Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
USA
 player, 74 posts
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 17:58
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Germany:
OTOH, the formula for Cutting Edge TL increase forgets to include the ressearch modules on it (the difivisor is 50, while, according to rules, it should be 50+K**).

Not that Germany is going to engage in any Cutting Edge ressearch this turn, but I guess you should know for future turns.


Rules specifically state you need to work out the credit yourself and enter it as a positive balance on the budget

Rules 07.09.01:
Research Module: Labs and scientific apparatus, includes exploratory missions to the surrounding region. At the time of construction the owner must dedicate this module to a particular category of technology. Once per Turn the module will reduce the cost of cutting edge research of that one technology category of either the owner or an ally, see section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. Upto 5 Research Modules in the same Star System may be dedicated to the same technology category. Bonus is cumulative with multiple facilities up to a maximum of 25% off total for the nation. Write this amount saved as a purchase, with a positive value, in your list of purchases on your budget spreadsheet.


For the sheet calculations - Mathematics is not my strong point, so I honestly do not know. That was what I could find as being the only noticeable difference from the published formula, I didn't check it myself as I was at the tail end of my lunch break at work but and all the other references on the sheet seemed correct - I will have a look at it later, maybe there is something strange going on with bracket placement... I will report back if I work anything out
Germany
 player, 368 posts
Tue 13 Feb 2018
at 09:59
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
USA:
Germany:
OTOH, the formula for Cutting Edge TL increase forgets to include the ressearch modules on it (the difivisor is 50, while, according to rules, it should be 50+K**).

Not that Germany is going to engage in any Cutting Edge ressearch this turn, but I guess you should know for future turns.


Rules specifically state you need to work out the credit yourself and enter it as a positive balance on the budget


Sure, but I guess what I say will be easier (it's only about changing a 50 for a (50+K**) in the formula. I guess that's because of this that the ressearch modules are listed in the spreadsheet (that I guess were modified after rules were witten).

EDIT: What you quote wil lbe useful if you also dedícate to it allies' research modules.

7.9.1, under research module:

quote:
Once per Turn the module will reduce the cost of cutting edge research of that one technology category of either the owner or an ally,

This message was last edited by the player at 10:02, Tue 13 Feb.

Germany
 player, 369 posts
Tue 13 Feb 2018
at 12:19
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Small detail (probable errata):

On the combat table, on a roll of 2 or 3 the results are better for the attacker on the_4:1 table tan on the 5:1-6:1 one. Shouldn't they be swaped (this would give also more smooth results on the 4:1)?
Germany
 player, 370 posts
Tue 20 Feb 2018
at 17:05
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Let’s see if I understood well the Oil SRUs trade rules (as they are an exception to the usual rules in that they cannot be used the same turn):

In consecutive order:
  1. SRU stockpile for this turn is determined
  2. Each turn, the SRUs are produced. Unless ordered otherwise, all SRUs are sent offered into open market. Countries that ordered it can add stockpiled SRUs to open market too.
  3. The ones directly bought to each country are assigned.
  4. Remaining SRUs are in the open market, and assigned to each country buying them proportionally
  5. Countries with shortfalls may assign some or all of their stockpile at the beginning of the turn to overcome them
  6. Countries with remaining SRUs on their stockpile can trade them to overcome next turn shortfalls.


So, to give an example (Germany for this turn, Numbers are not exact):
  1. Germany had 0 SRUs in its stockpile (for the sake of example, let’s imagine it had 30)
  2. SRUs were produced by countries. All SRUs (except those already compromised in exclusive contracts) are offered in open market, except for those countries that ordered to reduce the offer.
  3. Germany (that needs 416 SRUs) has contacts to receive 180 SRUs, so it received them. It now needs 236.
  4. The remaining SRUs in open market were assigned. As they were about 89% of needed ones, each country received about 89% of needed ones. So Germany could buy about 210.. Its shortfall is then about 26 SRUs.
  5. Germany uses 26 of its stockpile to overcome the shortfall. It has 4 SRUs left on it.
  6. Germany can now try to buy SRUs to replenish (or increase) its stockpile for the next turn should it need them.


Is that right?

This message was last edited by the player at 17:10, Tue 20 Feb.

