trask:
I'll field this one. Keep in mind this is subject to Bryan's overrulling.

Of course.

Originally posted by far-trader:


Vehicle volume to dtons conversion used to figure transport issues - Do we use The Traveller's Handbook conversion of 1 vl equal 10 litres and the table in the ship design section, or do we use the TA conversion of 1 vl equal 5 litres, basically halving the values listed in the ship design section of TTB?

Originally posted by Rhys Trask:
When TA's conflict with the THB. go with the book as a baseline. I assume your question revolves around transshipping of your vehicles?

Correct, shipping out if needed. I thought it should be that way.

Bulk purchase - Noting that in TA1 ammunition is available in case lots (1000 rounds) at a discount of 25% may we also purchase case lots of other items in similar 1000 item lots (identical items) and 25% discount?

Originally posted by Rhys Trask:
You may assume that ammunition is so sold, but not so for heavy ordinance which is more typically handled in large lots. So bullets and gauss darts are ok for discount, but grenades, rockets, missiles, and shells are not. You must so note any and all ammunition expenditures so purchased.

No problem, or rather a futher clairification then. Are non-standard small arms rounds also available in discounted case lots? AP rifle rounds for example.

Suggestion - My earlier inquiry of masterwork weapons might be more sensible if the actual cost is calculated as:

Base cost x (0.2 x DC)

Where the DC is the Craft item DC for the desired masterwork item. So:

Small Firearms (i.e. Handguns on the table) DC is 12 so masterwork versions will cost 2.4 times the base cost.

Medium Firearms (i.e. Shotguns and Rifles on the table) DC is 15 so masterwork versions will cost 3.0 times the base cost.

Machineguns (i.e. Machineguns on the table) DC is 18 so masterwork versions will cost 3.6 times the base cost.

This will generate a masterwork cost of x2 or more as the text states. No masterwork Laser Weapons or High Energy Weapons.

Originally posted by Rhys Trask:
I'll forward this to the other judges for advisement. I wouldn't count on it going this way though. Please remain under the previous ruling RE: Masterwork weapons until advised otherwise.

Worst that happens is I budget more than I need

Used Ships - TTB states that used ships are available for purchase. Ruling? Yes or no? If yes how old? Obviously (to me anyway) financing should not be extended beyond the valued life of the ship. So a 70 year old ship for example would be discounted by 80% (unless well maintained) and any loan is going to be calculated over the remaining shortest valued life of 20 years (when it will be discounted by 100% and subject to scrapping if not well maintained).

Originally posted by Rhys Trask:
For the sake of this contest, please stick with published prices for the ships. This will also be forwarded to the other judges for advisement. If the ruling changes we will let you know. If the ruling does change to allow for used ships, you should expect random breakdown events which could hamper your mission.

Dang, no way to afford brand new ships on this operation, just have to wait till we get a few tickets cashed I guess

Of course if we do get to pick up used ships breakdowns would be par for the course, that's to be expected. You just hope your engineer can fix it

Basing - What would be the requirements for having a spaceport on base? Or do you want me to make an application for one with my desired needs and budget?

Originally posted by Rhys Trask:
Assume your base contains everything you require to house, train, feed, and maintain your unit and its vehicles. Starports are not included, but a landing pad / refueling point would not be out of bounds.

Good to clairify what is included, I had that right. For the other that's what I was looking at, just a little spaceport. Big hard flat spot with some lights and lines and maybe a radio shack. Maybe even a heater and pump into the ice for unpurified fuel. If I gets real fancy maybe even a purifier and some storage tanks. Of course if we don't have a ship, well, we'll just drive to the starport and find a ride like all the regular army folk

 

[Hal]

Originally posted by Rhys Trask:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Hal:
I guess what I should have asked here is whether or not MERCENARY can be utilized as listed - just lifting prices for various equipment. Things like motars, specialized high explosives, etc are going to be needed by a military unit. If I have to go defensive, I am going to want to use various security oriented equipment such as mines and the like. If I am going to be engaging in combat against other "merc units" I'm going to have to consider what it takes after suffering battlefield losses - such as recruiting replacements and the like. Having this all open ended is fine but for the fact that when a unit is formed and the leaders are looking for tickets - they tend to specialize in areas where they are strong - not in general all around tickets where it is first come first serve...

