Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
Germany
 player, 419 posts
Sun 29 Jul 2018
at 12:01
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Now some perceived errata.

2.2: worlds:

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, then 7 should also be so, as it's as 6 but tainted. If not, 4 and 9 should be hospitable.

Tantalum mining:

Are you sure about the formulas(see post 420 above)?

6.4: stability:

Revolt , characteristics of insurgency (page 30, as 6.4 is quite long):

quote:
-The Sum Base Combat Strength will usually be about (# of Population units of the area in revolt) X (Authoritarian Score of the Settlement) 2 /1000


So let’s review some countries if there was a revolt on them:

  • Egypt: Pop is 31994, and AM is  16, so the Sum of BCS would be 31994x162/1000, so 8190
  • France: Pop is 13105, and AM is  14, so the Sum of BCS would be 13105x142/1000, so 2568
  • Germany:  Pop is 17035, and AM is  14, so the Sum of BCS would be 17035x142/1000, so 3338
  • Spain: Pop is 6453, and AM is  12, so the Sum of BCS would be 6453x122/1000, so 929
  • Syria: Pop is 1838, and AM is  15, so the Sum of BCS would be 1838x152/1000, so 413
  • Turkey Pop is 19664, and AM is  14, so the Sum of BCS would be 19664x142/1000, so 3854


As you see, those numbers are quite high (according the settlements spreadsheet,Egypt has a SBC of 104, Spain 109. Syria 168 and Turkey 145).

Are you sure this formula is correct (I guess it was thought when the AM was a percentile, so below 1)?

This message was last edited by the player at 12:12, Sun 29 July.

Germany
 player, 420 posts
Sun 29 Jul 2018
at 12:25
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
The orders nation turn doc:

In the use oc Economic units it could be useful to add power.

While this is useless for Core Worlds surface, it could be helpful for orbit or colonies.
USA
 player, 102 posts
Sun 29 Jul 2018
at 12:27
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
I've not been thinking much on some of the points you raise, but I have been putting some thought into all things space in my spare time, so I'll comment on that point myself

Germany:
Supply:

While rule 8.3 clearly states 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., the rules for spaceships state it must be delivered to an OT (so to orbit) regardless where the ship begins the turn.

Aside from the inconveniences this brings to any spaceship owner (as uplift is quite scarce) and its (IMHO) 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.


Firstly - I feel I should point out that spaceships in totality are a separate section of the rules. For instance spaceships do not, and I think you'd agree should not, have to pay the additional cost in SU for being in an inhospitable location when in orbit. Spaceships are exceptions to the other planetary based forces and so they have been separated in the rules from the other Military units because they need different rules and different assumptions to make the game easier to run, and indeed possible to run.

Secondly I have to disagree with your main point anyway - The argument you are making is that, effectively, a ship that can land should provide what is, essentially, free uplift if you say you supply them on the surface instead.

Ships are strictly forbidden from lifting cargo from the surface to orbit - in arguing that ships that can land should be able to be resupplied on the surface we would instead be creating an exception to that rule.

Cargo, troops, Population, all other transportable items cannot be loaded to a ship on the ground and carried up to orbit, nor can the SU used to supply that ship, even if you argue that the ship is repaired and maintained on the surface this is not all that a SU represents and that needs to be reflected.

When looking at the rule there are three things that, above all, matter to me

1) Simplification (making it easy to implement and understand)
2) Automaton (making it easy to create programs and sheets to do the work for me)
3) Standardisation (making as few exceptions as possible to a general rule)

The rules requiring the uplifting of all the above points - it simplifies the work that has to be done since no player has to work out which ships can land, which of them have actually landed this turn and which will require supply units uplifting - this prevents confusion and removes the chance of mistakes in these calculations

Currently such things would be easy to work out - in 10 turns less so, in the year  2200 it will be virtually impossible if players build nothing but ships capable of landing - which such rules would heavily incentivise.

The current rule also permits far easier (eventual) automation of these calculations and provides a standard that applies to all spaceships, so there are no exceptions to this general rule.

Whilst I understand you are arguing that this is an exception to the normal supply rules, it is far less of an exception that the alternative, which is that each space ship may or may not need to land to be supplied, may be supplied from an O/T or some combination of the two over numerous turns.

A space program should be expensive and require adequate support infrastructure, if SU for ships did not need to be uplifted then it would be possible to create a massive fleet without the need for any uplift - a situation that seems insane.

Indeed, the eventual cost and difficulty of implimenting this kind of rule set would be much, much higher and much, much more complex because of one simple fact;

We would need logistics trains


A significant point of the current rules, to my mind, is to remove the necessity of players managing massive logistics trains over massive amounts of space - which would drag turns into planning minutiae. eg;

A multinational fleet is blockading Barnard's Star, a system without an inhabited world, to prevent forces from the Empire of Solarid attacking Earth and Alpha Centauri from further down the arm. Under the rules you suggest anyone taking part in this would need to arrange for the uplift and then transport of as many SU as required (including for combat) by stutter warp ship to Barnard's Star.
Not only does this have to be manually worked out and then ordered by each player, they also have to work out where to store their SU, and indeed this creates a new problem as there is no location under current rules such SU could be stored. Do we then introduce a logistics module for ships to allow them to be resupplied away from  a settlement?

