Scenario 1 Retrospective

[Bobcloclimar]

Thanks everyone for playing. This was my first time GMing a PBP BT game, so I expected some growing pains and technical issues and want to get your opinions on what went well, what could be improved, etc.
 

Specific questions for players

• Overall thoughts on the game - does you feel like this format (or some variant) works well, and would you play it (or some variant) in the future?
• Overall thoughts on procedure (including thread subjects/scope), frequency, etc.
• Should OpFor use Forced Withdrawal, or would you prefer fighting to the death?
  • What if OpFor BV were larger?
• Any procedural suggestions for possible PvP scenarios, based on your experiences here?
  • Any interest in double-blind?
• Other biomes you'd like to try?
  • Thinking city, or fully mountainous to force shorter-range engagements.
• Sprinting and extreme range - useful? Not?
• Damage paperdolls - where would be the most useful place for this information? Separate thread? New update in each phase post? Keep in the "notes" thread and update every phase?
• Anything else you'd like me to know or change for next time?

 

 

Lessons learned

• Posting cadence at three days seemed to work out OK, could consider shortening to two days once the game gets into a steady flow.
• Consider assigning each player a unique declarations thread (write access limited to just player and GM, but openly readable) to keep declarations separate from discussions
  • I didn't mind trawling through the discussion thread, but it wasn't particularly crowded either. Other GMs may differ.
• Playing a sniper mech with a good vantage point may be boring, so players should be aware of that. GM may want to avoid setting up full-LOS maps.
  • Possible option: choose map BEFORE players choose mechs?

 

 

MegaMek-specific LLs

• There were multiple instances where the hex label was hard to read. Consider changing tilesets to something with higher text contrast if the size or color of the label itself can't be changed.
• ECM bubble rendering can't be explicitly disabled, but can be set to fully transparent in the advanced Client options. Can't find a way to disable the "JAMMED" label.
• Heat sinks must be enabled/disabled during the movement phase in order to apply for that end phase.
• Hatchet option select UI is strange - radio button must be selected before hitting the Hatchet button, without hitting any confirmation buttons.
• It's possible to change up the fixed init order by hacking up the savegame
  • extract via gzip (or 7zip) to xml
  • look for "<turnVector" - should be in the latter half of the file, after all the unit definitions, and just after <roundCount>. This seems to contain the order info.
  • Will be filled with entity info like this:
    •     <megamek.common.GameTurn_-SpecificEntityTurn id="14036">
    •       <playerId>1</playerId>
    •       <isMultiTurn>false</isMultiTurn>
    •       <entityId>1</entityId>
    •     </megamek.common.GameTurn_-SpecificEntityTurn>
  • This is the initiative order, from lowest to highest, by entityId. The entityIds can be found earlier in the file, under megamek.common.BipedMech (or common.something else) id="numbers", after the Initiative id block, under <id>[number]</id>.
    • Note that playerId 1 is Princess, playerId 0 is the player. Depends on how they were defined when the game was set up. Not sure if this matters since each entityId is unique (but it might affect how MM commands the entityId even though the owning player is described in the unit def...)
    • Changing the initiative rolls in this section does not affect anything.
  • after changing the xml, re-zip it using gzip, making sure the extension is correct.

 

 

Thanks for your input!

Edited March 12 by Bobcloclimar (see edit history)

[Tecmes]

(Grmbl lost my whole post.. retyping shorter one..)

• Was great and appreciated.
• Concur with all your points.
• Hex number lisibility wasn't a big issue once you know about it. Removing ECM bubble would be nice.
• Have thread(s) just for orders would be better
• Maybe encourage to post move AND shoot whenever possible so as to play a bit faster
• Withdrawal: keep; Sprint: keep; Extreme range: not hot on it.
• Vehicules: OK for padding BV only.
• Biomes: sure, but we should know in advance (fielding heavies on high mountains wouldn't make sense)
• Paperdolls: I'm ok with only using turn summary descriptions instead ("The axman's LA is almost gone")
• Really my only important point is that having human-led (GM or opposition player) OpFor would improve the game substantially. Princess is nice but she has her idiosyncrasies.

• Overall thoughts : was great. I concur with your lessons learned. Also I fear it's quite some work for you doing the screen cap, collating info etc?
• Overall thoughts on procedure: Indeed I think we should have a thread JUST for declarations, either one or one per player, another for discussions, and if the GM plays the OpFor, a "Secret" one for player strategies.
• Forced Withdrawal: the fact is sometimes "coring" a zombie mech can be long. As long as we play fair and also withdraw I to enable it.
• PvP scenarios: apart from player vs. GM (or players vs. player-controlled OpFor), I don't see a cool way to do PvP.
  • Any interest in double-blind? Considering MM can handle this without giving the GM headaches, yes.
• Other biomes you'd like to try? Yes, why not. The high mountains are hell for slow mechs, so we might avoid those, unless we know in advance (which actually makes sense).
• Sprinting and extreme range - I like sprinting but not extreme range
• Damage paperdolls - I don't mind NO paper dolls for enemies, as long as we have a rough idea ("Left arm almost gone") as you did during this game in the turn summaries.
• Anything else.
  • It was very nicely run and I appreciated the efforts.
  • I do think having GM (or player)-run OpFor would be a big improvement.
  • Pace was OK, but a bit faster would be great. Maybe always try to give orders for move + shoot whenever possible, possibly using conditionals.
  • I personally don't like vehicules in BT. The idea is exciting, but it makes little sense in terms of deployement and I find them overgunned. But it's not a dealbreaker when done as way to round up BV. ALso infantry and aero I find makes more sense.

Edited March 13 by Tecmes (see edit history)

[Demented]

No particular order.