Ah well. Musing as ever on my vacation (I will be off line for the next 6 days alas...) have fun guys.

The accepted rules set, as discussed earlier is T20, and selected TA issues. For the record, the moartars and similar weapons are located on page 247 of the THB. Explosives are found on page 205. Sorry, but we do have to maintain some consistency. </font>[/QUOTE]Hi Rhys,
This is where I will need help then. Primarily because I do not have a copy of Traveller Hand Book. As a consequence, the *ONLY* source material I have now is the Traveller Lite rules, along with the Classic Traveller Rules and anything that is available for free in PDF format.
About the only way I can go forward on this is to create a "wish list" and submit it - requesting the prices of said items. If this presents an issue (and I can understand where it would!) I don't have any issue with disqualifying myself from this contest. I knew of the potential liability coming into this

In any event, I will continue to work on this contest using only CT items for when I get back from vacation. If I'm disqualified, I can easily enough post my intended formation in another thread to let the contestants either mine it for useful ideas or give people an inside view of what tactical doctrines might have been employed against them

 

[bryan gibson]

Hi Rhys,
This is where I will need help then. Primarily because I do not have a copy of Traveller Hand Book. As a consequence, the *ONLY* source material I have now is the Traveller Lite rules, along with the Classic Traveller Rules and anything that is available for free in PDF format.
About the only way I can go forward on this is to create a "wish list" and submit it - requesting the prices of said items. If this presents an issue (and I can understand where it would!) I don't have any issue with disqualifying myself from this contest. I knew of the potential liability coming into this

............................

This one I can field. Although it will sound harsh, the contest rules were both specific and clearly stated. No exceptions allowed, sorry.

...............................

In any event, I will continue to work on this contest using only CT items for when I get back from vacation. If I'm disqualified, I can easily enough post my intended formation in another thread to let the contestants either mine it for useful ideas or give people an inside view of what tactical doctrines might have been employed against them

....................

while your interest is certainly appreciated, I would frankly much rather you not do so until after the contest. Mining for Ideas and such (in my opnion, anyway) abrogates the spirit of the contest.The idea is that the contestants having accepted the challenge, do so for themselves unless they are team collaborating.

It would be somewhat like kibbutzing, or having someone hanging over your shoulder saying "play the red jack on the black ten" sort of thing.

After the contest is quite another matter, but during would, to my eyes,( and again, IMO only) be inapporopriate.

 

[Hal]

Hello Bryan,
I read your message and will comply. Good hunting guys

 

[far-trader]

OK, maybe I'm a little lost or just dense here but I have still got some issues with the vehicle stuff. I'm not saying change the rules, just help me understand them

Originally posted by bryan gibson:
Rules of the Game, part One

5. For the purposes of this contest, the following references may be used: Traveller T20 as the standard, as well as TA1 Weapons, TA3, Ground Vehicles, TA6 Grav Vehicles, and TA8 Watercraft. Only standard designs, as per the approved references may be approved: “homebrew “ designs will not be approved.
While other publications such as Striker or SJG Ground Forces might be appropriate, they are not necessarily always available, and so will not be regarded as the standard. I recognize this will seem a bit loose, but in the interest of uniformity I would stress that these be our standard references. This is to provide the contestant and Judges an equally accessible as well as uniform standard.

Yep, ok, pretty clear I think. If two contestants take the same vehicle it costs the same and they function identically.

However...

Originally posted by veltyen:

My main objection to using vessels and vehicles out of the base THB and TA's is that I cannot think of any complex vehicle that is self consistent, let alone fully kitted.

