VBAM Games Forums

Say a particular player wishes to introduce covert operatives onto another player's ship; how should I go about allowing this? My initial impulse is a double-difficulty Sabotage: Ship roll, with success instead resulting in conversion of the ship into ownership by the sabotaging player. Can you think of a better way to handle this using the 1E Espionage rules?

The mission that seems the most applicable here would be Propaganda: Insurgency, with the player using the mission to insert his own compromised personnel rather than change the attitudes of his opponents. Or maybe its a combination of the two? Mission difficulty is hard to pin down, but after running the numbers for a classic 6 EP cruiser I think the double difficulty sabotage would be best. That makes it 8 EP to capture a 6 EP ship, or 6 EP to capture a 1 EP frigate... which is a bit far out. Another option would be to make it 2 x Construction Cost, which might be a bit fairer for the smaller ships while at the same time making it very costly to capture a larger unit.

Okay cool, thanks for the advice Tyrel! I'm thinking about what you said about Insurgency, and will definitely run some numbers on relative cost to take over smaller ships vs. larger ones...

One thing I want to make sure is accounted for is the notion that the infiltration/takeover could fail, resulting in damage or even destruction of the intended ship as a consequence of infighting.

hmmm... What if it has to be a 2-step process?

a) Propaganda:Subversion to insert covert operatives into the enemy crew during normal personnel rotations; if this fails the plot is uncovered! Difficulty is proportional to ship size (C$), since that determines how much infiltration you'd need to have a sufficient takeover team. If it succeeds then you've got sufficient compromised crew on the ship to attempt a takeover. Counterinsurgency missions or some other form of defensive operation should be able to uncover this after the fact if the subverting player doesn't act quickly enough. Crippled ships should be easier to infiltrate.

b) Sabotage:Hostile Takeover mission to activate your infiltrators to gain control of the ship. Size (as C$) as the base difficulty makes sense here too. (Maybe raise the difficulty substantially if there are Marine Security Detachments operating on the ship, making those a lot more useful!) Degree of success or failure would determine the resulting owner of the ship and its state:

• High success (Roll >= Target * 1.5): Ship taken over unharmed
• Low success (Target < Roll < Target * 1.5): Ship taken over, but ship receives damage equal to its DV
• High failure (Target > Rolled > Target * 0.5): Takeover failed; damage = DV
• Low failure (Rolled <= Target * 0.5): Takeover failed; ship unharmed

I'll try to figure out how the total costs and success rates look for different ship sizes and decide whether this is fair. I feel like it ought to be expensive and difficult enough that players will often wish to opt for the surer method of just attacking with Boarding Shuttles, but still interesting enough that (esp. for high-value or easy targets) this approach seems viable.

That's an interesting way to handling it, especially by having Counter-Insurgency missions discover that a ship's crew has been compromised by a previous Subversion mission. It adds more information for the CM to track and keep hidden from the player, but it would make the player on the receiving end more paranoid if he thought an enemy might be trying to take over his units from the inside.

I think both of your mission ideas look like they should work. I especially like that the results of the Hostile Takeover mission are a bit more nuanced, with a good chance of the ship being crippled or destroyed by the failed capture attempt. It makes it a bit risky, but at least you get some damage done by the attempt.

One thing I would maybe recommend with the Propaganda: Subversion would be to add an additional benefit that a player knows the current location of every unit it has subverted, and maybe even knows a little bit about how many other units are traveling with it. That would make planting a mole on an enemy ship very advantageous until they're finally caught.

Yeeees, GOOD call. The subverting player has to decide whether to keep his operatives 'dark' for the intelligence advantage that conveys, or 'light them up' to hopefully damage or capture the subverted ship.

And yeah, I was seeing a benefit to the paranoia side-effect of giving players some active role in ferreting out operatives. It's another potential drain on Intel Points, which makes them a more interesting part of play.

I worry that the potential for damaging enemy ships even if you fail at a Hostile Takeover mission is a bit too kind to the subverting player, but then if one thinks about the player having probably paid 2x or more of the enemy ship's C$ (1x C$ for Subverting, 1x C$ for Takeover) then does the cost seem commensurate with the likely range of outcomes? I think so.

This idea lends a really interesting path for Espionage playing a more critical role in inter-species conflict within the Wolves universe I'm constructing, where I anticipate outright warfare between player empires may be curtailed or limited by the common threat offered by the super-raider Wolves of the backstory.

So here's my final rule composition for subverting/capturing other players' vessels (I'll edit this to incorporate further changes). We introduce a new unit status, Compromised; new offensive Intel missions, Propaganda:Infiltrate and Sabotage:Takeover missions that target ships; and a new defensive Intel mission, Propaganda:Counterinfiltrate that targets squadrons.

Unit status: Subverted
(e.g. `Subverted:Terrans` or `Subverted:Reticulans`)
A Subverted unit's ranks and equipment have been infiltrated, hacked, bribed, blackmailed... whatever the cause, some portion of the unit's operations now serve the agenda of another empire or NPE besides the owner.
[/size]
This status can be applied to most crewed military units, but not Civilian Fleets or Minefields. In a moderated game, the Subverted status is not revealed to the owning player unless discovered by active Anti-Subversion Intel missions.

