RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to 2300 Great Game Command Center

00:50, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Rules Discussions.

Posted by Co-GMFor group 0
Nordic Federation
player, 41 posts
Sat 7 Dec 2019
at 18:40
  • msg #529

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

In reply to Germany (msg # 528):

Hi, could you gives us right to download and print the rule proposal currently on the files pages.

Also, could you highlight clearly all the change made in the document.

I want to play by the rules, but I definetely lack the time to cross reference 93 pages of the new document from the earlier version.

Considering the time needed to get up to date and stay to date for the player, that would be highly appreciated.

Laurent
Referee
GM, 173 posts
Tue 10 Dec 2019
at 04:52
  • msg #530

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

In reply to Germany (msg # 526):

I am not certain what you are asking in this post, the only thing I can discern is
>Does this afect in any way the passengers modules (that may be seen as a kind of cargo)?
Yes. It means that the ship can only carry part of a population unit in that turn. Since we do not allow units to exist in two places from one turn to the next, the other fractions of the population would have to be carried by other ships.
Referee
GM, 174 posts
Tue 10 Dec 2019
at 04:58
  • msg #531

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

In reply to Germany (msg # 527):

>And, of course, this makes the Naval Shipyards a perfectly prescindible facility. Tell me what use will it have if rules are so applied.
If you are using this word 'prescindible' to mean 'useless', then no. I find it difficult to believe that the uplift/downlift capability will always be immediately available to move a damaged ship.

>But if Russia deploys this OT without another Enclave, it will be no longer an enclave settlement,
No. The other OTs would be inactive as they would be unable to function.
Referee
GM, 175 posts
Tue 10 Dec 2019
at 05:00
  • msg #532

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

In reply to Germany (msg # 528):

No. Military units do not require Food Units anymore. It was going to be too much, too complex.
Referee
GM, 176 posts
Tue 10 Dec 2019
at 05:12
  • msg #533

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

In reply to Nordic Federation (msg # 529):

When I make changes to the Rules Proposal document I always do so in a green font colour, but there are none now because I have not made any, and I have no immediate plans to do so, at least not until after we run a test of a combat using the detailed combat rules as I had mentioned in the group notice. Even then, looking at the changes in green font is less useful than you might think as the vast majority of changes are minor changes to wording to make things more clear or match up better with other sections. If you want to really get an understanding of what rules have changed the best is still to watch section 11.1, where I always note any meaningful rules changes, it is just blank now because, as I said, I have not made any changes.
Germany
player, 563 posts
Tue 10 Dec 2019
at 15:17
  • msg #534

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

Referee:
In reply to Germany (msg # 526):

I am not certain what you are asking in this post, the only thing I can discern is
>Does this afect in any way the passengers modules (that may be seen as a kind of cargo)?
Yes. It means that the ship can only carry part of a population unit in that turn. Since we do not allow units to exist in two places from one turn to the next, the other fractions of the population would have to be carried by other ships.


Well, for not being certain about my question you nailed the answer, as that’s exactly what I was asking there.

Referee:
In reply to Germany (msg # 527):

>And, of course, this makes the Naval Shipyards a perfectly prescindible facility. Tell me what use will it have if rules are so applied.
If you are using this word 'prescindible' to mean 'useless', then no. I find it difficult to believe that the uplift/downlift capability will always be immediately available to move a damaged ship.


For the same reasons you gave, this damaged ship would be downloaded by another ship(s) to the spaceport to repair it (even if several landings were needed), as any other unit could. If you have enough uplift to latter return it to orbit...

So, should a Russian Tsiolkovskiy-1 ship (30000 tonnes) become damaged. A Freude ship (5000 tonnes cargo capacity) could download to a spaceport in 6 trips, then repaired and uplifted again when the uplift capacity is available…

Logics on it? I see none, but we’re talking about rules, not logics, and that’s consistent with how do you tell us the rules work, And, after all ,the fact this same ship was built in Damgarten and uploaded operational with uplift capacity form other spaceport(s) (as I guess the uplift came from several ones) has exactly the same logics

Referee:
>But if Russia deploys this OT without another Enclave, it will be no longer an enclave settlement,
No. The other OTs would be inactive as they would be unable to function.


