KamikazeJohnson
01/20/02 12:39 AM
209.202.47.12
|
A couple days back, I made a post referring to a set of house rules which approximate the effects of disrupted Chain-of-Command. Well, I have a preliminary "working model" ready, if anyone is interested. Please feel free to read, playtest, and post your comments :-)
Just a warning...I don't have a lot of experience with large battles or morale, so I'm not really sure how these will work. Also, I know that depending on the context, +1 could be either good or bad, so in each instance I specified "penalty" in an attempt to remove any ambiguity. Well, here goes:
Chain-of-Command Penalties
Conditions:
1) Experienced players :-)
2) Morale rules in use
3) In large battles (more than 1 lance per side), each lance has an initiative roll.
4) Every pilot has a rank...it must always be possible to determine who is the ranking active pilot.
5) Every lance has a designated commander.
CoC rules come into effect any time a lance commander is killed or otherwise permanently removed from the battle. Whenever such an event occurs, the following must take place:
1) A new lance commander must be selected (the highest-ranking active pilot in that lance) and the new CoC must be established.
2) If the affected lance is a Command lance (or is in any other way in charge of other lances), the lance with the highest-ranking commander becomes the new Command lance.
3) Any 'Mechs under the command of the disabled commander suffer penalties, some permanent, some temporary, to reflect the confusion of disruption of the CoC.
4) CoC penalties apply ONLY to units within the affected CoC
The affected units suffer the following penalties:
Permanent:
1) -1 Morale penalty for the duration of the battle. This should be cumulative with all other morale effects due to the loss of a unit, but not with penalties for the loss of a previous officer in the same position (i.e. if a lance commander's replacement is also lost, the remaining units do not suffer an additional penalty cumulative with the penalty for the loss of the original officer. Make sense?) If a commander's "command skill" is being taken into account, this may improve or worsen the effect, depending on how much faith the others have in their new commander.
Temporary:
Temporary penalties last until the CoC is restored. One round (two maybe?) is required to appoint a new lance commander, and an additional round to appoint a new Command lance, if necessary. "One round" meaning that the turn immediately following the loss of the commander, affected units are affected. The round after, the new commander is chosen, and temporary penalties are removed.
1) +1 to-hit penalty (all affected lances)
2) -1 intiative penalty (one lance only, or perhaps all?)
3) -1 movement point (5/8 -1 = 4/6, not 4/7) (one lance only)
Optional rules on determining affected units:
The initiative and movement penalties are intended to reflect indecision on the part of a 'Mechwarrior when the CoC is disrupted, leaving him without a source for orders. Logically, a pilot with a clear course of action should not need to rely on orders, so to solve that (and at the risk of getting ridiculously complicated) only "unengaged" units should suffer the movement point penalty (only units waiting for orders will make a significant pause before acting). Since the emotional impact of losing a commander would likely cause a slight hesitation, the initiative penalty applies to engaged and unengaged units. (or should it? Should unengaged units suffer -2 and engaged only -1?)
"Engaged" vs "Unengaged"
How do you define an "engaged" unit? Obviously, a unit firing at short range and/or making physical attacks is engaged, but what about long range? Here's my best definition at the moment:
--An unit is considered "engaged" if and only if, in the previous round, it fired at a (primary) target at short or medium range with (at least one) direct-fire weapon or SRM, or at short range with a LRM, or made a physical attack, and said target is still active.--
In such a scenario, the unit's course of action is clear...keep pounding the same enemy. Long-range fire (and medium with LRMs) is considered "support fire" or "harrassing fire" rather than "engagement". Another possibility is to roll to determine if a unit is "engaged". Physical range from previous round's target = engaged, then the greater the range, the less likely to be considered "engaged". Unfortunately, that system seems likely to get too complex to handle without a computer moderating for you.
Any questions/comments? I'd be happy to modify (improve) these rules, or to explain any unclear point...I'm sure there are a few :-)
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
Greyslayer
01/20/02 03:51 PM
137.172.211.9
|
We just usually incorporate chain of command into our morale.
-1 to all rolls for each level commander killed/destroyed/withdrawing
eg Lance, Company, Battalion commanders would create a penalty of -1 on each of its umbrella units beneath. Removal of said leader forces an immediate check for those forces under their command.
We are currently using our old morale rules while the new ones that we have tested at battalion on battalion level late last year will be modified for mercenary units (including such things like capitulation/surrender, defending last resort situations and so on) once I got a revised copy of the rules from the battalion on battalion games we held.
I don't think physically penalising the units with gunnery or movement is actually a good thing that in itself could do more damage than the -1 to morale ever would. If I get my hands on a copy of morale rules we have then maybe I can show you better how we handle it.
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
01/20/02 04:53 PM
137.172.211.9
|
I would hardly use something like that ... every stupid player would use the 'beloved commander' rule if that was the case. Just put that as a hollywood consistancy and continue on with what is more likely to happen.
Positive modifiers could be from greater numeric advantage, terrain or situation advantages (ambush and so on) and a definite kill ratio advantage.
Greyslayer
|
Greyslayer
01/20/02 06:43 PM
137.172.211.9
|
Depending on how you view mech combat. I class it as fairly 'impersonal' a commander more to give direction. The loss of the commander could stall the advance since the direction is no longer so certain or could even force a withdrawal due to the likelyhood of the mission failing. How would the 'win one for the gipper' scenario affect such a impersonal view of combat.
Superior numbers would affect both sides morale not just one. One side would be 'cocky' while the others are a little 'tense' about being outnumbered.
Greyslayer
|
KamikazeJohnson
01/20/02 10:49 PM
209.202.47.12
|
Actually, the posibility of strengthened resolve after the loss of a commander is something I had considered. I think a good way to incorporate it would be to attach some sort of value to the commander (popularity, reputation, charisma, etc.) and have a random roll determine if the effect is positive or negative. The higher the commander's skills, the better the chance of a positive result. But once again we are heading into a level of complexity that needs a computer moderator.
I included the temporary to-hit modifier on the turn immediately following the commander's death to represent the shock of losing the commander. I guess that same shock could apply to the loss of any fellow 'Mechwarrior, but still, I like the idea. It might be better not being an automatic penalty...possibly a second Morale check or something similar...failure means a turn or two of decreased performance until the new commander snaps him out of it. Just a thought.
As I said before, the biggest problem with this whole set of rules is trying to increase realism without getting insanely complicated.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
KamikazeJohnson
01/29/02 12:07 AM
209.202.47.12
|
good point...I guess "suspension of disbelief" would have been more accurate...you know..."accept the main premise, no matter how ridiculous, then make everything else as realistic as possible within the framework of that premise"...just like we do with just about every Sci-fi story ever made...
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|