Co-GM:
>I keep thinking that the political actions resolution formula penalized high
>prestige when trying any internal action.
and
>For internal actions (In the same country as performs the action), make prestige=10.
...and I keep trying to get Americans to accept the clearly superior metric system and they keep responding with something like
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny...wo_kinds_of_country/ Prestige stays in that formula.
Then don't be surprised then those Political Actions are undertaken by other countries as Liam specified in post 285 this same thread...
Another possibility would be, as I suggested then, to considere each country his own "client state" and apply, as rules say (6.8), that
Usually, the GM will lower by one the difficulty level of a Political Action which is attempting to alter a player’s Client StateUsually, the GM will lower by one the difficulty level of a Political Action which is attempting to alter a player’s Client State
>Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM
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?
quote:
>As they use to become core settlements once they reach about 2000 pop (pop digit
>7 in the UWP), the adding of 0.1/1000 pop seems quite odd to me
I am not quite sure what you are saying here, but a Colony becomes "...a Core Settlement at GM discretion..." (sec 7.2, Core, sentence#2).
See that at this point the Settlement will probably have about 1000 facilities, so I guess the GM will be glad to turn it into Core Settlement for the shake of simplicity. And in any case, I guess most will so become before reaching the 10000 pop units that would be required to add a single +1 to the TL…
quote:
>ODI: allow them to be up gunned with weaponry modules
You would have to account for the H armour class of the ODI expanding to include the module. More importantly, I am not wanting to expand modules for facilities, they are already a back door to fractional facilities and I will not have that.
Then I don’t expect to see too many ODI facilities in the game, to the point I’ll get rid of them. Time will tell (I hope)…
<:
Missile Defense: increase its defense power against missiles.
and
>Interception: again, now that the MDW weapons factor has been so increased and the
>defenses are not, the interception is quite less likely to occur. Is that intentional?
Invest in more Missile Defense facilities.
Why so?
I’d better invest in ICBMs, that give me 2.5 times the same combat power, not only against missiles, and cost only about 57% of an ABM and 20% of a Missile defense satellite net. And I can even attack the enemy with them, not only defend myself…
quote:
>Solar power Satellite: allow it to reduce oil SRU according the power
What did you think would be an example of a practical manifestation in investing in option#4 of 4.5.4?
I thought they where those given in option#4 of 4.5.4, where solar power is not listed… After all it is named Conservation/efficiency, and this will be more Alternative Infrastructure (option#5) but without those significant downsides.
But you already agreed to include those renewables into those options, so I will not extend myself on that, but I guess no extra PAs to reduce the oil should be needed in this specific case, being considered included in the facility, as it is its main use in Core Worlds (to provide cheap and clean power), aside from the GDP bonus.
quote:
>Allow cruisers to carry missiles as missile submarines do (but maybe only
>1 SAM or IRBM unit) to represent the GC and Aegis units.
A long time ago Morgan tried to give China a vast number of Helicopter Carriers because many transport vessels of the actual Chinese Navy happen to sport helicopter landing pads on their top decks. A few short range missiles does not make for an IRBM squadron any more than a helicopter landing pad on a cargo ship makes for a Helicopter Carrier Unit.
As I understand the rules, those transports Morgan told you about would be amphibious ability helos in this game (as they can move and fight as reserve in all sea hexes)…
But, as rules stand now, the only units that cannot be protected by SAMs against missiles and air attacks are naval units in deep seas, precisely the ones that most do it. I can agree more about IRBMs.
quote:
>Merge infantry and motorized units. Nowadays, most infantry can have enough motor
>pool to be seen as motorized, and would reduce bookkeeping.
'most' is not good enough, we have to account for 'every', and there are plenty of units that fail to rise to this game's standard of what is a motorized unit.
Beware this sentence does not turn against you, as there are many cases where it’s yourself who does generalizations that could be answered with it…
And this was only a suggestion to simplify the rules and bookkeeping, I won’t insist on it…
quote:
>Example (clarification): could you please explain what does the second set of
>combat numbers represent (the 20/3/4/0)?
For Spaceships their base combat strength is listed by separate Beam/Missile/Fighter/Orbital Bombardment strengths. Must have gotten dropped in one of the reorganizations, will modify text.
I understand that, but in the example you give about the Tayllerand you give 2 such sets of numbers: French #1240: Veteran Spaceship:10/1/3/0:B:L:Alpha Centuari, Triania, Orbit: N/A: 20/3/4/0, carrying unit#455.
