Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
Co-GM
 GM, 156 posts
Fri 30 Jun 2017
at 02:52
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 304):

>> Is still 1%? is it told in any other rule?
>Must have gotten dropped. Yes, 1%. Good catch.
Ack!! No!! I forgot!! See the equation that goes with the last paragraph of sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2!
Germany
 player, 307 posts
Fri 30 Jun 2017
at 17:42
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Germany:
Co-GM:
In reply to Germany (msg # 302):

> PAs (by about 25%), but multiplying it by 5 might be too much...
You missed that Relations Score was removed from Attack Strength, which reduced strength by very roughly 1/5. It had to be removed to handle cases where the attacker was up against tasks to which a Relation Score does not exist.


You're right, I missed it. Now I must study it a Little more before giving my opinión...


The main problem I find here, once reevaluated, is for internal actions: high prestige harms you as th formula is now (it already did, but it seems to be worse now).

I'd suggest to return to the old idea of having a ser value for defending prestige when performing internal actions (e.g. a plain 10 as it once was), while keeping the rest of the formula, that seems to work.
Germany
 player, 308 posts
Sun 2 Jul 2017
at 01:15
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Just another point. With the new oil rules, where oil SRUs are less than they were before and can be moved, I understand they can be stored, as FU, SU and MRUs can. Is that right?
Russia
 player, 27 posts
Wed 26 Jul 2017
at 14:27
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Gentlemen, sorry if it was already discussed (I didnt read previous 300+ messages in this thread).

I want to note: rule which decreases sold units to reserve quality really debilitates trade between PC countries. I reckon why it was implemented but still I do not feel that it is neccessary nor brings more pros than cons.
Germany
 player, 310 posts
Wed 26 Jul 2017
at 14:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Time ago we had a fórum where we discussed those details. Kelvin was thinking to close it anyway, but case is that it went down (I don't knwo why) and many comments there were lost. Even if for no other thing, that could have given some insight to new players about why several things are as they are.

The rule to downgrade any unit traded among players (or to NPDs for what's worth) was to represent the selling of specific units the buyer could not build without overcost (due to the unlocking new units and facilities, currently rule 5.3,that then was double cost or $100, whatever was greater).

This represented the selling of cariers (to give you an example) to countries that have not the infrastructure to build them (e.g. the Spanish helicopter carriers sold to Australia as Camberra class, the French one sold to Brazil as the Sao Paulo class or the Russian one sold to China as the Liaoning). The fact they were downgraded to reserve meant that only the bare material was sold, while it had to be refit and recrewed.

Similar cases would be for air or tank units sold to countries without the infrastructure to build them (so having not unlocked the units).

Of course, if the unlocking rule is forfeited, this rule loses (at least) some of its meaning, and could be rethought if Kelvin things it is appropiate...

This message was last edited by the player at 14:39, Wed 26 July.

Co-GM
 GM, 160 posts
Wed 26 Jul 2017
at 22:18
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
In reply to Germany (msg # 310):

The entire forum host went out of business, it is ok, there was nothing of use on the forum except several thousand reasons why I feel the need to be so bossy and officious in dealing with this game.

>meant that only the bare material was sold, while it had to be refit and recrewed.
That is the true reason why units are downgraded.

>  if the unlocking rule is forfeited, this rule loses (at least) some of
>its meaning, and could be rethought if Kelvin things it is appropiate...

That is just the thing, the unlocking rule has not been truly forfeited, it has just been broken up and transformed into various modes which do not require a spreadsheet be maintained on which technologies have been developed.
Germany
 player, 311 posts
Fri 28 Jul 2017
at 18:35
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Co-GM:
Ok, finally managed to find a computer that would not be improved by slathering it with formic acid. I finally have some hope of doing this War Round shortly.

Before we begin I need to make a general statement about 3 kinds of questions which I am seeing coming up, and yes, these will be made clearer in the rules for next turn.

#1 Questions along the lines of '...after all the changes to borders due to wars, then within a hex on Earth, does nation X still border with nation Y?'

    There was a time when we could and did care about national borders within a hex based on a 2010 vintage map. That time has past and borders within a hex on Earth have changed, especially in the Middle East, and we are not going to detail them. From now on, within a hex on Earth we will assume that any land unit can reach any other point within the same hex without starting a war in attempting to make the crossing*, unless the GM explicitly says otherwise.

*what happens at the end point of the move is a completely different situation.

#2 Questions about what kind of society is an NPC, e.g. are they democratic or not.

     Beyond the deliberately vague listings for 'Trade Code' and 'Stability' in the Settlement_List file there is no mechanism for generating and tracking such things, and especially no mechanism on how they would automatically evolve to over time in response to events in the game, nor do I ever foresee a need to have such a mechanism. In the course of telling a story the GM might occasionally make a reference as to the current nature of an NPC's government/society for the purpose of role-play, but it is ONLY for the purpose of role-play.


#3 Questions about what actions an NPC have been doing, especially to another NPC.

     Nations were chosen to be available as PC nations because taken together they dominate anything important, that means that in general any NPC vs. NPC conflict is unimportant. Unless the GM feels a particular NPC vs. NPC conflict is of unusual interest to the rest of the players then do not expect to see a combat roll, or even a mention in the History section. The GM has more important things to do. So perhaps Iraq has been engaged in a vicious war with a portion of the IC and this is causing a drain of the resources and reinforcements of the IC away from the IC's conflict with the West ... or perhaps Iraq and the IC have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship of trade and trust. Whatever it is, do not expect it to be detailed, or even mentioned, until the GM determines it is useful to do so.

All of this (mostly points 2 and 3, as point 1 is clearly an artifical artifact to ease the game) puzzles me, as I agree and disagree at once.

IMHO, we should first define once nad for all what kind of game we want to play. We all know that the gae is at once a strategical (expected to become a x4 as time passes) game and a free RPG one. We must decide wich of those two facets we wat to stress.

