Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
Saudi Arabia
 player, 60 posts
Thu 2 Aug 2018
at 10:58
Re: Rules Proposal 20180513
Referee:
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 419):

>can you please tell me where in the rules or when in this thread was this made clear?
Section 8.12-paragraph#1-second to the last sentence, and the definition of ICBM units in section 8.7.3.


Let’s see..:

8.12 WMDs and WMD Capable Nations

quote:
There are weapons which have a large but unfocused destructive capacity which far exceeds that of most other weapons and they are called Weapons of Mass Destruction, or WMDs for short  For the scope of this game it does not matter if the WMDs are nuclear, chemical, biological, memetic, cyber, etc. ‘WMD Capable’ refers to if a nation can construct and has possession of sufficient numbers of WMDs of various types, along with sufficient delivery systems of various types, to be capable of repeatedly destroying large swaths of territory. Mere possession of a few WMDs is not sufficient to be counted as a ‘WMD Capable’ nation, sometimes even very poor entities have a handful of WMDs but this does not make them ‘WMD Capable’. Possession of ICBM units or Spaceship Missile or Spaceship Orbital Bombardment Modules requires that the nation be ‘WMD Capable’. A nation may become ‘WMD Capable’ at the discretion of the GM upon expenditure of sufficient number of PA points, usually 1 - 5.

(bolded the second to the last sentence you told about)

Where does it talk about ASAT (be it in the sentence you said or any other)?

8.7.3: Definition of ICBMs:

quote:
ICBM: Intercontinental Ballistic missiles. Large missiles fired from fixed installations. May attack with a WMD tipped (see section 8.12) Base Combat Strength of 25 if part of an Attacker’s force in combat. Can hit anywhere on the surface of a World or the Orbit hex. May only be part of an Attacker’s force once per War Round. Moves as an Air Unit (see sections 8.9.2 and 10.2.2) except Space tech level is used.

(bolded the last sentence you told about, though I guess you meant second to the last again)

Again, where does it say it is the only ASAT capbale unit.

Are those the parts clarifying the other units are not ASAT capable?

Then we give diferent meaning to the world “clarify”.

Fact is that the last time you told about ASAT (or at least the last one I found, and it seems you too) before Saudi Arabia tried to use it was the one I quoted, even if it is 3 years and several rules sets ago.

You can change rules, even intèrpret them diferently as they are written, but, please, don’t say you already left it clear is you didn’t
USA
 player, 104 posts
Thu 2 Aug 2018
at 11:44
Re: Rules Proposal 20180513
It clear says ICBMs can attack any hex on a world or the orbit hex
Saudi Arabia
 player, 61 posts
Thu 2 Aug 2018
at 13:10
Re: Rules Proposal 20180513
USA:
It clear says ICBMs can attack any hex on a world or the orbit hex


Fact is ASAT has not been told about again since the post I quoted, and the fact the ICBM are specified to be able to attack orbit hex does not adress it.

ASAT systems are being developed since the 1970's, and, while it can be difficult (as Kelvin says) to ully destroy a satellite network, it would not be so much to make specific attacks to them in critical moments (as in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Raising), that is probably what iddeling them means.
Germany
 player, 436 posts
Thu 2 Aug 2018
at 13:17
Re: Rules Proposal 20180513
First of all, thanks for the answers. Now my response and reasoning on some of them:

Referee:
>Since rules proposal 20170401 the CCC module definition no longer says it is needed
>for several ships to fight together, fignting each one individually if there was not.

I said that their purpose was found to be missing, a mistake which was corrected within that proposal.


Well, it gives a bonus to initiative in space combat...

In any case, then I’d suggest you to add again it to the CCC module description for clarity of the rules, as right now I don’t find anywhere that it is needed, but the reference on the attack order in 10.4, but no one that has no access to former rules sets would understand it.

Referee:
>>Nigeria wants to add in reinforcements after reading the results of its invasion of
>>Benin in Round#2, these reinforcements will not arrive until Round#4'
>What about units that are already in range (e.g. air units)?

The "...in range" thing is a judgement specific to the combats occurring now and may or may not have any bearing on combats in the future as per the discretion of the GM.


See 10.8 for the definition for “in range” for air units.

Referee:
>About security troops:
No. The ability is being deleted as a duplicate of what can be done with Political Actions. Regular military units can fight brigade-level sized rebel forces or be featured in your argument for the success of your Political Action, but we are not doing Security ability ever again.


I keep disagreeing, as they are a very specific specialization, but I abide.

Then, assuming an occuped country, the AM will keep being the modifier, regardless of the tropos one can deploy there, to avoid a revolt?

Referee:
>As per pai-leng, while it is defined as any small, valuable, non-renewable,
>physical objects that are likely to generate a great deal of scientific or
>cultural interest back on a Core Settlement, and yet there are at least 3
>renewable sources of th
em: Orbital Factories, Enclave Module on a core world
> and Universities.
You are placing a lot of importance on a very strict definition of the term 'non-renewable'. I see no reason for that.


As I said, I pointed it just because it was contradictory with the definition. If you want to keep its production as renewable, then I’d suggest you to remove the non-renewable part on the definition.

Referee:
>lack of any logic (as stated in older posts, most ships are supplied while in port for
>the whole travel, and I guess spaceships will do likewise), one can hardly say (to
>say the least), that this makes them consistent with other units.