Co-GM
 GM, 184 posts
Sun 25 Feb 2018
at 23:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to Germany (msg # 392):

>Is that right?
Almost. In step 5, the order to use exactly how many stockpiled Oil SRUs has to come in the turn preceding the current turn. The GM will not be engaging in any guessing about how many Oil SRUs the player will want to be drawn from the stockpile. "Enough to eliminate a shortfall" is not an acceptable answer.
Germany
 player, 375 posts
Sun 25 Feb 2018
at 23:57
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Co-GM:
In reply to Germany (msg # 392):

>Is that right?
Almost. In step 5, the order to use exactly how many stockpiled Oil SRUs has to come in the turn preceding the current turn. The GM will not be engaging in any guessing about how many Oil SRUs the player will want to be drawn from the stockpile. "Enough to eliminate a shortfall" is not an acceptable answer.


So, you're asking us to decide without knowing how many do we need, and having no way to fix any shortages once the spreadsheet is received,despite how many oil SRUs do we have in our stockpile...

E.g. let's imagine Germany has 50 oir SRU in stockpile, and it decides to use 20 of them for next turn. Then it finds it still have 8 oil SRU shortfall, and his only decisions are to use option 8 (so paying extra for all his purchased SRUs, included those 20 coming from its own storage) or endure the shortfall.

OTOH, he may use all 50, just to find he only needed 28, so having thrown away 32 precious oil SRUs...

Is that what you're telling us?
Germany
 player, 376 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 00:17
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
See that there is a quite easy way to solve it, without needing any change in the spreadsheet: allow cell K46 to be used for this goal, using the already stockpiled oil SRUs.
Russia
 player, 34 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 14:36
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

This message was deleted by the player at 14:37, Mon 26 Feb.

Russia
 player, 35 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 14:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Germany:
See that there is a quite easy way to solve it, without needing any change in the spreadsheet: allow cell K46 to be used for this goal, using the already stockpiled oil SRUs.


I think this is the most logical way.
Germany
 player, 377 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 17:54
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
I’m sorry, but I am fully unable to understand how rules for the use of stockpiled SRUs work with your answers. The only thing I have clear is that they are a full exception to trade rules (something you always try to avoid).

If usual rules were applied (as per SU trade, to give an example), people could sell and buy those stockpiled SRUs, and use them this same turn (I keep thinking the easiest way would be using cell K46) to overcome their shortfalls. You clearly stated the oil SRUs bought for stockpile cannot use the same turn (I still cannot understand why, as it would not affect the open market prices, nor will they need any change in the spreadsheets and would give the players some reaction capacity without resorting to option 8, as well a me being unable to understand why any oil SRU obtained from this black market option 8 represents, or by military forcing a country to sell it to you, as option 7 represents, can be used this same turn, but those leally bought ones cannot; but I abide it).

Then you tell us that the number dedicated to overcome shortfalls must be stated before knowing what those shortfalls are, another clear exception to rules. And what happens with any assigned SRUs over the shortfalls? Are they gone for good? Are they returned to stockpile (see that then the wise option is to assign the whole stockpile)? And what if there’s still shortfall after those assigned stockpiled SRUs are accounted for? Are they paid as the bought ones (at x5 price) even if they were already yours?

To give another example, the fact the SRUs obtained by option 6 (exclusive purchase) are assigned before buying to the open market, not only makes it impossible to use this option to avoid shortfall (unless the market is oversupplied), but you also have to pay x5 those SRUs that you have already had assigned. I understand this may be difficult to six without adding another cell to the budget spreadsheet without adding a cell to specifically point how many SRUs have been obtained this way, but that makes option 6 useless, unless you intend to use option 9 (going without), as then they reduce your shortfall or if you’re able to fill your full needs with option 6, but that would require more contracts than anyone can realistically achieve.

 I’m sorry for so much ranting and questioning, and I know time is coming short, but it is very frustrating this such important part of the game (both the money for this turn and the growth rate for the next are strongly affected by it) is so unclear that any way I try to treat it may lead to finding myself in the same situation that this turn (a shortfall that cannot overcome without using option 8) despite any investment I might do.

So, please, clarify it, if possible with a specific example of step by step management of a country (be it a specific one or an imaginary one), so that even one so dumb as myself (as this is how I feel when trying to figure how does this work) can understand it. I think this might even be wort a slight delay in this turn (that wold also help India, that has just now shown up), if not, for the next turn at least, as this makes very difficult to make my turn if I cannot know what effect might my actions have in this so important part of the game.