If we decide for the strategical game:
  • Rules should take precedence on GM decisions, those being reserved for manageing NPCs and when the rules are not clear or applicable
  • Long term plans must be posible, with a reasonable security that they will work unless there is more opposition than expected or strategic situation changes.
  • Automatic actions should be automatic. Delays, unexpected problems, etc should be a very rare occurence.
  • All points quoted here by the co-GM are correct in this case (well, maybe point 3 is argeable, as, to give an example, this same comment about Iraq should be true for Syria, and it's not the case)


If we decide for a free form RPG game:
  • Rules are directives, expected to be the basis of the game, but far from holy writ.
  • Long term plans are less sure, as every action produces a reaction and things are not so sure nor previsible. Things as international reactions and so become more important.
  • Automatic actions should have a reasonable chance to work, but delays and unexpected problems can be more common.
  • The details in points 2 and 3 are more important. While I may ignore if I'm helping a legitimate democratic government or a colpist dictatorship in aa strategic game, not so much in a RPG.


Examples (all outcomes are only one of the many posible ones):

1) in a war, I order my troops to be selective to avoid colateral (GDP) damages.

  • Strategical game: as there are no rules for this (at least right now), the only way to avoid this damage is to send less troops.
  • RPG: the GM assumes that this will reduce my troops efectivity, giving me a -2 column shift, but GDP damage is reduced


2) A nation with enough TL but uninvolved to date in Space Actions wants to build a spaceship:
  • Strategical game: it has the tech, it spends the money: it has the ship
  • RPG: the GM informs him that, despite being technologically able to do it, its lack of space experience will make it a risky adventure, unless he first sts up a Space progarm with easier actions.


etc...

I'm not asking to forfeit any one of the facets of the game, but, unless one is stressed over the other one, it becomes even more confusing that it already is, and players do not know how to act or what to expect

As said, all of this is IMHO, and I had to take it out. of course, YMMV
Japan
 player, 59 posts
Sat 5 Aug 2017
at 15:04
Re: Version 20170301
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 288):

Simplify the rules
Co-GM
 GM, 162 posts
Thu 10 Aug 2017
at 04:33
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
In reply to Germany (msg # 312):

>We must decide wich of those two facets we wat to stress.
No, there is no reason we have to decide which facet we want to stress. The first iteration of this game was, by lack of planning, freeform and thus was a beautiful mess. Never have I been privileged to see such wonderful role-playing, that collapsed into personality conflicts because we knew of nothing we could do but conflict personally. This game needs structure, yet if I wanted this game to be 'strategical/4x' then I would give up and play Civilization; I hear 'Stellaris' is amazing.

We will walk the middle path.
Co-GM
 GM, 163 posts
Thu 10 Aug 2017
at 20:31
Rules Proposal 20170810
Change to: Units moved by interface facilities must be moved entirely in one Turn, objects currently in transit are grandfathered. Units that have the ability to be Hidden by default start out as such.

Introduction of:The Sum Basic Combat Strength of an NPC Settlement, as a replacement for detailing individual units.

Made clearer:

Rebalancing to:In Quick Combat, not having enough SU increases Military Rank.

Got rid of:
Saudi Arabia
 player, 31 posts
Mon 14 Aug 2017
at 18:21
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Some comments afte a quick Reading:

Co-GM:
Rebalancing to:In Quick Combat, not having enough SU increases Military Rank.


Fully agreed

This was already in former editions, just realized now:

6.3: revolt modifiers table_
quote:
(Number of friendly Ground Brigades in the Settlement) X 100 /(Number of Population Units in the Settlement), round fractions down. Brigades with ‘Reserve’ Quality level do not count. Brigades with ‘Security’ ability count as 5 regular Brigades


How will a reserve brigade with security abitiy (as the motorized Saudi NG ones) for this?

EDIT:

Options I see:
  1. they don't count, as they are 'Reserve' Quality
  2. they count as 5 brigades, as they have 'Security' ability
  3. halfaway, they count as 2.5 (or. to avoid decimals, as 2 or 3) brigades

I personally would find option 1 as dubious, as they may well represent para-military pólice forces, nearly useless in military terms (they lack heavy weaponry or artillery), but quite useful in internal security duties.

This message was last edited by the player at 18:59, Mon 14 Aug.

Co-GM
 GM, 165 posts
Fri 18 Aug 2017
at 07:12
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 316):

>they don't count, as they are 'Reserve' Quality
This one. The example will be edited to make that clear.

>I personally would find option 1 as dubious, as they may well represent
>para-military pólice forces,

Just because a force tries to do something does not mean it is actually effective.
Nigeria
 player, 6 posts
Fri 25 Aug 2017
at 11:24
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
I keep thinking that the political actions resolution formula penalized high prestige when trying any internal action.

e.g. let's imagine two nations each with 20000 pop, AM 12 and stability 10, but nation A with prestige 15, while nation b with prestige 5. Both use 1 PA to attempt decreasing corurption:

  • Nation A: formula is 12(AM)2*1(PA)/(20000(pop)*(15(prestige)-10(stability)+20)2*1/100000), so 144/125=1.152, so 1:1
  • Nation B: formula is 12(AM)2*1(PA)/(20000(pop)*(5(prestige)-10(stability)+20)2*1/100000), so 144/45=3.2, so 3:1


As I don't see any logic on this, I keep suggesting to take prestige out of equation for internal actions, changing it for a constant (let's say 10).
Germany
 player, 319 posts
Sat 26 Aug 2017
at 12:28
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Co-GM:
Introduction of:The Sum Basic Combat Strength of an NPC Settlement, as a replacement for detailing individual units.


I agree this will make bokkeeping quite easier, as well as helping to make exact losses, but, IMHO, two things (that I can think right now) must be clarified:

  1. In case anyone attacks one such nations, would they count as having air for the combat power of player's SAM (see that some nations like Kurdistán or Pashtunistan, have no air power at game scale)?
  2. In case this minor country uses MDWs, as only some units have their combat power increased (artillery, missiles, bombers), how will this affect it?

Germany
 player, 322 posts
Mon 28 Aug 2017
at 15:26
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Just realized (though it was thre since proposal 20170401):

7.9.1: Orbital facilities:

quote:
Orbital Industry: More expensive to build than ground based industries but can make products which are in high demand. If provided with 20 Raw Material Units per Turn then this facility generates $50/Turn and, if paid for with the appropriate number of $, build locally up to 10 Supply Units per Turn.


Why has this been reduced (it was 25 with current rules)?

In a setting where interface is so expensive and difficult, it should be expected that eery effort is done to produce those things in orbit, if they are to be sent elsewhere.