And can a country have several Enclave settlements  in orbit of the same satellite?

Rules state quite clearly that only one of them would produce pai-leng, but having several may be advantageous if you intend to develop a colony there, as each of them represents a $200/25000 tonnes and 1 pop already y there to begin it..

So, if you deploy two OT/Enclave  in orbit of a satellite, when upgrading it to a colony, you have already a “credit” of $400/50000 tonnes ,as well as 2 pop. So you could, as an example, build for “free”:

  • Spaceport: $50/20000 tonnes
  • Fission PP: $150/20000 tones
  • Hydroponics: $150/15000 tones
  • Road: $100/5000 tones
  • Totals: $450/60000 Tonnes


From which you’d only need spend $50 and to transport there 10000 tonnes and 8 pop (as you need to keep at least 1 OT), or 6 pop if you idle the road net for this turn (as you don’t need it the first turn, though without it you’d lose part of your investment and you’ll probably need it latter).

See that this colony would “only” need SUs to be self-sustainable ,as the food would be produced there…
This message was last edited by the player at 18:30, Wed 11 Dec 2019.
Germany
player, 569 posts
Sat 14 Dec 2019
at 11:43
  • msg #535

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

From OOC thread:
Germany:
I've seen in another game (completly a different one) I play in rpol that the GM has asked OOC comments outside OOC threads (here they would be this one and the rules one, I guess) to be posted in Orange.

I find it a great idea, and I will do it from now on. I suggest other players to do it too, so OOC comments are easier to distinguish them (the OOC note is still written):

E.g.:

OOC: happy christmas to everyone

If you also find it a good idea, I'd suggest to add it (as a suggestion) to the rules point 3.1
Nordic Federation
player, 44 posts
Mon 16 Dec 2019
at 02:36
  • msg #536

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

In reply to Germany (msg # 535):

In the last version of the rule, I can't find the official formula to increase the Military Rank of a nation by one level.  Could someone provide me the correct section and page?  Thanks.
Germany
player, 573 posts
Mon 16 Dec 2019
at 04:36
  • msg #537

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

Nordic Federation:
In reply to Germany (msg # 535):

In the last version of the rule, I can't find the official formula to increase the Military Rank of a nation by one level.  Could someone provide me the correct section and page?  Thanks.


Rule 6.6 (Task Resolution in politics)

examples:

  • (...)
  • Reduce the Military rank of a nation (see Section 839): routine
  • (...)

So, it's now a political action (or so I understand).
Nigeria
player, 20 posts
Tue 17 Dec 2019
at 03:28
  • msg #538

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

In reply to Germany (msg # 537):

So I only have to pay a single political action to reduce the military rank of my military?
Germany
player, 575 posts
Tue 17 Dec 2019
at 09:25
  • msg #539

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

As I understand, you must do it through PAs. If a single one would sufice, it's up to you to calculate (remember, though, Nigeria has low AM and stability while high pop and prestige, so internal PAs are not too easy. Review 6.6 carefully)...
This message was last edited by the player at 09:26, Tue 17 Dec 2019.
USA
player, 115 posts
Tue 17 Dec 2019
at 22:38
  • msg #540

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

In reply to Germany (msg # 539):

Question on Orbital Terminals;

They've changed since last I was paying real attention

quote:
An OT can be improved upon by adding various extra Modules, these Modules do not count as a separate facility in any way and once attached to an OT can never be moved, only upgraded or destroyed.


and

quote:
One OT is needed for every 5 total facilities of Scram Aircraft, Sky Hook, Catapult, Deadfall, or Beanstalk in the same Settlement


I'm sure it used to be you could only have a combination of 5 modules or relevant uplift facilities - so if you had one module you could only have 4 uplift things, now it looks like you can have any number of modules, and 5 uplift facilities?

