As the Marine books draw closer

Chris0013 · Unread post by **Chris0013** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:59 pm

I'm hoping for both sets of Destroids....the Sentinels Destroids are early units based on the originals...the Mospeada Destroids are later units designed after fighting the war with the Invid started.

And give us the Battlepods.

jedi078 · Unread post by **jedi078** » Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:08 pm

Chris0013 wrote:I'm hoping for both sets of Destroids....the Sentinels Destroids are early units based on the originals...the Mospeada Destroids are later units designed after fighting the war with the Invid started.

And give us the Battlepods.

The only reason I do not have the Mospeada destroids in my games is because all we have is some line art of them.

The Sentinels Destriods, and REF Pods both have a place in my games as does the Zent Striker Battliod

Jerell · Unread post by **Jerell** » Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:20 pm

I like the Zentraedi mecha developed for Sentinels era. Gives the UEEF some character.

On a different and not completely off topic, I just discovered Japan fielded airborne marines/SNLF in WW2 called Rikusentai. What an ambitious undertaking. So let's get crazy, RMC + Rikusentai + panzer grenadiers + space warfare specialist = UEEF marines?

Speaking of which wouldn't micronized Zentraedi naturally fit what we're looking for in a UEEF Rikusentai?

mech798 · Unread post by **mech798** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 7:45 am

Actually if you look at the zentreadi design, they'd be very much a compatiable match for the marines-- an emphasis on fast moving, hard hitting mecha with ship based fire support rather than slower, more heavily armored ground units.

Chris0013 · Unread post by **Chris0013** » Sat Dec 21, 2013 8:53 am

mech798 wrote:Actually if you look at the zentreadi design, they'd be very much a compatiable match for the marines-- an emphasis on fast moving, hard hitting mecha with ship based fire support rather than slower, more heavily armored ground units.

My hope is we get a section on the Zentraedi in the Marines book showing their place in the command structure and more mecha for them....would love to see a mk II for the Bioroid Interceptor that replaces the laser cannons on the back with missiles and upgrades their 10 shot gunpod.

mech798 · Unread post by **mech798** » Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:19 am

I forget-- The Marine book is supposed to be out first quarter of 2014, right?

ZINO · Unread post by **ZINO** » Fri Dec 27, 2013 9:55 am

mech798 wrote:I forget-- The Marine book is supposed to be out first quarter of 2014, right?

nope 2020 we know we have to wait for a while or get shelf and we the last to know about :lol:

sorry can not help myself PB has track record on books

Colonel Wolfe · Fri Dec 27, 2013 11:24 am

mech798 wrote:I forget-- The Marine book is supposed to be out first quarter of 2014, right?

Spring 2009.

Tiree · Unread post by **Tiree** » Fri Dec 27, 2013 7:32 pm

Colonel Wolfe wrote:
mech798 wrote:I forget-- The Marine book is supposed to be out first quarter of 2014, right?

Spring 2009.

The original manuscript was turned in, then they fired the writer.

jaymz · Unread post by **jaymz** » Fri Dec 27, 2013 7:34 pm

And canned the book due to apparent "issues" HG had with it.

Pouncer · Unread post by **Pouncer** » Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:45 am

jedi078 wrote:The only reason I do not have the Mospeada destroids in my games is because all we have is some line art of them.

The Sentinels Destriods, and REF Pods both have a place in my games as does the Zent Striker Battliod

I've got the REF Destroids and Pods in my game, we're finally up to Robotech in my group's rotation and one player is happily blasting enemies with his Excalibur.

-POUNCER

mech798 · Unread post by **mech798** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:33 am

Yeah-- Ikazuchis are alredy sort of assault carriers, so it would be interesting to see what a full on LHA version would look like.