Right now the best option seems to do nothing, renouncing to have any control on it and accept results as you do with an earthquake o other natural disasters, and keep using option 8, as it is the only effective one that I can understand how it works, but I guess that’s not the spirit of the game

This message was last edited by the player at 17:55, Mon 26 Feb.

Germany
 player, 378 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 18:05
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
OTOH, if the use of the initial stockpiled oil SRUs (so, he ones pbtained on previous turns) on cell K46 was allowed, the effects (IMHO) would be:

  • as said, no changes on spreadsheet would be required
  • also as said, no effect on open market prices once the turn is sent
  • give a sense to this stockpiled SRUs and to option 6 (as you'd need less SRUs fro myour stockpile)
  • give the players some control over this so important issue in their nations
  • give players options to overcome the shortfall aside from option 8


As you see, I cannot find disadvantages to it, so if there are ones I cannot see, please tell me about them.

I believe I use to accept thins when they are justified, either for game simplicity effect or for some logical "realism" reasons, but in this case (as in the need to supply landed ships in orbit, but that's another issue), aside from being full exceptions to the game rules, I cannot find any of those reasons, seeing them as adding complexity to the game with no "realism" justification.
USA
 player, 77 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 22:17
Clarification on upgrading tech levels
In reply to Germany (msg # 399):

Question about increasing tech levels

5.2.1:
Each Core Settlement has their own Economic tech levels. Upgrading an Economic tech level of a Core Settlement includes upgrading the tech of all infrastructure networks, new hardware and teaching new methods to your population, and all of your facilities. In the Turn following, the Core Settlement will also receive a 3% one-time boost to GDP growth per 0.1 tech level gained.


I was looking at the rules and something struck me, I've been working on the assumption that tech upgrades do not take effect until next turn, but that is not always true of other purchases.

The thing that got me thinking is that I can purchase items that will work normally other than for producing units, RSUs etc, but will offer things like uplift. Are there such things when it comes to tech upgrades?

So when does the nation gain the benefits of having the increased tech level for different things? Examples of where this might be important that I can think of are:

*If the US were to upgrade it's electronics tech from 8.6 to 8.8 and its space from 8.7 to 8.8 this turn, would it use the tech levels at the start of the turn to build an enclave (so $500) or would it be at the upgraded tech levels (so $200 as it meets the basic requirements)?

* Do space ships use the space tech level at the start of the turn, or the level it is being upgraded to during the turn, when working out how many round trips they can make

* Is uplift calculated by the tech level of the world at the start of the turn or the tech level being upgraded to during the turn

* Do units fight using the tech level at the start of turn, or the level being upgraded to - does this change if we move into a war budget when items can be explicitly purchased and deployed during the turn?
Russia
 player, 36 posts
Tue 27 Feb 2018
at 07:07
Re: Clarification on upgrading tech levels
USA:
*If the US were to upgrade it's electronics tech from 8.6 to 8.8 and its space from 8.7 to 8.8 this turn, would it use the tech levels at the start of the turn to build an enclave (so $500) or would it be at the upgraded tech levels (so $200 as it meets the basic requirements)?


This is actually very important question: does statistics in the budget file depict situation for the beginning of the turn, or for the end of the turn? The same question is not only for TL, but also for other stats like authority, stability, etc., which can change during the turn.
Germany
 player, 379 posts
Tue 27 Feb 2018
at 11:33
Re: Clarification on upgrading tech levels
Unless this has changes from previous turns (and there's no indication of this), the whole turn is resolved with the initial values (except for units QR, whose change take effect immediatly).

So, if you begin the turn at TL 8.6 in anything, all your turn will be solved as TL 8.6, even if you raise it.

Likewise, if you begin your turn with relation 15 with a country, all the turn will be solved at such level, even if you used PAs to raise it and you latter try to use response PAs on this same country, Any effect of your previous (but in the same turn) PA are not yet applied.
Germany
 player, 384 posts
Sun 11 Mar 2018
at 04:44
Re: Clarification on upgrading tech levels
I miss the sentence forbiding to move a facility once placed. Did I skip it, did you forget it or this rule is no longer in force?
Saudi Arabia
 player, 43 posts
Thu 3 May 2018
at 00:25
Re: Clarification on upgrading tech levels
Security troops have changed from earlier versions. Now they have no advantage against MR4 settlements, nor to avoid revolts (as AM takes care of this now).

