Mass Combat errata

[David L Pulver]

I've submitted the following:

P. 19:
Flying Leviathan: Raise is 10M, Maintain is 400K.
Titans: Raise is 16M, Maintain is 640K.

<These were simple mistakes>

P. 22
SP Mortar: TS is (100).

<This was a case of the original design was TL7, but it was changed to TL6 without adjusting TS>

P. 25
Airship: reduce to TS 20, Class: add Air.
Scout Aircraft: reduce to TS 40, Class: change (Air) to Air.

<These appear to have been mistakes on the table>

(Other items discussed are still being considered.)

[vicky_molokh]

What about the big fuss about a mostly- or completely-aircraft losing to cavalry? Is it one of the things being considered?

[Peter Knutsen]

One thing I'd like to have errata'ed is the cost of Counter. All other Featuress have costs divisible by 20, but Counter costs 25%. There's no point in having this oddity, so the cost should be lowered to 20%, for the sake of simplified arithmetic[1].


[1] If all Feature costs are divisible by 20, then you can think about "Feature Units", such as "Hoovercraft costs 4 Feature Units" (IIRC Hovercraft is 80%). Makes a lot of stuff a lot simpler, without any loss.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

One thing I'd like to have errata'ed is the cost of Counter. All other Featuress have costs divisible by 20, but Counter costs 25%. There's no point in having this oddity, so the cost should be lowered to 20%, for the sake of simplified arithmetic[1].


[1] If all Feature costs are divisible by 20, then you can think about "Feature Units", such as "Hoovercraft costs 4 Feature Units" (IIRC Hovercraft is 80%). Makes a lot of stuff a lot simpler, without any loss.

If its been researched and playtested and seems realistic and balanced, why mess with it? And I don't see why it matters if a "feature unit" is 1%, which works with any integer values for modifiers (and is implicit in rating them in % instead of units), 5% (which works with the current values), or 20%, except that the first is more transparent when it comes to the effect on cost, and the latter two use progressively smaller numbers and restrict flexibility for future expansion.

[Kromm]

Don't ignore the fact that the modifiers for quality (both sorts) add to those for features; they aren't a separate kind of modifier added before or after. Quality modifiers include -25%, +50%, and +150%, none of which divide by 20, either. I see no magical reason to go with division by 20; these modifiers are meant to be comparable to advantage modifiers, which can of course have just about any value.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Don't ignore the fact that the modifiers for quality (both sorts) add to those for features; they aren't a separate kind of modifier added before or after. Quality modifiers include -25%, +50%, and +150%, none of which divide by 20, either. I see no magical reason to go with division by 20; these modifiers are meant to be comparable to advantage modifiers, which can of course have just about any value.

Good point, but that just means Features ought to go by a "base 25" instead, then.

The fact is, the difference between +25% and +20%, or between +80% and +75% (for Hoovercraft), is trivial, and implementing a change simplifies things a lot.

[David L Pulver]

Originally Posted by Molokh

What about the big fuss about a mostly- or completely-aircraft losing to cavalry? Is it one of the things being considered?

That's right.

It's not really errata - depending on what was altered it would be more like a 2nd edition change, rippling through the entire book. In particular, any changes to support elements in general also means the entire layout (as well as numbers) of the examples for the modern military force would be affected.

There are some minor changes that are less extreme that could instead be applied, however. These essentially would involve removing the parenthesis from most air elements and adding "Fire" to the list of classes that, during sieges, may use their full rather than support TS. [Thus, *in a siege* situation, machine gunners would not be overrun by cavemen which is perhaps better than nothing...]

[Diomedes]

What about the modern air elements not having normal TS? Is that still under consideration?

[Ulzgoroth]

Diomedes, doesn't this bit answer your question?

Originally Posted by David L Pulver

These essentially would involve removing the parenthesis from most air elements

[Diomedes]

Ah, so it does; I missed that line.