Requiem
04/25/19 11:05 PM
1.158.130.13
|
The tentative Release Date is 4/26/2019 - as per looking into a website.
Do we know if this is set in stone and can I ask where we can get it from - Catalyst Game Labs website only or will there be other sites?
Thanks
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Frabby
04/26/19 02:37 PM
84.185.65.247
|
The date has been postponed again, this time to 31 May.
From what I've read, it will be available in Epub and print-on-demand. No info yet (that I know of) about how/where it will be sold, but I would assume it's going to be handled like previous PoD/Ebook publications such as Forever Faithful.
|
Karagin
04/29/19 12:18 AM
72.176.171.47
|
They are late on another PDF release from the 12th, sorry but this is still the same crap, they push the damn video game more then they do board/table top game and it shows. It's not hard to set things up to pop on a website for release and before you or anyone else rushes to defend them with BS it's a few employees etc...sorry but that is not anything but excuses. These are PDF files, NOT printed books, so the idea that they can't meet their OWN set dates is telling on where they are focused with their priorities and add to that they damn near shut down 100% to attend GenCon/Origins really begs to ask what their focus is, are they here to provide quality customer service and prove the naysayers wrong about it being a dying if not dead game system or are they trying to prove they are right?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Frabby
04/29/19 02:38 PM
84.185.65.247
|
You do realize that while CGL may publish this book, they're not writing it themselves, do you? The named authors are HBS people about whom CGL has no control.
It's nice that CGL are willing to publish his HBS-written book and thereby canonize parts of the HBS content.
|
Karagin
04/29/19 03:16 PM
72.176.171.47
|
Frabby, I get it, you like the folks at CGL, and that's cool, but again as I have said in the past, IF a company can not handle criticism about things and learn from it, then they are in serious trouble.
You seem to take things on a personal level when we are critical of CGL, as did others around here when folks were critical of FANPRO or FASA, and we all saw how that went. Nothing here is personal.
IF a company is pushing a product and they give a release date and the product fails to make the cutoff, then the company that promised the item(s) is the one who will catch the flak, that is business 101.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
04/29/19 04:47 PM
66.74.60.165
|
As it seems, CGL is having issues getting things out on their deadline.
So maybe they should push back release dates some, so they can do it?
Hire or get rid of those not doing the job properly?
Set the date AFTER the work is done and waiting to be shipped?
As for others writing up the information for a possible book, maybe the set the date AFter it is done holds true.
But there are questions that comes from this.
Didn't CGL give permission to HBS in order to use the Battletech name?
As well as set guidelines to what could be done?
So most of the work should have been done before the video game came out.
OR did they wait until the game came out to decide to do anything, after they found out the game was going to sell?
|
Cray
04/29/19 08:37 PM
97.101.136.19
|
Quote:
Hire or get rid of those not doing the job properly?
This isn't the 1980s. Few modern tabletop RPG and war game companies have shiny corporate offices with lots of staff showing up to do nothing but write under the watchful eye of teams of professional managers because there's no money for that in gaming anymore. What gaming companies have is painstakingly vetted teams of volunteers work by email who are a bit harder to wrangle.
Quote:
Set the date AFTER the work is done and waiting to be shipped?
To rephrase your statement, you just said, "Forget plans and schedules needed to get publishers, printers, and shippers lined up months in advance, we'll just play all that by ear." Getting multiple contractors lined up on short notice doesn't work very well in practice.
An alternative is to put together a reasonable schedule and hire the contractors based on 35 years of game writing and publishing experience. Sometimes the estimate is wrong.
Why does this particular delay have you more fired up than others?
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
04/29/19 11:09 PM
72.176.171.47
|
So what you and Frabby are saying is that we should just not expect CGL to get things out on time and live with it...got it, good to know that excuse are easier to push still.
Having said that, I am sorry but I am tired of the excuses that are so quickly tossed out to defend them, they have stood up on social media and said that Battletech was back and better and was going to do all of these things and it sounded like they were serious. Yet now that are starting to sound like Palladium Books and Kevin and all of his excuses as to why things never seem to quite make it on time or well if the fans were just a bit more supportive and understanding etc...
I guess I, like I did when the Palladium made RRT sound so great, fell for the hype and was happier to have things back in full swing, but like a lot of things the wind ran out of the sail on this boat yet again.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
04/29/19 11:19 PM
72.176.171.47
|
Oh well, still the game has been here for 35 years so it has the staying power...now we just need it to be here for another 35....