It creates an interesting situation, don't get me wrong, and if we were playing a more tactical game I'd be all for it because then we get into the whole 'unrestricted submarine warfare' scenario with stealth ships attacking supply lines - but this is a grant strategy scope, and I really don't want to spend the time creating this kind of logistics force, escort ships for it, worrying about ordering 10 units worth of movement for every 2 combat units and so on, rather than having to uplift supply and then assuming it gets sorted out in some other way abstracted from the game that doesn't require me to plan out the kind of movement orders I'd eventually need a full military staff to keep track of.
Germany
 player, 422 posts
Sun 29 Jul 2018
at 13:43
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
First of all, thankd for you answer. I must point you this same post was edited to add (I forgot before) a point about the Historical Articles. As you write it, it might interest you...

USA:
I've not been thinking much on some of the points you raise, but I have been putting some thought into all things space in my spare time, so I'll comment on that point myself

Germany:
Supply:

While rule 8.3 clearly states 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., the rules for spaceships state it must be delivered to an OT (so to orbit) regardless where the ship begins the turn.

Aside from the inconveniences this brings to any spaceship owner (as uplift is quite scarce) and its (IMHO) 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.


Firstly - I feel I should point out that spaceships in totality are a separate section of the rules. For instance spaceships do not, and I think you'd agree should not, have to pay the additional cost in SU for being in an inhospitable location when in orbit. Spaceships are exceptions to the other planetary based forces and so they have been separated in the rules from the other Military units because they need different rules and different assumptions to make the game easier to run, and indeed possible to run.


See that the reduced SU requirement despite being in inhospitable location is an artificial concession by Kelvin when he realized that having to raise 2 SU/ship to orbit would effectivelly stop any space ressearch.

And even this would not be an exception, if the ship begain in a spaceport in Earth, as any othr unit equally begining there wil lbe equally treated:

e.g. The German RaumGrenadier regiment (unit 229: elite infantry: 1: U: inhosp, low-G abilities: Sol-Earth 7N12) begins the turn, as shown, in Damgarten. Then is moved to Mars where it captures an outpost from another country Germany is at war with. on the last WR, it returns to Earth. Despit ethe fact it spent most turn on inhospitable terrain, it has only needed 1 SU for maintenance, as ir began in Earth surface. And being an infantry unit, it is likely to have beenreceiveing supplies along the whole turn, while ships use to carry them at port and not receiing more until they reach naothr port.

USA:
Secondly I have to disagree with your main point anyway - The argument you are making is that, effectively, a ship that can land should provide what is, essentially, free uplift if you say you supply them on the surface instead.

Ships are strictly forbidden from lifting cargo from the surface to orbit - in arguing that ships that can land should be able to be resupplied on the surface we would instead be creating an exception to that rule.

Cargo, troops, Population, all other transportable items cannot be loaded to a ship on the ground and carried up to orbit, nor can the SU used to supply that ship, even if you argue that the ship is repaired and maintained on the surface this is not all that a SU represents and that needs to be reflected.


Why so? They don't uplift any ítem (as the SU is already consumed).

USA:
When looking at the rule there are three things that, above all, matter to me

1) Simplification (making it easy to implement and understand)
2) Automaton (making it easy to create programs and sheets to do the work for me)
3) Standardization (making as few exceptions as possible to a general rule)


Fully agreed, but I keep believing those exception achieve exactly the opposite (at least on simplification and standardization. And I’ll ad some realism (albeit it can be secondary), understood as 2300AD setting realism.

USA:
The rules requiring the uplifting of all the above points - it simplifies the work that has to be done since no player has to work out which ships can land, which of them have actually landed this turn and which will require supply units uplifting - this prevents confusion and removes the chance of mistakes in these calculations

Currently such things would be easy to work out - in 10 turns less so, in the year  2200 it will be virtually impossible if players build nothing but ships capable of landing - which such rules would heavily incentivise.

The current rule also permits far easier (eventual) automation of these calculations and provides a standard that applies to all spaceships, so there are no exceptions to this general rule.

Whilst I understand you are arguing that this is an exception to the normal supply rules, it is far less of an exception that the alternative, which is that each space ship may or may not need to land to be supplied, may be supplied from an O/T or some combination of the two over numerous turns.


This is no different to tracking any other unit, and see which ones are in friendly hexes (national or bases) to calculate the extra SUs for deployed ones, etc...

As for incentivating the ships able to land, the same shipyard rules (don't worry, they are one of the things I will talk latter, but there's no hurry now) incentivate them...

This aside, it will depend on why do you build ships for. Just bulk freighters will never need to land, if you have good interface, and ships able to land are quite more expensive than those unable (thy need the propulsors to land, and this also need more power, and in both cases that is moe volumen and money). remembre you own designed solar sailer...

USA:
A space program should be expensive and require adequate support infrastructure, if SU for ships did not need to be uplifted then it would be possible to create a massive fleet without the need for any uplift - a situation that seems insane.