Within a 5 year Turn any unit can reach anywhere on the map that it is able to access (section 8.9) and back again, and the definition of every unit includes its own transports. So 'where a unit is' needs not be absolutely the same as 'where the supplies are', and I absolutely refuse to let this game descend any further into the minutiae of the routine disbursement of supplies because this is a game and not a simulation.


Oh, sorry, I understood it was a simulation game…

In fact I understood it was a 4X game, now I’m less sure about what it is at each rules set…

And please, as you refuse to talk about the logics on it, just about the rules effects (something that may be even understandable), tell me how allowing the ships to be supplied at their start point of the turn (just as any other unit) adds minutiae to the game.

And so, if the situation of the Invasion game in Eta Bootis occurred in this game, then yes, Borodin’s fleet could be supplied by taking the supplies to an Earth OT, despite being several warp transit away, some of them occupied by enemy forces. Is this right?


Referee:
>(# of Population units of the area in revolt)
is not the population units of the Settlement, I would have said so if it was. Regardless, I will grant that it still yields numbers which are too high and will do something to adjust.


That’s why I didn’t talk about multi- hex countries, as Russia or US.

In the cases of France, Spain and Syria they are one hex countries, and so I guess the area would be the whole country (as the minimum area used is one hex, I understand), while in the other cases they are 2 hexes countries, so if only 1 hex is affected the rebels force would be halved…

Referee:
>In the use oc Economic units it could be useful to add power.
What? What is "...use oc Economic units..."?


The Use of Economic Units (there’s a typo, and oc should be of) is a table in the (in fact several of them) in the “Orders for <nation><Turn>" document you put In the files section of the game’s HP (I specified at the beginning of the post I was talking about this document). It’s just under the “Interface Uplift/Downlift” section and over the "Military units" one.


Referee:
>I keep thinking this would not only give more flexibility to players, but even In the
>end avoiding response PAs to be used just because they have been bought.
>
>Other example of possible increased flexibility due to having unspent money:

The GM does not want players to have more flexibiity, players want players to have more flexibility. The GM wants players to have more stress on having to guess/risk ahead of time if they are making the right choices. This is a game, not a simulation.


So the GMs intent is to keep the players blind and guessing, and this is a lottery game, where you must take the decisions before having any clue…

Few games want the players with hands so tied…

Referee:
>(note: this assumes the parts of 10.6 and 10.8 told above apply to 10.10)
Why would you assume this?


I assumed what I told before about those rules:
Germany:
Combat (overall)

10.10 rules specify that several other rules are ignored. I think some parts of those rules should be still applied. Specifically:
  • 10.6: Damage Allocation: specifically the part saying
    quote:
    Damage to units is ignored unless the opponent’s weapons can reach those units. E.g.; if China bombs Saudi Arabia with ICBM, Chinese ICBMs are safe from damage, no matter the result…
  • 10.8: Air Units: the part relating to air units range (e.g. Bombers 3 hexes away on Earth may participate).


Because otherwise we assume that if QCR are in effect:
  • Planes have no range
  • If, just s an example, China bombs Saudi Arabia with 1 Division of ICBMs, this divison is quite likely to be lost, regardless the fact Saudi Arabia has no weapon that can reach them.


And I believe that, be it a game or a simulation, some logic must apply…

Referee:
>So good for the escorts…
See the list of advantages that may be bought in section 10.3


Yes, but the fact is that you carrier is safe from damage, regardless the odds, if alone, while it’s quite likely to be damaged if escorted.

Referee:
> I jsut suggest to give the carriers a single combat factor, both to attack and defense
The difference comes from the hulls of the carrier actually being at risk on the defense.


And they are, but as the game is now the carrier’s air group does not defend it, only being used for attacking. And the carrier squadron does not just represent the carrier, but also the frigates, AEGIS cruisers an so in the squadron, don’t they?

And see that if 10.6 does not apply in QCR as I assumed before (see above), the CVs hulls are also in risk in attack, even if they are not in reach of the defending units….

Referee:
>So, assuming the first colonies are set with an average TL of 9, they are set at TL 4,
> so more or less Victorian age. Not that I don’t like steampunk (I played, and
> enjoyed, 1889), but I don’t see it logical, nor believe this is the goal…
>
>This will also mean they would not be able to produce their own supplies until they
>have, at least, 100 pop, 5 Heavy Industry Facilities and a university.

This is a problem for the players, not the rules.


This is a problem for the game, when it’s impossible to have a self-sustaining colony until you reach average TL 10.

This is a problem for the game when large supply trains will be required.

It will be curious when we have steampunk colonies (Extra-terrestrial colonies with Victorian TL)…

But when (if) we’ll reach this point, rules will have changed so many times, that there’s no pint to discuss this now..

Referee:
>Add to the description (or to the table) “only can be built in hospitable worlds”.
>As rules stand now, imagine the roll for Moon FP is 11 (effective -9). By deploying
>4 such facilities, we could raise it to 11 and begin farming the Moon. I don’t
>believe this to be the spirit of the rule…

You have confused the action done to Farming Potential with the action done to Mining Potential.