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
04/30/19 12:59 AM
66.74.60.165
|
To rephrase your statement, you just said, "Forget plans and schedules needed to get publishers, printers, and shippers lined up months in advance, we'll just play all that by ear." Getting multiple contractors lined up on short notice doesn't work very well in practice.
Ok. How did you get forget plans and schedules out of the statement of Set the date AFTER the work is done and waiting to be shipped?
It might cause some issues with getting the most out of the offerings the release can do, but this stops people from getting pissed off about promises not being done.
What gaming companies have is painstakingly vetted teams of volunteers work by email who are a bit harder to wrangle.
So this statement explains a lot.
So instead of payment, those helping just have their names recognized? Real incentive there to get things done.
And it means those making the money from salary's, and running the company can avoid doing the work, and put the blame on others. So scapegoating why they didn't get it done.
Knowing the deadline, means the mangers and owners need to step up their work, and get it done.
Driving people away, as you can not get out the material when promised sounds backwards for a company.
And that seems to be driving the downfall of the game.
As for staying power, that comes from the hard core players that use their own rules to keep the game interesting. How many of the fan made items are doing better then the company line?
|
Frabby
04/30/19 09:08 AM
84.185.65.247
|
Quote:
Frabby, I get it, you like the folks at CGL, and that's cool, but again as I have said in the past, IF a company can not handle criticism about things and learn from it, then they are in serious trouble.
You seem to take things on a personal level when we are critical of CGL, as did others around here when folks were critical of FANPRO or FASA, and we all saw how that went. Nothing here is personal.
IF a company is pushing a product and they give a release date and the product fails to make the cutoff, then the company that promised the item(s) is the one who will catch the flak, that is business 101.
I didn't take your comments personal. But I'm genuinely baffled by the notion that it would somehow be notable that an announced product (from a third party no less) that nobody has paid for has its projected release date postponed.
It's not like the general public is entitled to a punctual release on the first (or any) projected release date.
I personally have never considered anyone's projected release dates anything more than fluffy declarations of intent, to be adjusted as reality overtakes the projections.
(This would be different if this was a kickstarter project where people had actually put money on the table - in such cases, I can absolutely understand the feeling of entitlement. But that isn't the case here.)
Also, where do you take the "can't handle the criticism" bit from? They updated the date, gave their reasons, and said they were sorry. That's about all they could do in my opinion. I certainly didn't get the impression that anyone at CGL was losing sleep over it.
Edited by Frabby (04/30/19 09:10 AM)
|
Karagin
04/30/19 11:41 AM
72.176.171.47
|
Quote:
I didn't take your comments personal. But I'm genuinely baffled by the notion that it would somehow be notable that an announced product (from a third party no less) that nobody has paid for has its projected release date postponed.
They, CGL, put out a HEY LOOK AT THIS WE ARE DOING THIS on Facebook and Twitter and they hyped the hell out of this book since it ties into their main focus the new computer game. They made the hype and got folks attention and then pop here is the date for it to be out and we are told oh sorry it's going to be delayed. So what happens when May 31st comes and it's not out then? Are you going to tell us to wait and how thankful we should be?
Quote:
It's not like the general public is entitled to a punctual release on the first (or any) projected release date.
I personally have never considered anyone's projected release dates anything more than fluffy declarations of intent, to be adjusted as reality overtakes the projections.
(This would be different if this was a kickstarter project where people had actually put money on the table - in such cases, I can absolutely understand the feeling of entitlement. But that isn't the case here.)
Not entitled....I see, so then they (CGL) isn't entitled to our money then either, and then folks can wait to pirate a copy from one of the numerous torrent sites if they want.
Quote:
Also, where do you take the "can't handle the criticism" bit from? They updated the date, gave their reasons, and said they were sorry. That's about all they could do in my opinion. I certainly didn't get the impression that anyone at CGL was losing sleep over it.
The comment comes from how fast you hop in to ask folks to explain why they feel or think CGL etc...sucks or why they don't like something. Does that help?
And you last comment, about them not losing sleep, yeah that is a problem, that has been the attitude for a long time, who cares if the fans aren't happy, hey it's okay we can get new ones, tell me how is that working for them? When BT went from being a very common and well known game to poof...oh the game is still alive, well that cool, and how is that attitude really doing for them? Oh they are sorry, gee...and tell me how again they have had other products miss the release date in fact, several of the PDF books missed their dates and folks ask and we get the oh yeah issues, more like someone forgot, and that seems to be the trend.
