Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
Co-GM
 GM, 52 posts
Thu 13 Aug 2015
at 06:29
Discussions about rules
I am making this the placeholder in this forum for discussions about rules, their problems, updates, ect.

Usually, the latest rules proposal will be posted to the Files section of the main website (https://sites.google.com/site/2300adgame/file-cabinet). Edits to the original text will be in green font. Rules proposals are just that, they will not have any force until the GM says so. The GM usually will only formally update the rules between turns, though often proposals are written to cover some critical flaw that has been exposed in the course of game play so the GM may think it best to rule that way.

This message was last edited by the GM at 17:23, Mon 05 June.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 53 posts
Thu 13 Aug 2015
at 16:38
Rules proposal 20150810
Rules_proposal_20150810 (https://sites.google.com/site/...tredirects=0&d=1)

Many little changes, most visibly the deletion of large amounts of text which was either duplicate, unnecessary, or a fossilized remnant of long cast off ideas.

Probably the biggest change is getting rid of battalion sized units. I think for the size and scope of this game we just should never be dealing with units that small. Very proud of that simplification, heck, the rules in the first iteration of the game were so crazy as to allow for Platoon sized units. I worry though that I made a huge error in settling on Brigade sized units. As is there are around 2000 cataloged military units for player nations alone and combat/supply rules which, in spite of many simplifications since game start, I worry is still cumbersome and distracting. Further experience will have to tell if it is necessary to go to the traumatic step of converting everything to division sized units; I can foresee that going to division sized will allow us to reduce the number of Supply units which have to be tracked by 1/5 (by making each one x5 bigger) and that alone may be enough reason to justify it.

This message was last edited by the player at 18:51, Thu 13 Aug 2015.

Referee
 GM, 76 posts
Thu 13 Aug 2015
at 17:28
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 2):

I see a future for Division sized units...
/Andreas
Germany
 player, 118 posts
Fri 14 Aug 2015
at 11:20
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Combat Cycle Ref:
Rules_proposal_20150810 (https://sites.google.com/site/...tredirects=0&d=1)

Many little changes, most visibly the deletion of large amounts of text which was either duplicate, unnecessary, or a fossilized remnant of long cast off ideas.

Probably the biggest change is getting rid of battalion sized units. I think for the size and scope of this game we just should never be dealing with units that small. Very proud of that simplification, heck, the rules in the first iteration of the game were so crazy as to allow for Platoon sized units. I worry though that I made a huge error in settling on Brigade sized units. As is there are around 2000 cataloged military units for player nations alone and combat/supply rules which, in spite of many simplifications since game start, I worry is still cumbersome and distracting. Further experience will have to tell if it is necessary to go to the traumatic step of converting everything to division sized units; I can foresee that going to division sized will allow us to reduce the number of Supply units which have to be tracked by 1/5 (by making each one x5 bigger) and that alone may be enough reason to justify it.


I understand that brigada sized may seem too detailed for thsoe countries with large armies, but moving it to division sized will also have problems:
  • many countries have smaller armies where división sized will left them without as ingle unit or with too Little capacity to maneuver (e.g. while in the game Germany has increased its army, IRW it has only 2 divisions)
  • Division sized units are not applicable to some specialized units (e.g. artillery)
  • Air and Sea units must be enlarged accordingly
  • In the case of insurgencies, I don't believe division sized units are a good idea
  • (for the future) unless you allow them to be broken up, transport for military units will become a nightmare, needing quite large space ships (and a lot of Naval Base Modules) to move them


If you really want to simplify military, it would probably need a full remaking of military rules (that I must admit work better tan I expected, though I understand that a great cost for the GM):
  • Make it just force points, disregarding specific kind of units (à la Castle's proposal)
  • Disregard specific unit's quality, assuming all of them to be according to its MR
  • Reduce the different kind of units (e.g. for land just heavy, light and artillery) and specialties
  • Use different rules for insurgencies, wehre insurgent's units are not relaly units, as suggested in the past


Except the first option, they will just avoid the need to keep trace of each and every unit, I hope making it more beareble

This message was last edited by the player at 14:49, Sat 15 Aug 2015.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 54 posts
Fri 14 Aug 2015
at 18:41
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered. One thing we will not be doing is creating a whole, new, separate, section of rules for insurgencies. Simplification is goal, not adding complications as we try to make the new rules work with every other rule or situation which can occur. A full remaking of the rules would suffer from the same problem for the same reasons.

This message was last edited by the player at 18:42, Fri 14 Aug 2015.

