Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
USA
 player, 67 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 10:11
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

This message was deleted by the player at 10:12, Thu 09 Nov 2017.

Germany
 player, 350 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 12:59
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 364):

quote:
Where do you take those $1700+ from?


According to rules 20170124 dividor was 200 000, not 150 000 in your calculations.

"(Combined GDP, unadjusted) X (Target level) 2 X (Authoritarian Score of the nation) X 2 (# of decimal increases) / (200 000)"

So I had for TL upgrade 8.3-8.5 the following:
40 000 x 8.5^2 x 17 x 2^2 / 200 000 = 982

now I would have:
40 000 x 8.5^2 x 17^2 x 2^2 / 2 500 000 = 1 336

which is +36%


Well, I based my numbers on rules 20170919 (the last proposal), where divisor was reduced to 150000 but theoretical TLs were delted (of course, this only applied to higher TLs, as lower ones were well under theoretical ones already achieved).
Germany
 player, 351 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 16:35
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
See that if you add the theoretical TL raising, you should add about $175/level, and, as you're raising 2 levels, it would add about 350 (that must be in a previous turn, BTW), so the net effect (once the treshold of current theoretical TL is reached) is quite less (about 1332 vs 1336).
USA
 player, 68 posts
Sun 12 Nov 2017
at 23:15
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to Germany (msg # 369):

Just to confirm - the mapping software seems to work fine for me
Co-GM
 GM, 177 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 04:58
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
>Bombers (both, planes and <snip>. Do I read it wrong or as it is writen they cannot
>attack alone (nor in combination with space units) with WMD?

Will clarify: The Defending force must include Ground or Naval

>>>As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using
>>>PAs to increase the # of rounds
>>An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.
>I'm afraid I cannot find any such answers in the 10.11 of the version 20171103 of the rules.

That paragraph doubles number of attacks which can occur in a Turn, doubles the potential losses of territory and units in a Turn.

>> That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of
>>todayís rules proposal)
>please, what rule are you refering to, aside from the paragraphs and sentences?
>If you mean 10:11 (as we were talking about), I cannot see the answers on it.

10.11 Those sentences reference that the GM sorts out all such special cases if the GM chooses to make an exception to the regular procedure for these cases.

>>>As I don't see this being among the rules suspended by 10:10, why was this not
>>>applied on the IC SAM last unit?
>>I forgot, it made no difference anyways.
> please, don't say it made no difference,
You guys choose to make an attack with the expensive to maintain forces that you had which had overwhelming odds even with my mistake ... and I wrote sec 1.3 par#2 & 1.2 par#4 for good reason. It makes no difference.

>this rule adds balance to the game, I would propose delaying this rule for a turn
>or two so I could arrange preparations and soften impact

No. Russia has gotten away with a significant advantage in tech cost for a long enough time already.
Germany
 player, 352 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 17:04
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Co-GM:
>Bombers (both, planes and <snip>. Do I read it wrong or as it is writen they cannot
>attack alone (nor in combination with space units) with WMD?

Will clarify: The Defending force must include Ground or Naval


Then no strategic bombing (targeting enemy infrastructure), nor attacks to air bases without surface units is allowes with MDWs (while they are with conventional weapons) by bombers (but they are for missiles)?

I'd suggest to just delete the part ot the sentence refering to the need of ground/naval units to be present (on any side), so leaving just: May attack with a WMD tipped (see section 8.12) Base Combat Strength of 15 if part of an Attacking force in a combat where the Defender includes Ground or Naval units


Co-GM:
  >>>As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using
>>>PAs to increase the # of rounds
>>An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.
>I'm afraid I cannot find any such answers in the 10.11 of the version 20171103 of the rules.

That paragraph doubles number of attacks which can occur in a Turn, doubles the potential losses of territory and units in a Turn.


As long as the other side (the one with less than 1:10 ratio) also atacks, which will be quite stupid on its part...

If it does not, the problem remains as it was. The main problem on this (as well as in the carrier/escort problem I told about in post 336 this same thread( is that the losses depend on the own forces, being counted as a percentage of them, and so having more forces will increase your losses (if any), while minimal forces will reduce it to a point where it's disadvantageous for a side to have more forces than strictly needed.