A third party item should have been hyped, but no release date given in stone and that is what they did when they said April 26 2019. Then when the books was proofed and tested then a date given.
You are right, they don't owe us anything, however, the game would not be here 35 years later if it wasn't for the fans, and when a group/company forget that their fans/customers are the key that makes things work well we can all look at the shelves full of games that didn't last beyond a year or so...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Frabby
04/30/19 04:33 PM
88.130.158.108
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, where do you take the "can't handle the criticism" bit from? They updated the date, gave their reasons, and said they were sorry. That's about all they could do in my opinion. I certainly didn't get the impression that anyone at CGL was losing sleep over it.
The comment comes from how fast you hop in to ask folks to explain why they feel or think CGL etc...sucks or why they don't like something. Does that help?
Just for the record, while I have done paid work for CGL in the past and am still doing volunteer work occasionally, I'm not a CGL employee or affiliate and I don't speak for them. My opinions are my own.
|
ghostrider
05/01/19 05:55 PM
66.74.60.165
|
It's not like the general public is entitled to a punctual release on the first (or any) projected release date. And they aren't losing sleep over it.
Is this really a good business plan?
This makes it sound like those who own the company don't give a damn about anything. Not even making money. If they are that burned out, then sell the rights to someone that does.
Now Frabby. With doing volunteer work, do they give you a deadline?
And what happens if you don't meet it?
The implications I am seeing from this is those that are making money from it, aren't doing the work they need to. If things are held up by volunteers not doing what they are supposed to, it really sounds like they aren't doing much, if anything to put out the product.
And with the statement of organizing printers and stuff like that, how does not having the material to be printed fit into this?
|
csadn
05/02/19 08:53 PM
50.53.22.4
|
Gamers expecting a gaming company to release on schedule?
Snort, Derisive, 1 ea.
CF
Oregon: The "Outworlds Alliance" of the United States of America
|
Requiem
05/13/19 03:14 AM
1.158.130.13
|
Though after reading this I believe what everyone is anxious about is the second book to Fortress Republic – As the first came out early August 2018 (at the Con) ….. so can we get an iron clad promise now that the second will be out at the same time and can we have a pre-order system so that If I buy it now I will have it in the post to my door on the same day as it is released?
Or will this be pushed back endlessly for no reason ……
Are they on schedule for it to come out on time ……
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Requiem
05/30/19 07:16 PM
1.158.130.13
|
It's 31st May - Are we on schedule for House Arano?
and how about the second book for Fortress Republic?
Get thee to Coventry … Now is the winter of our discontent, made glorious by this daughter of Tharkad … Our army shall march through. Well to New Avalon tonight.
|
Karagin
05/30/19 09:45 PM
72.176.171.47
|
Quote:
It's 31st May - Are we on schedule for House Arano?
and how about the second book for Fortress Republic?
It's still May 30th in the US and since CGL is on the Pacific Cost of the US aka Seattle area it won't the 31st until Midnight their time.
If by 6AM Pacific time you still have not seen it, then I would say something.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Karagin
05/31/19 12:27 AM
72.176.171.47
|
*House Arano: The Aurigan Coalition Update - May 30*
The files for House Arano: The Aurigan Coalition were turned over for POD (print on demand) on Friday May 24th and processing began. After some technical revisions, the file was marked approved for proofing on Wednesday May 29th, and production began on a physical proof. Once the proof is created, it will be shipped overnight for inspection and approval (or revision). The turnaround time could be between 3-5 days, with an additional day for review (and creation of revisions if needed).
With this final timeframe, it does not appear that we will meet our May 31st release date, but will absolutely have the POD and PDF book available for purchase by June 7th.
Thank you again for your patience.
Ray Arrastia
BattleTech Assistant Line Developer
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Wick
06/10/19 08:41 PM
45.43.104.179
|
Still not out, but whoever gets it first, I'd like to know if there's a RAT in there. (I'd be shocked if there wasn't.)
I want to know how closely it lines up to the percentage-based time-independent RAT system I've been building over the last year or so. With percentage based I can include every unit regardless of rarity (even down to thousandths of percentage points) and for any given year, but since classic RAT tables only allow up to 11 choices and are anchored to a particular year, I've modeled this table from my data, with a few manual cheats involved.