ZINO · Unread post by **ZINO** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 1:46 am

if I may add when you read in

Robotech RPG 2nd Edition - The Shadow Chronicles page 90 the following
Veritech Pilots arc either U.E.E.F Fleet or Marine- Corps Aviators. Although the Marine Corps Aviators have their OWN squadrons and air Wings. and follow the UEEF Marine Corps rank structure. they are approved for night status through the REF Fleet

also page 112

the Beta is perfectly suited to air support and strategic bombing missions. The Beta can also loiter over a battlefield . laying down withering fire from its pulse cannons. and is a favorite of Marine aviators

when I read this I KNEW THE MARINES WERE GONNA COME
now we know let wait and see hopefully soon like this years!!!!!

Pouncer · Unread post by **Pouncer** » Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:25 am

Gryphon wrote:There are a few units that become an issue along the way, mainly due to inferior/superior performance effects, but I get around that by fudging as needed, or simply deleting the unit from main line service and making it a limited production unit. An example of an under-performer is the Sentinels Excalibur having one main gun, but I still let it fire that single weapon four times per melee.

I believe the original stats already had 4 per melee. I nudged up the damage slightly and added a B model with twin cannon arms after some "field testing."

-POUNCER

jaymz · Unread post by **jaymz** » Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:14 am

Actually Gryphon, you may want to look that up again. It was 4 per melee per cannon and as I recall in 1st ed there were no rules for firing a double blast at all, that had to be houseruled. Such is the Palladium ruleset at times.

ShadowLogan · Unread post by **ShadowLogan** » Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:51 pm

jaymz wrote:Actually Gryphon, you may want to look that up again. It was 4 per melee per cannon and as I recall in 1st ed there were no rules for firing a double blast at all, that had to be houseruled. Such is the Palladium ruleset at times.

1E Robotech RPG (main) pg58 wrote:Rate of Fire: Four maximum per melee.

A similar weapon on the Glaug OBP has the ROF at 2 (other specs are identical), and the Glaug only has 1 vs the Excal.'s 2. So a case could be made either way that the 4 max per melee is PER GUN or BOTH TOTAL.

jaymz · Unread post by **jaymz** » Fri Jan 17, 2014 2:13 pm

I go on the fact they do not specify total blasts for both guns but just 4 maximum per melee thus 4 per melee per gun. Yes youcould extrapolate based on the Glaug but you shouldn't HAVE to regardless.

Either way the RPG has been shown to not exactly be accurate in their Rate of Fires. Just look at the Spartas for proof of that.

glitterboy2098 · Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:06 pm

not wanting to make a new thread, i'm posting these here..

US Marine Corp's Doctinal Publication 1 - Warfighting
US Marine Corp's Doctinal Publication 1.1 - Strategy
US Marine Corp's Doctinal Publication 1.2 - Campaigning
US Marine Corp's Doctinal Publication 1.3 - Tactics
US Marine Corp's Doctinal Publication 2 - Intelligence
US Marine Corp's Doctinal Publication 3 - Expeditionary Operations
US Marine Corp's Doctinal Publication 4 - Logistics
US Marine Corp's Doctinal Publication 5 - Planning
US Marine Corp's Doctinal Publication 6 - Command and Control

these are real world US Marine Corps manuals for conducting combat ops. i found them on a government site awhile back offering older materials for download. they are a bit dated but still cover the basics.. they should offer plenty of material for GM's and players to incorporate into their games and plots.. you just have to think a bit about how mecha, space craft, and space travel will effect things.

also worth looking at would be the US marine Corps website.. they have a page of various manuals on things like rules and regs, various standards, more recent doctrine, etc.

jaymz · Unread post by **jaymz** » Fri Jan 17, 2014 3:13 pm

Nice share :ok:

ShadowLogan · Unread post by **ShadowLogan** » Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:26 am

jaymz wrote:I go on the fact they do not specify total blasts for both guns but just 4 maximum per melee thus 4 per melee per gun. Yes youcould extrapolate based on the Glaug but you shouldn't HAVE to regardless.

Either way the RPG has been shown to not exactly be accurate in their Rate of Fires. Just look at the Spartas for proof of that.