Germany
 player, 119 posts
Fri 14 Aug 2015
at 18:59
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered. One thing we will not be doing is creating a whole, new, separate, section of rules for insurgencies. Simplification is goal, not adding complications as we try to make the new rules work with every other rule or situation which can occur. A full remaking of the rules would suffer from the same problem for the same reasons.


Simplification in the rules or in resolving the turn?

For what I've seen to now, resolving insurgencies as a full fledged war has benn not precisely simple...
Germany
 player, 120 posts
Sat 15 Aug 2015
at 15:32
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered.


OK, as you tell me to see section 13 of the rules, let’s review it:
  1. Replace ‘$’ as the symbol for in-game currency with ‘BLv’ or ‘milli-Rundell Units’. It would look more 2300AD like and save so much confusion as to what is the nature of in-game money. That would not change the game, just the names. BTW, IIRC, Rudell units only measure industrial capacity, not ressource (food incluiding) extraction effect.
  2. Not allowed the ISS to count as a prototype for an Orbital Terminal, the ISS is just a normal expression of what it is to have a +8 infrastructure tech whereas an O/T is something completely different. That has no effect at this stage of the game. Useful if it’s ever begun again.
  3. Set the initial infrastructure and theoretical tech levels of the first world nations to be at most 8.0, not 8.5, Traveller tech level 8.0 is clearly beyond 2010 levels. DItto in point 2. As for Traveller TL 8 to be over current TL, that depends on the field and Traveller version (I personally don't know about T5)
  4. Much greater initial variability between nations on their Authoritarian Modifier. Smaller and much less direct impact of Authoritarian Modifier on final effective budget. Ditto for the first part. As for the second part, I remember that initially, when the game began, AM also affected Social Expenses, so it was as you say here...
  5. Make Military-Space tech be separate from Space tech. Mil-Space includes everything related to ICBMs, IRBMs and ABMs!-->Real world work on these items is extensive! Start everyone with a Military-Space Infrastructure/Theoretical tech level of ~8.0? It was you who said this would change the formulas too much right now, so, ditto in point 2. If so, I'd make it depending on other TLs (those needed for starships plus mil-air)
  6. Have military units be Divisions/Fleets/Air Wings rather than Brigades/Squadrons; this will dramatically simplify the workload of managing national armies including getting rid of Artillery &SAM batteries as well as many of the special abilities, e.g. Light, Heavy, SAM, ASAT, as they have little meaning for division sized units.1 Orbital Assault Module is needed to carry 1 Quality ‘step’ of a unit i.e. 4 Modules/Trips is needed to carry a Veteran (1 Reserve + 1 Green +1 Experienced + 1 Veteran) quality unit. Make mass be dependent upon the number of steps. I personally find Brigade level to be the optimum to allow for flexibility, given the immense variability of army sizes. See previous post for talking about it. I don't like the idea of quality so affecting mass, though. See taht this would mean that to transport a militia unit is easier than an elite one (just to see how the milita cannot act in the non-hospitable world where it is taken)
  7. Remove Quality levels from individual military units e.g. Military Rank 1 means all units treated as Veteran, 4 equals all units treated as Reserve. Will still need some other state to signify that a unit is damaged/etc. I’ve always been partidary of it, as you know. Beware if this is joined with point 6, as would make high MR countries' units easier to transport than low MR ones.
  8. Make uplift/down lift depend upon 5* 10^(Space TL-6.0). Get rid of Multi-stage rockets and Space planes. Anythinng that eases/simplifies interface will be well received for my part (I guess no surprise there)
  9. Remake the Relations and Prestige table range to be between 0 and 20, to be consistent with the range for Mineral and Farm potentials. This would allow for less variability, and, after all, relations and prestige can be negative (in the sense that they hinder you instead of helping), while minning and farming potential can be at worst 0 (no output, but no hinder either).
  10. Either get rid of sec 7.3 developing/unlocking items as this is a duplicate of tech levels research cost or eliminate Theoretical tech, players can build up to +0.3 of Infra tech but at x5 cost, extra cost to upgrading to highest infra tech in the world, but what to do with Research Modules, Universities etc.; give some % off final cost? Not allow cutting edge Theoretical research to be shared as it makes it very difficult for the spreadsheets to be comprehensive about calculating the costs for all tech upgrade options?. Another point that was changed from the begining of the game, when theoretical level did not exist...
  11. Remove Tech level from the calculation for Military unit cost. That would make it consistent with how cost is calculated for colony facilities. Multiply Base unit cost, including Starship Modules, by 10 (? 8? 12? 15?).-Everything that is in section 3 should go into section 5 or 2. Section 1 should be moved to the end, after it has been substantially updated or completely discarded. I also have been advocating fro mthe begining that the high cost for military units should be in maintenance, not in building them. Large army expansions have been seen many times in history; the fact that keeping a large army it’s cheaper has never been seen...
  12. Make adding a unique identity number to each unit be mandatory. Shoudln’t this be taken off from section 13, as it has already been implemented?
  13. Get rid of Oil option #5 - Coal Gasification; it is a duplicate of option#6. Move all the verbiage to be more about non-renewable energy than oil. Eliminate the distinction between land and water Oil exploration (option#1), should be ‘Hospitable’ vs ‘Inhospitable’. Merge Oil SRU with Raw Material Units, linking core world economies with those of colonies + do the same with Food units as we have done with Oil SRU. 1 Food Unit ~= 1/millionth of world consumption/production. I think all the oil issue should be taken off. It seemed a good option when Castle suggested it, but it’s directing too much the policies of non-oil-producing countries. As much as oil may be critical for economies, as game stands now, food and raw materials are too (as you hint).
  14. GDP growth rate on the spreadsheets should be per core world. Transform adjustments to GDP into things which affect local growth rate. I’m not sure I understand what you mean here, so I don’t oppine.
  15. The effect of technology is usually tech level squared, yet for the expected 8-12 dynamic range of tech levels in this game that is not much of an increase in power, 122/82 = 144 / 64 = +125% increase… not that much for what has happened. Change performance with tech to be 2 raised to the power of tech level? It will make TL too decisive for my taste, as it also affects in other ways (e.g. initiative). I’d have to think more on it before oppining.