Vision systems are one of the biggies. No readout systems, values calculated oddly. Half of the rest of the stats seem to be a stab in the dark a lot of the time.

And I agree entirely. For example, take the Traveller's Handbook entries for the AFVs and G-Carrier. All have 3 lasers installed in a turret. Fine. Power is correct. OK, but the table for the lasers lists the range as "Sensor". OH OH. None of the vehicles has any sensors! The lasers are useless. Or are we to imagine they are manually sighted? The turret does have 50vl of open space so sensors could be added but then we get into the homebrew prohibition right? And even if we did the G-Carrier seems poorly designed. With its standard power system it can't even have more than a single light added! And yes it doesn't even have a light. Guess it only flys during the day?

Originally posted by bryan gibson:
"As for vehicles mounting weapons and such... "

Standard design, as per the book. If it has weapons mounts, it may mount a weapon, priced as per the other sources, simple designate and add the cost accordingly.

Take note, however, while it might mount a higher tech weapon, it must be capable of supporting said weapon ( IE, if mounting a fusion gun, and it has no EP or way to power one, its a NO GO)

So we can homebrew weapons to a degree if the support for a weapon is there (i.e. a mount and power if needed) in the standard design?

A slightly more complicated example. In the AFV turret there is 50vl of space left. Could I add a LMG and ammo cassette, up to that 50vl limit? Naturally the Gunner could only fire one or the other (lasers or LMG) in any turn.

What about adding other systems? With the same limit of course of space and power if needed. Such as filling the cargo area with stretcher racks (i.e. bunks).

Sorry to be so lost on this but if I'm going to be using vehicles I need to know what's allowed.

I also wonder why my unit mechanics can't weld a pintle mount in the back of my jeep to mount a LMG on?

While that thought is fresh, I also have a question or several that might be harder to answer.

Just what skill set beyond the automatic feats and such should we expect of our recruits?

Do we get to choose where our recruits trained and served prior to being signed up (Army, Navy, Marine, Mercenary) for the basic skill set?

If we select E1 Green troops are these considered native trained (i.e. on our base over the last year) and we can choose the basic skill set and/or special training?

Are troops considered "special" (i.e. earning the listed recruitment bonus) if they have skills beyond the basic set (medic, pilot, gunner, etc.)?

Well enough for now, besides we have a storm brewing so I should log off and shut down (yes I have quality UPS on the system but still). I look forward to your answers. Thank you for your patience.

 

[far-trader]

Oh btw I see that Liam will be in his bunk for the next few days so I'm not knocking on his door

Have a well deserved rest sir and see you around when you wake up.

 

[bryan gibson]

posted August 14, 2004 11:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bryan gibson:
Rules of the Game, part One

5. For the purposes of this contest, the following references may be used: Traveller T20 as the standard, as well as TA1 Weapons, TA3, Ground Vehicles, TA6 Grav Vehicles, and TA8 Watercraft. Only standard designs, as per the approved references may be approved: “homebrew “ designs will not be approved.
While other publications such as Striker or SJG Ground Forces might be appropriate, they are not necessarily always available, and so will not be regarded as the standard. I recognize this will seem a bit loose, but in the interest of uniformity I would stress that these be our standard references. This is to provide the contestant and Judges an equally accessible as well as uniform standard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yep, ok, pretty clear I think. If two contestants take the same vehicle it costs the same and they function identically.

However...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by veltyen:

My main objection to using vessels and vehicles out of the base THB and TA's is that I cannot think of any complex vehicle that is self consistent, let alone fully kitted.