That’s why I asked.
quote:
>Add a factor on spaceships called rating, equivalent to hull modules x 1000
See section 9.1, the same way we do not have a similar rating for an infantry brigade vs. aircraft carrier is that the majority of a unit is actually made up of support units...and such a factor would be a significant complication.
Because infantry brigades and aircraft carriers are standardized units (though if most does not mean all, they shouldn’t be ;)), while spaceships are more detailed.
And I don’t see the complication of just adding to the rules a sentence as “Ship's tonnage is considered to be hulls x 1000 tonnes”, so that when you talk about tonnage everyone knows what are you talking about. And as you could delete then the clarifications about carried items mass not to be counted bu simply talking about tonnage instead of mass, it could even shorten the rules.
quote:
>As rules stand now, nothing forbids a player to build a 10000 tonnes ship with
>20 hull modules and next turn refitting it and having it fully functional, or
>to use the same trick to have larger ships than his OTs will support, expecting
>to refit them when those OTs are built.
Not seeing how there is much to be gained by this and hence why I should forbid it.
Don’t complain then if any player finds the way to profit from this loophole… You know I prefer to warn you about loopholes than using them.
quote:
>needing over 1380 OTs to support just the Anjou class ship
Invest in more OTs.
Let’s see, the game is thought to last until 2300, so 60 turns… So, to reach the level of shipping traffic found in 2300AD setting, we must build an average of 23 OTs per turn
only for the Anjou class ships…
Add to this the military fleet, colony ships, and other class freighters/lineers…
And unless something heavy happens, we will not have the recovery age on 2300AD, so one could expect to reach farther than the 2300AD setting…
quote:
>Forfeit the 5000 tons for the population mass, the passenger module being enough.
That 5000t represents the mass of people, baggage&tools, oxygen, and food. The number was chosen to match the mass of an Infantry Unit as infantry weapons are easily included in the term 'baggage&tools'.
And then what does the passenger module (that masses double that) represents?
quote:
>Halving MP for unhospitable worlds <snip> have a MP of 0, making them useless.
and
>allow spaceships to land or take off also from an Enclave hex.
>This assumes those enclaves have “mini-spaceports” for landings, and would
>allow players to deploy SUs or FUs beforehand to help establish colonies.
That is why you want to do it. Why should I allow it?
About avoiding those MP 0 planets, just to allow players more freedom of action (though I admit this might be a matter of taste or setting wanted), about allowing chemical rockets to land in outposts/enclaves mainly because otherwise the ships setting up the ground part of it cannot land, so they cannot be set up as rules stand now.
I’d find logic, though, to return to the old concept of needing more chemical modules to land/take off on a planet without spaceport.
quote:
>As rules stand, it seems that if MDW are used, all combat power, not just the MDW
>part, is divided by 25 (for colonies) or 250 (for core worlds). Is this right?
and
>In case this minor country uses MDWs, as only some units have their combat power increased
When WMDs are being used it is assumed that more than just Bombers, IRBMs and ICBMs are using WMDs, but that *every unit is using some kind of WMD* e.g. that is why whole column shifts occur when WMDs are used.
Ok, I understand that, and even guessed this will be the case. That’s why it was just a clarification asked.
quote:
>Does the result in the table affect in any way the damages? As rules stand, if
>10000 points of bombers attack a hex where they are met by 40000 points of defenses
>and the result is 100/0, the collateral damages are the same as if they are not met
>by any defenses and the result is 0/100.
The combat table only covers what is done to military units. The ugly reality of WMDs is that their destructive power is much more than just their successful destruction of military units.
I agree, but a 100/0 result on an air raid should mean nearly no plane reached its target, so the damage would be (at least) reduced for collateral damages too.
quote:
>Include the bombers among the units quartered <snip>
>Exclude MR helicopters with interceptor ability from <snip>
>Include DDs or CAs among the units with less reduction
What is the gain with this...makes the game more realistic? An insufficient reason; we are trying to simplify the rules.
And yet you discard many rules that would simplify the game on the grounds of perceived realism…
And then tell me what’s the meaning of multi-role aircrafts, if even in detailed combat rules they are at disadvantage over bombers
quote:
>Add the prestige somewhere on it.
It is already listed in the Settlement_List file. What purpose would there be to having it in the Budget Spreadsheet too?
So are many other factors that are also featured into the streadsheet, but having them on it simplifies the job quite a lot. I guess this will be the case this time too.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:51, Sat 28 July 2018.