See that this change will (again) blow up German plans already in development, and will make me unable to accomplish my compromises (once again due to rules changes, not to bad planning). This way it is impossible to make long-term plans.
Germany
 player, 324 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:31
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
General Rules comments (vased on Rules Proposal 20170810):

After over 300 posts I think it might be a good idea to summarize what I find could be improved in the rules, including all that has already been said, hoping to ease your job by putting all together in a handful of consecutive posts. I’ve been working on this for some time now, and I adapted it to the newest proposal (20170810).

Of course, you know I’d done several things different (but then, I’d probably not been able to write such a coherent rules, just to modify them), but I accept your approach and just limit myself to point at loopholes, asking clarifications and making suggestions.

Some of them, have already been suggested, and in some cases you refuted them, in others you did not answer, but I’ll give them here again if I keep believing they would help or improve the game-

For easy reading, I’ll keep in usual color the suggestions, in red the clarifications asked (I’d thank you to respond them ASAP) in green examples and in blue comments or reasoning.

Aside from giving some (many?) thoughts to chew, I’d like to also hear others’ opinions, as all too often it seems only you and me discuss about rules.

Overall: adding a glossary.

2.2 Words and their ratings:

I keep thinking atmosphere A (exotic, but neither corrosive nor insidious, usually only needing oxygen support but not protective suits) planets should be treated as inhospitable, not Intolerable (unless other factors dictate otherwise). Examples of those worlds would be Titan (methane atmosphere) or any world with reductive atmosphere (CO2).

2.3: Hexagons:

Separating the Farming and Mining potentials to a rule by itself, instead of having them in the Hexagons one (they have little to none to do with Hexes).

Modifying Mining Potential by the density of the world (as we have it listed in H&E). E.g. a DM of (density-1)*10. For Asteroid/planetoid belts the modifier should be by dependent on nickel-iron (so metals) and carbonaceous (hydrocarbons) zones (e.g. ( (n+c zones)/10)-5 used as DM). See that in both cases the DM may be negative too.

Making Tantalum SRU presence dependent on the density (N zone for Asteroid/Planetoid belts).

All of this is to be more compatible with 2300AD setting and to represent the higher useful ores expected to be in concordance with density. In the case of Asteroid/Planetoid belts, with the metallic and hydrocarbon asteroids for RMUs and just ores for Tantalum, as it is where it is most likely to be found.

Halving MP for unhospitable worlds (Asteroid/Planetoid belts included) instead of having the -10 DM. Up to you if this halving should occur before modifiers (by hex type and/or above modifiers) or after them.

As rules stand now, about half of inhospitable worlds and Asteroid/planetoid belts would have a MP of 0, making them useless. While we can discuss if they would really be profitable, once extra supply needs are taken into account, I guess most of them will have some useful materials…

2.5: Settlement list:

Adding the permanent stability and prestige (to allow players to calculate how they will fade) of the settlements.

3.6: Making Purchases Mid-Turn:

Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM permission (as long as there are $ enough remaining).  At the end of the turn, any unspent $ is automatically converted to SUs.

This will allow more flexibility for players, and probably make response PAs unnecessary. E.g. Country A ends its budget with $300 unallocated. Ad mid turn it decides to buy 1 response PA ($150, s it has the 50% overcost), buys SU 50 to support one WR, rebuild (with GM permission) an Experienced  Destroyer unit ($23, also with the 50% overcost), and to rent 1500 tonnes uplift ($5, also with the 50% overcost) so finishing the turn with $72, that are automatically converted into 72 SU.

4.5: Special Resource Units.

(Clarification aked): can those (specially oil, as is the only one active) be stored?

4.5.4: Altering SRU Demand or Production_

See that once coal is counted as oil SRUs, the coal gasification in option 5 makes (IMHO) little sense.

An option should be given for renewable power sources (solar, wind, tidal, etc.).
Germany
 player, 325 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:33
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
6.5: Political Actions:

Allow for minor PAs (equivalent to 1/10th of a PA. They could be at S10 cost, free but limited (e.g. prestige /4 per turn), or at $10 cost with a limit per turn (in this case I’d suggest a higher limit, as prestige /2).  Those minor PAs cannot be added for the same action, nor with a full PA.
I liked the possibility of being able to perform minor actions (multiplier 0.1), as some times a full political action is an overkill, and doing nothing is not what you want, so a mid-way possibility was, IMHO, right.

6.6: Task Resolution:

For internal actions (In the same country as performs the action), make prestige=10.

7: settlements

I cannot find it right now, but I’d suggest allowing OT modules to be able to be moved from one OT to another in the same orbit. During the moving turn, it is idled (if it is already allowed, to explicit it).


7.4: Settlement TL:

As they use to become core settlements once they reach about 2000 pop (pop digit 7 in the UWP), the adding of 0.1/1000 pop seems quite odd to me. I’d suggest to change it to 0.1/200 pop or to outright remove this modifier.

7.6: Maintenance:

(Not clear if allowed, but it should be explicated) For colony and core settlements, allow for a nation to supply other nation’s facilities by counting among their own facilities/5 for orbital supplies. This must be explicated in the turn orders (as well as which specific facility is included).  E.g.: Germany has 4 facilities in Earth Orbit, while UK has 1. Germany explicitly writes in his turn orders that the SU uplifted to orbit will supply his own facilities plus the UK one. If Germany forgets to explicit it in the orders, UK facility, that relied on it, is idled this turn due to lack of supplies.

7.9.1: Orbital facilities:

ODI: allow them to be up gunned with weaponry modules (as long as they obtain power from some source).

Missile Defense: increase its defense power against missiles. Now that MDWs have had theirs increased, this facility is nearly useless (and it was you who said every facility/unit should have its utility).

Enclave module:  get rid of the outpost prerequisite.
(Clarification asked): could an enclave be set in Earth to get the Pai-Leng SRU?

Civilian/military shipyards: allow them to build 10000 tonnes of ship per turn, instead of just assembly and build 10 modules per turn.

Orbital Industry: make the production TL dependent (e.g. 5 x materials or power TLs, whichever is lower). Allow it to build more supplies (let’s say half of its production capacity)

IMHO, the TL should be as decisive on industrial efficiency as to agriculture or mining. As for SUs, in a setting where interface is so expensive and difficult, it should be expected that every effort is done to produce those things in orbit, if they are to be sent elsewhere.

