Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
USA
 player, 64 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 15:42
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
In reply to Germany (msg # 350):

Right, so now I'm not massively misreading.

I'm afraid I just have to come back to the question of the cost of upgrading tech coupled with Auth modifiers.

I understand that it's expensive but I really don't think it should cost over half my annual budget to just upgrade one tech by 0.1

Either lower Auth mods need a much larger effect on tech costs or I have to accept I can only spend turns as the US increasing my tech levels and doing nothing else

I accept there have to be tough choices in what we spend budgets on but currently for the US having a low auth mod makes that decision much, much harder. There is little to no up side to having a lower auth mod as the reduction in the cost of tech is nothing compared to the loss of spendable money.

Currently, either you engage with the world and consign yourself to doing no research (which is one of two things that a lower auth should help you with) or accept that you're going to be spending almost all your budget on tech and do nothing else.
Germany
 player, 343 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 16:47
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Again IMHO what really fucks those low AM countries is the effect on their internal PA actions.

For you, one PA directed to internal actions, is worth 81 points, while the defense has a multiplier of 900 (prestige 16 - stability 6 +20 squared) ,and, if your prestige raises, it would still be more difficult to make intenral actions.

For Germany, each PA is worth 196, and the defense has a multiplier of 784 (prestige 17, stability 9), so having quite an advantage.

For china, to give you another example, the PA is worth 256, while the defensive multiplier is 576. so having even more advantage...

As those actions are the way to raise stability or to reduce expenses (see that your budet before those exmenses is over 9000, and you spend more than i ressearch worht in drag for debt alona), having high prestige or low AM makes it quite more difficult.

See that the true difference among your effective Budget and China's is on those expenses, as the Budget before them is 7000 for China and 9000 for you, while the effective one is 6300 for China and 3800 for you...

That's why I suggested to use a flat prestige modifier on internal actions, as I keep seeing absurd that more prestigious countries have more difficult to make internal actions (as you have more prestige, you have more difficulty to pay your debts or to raise your stability), but you already read Kelvin's answer...

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

Enterily another matter: I'd like to hear here more voices than just Liam's, Kelvin's and mine...

Don't be shy, sure everyone has somthing to contribute

This message was last edited by the player at 16:58, Sat 07 Oct 2017.

USA
 player, 65 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 18:02
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Germany:
That's why I suggested to use a flat prestige modifier on internal actions, as I keep seeing absurd that more prestigious countries have more difficult to make internal actions (as you have more prestige, you have more difficulty to pay your debts or to raise your stability), but you already read Kelvin's answer...


The thing is I can kind of understand this - this is the internal reaction of 'why do we need to reform, we're so amazing and everyone says so, why change a working formula' and that kind of thinking you get in societies that are powerful yet need reform.
The main problem I have is this in addition to low auth mods. A lower authoritarian society should be able to adapt better than a high authoritarian society. Changes to society and power structures are much easier to cope with, as a government, than for a society that relies on strict centralised control. Couple the fact that higher auth means easier ability to make changes AND gives you more money, then there isn't really much of a trade off here, its pretty much all good for high auth and all bad for low auth. The only tangible benefit I can see is the higher base growth for low auth, but again i have addressed this elsewhere

quote:
Enterily another matter: I'd like to hear here more voices than just Liam's, Kelvin's and mine...

Don't be shy, sure everyone has something to contribute


Yep, I know it can be a bit overwhelming reading the rules changes and working out what they mean for you and your country some times, but understanding what negative and positive effects of the rules are helps figure out how to improve and balance them.
I also know that the level of analysis that Lluis and Kelvin operate on can be intimidating in this thread, but they don't bite... except Kelvin when he's really in character - but since this is an OOC thread you'll be fine ;)
Germany
 player, 344 posts
Wed 11 Oct 2017
at 12:11
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
Germany:
That's why I suggested to use a flat prestige modifier on internal actions, as I keep seeing absurd that more prestigious countries have more difficult to make internal actions (as you have more prestige, you have more difficulty to pay your debts or to raise your stability), but you already read Kelvin's answer...