So, what advantage gives now this ability to make it worth the extra money?
Saudi Arabia
 player, 45 posts
Sat 12 May 2018
at 14:27
Re: Clarification on upgrading tech levels
Sorry to bump this old question, but depending on how the turn develops it might be important:

Germany:
ASAT (also in older rules, but I just realized):

(note: all of this assumes 10.10 is used)

1) Let's assume one country has just engaged war with Argentina and decides to attack his satellites. He attacks with 1 infantry unit, but as the satellites have combat factor 0, attack is in table >10.1, but as result will be 100% of 0, no damage is achieved, and so they cannot be destroyed, but on a 1 die roll, the infantry unit is, as it receives 10% of 1, but at least a unit. Is that right?

2) Instead of Argentina the same situation is against China. In this case, as it has an OT that I guess will defend with factor 1 it uses 1 MR plane. As 10.8 is not used, it attacks with a 3:1, so some damage will be achieved, let's assume 60%, reduced to 12% due to 10.10, so 0.12 hits. If we eliminate satellites (0 combat factors), we can eliminate all of them without absorbing any damage, and as the remaining damage must destroy at least one unit, the OT too, so the logical result (from rules viewpoint) is to eliminate the OT and no damage to the satellites (that were the targets...). Is this right?


Even more. Let's imagine the conflict in Western Iraq involves Saudi Arabia attacking the Canadian satellites.

1) Would Canadian OT be involved on it?

  • According the rules, yes, as it is also in the Orbit hex, where the combat would be.
  • OTOH, from the non-rules POV, if the OT is in a geosynchronous position over Canada, the Saudis could not attack it, and if it is orbiting Earth, the Saudis would have the choice by choosing the moment of attack.
  • Also, depending on how we read the rules,  Canada could probably use their air force to defend the orbit hex, as they are also adjacent to it, but that would allow Saudi and Canadian fighters to fight among them from their respective countries, something that I see as quite odd, rules aside…



So, in game terms I see three possibilities:
  1. Yes, OT is also involved, as it is in the same Orbit hex
  2. Only if any of the involved sides so decides, as any of them can involve it, regardless the other side’s will
  3. Only if both parts do decide, as any of them can avoid involving it, regardless the other side’s will


2) Could RCAF intervene from Canada?

According the letter of the rules,  Canada could probably use their air force to defend the orbit hex, as they are also adjacent to it, but that would allow Saudi and Canadian fighters to fight among them from their respective countries, something that I see as quite odd, rules aside…

3) (as in the original question): how would Canadian losses be applied (assuming QCR are in force)?

According 10:11:
quote:
Military units are destroyed; facilities with a Combat Strength are rendered ‘Idled’ and are captured if there are no other friendly forces in the same area
I guess there’s an errata there, and it should be “facilities without a combat strength” or “facilities with 0 combat strength” instead of “facilities with a combat strength”, while facilities with a combat strenght are treated as military units, as it has little sense otherwise…

So, I understand if the OT intervenes, it would depend on the combat results, If Canada takes any losses, it losses the OT and the satellites are idled, and if the OT does not intervene, the satellites are automatically idled.

If that is right, though, then the OT, having a combat factor, is more fragile than the satellites. That have not, as the former is destroyed and the latter are just idled.

OTOH, what if the satellites are already idled (e.g. being attacked for second time)? I guess they would be outright destroyed, but I don’t find that in the rules…

And a final question, though I guess this will not be for this turn. According 10:11:
quote:
On a Colony Settlement, for every 250 Combat Strength points of normal weapons, or 25 Combat Strength points if WMDs are used, then as collateral damage 5 Population unit and 5 facilities of GM’s choice are destroyed. On a Core Settlement, for every 2 500 Combat Strength points points of normal weapons, or 250 Combat Strength points if WMDs are used, then as collateral damage the GDP and SRU production of that hex is permanently reduced by 5% and population by 2.5%
How does this apply to Orbit hex? As a core settlement (as it is on one) or as a colony settlement (as it is composed by facilities, not by Core hexes)?

(BTW, see the errata marked In red)
Germany
 player, 388 posts
Sun 13 May 2018
at 10:28
A technicism and minor detail
From History 2045 - 2049 Section in the HP:

quote:
France
Reduce Oil consumption by focusing on nuclear power:


While I know the spceific way ro reduce oil needs is (to a point) irrelevant (the important point is which option are you using), can oil needs be reduced by forcusing in nuclear power with the new rules where fisibles are counted among oil SRUs?