Co-GM:
>> That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of
>>todayís rules proposal)
>please, what rule are you refering to, aside from the paragraphs and sentences?
>If you mean 10:11 (as we were talking about), I cannot see the answers on it.

10.11 Those sentences reference that the GM sorts out all such special cases if the GM chooses to make an exception to the regular procedure for these cases.


But clear rules make easier for the GM to resolve it without having to resort to arbitrary (and surely difficult to accpet for someone) decisions.

Frankly, I don't like the changes you made on carriers, as they make them quite vulnerable to attack and devoids them of their own raison d'Ítre.

Carriers main particularities on real world are:
  • They don't risk themselves to attack (or do it to a lesser extent tan other units), being in fact just mobile bases for their planes.
  • They give more flexibility, as their air units may be used from land if they are damaged or ground bases exist
  • Their air groups give them a good defense, aside from a forcť projection (attack) capability)
  • They may well lose their planes while being themselves unscrached (so having more air groups might be a strategy).
  • Their air groups may vary according to needs (e.g. more helos or airships instead of planes)
  • OTOH, they are more expensive to build and maintain, as you need also to build and maintain their air groups.

None of this is represented in the new rules, while all was well represented in the older ones.

OTOH, I see this change well applied on boomers (SSBs), as they are in fact missile mobile and stealthy missile launching platforms, and hteir missiles are just offensive weapons.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 38 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 17:24
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Co-GM:
>>>As I don't see this being among the rules suspended by 10:10, why was this not
>>>applied on the IC SAM last unit?
>>I forgot, it made no difference anyways.
> please, don't say it made no difference,
You guys choose to make an attack with the expensive to maintain forces that you had which had overwhelming odds even with my mistake ... and I wrote sec 1.3 par#2 & 1.2 par#4 for good reason. It makes no difference.


I understand this, and I begun my post by stating that I accepted it, never claiming that it should be fixed. I just pointed that the fact the war was extended another WR and will keep this turn made a difference on hte mistake (BTW, not only yours, as none of us relized it after WR3, as otherwise it would not hae repeated on WR4).
Germany
 player, 353 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 18:05
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
NOTE: As I have just realized you posted new oficial rules, which I have not yet read (but I guess no major changes will be, aside some errata fixing, as you use to comment the major changes), all what is written in this post would not be for immediate use, but only more ideas for your mind to chew for future turns.

--------------------------------

Germany:
If it does not, the problem remains as it was. The main problem on this (as well as in the carrier/escort problem I told about in post 336 this same thread( is that the losses depend on the own forces, being counted as a percentage of them, and so having more forces will increase your losses (if any), while minimal forces will reduce it to a point where it's disadvantageous for a side to have more forces than strictly needed.


I know it's easy to criticize without offering alternatives, so, risking being even more accused of being the one that suggests more changes (or returning to older rules, and always trying not to affect too much long term plans on the suggestions), here I give you another suggestion I've been outlining for some time. I guess it should require more polishing (and probably some adapting of initiative and maybe some other combat rules details), but I think (I may well be wrong) that would not really affect players too much, though it would significantly change the combat system.

I guess it would work better with the suggestions I gave in post #330 this same thread (forfeiting specific unit QR and using only MR), but I think they will also work with current ones.


Germany:
For easy reading, Iíll keep in usual color the suggestions, in red the clarifications asked (Iíd thank you to respond them ASAP) in green examples and in blue comments or reasoning.


Alternative combat resolution system

This system is (I guess) more simple but more dice heavy (though not by much), and would solve most of the problems I pointed in former threads. It might require some modifications on the initiative for detailed combat system:

All combat power numbers are calculated as they are now, but, instead of using a table, just roll 2d-2, add modifiers (up to +8 or -8), and multiply it by 5 (by 1 if QCR are used) to read it s percentage of your own combat power delivered as losses. Of course, both sides roll for this. No minimum 1 unit applies.