The thing is I can kind of understand this - this is the internal reaction of 'why do we need to reform, we're so amazing and everyone says so, why change a working formula' and that kind of thinking you get in societies that are powerful yet need reform.


I see your point, but  Imostly disagree. I guessthis is how do we see the meaning of prestige, being, as I understand it, more an international image than an internal one (this being represented more by stability).

And even if not, it would be as much a positive way "this government has taken us to where we are" as a brake for it, as you point.

OTOH, in some internal actions (as to pay debt, reduce inefficiencies, etc), I don't see why prestige should be a hindrance...


USA:
The main problem I have is this in addition to low auth mods. A lower authoritarian society should be able to adapt better than a high authoritarian society. Changes to society and power structures are much easier to cope with, as a government, than for a society that relies on strict centralised control. Couple the fact that higher auth means easier ability to make changes AND gives you more money, then there isn't really much of a trade off here, its pretty much all good for high auth and all bad for low auth. The only tangible benefit I can see is the higher base growth for low auth, but again i have addressed this elsewhere


Again I see it different. From the rationale POV, I see that highet AM countries have greater control on the population, so are more likely to move them where they want. As I already poitned when AM was set as a basis for the internal PA actions, though, I feel that from the game balance POV this represents a true problem for low AM countries...

THose changes in society you tell that low AM would produce, are quite random, and I see them represented in the greater economic growth and lower TL costs, but ehen those changes are directed by the government (or the powers that be, that are more what players represent), things are different, as told above...
Co-GM
 GM, 174 posts
Sat 4 Nov 2017
at 20:57
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
<Kinda geeking out here. Writing this from the Hayden Library of MIT! I feel like I should be building a bigger bomb, or a more powerful reactor, or a…>

>Does that mean that any spaceship needs 2 SU taken into orbit (so 10000 tonnes
>uplift tied) to keep it supplied, even if they start and end the turn in a spaceport?


Hmmm, ok, but giving a break for landed Spaceships is too complicated. That requires the GM to look into the orders of every spaceship just to see where it last ended up. It is going to be Base Maintenance for every ship, regardless of where it is.

>y, once again rules changes blowing away any long term plans.
I do not make changes to the game for laughs, I make changes to the game because I believe that they are necessary to correct some fault with the game. EVERY turn so far has seen SIGNIFICANT changes to the rules, matched by voluminous requests from players for MORE changes, namely by you Lluis. Do not expect me to ever accept the argument that rules changes are unacceptable because they ruin some long term plan of yours.

>Of course, you know English language better than myself, but shouldn't this be
>equiped instead of equipt?
and
> I guess it should say section 8.12 (MDWs) instead of 8.8 (Military Rank)

Ok, good catch, will fix.

>As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using
>PAs to increase the # of rounds

An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.

>As I don't see this being among the rules suspended by 10:10, why was this not
>applied on the IC SAM last unit?

I forgot, it made no difference anyways.

>How is the different combat power of units (e.g. a carrier) in Quick Combat? >
>Do they use their offensive power? Their defensive one?

and
>How many hits they count if destroyed in 10:10? Again offensive power? Defensive one?
See section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.

> How do the carriers and SSBN changes affect current OBs? Simply by deleting all
>carried units?

Deletion.

>  what happens with the weaponry module equiped OTs and ODIs combat factor for
>non WMD countries?

Then they just cannot have those items.

> Combat (overall)<snip>Damage to units is ignored unless the opponent’s weapons
>can reach those units. <snip> Air Units: the part relating to air units range (e.g. Bombers 3 hexses away on Eaarth may participate).<snip>or is the damage ignored and
>the carrier planes immune to SAM and other AA fire?<snip> ASAT

That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of today’s rules proposal)

> While I understand the reasons for the Earth map change, I frankly don't like it,
The old map had to go because it bears little resemblance to the rules and the current political climate. Which hexes exactly does the Azerbaijan currently cover? Can Russia now directly attack Persia through the Caucuses? Does hex H25 count as Mountains or Land? Is the Land or Water or Ice modifier applied to the mineral potential of a mine in hex E07? Is there an adjustment to the range of things because the hexes of the old map cover a physically smaller area than those expected for a size 8 world? Etc, ect, ect. That old map had to go.