Aren't they already expensive enough?

And, again, this will depend on what do you want your fleet for. If just bulk freighters, you need the interface capacity for the cargo. If combat ships, you need the interface for the supplies if they fight (remember, in this case, the 5 SU/ship will need to be where it fights, as there's no special rules for this...

USA:
Indeed, the eventual cost and difficulty of implimenting this kind of rule set would be much, much higher and much, much more complex because of one simple fact;

We would need logistics trains

A significant point of the current rules, to my mind, is to remove the necessity of players managing massive logistics trains over massive amounts of space - which would drag turns into planning minutiae. eg;

A multinational fleet is blockading Barnard's Star, a system without an inhabited world, to prevent forces from the Empire of Solarid attacking Earth and Alpha Centauri from further down the arm. Under the rules you suggest anyone taking part in this would need to arrange for the uplift and then transport of as many SU as required (including for combat) by stutter warp ship to Barnard's Star.
Not only does this have to be manually worked out and then ordered by each player, they also have to work out where to store their SU, and indeed this creates a new problem as there is no location under current rules such SU could be stored. Do we then introduce a logistics module for ships to allow them to be resupplied away from  a settlement?

It creates an interesting situation, don't get me wrong, and if we were playing a more tactical game I'd be all for it because then we get into the whole 'unrestricted submarine warfare' scenario with stealth ships attacking supply lines - but this is a grant strategy scope, and I really don't want to spend the time creating this kind of logistics force, escort ships for it, worrying about ordering 10 units worth of movement for every 2 combat units and so on, rather than having to uplift supply and then assuming it gets sorted out in some other way abstracted from the game that doesn't require me to plan out the kind of movement orders I'd eventually need a full military staff to keep track of.


I’m afraid those logistic trains would be needed anyway…

First of all, to supply your colonies (the SUs supplying your own Waystation 1 did not appear from nowhere, nor teleported there, as the DRMS Goethe can witness).

Second, to move any other ressource (FUs, RMUs, etc) that your colonies either need or produce (as I guess you would like to take them to Earth, instead of letting the stores grow up in waiting for them to become Core Worlds).

Third to supply any land forces there (imagine in your same situation they are landing some units in a Soland outpost).

And, as rules stand now, the Eta Bootis fleet in the Kaffer invasion could be supplied just by taking the SU needed to an Earth OT…

Yes, this simplifies their supply a lot. A shame Borodin didn’t know it…
Germany
 player, 423 posts
Sun 29 Jul 2018
at 14:28
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Now he hard part: the rules changes I’d suggest. Some have already posted before, and I apologize if I’m a pest, but I keep thinking many things are wrong, both from the in game and metagame sense (to achieve the simplification, automation and standardization Liam told about).

As I promised, I will begin with those I believe are urgent to address ,as they already apply (e.g. the shipyard problems I mentioned in my answer to Liam will some turns to have any influence in the game)

Oil:

The stored oil SRUs should represent the strategical reserves any country uses to have for scarcity or increased needs times, and they use to be quite reluctant to use them, as they are not always easy to build up again.

As rules stand now, your oil matters are handled by default, in priority order by:

  1. You produce what oil you do and sell it to open market (or to countries that have contracts of exclusive purchase)
  2. Your stored SRUs (so your strategical reserves are the first ones committed…)
  3. You receive the SRUs bought by exclusive purchase
  4. If your needs are not yet fulfilled, you try to buy the SRUs needed, but, unless the market is supplied at least to 100% of its needs, you cannot buy all you need. At this point you receive your budged with any shortfall marked on it.
  5. You decide if you endure the shortage, military compel someone you can or use the Golden Rule.


Of course, this is doomed never to be used (and why do you want a default rule that will never be used?), as at least you’d prefer not to sell any SRU you produce to open market unless your own needs are fully supplied…

A more logical default would be:

  1. You produce you oil.
  2. You sell the ones to exclusive purchase contracts (or receive the ones so purchased)
  3. If your needs are now fulfilled, you sell surplus (all or part, as explained in your orders) to open market. Any SRUs not so sold are added to your stored ones.
  4. If you cannot fulfill your own needs by now, you try to obtain what you need from open market. Again, unless the market is supplied to 100%, you cannot obtain all you need. At this point you receive your budged with any shortfall marked on it.
  5. If you have shortfall, you can now decide if you use stored SRUs, to endure the shortage, to compel any country you can or to use Golden Rule.


See that this change would not add complexity to the came, nor need any budget change. As said many times, the stored ones used could be marked it cell K46 (the one for military compulsion). This would have an overcost (if I understood rules and spreadsheet well), as you pay them (again, despite being yours) at standard prices, but will avoid you any shortfall effects and will sure be cheaper than using Golden Rule.

In game reasoning, this would represent the use of strategical reserves more or less as they are in real world, while as metagame reasoning, this gives the players more maneuver margin (options), so making the game, IMHO, funnier.

As for your claim this will alter open market offer (and so prices) and so require a budget correction, I don’t believe so, as those SRUs have never been in open market, and so the offer (and as consequence the open market price) will not be affected.