This message was last edited by the player at 16:55, Sat 15 Aug 2015.

Germany
 player, 121 posts
Sat 15 Aug 2015
at 17:13
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
I found a document with suggestions I wrote some time ago (after a former versión of the rules was released) and I didn't send you in hopes not to bog the game down if you see some points valid. I post it as it was, see that some points have already been talked about in the former posts:

Some more thoughts about the rules and how to speed the game, as it was you who said it should be a strategic game of galactic conquest, not just about world dominance. I know you are against major changes, but at the pace we’re going, we will not reach anything.

Economical rules:

Oil: while it seemed a good idea when suggested, now I’m not sure it’s worth the mess it’s producing. Oil is becoming the main focus of most non-producing countries, seriously limiting their actions (and I guess this will go to worse, regardless any efforts to reduce its needs). I know oil is a critical resource now, but also are (in game at least) food, or raw resources, and we’re not keeping track on all of them. Oil crisis can be played as events, needing some PAs or to raise relation with producing countries to resolve, to give you some examples (more or less as you told me about debt).

Tech:
  • Modify costs for theoretical TL if the difference with infrastructure TL is too high (e.g. +10% cost per decimal TL infrastructure is lower than theoretical -0.5). As rules stand, Nigeria could well conduct cutting edge research (profiting from its very low AM), even while its infrastructures are at TL 6 (2.5 TLs below cutting edge).
  • Modify 7.3 to represent former experience in other satellites:
    1. 1st time in humanity: x5 (minimum + $200), as in rules
    2. 1st time in satellite (but 1 does not apply): x3 (minimum + $150)
    3. 1st time for your country in this satellite (if neither 1 nor 2 apply): x2 (minimum + $100), as in rules
       


Diplomacy:
  • Make PAs formula dependent on GDP, not on population. I find illogical that the same amount of money will have (other factors equal) the same effect on Afghanistan (pop 9157, GDP $107) than in Italy (pop 9188; GDP $12763). While in Afghanistan a PA represents about 2 years GDP, in Italy is about 1.5% of a year’s GDP… Of course, divisor should be modified accordingly… Alternatively, make it dependent on both (by doubling the divisor in both cases and multiplying by both).
  • For changing PAs, make the result dependent on “combat” result. I was told a PA would only raise relations by 1, even when a single PA gave me a “combat relation” of 29:1…


Military:
Simplifying it is a must. Right now, every pretty war is bogging down the game. I gave you some suggestions in the thread about rules, and I’d lean towards Castle’s proposal (just force points). Also see that fully destroying you enemy it’s outright impossible as rules stand. In detailed rules, as long as any of your units is armored, 100% will not damage/destroy all your units, in Quick war, the reduction to 1/5 will avoid it. As for the next CR the numbers would be made for reduced totals, situation will be the same, so you cannot (never) annihilate your enemy (nor be annihilated), and wars will become eternal (aside from game bogging).

