Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
Germany
 player, 474 posts
Tue 9 Oct 2018
at 17:07
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Co-GM:
Germany:
Referee:
> >Let's imagine a ship does not move from the spaceport in the whole turn. It would  need to be supplied in an OT anyway?
Yes.


So, I have an experienced ship on Damgarten, where I have some SUs. The ship is not intended to move in the whole turn, but must go to orbit to receive one of those SUs (that must be uploaded too) or it will become reserve (and cost again 75% of its price to be upgraded to experienced again)…


I know you usually have a more detailed knowledge of the rules than me, so I may be wrong but I think you've missed the relevant rule for this - units are not permanently reduced to reserve save in that they are treated as such in Quick Combat

Rules 8.3:
During the current Turn, the player must arrange for the delivery of these Supply Units to the World that a unit occupied at the start of the Turn. Unless there is some reason to think that the particular hex occupied by a unit is cut off then we assume that your staff can handle the details of getting the Supply Unit from the local Spaceport or Industry to all other hexes on the same World. If a unit is not completely supplied then it is considered to be damaged in combat as per section 10.7.


Meaning it will count as damaged in combat until supplies can be provided - so its quality is not lowered to reserve permanently requiring it to be upgraded again - it would simply be counted as damaged until supplies are provided


This opens several more questions, as most CD and repair rules are for detailed combat, and we're not using it:

1) What happens if a Combat damaged unit (while we keep with QCR this means it has not received supplies) does not receive its SUs at the beginning of a turn?

If it keeps CDd, then this can be used as what my suggestion in post #330 this same thread called Cadres: units could be kept CDd so that you save SUs. E.g. let's imagine Germany has 20 Green mech brigades as Landwher. As he consideres them as reserves, he keeps them unsupplied and so they are kept as CDd, but 20 SUs are saved each turn.

If it is Combat Damaged again (so destroyed), one could leave unsupplied half the units he wants as reserves, and at the next turn supply them (so repairing them) and left unsupplied (so CD ) the other half. E.g. Again let’s imagine Germany has 20 mech brigades as landwher that wants to keep as reserves. He an supply only 10, so CD the other 10, and the next turn supply the ones CDd while leaving the other 10 without SUs, so saving 10 SU per turn.

In both cases, if I understand well the rules, they'd need a whole WR to be repaired, so would be usalbe only as reserve units on the WR they are repaired (mobilization takes some time...).

Would this be allowed (after all, keeping reserve units as Cadres is a quite usual practice among most nations)?

See that in any case, as those units are counted for the basic supply needs, they are accounted for TL increases or other formulas that use basic SU needs as a basis.

2) According the Spaceport (and shipyards) description, as well as 10.7, each spaceport or shipyard can only repair 1 ship per WR. Of course, this is thought for detailed combat rules. As we’re using QCR, how many ships can one such facilities repair in a QCR WR (as they represent several detailed ones)?
Referee
 GM, 130 posts
Thu 11 Oct 2018
at 02:43
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
In reply to Germany (msg # 467):

>in 10.4 order of the actions, it is listed then conducts attacks by (in order)
>individual non-CCC grouped Spaceships units first, then all CCC grouped Spaceships
>together, while I cannot find anywhere in the rules what does this mean, as I
>cannot find where it is said that ships without CCC cannot attack together.

That would be inherent in the phrase "...conducts attacks by (in order) individual non-CCC grouped Spaceships units first,"

>Stability 5 after its defeat. The possibility of a spontaneous revolt is 8+ (so
>30%). But Country B has also an AM of 15, <snip> the number of troops (or lack of
>them) in occupation duty being fully irrelevant, according the rules.

What did you expect with your choice of numbers? Was there some expectation that there always had to be a meaningful chance of a massive, brigade level, armed rebellion happening?

>>his game is whatever is needed to be fun and playable by everyone,.
>As much as I hate to say this, I’m not sure you`’re being successful on this, mostly
> on the playable part, if the plans done one turn are broken due to rules changes
>he next one…

Then go join a game where the rules are absolutely and completely done and set and perfect from the beginning without the possibility or need of alteration ever. In the mean time, we all made the mistake of joining a game where the rules at the outset were quite literally nothing more than a vague expectation that we would have rules, eventually. Changes to the rules will happen and plans will be broken because of those rule changes, accept it or leave.

>Are you saying that the results given by H&E cannot be altered as the worlds
>develop (I have played a little with it, but not that much).?

Yes. While there is a menu option in H&E for it, it does not work.

>Assuming a colony has an opperational (so RMU supplied) heavy industry, but its
>TL is under 5.5, could it build SUs at the overcost for lower TL?
Yes. Is there a problem with this?