OTOH, if some country is compelled to sell you their oil, in this case those SRUs are taken off from the open market, and all your effects would apply, and that has never been a probelm to allow those SRUs to be immediatly used (I'm not suggesting they should not, even if only for simplicity sake)...

For the same reasons, there’s no real reason to keep the exception it represents that stored oil SRUs cannot be used the same turn they are purchased, just as any other resource, so avoiding another of those exceptions you so hate.
Germany
 player, 424 posts
Sun 29 Jul 2018
at 19:02
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
3.5. Mid-turn purchases:

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 he’ll 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 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:

A player plans to have 1 response PA without any specific goal, just i ncase and spend his left money ($75) in SUs. WIth rules as now are, he must do it at the begining of the turn, and this PA will be used, even in a unplanned action (usually increase relations with some country). WIth this change, he could just leave those $225 unsepent, as he knows he can buy all of this in mid-turn.

Then he finds that he relied on an ally to provide him some uplift to uplift a facility. As this ally does not send the turn, this is void and the whole opperation would be lost (at least the uplifting, as they must be uplifted in a singgle turn). Instead of it, if he has money, he now (whith GM permission) buy more rockets with the un spent money.

The net result is that the player plans have not been twarted by another player that could not send the turn, adn the GM has to resolve 1 PA less...

OTOH, it requires few rules changes (in fact just altering one sentence) and adds (as I see it) little to none complexity to the game or work to the GM, even reducing it if some PAs are avoided as people feels better to spend the money in SUs once the turn is coming to end.

ANd, of course, it allows to fully delete all section 6.7, as the response PAs now would be PAs bought at mid-turn (the possibility to buy them at debt could be then added to 3.5 itself).

This message was last edited by the player at 19:07, Sun 29 July.

Germany
 player, 427 posts
Mon 30 Jul 2018
at 18:08
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
As it seems most of us agree with Liam stated goals of simplification, automation and standardization, we keep with the Armed Forces rules suggested in post 330 this same thread (and quoted here, somewhat edited for easier reading) with the addenda given below the quote:
Germany:
8. Armed Forces:

Get rid of quality ratings, using only MR. This, of course would require some changes:

Costs:

Current costs for $100 worth units evenly distributed in QR according table in 8.8 are 207 for MR1, 142.5 for MR2, 67.5 for MR3 and 37.5 for MR4.

Here I’d give two options:

Double costs and divide them by MR. Costs multipliers compared with current would be 2 for MR1, 1 for MR2, 0.75 for MR3 and 0.5 for MR4. Special abilities costs should be halved (multiplier 0.25) if they are to be kept as now.

Just multiply the units cost for an approximation of the numbers above: 2 for MR1, 1.4 for MR2, 0.75 for MR3 and 0.4 for MR4.

Reserve units:

Units combat damaged would be considered Cadres. They are subject to all current rules for reserve units (cannot initiate combat, cost no SUs, etc.).

Units can be voluntarily downgraded to Cadre (representing reserve cadres as today most countries have). They can be returned to full unit status at the cost of 1 SU per unit (5 SUs for Division sized units) at any moment.

Newly bought units are considered Cadres for the turn they are built.

Detailed Combat:

In non-Quick combat rules, all MR1 units are considered Veteran, all MR2, experienced, all MR3 Green and all MR4 reserve. All Cadres are considered reserve, despite their MR.

Supplies costs:

Each non-Cadre unit needs 1 SU to be supplied per turn. If not received, it is turned to Cadre.

Each unit (Cadres included) needs (5-MR) SUs to be supplied per Quick Combat Round. Effects of not receiving them are unchanged.

Of course, division sized units multiply it by 5 (or by 4 if the rule I suggested in my revision is accepted).

Transfer of units among countries:

Just get rid of it. As the development costs are no more in play, it has lost meaning, and the fact a unit is built or bought is irrelevant now (if you want to give another country units, just give them the money to buy them).

Increasing MR:

Of course, its cost should be raised (I leave to you how much), as it would now represent the increasing of units' QR too.

Elite units ):

Allow for a new special ability; elite.  Those units represent the cream of their armies (mostly used as expeditionary forces), and are considered 1 MR lower than their armies. If they act along with other units of their army, the usual MR is used.

Example: the US Marines have elite ability. A force of marines only is sent as intervention force to a hot spot. They are considered MR0 for all aspects. So, they pay 5 SU per Quick Combat Round for maintenance, but they receive 2 extra column shifts in their favor.


Addenda:

No more than 20% of the units may be elite (this was unnecessary when the abilities where limited, but is would be now, as otherwise it would be a way to cheat the system and having an army 1 MR lower than listed)

Elite units may not be kept as cadres. The can become so by combat damage, but if not repaired at the beginning of next turn, they lose the elite ability.

If a force has 50% or more of its units being cadres, add 1 to its MR for combat.

As units could not be transfered, players may allow other countries to use their spare shipbuilding capacity.

Keep the security ability in game, Its use could be to diminish the rebellion possibility in foreign countries (occupation forces) and as bonus on some PAs (at GM decision).