Suggestions:
  • Reduce the kind of units and specialties
  • Forfeit the individual QR
  • Make losses dependent on percentage of enemy troops, not own ones (that would allow to fully destroy your enemy, and will avoid sending less units to avoid losses)
  • Do not play insurgencies as full fledges wars.


Space (mostly for the future).
In general, I must state I dislike most the changes you introduced to it (ship building, OT needs, etc.), as I think they will bog down the game to a crawl:
  • Allow each core world to be counted as a Naval Base Module to allow some more ships before those modules are available. Alternatively, make their need only or military ships, instead of needing it for every cargo ship.
  • Return to the Docking modules (or something like it) instead of requiring full space station facilities to allow interface. As rules stand now, it would be impossible to deploy space industries or to colonize, as interface is too limited by this.
  • Return to former ship building rules (one ship per shipyard or spaceport)
  • Allow streamlined ships to take of loaded, even if at a penalty (in round trips, in SP or both). At least population should be so allowed, as even in 2300AD setting some planets depend on landing ships for passenger traffic (e.g. Crater).
  • Allow (when tech is right) for easier resources movement through space (as they are moved on Earth now). My suggestion would be for a module (let’s call it Space Flight Control) that could allow resources to go through a system without needing ships, for a fee (IIRC my former suggestion was about 1SP per 100000 tonnes so moved per system), representing commercial traffic. This module could be TL 10 (or a little higher) and could need a colony in the system, as they would represent the civilian traffic through known and relatively safe systems.


Forgive me to be a PITA with the rules, but I also want this game to be fun, playable and (as far as possible) representing what could be. Maybe I took too seriously what you told me when I joined about not to be afraid to suggest ;).
Germany
 player, 122 posts
Thu 20 Aug 2015
at 17:38
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered.


4. Much greater initial variability between nations on their Authoritarian Modifier. Smaller and much less direct impact of Authoritarian Modifier on final effective budget. Ditto for the first part. As for the second part, I remember that initially, when the game began, AM also affected Social Expenses, so it was as you say here....


A simple (but long reaching) solution would be to use an AM dependent multiplier for the social expenses (I'd suggest (70+AM)%).

This would be coherent with 6.1:

quote:
Lower authoritarian modifiers generally represent governments which refrain from meddling with society, and run minimalist services for their country.

<snip>

Higher authoritarian modifiers mean your country enjoys more $ for its budget spreadsheet, but also means those same citizens expect lots in return.


(bold is mine)

I suggest 70+AM as it was said at the begining of the game that the desirable AM (the one most countries will tend on long term) would be 30-35.

Some examples as how would this have affected several countries if applied last turn (according 2030 budgets):

  • China: (GDP 110724, AM 40): its Effective Budget after countrywhide Upkeeps (cell D21) goes from 7526 to 3970
  • Germany:  (GDP 23883, AM 35): its Effective Budget after countrywhide Upkeeps (cell D21) goes from 2095 to 1851
  • Russia: (GDP 29946, AM 39.5): its Effective Budget after countrywhide Upkeeps (cell D21) goes from 2527 to 1771
  • Saudi Arabia: (GDP 5863, AM 50): its Effective Budget after countrywhide Upkeeps (cell D21) goes from 732 to 439
  • USA:  (GDP 131037, AM 20): its Effective Budget after countrywhide Upkeeps (cell D21) goes from 3081 to 4922.

This message was last edited by the player at 11:31, Fri 21 Aug 2015.

Germany
 player, 123 posts
Fri 21 Aug 2015
at 17:35
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered. One thing we will not be doing is creating a whole, new, separate, section of rules for insurgencies. Simplification is goal, not adding complications as we try to make the new rules work with every other rule or situation which can occur. A full remaking of the rules would suffer from the same problem for the same reasons.


Simplification in the rules or in resolving the turn?

For what I've seen to now, resolving insurgencies as a full fledged war has benn not precisely simple...


As things dstand in the rules, to represent an insurgency and giving them a minimal chance, absurd number of units must be given to the insurgency. OTOH, the limits for losses make fully eliminating enemy totally imposible.