Why so? The Asteroid Belt is given a FP of 8. Let’s assume this is rolled for Moon instead of the Asteroids, and its effective FP would be -12. So, 4 Hydroponics facilities (assuming it has TL 4) would raise it to 8 and allow to farm it (as it is habitable, albeit not hospitable).

And I keep believing the word “habitable” In the Farming facility table and description should be “hospitable”, as habitable world, not being defined, is any one that can be inhabited, and this includes inhospitable ones (but not Hostile ones).

Referee:
>In most Science Fiction settings, including 2300AD, orbital shipyards are quite
>more efficient than ground based ones, aside from being able to build ships that
>cannot land. This is not the case here.

I do not see a reason why they would be more efficient, not that it matters, this is a game balance issue, and orbital shipyards have been substantially reworked anyways in the following rules proposal for different reasons.


They are more efficient in most Science Fiction settings, including 2300AD, Of course this one can be different (just depends on how much do you want it to diverge from 2300AD).

As per game balance, again it seems we use language differently…

Referee:
>If the former, then building a 2000 tonnes ship (let’s say a Hornet class) consumes
>the whole capacity of a spaceport

This one.


Then building a 2000 tonnes SDB or a 10000 tonnes cruiser needs the same shipbuilding capacity?

Ok, I asked for clarification and I have it.

This message was last edited by the player at 13:30, Mon 24 Sept.

Germany
 player, 438 posts
Sat 4 Aug 2018
at 17:32
Rules Proposal 20180801
In reply to Referee (msg # 445):

First comments after a quick look at them (in fact at the points you talk about in your post, take them with a grain of salt until I can read rules more deeply):

Supply for an Enclave Settlement, allows a Settlement on a unoccupied world.

No real change for inhospitable worlds. Doubling SU needs for hospitable ones.

What Orbital Industry does

So now Orbital Industry only serves to produce SUs in orbit (10/turn, at cost of 10 RMUSU/turn, with a bonus of 1 pai-leng SRU/5 turns)?

So, you need to invest 10 RMUs ($10, 200000 tonnes) to obtain 10 SUs (also worth $10, 50000 tonnes), albeit in orbit. This is quite inefficient, not consistent with the “can make products that are in high demand” in the description.

It also adds to bookkeeping, as one must take note of the last produced pai-leng for each such factory (as it is written, I understand this is produced even in no RMUs are supplied, but if it’s not the case, this must also be taken note of).

So, IMHO, added complexity, reduced return for such an expensive facility, making it quite less worth. Useful in first stages of the space exploration, as it saves the uplift for SUs in orbit if you can provide it the RMUs by other means, but useless after uplift ceases to become a problem.

Length of time for an Enclave to Survey back to 5 Turns

So good again to being a 4X game... We cannot expect to have any world surveied (unless PAs are used, as Germany did for the AB) until at least 2080...


How altering the production of SRUs works.

Little real change until latter in the game...

When units arrive/leave in Quick Combat.

So units move quite less in a QRC round (about 1-1.5 years, at the 3-5 per turn) than in a month in detailed rules...

Production by Farming, Mining and Asteroid Mining Facilities

Farming and Mining changes are minimal (though I don’t understand the reduction of mining facilities with time, which I guess will not occur in Core Worlds)

Asteroid mining:

I’m afraid either I read it wrong or there must be an error here...

With the given formula they will never produce a single RMU, as the effective MP is already 2d10-10 (as they are unhospitable), so as they use (effective MP-10) in the formula, result is always 0 or lower.

As per SRUs:
  • Oil: they can produce quite a lot (I guess carbon asteroids and fissibles)
  • Pai-Leng: can it be produced in a inhospitable world? In any case, probability is low (as in any world) and production would be, with a roll of 10 and being the first unit of a just surveyed one), 10 x 0.5 /2.45 rounded down, so 2 at best (with a roll of 5-, none)
  • Tantalum: assuming there is in the Belt (again a low probability), production (again  with a roll of 10 and being the first unit of a just surveyed one) 10 x 0.1/2.45 rounded down, so 0.


Military strength of a revolt

While this is better, I keep seeing the numbers as too high.

Assume one hex of Turkey revolts. Assuming this involves half its pop (it has 2 hexes), this means a 190 BCS revolt, stronger than its whole army…

Not sure how to solve it, though…

Combined Military/Civilian Shipyard into ‘Orbital Shipyard’

I’d also talk about spaceports here, as they both affect shipbuilding.

In principle, I agree with the idea of merging them, as I agree the difference was not enough, and again added complexity and bookkeeping, so the change reduces them, but I’m not sure about the other details being changed:
  • Now it does not specify if they can build any module. So, are they only to assemble ships (so, increasing the criticism I have many times done about needing to uplift the modules)?
  • See that, as rules are written now, Orbital Shipyards cannot assemble military ships (those with M or H hulls and/or more than 1 weapon module), which now can only be assembled in spaceports. Unless this is an error, now neither the Kennedy nor the Tayllerand as shown in 9.2 can be built, as they cannot be assembled in a spaceport (they cannot land) nor in Orbital Shipyards (they are military). Of course, they could be built as able to land and then refitted by removing the propulsion for it and using the freed mass for anything else in orbit, but this is by no means cost-effective (and again, complexity and bookkeeping is quite increased).
  • In general, their only use now would be to repair ships (the only useful function they keep), and the incentive for ships able to land is highly increased, as they not only can be built without tying up lots of non-catapult uplift, but military ships can only be built as such.
  • As an aside,  this would allow to arm ships right now. See that a Bahnbrecher class ship, refitted to dispose of its cargo capacity for orbital bombing modules (34 such modules, counting the 100 empty tonnes it has), would be quite frightening weapon, with a bombardment factor of 170… I don’t judge if this is good or bad, but I guessed your intent was not to allow this until latter (so the need of orbital military shipyards to have more than 1 weapons module in former rules).