Comments:

Aside from the fact we, as in core Worlds QCR are used, are in fact already using MR over QR, this system will have, IMHO, several advantages:

  • First and foremost, it would reduce complexity and bookkeeping (even the units description would be shortened, as the QR will be taken out).
  • It will avoid the need to calculate percentages of units, be them for current units (as to now) or for newly built (as suggested by Kelvin)
  • It will avoid for the GM to have to evaluate the forces sent to see if they conform the MR status (as happened with Russian forces in Armenia this turn)
  • It will allow better quality (lower MR) countries to maintain larger reserves (cadres) than now, something that probably better represents many of them IRW.
  • It will allow higher MR armies to send better quality intervention forces (elite forces ability), also better representing many of them IRW.


OTOH, it would require a heavy rewriting of the rules. .

And I know it will make space exploration more expensive, mostly for lower MR countries, as now the possibility to build lower QR ships would beno more available, so once again difficulting it (but this time in anon retrospective way).

This message was last edited by the player at 18:22, Mon 30 July.

Germany
 player, 428 posts
Tue 31 Jul 2018
at 10:27
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Carriers:

I keep seeing many issues in how they are now treated, and none of them have been fixed with those new rules.

Former quotes:
Germany:
Carriers (again):

(note: this assumes the parts of 10.6 and 10.8 told above apply to 10.10)

This new use of carriers has IMHO other problems too:

Let’s imagine, using 10.10, 1 carrier unit attacks from an adjacent hex an island where there are several ground units. The final combat result is 40 for the attacker.  That means 0.6 SBC, but, as rules specify, at least one unit. So, is the Carrier sunk by those units that cannot reach it, or is the damage ignored and the carrier planes immune to SAM and other AA fire?

Germany:
More problems with the treatment of the Carriers:

Detailed combat:

Let’s imagine a carrier is alone and is attacked by a multi-role helicopter (all other factors being equal):

The carrier has a defense factor of 1 (not being on attack, it does not use its MR plane 6 factor). The helicopter has a combat factor of 3. As the carrier is surface unit and the helicopter air unit (it only counts as ground vs planes), the carrier combat factor is quartered, so odds is 12:1 (>10:1). The result against the carrier is automatically 100%, but as it has L armor (so needing 115% hits to damage it), no immediate effect (though damage is retained). On its turn, the carrier counterattacks. As now the combat factor is 6 and it counts as a MR air unit (so quartering the helicopter combat factor), the odds is 8:1. Again, a helicopters have armor, no immediate effect will be felt, though damage will be retained…

But carriers rarely go alone, so now let’s imagine this same carrier is escorted by a destroyer unit, making the total combat value 4 (again, quartered to 1). The minimum result for the defenders is 40%, so damaging the carrier. Even on a 100%, as the carrier has greater mass, it is the unit damaged.

So good for the escorts…


Now an example with QCR are bein used:

A Carrier fleet is attacked by a bomber squadron. Other things being equal, the odds would be 1:1, and the whole carrier fleet would be lost on a 3+ on the roll (the bombers will also unless a 10 is rolled, but I guess this Exchange is worth it).

This assumes the Carriers don't have any escorts (unless other units are with them), nor any CAP...

You'll know that I'd prefer to return to the carried air units, but as I understand this will increase the bookkeeping, I jsut suggest to give the carriers a single combat factor, both to attack and defense, to be treated as MR airplanes (or helicopters, in the CVH case) in combat.

This assumes most (or outright all) combat is performed by th airplanes, the carrier being only a base for them, but I guess this is more close to RW than current rules, aside from reducing complexity by keeping a single combat factor, reagradless if attacking or defending.

Of course, this does not aress the problem about attacking a different hex where no untis might reach the carriers...

This message was last edited by the player at 10:43, Tue 31 July.

Germany
 player, 429 posts
Tue 31 Jul 2018
at 11:40
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
As I keep seeing the same problems I already told about several times (mostly, as losses depend on your own force, it’s absurd to send more troops than needed, as you only increase your SU needs and risk more losses; and makes last Base force points nearly impossible to kill in one turn, and they will be reinforced for the next one). I keep suggesting the alternative combat rules I suggested (and quoted here for easiness, with addenda below):

Germany:
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, I’ll keep in usual color the suggestions, in red the clarifications asked (I’d 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. There’s 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% damage. 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. NPC’s 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. Player’s 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 bomber’s 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).


Addenda for QCR:

Damages:

If the damage is not enough to fully destroy a unit, one of them is CDd

Supplies (even if the new armed forces rules given in post: 435 are accepted, those will overrule what is said there about supplies).

Each unit consumes (5-MR) SU/WR + (Distance from nearest base or home hex)/(20/word size) SU/WR (e.g. ,one MR1 unit fighting 5 hexes away from the closest base on Earth would need 4 base SU + 5/2.5, so 2 SUs for deployment, for a total of 6 SU/WR. Effects of not receiving them are unchanged (no losses division, increase of MR)

Additionally, each side (regardless how many countries form it) must consume 1 oil SRU/100 Base Combat (as always, numbers are argueable and can be changed), rounded to the nearest whole number.  Any country in the attacking coalition may expend it, and it will e up to the GM if it is not specified. If they don’t receive it, they are considered reserve (or cadres if rules above are accepted) for the WR.