In game, the Claiphate (although right now I doubt it can be considered only an insurgency) has 19 brigaes (nearly 100000 men), and that amounts to about 1000 combat points. A single German Feldjäger (security inf) brigade would amount about 360 (as it has a x5 multiplier as IC is MR4), so attacking in the 1:3 column, but with 6 column shifts, it will finish in the 3:1 column...

OTOH, even with a good roll, the Germans would only achieve a 20% losses to IC units (as we're using 12:10), so reducing them to about 800 CP, and repeating the numbers for next CR. If again a good result for the Germans occurs, IC would be reduced by a further 160 CP, to about 640. On third CR, the German unit will attack on the 4:1 table, but its máximum result would be to eliminate 128 CP, and so on...

And, if the loes are not divided as 12:10 tells (afte all the GM may change that), a result of 5+ i nthe roll for the Germans would fully eliminate IC military, while even rolling 1 will reduce ISIS by 40% (so, it would lose about half its infantry) while the German unit, even while accruing 20% losses will be undamaged, and be able to fight next turn with quite a more favorable table.

And see that if Germany sends 3 such units, te table would be 7:1-10:1, and the 100% damage to IC is nearly sure, while Germany can receive at most 10%...

That's why I believe standard rules don't work for insurgencies (and don't reduce compexity, nor do they speed the game).
Germany
 player, 124 posts
Thu 27 Aug 2015
at 11:05
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered. One thing we will not be doing is creating a whole, new, separate, section of rules for insurgencies. Simplification is goal, not adding complications as we try to make the new rules work with every other rule or situation which can occur. A full remaking of the rules would suffer from the same problem for the same reasons.


Simplification in the rules or in resolving the turn?

For what I've seen to now, resolving insurgencies as a full fledged war has benn not precisely simple...


Excuse me my daring, but I posted in the files section of the HP (as you asked us not to use the forum) two proposals for insurgency rules. Each one would add 2 pages to the rules, but I guess will simplify (and I hope speed) quite a lot the resolution of the turn.

The first proposal is adapted to a 3 years old one (August 2012) and would proably need some modifications, as it's from before the use of PAs was detailed in section 8.5. (e.g. PAs effect could depend on their result in raising stability)

The second one is more coherent with the combat/PA use system, though not too much more simp0le, again IMHO.

Both cases are untested (and, needless to say, mutually exclusive), and, as ever, numbers are open to discussion. in both cases, those rules would nullify the x5 combat strength for security units against MR 4 enemies, as they would not be insurgencies anymore, just poor quality/irregular armies.
Germany
 player, 131 posts
Sat 5 Sep 2015
at 19:10
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Another point (unrelated to previous):

I keep thinking the definition for the "amphibious" ability for air and space units to be flawled. As it is, it forces the carriers (I'll refer to IRM carrying ships as such too) to carry units that are 5 times more massive than regular ones, as they seem to need their own ships (aside from the carriers themselves).

Suggestion: either outright forfeit the ability, forfeit its need to be based on carriers or define amphibious as the possibility to be bsed on carriers, forfeiting the rest of definition (after all, any unti may be moved by ship and defends as reserve, and the only true advantage is to be able to opérate at its true quality the same round it moves).
Germany
 player, 133 posts
Sun 13 Sep 2015
at 11:30
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
An example of why I believe no war will ever be ended  as rules stand.

Using the Azerbaijani rebel attack on Russian/German troops (msg #34, Historical Interval 2030-2034 thread).

Combat Cycle Ref:
Azerbaijani rebels attacking
Azerbaijani rebel: 8 Reserve Infantry: 1 : U
Azerbaijani rebel: 1 Experienced Infantry: 1: U

Mil Rank 4, Mil tech 7.9, Sum Basic Strength: 9, Final Combat Strength: 561

Russia and Germany defending
Russian -unit#442, 443, 444: Experienced Infantry Brigades: 1 : U: Sol Earth H20: Security
German -unit#213, 214, 215: Veteran Infantry Brigades: 1 :U: Sol Earth H20: Airborne & Security
German unit#718,719,720: Experienced Multi-role Plane: 3: L: Sol Earth H20

Mil Rank 2, Mil tech 8.4, Sum Basic Strength: 15, Final Combat Strength: 2751

Odds are 561/2751=0.204 which becomes 1:5 odds, shifted 2*(2-4)=-4 = 4 columns to left

20:54, Today: Combat Cycle Ref rolled 8 using 1d10.  Through Bandit Country.