Vision systems are one of the biggies. No readout systems, values calculated oddly. Half of the rest of the stats seem to be a stab in the dark a lot of the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I agree entirely. For example, take the Traveller's Handbook entries for the AFVs and G-Carrier. All have 3 lasers installed in a turret. Fine. Power is correct. OK, but the table for the lasers lists the range as "Sensor". OH OH. None of the vehicles has any sensors! The lasers are useless. Or are we to imagine they are manually sighted? The turret does have 50vl of open space so sensors could be added but then we get into the homebrew prohibition right? And even if we did the G-Carrier seems poorly designed. With its standard power system it can't even have more than a single light added! And yes it doesn't even have a light. Guess it only flys during the day?

......................

Good, bad or indifferent, go with the listed vehicles. As stated, we have to have a uniform standard, and this is the one we're usuing. As has been stated, the judges recognoze the flaws, but as these are the ones uniformly available, these are the ones will use. We will not be doing this in such a way as to penalize the contestants because of recognized flaws in the data to hand.It has its limitations, and its not a perfect world, sorry. I have my own preferences , as well, but thats niether here nor there.

so, only fly during the day.

............................
------------------------------
OK, maybe I'm a little lost or just dense here but I have still got some issues with the vehicle stuff. I'm not saying change the rules, just help me understand them


So we can homebrew weapons to a degree if the support for a weapon is there (i.e. a mount and power if needed) in the standard design?

A slightly more complicated example. In the AFV turret there is 50vl of space left. Could I add a LMG and ammo cassette, up to that 50vl limit? Naturally the Gunner could only fire one or the other (lasers or LMG) in any turn.

What about adding other systems? With the same limit of course of space and power if needed. Such as filling the cargo area with stretcher racks (i.e. bunks).

Sorry to be so lost on this but if I'm going to be using vehicles I need to know what's allowed.


.......................

In a word, we the judges are not going to go over every vehicle in detail, we haven't the time, and the purpose of the contest is NOT to build a better vehicle. It to build a merc unit. Bear this in mind,and follow out lead. If the performance of you unit is so dependeant on your equipment that its that much of an issue, youre screwed at the outset.

While the gear is an undeniable asset, most of the contestants are focussing on their gear far too much for the purposes of this contest, in my opinion.

.............................

I also wonder why my unit mechanics can't weld a pintle mount in the back of my jeep to mount a LMG on?

..............
refer to the above. More will be explained below.

.......................

While that thought is fresh, I also have a question or several that might be harder to answer.

Just what skill set beyond the automatic feats and such should we expect of our recruits?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

perhaps the rules were not clear, to which I accept blame...the contest si in many respects abstract, and the individual feats are far less important than it seems most feel. As INDIVIDUALS, the unit matters not beyond the basic troop types, the only individuals a contestant need sweat out as to stats should be the leadership.I would say, NCO and above,

I will discuss this with the judges and get back, the question is well put and deserves clarification.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Do we get to choose where our recruits trained and served prior to being signed up (Army, Navy, Marine, Mercenary) for the basic skill set?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

unless vets or elites, assume Annapabar.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If we select E1 Green troops are these considered native trained (i.e. on our base over the last year) and we can choose the basic skill set and/or special training?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

again, in the abstract...say, a platoon with x skills, and so on...individuals are less an issue.But, yes, this applies,barring special training- regarding that, Id say one or the other- that is, speacial troops are just that, specialized. I'd imagine a commo troop or med troop would not be expected to have the full range of infantry skills, for example.
..............................

Are troops considered "special" (i.e. earning the listed recruitment bonus) if they have skills beyond the basic set (medic, pilot, gunner, etc.)?
...................

simply put, yes.Also take into account their quality rating as well, such a a veteran medic.

...........................

 

[bryan gibson]

So we can homebrew weapons to a degree if the support for a weapon is there (i.e. a mount and power if needed) in the standard design?

A slightly more complicated example. In the AFV turret there is 50vl of space left. Could I add a LMG and ammo cassette, up to that 50vl limit? Naturally the Gunner could only fire one or the other (lasers or LMG) in any turn.