Combat consumes lots of oil. When oil SRUs could not be stored, this could not be represented, but now it can.

At first I thought on making oil SRU cost by unit, but we’ll agree not all units need the same oil. Then I realized the oil needs were almost always tied to combat factor (a bomber squadron or Armor brigade consumes quite more than an infantry unit), so I made it combat factor dependent.  This leaves some cases out (airborne ability should increase it, and airships should consume less), but I left like this for the sake of simplicity.

See that if a side has not those oil SRUs, the can only attack with a maximum of 49 BC, as they don’t require it

See also that those supply rules might be applied even if the alternative combat system is not
.

ICBMs:

Allow them to attack without using WMD with a reduced factor, and forfeit the MDW capability need for them. This will represent, among other things, the Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles Michel told us about , as well as allowing non WMD countries some ASAT capacity, now that only ICBMs can have it).
Germany
 player, 430 posts
Tue 31 Jul 2018
at 14:00
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Well, I guess I finished most (if not all( my comments about rules already in use, so now it’s time to talk about those that, while not in use, will (I hope) have importance in the future:

2.2 Worlds: (just to put this somewhere, as there’s no real rules point for this)

I see you deleted all S sized worlds form Solar System in the Atlas of Known Space (probably a wise move to simplify the game). As I guess you intend to do the same in other systems, wouldn’t it be better to just delete any reference to them?

To compensate for this, as most GG have lots of such small rocks (and many of them also rings, while not as well known as Saturn’s), I’d suggest to add a ring to every one of them, just to represent all those small objects that could be exploited (if rich enough, of course) in a single entry.
Germany
 player, 431 posts
Tue 31 Jul 2018
at 14:12
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
4.1: Supply Units:
quote:
Production of Supply Units require the local Materials, Power, Electronics, Space and Biology tech level all to be at least 5.5 to  produce.


I see some logic on it, as TL 5 represents (more or less) WWI period, while TL 6 WWII, so the fact supplies require the TL of about 1920 does not seem wrong to me. Nonetheless, we then have a problem:


7.4: Settlement TL:
quote:
for a Colony type Settlement to produce Military Units, Facilities or Supply Units is:
 ( Average Tech level of the nearest Core Settlement of the same Owning Nation in the same category) - 5 , + 0.1 / 0.5 / 1.0 cumulative if there are at least 10 / 100 / 1000 Population Units in the Colony + 0.1 / 0.5 / 1.0 cumulative if there are at least 1 / 5 / 25 Heavy Industry facilities in the Colony +0.5 if there is at least 1 University facility .


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. See that to reach those 100 pop it would mean there will be about 50 facilities, so those are the minimum SU to be taken there per turn, assuming the world is hospitable (so good for not having Supply Trains, Liam)

This also means that even when you build a Heavy Industry on this colony (so raiding you TL to 4.1, let’s say a little more if you have a university, 4.6) the only facilities this Heavy Industry might build would be Mining, Farming and Road, not being able even to expand your power net….

Of course, for the supply problem, you can always set up Orbital Factories. You’ll need “only” 5 of them to have the 50 SU/Turn needed, and they will only need 50 RMUs (so about 1 Mtonne, so good again for the “no supply trains” goal, unless you either can build catapults or have a rich Asteroid Belt near) per turn to work, power aside…

As any colony under TL 5 will have lots of problems, I'd suggest the initial TL to be changed to Average TL -4 This will put a vcolony built by a TL 9 country at TL 5 (WWI). This wil lstill be difficult to maintain (but I can even find it logical, for those eariler colonies), but at TL 9.3 or so they will become more viable (as having a heavy industy and 10 pop would rais it to 5.5, soallowing them to build some SUs). Of course, most interface or orbital facilities whould need to be improtad until the colony is quite mature (but I also find this logical).
Germany
 player, 432 posts
Tue 31 Jul 2018
at 14:46
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Now some points in the facilities lists that are only to clarify some details:

7.8 Power::

I suggest to add a sentence specifying that power can only be used in the hex it is produced or any one linked to it by power gird.

As rules stand now, nothing prevents me to build a fusion plant in a hex, and then a mining facility in an adjacent hex (being mountains I have a bonus MP there) using its power without any net.

7.9.3 Ground Facilities:

Terraform:
  • 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…
  • Alternatively, change the "Habitable World" in the table prerequisites for Farming facility to "Hospitable World", as inhospitable ones can also be habited.
  • Change No more than (Settlement Biology tech level, round fractions down) number of Terraform facilities may be deployed in any one hex. for a hex cannot have its Farming Potential raised by more than (Settlement Biology tech level, round fractions down) by terraforming it. As rules stand now, the FP of a hospitable size 2 world could be raised up to 20 despite their initial roll. I guess this is a reminiscence form when hex size did not depend on World Size each terraforming added 1 to MP in the hex. As it is now, even at low TLs the Farming Potential can be skyrocketed

Germany
 player, 433 posts
Tue 31 Jul 2018
at 17:03
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
7.9.1: Orbital Facilities:

Shipyards (both civilian and Military):;

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.

