Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
Co-GM
 GM, 52 posts
Thu 13 Aug 2015
at 06:29
Discussions about rules
I am making this the placeholder in this forum for discussions about rules, their problems, updates, ect.

Usually, the latest rules proposal will be posted to the Files section of the main website (https://sites.google.com/site/2300adgame/file-cabinet). Edits to the original text will be in green font. Rules proposals are just that, they will not have any force until the GM says so. The GM usually will only formally update the rules between turns, though often proposals are written to cover some critical flaw that has been exposed in the course of game play so the GM may think it best to rule that way.

This message was last edited by the GM at 17:23, Mon 05 June 2017.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 53 posts
Thu 13 Aug 2015
at 16:38
Rules proposal 20150810
Rules_proposal_20150810 (https://sites.google.com/site/...tredirects=0&d=1)

Many little changes, most visibly the deletion of large amounts of text which was either duplicate, unnecessary, or a fossilized remnant of long cast off ideas.

Probably the biggest change is getting rid of battalion sized units. I think for the size and scope of this game we just should never be dealing with units that small. Very proud of that simplification, heck, the rules in the first iteration of the game were so crazy as to allow for Platoon sized units. I worry though that I made a huge error in settling on Brigade sized units. As is there are around 2000 cataloged military units for player nations alone and combat/supply rules which, in spite of many simplifications since game start, I worry is still cumbersome and distracting. Further experience will have to tell if it is necessary to go to the traumatic step of converting everything to division sized units; I can foresee that going to division sized will allow us to reduce the number of Supply units which have to be tracked by 1/5 (by making each one x5 bigger) and that alone may be enough reason to justify it.

This message was last edited by the player at 18:51, Thu 13 Aug 2015.

Referee
 GM, 76 posts
Thu 13 Aug 2015
at 17:28
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 2):

I see a future for Division sized units...
/Andreas
Germany
 player, 118 posts
Fri 14 Aug 2015
at 11:20
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Combat Cycle Ref:
Rules_proposal_20150810 (https://sites.google.com/site/...tredirects=0&d=1)

Many little changes, most visibly the deletion of large amounts of text which was either duplicate, unnecessary, or a fossilized remnant of long cast off ideas.

Probably the biggest change is getting rid of battalion sized units. I think for the size and scope of this game we just should never be dealing with units that small. Very proud of that simplification, heck, the rules in the first iteration of the game were so crazy as to allow for Platoon sized units. I worry though that I made a huge error in settling on Brigade sized units. As is there are around 2000 cataloged military units for player nations alone and combat/supply rules which, in spite of many simplifications since game start, I worry is still cumbersome and distracting. Further experience will have to tell if it is necessary to go to the traumatic step of converting everything to division sized units; I can foresee that going to division sized will allow us to reduce the number of Supply units which have to be tracked by 1/5 (by making each one x5 bigger) and that alone may be enough reason to justify it.


I understand that brigada sized may seem too detailed for thsoe countries with large armies, but moving it to division sized will also have problems:
  • many countries have smaller armies where división sized will left them without as ingle unit or with too Little capacity to maneuver (e.g. while in the game Germany has increased its army, IRW it has only 2 divisions)
  • Division sized units are not applicable to some specialized units (e.g. artillery)
  • Air and Sea units must be enlarged accordingly
  • In the case of insurgencies, I don't believe division sized units are a good idea
  • (for the future) unless you allow them to be broken up, transport for military units will become a nightmare, needing quite large space ships (and a lot of Naval Base Modules) to move them


If you really want to simplify military, it would probably need a full remaking of military rules (that I must admit work better tan I expected, though I understand that a great cost for the GM):
  • Make it just force points, disregarding specific kind of units (à la Castle's proposal)
  • Disregard specific unit's quality, assuming all of them to be according to its MR
  • Reduce the different kind of units (e.g. for land just heavy, light and artillery) and specialties
  • Use different rules for insurgencies, wehre insurgent's units are not relaly units, as suggested in the past


Except the first option, they will just avoid the need to keep trace of each and every unit, I hope making it more beareble

This message was last edited by the player at 14:49, Sat 15 Aug 2015.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 54 posts
Fri 14 Aug 2015
at 18:41
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered. One thing we will not be doing is creating a whole, new, separate, section of rules for insurgencies. Simplification is goal, not adding complications as we try to make the new rules work with every other rule or situation which can occur. A full remaking of the rules would suffer from the same problem for the same reasons.

This message was last edited by the player at 18:42, Fri 14 Aug 2015.

Germany
 player, 119 posts
Fri 14 Aug 2015
at 18:59
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered. One thing we will not be doing is creating a whole, new, separate, section of rules for insurgencies. Simplification is goal, not adding complications as we try to make the new rules work with every other rule or situation which can occur. A full remaking of the rules would suffer from the same problem for the same reasons.


Simplification in the rules or in resolving the turn?

For what I've seen to now, resolving insurgencies as a full fledged war has benn not precisely simple...
Germany
 player, 120 posts
Sat 15 Aug 2015
at 15:32
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered.


OK, as you tell me to see section 13 of the rules, let’s review it:
  1. Replace ‘$’ as the symbol for in-game currency with ‘BLv’ or ‘milli-Rundell Units’. It would look more 2300AD like and save so much confusion as to what is the nature of in-game money. That would not change the game, just the names. BTW, IIRC, Rudell units only measure industrial capacity, not ressource (food incluiding) extraction effect.
  2. Not allowed the ISS to count as a prototype for an Orbital Terminal, the ISS is just a normal expression of what it is to have a +8 infrastructure tech whereas an O/T is something completely different. That has no effect at this stage of the game. Useful if it’s ever begun again.
  3. Set the initial infrastructure and theoretical tech levels of the first world nations to be at most 8.0, not 8.5, Traveller tech level 8.0 is clearly beyond 2010 levels. DItto in point 2. As for Traveller TL 8 to be over current TL, that depends on the field and Traveller version (I personally don't know about T5)
  4. Much greater initial variability between nations on their Authoritarian Modifier. Smaller and much less direct impact of Authoritarian Modifier on final effective budget. Ditto for the first part. As for the second part, I remember that initially, when the game began, AM also affected Social Expenses, so it was as you say here...
  5. Make Military-Space tech be separate from Space tech. Mil-Space includes everything related to ICBMs, IRBMs and ABMs!-->Real world work on these items is extensive! Start everyone with a Military-Space Infrastructure/Theoretical tech level of ~8.0? It was you who said this would change the formulas too much right now, so, ditto in point 2. If so, I'd make it depending on other TLs (those needed for starships plus mil-air)
  6. Have military units be Divisions/Fleets/Air Wings rather than Brigades/Squadrons; this will dramatically simplify the workload of managing national armies including getting rid of Artillery &SAM batteries as well as many of the special abilities, e.g. Light, Heavy, SAM, ASAT, as they have little meaning for division sized units.1 Orbital Assault Module is needed to carry 1 Quality ‘step’ of a unit i.e. 4 Modules/Trips is needed to carry a Veteran (1 Reserve + 1 Green +1 Experienced + 1 Veteran) quality unit. Make mass be dependent upon the number of steps. I personally find Brigade level to be the optimum to allow for flexibility, given the immense variability of army sizes. See previous post for talking about it. I don't like the idea of quality so affecting mass, though. See taht this would mean that to transport a militia unit is easier than an elite one (just to see how the milita cannot act in the non-hospitable world where it is taken)
  7. Remove Quality levels from individual military units e.g. Military Rank 1 means all units treated as Veteran, 4 equals all units treated as Reserve. Will still need some other state to signify that a unit is damaged/etc. I’ve always been partidary of it, as you know. Beware if this is joined with point 6, as would make high MR countries' units easier to transport than low MR ones.
  8. Make uplift/down lift depend upon 5* 10^(Space TL-6.0). Get rid of Multi-stage rockets and Space planes. Anythinng that eases/simplifies interface will be well received for my part (I guess no surprise there)
  9. Remake the Relations and Prestige table range to be between 0 and 20, to be consistent with the range for Mineral and Farm potentials. This would allow for less variability, and, after all, relations and prestige can be negative (in the sense that they hinder you instead of helping), while minning and farming potential can be at worst 0 (no output, but no hinder either).
  10. Either get rid of sec 7.3 developing/unlocking items as this is a duplicate of tech levels research cost or eliminate Theoretical tech, players can build up to +0.3 of Infra tech but at x5 cost, extra cost to upgrading to highest infra tech in the world, but what to do with Research Modules, Universities etc.; give some % off final cost? Not allow cutting edge Theoretical research to be shared as it makes it very difficult for the spreadsheets to be comprehensive about calculating the costs for all tech upgrade options?. Another point that was changed from the begining of the game, when theoretical level did not exist...
  11. Remove Tech level from the calculation for Military unit cost. That would make it consistent with how cost is calculated for colony facilities. Multiply Base unit cost, including Starship Modules, by 10 (? 8? 12? 15?).-Everything that is in section 3 should go into section 5 or 2. Section 1 should be moved to the end, after it has been substantially updated or completely discarded. I also have been advocating fro mthe begining that the high cost for military units should be in maintenance, not in building them. Large army expansions have been seen many times in history; the fact that keeping a large army it’s cheaper has never been seen...
  12. Make adding a unique identity number to each unit be mandatory. Shoudln’t this be taken off from section 13, as it has already been implemented?
  13. Get rid of Oil option #5 - Coal Gasification; it is a duplicate of option#6. Move all the verbiage to be more about non-renewable energy than oil. Eliminate the distinction between land and water Oil exploration (option#1), should be ‘Hospitable’ vs ‘Inhospitable’. Merge Oil SRU with Raw Material Units, linking core world economies with those of colonies + do the same with Food units as we have done with Oil SRU. 1 Food Unit ~= 1/millionth of world consumption/production. I think all the oil issue should be taken off. It seemed a good option when Castle suggested it, but it’s directing too much the policies of non-oil-producing countries. As much as oil may be critical for economies, as game stands now, food and raw materials are too (as you hint).
  14. GDP growth rate on the spreadsheets should be per core world. Transform adjustments to GDP into things which affect local growth rate. I’m not sure I understand what you mean here, so I don’t oppine.
  15. The effect of technology is usually tech level squared, yet for the expected 8-12 dynamic range of tech levels in this game that is not much of an increase in power, 122/82 = 144 / 64 = +125% increase… not that much for what has happened. Change performance with tech to be 2 raised to the power of tech level? It will make TL too decisive for my taste, as it also affects in other ways (e.g. initiative). I’d have to think more on it before oppining.

This message was last edited by the player at 16:55, Sat 15 Aug 2015.

Germany
 player, 121 posts
Sat 15 Aug 2015
at 17:13
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
I found a document with suggestions I wrote some time ago (after a former versión of the rules was released) and I didn't send you in hopes not to bog the game down if you see some points valid. I post it as it was, see that some points have already been talked about in the former posts:

Some more thoughts about the rules and how to speed the game, as it was you who said it should be a strategic game of galactic conquest, not just about world dominance. I know you are against major changes, but at the pace we’re going, we will not reach anything.

Economical rules:

Oil: while it seemed a good idea when suggested, now I’m not sure it’s worth the mess it’s producing. Oil is becoming the main focus of most non-producing countries, seriously limiting their actions (and I guess this will go to worse, regardless any efforts to reduce its needs). I know oil is a critical resource now, but also are (in game at least) food, or raw resources, and we’re not keeping track on all of them. Oil crisis can be played as events, needing some PAs or to raise relation with producing countries to resolve, to give you some examples (more or less as you told me about debt).

Tech:
  • Modify costs for theoretical TL if the difference with infrastructure TL is too high (e.g. +10% cost per decimal TL infrastructure is lower than theoretical -0.5). As rules stand, Nigeria could well conduct cutting edge research (profiting from its very low AM), even while its infrastructures are at TL 6 (2.5 TLs below cutting edge).
  • Modify 7.3 to represent former experience in other satellites:
    1. 1st time in humanity: x5 (minimum + $200), as in rules
    2. 1st time in satellite (but 1 does not apply): x3 (minimum + $150)
    3. 1st time for your country in this satellite (if neither 1 nor 2 apply): x2 (minimum + $100), as in rules
       


Diplomacy:
  • Make PAs formula dependent on GDP, not on population. I find illogical that the same amount of money will have (other factors equal) the same effect on Afghanistan (pop 9157, GDP $107) than in Italy (pop 9188; GDP $12763). While in Afghanistan a PA represents about 2 years GDP, in Italy is about 1.5% of a year’s GDP… Of course, divisor should be modified accordingly… Alternatively, make it dependent on both (by doubling the divisor in both cases and multiplying by both).
  • For changing PAs, make the result dependent on “combat” result. I was told a PA would only raise relations by 1, even when a single PA gave me a “combat relation” of 29:1…


Military:
Simplifying it is a must. Right now, every pretty war is bogging down the game. I gave you some suggestions in the thread about rules, and I’d lean towards Castle’s proposal (just force points). Also see that fully destroying you enemy it’s outright impossible as rules stand. In detailed rules, as long as any of your units is armored, 100% will not damage/destroy all your units, in Quick war, the reduction to 1/5 will avoid it. As for the next CR the numbers would be made for reduced totals, situation will be the same, so you cannot (never) annihilate your enemy (nor be annihilated), and wars will become eternal (aside from game bogging).

Suggestions:
  • Reduce the kind of units and specialties
  • Forfeit the individual QR
  • Make losses dependent on percentage of enemy troops, not own ones (that would allow to fully destroy your enemy, and will avoid sending less units to avoid losses)
  • Do not play insurgencies as full fledges wars.


Space (mostly for the future).
In general, I must state I dislike most the changes you introduced to it (ship building, OT needs, etc.), as I think they will bog down the game to a crawl:
  • Allow each core world to be counted as a Naval Base Module to allow some more ships before those modules are available. Alternatively, make their need only or military ships, instead of needing it for every cargo ship.
  • Return to the Docking modules (or something like it) instead of requiring full space station facilities to allow interface. As rules stand now, it would be impossible to deploy space industries or to colonize, as interface is too limited by this.
  • Return to former ship building rules (one ship per shipyard or spaceport)
  • Allow streamlined ships to take of loaded, even if at a penalty (in round trips, in SP or both). At least population should be so allowed, as even in 2300AD setting some planets depend on landing ships for passenger traffic (e.g. Crater).
  • Allow (when tech is right) for easier resources movement through space (as they are moved on Earth now). My suggestion would be for a module (let’s call it Space Flight Control) that could allow resources to go through a system without needing ships, for a fee (IIRC my former suggestion was about 1SP per 100000 tonnes so moved per system), representing commercial traffic. This module could be TL 10 (or a little higher) and could need a colony in the system, as they would represent the civilian traffic through known and relatively safe systems.


Forgive me to be a PITA with the rules, but I also want this game to be fun, playable and (as far as possible) representing what could be. Maybe I took too seriously what you told me when I joined about not to be afraid to suggest ;).
Germany
 player, 122 posts
Thu 20 Aug 2015
at 17:38
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered.


4. Much greater initial variability between nations on their Authoritarian Modifier. Smaller and much less direct impact of Authoritarian Modifier on final effective budget. Ditto for the first part. As for the second part, I remember that initially, when the game began, AM also affected Social Expenses, so it was as you say here....


A simple (but long reaching) solution would be to use an AM dependent multiplier for the social expenses (I'd suggest (70+AM)%).

This would be coherent with 6.1:

quote:
Lower authoritarian modifiers generally represent governments which refrain from meddling with society, and run minimalist services for their country.

<snip>

Higher authoritarian modifiers mean your country enjoys more $ for its budget spreadsheet, but also means those same citizens expect lots in return.


(bold is mine)

I suggest 70+AM as it was said at the begining of the game that the desirable AM (the one most countries will tend on long term) would be 30-35.

Some examples as how would this have affected several countries if applied last turn (according 2030 budgets):

  • China: (GDP 110724, AM 40): its Effective Budget after countrywhide Upkeeps (cell D21) goes from 7526 to 3970
  • Germany:  (GDP 23883, AM 35): its Effective Budget after countrywhide Upkeeps (cell D21) goes from 2095 to 1851
  • Russia: (GDP 29946, AM 39.5): its Effective Budget after countrywhide Upkeeps (cell D21) goes from 2527 to 1771
  • Saudi Arabia: (GDP 5863, AM 50): its Effective Budget after countrywhide Upkeeps (cell D21) goes from 732 to 439
  • USA:  (GDP 131037, AM 20): its Effective Budget after countrywhide Upkeeps (cell D21) goes from 3081 to 4922.

This message was last edited by the player at 11:31, Fri 21 Aug 2015.

Germany
 player, 123 posts
Fri 21 Aug 2015
at 17:35
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered. One thing we will not be doing is creating a whole, new, separate, section of rules for insurgencies. Simplification is goal, not adding complications as we try to make the new rules work with every other rule or situation which can occur. A full remaking of the rules would suffer from the same problem for the same reasons.


Simplification in the rules or in resolving the turn?

For what I've seen to now, resolving insurgencies as a full fledged war has benn not precisely simple...


As things dstand in the rules, to represent an insurgency and giving them a minimal chance, absurd number of units must be given to the insurgency. OTOH, the limits for losses make fully eliminating enemy totally imposible.

In game, the Claiphate (although right now I doubt it can be considered only an insurgency) has 19 brigaes (nearly 100000 men), and that amounts to about 1000 combat points. A single German Feldjäger (security inf) brigade would amount about 360 (as it has a x5 multiplier as IC is MR4), so attacking in the 1:3 column, but with 6 column shifts, it will finish in the 3:1 column...

OTOH, even with a good roll, the Germans would only achieve a 20% losses to IC units (as we're using 12:10), so reducing them to about 800 CP, and repeating the numbers for next CR. If again a good result for the Germans occurs, IC would be reduced by a further 160 CP, to about 640. On third CR, the German unit will attack on the 4:1 table, but its máximum result would be to eliminate 128 CP, and so on...

And, if the loes are not divided as 12:10 tells (afte all the GM may change that), a result of 5+ i nthe roll for the Germans would fully eliminate IC military, while even rolling 1 will reduce ISIS by 40% (so, it would lose about half its infantry) while the German unit, even while accruing 20% losses will be undamaged, and be able to fight next turn with quite a more favorable table.

And see that if Germany sends 3 such units, te table would be 7:1-10:1, and the 100% damage to IC is nearly sure, while Germany can receive at most 10%...

That's why I believe standard rules don't work for insurgencies (and don't reduce compexity, nor do they speed the game).
Germany
 player, 124 posts
Thu 27 Aug 2015
at 11:05
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 4):

See section 13.2, those problems and the possible solutions to them have long been recognized and considered. One thing we will not be doing is creating a whole, new, separate, section of rules for insurgencies. Simplification is goal, not adding complications as we try to make the new rules work with every other rule or situation which can occur. A full remaking of the rules would suffer from the same problem for the same reasons.


Simplification in the rules or in resolving the turn?

For what I've seen to now, resolving insurgencies as a full fledged war has benn not precisely simple...


Excuse me my daring, but I posted in the files section of the HP (as you asked us not to use the forum) two proposals for insurgency rules. Each one would add 2 pages to the rules, but I guess will simplify (and I hope speed) quite a lot the resolution of the turn.

The first proposal is adapted to a 3 years old one (August 2012) and would proably need some modifications, as it's from before the use of PAs was detailed in section 8.5. (e.g. PAs effect could depend on their result in raising stability)

The second one is more coherent with the combat/PA use system, though not too much more simp0le, again IMHO.

Both cases are untested (and, needless to say, mutually exclusive), and, as ever, numbers are open to discussion. in both cases, those rules would nullify the x5 combat strength for security units against MR 4 enemies, as they would not be insurgencies anymore, just poor quality/irregular armies.
Germany
 player, 131 posts
Sat 5 Sep 2015
at 19:10
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Another point (unrelated to previous):

I keep thinking the definition for the "amphibious" ability for air and space units to be flawled. As it is, it forces the carriers (I'll refer to IRM carrying ships as such too) to carry units that are 5 times more massive than regular ones, as they seem to need their own ships (aside from the carriers themselves).

Suggestion: either outright forfeit the ability, forfeit its need to be based on carriers or define amphibious as the possibility to be bsed on carriers, forfeiting the rest of definition (after all, any unti may be moved by ship and defends as reserve, and the only true advantage is to be able to opérate at its true quality the same round it moves).
Germany
 player, 133 posts
Sun 13 Sep 2015
at 11:30
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
An example of why I believe no war will ever be ended  as rules stand.

Using the Azerbaijani rebel attack on Russian/German troops (msg #34, Historical Interval 2030-2034 thread).

Combat Cycle Ref:
Azerbaijani rebels attacking
Azerbaijani rebel: 8 Reserve Infantry: 1 : U
Azerbaijani rebel: 1 Experienced Infantry: 1: U

Mil Rank 4, Mil tech 7.9, Sum Basic Strength: 9, Final Combat Strength: 561

Russia and Germany defending
Russian -unit#442, 443, 444: Experienced Infantry Brigades: 1 : U: Sol Earth H20: Security
German -unit#213, 214, 215: Veteran Infantry Brigades: 1 :U: Sol Earth H20: Airborne & Security
German unit#718,719,720: Experienced Multi-role Plane: 3: L: Sol Earth H20

Mil Rank 2, Mil tech 8.4, Sum Basic Strength: 15, Final Combat Strength: 2751

Odds are 561/2751=0.204 which becomes 1:5 odds, shifted 2*(2-4)=-4 = 4 columns to left

20:54, Today: Combat Cycle Ref rolled 8 using 1d10.  Through Bandit Country.

Results: 100%/5=20% permanent to loss Attacker, 0% permanent loss to defender,

0.20 X 9 available hits = 1.8 = 1


(bold are errata correction, as I understand it)

So, after a full CR, result is 1 unit destroyed, while each side spent 45 SU (each side had 9 units). As it's difficult to know the relations with the Rebels, I don't know how many CR would be fought, but, unless some side runs out of supplies (so forfeiting the disvision of losses by 5), result will be 1 rebel unit lost per CR until it has only 4 of them, and then no result...
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 61 posts
Tue 15 Sep 2015
at 23:35
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Germany (msg # 13):

"You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said the American colonel.
The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."
-- On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, by Colonel Harry G. Summers
(Summers was on the US negotiating team in Hanoi and was the unnamed American officer in that conversation)


Wars with Mil Rank 4 nations are wars of attrition. Supply and resolve are more important than tactical victory...and you are also missing the last sentence of sec 12.6 paragraph#1
Germany
 player, 135 posts
Wed 16 Sep 2015
at 15:53
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 14):

Several points here:

I know military action is not the decisive part in insurgencies, and that's why I keep thinking that they should be treated with specific rules instead of military ones, but if they should be treated with military rules, there should be a way to win.

And let me rembemer that it was yourself that said that not all MR4 are insurgencies, and so there can be situations where they represent low level conflict

(from your answer in the forum)

quote:
>I’d also extend the advantage for security units to stealth ground ones (SF) and reduce the power
 >of air units against insurgencies.

 But you would not always know you are dealing with an insurgency and not just a low level conflict or a war we do not care to play out in detail… as I have said before, any definitions or boundaries you could draw up would quickly break down as there is just too many real world examples, and cases likely to develop with our game mechanics, where the lines are hopelessly blurred.


ANd, off course, that is not exclusive form fights against MR4 armies, but any war resolved with 12:10 will fall in this problem.
Germany
 player, 137 posts
Thu 17 Sep 2015
at 15:56
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Some more reflections about your 13.2 shared thoughts (see also point 6 in msg 7 above):

quote:
Have military units be Divisions/Fleets/Air Wings rather than Brigades/Squadrons; this will dramatically simplify the workload of managing national armies including getting rid of Artillery &SAM batteries as well as many of the special abilities, e.g. Light, Heavy, SAM, ASAT, as they have little meaning for division sized units. 1 Orbital Assault Module is needed to carry 1 Quality ‘step’ of a unit i.e. 4 Modules/Trips is needed to carry a Veteran (1 Reserve + 1 Green +1 Experienced + 1 Veteran) quality unit. Make mass be dependent upon the number of steps.


I guess bold part is based on the fact that quality represents equipement. If so, and appling the same logic to spaceships (and what you said several times about the expanding forces in WWII being represented by improved quality), the transport capability of a spaceship (be it for pop, troops or mass) should also depend on the quality of the unit, as higher quality would also mean more ships...

This message was last edited by the player at 15:57, Thu 17 Sept 2015.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 62 posts
Thu 17 Sep 2015
at 21:23
Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 2):

> For what I've seen to now, resolving insurgencies as a full fledged war has benn not
>precisely simple...
Actually it is very simple. The greatest work/stress for me has been finding out exactly where and what each nation’s units are doing. Lluis, you have made it the simplest for me but it was still time consuming, I thought my Russia was ok but now I see it is a mess.

>Oil:
>the mess it’s producing.
>Oil is becoming the main focus of most non-producing countries
> oil is a critical resource now,
That is pretty much the simple answer to why we are doing this in the first place

>Oil crisis can be played as events, needing some PAs or to raise relation with producing
> countries to resolve
That is not making the game any simpler, it is just changing the format of how it is handled to one that requires more writing and judgement calls by the GM and less opportunity to use the automation available in Excel.

> Make PAs formula dependent on GDP, not on population.
I will believe you when you can explain why the poor-as-dirt Iraqis & Vietnamese, and the poorer-than-dirt Afghanis did not fall all over themselves to worship at the feet of the Americans after what we can assume were the expenditure of considerable PAs from a nation with a very high Prestige score to one with a much lower score.

> For changing PAs, make the result dependent on “combat” result.
It does. If I said it didn’t then I have long ago changed my mind.

>Military
> Simplifying it is a must. Right now, every pretty war is bogging down the game.
As above, the main thing bogging down the game is trying to figure out where each military unit is and what it is doing. If players would be more helpful in that then wars would not be a problem. ….that and the interminable negotiations which never seem to go anywhere but take my time to sort out what happens.

>Space
> Allow each core world to be counted as a Naval Base Module to allow some more ships before
>those modules are available.
Naval Base Modules are available at tl 9.0 which is basically the same time as everything else important in space.

> As rules stand now, it would be impossible to deploy space industries or to colonize, as
>interface is too limited by this.
As I recall, the example that you used to prove your case was based on running everything from Earth and with low technology. I would be concerned if that *DID* work.

> Allow streamlined ships to take of loaded,
No. Interface is too important in the 2300AD universe to ever let that happen in our game.

>>Much greater initial variability between nations on their Authoritarian Modifier
>A simple (but long reaching) solution would be to use an AM dependent multiplier for the social expenses
>I suggest 70+AM
>Some examples as how would this have affected several countries if applied last turn
Changes to how the budgets are calculated leads to endless screaming from the players who feel they have been singled out.

> Excuse me my daring, but I posted in the files section of the HP
> Insurgencies are fought by a combination of PAs and troops.
Did I ever say they couldn’t be? It is just unnecessary to do so with a whole set of new rules when we already have sections 8.5 and 12.10.
> This factor is usually 0 if no insurgence is active, and may vary from 1 to 19
I agree with you on that, it is just unnecessary to do so when we already have ‘Relations’ score that does the same thing.

> the definition for the "amphibious" ability for air and space units to be flawled.
>As it is, it forces the carriers to carry units that are 5 times more massive than regular ones
As carriers have no mass capacity limitations that is not a problem.

This message was last edited by the player at 21:58, Thu 17 Sept 2015.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 63 posts
Thu 17 Sep 2015
at 21:38
Rules proposal 20150915
Rules proposal 20150915 (https://sites.google.com/site/...tredirects=0&d=1)

The biggest change is simplifying the formula to remove tech level from unit cost. Before anyone starts to wind up about the cost of modern weapons consider that whether or not Tech Level features in the cost formula depends upon exactly what is your definitions for what is a unit, what is a new unit, what is being paid for in in Social Upkeep and Upgrades to Military Tech Infrastructure. Any definition that you choose to justify continuing to incorporate TL in military unit cost can be turned around and used to justify TL in the cost of colony facilities. Unless every player can honestly tell me they are excited to include TL in facility cost, then we are not going to do TL in unit cost.
Germany
 player, 138 posts
Fri 18 Sep 2015
at 14:00
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 2):

> For what I've seen to now, resolving insurgencies as a full fledged war has benn not
>precisely simple...
Actually it is very simple. The greatest work/stress for me has been finding out exactly where and what each nation’s units are doing. Lluis, you have made it the simplest for me but it was still time consuming, I thought my Russia was ok but now I see it is a mess


Glad to hear (bold part). Be sure I try. I guess it's time consuming. If I may help in any way, just ask.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Military
 > Simplifying it is a must. Right now, every pretty war is bogging down the game.
 As above, the main thing bogging down the game is trying to figure out where each military unit is and what it is doing. If players would be more helpful in that then wars would not be a problem. ….that and the interminable negotiations which never seem to go anywhere but take my time to sort out what happens.


Yes, negotiations and interminable (real life, time zone differences, etc. don't help here), but they are also the fun part (and I guess the basis) of the game.

Combat Cycle Ref:
> As rules stand now, it would be impossible to deploy space industries or to colonize, as
 >interface is too limited by this.
 As I recall, the example that you used to prove your case was based on running everything from Earth and with low technology. I would be concerned if that *DID* work.


I can understand your POV to a point. Let me put you another example:

Now, a passenger module needs 10000 tonnes. Off course this means they must be larger than that, as they will need some more modules (at least hull and propulsion ones). As you cannot build ships larger than 10000 tonnes without a Civilian Shipyard Module (Something that I cannot understand if they may represent several smaller ships), you cannot build a passenger carrying ship until you build such a module.

As this module needs 20 RMU to be operative1, you need 400000 uplift tonnes capability to use it (aside from any module you must uplift, as it can only build 5 modules), to build a passenger carrying ship you need to have already access to catapults (or a ridiculously high number of rockets and their supporting OTs).

So, to build a passenger carrying ship (TL 8.0), you need at least TL 9.3 for Space and materials, and TL 9.0 in electronics.

Suggestion: to return to former rules in some ways:

  • make the passenger module 5000 tonnes (it's about 1 ton per passenger)
  • in exchange, return to 1 ship representing just one hull, and to the 10000/G limit to land/take off from surface
  • return to ships being able to be built by surface industry if they can land in the satellite in question (not fixed 10000 dtons).


Note 1: clarification asked: must those 20 RMU be baid for in Core Worlds (that are unlimited sources of them) or just the capability to uplift them be present? See that in the first case, the $20 they produce are forfeited by its cost...

Another detail: See that as rules stand now, Assembly Yard is only useful to repair ships (and as prerequisite to a Civilian Space Yard), as any ship build by them can also be from surface (as long as it's streamlined). Not sure they are worth it. They could be droped and shipyaards (maybe made more expensive to compensate for it) be able to repair ships.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>>Much greater initial variability between nations on their Authoritarian Modifier
 >A simple (but long reaching) solution would be to use an AM dependent multiplier for the social expenses
 >I suggest 70+AM
 >Some examples as how would this have affected several countries if applied last turn
 Changes to how the budgets are calculated leads to endless screaming from the players who feel they have been singled out.


Well, I would be badly affected by it in most countries I play too (Nigeria excepted), but that would give sense to what issaid in 6.1 about the citizens expect in return..

Combat Cycle Ref:
> the definition for the "amphibious" ability for air and space units to be flawled.
 >As it is, it forces the carriers to carry units that are 5 times more massive than regular ones
 As carriers have no mass capacity limitations that is not a problem.</quite>

But it still seems odd to me. And the mass of the units is (I guess) mostly to move them by spaceship (in case of ships I guess dissaseembled), and in this case it will affect if someone tries to move a carrier grup to another satellite. And it's rearly worth it (except to be used from carriers), as they can be moved by civilian shipping anyway (though it needs one CR once in position (BTW, this applies to 12:10 too, where each combat turn represents several combat rounds?)


Now about 20150915 rules (after skip rading them)

Combat Cycle Ref:
Any definition that you choose to justify continuing to incorporate TL in military unit cost can be turned around and used to justify TL in the cost of colony facilities.


Not me this time (disappointed ;)). While higher TL uses to be more expensive, also less of it uses to be needed, so compensating it.

The only "but" I find in the new prices is that some units (infantry, MR airships, SAM, Patrol Ships) with a cost of $2 are not worth to be built as reserve, as its cost is $1, the same as Green. Not sure if this is intentional.

Another major change I see you've done is to change Relations and Prestige from -20/+20 to 1-20, and you've also changed the formula for PAs (a must with this change) by also reducing the divisor for defending strenght.

Aside from this forcing to change the Nations spreadsheet, some numbers I've run by changing those factors (halving them, rounding down, and adding 10, as I guess would be the correct formula and the one I'll use in all the coments), in most cases the relation is halved.

While this may seem logical when you try to modify relations (as now each relation means double than before), not so for other uses, as you need double PAs for most things. Again, not sure if this was intentional.

Another effect is that now is quite more difficult to have a client state, as you need 20 relations (now easier to achieve), but you also need 5 more tan any other country, something now quite more difficult. Again, not know if intentional.

EDIT (afterthoughts): OTOH, PAs are now a little cheaper, more so the lower your prestige was, as prestige is some higher. Some examples:

  • IC, prestige -11 (th lowest) had a cost of $61 per PA. Now with prestige 4 they would cost $46 ($14 saving)
  • China had prestige 3 (close to 0) and paid 47 per PA. Now, with prestige 11 it would pay $39 ($8 saving)
  • Japan, with prestige 16 (the highest) país 34 per PA. Now with prestige 18 it would pay 32 ($2 saving).


Again, IDK if it's intentional. If not, I'd suggest to change the cost to 60-prestige*1.5. This way, the costs would be 54 for IC, 44 for China and 33, more close to before...

This message was last edited by the player at 11:35, Mon 21 Sept 2015.

Germany
 player, 139 posts
Sun 20 Sep 2015
at 11:53
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Another doubt, this time about air units specialties (10.5.2, page 55):

quote:
ASAT: ASAT: Allows the unit to initiate attack (with its Air Defence combat strength) against objects in the Orbit hex


This means helicopters and airships, if given this ability, will fight with their Combat Strength affected by 12.9, but also Interceptors have a different Air Defense combat Strenght. Can interceptors attack Orbit hex if the yare ASAT, or they are affected by the bold part below?

quote:
Interceptor: Also known as ‘Superiority’ fighters, these are specialized in neutralizing attacking Air Units. The Combat Strength of an Air Unit with Interceptor ability is increased by %50 when defending vs. an attack that includes other Air Units, but may not ever initiate an attack against any unit.


If they are able to, I'd suggest to specify as exception in the interceptor definition.
Germany
 player, 140 posts
Tue 22 Sep 2015
at 17:32
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
Another clarification asked:

6.5.5.1 (SRU), option 7 (deal for exclusive purchase):

quote:
Usually about 10% of their total production is available per Turn to be relatively easily redirected to you (cost ~1PA), more than that will be more difficult


I understand that this 10% is per country (so, several countries may benefit from this in the same oil producing country). Is that right?
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 69 posts
Tue 22 Sep 2015
at 21:54
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Germany (msg # 21):

>Note 1: clarification asked: must those 20 RMU be baid for in Core Worlds (that
>are unlimited sources of them) or just the capability to uplift them be present?
The RMU have to be present in the orbit hex.

>See that in the first case, the $20 they produce are forfeited by its cost...
If that was the situation and if profit in $ was the only benefit then you would be right.

>The only "but" I find in the new prices is that some units (infantry, MR airships, SAM,
>Patrol Ships) with a cost of $2 are not worth to be built as reserve, as its cost is $1,
>the same as Green. Not sure if this is intentional.
The value is in the maintenance cost, which also figures into Social Upkeep cost.

>try to modify relations <snip>, not so for other uses, as you need double PAs for most things
I am not sure I understand you, but I am not sure you have your math right either.

>I understand that this 10% is per country (so, several countries may benefit
>from this in the same oil producing country). Is that right?
No. 10% of the exporter's totals, not per importer.

This message was last edited by the player at 22:08, Tue 22 Sept 2015.

Germany
 player, 142 posts
Wed 23 Sep 2015
at 16:57
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
First of all, TY for your prompt answer.

Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 21):

>Note 1: clarification asked: must those 20 RMU be baid for in Core Worlds (that
>are unlimited sources of them) or just the capability to uplift them be present?
The RMU have to be present in the orbit hex.

>See that in the first case, the $20 they produce are forfeited by its cost...
If that was the situation and if profit in $ was the only benefit then you would be right.


Yes, I understand the RMU must be present in orbit (so you need 400000*G uplift capability if you want to suply them from the satellite).

In a colony, if I have a mining facility that produces them, I already have them, but in a core world I just may have as many as I want, but must they be paid for (at about $1 each) or just destinate to them the uplift capability and asume they are from my own Budget (that it's assumed to include RMU, FU, etc...)

Combat Cycle Ref:
>try to modify relations <snip>, not so for other uses, as you need double PAs for most things
I am not sure I understand you, but I am not sure you have your math right either.


Let's see...

Numbers for a single German (prestige 14) PA for a standard action (defense multiplier 1)on various countries with old rules:

  • Austria (prestige 10, 1642 Pop, 20 relations): 1 x (40+14+20)2/(1642 x (40+10-20)2)/10000 =37.05, so 37:1
  • Russia: (prestige 8, 26927 Pop, 4 relations): 1 x (40+14+4)2/(26927 x (40+8-4)2/10000)=0.56, so 1:2
  • Islamic Caliphate: (prestige -11, 150 Pop, -20 relations): 1 x (40+14-20)2/(1500 x (40-11+20)2/10000) = 3.21, so 3:1


Now with new rules, assuming conversions to be x/2 (round down) + 10:

  • Austria: (prestige 15, 1642 Pop, 20 relations): 1 x (14+20)2/(1642 x (20+10-20)2/5000) = 18.52, so 18:1
  • Russia: (prestige 14, 26927 Pop, 12 relations): 1 x (14+4)2/(26927 x (20+15-4)(5000) = 0.3, so 1:3
  • Islamic Caliphate: (prestige 4, 150 Pop, 0 relations): 1 x (14+0)2/(1500 x (20+4+20)2/5000) = 1.67, so 1:1.5


Please, review them and tell me if the math is wrong (and then where it is if so, because it would mean I missunderstood the forumula)). If not, as you see, the results are abaut half they were in the former rules...

As each relation now represents two old ones (from 0 to 20, while they were from -20 to +20), it's fine that you need doublé PAs for the same result, but some other actions (raising stability, lowering inefficiencies, etc...) that would also need doublé PAs for the same result, and its meaning has not changed.

This message was last edited by the player at 16:59, Wed 23 Sept 2015.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 70 posts
Wed 23 Sep 2015
at 18:17
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Germany (msg # 23):

Hmmm, we have both made mistakes, but mine is the more important one. The denominator on the defense strength should have been kept at 10 000. Too many abortive attempts at tinkering with things to get it right, must have gotten mixed up on what was the final version.

Good catch, will fix.
Germany
 player, 143 posts
Wed 23 Sep 2015
at 18:19
Re: Rules proposal 20150810
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 24):

Glad to help, and TY again for your prompt answer
Germany
 player, 145 posts
Sat 26 Sep 2015
at 11:02
Re: Rules proposal 20150915
Another clarification asked:

10.5.4. Ground units specialties (page 58):

quote:
Airborne: <snip>  Only Infantry units may have this ability. <snip>.


quote:
ASAT: <snip> Infantry units may not have this ability. See section 12.9.


Does this include Motorized/Mechanized Infantry?

This message was last edited by the player at 11:04, Sat 26 Sept 2015.

Referee
 GM, 86 posts
Sat 26 Sep 2015
at 12:10
Re: Rules proposal 20150915
Germany:
Another clarification asked:

10.5.4. Ground units specialties (page 58):

quote:
Airborne: <snip>  Only Infantry units may have this ability. <snip>.


quote:
ASAT: <snip> Infantry units may not have this ability. See section 12.9.


Does this include Motorized/Mechanized Infantry?

GM Andreas says: I think we established a few years ago that yes it includes all types of infantry, but I am giving Kelvin the rules guy the option to veto this.
China
 player, 9 posts
Sun 27 Sep 2015
at 14:42
Re: Rules proposal 20150915
In reply to Referee (msg # 27):

Sounds about right ..Motorized (Humvee,Landrover and equiv) Are insertable by air (dropped from Hurcules type transports)
and Mechanized (Strykers, LAV's, BMP's etc) can also be inserted by air (dropped from globemasters or larger)

Dropping anything heavier than 25 tons has resulted in disaster for the planes that have made the attempt (a C5 galaxy can drop a full platoon of mechanized) So no Armoured (Main battle tank drops)

ASAT (Armoured, Land facility, Ship Launched, Multirole Plane launched, Balloon launched..can find no refences to a man portable device that can reach orbit)

Yep I am good with those restrictions to date they stay withing reality and the laws of physics.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 73 posts
Mon 28 Sep 2015
at 18:29
Re: Rules proposal 20150915
>Does this include Motorized/Mechanized Infantry?
As I recall, it was confusion over this which is why a long time ago I took the word ‘Infantry’ out of the name for Motorized and Mechanized units.

I know you are right M, but there has to be some advantage to Infantry units else nobody would ever use them. My defense is, as always, that a unit is much more than just the tip of the spear, it includes every support unit that goes along with it. So an Infantry unit with Airborne ability includes Strykers ect, but with very little fuel supply and no maintenance depot etc; the kinds of things which I am declaring, for the purpose of our game because of our scope, make the difference between an Infantry and a Motorized unit.

>>> ASAT: <snip> Infantry units may not have this ability. See section 12.9.
>>Does this include Motorized/Mechanized Infantry?
> ASAT can find no refences to a man portable device that can reach orbit
A simpler solution would be to just get rid of ASAT ability, alter the balance of what happens in Air Defence (sec12.9) and who can attack what (sec 12.4). Remember, an attack does not have to come from special built weapons. An attack can be a scientific atmospheric sampling rocket that was dusted off and weaponized, a hacked weather satellite that was redirected to a crash course, a crewmember of the Spaceship that was contacted and blackmailed into sabotaging his own ship…. Does this mean that Infantry type units are going to be able to attack Spaceships in orbit, Yes, they are just going to really suck at it as per sec 12.9. Again, I know you are right M, but there has to be some advantage to Infantry/Ground units else nobody would ever use them. My defense is, as always, that a unit is much more than just the tip of the spear, it includes every support unit that goes along with it.

One of the great simplifiers of our game universe is that we are never going to have any truly low tech fighting high tech e.g. swords vs. Spaceships; at least not without GM permission for some extraordinary circumstance. Low tech to us is a world with very limited amounts of high tech stuff which would have to be re-purposed (badly) to do the job of a special built thing.

This message was last edited by the player at 19:06, Mon 28 Sept 2015.

Germany
 player, 146 posts
Mon 28 Sep 2015
at 18:44
Re: Rules proposal 20150915
Combat Cycle Ref:
One of the great simplifiers of our game universe is that we are never going to have any truly low tech fighting high tech e.g. swords vs. Spaceships; at least not without GM permission for some extraordinary circumstance. Low tech to us is a world with very limited amounts of high tech stuff which would have to be re-purposed (badly) to do the job of a special built thing.


Are you promising us that no hostile primitive natives will be found in other planets as we expand to space?

(just kidding)
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 74 posts
Mon 28 Sep 2015
at 18:46
Rules proposal 20150928
To my regret, I do not think we can move to Division sized units just yet. What sounds like a simple change actually involves a lot of re-balancing and rules questions which have to be very carefully thought of first. So I have decided to focus on some much more achievable simplifications to make this game easier to play.

What has changed:
-Got rid of Heavy, Light, SAM and ASAT abilities, they were underused, overly specific and caused a lot of complications. To compensate, Artillery gives better air defences vs. Air units, ICBM gives better air defences vs. Orbit hex attacks.
-Made uplift/downlift dependent upon technology; do not worry about doing the calculation for capacity yourself as I will update the budget spreadsheets to do it automatically. Got rid of Multi-stage Rockets and Space plane facilities; an unnecessary division after making uplift dependent upon tech level.
-Got rid of Launch Loop facilities; un-canonical to the 2300AD universe. FYI Skyhooks are canonical, they are part of the Mongoose publications.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 75 posts
Mon 28 Sep 2015
at 18:48
Re: Rules proposal 20150915
In reply to Germany (msg # 30):

>Are you promising us that no hostile primitive natives will be found in other planets as we expand to space?
No promises. I am just saying that such encounters will come under the heading of 'GM discretion'.
Germany
 player, 147 posts
Mon 28 Sep 2015
at 18:52
Re: Rules proposal 20150915
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 30):

>Are you promising us that no hostile primitive natives will be found in other planets as we expand to space?
No promises. I am just saying that such encounters will come under the heading of 'GM discretion'.


Well, perhaps not so kidding in fact. IIRC, the Ebers are TL 4-5 in 2300AD setting...
Germany
 player, 148 posts
Mon 28 Sep 2015
at 18:57
Re: Rules proposal 20150915
Combat Cycle Ref:
>Does this include Motorized/Mechanized Infantry?
As I recall, it was confusion over this which is why a long time ago I took the word ‘Infantry’ out of the name for Motorized and Mechanized units.


Then I understand only leg infantry can be airborne in our game (see that the US have several airborne mech units).