Solar power Satellite: allow it to reduce oil SRU according the power it gives to the settlement (e.g. power/10). Representing the decreased need of this power due to the solar power received.

7.9.2: Interface facilities:

Personally, I’d like more the formula to be based on gravity (remember, H&E gives it), but I understand that would require major changes.

7.9.3: Ground facilities:

Heavy Industry:  make the production TL dependent (e.g. 5 x materials or power TLs, whichever is lower). IMHO, the TL should be as decisive on industrial efficiency as to agriculture or mining.


University: instead of producing Pai-Leng, I’d find it more logical to be counted for cutting edge research as research modules are.  Representing quite larger facilities (they cost 16 times as much and need supply and pop), they should not be reduced to a single tech category, and allowed to be used in as many cutting edge research projects a single nation makes In a turn.
Germany
 player, 326 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
8.7.1: Naval units:

Allow cruisers to carry missiles as missile submarines do (but maybe only 1 SAM or IRBM unit) to represent the GC and Aegis units.

8.7.3: Space Units

ICBM: give them a different defense factor (In case they are attacked and don’t want to use WMD). Right now, they are the more powerful defense units too…
ABM: increase its defense power. Now that MDWs have had theirs increased, this facility is nearly useless (and it was you who said every facility/unit should have its utility).

8.7.4: Ground Units

Merge infantry and motorized units. Nowadays, most infantry can have enough motor pool to be seen as motorized, and would reduce bookkeeping.

8.10: Division Sized Units:

Make Division Sized Units to save 20% of their maintenance costs (so 4 SU, instead of 5 SU) per non-reserve division).
This will represent the more efficient centralized supply commands, and encourage the use of divisions, so easing (I hope) the GM work and bookkeeping.

8.11:Representing Game Units

Example (clarification): could you please explain what does the second set of combat numbers represent (the 20/3/4/0)?

9: Spaceships:

It’s not a secret I’d change many more things on them, but I’ll limit myself to point at loopholes and make the game playable. See also comments on orbital shipyards.

Add a factor on spaceships called rating, equivalent to hull modules x 1000. This will be used for every calculation used (OT support, building limits of spaceports/shipyards, etc.).
As rules stand now, nothing forbids a player to build a 10000 tonnes ship with 20 hull modules and next turn refitting it and having it fully functional, or to use the same trick to have larger ships than his OTs will support, expecting to refit them when those OTs are built.

9.2: Spaceship construction:

Exclude the cargo modules from the limits for building, as they represent mostly empty space.

See also what I posted in the Shipyards)

9.3 Maintenance, Labour, Cost, and Altering:


Decrease the OTs needed to support the ships.

In 2300AD is specified that there are about 600 ships only of the Anjou class (DG page 74). As it has 25000 m3 cargo capacity (over double than the Hudson), I guess they are no smaller than a Hudson. That would mean over 13800000 tonnes of shipping, needing over 1380 OTs to support just the Anjou class ships…<Blue>


9.4: Landings and Transport.

Forfeit the 5000 tons for the population mass, the passenger module being enough.
<Blue>5000 people will mass about 10% of this, and the 10000 tons of the passenger module should be able to handle it (even if we assume half of it is the spinning machinery and engineering sections, it would leave about 1 ton per person)


Allow spaceships to land or take off also from an Enclave hex.
This assumes those enclaves have “mini-spaceports” for landings, and would allow players to deploy SUs or FUs beforehand to help establish colonies.
Germany
 player, 327 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:41
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
10: Combat:

As for now it was decided to resolve combats on core worlds according 10:10 (Quick combat), and so those are the rules I mostly expect to be used for a while, I’ll center my comments on them (though some comments on other things would be done). See also comments on armed forces.

10.6: Damage Allocation

Interception: again, now that the MDW weapons factor has been so increased and the defenses are not, the interception is quite less likely to occur. Is that intentional?

Collateral damages (clarifications asked):

As rules stand, it seems that if MDW are used, all combat power, not just the MDW part, is divided by 25 (for colonies) or 250 (for core worlds). Is this right?
Does the result in the table affect in any way the damages? As rules stand, if 10000 points of bombers attack a hex where they are met by 40000 points of defenses and the result is 100/0, the collateral damages are the same as if they are not met by any defenses and the result is 0/100.


10.9: Air Defense and Ground Support

Include the bombers among the units quartered if fighting only air units. As things are now, a MR unit attacking a bomber unit, other things being equal, is on a clear disadvantage (Basic combat 3 against basic combat 5). Even if the MR has interceptor capacity, it would be 4.5 to 5.

Exclude MR helicopters with interceptor ability from being quartered against air only units. I assume those interceptors represent more VTOL fighters than helicopters properly.

Include DDs or CAs among the units with less reduction if attacked only by air power (alternatively, allow them to carry SAM, as said in the Armed Forces section).

10:10 Quick Combat:


Supplies: I found more logical the supply needs to depend on MR. I’d suggest the SU used per unit in each WR to be (5-MR), so that a MR2 nation would need 3 SU/unit, while a MR1 nation would need 4 SU/unit.

MR represents more than units quality, and the tail-to-tooth ratio is, as I understand it, one of the factors, as well as how well supplied units are. I also find illogical that reserve units consume no supplies.

(Clarification asked) How are damages allocated when they are not enough to destroy a unit?

If we make them as “if not enough to destroy a unit, none”, then a single armored unit cannot be destroyed, no matter how strongly it is attacked, as long as it has supplies (and if reserve, never)…

If we make (at least a unit if there are any losses), then a player attacking two armored divisions against a single infantry brigade and rolling a 1 (10/100) would lose a full armored division…

Suggestion: if not enough to destroy a unit, then none, but any result of 100% would mean at least a unit destroyed (damaged if 10:10 is not used).


General for combat:

I’d suggest raising the possible results over 100 (up to 200 or more at the higher ends) to compensate for armor or for the reduction due to 10:10. As they are now, a single unit with some armor may last forever (or even without it if 10:10 is used).

