Trillion Credit Squadron Campaign Scenario Ideas

[far-trader]

Per Jeff's instructions this thread is for sharing ideas to hash out an interesting and playable TCS Campaign Scenario.

We're all bound to have wildly different ideas, and if Jeff is running it he'll want to limit it to a managable level of detail.

But to begin just toss ideas out here. Debate the merits. Then we'll see what we're left with.

I'll start...

-------

Part 1:

My initial vision is setting up two small polities in a vacuum of any other serious forces. We don't really need a whole subsector, just two primary systems and perhaps a disputed system with a starport but no gas giant, a colony world of one of the polities.

I'd like something other than a straight-on equal starting footing game myself for interest, so my preference would be to make one polity higher TL but poorer fleet wise and the other polity lower TL but richer fleet wise. Nothing extreme though, and not a requirement but it is what the rest of my idea is based on.

Perhaps (and my preference is for middle tech levels) Polity A could be TL13 (an edge in power and weapons) with some fraction (have to run some numbers to find a reasonable ballpark to make the game interesting/even) of the budget of Polity B with their TL11.

The primary systems would be 4 parsecs apart, requiring J4 for Polity A, but the disputed system midway between, currently a colony controlled by Polity B allows them to use J2 making two jumps. The primary systems would be class A starports to allow building starships. The colony world would be class B starport to building spaceships for local defense. This may in fact be the best way to go with a fleet advantage for Polity B. Allow an extra budget for system defense boats built in the colony system. Perhaps at a lower TL, maybe TL9. And also an extra pilot allowance for the added population (see below for pilot allowance expansion rules in part 2).

Roles (Polity A or Polity B) will be determined by mutual agreement of the players, or randomly by the ref if no agreement is made.

I see a few possible scenarios to play out after the initial fleet setups. Perhaps in order as a small war:

1. Polity A strikes Polity B colony world attempting to prevent Polity B from striking their homeworld. Victory by A prevents scenario 2 (A defacto scenario 2 victory for A) and forces scenario 3. Victory by B forces scenario 2. No clear victory will force scenario 2.
2. Polity B strikes Polity A homeworld in retaliation for scenario 1 and to prevent Polity A from striking their homeworld. Victory by B prevents scenario 3 (A defacto scenario 3 victory for B). Victory by A forces scenario 3. No clear victory will force scenario 3.
3. Polity A strikes Polity B homeworld.

Between each scenario surviving forces may be resupplied, and repaired if they can return to the homeworld, but no new forces may added.

Captured ships may be pressed into service if they can be returned to the polity's homeworld either by jumping on their own or carried by other jump capable ships.

Final victory award would be based on weighted total victories, one point for scenario 1, two points for scenario 2, and 3 points for scenario 3. In the case of a tie surviving assets would be calculated and the highest credit value would win.

-------

Part 2:

I have an idea for adding notable crew elements (per High Guard page 44) as well:

Fleet/Squadron Commander:

Any fleet/squadron may designate a Fleet/Squadron Commander by designating a Flagship/Flight Leader and including at least one backup bridge on it designated as the Fleet/Squadron Command Bridge. Multiple Fleet/Squadron Commanders and Bridges are possible but only one may be applied to any Fleet/Squadron at a time. The applicable skill is Fleet Tactics and is a +DM to the initiative roll.

Ship/Craft Captain:

Each ship or small craft may designate an officer as Captain (part of the crew calculation for Book 5 crews, an added crew member for Book 2 crews). The applicable skill is Ship Tactics and is divided by two, dropping fractions, and is a plus to the effective computer factor. This requires the ship or small craft to have a computer functioning at factor 1 or more.

Ship/Craft Pilot:

Each ship or small craft requires a Pilot as part of the crew calculation. The applicable skill is Pilot/Ship's Boat and is divided by two, dropping fractions, and is a plus to the effective agility of the ship or small craft as long as the ship or small craft has an agility of 1 or more.

Note:

If the ship is subject to a crew hit all skill bonuses for that ship (and the fleet/squadron if flagship/flight leader) are lost until the frozen watch (if any) is revived.