You'll notice a lot of unseen mechs that should be there per canon descriptions and factory data, while others should be too rare to be in game. One thing that matters is whether CGL follows established canon, or relies heavily on the game for rarities. Another is whether there's any explicit connection between Lyrans and the Aurigan Reach to explain the vast numbers of Commandos, Zeuses, and GRF-1S Griffins (as well as later Hatchetman). I gave a healthy 15% inheritance to the DCMS so that the Jenners, Panthers, and Dragons would show up, but there's some mechs in the game that are just unexplainable in my opinion. If the game rarities are used, then it has cascading effects to at least the TDF and MAF, and wrecks the Periphery table in Historical: War of 3039. (Which was bad enough already because it tried to cover the whole periphery in one table instead of more regionalized tables for at least TDF, MAF, and AMC.) I'll concede things such as rare variants being somewhat common in the game on the basis that it added variety without the need for entirely new mech models, but in canon usually only the base model would make the list for a minor periphery state.
My algorithms and data are still a work in progress, but it would be nice to know how closely I'm falling to the canon material now that I've got 98% or 99% of the Inner Sphere data implemented up through 3049. 3025 is one of my target dates for reasonable accuracy (along with 2571, 2785, and 3039) so the House Arano book may shed some light on things (moreso if they include a RAT for other powers in the region as well.) [I haven't got an accuracy date past 3050 because I have to go back and handle all the Clan data before I can move into the Invasion timeframe and deal with inheritance from the invading clans, and that's a few more months of work.]
MECH / VEHICLE / FIGHTER
LIGHT
Code:2 UrbanMech UM-R60 Skulker Sholagar SL-21L
3 Stinger STG-3G Galleon Sholagar SL-21
4 Jenner JR7-D Scorpion (SRM) Centurion
5 Firestarter FS9-H Scimitar Sabre
6 Stinger STG-3R Vedette Seydlitz
7 Wasp WSP-1A Scorpion Spad
8 Locust LCT-1V Saracen Cheetah
9 Panther PNT-9R Hunter Sabre
10 Ostscout OTT-7J Saladin Sparrowhawk
11 Wasp WSP-1A J. Edgar Trident
12 Javelin JVN-10 Scorpion (LRM) Thrush
COMMENTS: No Commando at all and shouldn't be unless CGL is reinstating them being built in the TC during the Succession War era, something FASA had erratted as to not happening until 3052-ish. Percentage-wise, Wasp, Stinger, and the two Locusts should be roughly 75% of the lights, with Wasp being most common, then Locust, then Stinger. Only the LCT-1V makes my table, the M and S variants being too rare in the periphery though the game needed them because a LCT-1V is boring. Because the STG-3G is a fairly common refit it shows up, but I dislike that the RAT table forces me into situation where Stingers end up more common than the Locust. I don't know why Historical: War of 3039 omitted the Spad fighter - it should be pretty common in the Periphery after the fall of the Star League; not as common as Sabres, but the second most common light craft by my algorithm.
MEDIUM
Code:2 Whitworth WTH-1 LTV-4 Samurai
3 Kintaro KTO-18 Maxim (SRM) Transit
4 Cicada CDA-2A Maxim Lucifer
5 Hunchback HBK-4G Pegasus Corsair
6 Shadow Hawk SHD-2H Maxim Stingray
7 Phoenix Hawk PHX-1 Pegasus Lightning
8 Griffin GRF-1N Condor Hellcat
9 Wolverine WVR-6R Hetzer Shilone
10 Trebuchet TBT-5N Condor Lightning
11 Phoenix Hawk PHX-1K Pegasus (SRM) Lucifer II
12 Wolverine WVR-6K Goblin Dragonfly
COMMENTS: Game had some good and bad here. Missing the obvious one in Phoneix Hawk, and a lot of variants in game (SHD-2D, GRF-1S HBK-4P) probably shouldn't be in canon RAT. Game has serious problems with Cidadas being too common, and Blackjacks aren't common in game, but should have been reserved for the hero because they are otherwise very rare in 3025 periphery (And quite rare in the CCAF and AFFS until new ones start rolling off the St Ives line in 3029.) Vindicators, Centurions, and Enforcers are also in game, but by my algorithm they are less common than Whitworths and Dervishes - my data has mechs made before the fall of the Star League, most of which would be present in some SLDF divisions, more common outside traditional national boundaries than those that came along later, like the Vindicator (2826), Centurion (2801), and Enforcer (2777, but no record of being an SLDF mech). There just aren't enough medium tanks in the late succession war era, which is why the War of 3039 gives everyone a lot of Drillsons even though its a new design and should be very rare outside the LCAF and AFFS - something my algorithms rightly avoid. As such, the primitive LTV-4 is still hanging around, as is the Magistracy's Dragonfly fighter.