There should be some way to attack directly the enemy infrastructures/economy (strategic bomber). If so, I guess most non SAM/ABM forces are not too useful In defense…

Examples (taken to extremes) to show what I see flawed in combat (include what is said in the Armed Forces section:

Country A attacks with 5 bombers a hex where there are 1 infantry brigade and 2 ICBM units (10:10 is not used. So the combat occurs at the defenders hex).
  • What is the defense? According rules, if MDW are used defense factor would be 51 (so higher than the bombers), and, if not, 1 (as ICBMs would not fight without using MDWs).
  • Would those ICBMs produce collateral damages if they defend using MDWs (see that they would be using them in their own territory)



Germany attacks Nordic Fed in hex E10 with a single reserve bomber airship (10:10 is in effect). Germany has a basic combat force of 5 against the full NF armed forces in E10 (about 60 brigades, 6 of which are reserve with a basic combat force of about 106). The table is, off course, <1:10. Germany will receive 1damage, not enough to destroy the unit. NF will receive none unless a 10 is rolled, in which case it will receive 2% rounded up damages, so 3, enough to destroy either 3 units with a value of 1 or one with a value of 3. In the meanwhile, Germany has spent no supplies and NF has spent 270 SUs).



Spreadsheet:

Add the prestige somewhere on it.

Modify the Social expanses according the AM (example, to make it easy, multiply it by (AM-14)/40. I set 14 as the non-modified because is the current average).
Remember, higher AM also represents more percentage of social maters (education, health system, etc.) taken by the state, and I find quite illogical than, having more or less the same TLs and GDP per capita, Canada (with an AM of 12) is spending about 56% on them, while US (AM9) is spending about 70%, or that India (AM 13) is expending about 82% on them, while Saudi Arabia (AM 18), with higher TLs and GDP per capita, as well as lower MR is expending about 51%...
This aside, you sadi to want making AM less decisive in the money available for the player than it is, and this would help.


Off course, if they can be stored, SRU stored cell must be added…
Russia
 player, 30 posts
Tue 5 Sep 2017
at 11:56
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
In reply to Germany (msg # 324):

Lluis made a great job clearing rules, I agree with most his propositions.
I would recommend to create a google document so that all propositions, comments and reasoning were in one place.

This message was last edited by the player at 11:56, Tue 05 Sept.

Germany
 player, 328 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 02:40
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
As you said this should be asked in this thread, here I go:
Co-GM:
Quick Combat Round#4

Syrian rebels defending
Syrian rebels: 1 Green Mechanized Brigades (ex-Syrian Army)
Mil Rank 4, Mil tech 7.5, Sum Basic Strength: 3, Final Combat Strength: 168

Odds are 8001/168=47.6 which becomes >10:1 odds, shifted 2*(4-3)=2 = 2 columns to right for Military Rank, final odds >10:1

22:53, Today: Co-GM rolled 9 using 1d10.  Bloody Damascus#9.
Results: 0% permanent to loss Attacker, 100%/5=20% permanent loss to defender,
0.2 X 3 available hits =0.6 = 1

Syrian rebels losses:
None, insufficient to destroy a unit

How in the hell can this last unit, if its combat power is higher than 1, be destroyed?

As things are, it seems Saudi Arabia should have left only 1 tank brigade to stop the whole Iraqui Army, as it would have been indestructible, and so could resist forever (as long as SUs last).
Co-GM
 GM, 171 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 05:12
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
>I keep thinking that the political actions resolution formula penalized high
>prestige when trying any internal action.

and
>For internal actions (In the same country as performs the action), make prestige=10.
...and I keep trying to get Americans to accept the clearly superior metric system and they keep responding with something like https://www.reddit.com/r/funny...wo_kinds_of_country/  Prestige stays in that formula.

>See that this change will (again) blow up German plans already in development, and will
>make me unable to accomplish my compromises (once again due to rules changes, not to
>bad planning). This way it is impossible to make long-term plans.

You gambled and lost on investing in one of the most speculative and untested parts of a speculative and untested game. I cannot expect that you be happy that you gambled and lost, I can expect that you accept that you gambled, and lost.

>In case anyone attacks one such nations, would they count as having air for the combat
>power of player's SAM (see that some nations like Kurdistán or Pashtunistan, have no
>air power at game scale)?

An unimportant detail at the scale of Quick Combat. About to become even more unimportant next Turn when we stop detailing individual units for NPCs and just go with summed combat strength per NPC Settlement.

>(Clarification aked): can those (specially oil, as is the only one active) be stored?
and
>(Clarification asked) How are damages allocated when they are not enough to destroy a unit?
and
>I’d suggest raising the possible results over 100
and
>Off course, if they can be stored, SRU stored cell must be added…
I already know about these issues and have been rewriting the rules accordingly.

>Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM
and
>Allow for minor PAs (equivalent to 1/10th of a PA.
PAs are bar none the most time consuming part of the GM's job. We are currently averaging 80-90 per turn already and I will do nothing to encourage players to submit more.

>Overall: adding a glossary.
I am leery of adding back in a glossary, the terms that would go in there are usually too complex to be adequately defined in a glossary format. Sergey had the better suggestion of beefing up the table of contents but I am temporarily stymied by the terrible options for ToC creation in Google Docs. I will figure something out eventually.

>atmosphere A (exotic, but neither corrosive nor insidious, usually only needing
>oxygen support but not protective suits) planets should be treated as inhospitable

Ok.

>Modifying Mining Potential by the density of the world <snip>Making Tantalum
>SRU presence dependent on the density (N zone for Asteroid/Planetoid belts).

Finding world density requires 2 mouse clicks and a drag more than what it takes to find World Size, and that is at least 1 mouse click and a drag more than what I want to do for such a common task. Besides, Mineral Potential and Mineral Units covers a wide range of products and processes, of which metals and bulk world density are only two factors among many.

>An option should be given for renewable power sources (solar, wind, tidal, etc.).
That is option#4. Will modify text to make that clear.

>As they use to become core settlements once they reach about 2000 pop (pop digit
>7 in the UWP), the adding of 0.1/1000 pop seems quite odd to me

I am not quite sure what you are saying here, but a Colony becomes "...a Core Settlement at GM discretion..." (sec 7.2, Core, sentence#2).

>ODI: allow them to be up gunned with weaponry modules
You would have to account for the H armour class of the ODI expanding to include the module. More importantly, I am not wanting to expand modules for facilities, they are already a back door to fractional facilities and I will not have that.