So, general impression of the rules changes (again, limited to skip reading those changes you announced, not a deep reading of them, and assuming what I said seem errors to me are not):

  • Added complexity and bookkeeping
  • Delaying (again) any space development or exploration (so the game will take quite more time to become the 4X game it should be).
  • Making some facilities useless or nearly so.
  • Making QCR movement too slow for any credibility (it will take over a year to get your troops where they are needed)


So, frankly, as much as I may hate to say this, I can hardly (if at all) find any positive look at those changes. I hope (more than I expect) reading them in deep will change this vision of mine, but I guess you’d announced any other changes that can change it…

This message was last edited by the player at 18:58, Sat 11 Aug.

Germany
 player, 439 posts
Sat 4 Aug 2018
at 17:52
Rules Proposal 20180801
Trying to balance spaceships supply rules:

Spaceships must receive their SUs at the point they start the turn (as any other unit)

In order to land, a ship must receive 1 extra SU either In surface or orbit of the planet it lands on. In 2300AD setting the interface transport is the most expensive part of any space transport, and this SU would represent the extra fuel, heat shielding material, posible boosters support and other minutia repairs each such landing needs. Alternatively, the cost could be dependent on ship tonnage and world size (e.g. 1 SU per 200000/(world size) tonnes, rounded up for each ship). While this would probably be more realist, it will also add a Little complexity.

I concede this will add a little bookkeeping, but, as you say many times, player’s bookkeeping, not GM’s, and would probably make the game more playable and realist at once, and reducing the incentive to landing ships In favor of increased interface facilities, something more in line of 2300AD setting.

Germany
 player, 440 posts
Sun 5 Aug 2018
at 14:07
Atlas of known Space
I'd wish to comment some points about it, for now and future. Few will have immediate (if any) game effect, just for keeping it as better information:

Heaven and Earth uses the UWP used in Traveller, but MgT 2300AD changes the fist digit from Starport to Interface. As we will have to change it in any case once worlds are developed, should we keep the traditional Traveller one or the MgT 2300AD one?

Earth:

If the first case (traditional Traveller Starport code), then I guess Earth would currently (in game time) be considered B (spaceships building capacity, refined fuel, full repair capacity), not E.

If we use MgT 2300AD one, hen E (cargo rockets) is correct.

Asteroid Belt:

As I already said several times, the Traveller size code for an Asteroid/Planetoid elt is 0, not R, that is reserved for Rings arround some planet (usually Gas Giants).

IMHO, its current UWP should be X00021A-4 (I gave it high law code because I believe laws are strict ther to avoid misshaps and accidents, and Access very controlled), as it already has an outpost and an OT. See that with the new rules proposal TL would be reduced to 3 (Modern age, Renaissence to Napoleonic), As US it's at TL aprox 8.6. Same will happen with Mars and Moon.

If you want, I can take charge of those changings, as I guess you're qute busy already...

This message was last edited by the player at 18:54, Sat 11 Aug.

Germany
 player, 441 posts
Sun 5 Aug 2018
at 14:19
Rules Proposal 20180801
Some mroe details about your former answer:

Referee:
>lack of any logic (as stated in older posts, most ships are supplied while in port for
>the whole travel, and I guess spaceships will do likewise), one can hardly say (to
>say the least), that this makes them consistent with other units.

Within a 5 year Turn any unit can reach anywhere on the map that it is able to access (section 8.9) and back again, and the definition of every unit includes its own transports. So 'where a unit is' needs not be absolutely the same as 'where the supplies are', and I absolutely refuse to let this game descend any further into the minutea of the routine disbursement of supplies because this is a game and not a simulation.


One more question about it. 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?

Referee:
>Atmospheres 4 and 9 are listed as inhospitable. Atmosphere 4 is the same as 5 but
>tainted, and 9 is the same as 8 but also tainted.
>
>If tainted atmosphres make a world inhospitable,

No, it is tainted AND pressure, together, that make a world inhospitable.


I said because in Traveller all three kinds of atmosphere (4, 7 and 9) need the same protection for people (mask), and all can lead to Agricultural planets. I guess an inhospitable Agricultural planet is somwhat of an oximeron...


Referee:
>I see you deleted all S sized worlds form Solar System in the Atlas of Known Space
I did not want anyone complaining that we had entries for moons which were smaller than Charron when we did not even have an entry for Pluto.


Don't read me wrong, I didn't criticize this decisión (I find it logical, on the goal of simplificiation).

This message was lightly edited by the player at 18:53, Sat 11 Aug.