As you're talking about simplifying, I keep advocating to unify Infantry and motorized units. In fact, I guess in nowdays world the differences are minimal, even the poorest infantry units use to have enough motorpool (even if requested civilian one) to be treated as motorized...
Germany
 player, 149 posts
Mon 28 Sep 2015
at 19:00
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
Combat Cycle Ref:
-Got rid of Heavy, Light, SAM and ASAT abilities, they were underused, overly specific and caused a lot of complications. To compensate, Artillery gives better air defences vs. Air units, ICBM gives better air defences vs. Orbit hex attacks.


Then all carriers would be the same?

See that the main use (for now) of the Heavy ability was for carriers, as it allowed them to carry an extra unit...

Suggestion: either to keep the ability for them or to make Heavy carriers as another unit
Japan
 GM, 53 posts
Mon 28 Sep 2015
at 21:44
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
Combat Cycle Ref:
What has changed:
-Got rid of Launch Loop facilities; un-canonical to the 2300AD universe.

How do you feel about other non-canon stuff? After todays news Mars terraforming comes to mind...
China
 player, 10 posts
Tue 29 Sep 2015
at 00:01
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
Combat Cycle Ref:
What has changed:
-Got rid of Heavy, Light, SAM and ASAT abilities, they were underused, overly specific and caused a lot of complications. To compensate, Artillery gives better air defences vs. Air units, ICBM gives better air defences vs. Orbit hex attacks.
-Made uplift/downlift dependent upon technology; do not worry about doing the calculation for capacity yourself as I will update the budget spreadsheets to do it automatically. Got rid of Multi-stage Rockets and Space plane facilities; an unnecessary division after making uplift dependent upon tech level.
-Got rid of Launch Loop facilities; un-canonical to the 2300AD universe. FYI Skyhooks are canonical, they are part of the Mongoose publications.

Okay No real issues here simplified (no real difference between a launch loop or an elevator in the end and I would suggest that an elevator be a possible upgrade to a skyhook as both need an orbital counterbalance) Okay so there will be further changes to military no worries. No issues with Infantry having some ASAT ability ( I am assuming it will be TL depnedant so a TL-6 infantry has a really hard time taking out a TL-9 Rocket)

Bummer on Brigade to division but I may just start the reorganizing of the Chinese Military to comply (and place certain Brigades to gather so when the swith comes it will be less painfull)
China
 player, 11 posts
Tue 29 Sep 2015
at 00:21
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
In reply to China (msg # 37):

Just looked thru the New interface rules only see one issue ..Rockets should not require an OT ..  something is required to get that OT up there...
Germany
 player, 150 posts
Tue 29 Sep 2015
at 07:46
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
China:
In reply to China (msg # 37):

Just looked thru the New interface rules only see one issue ..Rockets should not require an OT ..  something is required to get that OT up there...


Fully agreed. The main advantage of the MSR was that they didn't need OT (so making them the only ones able to uplift it, as Michael says)

This message was last edited by the player at 18:02, Tue 29 Sept 2015.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 76 posts
Wed 30 Sep 2015
at 22:19
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
In reply to Germany (msg # 39):

>>Heavy, Light, SAM and ASAT abilities
>>Then all carriers would be the same?
No, they are not the same. As I have said before, Quality level is much more than just training, Quality Level can be many things *including availability of reserves*. So a Veteran Carrier, yes, may be a single ship with better trained crew, or it may be 2 ships with normally trained crews, or it may be 1 super carrier also with a normally trained crew; it is all the same to us. We have such a broad definition of what is Quality Level there is no need for Heavy and Light special abilities.

>.Rockets should not require an OT ..  something is required to get that OT up there...
Oh fugrumblemublegrumble. Originally Multistage rockets did not require an O/T but Rockets did, deleting MSR made it seem like all rockets would always require an O/T. <ugh!> This is one of the reasons why I am so hesitant to go to division sized units. Even the smallest bloody change can be like that one extra snowflake which touches off an avalanche; you can never think of all the little consequences. Imagine the chaos which will result when we make a huge change like division sized units.

This message was last edited by the GM at 22:59, Wed 30 Sept 2015.

Germany
 player, 152 posts
Thu 1 Oct 2015
at 10:32
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 39):

>>Heavy, Light, SAM and ASAT abilities
>>Then all carriers would be the same?
No, they are not the same. As I have said before, Quality level is much more than just training, Quality Level can be many things *including availability of reserves*. So a Veteran Carrier, yes, may be a single ship with better trained crew, or it may be 2 ships with normally trained crews, or it may be 1 super carrier also with a normally trained crew; it is all the same to us. We have such a broad definition of what is Quality Level there is no need for Heavy and Light special abilities.


Yes, I understand that, but I meant if now all the carriers will have a capcity of 2 air units (plus helo), instead of the or 3 if heavy (see that this was the main use of the heavy ability).
China
 player, 12 posts
Thu 1 Oct 2015
at 12:28
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 40):

Then dont change to division sized units ..its only a few more turns before the gulf is breached to the stars.. and worrying about division sized units is not that big a deal. (for a while it will be battalion sized units out there) iron out the rules with the changes you have made and let them ride a couple of turns and see how they really work ..(we have had far more rules sets than turns so far) ..and all this fighting on earth will mean little once folk start building core worlds out there.
Referee
 GM, 88 posts
Thu 1 Oct 2015
at 17:37
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
China:
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 40):

Then dont change to division sized units ..its only a few more turns before the gulf is breached to the stars.. and worrying about division sized units is not that big a deal. (for a while it will be battalion sized units out there) iron out the rules with the changes you have made and let them ride a couple of turns and see how they really work ..(we have had far more rules sets than turns so far) ..and all this fighting on earth will mean little once folk start building core worlds out there.

GM Andreas says: Well said!
Germany
 player, 153 posts
Thu 1 Oct 2015
at 18:40
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
Referee:
China:
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 40):

Then dont change to division sized units ..its only a few more turns before the gulf is breached to the stars.. and worrying about division sized units is not that big a deal. (for a while it will be battalion sized units out there) iron out the rules with the changes you have made and let them ride a couple of turns and see how they really work ..(we have had far more rules sets than turns so far) ..and all this fighting on earth will mean little once folk start building core worlds out there.

GM Andreas says: Well said!


Agreed, but the issue of the rockets needs to be fixed, and, if you forgive me to insist, the one about passenger modules for starships too.

As said in post 19 this smae thread, in practice you need TL 9.3 to be able to build them. As Stutterwarp is TL 9.0 (+ event) we could find ourselves with the capability to explore the extrasolar space long before we can colonize Mars, something against most SF settings (incluiding 2300 AD).
Germany
 player, 154 posts
Fri 2 Oct 2015
at 16:11
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
Just a curiosity I found wile reviewing old discussions about rules in the (no longer used) forum:

  • Version 20130430: downloaded 37 times
  • Version 20130515: downloaded 32 times
  • Version 20130815: downloaded 33 times
  • Version 20131215: downloaded 29 times
  • Version 20140115: downloaded 25 times
  • Version 20140415: downloaded 476 times (this was the one that caught my attentiion)
  • Version 20140501: downloaded 27 times
  • Version 20140503: downloaded 18 times
  • Version 20140606: downloaded 18 times
  • Version 20140901: downloaded 19 times
  • Version 20140915: downloaded 18 times
  • Version 20141030: downloaded 25 times
  • Version 20141215: downloaded 22 times
  • Version 20110115: downloaded 21 times
  • Version 20150215: downloaded 11 times
  • Version 20150330: downloaded 12 times
  • Version 20150427: downloaded 10 times
  • Version 20150602: downloaded 7 times


See that in a little more 5 of years we've had 18 versions (since 06/2015 they are no longer posted in the forum, and I cannot find how many downloads they have had in the HP), and as they have always been downloaded more times than players we are, it seems there was some interest on it...

This message was last edited by the player at 16:27, Fri 11 Dec 2015.

Germany
 player, 155 posts
Sat 10 Oct 2015
at 10:54
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 40):

Another issue I've just realized.

9.8.2 (page 42):

quote:
-Catapult (Cat): A large, usually a linear electromagnetic, accelerator used for hurtling robust products up to the Orbit hex at great speed. Can launch items from the surface up to the Orbit hex or to the Orbit hex of any other satellite in the same Star System at no extra cost. The local O/T serves as the ‘catch’ facility in orbit. Because of the hyper accelerations it subjects the cargo to it can only ship Food Units (and even then, I hope you like your tomatoes pureed!), Raw Material Units, Tantalum Special Resource Units, and Supply Units. Supply Units count as 5 000 Tonnes each for uplift because of the lower power and extra packaging required to protect them against damage during the boost phase.


Cannot a catapult be used to uplift built modules to an orbital facility (be it an Assembly Yard or a Shipyard)?

See that this further limits the usefulness of those facilities, as Shipyards can only build 5 modules/turn (something you know I don't like), so they depend on surface built modules to build ships if yo want them to be built in a reasonable time...
China
 player, 13 posts
Tue 13 Oct 2015
at 23:32
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
In reply to Germany (msg # 46):

Took me a moment but this is more a clarification than a correction this formula

Base Uplift/Downlift X 10( Colony Space Infrastructure tech level-5)/2

as written does not work ... ie we get into divide by zero on catapult

However restated in the way I think it was ment

(Base Uplift or Base Downlift) x 10 ( Colony Space Infrastructure tech level-5)/2
China
 player, 14 posts
Tue 13 Oct 2015
at 23:38
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
Germany:
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 40):

Another issue I've just realized.

9.8.2 (page 42):

quote:
-Catapult (Cat): A large, usually a linear electromagnetic, accelerator used for hurtling robust products up to the Orbit hex at great speed. Can launch items from the surface up to the Orbit hex or to the Orbit hex of any other satellite in the same Star System at no extra cost. The local O/T serves as the ‘catch’ facility in orbit. Because of the hyper accelerations it subjects the cargo to it can only ship Food Units (and even then, I hope you like your tomatoes pureed!), Raw Material Units, Tantalum Special Resource Units, and Supply Units. Supply Units count as 5 000 Tonnes each for uplift because of the lower power and extra packaging required to protect them against damage during the boost phase.


Cannot a catapult be used to uplift built modules to an orbital facility (be it an Assembly Yard or a Shipyard)?

See that this further limits the usefulness of those facilities, as Shipyards can only build 5 modules/turn (something you know I don't like), so they depend on surface built modules to build ships if yo want them to be built in a reasonable time...

As to building 5 moduals per turn ..then up the size of your OT ..ie create an expansion section ..if you want an OT that looks like the 1967 startrek starbases thats going to take over 100 OT's and several dozens of moduals

Mike
Germany
 player, 156 posts
Wed 14 Oct 2015
at 00:15
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
In reply to China (msg # 48):

But we're talking about a shipyard, a specialized module to build ships, and can only build 5 modules per turn. As the freude (once upgraded) has 39 modules (of wich 10 are the hull alone), it would take a shipyard 8 turns (40 years) to build this small cargo ship, and 2 full turns (10 Years) to build just the hull (in fact 4 turns, so 20 years, as the hull is streamlined and this represents 10 more modules).

Of course, you can build the modules elsewhere and take them to the shipyard, but if the catapult cannot be used for this, this only difficults more their use (and limits their utility)
China
 player, 15 posts
Thu 15 Oct 2015
at 12:42
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
In reply to Germany (msg # 49):

Then build more yards to represent larger yards...Simple its in the rules to do so Luis ..just as we can set a pile of power plants and industries in a single hex we can expand shipyards and industries in our "orbital hexes" And yes it means adding Habitation modulas, Power moduals and more "OT's" to represent the growth ..I have yet to see a restriction on this except initial uplift ..once you are getting your raw materials from space and processing them in space then it goes FASTER...

Mike
Germany
 player, 157 posts
Thu 15 Oct 2015
at 16:04
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
In reply to China (msg # 50):

OK, I install 8 shipyards so that  I can build the 39 modules a 10000 tonnes (quite small) Freude ship needs in a single turn. I only need (aside from paying for them) to uplift 160 RMUs (so 3200000 tonnes) per turn...

As they are now, civilian shipyards are only useful as prerequisites for military ones (so that you can build armored or armed ships) and to build ships larger tan 10000 tonnes, but they cannot build their modules at any speed, so you need to build the modules by planetary industries. Off course, that means that you need to uplift them, and, if you cannot do so with catapults, you need quite a developed interface facilities, that need quite a lot of OTs by themselves...

Frankly, IMHO most of last changes in space rules have worsened the game (the last change in interface being the main exception, once the problem with rockets requiring OTs is solved). As rules stand now:

  • Shipyards do not build ships, only build a small part of them (the heavier parts, is assumed) and assemble them.
  • Even so, shipyards need 20 RMU (400000 x G toones) uplift to be operative, os catapults are needed (even shipyards being half a TL lower than catapults).
  • Ship modules cannot be uplifted by catapult to shipyards, so requiring large interface facilities to be uplift the ground industry built ones
  • Interface requires OTs, so many of them are needed to have this same interface infrastructure
  • Passenger modules need larger ships than can be built in surface, so you cannot move population until cataputls are developed (at least farther tan Moon)


This is said to be a galactic 4X game, but we're Earthbound (at most able to colonize Moon, as rockets may reach it with population) for a while. As rules stand, until at least TL 9.5 (so about another 8 turns mínimum, if someone can ressearch all the needed fields each turn, more likely quite more).

This message was last edited by the player at 23:41, Thu 15 Oct 2015.

Germany
 player, 158 posts
Sat 17 Oct 2015
at 14:33
Re: Rules proposal 20150928
More clarifications asked:

11.1 Spaceship Construction (page 61):

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


Does that mean that an assembly yard can assamble a 20000 tonnes ship, as long as there is a shypyard in the same orbit hex?

Same with M or H hulls or armed ships (more tan one weapons type module), if there is a Military shipyard in the same hex?

Same about spaceports, should the needed shipyards be in orbit of its satellite.

Can ground based industry build H or H hulls (that can only be assembled if there's a military shipyard), or they can only be built in Military Shipyards?
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 78 posts
Thu 10 Dec 2015
at 22:32
Rules proposal 20151210
The first couple of Turns we were doing well just to have a comprehensive set of rules, by Turn 3 we had that. By Turn 4 the rules had been improved enough that they worked tolerably well for the current situation, but after a while I think things would slowly fall apart. Pretty clearly our original GMs never really expected us to go beyond Earth's atmosphere and many of the choices in the game reflected that. This fall I have had a long time to think about what I expect will be needed to take us to the stars.

What has changed
-Altered the 'Nations' file to be 'Settlement List'. Taking some inspiration from the World Generation rules of Traveller, making the file clearly suitable for non-Earth settlements and be clearly incorporated into the rules.

-Looking ahead, made some changes just to make it easier to do the book-keeping: A unique unit number is clearly mandatory. Changes to exactly how cutting edge technology is researched to make it easier to represent on our budget spreadsheets. As Spaceships can move anywhere in a Turn, Supply Units for Spaceships need only be brought to any O/T, not the nearest. Just one way of representing units, the way in section 12.1. Colony income for facilities is determined by number of population units, not facilities; one less thing to track. ODI facilities do not upgrade, they automatically have a Fighter component upon the right tech level. Rewrote the options for dealing with Oil SRU shortfall to be generic SRU shortfall, to not just oil. Got rid of the different toll to mass capacities from various interface facilities for different cargo types. Removed minimum cost to developing a new item. Except for what needs to be brought to the Orbit hex, Interface and Orbital facilities on a Core World do not have an SU requirement.

-Got rid of the remnants of an earlier time when we thought we could have a much more detailed game than we now realize would be a fun and playable thing to do:Got rid of Fuel Bases; they were originally intended to be a ‘hidden base from which to conduct raiding’ sort of thing but various rules changes along the way made them surprisingly useless and largely a duplicate of Naval Bases&Military Rank. Intolerable hexes may not be entered or used; the universe is capable of creating some really nasty real estate which even in 2300AD are inaccessible to facilities and units. Got rid of Naval Base Modules, folding their duties into O/Ts with which they overlapped with extensively anyways. Got rid of Fighter Modules as they could be incorporated into Weaponry Modules. Got rid of Assembly Yards, originally they were intended to be a forward repair station, but over time mutated into something much more complex. Got rid of Coal Gasification option, merged with Alternative Infrastructure.
Germany
 player, 159 posts
Fri 11 Dec 2015
at 03:49
Re: Rules proposal 20151210
First of all, I'm very glad to know about you again. After some time without knowing anything I began to be concerned.

This said, as you had not logged since my last posts, I guess you had not read them, as the changes I see in the rules go to absolutely opposite direction; and even having read in chapter 3 that Arguing about the game, its rules, its realism, <snip>, does NOT constitute playing the game. Such things are at best a distraction and will be treated as such by the GM I'm willing being treated as such by the GM if I really believe some rules are faulty.

Combat Cycle Ref:
The first couple of Turns we were doing well just to have a comprehensive set of rules, by Turn 3 we had that. By Turn 4 the rules had been improved enough that they worked tolerably well for the current situation, but after a while I think things would slowly fall apart. Pretty clearly our original GMs never really expected us to go beyond Earth's atmosphere and many of the choices in the game reflected that. This fall I have had a long time to think about what I expect will be needed to take us to the stars.

What has changed
-Altered the 'Nations' file to be 'Settlement List'. Taking some inspiration from the World Generation rules of Traveller, making the file clearly suitable for non-Earth settlements and be clearly incorporated into the rules.

-Looking ahead, made some changes just to make it easier to do the book-keeping: A unique unit number is clearly mandatory. Changes to exactly how cutting edge technology is researched to make it easier to represent on our budget spreadsheets. As Spaceships can move anywhere in a Turn, Supply Units for Spaceships need only be brought to any O/T, not the nearest. Just one way of representing units, the way in section 12.1. Colony income for facilities is determined by number of population units, not facilities; one less thing to track. ODI facilities do not upgrade, they automatically have a Fighter component upon the right tech level. Rewrote the options for dealing with Oil SRU shortfall to be generic SRU shortfall, to not just oil. Got rid of the different toll to mass capacities from various interface facilities for different cargo types. Removed minimum cost to developing a new item. Except for what needs to be brought to the Orbit hex, Interface and Orbital facilities on a Core World do not have an SU requirement.

-Got rid of the remnants of an earlier time when we thought we could have a much more detailed game than we now realize would be a fun and playable thing to do:Got rid of Fuel Bases; they were originally intended to be a ‘hidden base from which to conduct raiding’ sort of thing but various rules changes along the way made them surprisingly useless and largely a duplicate of Naval Bases&Military Rank. Intolerable hexes may not be entered or used; the universe is capable of creating some really nasty real estate which even in 2300AD are inaccessible to facilities and units. Got rid of Naval Base Modules, folding their duties into O/Ts with which they overlapped with extensively anyways. Got rid of Fighter Modules as they could be incorporated into Weaponry Modules. Got rid of Assembly Yards, originally they were intended to be a forward repair station, but over time mutated into something much more complex. Got rid of Coal Gasification option, merged with Alternative Infrastructure.


Personally I don't see how those rules, that mostly difficult the reaching of the space will take us to them.

Where with last rules we needed a shipyard (with the catapults to support it with RMUs) to  build a ship capable to carry passaenges, now we need two shipyards, with double RMU to be uplifted (and two OT as support BTW, instead of just part of a naval base).

And if I complained about the low building capacity of the shipyards, now they have none, just asemble the modules built in ground and uplifted to them (again by any means except catapults, BTW), so needing lots of interface and OTs to a siongle ship.

Instead of naval base modules, we now need OTs (at the rate of 2.5 OTs per Naval Base Module). So, where you needed to expend $50 (and for a Naval Base to enlarge your fleet another 50000 tonnes, you now need to sped 400 in 2 OTs to expand it by 40000 tonnes.

So, please, tell me, how will this take us to the stars if now no enclavement could be uilt in Mars until the developement of the catapults?
Germany
 player, 160 posts
Fri 11 Dec 2015
at 16:24
Re: Rules proposal 20151210. Questions
(don't panic, this time I won't argue anything, just asking for some clarifications;))

Rule 7.3

quote:
The first time a nation builds a particular kind of Colony facility, Module or Military Unit the cost of the item is X2 the normal cost after the calculation for Quality and Tech level


As I understand what is written here, the doubling for developement is also affected by the quality in the case of military units, but I understand the spirit of the rles to be against that...

So, assuming Saudi Arabia wants to build a reserve CVH (cost is $30). As 7.3 applies, what's the cost?

  1. $15: $30, quartered because it's reserve, doubled because 7.3, then rounded up (in this case no effect)
  2. $38: $30, quartered because it's reseve, +$30 (it's standard cost) due to 7.3, the nrounded up.


Rule 9.8.2:


quote:
-Scram Aircraft (Sc): A squadron of hypersonic aircraft which with the assist of reusable rockets are capable of reaching orbit. Because Scram Aircraft fly they are much safer and more efficient at bringing cargo down. Requires a breathable atmosphere of at least 0.5 Atmo to function. Has sufficient range to take items between the surface of a satellite to the Orbit hex of any moon of that satellite.


Can they be used to bring things to the Moon, having it no atmophere, regardless having range to do it?

Probably more to come as I read the more in deep...
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 79 posts
Sat 26 Dec 2015
at 04:02
Re: Rules proposal 20151210. Questions
>, as you had not logged since my last posts, I guess you had not read them
I did read them, I just consider them superseded by the recent changes and so not needing a direct response.


>> thatArguing about the game, its rules, its realism, <snip>, does NOT constitute
>> playing the game. Such things are at best a distraction and will be treated as such by the GM
>I'm willing being treated as such by the GM if I really believe some rules are faulty.
>don't panic, this time I won't argue anything, just asking for some clarifications;)
Jeez Lluis, if I had intended that sentence in section 3 to be some kind of statement of a zero-tolerance policy thing then I would never have tolerated this entire thread in the first place. I thought I was pretty clear there that such discussions were at the sufferance of the GM, I suffer this thread because it is usually both polite and constructive. Over the years there have been plenty of others which were neither.


> to  build a ship capable to carry passaenges, now we need two shipyards, with
>double RMU to be uplifted

Hmmm, a clarification needs to be made, I never intended to imply that shipyards required RMU to function as shipyards, just when producing modules.

> And if I complained about the low building capacity of the shipyards, now they have none,
Shipyards were never intended to be about making large number of modules.

>, just asemble the modules built in ground and uplifted to them (again by any means
>except catapults

Sounds like a plan!


> Instead of naval base modules, we now need OTs (at the rate of 2.5 OTs per
>Naval Base Module).

Given the expected large number of the OTs that will be built, I do not see this as being some sort of game-breaking limitation.


> As I understand what is written here, the doubling for developement is also affected
>by the quality in the case of military units<snip> As 7.3 applies, what's the cost?
Neither option. I can see that my original explanation was inadequate. I will rewrite it. Good catch.

>Scram Aircraft <snip> Can they be used to bring things to the Moon, having it no
>atmophere, regardless having range to do it?
Given that normal rockets do not have their engines ‘on’ all the way to the moon but rather acquire all of their necessary momentum while in the boost phase, while still well within their Earth’s atmosphere; I do not see going to the moon to be a problem for Scram Aircraft either. Even if there was a problem then I am sure you competent engineers will take care of the details and do something like strapping on some disposable rockets or some such sort of solution without bothering you.
Germany
 player, 161 posts
Sat 26 Dec 2015
at 15:45
Re: Rules proposal 20151210. Questions
Combat Cycle Ref:
>, as you had not logged since my last posts, I guess you had not read them
I did read them, I just consider them superseded by the recent changes and so not needing a direct response.


>> thatArguing about the game, its rules, its realism, <snip>, does NOT constitute
>> playing the game. Such things are at best a distraction and will be treated as such by the GM
>I'm willing being treated as such by the GM if I really believe some rules are faulty.
>don't panic, this time I won't argue anything, just asking for some clarifications;)
Jeez Lluis, if I had intended that sentence in section 3 to be some kind of statement of a zero-tolerance policy thing then I would never have tolerated this entire thread in the first place. I thought I was pretty clear there that such discussions were at the sufferance of the GM, I suffer this thread because it is usually both polite and constructive. Over the years there have been plenty of others which were neither.


Glad to know

Combat Cycle Ref:
> to  build a ship capable to carry passaengers, now we need two shipyards, with
>double RMU to be uplifted

Hmmm, a clarification needs to be made, I never intended to imply that shipyards required RMU to function as shipyards, just when producing modules.


And for the Shipyard to produce the $20 it produces per turn, does it need the 20 RMUs uplifted (or tranported) to it?

Combat Cycle Ref:
> And if I complained about the low building capacity of the shipyards, now they have none,
Shipyards were never intended to be about making large number of modules.


It may be just a semantic matter, (and in this you're on advantage, English being your language), but I always thought a Shipyard builds full ships, not just parts of it (modules)...

And see that this is in contradiction with the previous answer, as if it does not produce even modules, then the 20 RMUs cannot be needed to produce them...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>, just asemble the modules built in ground and uplifted to them (again by any means
>except catapults

Sounds like a plan!


Yes, a plan that makes high uplift capacity to build such a ship, aside from 2 shipyards mínimum.

A ship capable to carry passengers must be at mínimum 15-20000tonnes (as the passenger module is already 10000, and you'll need at least some hull, power and drive modules for it to function), so at mínimum 2 shipyards and those 15-20000 uplift capacity to uplift the modules...

Combat Cycle Ref:
> Instead of naval base modules, we now need OTs (at the rate of 2.5 OTs per
>Naval Base Module).

Given the expected large number of the OTs that will be built, I do not see this as being some sort of game-breaking limitation.


Perhaps not game-breaking, but sure game-braking.

As the game stood before (or at least as I understood it), you didn't expect a large number of OTs, just one per country (or colony) that would be enlarged with modules as needed (docking, habitat/colony, power, etc..), and a large "orbital city" will be developed this way. Now, we need several OTs with less modules, developing many "orbital towns/villages" instead (at quite higher cost)...


Combat Cycle Ref:
> As I understand what is written here, the doubling for developement is also affected
>by the quality in the case of military units<snip> As 7.3 applies, what's the cost?
Neither option. I can see that my original explanation was inadequate. I will rewrite it. Good catch.


Waiting for the clarifications them...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Scram Aircraft <snip> Can they be used to bring things to the Moon, having it no
>atmophere, regardless having range to do it?
Given that normal rockets do not have their engines ‘on’ all the way to the moon but rather acquire all of their necessary momentum while in the boost phase, while still well within their Earth’s atmosphere; I do not see going to the moon to be a problem for Scram Aircraft either. Even if there was a problem then I am sure you competent engineers will take care of the details and do something like strapping on some disposable rockets or some such sort of solution without bothering you.


I mainly asked because, if I understood well, the reverse will not be true: you cannot base Scram Aircrafts in the Moon (as it has no atmosphere). If so, I find it a little odd that the same Scram Aircraft that, if based on Earth, can land and take off in/from Moon cannot be based there and do the reverse trip...

Lets put an example to illustrate some more questions this brings to my mind:

Imagine a country has one Scram Aircraft unit in Earth with a Base Uplift of 200 (let's make numbers easy), and wants to use it to send things to Moon. It can uplift 10000 tonnes, and it could downlift about 180000 on Moon without problem if there were atmosphere.

  • Can it downlift this same amount of cargo without the lift given by atmosphere?
  • Can it also take some cargo on the return trip?
  • If not (as they cannot opérate from Moon, as it has no atmosphere), could it do it should Moon have atmosphere (as can be in other planets)?
  • Could it do it (with the appropiate numbers) if it was a rocket (that needs no atmosphere)?

Germany
 player, 162 posts
Sat 26 Dec 2015
at 19:44
Re: Rules proposal 20151210. Questions
Reflections about Spaceships rules:

Construction:


When first written, the rules about ships made one unit to represent one ship, and put a limit on how large a ship could land on a planet.  Ships able to land could be built on ground facilities, while larger (or unstremlined) ones could not, needing orbital facilities to be built. IMHO this made quite sense.

When passengers modules were enlarged to be able to care for a full pop unit, we found that a ship having them had to be too large to land on a 1 G planet. You answered this by ruling that a ship unit might also represent several ships, higher quality ones representing more ships.  With this, the law of unintended consequences hit us, as:
  • If quality represents the number of ships, cargo capaicity should depend on it. If an experienced  20000 tonnes unit represents 4 5000 tonnes ships, then this same unit as reserve should represent a sing le 5000 ships (with its cargo capaicity reduced accordingly), while making it elite should represent 12 of them, with its cargo capacity increased accordingly.
  • In the 5000 tonnes ship could perfectly be built in ground facilities, there’s no logical reason why the 60000 tonnes represented by the elite unit could not (even if they need more than a single spaceport)
  • If you can only build 10000 tonnes per spaceport, but increasing quality represents more ships, the same spaceport, by increasing the quality of a unit, is building quite more shipping than allowed…


My suggestion on this would be to return to the basics, each unit representing one ship (so quality not affecting tonnage nor cargo), quality representing readiness, crew quality and state of repair/disrepair of the ship, limiting again the maximum size of ship to be able to land (and the 10000/G tonnes always convinced me). To allow passenger carrying to be able to land, reduce the passenger module to 5000 tonnes, that represent about 1 ton per passenger, and is more than double the POP unit mass as described in 6.5.2, that would represent living space and spin habitats.

Command and Control:


Since the beginning I’ve been advocating for the limits for command and control (be it Naval Base Modules or OTs) to be by unit, not by tonnage. I’ve always seen quite asurd that a single ship might need more than one (see that a Tallyrand, as described in 11.1, being a 62000 tonnes ship, would require 3 OTs by itself).

By ruling this, large are more attractive and, if coupled with the points above, those large ships would be unable to land, as most in 2300AD setting are.

Interface:

This has been a source of disagreement with you since the beginning.

While in 2300 AD setting interface facilities are very important, there are also planets that have them quite undeveloped and rely on ships able to land for interface (as Crater for passengers, according Colonial Atlas).

I find absurd the limitation to take off loaded for a ship, as  a 10000 tonnes ship without cargo modules can take off with its full mass, while the same ship, if it has 5000 tonnes of cargo capacity cannot, having a limit of 5000 tonnes to take off. Off course, this could be abused, using a ship as interface (hey, if my ship with 5000 tonnes of cargo can take off loaded, I make it to take off 500 times and I have an uplift capacity of 2500000 nearly free1), and this must be avoided, even if quite artificially.

Note 1: see that this can be done for downloading now. E.g. if I have a catapult in Moon able to put 500000 tonnes of FUs/RMUs in orbit and a streamlined ship able to land on Earth with 5000 tonnes, nothing in the rules as written precludes it to be used to downlift it all by making 100 landings

I already suggested some options (off course, not mutually exclusive):
  • To add 1 AU/LY to the trip distance per such a landing/take off done (representing increased time and maintenance needed)
  • To put a SU cost to each such landing/take off (representing increased maintenance, heat shielding wear, fuel…)

Germany
 player, 163 posts
Mon 28 Dec 2015
at 11:03
Rules proposal 20151225. Questions
11.2
quote:
A nation must have one O/T facility for every 10 000 tonnes of non-Reserve Quality Level Spaceships, rounded down, that a nation possesses, excess must immediately be reduced to Reserve Quality Level.

(bold is mine)

So now the OT requirements for spaceships are doubled (when I was complaining they were far too high)?
Now a single Tallyrand ship would need 6 OTs by itself. Can you please argument (be it in logical or gaming arguments) how a single ship can need so many OTs for support?
How does that affect already existing spaceship (as no single OT is fully owned by Germany or ESA)?

Many times you told me that some suggested change was not a bad idea, but will affect too much already done investments by some players. This is exactly the case (well, we can discuss about not being a bad idea). This fully stops cold one of Germans main focus to now: space exploration.

Germany began his plans with the knowledge that 4 Freude class ships can be built before needing a Naval Base Module. Then passengers modules were forbidden to be built by ground facilities: the plans were already quite broken, but perhaps salvageable with extra effort. Then, when half of them were already built, this was changed to each 2 of them would need an OT. Assuming we can count on Crystal Palace and Lunastar, the plans were still feasible (barely). Now we need 2 more OTs for them: all the plans are in tears.

How can one make long term plans (assumed the basis of this game) this way?

quote:
News headline:
Damgarten Kosmodrome, Germany: ESA has informed today that all plans about Mars OT have been stopped today due to the state of disarray ESASS Freude and DRMS Bahnbreacher fell after some sudden changes in physical laws affected them

How does that sound?
UK
 player, 51 posts
Wed 30 Dec 2015
at 21:15
Rules proposal 20151225. Questions
In reply to Germany (msg # 59):

I have to admit I've not been overly concerned by the space rules as of yet as I've been trying to get my terrestrial affairs in order mainly so I've not paid too much attention to the rules on the maintenance of space forces so I'm afraid I can't remember what the previous rules were like on this point.

My question would be - why are we concerned with the ability to maintain ships using orbital terminals when we are not bothered by things like this for ground forces? I can understand that we might want some limiter on ships supportable but this seems fairly restrictive - maybe we could limit ships with military modules by the number of O/Ts but allow earlier colonisation and commercial exploitation of the solar system by not requiring this for ships without weapons so long as they can, like ground units, trace an unobstructed line of supply - so require the nation to have access to (not necessarily own but have an agreement to use) an O/T in system and the ability to uplift enough supplies to that O/T? (This would also help simulate a space economy as poorer nations looking to cash in on resources in space will look to rent uplift/Orbital terminals)- maybe even require the nation to have ships capable of carrying the required supplies between systems if we feel we absolutely have to track the amount of supplies a nation could ship in the 5 year period?

Having a limit of 10000t of ships per O/T feels like it will severely limit what we will be able to do. The fact that a nation will need to spend $200 on an orbital terminal before it can support even a basic space unit (not even a military one) will cut most nations out of the early space race. (Not to mention that this basically is adding £1200 (6 O/Ts at $200) - over 3x the listed cost of the  ship - to the effective cost of a Tallyrand BB)

I think it also produces a very 'winner takes all' feel to early space combat. If someone wins an early war in space then the order 'my units destroy/scuttle all orbital terminals in the Earth orbit hex belonging to X' means that nation is exiled from space and will have to spend significant amount of time and money raising O/Ts before being able to return to space. I guess you can not allow that as the GM but I see no reason beyond game balance why space infrastructure could not be destroyed in a war like this.
China
 player, 16 posts
Thu 31 Dec 2015
at 02:19
Rules proposal 20151225. Questions
Where does it specifically say quality represents the number of ships..quality is level of crew training and how well supplied the unit is not its size and composition.. I understand why Germany is all about this Note an OT has 5 spaces for things like interplanetary ships or interface squadrons it controls.. and Germnay jumped the gun on the number of ships it has built.;) I will say this having been on the brunt end of several handwavium changes. Roll with it write it up as Germany got overzealous in its construction and has a spare ship or three for its survey forces.

And have faith that we will hammer out something workable.  Now unfortunalty Traveller as a whole took a large blow recently with the passing of Don Mckinney.(keeper of all things cannon for traveller,2300, etc)

As to what is and what is not cannon for mongoose 2300 or even traveller 2300 those are just guidlines ..as we started with the same base rules as the great game to write the cannon with a twist we did not start with WWWIII..and then goto space and that was the basis for the 2300 AD cannon as written(of which our rules writer has been one of the largest contributers to tracking erratta for 2300AD and its succssors)  and sometimes needs a gentle or sometimes not so gentle nudge that this is not the original 2300 universe anymore but an alternate one. Some things will not conform to the original game background and others will. For me its been a nice side project to distract me occasionally from reality.

This message was last edited by the player at 02:44, Thu 31 Dec 2015.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 80 posts
Thu 31 Dec 2015
at 23:23
Rules proposal 20151225. Questions
> And for the Shipyard to produce the $20 it produces per turn, does it need
> the 20 RMUs uplifted (or tranported) to it?

See the description for shipyards in section 9.8.1

> so at mínimum 2 shipyards and those 15-20000 uplift capacity to uplift the modules...
Not seeing this as being a game breaking imposition

> Perhaps not game-breaking, but sure game-braking.
That is the point.

> Now, we need several OTs with less modules, developing many
>"orbital towns/villages" instead (at quite higher cost)...

Not seeing this as being a game breaking imposition; and at ‘quite higher cost’ is debatable, see below.

> Imagine a country has one Scram Aircraft unit in Earth with a Base Uplift of 200
>(let's make numbers easy), and wants to use it to send things to Moon. It can
>uplift 10000 tonnes, and it could downlift about 180000 on Moon without problem
>if there were atmosphere.

No. The Scram Aircraft based on Earth may not downlift anything to the Moon, even if the Moon has an atmosphere. As per the description in section 9.8.2 the Scram Aircraft, like other interface, may only bring things to the Orbit hex of the Moon.

>advocating for the limits for command and control (be it Naval Base Modules or OTs) to
> be by unit, not by tonnage. <snip>By ruling this, large are more attractive

I can think of no reason why the rules should favour bigger ships; and a bigger ship is going to require more support than a smaller ship.

>Interface:<snip> to take off.
No

> Can you please argument (be it in logical or gaming arguments) how a single ship
>can need so many OTs for support?

I can. It is exactly the same argument for why a single ship can need so many Naval Base modules for support. Until someone can provide a complete, realistic technical readout of what a Naval Base module or O/T can do then what they can do is completely arbitrary. I chose the limit that I did because I think there are going to be quite a few O/Ts built just to handle the basic needs of colonies and interface.

> How does that affect already existing spaceship (as no single OT is fully owned by
>Germany or ESA)?

It means you have to quickly come to some kind of an agreement with all of the owners of the 2 O/Ts.

> Then passengers modules were forbidden to be built by ground facilities
Re-read the description for Spaceports.

> This fully stops cold one of Germans main focus to now: space exploration.
>Now we need 2 more OTs for them: all the plans are in tears.
>How can one make long term plans (assumed the basis of this game) this way?

You cannot make firm long term plans, nobody can; but we all signed on to a game which started out with NO RULES except a vague understanding that we would generally be following Peter’s inadequate work. That mean everything we have done has been ad hoc and everyone has had to accept that, work around it, and push on regardless.  And you Lluis, pushed into an area of the rules which was particularly speculative and untested, you were bound to pay a higher than expected price. Point#4 of section 3 is there for a reason.

> why are we concerned with the ability to maintain ships using orbital terminals when
>we are not bothered by things like this for ground forces?

We are, as per section 6.2 the cost of which factors into ‘Social Upkeep’. It is another part of how treatment of ground forces is simplified compared to Starships, had to given that there are always going to be so many more ground forces than Starships.

> Having a limit of 10000t of ships per O/T feels like it will severely limit what we will
>be able to do. The fact that a nation will need to spend $200 on an orbital terminal
>before it can support even a basic space unit

What everyone has been forgetting is that even a modest interstellar empire is likely going to require in the low 10’s of O/T facilities just to fulfill the basic requirements of colonies&interface. That means ‘free’ maintenance on hundreds of thousands of tons of ships, ships which will probably be able to make 10’s of round trips per Turn. All my guesses to be sure, but until we actually get to that point in the game, nobody can really know if it ‘…will severely limit…’ anything.

>If someone wins an early war in space then the order 'my units destroy/scuttle all
>orbital terminals in the Earth orbit hex belonging to X' means that nation is exiled
> from space

Worse, I can just see some rules spitting game lawyer type using O/T destruction as an argument for reductions in the quality of their enemy’s forces. Fortunately there is a simple fix, the reduction is Spaceship Quality will be changed from ‘immediate’ to ‘next Turn’

> Where does it specifically say quality represents the number of ships
It does not, the idea is that unit quality covers a deliberately very large and fuzzy range of possible things that can be done to improve performance for a given unit, including the possibly that a given Spaceship unit is actually split up between more than one hull.

> and Germnay jumped the gun on the number of ships it has built.;) I will say this
>having been on the brunt end of several handwavium changes. Roll with it

Yup.
China
 player, 17 posts
Fri 1 Jan 2016
at 00:05
Rules proposal 20151225. Questions
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 62):

And now we see the carrot each O/T handles 10K tons of ships in a addition to their other benefits not in place of .. kinda nice actually ..and it wont take long for various nations to have multiple O/T's up and running..
Germany
 player, 164 posts
Fri 1 Jan 2016
at 19:47
Rules proposal 20151225. Questions
China:
Where does it specifically say quality represents the number of ships..quality is level of crew training and how well supplied the unit is not its size and composition..

It’s inferred fom what Kelvin wrote in the forum: http://tgw.awbep.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=107#pid784 and how does he define the quality of units (e.g. in forfeiting the need for a unit to be veteran to have stealth abitly)
quote:
>smaller ships should be able to move population (either by working in groups <snip> in 2300AD setting there are no large >ships able to land, nor ships able to carry 5000 passengers at once, They are either carried among various ships
Just as there is nothing in the rules that it makes a difference if a Tank brigade is actually made up of 1000 little tanks, 400 normal sized tanks or 1 great big tank; there is nothing in the rules that requires a Starship unit be made up of 1 big hull or a whole fleet of little ones whose aggregate characteristics is the same as 1 big hull*. Everyone just assumes a Spaceship unit is 1 hull. If some ships of a Spaceship squadron move faster and can undertake more round trips/Turn that is ok because it is balanced out by other ships of the same squadron which move slower and can only undertake fewer trips. So perhaps your Population unit and Spaceship unit is, at a given moment of time, actually spread throughout the galaxy; but as seen from a book-keeping perspective, the only perspective I care about, it does not matter.

and how does he define the quality of units (e.g. in forfeiting the need for a unit to be veteran to have stealth abitly)

China:
I understand why Germany is all about this Note an OT has 5 spaces for things like interplanetary ships or interface squadrons it controls.. and Germnay jumped the gun on the number of ships it has built.;).

I didn’t know we have to wait for the gun to shot. Germany had the technology and rules allowed for it (to build and support the ships)
Combat Cycle Ref:
> And for the Shipyard to produce the $20 it produces per turn, does it need
> the 20 RMUs uplifted (or tranported) to it?

See the description for shipyards in section 9.8.1

See that my post was made over rules v20151210, where it only said it requires 20 RMU, and your answer that those were to build modules (something BTW it could not do then). It has been clarified in v20151225

Combat Cycle Ref:
> so at mínimum 2 shipyards and those 15-20000 uplift capacity to uplift the modules...
Not seeing this as being a game breaking imposition
<snip>
>> Now, we need several OTs with less modules, developing many
>"orbital towns/villages" instead (at quite higher cost)...

Not seeing this as being a game breaking imposition; and at ‘quite higher cost’ is debatable, see below.

The quite higher cost is quite clear, when a full OT will be needed when you only need a naval Base Module before.

Combat Cycle Ref:
> Perhaps not game-breaking, but sure game-braking.
That is the point.

And why so? Why it needs to be braked?

I understood the goal was speeding it and allowing space exploration and colonization, not to brake it

From your post in December 10th:
Combat Cycle Ref:
Pretty clearly our original GMs never really expected us to go beyond Earth's atmosphere and many of the choices in the game reflected that. This fall I have had a long time to think about what I expect will be needed to take us to the stars.

You did very nice space and colony making rules, but, IMHO, the last changes are not what we need to take us to the stars, but what we need to be kept in Earth for the time being.

Combat Cycle Ref:
> Now, we need several OTs with less modules, developing many
>"orbital towns/villages" instead (at quite higher cost)...

Not seeing this as being a game breaking imposition; and at ‘quite higher cost’ is debatable, see below.

When I see I need a full OT where I needed a docking module, or 5 full OTs where I needed a Naval base module; I don’t see too much debate on the quite higher costs…

Combat Cycle Ref:
> Can you please argument (be it in logical or gaming arguments) how a single ship
>can need so many OTs for support?

I can. It is exactly the same argument for why a single ship can need so many Naval Base modules for support. Until someone can provide a complete, realistic technical readout of what a Naval Base module or O/T can do then what they can do is completely arbitrary. I chose the limit that I did because I think there are going to be quite a few O/Ts built just to handle the basic needs of colonies and interface.

And even more OTs to keep any significant cargo fleet, not to talk about military one…

Combat Cycle Ref:
> How does that affect already existing spaceship (as no single OT is fully owned by
>Germany or ESA)?

It means you have to quickly come to some kind of an agreement with all of the owners of the 2 O/Ts.

Great!

So, now India, Japan and Russia can blackmail Germany and ESA threating to downgrade their ships to reserve, and ESA’s space exploration plans are not just slowed, but made hostages of other countries…

And don’t tell me I took this risk, as this was not among the risks I took when decided to make a bid for space.

Combat Cycle Ref:
> Then passengers modules were forbidden to be built by ground facilities
Re-read the description for Spaceports.

OK, now you can build them in several turns (or by several facilities working together). Glad v20151225 clarified those points. Shame now you will need too many OTs to support it…

Combat Cycle Ref:
> This fully stops cold one of Germans main focus to now: space exploration.
>Now we need 2 more OTs for them: all the plans are in tears.
>How can one make long term plans (assumed the basis of this game) this way?

You cannot make firm long term plans, nobody can; but we all signed on to a game which started out with NO RULES except a vague understanding that we would generally be following Peter’s inadequate work. That mean everything we have done has been ad hoc and everyone has had to accept that, work around it, and push on regardless.  And you Lluis, pushed into an area of the rules which was particularly speculative and untested, you were bound to pay a higher than expected price. Point#4 of section 3 is there for a reason.

Point#4 section 3 also talks about suggesting new rules if you disagree, something I’ve done many times, in many occasions even to fulfil some of your stated goals (simplification, less AM influence in budget, etc.) usually to no avail (some exceptions, off course), sometimes because it will affect previous actions and investments of players.

Yes, I pushed into an area of rules particularly speculative and untested, but also that were quite sound and playable, but they became (at least IMHO) less so with each change.