I do not wish to debate the issue, merely stating that the wording in the text can be taken either way due to Pallidium's writing approach.

jaymz · Unread post by **jaymz** » Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:37 am

Yes, a clear cut written item WOULD be a nice thing to have wouldn't it? :lol:

ShadowLogan · Unread post by **ShadowLogan** » Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:42 am

jaymz wrote:Yes, a clear cut written item WOULD be a nice thing to have wouldn't it?

Yes, and the PBC-11s are more clear cut in execution that some other aspects in the 1E Main RPG like how Charm/Impress, Trust/Intimidate are supposed to work.

jaymz · Unread post by **jaymz** » Sat Jan 18, 2014 10:44 am

True enough :lol:

Protoculture · Sun Jan 19, 2014 11:54 pm

Frankly speaking though, I am sold out on the idea of UEMC (United Earth Marine Corp) or even EFMC (Expeditionary Force Marine Corp) in Robotech.

However by 2044, one wonders, do EF Marine Aviation also utilised the same mecha as the Fleet aka EF Space Navy? We know the EF Spacy fielded almost exclusively the new Shadow Alphas, Shadow drones & Shadow Betas. At the very least, during the initial ground assault on Reflex point, we've seen elements of EF Army fielded the normal Alphas (in addition to combat cyclones).

The UEFF ground forces surrounding the Reflex Point by chance are elements of both Marine & Army. I'm of the opinion that Marine Air Corp could have fielded the same equipment as the EF Spacy with Shadow equipped mechas. This is because Marines are more likely involved with the initial beachhead landing parties (alongside Army forces) which is almost evident with Sue Graham's 36th Jupiter Squadron insertion (her units were clearly using Shadow equipped mechas) to establish a beachhead & contact with surviving anti-Invid resistance units. That and actually a number of Shadow Alphas were shown providing fire support to the Cyclones units charging gungho towards Reflex Point.

ShadowLogan · Unread post by **ShadowLogan** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:03 am

Gryphon wrote:Hmm...does this mean that the 1st edition Excalibur could fire four paired blasts per melee dealing 5D10+25 total perhaps?! I hope not, cause that makes these guns nearly as weak sauce as the 2nd edition guns turned into!

5d10+25 is still nothing to snicker at. Especially if you can do it 4 times per melee. All the weapons on mecha in 1E that I can think of that do more (VHT Ion Cannon 3d4x10, GU-XX 2d4x10 full melee burst) have a much more limited rate of fire (2 or 1 per melee):
VHT Ion Cannon: 120*2=240 (60 min)
GU-XX Gunpod: 2d4x10*1 = 80 (20 min)
PBC-11 Cannon: (5d10+25)*4 = 300 (120min)

Now some weapons can fire more often in 1E, but do less damage requiring a high number of melee actions to meet (IINM 8 is the minimum, and that assumes no restrictions on ROF), and even then some suffer limitations on how often they can fire. Obviously a missile (or more likely volley) can exceed a PBC-11 in the short term, but said platform can't sustain it for as long. The only weapons that might be more powerful are the Raider-X cannons or others that are linked (ex Regult PBCs do 8d10 paired).

jaymz · Unread post by **jaymz** » Thu Feb 06, 2014 10:04 am

actually the difference in damage is only 5 mdc per gun (5d10+25 is 75 max, 1d6x10+10 is 70 max)....not exactly weak sauce when compared to the 1st ed but I get your point. Hell MY versions do 4d6x10 per gun so.....

But this goes to the whole thing....they upped MDC values of mecha and essentially left all the weapons close to the same as their original editions.....combat can take long enough as it is and this makes it take longer....unless you have missiles.

jaymz · Unread post by **jaymz** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 9:30 am

I won't argue about the stats versus onscreen since I rewrote everything as you well know but I have to ask where the 2d10+100 came from?

The Spartas does 2d10x10+20 so I am assuming it was typo. (Average damage is 130) My rewrite of the Particle cannons doing 4d6x10 give an average of 140. Not too far off really and likely where the stats should be in the game seeing, as you said, mecha can be cored in the series. The only issue is that cuts both ways.