> I'm afraid I just have to come back to the question of the cost of upgrading tech
>coupled with Auth modifiers.

I had already made a number of changes that modify the importance of Auth Score, it is a very deeply imbedded thing that I refuse to move any other way but cautiously, but the most relevant change is the change to cost of economic tech upgrades in today's rules proposal.

This message was last edited by the GM at 00:15, Sun 05 Nov 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 175 posts
Sat 4 Nov 2017
at 21:13
Rules Proposal 20171103
-Change to: In each round of Quick Combat, each side has a turn at being the Attacker, makes QC flow better with the rest of the rules. A Military Base facility need not be inside a Settlement’s borders. Economic tech levels of Core Settlements are on a per Settlement basis, not national. Formula for calculation of the tech level of a Colony Settlement, made possible to more accurately calculate from just the spreadsheet. How modifiers to a revolt and size of the military of a Settlement in revolt is calculated, now possible to more accurately calculate using just a spreadsheet. Spaceship maintenance requirement is always Base. How Aggressive production works to make it able to be properly calculated in the spreadsheet.

-The introduction of:

-Made clearer: How to use the HEAVEN & EARTH software.

-Rebalancing to: Return to original combat results table, giving more advantage to the Attacker. Formula and Base for Interface Uplift/Downlift, made more consistent with rest of rules. Cost of tech upgrades with Authoritarian Score.

-Got rid of: Another round of removing from the Settlement_List file nations too small to ever affect the game. No need to declare a Client state such, it happens upon the right numerical conditions.
USA
 player, 66 posts
Sat 4 Nov 2017
at 22:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Co-GM:
( GDP, unadjusted) X (Target level)2 X (Authoritarian Score of the Settlement)2 X 2 (# of decimal increases)/ (50 000 000)


Just a very quick scan but I'm pretty sure you've got the number of 0s in the last amount wrong? Otherwise tech for me goes from costing over $1000 to $5?
Co-GM
 GM, 176 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 00:08
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to USA (msg # 357):

Ack! Yes, I had not updated the text with my latest formula. The divisor should be 2 500 000.
Germany
 player, 345 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 02:29
Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 356):

Also some skip reading:

7.9.2:
 I see you changed the formula for interface uplift and downlift, with a net result of reducing it (despite raising the base) once TL reaches 8.7, more so as the TL increases:

  • At TL 9 the average is about 85% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 9.5 the average is about 61% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 10 the average is about 42% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 10.5 the average is about 29% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 11 the average is about 19% of the uplift previous formula gave


Is this reduction (relative to current) intentional?

And I guess in the case of deadfall, you didn't upgrade right the base, as it is equal or lower than the former one, unlike all others.

8.7.2.

Bombers (both, planes and Airships) are said that May attack with a WMD tipped (see section 8.12) Base Combat Strength of 15 if part of an Attacking force in a combat which includes Ground or Naval units. Do I read it wrong or as it is writen they cannot attack alone (nor in combination with space units) with WMD?
Germany
 player, 346 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 03:21
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Co-GM:
>Does that mean that any spaceship needs 2 SU taken into orbit (so 10000 tonnes
>uplift tied) to keep it supplied, even if they start and end the turn in a spaceport?


Hmmm, ok, but giving a break for landed Spaceships is too complicated. That requires the GM to look into the orders of every spaceship just to see where it last ended up. It is going to be Base Maintenance for every ship, regardless of where it is.


So I understand they will need only 1 SU, but in orbit. I don't see the complication you say, at least no more than keeping their location at the begining of any turn (after all it's only write its location as XXX hex or Orbit hex), and yet it makes it quite more difficult to keep them supplied.