The subverting empire/NPE always knows the Subverted unit's location and damage status and the unit's task force's composition. Subverted status is also a necessary prerequisite for a Sabotage:Takeover mission.

Maintaining Subverted status on a unit requires maintenance via Intel Point expenditure equal to the unit's M$ numerator each turn during the Intel Phase. The subverting player may allow the Subverted status to lapse by voluntarily ceasing to pay Intel Points; this removes the Subverted status on the subsequent 3.8 Update Asset Phase but does not alert the owning empire of foul play.

Insurgency: Subversion
(Difficulty Level: 2 + C$/3, round up; -1 if the unit is Crippled; +1 if the unit has additional Marine Security, or is Based/Orbiting a colony with at least 1 Defensive Intel)

• Success > MFP * 2 applies a Subverted:[empire-name] status to the unit during the subsequent 3.8 Update Asset phase.
• Success < MFP * 2 applies the Subverted status during the subsequent 3.8 Update Asset phase, and alerts the owning player that a Subversion attempt occurred (but not whether it succeeded and who ordered it).
• Failure > MFP / 2 fails to apply the Subverted status, and alerts the owning player that a Subversion attempt occurred (but not whether it succeeded or who ordered it).
• Failure < MFP/2 fails and exposes the empire ordering the mission and its exact target.

Subverting a unit that already had Subverted status from another empire or NPE replaces the previous Subverted status.

Sabotage: Takeover
(Difficulty Level: 2 + C$/3, round up; -1 if the unit is Crippled; +1 if the unit has additional Marine Security, or is Based/Orbiting a colony with at least 1 Defensive Intel)

This mission can only be ordered against a ship that is currently Subverted by the ordering entity. The original owner is automatically aware that this mission is being executed, and in the case of success immediately knows what empire or NPE is ordering it.

• Success > 2x MFP causes the unit to be owned by the subverting empire, with all the Supply and Encounter ramifications that entails; and the CM immediately reveals to the former owner what empire or NPE now controls the unit.
• Success < 2x MFP transfers ownership, but applies damage equal to DV to the targete unit (Thus if the unit was Crippled it is destroyed).
• Failure > MFP / 2 does not reveal the identity of the subverting entity, but applies damage equal to DV to the targeted unit (Thus if the unit was Crippled it is destroyed).
• Failure < MFP / 2 reveals the identity of the subverting entity and leaves the unit undamaged.

* Note that since Subversion mission success doesn't take effect until the Update Asset phase, Subversion and then Takeover missions may not occur on the same turn for a given unit. This is an intended effect!

Insurgency: Countersubversion
(Difficulty Level: 2 + [targeted formation CC]/3 [Round Up])
This mission is an attempt to detect and eliminate Subversion status affecting units within a targeted squadron, task force, or a system's based/fixed/ground units.

• Success > MFP * 2 reveals Subverted status (including the originating empire/NPE) on units in the targeted group of units. If the targeted group is owned by the empire or NPE executing the mission (or the executing power wishes to share their discovery) , the owner may immediately remove the status from the unit(s).
• Success < MFP * 2 reveals and (if the Countersubverter owns the unit or warns the owner) allows immediate removal of Subverted status, but does not reveal the subverting entity.
• Failure > MFP / 2 does not uncover any Subversion, but does not alert any Subverters that Countersubversion operations are occurring.
• Failure < MFP / 2 does not uncover any Subversion and warns the Subverting entity that a failed Countersubversion operations occurred on units it has Subverted.

* Ideally this mission's roll should be made by the CM so the player making the roll does not know whether the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, or merely evidence of failure.

I like it, and I think these rules would really be useful if someone wanted to run a BSG style scenario where the Colonial players don't know which ships the Cylons might have subverted. With limited resources the Colonials wouldn't have the intel available to really ferret out the subverted units in its ranks, either, at least not without a lot of time and effort.

I would probably note that the Takeover is completed during the Update Phase, that way the player who took over control of the ship will have the opportunity to run for it and not just get destroyed. That or have the takeover happen during the Intel Phase... though then the ship has to survive combat during the Encounters Phase, which could be dicey given 1E combat. If in a larger fleet, the ship that was taken over wouldn't have much of a chance of surviving combat.

Tyrel Lohr wrote:I would probably note that the Takeover is completed during the Update Phase, that way the player who took over control of the ship will have the opportunity to run for it and not just get destroyed. That or have the takeover happen during the Intel Phase... though then the ship has to survive combat during the Encounters Phase...

One of the scenarios where I imagine this being useful is for one or more of somebody's ships to switch sides just as a battle is getting started; so having this take effect during the Intel Phase and then generating a Pursuit Scenario (if the infiltrators' orders are to run for jumpspace with their prize) or a Defensive Scenario (if they're supposed to turn and attack the colony world they're protecting) or whatever other weird permutations might be involved.

Also, if the conversion happens in the Intel Phase then it becomes advisable to judiciously pick off vulnerable ships when they're isolated. If there's a large fleet concentration, you'd need to Subvert and then Takeover several ships simultaneously to have a chance of some of them fighting their way clear; that actually seems fair in a risk/reward sense.