Heh. That’s an example of the constraints of the system forcing me to get creative about the setting (as opposed to the setting determining how I use the system, which is “the way it’s supposed to be” traditionally). I couldn’t make the Keep work as a stationary vehicle, because that broke the Tech Burner rules too badly, so I was stuck with making it a bonus to the units inside, at which point I realized some nasty damage would still be getting through and wanted to figure out how to justify that.
Sydney, sorry I didn’t respond sooner. I’ve been mulling it over.
I like most of the traits. I like the way they interact. What I’m not entirely sure I like is the fact that they’re presented together as a single fortress. The overwhelming impression I’ve gotten from BE is one of age, so I’d think fortresses would have layer after layer of incompatable defenses that interact poorly. New bastions would constantly be added, and old ramparts pulled down… I feel like the fortresses should look and feel more evolved than a regulation SAM battery emplacement. And I think using the tech burner in play is the perfect way to do this.
You could have several manouvers centering on renovating the fortifications on several moons around the world, with the PCs frantically trying to get the improvements (burned technology) added before the Vaylen invasion fleet arrives while the Vaylen FoNs try to sabotauge the project with bombs and budget-cuts. I think the fortress needs to be created by the players in play, and needs to almost become a character in it’s own right.
Mike, I really like that idea.
I’ve been trying to break up the earlier fortress designs into pieces (e.g. the “warren” and the various tunnel options), but you’re right, it is absolutely essential for the “Keep” as well – not just to break the Resources tests down into manageable bites but, as you just made me realize, to fortress-building a possible story element instead of just “well, here you have this thing.” And I’m giddy at the fun the GM can have with “gift of kindness” flaws imposed on the partially restored, centuries-old fortress as the players keep missing their Resources rolls.
Conversely and complementarily*, I’m starting to think that the defining core element of a true Keep – the superstructural-scale “hardened and shielded” trait – should be, like Iron with its hardened & shielded trait, a rare and elite item of tech that’s so expensive that, in effect, only Forged Lord characters can have it, and even then only as something bought in character creation. You don’t build the superconducting layered armor in play, any more than you build Iron: You inherit it.
And then all you have to do is, y’know, make it actually freakin’ function.
- That is a word, right?
Sydney,
I don’t care what they say about you. You’re one cool cat.
-L
[Cocking head to one side with adorable quizzical expression] Meowr? [/adorable expression]
Don’t push it, Freedberg.
I’ve been turning this over in my mind, slowly, like a whole dead cow on a spit at a medieval banquet (mmm… dead cow), and I’ve come up with an alternative way to portray a Keep. The advantage of this method is that it’s more direct, counting the Keep as essentially a stationary vehicle, instead of having its effects all be indirect ones on other units. The disadvantage is that it requires me to come up with Strucutural Tolerances without any rules on doing so. Which means this cannot fly without Explicit Luke Approval.
KEEP
Integrity 9 (bought as Forte as per p. 389: 1st die, 6 pts; 8 additional dice at 2 pts apiece, +16 pts. Total: 22 points)
This is where handwavium comes in. The Hammer Cruiser (p. 557) has Integrity of 9, and so – even though Integrity and Tolerances don’t actually correlate very tightly if you compare different vehicles in the book – I just borrow its STs:
Structural Tolerances: Surface, V3. Breach, V8. Damaged, S12. Destroyed, S15.
Enhancement: can hold other units inside, where they can only be hit as per targeting crew/passengers as per pg. 563 (+8 points)
Categorical Limitation: can be invaded - breaching Keep security allows enemy units to Advance into the Keep and engage units inside in Close Combat (-1 point)
Disallowed actions in Firefight: cannot Flank, Advance, Withdraw, or initiate Close Combat (Four categorical limitations at 1 pt each. Total: -4 points).
Categorical Limitation: Immobile - location must be specified when the Keep is bought (-1 point)
Total cost for a basic Keep: 24.
In keeping with Mike Atlin’s idea about fortress-building being something that takes multiple building scenes and can be a major long-term goal, I’ve left out weapons (artillery mounts at 3 pts each, plus additional points to upgrade basic artillery to Q-Beam levels), Sensors, Signals, and the Security to keep people from waltzing in.
But now for the big one:
Hardened, Shielded, and Buried:
A fortress with this technology is armored with layers of superconducting material that carries the energy of incoming attacks away as heat and harmlessly dissipates that energy in the local water table – harmless to the fortress, that is: Just having these materials in contact with your water supply is an ecological nightmare even before the fighting starts and your groundwater boils away. (“It’s poisoning Hotok…”)
Enhancement: Vehicular-scale weapons simply do ZERO damage (8 pts; Pain in the Ass Penalty, +3 pts; More Powerful. +3 pts. Total: 14 pts).