And, as I said, from the rationale POV, ships use to be supplies in port, not out of it, and if the ship is going on and of its base spaceport, I keep believeing it should be able to be supplied there...

Co-GM:
>y, once again rules changes blowing away any long term plans.
I do not make changes to the game for laughs, I make changes to the game because I believe that they are necessary to correct some fault with the game. EVERY turn so far has seen SIGNIFICANT changes to the rules, matched by voluminous requests from players for MORE changes, namely by you Lluis. Do not expect me to ever accept the argument that rules changes are unacceptable because they ruin some long term plan of yours.


In fact, I guess lately I'm more suggesting rules maintaining than changing, But I concede I am the most vocal (at least openly, I cannot tell about what you receive in PMs) on it.

But I'm afraid not only my long term plans are affected, as US seemed to also be.

Fact is that plans for over the turn in play are nearly sure to have to be alteres because of rules changes, and space plans are the ones more affected, to the point that what I planned for next turn is unlikely to be possible just for this reason.

Co-GM:
>As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using
>PAs to increase the # of rounds

An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.

>How is the different combat power of units (e.g. a carrier) in Quick Combat? >
>Do they use their offensive power? Their defensive one?

and
>How many hits they count if destroyed in 10:10? Again offensive power? Defensive one?
See section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.


I'm afraid I cannot find any such answers in the 10.11 of the version 20171103 of the rules.

Are you sure they are in this section (I had not yet time to read all them in deep)?

Co-GM:
> Combat (overall)<snip>Damage to units is ignored unless the opponent’s weapons
>can reach those units. <snip> Air Units: the part relating to air units range (e.g. Bombers 3 hexses away on Eaarth may participate).<snip>or is the damage ignored and
>the carrier planes immune to SAM and other AA fire?<snip> ASAT

That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of today’s rules proposal)


please, what rule are you refering to, aside from the paragraphs and sentences? If you mean 10:11 (as we were talking about), I cannot see the answers on it...

This message was last edited by the player at 22:27, Mon 13 Nov 2017.

Saudi Arabia
 player, 37 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 03:26
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 355):

Co-GM:
>As I don't see this being among the rules suspended by 10:10, why was this not
>applied on the IC SAM last unit?

I forgot, it made no difference anyways.


I may accept you forgot about it, but, please, don't say it made no difference, as it meant another round of combat (with the SU costs being what they are) and that IC survived as entity (with its combat power divided by 5, so being under 1, it would have been eliminated in WR3 and IC would have been conquered then).

EDIT: Just to be clear: I don't say this will have finished IC as NPC, just as settlement. It would keep being a problem, and finishing it would still require political action to root out terrorist cells and defeat it ideologically.

This message was last edited by the player at 13:06, Sun 05 Nov 2017.

Russia
 player, 31 posts
Tue 7 Nov 2017
at 10:09
Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 356):

quote:
Cost of tech upgrades with Authoritarian Score.


Well, that new rule increases Russian tech program cost by whooping $1700+ (despite that I invest into research more than any Russia player ever before, and still Russia falls behind in TL comparing to all space-capable countries).

While I agree that in theory this rule adds balance to the game, I would propose delaying this rule for a turn or two so I could arrange preparations and soften impact.
Germany
 player, 347 posts
Wed 8 Nov 2017
at 17:15
Rules Proposal 20171103
quote:
6.4:

Being a ‘Petro-state’ causes a lot of problems, so having Oil SRU production exceed what is consumed by more than 50% will reduce the Stability of a Settlement.


While I understand your point here, see that this will include Nordic Federation, that I guess it's not the case. It also could discourage dome contries that might border this treshold to reduce its oil consume, and the effect of including coal and fisibles into it is yet to be seen (and goes against this statmen of 'petro-state').

I'd suggest to change this consideration made on the oil production in relation to needs for the percentage (to be determined) of GDP that comes from oil and oil overcosts they charge (as those overcosts are likely to bring more corruption).