What about adding other systems? With the same limit of course of space and power if needed. Such as filling the cargo area with stretcher racks (i.e. bunks).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
well, aside from theobvious, I'd say go withinn the basic rules, BUT, again....the goal isn't to build a better vehicle, My first instinct is to say no, go with whats listed, but as the point is valid, I say this: KISS< lest we say nay later. Judges adjudications are final, and I suggest that the mods be common sense, and straighforward. Annotate any made. Overdo it, and present us a big wad of vehicles we have to check over, and we send em back with the note : no time. Do it again. No deadline extensions."

fair enough?

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by bryan gibson:
this also will be submitted, but my take on it would be along these lines:

<snip of Leader Troop quality take>

I'll bounce by the others this thinking, but in the short, this is what I would consider.

Okay, I'll use this for the time being.

Casey

 

[gardclan]

Please allow me to add to Bryan's comments.

If you tell us that you have purchased a "g-carrier", then we will assume you mean the one from the T20 rule book. If you say "g carrier, page xx TA-6." Then that is the one we will assume you are using. No changes in the base chassis are allowed. (Primarily because we do not have time to check vehicle designs.)

If you wish to change the listed armament, you may do so, BUT if your changes require an intensive check of the vehicle to verify that you have either room or power, then you may expect us to reject the design. When making such changes, be sure to CLEARLY denote what you did in the most concise language possible.

If the judges cannot tell precisely what you did, and if you can get away with the change design wise AT A GLANCE, then please reconsider your change very carefully (as it is likely to be rejected.)

Hope this helps.

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by bryan gibson:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by far-trader:
Are troops considered "special" (i.e. earning the listed recruitment bonus) if they have skills beyond the basic set (medic, pilot, gunner, etc.)?

simply put, yes.Also take into account their quality rating as well, such a a veteran medic.

........................... </font>[/QUOTE]So a dedicated gunner would rate in terms of pay as say a communications & technical service, a pilot, or just receive a onetime Cr20 enlistment bonus?

Casey

 

[gardclan]

Due to a rather eggregious error on my part, I have released this to one contestant ahead of time. That person was honest enough to point out my error. I salute your honesty sir. After consulting with Bryan, it was generally felt that the best solution was to post the contents here.

Please note that the system is not yet "bullet proof" nor in a finished state. It was however our intent to use this as a means to field test the submissions in a combat action. It differs somewhat from Book 4, but thats to be expected.

Mercenary Abstract Combat System (MACS)
Rev 1.6

This abstract combat system is an adaptation of Book 4: Mercenary to T20 rules set. Like its predecessor, this combat system is conducted two phases. Phase I is preparation, Phase II is execution. The preparatory phase involves assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each unit involved and assigning them a unit efficiency rating. It is conducted as follows:

Differential Tech Level: The difference in technology available to a given unit will bare on its combat efficiency. If the unit evaluated has a higher tech level than the opposing force, assess the difference in tech level as a positive modifier. If the unit assessed is lower in technology level, assess the difference as a penalty. Thus, a TL-12 unit engaging a TL9 unit enjoys a +3 bonus, while the opposing force suffers a –3 penalty. Thus the effects of both firepower and defenses are accounted for.

Unit Training and Experience Level: Better trained units perform better. There is no substitute for training. To simulate this, units are evaluated by a combination of experience and training as follows:

Experience Level DM
Green -1
Regular +0
Veteran +1
Elite +2

Morale: Unit morale has a decided effect on their efficiency in combat. Conditions which affect morale vary, but the end result is what is of concern here. Assess benefits and penalties as follows:

Morale DM
Demoralized -2
Poor -1
Fair +0
Good +1
High spirited +2

Logistics: A unit which cannot be re-supplied soon finds itself unable to fight effectively. Assess penalties and benefits as follows:

Supply Level DM
Stretched -1
Nominal +0
Well stocked +1

Transport and Medivac: A unit must make provisions for both the transport and medical evacuation. Units which have non-adequate transport will have greater difficulty in taking objectives due to their limited range. Medivac will also help to reduce the casualty rate post combat.