As I said once, this was supposed to be a strategic 4X (well, maybe not exterminate) galactic exploration and expansion, and is becoming more and more a game of world domination (if not outright a Quest for the oil game). No strategic plans can be done, no space exploration can be done (at least for a long time)…

Combat Cycle Ref:
> Having a limit of 10000t of ships per O/T feels like it will severely limit what we will
>be able to do. The fact that a nation will need to spend $200 on an orbital terminal
>before it can support even a basic space unit

What everyone has been forgetting is that even a modest interstellar empire is likely going to require in the low 10’s of O/T facilities just to fulfill the basic requirements of colonies&interface. That means ‘free’ maintenance on hundreds of thousands of tons of ships, ships which will probably be able to make 10’s of round trips per Turn. All my guesses to be sure, but until we actually get to that point in the game, nobody can really know if it ‘…will severely limit…’ anything.

Colonies (and interface) that will not be there because of the limitations on ship building and support.
China
 player, 18 posts
Sat 2 Jan 2016
at 20:31
Rules proposal 20151225. Questions
Another Problem ..not rules related Spreadsheet related..Need to add more signifigant digits to Column L rows 28 to 44) since 3 does not reflect costs for China to upgrade most of its infrastructure..it reads ###.## so a 4th significant is needed there as I suspect India and USA may run into similar issues ..It does however reflect in D-43 correctly ...
Germany
 player, 165 posts
Sun 3 Jan 2016
at 11:38
Rules proposal 20151225. Questions
Some more questions

9.4. Maintenance (clarification asked):

I’m afraid this puzzles me. According this rule, each orbital facility requires 1 SU at its orbit, and, this aside, extra supplies if they are outside surface of a core world. Yet, in the example, those extra supplies are not counted for. Isn’t orbit, by definition, outside surface of a core world? Or it does not count because the rest of the supplies are assumed to be for ground support facilities (as Houston, Baykonur, etc.), and so are counted as being in a Core World surface?.

If the latter, then I understand those extra supplies are now only needed for Lunastar. Is that right?

Spreadsheets:

I see there’s now no specific section for extra supplies needed due to deployments, nor for supplies needed for orbital facilities.

Should then they be just marked as another purchase?
Germany
 player, 166 posts
Sun 3 Jan 2016
at 12:25
Some reflections…
NOTE: I post that here for lack of another, more adequate, place

I want to share with you some reflections about the Budget expenses:

Inefficiences:

While the world inefficiencies has clearly a negative connotation, they, in fact are some of the basis or our economies. Just to put some examples:
  • If we make a too efficient use of antibiotics (using the newer ones only when really needed, at least until they can become generics, and so cheaper), who will develop new ones?
  • The use of dead tree books and newspapers is probably inefficient against the use of electronic ones, but it keeps the paper mills, editorials, etc… running, so the unemployment low.
  • The most paradigmatic example of inefficiency is fashion. We discard clothing, complements, etc. in perfect shape just because they are out of fashion. But at the same time is an important part of our economies, maintaining many jobs.



OTOH, too much of them is clearly damaging to the economies, as much more is paid for what could be cheaper.

So, in game terms, I think those inefficiencies can be fought to a point (difficult to define). Past it (or lowering them too quickly), they should be damaging for the GDP growth.

Corruption:
quote:
Corruption in a government is like lubricant on an engine. Not enough, and the engine breaks down. Too much of it, and the engine does not work.

Allegedly: Miquel Roca (Catalan politician and one of the fathers of Spanish Constitution)


Corruption is one of the most difficult things to work with. It includes many things:
  1. officers/bureaucrats asking for bribes
  2. nepotism
  3. frauds
  4. politicians favoring specific companies/lobbies in order to get their own benefit (be it in contributions for their campaigns, good posts once retired from politics, etc.)
  5. fiscal evasion (if not strong enough as to deserve its own entry)
  6. assigning contract without the due open contests


And sure more things.

While the points 1-4 are clearly against the good working of economy, points 5 and 6 are not always so. Some fiscal evasion in specific cases may save companies from bankruptcy, so keeping jobs and economy running, and some direct assignment of contracts may speed things that would otherwise eternize in contests, so benefiting economy.

Aside from this, corruption is difficult to fight. If too high, because it’s too assumed by society, and because the same officials that should fight it are probably affected by it. If low, because the remaining corruption is the undetectable (or even beneficial for economy, as stated above).

So, like inefficiencies, in game terms, too low (or too quickly lowered) a corruption may even be prejudicial for the economy, leading to a lowering of GDP growth.

National Debt:

While again another concept with negative connotation, fact is that most economists consider it as a need. Banks invest in national debt as a sure value. So do pension plans and investment agencies. If a nation has no such debt, its economy is as likely to suffer as if it has too much of it. Many economists say a healthy level is about 40-60% of the yearly GDP.

So, again, while too high a National Debt will lower the DGP, so will (due mostly to its effect on finances business) too low (or too quickly lowered) a debt.

OTOH, it should be one of the easiest such costs to lower (being quite straightforward: you pay your debt, and you stop paying interests). I’d suggest to make its lowering an easy (or even simple, if it’s high) political action (for computing the defense in 8.5).

Other such expenses:

Such as unemployment, unrest , integration problems, specific problems/crisis, etc.) have not such dual effects, and lowering them as much as possible (up to eradication) should have no ill effects.

-----------

As said, those are only reflections (and I'm not an economist, so take them with a grain of salt). If they help the GMs, so the better, if not, I hope you enjoyed Reading them.
UK
 player, 52 posts
Sun 3 Jan 2016
at 13:06
Some reflections…
In reply to Germany (msg # 67):

I think the way to view these costs would be to say that this is what your economists could be saved if everything was working correctly and property - so its a representation of the biggest problems your society faces and the waste of economic potential they represent rather than the actual cost of things (so for the UK the budget sheet shows NHS ineficiences - whilst the actual cost of the NHS proper would be in my social upkeep?)
China
 player, 19 posts
Sun 3 Jan 2016
at 14:57
Some reflections…
In reply to UK (msg # 68):

Ahh I see you are looking at it from a free market standpoint ..and purely cash flow ..but regardless of government type corruption affects safety and effectiveness of troops and largest factor Morale and Trust of the population..if the population trusts and believes that its government will deliver then it has a strong economy but as soon as it stops trusting and its morale goes down then the economy will tank .. Visable known corruption leads to lower morale and trust leads to a tanking economy..

some things that appear less efficient are actually needed for the health and well being of the people..ie a variety of food leads to better health but is not efficient for the economy..antibiotic research will go on as things become immune to the previous ones used..and fashion ..well the only ones that do the ditch clothes cause its "out of style" are the upper 1% no one else can afford that they tend to buy the cast off clothing mend it and wear it ..or they buy heavy duty inexpensive well made working clothes (like myself) and tend to use timeless fashion ..ie good grooming washed and pressed shirts and washed and pressed slacks.  I have 4 bowties, 6 neckties and 3 suits(shades of grey) for when I need them (they are all at least 20 years old of the wash and wear type not the dry clean only type)..Most folk in the middle to lower classes do the same and that is the bulk of the population.
Nordic Federation
 player, 1 post
Mon 4 Jan 2016
at 14:22
Calrification asked
Rule 6.5.5.1, option 1:
quote:
For SRU option #1: Oil exploration represents drilling rigs and costs 1 PA per hex; specify the exact hex where the exploration is to be, and whether it is to be in the land or water area of that hex (Hint: There is no chance of significant amounts of oil being discovered in deep water, i.e. ‘Intolerable’ terrain type, portions of a hex) must be specified at the time of purchase. Permanently increasing oil exploration capacity per Turn costs 1 PA, whether for land or water exploration must be specified at time of purchase.


Does that mean that anyone can explore any hex at a cost of 1 PA, but (unless it already has some exploration capacity as listed on it) the first time it has to purchase the exploration capacity at 1 PA (so costing 2 PAs the first time, and again if one wants to expand its prospecting capacity)?

If so, does Nordic Federation (being a major oil exporter) have no such capacity?

Also, I understand this would increase oil reserve (cell K50), right?
Referee
 GM, 91 posts
Mon 4 Jan 2016
at 23:37
Calrification asked
If Japan wants to build a research module it pays 50$ (25$+25$ because first built) right?

But does japan also need to build a orbital habitat before its 1st research module or when it constructs its 11th research module?

Does a Satelite power rectenna module work bothways? Could I beam power from the surface to orbit and so power orbital facilities?
South Korea
 player, 1 post
Mon 4 Jan 2016
at 23:49
Re: Calrification asked
Referee:
If Japan wants to build a research module it pays 50$ (25$+25$ because first built) right?

But does japan also need to build a orbital habitat before its 1st research module or when it constructs its 11th research module?


Rules:
-Orbital Habitat: <snip> One facility required for every 10 non-‘Orbital Habitat’ or ‘Orbital Colony’ Orbital Facilities or Modules (round down) that the owning nation has about a satellite.


Bold section is key part - you would require one for your 10th facility on the satellite (9/10 rounded down is 0 while 10/10 is 1) So if Japan were to build two O/Ts and 7 Modules it would then need an orbital habitat before it could build more in the orbit hex of that particular satellite

Referee:
Does a Satelite power rectenna module work bothways? Could I beam power from the surface to orbit and so power orbital facilities?


Rules as written would suggest yes as it says 'shared'?
Japan
 player, 54 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 05:07
Re: Calrification asked
South Korea:
Rules as written would suggest yes as it says 'shared'?

And physics support this I would imagine. However it does limit the use/need/purpose of orbital power modules...
Germany
 player, 167 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 13:03
Re: Calrification asked
With the restructuration of the Prestige and Relations from -20 to +20 to from 1 to 20, differences are halved.

This changes several formulas and cases:

  • In 8.4: 5 more relations (equivalent to former 10 ones) more than anyone else.
  • In 12.10: the number of round fought are now (20-relations)/5, so, if both countries have 10 relations (former 0), they can now fight 2 rounds, where they could 1 in former rules.


Is that intentional?

This message was last edited by the player at 13:07, Tue 05 Jan 2016.

Germany
 player, 168 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 13:06
Re: Calrification asked
Japan:
South Korea:
Rules as written would suggest yes as it says 'shared'?

And physics support this I would imagine. However it does limit the use/need/purpose of orbital power modules...


Not necessarily so. This may be true in Core Worlds, where power is considered unlimited, but in colonies, it can really lead to opposite...
UK
 player, 53 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 13:26
Re: Calrification asked
Japan:
And physics support this I would imagine. However it does limit the use/need/purpose of orbital power modules...

I'd argue otherwise - this means you can have all your power in orbit and production on the ground or power on the ground and then have only power consuming units in orbit- potentially really useful for very small bodies with only one or 2 hexes (The asteroids for example) Or for where you want to maximize the ship building potential of a satellite so you have ore mining and ship yards in orbit so you don't have to uplift the raw materials - just send the power up instead
China
 player, 20 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 21:10
Re: Calrification asked
In reply to UK (msg # 76):

The Entire point of Solar Power Satellites and beamed power transmission..However your looking at needing at least a theoretical Tech level of 9.5 for the transmitter..
the lower level for a rectenna may not be helpfull atm..Later on thou being able to beam power up or down will be suefull ..some places in the outer system you will have power going out from a Tokamak or in the habital zone and inner system power beamed down from satellite..
Germany
 player, 169 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 21:13
Re: Calrification asked
China:
In reply to UK (msg # 76):

The Entire point of Solar Power Satellites and beamed power transmission..However your looking at needing at least a theoretical Tech level of 9.5 for the transmitter..


The rectena module is TL 8.7, according to the rules...
China
 player, 21 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 21:24
Re: Calrification asked
In reply to Germany (msg # 78):

Yes the Rectenna is the receiver ..not the transmitter ..current tech lets us beam 30kw across 92 miles in atmousphere so long as nothing flys thru the beam..now a few Kilowatts is a fine sciencefare project but is not the terrawatts of power points we are discussing here..

Just as I can build an AM radio receiver that require NO external power to receive and convert signals to sound (no amplifier and minimal volume control) in my garage with radio shack parts ...does not mean I can build the transmitter just as simply ..;o)

This message was last edited by the player at 21:34, Tue 05 Jan 2016.

UK
 player, 54 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 21:35
Re: Calrification asked
In reply to China (msg # 79):

Current world tech is not game world tech. And modules on space stations are not science fair experiment
China
 player, 22 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 21:51
Re: Calrification asked
In reply to UK (msg # 80):

You are correct.. but the rectenna (tech 8.7) works on exactly the same principle as the crystal radio just far more efficient (and bigger) ..it is a receiver..the transmitter technology to make it work is part of the Solar Power Satellite (tech 9.5)see the problem I am trying to show ..(yes I used real world examples simply because they support the case they are the background technology)

I can see lifting a tech 9.5 Solar power satellite in the inner system and beaming said power to a station built at a colony in the outer system at tech 8.7 ..yes it would work ..but having a receiver (rectenna) with no transmission source does what for us exactly

Sure you can have all your power comming from the orbit of mercury to the inner system (by far the most efficent way to do it and least damaging to the panels) Soooo..thats a while off yet

And rereading everything again I see we have had a miscommunication..where I thought somone was discussing utalizing a Rectenna system now in game (seems pointless) not just discussing them in general ..bah shows i should not post when tired ...

This message was last edited by the player at 22:05, Tue 05 Jan 2016.

UK
 player, 55 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 22:14
Re: Calrification asked
In reply to China (msg # 81):

bleh, will have to not post on mobile - makes it very hard to post elequantly.

It may be we are focusing on the name of the system rather than what the system in game is (perhapse it should be renamed to something like Transmitter and Rectenna - or Power Transfer System or the like if the name is a problem)

Rules section 9.6 clearly outlines what it does - it allows you to combine power production and usage for surface and orbital facilities when working out if you have enough power.

It cannot be used to transfer power between different satelites and has as part of the system both transmitters and receavers.

I see no problem with the rules for this item - I see it as being the development of something like a microwave power transmission system.
Saudi Arabia
 player, 20 posts
Wed 6 Jan 2016
at 11:49
Re: Calrification asked

Rule 6.5.5.1, option 1:
quote:
For SRU option #1: Oil exploration represents drilling rigs and costs 1 PA per hex; specify the exact hex where the exploration is to be, and whether it is to be in the land or water area of that hex (Hint: There is no chance of significant amounts of oil being discovered in deep water, i.e. ‘Intolerable’ terrain type, portions of a hex) must be specified at the time of purchase. Permanently increasing oil exploration capacity per Turn costs 1 PA, whether for land or water exploration must be specified at time of purchase.


Can more than 1 PA be used on the same hex?

If so, does each PA require 1 hex capacity, or you can use as much PAs as desired in the same hex and counting still as 1 hex capacity?
Japan
 player, 55 posts
Wed 6 Jan 2016
at 20:30
Re: Calrification asked
UK:
It may be we are focusing on the name of the system rather than what the system in game is (perhapse it should be renamed to something like Transmitter and Rectenna - or Power Transfer System or the like if the name is a problem)

Rules section 9.6 clearly outlines what it does - it allows you to combine power production and usage for surface and orbital facilities when working out if you have enough power.

It cannot be used to transfer power between different satelites and has as part of the system both transmitters and receavers.

I see no problem with the rules for this item - I see it as being the development of something like a microwave power transmission system.

Player Andreas/Japan says: I agree. So Japan could build a Rectenna module/Power Transfer System at Crystal Palace and don´t have to worry about building powerplants in orbit as we can beam power from the surface to all the modules we want?

GM Andreas says: I am not sure about this. Will this unbalance the game though? What does IRL physics say; is it the same thing to send/receive to/from space/surface? And more importantly :) Kelvin?
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 81 posts
Fri 8 Jan 2016
at 22:30
Re: Calrification asked
>Does that mean that anyone can explore any hex at a cost of 1 PA, but (unless it
>already has some exploration capacity as listed on it) the first time it has to
>purchase the exploration capacity at 1 PA (so costing 2 PAs the first time, and
>again if one wants to expand its prospecting capacity)?
I *think* you have misunderstood.
-It costs 1 PA to increase drilling capacity, land or sea -That capacity can be used permanently, in any appropriate hex
-It costs 1 PA to use that drilling capacity to attempt to find significant, commercially exploitable reserves


>If so, does Nordic Federation (being a major oil exporter) have no such capacity?
So are many nations that are major oil exporters, it does not mean that they have significant oil exploration capacity


Also, I understand this would increase oil reserve (cell K50), right?
Yes

>If Japan wants to build a research module it pays 50$ (25$+25$ because first built) right?
Yes

>>But does japan also need to build a orbital habitat before its 1st research
>>module or when it constructs its 11th research module?
>Bold section is key part - you would require one for your 10th facility on the satellite
What he said

>In 8.4: 5 more relations (equivalent to former 10 ones) more than anyone else.
>In 12.10: the number of round fought are now (20-relations)/5, so, if both countries
>have 10 relations (former 0), they can now fight 2 rounds, where they could 1 in former rules.
>Is that intentional?
Yes

>Rule 6.5.5.1, option 1:
>Can more than 1 PA be used on the same hex?
Yes

>If so, does each PA require 1 hex capacity
Yes
>, or you can use as much PAs as desired in the same hex and counting still as 1 hex capacity?
No
Germany
 player, 170 posts
Sun 10 Jan 2016
at 15:21
Spreadshets
Somthing odd happens in the spreadsheets, as if any expneses form cells D33-41 are not fully paid (leading to a shortfall), the growth effect for next turn is positive. As I believe this is not intentional and they should be negative, I guess there's some kind of tipo in the formulas...
UK
 player, 56 posts
Sun 10 Jan 2016
at 16:35
Spreadshets
In reply to Germany (msg # 86):

#Round trips within a Star System = 3 000 X (# of non-StutterWarp Propulsion Modules) X (Space Infrastructure tech level – 7.0) / [(Ship Mass) X (AU of one endpoint + AU of other endpoint)], if the result is >1 then round fractions down, if the result is <1 then round down to the nearest 0.1 and multiply total cargo that may be carried in a Turn by that number. The AU of an endpoint is measured from the semi-major axis of a satellite’s orbital ellipse to its primary, not the distance between the endpoints. If the ship has at least one active ‘Chemical’ or ‘Thrusters’ type Propulsion Module and there are no friendly O/T facilities at an endpoint then add 5 AU for distance calculations.

This is confusing me with regards to the 'AU of one endpoint + AU of other Endpoint)

If I were sending a ship to Mars from Earth the total of these two sums would be 1+1.523?
Germany
 player, 171 posts
Sun 10 Jan 2016
at 18:48
Re: Spreadshets
UK:
In reply to Germany (msg # 86):

#Round trips within a Star System = 3 000 X (# of non-StutterWarp Propulsion Modules) X (Space Infrastructure tech level – 7.0) / [(Ship Mass) X (AU of one endpoint + AU of other endpoint)], if the result is >1 then round fractions down, if the result is <1 then round down to the nearest 0.1 and multiply total cargo that may be carried in a Turn by that number. The AU of an endpoint is measured from the semi-major axis of a satellite’s orbital ellipse to its primary, not the distance between the endpoints. If the ship has at least one active ‘Chemical’ or ‘Thrusters’ type Propulsion Module and there are no friendly O/T facilities at an endpoint then add 5 AU for distance calculations.

This is confusing me with regards to the 'AU of one endpoint + AU of other Endpoint)

If I were sending a ship to Mars from Earth the total of these two sums would be 1+1.523?


I answeres that to Kelvin time ago and he confirmed that yes, this is.

I know this means that a trip from Mercury to Ceres would then be 3.087 AUs, while from Mars to Ceres 4.223 AUs...
UK
 player, 57 posts
Sun 10 Jan 2016
at 19:22
Re: Spreadshets
In reply to Germany (msg # 88):

I just wanted to check - and thinking about it that also makes sense as you could be making that trip when the two bodies are on other sides of the system primary
Germany
 player, 172 posts
Sun 10 Jan 2016
at 19:49
More suggestions:
11.3:

quote:
A landed Spaceship may take off from the surface to the Orbit hex if (number of Chemical or Thrusters Modules for Propulsion that the Spaceship has) is greater than (Ship Mass / 1000 X G of the satellite if taking off from a friendly Spaceport facility) or (Ship Mass / 500 X G of the satellite if taking off without a friendly Spaceport facility). In taking off, the Spaceship may not carry any Items or Population units while doing so unless the G of the satellite is <0.01G.


Suggestion (adenda): cargo modules do not count on the ship mass for those formulas, as they are assumed empty.

See that this does not apply to landing, as cargo modules are not assumed empty, nor to passengers modules, as we can asume most its weight is not due to the passengers themselves, but to habitats/facilities for them.

This message was last edited by the player at 14:54, Tue 12 Jan 2016.

UK
 player, 58 posts
Mon 11 Jan 2016
at 00:06
More suggestions:
In reply to Germany (msg # 90):

Another thing to note is that it lists this growth for all the 'core worlds' on the spreadsheet - may need to add an if statement to check there is actually a core world in existance for it calculating growth and such?

May not really be necessary but messing around if I remove the upkeep from a field I get infrastructure overload because its workign out that the growth over all the worlds would kick that in.
China
 player, 23 posts
Mon 11 Jan 2016
at 01:30
Re: Spreadshets
UK:
In reply to Germany (msg # 86):

#Round trips within a Star System = 3 000 X (# of non-StutterWarp Propulsion Modules) X (Space Infrastructure tech level – 7.0) / [(Ship Mass) X (AU of one endpoint + AU of other endpoint)], if the result is >1 then round fractions down, if the result is <1 then round down to the nearest 0.1 and multiply total cargo that may be carried in a Turn by that number. The AU of an endpoint is measured from the semi-major axis of a satellite’s orbital ellipse to its primary, not the distance between the endpoints. If the ship has at least one active ‘Chemical’ or ‘Thrusters’ type Propulsion Module and there are no friendly O/T facilities at an endpoint then add 5 AU for distance calculations.

This is confusing me with regards to the 'AU of one endpoint + AU of other Endpoint)

If I were sending a ship to Mars from Earth the total of these two sums would be 1+1.523?

This one I know and understand the reason for ..Furthest trip to furthest trip over the course of a turn as opposed to trying to make shortest trips all the time ..(near impossible)..It works and since is applied to all is fair enough..The reason for adding more distance for calcualtion for chemical and thrusters is no refuel if no OT at other end ..so cannot thrust as much and must take holmann style trips..
Germany
 player, 173 posts
Mon 11 Jan 2016
at 08:01
More details
Shouldn't the Lunastar Outpost in Moon deployed by the Crystal Palace joint group be listed in the History section?
Germany
 player, 174 posts
Tue 12 Jan 2016
at 18:57
More details
Can ítems (be there FU, RMU, SU or modules/partial facilities) be stored in an OT (so that you can use latter without having to uplift/transport them)?
USA
 player, 22 posts
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 13:33
More details
In reply to Germany (msg # 94):

Question about Outpost Modules;

Mass is listed as 5000/5000

Rules say the second number must be down-lifted to the satellite of the nearest colony/core world - given this is being build on the moon I'm guessing I need to uplift 10,000 and then somehow get 5000 down to the surface of the moon?

I'm also not sure on the rules for downlifting to the moon? As I see it I need to but I don't have any downlift there yet as I don't have anything on the moon - am I able to use the downlift that is on earth? If so can I use that downlift elsewhere in the solar system?
Germany
 player, 175 posts
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 18:51
Re: More details
USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 94):

Question about Outpost Modules;

Mass is listed as 5000/5000

Rules say the second number must be down-lifted to the satellite of the nearest colony/core world - given this is being build on the moon I'm guessing I need to uplift 10,000 and then somehow get 5000 down to the surface of the moon?

I'm also not sure on the rules for downlifting to the moon? As I see it I need to but I don't have any downlift there yet as I don't have anything on the moon - am I able to use the downlift that is on earth? If so can I use that downlift elsewhere in the solar system?


We'll have to wait for Kelvin's offical answer, but as I undertand:

Earth is the nearest Colony/Core World, so the part to be delivered to the surface of the nearest Colony/CW would remain in Earth surface.

So, only the Orbitlal part (so the left of the slash) must be uplifted/transported (that in the case of the Moon is equivalent, s rockets have enough range to deliver it to Moon's orbit).

To this, you must add the outpost, as no colony exists in the satellite it will orbit.
USA
 player, 23 posts
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 19:18
Re: More details
In reply to Germany (msg # 96):
My original text Ignore this:
Ok - but since an outpost is being established then I'd imagine we have to put something on the surface?

Also - if this is the case - do we then need to have the ground based parts of the orbital stuff (IE the orbital terminals) on the surface of the moon.

The reason i say this is that if we don't then it seems like we could also establish a colony on the moon - or on another planet like Mars - without actualy landing anything on the planet?


EDIT - I'M AN IDIOT

Managed to forget I checked this with Kelvin not too long ago - the first number is the mass that must be in orbit and the second number is the TOTAL MASS (Not the mass that must be downlifted) which does mean that the outpost module does not need any mass to be downlifted - that being said the Orbital terminal would do (5000/10000) so does this mean i have to downlift 5000 to the moon if I set up an O/T and am I able to do this using just rockets from earth?

This message was last edited by the player at 23:38, Wed 13 Jan 2016.

Germany
 player, 176 posts
Thu 14 Jan 2016
at 17:13
Re: More details
USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 96):
My original text Ignore this:
Ok - but since an outpost is being established then I'd imagine we have to put something on the surface?

Also - if this is the case - do we then need to have the ground based parts of the orbital stuff (IE the orbital terminals) on the surface of the moon.

The reason i say this is that if we don't then it seems like we could also establish a colony on the moon - or on another planet like Mars - without actualy landing anything on the planet?


<snip> that being said the Orbital terminal would do (5000/10000) so does this mean i have to downlift 5000 to the moon if I set up an O/T and am I able to do this using just rockets from earth?


No. THose 5000 tonnes must be taken to the nearest Colony/Core World (so in this case to Earth, so they are forfeited, you only need the 5000 tons for orbit).

Rules are not clear about what would happen when anyone starts a colony in Moon(or any other satellite, for what's worth), as it will become the nearest Colony...

  1. Should those extra 5000 tonnes have to be taken there to fulfill the full deployement?
  2. If so, what happens meanwhile (until they are delivered)?
  3. Will they be forfeited (for game's simplicty shake)?


See that same happens with the supporting pop (2 pop units). As long as there's no colony, they can be in Earth (again, the nearest Colony/core WOrld), but once the colony is there, they hsould be in the Colony. WIll the OT remain iddle until delivered?

And also, to answer all those questions: when is a world considered to have a colony for all thsoe pourposes?

When the first facility (I guess usually a spaceport) is established?
USA
 player, 24 posts
Thu 14 Jan 2016
at 17:41
Re: More details
In reply to Germany (msg # 98):

Right, thats what I'm thinking

What I'm also confused by is the fact that once we set up an outpost an entry is made in the settlement's list and is listed on the spreadsheets as a colony which would suggest the full amount would have to be taken there - as would supplies for the items on that planet

Or am i reading this wrong?
Nordic Federation
 player, 2 posts
Thu 14 Jan 2016
at 17:54
Re: Calrification asked
Combat Cycle Ref:
>Does that mean that anyone can explore any hex at a cost of 1 PA, but (unless it
>already has some exploration capacity as listed on it) the first time it has to
>purchase the exploration capacity at 1 PA (so costing 2 PAs the first time, and
>again if one wants to expand its prospecting capacity)?
I *think* you have misunderstood.
-It costs 1 PA to increase drilling capacity, land or sea -That capacity can be used permanently, in any appropriate hex
-It costs 1 PA to use that drilling capacity to attempt to find significant, commercially exploitable reserves


In fact, I think I have explained myself awfuly, instead of missunderstanding, as what you say is what I inteded to say myself.


Combat Cycle Ref:
>If so, does Nordic Federation (being a major oil exporter) have no such capacity?
So are many nations that are major oil exporters, it does not mean that they have significant oil exploration capacity


I asked because in the NF HP it's mentioned 1 off-shore oilprospecting rig (built 2025) in Arctic. (see that this was before I took the country and before many rules changes too). Does it count as one hex sea exploration capacity?
Germany
 player, 177 posts
Thu 14 Jan 2016
at 19:07
Re: Calrification asked
quote:
9.1. Construction

Each Colony starts with a single, friendly Orbital Terminal, which usually starts out as equipped with an Outpost Module (see section 9.8.1) then upgraded to an Enclave Module then upgraded to a full Colony. To be upgraded to a full Colony the Satellite must first have been surveyed by a ship equipped with a Survey Module (see section 11.1) for 1 Turn or have an Enclave (see section 9.8.1) Module in place for at least 3 Turns.


For the ship:

Must it begin and end the turn in the satellite to be fully surveyed, or just go to it and stay until the end of the turn without doing anything else (or at most returning to base)?

For the Enclave:

Can several Enclaves join to shorten it (e.g. in Turn x, one Enclave is on a planet. On turn X+1, another one (and the first one accrues 1 turn of survey), in turn X+2 can both Enclaves say they accrued 3 survey turns worth and begin to colonize in turn X+3)?
Referee
 GM, 92 posts
Fri 15 Jan 2016
at 09:03
Re: More details
Germany:
Shouldn't the Lunastar Outpost in Moon deployed by the Crystal Palace joint group be listed in the History section?

GM Andreas says: I think so, please add it. Although I must confess I am a bit unclear on what is joint and what is Russian. Kelvin?
Referee
 GM, 93 posts
Fri 15 Jan 2016
at 09:05
Re: More details
Germany:
Can ítems (be there FU, RMU, SU or modules/partial facilities) be stored in an OT (so that you can use latter without having to uplift/transport them)?

GM Andreas says: Me and Kelvin spoke about this a long time ago and as I recall: Yes, unlimited amount of stuff can be stored at an OT.
Referee
 GM, 94 posts
Fri 15 Jan 2016
at 09:06
Re: Calrification asked
Nordic Federation:
I asked because in the NF HP it's mentioned 1 off-shore oilprospecting rig (built 2025) in Arctic. (see that this was before I took the country and before many rules changes too). Does it count as one hex sea exploration capacity?

GM Andreas says: Yes NF have drilling capacity since 2025 when it built the offshore rig in the arctic.
USA
 player, 25 posts
Sat 16 Jan 2016
at 13:41
Re: Calrification asked
In reply to Referee (msg # 104):

I think i remember reading something about this but can't find it - can I just check when you gain the benefit of facilities being constructed?

If the US builds research modules this turn does it gain the benefit of those modules this turn or does that start next turn?

If an O/T is built on Mars does it count as being usable for refueling when calculating the number of trips you can make

I know units are counted as reserve when being built though - just wanted to check on construction of facilities.
Germany
 player, 178 posts
Sat 16 Jan 2016
at 13:51
Re: Calrification asked
USA:
In reply to Referee (msg # 104):

I think i remember reading something about this but can't find it - can I just check when you gain the benefit of facilities being constructed?


9.1, final of the last paragraph:

quote:
On the final Turn when a facility is being constructed the facility may not produce anything e.g. income, power, other items or aid in research/survey nor do they consume Supply Units, but are otherwise considered functional e.g. they can move units between surface and orbit and can serve as the local prerequisite for another facility.


So:

USA:
If the US builds research modules this turn does it gain the benefit of those modules this turn or does that start next turn?


Next turn, as is production

USA:
If an O/T is built on Mars does it count as being usable for refueling when calculating the number of trips you can make


Yes, as it's prerequisite.

And, for the same reason, I guess it can also support ships. Right, Kelvin?

This message was last edited by the player at 13:53, Sat 16 Jan 2016.

Germany
 player, 179 posts
Fri 22 Jan 2016
at 17:57
More changes suggestions
Those are on the long run, so no hurry there.

9.8.1: Orbital facilities:

Rationale: I guess we all agree that the player’s ships are not all the shipping existing, and, at least when Space Travel becomes more common, there will be independent ships also carrying items and people along the colonized space. This would be to represent it:

  • New facility/module: Traffic Control
  • Cost: at least 400
  • TL: at least 10.5
  • Prerequisites: OT, (maybe shipyard too), interface uplift capacity in the satellite in which orbit it is deployed
  • Power: -1
  • Mass: at least 20000 tonnes


Traffic control allows items to be moved through the system it is deployed on without ships (assumed by comercial shipping). Any item may be moved, as long as it does not need interface, at a cost of 1 SU/40000 tonnes or fraction moved (this represents 10% of its value in cost) per system so moved. Transporting 1 pop point is worth 20000 tonnes. Transporting 1 military unit is worth 20000 tonnes + the mass of the unit as shown in 10.5 tables.

Notes:
  • as always, all the details (name, cost, mass, etc.) are open to discussion. The suggestion for needing interface in the planet is to allow fuel to be available in orbit.
  • needless to say that if the system is attacked and there are no military space units to patrol it the result may be disastrous (not to say the possibility of pirates...)


Example: a player can uplift 20 unused MRUs in orbit to planet A. It wants to send them to planet B (two systems away, but both systems and the one in between have Traffic Control), then cost would be 3 SU (as there are 3 such systems travelled) per 40000 tonnes. As the 20 MTUs are 400000 tonnes of mass, total cost would be 30 SU (or $6), but he will have its 20 MRUs in planet B orbit hex without tying its own shipping.



11.1 Spaceship construction:

Rationale: it seems to me a little odd that, while L Hull modules are 9.5, they cannot be build until TL 10 is reached due to the need to hav the support of a Military Shipyard.

Suggestion: allow L hull types (only) to be built without the assistance of a Military Shipyard, at an increased cost (x2 to X5, applied as per 7.3).
China
 player, 24 posts
Sat 23 Jan 2016
at 12:40
Re: More changes suggestions
Germany:
11.1 Spaceship construction:

Rationale: it seems to me a little odd that, while L Hull modules are 9.5, they cannot be build until TL 10 is reached due to the need to hav the support of a Military Shipyard.

Suggestion: allow L hull types (only) to be built without the assistance of a Military Shipyard, at an increased cost (x2 to X5, applied as per 7.3).

Interesting ..I see them being built at 9.5..I also see a military shipyard being built at Infrastructure 9.5 Theoretical 10.0.. (There is a huge difference between China's Theoertical Tech and its Infrastructure Tech a gap will almost always be there)
USA
 player, 26 posts
Sat 23 Jan 2016
at 12:59
Re: More changes suggestions
In reply to China (msg # 108):

I would have to agree - it also makes sense from the view that a colony may have a shipyard transported to it from a core world where the colony's infrastructure is below 9.5

In this instance it would represent the colony world not being developed enough to produce the heavy armor whilst still having a shipyard
Germany
 player, 180 posts
Sat 23 Jan 2016
at 13:42
Re: More changes suggestions
China:
Germany:
11.1 Spaceship construction:

Rationale: it seems to me a little odd that, while L Hull modules are 9.5, they cannot be build until TL 10 is reached due to the need to hav the support of a Military Shipyard.

Suggestion: allow L hull types (only) to be built without the assistance of a Military Shipyard, at an increased cost (x2 to X5, applied as per 7.3).

Interesting ..I see them being built at 9.5..I also see a military shipyard being built at Infrastructure 9.5 Theoretical 10.0.. (There is a huge difference between China's Theoertical Tech and its Infrastructure Tech a gap will almost always be there)


Of couse, this possibility exists, but see that paying the military shipyards at x5 makes them quite expensive ($1500 per shipyard), making it a daunting endeavour...

USA:
In reply to China (msg # 108):

I would have to agree - it also makes sense from the view that a colony may have a shipyard transported to it from a core world where the colony's infrastructure is below 9.5

In this instance it would represent the colony world not being developed enough to produce the heavy armor whilst still having a shipyard


I frankly don't foresee that, as I have serious doubts any colony will reach this TL without reaching the Core World status.

Let's see from the TL POV. A colony will hae infrastructures TL as half the parent country's theoretical one, with some modifiers:
  • per heavy industiral facilities: +1 for the first, +1 for the 5th, +1 for the 25th. See that your heavy industrial groups are 1/5 of your industry facilities, so, you need 5, 25 and 125 industrial facilities to reach them
  • We can asume there will be at least one university: +0.5.
  • per 5000 POP (round up): +0.1.


As a colony becomes a Core World when it reaches 10000 POP (see 6.3), the maximum POP can add is +0.2. So your colonies can reach at most (Theoretical TL)/2+3.7 as infrastructure TL. That means to build TL 9.5 ítems, you need to have theoretical TL at 11.6 (to compare, according MGT:2300, the most advanced Earth societies ae at TL 12).

So, this would be only feasible at the very advanced stages of the game...

This message was last edited by the player at 14:53, Sat 23 Jan 2016.

Germany
 player, 181 posts
Sat 23 Jan 2016
at 19:03
More doubts
quote:
Outpost Module: Extra structures and personal for supply for self-sufficiency of an O/T, may include some interface craft and ground structures. Required where there is no friendly Colony or Enclave on the satellite which the O/T orbits.


Is an outpost needed per OT, per country habing OTs in this orbit or a single outpost can support as many OTs as needed?
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 82 posts
Mon 25 Jan 2016
at 19:41
More doubts
In reply to Germany (msg # 111):

>I guess we all agree that the player’s ships are not all the shipping existing
See sec 11.0 par#1, sentence#3-4

>New facility/module: Traffic Control
I am not seeing how this is going to help or being any sort of a simplification. Players are quickly going to be asking legitimate questions about exactly how these ‘virtual’ Spaceships interact with all of the rest of the rules. i.e. How can these ships be intercepted, destroyed, or repaired? How do they interact with all of the other facilities and what kind of a load to they impose? … It is the thought that these questions could come about is basically why I wrote sec 11.0 par#1, sentence#3-4, and the similar paragraph in sec 10.0 too. Dealing with support units is not going to be fun, so we are not going to.

>while L Hull modules are 9.5, they cannot be build until TL 10 is reached due to the
>need to hav the support of a Military Shipyard.
I never bothered to keep with much of a step-by-step linking of such things because, as your example showed, the potential for differing tech level across Settlements (sec 9.2 of the rules).

> Is an outpost needed per OT
Yes
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 83 posts
Mon 25 Jan 2016
at 19:46
Creating the game map
The thing that is really freaking me out right now is that we are at this stage of the game without a usable game map of the universe. Yet one more thing our illustrious founders could not be bothered to do when they started this game. Michael seems to have the whole stellar mapping thing under control, that is great, now we just have to deal with ~1000 solar systems (# of stars within 50ly of Earth, the traditional area of the 2300AD universe), ~25 Satellites per solar system, ~100 hexes per Satellite … and each hex has >5 elements of information. Does anyone have some man-lifetimes to dedicate to the cause of generating, checking for reasonability, and updating this? Even if +99% of it is never colonized it still needs to be generated ahead of time. So I am throwing this desperate plea open to everyone:

Does anyone have any kind of procedural generation system which can generate the type and amount of usable game information we need? I would prefer some system Traveller related, but I am desperate enough to consider any alternative.

The system has to be
-Functional: No ‘Gee, wouldn’t it be nice if …’
-It has be accessible by everyone. A game map is no good unless each player can use it. Proprietary software, unintelligible output, etc, is useless.
-It has to be not labour intensive to use. Count the number of clicks/keystrokes it takes to do something, do you love this game enough to do it 10s of thousands if not millions of times?
-It has to generate results which look somewhat like our current rules. I do not expect any premade system to perfectly generate everything exactly how our current rules say they should be; so I cannot emphasis enough that which ever system is the easiest to use the rules will have to be changed to match whatever is the output from said system.

The best that I have found so far is
http://www.downport.com/wbd/HEAVEN_&_EARTH.htm
It is ancient free ware …oh god I have no idea if it will work on a non-Windows box… I have worked out a procedure which would amount to ~9 clicks/keystrokes per Satellite --> Sounds pretty good right? --> but over the course of 25000 Satellites, at 1 click/keystroke per second works about to be ~62 man-hours of work, just to generate and enter! Also, for starters, I can think of this would mean rules changes to:
-Asteroid Mining is going to have to be altered to be something about mining the specific Asteroid belts and rings generated by the system and not mining the Orbit hex of any Satellite. <meh, ok>
-rewiting everything to do with Atmo, G, AU, Breathability, Hospitable/Inhospitable/Intolerable to instead be about World Size, Atmosphere code, Orbit#. <grumble, fine>
-hex size generated is *variable with World Size* which means to keep things consistent across worlds everything range or area related would have to have some kind of World Size term added. <boo!!!>
-I am sure there will be many other rules changes which will be necessitated that I cannot think of right now. <shudder>
China
 player, 25 posts
Mon 25 Jan 2016
at 20:33
Creating the game map
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 113):

1.) Do not panic..same size hexes are the way to go..(only way its going to work in the long run)
2.) mapping is going to be simple after I am done
3.) Do not worry about rewriting the rules on Gravity etc yet..
4.) Heavan and Earth ..for me to use atm I have to ressurect an older computer wont run on 64 bit win 10

(It will be fine we wont have 1000 star systems mapped as yet ..bits at a tiem and how much space do we have to upload on the Game site or do I need to upload to another site and link in ?
UK
 player, 60 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Mon 25 Jan 2016
at 21:03
Creating the game map
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 113):

For the creation of planets we can use a generator I found when looking into makeing the moon map

http://inkwellideas.com/free-t...world-map-generator/

Is that what you're looking for?

I did have problems when it came to making maps with a set number of hexes based on the solar system in that most of the programs i was looking at had much larger minimum number of hexes than I needed for the moon
Germany
 player, 182 posts
Mon 25 Jan 2016
at 22:06
Re: More doubts
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 111):

>New facility/module: Traffic Control
I am not seeing how this is going to help or being any sort of a simplification. Players are quickly going to be asking legitimate questions about exactly how these ‘virtual’ Spaceships interact with all of the rest of the rules. i.e. How can these ships be intercepted, destroyed, or repaired? How do they interact with all of the other facilities and what kind of a load to they impose? … It is the thought that these questions could come about is basically why I wrote sec 11.0 par#1, sentence#3-4, and the similar paragraph in sec 10.0 too. Dealing with support units is not going to be fun, so we are not going to.


It would help in simplification the same way it helped to remove the support elements of our armed forces (though in the case of space it should only work when enough traffic is assumed to be there).

But that also means every RMU/FU/SU needs a ship to be transported, and so that any not-self suficient colony (on any of them) needs governamental shipping to be so suplied, ignoring other (priovate/corporate) shipping. Maybe it couls be used only for RMU/FU/SU, so really applying 11.0 For game simplicity we will only concern ourselves with Spaceships that are important to conquest and colonization. leaving the common traffic more abstract.

See that this is how we treat movements on Earth (wihtout the added cost), and most things you say could be resolved the same way air/naval movements are treated with commercial shipping.

That's too why I suggested such high TL and prerequisites, because it requires that commercial (proivate/corporate) traffic to be enough.

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

What about this other one?

Germany:
11.3:

quote:
A landed Spaceship may take off from the surface to the Orbit hex if (number of Chemical or Thrusters Modules for Propulsion that the Spaceship has) is greater than (Ship Mass / 1000 X G of the satellite if taking off from a friendly Spaceport facility) or (Ship Mass / 500 X G of the satellite if taking off without a friendly Spaceport facility). In taking off, the Spaceship may not carry any Items or Population units while doing so unless the G of the satellite is <0.01G.


Suggestion (adenda): cargo modules do not count on the ship mass for those formulas, as they are assumed empty.

See that this does not apply to landing, as cargo modules are not assumed empty, nor to passengers modules, as we can asume most its weight is not due to the passengers themselves, but to habitats/facilities for them.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 84 posts
Mon 25 Jan 2016
at 22:55
Creating the game map
In reply to UK (msg # 115):

>1.) Do not panic..same size hexes are the way to go..
>2.) mapping is going to be simple after I am done
Do not keep me waiting! I need to know soonest what is going to work!

>3.) Do not worry about rewriting the rules on Gravity etc yet..
<meh> the more I think about it, the more I could deal. I have a long policy of wanting to make things look like game systems the players could be familiar with.

>Heavan and Earth ..for me to use atm I have to ressurect an older computer
>wont run on 64 bit win 10
Have you tried the trick of creating a shortcut, RMB on the Shortcut -->Compatibility tab?

>creation of planets we can use a generator I found when looking
>into makeing the moon map
>http://inkwellideas.com/free-t...world-map-generator/
Seen it, messed with it, rejected it. Has nothing about system generation. Makes pretty images, but they are just that; we need to be able to translate that into editable text information. Cannot make smaller worlds, at least not without a redefining of hexes into something smaller.
UK
 player, 61 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Mon 25 Jan 2016
at 23:03
Creating the game map
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 117):

Have you looked at the free version of Hexographer? I know that does have the ability to make Icosahedral hex maps as well as other maps - shoud work for systems but that would be a manual thing I guess?

http://inkwellideas.com/2011/0...maps-in-hexographer/

link has info on icosahedral map production  again you will have the problem with the minimum number of hexes it needs though I think

Do we need a graphical representation of a system or do you just want something like this do?


STAR         1au       2au        3au       4au
(Class)      Planet    Nothing    Planet    Gas Giant

This message was last edited by the player at 23:04, Mon 25 Jan 2016.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 85 posts
Thu 28 Jan 2016
at 04:00
Creating the game map
In reply to UK (msg # 118):

>free version of Hexographer
It seems to have about the same limitations as the one from inkwellideas; a great program for creating images of a habitable planet, but nothing beyond that.