>1) What happens if a Combat damaged unit (while we keep with QCR this means it
>has not received supplies) does not receive its SUs at the beginning of a turn?
>If it is Combat Damaged again (so destroyed)

This one

>one could leave unsupplied half the units he wants as reserves, and at the next
>turn supply them <snip> saving 10 SU per turn.

Then a portion of your army is unprepared for action.

>As we’re using QCR, how many ships can one such facilities repair in a QCR
>WR (as they represent several detailed ones)?

Units are not damaged in QCR so the question is irrelevant.


>See that in any case, as those units are counted for the basic supply needs, they
>are accounted for TL increases or other formulas that use basic SU needs as a basis.
Yes. Is there a problem with this?
Referee
 GM, 131 posts
Thu 11 Oct 2018
at 02:49
Rules Proposal 20181010
Change to:  Cost to increase Mil tech level depends on Sum Maintenance cost, easier to calculate. How cost of tech increase is calculated, a smoother rise with number of increases. How Supply is done for Orbital facilities for Colonies, simpler.

The introduction of: Connection to and the importance of the Unit Listings and Facility Listings spreadsheet.

Made clearer: Where orders are to be posted.

Rebalancing to:Number of round trips/Turn that a StutterWarp equipt ship can make, it was too high.

Got rid of:



Unless anyone can immediately find some critical fault with this rule-set then this is the rules-set which we will be using for the 2050-2054 Turn.
Germany
 player, 475 posts
Thu 11 Oct 2018
at 10:58
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Referee:
In reply to Germany (msg # 467):

>Stability 5 after its defeat. The possibility of a spontaneous revolt is 8+ (so 30%). But Country B has also an AM of 15, <snip> the number of troops (or lack of them) in occupation duty being fully irrelevant, according the rules.
What did you expect with your choice of numbers? Was there some expectation that there always had to be a meaningful chance of a massive, brigade level, armed rebellion happening?


I have no problem with your numbers, but I think quite odd that having a garrisson (or lack of it) has no influence in a conquered country's revolt possibility (where the security forces represented, I guess, in the AM modifier are not so surely trying to avoid it).

That's what I tried to point, not sure if this is intentional or a glitch of the game.

Referee:
>Are you saying that the results given by H&E cannot be altered as the worlds
>develop (I have played a little with it, but not that much).?

Yes. While there is a menu option in H&E for it, it does not work.


Forgive me, but I don't understand how will we use it and its consequences.

What I understood is that H&E would be used to generate systems, and then copied and pasted (or the document just moved) to the Atlas of Known space. If so, I guess those documents could be edited, by adding the changes players' actions would do (as raising TLs or spaceport class), as they would no longer be in the H&E program, but in the HP of this game as documents.

Am I wrong with this?

And see that in any case, the changes I suggested (altering the spaceport in Earth UWP and Pop and TL in the outpost worlds) were not only doable, but easy to do, at least as the Atlas is now.

Referee:
>Assuming a colony has an opperational (so RMU supplied) heavy industry, but its TL is under 5.5, could it build SUs at the overcost for lower TL?
Yes. Is there a problem with this?


Au contraire. I just wanted this clarified before I cna do space plans.

Referee:
>one could leave unsupplied half the units he wants as reserves, and at the next turn supply them <snip> saving 10 SU per turn.
Then a portion of your army is unprepared for action.


I know. That's what reserves use to be in most armies, units kept at less tan full readiness to save costs, but easy to return to full operational status if needed.

Referee:
>As we’re using QCR, how many ships can one such facilities repair in a QCR WR (as they represent several detailed ones)?
Units are not damaged in QCR so the question is irrelevant.


Unless they are left out of supplies (or the supplies cannot be uplifted to orbit, in the case of ships), as I was talking about (and as I thought was obvious in the previous posts I quoted, as well as msg #460, quoted here to ease your work)...
Germany:
Then we come to another scenario ...

I can leave a ship in Damgarten unsupplied, so it becoming damaged. Of course, I cannot give orders to it in the turn orders, but, if the world situation makes it useful (e.g. for combat pourposes, or to carry some urgent cargo to any outpost), I can repair it in Damgarten and then move it, so in fact having it supplied in ground.

Of course, this does not allow me to use it in a planned way on the turn orders, but only in response moves (WRs).

I don't know if this is intentional (so, making de facto the uplifting of the SU only necessary if the ship will be used for turn planned moves) or a glitch of the rules.