Tha's the same as trying to use coal gasiication, now that coal is also counted among SRUs...
Co-GM
 GM, 189 posts
Sun 13 May 2018
at 10:49
A technicism and minor detail
In reply to Germany (msg # 406):

This is honestly more a flavour thing, and as you say is irrelevant to a point, but if you need an exact reasoning behind why this would work then consider a smaller amount of nuclear fuel compare to hydrocarbons is needed to produce a comparable amount of power - thereby reducing the SRU usage

On your question about combat - I am afraid I am going to have to defer that to Kelvin.

This message was last edited by the GM at 10:50, Sun 13 May.

Germany
 player, 389 posts
Sun 13 May 2018
at 12:28
Re: A technicism and minor detail
Co-GM:
In reply to Germany (msg # 406):

This is honestly more a flavour thing, and as you say is irrelevant to a point, but if you need an exact reasoning behind why this would work then consider a smaller amount of nuclear fuel compare to hydrocarbons is needed to produce a comparable amount of power - thereby reducing the SRU usage


Well, this reasoning may fail when you considere fisibles use to be more expensive tan oil proper, and (for the mass) they require quite more shielding, so probably making them equivalent in game terms (and I understand this is the basis of new rules too).

But, in any case, as you say it's just flavour than true game effect .

Co-GM:
On your question about combat - I am afraid I am going to have to defer that to Kelvin.


That's OK, I can wait.

This message was last edited by the player at 12:57, Sun 13 May.

Referee
 GM, 105 posts
Mon 14 May 2018
at 15:07
Re: Various
<Germany>>I was reviewing US Budget. It has 3 settlements, Continental US (to give it a distinguising name), Alaska and Hawaii.
>
>As rules stand, I guess US player could raise Alaskan TLs to the macimum allowed

You think this is an exploit? I can think of several severe problems with doing this, but it is not my place to point out exactly what they are, only to laugh when somebody tries.

<USA>>>So when does the nation gain the benefits of having the increased tech level for different things?
<Germany>>the whole turn is resolved with the initial values

Exactly, the Settlement_List file will only be reissued between turns, not every time there is a single change. Section 3.2 par#4 exists so we do not have to go through the extreme effort and complexity of dividing a turn into many 'impulses'

>I miss the sentence forbiding to move a facility once placed. Did I skip it, did you forget it or this rule is no longer in force?
I took that out a long time ago as I figured that it was more than a little implied already in the wording of the rest of the rules that we did not need to waste the space explicitly saying it anymore. Besides, some future GM might be willing to put up with players doing that kind of shit, it just will not be me.

>Security troops have changed from earlier versions. Now they have no advantage against MR4 settlements, nor to avoid revolts (as AM takes care of this now).
I know, and this would be why Security ability is going away; an unnecessary complication, there is nothing it can do that is not duplicated by other game aspects.

> Let's assume one country has just engaged war with Argentina and decides to attack his satellites
In regular combat, the weapons of units on the surface cannot reach the orbit hex unless specifically stated in the unit’s description, so no combat in your example occurs. In Quick combat, the grouping and division of who attacks what is decided by GM fiat. The real-life plane bourne anti-satellite weapons under development are capabilities that Canada and Saudi do not have for their airforces until either also has IRBM/ICBMs units, I do not see the necessity of there having to be two different hulls just because there are two different Squadrons.

Combat is between Military units and armed facilities only. Unarmed facilities are handled by sec 10.7 paragraph#3.

No, the rules are never going to do anything that has to do with splitting the Orbit hex into smaller bits. How the players choose to role-play attacks in the Orbit hex is not the business of the GM.

>How does this apply to Orbit hex? As a core settlement (as it is on one) or as a
>colony settlement (as it is composed by facilities, not by Core hexes)?

When someone targets the Orbit hex, there will be damage to it.

>can oil needs be reduced by forcusing in nuclear power with the new rules where
>fisibles are counted among oil SRUs?

See the ‘Alternative Infrastructure’ option, representing a diversifying of a portion of a Settlement’s energy budget into whatever form is less affected by supply difficulties but still has an environmental cost. A given Oil SRU is presumably comprised of a basket of different fuels, we are not ever going to go into exactly what; for Earth, for now, the GM does not see a problem in the supply of nuclear fuel so it is currently a good role-play choice when wording your PA to reduce consumption as the GM sees it as effectively making your other Oil SRU consumption go farther.