Incoming attacks suffer -1 to DoF (equal to cancelling out one enemy success on the to-hit roll, equavalent to removing 1D of enemy Skill Advantage, +3 pts)
Note this means, on average, that a Missile or Battery will do a mere Breach result.
Categorical Limitation: ecological disaster (-1 point)
Trait Limitation: requires the Forged Lord trait or every legitimate Forged Lord in range will arrive with his fleet and blow you the hell away before you get even halfway through building something that neutralizes their ability to bombard you from orbit (-3 pts)
Total cost to Harden & Shield a Keep: 13 points
Do people think this approach works better for the Keep proper than the ideas I had before? I think I’ll still keep the earlier Tech Build to depict, say, a bunker instead.
You know…mechanically and aesthetically, I like both approaches. I like the idea of a stationary vehicle. I like the idea of a vast, sprawling complex where you spend many, many scenes diddling with its various subsystems.
However, based on my play experience, this much fussing over a single tech investment may be either impractical or simply unfun.
I had a somewhat similar thing happen in my game: The bad guys were busy building a safe haven where they could start shipping their barrels o’ worms in secrecy and safety. Each turn I spent at least one or two color and building scenes tacking on more and more stuff onto their home base. Frankly it sucked, because the home base wasn’t being set up to do anything in particular – it was just being built. No context, no conflict, boring.
That said, and based on the implications of the Fortress example from the book, I’m strongly considering next time having some kind of “banked” build rolls for large-scale stuff. Any tech that takes more than one roll to build (ie is comprised of more than one subsystem) doesn’t get built on the spot – instead, you bank a roll and designate what it’s for (“a security system,” “gun emplacements,” “sensors,” “hidden compartments,” whatever), skip the roll, and move on. It uses up a roll but you don’t work out the details right then and there. In fact, you really don’t work out the details at all, ever, until and unless those systems come into play or are otherwise challenged.
I know this doesn’t actually contradict anything you’ve just doodled up; it’s just something I was thinking about to make large-scale tech investments more practical and less screwy in terms of game flow.
p.
Definitely agreed that spending a lot of game-time fiddling with tech is counterproductive. I think the best way to introduce a Fortress into the game, actually, is to allow a Forged Lord to pay 2 rps and just have one.
I split the Keep into as many parts as possible, but I’m really struggling to make the “stationary vehicle” thing work. A gun emplacement with the same Integrity as an Assault Sled, but less armament and no sensors or signals, costs 13 points – the same as the fully mobile Assault Sled. An artillery emplacement costs 20 points – the same as a Hammer Cruiser, which has more firepower, inbuilt Security, Signals, and Sensors, and can move between star systems!
FLAK GUN TOWER
Resources Obstacle: Ob 13
Integrity 6 (bought as Forte as per p. 389: 1st die, 6 pts; 5 additional dice at 2 pts apiece, +10 pts. Total: 16 points)
Structural Tolerances (as per Assault Sled, pg. 556 which also has Integrity 6): Surface, H8. Breach, V1. Damaged, V7. Destroyed, V14.
Ordnance: Vehicular-scale mount (+2 points)
Disallowed actions in Firefight: cannot Flank, Advance, Withdraw, or initiate Close Combat (Four categorical limitations at 1 pt each. Total: -4 points).
Categorical Limitation: Immobile - location must be specified when the tech is bought (-1 point)
ARTILLERY PIT
Tech Resources: Ob 20 (!)
Integrity 9 (bought as Forte as per p. 389: 1st die, 6 pts; 8 additional dice at 2 pts apiece, +16 pts. Total: 22 points)
Structural Tolerances (as per Hammer Cruiser, pg. 557, which also has Integrity 9): Surface, V3. Breach, V8. Damaged, S12. Destroyed, S15. (8 points)
Ordnance: Artillery mount (+3 points)
Disallowed actions in Firefight: cannot Flank, Advance, Withdraw, or initiate Close Combat (Four categorical limitations at 1 pt each. Total: -4 points).
Categorical Limitation: Immobile - location must be specified when the tech is bought (-1 point)
And the costs to add Sensors, Signals, and Security at the levels typical of armored vehicles are just insane:
S3 Package
Resources Obstacle: 20
Tools for Security, Sensors, and Signals (Security tools at full cost, 8 pts; Sensors tools at half price, 2 pts; Signals tools at half price, 2 pts. Total: 12 pts)
Sensors: Automation 3 (Security 1 included above, +2D, 2 points).
Signals: Automation 3 (2 pts base, +1 pt per die. Total: 5 points).