Germany
 player, 443 posts
Mon 20 Aug 2018
at 17:31
Re: Atlas of known Space
Germany:
I'd wish to comment some points about it, for now and future. Few will have immediate (if any) game effect, just for keeping it as better information:

Heaven and Earth uses the UWP used in Traveller, but MgT 2300AD changes the fist digit from Starport to Interface. As we will have to change it in any case once worlds are developed, should we keep the traditional Traveller one or the MgT 2300AD one?

Earth:

If the first case (traditional Traveller Starport code), then I guess Earth would currently (in game time) be considered B (spaceships building capacity, refined fuel, full repair capacity), not E.

If we use MgT 2300AD one, hen E (cargo rockets) is correct.

Asteroid Belt:

As I already said several times, the Traveller size code for an Asteroid/Planetoid elt is 0, not R, that is reserved for Rings arround some planet (usually Gas Giants).

IMHO, its current UWP should be X00021A-4 (I gave it high law code because I believe laws are strict ther to avoid misshaps and accidents, and Access very controlled), as it already has an outpost and an OT. See that with the new rules proposal TL would be reduced to 3 (Modern age, Renaissence to Napoleonic), As US it's at TL aprox 8.6. Same will happen with Mars and Moon.

If you want, I can take charge of those changings, as I guess you're qute busy already...


I forgot:

Moon:

IMHO its UWP now sould be X200278-4(3), as it has now several settlements (hence the Pop and Gov change) and, as said, its TL ,according new rules proposal would be 3 (again, Modern Age).

I restate the offer to take charge of keeping the atlas of space updated according the news and changes as they occur, so that you'll be freed of this work (you have enough of it). Of course, you'd have veto power.
Referee
 GM, 121 posts
Sat 15 Sep 2018
at 01:09
Rules Proposal 20180801
>it gives a bonus to initiative in space combat...
>
>In any case, then I’d suggest you to add again it to the CCC module description
>for clarity of the rules, as right now I don’t find anywhere that it is needed,

???It already states exactly that in the CCC module description???

>assuming an occuped country, the AM will keep being the modifier, regardless
>of the tropos one can deploy there, to avoid a revolt?

Yes. The number of troops figures into what the GM gives as a bonus/difficutlylevel for the a player's PA to pacify the settlement.

>Oh, sorry, I understood it was a simulation game…
>
>In fact I understood it was a 4X game, now I’m less sure about what it is at each rules set…

This game is whatever is needed to be fun and playable by everyone, including me, and I have no interest in keeping to some label. Without a professional coding and GM staff, there are lots of things that we are just not going to deal with, a detailed supply disbursement is one of them; and there are lots of problems that we have, keeping the GM from walking away from the pressures of running this game is one of them.

>, then yes, Borodin’s fleet could be supplied by taking the supplies to an Earth
>OT, despite being several warp transit away, some of them occupied by enemy
>forces. Is this right?

See section 10.7 par#4 sent#2 of the current rulesset. Like every time we get to a complex situation, exceptions to the normal order of things occur at the GM's discretion.

>The Use of Economic Units (there’s a typo, and oc should be of) is a table in
>the (in fact several of them) in the “Orders for <nation><Turn>" document

Power is not an Economic unit as far as the rules are concerned, it would be confusing to add Power in there. Someday we will have to get around to creating a sheet for controlling colonies, which will likely include dealing with Power, but right now we have more important things to do.

>So the GMs intent is to keep the players blind and guessing, and this is a
>lottery game, where you must take the decisions before having any clue…

A game where everyone is equally guessing, forced to trust the untrustworthy, forced to work to shape the odds on what is going to happen...yes, I am ok with that. We all chose to be part of a PBEM game, the realistic immediate reaction to developing events that you want is fundamentally not going to happen in a PBEM game.

> China bombs Saudi Arabia with 1 Division of ICBMs, this divison is quite likely
>to be lost, regardless the fact Saudi Arabia has no weapon that can reach them.

5 years is a very long time, and a nation has many different ways of striking back against an enemy. Are you sure that Saudi has absolutely no weapon that can reach them? How do you know this? To repeat: Like every time we get to a complex situations, exceptions to the normal order of things occur at the GM's discretion...it is your job as a player to make an argument to the GM to recognize that the current situation is an exception and that something odd should be done for this situation. e.g. the Chinese player argues that the ICBM units would be unaffected. If we tried to make rules to explicitly handle every possible situation then these rules would be unplayable.

>This is a problem for the game, when it’s impossible to have a self-sustaining
>colony until you reach average TL 10.
>
>This is a problem for the game when large supply trains will be required.

This is a problem for the players, not the rules.

> Let’s assume this is rolled for Moon instead of the Asteroids, and its
>effective FP would be -12
</i>
No, its effective FP is 0, section 2.3 is quite clear on that, and Terraform facilities cannot do anything to change that because Terraform facilities have nothing about transforming an Inhospitable World into a Hospitable World.

>And I keep believing the word “habitable” In the Farming facility table
>and description should be “hospitable”,

Correct. Fixed.

>Length of time for an Enclave to Survey back to 5 Turns
>
>So good again to being a 4X game... We cannot expect to have any world
>surveied (unless PAs are used, as Germany did for the AB) until at least 2080...

"...unless PAs are used, as Germany did for the AB" You just answered your own problem.

> in a QRC round (about 1-1.5 years, at the 3-5 per turn
The length of time of a QCR is indefinite and not '5yr/n'. So the actual time taken by a given combat could be very short and not necessarily at the same time or duration as another combat in the same round.