Transport DM Definition
None -2 No vehicles allocated to troop transport No medivac capability
Example: foot infantry with no vehicles

Limited -1 Unarmored ground based transport for up to 50% of the troops. Limited ground based medivac
Example: truck transported infantry with ground effect ambulances

Basic 0 Unarmored ground based transport for the entire troop compliment. Limited but available airborne medivac
Example: Jeep and truck equipped infantry with some access to helicopter ambulances on a difficult to obtain basis.

Good +1 Armored or airborne transport Airborne medivac capability and medical staff
Example: APC equipped infantry with access to helicopter or grav sled based ambulance service on a stand by basis.

Excellent +2 Armored and high speed transport Advanced airborne medivac
Example: Grav APC or Dropship equipped infantry or mechanized infantry unit with access to grav ambulances on a standby basis with in flight medical service.

Artillery or Close Air Support: The ability of a combined arms team to be reinforced or assisted by means of artillery or close air support can make the difference between victory and defeat. Apply the following modifiers to the unit efficiency:

Level Bonus Example
None +0 No access to artillery or close air support

Poor +1 Access to mortars with no forward observers

Average +2 Mortars or limited Artillery/CAS with forward observation

Good +3 Artillery/CAS on standby with FO and laser designation

Excellent +4 Ortillary/Artillery/CAS on standby with orbital fire direction and FO/laser

Leadership: Solid leadership can stem the tide when all factors are stacked against a unit. The history books are rife with examples. A unit may apply the leader’s leadership skills as a positive modifier. To determine the modifier, divide the total leadership asset (after all bonuses and feats) by seven The maximum leadership modifier is +3

Unit Size: Unit size is always a consideration. However, by use of good tactics and concentration of firepower, it is possible for a smaller force to defeat a larger one (although seldom in detail). The size of the unit. For simplicity sake, each unit size class has a category number. This will come into play later. Assess vehicles differently than troops on the ground, if they are armed sufficiently to engage other vehicles. Vehicles not so armed are accounted for under transport/medivac.

Size Class # entities/vehicles
1 individual 1 / *
2 fire team 4 / *
4 squad 8 / 1
6 platoon 40 / 4
8 reinforced platoon 60 / 5
10 company 130 / 12
12 reinforced company 150 / 15
14 heavily reinforced company 200 / 18
16 Battalion 500 / 48
18 Reinforced Battalion 600 / 52
20 Brigade 1500 / 96
22 Reinforced Brigade 2000 / 105
24 Division 10,000 / 384

Unit Efficiency:

A units efficiency is a composite of the above listed factors. When determining how well they do in combat, sum the factors above (not to include the unit size number) for a value ranging between –8 and +9 in areas where artillery cannot be used. (leadership modifiers notwithstanding and assuming a 2 TL differential between units).

Type of Engagement:

The type of engagement being fought has some impact on the units ability to inflict casualties. For the following conditions, assess the following modifiers: Note, the modifier is likely to be different for each unit depending on what they are doing at the time.

Engagement type DM
Routing -10
All troops fleeing in a disorganized and chaotic manner

Unit ambushed -6
Unit surprised by an opposing force prepared for them in advance

Hasty retrograde -5
Unit retreating under orders and in an organized manner

Unit surprised -4
Unit surprised by an opposing force not prepared for them in advance

Hasty attack -2
Unit reacting to an unexpected enemy and attacking on orders

Retrograde -1
Unit retreating under orders, organized, and by plan

Movement to contact +0
Unit advancing with the intent to locate and engage enemy forces

Hasty defense +1
Unit defending against an unexpected opposing force by orders

Coordinated attack +2
Unit attacking an objective by plan and orders, rehearsed ahead of time

Coordinated defense +4
Unit defending with time to prepare adequate defenses and obstacles

Protracted defense +6
Unit defending with elaborate and advanced defenses in place