>Do we need a graphical representation of a system or do you just want something like this do?
>STAR         1au       2au        3au       4au
>(Class)      Planet    Nothing    Planet    Gas Giant

Graphical would be nice, but ultimately it is not necessary.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 86 posts
Thu 28 Jan 2016
at 04:06
Re: More doubts
In reply to Germany (msg # 116):

>Suggestion (adenda): cargo modules do not count on the ship mass for those
>formulas, as they are assumed empty
An extra mid-game complication to the rules which has no benefit except to make the game slightly more realistic? You should not have to guess what my response to something like that is going to be.
Germany
 player, 183 posts
Thu 28 Jan 2016
at 04:57
Re: More doubts
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 116):

>Suggestion (adenda): cargo modules do not count on the ship mass for those
>formulas, as they are assumed empty
An extra mid-game complication to the rules which has no benefit except to make the game slightly more realistic? You should not have to guess what my response to something like that is going to be.


As I see it, this will, aside form being or not more realistic, give some sense to being allowed to land with more weight than to take off, as you will then not be stranded in the planet you just landed and it will give some sense to streamlining a ship,

There's no sense to have a ship allowed to land (as it is streamlined) if prpopusion is more than mass/2000*G, but require it to have mass/1000*G to take off (with a spaceport), as if it does not have enough to take off later it has little sense to land. And, as since v20150330 streamlined is not needed to land/take off on atmosphere, just changes de divisor from 1000 to 2000 for landing, then streamlining is useless if the ship is going to take off again.

To give you an example. right now a Freude class (10000 tonnes, streamlined) operating on Earth needs 6 propulsors to land, but needs 11 to take off from a spaceport (and 21 without spaceport). If it was not streamlined, it would need 11 to either land or take off. So, what's the real advantage of streamlined ships?: none as rules stand now.

With my suggested modification, as 5000 tonnes are cargo space, it would also need only 6 propuslsion to take off, so giving some sense to streamlining, that would allow to land with those 6 propulsors while fully loaded.
UK
 player, 62 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Thu 28 Jan 2016
at 13:22
Creating the game map
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 119):

http://donjon.bin.sh/scifi/tsg/

Generates a system and produces one icosahedral map (no hexes though) based on some stuff you can alter.

Again, don't think its really what you want but I'm also pretty sure we're not going to find exactly what we want for this

I will say that if we can move away from Icosahedral planetary maps to a simple square map then mapping will become infinately easier - I have lots of programs that I can use to simply overlay the correct number of hexes based on the area of each hex if its a flat map. The above site also has planetary map generator that produces a square map

http://donjon.bin.sh/scifi/world/
China
 player, 26 posts
Thu 28 Jan 2016
at 14:47
Creating the game map
In reply to UK (msg # 122):

Yes am familiar as a matter of fact it has an individual world generator as well which is rather nice. No grid but a grid is near useless if itdoes nto have hex designators..

(odds are this one will get utalized once I am done generating the transparancy Overlays) ..Inkwells is interesting and I have been looking to see if its possible to do smaller sizes and force it to number the hexes..
UK
 player, 63 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Thu 28 Jan 2016
at 16:19
Creating the game map
In reply to China (msg # 123):

I wasn't talking about getting rid of the hex map - I'm talking about using a square map with the hexes on rather than an icosahedral map

Whilst it is less good at representing an actual spherical world it has the benefit of being really easy to do.

But if you've found a way to get the correct number of hexes fitted onto an icosahedral map then thats great and there is an icosahedral map generator on the inkwells page
China
 player, 27 posts
Thu 28 Jan 2016
at 16:46
Creating the game map
In reply to UK (msg # 124):

Aye I was thinking of changing the projection anyway for the smaller Planetoids...anything with less than 100 hexes is easier to do with a modified rectangle..
Germany
 player, 184 posts
Tue 2 Feb 2016
at 11:26
Re: More doubts
In reply to Germany (msg # 121):

quote:
7.2.2. Upgrading Military Theoretical tech level

 To advance beyond the current highest tech level known to humanity your nation must already be at the current highest tech level known to humanity for that category and may only research a level 0.1 higher. In the Turn following, each Core World will also receive a 2% onetime boost to GDP growth per 0.1 tech level gained as your nation makes billions in international arms sales. Upgrading to a new cutting edge Military Theoretical tech level for a particular category is a project that may be shared between nations. Each nation must contribute at least 10% of the total cost but otherwise the cost is split among the contributing nations as they see fit. Only the one nation which pays for >50% of the total cost will receive the 3% onetime boost to GDP growth. Total cost in $ is equal to:


It's 2% or 3%?
China
 player, 28 posts
Tue 2 Feb 2016
at 13:01
Re: Creating the game map
China:
In reply to UK (msg # 124):

Aye I was thinking of changing the projection anyway for the smaller Planetoids...anything with less than 100 hexes is easier to do with a modified rectangle..


Also do we want to lower the size of the basic Hex to 500km (resulting in each one taking one quarter the area)

Currently 1000km hex = 865,500 Sq KM (Texas is about 650,000 Sq Km)
           500km Hex = 216,375 Sq KM

With a 500km Hex we can utalize inkwells and only have to add numbers to the hexes for planets with atmosphere and free standing liquid..it does move us away from T-5 standard of 1000km per hex..as to zero atmosphere rocky bodies inkwells can be set up for may of those. for those smaller than it can do they really need new transparencies anyway.. snd smaller is easier to do effectively.
UK
 player, 64 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Tue 2 Feb 2016
at 18:03
Re: Creating the game map
In reply to China (msg # 127):

Thats a decision that management would have to make but I can see several problems with it - you'd have to rewrite rules on colony sizes, military movement and probably reconsider how some facilities work
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 87 posts
Tue 2 Feb 2016
at 19:23
Re: More doubts
In reply to Germany (msg # 126):

>It's 2% or 3%?
2%. I know, I had already see it and fixed the mistake on my master copy.

>inkwell
I am not all that impressed about the usefulness of inkwell for our game. Pretty pictures but it does not really produce much that relates to the rest of the game. It is why I like Heaven&Earth so much, it has a 'World-->Notes' tab into which we can copy/paste a table of one line per hex with a randomly generated table from Excel of Farming and Mining potentials, and additional columns for the tracking of hex ownership, colony facilities etc.

>zero atmosphere rocky bodies inkwells can be set up for may of those
Sure it can be done, but it requries human understanding and intervention to know that it must be done, and then additional human labour to actually do it, 25 000 times, for 25 000 Satellites. It is going to get old. It is why I like Heaven&Earth so much, a world's characteristics, including the map, automatically relate to system generation.


>>we want to lower the size of the basic Hex to 500km
>you'd have to rewrite rules on colony sizes, military movement and probably reconsider how some facilities work

Like I said in one of my earlier replies, H&E has that problem too, which is why I said everything range or area related would have to have a World Size term in it as well. Unfortunate, I love 1000km hexes, but if sacrificing that is what it takes, then that is what it takes.
Germany
 player, 185 posts
Tue 2 Feb 2016
at 19:33
Re: More doubts
Well, as I said, my computer graphic skills are nil, so I cannot help much there. I like H&E, as it generates a whole system and a nice map of the mainworld, but it's based on Traveller, not in 2300AD world/System generation.

In what I could help, though, is in generating systems if needed. I have now access to 2300AD to do it, and I use to have some time to spare.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 88 posts
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 06:06
Re: More doubts
In reply to Germany (msg # 130):

> not in 2300AD world/System generation. In what I could help, though, is in generating
>systems if needed. I have now access to 2300AD to do it, and I use to have some time to spare.

Pick a real StarSystem, start a stop watch, using the 2300AD rules generate all the planets of that StarSystem. What you generate must also include everything that is needed by our rules and be in a format that is usable by all of our players. Stop the stop watch, look at the time that has elapsed, multiply it by the 1000 StarSystems of our star map. Do you have that kind of time to spare? If you can get it all done within the next 6 months then by all means go for it; otherwise, there are levels of fidelity to 2300AD canon material that I think we will have to sacrifice.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 89 posts
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 06:28
Rules proposal 20160202
Understandably, I have been getting a lot of questions about how possible rules changes next Turn will affect actions this Turn. See the file Rules_proposal_v20160202.pdf that I have uploaded to the Files section of the game website. As always, see section 13.1 for a summary of changes, the biggest is a redefinition of Supply Units to be 5000 tonnes and $1 each but SU consumption rate to be 1/5 as much, so SU consumption ends up being 1 or 0. Most relevant to the current situation, an O/T w/Outpost on a different Satellite has 0 SU cost. Hopefully this will all be much less laborious for us to take care of and reduce the pressure to abandon Brigade sized units in favor of Division sized. Beyond that I am sorry but I do not know except to expect that what is in section 4, and anything that depends upon section 4, will have to change to match whatever SolarSystem/Planet generation system is the easiest to use.

P.S. I do not know either what happened to the old forums, it looks like the provider is out of business. <shrug> Fine by me, I cannot think of a single useful byte of information in the old forums.

This message was last edited by the GM at 06:42, Wed 03 Feb 2016.

Germany
 player, 186 posts
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 13:41
Rules proposal 20160202 questions
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 132):

After skip reading them (so, expect moe to come)

First of all, will any of this apply this turn?

  1. I guess SU changes will not, as it would require new spreadsheets (or at least to redo them in full) and we're too close to deadline...
  2. will changes in 7.3 (forfeiting increased costs for first time for humanity?


quote:
7.2.4. Upgrading Military Infrastructure tech level
Upgrading the Military Infrastructure tech level of a nation (Military- Ground, Military-Air, and Military-Sea) includes upgrading all the existing military units, the infrastructure of your defence manufacturing sector and of the support network of your military. The Military Infrastructure tech level can never exceed a nation’s current Theoretical tech level. Upgrading to a new Military Infrastructure tech level for a particular category is a project that may not be shared between nations and has a total cost in $ of:

(Number of Supply Units needed for Base Maintenance Only on all Military Units this Turn) X (Target level)2 X 2 (# of decimal increases) / ( 1 000 X (Military Rank)), rounded up to the nearest integer Where ‘# of decimal increases’ is the number of 0.1 increases in the tech level; i.e. an increase of 0.1 would be 1 for 0.2 would be 2, for 0.3 would be 3, etc.


Shouldn't divisor be 200 x Military Rank (to keep with new definition of SU)?

quote:
Orbital Industry: More expensive to build than ground based industries but can make products which are in high demand. If provided with 20 Raw Material Units per Turn then this facility may act as a Local Industry facility (see section 9.8) and generate $40 or 25 Supply Units per Turn.


Shouldn't it be 5 SU (to keep with new definition of SU)?

quote:
Ind: An extensive collection of industry; more diverse than just one product line or one factory but is rather a nexus for a whole range of manufacturing and services. If provided with 20 Raw Material Units per Turn then this facility may act as a Local Industry facility (see section 9.8) and generate $20 or 50 Supply Units per Turn. The hex where this facility is located must have at least 1 Transport category Ground Facility and 1 Power Net in that hex.


Shouldn't it be 10 SU (to keep with new definition of SU)?

quote:
11.4. Landings and Transport:

<snip>Spaceships may only take off from a friendly Spaceport, unless all Propulsion Modulesare Thruster.<snip>


So, a Freude class cannot take off from Mars. I guess this is not needed to set up an Outpost/Enclavement module there, but just to set up ground facilitires/spaceports...
Germany
 player, 187 posts
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 17:34
Rules proposal 20160202
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 132):

Let's see if I understand supply rules, just to make sure where I missumderstand them, as it represents a major change:

9.5:
  1. as long as an OT has only outpost and other non-enclavement modules and is in an uninhabited planet (no colony/core World), no supply cost.
  2. if the outpost in upgraded to enclavment (or enclavement is set up): 1 SU (+1 SU if inhospitable)
  3. if at orbit of a satellite that has colony (or is core world), 1 SU
  4. per 5 other facilities (no modules) in orbit (round up): +1 SU to orbit
  5. per facility on a colony (not Core World) satellite: 1 SU (+1 SU if inhospitable)


Now questions:
  1. Point 1: not even the one to orbit, or those are only when there's a colony/Core world settlement?
  2. Point 2: are those SU to orbit or to ground part of the settlement?
  3. Point 4: if several OTs (let's say 5 of them) without enclavements are set up in a non colony/Core World satellite, will they need the 1 SU in orbit per 5 facilities?


If to ground part, how can it be transported there without being stranded if ships cannot take off without a spaceport?

So, applied to situation in 2035-39:

  1. Crystal Palace would need 1 OT to orbit
  2. Lunastar (or Mars OT) would need none until settlements are set up there. then they will require 1 SU + 1 SU due to being inhospitable
  3. Russian solar array in Moon orbit cannot be operational until 2 pop are transported to Moon (and that needs to start a colony there). When so, it would need 1 SU in orbit for both (Lunastar and solar array), aside from the 1 SU/facility + +1 SU facility because it's inhospitable
  4. Assuming more OTs are deployed in Moon orbit, they will still not need SU unless they have enclavement.


Right?

10.3:
  1. Any non reserve unit costs 1 SU (quality irrelevant, as long as it's not reservenote 1)
  2. Any unit outside freindly site (so, own country or one that allows you to deploy them): +1 SU
  3. Any unit in inhospitable hex (incluiding sea ships?), +1 SU


Note 1:  I guess it will be featured in the expenses as per MR...
UK
 player, 65 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 19:52
Rules proposal 20160202
In reply to Germany (msg # 134):

For star mapping have you seen Dr Ganymead's near star map? (http://evildrganymede.net/2013...roject-introduction/)

The particularly interesting stuff for our purposes i think might be the subway maps of the arms he put together

http://evildrganymede.net/wp-c...0/Chinese_subway.png
http://evildrganymede.net/wp-c...rican_Arm_Subway.png
http://evildrganymede.net/wp-c...08/French_subway.png
USA
 player, 27 posts
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 21:14
Rules proposal 20160202
In reply to UK (msg # 135):

Heya guys - looking through the settlement list and just want to check something?

If i remember correctly the Russian outpost on Luna has not yet been completed - the Russian budget shows 0.17 of the actual module has been built and paid for but I see on the settlement list that their prestige is marked as (- continued arctic drilling, + First sole outpost on the moon)

I thought the rules said you couldn't gain benefits until the thing is constructed? Particularly when they might just get beaten to it.
China
 player, 29 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 01:30
Rules proposal 20160202
In reply to UK (msg # 135):

Yes found those subway maps awhile back ..those will work for the 7.7Ly shipping even if some of the orginal canocal are not quite within reality ..Been going thru the Brown dwarfhths to see how badly it messes up the subway maps (not known in the late 70's/Early 80's) and to say it changes it would be an understatement.
UK
 player, 66 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 01:46
Rules proposal 20160202
In reply to China (msg # 137):

The linked maps are an attempt to do the 2300ad star map using real star positions rather than canonical ones
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 90 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 06:48
Re: Rules proposal 20160202 questions
<quote Germany>
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 132):

>First of all, will any of this apply this turn?
You have asked that question enough times, you should be able to guess what my answer is

>Shouldn't divisor be 200 x Military Rank (to keep with new definition of SU)?
>Shouldn't it be 5 SU (to keep with new definition of SU)?
>Shouldn't it be 10 SU (to keep with new definition of SU)?
I already know

>So, a Freude class cannot take off from Mars. I guess this is not needed to set up an Outpost/Enclavement module there, but just to set up ground facilitires/spaceports...
Yes

>Point 1: not even the one to orbit,
Correct

or those are only when there's a colony/Core world settlement?
Correct

Point 2: are those SU to orbit or to ground part of the settlement?
It says 'To Orbit Hex'

Point 4: if several OTs (let's say 5 of them) without enclavements are set up in a non colony/Core World satellite, will they need the 1 SU in orbit per 5 facilities?
Nothing says that

>So, applied to situation in 2035-39: <snip>Right?
Correct.

>10.3:
That is what it says

>I thought the rules said you couldn't gain benefits until the thing is constructed? Particularly when they might just get beaten to it.
I know, I jumped the gun on that one, I already had it in my notes that if it becomes important then I will fix it.
Germany
 player, 188 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 12:11
Re: Rules proposal 20160202 questions
Combat Cycle Ref:
>First of all, will any of this apply this turn?
You have asked that question enough times, you should be able to guess what my answer is


Then I guess next turn (as there's no time to change everything). If not so, please, move de deadline at leat 24 h and disregard the turns I send.
Referee
 GM, 96 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 14:36
Re: Rules proposal 20160202 questions
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
>First of all, will any of this apply this turn?
You have asked that question enough times, you should be able to guess what my answer is


Then I guess next turn (as there's no time to change everything). If not so, please, move de deadline at leat 24 h and disregard the turns I send.

GM Andreas says: Next turn
Germany
 player, 189 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 15:23
Re: Rules proposal 20160202 questions
Referee:
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
>First of all, will any of this apply this turn?
You have asked that question enough times, you should be able to guess what my answer is


Then I guess next turn (as there's no time to change everything). If not so, please, move de deadline at leat 24 h and disregard the turns I send.

GM Andreas says: Next turn

Then I guess you have my turns.

I restate my ofer to help in any way you think I can. As I said, I have some time to spare (but don't relly on my computer skill).
Referee
 GM, 97 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 16:03
Re: Rules proposal 20160202 questions
Germany:
Referee:
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
>First of all, will any of this apply this turn?
You have asked that question enough times, you should be able to guess what my answer is


Then I guess next turn (as there's no time to change everything). If not so, please, move de deadline at leat 24 h and disregard the turns I send.

GM Andreas says: Next turn

Then I guess you have my turns.

I restate my ofer to help in any way you think I can. As I said, I have some time to spare (but don't relly on my computer skill).

GM Andreas says: Thank you Lluis. I appreciate it. I may not always say so or ask you to do anything but I really do appreciate the offer. This turn you will be asked to help out.
Germany
 player, 190 posts
Fri 5 Feb 2016
at 18:51
Re: More doubts
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 131):

Then I understand you will use something more like MgT 2300AD UPP...
UK
 player, 67 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Sat 6 Feb 2016
at 11:41
Re: More doubts
In reply to Germany (msg # 144):

Not really a rules thing but thinking about the need to try and recruit more players - There's a group on Facebook dedicated to 2300AD and I was wondering if it might be worth posting there to see if we can get some more players?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2300AD/
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 92 posts
Tue 9 Feb 2016
at 04:08
Re: More doubts
In reply to UK (msg # 145):

>There's a group on Facebook dedicated to 2300AD
I know, I have been a member of that group for several years now. While I do sincerely want to increase our numbers, as long as the state of our rules and infrastructure is so ..fluid.. I would rather keep new recruits to the 'friends & family' sort as I (hope) they will be less variable and more forgiving.

There will be a time soon when we throw things open to the wild.
Referee
 GM, 99 posts
Tue 9 Feb 2016
at 06:50
Re: More doubts
UK:
In reply to Germany (msg # 144):

Not really a rules thing but thinking about the need to try and recruit more players - There's a group on Facebook dedicated to 2300AD and I was wondering if it might be worth posting there to see if we can get some more players?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2300AD/

Thanks for the tip, I joined it. Also: I agree with Kelvin on recruitment.
Germany
 player, 193 posts
Fri 12 Feb 2016
at 13:38
Re: More doubts
quote:
9.1. Settlement Building Overview

<snip>

A Colony becomes a Core type Settlement when its population exceeds 10 000 Population Units.


If among several contries' colonies a satellite reaches the 10000 pop threshold, will it become a Core World or it must be in a single colony?

See that in the latter case (a single colony):
  • It would be nearly imposible to reach this threeshold (the game is expected to reach about 60 turns. If 40 of them are developing a colony, it would reach an average of 250 pop transported to it)
  • Colonies can become unbearable (as it would need about 5000 facilities in a colonoy to reach Core World level, and there may be several such colonies in a single satellite)
  • Many Earth nations (incluiding more than one player nation) would be a "colony" under that definition


In fact, for game easiness, I'd suggest to drastically reduce this threeshold (maybe down to 1000 pop)
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 93 posts
Wed 17 Feb 2016
at 22:30
Re: More doubts
In reply to Germany (msg # 148):

Note the use of the word 'Settlement', not 'World' or 'Satellite'.

>It would be nearly imposible to reach this threeshold
I will though agree with you somewhat, the threshold will be reduced to 5000 PU (25million people), that is about what you get after ~150 years of a 'Heavy' type colonization effort (as defined on pg94 of the Director's Guide) after correcting for GDW's math mistake, which is about what it took to make those Core type Settlements on Tirana in the canon 2300AD universe.

It is *supposed* to be ridiculously expensive and time consuming to bring a Colony Settlement up to the level of Core, it has to reflect why in the 2300AD universe it happens so rarely.


>Many Earth nations (incluiding more than one player nation) would be a "colony" under that definition
Just as I have no intention of complicating the game so that it properly handles even very low technology nations, I also have no intention of complicating the game so that it properly handles every aspect of nations so small they have no chance of establishing a significant presence in space within the timeframe of the game.

This message was last edited by the GM at 03:31, Thu 18 Feb 2016.

Germany
 player, 196 posts
Thu 18 Feb 2016
at 16:52
Re: More doubts
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 148):

Note the use of the word 'Settlement', not 'World' or 'Satellite'.


I told about satellites (not settlements) because the main question was if the threeshold must be reached by a single settlement or may be reached among various ones (by different nations).

Combat Cycle Ref:
>It would be nearly imposible to reach this threeshold
I will though agree with you somewhat, the threshold will be reduced to 5000 PU (25million people), that is about what you get after ~150 years of a 'Heavy' type colonization effort (as defined on pg94 of the Director's Guide) after correcting for GDW's math mistake, which is about what it took to make those Core type Settlements on Tirana in the canon 2300AD universe.

It is *supposed* to be ridiculously expensive and time consuming to bring a Colony Settlement up to the level of Core, it has to reflect why in the 2300AD universe it happens so rarely.


The numbers in 2300AD Director Guide assumed an initial settlement plus yearly growth (I asume that includes natural growth and immigration). In the game, most Pop must be taken from the mother country by state transports, so I have serious doubts that the average 167 Pop needed by turn to reach the 5000 pop in 30 turns (150 years) will be posible.

Again that's why I asked if various nations' settlements can be grouped to reach it.

See that in 2300AD setting only Earth and Tirane are considered Core Worlds, though (IIRC, I don't have my colonial atlas handy right now) Nibelungen also has over 25 million people in a single settlement, and I'm not sure if any other can reach it by adding the various settlements on it (Beta Canum? Joi?).

That would put most colonies, even those with several million inhabitants, as Colonies (meaning that they go according section 9 of the rules), with the added complexity this bears (Core World rules ae quite simpler).

OTOH, if it's allowed among several settlements, the problem arises when another nation begins to settle an already settled satellite that has reached this status, so a mínimum colony size needs to be set, or they will begin to be seen as Core World from the first Pop...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Many Earth nations (incluiding more than one player nation) would be a "colony" under that definition
Just as I have no intention of complicating the game so that it properly handles even very low technology nations, I also have no intention of complicating the game so that it properly handles every aspect of nations so small they have no chance of establishing a significant presence in space within the timeframe of the game.


Don't read me wrong, I'd never dared to suggest that. After all, this will force me to treat Nordic Federation and Saudi Arabia (both well under the 10000 Pop) according to rule 9 (as a colony), something that will be even a greater mess.

I just meant that if nations well under the Core World threeshold can even be player nations (the smallest one, Israel, has less than 2000 pop), I feel the threeshold too high in comparison, and that 10000 pop threshold (that means about 5000 facilities), or even 5000 pop one (that means about 2500 facilities) can be quite complex to handle.

See that a colony with 100 facilities (so about 200 pop) will already have a GDP of $200 ($1 per pop) plus what its factories produce (so I guess it can easily go to about $500-1000), and a settlement with over 2000 pop (and so 1000 facilities) can easily have larger GDP than Israel (current unadjusted GDP $2085), that, being no Core World, and, unless this money is counted in its national GDP, will not be affected by AM, oil needs, etc....

All this said, specific questions (as always numbered to ease answers):

  1. must the threeshold (whatever it be) be reached by a single settlement or along all the settlements in a satellite?
  2. where do the money produced by a settlement goes (aside from RMU and FU brought to Mother nation, that go in cells C51 and C52 respectivelly)
  3. how is handled a new settlement (by another nation) in a satellite that has already reached the Core World threeshold?


And again, no hurry for the answer, as this will not be a problem for a while. Mostly this is for you to think about before it is needed (and so, I guess you have time enough, though earlier answers will bewelcome, off course).

This message was last edited by the player at 08:05, Fri 11 Mar 2016.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 96 posts
Fri 11 Mar 2016
at 16:42
Version 20160310
Changes since 20160222

-The adoption of the Heaven & Earth software for the generation and maintenance of the game map; necessitated by it being the only software which could handle the expected +1000 Star Systems we will have in the game. This meant a major change to the definitions for Atmo, G, Breathability, Hospitable/Inhospitable/Intolerable, and anything range or area based, into the strict adoption of norms for the GDW game Traveller.

-Made clearer: What is ‘WMD Capable’.

-Rebalancing to: How much other facilities affect the production of Farming and Mining. Movement of Air Units in a Turn. Movement of units across the surface of a Heaven&Earth generated world, the effect of terrain and facilities. Initiative points required to force hidden status units to reveal.

-Got rid of the remnants of an earlier time when we thought we could have a much more detailed game than we now realize would be a fun and playable thing to do: The industrial facilities which make up a Heavy Industry Group must all be in the same hex, eliminates questions of sharing. Individual hexes are not Hospitable/Inhospitable/Intolerable, entire Worlds are. No Spaceship combat except in Orbit hexes, eliminates difficult questions about interception.
Germany
 player, 203 posts
Thu 24 Mar 2016
at 18:55
Version 20160310
After reading (though not too toughly) the new rules version (20160310), some comments (some of them would also apply to previous rules sets, just now realized):

4.2.1 (this was already in earlier versions):

To produce SUs, all economical TLs must be 5.5 or higher. That means that until they are all at theoretical TL 10 (where a university may give you the 0.5 extra needed), SUs can only be produced if you have a Heavy Industrial Group. Is that intentional?

5.2.1:

I guess the 1% increase for cutting edge research (that in case of joint research only the one paying 50% or more receives) is additional to the 1% for increasing a theoretical TL (so that a country making the research alone will receive a 2% boost, while in join research each partner will receive 1% boost and the one paying over 50%, if any, 2%). Right?

5.2.4 (probably just an errata):

You kept the 1000 as divisor in the formula. It should be 200 (as each SU is now what before were 5)

7.1:
quote:
World Size may not be 0 or R.

So, an asteroid belt cannot be colonized (see also below under the Asteroid Mining Facility)?
quote:
A Colony may not have more than (10, 25, 50 or 100) / World Size facilities in a surface hex without access to the appropriate number of Power, Road, Railway, Airfilm or Maglev type Ground facilities <snip> A Colony may not have more than (100, 250, 500, 1 000 / World Size) surface access to the appropriate number of Road, Railway, Airfilm or Maglev type Ground facilities,

The last sentence is incomplete, but if it refers to ground facilities, it’s contradictory to the first one...
quote:
A Colony requires a Communication Net Orbital facility for every 1 000 Population units, and a GPS Net Orbital facility for every (50 / World Size) hexes it covers

See that no Earth nation would fulfill the communications requirements as now things are, and a few (Brazil, China, Canada, Russia, USA…) would not even fulfill the GPS ones (that in Earth would be 1 GPS/7 hexes)…

7.3:

The reference to pop/5000 as modifier for settlement TL is now superfluous, as if it reaches this level it becomes a Core World settlement. Suggestions: either to reduce the Pop needed for the +0.1 TL increase or to outright delete the reference to pop.

As rules are now (and not only in this rules set, but already in previous ones), a colony may have a maximum infrastructure TL of Theoretical TL/2 + 3.5 (so, if your country is at theoretical TLs 10, the maximum colony TLs would be 8.5, so about Earth’s in 2010, according the same game). IMHO there should be a way to increase it above those basic TLs (maybe by using PAs?), even if it is limited somewhat.

7.8 (this was already in earlier versions):

Must all industry facilities to be active to have one as heavy industry or they may be idle, due to lack of supplies, pop, RMU or power?

As rules stand, one could build 5 industrial facilities in a planet while having only one mining facility producing 20 RMUs and 2 pop available and declare only one of them active, but having a heavy industry it could build items or (IMHO even more important) claim the +1 TL and locally produce the needed supplies with it. Is that intentional or all facilities must be active?

See that this is not fully illogical if we assume it centers its efforts on the heavy industry, even if most supporting industries are undermanned…

7.9.1:

Asteroid mining: As it is described now, you need at least space infrastructure TL over 7 for this to have any utility. That, even for quite close asteroid belts (0.5 AUs distant), means either:

  • Theoretical space TL 9 + 25 Heavy Industrial Groups (so 125 industrial facilities).
  • Theoretical space TL 10 + university + 5 Heavy Industrial Groups (so 25 industrial facilities).
  • Theoretical Space TL 11 + 5 Heavy Industrial Groups (so 25 industrial facilities)


See that, to put our own Solar System as an example, if you intend to mine the AB from Mars, being the orbital difference 1.2 AUs You need to have at least Space TL 8.2 in Mars colony, and, even with university and 25 Heavy Industrial Groups (so with +3.5 TL) you’d need to have a Space theoretical TL of 9.4, and if you only have 5 HIG (plus university) on Mars, you need Space theoretical TL 11.4.

Of course, all those situations in a colony are quite difficult to achieve, making asteroid mining only for Core Worlds or very developed or high tech settlements. Is this intentional?

EDIT:
Wouldn't be easier to allow colonies to be built in Asteroid Belts, assuming several asteroids are used as one hex (and transport failities to be in space shuttles instead of small watercrafts as would on an arxipielago colony in a satellite?

Also, looking at 2300AD setting (that we try to use as our basis), remember that the Bavarian colony in Rho Eridani (Heidelsheimat) supports a mining colony in an Asteroid belt orbiting its companion (DM-56 328), at 59.25 AUs (Colonial Atlas, page 57). So, it either supports a space infrastructure TL 66.3 (dubious) or there is a colony in the AB itself. END EDIT

7.9.2:

Deadfall: its base downlift depends on atmosphere and planetary size. Which one is applied? The grater one (as was in previous versions) or the lower one?

8.5:

In reserve,  green and experienced it is said:  are limited as to the hex type they may enter (see section 8.9 and 10.3). I don’t find the references to limitations by quality in 8.9 nor in 10.3


As always, probably more to come...

This message was last edited by the player at 19:51, Thu 24 Mar 2016.

Germany
 player, 204 posts
Tue 29 Mar 2016
at 18:38
Re: Version 20160310
Germany:
After reading (though not too toughly) the new rules version (20160310), some comments (some of them would also apply to previous rules sets, just now realized):

4.2.1 (this was already in earlier versions):

To produce SUs, all economical TLs must be 5.5 or higher. That means that until they are all at theoretical TL 10 (where a university may give you the 0.5 extra needed), SUs can only be produced if you have a Heavy Industrial Group. Is that intentional?


After thinking a little more about that, I guess that, as the theoretical TL will be higher than 5.5, the x5 cost applies, so producing only 1/5 of the SU until TL 5.5 is reached (so, a ground industry would produce 4 SU, while an orbital one 2 SU). Right?

More comments:

Again due to the low TL colonies would have, with the new interface numbers it becomes very difficult to have decent interface there.

To put an example. Let’s assume a country with Space TL 9.5 sets up a colony on Mars (world size 4, according Megatraveller:Solomani&Aslan) and builds there a Catapult for bulk uplift, a rocket facility for more delicate uplift and some downlift and a deadfall for bulk downlift.

As the colony would be TL 4.8 (half 9.5, rounded to nearest decimal), the interface capacity would be:
  • Catapult uplift would be 10*5000*10-0.1/4, so 9929
  • Rocket uplift: 10*25*10-0.1/4, so 50
  • Rocket downlift: 10*10*10-0.1/4, so 20
  • Deadfall downlift: 10*500*10-0.1/4, so 993

Now assume the colony has also a University, so raising TL to 5.3. Numbers would be:
  • Catapult uplift would be 10*5000*100.15/4, so 17657
  • Rocket uplift: 10*25*100.15/4, so 88
  • Rocket downlift: 10*10*100.15/4, so 35
  • Deadfall downlift: 10*500*100.15/4, so 1766

Now assume it has also a Heavy Industrial Group, so raising TL to 6.3. Numbers would be:
  • Catapult uplift would be 10*5000*100.65/4, so 55836
  • Rocket uplift: 10*25*100.65/4, so 279
  • Rocket downlift: 10*10*100.65/4, so 112
  • Deadfall downlift: 10*500*100.65/4, so 5584

Now imagine it has 5 HIG, raising TL to 7.3. Numbers would be:
  • Catapult uplift would be 10*5000*101.15/4, so 176567
  • Rocket uplift: 10*25*101.15/4, so 883
  • Rocket downlift: 10*10*101.15/4, so 353
  • Deadfall downlift: 10*500*101.15/4, so 17657

And finally, if it has 25 HIG, so raising TL to 8.3, numbers would be:
  • Catapult uplift would be 10*5000*101.65/4, so 558355
  • Rocket uplift: 10*25*101.65/4, so 2792
  • Rocket downlift: 10*10*101.65/4, so 1117
  • Deadfall downlift: 10*500*101.65/4, so 55836


And in a world like Tirane, with size 8, numbers will be halved, while King (aside from being intolerable due to size, and so the colony could not be there in our game) will have real pains to uplift anything...

As you can see, only a well developed colony (with 125 industry facilities) has decent uplift capacity, regardless the TL of the mother Nation (and so its theoretical TL). That does not mean interface rules are flawed, but, IMHO, that colonies TLs are too low.

When comparing with 2300AD background, we find the maximum TL is 12 (according MgT that is the version where TL is used, but coherent with what is listed in classical 2300AD). SO, the maximum TL a colony could have would be 9.5 (half the theoretical one +3 for 25 HIG, +0.5 for university, pop notwithstanding, as if it reaches the 5000 pop that would give it a +0.1 it becomes a Core World). Yet, their TLs use to be quite higher (see in pages 40-42 as TLs for colonies use to be on the 10-11 range, though some are as low as 8 or as high as 12).

So,  specific suggestions (about this and other colonial things):
  • to allow colonies to raise their infrastructure TLs (with the use of PAs or other means) once they have a university.
  • to avoid colonies with several thousand facilities (that may become unbearable), reduce the Core World threshold to 2000 pop (I give this number, equivalent to 10 million people, because is the threshold for pop digit 7 in Traveller UWP, and so to lose the non-industrial trade code).
  • as each hex size is now depending on the World Size and many rules have been adapted to that, should facilities like power distribution or transport, that affect an area, be also adapted to that, be it by adapting cost/mass to hex size or affecting more hexes according to world size?


As always, probably more to come…
China
 player, 32 posts
Wed 30 Mar 2016
at 03:09
Re: Version 20160310
In reply to Germany (msg # 153):

After trading thru the rules and your ideas Luis I find a minor flaw. Uplift equipment will be shipped in till the settlement gets to a suitable stage to produce its own(ie enough heavy industry to produce its own uplift of sufficent quantity) once the population achieves Core world status then the TL goes up via the core world formulae with theoretical tech level being the Mother Nations Theoretical tech level).

Also all of your lift calculations are using world size instead of gravity giving you less lift than you would have otherwise. (gravity has many more factors than world size however if we want simplicity then we use world size/8 for gravity for an planet with same density as earth or we can have assigned gravity being real for what we know and assigned by GM for others)

Imported troops/facilities are at the TL they were shipped at so long as they are supplied from home..This is expensive and will prolly go on till the new core world achives a TL capable of producing good enough..till then it may just be a port shipping raw material back home or to the nearest core world to produce stuff.
Germany
 player, 205 posts
Wed 30 Mar 2016
at 15:44
Re: Version 20160310
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 153):

After trading thru the rules and your ideas Luis I find a minor flaw. Uplift equipment will be shipped in till the settlement gets to a suitable stage to produce its own(ie enough heavy industry to produce its own uplift of sufficent quantity) once the population achieves Core world status then the TL goes up via the core world formulae with theoretical tech level being the Mother Nations Theoretical tech level).

(...)

Imported troops/facilities are at the TL they were shipped at so long as they are supplied from home..This is expensive and will prolly go on till the new core world achives a TL capable of producing good enough..till then it may just be a port shipping raw material back home or to the nearest core world to produce stuff.


But 20160310 rules (page 45) talk about settlement space infrastructure TL in the exponent for the formula, not about Mother Country's...

The case of troops is special, as they are Mother Country troops, no settlement ones, so they retain their original TL. If the settlement creates its own units, they will be settlement's TL, not Mother Country's (unless propotype ability is given to them, off course). Think on them as Native troops used by the many empires in history (Victorian Sepoys, US indian guides, etc...) or local militas.

China:
Also all of your lift calculations are using world size instead of gravity giving you less lift than you would have otherwise. (gravity has many more factors than world size however if we want simplicity then we use world size/8 for gravity for an planet with same density as earth or we can have assigned gravity being real for what we know and assigned by GM for others)


True, but the 20160310 use the world size for all those formulas, not the gravity. I guess that's because while H&E (IIRC, I cannot make it to work on my computer) gives the gravity, it only does so for the main world in each system, not for every world. To do so would need to run H&E for every satellite ignoring everything except planetary description (something that can anyway be needed to have maps for them, if we want to).

And I guess that's the same reason why 0 and R (and I guess S) sized worlds (Planeotids/Asteroid belts and smaller bodies) are not colonizable, because in many cases the divisor would be 0, making the formulas to fail. We could assign a 0 sized world a multiplier of 0.5 (or 0.25, as our GM sees fit) to allow them to be colonized, but, off course, there will not be maps for them (again IIRC H&E doesn't make maps for Asteroid Belts), and many things should be taken more abstractly in those cases...
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 97 posts
Wed 30 Mar 2016
at 22:09
Re: Version 20160310
>4.2.1 (this was already in earlier versions):
> SUs can only be produced if you have a Heavy Industrial Group.
Read the description of Ind and Orbital Ind, HIG are not required, it just improves the tech level needed to build SUs
>Is that intentional?
Yes

>5.2.1:
> a country making the research alone will receive a 2% boost, while in join research
>each partner will receive 1% boost and the one paying over 50%, if any, 2%). Right?
Yes

>5.2.4 (probably just an errata):
>You kept the 1000 as divisor in the formula. It should be 200 (as each SU is now what
>before were 5)
Correct, good catch


>7.1:
>quote:
>World Size may not be 0 or R.

>So, an asteroid belt cannot be colonized (see also below under the Asteroid
>Mining Facility)?
Correct. We are bound to what Heaven&Earth does, and H&E treats such small worlds differently so we have to as well. I am not yet at computer which has H&E installed, so I do not remember what that difference is, I think it was that H&E does not generate a usable map.


>quote:
>A Colony may not have more than (10, 25, 50 or 100) / World Size facilities in a <snip>
>The last sentence is incomplete, but if it refers to ground facilities, it’s contradictory to the
>first one...
Good catch, an incompletely converted sentence, will fix.

>quote:
>A Colony requires a Communication Net Orbital facility for every 1 000 Population
>units, and a GPS Net Orbital facility for every (50 / World Size) hexes it covers
>See that no Earth nation would fulfill the communications requirements as now things are
Are such nations listed as ‘Colony’ type settlements in the Settlement_List file? Go check. I do not have the file with me right now but I am pretty sure they started the game as ‘Core’. …and to head off what I know you are going to say, reread the sentence on what is the criteria for Colony promotion to Core. It does not say what you think it says.

>7.3:
>The reference to pop/5000 as modifier for settlement TL is now superfluous,
It is? Not seeing that being true.

>as if it reaches this level it becomes a Core World settlement.
No, that is not how Colony Settlements are promoted. Reread the sentence on what is the criteria for Colony promotion to Core.

> Suggestions: either to reduce the Pop needed for the +0.1 TL
For other reasons than you think, the divisor will be reduced.
>a colony may have a maximum infrastructure TL of Theoretical TL/2 + 3.5 (<snip> IMHO
>there should be a way to increase it above those basic TLs
That is not the complete result of that formula. More importantly, no, Colony tech level is supposed to always be significantly less than that of a Core type Settlement.

>7.8 (this was already in earlier versions):
>Must all industry facilities to be active to have one as heavy industry or they may be idle
>, due to lack of supplies, pop, RMU or power?
See the last part of the last sentence of section 7.1

>7.9.1:
>Asteroid mining: As it is described now, you need at least space infrastructure TL <snip>
> on Mars, you need Space theoretical TL 11.4.
I am not seeing this as being a very significant limitation. In the example of the Sol system, the Asteroids are minable from Earth at tech level 8.9

>Wouldn't be easier to allow colonies to be built in Asteroid Belts
To repeat, we are limited to what H&E does, and H&E does not do small worlds like others so we cannot either.

If you, are a fan of the TV series ‘The Expanse’ and are absolutely in love with the idea of colonies in asteroid belts, consider what is the definition of the size and shape of the Orbit Hex of a World -->’indefinite’ is the word used. Think about what that really means to things like the exact location of some of the structures of Orbital facilities such as an ‘Orbital Colony’.

>Also, looking at 2300AD setting (that we try to use as our basis), remember that the
>Bavarian colony in Rho Eridani (Heidelsheimat) supports a mining colony in an Asteroid belt
To repeat, we are limited to what H&E does, and H&E does not do small worlds like others so we cannot either. There are levels of fidelity to canon material that will have to be sacrificed.

>7.9.2:
>Deadfall: its base downlift depends on atmosphere and planetary size.
You have mis-seen an ‘and’ in the rules where there is an ‘or’

>8.5:
>In reserve,  green and experienced it is said:  are limited as to the hex type they may
>enter (see section 8.9 and 10.3).
Good catch, will fix.

> Again due to the low TL colonies would have, with the new interface numbers it becomes
> very difficult to have decent interface there.
<sigh> Game balance issues. Interminable. I will figure out something.

>reduce the Core World threshold to 2000 pop (I give this number, equivalent to 10
>million people, because is the threshold for pop digit 7 in Traveller UWP
Matching what is in Traveller UWPs is now a powerful argument as it is the basis for H&E. Will likely reduce the threshold to 2000.

>Also all of your lift calculations are using world size instead of gravity giving you less lift
>than you would have otherwise. (gravity has many more factors than world size however if
> we want simplicity then we use world size/8 for gravity for an planet with same density
>as earth or we can have assigned gravity being real for what we know and assigned by GM
> for others)
To be clear, having numerical Atmospheric pressure and Gravity at surface are sacrifices upon the alter of H&E. Traveller based Atmosphere code and World Size is the only thing H&E deals with and so that is the only thing we will deal with from now on. H&E is a harsh god, but it is the only god with the power to bring order to the universe. All Hail H&E! Heresy will be met with fire!

> The case of troops is special, as they are Mother Country troops, no settlement ones, so
>they retain their original TL. If the settlement creates its own units, they will be
>settlement's TL,
Careful here!! I deleted the assignment and tracking of tech levels of individual military units a long time ago and it is absolutely never, ever, coming back. Settlement tech level is only important for unit construction, and that is all. The closest there is to what you speak of is the limitation of Quality Level of units built in Colony Settlements to be ‘Reserve’ or ‘Green’, which amounts to much the same as lower tech level.

>H&E (IIRC, I cannot make it to work on my computer)
!!!This is not good! Have you seen the instructions in section 11.5 about overcoming the compatibility issues?!

>gravity, it only does so for the main world in each system, not for every world. To do so would
>need to run H&E for every satellite ignoring everything except planetary description (something
>that can anyway be needed to have maps for them, if we want to).
…wait, I thought you said you could not make H&E work on your computer?? ….Anyways, no, H&E can and does generate an entire system, including UWP codes and maps for each world, regardless if they are the main world or not. One of many reasons why I chose H&E.

This message was last edited by the GM at 00:55, Thu 31 Mar 2016.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 98 posts
Wed 30 Mar 2016
at 22:25
Re: Version 20160310
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 156):

Obviously, I have made a lot of changes to the rules over time, plenty of them recently. Time for me to ask you guys a question: Do you like the state of the rules? Do you think we are headed in the right direction? Do you think that we are headed/approaching/distant/off-track of a fun and playable game? Have we strayed far from what you expected when you first joined? Is that a bad or a good thing? Are we too simple or too complex?

I have always tried to keep my innumerable changes to what I thought was needed to make a functional game, but that still means many choices were at my preference. Anything you would like to see done differently? Not necessarily specific rules but more general things add/subtracted/differently?

No Lluis, we are not going to have separate combat rules for Insurgencies or allow loaded Spaceships to take off. Not going to happen bud.

This message was last edited by the GM at 00:52, Thu 31 Mar 2016.

Germany
 player, 206 posts
Thu 31 Mar 2016
at 12:07
Re: Version 20160310
Combat Cycle Ref:
>4.2.1 (this was already in earlier versions):
> SUs can only be produced if you have a Heavy Industrial Group.
Read the description of Ind and Orbital Ind, HIG are not required, it just improves the tech level needed to build SUs
>Is that intentional?
Yes


Then an industry produces 20 SUs regardless the settlement TL? And, if so, why is a SU minimum TL listed (aside from game colour/information)?

Combat Cycle Ref:
>quote:
>A Colony requires a Communication Net Orbital facility for every 1 000 Population
>units, and a GPS Net Orbital facility for every (50 / World Size) hexes it covers
>See that no Earth nation would fulfill the communications requirements as now things are
Are such nations listed as ‘Colony’ type settlements in the Settlement_List file? Go check. I do not have the file with me right now but I am pretty sure they started the game as ‘Core’. …and to head off what I know you are going to say, reread the sentence on what is the criteria for Colony promotion to Core. It does not say what you think it says.