>e effective MP is already 2d10-10 (as they are unhospitable), so as they use
>(effective MP-10) in the formula, result is always 0 or lower.

Good point. Fixed.

>Heaven and Earth uses the UWP used in Traveller, but MgT 2300AD changes the
>fist digit from Starport to Interface. As we will have to change it in any
>case once worlds are developed,


and

>Moon:
>IMHO its UWP now sould be X200278-4(3), as it has now several settlements (hence
>the Pop and Gov change) and, as said, its TL ,according new rules proposal would be 3


No, we will not be changing it. Like I said in the section on using the Heaven & Earth Software, we cannot change UWPs regardless of development as it is not editable within H&E without triggering a random based regeneration of the system. There is an option to edit existing UWP codes in H&E, it is non-functional .

>As I already said several times, the Traveller size code for an Asteroid/Planetoid
>elt is 0, not R, that is reserved for Rings arround some planet (usually Gas Giants).

R=0 and S=1 is the way H&E does it, so that is the way we have to do it.

>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.

>I restate the offer to take charge of keeping the atlas of space updated
>according the news and changes as they occur, s

Thank you, but we are not there yet.

This message was last edited by the GM at 03:53, Sat 15 Sept.

Referee
 GM, 122 posts
Sat 15 Sep 2018
at 01:12
Rules Proposal 20180914
Change to:  How units are represented to conform to how the Unit Listing Spreadsheet works, which is based off how Heaven&Earth generates Star Systems.

The introduction of: Shorthand for facilities and modules, consistent as possible with what is in the Invasion module, to make things easier to represent.

Made clearer:

Rebalancing to:

Got rid of: Allowing GDP&pop&SRU of a Core Settlement to be anything other than evenly distributed, it can only be used to cause trouble.
Germany
 player, 450 posts
Sat 15 Sep 2018
at 18:55
Rules Proposal 20180801
NOTE: all of this post is based on rules proposal 20180801, as I hve had no time yet to read 20180914.

Referee:
>it gives a bonus to initiative in space combat...
>
>In any case, then I’d suggest you to add again it to the CCC module description
>for clarity of the rules, as right now I don’t find anywhere that it is needed,

???It already states exactly that in the CCC module description???


Let’s see:
CCC description:

quote:
CCC (CCC): Flag Bridge, extra facilities for command, communication, and coordination with other Spaceships and forces on the surface of a World. Helps to improve the initiative of friendly forces, see section 10.3.


10.3:in the Initiative section, where the bonus is listed, but 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.

In rules proposal 20170121, the description was:
quote:
CCC : Flag Bridge, extra facilities for command, communication, and coordination with other Spaceships and forces on the surface of a World . If there is at least 1 CCC Module in a system then all friendly Spaceships are grouped with the CCC Module and may move and attack as one including in concert with forces on the surface of a World .



This was changed in 20170401 to the current one, and that’s why I understand it, but  it’s no longer in the rules, and yet referred in 10.4, and so anyone without access to the older proposals would not know what does this mean.

That’s what I mean, It should be added again in the CCC description (as it was in rules proposal up to 20170121), or removed from 10.4, as not it’s not consistent.


Referee:
>assuming an occuped country, the AM will keep being the modifier, regardless
>of the tropos one can deploy there, to avoid a revolt?

Yes. The number of troops figures into what the GM gives as a bonus/difficutlylevel for the a player's PA to pacify the settlement.


It seems (again) I  have problems to make myself undertood…

I was not talking about PAs, but about the table in pages 27-28.

Let’s imagine Country A has just occupied Country B, which has been left with Stability 5 after its defeat. The possibility of a spontaneous revolt is 8+ (so 30%). But Country B has also an AM of 15, so 3 is subtracted from the roll (even while the fact of the police being helping the occupier is dubious at best), and the rebellion possibility is fully nullified, the number of troops (or lack of them) in occupation duty being fully irrelevant, according the rules.

That was what I meant, and the main use Security troops had...

Referee:
This 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…

About the fun part, while this is arguable, I find totally contradictory with your former sentence:
quote:
The GM does not want players to have more flexibility, players want players to have more flexibility. The GM wants players to have more stress on having to guess/risk ahead of time if they are making the right choices. This is a game, not a simulation.


Referee:
A game where everyone is equally guessing, forced to trust the untrustworthy, forced to work to shape the odds on what is going to happen...yes, I am ok with that. We all chose to be part of a PBEM game, the realistic immediate reaction to developing events that you want is fundamentally not going to happen in a PBEM game.


Three’s a long way between the realistic immediate reaction you talk about and being fully unable to react and becoming a mere spectator of the events, and that has a lot to do with the fun part of the game you told about above…

Referee:
Power is not an Economic unit as far as the rules are concerned, it would be confusing to add Power in there. Someday we will have to get around to creating a sheet for controlling colonies, which will likely include dealing with Power, but right now we have more important things to do..


Agreed, but it would be helpful for orbit (right now) and colonies (latter)…

Referee:
> China bombs Saudi Arabia with 1 Division of ICBMs, this divison is quite likely
> to be lost, regardless the fact Saudi Arabia has no weapon that can reach them.

