Let's Play(test): The Vangaan Republic

[MarkG88]

Interesting thoughts. I have to admit that I don't really want ground units split into different set types (infantry,armor, etc), I'd prefer that they used a construction system similar to ships, and allow the player to decide what exactly those stats represent. One of the problems with coming up with set types is there will always be units that don't neatly fit this mode. If I'm dropping the 1st Free Worlds League Guards onto an enemy world I want to the stats to represent what I think a Regiment of Battlemechs should have, not be 'forced' into using armor or some other unit to represent them.


-Will

Just using stats would be best I agree. I was riffing on generic, traditional ground based stuff to plug in for universes that might not have developed, or fully detailed ground war stuff.

[TeknoMerk]

Hi Tyrel,

Please post more about VBAM 2E! I'm relatively new to VBAM 1E (but not campaigns), and I already see that the Captain's version of 1E has some oddities/complexities.

I'm glad to see the rules streamlined, since that will make campaigns more meaningful in remembering rules. Even more so I think 2E will cause a higher campaign completion rate, since players/GMs will not be bogged down with extra things to track/rules.

[jygro]

I'm really enjoying this thread. I can't wai tto see more of the example!

-Bren

[wminsing]

Just using stats would be best I agree. I was riffing on generic, traditional ground based stuff to plug in for universes that might not have developed, or fully detailed ground war stuff.

Fair enough- a good generic unit list by tech level would be useful for universes with little detail on ground operations.

-Will

[TeknoMerk]

Tyrel,

So what is the formula for expanding infrastructure?

* Tech
* Supply
* Intel

Is the formula the same as for Agriculture?

10 EP x <new level>

The Carrying Capacity is the limit for infrastructure of each type? So a capacity of 8 would mean 8 Tech, 8 Agriculture, 8 Supply, 8 Intel?

For Tech, what is the Research Point threshold for a breakthrough/tech advance? Is it:

(<current tech level> + 10) x 10 = Tech Breakthrough

[Charles Lewis]

Tech Level Research is currently (Total Census + New TL) x 10 RPs.

All infrastructure is currently using the same method for expansion, the 10 EP x New Level that you mentioned. Carrying Capacity is the max level for any kind of infrastructure.

[Tyrel Lohr]

So what is the formula for expanding infrastructure?

* Tech
* Supply
* Intel

The formula for expanding infrastructure is the same as for Productivity in 1E: 10 EP times new level (as you indicated in your post). That keeps everything simple and easy to remember.

On the flip side, the income earned from liquidating is equal to 5 EP times the current infrastructure level.

For campaigns above the Commander level where climate values exist, infrastructure costs are increased by a percentage amount based on your climate variance. Working from memory, for each climate stat you take the absolute value of the planet's climate value minus your preferred climate value, total them, add one, and then square the result.

EX: A Human (5/5/7/5) empire is trying to colonize a planet with 4/2/7/8 climate stats. The variance is ((1+3+0+3)+1)^2 = +64% infrastructure costs.

This same penalty applies to all infrastructure, and is added onto the final cost (after the 10 x new level). You can calculate the climate variance once for each colony and then record that value for future reference; it will only change if the planet's climate changes (usually as the result of terraforming).

The Carrying Capacity is the limit for infrastructure of each type? So a capacity of 8 would mean 8 Tech, 8 Agriculture, 8 Supply, 8 Intel?

Correct. This was seen as the simplest way of keeping track of things.

The Carrying Capacity limit per infrastructure type is for the entire planet, however. So if you had three colonies on that Carrying Capacity 8 planet, each belonging to competing empires, the max for each stat between all three would be equal to the Carrying Capacity. So Empire A could have 5 Tech, Empire B could have 2 Tech, and Empire C could have 1 Tech, then the Capacity limit would be reached and none of the empires could build more Tech at that planet.

Admittedly, the chance that players will willingly submit to sharing a planet with an opponent's forces is probably slim... but I wanted to make sure that the situation was covered in 2E, just in case.

For Tech, what is the Research Point threshold for a breakthrough/tech advance? Is it:

Charlie got this one filled in for me, too, and it is equal to (Total Census + New TL) x 10 RPs. However, if Total Census is less than 10, then use 10 instead. I have to double check my notes, but I think that is the correct formula; I don't think the Total Census is multiplied, but it might be. I will confirm that one way or the other later today (up way too late!).

The reason that tech costs are tied to Total Census is to make sure that tech costs scale to the size of the empire and prevent large empires from simply out-spending their competition, creating a runaway winner effect where the largest empire by default has the most Tech and can research fastest, cementing their lead. By making larger empires pay comparatively more for tech advances, it gives the smaller empires some room to breathe.

-Tyrel

[Tyrel Lohr]

Please post more about VBAM 2E! I'm relatively new to VBAM 1E (but not campaigns), and I already see that the Captain's version of 1E has some oddities/complexities.