• This went great. Previously, I've used MaxTech dueling rules for trying to run BattleTech in play-by-post, which was still very clunky, and required players to post in init order. Most issues were huamn ones, e.g. not declaring orders or failing to input them properly. 10/10 would BT again.
• Having all order declarations in one thread made it easier to follow what the other guys were doing.
• Forced withdrawal is fine. Sprinting and extreme range barely came up, so it's fine. I do think the stand still modifiers screwed with Princess and made her a lot more passive than she usually is. I recommend doing the next one without those to see if she gets more aggressive.
• I'm not sure how to convert this to PvP. Auto-losing init is a huge handicap, but one that's very difficult to quantify in BV. Double blind with its simultaneous move recording is about the only way I can think of to do it, and I'm down to try it.
• I appreciated the paperdolls towards the end. I'd like to see them for all units, if that's not too much trouble. I'd want them in the movement update like they have been, because that's the post I'm referring to most when planning my next move.
• I never had problem reading hex numbers. Even if I had a hard time making it out, I could read a neighboring hex and work out the ID of the one I wanted.
• Other biomes would be nice, but I think any buildings would be a poor choice. Megamek defaults to randomizing CFs, so there'd be a lot of "What type of building and how many CF in Hex ####?" posts. Also building-heavy maps tend to have weird LoS situations.
• BV could be increased to allow players to bring two 'Mechs, one sniper, one non-sniper, to prevent player boredom.
• Hatchets are still useless, which is disappointing but not terribly surprising.

[Cirlot]

I'll third in calling it a successful experiment: would DEFINITELY Battletech again!

Player QA Responses:
Format notes - generally works; I think auto-wining initiative might need to change as it gave us a LOT of leeway where we could plan for things like physical attacks, etc.  I suspect rolling each round is likely to be too cumbersome but maybe alternate.  PCs go 1st, then Opfor, etc.

I do think it's telling that towards the end we tended to combine our phase orders into one post, as barring some exceptional circumstances once you moved you knew who you were shooting, etc.  There are SOME edge cases where I could see that not working but as a general guideline we can probably batch turn declarations instead of by phase.  Maybe we could set up triggers either globally or individually such that "if x happens" (a PSR is failed, I take internal damage, etc.) hold declarations after that phase for reevaluation?

I agree that having specific threads JUST for orders is good, either combined or individual.  I do think we'll need to be reliable about checking them though as we already had a few cases where we nearly moved through or into each other.  That might be solved if did a player-side initiative so we know we have an order of movement before we declare?

Forced Withdrawal vs. Fighting to the Death - this I'd say depends on a scenario by scenario basis?  It also depends if we combine the scenarios into something campaign-like.  Like, in a game where we're a merc unit having to claim salvage there are some tactical decisions in letting OpFor retreat or forcing an engagement to gain a new mech, etc.   Assuming just unlinked battle scnearios, I'm fine with Forced Withdrawal.

Unless we're fighting Clanners.  Or playing clanners.  In which case, unless Hegira is invoked or Zellbrigen broken it should be to the last standing.

Larger OpFor BV - at some point I'm gonna wanna go full munchkin and stop around in a Mad Cat so having a higher BV just in general is something I'm gonna want eventually.  That and custom mechs and/or LAMs 'cuz I'm THAT guy.  But generally speak, I'd say larger BV values are fine with the stipulation that we probably don't want to go much more than Lance v. Lance even with larger totals?  Anything above a Reinforced Lance/Demi Company feels like it could get unwieldy fast.

PVP - if we're doing PVP I'd say tighter BV controls and limitations of pilot scores: even a 3/4 vs a 4/5 is noticeable and there's a shift of shifting the focus onto list/pilot optimization rather than the actual play experience.

I'd also suggest don't be afraid to be inventive for PvP scenarios.  I've had good results using a fan made Battletch Instant Action scenario pack for my RL games.  Things like objective raids and salvage runs all make for a nice change up from the knock down drag outs.

Also, if we don't do at least one Solaris VII themed match, I don't know what we're doing here.  Fight for the <Mech class> Title, with runner up awards for things like "most dramatic kill" or "crowd favorite."

If and when you ever need a break and just wanna run something fun, there's always the Urbanmech Zombie Swarm. Rules are pretty simple: players pick mechs 

Turn 1:  1 urbie combat drops onto the map at a random location
Turn 2:  1 urbie drops onto the map.
Turn 3:  2 urbies drop
Turn 4:  2 urbies drop
Turn 5:  3 urbies drop
Turn 6:  3 urbies drop
Turn 7+: 4 urbies drop

Player with the most kills after all PC's are obliterated wins.

EDIT:  The point on initiative and PVP is a good one.  Not sure how best to solve it - either alternate the winner or roll as normal.  I've also tried adapting Crimson Skies' movement system to Battletech (secret declaration, simultaneous resolution) I'm not sure I could recommend it whole-heartedly (it has some knock on effects I don't love) but it seems a half-step to a full double-blind game with less administrative labor on your end.

I'd be interested in trying double blind play, seems like it would be WORK on your end though.

Sprinting & Extreme Range: bah, I'm a grognard.  Sprinting was something fancy in the old Tactical handbook.  Walk, Run and Jump only I say!  (Shakes proverbial cane at the sky)

Paperdolls: them being appended to the turn updates worked well enough, I think?

 . . .and that is a wall o'text.  TL:DR  Had fun, would play again.

Edited March 14 by Cirlot (see edit history)

[Inash]

I've been waiting with baited breath for the next scenario to start, so I'll call that a win. AKA Thank you sir may I have another.

I've got very few opinions on a lot of the issues. There were a couple times where I read the wrong hex for where I was going, but I'm pretty sure that's on me.

I don't mind the sprinting and extreme range, but them's newfangled rules and I wasn't used to them.