>Missile Defense: increase its defense power against missiles.
and
>Interception: again, now that the MDW weapons factor has been so increased and the
>defenses are not, the interception is quite less likely to occur. Is that intentional?

Invest in more Missile Defense facilities.

>Solar power Satellite: allow it to reduce oil SRU according the power
What did you think would be an example of a practical manifestation in investing in option#4 of 4.5.4?

>Allow cruisers to carry missiles as missile submarines do (but maybe only
>1 SAM or IRBM unit) to represent the GC and Aegis units.

A long time ago Morgan tried to give China a vast number of Helicopter Carriers because many transport vessels of the actual Chinese Navy happen to sport helicopter landing pads on their top decks. A few short range missiles does not make for an IRBM squadron any more than a helicopter landing pad on a cargo ship makes for a Helicopter Carrier Unit.

>Merge infantry and motorized units. Nowadays, most infantry can have enough motor
>pool to be seen as motorized, and would reduce bookkeeping.

'most' is not good enough, we have to account for 'every', and there are plenty of units that fail to rise to this game's standard of what is a motorized unit.

>Example (clarification): could you please explain what does the second set of
>combat numbers represent (the 20/3/4/0)?

For Spaceships their base combat strength is listed by separate Beam/Missile/Fighter/Orbital Bombardment strengths. Must have gotten dropped in one of the reorganizations, will modify text.

>Add a factor on spaceships called rating, equivalent to hull modules x 1000
See section 9.1, the same way we do not have a similar rating for an infantry brigade vs. aircraft carrier is that the majority of a unit is actually made up of support units...and such a factor would be a significant complication.

>As rules stand now, nothing forbids a player to build a 10000 tonnes ship with
>20 hull modules and next turn refitting it and having it fully functional, or
>to use the same trick to have larger ships than his OTs will support, expecting
>to refit them when those OTs are built.

Not seeing how there is much to be gained by this and hence why I should forbid it.

>needing over 1380 OTs to support just the Anjou class ship
Invest in more OTs.

>Forfeit the 5000 tons for the population mass, the passenger module being enough.
That 5000t represents the mass of people, baggage&tools, oxygen, and food. The number was chosen to match the mass of an Infantry Unit as infantry weapons are easily included in the term 'baggage&tools'.

>Halving MP for unhospitable worlds <snip> have a MP of 0, making them useless.
and
>llow spaceships to land or take off also from an Enclave hex.
>This assumes those enclaves have “mini-spaceports” for landings, and would
>allow players to deploy SUs or FUs beforehand to help establish colonies.

That is why you want to do it. Why should I allow it?

>As rules stand, it seems that if MDW are used, all combat power, not just the MDW
>part, is divided by 25 (for colonies) or 250 (for core worlds). Is this right?

and
>In case this minor country uses MDWs, as only some units have their combat power increased
When WMDs are being used it is assumed that more than just Bombers, IRBMs and ICBMs are using WMDs, but that *every unit is using some kind of WMD* e.g. that is why whole column shifts occur when WMDs are used.

>Does the result in the table affect in any way the damages? As rules stand, if
>10000 points of bombers attack a hex where they are met by 40000 points of defenses
>and the result is 100/0, the collateral damages are the same as if they are not met
>by any defenses and the result is 0/100.

The combat table only covers what is done to military units. The ugly reality of WMDs is that their destructive power is much more than just their successful destruction of military units.

>Include the bombers among the units quartered <snip>
>Exclude MR helicopters with interceptor ability from <snip>
>Include DDs or CAs among the units with less reduction

What is the gain with this...makes the game more realistic? An insufficient reason; we are trying to simplify the rules.

>Germany has a basic combat force of 5 against the full NF armed forces in E10 (about
>60 brigades,<snip> Germany has spent no supplies and NF has spent 270 SUs).

Which units are part of a round of Quick Combat are "... all those which the GM decrees could reasonably be involved together, not necessarily only those in the same hex as the enemy." Sec 10.11 paragraph#2

>Add the prestige somewhere on it.
It is already listed in the Settlement_List file. What purpose would there be to having it in the Budget Spreadsheet too?

>Modify the Social expanses according the AM
This is not much different than the current system, it just hides the effect of the Authoritarian Score within Social Upkeep.
Germany
 player, 329 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 14:30
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Co-GM:
>See that this change will (again) blow up German plans already in development, and will
>make me unable to accomplish my compromises (once again due to rules changes, not to
>bad planning). This way it is impossible to make long-term plans.

You gambled and lost on investing in one of the most speculative and untested parts of a speculative and untested game. I cannot expect that you be happy that you gambled and lost, I can expect that you accept that you gambled, and lost.


I never thought trusting the rules and playing accordingly was gambling...

The whole Project was risky, I know, and I will accept my loses if it turns out to have a Mining Potential of 0 (I still don't know that), but what has affected the plan, even in it haas higher minning potential, is, once again, rules changes.

I don't complain where I lose what I gambled because bad planning, rotten luck or I was outmaneuvered by another player, but I do when it's rules changes that make me lose, despite if the plan was sound or not, because that confuses me and does not allow me to make long term plans, something absolutely necessary for a strategic game.
Germany
 player, 330 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 17:39
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Co-GM:
>I keep thinking that the political actions resolution formula penalized high
>prestige when trying any internal action.

and
>For internal actions (In the same country as performs the action), make prestige=10.
...and I keep trying to get Americans to accept the clearly superior metric system and they keep responding with something like https://www.reddit.com/r/funny...wo_kinds_of_country/  Prestige stays in that formula.


Then don't be surprised then those Political Actions are undertaken by other countries as Liam specified in post 285 this same thread...

Another possibility would be, as I suggested then, to considere each country his own "clinet state" and apply, as rules say (6.8), that Usually, the GM will lower by one the difficulty level of a Political Action which is attempting to alter a player’s Client StateUsually, the GM will lower by one the difficulty level of a Political Action which is attempting to alter a player’s Client State>Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM

quote:
Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM
PAs are bar none the most time consuming part of the GM's job. We are currently averaging 80-90 per turn already and I will do nothing to encourage players to submit more.


I understand your point here, but I guess the result could even be the opposite, as now you have to buy your response PAs before you know if they are needed, and then, of course, you use them, needed or not. This way, you's just not spend the money, and if the response PA is needed you spend on it, and if not you spend this money in SUs, so avoiding (maybe) this PA being bought and used, but in no case will more PAs be bought, and so used. Also, it would allow the response PAs to be rid off, so simplifying the rules.