DMs:
  • + enemy MR
  • -own MR
  • +/- TL differential/0.2
  • +2 WMD are used
  • Needless to say, any DM the GM feels necessary to represent specific situations (surprise, et.)


Results below 0 are 0. Thereís no upper limit

Example 1 (detailed combat): Country A is MR1, Mil-ground 8.4 and has 2 elite armor brigades attacking Country B, that is MR3 and Mil-Ground TL 7.6 and has 4 experienced armor brigades and 4 experienced mechanized brigades. No WMD are used.

Country A combat power is 2 x 5 x 8.4^2 x 2, so 1411.2 (rounded to 1411) combat points.

Country B combat power is (4 x 5 + 4 x 3) x 7.6^2, so 1848.32 (rounded to 1848) combat points.

DMs are +3 -1 + (0.8/0.2), so +6 for Country A and -6 for Country B.

Country A rolls 10, modified to 16, so delivers 80% damage. Damage for Country B units is 1411 x 80%, so 1128.8 (rounded to 1129) combat points. As each Country B armor brigade is worth 288.8 combat points (433.2, rounded to 433 after armor effect), 2 such brigades are CD and 263 combat points are left. As each mech brigade is worth 173.28 (225.26, rounded to 225 after armor effect) combat points, one is CD and the remaining 38 points are discarded.

Country B rolls 7, modified to 1. So delivers 10% samage. Damage for country A is 1848 x 10%, so 184.8 (rounded to 185) combat points. As each Country A armor brigade is worth 705.2 (1058.4, rounded to 1058 after armor effect) combat points, no damage is accrued (though they may be kept, if the GM so decides).

Example 2(QCR): an MR2, TL 7.8 country attacks with 2 green armor brigades, 4 experienced mech brigades and 5 veteran MR air units against a MR4, TL 7.2 NPC with a force of 50 SBC. No WMD are used.

Total player force is (2 x 5 + 4 x 3 + 5 x 3) x 7.8^2, so 3467 CPs

Total NPC force is 50 x 7.2^2, so 2592 CPs.

DMs are +/-2 per MR and +/- 3 per TL, so +/- 5.

Player rolls 7, as DM is +5, final result is 12 so delivering 12% damage. NPCís losses are 3467 x 12%, so 416 CPs. As each SBC is worth 51 CP, 8 SBCs are lost.

NPC also rolls a 7, as DM is -5, final result is 2, so delivering 2% damage. Playerís losses are 2592 x 2%, so 52 CP. As the weakest unit (MR air or mech) is worth 182 CP. No losses are accrued.


For detailed combat, if one side delivers more damage than needed to leave all enemy units CD, excess damage keeps on those CD units, fully destroying them.

Example: a force composed by 2 experienced, TL 7.0 MR air units accrues 350 CPs damage. As each unit is worth 3 x 7^2 x 1.15, so 169 CP, both are damaged and 22 points remain. As now each unit is worth 16 CP damage, one of them is fully destroyed, and the remaining 6 points are lost.

Any unit with BCS 0 resists damage as if its BCS was 1 and armor was U.

Example: to damage (leave idled) a TL 8 GPS network, you need to deliver it 64 CPs as damage.

Strategic bombing:

Air bombers (be them planes or airships), missiles (ICBMs and IRBMs) and spaceships may perform strategic bombing, attacking civilian targets on an enemy hex. If so, only SAM MR planes (if bombers attack) and ABMs (if missiles or spaceships attack) defend against them. They roll for damage as usual (representing general accuracy), and any damage they receive from defenses are subtracted from the damage done (aside from damaging them if able to, mainly for air units). Final damage is doubled for collateral damages, but no enemy unit is damaged.

Example: a bomber planes wing and two bomber planes squadrons (MR 3 and TL 8) perform Strategic bombing against a hex that has 6 SAM units (MR 1 and TL 8). No WMD are used. Total DMs are -2 for the bombers and +2 for the defenders, and combat strengths are 2240 for the bombers and 1920 for the defenders. The attacker rolls 9, for a final result of 7, so delivering 35% damage (2240 x 35% = 784 CP damage). The defender rolls 3, for a final result of 5, so delivering 25% damage (1920 x 25% = 480 CP damage). As each bomber squadron is worth 416 CP, one is CD, and the bomberís damage is reduced to 784-480 = 304 CP. Those 304 CPs are doubled to 608. If it was a colony hex, this would destroy 2 pop and 2 facilities. On a core world, this would not be enough to have any real effect.