Both cases are posible and both are reasonable (as ships participating in the plannig for the turn will probably move longer, etc., so needing the supplies in orbit, as they will need to leave Earth orbit fully supplied; while the other ones are just "in reserve" and probably not moving far, so they don't need their SUs uplifted), but, before assuming anything and tryint to use what could be a glitch in the rules, I prefer to give a heads up to the GM about it.


So, no, it's not irrelevant, and I think an answer is needed.

Referee:
>See that in any case, as those units are counted for the basic supply needs, they are accounted for TL increases or other formulas that use basic SU needs as a basis.
Yes. Is there a problem with this?


Absolutly no problem. I was just trying to point the details and implications of what I was asking, so that no missunderstundings could appear.
Germany
 player, 477 posts
Sun 4 Nov 2018
at 19:45
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Just some more questions regarding the Orbital Shipyards:

Rules definition:

quote:
Orbital Factory (OF): More expensive to build than ground based industries but can make products which are in high demand. This facility generates 1 Pai-Leng every 5th Turn of the game i.e. a game start date of 1985 then an Orbital Industry would produce a Pai-Leng on turn 2010, 2035, 2060, etc. If provided with 10 Raw Material Units in a Turn then this facility build 10 Supply Units in the same hex.


  1. As I understand it, the Pai-leng production is done regardless it receives the RMUs or not, that are just relevant for the SUs production.
  2. Also, as I understand, this Pai-leng production is in fixed turns (each 5th one), regardless when it was deployed (I guess for game simplicity).


Are those things right?

Just for clarification, I have no problem on any of this, nor judging it, jsut wanting to know if I understand them right.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 66 posts
Sat 17 Nov 2018
at 13:05
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
There seems to be a glitch in the Military TL development:

If Saudi Arabia tries to raise all of them by +0.2, the costs are :

  • Mil-Air: $42
  • Mil- Ground: $42
  • Mil-Sea: $42
  • Mil-Space: $30

Which is in agreement with my numbers .

But if I try to raise higher all mil TLs but air (the first one) , cost only increases by $1 per 0.1 extra…

And if I reduce the raising for Mil-Air to 0.1, while keeping the other ones to 0.2, the costs then appear as:

  • Mil-Air: $18
  • Mil- Ground: $19
  • Mil-Sea: $19
  • Mil-Space: $14

And the raisings still only increase by $1 per 0.1 extra I raise…

If I don’t raise Mil-Air TL, then the raising of all other military TLs is only $1 per 0.1 increase, so being able (as the spreadsheet shows) to increase Ground, Sea and Space TLs by 0.5 each for a total of $15.

Not that I complain for those costs, but I guess they are wrong…

I checked other countries and the problem is not exclusive for Saudi Arabia…
Germany
 player, 478 posts
Sat 17 Nov 2018
at 13:33
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Saudi Arabia:
There seems to be a glitch in the Military TL development:

German Case is a little different, but keeps being:

As Germany raised last turn all its military TLs to the theoretical maximums (8.8 for Space, 8.7 for Air, Sea and Ground), any of them would need the cutting edge bonus (over $300).

If I try to raise all of them by 0.1, sots are:

  • Mil-Air: $242
  • Mil- Ground: $242
  • Mil-Sea: $242
  • Mil-Space: $89 (despite it would be raised to 8.9, not to 8.8 as all the rest)

See that in all cases they are inferior to the cutting edge bonus…

If I don’t raise Mil-Air, but I raise the others by 0.1, costs are:

  • Mil-Air: $0 (of course)
  • Mil- Ground: $177
  • Mil-Sea: $177
  • Mil-Space: $23

So, I’m quite sure this glitch exists.

As fixing al spreadsheets will take time, and as I guess making the increases in the spreadsheet eases next turn ones,  my suggestion would be to add the rest of the cost as an additional expense.

So, as an example, if Saudi Arabia intended to raise its Mil-Space (only) TL by +0.3 (real cost $55, marked cost $3), then he would have to add another line in expenses as “mil-space TL raising” for the additional $52.

As an option, we can just ignore cells J53-56 and K53-56 and put the whole expenses in raising military TLs as regular expenses (so, in the above case, cell J56 would be left untouched, and the “mil-space TL raising” would be the full $55.
Germany
 player, 479 posts
Sat 17 Nov 2018
at 13:58
Some questions about the settlements spreadsheet
1) I see both Koreas are still in the settlements spreadsheet. Are they still divided, or the end of the War was a full conquest of the Norhtern one?

