ScrapYard Armory

Combat Operations was printed in 2003 and privided fans with an incomplete rule set for a grand strategic game set in the Battletech universe.  It was bad.  Really bad.  I have to beleive that a better job could have been done on this product on a number of fronts.  This is the first of a series of posts on building a better grand strategic game.

Please keep in mind that the intent of this article is not to bash Fan Pro or those who worked on the product.  I love Classic Battletech and want it to succeed but recognize that this sourcebook was not their best effort.  My hopes are high that when Strategic Operations is released (2009?) the new overhauled rule set will be everything we could want and maybe a bit more.

Without further adieu, on to the analysis.

Where were the proofreaders?

Doing something besides proofreading that is for sure.  This section just stinks of a understaffed product that was rushed to the printers well before it was ready.  I’m sorry but it’s true.  Lets look at some evidence.

Page 83:

Terminology: This section uses the same terminology as described in the BattleTech Operations Rules, p.XX

The ‘XX’ is actually in the book.  It happens there and two more times within the next two sentences.  This is basic stuff here.  I understand as you write a book you need to use some TBDs but you need to fill them in before going to the printers!

On page 89:

Warships are prime targets for enemy sabotage and so factions may spend RP to protect them against such endeavors.  Each RP spent reduces the chance of sabotage against one Warship by 25 percent.  See Espionage, p. 94.

See page 94?  Don’t mind if I do:

Agents may attempt to cripple or destroy enemy Warships, with each attempt costing 10 RP.  The chance of success is 10 percent, +5 percent for each extra RP spent and -3 for each RP spent on security by the controlling player.

So we have two sections of the rules saying completely different things.  Players attempting to piece these rules together have a hard enough time without these inconsistencies.  This brings me to my next bone to pick though.

Where is the Flow?

There are those in the CBT community that have this issue with Total Warfare.  If you want to look up rules for aerospace fighters, you might find yourself parsing three separate sections in order to find what you are looking for.  The Grand Strategic Game shares this issue.  You will find espionage rules within the spending resources section, security rules mixed between special operations and spending resources and other inconsistent placements.

This just adds to the confusion and makes it difficult for players to get a firm grasp on whats happening.  And if you need to look up a rule?  You might find yourself combing the pages one by one until you wander across what you are looking for by accident because whatever it is you needs is never where you assume it should be.

That’s enough for part I.  As I’ve mentioned in a prior post I am in the process of reworking the Grand Strategic Game rules to be playable and automated.  The next post on this topic will examine game mechanics and balance concerns.  Please post a comment if you’d like to share.