ShadowLogan · Unread post by **ShadowLogan** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:17 am

jaymz wrote:actually the difference in damage is only 5 mdc per gun (5d10+25 is 75 max, 1d6x10+10 is 70 max)....not exactly weak sauce when compared to the 1st ed but I get your point. Hell MY versions do 4d6x10 per gun so.....

I'm not comparing them across Editions (1E vs 2E), but only internally (1E to other 1E). A 1E gunpod typically has a 4:2:1 action ratio depending on burst size (short, long, or full), but in 2E bursts are pretty fixed to one (maybe the rare two) attacks and output size, which would allow a 2E gunpod to fire more often and do more damage compared to a 1E version (GU-11 actually does more damage by short/long compared to the full melee in 1E: 72vs60 at end of melee, but the 2E version does 120 each attack available, which is typically 4 or more).

jaymz wrote:they upped MDC values of mecha and essentially left all the weapons close to the same as their original editions....

That is an issue. The low MDC values allowed for faster combat, which I actually prefer. Though I do have to wonder if critical strikes are how they viewed a lot of the one-hit stuff (Critical hits do extra damage, plus the random effect table for critical strikes could do more damage on the right roll), though that might indicate a "loaded" die/player ingame.

Gryphon wrote:That's weak sauce really, heck, even the original 1st Ed damage is still pretty weak sauce for a weapon that cores whatever it hits on screen.

The PBC-11 in 1E IS capable of coring Regult Battlepods with a good dice roll (av of 5+ on each d10, so 30-75 vs 50 MDC target), which is a problem with using dice to determine damage instead of a fixed value (30-75 vs flat 75 to hit a 50MDC target). Also IINM the only mecha the Excal. actually cores is a regult battle pod, none of the heavier stuff (PA, OBP) in the animation (which all have 100+, so may not be coreable).

jaymz · Unread post by **jaymz** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:33 am

SL - sorry should have been more clear. I was responding the post by Gryphon just before your last post so that wasn't directed at you. My bad.

ShadowLogan · Unread post by **ShadowLogan** » Sat Feb 08, 2014 5:54 pm

jaymz, np.

Kagashi · Unread post by **Kagashi** » Sun Feb 09, 2014 3:29 pm

Tiree wrote:Well I hope they don't get their own OCC's and MOS's. Because in TSC they already have several MOS's built into the game.

I myself see the Marines as a sub class (MOS) in Character Generation. I like the idea of having a single unified military structure for Robotech. It would make extreme sense to me, as the world was destroyed and unified under the SDF-1's survivors.

It is fairly simplistic view, but it works really well for non-military folks.

Makes sense. Max's NPC is listed as a Marine, yet he still has the good old standard Veritech Pilot OCC. Now if we can only get the ASC to convert to tSC OCCs...

Lt Gargoyle · Unread post by **Lt Gargoyle** » Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:01 pm

Kagashi wrote:Makes sense. Max's NPC is listed as a Marine, yet he still has the good old standard Veritech Pilot OCC. Now if we can only get the ASC to convert to tSC OCCs...

I would like to see the ASC coverted to TSC standard as well.

jedi078 · Unread post by **jedi078** » Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:45 pm

To me the quality of the OCC's have just gotten better with each book.

So if anything the TSC OCC's need to be brought up to the same standard as the ASC OCC's in the Masters Saga Sourcebook. Every ASC OCC (i.e. service branch) has its own ethos, basic training, and follow on basic training courses. Furthermore just like real life members from different service branches attend the same MOS school. Case and point U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine and U.S. Coast Guard aviators all attend the same schools at Pensacola until they get to train on their specific air frame.

Furthermore we need Macross era specific OCC's instead of using the TSC OCC's.