2) I see Germany is listed as a single hex, while it is shown in the map in two hexes (6N14, 7N12). Same happens with France (6N13, 5N17)and maybe some others. Which one is right (see that this has influence if any of them tries to use PAs to increase oil production).
Germany
 player, 480 posts
Sun 18 Nov 2018
at 14:23
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Sorry to bump those questions, but I think htey deserve an answer, and would help to solve my turn or better understand the game:

Germany:
Referee:
In reply to Germany (msg # 467):

>Stability 5 after its defeat. The possibility of a spontaneous revolt is 8+ (so 30%). But Country B has also an AM of 15, <snip> the number of troops (or lack of them) in occupation duty being fully irrelevant, according the rules.
What did you expect with your choice of numbers? Was there some expectation that there always had to be a meaningful chance of a massive, brigade level, armed rebellion happening?


I have no problem with your numbers, but I think quite odd that having a garrisson (or lack of it) has no influence in a conquered country's revolt possibility (where the security forces represented, I guess, in the AM modifier are not so surely trying to avoid it).

That's what I tried to point, not sure if this is intentional or a glitch of the game.


So, does garrisson affect the revolt possibility in occupied countries?

Germany:
Referee:
>Are you saying that the results given by H&E cannot be altered as the worlds
>develop (I have played a little with it, but not that much).?

Yes. While there is a menu option in H&E for it, it does not work.


Forgive me, but I don't understand how will we use it and its consequences.

What I understood is that H&E would be used to generate systems, and then copied and pasted (or the document just moved) to the Atlas of Known space. If so, I guess those documents could be edited, by adding the changes players' actions would do (as raising TLs or spaceport class), as they would no longer be in the H&E program, but in the HP of this game as documents.

Am I wrong with this?

And see that in any case, the changes I suggested (altering the spaceport in Earth UWP and Pop and TL in the outpost worlds) were not only doable, but easy to do, at least as the Atlas is now.


While this is not for the current turn resolution, just a matter of bookkeeping (so no hurry here), could you explain how will H&E be used



Germany:
Referee:
>As we’re using QCR, how many ships can one such facilities repair in a QCR WR (as they represent several detailed ones)?
Units are not damaged in QCR so the question is irrelevant.


Unless they are left out of supplies (or the supplies cannot be uplifted to orbit, in the case of ships), as I was talking about (and as I thought was obvious in the previous posts I quoted, as well as msg #460, quoted here to ease your work)...
Germany:
Then we come to another scenario ...

I can leave a ship in Damgarten unsupplied, so it becoming damaged. Of course, I cannot give orders to it in the turn orders, but, if the world situation makes it useful (e.g. for combat pourposes, or to carry some urgent cargo to any outpost), I can repair it in Damgarten and then move it, so in fact having it supplied in ground.

Of course, this does not allow me to use it in a planned way on the turn orders, but only in response moves (WRs).

I don't know if this is intentional (so, making de facto the uplifting of the SU only necessary if the ship will be used for turn planned moves) or a glitch of the rules.

Both cases are posible and both are reasonable (as ships participating in the plannig for the turn will probably move longer, etc., so needing the supplies in orbit, as they will need to leave Earth orbit fully supplied; while the other ones are just "in reserve" and probably not moving far, so they don't need their SUs uplifted), but, before assuming anything and tryint to use what could be a glitch in the rules, I prefer to give a heads up to the GM about it.


So, no, it's not irrelevant, and I think an answer is needed.


Again, as I have (I think) proved you it's not only not irrelevant, but quite important for the current maintenance of DRM (as I have serious doubts about being able to supply all ships in orbit), could you please answer?


Germany:
Just some more questions regarding the Orbital Shipyards:

Rules definition:

quote:
Orbital Factory (OF): More expensive to build than ground based industries but can make products which are in high demand. This facility generates 1 Pai-Leng every 5th Turn of the game i.e. a game start date of 1985 then an Orbital Industry would produce a Pai-Leng on turn 2010, 2035, 2060, etc. If provided with 10 Raw Material Units in a Turn then this facility build 10 Supply Units in the same hex.


  1. As I understand it, the Pai-leng production is done regardless it receives the RMUs or not, that are just relevant for the SUs production.
  2. Also, as I understand, this Pai-leng production is in fixed turns (each 5th one), regardless when it was deployed (I guess for game simplicity).


Are those things right?

Just for clarification, I have no problem on any of this, nor judging it, just wanting to know if I understand them right.

Co-GM
 GM, 200 posts
Mon 19 Nov 2018
at 01:56
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
quote:
>could you explain how will H&E be used


H&E will be used to create the maps for every planet and to store them for you to look at when deciding on candidates for colonies etc - this is to prevent us from having to generate literally hundreds, if not thousands, by hand but it can be unstable - It is good for making and viewing the maps.