Off course they are Core World, as any Earth nation, but, what I mean is that if China (to give the most extreme example, this may be applied also to other countries), having over 250000 pop and 15 hexes (at world size 8) does not need any communications or GPS satellite nets, and receives benefits from having a single one of each, why should a colony with 2000 pop need 2 communication satellite nets?

And see that this also means that is likely that once a colony reaches core world status it has some unneeded satellite nets , as they will cease to be necessary anymore…

Combat Cycle Ref:
That is not the complete result of that formula. More importantly, no, Colony tech level is supposed to always be significantly less than that of a Core type Settlement.


The only other affecting factor is pop, and, at the levels it was, it would not affect too much…

And see that in 2300AD setting (again based in MgT one, as is the one to use TLs) this is not always true. To give you an example, Hochbaden, having only pop digit 6 (not exact population is given, but, if we look at classical 2300AD Colonial Atlas it’s about 4 million people, so about 800 pop) and is listed as TL 12, the same than Earth. And there are some colonies with TL 11, as some Earth countries.
And even in some cases things are reversed:
  • American, Brazilian and Manchu colonies in Tirane (though In game would be a CW settlement). Listed as TL 12, respective mother countries are listed as TL 11.
  • Far Riyadh (Saudi colony in Beta Hydri). Listed as TL 11, while Saudi Arabia itself is TL 10
  • Texan and Incan colonies  in Rho Erdani. Listed as TL 12, while Inca Republic itself is TL 9 and Texas at TL 11

Of course, we’ll have the problem on theoretical TL in game terms here…

Combat Cycle Ref:
>7.9.1:
>Asteroid mining: As it is described now, you need at least space infrastructure TL <snip>
> on Mars, you need Space theoretical TL 11.4.
I am not seeing this as being a very significant limitation. In the example of the Sol system, the Asteroids are minable from Earth at tech level 8.9


Why at TL 8.9?

Distance is 1.7 AUs (according HP Known Universe section, the Asteroid Belt is at 2.7 AU radius), so TL 8.7 would be enough.

And see that this means Germany and NF could deploy it next turn (while Germany would have to pay over costs due to material infrastructure TL being only 8.6). While I won’t complain on it, I see quite odd that while EU is having real pains to send items to Mars, several RMUs (if the AB has an average mining potential of 10 it would be 87 RMUs, massing 1740000 tonnes) can be brought to Earth orbit from about triple the distance…

Combat Cycle Ref:
>7.9.2:
>Deadfall: its base downlift depends on atmosphere and planetary size.
You have mis-seen an ‘and’ in the rules where there is an ‘or’


Not really, I just miss written my post. In any case, my question remains, which one of them will apply?

Combat Cycle Ref:
> The case of troops is special, as they are Mother Country troops, no settlement ones, so
>they retain their original TL. If the settlement creates its own units, they will be
>settlement's TL,
Careful here!! I deleted the assignment and tracking of tech levels of individual military units a long time ago and it is absolutely never, ever, coming back. Settlement tech level is only important for unit construction, and that is all. The closest there is to what you speak of is the limitation of Quality Level of units built in Colony Settlements to be ‘Reserve’ or ‘Green’, which amounts to much the same as lower tech level.


But will those troops be from Mother Country or local colony?

After all, being different settlements (as now Earth Nations are also settlements), this would not be against the one troop TL per settlement…

Combat Cycle Ref:
>H&E (IIRC, I cannot make it to work on my computer)
!!!This is not good! Have you seen the instructions in section 11.5 about overcoming the compatibility issues?!


I hadn’t, but I have now, and followed your advices, and still it does not work. It appears an error message and does not allow me to click through it.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>gravity, it only does so for the main world in each system, not for every world. To do so would
>need to run H&E for every satellite ignoring everything except planetary description (something
>that can anyway be needed to have maps for them, if we want to).
…wait, I thought you said you could not make H&E work on your computer?? ….Anyways, no, H&E can and does generate an entire system, including UWP codes and maps for each world, regardless if they are the main world or not. One of many reasons why I chose H&E.


It does not, but it did in my former computer, several years ago. That’s why I always said IIRC (If I Recall Correctly)
Germany
 player, 207 posts
Thu 31 Mar 2016
at 17:04
Re: Version 20160310
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 156):

Obviously, I have made a lot of changes to the rules over time, plenty of them recently. Time for me to ask you guys a question: Do you like the state of the rules? Do you think we are headed in the right direction? Do you think that we are headed/approaching/distant/off-track of a fun and playable game? Have we strayed far from what you expected when you first joined? Is that a bad or a good thing? Are we too simple or too complex?

I have always tried to keep my innumerable changes to what I thought was needed to make a functional game, but that still means many choices were at my preference. Anything you would like to see done differently? Not necessarily specific rules but more general things add/subtracted/differently?


Well, there are several points where we disagree in preferences, that’s not a secret, but I’d say in general rules are sound, at least for what is playing on Earth. Space rules are mainly untested, and so there will sure appear problems we don’t foresee (as has recently happened with the need to define Star Systems, that has lead to adopting H&E and the rules changes this has needed...).

To detail a little more in the points you ask (and all of it IMHO, off course):

Liking the state of the rules: They are changing too fast for my taste. On average we’ve had about 4-5 different sets per turn, and that’s confusing. Not that I was not warned, you warned me in no uncertain terms in the welcome mail you sent me when I joined (back, 5 years, a full turn, ago…), but we should try to avoid that many confusing changes, where many points are never tested, as they are changed before they are applied. This also leads to unintended consequences, as I guess we all have suffered… I’d like some more inputs before publishing them (but that would need to consult people and could lead to endless discussions) to avoid those problems.

Thinking that we are headed/approaching/distant/off-track of a fun and playable game: most of it is still to see, as most of the rules have not yet tested. As you know, I think most of the latter rules limit space exploration too much, so keeping the game on Earth and delaying the space part (what may be a little straying off track, but is not against the game to be fun).

Strayed from what I expected when I joined: well, I expected a galactic X3 game, and for now it’s mostly an Earth domination one, but that’s more because we have not yet reached space (something Germany is trying hard to fix). Anecdotic point: in the rules that as they were when I joined the game, on Spaceships section, it said: These will hopefully be done by 2030, which I expect to be about the beginning of the space age. Until then though, oh well. Curiously enough, the date was quite right...

Simplicity: the game is not simple, but I think it cannot be if we want to keep some semblance to realism and 2300AD setting. Some things could be simplified a little more, but that would probably have again unwanted consequences.

Anything you would like to see done differently? Not necessarily specific rules but more general things add/subtracted/differently? Must I answer this question? Haven’t you had enough? ;)

Overall: unfortunately, the main problem the game has is not rules dependent and is the least probable to be fixed of all: the pace of the game. Right now the game has been runing for about 5 years, and we have solved 5 turns. As game moves further, I expect we all to be more used to it (so speeding it), but also more complexity to be added (new settlements, etc.). All in all, it's quite difficult (if not outright imposible) to fix, mostly due to RL

Combat Cycle Ref:
No Lluis, we are not going to have separate combat rules for Insurgencies or allow loaded Spaceships to take off. Not going to happen bud.


You forgot: no indebting will be allowed (and probably some more) ;)

Don't worry, I will not insist on those points, You know my opinion, and if you ever find they may be right, we'll talk again about them
Japan
 player, 57 posts
Thu 31 Mar 2016
at 19:25
Re: Version 20160310
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 156):
quote:
Do you like the state of the rules?

For me the game world/story is more important than the rules. The rules are not perfect but it works. I am happy with all the work you put in.
quote:
Do you think we are headed in the right direction?

Yes and no. Simplification, clarity is a good direction. I have a hard time keeping up with the many changes.
quote:
Do you think that we are headed/approaching/distant/off-track of a fun and playable game?
I am having fun. For me playability is more important than realism and I think there is room for a bit more playability.
quote:
Have we strayed far from what you expected when you first joined?

No.
quote:
Is that a bad or a good thing?

Good.
quote:
Are we too simple or too complex?

Simplify, simplify, simplify.
quote:
Anything you would like to see done differently?

1.Id like to speed things up -but I dont know how. Real Life Problems takes time. Expand the management? Delegate specific tasks to players?
2.Get players more involved.
3. Get more players. I am afraid this will generate more work and drag things out even more.
quote:
Not necessarily specific rules but more general things add/subtracted/differently?
I will get back to you.
Germany
 player, 208 posts
Mon 4 Apr 2016
at 15:56
Suggestions about hexes outside Earth
Some suggestions to give a little variability to hexes in planets outside Earth. IMHO de ratio for added complexity vs realism is worth it. As always, exact details are open to discussion (if the suggestions are accepted).

Variable farming/mining potential:

While I understand that having different farming/mining potential for every hex adds too much bookkeeping and complexity to the game, IMHO we could give them a little variation according the kind of terrain on it (as H&E shows us different kinds of terrain.

Examples (according kinds of terrain, numbers open to discussion, as always):
  • Desert: farming potential halved
  • Mountains: farming potential -2, mining potential +2
  • Sea coast: farming potential +2

And other terrains could affect likewise

Settled hexes:

As rules stand now, once a settlement reached Core World status all the planet seems to be so affected, and all hexes in the planet seem to become unlimited sources of food, RMUs, etc.

This is hardly realist, as it’s likely that only a small part of the planet to be settled, or that there will be other smaller settlements in the same planet, or that someone starts a new colony on it.

To handle this, I suggest adding to the game the concept of Settled Hex, in contrast to unsettled one.

For sake of simplicity, a settled hex would be any colony hex that has at least power distribution and a transport facility (and maybe any other one) on it.

Also for sake of simplicity, all land hexes in Earth are considered settled (possible exception: Antarctica, described as all hexes south of row U, included).

When a settlement reaches Core World status, only settled hexes are so affected, while unsettled ones are not changed in any way. The settlement may be enlarged by converting adjacent hexes (or ones connected by sea) to Settled (so by building power distribution and transport facilities to them).

Thoughts? oppinions?
Germany
 player, 209 posts
Mon 4 Apr 2016
at 16:48
Re: Version 20160310
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
>H&E (IIRC, I cannot make it to work on my computer)
!!!This is not good! Have you seen the instructions in section 11.5 about overcoming the compatibility issues?!


I hadn’t, but I have now, and followed your advices, and still it does not work. It appears an error message and does not allow me to click through it.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>gravity, it only does so for the main world in each system, not for every world. To do so would
>need to run H&E for every satellite ignoring everything except planetary description (something
>that can anyway be needed to have maps for them, if we want to).
…wait, I thought you said you could not make H&E work on your computer?? ….Anyways, no, H&E can and does generate an entire system, including UWP codes and maps for each world, regardless if they are the main world or not. One of many reasons why I chose H&E.


It does not, but it did in my former computer, several years ago. That’s why I always said IIRC (If I Recall Correctly)


It Works now (by changeing the compatibility to Windows 98/Windows Me, though my computer runs on Windows 7).

Strangely, if I give it an UWP it generates maps that are not in color, but if I ask it to run a random UWP, no matter how do I change it to what I need, maps are in color.
Germany
 player, 210 posts
Tue 5 Apr 2016
at 16:23
Re: Version 20160310
Possible errata:

quote:
2.2:Hospitable: <snip> Atmosphere type must be between 5 - 9

quote:
7.9.2: Scream Aircraft: Local Prerequisite: Atmosphere 5 - 9


The difference among atmosphere 4 and 5 is that 4 is tainted, wile 5 is not, both being thin in density. If taint is not a determinating factor (and the fact they both include atmospheres 7 and 9, also tainted, makes me think it's not), it should be Atnosphere 4-9 in both cases.


quote:
7.9.3: Road Net: <snip>1 required for every (100 non-‘Transport’ category Ground facilities in the same hex / World Size)


This means that in a size world 8 hex (about 1000 km across) you need 1 Road net per 12-13 non-‘Transport’ category Ground facilities, while in a size 4 world hex (about 580 lm across) you need 1 per 25 such facilities.

So, on a larger hex you can fit less such facilities for the same road net. Is this intentional (assuming the Road net is more dense i nsmaller hexes) or it should be reversed (assuming that in a larger hex you can fit more facilities)?

In the former case, see that, being a denser Road net the smaller the hex, it should be noted that the same facility would mean about the same road milleage, so hex size should not be a factor in the number of other facilities it is able to support...
Germany
 player, 211 posts
Wed 6 Apr 2016
at 16:16
Re: Version 20160310
Another posible errata:

quote:
7.1:Colony: <snip> World size may not be 0 or R


Can size S worlds be colonized?

If not, they should be added to the sentence.

If they can:
  • see that there may be several of them in an Asteroid/planetoid belt (we have 5 of them on Sol's AB), so (at least partially) voiding the forbiding to colonize 0 sized worlds...
  • What planet size applies for the formulas (MT:World Builders Handbook, from what H&E derives along with CT:Grand Census) gives them 0.6)

Germany
 player, 212 posts
Fri 6 May 2016
at 18:03
Re: Version 20160310
Any idea about the timetable?
Germany
 player, 213 posts
Mon 18 Jul 2016
at 12:50
Re: Version 20160310
Mostly to Liam, but also to anyone else that can do it:

You made a good job with Moon's map. Would you be able (and have the time) to do a similar map for Mars (at the new scale of the game)?

This message was last edited by the player at 18:57, Tue 19 July 2016.

UK
 player, 75 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Sat 23 Jul 2016
at 17:57
Re: Version 20160310
In reply to Germany (msg # 166):

Honestly, not at the moment

And even then since we're going to be using the Heaven and Earth (I think it was called) to generate plants I can't remember if we are keeping with Icosahedral world maps or moving to rectangular hex maps?
Germany
 player, 214 posts
Sat 23 Jul 2016
at 20:52
Re: Version 20160310
UK:
In reply to Germany (msg # 166):

Honestly, not at the moment

And even then since we're going to be using the Heaven and Earth (I think it was called) to generate plants I can't remember if we are keeping with Icosahedral world maps or moving to rectangular hex maps?


Heaven and Earth uses ichosaedral maps. The main difference with what was projected for this game is that, instead of al lhexes be equal and the number of them changing, in H&E all maps have the same numbr of hexes, and it's its size that changes.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 101 posts
Sun 4 Sep 2016
at 18:19
Re: Version 20160310
>if China (to give the most extreme example, this may be applied also to other countries), having over 250000 pop and 15 hexes (at world size 8) does not need any communications or GPS satellite nets, and receives benefits from having a single one of each, why should a colony with 2000 pop need 2 communication satellite nets?
We are not the game of starting since the dawn of human civilization. The rules only apply to the development of extra-terrestrial colonies and that mean hi-tech, and that means things like satellites are vital.

>I see quite odd that while EU is having real pains to send items to Mars, several RMUs <snip>can be brought to Earth orbit from about triple the distance…
It is getting stuff out of the (Martian) gravity well which is a far greater problem than distance, something that asteroid mining gets to skip.


>>Deadfall: its base downlift depends on atmosphere and planetary size. Which one is applied?
>Not really, I just miss written my post. In any case, my question remains, which one of them will apply?

The one which yields the greatest. Your people are not mindless robots.


>>> The case of troops is special, as they are Mother Country troops, no settlement ones, so they retain their original TL. If the settlement creates its own units, they will be settlement's TL,
>>Careful here!! I deleted the assignment and tracking of tech levels of individual military units a long time ago and it is absolutely never, ever, coming back. Settlement tech level is only important for unit construction, and that is all. The closest there is to what you speak of is the limitation of Quality Level of units built in Colony Settlements to be ‘Reserve’ or ‘Green’, which amounts to much the same as lower tech level.
>But will those troops be from Mother Country or local colony?

If we are not going to track the TL of individual units, and we are definitely not, then I see no reason to care whether they came from the mother country or the local colony.

>After all, being different settlements (as now Earth Nations are also settlements), this would not be against the one troop TL per settlement…


I do not quite understand what you are asking here.

>They are changing too fast for my taste. 
Unavoidable. Not only did we start this game with nothing, but we also had no idea what to do and nothing to guide us except by hard won experience of what worked and what did not.

>On average we’ve had about 4-5 different sets per turn, and that’s confusing.
Actually no, we have only ever had one rule set per turn. The only exception were times like the combat for the ME2028 conflict where I was desperately trying to fix on the fly completely unworkable rules. Every other rules set you have see has had the word ‘Proposal’ in the title, and it was just that.

>having different farming/mining potential for every hex adds too much bookkeeping and complexity to the game, IMHO we could give them a little variation according the kind of terrain on it (as H&E shows us different kinds of terrain.
That is an extremely good idea. Will implement.

>Settled hexes:
Right now I do not have a good idea on what a new core world is going to look like, so you idea sounds like something that can wait and see until we have combat on a core world other than Earth.

>This means that in a size world 8 hex (about 1000 km across) you need 1 Road net per 12-13 non-‘Transport’ category Ground facilities, while in a size 4 world hex (about 580 lm across) you need 1 per 25 such facilities. So, on a larger hex you can fit less such facilities for the same road net
It is not a question of ‘fit’, hexes are larger for larger worlds so more road is needed to reach facilities which may be spread out around the hex. The only way we can represent ‘more road’ is by requiring more Road facilities.

>Can size S worlds be colonized?
Yes. What made you wonder that they could not be?

>If they can:
see that there may be several of them in an Asteroid/planetoid belt (we have 5 of them on Sol's AB), so (at least partially) voiding the forbiding to colonize 0 sized worlds...
What planet size applies for the formulas (MT:World Builders Handbook, from what H&E derives along with CT:Grand Census) gives them 0.6)

The limits is: When we get tired of detailing Worlds. The average H&E generated system yields 10-20 worlds, that seems like a workable number. Anything smaller than the top 20 for the Sol system can be just swept under the heading of ‘not worth caring about’
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 102 posts
Sun 4 Sep 2016
at 18:28
Version 20160902
Changes since version 20160310

-Changes to: Outposts have SU cost. Using the Project Rho 30 ly map.

-Made clearer: What is the local tech level in all circumstances, important for movement and production of units. Capturing hexes and units.

-Re-balancing to: Mass of a population unit. Cost of 2nd gen Drive Tuner. Military units must stay with range of a friendly Settlement, not just a Friendly Site, otherwise it would be impossible to operate on a non-Core World without a Military Base. Length of time needed by an Enclave before a Colony can be built. An Enclave requires a pre-existing Outpost, a Colony requires a pre-existing Enclave. PApoints cost is doubled, but so is effectiveness. Remade Authoritarian score to be from 0 to 20 to keep it consistent with other metrics. Added the affect of Authoritarian Score to the formula for calculating the odds of a PA succeeding.

-Got rid of:Fossil Fuel Plants no longer have to prove that their consumed RMU came from a biosphere, duplicate when located on a world with a breathable atmosphere. Got rid of Glossary, duplicate of what was said elsewhere. Colony type Settlements can produce units of up to Theoretical tech level as well. Local tech level of a Colony is only important for producing new units, not movement or uplift/downlift or RMU&FU production; eliminates the need for closely and constantly re-calculating local tech level and the very un-2300AD universe like emphasis on local heavy industry. No refund on pre-existing Outpost or Enclave modules, it raised questions about partial/non-standard upgraded facilities. Ind/Heavy Industry Groups replaced with just Heavy Industry facilities, simpler and a reflection of heavy industry being rare in the 2300AD universe. PApoint cost is not reduced by Prestige, duplicate of Prestige already affecting the performance of PAs. Eliminated ‘Number in squadron’ from the unit description tables, a holdover from when we thought we could let players choose any nation to play and bring it up to speed themselves, now it just opens up to questions about initial force sizes.

This message was last edited by the GM at 18:43, Sun 04 Sept 2016.

Germany
 player, 215 posts
Sun 4 Sep 2016
at 18:55
Re: Version 20160310
Combat Cycle Ref:
>I see quite odd that while EU is having real pains to send items to Mars, several RMUs <snip>can be brought to Earth orbit from about triple the distance…
It is getting stuff out of the (Martian) gravity well which is a far greater problem than distance, something that asteroid mining gets to skip.


But even skipping the uplifting to orbit, total transport capacity from Mars to Earth for EU is about 20000 tonnes a turn, so about 1 RMU, while, as said, if we asume a minning potential of 10 for the Asteroid Belt, we can take about 87 RMUs from there to earth in a turn (and without the need to tie off eny ship).

Combat Cycle Ref:

>After all, being different settlements (as now Earth Nations are also settlements), this would not be against the one troop TL per settlement…


I do not quite understand what you are asking here.


What I meant was if the units created in a colony will be colony's or Mother Country's, but I guess you already answered it with your former answer.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>having different farming/mining potential for every hex adds too much bookkeeping and complexity to the game, IMHO we could give them a little variation according the kind of terrain on it (as H&E shows us different kinds of terrain.
That is an extremely good idea. Will implement.


Glad I have some ideas you like from time to time ;)

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Settled hexes:
Right now I do not have a good idea on what a new core world is going to look like, so you idea sounds like something that can wait and see until we have combat on a core world other than Earth.


Agreed, no urgency on it. Just some more things for your mind to chew...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>This means that in a size world 8 hex (about 1000 km across) you need 1 Road net per 12-13 non-‘Transport’ category Ground facilities, while in a size 4 world hex (about 580 lm across) you need 1 per 25 such facilities. So, on a larger hex you can fit less such facilities for the same road net
It is not a question of ‘fit’, hexes are larger for larger worlds so more road is needed to reach facilities which may be spread out around the hex. The only way we can represent ‘more road’ is by requiring more Road facilities.


There's another way (I think I already suggested it), though this also worls and may really even be simplier: to make costs for those facilities world size dependent.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Can size S worlds be colonized?
Yes. What made you wonder that they could not be?

>If they can:
see that there may be several of them in an Asteroid/planetoid belt (we have 5 of them on Sol's AB), so (at least partially) voiding the forbiding to colonize 0 sized worlds...
What planet size applies for the formulas (MT:World Builders Handbook, from what H&E derives along with CT:Grand Census) gives them 0.6)

The limits is: When we get tired of detailing Worlds. The average H&E generated system yields 10-20 worlds, that seems like a workable number. Anything smaller than the top 20 for the Sol system can be just swept under the heading of ‘not worth caring about’


Well, I thought they cannot because there are some of them on 0 size belts, and they cannot be colonized, and because it was not specified its size for all the formulas.

As I said, MT:WBH assignates to them size 0.6, and I guess we can use it.

I also believe that Asteroid Belts should be colonizable, assuming there are some such bodies available (and so we will avoid the incongrueancy I told above about mining the Asteroid Belt before being able to exploit Mars).
Germany
 player, 216 posts
Mon 5 Sep 2016
at 11:40
Re: Version 20160902
Combat Cycle Ref:
Changes since version 20160310

Comments after skip reading them (mostly basing on th things you comment to change). Sorry if some questions seem stupid or might be avoided by reading it more thoughfully (in some cases I just want to confirm I understood it well):

Combat Cycle Ref:
-Changes to: Outposts have SU cost.


Again, I understand such modules in non colony settlements don't need supplies moved there, just to be paid in the closer colony/core world

Combat Cycle Ref:
Length of time needed by an Enclave before a Colony can be built. An Enclave requires a pre-existing Outpost, a Colony requires a pre-existing Enclave.


See that the length of an enclave to allow for it to be enlarged to a Colony is shown as 5 turns in 7.1 (under Colony)and 3 turns in 7.8.1 (under Enclavement module). I feel 5 turns to be too much, compared with a single turn by a Survey Module equiped ship (after all, an Eclavement is about 5000 pwople, and 25 years is quite a long time). This would, once again, delay any Settlement building...

Combat Cycle Ref:
PApoints cost is doubled, but so is effectiveness.


I don't like this change. It makes PAs rarer and less able to be "dispersed". Even one PA in current rules is often an overkill, doubling it will doublé the overkill, while, IMHO, giving no true advantage to the game. Not all PAs are used in large Countries...

And remember PAs cost was thought to be $40, raised to $50 to compensate for the Prestige effect on them. If prestige effect on the cost is forfeited, cost should return to $40 (or $80 if you insist in doubling them).

At $100 per PA, some countries can hardly afford them, so efectively nearly removing them as player countries...

Combat Cycle Ref:
Remade Authoritarian score to be from 0 to 20 to keep it consistent with other metrics. Added the affect of Authoritarian Score to the formula for calculating the odds of a PA succeeding.


I'm afraid this messes things too much as game has been developing to now...

From Rules 20151225 Official (13.2):
quote:
-Much greater initial variability between nations on their Authoritarian Modifier. Smaller and much less direct impact of Authoritarian Modifier on final effective budget.


This seems to go against the first paragraph of this quote...

This aside, if this is implemented, the formulas for TL developement must be changed, as the AM for us (to follow the example you give in thw rules, as I have no idea of what would it now be for other countries) changes from 0.2 to 9, so the AM2 given in the formulas changes from 0.04 to 81...

On its use in the PAs use, I have ambivalent thoughts... On one side, I see it logical that the countries with higher control have it easier to influence its own contry. OTOH, this gives more advantage to higher AMs, that already have enough...

Combat Cycle Ref:
Got rid of: Glossary, duplicate of what was said elsewhere.


Even so, it was a useful quick reference...

Combat Cycle Ref:
Local tech level of a Colony is only important for producing new units


Which kind or units? In your last answer you told me military units are seen as National for TL pourposes, not settlement's...

Combat Cycle Ref:
No refund on pre-existing Outpost or Enclave modules, it raised questions about partial/non-standard upgraded facilities.


Then I understand they will be kept in the OT (and must not be iddled to serve as prerequisite).

If so, to deploy an Enclave, you need 1.5 power (as the outpost must be kept) and 2 "slots" of OT capacity...

Another (minor) detail is that, if they are not refounded, the reference to refounding in 5.3

Combat Cycle Ref:
Ind/Heavy Industry Groups replaced with just Heavy Industry facilities, simpler and a reflection of heavy industry being rare in the 2300AD universe.


Then no light industry exists?

So, any RMUs are only for exporting unless you have Heavy Industry (or to support orbital industry)?

As always, sure more to come as I read them thougher...
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 103 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 06:02
Re: Version 20160902
>But even skipping the uplifting to orbit, total transport capacity from Mars to
>Earth for EU is about 20000 tonnes a turn, so about 1 RMU, while, as said, if we
>asume a minning potential of 10 for the Asteroid Belt, we can take about 87 RMUs
>from there to earth in a turn (and without the need to tie off eny ship).

Is there a question or a problem here? You seem to have described what the rules do.

>>The only way we can represent ‘more road’ is by requiring more Road facilities.
>may really even be simplier: to make costs for those facilities world size dependent.
..as well as making mass, power consumption, labour needed, etc, etc be world size dependent.

>I also believe that Asteroid Belts should be colonizable,
No. H&E does not generate usable maps for size 0 or R worlds, this makes it impossible to meaningfully place facilities or military units. It does not matter if it is unrealistic to not allow size 0 worlds to be colonized, we are limited by our gaming resources, if realism or the rules do not match what our gaming resources can do then realism or the rules **must be bent to match the resource**. We do not have to like that, but we do have to accept that.

>>PApoints cost is doubled, but so is effectiveness.
>Even one PA in current rules is often an overkill, doubling it will doublé the overkill,
The cost is doubled but so is price. The power per $ is unchanged; and then there is the removal of the price reduction for Prestige which effectively reduces this ‘overkill’.

>It makes PAs rarer
>At $100 per PA, some countries can hardly afford them,
That would be the prime reason what I did it. Nothing takes more of the GM’s time then handling PAs; currently we are at around 100 separate actions per turn, I shudder to think what it will be once we get to larger empires.

>and less able to be "dispersed". 
Not at all

>so efectively nearly removing them as player countries…
We NEVER promised that player countries were equal. If a player has a problem with his nation being unable to afford PApoints then he never should have agreed to play that nation to begin with.

>This aside, if this is implemented, the formulas for TL developement must be changed
Obviously

>>Remade Authoritarian score to be from 0 to 20 to keep it consistent with other metrics.
>I'm afraid this messes things too much as game has been developing to now…
That would be the prime reason for making the change. The game has been developing in the direction of trying to account for small changes to the society of the player nations. A game of this scale has no business trying to account for such small changes to Authoritarian Score.

>If so, to deploy an Enclave, you need 1.5 power (as the outpost must be kept) and 2 "slots" of OT capacity…
No, the Outpost is not kept, an Enclave is a Settlement.

>Then no light industry exists?
There has not been any ‘light industry’ facility for quite some time.

>So, any RMUs are only for exporting unless you have Heavy Industry (or to support orbital industry)?
Correct

This message was last edited by the GM at 06:05, Tue 13 Sept 2016.

Germany
 player, 217 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 08:47
Re: Version 20160902
Combat Cycle Ref:
>But even skipping the uplifting to orbit, total transport capacity from Mars to
>Earth for EU is about 20000 tonnes a turn, so about 1 RMU, while, as said, if we
>asume a minning potential of 10 for the Asteroid Belt, we can take about 87 RMUs
>from there to earth in a turn (and without the need to tie off eny ship).

Is there a question or a problem here? You seem to have described what the rules do.


From the player POV no problem, even glad that the space ressearch and developement might bring profits quite earlier than I expected, but from the logical POV, my mind refuses to accept that we can bring from the Asteroid Belt quite more materials than the space shipping capacity we have (you don't even need any space shipping capacity to transport those 1500000+ tonnes...)

Combat Cycle Ref:
>>The only way we can represent ‘more road’ is by requiring more Road facilities.
>may really even be simplier: to make costs for those facilities world size dependent.
..as well as making mass, power consumption, labour needed, etc, etc be world size dependent.


Maybe my wording was por here, whne I said "this may even be simplier" i was refering to your proposal, just pointing that it was not the only solution, even while agreeing it can well be the best one.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>I also believe that Asteroid Belts should be colonizable,
No. H&E does not generate usable maps for size 0 or R worlds, this makes it impossible to meaningfully place facilities or military units. It does not matter if it is unrealistic to not allow size 0 worlds to be colonized, we are limited by our gaming resources, if realism or the rules do not match what our gaming resources can do then realism or the rules **must be bent to match the resource**. We do not have to like that, but we do have to accept that.


Sure rules **must be bent to match the resource**, but they can be bent in several ways, and one of them would be to treat them more abstractly, as we do with the "orbital hex" in every satellite.

You explicited S sized planets are colonizable, and in the Astroid Belt you included 3 of them (I guess there could be more, but, as you said, we must limit the number of satellites if we want the game playable).

We can guess (or assume) any planetoid/asteroid belt will have such S sized bodies, and so allow them to be colonized (even if counting each of them as a single hex, for simplicity) and make that a must to exploit it.

In fact, this would be to make Asteroid Belts colonizable as S sized planets (assuming the colony is in one of those bodies) and only allow the Asteroid Mining to be used on them, instead of magically teleport over 1 AU all those ressources we have no shipping to transport.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>>PApoints cost is doubled, but so is effectiveness.
>Even one PA in current rules is often an overkill, doubling it will doublé the overkill,
The cost is doubled but so is price. The power per $ is unchanged; and then there is the removal of the price reduction for Prestige which effectively reduces this ‘overkill’.


It does not reduce the overkill. Your reasoning here seems to me as saying "exchanging the rifles to bazookas will not be an overkill against a single soldier, because even if the destructive power of the round is greater, so is its cost".

Going for more than a 5:1 in any PA action is a waste of ressources. Now we already find some of our actoins to be at higher ranges, and now we're told we must even double them, in force and cost (in fact, more than double in cost, as the average cost for 2 PAs was about $80, variable according to prestige, while now the cost of the equivalent 1 PA would be $100).

Combat Cycle Ref:
>It makes PAs rarer
>At $100 per PA, some countries can hardly afford them,
That would be the prime reason what I did it. Nothing takes more of the GM’s time then handling PAs; currently we are at around 100 separate actions per turn, I shudder to think what it will be once we get to larger empires.


>and less able to be "dispersed". 
Not at all


The only way not to reduce the dispersal capacity is to allow PAs to be usedon several countries at once, and that would avoid the reducing on actions you're advocating for.

If before I wanted to use a PA on Somalia and one on Kuwaint, I could do and each was a separate action (and each an overkill, as if the dificulty multiplier was 1 the ratio was over 12:1) and cost was about $80. Now I must either use a $100 PA  on each  of them ($200 and 24:1 ratios, and that's what I call doubling the overkill) or one to affect both. If I do the latter, no actions are reduced, unless it is treated as a single action (and so a single roll), but I find quite illogical that so separate actions are solved as a single one...

And remember there are some uses for PAs that were not population related, so doubling the power of the PAs has no real meaning (as making some space actions), while doubling the cost has.

And don't worry about those larger empires. As rules for space settlement are becoming, they will never exist.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>so efectively nearly removing them as player countries…
We NEVER promised that player countries were equal. If a player has a problem with his nation being unable to afford PApoints then he never should have agreed to play that nation to begin with.


Off course they aren't equal, and not only in this sense, but when they agreed the conditions were not those, as the country could be able to afford some PAs (fortunatley, most of those nations are now NPCs or the same player plays also more playable ones).

Combat Cycle Ref:
>>Remade Authoritarian score to be from 0 to 20 to keep it consistent with other metrics.
>I'm afraid this messes things too much as game has been developing to now…
That would be the prime reason for making the change. The game has been developing in the direction of trying to account for small changes to the society of the player nations. A game of this scale has no business trying to account for such small changes to Authoritarian Score.


First of all forgive me to say (just for humor relief) that your wording seems to mean that messing it was the prime reason for making the change.

Now serously, it was yourself that said that would like to have much grater AM variability among the countries...

And beware the law of unintended consequences, as this change can have effects in formulas that we don't realize until the most inconvenient moment...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>If so, to deploy an Enclave, you need 1.5 power (as the outpost must be kept) and 2 "slots" of OT capacity…
No, the Outpost is not kept, an Enclave is a Settlement.


Then the outspost simply disappears absorbed by the Enclavement? If so, I'd suggest to reduce the enclavement cost and mass to represent it, unless your intent is (again) to make more expensive and difficult to set it up.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Then no light industry exists?
There has not been any ‘light industry’ facility for quite some time.


When I told about light industry I meand not heavy one, I though it would be clear. What I menat is that no RMUs may be used in the colony itself until you set up Heavy Industry there?

Combat Cycle Ref:
>So, any RMUs are only for exporting unless you have Heavy Industry (or to support orbital industry)?
Correct


That means no colony may produce its own supplies until heavy industry is set up (again difficulting settlement of planets). Not too consistent with 2300AD setting, where more than one colony has this non-heavy industry while lacking heavy one.
UK
 player, 76 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Wed 28 Sep 2016
at 10:39
Re: Version 20160902
In reply to Germany (msg # 174):

Rules (12.6) on WMD Damage:
In any attack occurring in an inhabited hex on a Core World, for every 1 000 Combat Strength points (25 of any WMD tipped weapons employed) of the Attacker that can reach the hex and hit the defender then as collateral damage the population, GDP and SRU production of that hex is permanently reduced by 1%


I thought I should bring this up given what's happening here - in the current situation a large area has been hit by WMDs from China - who has a total force of 14 units

Under the current rules the entirety of China's WMD ICBM forces cannot (under the rules) damage the economy of a target (its combat strength currently being 474)which seems weird given the real world potential of WMDs.

TO me WMDs are under-powered in terms of the economic damage they do (particularly when most WMD stockpiles are strategic rather than tactical). The use of WMDs (particularly on civilian targets) feels like it should be much more significant - just thinking about nuclear weapons in particular and their real world impact vs what we see in game

What does everyone else think?

Currently a full scale launch from all major powers could probably achieve a 3-4% reduction in GDP - whilst I know this is a significant drop in game terms it feels very small in the immediate term - unless GMs are planning on having additional problems/ expenses in the budget?
Germany
 player, 221 posts
Wed 28 Sep 2016
at 12:59
Re: Version 20160902
UK:
In reply to Germany (msg # 174):

Rules (12.6) on WMD Damage:
In any attack occurring in an inhabited hex on a Core World, for every 1 000 Combat Strength points (25 of any WMD tipped weapons employed) of the Attacker that can reach the hex and hit the defender then as collateral damage the population, GDP and SRU production of that hex is permanently reduced by 1%


I thought I should bring this up given what's happening here - in the current situation a large area has been hit by WMDs from China - who has a total force of 14 units

Under the current rules the entirety of China's WMD ICBM forces cannot (under the rules) damage the economy of a target (its combat strength currently being 474)which seems weird given the real world potential of WMDs.

TO me WMDs are under-powered in terms of the economic damage they do (particularly when most WMD stockpiles are strategic rather than tactical). The use of WMDs (particularly on civilian targets) feels like it should be much more significant - just thinking about nuclear weapons in particular and their real world impact vs what we see in game

What does everyone else think?

Currently a full scale launch from all major powers could probably achieve a 3-4% reduction in GDP - whilst I know this is a significant drop in game terms it feels very small in the immediate term - unless GMs are planning on having additional problems/ expenses in the budget?


See that there's an error on the numbers in this attack (that, luckily, has no consequences in the results):

From Historical interval 2035-2039, Msg#20

Germany:
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
Pink Elephant Delta Decrypt:..Release Full spre<unrecoverable>ary Targets repeat Military Targets only ...WMD release author<unrecoverable> ..
-Chinese Central Command directive #1A29F999

China attacking
4 Experienced ICBM Squadrons
5 Veteran IRBM Squadrons
5 Experienced IRBM Squadrons

Mil Rank 2, Mil tech 7.8, Sum Basic Strength: 48, WMDs used so attack strength becomes 84, Final Combat Strength: 474


One more question:

If the sum of base stregth is 84, and TL is 7.8, Final combat strength whould'n be 5110.56 (84*7.82)? Or there are some other modifiers?

See that, if so, numbers would be:

Odds are 5110/25229=.2025, which becomes 1:5 odds, shifted { 2 to Right for WMD usage by attacker, 1 to Right for units are in the middle of combat and out in the open } final odds 1:2.

With a result of 7 on 1d10, result would be 60/5_12% losses on attacker and 20/5=4% loses on defender. As attacker losses are ignored, the result (IMHO luckly) remains exaclty the same.


Even more (again for better understanding of the rules), after Reading it more throughly (see that there's no effect on final result):

As I understand them (12.6, 12.9 from v20151225 Official), the ABM/SAM intercept should be:
quote:
Air Defebses;
1 ABM (japanese): 10 x 1.5 (enenmy has IRBMs)=15
32 SAM (2 ROK, 32, NK): each 2 x .25 (SAM vs IRBM/ICBM)=64

Sum of basic combat strength: 79, Final Combat strength:1698 4326

1698 4326 * 20% (roll)= 340 865 hits intercepted:

So, total combat power by China would be 5110-340 865= 4770 4245

Combat would be 4770 4245/25229=0.189 0.168, which becomes 1:6 odds, shifted { 2 to Right for WMD usage by attacker, 1 to Right for units are in the middle of combat and out in the open } final odds 1:2.

With a result of 7 on 1d10, result would be 60/5_12% losses on attacker and 20/5=4% loses on defender. As attacker losses are ignored, the result (IMHO luckly) remains exaclty the same.


Is that right?

EDIT NOTE: I changed the numbers due to applying 12.9 when we're using 12.10. No significant changes occur

So, assuming my numbers are right, the total combat strenght is 5110, reduced to 4770 4245 due to anti missile defense, the economic damage would be 190.8 169.8% (4770 4245/25, as all is MDWs). And though it is not specified, I guess Pop would also be affected (not sure how many).

Do you still think it is under-powered?

This message was last edited by the player at 15:30, Wed 28 Sept 2016.

UK
 player, 77 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Wed 28 Sep 2016
at 13:19
Re: Version 20160902
In reply to Germany (msg # 176):

You're dividing by the wrong number to calculate the % loss. The rules wording says that 1000 combat points is the equivalent of 25 WMD tipped weapons, not that the damage done is calculated from every 25 points of combat damage

As written the rules state that for every 1000 points of combat strength 1% is damaged.

This means with the revised combat strength you calculate of 5110 (approx) then China can cause 5% damage to the enemy (which is better than the 0% I originally thought but hardly represents the potential damage of China launching a strike with all available ballistic missiles being WMD tipped.
Germany
 player, 222 posts
Wed 28 Sep 2016
at 13:24
Re: Version 20160902
In reply to UK (msg # 177):

But all those combat points are due to MDW, so the divisor is 25
UK
 player, 78 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Wed 28 Sep 2016
at 13:32
Re: Version 20160902
In reply to Germany (msg # 178):

Oh! I see. I was reading it to mean 25 units of WMD weapons was the equivalent of 1000 combat points (which now I think about it would be a weird thing to say).
That makes much more sense, thank lluis
Sorry, got it completely wrong.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 113 posts
Mon 10 Oct 2016
at 23:51
Version 20161006
Changes since version 20160902

-The introduction of: Pai-Leng Special Resource Units, hinted at earlier but now a formalization of the effect of finding something interesting and valuable on a planet that is not Tantalum related, the consequence of rolling a 20 for Farming potential of a World. Military-Space tech as a separate tech.

-Made clearer: What a facility being constructed can and cannot do. Generation of Mineral and Farming potentials and how Special Resource units are generated. Interpreting results of a Task Roll.

-Re-balancing to: Combat Strength of WMDs and Spaceship Weapons. Number of hits generated in combat is rounded up, not down,this makes the combat system more likely to be able to handle combats involving small numbers of units(~10) without the GM having to retain hits or have an excessive number of combat cycles. Collateral damage of WMDs.

-Got rid of:None
Germany
 player, 231 posts
Wed 12 Oct 2016
at 12:46
Version 20161006
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 180):

I had some comments (not many) for the rules, but I was witholding them not to bog the turn any more.

Do you want them now or I wait until the turn is more resolved?
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 115 posts
Wed 12 Oct 2016
at 18:15
Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 181):

The whole point of publishing a rules proposal is to elicit comment from others.
Germany
 player, 234 posts
Thu 13 Oct 2016
at 15:38
Version 20161006
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 182):

Then here go some comments/suggestions:

Comments on rules proposal 20161006


6.6 Task resolution

NOTE: This is not specific for this version, but I just thought about it some weeks ago.

Suggested addition (if it does not add too much complexity to numbers):
If the action is clearly hostile (supporting/fomenting rebellion, lowering stability, etc.), 20-relations is used instead of relations (representing the higher trust opposing factions will have on the player).

7.1 Under Colony:

I see you returned to 3 turns of survey for an Enclave module to allow colonization. I agree with it, as in 2300 AD background many planets were colonized after only 10-15 years of survey:

Just for completeness I post here what I have ready to post about this issue:

quote:
According 2300 AD (mixed information taken from the Historical Background and Colonial Atlas), the Jerome effect was discovered in 2086, by 2100 there were Works toward a prototype of stutterwarp starship and the first one was buit in 2136.
In 2137 ESA launched the first probe to Alpha Centauri and discovered Tirane, in 2038 it sent the first manned expedition and in 2139 (the book says 2129, but I guess it’s an errata) it spent “next four years” studying it. So, we could assume the starfaring nations were in the low 9’s TL (9.1-9.2).

 Unfortunately, it doesn’t talk about when the first settlement (the equivalent to an Enclave) was set, but in 212 there is the Alpha Centauri War. I guess again we can assume that only ESA could have such an Enclave module there (at most), as the war is over its claim for solely colonization.

In any case, the historical background entry for the Alpha Centauri War specifies that “Within 10 years, Tirane had colònies from seven Terran Nations, hinting that they could start a colony from the scratch in 10 years, quite fewer than the period needed for an Enclave module to survey the world in our game. Specifically, Argentinean colony is set as started in 2168 (List of Earth Colonies), while I have serious doubts it could have even an Enclave module before the War, as it was claimed by ESA...

Likewise, Newbayern is said to be discovered by the Bavarians in 2142 and not surveyed for a decade (so up to 2152). It Foundation is set (in the Colonies of Earth list) at 2169. Assuming early 2150’s as the establishment of the Enclave (beginning the survey), it will fall in the 3 turns window, but not in the new 5 turns one...

And I guess none was TL 9.8 to have a Survey Module equipped ship by then...


9.2 Missiles and Orbital bombing modules:

I’d suggest to allow them to be used without MDW (in case of missiles at least against non-stutterwarp ships) at reduced combat value (let’s say, 1 for Missiles and 2 for Orbital Bombing). In the case of orbital bombing, though, due to the lack of accuracy and the devastating effects of it, the collateral damages are applied as if they were MDW regardless of the weapons being so tipped or not.
China
 player, 35 posts
Thu 13 Oct 2016
at 22:49
Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 183):

Orbital Bombard needs to be left ..dropping a rock from space is a weapon of mass destruction..(@ 3 KPS difference in velocity the mass in kilos = the equivlent of the same amount of TNT ..so a million ton rock = 1 megaton bomb @ 3KPS..if travelling faster the size of the explosion starts going up quickly..remember Shoemaker-Levey = a 700 trillion ton blast..11KPS = escape velocity ..and when we double the speed we quadrouple the kinetic energy ..
Germany
 player, 235 posts
Thu 13 Oct 2016
at 23:39
Re: Version 20161006
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 183):

Orbital Bombard needs to be left ..dropping a rock from space is a weapon of mass destruction..(@ 3 KPS difference in velocity the mass in kilos = the equivlent of the same amount of TNT ..so a million ton rock = 1 megaton bomb @ 3KPS..if travelling faster the size of the explosion starts going up quickly..remember Shoemaker-Levey = a 700 trillion ton blast..11KPS = escape velocity ..and when we double the speed we quadrouple the kinetic energy ..