This message was last edited by the player at 17:45, Wed 08 Nov 2017.

Germany
 player, 348 posts
Wed 8 Nov 2017
at 18:00
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Russia:
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 356):

quote:
Cost of tech upgrades with Authoritarian Score.


Well, that new rule increases Russian tech program cost by whooping $1700+ (despite that I invest into research more than any Russia player ever before, and still Russia falls behind in TL comparing to all space-capable countries).

While I agree that in theory this rule adds balance to the game, I would propose delaying this rule for a turn or two so I could arrange preparations and soften impact.


Where do you take those $1700+ from?

According to my spreadsheets, numbers would be (assuming unadjusted GDP to be your current $33150 with your increase of 1.24, so $41106):

To raise biology from 7.3 to 7.4 (your cheapest):
  • former formula: 41106 x 7.42 x 17 (AM) x 21 /150000 = 511
  • New fçormula: 41106 x 7.42 x 172 x 21 /2500000 = 521



To raise electronics from 8.2 to 8.3 (your average):
  • former formula: 41106 x 7.32 x 17 x 21 /150000 = 642
  • New fçormula: 41106 x 7.32 x 172 x 21 /2500000 = 655 


To raise space from 8.5 to 8.6 (your highest):
  • former formula: 41106 x 8.62 x 17 x 21 /150000 = 690
  • New fçormula: 41106 x 8.62 x 172 x 21 /2500000 = 703


So, the true effect is about a 2% increase for an AM of 17, and far from the 1700+ you said...
Germany
 player, 349 posts
Wed 8 Nov 2017
at 19:42
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In fact, according my spreasheets, the cost on current rules as percentage of former ones, according AM, is:
  • AM 9===> 54%
  • AM 10==> 60%
  • AM 11==> 66%
  • AM 12==> 72%
  • AM 13==> 78%
  • AM 14==> 84%
  • AM 15==> 90%
  • AM 16==> 96%
  • AM 17==> 102%
  • AM 18==> 108%

Russia
 player, 32 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 09:46
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to Germany (msg # 364):

quote:
Where do you take those $1700+ from?


According to rules 20170124 dividor was 200 000, not 150 000 in your calculations.

"(Combined GDP, unadjusted) X (Target level) 2 X (Authoritarian Score of the nation) X 2 (# of decimal increases) / (200 000)"

So I had for TL upgrade 8.3-8.5 the following:
40 000 x 8.5^2 x 17 x 2^2 / 200 000 = 982

now I would have:
40 000 x 8.5^2 x 17^2 x 2^2 / 2 500 000 = 1 336

which is +36%
USA
 player, 67 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 10:11
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

This message was deleted by the player at 10:12, Thu 09 Nov 2017.

Germany
 player, 350 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 12:59
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 364):

quote:
Where do you take those $1700+ from?


According to rules 20170124 dividor was 200 000, not 150 000 in your calculations.

"(Combined GDP, unadjusted) X (Target level) 2 X (Authoritarian Score of the nation) X 2 (# of decimal increases) / (200 000)"

So I had for TL upgrade 8.3-8.5 the following:
40 000 x 8.5^2 x 17 x 2^2 / 200 000 = 982

now I would have:
40 000 x 8.5^2 x 17^2 x 2^2 / 2 500 000 = 1 336

which is +36%


Well, I based my numbers on rules 20170919 (the last proposal), where divisor was reduced to 150000 but theoretical TLs were delted (of course, this only applied to higher TLs, as lower ones were well under theoretical ones already achieved).
Germany
 player, 351 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 16:35
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
See that if you add the theoretical TL raising, you should add about $175/level, and, as you're raising 2 levels, it would add about 350 (that must be in a previous turn, BTW), so the net effect (once the treshold of current theoretical TL is reached) is quite less (about 1332 vs 1336).
USA
 player, 68 posts
Sun 12 Nov 2017
at 23:15
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to Germany (msg # 369):

Just to confirm - the mapping software seems to work fine for me
Co-GM
 GM, 177 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 04:58
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
>Bombers (both, planes and <snip>. Do I read it wrong or as it is writen they cannot
>attack alone (nor in combination with space units) with WMD?