H&E is only being used to create and store the different solar system and planetary maps

We are not going to copy every map because of the number of planets, but the ones for inhabited planets will be posted

The problem is you can set things down on planets that are not exactly habitable, fight on them, do all sorts of insane things, this means we have maps for all of them whether they're going to be used or not... and now I'm thinking about the mechanics of system generation and how we give that to you

Regardless, keeping notations of what has been built where cannot be done on H&E (even if it can be, should anyone suggest it I would scream bloody murder about the number of ways that could go wrong)

There will instead be spreadsheets to list all constructions on planets that have settlements

Kelvin has also explained already why editing the system code does not work - it triggers H&E to regenerate maps based on the revised code, meaning the system map and statistics on H&E, including all the planet maps, will change - so it is not possible to do this.

Does that clear it up?

quote:
>Again, as I have (I think) proved you it's not only not irrelevant, but quite important for the current maintenance of DRM (as I have serious doubts about being able to supply all ships in orbit), could you please answer?


This is Kelvin's bailiwick, so this is not a ruling, but let me tun through what I think you're asking as covered by existing rules

You're wanting to know how many units could be repaired in a Quick Combat Round (QCR);

Rules for units out of supply state;

Rules 10.7:
If there are insufficient Supply Units available to be consumed then the remaining units which are considered as damaged in combat as per section 10.6, by default the GM chooses to which units this happens to.

Damaged status for a unit may be removed if, at the beginning of the War Round the unit is at a Friendly Site when it receives extra Supply Units equal to its Base Maintenance cost for the Turn (see table in section 8.4)


Rules for Spaceports state;
Rules 7.9.2:
Spaceport (S):<quote> [snip] Will count as a Friendly Site for Spaceships which can land there.  [snip] This facility may modify or repair the Damaged status of any number of landed Spaceships per Turn but can only repair the Damaged status of 1 Spaceship per War Round (see section 10.7).


Now, your question is specific to QCRs, basically, you are asking for the rules to set how many war rounds per QCR which will give you the number that can be repaired by each spaceport

Rules for QCRs state;
Rules 10.11:
[snip...]
Each Quick Combat Round is independent of the usual system of War Rounds/Hexes, is actually comprised of many War Rounds/Hexes, so may be of an indefinite time and size to be determined by the GM


So, this is solely at the GMs discretion based on how long they feel each QCR is from the role-play pace the pace they are setting. There is no fixed number because how long QCRs are is where role-play and the GMs judgement comes into it.

In summary : If a question starts 'how many times in a QCR can I...' the answer is going to be 'as many times as the GM says for that round'
Germany
 player, 481 posts
Mon 19 Nov 2018
at 18:49
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Co-GM:
<snip>Does that clear it up?

Yes, and not…

I mean, we have now only one system so listed to work with (Sol, of course), and making those changes in its planet entries (in fact only in the UWP used as titles for the entires) would be quite easy.

When another system is disclosed, will we list it as Sol is now (even in it’s only a listing of the systems, without the maps and other info, that would be in the archive as you tell)? If so, making those changes would be equally easy.

This would give us a better first glance idea of the systems and its development status (the main reason for UWP to exist, BTW).

Co-GM:
You're wanting to know how many units could be repaired in a Quick Combat Round (QCR);

Rules for units out of supply state;

Rules 10.7:
If there are insufficient Supply Units available to be consumed then the remaining units which are considered as damaged in combat as per section 10.6, by default the GM chooses to which units this happens to.

Damaged status for a unit may be removed if, at the beginning of the War Round the unit is at a Friendly Site when it receives extra Supply Units equal to its Base Maintenance cost for the Turn (see table in section 8.4)


The problem on all of this is that 10.11 (quick Combat) rules clearly specify:

quote:
Also ignored for Quick Combat are sections 10.3 (Initiative), 10.4 (Combat Cycle), 10.5 (Battle Resolution), 10.6 (Damage Allocation), 10.7 (After Combat), 10.8 (Air Units), 10.9 (Air Defense and Ground Support), and 10.10 (Hidden Status and Stealth Ability).


OTOH, we’re not really talking about combat, as what I’m talking about  is unsupplied units not in combat, so he relevant parts of the rules is 8.4:

quote:
If a unit is not completely supplied then it is considered to be damaged in combat as per section 10.7.

Co-GM:
Rules for Spaceports state;
Rules 7.9.2:
Spaceport (S):<quote> [snip] Will count as a Friendly Site for Spaceships which can land there.  [snip] This facility may modify or repair the Damaged status of any number of landed Spaceships per Turn but can only repair the Damaged status of 1 Spaceship per War Round (see section 10.7).