Sure, but then to be MDW capable should not be a prerequisite to develop the Orbital Bombardment Module for starships...
China
 player, 36 posts
Fri 14 Oct 2016
at 00:20
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 185):

Okay then leave that out...Since Kinetic Kill weapons are low tech and everyone has the basic science of it..so they get it after asteroid capturing ..or WMD capacity..
Best of both worlds..
USA
 player, 33 posts
Sat 15 Oct 2016
at 21:35
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to China (msg # 186):

I really don't want to say this but trying to deal with the US military at this moment convinces me the military forces need to be further simplified.

Suggestions would be

1 - Military bases - get rid of them as a concept (at least on Core Worlds) - so long as the nation you have troops in is happy for them to be there then that means you will have the option to build that kind of thing anyway - abstract it away or just remove it on core worlds.

2 - War rounds - Currently a war round is the smallest amount of time we consider in game - rules currently define it as a month of RL time - why do we they say that ICBMs can only attack once in a war round? I thought everything could only attack once per war round? is this the residue of a previous change? I'd also like to see stricter enforcement of this time OR make a war round a longer time (say 1 year) and break it up into  combat rounds which make up 1 or 2 months of time.
Currently the korean war has had two combat rounds, which have used massive amounts of supplies. A large war like this could take up 10s of thousands of supply units - this means we either will have to get used to stocking up on so many supplies that the numbers begin to get silly (for the US to sustain all its non reserve troops in operation for 1 month it will require close to 8000 supplies per round)
so I would say we need to reduce the supply cost of operating for a monthly war round OR in order to facilitate more than 3 rounds before everyone runs out of supplies we need to sub divide the round - which would add complexity and so is not what I think would be best

3- Number of Units - I don't like to suggest this. I can currently live with the work required to keep track of a large army like the US' because a large part of me really likes the current set up - I can identify individual units, I can record deeds they've done, where they were, interesting things they got caught up in - it adds to the flavor of the game - but there's just too damned many of them. Can anyone see a way of managing the number better (I've tried using a spreadsheet to keep track and monitor costs - makes it easier but I'm having trouble keeping the 'big picture' in focus and once this spreads out to other planets I know I'm most likely doomed to lose track of it all.
I feel like we need to abstract the the military side of the game more to keep administration to a minimum and to make the CCR's job easier and combat faster to calculate. Resolving this makes the other points rather moot too
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 116 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 02:11
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to USA (msg # 187):

>Sure, but then to be MDW capable should not be a prerequisite
>to develop the Orbital Bombardment Module for starships...

I do not see why MDW capable should not be a prerequisite. Wiping out large swaths of the surface from orbit is exactly the point and definition of an Orbital Bombardment Module. If you are not smashing whole cities at a time then you are just using Beam Modules.

>1 - Military bases - get rid of them as a concept (at least on
>Core Worlds) - so long as the nation you have troops in is happy
>for them to be there then that means

That is already included in the definition of a 'Friendly Site', see section 1, and it is Friendly Sites which determine the range of a unit, see section 10.6.

>2 - War rounds - Currently a war round is the smallest amount
>of time we consider in game - rules currently define it as a month of RL time

Except in the Quick Combat section that is being used for this Korean War where:
"Each round of the Quick Combat system is independent of the usual system of War Rounds/Hexes, and is
actually comprised of many War Rounds/Hexes so may be of an indefinite length and size to be determined by the GM.
emphasis added.

> why do we they say that ICBMs can only attack once in a war round? I thought
>everything could only attack once per war round? 

See above, but more importantly, reread section 12.4. Except for ICBMs and the like, everything can attack an unlimited number of times in a War Round, up to the discretion of the GM. ...Except of course with the Quick Combat system, where yes, everything only attacks once per round.

>3- Number of Units -
Ooohh, boy!! That is something I have known about and have been struggling with for years! This is the reason why we will never again deal with units smaller than Squadrons/Brigades. This is the reason why I am getting increasingly snippy about making sure each unit has a unique identifier and a specific hex location. This is the reason why the Quick Combat system exists.

Getting things more simpler from there has options ranging from
-The unpleasant, like removing the Quality level from each non-Reserve unit and making QL be the same dependant on Military Rank, or halving the list of possible types of military units.
-The the downright brutal, like reducing the possible types of military units to just 'Air' 'Ground' and 'Naval'. Or clumping every 5 Brigades/Squadrons into Divisions/AirWings/Fleets and just live with the eye popping numbers for mass that needs to be moved to move and supply a unit to a different world-->because there is absolutely no way I am going to permit parts of units to be spread out across several world/Turns/Spaceships. Every part of a unit has to move together or you have made the complexity *worse*. Probably would have to rewrite the definition of the Orbital Assault module to be something which includes a small detachment of Space Marines so we can have a ground force that can be moved in a reasonable sized Spaceship.

I am aware of the situation and will continue to monitor it. The immediate solution is to continue to use the Quick Combat system for wars on Core worlds, it is quite abstract, and use the more detailed rules for battles everywhere else, where a single unit can make a big difference.
USA
 player, 34 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 10:26
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 188):

Mass.... Forgot about that.

The only other thing I can suggest would be even more brutal which is to abstract away all different military types and just use combat power? That does get rid of a lot of stuff like armour though.

Law of unintended consequences however says current quick combat system is probably the best way to go.
Germany
 player, 236 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 12:05
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to USA (msg # 187):
Many points you give here… Enough to be answered in several posts to facilitate lecture and answers.

Unlike Kevin, I miss the forum, as, even if not used, it at least gave us (and mostly any new player who was not in play when it was active) an hindsight about how we reached current rules and why some things are (or are not) done…

Post 1: concept

About War rounds, remember that initially they represented just hours (making them unplayable), then were changed to about a month, but with multiple Combat Cycles on them. With Quick Combat Rules, they are still more abstract.

Viewing (relative) recent history (the last 50 years or so, so my life), we find that most wars begin with a high tempo phase and then they either end (as most Israeli interventions, or Desert Storm) or develop into a protracted attrition war (as 1980’s Iran-Iraq war, or Afghanistan or Iraq interventions). Detailed system could represent the former, while QCR could represent the latter.

That’s why I suggested that wars were begun with detailed system for a WR and then change to QCR, with the possibility of resorting again to detailed rules by expending either PAs or more supplies, to represent offensive bursts (best example would be Iran-Iraq war). It was considered (probably rightly) that this would bog down the game. Just imagine this Korean intervention using the detailed rules: while they would probably represent better the surprise actions and the building up of units, we’d probably still be resolving the first attacks (or at best some Combat Cycle In the WR1).
Germany
 player, 237 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 12:06
Re: Version 20161006
Post 2: units:

While I guess it would be no surprise if I say I like detail and color (just see the TOE of my played countries), I must admit that I can do it because I have some spare time and all the countries I play have limited military forces. I wouldn’t even dare to try with Russian, US or Chinese militaries…

I keep believing, for the same reasons Kelvin gave above, that the Brigade sized units are the best compromise among flexibility and playability. Even so, that gives us many units, and makes difficult to keep track of all of them, more so if dispersed among several zones/theaters, even for Germany, I cannot imagine for the CCR, no matter how hard we try to facilitate his work.

One way I suggested time ago to reduce the burden is precisely what Kevin calls unpleasant: to eliminate Quality Ratings and base all units in the MR of the Country (I also suggested changing the Reserve qualification to Cadre, both for damaged units and for those In reserve status properly). Of course this will have other side effects, making armies more standardized, for good or bad, but would allow to use similar units interchangeably (e.g. a Russian armor brigade would be just so, regardless its numeration), and probably reduce the need to keep track of them.

Another way (though with only a minor effect) to reduce the units would be to assume the carried units (Carrier Air Groups, SSGs missile units) as included in the unit, not allowing them to be separated from it. 

This message was last edited by the player at 09:25, Mon 17 Oct 2016.

Germany
 player, 238 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 12:07
Re: Version 20161006
Post 3: supplies:

Again recurring to game history, initially it was used 1 SU= $1. Then it was changed to 5 SU= $1, as it could represent more the difficulties to supply units (mostly outside Earth surface proper) than the cost. Now, new Rules Proposals return to the 1 SU= $1, and make them (of course) more difficult to transport.

Personally, I liked the 5 SU= $1, as it allowed for better discrimination among different quality units/armies (be them by unit or according to MR) and to slowly build supplies on other planets (as Mars) in preparation for future developments (where I could use remaining few 1000s of uplifting or cargo capacity to send supplies there, I now would need it in 5000 tonnes groups). It also eased things for newly spacefaring nations to maintain a few orbital facilities, as having just a satellite network costed you 1000 tonnes uplifting capacity, while now would need 5000 and 4/5 of them would be superfluous.

As for combat, initially it costed 1 SU/unit/WR to maintain them, so making wars (relatively) affordable. QCR made it MR dependent, something I found reasonable (after all, better MR represents more support, and so more supplies needed). So, a MR1 unit needed 10 SU/WR ($2), while a MR4 unit only needed 2-3 SUs. As no more than 4 WR (some more if the players wanted to increase tempo with PAs) are expected to be fought in a Game Turn, wars may still be affordable (albeit more expensive if many units fight)…

The new proposal, though, aside from keeping the 1 SU= $1, makes the cost dependent on the quality of the unit, and making it 5 times the peace turn cost (so, $5 per unit unless reserve, that would cost nothing). With those rules, the best option is to send the reserve units to war if using QCR, as they would cost nothing (aside from making losses more affordable)… Of course, I don’t believe this is what the rules intent. It also makes the MR irrelevant in maintain a protracted attrition war. IMHO the MR dependent cost (at $2/MR cost) was far better a solution.

This message was last edited by the player at 09:27, Mon 17 Oct 2016.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 117 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 16:35
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 192):

>With those rules, the best option is to send the reserve units to war if using
>QCR, as they would cost nothing (aside from making losses more affordable)
I wondered if someone would try to 'game the system' like that. See the 1st sentence in green font in sec 10.11 par#2 of the rules proposal.
Germany
 player, 239 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 18:30
Re: Version 20161006
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 192):

>With those rules, the best option is to send the reserve units to war if using
>QCR, as they would cost nothing (aside from making losses more affordable)
I wondered if someone would try to 'game the system' like that. See the 1st sentence in green font in sec 10.11 par#2 of the rules proposal.

Yes, I read it, and I hope you've already realized this is not my style of playing (though it is to warn that there might be a rules glitch there).

In any case, the usual policy for most countires is to send the best units to combat, when they are expected to fight a short war, at least, while in protracted wars a more regular mixup is usually sent.

The main point there is that I found more logical to make the supplies needed dependent on the MR, for the reasons I gave, and, mostly, that the basic maintenance x5 (so usually $5/unit/turn) is far too high.

This message was last edited by the player at 09:29, Mon 17 Oct 2016.

Germany
 player, 240 posts
Wed 19 Oct 2016
at 11:37
Re: Version 20161006
Combat Cycle Ref:
>Sure, but then to be MDW capable should not be a prerequisite
>to develop the Orbital Bombardment Module for starships...

I do not see why MDW capable should not be a prerequisite. Wiping out large swaths of the surface from orbit is exactly the point and definition of an Orbital Bombardment Module. If you are not smashing whole cities at a time then you are just using Beam Modules.


BUt in the case of those bombing modules, even if they are trowing just high speed rocks, As Michel suggests, I expressely suggested they should be treated as WMD for their colateral damages, but it needs not to have such weapons capacity to throw those rocks. That's what I meant when I suggested to forfeit the need to be WMD capable to develop them, albeit at lower combat power (as they do not irradiate).

And remember beams cannot be so used in planets with atmosphere, so this is not an alternative (altough precisión bombs, if they can be laser GPS or otherwise guided, might be).
Germany
 player, 241 posts
Wed 19 Oct 2016
at 18:29
Re: Version 20161006
5.2: upgrading the Tech Levels:
Something fails in the TL raising formulas…

Using Germany as example:
  • this turn it increased power infrastructure TL to 8.8, and cost was $261. With the new formulas (and assuming an AM of 14, as shown in the rules example), its cost would be 24001*14*8.82*21/7500000= $6.94 (rounded to 7).
  • To increase biology theoretical TL to 8.6 costed Germany $87. With now formulas would cost 24001*8.82*142*21/7500000= $97.14 (rounded to 98).
  • To raise Military-air infrastructure TL to 8.7 would have costed $63. With new formulas it would cost 413*8.72*21/(200*1)= $312.6 (rounded to 313)
  • To raise military-sea theoretical to 8.7, would have costed $45. With new formulas the cost would be 24001*8.72*142*21/15000000= $47.47 (rounded to 48).
  • To raise space theoretical to 8.9 (cutting edge), would have costed S583. With new formulas, cost would be 8.92*10.5*142= 310.5032, so 311, to which we must ass 99.37 (the cost to raise the theoretical TL to 8.9) ,for a total of 409.8732 (rounded to 410)


So (unless I botched my numbers somehow), while the increase of theoretical TLs is quite OK, the cost for infrastructures varies a lot (far too low for economical, far to high for military), while the bonus for cutting edge is a lower than before, but I guess OK too…

As for US, using its GDP and AM (9, as shown in the examples), the numbers would be:
  • To raise economical infrastructure from 8.6 to 8.7: with current rules: $987, with new formulas: $30
  • To raise economical theoretical  TL from 8.7 to 8.8: with current rules: $202, with new formulas: $316
  • To raise military theoretical TL from TL8.6 to 8.7: with current rules: $117, with new formulas: $157
  • To raise military infrastructure to 8.7: with current rules: $387, with new formulas: $1916
  • Extra for cutting edge to 8.9: $128


In this case (again, unless I botched my numbers) the theoretical level is about 50% more expensive, while in the infrastructures we keep the same problem…

This message was last edited by the player at 10:56, Sat 22 Oct 2016.

Germany
 player, 242 posts
Thu 20 Oct 2016
at 01:47
Re: Version 20161006
More comments about Rules_20161006

5.1:Tech level overview (Percieved errata):

Second paragraph: There are 8 technology categories. With the added military-space, there should be 9.

7.8.1: Misile Defense: now that most missiles (more so if WMD tipped) have their combat factors so increased, shouldn’t AMB also have theirs? After all this is their mission…

7.8.2: Scram aircraft: Requires Atmosphere be 5 – 9. As atmospher 4 is hte same density tan 5 (just tainted), shouldn’t it be 4-9?

7.8.3: Fossil fuel plant: Requires Atmosphere type of the World be between 5 - 9. As atmospher 4 is hte same density tan 5 (just tainted), shouldn’t it be 4-9?


8.8.3:

ICBM: Shouldn’t its combat factor be only for attack pourposes? As is now, to give you an example, trying to attack ICBMs with bombers to try to destroy them in a preemtive attack  is suicidal…

ABMs: now that most missiles (more so if WMD tipped) have their combat factors so increased, shouldn’t AMB also have theirs? After all this is their mission…

8.9. Military Rank and WMD Capable

WMD capability: As it does not distinguish among chemical, biological, nuclear, cyber, etc… I guess all player countries (and many NPCs) have some capacity on it, the main deifference is nukes (to have the political will to use them is an entirely different matter, but a political, not military, one). As rules stand, the Caliphate could arm a spaceship with missile or orbital bombardment modulens, should they have any, while countries like Australia, Canada, Germany of Japan could not. My suggestion would be to make every player country (and probably many NPCs) WMD capable, keeping the difference only for nukes. The limitations for thoseweapons that could need WMD should be specifically for nukes.
Germany
 player, 243 posts
Sat 22 Oct 2016
at 10:57
Re: Version 20161006
Germany:
5.2: upgrading the Tech Levels:
Something fails in the TL raising formulas…


Sorry, I forgot to make the new costs in SUs for units, so my formulas for military infrastructures were wrong. Here are the correct ones:

Germany:
Using Germany as example:
  • To raise Military-air infrastructure TL to 8.7 would have costed $63. With new formulas it would cost 107*8.72*21/(200*1)= $80.99 (rounded to 81)



Germany:
As for US, using its GDP and AM (9, as shown in the examples), the numbers would be:
  • To raise military infrastructure to 8.7: with current rules: $387, with new formulas: $375


So, the military infrastructure tech is not so outragingly higher (though for germany it still increases it, and the main issue remains for economic infrastructures...

I guess simply modifying the divisor should work, though I cannot try with other countries as I don't know their AMs with the new rules.
China
 player, 37 posts
Sun 23 Oct 2016
at 12:12
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 198):

After running a couple dozen or so calculations and projections for Canada, France, and China I come to the conclusion that these formulaes for increases are workable long term.  Makes it difficult but not impossible for to raise theoretical economic tech (actually encouraging nations to work together on this).
Makes it possible to improve economies. Military theoretical tech is also difficult but not impossible to raise.

Infrastructure Tech..For a Large military it is costly to up, not impossible but choices have to be made. For smaller Military not as bad.

Combines with the increased cost for supply units it simplifies things and makes it generally more difficult to maintain a Large Mobile Military force.

In conclusion The West will continue to have the tech edge. The formulae will work for dozens of turns to come and not be breaking down like the current system is now.
It works for small economies to large economies over time. Forces choices to be made by players (some of them harder than others) and lowers the spots to game the system.

How well it will hold up to play remains to be seen but I am for swapping to it.
Germany
 player, 244 posts
Sun 23 Oct 2016
at 14:20
Re: Version 20161006
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 198):

After running a couple dozen or so calculations and projections for Canada, France, and China I come to the conclusion that these formulaes for increases are workable long term.  Makes it difficult but not impossible for to raise theoretical economic tech (actually encouraging nations to work together on this).
Makes it possible to improve economies. Military theoretical tech is also difficult but not impossible to raise.

Infrastructure Tech..For a Large military it is costly to up, not impossible but choices have to be made. For smaller Military not as bad.

Combines with the increased cost for supply units it simplifies things and makes it generally more difficult to maintain a Large Mobile Military force.

In conclusion The West will continue to have the tech edge. The formulae will work for dozens of turns to come and not be breaking down like the current system is now.
It works for small economies to large economies over time. Forces choices to be made by players (some of them harder than others) and lowers the spots to game the system.

How well it will hold up to play remains to be seen but I am for swapping to it.


See that after fixing my first mistake (applying the formula to the SU without taking into account the new SU rules), the only formula that, IMHO, fails is for economical infrastructures, whose cost is far too low (I guess Kevin botched with the divisor).

In fact, German’s increase in militaty infractructures cost is more due to the increased maintenance costs for the new SU rules ($107, where it was 413 SU, so $82.6) than anything else. I guess MR2+ militaries will be even more affected by this…

I would like to make them for any non MR1 country, but I did not make numbers for others because I don't know about their AMs.  I’ll try by extrapolating them from the current ones we know about (US, France and Germany, that are cited in the examples).

China:
Makes it difficult but not impossible for to raise theoretical economic tech (actually encouraging nations to work together on this).


In fact it does not make Theoretical research much different. Of course, it raises it for US, as with its large GDP and low AM it had reached the point where cutting edge ressearch was cheaper than non-cutting edge one, but for others it does not change it too much...

Again IMHO, the fact only one of the partners may gain the extra 1% bonus discourages nations to work together in cutting edge research...
Germany
 player, 245 posts
Sun 23 Oct 2016
at 17:38
Re: Version 20161006
Germany:
I would like to make them for any non MR1 country, but I did not make numbers for others because I don't know about their AMs.  I’ll try by extrapolating them from the current ones we know about (US, France and Germany, that are cited in the examples).

Well, I've done it in a spreadsheet, extrapolating the AMs as said and using for all countries a rise from TL 8.7 to 8.8 (or cutting edge to 8.8).

Resuming results:
  • For Economic Theoretical TL raise, on the aerage it becomes 110% of the former one, going from 96.67% (UK) to 135% (US)
  • For Military Theoretical TL raise, the situation is quite the same (unsurprising, as the formula is the same with different divisor).
  • For Economic Infrastructure Tl raise it fails absolutely, as the cost on new rules is on average a 2.85% of the former cost (going from a 2.56% for India to a 4.17% for Israel), Norht Korea is a special case where it would cost a 25%, but that's for the rounding, as in the former rules it was $4, due to its extremely low GDP.
  • For Military infrastructure, average cost now would be about 125% of the former, but here we must considere that, the change comes from the SU rules change, as AM has no part here, and maintenacne, again on average, is now about 137%.
  • As for the costs of Cutting Edge, on average it costs now on average 72% of what it costed, going from 54.81 for Argentina to 156% for China or 214% for US. See that in those latter cases, the impact of GDP counting on the formula is heavily felt (for US it was chaper Cutting Edge ressearch tan Non-Cutting Edge one).

I tested with some other TLs and results are similar (though with some small changes).

All in all, I guess the formulas are better tan I expected, except for the economical infrastructure one.
China
 player, 38 posts
Sun 23 Oct 2016
at 22:31
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 201):

Run the economy one out 25 turns and then see if its still broken ..the olde one had already failed misirably..ie made it impossible to get to tech 11 for any nation ..now after about 30 turns the west might just make it to tech 12 with cooperation..the limiting factor being theoertical that goes up faster ..ie Hard decisions will need to be made to succeed but success is possible..

Do not forget Maintenance Costs have gone up for off world equipment by ~200% and military maintenance has gone up ~40%..(yes the SU has gone up 500% but the number of SU required has remained the same or gone down slightly for Elite and Vet over all gone up for Exp and Grn (in money not SU)..

Being able to afford military expiditions has become more difficult for large forces..
being able to sustain operations and have a ready force is going to force choices..

This message was last edited by the player at 22:51, Sun 23 Oct 2016.

Germany
 player, 246 posts
Mon 24 Oct 2016
at 08:23
Re: Version 20161006
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 201):

Run the economy one out 25 turns and then see if its still broken ..the olde one had already failed misirably..ie made it impossible to get to tech 11 for any nation ..now after about 30 turns the west might just make it to tech 12 with cooperation..the limiting factor being theoertical that goes up faster ..ie Hard decisions will need to be made to succeed but success is possible..


As I said, the only formula now I find broken is the one to raise Economical Infrastructures. This turn, China has raised its Power infrastructure from 6.7 to 6.8 for a cost of $972. With the new rules (assuming AM 16, the semae gives for France in the example, as France had an AM of 38%, though now is 35.5, and China has 39%), its cost would be $27. Do you feel this logical or right?

China:
Do not forget Maintenance Costs have gone up for off world equipment by ~200% and military maintenance has gone up ~40%..(yes the SU has gone up 500% but the number of SU required has remained the same or gone down slightly for Elite and Vet over all gone up for Exp and Grn (in money not SU)..

Being able to afford military expiditions has become more difficult for large forces..
being able to sustain operations and have a ready force is going to force choices..


This maintenance costs will make worse MR more costly,so giving more advantage to MR 1 nations (though its cost is also reflected in the Social upkeep).

As for the supply costs for QCR, they make any war unbearable, and take off the difference among MRs in supply costs. Being MR1 does not only mean to have better units than an MR3 nation, but also more support (C3i, supply, etc), and this was what, IMHO, was represented by its higher war costs. Now, this is forfeited, all countries pay $5 per unit and WR.

As to keep more or less parity a MR3 nation needs about 4 times the force against a MR1 country, and usually has lower TL, so let's asume it needs about 5-6 times the units. When each unit costs it $5, it would be spending about 5-6 times the supplies that the MR 1 nation, so having no chance.

Let's imagine Turkey decides to defy NATO in Turkish Kurdistán and NATO resists military:

In the zone, France has about 17 units, so will spend $85/round in maintenance. Turkey, assuming all its armed forces are used, would use about 105 units, 31 of which are reserve and so do not cost anything, with atotal cost of $370/round. Even going to War footing, Turkwy will not resist much, while France, probably going to war footing too, will, just for supplies.

With this rules, a small expeditionary force may conquest quite large nations just because the defender would have all forces engaged, and so wil lbe out of supplies quite son.

See that any attack to China, if spread over all China's hexes (so engaging all its armed forces), will cost it over $2000 per WR in supplies. How long would it resist?

Just the forces sent to N Korea by China would cost it $375 per WR, while its supply reserve would be $658. China would be out of supply after the 2nd WR, forcing it to go to War Footing if it intends to keep the offensive (and if NK resists, off course). And this is only an expeditionary force for China...

As for ROK, going to War Footing will not support its army (as it's fully engaged) for a single WR (as it would need S850 to be supported, while War Footing will give it about $773...

This message was last edited by the player at 08:33, Mon 24 Oct 2016.

China
 player, 39 posts
Mon 24 Oct 2016
at 12:17
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 203):

Actually its closer to 75 per war round for the forces currently in NK..costly but not back breaking..(yea I had to go back and reread it) ..So same as it does now overall..maby a buck or two more if i miscounted (did a quick scan count not exact)


As to the tech costs the current system is Broken..regardless of hard choices China will not be able to upgrade more then a three seperate techs 0.1 in a turn (zero chance of closing the gap) and the numbers go down to zero soon thereafter Taking China out of the game at all.
Under the new system China will still be behind the west and still in the game and smaller nations like Canada, Australia, Nordic Federation, Saudi Arabia etc will be able to advance ..the cost limiter is moved to theoretical. The European union will move advance on theoretical tech working asa group..The USA can do it on its own able to take the lead on any theoretical tech (well mabey one of it concentrates on it..

As to the economical being cheaper and not feeling like it did earlier remember it still costs China more than any of the western nations. Remember that theoretical is the more difficult to advance under the new system and will still be a limiting factor as it can only go up so fast.

So yea over all I am more than willing to give the new rules a shot next starting next turn ..

As to why is it cheaper now than before before it was broken this may be a bit to cheap but let it run a couple turns and see. It is simpler much simpler..
Germany
 player, 247 posts
Mon 24 Oct 2016
at 14:23
Re: Version 20161006
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 203):

Actually its closer to 75 per war round for the forces currently in NK..costly but not back breaking..(yea I had to go back and reread it) ..So same as it does now overall..maby a buck or two more if i miscounted (did a quick scan count not exact)


Let's see...

China now has in Korea 71 units (unless I misscounted them, and after WR2 losses). As none of them is reserve quailty, their base maintenance cost is $71 (according 8.4, page 53 table, remember 1 SU=$1).

According 10.11 (Quick Combat, page 83):
quote:
For each round, Supply Units consumed by each unit involved equals 5 X the unit maintenance cost as if the unit started the Turn in the hex where the GM determines most of the combat occurs, see section 8.3.


So, You're right in that I missread it, as I thought it was 5 times the base cost, while it is 5 times total cost. So, if Chinese troops are considered in frendly site, their cost would be $71 x 5 = $355 per war round, while if they are considered outside a friendly site, the cost would be doubled, to $710 per WR (I guess it would be some point in betwwen, as at least air units acting from frendly bases would be considered in a friendly site).

How long could you maintain the offensive, at least without ressorting to War Footing, for what's only an expeditionary force (remember, your total SU reserve would now be 658 SU)?

China:
As to the tech costs the current system is Broken..regardless of hard choices China will not be able to upgrade more then a three seperate techs 0.1 in a turn (zero chance of closing the gap) and the numbers go down to zero soon thereafter Taking China out of the game at all.
Under the new system China will still be behind the west and still in the game and smaller nations like Canada, Australia, Nordic Federation, Saudi Arabia etc will be able to advance ..the cost limiter is moved to theoretical. The European union will move advance on theoretical tech working asa group..The USA can do it on its own able to take the lead on any theoretical tech (well mabey one of it concentrates on it..


The number of TLs one can rais in a turn depends on many factors, mostly AM, relative costs of military (both, because its costs and for its effect on military infrastructures costs) and expenses (oil, inefficiences, etc), bonus or penalties to economy for stability et al, etc.

China:
As to the economical being cheaper and not feeling like it did earlier remember it still costs China more than any of the western nations. Remember that theoretical is the more difficult to advance under the new system and will still be a limiting factor as it can only go up so fast.


China would need only $27 with those rules to raise its power infrastructure TL to 6.7. S, with those rules you could raise all economic TLs by +0.3 at a cost of about $650, while you spent $972 to raise a single one by +0.1 wiht old rules...OTOH, to raise your military air from 8.4 to 8.5 would cost you about S156 (about a 25% of raising all your economic TLs by 0.3)...

And US, to raise an economic infrastructure TL to 8.8 would cost only $31

For Nigeria, (TL 7 in most economic infrastructures TLs, to raise it to 7.1 would cost now a miser $2 (with old rules, it would have costed S72). So, with the cost of sending the 1st divison (3 experienced and one green brigades) to Korea for a single war round ($20) it could raise all economic infraastructures TLs by 0.2...

In comparison, to raise military infrastructures for Nigeria (all at 6.0) would cost now $4, double of what would cost to raise an economic infrastructure, despite the tiny (to be generous) armed forces Nigeria has...

China:
So yea over all I am more than willing to give the new rules a shot next starting next turn ..


And I'm willing to keep playing with them, but, in Kelvin's words:
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 181):

The whole point of publishing a rules proposal is to elicit comment from others.



China:
As to why is it cheaper now than before before it was broken this may be a bit to cheap but let it run a couple turns and see. It is simpler much simpler..


Not because it's cheapoer, but to be just a 3% of what costed before, and only for economic infrastructures, IMHO, is broken (or more probably a typo from Kelvin in assigning the divisor).

This message was last edited by the player at 14:25, Mon 24 Oct 2016.

Germany
 player, 248 posts
Mon 24 Oct 2016
at 15:47
Re: Version 20161006
Afterthoughts...

Germany:
China now has in Korea 71 units (unless I misscounted them, and after WR2 losses). As none of them is reserve quailty, their base maintenance cost is $71 (according 8.4, page 53 table, remember 1 SU=$1).

According 10.11 (Quick Combat, page 83):
quote:
For each round, Supply Units consumed by each unit involved equals 5 X the unit maintenance cost as if the unit started the Turn in the hex where the GM determines most of the combat occurs, see section 8.3.


So, You're right in that I missread it, as I thought it was 5 times the base cost, while it is 5 times total cost. So, if Chinese troops are considered in frendly site, their cost would be $71 x 5 = $355 per war round, while if they are considered outside a friendly site, the cost would be doubled, to $710 per WR (I guess it would be some point in betwwen, as at least air units acting from frendly bases would be considered in a friendly site).

How long could you maintain the offensive, at least without ressorting to War Footing, for what's only an expeditionary force (remember, your total SU reserve would now be 658 SU)?


In fact it can even be worse.

quote:
2.2 Worls and Ratings (page 8):

- Inhospitable : An unprotected human would not survive for long but sufficient protection can easily be made e.g. vacuum of space or the surface of the Mars.

As N Korea is now a NBC battlefield, it can well enter in this definition, so costing 1SU ($1) more per unit...

If so, the cost for China could be:
  • 20 ground units, acting in inhospitable, non-friendly site (so 3SU/unit)= 60 SU (if it is not considered inhospitable, at 2SU/unit, cost would be 40 SU)
  • 51 Air units acting from their bases: 51 SU

So, total cost would be 111 SU (91 if not inhospitable), that would mean 555 SU (so &555; 455 SU, so $455 if not consideres inhospitable) per WR...

And this assumes there's no overcosts for air units, as they are acting from their bases, but with the literal reading of the rules (as if the unit started the Turn in the hex where the GM determines most of the combat occurs), they would also be so affected, and then total cost would be $710 per WR if it not considered inhospitable, and $1065 per WR if it is....
China
 player, 40 posts
Mon 24 Oct 2016
at 18:35
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 206):

Okay I agree that is insane...way to much supply required for quick vs normal combat...
It should be 1/5th normal mainteance for a quick combat round vs a normal one..considerin g the time differnces..

This message was last edited by the player at 18:37, Mon 24 Oct 2016.

Germany
 player, 249 posts
Tue 25 Oct 2016
at 09:30
Re: Version 20161006
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 206):

Okay I agree that is insane...way to much supply required for quick vs normal combat...
It should be 1/5th normal mainteance for a quick combat round vs a normal one..considerin g the time differnces..


Neither I believe this. My guess is that both kind of WR should cost the same supplies, as, if in QC each WR represents quite more time tan the detailed system, the tempo is also quite slower, I guess compensating each other.

As I already said, I see detailed war system as high tempo war. Each WR represents about 1 month of high intensity combat. I ncontrast, QC represents a protracted attrition war, with each WR representing seeral months of low intensity war. I guess the supply consumes would be comparable.

See that in oficial rules (v20151225) detailed system the supply cost is 1SU/unit/WR . As it can theoretically last about 60 WRs in a turn, the cost can reach 60 SUs/unit (so $12/unit) for such a war (SUs used to repair units aside). In the same rules, the cost for QC is 10/MR SU/WR/unit (so, from 2.5 for a MR4 unit to 10 for a MR1 unit).

NOTE: for all the following numbers, I'll use a theoretical force of 100 units distributed i nQR exactly as the table in 8.9 gives and convert SUs to $ to ease comparing them.

As the average regular (per turn, as in the spreadsheet) cost for a unit is $0.84 SU for MR1, $0.58 for MR2, $0.34 for MR3 and $0.12 for MR4, this cost is quite higher than the regular cost per turn, but, again IMHO, it makes sense, due to the costs of war and the need of more or less support acording to MR.

The new rules makes all units but reserve equal in costs (about the same as a veteran unit was before), and raise the cost per WR to the tur cost for detailed system and to 5 times that in the QR.

So, For detailed system, the average cost per WR now becomes $0.9 per WR1 and 2 unit, $0.7 for MR3 and $0.3 for MR4, and for QRS, for MR1 and MR2 unit would be $4.5, for MR3 $3.5, and for MR4 $1.5.

But this may be missleading, as, unless defending home countries, reserve units are unlikely to participate, so making usual costs to be $1 per unit in detailed system and $5 per WR in QC, doubled if at ofensive (as the combat will likely occure in unfriendly territory).

See that costs for detailed system go up for a factor of 5 (but we don't expect it to be used often, and less so to last many WR), while the cost for QC go up for a factor of 2.25 for MR1 countries, 4.5 for MR2 countries, about 5.3 for MR3 and 3 for MR4 nations, assuming reserve units also take part. For non defensive actions where reserve units are not expected to participate, the factor of cost increasing would be 2.5 for MR1, 5 for MR2, about 7.5 for MR3 and 10 for MR4.
China
 player, 41 posts
Tue 25 Oct 2016
at 22:11
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 208):

Okay so make both types of war cost the same ..currently I am spending 75Billion a turn and dropping as attrition occurs ..so leave it at same cost ..its a reasonable amount ..but weather its quick temp or slow tempo does it matter ..have both cot the same as slow tempo and its no biggie ..MR 4 and MR 3 nations tend not to send out expiditionary forces where MR 1 and 2 Nations do ..so we are okay there
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 119 posts
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 23:03
Re: Version 20161006
>ICBM: Shouldn’t its combat factor be only for attack pourposes? As is now, to give you
>an example, trying to attack ICBMs with bombers to try to destroy them in a preemtive
>attack  is suicidal…
>ABMs: now that most missiles (more so if WMD tipped) have their combat factors so
>increased, shouldn’t AMB also have theirs? After all this is their mission…

No where in this game is there a requirement that 1 unit be on equal footing with 1 unit of a different type.

>fails is for economical infrastructures, whose cost is far too low (I guess
>Kevin botched with the divisor).

Yes, it was a mistake. Now fixed.

>China will not be able to upgrade more then a three seperate techs 0.1 in a turn
By ‘three’ you mean ‘~eight, just like everyone else, and just like everyone else you have instead chosen other priorities than investing in increasing tech.'

>Inhospitable : An unprotected human <snip> As N Korea is now a NBC battlefield, it
>can well enter in this definition, so costing 1SU ($1) more per unit…

As if this game is not complex enough, there is no way I am going to have that happen.

>As I already said, I see detailed war system as high tempo war. <snip>QC represents
>a protracted attrition war,

No, it does not. QC is for when a battle is too laborious or too unimportant to do in detail. Separate combat rules for insurgencies are gone and they are NOT coming back.

>SU/unit, cost 
Each round in QC has been and always shall include the possibly of combat over a long period of time, many War Rounds, possibly years. It includes repair costs of damaged units otherwise damage would be at full instead of /5. It is going to be ridiculously expensive. If you have a problem with QC wars draining your stockpile of available SU then invest in a larger stockpile ahead of time.

Yes, all of these changes change the balance of power and the value of a given course of action. We do not have the luxury of being a shelf-ready, professionally designed and fully tested game. This is an incomplete amateur made game; you knew there would be changes when you first signed up.

This message was last edited by the GM at 03:43, Wed 02 Nov 2016.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 120 posts
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 23:12
Version 20161101
-Made clearer: Absorbing Settlements.

-Re-balancing to: Calculation for Tech increases, most notably the effect of Authoritarian Score and SU consumed by units to be for all units instead of just those at a friendly Core Settlement (that is actually a change to what is said on the budget spreadsheet).

-Got rid of: Oil rigs, was just another thing to track, has nothing to do with the
2300AD universe, nor is ownership of oil rigs on per nation basis much like how it is actually done.
Germany
 player, 250 posts
Wed 2 Nov 2016
at 12:52
Re: Version 20161006
Combat Cycle Ref:
>ICBM: Shouldn’t its combat factor be only for attack pourposes? As is now, to give you
>an example, trying to attack ICBMs with bombers to try to destroy them in a preemtive
>attack  is suicidal…
>ABMs: now that most missiles (more so if WMD tipped) have their combat factors so
>increased, shouldn’t AMB also have theirs? After all this is their mission…

No where in this game is there a requirement that 1 unit be on equal footing with 1 unit of a different type.


You're right, nowere is it said, but what was said is that each unit should have some use, and now ABMs and Missile Defense satellites are nearly useless, as they cannot match missiles, while being quite more expensive. Similarly, ICBMs are quite powerful a defense against air raids or enemy missiles...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>As I already said, I see detailed war system as high tempo war. <snip>QC represents
>a protracted attrition war,

No, it does not. QC is for when a battle is too laborious or too unimportant to do in detail. Separate combat rules for insurgencies are gone and they are NOT coming back.


Nowere did I talk about insurgencies (I assume it, despite not sharing your view). What I meant as proracted attrition war would be what was most of Iran/Iraq war in the 80's.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>SU/unit, cost 
Each round in QC has been and always shall include the possibly of combat over a long period of time, many War Rounds, possibly years. It includes repair costs of damaged units otherwise damage would be at full instead of /5. It is going to be ridiculously expensive. If you have a problem with QC wars draining your stockpile of available SU then invest in a larger stockpile ahead of time.


I undersand all this, but the costs are still overwhelming. See the numbers I gave for China intervention in Korea. Now that you stated the terrain is not hostile (but still in unfrendly terrain as they were on offensive), the costs would be $455 per WR if the air units are assumed to be in friendly territory, $710 of we read literally the rules (as even air units are fighting in enemy territory).

The force sent by Russia (being just an expeditionary force) is about 39 units. As all of them are fighting out of friendly sites, its cost would have been $390/WR (the equivalent to 1950 current SUs). Even with the strong Russian investment this turn in SUs, it would have had to ressort to War Footing to maintain the 2 WRs this war has lasted.

The force Russia sent against Azerbaijan last turn, being again a small part of its army, consisted in about 50 units. Again, being in enemy territory, the cost would have been about $500 in supplies per WR. As Russia had "only" 1860 SUs (so the equivalent to $372 in supplies), it would have been forced to war footing to launch such offensive.

Do you still think those costs are reasonable, despite all you reasonings?

In fact, this rules would force anyone to go to war footing for any intervention (except very small ones).

Combat Cycle Ref:
Yes, all of these changes change the balance of power and the value of a given course of action. We do not have the luxury of being a shelf-ready, professionally designed and fully tested game. This is an incomplete amateur made game; you knew there would be changes when you first signed up.


Yes, I know, it was one of the first things you told me in your welcome mail when I joined it, but sometimes I feel as you're changing things that work (of course, I cannot tell what really simplifies turn resolution and what does not, as I don't resolve them).

Is really the SU system as it is now so difficult to implement (at leadst if players collaborate by keeping detailed accounting)? IMHO it worked well, and gives enough flexibility to make the game playable (as I already said, the need to move them in 5000 tonnes batches will also slow space exploration/exploit).

And as you said, you tell us about changes before they're implemented because you want our feed-back, and my augury if you implement those SU costs is that they will stop all wars (that may be good) and force most countries to resort to war footing even for minor ones, making the game less playable and stoping other actions.

If you add to this the doubliing cost for PAs (in fact, at $100/PA the increase is nearly 150%), I'm afraid the result will be a near paralysis of most players, at leasdt in acting on Earth.

This message was last edited by the player at 12:58, Wed 02 Nov 2016.

China
 player, 42 posts
Sat 5 Nov 2016
at 06:27
Re: Version 20161006
Either this formulae is bad or the base uplift and downlift values must be adjusted
Base Uplift or Downlift) / (World Size) X 10 ( National Space Infrastructure tech level-5)/2

World size is only a good substitute for gravity if you divide it by 8 ..the size of earth ..then the formulae works again ..otherwise you have to change the base uplift and downlifts to move meaningful amounts to and from orbit..

See Pages 45 and 46...

Rockets Canada = ~283 Tons
Rockets China =  ~110 Tons

Previously
Rockets Canada = ~1769 Tons
Rockets China  = ~887 Tons

So you divided the lift capacity by 8 just as we were going to swing into the system..

Was this your intent? just dividing world size by 8 gives a rough approximation of gravity anyway..



Tech infrastucture and theory
ahh so we go from /10 to multiply by 120% the cost of tech infrastructure upgrade..
Hr,,m the old system was bogging the game down..Coupled with an increase in theoretical cost ..again slowing everything down .. Is this your intent? Now run those numbers out 10 to 25 turns and the number of techs that can be upgraded drop..and yes other things besides tech growth are going to happen in this game is no way for them not to ..btw china was never at 8 to raise without cutting into the required maint costs...(not really a choice there really bad things happen) Now there is a happy medium someplace I am certain ..

This message was last edited by the player at 06:44, Sat 05 Nov 2016.

Germany
 player, 251 posts
Sat 5 Nov 2016
at 12:27
Re: Version 20161006
China:
Either this formulae is bad or the base uplift and downlift values must be adjusted
Base Uplift or Downlift) / (World Size) X 10 ( National Space Infrastructure tech level-5)/2

World size is only a good substitute for gravity if you divide it by 8 ..the size of earth ..then the formulae works again ..otherwise you have to change the base uplift and downlifts to move meaningful amounts to and from orbit..

See Pages 45 and 46...

Rockets Canada = ~283 Tons
Rockets China =  ~110 Tons

Previously
Rockets Canada = ~1769 Tons
Rockets China  = ~887 Tons

So you divided the lift capacity by 8 just as we were going to swing into the system..

Was this your intent? just dividing world size by 8 gives a rough approximation of gravity anyway..


In fact, situation is more complex. Sincé rules 20152512 oficial, each version but 20161006 has changed the formula. Here I give you the results for a 8.5 rocket on Earth:
  • rules 20152512 (oficial): Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 1406
  • rules 20160902 : 10/world size*Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 1757
  • rules 20161101 : Base/world size*10^((TL-5)/2): 17.57


The drastic reduction for 20161101 is due to the droping of the 10 on the formula and because the base has been also reduced by a factor of 10 (so, in fact reducing results by a factor of 100).

But see that for Moon (size 2, gravity 0.165 G), results would be:
  • rules 20152512 (oficial): Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 8520
  • rules 20160902 : 10/world size*Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 7029
  • rules 20161101 : Base/world size*10^((TL-5)/2): 70

And for Mars (size 4, gravity 0.379 G):
  • rules 20152512 (oficial): Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 3709
  • rules 20160902 : 10/world size*Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 3515
  • rules 20161101 : Base/world size*10^((TL-5)/2): 35


Changes in the oficial rules (20151225) are due to the base depending on gravity of the world.

My suggestion would be to keep the current (20151225) formula, as H&E gives us the gravity of each planet/satallite, so no need to use the world size as substitute (unlike the hexes effect).

China:
Tech infrastucture and theory
ahh so we go from /10 to multiply by 120% the cost of tech infrastructure upgrade..
Hr,,m the old system was bogging the game down..Coupled with an increase in theoretical cost ..again slowing everything down .. Is this your intent? Now run those numbers out 10 to 25 turns and the number of techs that can be upgraded drop..and yes other things besides tech growth are going to happen in this game is no way for them not to ..btw china was never at 8 to raise without cutting into the required maint costs...(not really a choice there really bad things happen) Now there is a happy medium someplace I am certain ..


On 20161006 versión the cost for economic infrastructures was onle a 2.85 (on average) of the cost we're using now. As I said, this was absurdly low (not just /10, but /35)...

According my numbers, when comparing 20161101 formula with current one, and again assuming an increase from 8.7 to 8.8, the new coste for economic infrastructure is on average 101.84% of the former one, while theoretical developement cost is, again in average, only 82% of the fpormer cost...

For China, those numbers become 102.52% for infrastructure and 84.09 for theoretical.

Also for China, but to increase from 7.9 to 8, numbers are 102.53% and 84% respectively.

Disregarding N. Korea, whose numbers for a raise from TL 8.7 to 8.8 gives a cost of 75% and 50% respectivelly, but the low numbers due to its low GDP probably make them nor representative, the numbers for infrastructures go form 94.76% (UK) to 112.38% (US), and for theoretical range from 71.47% (Argentina) to 100.99 (US).