Optional:

Any natural 12 (or any modified 16+) means an additional 1d6-1 is added to result, repeating it if a 6 is rolled (so giving open ended results).

This message was last edited by the player at 22:05, Thu 23 Nov 2017.

Germany
 player, 354 posts
Wed 29 Nov 2017
at 15:10
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Germany:
Alternative combat resolution system

Why this suggested change?

IMHO, it avoids most of the problems we now face:

  • No more undestroyable units
  • No more leving troops behind (if they don't hange the odds) as they would only add to your own losses, if any. Now each factor might count.
  • No major changes to military/combat system. Most of the rules are compatible (though, as said, some changes may be necessary, mostly on initiative if detailed combat is to be used).


Thoughts? oppinoons? doubts? suggerences?

Don't be shy, your opinion and suggerences are important (at least for me, I guess also for Kelvin).
Germany
 player, 357 posts
Sun 21 Jan 2018
at 15:04
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
To keep with the example:

According the settlement table, IC has now reinforces itself up to 10 Sum of BC. Letís imagine the coalition attacks it with strength enough to achieve 10:1 odds (so achieving a  mearly assured 20% damages/WR):

  • On WR1 IC will begin with 10 BC and lose 20% (so 2)
  • On WR2 IC will begin with 8 BC and lose 20% (so 1.6, rounded to 2)
  • On WR3 IC will begin with 6 BC and lose 20% (so 1.2, rounded to 2)
  • On WR4 IC will begin with 4 BC and lose 20% (so 0.8, rounded to 1)
  • On WR5 IC will begin with 3 BC and lose 20% (so 0.6, rounded to 1)
  • EtcÖ


So, unless IC is kind enough to also attack on a suicide odds (something I frankly donít expect), it will take at least 8 WRs to fully destroy it, needing at least 3 PAs and 5 SU/unit per turn (while IC has no supply problems, so being able to keep it for as long as it lasts).

Again: how can one full destroy the enemy to occupy its territory this way?

And of course, the carriersí problem remains. In a combat among two carrier units, the one attacking first wins, as it will fight with 6 BC against 1, and this defending will be quartered if 10:11 is not in force, as it is a surface unit attacked by an air oneÖ

Co-GM:
-Rebalancing to: Return to original combat results table, giving more advantage to the Attacker.


There must be an error hereÖ

When comparing it with the one in rules 20170124 (the last oficial ones) I donít see any advantage to attacker in the tables change. Quite opposite to that, they increase in most odds the attackerís losses while reducing defenderísÖ
Germany
 player, 358 posts
Mon 22 Jan 2018
at 11:38
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
I apologize beforehand for this post, as I know you will not like it, and I really hoped you will change your mind in several points after reading our comments (mostly Liamís and mine) and Iíd never have to release it, but Iím afraid Iíll fail on all you if I donít now.

I see very few improvements in the new rules when comparing them to 20170124 (the last official ones), as I see few solutions to the problems we had and add quite a lot of new ones. Note that in my analysis I will not follow the rules structure (by chapters and points), but I will talk about specific subjects that are usually affected by more than one of the rulesí chapters (most of it has already been pointed in former posts):

Bookkeeping and organization of the turn: While you made some changes on it, I donít see problems on it, and the standardized orders may even be an improvement, as they mean little problems to the players and probably simplifies GMís work. I must wait for the budget spreadsheets to be able to fully comment this, but I donít expect problems on it (to now, Your changes on spreadsheets have been mostly, it not outright all, positive).