So I for one want to see UEEF Marine specific OCC's for the New Gen and Shadow Chronicles era because it means we will have official OCC's for each of the service branchs of the UEEF. The UEEF Spacy/Fleet, the UEEF Marines and UEEF Explorer Corps

Oh and for those who don't like the idea of UEEF Marines? Just change UEEF Marine to UEEF Army.

glitterboy2098 · Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:07 pm

Max Sterling was UEDF.. i like the idea that UEDF Marine Aviation was different in organization and emphasis, not training.
and i could see the UEEF Marines doing much the same. but i'd love to see Marine specific Destroid and Infantry OCC's.. maybe using the same MOS's as the regular ones, but with different marine focused OCC skills.

this would make the Battloid Ace and Infantry OCC's the "UEEF Army", with the marines being more unique.

Lt Gargoyle · Unread post by **Lt Gargoyle** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:43 am

my issue with the ASC is the fact they can trade their Secondary skills for a MOS package. I think secondary skills are needed for a truly rounded out PC, it is their personal background. if someone rolls a jack of all trades, that player has 3 MOS packages.
Also I like the Character Generation system being completely the same way through out the system.

Kagashi · Unread post by **Kagashi** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:53 am

glitterboy2098 wrote:Max Sterling was UEDF..

Bottom of page 127 in Macross (Zentraedi sized) "Occupation: UEDF Marine Corps Aviator." yet XP level is still a run of the mill Veritech Pilot. (page 252 of the Mang-suck sized).

Lt Gargoyle wrote:my issue with the ASC is the fact they can trade their Secondary skills for a MOS package. I think secondary skills are needed for a truly rounded out PC, it is their personal background. if someone rolls a jack of all trades, that player has 3 MOS packages.
Also I like the Character Generation system being completely the same way through out the system.

Agreed. I didnt like how Masters Saga characters, regardless of OCC or Army, can pretty much have any available skill. All you have to do is be creative with what MOS skill package you picked. Why even have character classes if everybody has access to every skills during character creation? Pretty much everybody can be a veritech pilot without having the title "Veritech Pilot".

I do not see why many of the ASC OCCs simply were not Battloid Aces or Veritech Pilots...that just wore different insignia based off of what army they worked for. tSC OCCs were not broken...why fix em?

jedi078 · Unread post by **jedi078** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:07 am

Lt Gargoyle wrote:my issue with the ASC is the fact they can trade their Secondary skills for a MOS package. I think secondary skills are needed for a truly rounded out PC, it is their personal background. if someone rolls a jack of all trades, that player has 3 MOS packages.

Actually it's in place of their character OCC related skills, not their secondary skills. Per the RAW a character doesn't get too many secondary skills to begin with, so it's no surprise that a player is going to try to exploit this and trade the 3 or 4 OCC related skills for a full MOS. Likewise players will try to exploit ans ask the GM if they can have the 'jack of all trades' aptitude.

For both these issues a good GM will easily nip that kind of stuff in the butt and just flat out won't allow it.

Lt Gargoyle · Unread post by **Lt Gargoyle** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:14 am

jedi078 wrote:
Lt Gargoyle wrote:my issue with the ASC is the fact they can trade their Secondary skills for a MOS package. I think secondary skills are needed for a truly rounded out PC, it is their personal background. if someone rolls a jack of all trades, that player has 3 MOS packages.

Actually it's in place of their character OCC related skills, not their secondary skills. Per the RAW a character doesn't get too many secondary skills to begin with, so it's no surprise that a player is going to try to exploit this and trade the 3 or 4 OCC related skills for a full MOS. Likewise players will try to exploit ans ask the GM if they can have the 'jack of all trades' aptitude.

For both these issues a good GM will easily nip that kind of stuff in the butt and just flat out won't allow it.

I have nipped it in my own games. still trading one skill related skills for such MOS packages seems unbalanced to me.

jedi078 · Unread post by **jedi078** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:52 am

Lt Gargoyle wrote:I have nipped it in my own games. still trading one skill related skills for such MOS packages seems unbalanced to me.

Well maybe if there were more OCC related skills allowed (somewhere between 10-14, based upon how many OCC skills they get) then it wouldn't be so unbalancing if one player traded his 10 OCC Related skills for and MOS package with 10 skills in it.