Will clarify: The Defending force must include Ground or Naval

>>>As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using
>>>PAs to increase the # of rounds
>>An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.
>I'm afraid I cannot find any such answers in the 10.11 of the version 20171103 of the rules.

That paragraph doubles number of attacks which can occur in a Turn, doubles the potential losses of territory and units in a Turn.

>> That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of
>>today’s rules proposal)
>please, what rule are you refering to, aside from the paragraphs and sentences?
>If you mean 10:11 (as we were talking about), I cannot see the answers on it.

10.11 Those sentences reference that the GM sorts out all such special cases if the GM chooses to make an exception to the regular procedure for these cases.

>>>As I don't see this being among the rules suspended by 10:10, why was this not
>>>applied on the IC SAM last unit?
>>I forgot, it made no difference anyways.
> please, don't say it made no difference,
You guys choose to make an attack with the expensive to maintain forces that you had which had overwhelming odds even with my mistake ... and I wrote sec 1.3 par#2 & 1.2 par#4 for good reason. It makes no difference.

>this rule adds balance to the game, I would propose delaying this rule for a turn
>or two so I could arrange preparations and soften impact

No. Russia has gotten away with a significant advantage in tech cost for a long enough time already.
Germany
 player, 352 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 17:04
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Co-GM:
>Bombers (both, planes and <snip>. Do I read it wrong or as it is writen they cannot
>attack alone (nor in combination with space units) with WMD?

Will clarify: The Defending force must include Ground or Naval


Then no strategic bombing (targeting enemy infrastructure), nor attacks to air bases without surface units is allowes with MDWs (while they are with conventional weapons) by bombers (but they are for missiles)?

I'd suggest to just delete the part ot the sentence refering to the need of ground/naval units to be present (on any side), so leaving just: May attack with a WMD tipped (see section 8.12) Base Combat Strength of 15 if part of an Attacking force in a combat where the Defender includes Ground or Naval units


Co-GM:
  >>>As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using
>>>PAs to increase the # of rounds
>>An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.
>I'm afraid I cannot find any such answers in the 10.11 of the version 20171103 of the rules.

That paragraph doubles number of attacks which can occur in a Turn, doubles the potential losses of territory and units in a Turn.


As long as the other side (the one with less than 1:10 ratio) also atacks, which will be quite stupid on its part...

If it does not, the problem remains as it was. The main problem on this (as well as in the carrier/escort problem I told about in post 336 this same thread( is that the losses depend on the own forces, being counted as a percentage of them, and so having more forces will increase your losses (if any), while minimal forces will reduce it to a point where it's disadvantageous for a side to have more forces than strictly needed.

Co-GM:
>> That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of
>>today’s rules proposal)
>please, what rule are you refering to, aside from the paragraphs and sentences?
>If you mean 10:11 (as we were talking about), I cannot see the answers on it.

10.11 Those sentences reference that the GM sorts out all such special cases if the GM chooses to make an exception to the regular procedure for these cases.


But clear rules make easier for the GM to resolve it without having to resort to arbitrary (and surely difficult to accpet for someone) decisions.

Frankly, I don't like the changes you made on carriers, as they make them quite vulnerable to attack and devoids them of their own raison d'être.

Carriers main particularities on real world are:
  • They don't risk themselves to attack (or do it to a lesser extent tan other units), being in fact just mobile bases for their planes.
  • They give more flexibility, as their air units may be used from land if they are damaged or ground bases exist
  • Their air groups give them a good defense, aside from a forcé projection (attack) capability)
  • They may well lose their planes while being themselves unscrached (so having more air groups might be a strategy).
  • Their air groups may vary according to needs (e.g. more helos or airships instead of planes)
  • OTOH, they are more expensive to build and maintain, as you need also to build and maintain their air groups.