This message was last edited by the GM at 15:28, Mon 14 May.

Referee
 GM, 106 posts
Mon 14 May 2018
at 15:13
Rules Proposal 20180513
Change to: Tech level used for calculation of mining, asteroid mining, farming, and listening posts to be that of Nearest Core. University once again impacts a colony’s tech level. What Orbital Industry does. Cost of Military Tech and Military Rank, to make sure there is a cost even if the military is very small, or zero. Performance of Spaceships depends on Military-Space, not Space tech level as Space tech can vary with the world but Military-Space does not. Supply cost, it does not help to be at a Friendly Site, the GM does not want to sort out who has permission. What a Military Base does. ‘WMD Capable’ has been renamed ‘WMD Armed’ to remove any confusion about the possibility of possession of ownership of WMDs. How altering the production of SRUs works. What is Stability Score, now it includes environmental damage.

The introduction of: Covering some likely situations to happen with Naval units: Corvettes can traverse some types of hexes, and Naval units can enter land hexes adjacent to water hexes, so now they can actually dock. What are the default actions for SRU use, namely that by default Oil is automatically consumed from stores-->this is a change from what was told to several players, but it is necessary to simplify the orders and to stay consistent with how Supply Units are consumed. SRU production varies with time, World Size and Settlement Size. Oil SRU consumption affects the Stability Score of a Settlement.

Made clearer: A Settlement Tech level is the tech level of what can be manufactured locally, not what is commonly available. How Listening Post works. What are the default actions for Supply and Oil unit use. What orders and Political Actions do NOT need to be specified. How Orbital Re-entry ability works.

Rebalancing to: The difference in tech level between a Colony and it’s nearest Core. Amount of GDP growth per tech level advancement. Supply cost, made Military Base facilities more useful. Production by Farming, Mining and Asteroid Mining Facilities and of SRU by Core Settlements.

Got rid of: $ production by Civilian and Military Shipyards, made them too powerful. Discussion on how to get started in the game has been moved to the website. Security ability, a duplicate of what is done with Political Actions, oddly it already had no specific benefit. Limitation of % of units with abilities per Military Rank, most abilities govern how a unit moves, which could have led to some strange situations e.g. only a fraction of the units on an Inhospitable world could have Inhospitable ability. That Military Rank % Quality Levels of units will be checked every turn, too much work for the GM, now only applies to building new units. Military Rank varying by Settlement, opened up too many problems. SRU Reserves and the exploration for, an underused and unneeded thing which could be brought more into line with how Mineral and Farming Potential is handled.

This message was last edited by the GM at 15:20, Mon 14 May.

Saudi Arabia
 player, 46 posts
Mon 14 May 2018
at 16:09
Re: Various
Referee:
>I miss the sentence forbiding to move a facility once placed. Did I skip it, did you forget it or this rule is no longer in force?
I took that out a long time ago as I figured that it was more than a little implied already in the wording of the rest of the rules that we did not need to waste the space explicitly saying it anymore. Besides, some future GM might be willing to put up with players doing that kind of shit, it just will not be me.


But formerly they were allowed to be moved by exchanging at 2:1 ratio (so Germany could remove 2 rockets from Damgarten and convert them into 1 rocket in another spaceport, to give you an example).

And orbital facilities should, IMHO, be allowed to be moved for a part of its cost and being idled for a turn (aside from the cargo capacity needed, off course) as, unlike the ground ones, they are not tied to anything.

Referee:
> Let's assume one country has just engaged war with Argentina and decides to attack his satellites
In regular combat, the weapons of units on the surface cannot reach the orbit hex unless specifically stated in the unit’s description, so no combat in your example occurs. In Quick combat, the grouping and division of who attacks what is decided by GM fiat. The real-life plane bourne anti-satellite weapons under development are capabilities that Canada and Saudi do not have for their airforces until either also has IRBM/ICBMs units, I do not see the necessity of there having to be two different hulls just because there are two different Squadrons.