I find the formulas now quite adecuate...
China
 player, 43 posts
Sat 5 Nov 2016
at 14:39
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 214):

True it is more complex than I was stating ..I was suggesting a nice shift that used world size instead of gravity direct but either will work nicely ..
Ahh yes I see I erred a bit and inserted the proper parenthisis to get the best out come from the formulae he set ..
(base/World size) *10^((TL-5)/2))...

But yes either as is ..or 20160902 formulae will work as well
Germany
 player, 252 posts
Sat 5 Nov 2016
at 14:47
Re: Version 20161006
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 214):
But yes either as is ..or 20160902 formulae will work as well


Well, this is the most generous for Earth, so would probably speed up space actions, for good or bad...
Germany
 player, 253 posts
Tue 22 Nov 2016
at 12:24
Version 20161101
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 211):

6.6 Task Resolution

quote:
The GM rolling an unmodified result of ‘1’ is almost always a failure, a ‘10’ may be an unusual success. Success at odds better than 3:1 may result in some multiple of the intended effect, failure at odds worse than 1:3 may result in something opposite to what was intended . If possible, the % Damage to the Defender will be interpreted as the % of the project that has been completed, the % Damage to the Attacker will be % chance of a roll by the GM for a Mishap to occur. If a Mishap occurs, the GM will roll 2D6 and consult the table below; failure at particularly hazardous actions e.g. being caught attempting to blame some other character for what you did, and the GM will instead roll 3D6.


Suggestion: similarly to hazardous tasks, some tasks could be defined as safe (e.g. reducing Economic Drag from Public Debt, that mostly represents just paying it), where missshaps could not occur or are reduced in severity (e.g. rolled just with 1d6, instead of 2d6).

See that if this las option (redicuing misshap roll to 1d6) it will always result on superficial damage (you should define what happens on a roll of 1, it may be no further effect or superficial damage too), unless it's ruled that a 6 means minor misshap anyway...
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 126 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 17:50
Version 20161101
>the costs would be $455 per WR if the air units are assumed to be in friendly
>territory, $710 of we read literally the rules (as even air units are
>fighting in enemy territory).
No. Reread the definition of a ‘Friendly Site’. It does not say what you think it says.

>Either this formulae is bad or the base uplift and downlift values must be adjusted
Oh! You are right! I went the wrong way when I adjusted the values for Base Uplift/Downlift to account for the World Size term. Should have multiplied by 10 instead of divided by 10. Thank you! Will fix!

>he old system was bogging the game down
That would imply that rapid technological development the purpose of the game. I see no reason to accept that. If you want to have high tech then you have got to prioritize it.

>..Coupled with an increase in theoretical cost ..again slowing everything
>down .. Is this your intent?
More like ‘unconcern’. Everyone has roughly the same cost to tech advance relative to Effective Budget. At an easily sustainable 3-6 tech advances per Turn nations are on track to reach TL12 by roughly 2300-2400AD, a canon appropriate rate. So I care less if the cost goes up or down by a few 10s of % and care more about the formula being simple.

There is nothing in this game that requires that the balance how we used to do things must be the ‘right’ balance. It is simply the balance of how we did things back then.

>1d6 <snip> it will always result on superficial damage
...mmm, but then why should I bother? Damage of any type requires my time to figure out what it is going to be, and I find that often the hardest, most time consuming kind of damage is the lesser kinds because I have to be more creative and subtle than just being brutal.

This message was last edited by the GM at 17:56, Mon 28 Nov 2016.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 127 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 18:05
Version 20161128
-Introduction of: Division sized units.

-Made clearer: Disbanding units.
Germany
 player, 254 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 19:54
Re: Version 20161101
Combat Cycle Ref:
>the costs would be $455 per WR if the air units are assumed to be in friendly
>territory, $710 of we read literally the rules (as even air units are
>fighting in enemy territory).
No. Reread the definition of a ‘Friendly Site’. It does not say what you think it says.


Tnen my English must be failing me, so please, explain it better for me. Rereading it, I find:
quote:
All friendly surface hexes of a Core Settlement are considered to be a Friendly Site.

Can I see an enemy hes as friendly, or there's something othe I didn't understand?

As I understand that, if you're attacking into enemy territory, it cannot be considered friendly, so it's not a friendly site

Combat Cycle Ref:
>..Coupled with an increase in theoretical cost ..again slowing everything
>down .. Is this your intent?
More like ‘unconcern’. Everyone has roughly the same cost to tech advance relative to Effective Budget. At an easily sustainable 3-6 tech advances per Turn nations are on track to reach TL12 by roughly 2300-2400AD, a canon appropriate rate. So I care less if the cost goes up or down by a few 10s of % and care more about the formula being simpler


Just to punctualize it, not claiming you're wrong: While it's true that TL in 2300AD is given as 11-12 (14 in computers, so electronics in MgT 2300AD), rmember that in this canon there are several decades where no new development is done (the recovery age). Wihtout it, it might well be some higher.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>1d6 <snip> it will always result on superficial damage
...mmm, but then why should I bother? Damage of any type requires my time to figure out what it is going to be, and I find that often the hardest, most time consuming kind of damage is the lesser kinds because I have to be more creative and subtle than just being brutal.

Then, just use the first option I gave and no misshap can occur in those safe actions. It would even be easier for you, as you say.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 128 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 20:20
Re: Version 20161101
In reply to Germany (msg # 220):

>enemy territory

"Friendly Site: An <snip> or hex of a Core World that is either owned by the same nation or by a nation that allows its use."

For Earth we are left with the legacy of borders that do not follow our hex boundaries, but the definition of a Friendly Site only refers to the hex. Every hex of combat so far has some part that is a friendly core settlement, and so the hex is going to be treated as a Friendly Site. I have no idea on which side of which border within a hex some % of combat occurred, whether or not combat was inside '...enemy territory' and I am not going to bother to figure it out.

This message was last edited by the GM at 20:34, Mon 28 Nov 2016.

China
 player, 44 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 22:42
Re: Version 20161101
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 221):

For Military infrastructure is that each area seperate for supply points or the whole kit and kaboodle..(I am guessing the way its worded the number of supply points for all military not just the section your raising)
Germany
 player, 255 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 23:28
Re: Version 20161101
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 220):

>enemy territory

"Friendly Site: An <snip> or hex of a Core World that is either owned by the same nation or by a nation that allows its use."

For Earth we are left with the legacy of borders that do not follow our hex boundaries, but the definition of a Friendly Site only refers to the hex. Every hex of combat so far has some part that is a friendly core settlement, and so the hex is going to be treated as a Friendly Site. I have no idea on which side of which border within a hex some % of combat occurred, whether or not combat was inside '...enemy territory' and I am not going to bother to figure it out.


And in case there were no part of the hex that was friendly?

BTW, where is the definition now? I disagree with you about the glossary was useless...

This message was last edited by the player at 00:17, Tue 29 Nov 2016.

Germany
 player, 258 posts
Thu 1 Dec 2016
at 04:53
Re: Version 20161128
Combat Cycle Ref:
-Introduction of: Division sized units.

-Made clearer: Disbanding units.


Perceived errata: When fixing the uplift capacity for interface facilities (page 46) i guess you put a 0 over what it should be in the Rockets uplift capacity: it should (I guess) be 250, not 2500.
Germany
 player, 261 posts
Wed 7 Dec 2016
at 16:44
Comments about Version 20161128
PAs:

I keep thinking that if your intent is to reduce the number of PAs while keeping their power/Price ratio, the cost should be $80. While the nominal cost of PAs was $50 to now, the effect of prestige reduced it to about $40 in practice, so making it doublé powerful but increasing the Price to $100 makes them in fact about 25$ less powerful. Another possibility would be to make the divisor 25000, so keeping the mony/power ratio.

I also believe that with such larger PAs, it sould be specifically allowed (if it was not already, I never had it clear) to use them in more "at large" way, as long the action had either a common goal or a common target.

e.g. 1: instead of using 1 PA each in 4 diferent countries in an attempt to obtain oil contracts, allow now to use 2 PAs (as each represents 2 former ones) to obtain those same contracts "at large", maybe focusing in those specific oil producing counries.

e.g. 2: instead of using 2 PAs in a country to achieve two diferent results, allow 1 PA (again, double power) as "diplomacy in X country" to achieve 2 different specific results.

Germany
 player, 262 posts
Wed 7 Dec 2016
at 16:57
Comments about Version 20161128 (2)
Combat table:

NOTE: this can be purely a matter of personal taste, and so even more argueable than usually.

Personally, I feel de 1d10 to be too lineal, prefering 2d6 (while it needs another result, as there are 11 posible ones), as the gauss bell makes extreme results more unlikely. This, again IMHO, can be more deeple felt if the extreme results (1 and 10) can mean extraordinary good or bad results, that would so occur in about 20% of times (10% good, 10% bad), even more mishaps if the tables give "losses" results for the "attacker".

As things are now, if you try 20 different political actions, you can expect 2 or more mishaps and 2 extraordinary results. IDK what the extraordinary results may mean, but 2 minor mishaps can mean a reduction of 2 in prestige, something quite difficult to overcome and that can jeopardize future diplomacy, and some bad luck in the mishap rolls may be devastating...
Germany
 player, 263 posts
Wed 7 Dec 2016
at 18:17
Suggestion about Version 20161128
Mishaps/excepotional successes also in combat rolls:

Note: this would need some more rolls if they occur, but so happens in Political Actions, and would add a little more uncertainty to combat

Suggestion as to posible outcomes in such cases (roll 2d6):

Results table:

Die roll Mishap                                 Extraordinary success

2-5    Unexpected costs                       Lessened costs
5-8    Battle hardening/cadre loss          Battle hardening/cadre loss
8-10   Counterattack                            Breaktrhough
11+    Ambush                                   Success

NOTE: the dual results on a roll of 5 or 8 is intentional

Explanation:

Unexpected costs: unexpected delays or losses (needs to repair) force the attacker to spend 2d6x5% SU more this WR

Lessened costs: extraordinary light losses makes the combat 2d6x5% cheaper (in SU) this WR (alternatively apply unexpected costs results to the defender).

Example: the attacker’s cost would be 30 SU this WR. On a mishap, this would be increased by 2d6x5% (on a roll of 7, the increase would be 35%, so 11 SU more)

Battle hardening/cadre loss: doll 2d6. On a 2-5 it affects the attacker, on a 9-12 the defender, on a 6-8 both are affected. In a mishap, the attacker can be subject to cadre loss and the defender to battle hardening, on an extraordinary success the reverse is true. In both cases, per each block of 20 units (round up), the affected player has 1d6 units increased (if battle hardening) or decreased (on a cadre loss) one degree in quality. If the side losing cadres is composed only with reserve quality units, they are destroyed.

Example: the attacker has 26 units, the defender 15. On an extraordinary success that affects both, the attacker would have 2d6 units so increased, while the defender would have 1d6 units so decreased in quality (destroyed if it must affect reserve units for lack of higher quality ones).

Counterattack: the defender has the option to fight an immediate new WR as attacker with 2 columns shift on its favor (no new units can be added, though losses are implemented before this fight). This would be part of the same WR and not cost additional supplies.

Breakthrough: Same as counterattack but this time is the attacker who has the option to fight this additional WR.

Example: in the Saudi intervention on Yemen in 2035-39 a mishap is rolled, Yemeni forces can immediately (after losses are applied) attack surviving Saudi units, that cannot be helped by other units in the hexes, with 2 columns shift to their favor. If a breakthrough was achieved, the Saudis can fight another WR against the surviving Yemeni rebels with 2 column shift on their favor.

Ambush/success: the combat table is read on the table with 1d6 columns shift to the left (ambush) or right (success) with this same roll.

Example: In the same Saudi intervention, an ambush is achieved as result. The same roll’s result is read in 1d6 tables to the left (let’s say3), so on the 1:1.5 instead of the 2:1, the result being 100/0.

This message was last edited by the player at 18:22, Wed 07 Dec 2016.

Germany
 player, 264 posts
Tue 13 Dec 2016
at 18:22
Suggestion about Version 20161128
Note: those comments are not exclusive from this version, but more a general comment about how to handle them (oil aside, as we have already some experience on it). As the problems I'll present here won't present themselves for a while, there's no hurry, just some thoughts for you to digest.

Farming and mining potentials:

As mining potential is (at least partially) density dependent, and H&E gives us the planet densities, I’d use it as modifier for it. I nthe specific case of asteroids/planetoids belts, I’d tie it to its size (in AUs), asteroid size and nickel/iron zone, all of them also given by H&E

About Farming potential, I’d give a minimum of it for hospitable atmospheres, as photosynthesis (or similar process) is needed to maintain high enough O2 levels. Very low farming potentials in a breathable atmosphere planet should indicate either the presence of a Pai_leng resource (e.g. Kimajano) or right sided amino acids (and so incompatible with Earth’s) ecosystems (as an aside, I’ve always been amazed that some of the agricultural planets in 2300AD setting, as Beta Canum or Heidelsheimat have right handed amino acid ecologies) .

4.5: SRUs:

The game describes 3 kinds of SRUs. I won't talk about oil here for the resons given above.

Tantalum:

I understand the critical importance of it in 2300AD setting, but I see several problems in handling it:
  • Unlike oil, you cannot foresee with any degree of exactitude how many Tantalum SRUs will a country (and so worldwide) need, so, the GM will have a hard time to predict beforehand how many will be in the free market and what will the demand be.
  • When will it become a SRU? when the Stutterwarp is unlocked? when several contries have Access to Stutterwarp and so the competition begins?
  • Its Price is (IMHO) faar too high. See that at this price, to build a Kennedy class cruiser you would need $900 in SRUs for a $244 worth ship... Until de advent of the Stutterwarp, while far from worthless, it would not be so highly priced, and I'd find logical to begin with a lower price when it becomes a SRU and raising or falling as the demand and supply change.


Pai-Leng:
quote:
This Special Resource unit also covers the finding of any small, valuable, non-renewable, physical objects

As you say, this represents exotic resources that you can find in other planets. Like the Pai-Leng properly or the organic compounds in Kimanjano (and maybe even the Helim expected to be available to mine in Moon). See, though, that in both cases those are in fact renewable resources, unlike what you say in the rules, as would the contact (and I guess trade) with primitive alien sophonts…

I’d also would allow the PAs given by it to be used for some other purposes than just raising prestige (e.g.  to increase trade, as it would represent a valuable trade asset or stability, as it would give some bonus on own population), even if some are tied to exactly how is it described (e.g. in the case of the Pai-Leng as described in 2300AD setting, it would surely help to fight an epidemic, and if Helium is so considered, it would sure be useful to reduce oil needs once Fusion power is available).

Also, as they may represent quite a variety of things, I'd give them variable initial prices, not a plain $50 (let's say modify it by (2d6-7)x5%)

General comments:
2.2:
quote:
If the result of the roll for Minerals is a 20, the GM will re-roll and also note the presence of a Tantalum Special Resource (see section 4.5.2) in one or several hexes. If the  result of the roll for Farming is a 20, the GM will re-roll and also note the presence of a Pai-Leng Special Resource (see section 4.5.3) in one or several hexes.

See that this has several side effects:
  • It makes values of 20 in mining or farming extremely rare (about 1/10000), as if they are rolled (1% possibility) they are rerolled, so needing to roll a 20 in 2d10 twice for them to exist.
  • I find logical to tie the presence of Tantalum to mining potential, as it is usually given as tied to density, but, as H&E gives us the planet density, I’d find more logical to tie it to this density, regardless the mining potential, that can also be affected by other things (as being unhospitable, something I also find logical, as mining potential also means organic compounds).
  • As for Pai-Leng, see that in 2300AD setting, both resources I assumed to be represented by it (Pai-Leng proper and organic compouns from Kimajano) are found in planets with low to none farming potential (In the case of DUkou because it’s frozen, and in the case of Kimajano because it lacks a true ecology). So, I find illogical (or at least against 23000AD setting) to tie it to farming potential, as given in the rules.
  • OTOH, the presence of oil (should it be kept as SRU in other planets) is expected to be tied to the presence (be it past or present) of vegetation, so I’d find it more logical for it to be tied to farming potential

So, my suggestion would be to make oil presence (if record is kept in extraterrestrial colonies) tied to farming potential, tantalum to planet density and Pai-Leng totally random (odds to be determined by the GM/CCR).
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 131 posts
Fri 6 Jan 2017
at 00:48
Discussion about version 20161128
>For Military infrastructure is that each area seperate for supply points or the whole
All. I can see how it would make a lot of sense if it was separate, but I worry if that would be too much work to separately calculate supply costs for type for such a small improvement in the game. What does everyone think? It would be YOUR duty to come up with the numbers. Would it be worth the trouble?

>And in case there were no part of the hex that was friendly?
Then it is exactly as the rest of the rules. And before you get started: every combat in the past Turn used the Quick Combat system, there is no way in HELL I am going to get tied down to specific hex/unit action in the QC system.

>BTW, where is the definition now?
Sec 7.1, par#4

>I disagree with you about the glossary was useless…
Lets let the new players decide. Sergey, would it have helped or just be another thing too much to read?

>  Rockets uplift capacity: it should (I guess) be 250, not 2500.
<sigh> you are right.

>Tantaulm<snip>When will it become a SRU? when the Stutterwarp is unlocked? 
Yes

>Its Price is (IMHO) faar too high. 
All the more reason to get out there and mine it yourself instead of buying it.

>Pai-Leng<snip>See, though, that in both cases those are in fact renewable resources, 
There are only so many documentaries on the mating songs of Ebers that the public will watch before they just turn the channel, and even wonder-drugs get superseded. No, SRU reserves have to fade away, if for only to again encourage expansion.

>It makes values of 20 in mining or farming extremely rare (about 1/10000),
I do not see a problem with that

> but, as H&E gives us the planet density,
This assumes that Mineral units are just heavy metals, they are not.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 132 posts
Fri 6 Jan 2017
at 00:55
Version 20170105
Change to: Loss to a Core Settlement when there is a Revolt. Decay with time of a difference from base values for population growth, GDP growth, stability and prestige.

Introduction of: Task Resolution against targets that are not Settlements

Made clearer: News Articles are not necessarily what is publicly known.

Rebalancing to: Altering Prestige and Stability Score by a Tasks. Loss to GDP growth rate due to Oil SRU shortage. Increased effect of Prestige score to GDP growth.

Got rid of: Deletions of about 10% of the smallest nations from the Settlement_List file, I am sure San Marino is a lovely little place but the irritation at having to take the time to scroll by its unimportant entry will always be its only effect on this game. The ability to underpay the upkeeps other than Social; cannot explain how a nation would go about doing that.
Iran
 player, 1 post
Fri 6 Jan 2017
at 10:15
Discussion about version 20161128
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 229):

>>For Military infrastructure is that each area seperate for supply points or the whole
>...It would be YOUR duty to come up with the numbers. Would it be worth the trouble?
Player Andreas says: NOT worth it.

>I disagree with you about the glossary was useless…
Player Andreas says: Glossary was useful.
Germany
 player, 266 posts
Fri 6 Jan 2017
at 12:14
Re: Discussion about version 20161128
First of all, happy new year to everyone. It seems that he Three Wise Men have brought us all a new set of rules as present. We must have not been too bad in 2016, it seems... Now just hope they also bring us a lot of turns this 2017

Combat Cycle Ref:
>For Military infrastructure is that each area seperate for supply points or the whole
All. I can see how it would make a lot of sense if it was separate, but I worry if that would be too much work to separately calculate supply costs for type for such a small improvement in the game. What does everyone think? It would be YOUR duty to come up with the numbers. Would it be worth the trouble?


That would have another (IMHO detrimental) side effect: as Nigeria (among othr countries, just to give an example) has no space military units, it spends not a single SU on it, so the cost to raise Space Military TL would be just 0, allowing it to increase it at its maximum1 for free up to its theoretical TL (that would be at least 8.5), and being able to deploy good TL spaceships probably sooner than China.

Same will happen with navyless countries (e.g Nicaragua) with Military-sea, etc...

Note 1: has the 0.3 maximum raising for TLs been forfeited? I don't find it in the rules now...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>I disagree with you about the glossary was useless…
Lets let the new players decide. Sergey, would it have helped or just be another thing too much to read?


Glosari is not as much a section to be read as one to be consulted. It's like a dictionary, you don't read it, you consult it as needed.

Combat Cycle Ref:
> but, as H&E gives us the planet density,
This assumes that Mineral units are just heavy metals, they are not.


I'm afraid I didn't express myself well here. I meant to use density instead of size, without forfeiting the modifiers for habitability (that I guess represent organic materials). After all, in 2300AD, the minning capacity for a planet is usually tied to gravity.

This message was last edited by the player at 11:50, Sat 07 Jan 2017.

Germany
 player, 267 posts
Wed 11 Jan 2017
at 18:50
Re: Discussion about version 20161128

This message was deleted by the player at 19:53, Wed 11 Jan 2017.

Nigeria
 player, 5 posts
Mon 16 Jan 2017
at 18:48
Re: Discussion about version 20161128
Germany:
First of all, happy new year to everyone. It seems that he Three Wise Men have brought us all a new set of rules as present. We must have not been too bad in 2016, it seems... Now just hope they also bring us a lot of turns this 2017

Combat Cycle Ref:
>For Military infrastructure is that each area seperate for supply points or the whole
All. I can see how it would make a lot of sense if it was separate, but I worry if that would be too much work to separately calculate supply costs for type for such a small improvement in the game. What does everyone think? It would be YOUR duty to come up with the numbers. Would it be worth the trouble?


That would have another (IMHO detrimental) side effect: as Nigeria (among othr countries, just to give an example) has no space military units, it spends not a single SU on it, so the cost to raise Space Military TL would be just 0, allowing it to increase it at its maximum1 for free up to its theoretical TL (that would be at least 8.5), and being able to deploy good TL spaceships probably sooner than China.


Assuming this is implemented, and following this reasoning, Nigerian plans could well be:
  • raise Mil-Space infrastructure at +5 per turn (as 0 SUs are spending, that's free) up to theoretical
  • raise Mil-Air infrastructure ar +5 per turn (as it spends only 6 SUs on it, cost would be about $12)
  • Raise mil-Nav infrastructure at +5 per turn (as it spends only 6 SUs on it, cost would be about $12)


As with quick combat rules the TL is averaged, this would raise the TL for NIgerian forces from 6.2 to 6.5 first turn, 6.8 second turn, 7.2 third turn, and so on, even without increasing the Mil-ground one (I don't count the Mil- space on it, as no units are used. Ifit is added too, average TL would be +0.1 more).

Germany:
Note 1: has the 0.3 maximum raising for TLs been forfeited? I don't find it in the rules now...


I don't see it in the rules, and spreadsheets allow up to +5. Is this the limit now?

See that if there's no limit, it could even be worth to downgrade some units (e.g., in the example above, to downgrade all the fleet at reserve one turn, and the next one to raise its TL to 8.5, at cost 0, and its quality again).

Off course, I don't belive this is the intent, so I'd leave it as it is, assuming that some thechs are shared and so raising one mil TL also needs some improvements in other ones (after all, they are averaged in combat, with quick combat rules)
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 133 posts
Mon 23 Jan 2017
at 22:56
Re: Discussion about version 20161128
>I'm afraid I didn't express myself well here. I meant to use density
>instead of size, without forfeiting the modifiers for habitability

I am not following you here at all. Please make a detailed example of what you are proposing.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 134 posts
Mon 23 Jan 2017
at 23:08
Version 20170121
Unless anyone spots some crippling flaw this is going to be the last update before we start the new turn. There are many things about the rules that are under discussion/considering right now, but none of them have to happen soon.

-Change to: What Orbital Colony facility does, now similar to an Enclave and makes a Hochbaden like colony possible. 1st Generation StutterWarp Tuner facility is now an O/T module, allowing it to be deployed in places other than just a Colony/Core Settlement.

-Deletion of: Orbital Habitat facility, it did not really serve any purpose. Division of mass between for Orbital facilities between what must be brought to the world and what stays in orbit, a complication based on the assumption that an orbital facility can only ever be controlled from the surface; I see no reason why that always has to be true.
Germany
 player, 268 posts
Tue 24 Jan 2017
at 03:52
Re: Discussion about version 20161128
Combat Cycle Ref:
>I'm afraid I didn't express myself well here. I meant to use density
>instead of size, without forfeiting the modifiers for habitability

I am not following you here at all. Please make a detailed example of what you are proposing.


I thought I remembered in some rules version the world size was applied as DM for the mining potential. I may well be wrong, as I cannot find it now.

What I meant is that IMHO the density should also be applied, as it's a major factor in colonization decisions when loking for raw materials in 2300AD setting, without that meaning that the modifier due to habitability should be forfeited. Both should apply.

In the case of Asteroid Belts, being always inhospitable, would they always have their mining potential by 2d10-10?

See that this whould make them quite poor resource sources, just the opposite that is in most science fiction settings (incluiding 2300AD)...
Germany
 player, 269 posts
Tue 24 Jan 2017
at 17:45
Version 20170121
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 236):

Not yet read it in deep, but I agree most of the changes we'd need would be long term ones, and we better keep the game runing.

Only two things, IMHO, will really affect the game now that I foresee will give problems (and I've already comented them, so I will not extend myself):
  1. the cost of PAs. If the intent was to keep the same power for them while reducing their number, it should be $80. At $100 they are 25% more expensive in "effect per buck".
  2. the supply needs for Quick Combat: the fact MR is not a factor on it gives better MR countries too much an advantage. It also would force to War Footing in even relative small  wars (as was this turn Korean War for most intervining powers, that used only a small part  of their forces, and yet the effect on supply stocks with those rules would have been devastating)

As for the rest, I'll probvably keep commenting them or making suggerences, but mostly as long term plans for you to think about.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 135 posts
Wed 25 Jan 2017
at 18:22
Discussion about version 20161128
In reply to Germany (msg # 237):

>would they always have their mining potential by 2d10-10?
Yes.

>See that this whould make them quite poor resource sources
>, just the opposite that is in most science fiction settings (incluiding 2300AD)...
I am not seeing that for 2300AD, there is far more made of mining on the surface of a world than asteroid mining, even Nyotekundu is listed as just being an outpost.
Germany
 player, 270 posts
Wed 25 Jan 2017
at 19:20
Re: Discussion about version 20161128
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 237):

>would they always have their mining potential by 2d10-10?
Yes.


See that this means that nearly half of the asteroid belts would be outright unexploitable (mining potential 0), its aerage mining potential would be 1 and at most they would have 10, meaning they will seldom be worth exploiting.

This will also happen with all inhospitable worlds too...

As I understand this -10 modifier wants to represent that they lack several kinds of ressources, not being worthless, I'd suggest you to change it for halving the roll, so that they will never be totally worthless, its average would be 5 and they will keep the máximum of 10.

Another fact I find out of place about Asteroid mining is that they are reduced by more than one facility exploiting them as if they were only one hex in a planet (divided by the squar root of the number of facilities), while being considered as one single hex for the whole asteroid belt. As Asteroid Belts are thought to be quite easy to mine and very large zones,I think this modifier should be deleted (or several zones of the Asteroid Belt considered, but this would add complexity to the game).

Combat Cycle Ref:
>See that this whould make them quite poor resource sources
>, just the opposite that is in most science fiction settings (incluiding 2300AD)...
I am not seeing that for 2300AD, there is far more made of mining on the surface of a world than asteroid mining, even Nyotekundu is listed as just being an outpost.


But that fact they built even an outpost there means that it was worth exploiting it...

And with our rules it would not be even an outpost, as asteroid belts are non colonizable (being size 0).

OTOH, how many asteroid belts are unexploited in 2300AD?

And remember Heidelsheimat was colonized mostly to provide support for the asteroid mining operations in Geroellblock...
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 136 posts
Thu 26 Jan 2017
at 02:45
Re: Discussion about version 20161128
In reply to Germany (msg # 240):

>not be even an outpost, as asteroid belts are non colonizable (being size 0).
I do not know how you got that idea. Outposts and Enclaves can be built on size 0 worlds.

This message was last edited by the GM at 03:25, Thu 26 Jan 2017.

Germany
 player, 271 posts
Thu 26 Jan 2017
at 16:37
Re: Discussion about version 20161128
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 240):

>not be even an outpost, as asteroid belts are non colonizable (being size 0).
I do not know how you got that idea. Outposts and Enclaves can be built on size 0 worlds.

Yes, sorry, I now see that only colonies may not be set there. My fault.

Needless to say, this is not expected to be relevant for some turns, so there's no urgency

Combat Cycle Ref:
even Nyotekundu is listed as just being an outpost.


About Nyotekundu (you forced me to dig for my copy), there are several facts on it to compare with our game, as you brought it to bear:
  1. It's not an astroid belt mining operation. The OMS where the adventure is set only mines water to support the lack of it in Inferno (the main planet).
  2. While rated as outpost in 2300AD, it hardly could be so in our game, as it is described.
  3. The main reason to set up the mining operation htere was that its high density hinted of rich minerals present to be mined (as I suggested, high density should hint high mining potetntial, so midifying it), despite the fact it is a unhopsitable planet (to say the least). OTOH, it supports you in giving higher mining potential to volcano hexes.
  4. Inferno's atmosphere would be rated as A in Traveller (exotic, but neither corrosive nor insidious), and even so the operation (with a high surface involvement) was set up.
  5. As the operation is described, it includes mining, hydroponics (as it's explicited that the OMS collect water for it) and processing minerals .
  6. So, unless you understand it to be just an Enclave equivalent in our game (where hydroponics allow for it to produce its own food, but IMHO it seems the efort there was stronguer than just an OT/Enclave), the mínimum facilities it should have would be OT, spaceport (first facility in every colony), some interface, mining (as it's the main effort), hydroponics, heavy industry, power (I guess fusión), power gird and transport (needed to set up the industry. So, at mínimum of 9 factories (for a minimum pop of 18)

So, IMHO, the lessons we could take from it (and relating numerically to those points to ease reading), again IMHO, would be:
  1. as I undertand it, the OMS operations shown in the sourcebook would be too small for the scope of the game, just assuming some similar operations are conducted in most systems (more so if the main planet is not hospitable).
  2. the consideration of outpost in 2300AD would include many settlements seen as Enclave or (small) Colonies in our game, not being applicable in the same sense.
  3. density should be a modifier to the mining potential (I keep suggesting to modify it acording to density, and then halving, instead of applying a -10 DM for unhospitable worlds).
  4. atmosphere A, being no corrosive nor insidious, and only requiring respiratory support (in some instances not even P-suit) and probably domed habitats, but those will not be so eroded as in corrosive (B rated) or insidious (C rated) atmospheres, should be rated as inhospitable, not intolerable (unless other factors so dictate).

This message was last edited by the player at 17:23, Tue 21 Feb 2017.

Germany
 player, 272 posts
Thu 26 Jan 2017
at 17:44
Re: Discussion about version 20161128
About Asteroid belts proper (and this may be relevant quite soon, as the tech to mine them already is present in the Game):

First of all, see that with 2300AD System Creation rules, they are quite rare (not described in T2300, 1 in 6 for empty orbits in 2300AD), but as we're using H&E, based on Traveller System Creation rules, they are quite more common, so references to 2300AD setting may well be missleading in this matter (but, as you said, we must work with the tolos we have).

Also see that as rules tand, a system that has an Asteroid Belt but no planets would not be minable, as, even if you can set up an outpost thee, you cannot set up facilities, and Asteroid Mining is one.

This said, several points:

Mining potential:

In H&E (as in Traveller supplements Second Survey and MT World's Builder Handbook), the Asteroid Belts are described acording to:
  • Its size (in AUs)
  • its main/máximum planetoid size
  • its zones :Nickel/Iron (the richer, and closer to the star), mixted (mostly silicates, the poorer and middle zone) and Carbonaceous (carbon and Ice, the farther from the star, minable for water and carbon compounds)


Of course, a large Asteroid Belt, with large planetoids and large Nickel/Iron zone would be richer tan a small one, with small, mostly silicates, bodies, but that is not as easy to evaluate as the density is for a planet...

So, about its mining potential, I'd keep with the 2d10, modified as the refree sees due to those factors, and halved (as unhospitable). IMHO even a positive general modifier could be appropiate due to the easiness to mine it (at least that is what I've read is expected, and how they are trated in most Science Fiction settings), but this might unbalance the game.

NOTE: as R sized represent the rings over planets/gas giants, that use to be smaller and probably poorer, most of this would not apply to them.

Hexes:

While the full orbit of a planet is considered a single hex, the volume covered by an Asteroid Belt (and so the posible zones to be mined) in enormous, so I'd suggest to either, condisere it a number of hexes, each one representing some degrees of it (let's say, 12 zones, each one representing a 30 degrees arc) or to simply don't reduce its profits according to how many mining facilities it has (this last option is easier, but again may imbalance the game).

Alternative:

In the only example we have of an Asteroid belt (the one in Sol system, I won't begin here a discussion about if the Kuiper belt could also be so considered), we have several S sized bodies on it, and we can assume this would be in most of them.

As S worlds are colonizable, we could well only allow the Astroid Mining facility on such planets (making them to be inside of the Asteroid Belt, instead of several AUs distant).

Of course, this would delay its explotation and need some rules changes...

And now, some questions about how the rules are right now:

(NOTE: All of them assume the Survey Ship modules are ot yet available)

  1. Is survey (and so, having an Enclave on it) needed to mine an Asteroid Belt?
  2. If not, is there any way to know its mining potential before trying to exploit it, or one must see it as a gamble to set the Asteroid Mining Facility

This message was last edited by the player at 17:19, Tue 21 Feb 2017.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 137 posts
Fri 27 Jan 2017
at 17:07
New Official Rules Posted
The rules for the new Turn are finally posted! As you could guess, there have been a lot of changes, some big, others little, most noticeably the integration of what I hope is an achievable system of generating the game map. We probably had a complete rules set back around turn 5 or so, which would be great if we could just pretend that the rest of the game, namely the human limits of the GM to run everything, worked perfectly. It has been my focus for some time now to get things to the point where we do not have to pretend so much.

I know that in various place I have discussed other ideas for improving the game, most of those are going to have to wait for a later turn, I just want to get the game moving forward rather than yet more delays. A word of warning; for a long time I have been unhappy with the (usefulness to the game)/(work for the GM) ratio of theoretical tech and oil, so you can expect significant changes to them in upcoming turns.
Germany
 player, 273 posts
Sun 12 Feb 2017
at 04:24
New Official Rules Posted
After a brief look to the budgets, some comments:

do oil pirces really have plumeted so much (from $35.5 to $10)?

Shouldn't the tree outposts be listed in their respective (German, Russian, US) spreadsheets colonies sections, or they are just for larger ones?

There seem to be some errors to be fixed:
  1. indebted response PAs from last turn seem to be underpriced
  2. reaction PAs are set at the same prices as regular ones
  3. there's no specific place for the needed (basic) military supplies (except for Nigeria)
  4. formulas for prices for raising military infrastructure TLs are wrong (they are based on GDP, not on supplies needed)

China
 player, 46 posts
Mon 13 Feb 2017
at 01:20
New Official Rules Posted
In reply to Germany (msg # 245):

I am seeing the same ..prices for military infrastructure do not reflect the rules ..
no slot for needed supplies..
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 138 posts
Wed 15 Feb 2017
at 05:53
New Official Rules Posted
In reply to Germany (msg # 245):

>do oil pirces really have plumeted so much (from $35.5 to $10)?
Yes. You can thank China for that.

>Shouldn't the tree outposts be listed
No. Outposts do not generate any $ so they have no place on the budget spreadsheet. Having them there last Turn was a mistake.

>indebted response PAs from last turn seem to be underpriced
Fixed

>reaction PAs are set at the same prices as regular ones
Fixed

>there's no specific place for the needed (basic) military supplies (except for Nigeria)
Nor will there be anymore, especially considering that SUs can come from multiple locations. It is your responsibility to add in a line for each source.

>formulas for prices for raising military infrastructure TLs are
>wrong (they are based on GDP, not on supplies needed)
Fixed. A number for supplies is needed in cell N34

This message was last edited by the GM at 20:29, Wed 15 Feb 2017.

Saudi Arabia
 player, 23 posts
Thu 16 Feb 2017
at 18:29
Re: New Official Rules Posted
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 245):

>do oil pirces really have plumeted so much (from $35.5 to $10)?
Yes. You can thank China for that.


Thank China? you'd better say blame them. Our economy has been shattered ;).
Germany
 player, 274 posts
Sat 18 Feb 2017
at 13:35
Re: Version 20161101
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 220):

>enemy territory

"Friendly Site: An <snip> or hex of a Core World that is either owned by the same nation or by a nation that allows its use."

For Earth we are left with the legacy of borders that do not follow our hex boundaries, but the definition of a Friendly Site only refers to the hex. Every hex of combat so far has some part that is a friendly core settlement, and so the hex is going to be treated as a Friendly Site. I have no idea on which side of which border within a hex some % of combat occurred, whether or not combat was inside '...enemy territory' and I am not going to bother to figure it out.


As I understand this, right now, the only units that would need to pay extra supplies for deployement (as being in inhospitable "hexes") are the spaceships, is that right?
USA
 player, 37 posts
Sat 18 Feb 2017
at 20:25
Re: Version 20161101
In reply to Germany (msg # 249):

Ships that are at sea too I think
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 139 posts
Sat 18 Feb 2017
at 21:24
Re: Version 20161101
In reply to Germany (msg # 249):

>pay extra supplies for deployement (as being in inhospitable "hexes") are the spaceships
See sec9.3 paragraph#1

>Ships that are at sea too I think
See sec 2.2, note what is in that section compared to what is in sec2.3
Germany
 player, 275 posts
Sun 19 Feb 2017
at 11:35
Re: Version 20161101
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 249):

>pay extra supplies for deployement (as being in inhospitable "hexes") are the spaceships
See sec9.3 paragraph#1


Yes, I understand that. What I meant is that surface (non-staraships) units are all (at least now) assumed in friendly sites, as you said in the queoted part, so no extra supplies need to be paid for German units in Kurdistán/IC, nor for Saudi units fighting in Yemen. Is that right?

USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 249):

Ships that are at sea too I think


Combat Cycle Ref:
>Ships that are at sea too I think
See sec 2.2, note what is in that section compared to what is in sec2.3


As I understand rules, those ships (and carried units) are based on friendly sites (e.g. DMS Sigfried is based on Bandar Neyla, despite being mostly i nadjacent sea hexes in anti-piracy operations), so not needing those extra suplies.

About habitability, I understand the whole planet is considered either hospitable or inhospitable, not individual hexes.

Right?

BTW (and for future rules, no urgency on it, as it would take some time to have ani incidence in game), I keep thinking atmosphere A, representing non breathable but neither corrosive nor insidiuous, and so only needing oxigen masks to survive, should be rated as inhospitable, not intolerable, unless other planet stats dictate otherwise.
Germany
 player, 276 posts
Sun 19 Feb 2017
at 11:55
Re: Version 20161101
Again no urgency, as it will take some turns to have any incidence in game:

quote:
Enclave Module: (...)After 3 Turns an Enclave surveys a World, at which time the Farming, Mineral, and Special Resource potentials of the World are revealed to all players(...)


Can several enclaves join efforts to reduce the time?

Examples:
  1. Nation A deploys an enclave module. Next turn it accrues first turn and it deplys another enclave module. Can it claim that next turn they accrue two more survey turns and so it is surveyed?
  2. A natoin deploys 3 enclaves in a turn. Can they survey the planet in a single turn?
  3. If answer to 2 is yes, 3 nations deploy enclavements in the same planet the same turn. Can they collaborate and survey the plant in a single turn?

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 140 posts
Sun 19 Feb 2017
at 19:44
Re: Version 20161101
In reply to Germany (msg # 252):

>so no extra supplies need to be paid for German units in Kurdistán/IC,
> nor for Saudi units fighting in Yemen. Is that right?
Yes

>About habitability, I understand the whole planet is considered either
>hospitable or inhospitable, not individual hexes.
>Right?
Correct

>Can several enclaves join efforts to reduce the time?
Every time I have ever allowed any kind of sharing on anything it has immediately turned into a fresh horror of complications and exploits. No, enclaves may not join efforts.

This message was last edited by the GM at 19:45, Sun 19 Feb 2017.

Germany
 player, 278 posts
Mon 20 Feb 2017
at 19:24
Re: Version 20161101
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 252):

>Can several enclaves join efforts to reduce the time?
Every time I have ever allowed any kind of sharing on anything it has immediately turned into a fresh horror of complications and exploits. No, enclaves may not join efforts.


See that in the cases 1 (3 enclaves set up by the same nation in a turn) and 2 (2 enclaves set up by the same nation in consecutive turns) there is no sharing, just an extraeffort by a specific nation...

Another enterily different question:

6.6 Task Resolution:

Attacking strength = (PAs+0.1)x (prestige + relations)2.

Relations are substituted by AM when the target settlement is the same one that makes the action, but what acts as relations when the target is not a settlement?
Germany
 player, 279 posts
Tue 21 Feb 2017
at 18:47
Re: Version 20161101
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.

Germany
 player, 280 posts
Wed 22 Feb 2017
at 15:21
Re: Version 20161101
Another question:

Can we asume that the private uplift capacity and prices are the same as last turn (right now, we have no update of it)?
Germany
 player, 281 posts
Sun 26 Feb 2017
at 14:27
Re: Version 20161101
Just some more reflexions for you to chew...:

5.2.1/5.2.2:

quote:
To advance beyond the current highest tech level known to humanity has an additional cost. The nation must already be at the current highest tech level known to humanity for that category and may only research a level 0.1 higher.


If I'm not wrong, this was made mostly to ease the numbers when the way to calculate non-cutting edge research was diferent from the way to calculate cutting edge one.

As now the cutting edge cost is an addition to developing theoretical TL, not a different way to calculate it, is it needed anymore?

I mean, while in former rules, if a máximum humanity TL on one field was 8.8, and a country that was at TL 8.7 wanted to increase it to 8.9 in a turn you had to calculate its cost up to 8.8 (non-cutting edge) and then the different cost to 8.9 (cutting edge), now you have to calculate it that way even if it is at curent TL 8.8, so making it (I guess) not more complex to calculate from 8.7 than from 8.8.

OTOH, this will make the cutting edge research more competitive, not giving a definitive advantage to the one already holding it.

As said, just something to think about. I don't know if it would ever be used (due to intrinsic costs), but IMHO it would make the game more interesting and "realist" at (I guess) not much added complexity.

This message was last edited by the player at 04:41, Mon 27 Feb 2017.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 141 posts
Mon 27 Feb 2017
at 04:46
Re: Version 20161101
>ion, but what acts as relations when the target is not a settlement?
Good question, for now we will go with 10.

>If we look at 2300AD setting, not a few of them have small colonies on them,
Of the roughly 350 systems/5000 Worlds in Human space in the 2300AD setting, only about 30 Worlds have actual colonies on them and not just range-extending Outposts, only about 5 of those are non-Hospitable type worlds. That puts it in the 0.5% range for total World utilization, 0.1% range for inhospitable only worlds; I am going to let this one play out as is for now.

>King in 2300AD, considering it a true exception. Being an intolerable
> planet, I'll asume US spent quite a lot of PA
For the Tantalum mined there, it was a price worth paying.

>Can we asume that the private uplift capacity and prices are the same as last
The numbers are as per what is listed in the NPC section of the website

>msg #258
I am not understanding what you are proposing here and why. Please restate.
Germany
 player, 282 posts
Mon 27 Feb 2017
at 04:55
Re: Version 20161101
Combat Cycle Ref:
>msg #258
I am not understanding what you are proposing here and why. Please restate.


I'm suggesting to allow cutting edge research even if you're not at maximum humanity theoretical TL, just reaching it and keeping researching to cutting edge, ad formulas now are easier to adapt.
Germany
 player, 283 posts
Mon 27 Feb 2017
at 13:47
Re: Version 20161101
Combat Cycle Ref:
>If we look at 2300AD setting, not a few of them have small colonies on them,
Of the roughly 350 systems/5000 Worlds in Human space in the 2300AD setting, only about 30 Worlds have actual colonies on them and not just range-extending Outposts, only about 5 of those are non-Hospitable type worlds. That puts it in the 0.5% range for total World utilization, 0.1% range for inhospitable only worlds; I am going to let this one play out as is for now.


Several things here:

  1. Don't confuse what is called Outpost in 2300AD setting with an Outpost settlement in our game, as many of them would be small Colonies on it (as I told about Nyotekundu)
  2. While most inhospitable worlds in 2300AD are uncolonized (or lightly so), I doubt over half of them are Mining Value 0. Just better worlds for colonization are prefered (of course).
  3. IIRC, at least Moon, Mars and the Asteroid Belt in Sol system were already exploited before stutterwarp appeared in 2300AS setting. As the rules are now, probbably they will have too low minning potentials to do it.
  4. I'd had to look for it, but IIRC most Asteroid Belts in 2300AD are rich mining places, not the poorest of all as in our game.
  5. Again: the main indicator of metals (Tantalum included) given in 2300AD setting is the planet density, something not represented in our game


I understand hospitable worlds are the best to be colonized, and that as MRUs not only represent metals, they should be richer, and I expect them to be the main focus of colonization (at least when Stutterwarp becomes available); but what most stikes (not to say sucks) me is that the Asteroid Belts, considered by most (in real and in science fiction) to be quite rich mining zones, are nearly useless for mining in the game as rules stand.