Shipyards in the game have several uses. The repairing one is the easiest, and IMHO is good as it is. The building one is very inefficient, and would heavy incentivize building ships able to land, something clearly against the 2300AD setting we’d like to emulate (as told in my answer to Lima in post 431 this same thread).

Currently, a shipyard needs 20 RMU (400000 tonnes) to build 10 modules. Even if they were 10 Orbital Assault Modules, the largest In the list, it would be only 150000 tonnes, so its material treating efficiency is at most 37.5%. Usually, the modules built will not be so large, and I would be amazed if the materials efficiency is 5% (that would require the average mass of the modules built to be 2000 tonnes).

On the game effects efficiency, those 10 modules would allow us at best to build a 5000 tonnes spaceship (5 hull modules, 5 other ones), probably less.

To build a 10000 tonnes ships (the maximum a shipyard can build), we’d need at least 10 hull modules plus anything we want to put on them. I doubt this would even be less than 20 modules, so, if we want to build it in a single turn (something easily done in surface), half of them would have to be built in surface and taken to orbit (and, unlike the RMUs, this time catapults don’t help, something, OTOH, I find logical).

Let’s review the ship examples in the rules:
Lewis&Clark explorer: 6560 tonnes, but as it has a total of 17 modules, a shipyard alone cannot build it in a turn
Hudson Cargo carrier: 24000 tonnes, 50 modules. To be fully built in orbit it would need 5 shipyards, while it could be assembled with 3.
Kennedy Missile Cruiser: 8790 tonnes, 34 modules. Despite it can be assembled by a single (military) shipyard, it needs 3 more to build the modules.
Tayllerand Battleship: 61480 tonnes, 112 modules. It needs 7 military shipyards to assemble it, but 12 to build the modules…

So, the real bottleneck to build ships in orbit is the modules, not the ship size. As said, they can be built in surface, but they must to be uplift to orbit by anything else than Catapults…

Any of those ships could be easily built in surface if given landing capacity (the spaceports are likely to be needed in any case for interface). That would of course make them more expensive, but quite easier to build (aside other advantages landing may have). As an aside, to build the Kennedy or Tayllerand in worlds surface (assuming they are made able to land), military shipyards (1 and 7 respectively) would need to be present, even if they did not contribute to its building, so not requiring the RMUs.

So, I really believe, as told above, that this will be the main incentive to build landing ships, and so the main 2300AD setting breaking in this sense


Suggestion:

Allow them to build 10000 tonnes worth of spaceship each, without regard to the module numbers, keeping the rest of the rules untouched (for this point).

Military Shipyards:
quote:
Assembles up 10 000 tonnes of Modules per Turn into a Spaceship in the Orbit hex with M or H hull Modules or more than 1 Weapons type Module.


This seems to mean they cannot assemble U or L hulls unless they have more than 1 weapons module…

Suggest to change to: Assembles up 10 000 tonnes of ship per turn, regardless the kind of hulls or number of weapons modules-. or, alternatively required to assemble ships with M or H hulls or more than one weapons module. They perform as Civilian shipyards in all other aspects,.

Of course, this assumes it was not intentional to forbid Military Shipyards to assemble (or build) civilian ships….
Germany
 player, 434 posts
Tue 31 Jul 2018
at 17:34
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
9.2: Spaceship construction:


quote:
; one Spaceport facility in the same hex is required per 10 000 Tonnes, roundup, of mass of the Spaceship. 


Is this rounding up per ship or after all the intended building is added?

If the former, then building a 2000 tonnes ship (let’s say a Hornet class) consumes the whole capacity of a spaceport (so forfeiting the remaining 8000 tonnes)

If the latter, if you want to build total of 21000 tonnes of shipping it needs 3 spaceports (but then you can use the remaining 9000 tonnes to build more shipping).

Which one is correct?



quote:
Spaceships can be assembled in the Orbit hex from their component Modules at a ‘Civilian Shipyard’ facility if all Modules are available in the same Orbit hex; one Civilian Shipyard facility is required per 10 000 Tonnes, rounded up, of mass of the Spaceship. If the Spaceship being constructed has M or H hull Modules or more than 1 Weapons type Module then a ‘Military Shipyard’ facility in the same hex is also required per 10 000 Tonnes, rounded up, of mass of the Spaceship, regardless if the Spaceship is assembled in the Orbit hex or on the surface.


This seems to mean that only Civilian Spaceships can assemble ships (regardless its hull type or number of weapon modules), while the military shipyards are needed to support the civilian ones for those kind of ships (so, in fact requiring both, a Civilian an a Military shipyard, to assemble a 10000 tonnes ship with M or H hulls or more than 1 weapons module).

Of course, this, aside from doubling the number of shypyards required, is not consistent with the shipyards descriptions…

Which one is correct?