Is this correct?
Germany
player, 578 posts
Tue 17 Dec 2019
at 23:17
  • msg #541

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 539):

Question on Orbital Terminals;

They've changed since last I was paying real attention

quote:
An OT can be improved upon by adding various extra Modules, these Modules do not count as a separate facility in any way and once attached to an OT can never be moved, only upgraded or destroyed.


and

quote:
One OT is needed for every 5 total facilities of Scram Aircraft, Sky Hook, Catapult, Deadfall, or Beanstalk in the same Settlement


I'm sure it used to be you could only have a combination of 5 modules or relevant uplift facilities - so if you had one module you could only have 4 uplift things, now it looks like you can have any number of modules, and 5 uplift facilities?

Is this correct?


ITTR OTs have ever been able to support 5 interface units each (at least since the Docking Module was forfeited for simplicity), modules being counted aside...
Referee
GM, 180 posts
Mon 23 Dec 2019
at 18:08
  • msg #542

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

In reply to USA (msg # 540):

>I'm sure it used to be you could only have a combination of 5 modules <snip> Is this correct?
No. I do not think it ever was that way; it does not matter as it is not now.

Though it is a good idea. Something to think about for later.
Germany
player, 606 posts
Wed 15 Apr 2020
at 17:56
  • msg #543

Re: Rules Proposal 20190401

I see some changes in the spreadsheets, mostly the fact the PAs now have to be bought without an special place for them, but also that the TL increases for economic TL are not automatically counted 8as the military TL are).

Are those changes intentional (after all, we can just add them to purchases as normal if so)?



This aside, there are some errors in Germany's spreadsheet:
  • Previous turn mil-sea TL was 8.7, this turn is set as 8.5
  • Previous turn mil-space TL was 8.8, and Germany raised it by 0.1, but is still isted as 8.8.



Likewise, in the Saudi preadsheet, mil-sea TL was 8.4, and it's now 8.5 without having invested on it...

I have not looked other spreadsheets in detail.
China
player, 77 posts
Wed 29 Apr 2020
at 09:23
  • msg #544

Construction by other country.

I propose to integrate a limitation on how much a country can produce any stuff, especially when the payment comes from another country. This limitation is addressed to prevent the situation when a small, but high tech country with a small economy can produce a huge fleet of advanced "spaceships" just because they receive payment. For example - you have 1 shipyard. It's an economical unit, it has its own cost, upkeep, revenue, bla bla bla. Sometimes the country produces a ship there. And maximum speed is 1 ship - 5 years. If a country receives from someone payment for 10 ships, they can not be produced in 5 years. They will be produced in 50 years, or the country should build more shipyards.

Its just an example of "economical capacity". The isle with 100 inhabitants can not produce Hoover Dam. And there is no matter how clever or reach they are.
Referee
GM, 185 posts
Sun 17 May 2020
at 20:36
  • msg #545

Construction by other country.

In reply to China (msg # 544):

That is already well covered within the game. Firstly, there are no small, high-tech, player nations, player nations were chosen because they are all 'big enough' to produce whatever is required within a turn. Secondly, as per section 3.3 paragraph#2, '$' is not 'money', it is real goods and services, so if nation A pays nation B a certain amount of $ and nation B uses that to produce items X, then it really means that nation A produced the items X. Finally, specifically with regards to Spaceships, they have the additional requirement that "...; one Naval Shipyard facility must be allocated for the full Turn per 10 000 Tonnes, rounded up, of mass of the Spaceship."(section 9.2 paragraph#2, sentence#2), so having only 1 Shipyard means only 1 Spaceship can be produced per Turn, regardless if the $ to produce 10 Spaceships is available.
China
player, 78 posts
Sun 7 Jun 2020
at 07:21
  • msg #546

Construction by other country.

In reply to Referee (msg # 545):

I see you totaly miss the point. To produce something, you first of all need factory, shipyard, workbench. Regardless of how many materials or services you have, means of production is limit here. And this is huge investments. And no any country will build means of production for "maybe future orders". In your system its total magic. I can produce as much nuclear rockets in one turn, as I want. Limitation is only PA and some money. This mean, that I have huge production facilities to do this, which do nothing all other time, when I do not produce rockets. Or planes.
Korea
player, 17 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 22:00
  • msg #547

Construction by other country.

In reply to China (msg # 546):

Russia:
I'm pretty sure nations were building colonies and facilities in unclaimed hexes without problems.