Security: Automation 3 (2 pts base, +1 pt per die. Total: 5 points).
Trait Limitation: Mounted (-3 points)
Okay, since the “build up from nothing” approach I used in the last post clearly doesn’t work, I’m going to return to the “build down from vehicles” approach, which I think I’ve finally made reasonable. While losing all mobility-related traits and stas knocks 9 to 11 points off a vehicle’s cost, fortifications desperately need some level of Security Automation – unlike vehicles, they can’t just drive or fly away from people trying to break in! – and the cost of that usually offsets enough of the savings to make things balance out in a sane manner.
Thus:
Gun Turret
Type: Fortification
Capacity: 2 gunners
Tech Index: Zero index and higher
Tech Resources Ob 5
Profile 1
Integrity 5
Control: not applicable
Signals Automation 3
Sensors Automation 3
Ordnance Vehicular
Vehicular Speed: immobile
Security Automation 3
Structural Tolerances: Surface, H5. Breach, H10. Damaged, V5. Destroyed, V11.
[based off Anvil Attack Sled]Gun Turret (net effect: -9 pts)
Reduce Speed two category steps (Atmospheric > Ground > Human): -4 pts
Immobile: Cannot take Advance, Flank, Withdraw, or Close Combat actions in Firefight (4 Categorical Limitations): -4 pts
Immovable: Geographic location must be specified when introduced (Categorical Limitation): -1 pt
(Note that all gun turrets are assumed to be retractable, so they can use the “Take Cover” action in Firefight)Reduce Control from 1D to zero (equivalent to eliminating 1D Skill Advantage, -5 pts)
Add Security Automation 3 (+10 pts)
Heavy Gun Turret
Capacity: 4 gunners
Tech Index: Low index and higher
Type: Fortification
Tech Resources Ob 14
Profile 2
Integrity 6
Control: not applicable
Signals Automation 3
Sensors Automation 3
Ordnance Vehicular (2)
Vehicular Speed: immobile
Security Automation 3
Structural Tolerances: Surface, H8. Breach, V1. Damaged, V7. Destroyed, V14.
[based off Anvil Assault Sled]Gun Turret: net effect, -9 pts
Reduce Speed two category steps (Atmospheric > Ground > Human): -4 pts
Immobile: Cannot take Advance, Flank, Withdraw, or Close Combat actions in Firefight (4 Categorical Limitations): -4 pts
Immovable: Geographic location must be specified when introduced (Categorical Limitation): -1 pt
(Note that all gun turrets are assumed to be retractable, so they can use the “Take Cover” action in Firefight)Add Security Automation 3: +10 pts
Artillery Emplacement
Type: Fortification
Capacity: 8 gunners
Tech Index: Low index and higher
Tech Resources Ob 13
Profile 3
Integrity 8
Control: not applicable
Signals Automation 4
Sensors Automation 5
Ordnance Artillery (1)
Vehicular Speed: immobile
Security Manned
Structural Tolerances: Surface, H14. Breach, V5. Damaged, S10. Destroyed, S12.
[based off Hammer Patrol Craft]Artillery Emplacement: net effect: -11 pts
Reduce Speed three category steps (Space > Atmospheric > Ground > Human): -6 pts
Immobile: Cannot take Advance, Flank, Withdraw, or Close Combat actions in Firefight (4 Categorical Limitations): -4 pts
Immovable: Geographic location must be specified when introduced (Categorical Limitation): -1 pt
(Note that all gun turrets are assumed to be retractable, so they can use the “Take Cover” action in Firefight)Remove +1 Ob to control: +2 pts
Replace Manned Security (-4 pts) with Security Automation 3 (+10 points): net effect, +6 pts
Heavy Artillery Emplacement
Type: Fortification
Capacity: 16 gunners
Tech Index: High index only
Tech Resources Ob 12
Profile 2
Integrity 9
Control: not applicable
Signals Automation 5
Sensors Automation 4
Ordnance Artillery (4)
Vehicular Speed: immobile
Security Automation 4
Structural Tolerances: Surface, V3. Breach, V8. Damaged, S12. Destroyed, S15.
[based off Hammer Cruiser]Artillery Emplacement: net effect, -11 pts
Reduce Speed three category steps (Space > Atmospheric > Ground > Human): -6 pts
Immobile: Cannot take Advance, Flank, Withdraw, or Close Combat actions in Firefight (4 Categorical Limitations): -4 pts
Immovable: Geographic location must be specified when introduced (Categorical Limitation): -1 pt
(Note that all gun turrets are assumed to be retractable, so they can use the “Take Cover” action in Firefight)Remove +2 Ob to control: +3 pts