Oil and SRUs: I donít see any advantage on the new system, while I see some problems with it. Aside from the change of definition, that, after your last answer, I see only as a color note (aside from removing the coal gasification and nuclear power as alternatives to oil), the fact that now oil is treated less abstractly and oil SRUs are treated as RMUs, FUs or SUs adds to bookkeeping and allows trading it in the same turn (and more profit for oil producing countries).

Example: as rules stand now, nothing will forbid Saudi Arabia from, instead of putting its oil to the open market, to sell all of it to itself at face value ($1/SRU) and then selling it to interested countries at (letís say) $4/SRU. This way, not only will it control who receives it, but this money will go directly to its budget, not to the GDP (so, not being affected by AM).

I also keep missing the possibility of reducing the oil needs with renewables (wind, tidal, solar, geothermic, etc.), that would be akin of alternate infrastructure, but without significant downsides.

Political rules: those keep being sound. The few changes done have some interesting (though not necessarily bad) effects, thoughÖ
The change in the combat table also affects them. Not sure if this is good or bad, but is there anyway.
On the stability table, changed the modifier due to military units by a modifier based on AM, I guess assuming more AM means more state security. I like this changeÖ
The new formula, giving less importance to relations makes it easier to influence low relations countries. Again, not sure if this is good or badÖ

Military and combat: this is (IMHO) one of the most problematic areasÖ
  • Carriers: I already pointed (see posts # 335, 336 and 372 in his same thread) most of the problems I see In the new treatment they receive. Another problem would be (in detailed combat) which TL would they use. Mil-air? Mil-nav? Mil air when attacking and mil-nav when defending? Average among both?
  • Supply (not new to this rules set): the combat supply rules on QCR mean that we assume an elite USMC (MR1) armor brigade receives the same supplies than a Nigerian (MR3) green infantry one. As I said many times, MR represents among other things the tail-to-tooth ratio, and better MR units should cost more to supply in war than worse MR ones. I keep suggesting to return to MR dependent supply cost in QCR.
  • Combat table: the change you made clearly favors the defender. While I donít see anything wrong on this, this is just opposite to your stated goal.
  • QCR combat: the fact of now allowing for two combat rolls per WR is likely to have also problems. First of all, it would be important to see who attacks first, mostly if there are units with different attack and defense factors (Carriers, missiles, etc), something given to GM decision without any more hint. I also foresee slowing the game, as more combat rolls would be needed. OTOH it does not solve the fact that no army can be fully destroyed as long it has more BC or units that WRs, as it is unlikely any side with a poor odds will attack (less so with the new combat table).
  • NPCs: I see their simplification to SBC as a positive change, despite the loss of detail, as it would probably speed the game and reduce the bookkeeping. I also believe that NPCs should not be immune to lack of supplies. Iím not suggesting keeping track of their supplies, just a roll (e.g. 11+ on 2d6, +1 per previous WR this turn) per WR for it to run out of supplies (unless they receive outside aid). E.g. while Saudi Arabia has to spend quite a lot on SUs if the war with Iraq is kept, Iraq would be immune to it as rules stand, despite needing (as last turn description) about 135 SUs/round to supply its army and having a GDP of just $138Ö
  • New combat factors: even at risk of being seen as a pest, I must insist in the lack of use for ABMs and Missile Defense Satellites with the new WMD factors (and even so I agree with those increased WMD combat values), making them not cost-effective at all. It was yourself who once said that every unit should have a use, and now they have not. I also must insist in the inefficiency of MR air units when compared with bombers, as even in detailed combat rules they have no advantage over them in air combat.
  • I keep asking how to damage combat factor 0 units (as the satellites, if attacked), as even a 100% damages would mean 0 damage points (see post #335 this same thread)


Space:
this is probably the other more conflictive area. The increased orbital supply needs, mostly when the lowered uplift capacities are accounted for, will put any space development to a halt. Germanyís uplift needs just for supply what it has now have gone from 1 SU (5000 tonnes) for its facilities around Earth to 6 SU (3 for ships, 1 for OT in Earth, 1 for OT in Mars, 1 for Earth orbit facilities, so 30000 tonnes, 5000 of them must be moved to Mars) due to the changes, while its uplift capacity (as it is now TL 8.8) has been lowered from 5955 tonnes (1985/rocket) to 5415 (1805/rocket) due to new formula. In the US case, its needs have raised from 1 Su (5000 tonnes) for its facilities on Earth orbit to 6 SU (2 for ships, 1 each for OT on Earth, Luna and Ceres and 1 for facilities on Earth orbit so 30000 tonnes, 5000 of them must be moved to Ceres), and its uplift capacity (space TL 8.7) has been lowered from 24766 (1769/rocket) to 23954 (1711/rocket). So in both cases they have gone from being able to supply their projects to having to build more rockets just for this goal.