Determining Skill Levels:

The Skill Levels above are derived by dividing the Pilot allowance by the total Fleet/Squadron Commanders, Ship/Craft Captains, and Ship/Craft Pilots, including Frozen Watch replacements (one half the total, drop fractions), dropping fractions, with a maximum allowed Skill Level of 5.

For example, using a Pilot allowance of 60. Polity A is using 1 Squadron Commander, 5 Ship Captains, and 5 Ship Pilots on 5 ships. That's a total of 11 plus 5 frozen watch. So 60 divided by 16 is 3.75, drop the fraction for Skill Level 3 for each. Getting a +3 on initiative, +1 on effective computer factor, and +1 on effective agility.

-------

So there's my first kick at the idea. Not sure how involved it will be to run. I guess it would depend a lot on the budget and sizes of the fleets involved.

 

[Jeffr0]

For whatever scenario gets worked out:

(This is not meant to contradict far-trader, but to just throw some things out there for brainstorming.)

Two "Class A" High TL worlds for the starting players-- one each. (Default TL 12)

Several "Class B" worlds between them of varying TL's-- to fight over.

Miscellaneous junk worlds that can provide taxable subjects but no ship production.

Players start by sending out fleets to conquer these worlds. They have neutral defense fleets that must be destroyed... not sure how big they need to be, yet.

One of these worlds have a high tech fleet cached there. (Default TL 15) Players can use the ships when they're discovered, but cannot repair TL 15 equipment.

It should be possible to cut off worlds from providing the other player a tax base-- some sort of geography should be defined for that.

The only slight economic change I'm thinking of is to calculate tax revenues on a turn by turn basis-- so that players are encouraged to try boa constrictor type strategies and get an immediate payoff for them.

 

[skyth]

I am a fan of both sides being equal in any engagement.

Mirror image empires?

I enjoyed the TL 12 stuff...Different than the meson sleds I'm used to, though TL 13 might be an improvement?

Granted, I don't have TCS so I don't have as well-founded an opinion as others.

Maybe do this with a HG battle rules change (Like armor only counts for half DM's on the table, Spinals are -4 to hit, 12's auto-hit/pen, a 2 on the damage dice always does some damage, etc). Don't want to mess with the construction rules (Those are great, plus allow use of HGS).

 

[Jeffr0]

I am a fan of both sides being equal in any engagement.

Mirror image empires?

If there's an imbalanced scenario, we could have the players bid for which side they wanted: I could take Empire A out with Empire B as long as I had an x% bonus in starting credits....

But for a tournament... I lean more towards both sides having at least the same TL. Maybe not complete mirror images, but reasonably similar anyway.

In any case... I'd want to run a few of these before doing a tournament.

 

[skyth]

'With what forces do you defend this subsector?'

 

[BillDowns]

I guess I am a little confused - there were 5 of us in the 1BCr, plus Magnus, and perhaps a couple more were interested. Based on Jeff's initial proposal about the Zho Core Expeditions, I was thinking of a 6 to 8 way war with alliances and such.

Regardless, my thoughts originally were of setting a population goal, rolling up UWPs to get to that goal, then placing them on a map. I feel that 4 parsecs is a bit ...claustrophobic...

Maybe that's just because I'm a Texan and used to big spaces

 

[far-trader]

I think this is just the preamble to the bigger version. Jeff said something in the other thread about trying it with just two players as a first go to work out the kinks. I based my initial take on that, and was worried it might be more complex than he was interested in. Judging by his feedback here I think I needn't have worried

 

[far-trader]

...One of these worlds have a high tech fleet cached there. (Default TL 15) Players can use the ships when they're discovered, but cannot repair TL 15 equipment.

Interesting but it would be a game ender wouldn't it. No TL15 fleet worthy of the name is going to have a problem against superior numbers of TL12 ships.

How about TL13 instead? Still an advantage, one well worth pursuing by both sides, but probably not one to guarantee an overwhelming victory.