The only instance I can think of where a 'colony' can be set up without claiming the hex it is in, is when it is an outpost or enclave - is this what you are referring to?
Australia
player, 38 posts
Tue 27 Apr 2021
at 22:05
  • msg #548

Re: Construction by other country.

Korea:
In reply to China (msg # 546):

Russia:
I'm pretty sure nations were building colonies and facilities in unclaimed hexes without problems.


The only instance I can think of where a 'colony' can be set up without claiming the hex it is in, is when it is an outpost or enclave - is this what you are referring to?

Russia:
OOC:
Korea:
I am pretty sure this is wrong


I'm pretty sure nations were building colonies and facilities in unclaimed hexes without problems.


OOC:
You may be right about about colonies, however those would claim the hex after establishment. Settlements can not exist without a hex:

Rules 7.2:
Deserted: Any settlement that has lost all of its population units or hexes.


So claiming the hex is really the only way.
Russia
player, 133 posts
Wed 28 Apr 2021
at 09:14
  • msg #549

Re: Construction by other country.

Australia:
You may be right about about colonies, however those would claim the hex after establishment. Settlements can not exist without a hex:
Rules 7.2:
Deserted: Any settlement that has lost all of its population units or hexes.

So claiming the hex is really the only way.


You probably right, but not because of the rule you cited, but because 7.3:

quote:
Facilities can only be placed in a hex of a Settlement, the lone exception is a Military Base facility.


In such case, how could Japan build facilities BEFORE it claimed the hex?
In any way, if Japan is allowed to change the hex of construction, Japan could move the construction in a hex it already owns, and China's units do not prevent it.
Referee
GM, 205 posts
Thu 29 Apr 2021
at 05:43
  • msg #550

Taking new hexes for a Settlement

This discussion is reminding me of the time when some argued that it was impossible to start a new colony on an uninhabited world because it would require previously existing powered and crewed Interface facilities to downlift the Interface facilities that would downlift the Population and Power facilities to run the newly downlifted Interface facilities...

Each turn is 5 years long, I am comfortable with change of hex ownership and building a facility occurring simultaneously within the same Turn, plenty of time. Conflicts involving competing actions on the same hex are sorted out by the Referee and the relevant players as the situation arises. There is nothing magical or explicitly in the rules about 'claiming a hex', no walls suddenly spring up, the UN does not suddenly accept it. 'claiming a hex' is merely the language I use when notifying other players that a rival Settlement is attempting to expand.
Canada
player, 40 posts
Mon 21 Feb 2022
at 09:27
  • msg #551

Creating a colony

Last turn I built 3 Outpost Modules and upgraded one of them with an Enclave Module. According to the rules maybe all 3 Outpost Modules should have been upgraded before the settlement became an Enclave?

If I upgrade the remaining 2 Outpost Modules with 2 Enclaves Modules, can the Enclave Settlement be converted to a Colony Settlement during the same turn these Enclave Modules are built?
Referee
GM, 219 posts
Mon 21 Feb 2022
at 23:28
  • msg #552

Creating a colony

In reply to Canada (msg # 551):

> According to the rules maybe all 3 Outpost Modules should have been upgraded before the settlement became an Enclave?
Yes.

>If I upgrade the remaining 2 Outpost Modules with 2 Enclaves Modules, can the Enclave Settlement be converted to a Colony Settlement during the same turn these Enclave Modules are built?
Yes. Our Turns are 5 years long each, plenty of time to get any actions within the game done. It is not an oversight that there is very little in the rules about limiting what can be done within a Turn due to a shortage of time.
Canada
player, 42 posts
Tue 22 Feb 2022
at 21:17
  • msg #553

Re: Creating a colony

Referee:
In reply to Canada (msg # 551):

> According to the rules maybe all 3 Outpost Modules should have been upgraded before the settlement became an Enclave?
Yes.


Sorry, my mistake. I also see now on my 2075 orders that my competent space engineers manifested 4SU's as 4000t. I suggest these SU's are destroyed.

For the sake of supply unit consumption for this turn, should Settlement #175 Hadfield Landing be counted as 2/3 Outpost and 1/3 Enclave? Total 4SU consumption.
Sign In