Unit Engagement:

When combat is joined, seldom are whole units pitted against one another. Most often, small sections of given units encounter each other, are engaged, and are either victorious or defeated. Only if the units engaged are sufficiently large do the main bodies tend to commit larger percentages of their numbers to the fray. The decision to commit or not to commit is a function of the leadership. If such an action occurs, re-assess each unit based on the size of the units committed AFTER the current combat is resolved. It is possible in this way for a small contingent to be wiped out before reinforcements can arrive. In general, assess the differential in unit size numbers as a modifier when engaging. Thus, a size 4 unit firing on a size 6 unit suffers a –2 penalty.

Determine the engagement ratio as follows:

Roll Element Engaged
0- down 4
1 down 3
2 down 3
3 down 2
4 down 2
5 down 1
6 down 1
7+ full unit

Die modifiers to this roll:
Engaging unit composed of indigenous troops:
-2
Commando mission: +2
Security mission +1
Engaging unit smaller than platoon sized
-2

Apply the result from this roll to the unit size for the opposing force. Thus if a battalion is engaged and a roll result of “2” is obtained, drop down two entries on the table to reinforced company.

Resolution:

Sum all modifiers (unit efficiency + Mission mods) and add to the difference in unit size. (Smaller units having a penalty, larger ones receiving a bonus) a roll of 2d20. The end result is the percent casualties inflicted on the opposing force this turn. Results lower than zero are a null result, meaning that no casualties were inflicted. The pre-roll totals will range from –41 to +38 (depending on tech level) will result in casualty rates ranging from –39% to 78%. This roll is conducted once per side and casualties are inflicted to both participants.

Casualty rates:

Principle morale level is 20%. A unit must make a morale check once for each 20% casualties they take to avoid a breakdown. Check morale as follows:

For every 10% casualties a unit takes, there is a like chance that the leadership will take a hit. Note that leadership in this case is UNIT leadership for the unit engaged. Loss of the leader imposes an immediate loss of his leadership bonus and an additional -1 penalty to morale. The penalty is two fold in this case. The unit looses their leadership bonus to efficiency, and their morale drops yet another point (which will have a second but less direct effect on efficiency.) Note that the morale range isn't very great to begin with so there isn't a whole lot of "resolution" at this level of abstractness to account for the grade of leader lost. Also a lost leader under this rule can cause a low morale unit to rout. This effect occurs in addition to unit combat losses as detailed below.

Total the modifiers from experience, morale, logistics, transport and leadership. This number will range from –6 to +10. Consult the following table with a roll of 1d6.

Roll Result
-1 or less Rout
0 Degrade morale by 3
1 Degrade morale by 2
2 Degrade morale by 2
3 Degrade morale by 1
4 Degrade morale by 1
5+ No effect

If a units morale drops below Demoralized they will surrender. Casualties are rounded up to the nearest “whole troop."

A unit’s preservation level is 40%. This means when they take 40% casualties or more, they must withdraw.

A unit which suffers 60% or more casualties has been rendered combat ineffective.

A unit which suffers 70% or more casualties is destroyed.

Post Battlefield Unit Strength.

Note that casualties at this point casualties are not fatalities. Although a unit which has suffered more than 70% battlefield casualties seldom has sufficient means to reconstitute itself or evacuate its wounded to a safe location. Apply the following conditions to the unit survival roll. Note that the percentage achieved denotes the percent of casualties which survive and can be placed back into service later.

Add the POST COMBAT unit efficiency to the mission type modifier to achieve a result between –18 and +15. Add twenty to this result (a value ranging between 2 and 35). Roll 2d20 and add to the total for a range of 4 % – 75%. This is the total number of the sustained casualties that survived or could be rehabilitated into service later on. Such casualties are unavailable for 1d6 months. All others are either dead or were unable to convalesce and have to be mustered out.