TL13 would also to me be more reasonable to see put back in action by TL12. But that might be just me. Oh sure the primitives could eventually figure out the magic but how long would it take? And I'm presuming this fleet must have been mothballed for some time or everyone would know where it was instead of having to find it. So it would take some working knowledge and time to get the ships back in fighting form. Maybe a one "turn" (whatever they are between engagements, if you follow) wait between discovery and action?

 

[Maccat]

Musings

Maybe somewhat rambling, but my thoughts:
I like the TL13/12 (maybe even an 11?) TL13 for the sweet power % drop, and allows for others-campaigns usable J4 trade/xboat travels, also because original Imperium was TL12, these would be the "top of the line" early researched vessels (legal X-boats anyone?). TL12 'cause thats the original Imperium, but maybe with a J2 requirement instead of 3, mostly for the Xboat/trade route compatibility. TL11, Jump 2, vast majority of civilian shipping is that, same (with 2 jumps aka "slow") XBoat/trade route compatibility. In the design work i've done 2xTL difference is about the max workable without silly imbalances, and even 2 is a stretch. 11/12/13 Nuc Damper and Meson Screens will have big effects. The higher the overall tech level the greater the jump capabilities are going to be, which for maneuver will require a larger "play field" subsectors/sectors. Not having the Jump requirements be maximum by TL allows for (much) greater diversity in the designs people will do. Also fits with TLB:Vilani, TLC: Solomani TLD:Sylean. TL:BCr ratio? what BCr (budget) balance for the differing TLs I wonder. TLB 12000MCr Meson B, TLC 3000MCr Meson C, TLD 800MCr(!) Meson E: 15:3.75:1, not including the Pn2% TLD advantage, TLB doesn't really have any mesons tho, so maybe not as high as 15:1 vs the TLD (no meson screens though so maybe!)
TCr (1,000,000,000,000Cr) has always seemed to large for me for the fleets, especially the whole max meson 19kt boat thing if people do that. Any thoughts on 100BCr? or 200, 250, 500? Going from limited work-ups of the TCS Revenue but i recall it came out really high/large ex:
A888787-C N ___ 511 (50M people)
27.5BCr/year budget, 55kt port capacity build, 275.1BCr fleet if all port devoted to maintenance. Initial fleet size would be 275.1BCr (247.59BCr TL12, 27.5BCr TL11)
From that my vote would be for the 250-500BCr range, with any pop 8 or 9 worlds being lower TL (or none of em!), players world set ups 1-3 "main" worlds (say a naval base world, a scout base world, and a no base world hmm), same number colony/fringe frontier worlds. Maybe 2 subsectors, players in each corner (4). Maybe 2 "independant" say TLB worlds towards the center.
Ideally setting up "internal" empire comm/mail/trade connections and "interface" lines to other polities (lend-lease!), scout/survey/picket forces, patrol (anti-piracy!), raiding (piracy! Privateers!), merchant convoys/escorts, in addition to "standard" fleet stuff. This allows (limited) admiral-of-the-fleets issues, word of battles/fleet dispositions dependant on actual ships hustling the reports and/or world seige/interdiction possibilities.
Very keen on the TCS campaign pg.32 Initial Fleets, 20% at 1TL lower. I think there is some fun to be had in the refueling requirements varying between players (almost to the extent of choose your own). If/when played in an actual say 2 subsector, differing approaches will lead to different tactics. Or keep *requirements* low, then it "costs" to design in say ocean refueling. Also say minimum 10kt for planetoid hulls (derived from beltstrike).
A last possibility would be to set up parameters (say 100BCr TLD, 375Bcr TLC, 1000BCr(?) TLB) and give each player a 4x5 parsec (quarter subsector) to fill in with worlds (10 standard density, 6-7 scattered) of their own layout and design, meeting the overall TL, BCR (xrel population) requirements. Could do 6x8 if say 4 subsectors used, allowing some buffer zones. Full extended system gen is best (more "playing field") especially for the gas giants, outposts raidable.
Hope this is all food for thought, my 2cents worth. A great idea all this and i hope to be able to participate (see you in the 20BCr!)

 

[Jeffr0]

I guess I am a little confused - there were 5 of us in the 1BCr, plus Magnus, and perhaps a couple more were interested. Based on Jeff's initial proposal about the Zho Core Expeditions, I was thinking of a 6 to 8 way war with alliances and such.