Agreed

Co-GM:
Now, your question is specific to QCRs, basically, you are asking for the rules to set how many war rounds per QCR which will give you the number that can be repaired by each spaceport

Partially…

I ask how many spaceships may a spaceport repair in a turn if not In combat, and in a QCR war round if they are needed in latter such WR when they are damaged due to lack of supplies (or if they can be so “repaired” with the turn orders, specifying that as they are not orbit supplied, they cannot be used for turn orders, just for WR ones if so needed).

This is In fact uncovered by the rules, as I guess it was (as many other situations that are unavoidable to develop while the game is run, but not expected nor thought about beforehand) not expected to happen, and must be inferred from the rules. That’s why I ask how will this be handled.

Co-GM:
Rules for QCRs state;
Rules 10.11:
[snip...]
Each Quick Combat Round is independent of the usual system of War Rounds/Hexes, is actually comprised of many War Rounds/Hexes, so may be of an indefinite time and size to be determined by the GM

Agreed, but the reference to each QCR being comprised of many WRs would make the easy answer each spaceport may repair many ships in a QCR WR.

Co-GM:
So, this is solely at the GMs discretion based on how long they feel each QCR is from the role-play pace the pace they are setting. There is no fixed number because how long QCRs are is where role-play and the GMs judgement comes into it.

In summary : If a question starts 'how many times in a QCR can I...' the answer is going to be 'as many times as the GM says for that round'

Agreed again, and that’s why I ask.

The most logical (IMHO) answer would be that if ships are left unsupplied in the turn orders (the most likely reason is to save orbital SUs), they can be repaired in any numbers by a spaceport in a single WR, but they are not operative in this WR (as any other unit being so repaired).

But as my logics do not always coincide with Kelvin’s, that’s why I ask and would like a clear answer to process my turn, as it is unlikely I can supply all my ships (at least without severely curtailing my space development plans) due to lack of uplift capacity.
Germany
 player, 482 posts
Tue 20 Nov 2018
at 18:42
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
About mining facilities (both, Asteroid and surface ones):

Current RMU formula is:

quote:
Raw Material Units = (Nearest Core Settlement Material tech level) X (Effective Mining potential of the hex + World Size) / (5 + Current number of Mining facilities in the hex)0.5- 1% for every Turn after the World was Surveyed,


I understand this -1% per turn os for exhausting lodes and so on, but does it apply even if the planet (or asterorid) is not exploited yet?

I'd suggest to apply from the first explotation of the planet/asteroid.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 67 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 17:33
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Just s questions about the units files:

You told us the units id # will be successive for new units. So:

  1. Need we to give id# for new units (should we build them), or they will be automatically assigned?
  2. Can we take again the units id # from destroyed units if we rebuild them (same class, of course)?

Co-GM
 GM, 201 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 17:54
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Saudi Arabia:
Just s questions about the units files:

You told us the units id # will be successive for new units. So:

  1. Need we to give id# for new units (should we build them), or they will be automatically assigned?
  2. Can we take again the units id # from destroyed units if we rebuild them (same class, of course)?


I said last time. Numbers are automatically generated. You cannot reuse them. GM will update the unit list anyway, so you don't need to worry about it.
Germany
 player, 483 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 18:08
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
About the facilities spreadsheets:

Is thre any glossary of the meaning of the facilities (in most cases they are obvious, but I have problema with some of them, as F)

For Moon:

German OT is named Mondhaven (Moon Harbour), not Moundhaven

For Earth:

France should have no spaceport nor rockets in 7N12. Instead, it whould have 2 spaceports and 10 rockets in 1N23 (GSC). GCS was initially 1 Spaceport, 3 ESA rockets and 1 French rocket. France upgraded its spaceport in 2040 (Michael listed it as upgrading spaceport in 7N13 (see that this would have been in Poland, where there was none), but as his only spaceport was GSC, in 1N13, I guess this was an error. He also built 6 rockets this same turn (again, I guess in GSC). In 2045 he built 2 rockets for Germany in 7N12 (Damgarten Kosmodrome) and took hte command of the 3 ESA rockets in GSC (1N13).
Saudi Arabia
 player, 68 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 18:10
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Co-GM:
Saudi Arabia:
Just s questions about the units files:

You told us the units id # will be successive for new units. So:

  1. Need we to give id# for new units (should we build them), or they will be automatically assigned?
  2. Can we take again the units id # from destroyed units if we rebuild them (same class, of course)?


I said last time. Numbers are automatically generated. You cannot reuse them. GM will update the unit list anyway, so you don't need to worry about it.


TY for you prompt clarification.