Results: 100%/5=20% permanent to loss Attacker, 0% permanent loss to defender,

0.20 X 9 available hits = 1.8 = 1


(bold are errata correction, as I understand it)

So, after a full CR, result is 1 unit destroyed, while each side spent 45 SU (each side had 9 units). As it's difficult to know the relations with the Rebels, I don't know how many CR would be fought, but, unless some side runs out of supplies (so forfeiting the disvision of losses by 5), result will be 1 rebel unit lost per CR until it has only 4 of them, and then no result...
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 61 posts
Tue 15 Sep 2015
at 23:35
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Germany (msg # 13):

"You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said the American colonel.
The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."
-- On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, by Colonel Harry G. Summers
(Summers was on the US negotiating team in Hanoi and was the unnamed American officer in that conversation)


Wars with Mil Rank 4 nations are wars of attrition. Supply and resolve are more important than tactical victory...and you are also missing the last sentence of sec 12.6 paragraph#1
Germany
 player, 135 posts
Wed 16 Sep 2015
at 15:53
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 14):

Several points here:

I know military action is not the decisive part in insurgencies, and that's why I keep thinking that they should be treated with specific rules instead of military ones, but if they should be treated with military rules, there should be a way to win.

And let me rembemer that it was yourself that said that not all MR4 are insurgencies, and so there can be situations where they represent low level conflict

(from your answer in the forum)

quote:
>I’d also extend the advantage for security units to stealth ground ones (SF) and reduce the power
 >of air units against insurgencies.

 But you would not always know you are dealing with an insurgency and not just a low level conflict or a war we do not care to play out in detail… as I have said before, any definitions or boundaries you could draw up would quickly break down as there is just too many real world examples, and cases likely to develop with our game mechanics, where the lines are hopelessly blurred.


ANd, off course, that is not exclusive form fights against MR4 armies, but any war resolved with 12:10 will fall in this problem.
Germany
 player, 137 posts
Thu 17 Sep 2015
at 15:56
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Some more reflections about your 13.2 shared thoughts (see also point 6 in msg 7 above):

quote:
Have military units be Divisions/Fleets/Air Wings rather than Brigades/Squadrons; this will dramatically simplify the workload of managing national armies including getting rid of Artillery &SAM batteries as well as many of the special abilities, e.g. Light, Heavy, SAM, ASAT, as they have little meaning for division sized units. 1 Orbital Assault Module is needed to carry 1 Quality ‘step’ of a unit i.e. 4 Modules/Trips is needed to carry a Veteran (1 Reserve + 1 Green +1 Experienced + 1 Veteran) quality unit. Make mass be dependent upon the number of steps.


I guess bold part is based on the fact that quality represents equipement. If so, and appling the same logic to spaceships (and what you said several times about the expanding forces in WWII being represented by improved quality), the transport capability of a spaceship (be it for pop, troops or mass) should also depend on the quality of the unit, as higher quality would also mean more ships...

This message was last edited by the player at 15:57, Thu 17 Sept 2015.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 62 posts
Thu 17 Sep 2015
at 21:23
Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 2):

> For what I've seen to now, resolving insurgencies as a full fledged war has benn not
>precisely simple...
Actually it is very simple. The greatest work/stress for me has been finding out exactly where and what each nation’s units are doing. Lluis, you have made it the simplest for me but it was still time consuming, I thought my Russia was ok but now I see it is a mess.

>Oil:
>the mess it’s producing.
>Oil is becoming the main focus of most non-producing countries
> oil is a critical resource now,
That is pretty much the simple answer to why we are doing this in the first place

>Oil crisis can be played as events, needing some PAs or to raise relation with producing
> countries to resolve
That is not making the game any simpler, it is just changing the format of how it is handled to one that requires more writing and judgement calls by the GM and less opportunity to use the automation available in Excel.

> Make PAs formula dependent on GDP, not on population.
I will believe you when you can explain why the poor-as-dirt Iraqis & Vietnamese, and the poorer-than-dirt Afghanis did not fall all over themselves to worship at the feet of the Americans after what we can assume were the expenditure of considerable PAs from a nation with a very high Prestige score to one with a much lower score.

> For changing PAs, make the result dependent on “combat” result.
It does. If I said it didn’t then I have long ago changed my mind.

>Military
> Simplifying it is a must. Right now, every pretty war is bogging down the game.
As above, the main thing bogging down the game is trying to figure out where each military unit is and what it is doing. If players would be more helpful in that then wars would not be a problem. ….that and the interminable negotiations which never seem to go anywhere but take my time to sort out what happens.

>Space
> Allow each core world to be counted as a Naval Base Module to allow some more ships before
>those modules are available.
Naval Base Modules are available at tl 9.0 which is basically the same time as everything else important in space.