5 years is a very long time, and a nation has many different ways of striking back against an enemy. Are you sure that Saudi has absolutely no weapon that can reach them? How do you know this? To repeat: Like every time we get to a complex situations, exceptions to the normal order of things occur at the GM's discretion...it is your job as a player to make an argument to the GM to recognize that the current situation is an exception and that something odd should be done for this situation. e.g. the Chinese player argues that the ICBM units would be unaffected. If we tried to make rules to explicitly handle every possible situation then these rules would be unplayable.

Referee:
>  in a QRC round (about 1-1.5 years, at the 3-5 per turn
The length of time of a QCR is indefinite and not '5yr/n'. So the actual time taken by a given combat could be very short and not necessarily at the same time or duration as another combat in the same round.


5 years is a very long term, but a WR not so long. In fact it’s not so long for the troops to move to the conflict zone and being able to affect it (not even for the planes to attack at their range, if you don’t accept it to be used in QCR too)…

OTOH, in a single month they can do all of this, if QCR are not in effect...

And yes, I’m quite sure Saudi Arabia has no weapon able to reach Chinese ICBMs, and should they have, their use would not be dependent on those ICBMs being fired or not. I’m not asking to make rules to explicitly handle every possible situation, but to make them logical enough to allow the GM to rule them without being contradictory with them.

Referee:
> >This is a problem for the game when large supply trains will be required.
This is a problem for the players, not the rules.


The Co-GM put the example of needing supply trains to support you fleet if we don’t allow them to be supplied on any OT, that’s why I bought this to bear…

IMHO, allowing colonies to be TL4 (Victorian) or even TL3 (modern age) is a problem of the rules, but again this is arguable.

Referee:
> "...unless PAs are used, as Germany did for the AB" You just answered your own problem.


So, while you complain (probably rightly) about the many PAs and the work they represent to the GM, you’re claiming that more things should be done by PAs (from surveying in any decent length of time, to what before was solved with security ability) when they didn't need them…

Referee:
<i>>Heaven and Earth uses the UWP used in Traveller, but MgT 2300AD changes the fist digit from Starport to Interface. As we will have to change it in any case once worlds are developed,

and

>Moon:
> IMHO its UWP now sould be X200278-4(3), as it has now several settlements (hence
> the Pop and Gov change) and, as said, its TL ,according new rules proposal would be 3

No, we will not be changing it. Like I said in the section on using the Heaven & Earth Software, we cannot change UWPs regardless of development as it is not editable within H&E without triggering a random based regeneration of the system. There is an option to edit existing UWP codes in H&E, it is non-functional .


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).?

I guess we could just copy the results on the page where they are editable (you can rely on the players for this kind of work). In any case, I was for now just talking about the Solar System, where some of the UWPs are now obsolete.

And I understand we will keep with Traveller traditional UWP instead of MgT 2300AD one (mostly keeping the starport digit instead of the MgT interface one). That would make Earth having spaceport B in current game time.

Referee:
> >As I already said several times, the Traveller size code for an Asteroid/Planetoid
> elt is 0, not R, that is reserved for Rings arround some planet (usually Gas Giants)..

R=0 and S=1 is the way H&E does it, so that is the way we have to do it.


I’m afraid you’re wrong here…

H&E does not allow a R size digit in the UWP (that represents the main world), nor gives it ever on worlds, as it uses 0 instead. R size digit only appears on satellites around worlds.

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 some concessions to logics must be done for the game to be playable, but IMHO this goes too far against any logics, and even against playability (or, at best, without increasing playability)…

And, again, I’m not asking to make rules to explicitly handle every possible situation, just to keep them consistent. It’s you who made explicit rules for spaceships that were against the general ones (Supplies must be received where the unit starts the turn) on the basis of standardizing them (and, again IMHO, achieving just the opposite).
Co-GM
 GM, 192 posts
Sun 16 Sep 2018
at 11:40
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
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
Germany
 player, 451 posts
Sun 16 Sep 2018
at 12:00
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


Sorry, you're right, my fault. This was changed some years ago (after cheching it, in versión 20141215).

I'm afraid sometimes things from earlier versions still come to my head, but this time the change was old enough as for me not to have excuse.

I still find the rule absurd, but the effects are really quite more bearable.
Germany
 player, 459 posts
Mon 17 Sep 2018
at 16:13
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
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.

This message was last edited by the player at 16:56, Mon 17 Sept.

Germany
 player, 469 posts
Mon 24 Sep 2018
at 13:47
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Germany:
Referee:
>So, assuming the first colonies are set with an average TL of 9, they are set at TL 4,
> so more or less Victorian age. Not that I don’t like steampunk (I played, and
> enjoyed, 1889), but I don’t see it logical, nor believe this is the goal…
>
>This will also mean they would not be able to produce their own supplies until they
>have, at least, 100 pop, 5 Heavy Industry Facilities and a university.

This is a problem for the players, not the rules.


This is a problem for the game, when it’s impossible to have a self-sustaining colony until you reach average TL 10.

This is a problem for the game when large supply trains will be required.

It will be curious when we have steampunk colonies (Extra-terrestrial colonies with Victorian TL)…

But when (if) we’ll reach this point, rules will have changed so many times, that there’s no pint to discuss this now..