As an example, Canada ended (according the result budgets you published) this turn with $182 unspent money and no response PAs bought. As it involved in the Iraq/Saudi crisis, I guess it bought one PA (at 150% cost, so losing no money). I guess he’ll use most its other money in SUs (I guess also at 150% cost and needing GM permission). If he had not been involved in any crisis, I guess all the money would have gone to SUs, so avoiding a Political Action, that would not have been avoided if he had bought a response PA instead of leaving this money unspent.

And what would have happened with this money if the GM had not allowed him to make those mid-turn purchasing?

quote:
>As they use to become core settlements once they reach about 2000 pop (pop digit
>7 in the UWP), the adding of 0.1/1000 pop seems quite odd to me

I am not quite sure what you are saying here, but a Colony becomes "...a Core Settlement at GM discretion..." (sec 7.2, Core, sentence#2).


See that at this point the Settlement will probably have about 1000 facilities, so I guess the GM will be glad to turn it into Core Settlement for the shake of simplicity. And in any case, I guess most will so become before reaching the 10000 pop units that would be required to add a single +1 to the TL…

quote:
>ODI: allow them to be up gunned with weaponry modules
You would have to account for the H armour class of the ODI expanding to include the module. More importantly, I am not wanting to expand modules for facilities, they are already a back door to fractional facilities and I will not have that.


Then I don’t expect to see too many ODI facilities in the game, to the point I’ll get rid of them. Time will tell (I hope)…

<:
Missile Defense: increase its defense power against missiles.
and
>Interception: again, now that the MDW weapons factor has been so increased and the
>defenses are not, the interception is quite less likely to occur. Is that intentional?

Invest in more Missile Defense facilities.<quote>

Why so?

I’d better invest in ICBMs, that give me 2.5 times the same combat power, not only against missiles, and cost only about 57% of an ABM and 20% of a Missile defense satellite net. And I can even attack the enemy with them, not only defend myself…

<quote>>Solar power Satellite: allow it to reduce oil SRU according the power
What did you think would be an example of a practical manifestation in investing in option#4 of 4.5.4?


I thought they where those given in option#4 of 4.5.4, where solar power is not listed… After all it is named Conservation/efficiency, and this will be more Alternative Infrastructure (option#5) but without those significant downsides.

But you already agreed to include those renewables into those options, so I will not extend myself on that, but I guess no extra PAs to reduce the oil should be needed in this specific case, being considered included in the facility, as it is its main use in Core Worlds (to provide cheap and clean power), aside from the GDP bonus.

quote:
>Allow cruisers to carry missiles as missile submarines do (but maybe only
>1 SAM or IRBM unit) to represent the GC and Aegis units.

A long time ago Morgan tried to give China a vast number of Helicopter Carriers because many transport vessels of the actual Chinese Navy happen to sport helicopter landing pads on their top decks. A few short range missiles does not make for an IRBM squadron any more than a helicopter landing pad on a cargo ship makes for a Helicopter Carrier Unit.


As I understand the rules, those transports Morgan told you about would be amphibious ability helos in this game (as they can move and fight as reserve in all sea hexes)…

But, as rules stand now, the only units that cannot be protected by SAMs against missiles and air attacks are naval units in deep seas, precisely the ones that most do it. I can agree more about IRBMs.

quote:
>Merge infantry and motorized units. Nowadays, most infantry can have enough motor
>pool to be seen as motorized, and would reduce bookkeeping.

'most' is not good enough, we have to account for 'every', and there are plenty of units that fail to rise to this game's standard of what is a motorized unit.


Beware this sentence does not turn against you, as there are many cases where it’s yourself who does generalizations that could be answered with it…

And this was only a suggestion to simplify the rules and bookkeeping, I won’t insist on it…

quote:
>Example (clarification): could you please explain what does the second set of
>combat numbers represent (the 20/3/4/0)?

For Spaceships their base combat strength is listed by separate Beam/Missile/Fighter/Orbital Bombardment strengths. Must have gotten dropped in one of the reorganizations, will modify text. <quote>

I understand that, but in the example you give about the Tayllerand you give 2 such sets of numbers: French #1240: Veteran Spaceship:10/1/3/0:B:L:Alpha Centuari, Triania, Orbit: N/A: 20/3/4/0, carrying unit#455.

That’s why I asked.

<quote>>Add a factor on spaceships called rating, equivalent to hull modules x 1000
See section 9.1, the same way we do not have a similar rating for an infantry brigade vs. aircraft carrier is that the majority of a unit is actually made up of support units...and such a factor would be a significant complication.


Because infantry brigades and aircraft carriers are standardized units (though if most does not mean all, they shouldn’t be ;)), while spaceships are more detailed.

And I don’t see the complication of just adding to the rules a sentence as “Ship's tonnage is considered to be hulls x 1000 tonnes”, so that when you talk about tonnage everyone knows what are you talking about. And as you could delete then the clarifications about carried items mass not to be counted bu simply talking about tonnage instead of mass, it could even shorten the rules.

quote:
>As rules stand now, nothing forbids a player to build a 10000 tonnes ship with
>20 hull modules and next turn refitting it and having it fully functional, or
>to use the same trick to have larger ships than his OTs will support, expecting
>to refit them when those OTs are built.

Not seeing how there is much to be gained by this and hence why I should forbid it.


Don’t complain then if any player finds the way to profit from this loophole… You know I prefer to warn you about loopholes than using them.

quote:
>needing over 1380 OTs to support just the Anjou class ship
Invest in more OTs.


Let’s see, the game is thought to last until 2300, so 60 turns… So, to reach the level of shipping traffic found in 2300AD setting, we must build an average of 23 OTs per turn only for the Anjou class ships

Add to this the military fleet, colony ships, and other class freighters/lineers…

And unless something heavy happens, we will not have the recovery age on 2300AD, so one could expect to reach farther than the 2300AD setting…

quote:
>Forfeit the 5000 tons for the population mass, the passenger module being enough.
That 5000t represents the mass of people, baggage&tools, oxygen, and food. The number was chosen to match the mass of an Infantry Unit as infantry weapons are easily included in the term 'baggage&tools'.<quote>

And then what does the passenger module (that masses double that) represents?