I understood the numbers would be automatically assinged, but was not sure about having to give the numbers or not, and what I had not so clear is that umbers could not be reused to rebuild units.
Referee
 GM, 136 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 18:17
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
In reply to Germany (msg # 477):

>Agreed again, and that’s why I ask.
>
>The most logical (IMHO) answer would be that if ships are left unsupplied in the turn
>orders (the most likely reason is to save orbital SUs), they can be repaired in any
>numbers by a spaceport in a single WR, but they are not operative in this WR (as any
> other unit being so repaired).

See the last sentence of msg#476

> -1% per turn os for exhausting lodes and so on, but does it apply even if the
>planet (or asterorid) is not exploited yet?

Yes

>Is thre any glossary of the meaning of the facilities (in most cases they are
>obvious, but I have problema with some of them, as F)

They are all written immediately after the name of a facility in the facility descriptions part of sec 7.9.1&2&3 of the rules.

>For Moon:
>
>German OT is named Mondhaven (Moon Harbour), not Moundhaven
>
>For Earth:
>
>France should have no spaceport nor rock

Then change it. I made it clear in several places that maintaining that list is the player responsibility.
Germany
 player, 484 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 18:30
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Referee:
>Is thre any glossary of the meaning of the facilities (in most cases they are
>obvious, but I have problema with some of them, as F)

They are all written immediately after the name of a facility in the facility descriptions part of sec 7.9.1&2&3 of the rules.


TY. I missed this.

Referee:
>For Moon:
>
>German OT is named Mondhaven (Moon Harbour), not Moundhaven
>
>For Earth:
>
>France should have no spaceport nor rock

Then change it. I made it clear in several places that maintaining that list is the player responsibility.


I'm afraid I canot change Orbital hex (for the name of German OT in the Moon).

As per French spaceport/rockets, I don't like to change other's facilities or home pages, prefering just to head up them of the perceived errata...

EDIT: sorry, I could change orbital hex at last. I had some problems before, but they seem to be fixed. I also changed the French spaceport/rockets

This message was last edited by the player at 18:35, Wed 21 Nov 2018.

Germany
 player, 485 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 18:58
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
7.9.3:

quote:
Fossil Fuel Plant (FfP): Burns non-renewable resources to produce energy for facilities on the surface. Requires Atmosphere type of the World be between 4 - 9 and 1 Raw Materials unit per Turn.


As the oil SRU have changed, wouldn't it be more logical for them to consume 1 oil SRU?

This message was last edited by the player at 10:12, Thu 22 Nov 2018.

Germany
 player, 492 posts
Thu 29 Nov 2018
at 17:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Again about the spreadsheet:

I cannot find Mondhaven as settlement (as I can find other such ones). As i was finished in 2045-49, I guess it should be there (though no need for hurry, not enouhg as to change the spreadsheet).
Germany
 player, 497 posts
Tue 4 Dec 2018
at 12:52
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Assuming one player intends to use a PA on a country and the odds (due to low pop, high prestige of the player's country, high reltions, etc.) is quite higher than 10:1 (in some instances it can be far over 100:1:

  1. Can the PA be used to several more or less related goals that cna be achieved with the same actions (e.g. to avoid revolt, raise stability and increase GDP growth)?
  2. If so, should the PA be subdivided in the various goals (e.g. PA#1a: avoiding rebellion, PA#1b: increase teporary stability, PA#1c: increase GDP growth), or just listing the goals and desired effects on its respectrive entries?

Referee
 GM, 138 posts
Tue 4 Dec 2018
at 21:24
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
In reply to Germany (msg # 487):

>Can the PA be used to several more or less related goals
Yes

>If so, should the PA be subdivided in the various goals (e.g. PA#1a: avoiding
>rebellion, PA#1b: increase teporary stability, PA#1c: increase GDP growth), or
>just listing the goals and desired effects on its respectrive entries?

This sounds like making a distinction without a difference. Do what is clearest.
Referee
 GM, 139 posts
Tue 4 Dec 2018
at 21:27
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
In reply to Germany (msg # 486):