There are probably going to be some quirks in the system, but I am trying to weed out the most onerous issues and make it painfully obvious when and where events occur. Luckily, I think a lot of the more "speed bumpy" gameplay elements that slowed down play (including the end-of-year rigmarole of population checks and the like) have already been patched. What remains to be seen is if the patches actually are a better long-term solution!

I'm glad to see the rules streamlined, since that will make campaigns more meaningful in remembering rules. Even more so I think 2E will cause a higher campaign completion rate, since players/GMs will not be bogged down with extra things to track/rules.

With a few exceptions, all of the rules should be fairly straightforward, and will draw on similar conceits. For example, most "checks" in the game will now have a built in major/minor success/failure mechanic, so that you roll a percentile die and determine the relative success/failure of the roll by the result's relation to your target number. By reusing the mechanic, it should be easier to learn and memorize.

We should also end up being able to provide a good "crib sheet" with the book that lists the formulas for intel checks, morale checks, etc. on a single, easy-to-reference play aid. You will still have to look up specific effects (until you have those memorized, if they are common enough), but you can at least roll success/failure without having to reference individual charts.

As for rolls that are made every turn, I do think you are going to end up having a piracy check each turn and *maybe* an empire-wide morale check, if I can figure out a way to make that work without being particularly onerous. Otherwise, population checks are gone (you just bank population points in a pool, and then use points from that pool to purchase and place Census), and the year-end tech checks are gone (you purchase tech levels using tech points, which eases bookkeeping on that side). The elite officer book, too, will do away with the end-of-year officer check, and replace it with some other metric (to be determined) to keep that from slowing down play.

-Tyrel

[nimrodd]

For campaigns above the Commander level where climate values exist, infrastructure costs are increased by a percentage amount based on your climate variance. Working from memory, for each climate stat you take the absolute value of the planet's climate value minus your preferred climate value, total them, add one, and then square the result.

EX: A Human (5/5/7/5) empire is trying to colonize a planet with 4/2/7/8 climate stats. The variance is ((1+3+0+3)+1)^2 = +64% infrastructure costs.

Why add one to the total? If you drop that addition, the formula works across the board, even for "perfect" worlds, in this case a 5/5/7/5 world, and you don't have to make exceptions to the rule, which is better when writing spreadsheets or programs for this.

Leaving the rule in, a "perfect" world would have a variance of ((0+0+0+0)+1)^2 = +01% to all infrastructure costs.

[Tyrel Lohr]

Why add one to the total? If you drop that addition, the formula works across the board, even for "perfect" worlds, in this case a 5/5/7/5 world, and you don't have to make exceptions to the rule, which is better when writing spreadsheets or programs for this.

There was an issue with climate variance 1 worlds only having a +1% cost modifier, where it should be a minimum of 5% (or as close as mathematically possible). Of course, that minor of a difference may not be large enough to really worry about -- but I didn't think it felt right to have climate variance 1 have effectively no effect compared to climate variance 0.

You are correct, however, that there would not be infrastructure penalties for planets at climate variance 0.

UPDATE: Okay, I actually checked the rules instead of working off of memory, and the formula is actually:

(Climate Variance + Planet Modifier + Ecological Damage)^2 [round to nearest 5]

Now, the rules currently have the minimum planet modifier as +1 for Hospitable Worlds, but there is technically no reason that couldn't be adjusted down, but I still personally prefer that climate variance 1 planets have a +5% infrastructure cost penalty. It isn't much, but it feels better than having climate variance 2 still being at +5%.

The formula provides the following curve: 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 25%, 35%, 50%, 65%, 80%, 100%, 120%, 145%, 170%, 195%, and so on.

So after looking at the actual rules as written, 1^2 in the formula rounds to 0%, so perfect worlds are still perfect.

Sigh. Sorry for the confusion on the rule.

-Tyrel

[duxdarius]

Any more playtest data?

I was wondering with the percentage check. Are 50% of all checks major and 50 % minor or was it more like 20% major and 80% minor?

[Emiricol]

As we discuss 2E ground combat, too, everyone that thinks there is something that they would like to be able to do in their favorite setting related to ground combat, please chime in.

Land/Aero/space fighters i.e., Macross. And mechas.

[duxdarius]

I like the idea of making Minor successes more common than Major to represent extra! value, rather than 1/2 the time. if 20% of all rolls were major it would allow a more graduated system. it is very easy to institute,
Simply call any result ending in 5 or 0 a Major all other results Major. If the roll is a success it is a major or minor success, if it fails it is a major or minor Fail.
I think it makes more sense when failure normally ends in just failure, where a major failure (a rare chance) is somewhat disastrous. I do notthink it should be 1/2 the failures!

[mavikfelna]

I agree completely duxdarius. Though I don't like the end's in 5 or 0 almost as much as loathe the even/odd mechanic. Part of that goes back to using a d20 instead of d% for most things as a simplification, for those that want it, and mostly because if I'm using percentages I'd rather just use percentages.

--Mav

[zyffyr]

While this isn't an optimal solution, how about changing Major/Minor to :

Roll an extra d10. On a 9 or 10, major success/failure. Anything else is Minor. Special abilities can potentially modify the range.