Regardless, my thoughts originally were of setting a population goal, rolling up UWPs to get to that goal, then placing them on a map. I feel that 4 parsecs is a bit ...claustrophobic...

Maybe that's just because I'm a Texan and used to big spaces

I was thinking a small one to get the kinks worked out first.... I'm leery about playing a huge time consuming game when no one knows how things "flow" as it were.

***

Symmetry: What I've found in CAR WARS "team event" games is that symmetrical starting positions lead to symmetrical opening moves... which leads to a dull dice-rolling competition to determine the winner. Assymetrical interactions are much more interesting-- though the double blind approach would prevent people from playing mirror-moves....

Hmm....

Anyways. The key to designing this appears to be to make sure the is a reward for spreading out your fleet. If the optimal strategy is just to waltz your battle fleet down and take on his entire fleet all at once, then we might as well just play a TCS tournament game!

BUT...

Your non-avatar fleets are very limited in their initiative. However, they can be programmed to fall back if they are massively outnumbered.... ALSO, your reaction time is slow because it takes time for news to spread.

SO...

Perhaps this two player scenario is fundamentally dull. My guess is that there is little you can do to encourage players to divide their fleets and that in spite of the double blind play and slow reaction times, things will tend toward a single titanic fleet battle.

THEREFORE...

A 5 player setup may be the only way to get an interesting game out of this. That would add a diplomacy angle... PLUS if one player kills another, he will be so weak, the others will just mop them up when they find out about it.

I'm not sure you can make an interesting 2 player game out of this. The 5 player game (with various bits of real estate for the worlds to fight over) will allow for an economic victory by some faction sooner or later... forcing the more violent barbarian types to do things that are insane... leaving weak empires worth the investment of taking out... leaving a very imbalanced situation where one player can force an end game.

(Am I the only person here with a copy of Adventure 5?)

So this is a "Samarai Swords" situation. (That's an Axis and Allies type game from the 80's.) A strangely designed and (possibly) boring and imbalanced game becomes interesting simply on the basis of the 5 player diplomacy interactions. If there were an experience point system that gave significant benefits to admirals based on the number of battles they've won (as in the "Samarai Swords" game's daimyos) then you add one more pressure to the game that encourages players to coordinate as many battles as they can instead of just concentrating their fleets as a deterrent.

Of course... we've haven't played any campaigns, yet, so this is all hypothetical at this point... but games are games, you know.... [I'm aware that I'm trying to fix this without having played it... but I'm just trying to think ahead. Of course... the question remains... what is the best scenario for learning about the game enough such that we can position ourselved to "fix it" intelligently-- either by extra campaign rules or scenario parameters.]

 

[Jeffr0]

The sequence of play for TCS games:

TIME SEQUENCE
For convenience, and to save the referee's sanity, time in the campaign is divided
into weeks, and the events of each week are divided into six segments. In campaign
terms, events either take one or more complete weeks or no time at all. The order
of events within a week is given below and should be strictly adhered to.
1. Jumps: All ships which jumped at any time in the last week are placed in their
systems of destination.
2. Communication and Intelligence: Players receive information from the referee
regarding the system they have entered and the composition of enemy forces there.
Players in the same system may talk to each other and may continue direct communication
until one of them jumps out of the system. Ships with sufficient fuel
may jump before combat if they wish.
3. Battles: All battles are fought to a conclusion. Refueling from gas giants may
take place during battle. Ships may escape from battle by jump or maneuver.
4. Changes of Control: Fleets which have driven off enemy forces (or which
were uncontested) may take control of enemy planets. Enemy worlds will surrender
to a fleet; any ship may take over a gas giant.
5. Refueling: The player who controls a source of fuel may refuel his ships there.
6. Final Operations: Ships which undertook operations lasting a week or more
(such as refueling or repair) are ready for other operations. Ships which were in the
process of being constructed, refitted, or other shipyard work are ready. Final
orders for movement, reorganization, and other operations are given. Ships which
have not already done so may jump.