(Sorry, those questions should have gone to post 428 (clarifications asked), and 427 (inconsistences) respectively, but I didn’t think on it then and editing it now would risk you not realizing it). Note also that while the first question may already affect the game, the second will take some turns before it does.
Germany
 player, 435 posts
Tue 31 Jul 2018
at 18:47
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Well, I think that's all (at least for now, maybe some more will appear as I review things)...

Once again, let me encourage people to opine, or to make their own suggestions, or to comment mine (any comment more reasoned that quoting it and adding "bullshit" will be welcome by me, and I guess by kelvin, as all ideas are useful).

Remember, debate is good, and you may have ideas neither Kelvin nor me have had, or just different views that can help him (as rules keeper).
Referee
 GM, 117 posts
Thu 2 Aug 2018
at 01:15
Rules Proposal 20180513
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.


>>Can be stored indefinitely. A unit of Pai-Leng at a Settlement may be used as a
>>free Political Action point towards a Task of attempting to increase the Prestige of
>>that Settlement, or if brought to the surface of a Core Settlement it adds $50 to the
>>income of the Settlement, either action consumes the unit.
>I understand that this adding $50 (that I guess are variable as any SRU, BTW) to the
>settlement is optional, as they can be stored for latter selling or use. Is this right?

Yes

>>After every turn that a Settlement produces any Special Resources Units, the Base
>>SRU production next turn will be 5% less (round fractions down).
>When it says round fractions down, does it mean for the reduction or for the
>remaining capacity (I’m afraid it can be read both ways)?
>So, if a settlement is producing 10 SRUs, the reduction would be 0.5 SRU and the
>capacity would be modified to 9.5. Will it be rounded as reduction is 0.5 rounded
>down, so no reduction,

No reduction, however, the fraction is retained within the excel spreadsheet and continue to accumulate.

>BTW, what happens on a mine dedicated to SRUs when the production is reduced to
>0? It becomes a regular mine, or it just stops being productive, becoming a
>useless facility?

A useless facility, I would have said so if it converted into something else.

>Since rules proposal 20170401 the CCC module definitios no lenger 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.

>>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.

>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.

>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.

>Aside from the inconveniences this brings to any spaceship owner (as uplift is quite
> scarce) and its (IMHO)

How is this a complaint about the rules?

>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.

>7.6: Facilities maintenance:
>Where must the non-orbital SUs be spent (sorry, I cannot find it in those rules)?

section 7.6 paragraph#1, sentence#2

>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.

>(# 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.

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

>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.

>Get rid of quality ratings, using only MR.<snip> OTOH, it would require a heavy
>rewriting of the rules.

And that is why it is not going to happen until it is proven absolutely necessary that we go to such a system.

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

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

> 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 defence.

>If the damage is not enough to fully destroy a unit, one of them is CDd
>Each unit consumes (5-MR) SU/WR + (Distance from nearest base or home hex)/(20/word size) SU/WR

That is a lot of complexity and effort added to a section which was intended to relieve complexity and effort.

>Allow them to attack without using WMD with a reduced factor
The amount of firepower that a non-WMD warhead which could be fit inside an ICBM would be trivial, and as I said before, it takes a lot more than knocking out a bunch of satellites to destroy a facility, anything less irrelevant.

>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.

>To compensate for this, as most GG have lots of such small rocks (and many of them
>also rings, while not as well known as Saturn’s), I’d suggest to add a ring to every
>one of them, just to represent all those small objects that could be exploited (if
>rich enough, of course) in a single entry.

Ok.

>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.

>I suggest to add a sentence specifying that power can only be used in the hex it
>is produced or any one linked to it by power gird.
That is already stated in the definition of a Power Grid facility.

>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.

>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.

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

This one.
Referee
 GM, 118 posts
Thu 2 Aug 2018
at 01:30
Rules Proposal 20180801
Change to: Supply for an Enclave Settlement, allows a Settlement on a unoccupied world. Notice to take a hex or Settlement must be given during the initial, written orders phase. What Orbital Industry does. Length of time for an Enclave to Survey back to 5 Turns. Units are allowed upto 2 abilities. How altering the production of SRUs works.

The introduction of: Spaceships may be combined into Wings as long as they are of identical design. SRU production varies with time, World Size and Settlement Size.

Made clearer: When units arrive/leave in Quick Combat. That Quick Combat Rounds are not the same as War Rounds.

Rebalancing to: Production by Farming, Mining and Asteroid Mining Facilities and of SRU by Core Settlements. Reduction in Prestige back to baseline set to 25%, same as what happens with Stability. Military strength of a revolt.

Got rid of: Moved sections ‘Using Heaven & Earth Software’ and ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ to the main website, they do not really belong in with the rules. Allowing the breaking a Division sized unit into Brigade sized, could easily cause mass confusion. $ and module production by Civilian and Military Shipyards, made them too powerful. Combined Military/Civilian Shipyard into ‘Orbital Shipyard’, not enough difference to be worth the complication.

This message was last updated by the GM at 02:32, Thu 02 Aug.

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.<quote>

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….

<quote 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 14:13, Thu 02 Aug.

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.