HEAVY
Code:2 Quickdraw QKD-4G Laser Carrier Transgressor
3 Ostroc OSR-2C Pike Vulcan
4 Catapult CPLT-C1 Manticore Slayer
5 Thunderbolt TDR-5S AC/2 Carrier Thunderbird
6 Orion ON1-K SRM Carrier Eagle
7 Warhammer WHM-6R SRM Carrier Thunderbird
8 Archer ARC-2R LRM Carrier Chippewa
9 Marauder MAD-3R LRM Carrier Thunderbird
10 Dragon DRG-1N Bulldog Stuka
11 Rifleman RFL-2N Pike Rapier
12 Ostsol OTL-4D LRM Carrier Riever
COMMENTS: I was somewhat surprised the ON1-K ranked as one of the most common, but it matches fairly well to the game. Several unseens here mess it up. The Jagermech just misses the list but it could be argued as replacement for any of the mechs on the 2, 3, 11, or 12 spots. Grasshopper doesn't come close enough for consideration. Heavy vehicles have same problem as mediums, so Historical: War of 3039 poorly handed out Pattons and Rommels like candy. I had SRM and LRM Carrier as overwhelmingly most common tanks, and the Magistracy-built Pike was common enough to warrant inclusion. The Thunderbird has been built for a very long time and in many places (including in the TC), so its exceptionally common in the periphery (by my algorithm, the most single most common fighter by a wide margin over Lightnings, Sabres, and Eagles.)
ASSAULT
Code:2 Longbow LGB-7Q Schrek (AC)
3 Charger CGR-1A1 Behemoth (Flamer)
4 Awesome AWS-8Q Puma
5 Victor VTR-9B Rhino
6 BattleMaster BLR-1G Behemoth
7 Stalker STK-3F Partisan
8 Banshee BNC-3E Ontos
9 Atlas AS7-D Schrek
10 Stalker STK-3H Devastator
11 Cyclops CP-10-Z Partisan (AC2)
12 Banshee BNC-3M Ontos (LRM)
COMMENTS: Game got this about right except for BNC-3Ms being too common and Highlanders and Zeuses more common than things like the Charger and Longbow. Of course, there's much less variety between the assaults and there's only about 15 to choose from, if you disregard very rare, but possibly still operating Mackies, Pillagers, and Crossbows. The video game is setup to allow the Charger to be a lot more successful than it usually is in table top gaming - not sure why its absent (especially in Urban Warfare, as its a much better mech in the city than on the open field.). The game needs Partisan and Ontos tanks as badly as the unseen mechs.
|
Frabby
06/11/19 10:01 AM
91.39.171.156
|
@Wick: Cool project there. I don't want to derail this thread, but I should perhaps point you to two pertinent Sarna articles:
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Random_Assignment_Tables (because you seem to believe RATs are "canonical" - they are, kinda-sorta, but only to a very limited extent, see article), and
https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Faction_Assignment_%26_Rarity_Tables (the Xotl RAT tables - 'nuff said, see article)
|
Wick
06/11/19 09:04 PM
45.43.104.179
|
I wasn't saying RATs were absolutely canonical, but as officially printed material, they are somewhat authoritative and provide insight to where my data or algorthms may be amiss. Based on what I posted above, I suspect I need to greatly increase Aurigan inheritance from AFFS to supply more Jagermechs, Enforcers, and Centurions. As I said, its a work-in-progress, and any additional data in the form of "official" RATs will help.
I've got a copy of Xotl's tables and have been using them to help with the 2750/2785 SLDF and SLDFRoyal factions. Less so for the late Succession Wars houses. I suspect we agree in general though. His tables were the ones that got me started on my project. I liked alot of the things he did, such as a 3D10 (effectively 1D1000) which is of course far better than 2D6 and he was trying to recreate for a few extra points in time, but I found it a little difficult to deal with in years like 3031 and 3032, when the AFFS should have absorbed a lot of Capellan material and building their own Cataphracts. I'm allowing a lot more factors than just rarity within the big factions for given year, such as techbase, years in production and which faction controlled factories for it during that period, years since introduction, when major conflicts would occur to drive inheritance bumps (AFFS would have much greater inheritance from CCAF in 3031 than in 3027) and make it entirely year-independent. This presents a lot of guesswork for years in which data is limited or big changes in military makeup were occurring (the Reunification War and First and Second Succession Wars for example.) The hopeful end result is that if you wanted to play a game set in 2835, the system should present you with mechs and rarities somewhat appropriate for your faction for that year. I've also tried to handle a lot more factions than just the five big houses, and the occasionally represented three major periphery realms. I've got the Rim Worlds Republic and Terran Hegemony for the years they existed. I've got the Marion Hegemony and Aurigan Reach in the later Succession wars. I've even got things set for the factions like the Filtvelt Coalition, though I can't draft percentages well yet because they're too far in the future, but since I've already handled the Javelin's data, their JVN-11P Javelin would be quite a common mech in the FCM by the mid-Dark Age (and by extension, also common in the Fiefdom of Randis and infrequent in the AFFS.) I've got major mercs units too, with the Wolfs Dragoons having access to a lot of unique stuff, and well-established groups like McCarron's Armored Cavalry inheriting a large percentage from the CCAF despite being in the Merc group. I've got all the unique refits too, though with absolute frequencies of 1, they'd be exceptionally rare to come up in the RAT roll for their assigned military. Yen-Lo-Wang would be out there as a very, very small chance though.