There's a limit to how much fuel a star port can put out in zero time. "They each have a refueling capacity, giving the number of tons of fuel tanks they may refuel in zero time. Any ships in excess of this may be refueled in one week." TCS, p 29

This is pretty cool. TCS has rules for refueling during combat! "Streamlined or partially streamlined ships are also capable of refueling from a gas giant during battle. The ship must be part of the reserve during the operation, and if interrupted is considered not refueled. One pass through the gas giant's atmosphere is sufficient to fill all tanks and takes 7 turns. Fuel may be transferred between ships in two turns." TCS, p 29.

If enough of a fleet's ships are streamlined, then fleets can refuel in zero time if there are Gas Giants and/or Oceans in the hex. Fleets can always refuel in zero time if there is a base.

A key factor to be aware of when designing a map is setting up circumstances where fleets are forced to take time to refuel. These "choke points" will prevent a fleet from simply withdrawing when it is caught off guard and force it to stand and fight.

If you can make a map where it is worth risking small fleets to get various tasks done... and where it is possible to corner and smash them before they can simply refuel and jump out... THEN you might have an interesting game.

Terrain will be everything...

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Adventure 5.

Yes, I own a nice, ok, fair copy of Adventure 5: Trillion Credit Squadron. It is sitting beside me right now. I have yet to read it again, but plan on doing that very, very soon.

I favor a nice multiple polity game, but then I am also cool with playing on a side too. I can accept the orders of a superior officers, with the understanding that as a Captain of a vessel or more that I am responsible for both the accomplishing my objectives and the well being of my subordinates and vessels and thus have the right and privilege of countermand certain orders. Though I do love the diplomacy and terrain ideas a lot.

Basically I am cool with what ever the majority is. I just want mash up some ships and get to blasting the badguys. Fear my raygun batteries!

 

[Jeffr0]

It sounds like the majority of us want to play... The TCS Islands Campaign.

After the 10 BCr tournament, we will be fairly well trained for TL 12 space combat. That just so happens to be the TL of the worlds in the Islands subsectors.

I have not sensed a great deal of interest in doing the 2009 1000 BCr tournament (aka the 2009 TCS Tournament.) And we seem to have enough serious players for the Islands campaign-- 1 TL 12 world each, more than likely.

Personally, I would be interested in running it "by the book" as much as is possible.

Perhaps we can start prepping for this now so that we can pick it up just as the 10 BCr tournament ends.

I'll start by identifying the main players, figuring their starting budgets, and reviewing the campaign rules.

Nothing is set in stone, of course. Feel free to throw your 2 cents in as we're probably several weeks away from starting....

 

[far-trader]

I was going to suggest just playing The Islands Campaign out of the book when you outlined your ideas All sounds good here. I should be up for it if there's room enough. And I'm pretty sure you know I have TCS, from our discussion of some points

 

[BillDowns]

I'm hoping to get the CT CD soon, so I can get TCS. I have two copies of HG2, tho.

I'm up for pretty much anything. Just easy, ya know !

 

[Whipsnade]

Gents,

One problem with using the TCS setting will be the number of players you'll require; eight. That's quite a few players to, first, find and, second, keep involved.

Another problem will be with the "Witches"(1); Esperanza and New Home. While whoever gets stuck with Esperanza will have loads of credits to build with, but they'll be building at lower TLs and will be forced to build tankers so they can cross the New Islands' "mini-rifts". Whoever gets stuck with New Home will get to build at a higher TL, but they'll have much less money with which to build.

Finally, I've found the Islands' astrography to be very deterministic in TCS games. Given equal skill of the players involved, "geography" quickly becomes "destiny" in the game. Sansterre and Amondiage are essentially in a Mexican standoff and New Home has a jump fuel "moat" of sorts. Esperanza might as well be off the map, but she's still very dangerous to any one of the other New Islands power alone (but not all at the same time).

May I suggest you generate a subsector-sized cluster instead? You'll need fewer players for a start. As for strategic objectives aside from "Kill The Other Guy", you can label certain systems as raw material sources and others as trade nexii. The material systems would give the owner reduction in construction costs and the trade nexii would provide a boost in tax receipts. (You could either require control of such systems for a certain number of weeks before the benefits kick in, pro-rate their effects over time, or somehow mix the two.)