None of this is represented in the new rules, while all was well represented in the older ones.

OTOH, I see this change well applied on boomers (SSBs), as they are in fact missile mobile and stealthy missile launching platforms, and hteir missiles are just offensive weapons.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 38 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 17:24
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Co-GM:
>>>As I don't see this being among the rules suspended by 10:10, why was this not
>>>applied on the IC SAM last unit?
>>I forgot, it made no difference anyways.
> please, don't say it made no difference,
You guys choose to make an attack with the expensive to maintain forces that you had which had overwhelming odds even with my mistake ... and I wrote sec 1.3 par#2 & 1.2 par#4 for good reason. It makes no difference.


I understand this, and I begun my post by stating that I accepted it, never claiming that it should be fixed. I just pointed that the fact the war was extended another WR and will keep this turn made a difference on hte mistake (BTW, not only yours, as none of us relized it after WR3, as otherwise it would not hae repeated on WR4).
Germany
 player, 353 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 18:05
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
NOTE: As I have just realized you posted new oficial rules, which I have not yet read (but I guess no major changes will be, aside some errata fixing, as you use to comment the major changes), all what is written in this post would not be for immediate use, but only more ideas for your mind to chew for future turns.

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

Germany:
If it does not, the problem remains as it was. The main problem on this (as well as in the carrier/escort problem I told about in post 336 this same thread( is that the losses depend on the own forces, being counted as a percentage of them, and so having more forces will increase your losses (if any), while minimal forces will reduce it to a point where it's disadvantageous for a side to have more forces than strictly needed.


I know it's easy to criticize without offering alternatives, so, risking being even more accused of being the one that suggests more changes (or returning to older rules, and always trying not to affect too much long term plans on the suggestions), here I give you another suggestion I've been outlining for some time. I guess it should require more polishing (and probably some adapting of initiative and maybe some other combat rules details), but I think (I may well be wrong) that would not really affect players too much, though it would significantly change the combat system.

I guess it would work better with the suggestions I gave in post #330 this same thread (forfeiting specific unit QR and using only MR), but I think they will also work with current ones.


Germany:
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.


Alternative combat resolution system

This system is (I guess) more simple but more dice heavy (though not by much), and would solve most of the problems I pointed in former threads. It might require some modifications on the initiative for detailed combat system:

All combat power numbers are calculated as they are now, but, instead of using a table, just roll 2d-2, add modifiers (up to +8 or -8), and multiply it by 5 (by 1 if QCR are used) to read it s percentage of your own combat power delivered as losses. Of course, both sides roll for this. No minimum 1 unit applies.

DMs:
  • + enemy MR
  • -own MR
  • +/- TL differential/0.2
  • +2 WMD are used
  • Needless to say, any DM the GM feels necessary to represent specific situations (surprise, et.)


Results below 0 are 0. There’s no upper limit

Example 1 (detailed combat): Country A is MR1, Mil-ground 8.4 and has 2 elite armor brigades attacking Country B, that is MR3 and Mil-Ground TL 7.6 and has 4 experienced armor brigades and 4 experienced mechanized brigades. No WMD are used.

Country A combat power is 2 x 5 x 8.4^2 x 2, so 1411.2 (rounded to 1411) combat points.

Country B combat power is (4 x 5 + 4 x 3) x 7.6^2, so 1848.32 (rounded to 1848) combat points.

DMs are +3 -1 + (0.8/0.2), so +6 for Country A and -6 for Country B.

Country A rolls 10, modified to 16, so delivers 80% damage. Damage for Country B units is 1411 x 80%, so 1128.8 (rounded to 1129) combat points. As each Country B armor brigade is worth 288.8 combat points (433.2, rounded to 433 after armor effect), 2 such brigades are CD and 263 combat points are left. As each mech brigade is worth 173.28 (225.26, rounded to 225 after armor effect) combat points, one is CD and the remaining 38 points are discarded.