While the OTs supplies changes, while disturbing, may be given some logic, in the case of the ships, IMHO, it has not even this logic, as ships (be them sea or, probably, space) use to be supplied in ports, not is it consistent with other units that are supplied in the hex they begin the turn. They also forfeit the main advantage for a ship to be able to land (the other advantage, being able to unload cargo, is reduced when you cannot use them to land on a planet unless it already has a spaceport).

OTOH, the forfeiting of the OT support needs would help somewhat (after lobbying for it for several turns, I wonít, of course, complain for it). I also like the appearance of the space colony facility.

Of course, the need now to upload facilities in full in a single turn makes the largest facilities quite difficult to deploy, mostly as they cannot be uplift with catapults (something I understand). I donít believe the reduced bookkeeping for this is worth the difficulty it implies to deploy them (after all, paraphrasing you in another thing, itís playersí bookkeeping, not GMís).

In resume:

Iím afraid most those rules (mostly military and space ones) will bog down the game, as the most active players in space exploration (US an Germany) would have to halt it while changing the plans  and retooling their assets (I hope not to see how new rules changes make it all useless again), while on the military front supply problems and difficulty to ever win a war will eternize inconclusive wars (that, OTOH, slow the game quite a while), and the SRUs situation becomes even more messed.

So, I ask (even beg) you to reconsider some of those changes before they take real effect and bog down the game even more than real life already does it. I guess weíll need some time (I hope not too much) for the new players to understand the game and be up to date, and it can also be used for it.

Believe me when I say I hate my own conclusions, and really hope to be wrong in most of them, but, as said, I think Iíll fail to you all (and to the game itself) if I shut down my mouth now.

And, again, let me encourage other players to freely give their opinions. There are many points where Kelvin and myself disagree, and probably the best option is somewhat in between, and other playersí opinion may help us all to find it.

This message was last edited by the player at 11:46, Mon 22 Jan.

Germany
 player, 359 posts
Fri 2 Feb 2018
at 18:20
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Some more (and old) suggestions

One of the older complains Iím making about the game is the lack of response capacity players have to events. As the Budget must be fully defined at the beginning of the turn, once things begin to happen the only possible responses are to use response PAs (that must be bought before you know if you need them, so sometimes leading to more PAs that really intended) or to give a military response, probably becoming low of supplies (as any military action is very expensive on them).

Thatís why I insist in this point:

Germany:
quote:
Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM
PAs are bar none the most time consuming part of the GM's job. We are currently averaging 80-90 per turn already and I will do nothing to encourage players to submit more.


I understand your point here, but I guess the result could even be the opposite, as now you have to buy your response PAs before you know if they are needed, and then, of course, you use them, needed or not. This way, you's just not spend the money, and if the response PA is needed you spend on it, and if not you spend this money in SUs, so avoiding (maybe) this PA being bought and used, but in no case will more PAs be bought, and so used. Also, it would allow the response PAs to be rid off, so simplifying the rules.

As an example, Canada ended (according the result budgets you published) this turn with $182 unspent money and no response PAs bought. As it involved in the Iraq/Saudi crisis, I guess it bought one PA (at 150% cost, so losing no money). I guess heíll use most its other money in SUs (I guess also at 150% cost and needing GM permission). If he had not been involved in any crisis, I guess all the money would have gone to SUs, so avoiding a Political Action, that would not have been avoided if he had bought a response PA instead of leaving this money unspent.

And what would have happened with this money if the GM had not allowed him to make those mid-turn purchasing?