Of course I never had understood why with the 2E version of Robotech the number of OCC related skills is so low. The low number limits the amount of diversity between characters who share the same OCC and MOS. We know from the anime (at least in Macross and Southern Cross) that many characters had the same OCC, and MOS.

glitterboy2098 · Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:26 am

Kagashi wrote:
glitterboy2098 wrote:Max Sterling was UEDF..

Bottom of page 127 in Macross (Zentraedi sized) "Occupation: UEDF Marine Corps Aviator." yet XP level is still a run of the mill Veritech Pilot. (page 252 of the Mang-suck sized).

just pointing it out. since he is UEDF not UEEF, using him as an example of a shared Navy/Marine OCC for the UEEF is not entirely valid. the UEDF might well have organizational differences in how it treated Marines in regards to training(OCC's) compared to the UEEF.

ShadowLogan · Unread post by **ShadowLogan** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:07 am

jedi078 wrote:Of course I never had understood why with the 2E version of Robotech the number of OCC related skills is so low. The low number limits the amount of diversity between characters who share the same OCC and MOS. We know from the anime (at least in Macross and Southern Cross) that many characters had the same OCC, and MOS.

I think the # of OCC related skills is so low because of the MOS factor and the move to split the old "OTHER" Skill group into the OCC Related and Secondary skill headings. Also if you look back on 1E for a minute, you can see a similar phenomena happen with the ASC OCC/MOS combination compared to RDF/REF book OCCs, granted those MOS where more pick-and-choose than the MOS in 2E. The ASC only received 8-10 Other Skills (now a days that would be Secondary PLUS OCC Related) typically with a single 11 vs 14-18 range for humans. Zent and Sent. aliens are closer to ASC w/o the MOS for Other Skill.

Lt. Gargoyle wrote:I have nipped it in my own games. still trading one skill related skills for such MOS packages seems unbalanced to me.

It isn't trading in one skill, you trade all of your OCC related skills in for a second MOS package, plus you need a high IQ (14+). Granted the OCC related skill numbers are pretty low, so you can come out ahead.

jaymz · Unread post by **jaymz** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:48 am

If i think it is a problem (and I do not think it is as there are other good "aptitudes" to choose from not to mention only 2 out 12 players chose this in my PbP campaign while other had none, or took a different based on their character concept) I'd just start making them actually roll on the aptitude table and not let them choose what they want. That way if they get it it was meant to be.

jedi078 · Unread post by **jedi078** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:43 pm

ShadowLogan wrote:
jedi078 wrote:Of course I never had understood why with the 2E version of Robotech the number of OCC related skills is so low. The low number limits the amount of diversity between characters who share the same OCC and MOS. We know from the anime (at least in Macross and Southern Cross) that many characters had the same OCC, and MOS.

I think the # of OCC related skills is so low because of the MOS factor and the move to split the old "OTHER" Skill group into the OCC Related and Secondary skill headings. Also if you look back on 1E for a minute, you can see a similar phenomena happen with the ASC OCC/MOS combination compared to RDF/REF book OCCs, granted those MOS where more pick-and-choose than the MOS in 2E. The ASC only received 8-10 Other Skills (now a days that would be Secondary PLUS OCC Related) typically with a single 11 vs 14-18 range for humans. Zent and Sent. aliens are closer to ASC w/o the MOS for Other Skill.

The problem with the low number of OCC related skill is that it reduces the amount of diversity characters can have in term of skill selection.

Just look at the skills listed for Rick, Roy and Max in the Macross Saga Source book. In terms of skills the three are literally carbon copies of one another. If the number of OCC related skills was increased to 10 or 12 then you would have more diversity between the three characters.

It isn't trading in one skill, you trade all of your OCC related skills in for a second MOS package, plus you need a high IQ (14+). Granted the OCC related skill numbers are pretty low, so you can come out ahead.

More like YOU DO come out ahead with a second MOS package.....and therein lies the problem.

One player gets an IQ of 14 and selects a second MOS and gets 10 or 11 skills. The player with an IQ of 13 is per the RAW is stuck with 3 or 4 OCC related skills. If the number of OCC related skills was increased to 10 or 12 then you would not have such an imbalance and this wouldn't be a problem.