Just one more question here:

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?

e.g. Germany is TL 9.4. It has a colony whose TL is 4.4+0.1 per 10-100 pop +0.1 per a heavy industry+0.5 per university, so final TL 5.1 in all economic TLs. As SUs are TL 5.5, they could be built at an overcost of 1000%: 50% x 4(0.4 TL under target) x 5(number o economic TLs affected), so at S10 each SU.

While this does not solve the steampunk colonies, it could allow them to build its own supplies, even if at an outraging overcost...

Germany:
As an aside,  this would allow to arm ships right now. See that a Bahnbrecher class ship, refitted to dispose of its cargo capacity for orbital bombing modules (34 such modules, counting the 100 empty tonnes it has), would be quite frightening weapon, with a bombardment factor of 170… I don’t judge if this is good or bad, but I guessed your intent was not to allow this until latter (so the need of orbital military shipyards to have more than 1 weapons module in former rules).[/list]


I don't believe this overgunned ships are what it is inteded to have, though they would be perfectly legal with current rules.

If I'm right in this guessing, I'd suggest (taking the idea from most Traveller versions about limiting the weaponry) to limit the weapon modules to 1-2 per hull module. This is a small change in rules, but I guess will do the job if you intend to keep the weaponry of the ships at a level consistent with 2300AD setting.

Of course, I keep finding odd that military ships cannot be built in Orbital shipyards, as (again), neithere the Tayllerand not the Kennedy could ever be built as shown in the rules examples...

This message was last edited by the player at 23:20, Tue 25 Sept.

Germany
 player, 473 posts
Fri 5 Oct 2018
at 12:11
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Just one question about the units list spreadsheet, based on your answer to WR4 orders:

Referee:
>Note 1: 5 of them are built as Unit 1002
The system we have constructed will not allow that. It has to be #1105


Does this mean all new units built must follow higher numbers?

Not that this is a big problem, but I tried (for my own clarity) always to keep consecutive numbers for similar units (so armor units are 0001 to 0006, but I reserved numbers up to 0050 just in case I buid more in the future, etc.).

Would this way of numbering them be no longer possible then?

As said, not a big problem if so, just I want to know it, just for my own organization.
Co-GM
 GM, 193 posts
Fri 5 Oct 2018
at 16:40
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
In reply to Germany (msg # 462):

You are correct. Numbering was something we spent quite a bit of time thinking about and we have gone with this for a number of reasons. Primarily thought we need a standard way of numbering units for all nations
Saudi Arabia
 player, 64 posts
Fri 5 Oct 2018
at 16:46
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Co-GM:
In reply to Germany (msg # 462):

You are correct. Numbering was something we spent quite a bit of time thinking about and we have gone with this for a number of reasons. Primarily thought we need a standard way of numbering units for all nations


OK. And can destroyed units be rebuilt with their old numbers?
Co-GM
 GM, 194 posts
Sun 7 Oct 2018
at 04:16
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 464):

No, once a unit is destroyed/sold/otherwise no longer in existence or belonging to a nation it gets marked as 'destroyed' which is just my shorthand for it being no longer around (even if it was not destroyed)

Whilst this has, in effect, happened in past turns with the inception of this new list we've decided that each time a new unit is built is is issued with an individual reference number that belongs to that instance

There is no mechanical difference between changing the unit from being marked destroyed back to a different quality and constructing a new unit.

I understand you may be concerned by the fact that destroyed units could clog up lists, but google sheets has functions that allow us to filter out those units from being displayed whilst still having that information available to us - this will allow us to keep track of each unit from creation to its end. Rebuilding units with the same reference number would have a couple of negatives from a GM point of view, the main one being we don't want to get to the stage where we think units that have been rebuilt should be destroyed when proof reading our work at end of turn, etc.

The sheet has filter functions at the top, which should help you with finding any units you want in any particular circumstance
Saudi Arabia
 player, 65 posts
Sun 7 Oct 2018
at 11:56
Re: Rules Proposal 20180801
Oh, don't worry, as I said is not a unsurmountable problem, just a mattrr of my own organization and some color, and, also as said, my intent here is just to know how will this work from now on, not to discuss it (and less so to argue it).

As I said, I reserved some numbers for each unit type, so that I know (for Saudi Arabia, for Germany numbers were different, but the concept was the same) that any unit numbered 0001-0020 was armor, any unit numbered 0031-0060 mech, any unit 0301-0350 MR planes, and so on.

Also, this wway, if I was looking for an armored unit, I knew I had to look in numbers 0001-0020, if I was looking for a MR planes unit, 0301-0350, and so on.

Abaut this rebuilding, it was only a color matter, so to say, pointing that Sauid Arabia was not building a new armored brigada, but rebuilding the lost one. No real game differnece, just a matter of giving some soul to the contry (not worth any further complexity for the GM), more or less as the colorful TOEs listed on the HPs (again, only color, with no game effect)

OTOH, I have no experience in manageing google sheets, and I thought (for what you say wrongly) they were like usual spreadsheets, where keeping this is not difficult (just inserting lines when needed and freely shoosing the ID number).

Now, knowing this (thank you both for your explanations), it's only a matter of changing my way to organize myself, with no other effects or problems...

This message was last edited by the player at 11:57, Sun 07 Oct.

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.