I'd like to get to the point where the system generates entire forces by algorithm to ensure like units are grouped together (a company would consolidate its fire support mechs into one lance, and recon mechs into another) and to assign based on front-line priority (A ranks get the newest equipment, and this filters down such that F ranks get mostly tanks and really old stuff, except Level 2 stuff which would remain closer to front-line regardless of age) but this is proving to be a very slow calculation above 5 or 10 regiments in size so its kind of on hold until I can figure out an efficient way to do several hundred regiments for an army (or thousands in the case of the SLDF.) This is also why I'm less concerned with a units actual tonnage than its role (such a Recon, Fire Support, Raiding, Urban, etc.) - fast units get high frequencies for the Recon and Raiding roles, slower units get lower ratings (or none.) You'd rarely have Atlases and Locusts in the same lance, but less because of weight than because of role. Likewise, Urbanmechs and Ostscouts should rarely appear in the same lance despite being of similar weight. I feel this is a more accurate way to build random lances than purely random selection of individual mechs, but until I can make it fast enough for large militaries its kind of a wishlist item.
Taking that 2835 date as example, and CCAF as a military, my current algorithm assigns Wasp WSP-1A as 5.1746% of all Mech class units, and the WSP-1L as 1.2905%. As time goes on, these percentages will change due the Capellans acquiring few new WSP-1As and building WSP-1Ls instead, so the WSP-1A should move into rear echelon and militia-type units while fresh WSP-1Ls off the line will appear in more front-line units, usually in recon lances if I can get the lance type matching system to work at large scales. By 3025, these two models nearly exchanged percentages within the CCAF (1.5383% and 5.1182%, respectively.) The rarities for each mech isn't entirely elastic; I use an 8 point rarity scale and update at generally arbitrary years. At 2850 the two get the same rating (Common) and so the percentages are closer (2.9686% and 2.6436%) but WSP-1A more frequent due to greater frequency in the militaries from which the CCAF would inherit salvage (mostly the FWLM and AFFS). At 2940, they separate further such that the WSP-1A becomes Uncommon while the WSP-1L becomes VeryCommon. I concede that this leads to very different percentages between 2939 and 2940, but it would be ridiculously complicated to be entirely elastic. Since we've got little idea exactly what percentages these mechs may have been present in the CCAF in either 2939 or 2940, my algorithm's estimates are just about as good as anything else. And when you ramp it up to nearly 2500 units, one single mech changing in one year kind of mostly washes out, because different units and models change in different years. (The Wasp is also an exception on the basis of being so ridiculously common. Mechs changing from VeryRare to Rare or vice versa in a given year are much harder to notice in the percentages. A mech in the process of dying off that goes from 0.25% to 0.15% is harder to pick out than the WSP-1As 5% to 3% change.)
I hope to be at public beta by end of summer/early fall, with all significant Inner Sphere factions available and all years from 2120 to 3049 available. Aside from some of the SLDF stuff that gets Pentagon War or Klondike refits, or things that later show up with the Wolfs Dragoons, I haven't done much along the Clan development branch so I can't go into 3050 or introduce Clan factions without investing a lot more time implementing data for their factions and units (including added complications such as Omni-configs.) Right now I've got about 25-ish factions fairly well modelled, and 2449 units (including mechs, tanks, fighters, infantry, and supporting units) so its an amazingly large undertaking. If I can pull it off though.. potential gamechanger.
|
Frabby
06/16/19 07:10 PM
91.39.171.156
|
...and here we go. Book available via drivethrurpg as PDF and PoD.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 111 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 5412
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