Country B rolls 7, modified to 1. So delivers 10% samage. Damage for country A is 1848 x 10%, so 184.8 (rounded to 185) combat points. As each Country A armor brigade is worth 705.2 (1058.4, rounded to 1058 after armor effect) combat points, no damage is accrued (though they may be kept, if the GM so decides).

Example 2(QCR): an MR2, TL 7.8 country attacks with 2 green armor brigades, 4 experienced mech brigades and 5 veteran MR air units against a MR4, TL 7.2 NPC with a force of 50 SBC. No WMD are used.

Total player force is (2 x 5 + 4 x 3 + 5 x 3) x 7.8^2, so 3467 CPs

Total NPC force is 50 x 7.2^2, so 2592 CPs.

DMs are +/-2 per MR and +/- 3 per TL, so +/- 5.

Player rolls 7, as DM is +5, final result is 12 so delivering 12% damage. NPC’s losses are 3467 x 12%, so 416 CPs. As each SBC is worth 51 CP, 8 SBCs are lost.

NPC also rolls a 7, as DM is -5, final result is 2, so delivering 2% damage. Player’s losses are 2592 x 2%, so 52 CP. As the weakest unit (MR air or mech) is worth 182 CP. No losses are accrued.


For detailed combat, if one side delivers more damage than needed to leave all enemy units CD, excess damage keeps on those CD units, fully destroying them.

Example: a force composed by 2 experienced, TL 7.0 MR air units accrues 350 CPs damage. As each unit is worth 3 x 7^2 x 1.15, so 169 CP, both are damaged and 22 points remain. As now each unit is worth 16 CP damage, one of them is fully destroyed, and the remaining 6 points are lost.

Any unit with BCS 0 resists damage as if its BCS was 1 and armor was U.

Example: to damage (leave idled) a TL 8 GPS network, you need to deliver it 64 CPs as damage.

Strategic bombing:

Air bombers (be them planes or airships), missiles (ICBMs and IRBMs) and spaceships may perform strategic bombing, attacking civilian targets on an enemy hex. If so, only SAM MR planes (if bombers attack) and ABMs (if missiles or spaceships attack) defend against them. They roll for damage as usual (representing general accuracy), and any damage they receive from defenses are subtracted from the damage done (aside from damaging them if able to, mainly for air units). Final damage is doubled for collateral damages, but no enemy unit is damaged.

Example: a bomber planes wing and two bomber planes squadrons (MR 3 and TL 8) perform Strategic bombing against a hex that has 6 SAM units (MR 1 and TL 8). No WMD are used. Total DMs are -2 for the bombers and +2 for the defenders, and combat strengths are 2240 for the bombers and 1920 for the defenders. The attacker rolls 9, for a final result of 7, so delivering 35% damage (2240 x 35% = 784 CP damage). The defender rolls 3, for a final result of 5, so delivering 25% damage (1920 x 25% = 480 CP damage). As each bomber squadron is worth 416 CP, one is CD, and the bomber’s damage is reduced to 784-480 = 304 CP. Those 304 CPs are doubled to 608. If it was a colony hex, this would destroy 2 pop and 2 facilities. On a core world, this would not be enough to have any real effect.

Optional:

Any natural 12 (or any modified 16+) means an additional 1d6-1 is added to result, repeating it if a 6 is rolled (so giving open ended results).

This message was last edited by the player at 22:05, Thu 23 Nov 2017.

Germany
 player, 354 posts
Wed 29 Nov 2017
at 15:10
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Germany:
Alternative combat resolution system

Why this suggested change?

IMHO, it avoids most of the problems we now face:

  • No more undestroyable units
  • No more leving troops behind (if they don't hange the odds) as they would only add to your own losses, if any. Now each factor might count.
  • No major changes to military/combat system. Most of the rules are compatible (though, as said, some changes may be necessary, mostly on initiative if detailed combat is to be used).


Thoughts? oppinoons? doubts? suggerences?

Don't be shy, your opinion and suggerences are important (at least for me, I guess also for Kelvin).