Tiree · Unread post by **Tiree** » Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:09 pm

I have come to the conclusion that the lack of OCC skills and low Secondary Skills is due to the 'rules light' mentality of the game. Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate this fact. But when you stack it up to Rifts, it is lacking quite a bit. Even with the conversion skills, you are still looking at fairly weak skilled character.

I currently have two TSC characters on a PbP site which I converted to Rifts. One is a TSC era Military Specialist, the other is a ASC Hovertank Pilot. My ASC Pilot even though is only 4th level is more user friendly than my Military Specialist that is 7th.

Lt Gargoyle · Unread post by **Lt Gargoyle** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:48 am

ShadowLogan wrote:
Lt. Gargoyle wrote:I have nipped it in my own games. still trading one skill related skills for such MOS packages seems unbalanced to me.

It isn't trading in one skill, you trade all of your OCC related skills in for a second MOS package, plus you need a high IQ (14+). Granted the OCC related skill numbers are pretty low, so you can come out ahead.

Sorry, it should read One's skills.

I have given my players, 4 extra OCC Related, and Secondary skills for my games.

ShadowLogan · Unread post by **ShadowLogan** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 8:30 am

@jedi078
I do not dispute that there is an issue with the lack of OCC Related/Secondary skills in 2E RT RPG, I merely am stating what appears to be the reasoning for it. The MOS system when added to an OCC in Palladium seems to be countered by a reduction it "Other" skills that can be used to define a character.

One way to interpret the OCC Related trade in for 2nd MOS would be to remove future OCC Related Skills (which adds up to be closer to a full MOS). Plus the 2nd MOS could have some skill overlaps with the existing OCC and primary MOS, cutting down the number of skills actually gained. The 2nd MOS is also described as a supplementary MOS, which could be interpreted to limit what is available based on the Primary MOS as they are supposed to supplement each other.

Plus the IQ requirement should also limit when it can be applied, unless you have PCs rolling high consistently on attributes.

@Lt Gargyole
That makes more sense.

Seto Kaiba · Unread post by **Seto Kaiba** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 11:50 am

Dairugger XV wrote:The reason everyone in their third cousins calls space-based landing forces "marines" is because a bunch of early science fiction writers took the analogy of "space is an ocean" and ran with it. They ran with it so much that it became ingrained in the popular psyche. It's why we call spacecraft "ships", we call groups of spacecraft "fleets", we call space-based militaries "navies", and we call ground forces attached to those militaries "marines.[...]

Eh... while that's broadly true for western sci-fi/action titles, it's actually not true for any of the component shows used to make Robotech. The original Macross, Southern Cross, and MOSPEADA literally refer to their space-based military forces as space armies.

The "Spacy" in Macross's "UN Spacy" is literally a contraction of "Space Army"... and it's organized as an army, albeit one with an internal flying corps ala the pre-1947 US Army. It does use some minor Navy tidbits, such as using the US Navy's squadron and hull designation code systems, or the tradition of referring to your ship's commanding officer with "Captain"* instead of his/her actual rank (usually a Colonel or Brigadier General). It's the only one of the three that DOES have a "Space Marine" force, but there is no actual "Space navy" for them to belong to. (The UN Spacy Marines appear to be mostly the UN's attempt to fit Zentradi Army troops and hardware into the UN Forces.)

* The Japanese language has separate terms for the Army, Navy, and ship CO title uses of Captain... being Taii, Taisa/Daisa, and Kanchou respectively, so there's less potential for confusion.

The three branches of the space service in Southern Cross - the Tactics Space Corps, Tactics Armored Space Corps, and Transport Corps - are collectively divisions of the Southern Cross Army rather than a Navy, effectively being a space army, space air force, and space cargo service respectively.

MOSPEADA's Mars Colony forces are also organized along Army Air Force lines... their ships are nothing more than short-ranged landing craft for Army units, and the Mars Colony mechanized forces are divided into what the show refers to as "Battle Companies". (This one goes out of its way to hammer home the "This is really an Army" thing, since it's got a fair few stealth references to the D-Day landings.)