The Settlement_List spreadsheet? Ok, yes, it should be there. Will fix for future versions.
Germany
 player, 502 posts
Sat 12 Jan 2019
at 17:36
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Perceived erratad:

quote:
10.6 Damage Allocation

Of all the units on one side, the GM chooses one unit based on the following priority: First, has the greatest mass, next has the greatest Base Combat Strength, next is an ICBM/IRBM/Artillery type unit and finally at the GM’s discretion hopefully with player input as to what is their priority. This unit will absorb hits up to the unit’s Final Combat Strength and if so it is immediately noted as being ‘Damaged’ status in the unit notes (see section 10.2). Units with L/M/H armour require 15/30/50% additional hits, rounded up, to be Damaged. Remaining hits are applied to the next unit which meets the above criteria until it too is reduced to ‘Damaged’ status. If a Military unit is currently ‘Damaged’ status or ‘Reserve’ Quality level, then the unit is instead destroyed. If a Spaceship is destroyed, anything being carried is also destroyed; no additional hits are needed to do that. The process repeats until there are insufficient hits to Damage/Destroy the unit which is next in line, remaining hits are retained for any further combat in the same War Round but discarded after that. If a facility with a Combat Strength is reduced to Damaged status then it is rendered ‘Idled’, may not continue to fight and is subject to capture if there are no other friendly forces in the same hex.

A unit with ‘Damaged’ status is counted exactly the same as a ‘Reserve’ Quality level unit in all ways including supply and movement, except that it can be repaired (see section 10.7). If a Spaceship is reduced to Damaged status then any carried Military units are reduced to Damaged status, no additional hits are needed to do that. Spaceships lose the ability to use any Module listed in the ‘Other’ category of Spaceship construction (see Section 9.1), so any carried unit must be immediately offloaded onto the surface of the nearest World.


As 10.2 is Movement in a War Round, I guess you meant 8.2: Representing Game Units

Likewise, 9.1 has no reference to Reserve spaceships, so I guess you mean 9.2, comment in the Other modules section.

This message was last edited by the player at 17:48, Sat 12 Jan.

Germany
 player, 503 posts
Sat 12 Jan 2019
at 18:52
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Some more comments about Combat Rules:

10.5 Battle Resolution

quote:
For simplicity of display, odds greater than 10:1 and less than 1:10 are grouped together but each integer multiple still counts as a separate column for purposes of column shifting.


In case of odds between 10: and 1:10, does this not apply (so if odds is 10:1, but 3 colum shifts in defender favor, would it be column 3:1, that represents 3 full columns, or 7-10:1, that represents 3 integer less)?


10.11 Quick Combat:

quote:
Also ignored for Quick Combat are sections 10.3 (Initiative), 10.4 (Combat Cycle), 10.5 (Battle Resolution), 10.6 (Damage Allocation), 10.7 (After Combat), 10.8 (Air Units), 10.9 (Air Defense and Ground Support), and 10.10 (Hidden Status and Stealth Ability).


1)Do the column shifts apply as told in 10:5 (that does not apply accdording this paragraph), or they are always full columns?

Example: a, MR4 nation attacks an MR1 one with an odds of 20:1. 6 columns are moved to left due to MR diference. Will it be fought in the >10:1 column, as would be according 10:5, or in the 1.5:1 one, using full column shifts)?


2)Does this include this part on 10:6?:

quote:
The number of hits from an attack which includes IRBM units, ICBM units, Spaceship Missiles/Fighters/Orbital Bombardment Modules is first reduced by ABM units, SAM units, and Missile Defence facilities by an amount equal to the Final Combat Strength of those weapons x (1d10 rolled by the GM) x 10%, round fractions up, up to a maximum of the number of hits inflicted by weapons which can be intercepted.


See that if so, ABMs and Missile Defense facilities lose their main use in Core Worlds...


quote:
At the GM’s discretion, the side which loses the most hits in each Quick Combat Round can expect to permanently lose about 20% of the original number of hexes, round up,


As this is written (as you know I believe the extreme cases, no mattre how unlikely, are the ones that best show where things fail) let's imagine Russia attacks Estonia with 15 armored brigades and 10 MR airplanes (total combat strenght 105). Estonia has a Base strenght of 10. TL 7.7 and MR 2 according the Settlements spreadsheet

As Russia has TL 8.4, its final combat strenght is 7408
Estonia has a final Combat Strenght of 592

So ratio is >10:1. As both countries are MR 2, no change on it. Roll is 2, so result is 10:100

Estonia loses 100/5=20% of its forces. As 10 x 20% is 2, itloses 2 strenght points

Russia loses 10/5=2% of its forces. As 105 x 2% = 2,1, it loses 3 strenght points

So, at GM option, Russia could have lost 20% (rounded up) of its hexes (so, as Russia has 28 hexes, 6 hexes) to Estonia, while Estonia could have lost no territory...

I guess this is not the spirit of the rules (aside from not too credible, to say the least), so, I suggest to change the wording to:

quote:
At the GM’s discretion, the side which loses the most hits percentage in each Quick Combat Round can expect to permanently lose about 20% of the original number of hexes, round up,