I keep thinking that the change in rules is minimal for the advantages in game flexibility and reaction capability it gives to players.

As rules stand now, players are encouraged to spend all their money in the budget at the beginning o the turn, as anything else would need GM permission (aside from being more expensive). Then, when you find that some PA is said to require more effort (money) or some ally does not act as accorded (be it for omission, for not solving his turn, or whatever reason), you cannot do anything until next turn, having null reaction capacity. This also forces players to buy response PAs  before it is known if they will be needed, or to risk having no reation capacity (or having to indebt themselves heavily for next turn)-

From the rationale point, itís logical to think that some money might be kept as reserve for just those cases, and that SUs are built along the whole turn as needed (or as decided to increase the reserve), as are PAs.  See the example I gave about Canada actions last turn.

Asteroid belts:

I keep feeling that the fact they are treated as a single hex for the multiple facilities exploiting them is too limiting and has no rationale under it. Asteroid Belts are very extensive, and have very different RMUs sources.

Again, when you compare Vesta (530 km diameter), that can have literally hundreds of mining facilities without such reduction, scores of them even with the bonus terrain may give, so making it quite richer than the rest of the Asteroid BeltÖ

So, I keep suggesting to forfeit the divisor for more Asteroid Mining Facilities working on the same Asteroid Belt.

Suggested clarification:

09 (spaceships) point 4 (Landings and Transport):

quote:
Paragrpah 3: Spaceships that currently have ĎReserveí Quality level may not move between surface and Orbit hex unless World Size is 0, R or S.


I understand that they can though move from Orbit to a surface hex (after all, you allowed the damaged Bahnbrecher to land to be repaired., as otherwise no ship could be repaired until the Orbital Shipyards appear), albeit with no cargo (as they can carry none, being reserve quality). Just asking for this to be specified in the rules.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 39 posts
Sat 3 Feb 2018
at 01:29
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Clarification asked:

Now that I see the spreadsheets, I'm afraid I need some clarification about oil SRUs:

According rules (04.5.1) they can be stored indefinitely, as they can be moved, and so I guess they are treated as are MRUs, SUs or FUs (and so they can be tradad). Is this right?

If yes, shouldn't be a place in the budget where the stored ones are listed (as there were for SUs)?
Germany
 player, 363 posts
Sun 4 Feb 2018
at 17:53
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Not realized until now:

8.7.1:Naval Units

I see now the Aircraft Carrier has armor L, less tan the Helicopter Carrier, that has M. Is that right?
China
 player, 49 posts
Mon 5 Feb 2018
at 12:43
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to Germany (msg # 380):

No Good place for this it appears that the calculator for interface capacity has a missing -5 in its formulae ie ((base interface) x (TL-5)^2)/World Size

Uncertain as to if this was intended or just a typo..as it is a Massive upward shift in interface capacity )ie 123015 for China as it shows compared to 18015 with corrected amount

Simple workaround to do the TL-5 in the calculation slot corrects this easy enough
Germany
 player, 364 posts
Mon 5 Feb 2018
at 14:41
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 380):

No Good place for this it appears that the calculator for interface capacity has a missing -5 in its formulae ie ((base interface) x (TL-5)^2)/World Size

Uncertain as to if this was intended or just a typo..as it is a Massive upward shift in interface capacity )ie 123015 for China as it shows compared to 18015 with corrected amount

Simple workaround to do the TL-5 in the calculation slot corrects this easy enough


Yes, I pointed it in the Historical interval 2045-2049 thread:
Germany:
After a skip reading of the spreadsheets:

(...)

In the calculators, looking at the interface available one, Iím afraid you forgot to subtract 5 to the TL to apply the formula, as it says me that a single TL 8.8 rocket has a capacity of 9680 (not that I'd complain...)

Not sure where it is better to discuss that...
Co-GM
 GM, 182 posts
Tue 6 Feb 2018
at 03:50
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
>s, SUs or FUs (and so they can be tradad). Is this right?
Yes

>If yes, shouldn't be a place in the budget where the stored ones are listed (as there were for SUs)?
No. See the Blank orders file

>I see now the Aircraft Carrier has armor L, less tan the Helicopter Carrier, that has M. Is that right?
Yes

This message was lightly edited by the GM at 03:50, Tue 06 Feb.