> As rules stand now, it would be impossible to deploy space industries or to colonize, as
>interface is too limited by this.
As I recall, the example that you used to prove your case was based on running everything from Earth and with low technology. I would be concerned if that *DID* work.

> Allow streamlined ships to take of loaded,
No. Interface is too important in the 2300AD universe to ever let that happen in our game.

>>Much greater initial variability between nations on their Authoritarian Modifier
>A simple (but long reaching) solution would be to use an AM dependent multiplier for the social expenses
>I suggest 70+AM
>Some examples as how would this have affected several countries if applied last turn
Changes to how the budgets are calculated leads to endless screaming from the players who feel they have been singled out.

> Excuse me my daring, but I posted in the files section of the HP
> Insurgencies are fought by a combination of PAs and troops.
Did I ever say they couldn’t be? It is just unnecessary to do so with a whole set of new rules when we already have sections 8.5 and 12.10.
> This factor is usually 0 if no insurgence is active, and may vary from 1 to 19
I agree with you on that, it is just unnecessary to do so when we already have ‘Relations’ score that does the same thing.

> the definition for the "amphibious" ability for air and space units to be flawled.
>As it is, it forces the carriers to carry units that are 5 times more massive than regular ones
As carriers have no mass capacity limitations that is not a problem.

This message was last edited by the player at 21:58, Thu 17 Sept 2015.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 63 posts
Thu 17 Sep 2015
at 21:38
Rules proposal 20150915
Rules proposal 20150915 (https://sites.google.com/site/...tredirects=0&d=1)

The biggest change is simplifying the formula to remove tech level from unit cost. Before anyone starts to wind up about the cost of modern weapons consider that whether or not Tech Level features in the cost formula depends upon exactly what is your definitions for what is a unit, what is a new unit, what is being paid for in in Social Upkeep and Upgrades to Military Tech Infrastructure. Any definition that you choose to justify continuing to incorporate TL in military unit cost can be turned around and used to justify TL in the cost of colony facilities. Unless every player can honestly tell me they are excited to include TL in facility cost, then we are not going to do TL in unit cost.
Germany
 player, 138 posts
Fri 18 Sep 2015
at 14:00
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 2):

> For what I've seen to now, resolving insurgencies as a full fledged war has benn not
>precisely simple...
Actually it is very simple. The greatest work/stress for me has been finding out exactly where and what each nation’s units are doing. Lluis, you have made it the simplest for me but it was still time consuming, I thought my Russia was ok but now I see it is a mess


Glad to hear (bold part). Be sure I try. I guess it's time consuming. If I may help in any way, just ask.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Military
 > Simplifying it is a must. Right now, every pretty war is bogging down the game.
 As above, the main thing bogging down the game is trying to figure out where each military unit is and what it is doing. If players would be more helpful in that then wars would not be a problem. ….that and the interminable negotiations which never seem to go anywhere but take my time to sort out what happens.


Yes, negotiations and interminable (real life, time zone differences, etc. don't help here), but they are also the fun part (and I guess the basis) of the game.

Combat Cycle Ref:
> As rules stand now, it would be impossible to deploy space industries or to colonize, as
 >interface is too limited by this.
 As I recall, the example that you used to prove your case was based on running everything from Earth and with low technology. I would be concerned if that *DID* work.


I can understand your POV to a point. Let me put you another example:

Now, a passenger module needs 10000 tonnes. Off course this means they must be larger than that, as they will need some more modules (at least hull and propulsion ones). As you cannot build ships larger than 10000 tonnes without a Civilian Shipyard Module (Something that I cannot understand if they may represent several smaller ships), you cannot build a passenger carrying ship until you build such a module.

As this module needs 20 RMU to be operative1, you need 400000 uplift tonnes capability to use it (aside from any module you must uplift, as it can only build 5 modules), to build a passenger carrying ship you need to have already access to catapults (or a ridiculously high number of rockets and their supporting OTs).

So, to build a passenger carrying ship (TL 8.0), you need at least TL 9.3 for Space and materials, and TL 9.0 in electronics.

Suggestion: to return to former rules in some ways:

  • make the passenger module 5000 tonnes (it's about 1 ton per passenger)
  • in exchange, return to 1 ship representing just one hull, and to the 10000/G limit to land/take off from surface
  • return to ships being able to be built by surface industry if they can land in the satellite in question (not fixed 10000 dtons).