This is quite contradictory with your reasoning of removing ASAT ability. Taken from msg #29 this same thread, when it was forfeited:

Combat Cycle Ref:
>>> ASAT: <snip> Infantry units may not have this ability. See section 12.9.
>>Does this include Motorized/Mechanized Infantry?
> ASAT can find no refences to a man portable device that can reach orbit
A simpler solution would be to just get rid of ASAT ability, alter the balance of what happens in Air Defence (sec12.9) and who can attack what (sec 12.4). Remember, an attack does not have to come from special built weapons. An attack can be a scientific atmospheric sampling rocket that was dusted off and weaponized, a hacked weather satellite that was redirected to a crash course, a crewmember of the Spaceship that was contacted and blackmailed into sabotaging his own ship…. Does this mean that Infantry type units are going to be able to attack Spaceships in orbit, Yes, they are just going to really suck at it as per sec 12.9. Again, I know you are right M, but there has to be some advantage to Infantry/Ground units else nobody would ever use them. My defense is, as always, that a unit is much more than just the tip of the spear, it includes every support unit that goes along with it.


So, you first get rid of ASAT units by claiming any unit can attack them (even if by indirect means), then, when someone suggests this might be done, you forbid it because only a few units may reach orbit, and only ICBMs seem to have the capability to reach Orbit hex, so to be able to attack it you need to be WMD capable, as it’s a prerequisite to build ICBMs…

Is this right?

Referee:
Combat is between Military units and armed facilities only. Unarmed facilities are handled by sec 10.7 paragraph#3.


Then the only way to target a colony’s facilities is as collateral damage, even if there are no units (or armed facilities) in the hex. Is that right?

And if I didn’t skip any, the only facilities with a combat factor are military base, OT and ODI…

Referee:
No, the rules are never going to do anything that has to do with splitting the Orbit hex into smaller bits. How the players choose to role-play attacks in the Orbit hex is not the business of the GM.


This is now moot if only ICBMs can attack orbit hex…

Referee:
>can oil needs be reduced by forcusing in nuclear power with the new rules where
>fisibles are counted among oil SRUs?

See the ‘Alternative Infrastructure’ option, representing a diversifying of a portion of a Settlement’s energy budget into whatever form is less affected by supply difficulties but still has an environmental cost. A given Oil SRU is presumably comprised of a basket of different fuels, we are not ever going to go into exactly what; for Earth, for now, the GM does not see a problem in the supply of nuclear fuel so it is currently a good role-play choice when wording your PA to reduce consumption as the GM sees it as effectively making your other Oil SRU consumption go farther.


And can coal gasification be used too? If so, can anyone now use it or we return to the listed countries from former rules?
Germany
 player, 391 posts
Mon 14 May 2018
at 22:49
Re: Various
When I saw there were a new set of rules I though I had to swallow something I said in my former post, but I see this is not the case ;).

Now, after a skip reading of them (mostly changes, marked on green), my first impressions:

Most are clarifications and redacting, nice to have them.

SRUs: I’ll talk latter about them, as they deserve their own post...

Political actions (not a new thing):

I see changing the # of war rounds an overshoot. Being a simple action with a defense of 100 (so a final 10), anyone with a prestige of 8+ will have a nearly automatic success, and needing a full PA is, IMHO, excessive. I’d handle as increased SU cost to try.

Settlements:

TL: the initial TL is far too low. Assuming a country with TL 9.4 tries to build a colony, this colony will be TL 4.7. Assuming he builds the first heavy industry when it has 10-100 people, it will be 4.9, not enough to build even anything but roads and farming and mining facilities. And to build SUs locally you need TL 5.5, so it would rarely (if at all) be possible until you’re TL 10+. This will (again) slow space development a lot.

I also see that the production for all mining and farming facilities has been lowered quite a lot (as the divisor has been increases by 5, before square rooting it). That means the first such facility produces now 2.5 times less than before...

As per Asteroid mining, I keep seeing unfair that it is all counted as a single hex for this divisor, making it quite less rich that any S sized world with the same Mining Potential, as the S sized world has more hexes and some of them increase MP. I keep suggesting other such facilities not modifying the production, as they can easily be AUs afar.

Of course, the orbital factory needs in RMUs have also been lowered (to half previous), but the heavy industry has not, so needing more mining facilities per each one needed before...

See that for SRU mining this means (assuming a roll of 10 and it’s the first mine in a size 10 world, so the maximum minable):
  • Oil: (10+10) x 10 / 2.45 = 81.6 rounded down to 81
  • Pai-leng: (10+10) x 0.5 / 2.45 = 4
  • Tantalum: (10+10) x 0.1 / 2.45 = 0.8, rounded down to 0


So, how can one mine tantalum?

