About mining potentials in inhospitable planets (again):
Forgive me to insist about this point, but IMHO its quite important and, afecting Asteroid/planetoid Belts, it may afect quite soon.
As rules stand now, inhospitable planets have no fatming potential (logical) and their mining potential is 2d10-10. As I understand it, the -10 is due to their posible resource extraction potential is limited to minerals, lacking organics (from lumber to oil).
While I agree their mining potential is so affected, as rules stand now, about 45% of those planets (in fact a little more, as a roll of 20 will mean tantalum presence and reroll) will have no mining potential (set it at 0), and about 10% of them will have it set at 1, making them extremelly por (about 1% of them will have tantalum, being in fact the only ones worth being exploited, and so only as long as it lasts).
If we look at 2300AD setting, not a few of them have small colonies on them, and have good metal resources that make them worth exploiting, the main indicator of those resources being their density (even for hospitable worlds this is seen as a good indicator of their metal wealth and the probability of holding exploitable tantalum reserves).
Specifically about Adsteroid/planetoid Belts:
The probabilities for them are even worse, as they will have no mountain/rugged/volcanic hexes that locally raise the Mining Potential, and they are counted as a single hex for the modifier for several facilities.
As rules stand now, Ceres, Pallas or Vesta could hold several mining facilities with increased Mining potential (due to the terrain) each, while the rest of the Asteroid Belt could hold only one, with no increased Mining potential, making the Asteroid belts the poorest resoruce extraction places of the known universe, something quite in opposition to most science fiction (and some not so fictional) assumptions (2300AD setting, where most of the few Asteroid Belts present are exploited/mined or have plans to do so, included).
How to represent this in the game:
(NOTE: most of this was already hinted/suggested in the msg#243 of this same thread)
In the game, we’re using H&E for the system/planets descriptions, so, I’ll stay on the information it gives us.
- As H&E gives us the density of any planet, I’d suggest to modify the roll for Mining potential by (Density-1)x10, caped at 20 (so, a planet with a density of 1.4 would have a mining potential of 2d10+4, maximum 20).
- If this modified roll is 20, then significant tantalum depots exist, and the referee marks them and rolls again (as in rules, just making this modifier affect it). If the modifier is negative (due to low density), a natural roll of 20 would mean tantalum presence too. (so, the same planet with density 1.4 would have tantalum depots on a roll of 16+, while a planet with density 0.8 will have it only on a natural roll of 20). Ice planets would never hold any tantalum depots.
- If the planet is inhospitable, halve the roll (after density modifiers), to represent the lack of many kinds of resources. The terrain modifiers would also be halved (so, the same planet with density 1.4, if inhospitable, would have a mining potential of (2d10+4)/2).
Asteroid/planetoid Belts:
Asteroid/planetoid belts are quite a special case, as they are not described by density, but by zones percentage. They are also assumed to be easier to mine, due to the easiness to take their (mostly mineral) resources, and, unlike most inhospitable planets, they also use to have carbon compounds (described like tar) in their carbonaceous asteroids.
So, the rules I’d suggest for them would be:
- Their base mining potential would be 2d10/2, as per any inhospitable planet
- This Mining Potential is modified by (100-mixed area%)/10-5 (so, an Asteroid Belt with zones distribution 30N/40M/30C will have a modifier of (100-40)/10-5, or +1, while one whose zones distribution is 40N/20M/40C would have a modifier of (100-20) /10-5, so +3).
- Due to the vastness of the asteroid belts, no modifier is applied for multiple facilities
- Alternatively, each 10 x (asteroid width in AUs) facilities (rounded up) count as one in the current formula (so, in an AB with a width of 1.5 AUs, up to 15 facilities would count as one for the current formula, while if there are 16-30 facilities, the production will be divided by square root of 2, and if 31-15, by square root of 3, and so on; while in a small one with a width of 0.8 AUs the thresholds would be 1-8, 9-16, 3-24…).
- The modifier to check Tantalum presence could be (N zone percentage)/20 (so, an Asteroid Belt with 40% N zone would have a DM of 40/20, so +2, and a roll of 18-20 would mean tantalum depots and reroll
- Needless to say, no terrain modifiers would be applied.
(NOTE: the alternative given in msg#243 keeps on the table, being perfectly compatible with those suggestions.)
IMHO, the complexity added by those rules is quite low, being only some modifiers (or changing one by a divisor), while making it more consistent with 2300AD (and many other science fiction) settings.
Again, needless to say, the exact numbers could be discussed or altered, and any fractional (mostly when halving due to inhospitable) may be rounded up or down, as you see fit.
See that, moslty for Asteroid/planetoid belts, any such changes should be applied ASAP, as the potential to mine the one in Sol system exists right now with current rules
I won't even talk about King in 2300AD, considering it a true exception. Being an intolerable planet, I'll asume US spent quite a lot of PAs in (from point 6.6 of the rules)
quote:
-2000 X ( Task Difficulty level of the action ) - Convince the GM to temporarily ignore/alter a game rule.
This message was last edited by the player at 19:43, Tue 21 Feb 2017.