<quote>>Halving MP for unhospitable worlds <snip> have a MP of 0, making them useless.
and
>allow spaceships to land or take off also from an Enclave hex.
>This assumes those enclaves have “mini-spaceports” for landings, and would
>allow players to deploy SUs or FUs beforehand to help establish colonies.

That is why you want to do it. Why should I allow it?


About avoiding those MP 0 planets, just to allow players more freedom of action (though I admit this might be a matter of taste or setting wanted), about allowing chemical rockets to land in outposts/enclaves mainly because otherwise the ships setting up the ground part of it cannot land, so they cannot be set up as rules stand now.

I’d find logic, though, to return to the old concept of needing more chemical modules to land/take off on a planet without spaceport.

quote:
>As rules stand, it seems that if MDW are used, all combat power, not just the MDW
>part, is divided by 25 (for colonies) or 250 (for core worlds). Is this right?

and
>In case this minor country uses MDWs, as only some units have their combat power increased
When WMDs are being used it is assumed that more than just Bombers, IRBMs and ICBMs are using WMDs, but that *every unit is using some kind of WMD* e.g. that is why whole column shifts occur when WMDs are used.<quote>

Ok, I understand that, and even guessed this will be the case. That’s why it was just a clarification asked.

<quote>>Does the result in the table affect in any way the damages? As rules stand, if
>10000 points of bombers attack a hex where they are met by 40000 points of defenses
>and the result is 100/0, the collateral damages are the same as if they are not met
>by any defenses and the result is 0/100.

The combat table only covers what is done to military units. The ugly reality of WMDs is that their destructive power is much more than just their successful destruction of military units.<quote>

I agree, but a 100/0 result on an air raid should mean nearly no plane reached its target, so the damage would be (at least) reduced for collateral damages too.

<quote>>Include the bombers among the units quartered <snip>
>Exclude MR helicopters with interceptor ability from <snip>
>Include DDs or CAs among the units with less reduction

What is the gain with this...makes the game more realistic? An insufficient reason; we are trying to simplify the rules.


And yet you discard many rules that would simplify the game on the grounds of perceived realism…

And then tell me what’s the meaning of multi-role aircrafts, if even in detailed combat rules they are at disadvantage over bombers


quote:
>Add the prestige somewhere on it.
It is already listed in the Settlement_List file. What purpose would there be to having it in the Budget Spreadsheet too?


 So are many other factors that are also featured into the streadsheet, but having them on it simplifies the job quite a lot. I guess this will be the case this time too.
Germany
 player, 331 posts
Thu 14 Sep 2017
at 12:48
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
As I guess al lof us agree rules should be simplified, here comes a suggestion to simplify military matters (already suggested time ago):

8. Armed Forces:

Get rid of quality ratings, using only MR. This, of course would require some changes:

Costs:

Current costs for $100 worth units evenly distributed in QR according table in 8.8 are 207 for MR1, 142.5 for MR2, 67.5 for MR3 and 37.5 for MR4.

Here I’d give two options:

Double costs and divide them by MR. Costs multipliers compared with current would be 2 for MR1, 1 for MR2, 0.75 for MR3 and 0.5 for MR4. Special abilities costs should be halved (multiplier 0.25) if they are to be kept as now.

Just multiply the units cost for an approximation of the numbers above: 2 for MR1, 1.4 for MR2, 0.75 for MR3 and 0.4 for MR4.

Reserve units:

Units combat damaged would be considered Cadres. They are subject to all current rules for reserve units (cannot initiate combat, cost no SUs, etc.).

Detailed Combat:

In non-Quick combat rules, all MR1 units are considered Veteran, all MR2, experienced, all MR3 Green and all MR4 reserve. All Cadres are considered reserve, despite their MR.

Units can be voluntarily downgraded to Cadre (representing reserve cadres as today most countries have). They can be returned to full unit status at the cost of 1 SU per unit (5 SUs for Division sized units) at any moment.

Newly bought units are considered Cadres for the turn they are built.

Supplies costs (no real change, counting above proposal):

Each non-Cadre unit needs 1 SU to be supplied per turn. If not received, it is turned to Cadre.

Each unit (Cadres included) needs (5-MR) SUs to be supplied per Quick Combat Round. Effects of not receiving them are unchanged.

Of course, division sized units multiply it by 5 (or by 4 if the rule I suggested in my revision is accepted).

Transfer of units among countries:

Just get rid of it. As the development costs are no more in play, it has lost meaning, and the fact a unit is built or bought is irrelevant now (if you want to give another country units, just give them the money to buy them).

EDIT Increasing MR:

Of course, its cost should be raised (I leave to you how much), as it would now represent the increasing of units' QR too. END EDIT

----------------

To solve this:
Germany:
Co-GM:
Introduction of:The Sum Basic Combat Strength of an NPC Settlement, as a replacement for detailing individual units.


I agree this will make bokkeeping quite easier, as well as helping to make exact losses, but, IMHO, two things (that I can think right now) must be clarified:

In case this minor country uses MDWs, as only some units have their combat power increased (artillery, missiles, bombers), how will this affect it?



WMD capable NPCs (fortunately few right now):

As the use of MDWs also gives some increase in combat power for some units (aside from other effects, as may be columns shifts or increased damages), just write this increase in the “MDW capable?” column of the spreadsheet.

Example: Current rest-Pakistan forces (as listed in the NPC section of the HP) would be 324 basic combat points worth. As it has bombers, missiles and artillery, if MDW are used its basic combat points total is 397. So, in the “MDW capable?” cell for Pakistan, instead of a “yes”, just list a 73, so everyone will know that if it engages in MDW war its force would be 397 instead of 324.


----------------------------

And another suggestion:

Elite units ):

Allow for a new special ability; elite.  Those units represent the cream of their armies (mostly used as expeditionary forces), and are considered 1 MR lower than their armies. If they act along with other units of their army, the usual MR is used.

Example: the US Marines have elite ability. A force of marines only is sent as intervention force to a hot spot. They are considered MR0 for all aspects. So, they pay 5 SU per Quick Combat Round for maintenance, but they receive 2 extra column shifts in their favor.

This message was last edited by the player at 13:22, Thu 14 Sept.