Armed forces:

The extra for foreign deployment seems right for me, as it is expensive to keep troops out of their bases.

So I think about the changes in the Orbital Assault ability, I guess representing the jump á la Starship Troopers or paratrooper like assault (if any of you is member of CotI board, I suggest you to read the thread on this link (specifically post #5) http://www.travellerrpg.com/Co...owthread.php?t=38859 to see how I envision them in 2300AD), except for naval units. I can imagine ground troops so jumping, even AFVs being so thrown, but ships? I always thought that sending them to other worlds would be dismantled and to be assembled there...

I have dual thoughts about getting rid of security ability. While it was me who asked what advantage they have now, I thought its advantage now would be as modifier for political actions (mostly in calming people in uncontrolled countries). After all, it’s not the same to send soldiers than police (even militarized) to those spots, the army being more prone to live fire, while the police more to anti-riot tactics.  BTW, I guess that’s why the French Gendarmerie lost this ability now...

As for the maintaining of the ratios at buying units, I see it as a PITA. My usual practice was to buy units as reserve (as they would be so in the turn of buying anyway) and then upgrade them next turns as needed. I keep advocating for the individual QR being rid of, as already told before.

I keep asking why are there two sets of combat value numbers in the Taillerand example:
quote:
French #1240: Veteran Spaceship:10/1/3/0:B:L:Alpha Centuari, Triania, Orbit: N/A: 20/3/4/0, carrying unit#455


According the example in building ships, it should be 10/3/6/0 (10 beams, 1 each, 1 missile, adds 3, and 3 fighters, adding 2 each). Which one is the correct, and what does the other one mean?

Spaceships:

While I see logical to use the mil-space for their movement, could this be delayed to the 2055 turn? I’d see quite odd to have the ships slower in next turn (maybe even not being able to accomplish the planned trips) without anything we can do this turn to fix it.
Germany
 player, 392 posts
Mon 14 May 2018
at 23:43
Re: Various
SRUs

Forgive me to say this, but I think I must not having understood it, as otherwise I believe you messed it even more than it was.

So I tell you with an example how I understood it to work now and you please tell me what I understood wrong:

Germany will need for 2050 (assuming they grow up as GDP does and no changes occur this turn) about 450 oil SRUs.

I have 30 SRUs in storage, produce 26 and (if I accept all them) contracts to buy 260 SRUs more (at a cost of $650). So I first will spend my stored ones, then my produced ones, then the directly bought, and this will leave me with a deficit of 134 SRU.

Assuming the market is supplied at 90% (as was approximately last turn), I’d be able to buy 90% of my deficit, so about 120, leaving still 14 SRUs deficit that I have no way to cover unless I use military compulsion or golden rule (paying extra for the ones I’ve already paid extra) or go without (with the effect in my GDP growth and probably stability).

See that had I not used my stored ones as the first ones, I’d have had a deficit of 164, obtained 147 and been left with a deficit of 17, that I could have covered with my stored ones.

So, if I understood well how it does work, unless you can cover the full needs with your own production, stored and direct purchases, none of it (stored and direct purchases) have any mean, as you will still have deficit.

About the options given in 4.5.4:
  • 1 infrastructure: do I read it well? Let’s see...
    •   US uses a PA to obtain oil. It will obtain (1d10+10 (number of hexes, discounting Alaska and Hawaii) + 8 (world size)) x 5 increased production, so next turn it will produce 95-140 SRUs more
    •   Germany uses 1 PA on it, and (having 2 hexes) next turn would produce 55-100 SRUs more. If it spends 6 Pas it will produce (on average rolls) 465 SRUs more, so becoming a net exporter....
    •   China, having 10 hexes will gain as US. As its deficit will be next turn (same assumptions than with Germany above) 153 SRUs, so with a PA or two it could overcome it..
    So, if I undertand this option right, oil will not only become scarcer as time goes, but probably be quite plentiful.
  • 5)Exclusive purchase: as hinted above, if I understood the whole SRUs rules right, fully useless unless you can buy your full needs this way (something quite unlikely).
  • I see all other options right, though I’d see Fusion as option 3 (same as renewables), as it is expected not to produce wastes and very efficient (though, of course, it requires some higher TL).


So, as I find many oddities here, please, tell me, what did i missunderstood?