If the unit suffered a rout, deduct 50% from the result.
If the unit suffered greater than 70% battlefield casualties, deduct 60% from the result.
Negative results are null, denoting that none of the casualties survived.
*****

 

[gardclan]

By the way, forgive the formatting on the above post. Any contestant wishing to have the file in an RTF or similar format may email me at

gardclan@comcast.net

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Rhys Trask:
Please allow me to add to Bryan's comments...

<snip>

Hope this helps.

Yes, thanks to you both. I was just having trouble finding the line to tread between the stated minimalist/abstract needs and the requirements to make it believably real in a functional sense. I think I can see it now

But no field sobriety test walk of it please

I think I can come up with a unit that meets your KISS requirements and still fits my perceived reality checks. Worst that happens is you disqual it and it's just a game, no real Mercs will be unemployed and looking for someone to hurt because of it

 

[veltyen]

A couple of questions, one for the judges, one for anyone who may be able to give me a hand.

For the Judges:
What are the terms of the loan? 24MCR is the ammount, but what is the interest rate, what is the repayment period, and is there a grace period?
Just trying to work out how much of my slack Credits are slack at this point in time.

For anyone willing to assist:
I have just realised that Annapabar is a planet referenced in material I do not currently have access to. For the moment I have assumed a non-hostile atmosphere, a reasonable gravity, TL13+, a sector seat of government, a class A starport (full up-port, extensive downport and capable shipyard) and between "8" and "A" population. I'm not asking for a replication of the printed material, just a quick rundown so I don't go too far off track. For example I have no idea what law level or government type is available, and any special info (native ecology, exotic industry) that might be a given.

First draft should be sent off to the judges this evening.

 

[clementk]

Originally posted by veltyen:
For anyone willing to assist:
I have just realised that Annapabar is a planet referenced in material I do not currently have access to.

FWIW the UWP is:
Annapabar 1936 A4367A9-D B Ag 210 Im K3 V

My source is the publicly available and Ancient approved .SEC files for the Gateway Domain. Annapabar is located in the O (Diamond Prince) Subsector of Ley Sector and is the Domain Capitol. Zhodani Base's Ley Sector page* is useful for a sense of perspective.

Casey (still writing my first draft >.< )

* note this page was written AFAIK before the final draft of the Gateway book so while it's a more visual representation of Ley Sector the .SEC files are the authoritative source for UWP data

 

[far-trader]

Well, I think it should be ok for me to answer this from my own notes made before I arrived.

I was going to ask about the Ag trade code, I found two different trade codes in a quick look and wonder which is right, though I can't recall what the other one was. I'll just omit the trade code for now.

Character mode on...

-------

A huge 8 wheeled AFV rolls up to the downport gate and a warmly dressed figure hops out the side door, the warm air from inside the vehicle breathing out a puff of fog in the chill midday air. When the figure pulls down his hood veltyn recognizes far-trader who waves and waits for veltyen to come out of the warm port and laughs as he shivers in his too light clothing...

"tsk tsk veltyen"

"You should have done your homework before joining the throngs coming out here to Anapabar. Hope you packed your long woolies."

"Welcome to the coldest hot spot in Gateway. This once unremarkable, and still frigid, rocky iceball orbiting the far extreme of the sun's habitable zone was almost entirely barren and ignored before 991."

"Now in a couple short years its been named Capital of Gateway Domain and the population has boomed to some 20 million. You've already seen the down port and city of about half the population that's called imaginativley enough Gateway City."

With a gesture to his left far-trader continues "That just leaves some of our grand scenary, an endless vista of rock and ice. Occasionally the monotony is broken by an endless vista of ice and rock. OH! Look over there! A rare sight indeed and a real treat for a newcomer. Its some rocky ice, or is it only icy rock? Oh well I gotta get back in my nice warm G.I.P. and take this load of recruits out to my base. You need a ride anywhere?"

TAS Library Reference : Anapabar (1936) A4367A9-D N 210Im K3V