Regards,
Bill


1 - "Witches" is an old Diplomacy term for the two "outlier" powers of Britain and Russia who begin with different force levels than the other powers.

 

[far-trader]

I suggest we bow to Bill's experience and consider his suggestions. Then elevate him to Emperor...

 

[Whipsnade]

Gents,

More woolgathering about your proposed TCS-style game as I battle insomnia.

- Ditch TCS' variations in tech levels, governments, and populations. All players should should build at the same TL with the same starting budget. Equal budgets naturally means they have the same starting populations and the same government. It doesn't matter which government you choose as long as everyone has the same one.

- Limit populations somewhat in order to control starting and subsequent budgets as overly large fleets will bog the game down. If memory serves, a TCS campaign's initial construction budget is 10 years revenue for a given population/government combination. Each of the player's homeworlds will be hi-pop naturally. Give them 1 or 2 billion people though, not ten or twenty. (I'm looking at you Esperanza.)

- Limit the populations on all the other worlds in the cluster. Make it so that several of these worlds would have to be controlled before they "added up" to another hi-pop world. Make the populations on all these other worlds the same too.

- How big the cluster should be and how many worlds are up for grabs should depend on how many players the game has. TCS has eight players fighting in a cluster of 27 worlds. Eight of the 27 are homeworlds and seven(1) already belong to someone, leaving twelve up for grabs. Adding 3 or 4 worlds to the cluster per player seems like a good number. At least it worked well in the many TCS campaigns I ran.

- If used, the number of "target" worlds should vary based on the number of players also. The target worlds should all be non-aligned at the game's start.

- Aside from adding "target" worlds to the map, each player should have an "empire" of at least one world other than his homeworld. I would hesitate to let the players begin with two or more worlds in their "empires".

- Both "target" worlds and "empire" worlds should cause battles to occur fairly quickly.

- If possible, no homeworlds should be placed within one jump of another homeworld. In TCS Sansterre and Amondiage are within one jump of each other, as are Joyuese and New Colchis. In my experience, this strongly effects the worlds in question causing them to be far less aggressive throughout the game and locking them into a reactive role(2). Joyeuse and New Colchis are especially effected because, unlike Amondiage and Santerre who are on the cluster's edge and thus have one "flank" already "defended", Joyuese and New Colchis are in the cluster's center.


Regards,
Bill


1 - If memory serves, New Home and Neubayern have no client worlds while Esperanza has two.

2 - The Mexican Stand-offs these worlds found themselves in usually led to early alliances between them and, somewhat less commonly, victory for those players.

 

[rancke]

If I was going to run a TCS game, I think I'd scatter the players across an entire sector in a rough circle, more or less equidistant (along the circle). Many of the systems would be fairly useless, but there'd be a number that was worth fighting over, of course, especially in the center of the sector. I'd come up with a reason why they all began building ships at the same time.

Hmm... a scout expedition from a Distant Empire arrives to map the sector. The expedition has 16 ships with each one assigned to do an independent survey of one subsector. They base themselves on the most advanced world in each subsector and gift the worlds with a complete TL12 database. Before they leave, the give each host world a copy of their survey report, which only covers the subsector they've been surveying.

I might make up some rules for investments in infrastructure and research and run a pre-game phase where they get to decide how much to spend on what. Not enough money to implement the entire database in one go, of course. Choices must be made.

Then peerhaps an exploration phase with turns covering one or three months. And then...


That's one of the reasons why I'll probably never run a TCS game .



Hans

 

[spinwardpirate]

I'm half-tempted to join in... please don't tempt me the rest of the way.

Is the Island Clusters campaign even close to being balanced? My recollection of it is that most of the systems would be dominated by a couple of the more advanced systems.
A couple years ago I started working on a TCS campaign. I was going to use basically the same set-up that Hans is suggesting. Heh, I even took a screen shot of the work-in-progress.
http://www.piratebrethren.com/traveller/tcs07/sectormappingpic.jpg