Robotech's sudden urge to have a "space marine" force is probably the result of 1. Tommy Yune's own affection for Macross, 2. Harmony Gold's understandable desire to use the OSM as much as possible in Robotech, and 3. the general antipathy most fans have for the Army of the Southern Cross which had previously been depicted as the Expedition's ground forces.

Kagashi · Unread post by **Kagashi** » Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:40 pm

Dairugger XV wrote:The reason everyone in their third cousins calls space-based landing forces "marines" is because a bunch of early science fiction writers took the analogy of "space is an ocean" and ran with it. They ran with it so much that it became ingrained in the popular psyche. It's why we call spacecraft "ships", we call groups of spacecraft "fleets", we call space-based militaries "navies", and we call ground forces attached to those militaries "marines.

If you really stop and think about it, it only makes sense insofar as a submarine being the closest analogue we have to a military spacecraft. For all other purposes there is sufficient enough difference between space and the ocean that it really doesn't make sense to be reliant on such terms as the origins of that was to give a frame of reference to people who had no real concept of what space really was.

As for the book, I might get it, depending on reviews from trustworthy friends who know my play habits. Otherwise, I just use Palladium books for the settings and make use of other systems to play in those settings.

Thats why I liked Star Gate...the Space Fleet was run by the Air Force and each ship commanded by a Colonel, not a naval Captain. Makes sense since the AF runs Space Command today.

rem1093 · Unread post by **rem1093** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 12:43 pm

Kagashi wrote:
Tiree wrote:Well I hope they don't get their own OCC's and MOS's. Because in TSC they already have several MOS's built into the game.

I myself see the Marines as a sub class (MOS) in Character Generation. I like the idea of having a single unified military structure for Robotech. It would make extreme sense to me, as the world was destroyed and unified under the SDF-1's survivors.

It is fairly simplistic view, but it works really well for non-military folks.

Makes sense. Max's NPC is listed as a Marine, yet he still has the good old standard Veritech Pilot OCC. Now if we can only get the ASC to convert to tSC OCCs...

We used the Tactical corps as the basis for the Marines (anybody else notice that the last paragraph, makes them sound like Marines). Just replace the special forces section with one for the Marines, such as Aviator, Armor, Recon, ext. As for the skills we keep the secondary skills and add the the ability to take more MOS's at higher ranks or levels. Witch works when you look at something like Force recon, and the fact that after their 5 phases of training they they would end up with at least four of the MOS's from the ASC book. Also also added a Sniper OCC/MOS, And separate space/planet specialist

Pouncer wrote:
jedi078 wrote:The only reason I do not have the Mospeada destroids in my games is because all we have is some line art of them.

The Sentinels Destriods, and REF Pods both have a place in my games as does the Zent Striker Battliod

I've got the REF Destroids and Pods in my game, we're finally up to Robotech in my group's rotation and one player is happily blasting enemies with his Excalibur.

-POUNCER

Not a fan of the REF Destroids, but I do use the Zent. pod (modified though). Instead I went with Marine variants of the VHT, Ajax, ext. Would like to see what they are going to do.

jaymz · Unread post by **jaymz** » Wed Feb 12, 2014 1:19 pm

And I also prefer the lower 1st Edition MDC values as well. If they wanted to increase a given units defenses, then they should have gone with increased bonuses to avoid getting hit instead. Robotech shouldn’t be a setting where slabs and slabs of armor are saving your bacon, it should be skill mainly (and of course luck, since there is a die roll involved!)

For the record, Destoids are SUPPOSED to be slabs and slabs of armour as opposed to mobility saving their bacon.

VFs use mobility, but then again I personally try to use as much accurate canon as possible as to the toughness and firepower (damage) of each unit. I then use the Macross saga as the basis and move from there with each subsequent generation getting to where I am now with all the stats I've rewritten. I try to be as consistent as I can be throughout and I think my rewrites have done just that, though obviously I am biased.