Germany
 player, 365 posts
Thu 8 Feb 2018
at 18:08
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
One more pereceived possible problem:

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. With a unadjusted Budget of $494, the costs would be (unless I botched my numbers, because, BTW, both Alaska and HawŠi TL increases cells are not working well)  ablut $6 per 0.1 TL increase (Compare it with the about $850 per 0.1 TL increase in Continental US), so it could reach TL 8.8 in all economic TLs (I exclude biology, as it does not affect what I'm talking here) for just about $42 (again, to compare with Continental US, the cost would be about $6000).

Then, next turn, with TL 8.8 in all economic TLs but biology, Alaska could begin building Enclave or Orbital Factories facilities (paid by the one wanting them, be it US or another country with Us collaboration), as their TLs would allow it to without overcosts...

Or US could mount his interface facilities there to take advantage of its higher (as very cheaper to increase) TL...

And see that France could claim for French Guianna, where GSC spaceport (and so its interface facilities) is located, or Reuniůn Island or Djubuti to be also treated as a different settlement...

And so could UK about Gibraltar, Falkland Islands or the Islands of the Caribean...

And sure there are more such cases...

Possible solutions:

The easier (but probably untasty) would be to return treating each nation as a single settlement
not to allow those "satellite" settlements to have higher TLs than the "mother country".
(just for point 1 in this case) for COre Settlements, to limit the facilities building capacity ot a percentage of the settlement GDP (let's say 10-20%, as whole budgets use to be lower than this).
Germany
 player, 366 posts
Sun 11 Feb 2018
at 18:03
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
I keep not seeng the logic (as I already pointed several times) or game easing of having the ships having to be supplied in orbit, even if they can land.

In any case, could this be posposed for next turn?

Gremany uplift capacity has skyrocked from 5000 tonnes (that it has) last turn to 25000 this one, so needing up to 12 rockets more just for this rules change. This, of course, fully conditions its turn, as he needs either to obtain this extra uplift or spend nearly 80% of its Budget just to this goal,  efectively removing it from the game this turn.

I don't ask the same for OTs (even though it also raises uplift needs) because, unlike the ships, I see logic on it.
USA
 player, 71 posts
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 09:40
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to Germany (msg # 384):

Germany:
not to allow those "satellite" settlements to have higher TLs than the "mother country".


I will certainly be doing this, regardless of rules, as it makes the most sense to me.

I also have a question for the management on the renting of private uplift - is there a maximum global limit to this and how are we going to deal with assigning this?
USA
 player, 73 posts
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 14:30
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to USA (msg # 386):

I was manually calculating technology costs and have noticed that the calculations from the budget sheet is subtly different from the published formula in the rules.

Currently for the US increasing my biology by 0.1 should be as follows

GDP (166089)x Target Level^2 (8.6^2)x Auth. score^2 (9^2) x 2^no. of increased (2^1)/2,500,000 rounded up

This gives a total cost of 796

The sheet calculation however is producing a figure of $829, this is because it is multiplying by the auth. score^2  before multiplying by target level, so the formula actually being used is

GDP x Auth. Score^2 x Target Level^2 x 2^ no of decimal increases/2,500,000

Its not a massive difference but I thought I'd raise it as a query - do the rules need changing to reflect this as being the correct formula or do the sheets need changing in future?
Germany
 player, 367 posts
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 16:30
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
USA:
The sheet calculation however is producing a figure of $829, this is because it is multiplying by the auth. score^2  before multiplying by target level, so the formula actually being used is

GDP x Auth. Score^2 x Target Level^2 x 2^ no of decimal increases/2,500,000


I don't see why altering the order of the factors should alter the result (commutative property), yet, after runing the numbers by hand (well, with a calculator help) the result I have is 796 in both cases, as you told, so I guess the problem should be another one I cannot identify...

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.
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 dedŪcate 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)?