Non-Cyber BattleTac Master Components, deciphered after 20+ years Options

[Kagetenshi]

So I think I finally figured out how BattleTac Master Components work without an implanted Tactical Computer.

The rules appear to mix the terms “master component” and “master unit”, which is unfortunate because the gear list specifically lists a “BattleTac Master Component” and a “Tactical Communication System Master Unit”. The references to “master unit” are of the form “BattleTac master unit”, and thus clearly* do not refer to or depend on the TCS Master Unit, the entire TCS is just an option for the communications backbone (that trades availability, size for the master unit, and range for the receiver unit for a very generous amount of encryption and ECCM for the price plus the option to use laser, microwave, and satellite links should the environment require it) which a Rating 4+ Transceiver is also just fine for.

The master component isn’t cyberware or a tactical computer but nevertheless uses the rules from M&M pp22-23 about giving a bonus based on a rating derived from tactically relevant senses. Per CC p106 “A character using a BattleTac master component may also receive a bonus to his Small Unit Tactics skill.” which indicates that the bonus received is only the last column of the chart on M&M p23 relating to SUT skill boni, not the boni related to Combat Pool or pool use on Surprise Tests. So the Tactical Computer just gives other side boni and reduces the action to use SUT on others to a Simple Action (from a Complex; self-use is no action at all).

The receiver component (1) sends linked senses to the network and the master unit for bonus purposes, (2) allows sharing “any piece of information known to one member” not directly linked to the system for a Simple Action, (3) allows consultation of all the data shared with the network for a Simple Action, (4) gives -1 to the TN to aid the user with SUT, (5) allows firing a Remote Trigger System-connected weapon.

The Cyberlink Receiver performs the functions of a Receiver, but consulting the network’s information is “automatic”. Not a Free Action, simply free. It further gives an additional -1 to the SUT TN for a total of -2.

*: by which I mean not clearly at all until extensive cross-referencing and consideration.

It isn’t at all clear what happens to the whole “sense ports” concept from the Tactical Computer; since they aren’t mentioned or given any kind of non-cyber cost I’d assume that they don’t apply, though that’s a little weird even accounting for the extra boni a Tactical Computer can give with those senses. On the other hand, the Tactical Computer requires explicit modification to be integrated into a BattleTac system, so maybe that shouldn’t bother me.

Relevant or possibly-relevant page references:
- Man and Machine pp22-23 (Tactical Computer, BattleTac Cyberlink), pp42-44 (BattleTac Systems rules), pp47-48 (Small Units Tactics rules)
- Cannon Companion pp53-55 (BattleTac components, Tactical Communications System), pp105-106 (SUT rules), some stuff around page 100 regarding indirect fire that’s probably not relevant
- And Rigger 3 has some BattleTac stuff but it all appears to be IVIS and FDDM-related, not tangled up with the SUT problem.

Hopefully this helps people who have been as confused about this as I was.

~J

[Bodak]

So the Tactical Computer just gives other side boni and reduces the action to use SUT on others to a Simple Action (from a Complex; self-use is no action at all).

Once or twice I have suggested this interpretation to GMs and they've said no. I think if this were a SR4a nexus with an Agent running the tacnet, it would have the Small Unit Tactics skill and be an expert-system modelling, forecasting, comparing extent of objectives satisfied, and issuing orders. Same if it were an Eclipse Phase ego / fork / AGI which exists entirely for this purpose. But instead the battletac operator must have the Small Unit Tactics Skill themselves. That operator is the one twisting those knobs and tuning those dials and balancing the sliders using their Skill. Then, having worked out a good plan for the next three seconds, they take a Complex Action to issue orders across the network. Each recipient then listens to the instructions, then gets a small situational bonus. And with the TacComp improving efficiency, relaying only costs a Simple Action. And the operator reading the instructions from the combat simulation doesn't need to spend an action to read those instructions out to themselves.

But the argument consistently presented to me has been that the model doesn't just generate itself. It requires an operator with the Small Unit Tactics Skill to use that Skill before instructions are produced (instructions which take time (or not) to be relayed). And using that Skill costs the operator an Action In Combat, creating / updating / tuning the simulation, picking the optimal tactic, and generating orders. And during the time they are using the Skill (and during the time they are relaying orders) the situation evolves.

So (the argument goes) the decker can be useful in combat as a boffin spending two passes each Turn providing a small party-wide buff to the combatants of the team (rather than firing a hold-out pistol themselves). But it's not just that everybody takes 4 or 5 ranks in Small Unit Tactics, rolls the skill as a non-action for themselves and gets some Combat Pool from being clever. Everyone would do it. Everyone would be their own individual "Small Unit" for a handful of Good-K and a non-action. That way, battletac would endorse multiple isolated teams each containing a single organism; the opposite of its intent, which is to endorse a coherent team coordinated as fluidly as a single organism.

I have ceded that this makes sense so that's my current position. Admittedly, these nuggets had not spent 20+ years deciphering this aspect of play so they could be wrong but it makes sense to me. So I would suggest that communicating orders to oneself is a non-action, but generating orders (whether for oneself or for a battalion of Starship Troopers) is not a non-action.

Of course then the next step is to Summon an Ally Spirit whose entire raison d'etre is maintaining battletac. It can use a computer just fine (MitS.99). It always gets 2 Passes per Turn while Materialised. It won't have Task Pool, and it costs plenty of Good-K to set up. It remains a liability during combat. But that way an off-screen NPC "expert system" can dedicate itself to optimising metahuman slaughter and nobody real has to pay an Action.

• Max: What are you?
• Brain: I'm an I.T. Concentrate. A battle processor. I'm basically a general, his staff, two database groups and five logistical support teams all rolled into one stealth package.
• Alec: Yeah. That still doesn't explain your psychic ability.
• Brain: Psychic? Please. I combine near absolute data knowledge with fast Fourier neural nets for heuristics.
• Alec: Heuristics?
• Brain: Predictions using probability algorithms that are stored in my--Look, are you sure you want to hear this?

What could possibly go wrong?

[Kagetenshi]

I’ll come back to the meat of this argument later, but for now:

But it's not just that everybody takes 4 or 5 ranks in Small Unit Tactics, rolls the skill as a non-action for themselves and gets some Combat Pool from being clever. Everyone would do it. Everyone would be their own individual "Small Unit" for a handful of Good-K and a non-action. That way, battletac would endorse multiple isolated teams each containing a single organism; the opposite of its intent, which is to endorse a coherent team coordinated as fluidly as a single organism.

Would this in fact happen? Four or five ranks of SUT is 14-21 karma, 11-17 karma with a Mnemonic Enhancer, for an expected +1 or +1.25 Initiative. Even if, as I recommend, the SUT and Combat Pool rules are in effect this is still one point of Combat Pool against an amount of karma that can bring a combat skill to 7 or, at the high end of 21, an attribute from 6 to an exceeding-RML 7.

I agree that it’s a little weird that it’s possible for groups to fragment into SUT-squads of one to save a Complex (sometimes Simple) Action, but I’m not at all convinced right now that the practicalities make it something that needs to be worried about. Do you have another analysis?

~J

[Bodak]

1 Combat Pool can be better than 1 Skill in some cases - in that it can Dodge and Soak damage when required, and bolster offence when required. Sure, when your Skill is 2 or 3, raising it once is more attractive than getting an extra Combat Pool. But when your skill is 8 or 10, etc. a non-action SUT that grants extra Pool is likely more attractive. As play time progresses, having lateral options is valuable: do both.