Note 1: clarification asked: must those 20 RMU be baid for in Core Worlds (that are unlimited sources of them) or just the capability to uplift them be present? See that in the first case, the $20 they produce are forfeited by its cost...

Another detail: See that as rules stand now, Assembly Yard is only useful to repair ships (and as prerequisite to a Civilian Space Yard), as any ship build by them can also be from surface (as long as it's streamlined). Not sure they are worth it. They could be droped and shipyaards (maybe made more expensive to compensate for it) be able to repair ships.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>>Much greater initial variability between nations on their Authoritarian Modifier
 >A simple (but long reaching) solution would be to use an AM dependent multiplier for the social expenses
 >I suggest 70+AM
 >Some examples as how would this have affected several countries if applied last turn
 Changes to how the budgets are calculated leads to endless screaming from the players who feel they have been singled out.


Well, I would be badly affected by it in most countries I play too (Nigeria excepted), but that would give sense to what issaid in 6.1 about the citizens expect in return..

Combat Cycle Ref:
> the definition for the "amphibious" ability for air and space units to be flawled.
 >As it is, it forces the carriers to carry units that are 5 times more massive than regular ones
 As carriers have no mass capacity limitations that is not a problem.</quite>

But it still seems odd to me. And the mass of the units is (I guess) mostly to move them by spaceship (in case of ships I guess dissaseembled), and in this case it will affect if someone tries to move a carrier grup to another satellite. And it's rearly worth it (except to be used from carriers), as they can be moved by civilian shipping anyway (though it needs one CR once in position (BTW, this applies to 12:10 too, where each combat turn represents several combat rounds?)


Now about 20150915 rules (after skip rading them)

Combat Cycle Ref:
Any definition that you choose to justify continuing to incorporate TL in military unit cost can be turned around and used to justify TL in the cost of colony facilities.


Not me this time (disappointed ;)). While higher TL uses to be more expensive, also less of it uses to be needed, so compensating it.

The only "but" I find in the new prices is that some units (infantry, MR airships, SAM, Patrol Ships) with a cost of $2 are not worth to be built as reserve, as its cost is $1, the same as Green. Not sure if this is intentional.

Another major change I see you've done is to change Relations and Prestige from -20/+20 to 1-20, and you've also changed the formula for PAs (a must with this change) by also reducing the divisor for defending strenght.

Aside from this forcing to change the Nations spreadsheet, some numbers I've run by changing those factors (halving them, rounding down, and adding 10, as I guess would be the correct formula and the one I'll use in all the coments), in most cases the relation is halved.

While this may seem logical when you try to modify relations (as now each relation means double than before), not so for other uses, as you need double PAs for most things. Again, not sure if this was intentional.

Another effect is that now is quite more difficult to have a client state, as you need 20 relations (now easier to achieve), but you also need 5 more tan any other country, something now quite more difficult. Again, not know if intentional.

EDIT (afterthoughts): OTOH, PAs are now a little cheaper, more so the lower your prestige was, as prestige is some higher. Some examples:

  • IC, prestige -11 (th lowest) had a cost of $61 per PA. Now with prestige 4 they would cost $46 ($14 saving)
  • China had prestige 3 (close to 0) and paid 47 per PA. Now, with prestige 11 it would pay $39 ($8 saving)
  • Japan, with prestige 16 (the highest) país 34 per PA. Now with prestige 18 it would pay 32 ($2 saving).


Again, IDK if it's intentional. If not, I'd suggest to change the cost to 60-prestige*1.5. This way, the costs would be 54 for IC, 44 for China and 33, more close to before...

This message was last edited by the player at 11:35, Mon 21 Sept 2015.

Germany
 player, 139 posts
Sun 20 Sep 2015
at 11:53
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Another doubt, this time about air units specialties (10.5.2, page 55):

quote:
ASAT: ASAT: Allows the unit to initiate attack (with its Air Defence combat strength) against objects in the Orbit hex


This means helicopters and airships, if given this ability, will fight with their Combat Strength affected by 12.9, but also Interceptors have a different Air Defense combat Strenght. Can interceptors attack Orbit hex if the yare ASAT, or they are affected by the bold part below?

quote:
Interceptor: Also known as ‘Superiority’ fighters, these are specialized in neutralizing attacking Air Units. The Combat Strength of an Air Unit with Interceptor ability is increased by %50 when defending vs. an attack that includes other Air Units, but may not ever initiate an attack against any unit.


If they are able to, I'd suggest to specify as exception in the interceptor definition.