Again, remember that one major change that Traveller (and so H&E) SysGen has when compared with 2300AD one is that Asteroid Belts are quite more common, and so they would be expected to be important resource áreas if they are the rich ones it is expected, but only acnecdotical as rules stand now

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Can we asume that the private uplift capacity and prices are the same as last
The numbers are as per what is listed in the NPC section of the website


After looking on it, I've only found:

  • Biguelow: 2 rockets
  • United Launch Alliance: 1 rocket
  • Commercial Launch Alliance: 1 rocket


Aside from those, last turn there were:

  • Orbital Technologies: 2 rockets
  • Virgin Galactic: 2 rockets
  • SpaceX: 2 rockets
  • Sunspace-Denel-Saab: 2 rockets
  • XCOR: 1 rocket
  • SpaceDev: 1 Rocket
  • Copenhagen Suborbitals: 1 rocket


And even this was less tan in 2030-34 turn, where there existed also ArcaSpace and Uhuru Launch Agency (each with 1 rocket), Bigelow and United Launch Alliance had 3 rockets each and Commercial Launch Alliance had 2 rockets.

So, we find that in 2030-34 there were 12 agencies with a total of 21 rockets, in 2035-39 we had 10 agencies with a total of 15 rockets, and now we have 4 agencies with a total of 4 rockets.

Is that right?
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 142 posts
Thu 2 Mar 2017
at 04:14
Re: Version 20161101
>o allow cutting edge research even if you're not at maximum humanity theoretical TL
Ok. Done

>After looking on it, I've only found:
Read further down on the Other Corporations page.

This message was last edited by the GM at 04:31, Thu 02 Mar 2017.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 143 posts
Thu 2 Mar 2017
at 04:30
Version 20170301
*For all of our newcomers: Please see msg#1 of this thread first.*

A bunch of small changes, that could generally be described as various adjustments to better account for what happens when we have Settlements outside of Earth. Way back when we started this game we unconsciously set up many things which work for a nation if there is only one Settlement, your home territory.

Change to: Finding totals of Supply units consumed and left in reserve is the responsibility of the players, NOT the GM. Showing uplift/downlift capacities match what is being moved is the responsibility of the players, NOT the GM. Making Military Rank and upkeeps be a per Settlement/World basis, the budget spreadsheets will be updated to match this. Removal of Relations Score from attacker strength for Tasks & rebalancing task difficulties to match, to account for actions that do not involve Settlements.

The introduction of:

Made clearer: What counts for mass of a ship. Distance between a World and its satellites.

Rebalancing to: Downlift of Rockets. Economic benefit of Orbital Colony, Solar Power Satellite, and Orbital Elevator. Movement in system. Amount of change permissible in an exclusive purchase deal for SRU. Oil SRU is 1/10 size, and is now a movable unit.

Got rid of: Restriction on having to be at current max theoretical tech level to research above it.
USA
 player, 39 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 13:12
Re: Version 20161101
Combat Cycle Ref:
>o allow cutting edge research even if you're not at maximum humanity theoretical TL
Ok. Done


I'm assuming this will be written into the rules for next turn and does not currently apply?
Germany
 player, 284 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 17:14
Re: Version 20161101
USA:
Combat Cycle Ref:
>o allow cutting edge research even if you're not at maximum humanity theoretical TL
Ok. Done


I'm assuming this will be written into the rules for next turn and does not currently apply?


I'd say so, as it would require a change in the spreadsheets (right now, if you try to go past the highest one without being already on it, it does not add the cutting edge cost).

And, after all, we used to use the same rules (those called oficial at the momento) for the whole turn, from when we receive the budgets to the end of it (with some exceptions, that, while necessary at the momento, have created some confusion).
Germany
 player, 285 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 18:01
Re: Version 20170301
Combat Cycle Ref:
Rebalancing to: Downlift of Rockets.


The main problem I see on this is that downlift capacity, as rules stand now, is useless (or nearly so):

As rules stand now, ships can land with cargo, regardless if they are streamlined. That means any cargo taken from another system will already be landed, not needing downlift capacity.

As rules stand, even if you produce something in orbit (let's say, someone has an Asteroid Mining facility that produces RMUs), they could be landed by a ship, and as the distance travelled would be insignificant, a single ship could do it effectivelly unlimited times, if it does notheing else, so giving a player effectivelly unlimited downlift capacity. Of course, I see that as cheating the game, and it should be avoided somewhet (or just agreed it cannot be done, or vetoed by the GMs).

That's why I kept defending that some limits should be imposed, be they by size, streamlining, both, increasing supply costs to land or needing some time to do it (at least if not part of a longer trip).
Germany
 player, 287 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 19:15
Re: Version 20161101
Combat Cycle Ref:
>After looking on it, I've only found:
Read further down on the Other Corporations page.

OK,thanks, I thought I already has...

Does ARCASPACE not have any launching capacity now (it had in 2030, and it's said it moved to EAF by 2035).
USA
 player, 40 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 19:19
Re: Version 20170301
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
Rebalancing to: Downlift of Rockets.


As rules stand now, ships can land with cargo, regardless if they are streamlined. That means any cargo taken from another system will already be landed, not needing downlift capacity.


I've been messing about with ship design for a little project I'm working on and you are correct about this, but ONLY in view of what is currently possible with the world's tech base

Once other modes of propulsion and the ability to build ships in orbital shipyards come into play this no longer holds true.

Ships that rely on stutter warp or things like solar sales will not have the ability to land but will almost certainly begin to form the backbone of human spacecraft - because stutter warp is amazing, and for solar sales because they are so cheap to build ships around.

Downlift will become much more important as time goes on - but you are correct that currently most early generation ships will be able to land - that is however a result of current constrictions imposed by tech and infrastructure, rather than what is written in the rules, since we currently have to rely on chemical propulsion and because we have to design with the view of the ship being able to take off from the surface of earth.

This message was last edited by the player at 19:20, Fri 03 Mar 2017.

Germany
 player, 289 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 20:17
Re: Version 20170301
USA:
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
Rebalancing to: Downlift of Rockets.


As rules stand now, ships can land with cargo, regardless if they are streamlined. That means any cargo taken from another system will already be landed, not needing downlift capacity.


I've been messing about with ship design for a little project I'm working on and you are correct about this, but ONLY in view of what is currently possible with the world's tech base

Once other modes of propulsion and the ability to build ships in orbital shipyards come into play this no longer holds true.

Ships that rely on stutter warp or things like solar sales will not have the ability to land but will almost certainly begin to form the backbone of human spacecraft - because stutter warp is amazing, and for solar sales because they are so cheap to build ships around.

Downlift will become much more important as time goes on - but you are correct that currently most early generation ships will be able to land - that is however a result of current constrictions imposed by tech and infrastructure, rather than what is written in the rules, since we currently have to rely on chemical propulsion and because we have to design with the view of the ship being able to take off from the surface of earth.

While I agree that latter ships, where more efficient propulsion will appear, downlift will become more important, as not all ships will be equipped with propuslors that allow them to land, I disagree in your analysis in some points (but that may be more a matter of design doctrine taht about any of us being really right or wrong).

I don't expect solar sails (not sales, BTW) to become too important, as, while they are cheap and efficient, they are also very massive, and they need to be built in orbit.

That means that you need orbital shipyards to build them. That puts them "de facto" as TL 9 to build, and even then your shipyards can only assemble 10000 tonnes of ship per turn and yard, if you can uplift the modules to them (or the RMUs to build them, at a rate of 10 modules per turn).

Let's see your own ship (as you have published it, but is quite close to the Freude or Bahnbrecher):

Massing 10000 tonnes it has 40 modules (35 is cargo is not counted, it's not clear in the rules). It has 13 propulsión modules, that mass 1300 tonnes (plus the needed power plants massing 2000 tonnes more), so it devotes 33% of its volumen to propulsion. This allows you to devote 5000 tonnes to cargo (50% of the ship)

To have the same speed performance with solar sails, 13 such modules would amount 6500 tonnes. While you won't need a power plant, this would leave you (assuming the rest is kept more or less equal) only about 3000 tonnes cargo. And it will again have over 30 modules, so needing them to be uplifted or over 3 shypard turn production for a single ship.

So, to have the same cargo capacity at the same speed, you'll probably need double tonnage (that must be built in orbit), and number of modules, and so the uplift capacity to bring it to orbit, as, even in you have the 20 RMUs in orbit (that mass 400000 tonnes, if you have to uplift them), you could only build 10 modules/shipyard on it per turn.

I don't say they will not have their uses (e.g. to save tantalum for intra-system traffic, more so as you'll need less propuslion modules as TL rises), but I don't expect them to become predominant. And even for those modules, probably chemical propulsors or thrusters, even while counting their power plants, would be more efficient (aside from being able to land).

And with Stutterwarp, we may dispose of some of the propulsión modules we need now to have any speed, so, equipling the stutterwarp ships with landing capacity (propulsión modules, as stremalining is not needed) will not be too inefficient, less so when the more efficient (in both, power and tonnage) thrusters become available.
USA
 player, 42 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 21:18
Re: Version 20170301
In reply to Germany (msg # 269):

It may well be design doctrine that dictates this, but to begin with I think solar sails are still good as they do not also require the power systems that chemical propulsion does, which mitigates the mass factor a fair bit in my mind.

BUT - The main thing I don't think you are factoring in is that once an orbital shipyard is built its owner should be using it every turn - which will be a powerful incentive for them to start selling ships - but people can't afford expensive units all the time,

For a comparison at tech level 9 we can build the following

quote:
Solar Sail ship
                           Number   Mass   Power    Cost
Unarmoured (U)         10      500      0           1
Solar Sail                  9        3500      0          7
Cargo                        5        5000       0        0
               Totals:                  10000      0       9


This ship will make 2 runs to Mars (rising to 3 at tech level 9.8), requires 1 orbital shipyard to build and, the clincher, costs only $9 base. $9! build it as a reserve level, slap 'prototype' on to that because it will be easier for smaller countries to quickly reach a theoretical tech level, and sell one to every small country in the world so they can then upgrade to green for almost no money at all! Space is available to all now!

Compare that to a streamlined ship using chemical power which is capable of landing and you get this

quote:
                            Number   Mass   Power    Cost
Unarmoured (U)         10       500        0       1
Streamlined Hull         10       1000      0         1
Fission                       2         2000     0.02     40
Chemical                   13       1300 -0.0195    65
Cargo Cargo              5          5000      0       0
           Totals:                  9800     0.0005      107


This ship is able to land on Earth and Mars, and at 9.0 can make 3 (rising to 4 at 9.6) trips to Mars and back (assuming there is a friendly O/T there)

but it costs $107 base - or over 1000% more expensive making it much harder for smaller nations to afford. Most of this cost comes from the power systems and chemical propulsion systems - so even if we don't streamline we dont save anything and we make it just as hard to land on worlds with suitable atmospheres - also the worlds you most likely will want to land on.

I think it will very much depend on what you want, and in the long run it may be cheaper to have ships that can land everywhere - but what I see happening is smaller nations having these cheap ships and renting down lift from the larger nations settling on the same planet.

I think it will very much depend on a nations economic size as to how it develops in space - but I don't think down-lift is useless - its certainly less useful at the moment but as time goes on and extra-terrestrial settlements begin to grow as others move out into space and shipyards come online I can see it being very useful and necessary

The main driver behind this is going to be ability to pay for a ship when it is being built - it will be a purely economical thing

This message was last edited by the player at 23:35, Fri 03 Mar 2017.

Germany
 player, 290 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 22:25
Re: Version 20170301
Before answering to Liam, as the topic is no longuer about rules, does people find this discusion interesting or we'd better follow it in private and free the thread for what was thought (rules discussion)?
USA
 player, 43 posts
Fri 3 Mar 2017
at 22:34
Re: Version 20170301
In reply to Germany (msg # 271):

I don't mind talking about ships and their design in a private message thread.

I hope that as far as the rules discussion goes that I've demonstrated why I believe that I believe the current rules set for down lift makes sense and that down lift has a use.
Referee
 GM, 104 posts
Sat 4 Mar 2017
at 08:36
Re: Version 20170301
Germany:
Before answering to Liam, as the topic is no longuer about rules, does people find this discusion interesting or we'd better follow it in private and free the thread for what was thought (rules discussion)?

I think it is relevant. How about a separate public, not private, discussion?
USA
 player, 44 posts
Sat 4 Mar 2017
at 12:03
Re: Version 20170301
In reply to Referee (msg # 273):

A theory crafting type of thread might be a good idea
Germany
 player, 291 posts
Sat 4 Mar 2017
at 14:42
Re: Version 20170301
Referee:
I think it is relevant. How about a separate public, not private, discussion?


This would be great!

Could, if so, posts 269 and 270 of this same thread be moved there (IDK enough about rpol to know if this is possible)?

And, BTW, again, it will also be nice to have an OOC thread. To now we're mostly using the Gellery one for it.

This message had punctuation tweaked by the player at 11:59, Sun 05 Mar 2017.

USA
 player, 45 posts
Sat 4 Mar 2017
at 16:32
Re: Version 20170301
In reply to Germany (msg # 275):

Question on the PA calculator I can't work out - when working out how easy it is to influence your own nation, what figure should be entered for the prestige of the defender? is it your own prestige or is there a base number it should be?
Germany
 player, 292 posts
Tue 7 Mar 2017
at 00:10
Re: Version 20170301
Some more questions:

According 7.1, size S planets may be colonized. What number is used in the forumlas as size (e.g. to calculate the uplift/downlift an interface facility would have)?

Suggestion: MT World' Builder Handbook, from where H&E is taken, gives them size 0.6

------

Catapults are defined in 7.8.2 as only capable to uplñift Food Units, Raw materila Units and Tantalum SRU.

They cannot uplift SUs (they could until version 20160202?

What about Pai-leng? I know the variety of this may make it uncertain...

------

Most units may be upgraded/repaired on any Friendly Site. Spaceships, though, may ony in shipyards or spaceports. May a friendly shipyard/spaceport be used for it, or it must be on your own ones?
Germany
 player, 293 posts
Wed 8 Mar 2017
at 23:41
Re: Version 20170301
quote:
9.4: Military units may be carried on multiple Spaceships on multiple trips, but not over multiple Turns.


I guess this applies to most items, but does it apply to pop units too (e.g. a ship having the passenger module and another with the cargo, if the paswsenger ship has not enough capacity)?
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 144 posts
Thu 9 Mar 2017
at 04:00
Re: Version 20170301
>what figure should be entered for the prestige of the defender?
The Prestige of the defending Settlement as found in the Settlement_List file

>I guess this applies to most items, but does it apply to pop units too
See sec 9.4, paragraph#1

> What number is used in the forumlas as size
See sec 2.2 paragraph#1

>They cannot uplift SUs (they could until version 20160202?
>What about Pai-leng? I know the variety of this may make it uncertain...

No, either could easily include fragile items. I will allow movement of Oil SRU though.
Germany
 player, 294 posts
Thu 9 Mar 2017
at 04:25
Re: Version 20170301
Combat Cycle Ref:
>I guess this applies to most items, but does it apply to pop units too
See sec 9.4, paragraph#1


Ok, it reads (I guess the bolded part is the relevant one):
quote:
Spaceships can carry units and facilities to other Worlds, and once an FTL drive is developed, to other Star Systems. Spaceships that currently have ‘Reserve’ Quality level may not transport anything. Transporting a Population Unit requires the services of 1 Passenger Module as well as 5 000 Tonnes of cargo capacity to carry the mass of the Population Unit. Transporting a Military Unit requires the services of 1 Passenger Module or 1 Orbital Assault Module, as well as enough Cargo capacity to carry the mass of the unit. An O/T facility is required to transfer units between Spaceships and Interface facilities in the Orbit hex.

But it does not specify if the passenger module and the cargo capacity must be from the same ship...

To say it clear, the Goethe was built having in mind to make it a pop carrier when needed. It has 13000 cargo tonnes, that can be converted into a passenger module and 3000 cargo tonnes (remember when it was buit, as per oficial rules 20151225 and proposal v20160202, a Pop unit required a passenger module and 2000 tonnes of cargo). now, as a pop unit requires 5000 tonnes instead of 2000, unless this extra cargo may be carried with another ship help, I have a very large and expensive ship that cannot accomplish its intended mission.
Germany
 player, 295 posts
Thu 9 Mar 2017
at 16:20
Re: Version 20170301
Probable errata:

The Price of the Hudson calss spaceship is wrong. It is listed as $1.74, while adding all its components it should be $22.4
Saudi Arabia
 player, 24 posts
Fri 10 Mar 2017
at 19:42
Re: Version 20170301
quote:
4.5.1: The busy life on a comfortable Core type Settlement requires a tremendous amount of energy, this is represented by the Special Resource Unit of Oil, this includes all forms of non-renewable energy such as hydrocarbon gases and liquids, coal , and fission of heavy elements. 1 Oil SRU = approximately 1/10000th of the Earth’s production in 2000AD. At game start the prevailing market rate is $1 per Oil SRU.


Have you pondered well the laws in unintentional cosequences of those changes?

See that the bolded part would mean a great change on geostrategics. Nations as Germany, US or China, that are now screaming for oil SRUs will be then more relieved if coal is counted among it, as they have it in relative abundance (that's why they could try coal gasification), and others will have uranium or similar elements...

Also, changing its price will greatly affect the changes. Will fractional changes be allowed (they have to now, even though you hate fractional prices)?

Also, in former rules a SRU was described as 1/1000th of world's production. By reducing it to 1/10th of what it was (by mass, Price, etc) will make it the 1/10000th you say, but if you add coal and fissibles to theequation, things change...


quote:
#5 - Alternative Infrastructure : Option only available for Oil SRU. This represents various efforts to replace overall economic dependence on the SRU with something else. A nation can reduce their Oil SRU consumption at a cost of 1 - 3 PApoints per Oil 2 0 SRU replaced the next Turn depending upon the GM’s judgment of your plan. E.g. Nuclear / hydrogen / biofuels / coal gasification / hydroelectric power generation, etc., and has some kind of a significant downside e.g. the electricity to separate the hydrogen from the water had to be come from somewhere, radioactive waste, the crops grown for the biodiesel means less food for people to eat etc.


See that the bold parts lose its sense when the SRUs include coal and fissibles.

OTOH, now that oil represents power generation means in general, one way to reduce the needs by renewable plants should exist. They cannot fully replace oil, as they are unlikely to be efficient for engines, at least without the side effects you talk about, but when it's about the whole power production, things change, and renewables (be them eolic, tidal, geotermic, solar, biomass, etc...) are a true option.
USA
 player, 48 posts
Sat 11 Mar 2017
at 16:43
Re: Version 20170301
Combat Cycle Ref:
>what figure should be entered for the prestige of the defender?
The Prestige of the defending Settlement as found in the Settlement_List file


Right, but when affecting your own nation, both the defending prestige and the attacking prestige are your prestige, correct?
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 145 posts
Sat 11 Mar 2017
at 17:01
Re: Version 20170301
In reply to USA (msg # 283):

Yes
USA
 player, 49 posts
Sun 12 Mar 2017
at 02:55
Re: Version 20170301
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 284):

Ok, I'd like to talk about Auth mod and political actions as I have two points.

Some of this is hard to analyse correctly as I have no real idea of how it is calculated other than trying to go through the spreadsheet and work it out - which is not something I have managed fully, but playing with the sheet has given me some ideas so here is what I have found.

Firstly - it feels to me that once a nation has a moderately large economy, it should always look to have a high than 'average' authoritarian modifier

Secondly - The PA system currently has a major, significant problem - part of this arises from the authoritarian modifier but also it arises from how we affect our own nations compared to how others affect our nation

To begin with;

The benefits of a lower auth mod are

1) Cheaper tech development
2) Higher base growth

whilst the down side to a lower Auth mod are:

1) Less Money available to use
2) Harder to affect your own nation from PAs

From what I'm seeing, for the US in particular at this moment in time, going authoritarian has little downside in RAW.

From what I can see, increasing the authoritarian mod in the US would result in an increase in the cost of my current civilian tech increasing slightly, and tech development also increasing slightly, but unless I'm planning originally on increasing more tech, I don't loose. In fact, the additional spendable money I would get will allow me to research an additional theoretical tech and still have money left over to buy additional PAs - which I can then use to try and boost my economy with political actions.

A higher auth mod means more money, and with careful management you can avoid the immediately without the downsides

In addition - it also means it is easier to effect political change in my own nation. This leads to some really odd situations.

Case in point

Taiwan is currently a US puppet - our relations are 20 - Taiwan has a prestige of 14, the us has prestige of 16.

Using the PA calculator I have worked out that, if Taiwan were to use a single PA for a difficult task against the US then its 'odds verses a settlement' are 1.4415...

However, if the US uses a PA to influence itself, its odds are currently 0.256...

So, the US would be better paying Taiwan to affect the US rather than doing it itself, because Taiwan has over 5 times more political clout with the US citizenry compared to their own government.

Lets take this another step, the US wants to increase its base stability - this is a formidable task - and it wants to have a really good chance of doing this

The US government could pay a Taiwanese consulting firm to do this for them, for Taiwan to have odds of 10 to 1 - making it pretty much a guaranteed thing - would require 16PAs - a large but not impossible number - so the US could pay Taiwan $1700, giving Taiwan a profit of $100 from the deal to boot, and almost certainly succeed.

Alternatively, the USA can pay for it itself, to reach the same odds the US would need to spend 86 PAs - this seems to come from the fact that relations play a massive part in the chance of success.

For us to reach parity the US would need to have a stability of around 10 - pretty high at the moment in game terms.

So, if we want to look at gaming the rules this means I should now look for nations with relations of 14 with a target I want to hurt. I should boost my relations to 20 hoping no one notices, and then use them as a proxy to cause untold chaos in a nation I dislike with my puppet that still has good relations with them for much cheaper than I could do it myself - and put a fall guy in place to boot!

Now, I know all of the above, if I tried to do it in game would;

1) be really pathetic - its about having fun not 'winning'
2) get me kicked out of the game
3) really annoy the management

which is why it wouldn't happen, my main concern is that the rules do seem to punish having a lower authoritarian modifier without really giving you a reason to do it and that the current PA rules throw up some rather strange situations.

The economic growth factor from a lower auth mod. is possibly being understated by me, as there is always a limit to what you can do to boost you economy with PAs, but for research in particular I believe you can get round it, from my rough calculations increasing the US' auth mod by 2 would give me enough money to allow me to purchase an additional infrastructure upgrade - that means I'm already combating the drop in growth if I use that money to buy that or I have more flexibility than if my auth mod remained the same. For a drop in base growth of 2% having at least $1000 additional spending money seems like an easy choice

There will always be a point at which there is a diminishing return, but it feels like the 'best' resting point for authoritarian modifiers is going to be above the mid point

I can see it being useful once you have access to a very large number of mineral RUs which you can down-lift and convert into spendable cash, but the question is will we reach that point, and even if we do, nations that start out with the higher auth mod will be in a better position to deal with it because it will be cheaper for them to reduce their auth mods, as their higher auth mod will make each individual PA they spend more effective that turn, and also because they will have more money to spend at that time.

I am presuming there are other things in the background I do not know about, but I just wanted to point out the problems I see in the current way it is being dealt with, particularly when it comes to the way PAs currently work.

I think that Kelvin will probably point out other ways in which the auth mod affect things I have not notices, which may change how I view that

however, I think it is fairly clear that there may need to be a re-examination of how much relations affect PAs?

Can anyone see or tell me of anything I've gotten wrong here - does anyone have any observations or counterpoints?

This message was last edited by the player at 02:59, Sun 12 Mar 2017.

Germany
 player, 297 posts
Mon 13 Mar 2017
at 17:06
Re: Version 20170301
USA:
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 284):

Ok, I'd like to talk about Auth mod and political actions as I have two points.


As one who plays a country with high AM (Saudi Arabia), one with average AM (Germany) and one with low AM (Nigeria), I guess i have some grounds to compare, I mostly agree with all you say here.

USA:
Some of this is hard to analyse correctly as I have no real idea of how it is calculated other than trying to go through the spreadsheet and work it out - which is not something I have managed fully, but playing with the sheet has given me some ideas so here is what I have found.
 Firstly - it feels to me that once a nation has a moderately large economy, it should always look to have a high than 'average' authoritarian modifier


In short, for what I’ve seen, AM*2.5% is the share of the budget (once Social Upkeep is deducted) you’ll have to pay expenses and play with.

I agree that low AM seems to hinder a country too much. One way I suggested to solve (or at least alleviate) it would be to feature AM also In Social Upkeep (e.g. by modifying it by (AM-12) x 2.5%, assuming 12 to be the “standard” AM and making the modification correspondent to its effect.

This will also keep (IMHO) with the spirit of AM and with what is said in AM definition in 6.4:
quote:
Lower Authoritarian Scores generally represent nations which support laissez-faire policies and let their nation take its course.

(...)

Higher Authoritarian Score mean the establishment is deeply invested in many aspects of society and its effective reach is far greater.


USA:
Secondly - The PA system currently has a major, significant problem - part of this arises from the authoritarian modifier but also it arises from how we affect our own nations compared to how others affect our nation


Again agreed.

To give another example, should Germany try to affect himself with a PA on a difficult (multiplier 1) action, odds would be 1.6:1

This same PA used by France (relations 17), would give an odds of 3.5:1

If France tries to use the same PA to influence itself in a likewise way, odds would be 2.04:1. If Germany uses the same PA for the same reason, odds would be 5.3:1.

In this case (both of them), AM is higher (so internal actions easier, and off course, we’re talking about friendly (though not client) countries…

One way to alleviate this would be to treat own country as if it was a client state (usually reducing difficulty by one grade). After all, relations agamong countries (even client states) would never be as good as internal relations in a country…

This will, off course, benefit everyone and ease things for all players, but I’m not sure o its effect in game balance
Germany
 player, 298 posts
Tue 14 Mar 2017
at 09:04
Re: Version 20170301
More side effects of new rules:

quote:
4.5.1: The busy life on a comfortable Core type Settlement requires a tremendous amount of energy, this is represented by the Special Resource Unit of Oil, this includes all forms of non-renewable energy such as hydrocarbon gases and liquids, coal , and fission of heavy elements. 1 Oil SRU = approximately 1/10000th of the Earth’s production in 2000AD. At game start the prevailing market rate is $1 per Oil SRU.


This also means that planets that before were not expected to have oil SRUs can now be expected to have (or at lesst not ruled out). A vacuum planet can hardly be expected to have oil reserves, as it does not have, neither has had, the biosphere needed for it; but it can be expected to have fissible materials, even i nexploitable quatities.

SUs:

We're now seeing too some more unexpected effects of the change of SUs from $0.2/1000 tonnes to $1/5000 tonnes.

Countries like India and Indonesia (and Bigelow Aerospace Corporatoin) are clearly hurt by it:

  • Bigelow: owns 1 OT and 2 rockets (I guess aprox 3000 uplift capacity)
  • India: owns two satellite networks and 2370 uplift capacity
  • Indonesia: owns 1 satellite network and 1118 uplift capacity


So, formerly, they needed 1000 tonnes (for Bigelow and Indonesia) and 2000 tonnes (india) uplift capacity, being all of them able to take care of their own needs.

Now, with the new SU rules, they need each 5000 tonnes, so no one of them can take care of their own needs...

Suggestions:
  • round the SU needed in orbit to the closer whole numbre (so that, having 1-2 facilities won't need any)
  • set the needed uplift to 1000 tonnes/facility (but keep the 1 SU cost 5 facilities, round up


Both suggestions have their good and bad side, but I find unfair that they deployed (or bought) their facilities counting they can affrd them,nd they find they cannot due to a change in rules not to their own flawl.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 146 posts
Wed 29 Mar 2017
at 23:28
Re: Version 20170301
>to talk about Auth mod and
Ooohh, yeah. I know allll about that. The first GM, Luke, likely unintentionally set up Authoritarian mod to be even more powerful than it currently is. It is one of the things that I have been doing behind the scenes is to chip away at that. I have tweaked, and touched it several times, but always very subtlety and slowly. If there is one thing that I have learned is that players get mighty upset when they think you are arbitrarily messing with their cash flow.

>Now, I know all of the above, if I tried to do it in game would;
>
>1) be really pathetic - its about having fun not 'winning'
>2) get me kicked out of the game
>3) really annoy the management

<arches eyebrow> Read section 1.4, Q&A#1

>More side effects of new rules:<snip> coal , and fission of heavy elements<snip>
>This also means that planets that before were not expected to have oil SRUs can
> now be expected to have <snip>

You sound as if you did not think that my adding in of that effect was intentional.

> SUs:We're now seeing too some more unexpected effects of the change
>of SUs from $0.2/1000 tonnes to $1/5000 tonnes.

Then those nations can rent uplift or improve their Space tech level. As I have said before, there is nothing magical, inherent, righteous or just about the settings of the initial capabilities of each nation. Me or one of the earlier GMs picked them, usually out of thin air. Even if it is unfair to burden them with this now, I do not care, we are not going back to fractional ANYTHING.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 147 posts
Wed 29 Mar 2017
at 23:34
Version 20170401
Now I have a question for you guys, ALL of you guys. For some time now I have been unhappy with the utility of theoretical tech&unlocking, but I want to hear from you guys before I make such a fundamental change.

Do you want to:

#1 Keep it the same: We have had it for quite some time now, it is working

#2: Get rid of the extra cost for unlocking tech for the first time (section 7.3). A duplicate of the expense for Theoretical tech, could be replaced by a slight increase in the expense for Theoretical tech. For such an insignificant element in the game, as is it implies a requirement that the player and GM create and keep updated a table for each nation of which things have been unlocked or not. <ugh> I have enough to do even without that.

#3: Get rid of Theoretical  tech. Research modules and Universities can produce Pai-Leng units;  I will do something with Prototype ability. I despise that the sharing of researching of cutting edge tech means it is impossible for a budget spreadsheet to be completely self-contained; I have to cross-check with those of other players to see if they did it right too.

#4 Get rid of Theoretical tech and Unlocking: It galls me to think that about 2% of the rules could be replaced with the sentence “For every 0.1 above available tech level, add +X (?1?) to the modifier for cost” and a slight rewording of a few other things.

This message was last edited by the GM at 23:35, Wed 29 Mar 2017.

Persia
 player, 2 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 04:34
Re: Version 20170401
Combat Cycle Ref:
Do you want to:

Simplify simplify simplify
Russia
 player, 26 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 09:24
Re: Version 20170401
Combat Cycle Ref:
Do you want to:


#1 Keep it the same
USA
 player, 50 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 09:42
Re: Version 20170301
Combat Cycle Ref:
Do you want to


I agree the current system needs shaking up. Getting rid of unlocking sounds like a really obvious choice now you say it - getting rid of theoretical tech altogether sounds like it will make it easier for you but has knock on effects I can think of in a couple of areas.

The ability to build things within your theoretical tech but not within your infrastructure can be useful - it also will give colonies ways of spending more money to build things they could not normally with their infrastructure- though one might even say that is more reason to get rid of it...

Part of me would really like to see it go, but at the same time I can see utility in having theoretical tech levels.

Of the options you give I'd definitely go for 2 BUT if going down the route of no 4 will make it that much easier for you then we should go for it.
Germany
 player, 300 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 12:56
Re: Version 20170301
Combat Cycle Ref:
>More side effects of new rules:<snip> coal , and fission of heavy elements<snip>
>This also means that planets that before were not expected to have oil SRUs can
> now be expected to have <snip>

You sound as if you did not think that my adding in of that effect was intentional.


I just wanted to make sure it was, as the changes are many and deep...

And see that this will be quite a dificult turn to solve, as we don't really know what will be our SRU needs nor production for next (and latter) turns...

Combat Cycle Ref:
> SUs:We're now seeing too some more unexpected effects of the change
>of SUs from $0.2/1000 tonnes to $1/5000 tonnes.

Then those nations can rent uplift or improve their Space tech level. As I have said before, there is nothing magical, inherent, righteous or just about the settings of the initial capabilities of each nation. Me or one of the earlier GMs picked them, usually out of thin air. Even if it is unfair to burden them with this now, I do not care, we are not going back to fractional ANYTHING.


I understand we're not going to use fractionals again, but, as you say, I see it quite unfair for those countries now having to expend money in what they didn't expect (and making what were wise decisions now unwise ones).

See that none of my suggestions involved fractionals, while keeping the wisdom of their decisoins and avoids this unfairness.
Germany
 player, 301 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 13:14
Re: Version 20170401
Combat Cycle Ref:
Now I have a question for you guys, ALL of you guys. For some time now I have been unhappy with the utility of theoretical tech&unlocking, but I want to hear from you guys before I make such a fundamental change.

Do you want to:

#4 Get rid of Theoretical tech and Unlocking: It galls me to think that about 2% of the rules could be replaced with the sentence “For every 0.1 above available tech level, add +X (?1?) to the modifier for cost” and a slight rewording of a few other things.


That's my vote. First of all as I agree with what Persia said. This aside, both changes will speed up the game development.

For Theoretical TLs:

You (and all who were already playing when those discusión were in the fórum) know that I think that once some product is commertialized, others will tape it to know the theoretical principles, and those wil lbe widely known.

Of course, that means the cutting edge extra cost will apply directly to raise the TL (what now is known as infrastructure TL) above anyone else. And to keep the same growing rates, it should also mean that the +1% GDP should be added to raise generic Tl (in true fairness, this should explude those who already have earned it, but that would mean more bookkeeping).

For unlocking:

As you say, this can be seen as part of the cost for the TL research, and will (again) reduce bokkeeping.

As this would also get rid of deploying facilities to new planets/satellites, I'd suggest a cost of 1PA to start a colony (upgrading an enclavement to colony, so deploying its first operational facility, OTs aside) to represent the cost of adapting to the new environ.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 148 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 15:28
Re: Version 20170401
In reply to USA (msg # 292):

>The ability to build things within your theoretical tech but not
>within your infrastructure can be useful

That is the entire purpose of “For every 0.1 above available tech level, add +X (?1?) to the modifier for cost”
USA
 player, 51 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 15:56
Re: Version 20170401
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 295):

ah, gotcha - misinterpreted that.

Then I'm all for #4
China
 player, 48 posts
Fri 31 Mar 2017
at 22:48
Re: Version 20170401
In reply to USA (msg # 296):

I am all for #4 ...simple easy peasy
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 149 posts
Thu 6 Apr 2017
at 22:14
Rules Proposal 20170401
Change to: What CCC modules for Starships do, apparently it had been accidentally removed. What Universities do. What Enclaves do. What is the cost to build an item above local tech level.

Introduction of:

Made clearer: What is needed for Orders. A special thank you to our players, especially the new ones, your questions have helped me to identify numerous things that could have been expressed better.

Rebalancing to: The power of a Pai-Leng SRU, it was too much.

Got rid of: Theoretical tech and unlocking of items, a laborious duplicate of the extra cost to build something above infrastructure tech level. Prototype special ability, hard to properly work into the game for something never used.
Germany
 player, 302 posts
Fri 14 Apr 2017
at 16:30
Rules Proposal 20170401
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 298):

quote:
University : A large research and education establishment. (...) Produces 1 Pai-Leng SRUs on every even numbered Turn in a surface hex of the colony.


Wouldn't it be easier (and IMHO more logical) to have it to contribute to raising TLs (as it was before).

As the divisor to raise TL has changed from 200000 to 150000 (so by a 25%) to represent the theoretical part of it (so the total cost has increased by 1/3), the reductin should also be reduced. I's suggest universities to contribute with a 2% of any one TL increase per turn, cummulative to a msximum of 8% (roughly the quivalent avoiding fractions, as it would be 1.66% and to a maximum of 8.33%).
Co-GM
 GM, 153 posts
Thu 1 Jun 2017
at 21:41
Rules Proposal 20170401
In reply to Germany (msg # 299):

>Wouldn't it be easier
Easier? I do not see how it is any easier. As was originally, it is almost entirely a duplicate of what Research Modules do. Now Universities are the sole regular source of Pai Leng units, giving more utility to both.

This message was last edited by the GM at 21:59, Thu 01 June 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 154 posts
Thu 1 Jun 2017
at 21:57
Rules Proposal 20170601
Change to: Formula for Task roll, no PApoints means 0 Attack Strength. What Research Modules do.

Introduction of:

Made clearer:

Rebalancing to:

Got rid of: If SRU exploration is within a Settlement’s borders then the exact hex does not need to be specified.
Germany
 player, 304 posts
Wed 28 Jun 2017
at 14:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Co-GM:
Change to: Formula for Task roll, no PApoints means 0 Attack Strength.


Some points here:

I know I was the one complaining about the lose of power for the PAs (by about 25%), but multiplying it by 5 might be too much...

Not that I complain, just surprised...

This aside, I liked the idea of being able to make smaller political actions (what it was using only the 0.1 wihtout PAs), as sometimes you're interested in influencing someone where a full PA is a true overkill, but I also understand that it can be abused.

I'd suggest to keep allowing it (making minot PAs that have 1/10th)power, but to limit them somewhat:
  1. allowing each contry a limited number of them (e.g. prestige/5, or GNP/10000, or whatever you think about)
  2. making them to cost something (e.g. $10)


Of course, they could not be cummulative, neithre among themselves nor with full PAs.


Co-GM:
What Research Modules do.


From rules proposal 20170601:

quote:
5.2.1/5.2.2:
To advance beyond the current highest tech level known to humanity has an additional cost. This cost may be reduced by Research Modules (see Section 7.9.1), which can include those dedicated by an ally.


quote:
7.9.2:
Research Module: Labs and scientific apparatus, includes exploratory missions to the surrounding region. At the time of construction the owner may dedicate this module to a particular category of technology. Once per Turn the module will reduce the cost of cutting edge research of that one technology category of either the owner or an ally, see section 5.2. Upto 5 Research Modules in the same Star System may be dedicated to the same technology category. Bonus is cumulative with multiple facilities up to a maximum of 25% off total for the nation. Write this amount saved as a purchase, with a positive value, in your list of purchases on your budget spreadsheet


I'm afraid I became entangled in a bucle here to know the exact effect they have. Is still 1%? is it told in any other rule?

Won't this add to bookeeping (I thought you inteded to reduce it) to have to dedícate each research module to a specific tech category?
Germany
 player, 305 posts
Wed 28 Jun 2017
at 14:56
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
quote:
University: A large research and education establishment. Will boost the tech level of a colony, see section 7.4. Produces 1 Pai-Leng SRUs on every even numbered Turn in a surface hex of the colony.


If the Research modules are dedicated to a single tech category, I'd suggest to make Universities to allow for a similar rduction but to any category (only one per turn, though), this extra flexibility representing they are larger faiclities. Additionally, it could also be able to help in non-cutting edge research (maybe at a reduced percentage).

Frankly, I find more logical to have them help in research than producing SRUs (but that's just my view, of course YMMV), and it wil lbe more coherent with what you said in post #229 this smae thread:
Combat Cycle Ref:
<i>>Pai-Leng<snip>See, though, that in both cases those are in fact renewable resources,
(...) No, SRU reserves have to fade away, if for only to again encourage expansion.

Co-GM
 GM, 155 posts
Thu 29 Jun 2017
at 04:31
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
In reply to Germany (msg # 302):

> PAs (by about 25%), but multiplying it by 5 might be too much...
You missed that Relations Score was removed from Attack Strength, which reduced strength by very roughly 1/5. It had to be removed to handle cases where the attacker was up against tasks to which a Relation Score does not exist.

> Is still 1%? is it told in any other rule?
Must have gotten dropped. Yes, 1%. Good catch.

>Won't this add to bookeeping (I thought you inteded to reduce it)
It adds to YOUR book-keeping. I am certainly not going to keep track of it, so I do not care.
Germany
 player, 306 posts
Thu 29 Jun 2017
at 13:34
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Co-GM:
In reply to Germany (msg # 302):

> PAs (by about 25%), but multiplying it by 5 might be too much...
You missed that Relations Score was removed from Attack Strength, which reduced strength by very roughly 1/5. It had to be removed to handle cases where the attacker was up against tasks to which a Relation Score does not exist.


You're right, I missed it. Now I must study it a Little more before giving my opinión...

This message was last edited by the player at 13:35, Thu 29 June 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 156 posts
Fri 30 Jun 2017
at 02:52
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 304):

>> Is still 1%? is it told in any other rule?
>Must have gotten dropped. Yes, 1%. Good catch.
Ack!! No!! I forgot!! See the equation that goes with the last paragraph of sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2!
Germany
 player, 307 posts
Fri 30 Jun 2017
at 17:42
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Germany:
Co-GM:
In reply to Germany (msg # 302):

> PAs (by about 25%), but multiplying it by 5 might be too much...
You missed that Relations Score was removed from Attack Strength, which reduced strength by very roughly 1/5. It had to be removed to handle cases where the attacker was up against tasks to which a Relation Score does not exist.


You're right, I missed it. Now I must study it a Little more before giving my opinión...


The main problem I find here, once reevaluated, is for internal actions: high prestige harms you as th formula is now (it already did, but it seems to be worse now).

I'd suggest to return to the old idea of having a ser value for defending prestige when performing internal actions (e.g. a plain 10 as it once was), while keeping the rest of the formula, that seems to work.
Germany
 player, 308 posts
Sun 2 Jul 2017
at 01:15
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Just another point. With the new oil rules, where oil SRUs are less than they were before and can be moved, I understand they can be stored, as FU, SU and MRUs can. Is that right?
Russia
 player, 27 posts
Wed 26 Jul 2017
at 14:27
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Gentlemen, sorry if it was already discussed (I didnt read previous 300+ messages in this thread).

I want to note: rule which decreases sold units to reserve quality really debilitates trade between PC countries. I reckon why it was implemented but still I do not feel that it is neccessary nor brings more pros than cons.
Germany
 player, 310 posts
Wed 26 Jul 2017
at 14:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Time ago we had a fórum where we discussed those details. Kelvin was thinking to close it anyway, but case is that it went down (I don't knwo why) and many comments there were lost. Even if for no other thing, that could have given some insight to new players about why several things are as they are.

The rule to downgrade any unit traded among players (or to NPDs for what's worth) was to represent the selling of specific units the buyer could not build without overcost (due to the unlocking new units and facilities, currently rule 5.3,that then was double cost or $100, whatever was greater).

This represented the selling of cariers (to give you an example) to countries that have not the infrastructure to build them (e.g. the Spanish helicopter carriers sold to Australia as Camberra class, the French one sold to Brazil as the Sao Paulo class or the Russian one sold to China as the Liaoning). The fact they were downgraded to reserve meant that only the bare material was sold, while it had to be refit and recrewed.

Similar cases would be for air or tank units sold to countries without the infrastructure to build them (so having not unlocked the units).

Of course, if the unlocking rule is forfeited, this rule loses (at least) some of its meaning, and could be rethought if Kelvin things it is appropiate...

This message was last edited by the player at 14:39, Wed 26 July 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 160 posts
Wed 26 Jul 2017
at 22:18
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
In reply to Germany (msg # 310):

The entire forum host went out of business, it is ok, there was nothing of use on the forum except several thousand reasons why I feel the need to be so bossy and officious in dealing with this game.

>meant that only the bare material was sold, while it had to be refit and recrewed.
That is the true reason why units are downgraded.

>  if the unlocking rule is forfeited, this rule loses (at least) some of
>its meaning, and could be rethought if Kelvin things it is appropiate...

That is just the thing, the unlocking rule has not been truly forfeited, it has just been broken up and transformed into various modes which do not require a spreadsheet be maintained on which technologies have been developed.
Germany
 player, 311 posts
Fri 28 Jul 2017
at 18:35
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Co-GM:
Ok, finally managed to find a computer that would not be improved by slathering it with formic acid. I finally have some hope of doing this War Round shortly.

Before we begin I need to make a general statement about 3 kinds of questions which I am seeing coming up, and yes, these will be made clearer in the rules for next turn.

#1 Questions along the lines of '...after all the changes to borders due to wars, then within a hex on Earth, does nation X still border with nation Y?'

    There was a time when we could and did care about national borders within a hex based on a 2010 vintage map. That time has past and borders within a hex on Earth have changed, especially in the Middle East, and we are not going to detail them. From now on, within a hex on Earth we will assume that any land unit can reach any other point within the same hex without starting a war in attempting to make the crossing*, unless the GM explicitly says otherwise.

*what happens at the end point of the move is a completely different situation.

#2 Questions about what kind of society is an NPC, e.g. are they democratic or not.

     Beyond the deliberately vague listings for 'Trade Code' and 'Stability' in the Settlement_List file there is no mechanism for generating and tracking such things, and especially no mechanism on how they would automatically evolve to over time in response to events in the game, nor do I ever foresee a need to have such a mechanism. In the course of telling a story the GM might occasionally make a reference as to the current nature of an NPC's government/society for the purpose of role-play, but it is ONLY for the purpose of role-play.


#3 Questions about what actions an NPC have been doing, especially to another NPC.

     Nations were chosen to be available as PC nations because taken together they dominate anything important, that means that in general any NPC vs. NPC conflict is unimportant. Unless the GM feels a particular NPC vs. NPC conflict is of unusual interest to the rest of the players then do not expect to see a combat roll, or even a mention in the History section. The GM has more important things to do. So perhaps Iraq has been engaged in a vicious war with a portion of the IC and this is causing a drain of the resources and reinforcements of the IC away from the IC's conflict with the West ... or perhaps Iraq and the IC have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship of trade and trust. Whatever it is, do not expect it to be detailed, or even mentioned, until the GM determines it is useful to do so.

All of this (mostly points 2 and 3, as point 1 is clearly an artifical artifact to ease the game) puzzles me, as I agree and disagree at once.

IMHO, we should first define once nad for all what kind of game we want to play. We all know that the gae is at once a strategical (expected to become a x4 as time passes) game and a free RPG one. We must decide wich of those two facets we wat to stress.

If we decide for the strategical game:
  • Rules should take precedence on GM decisions, those being reserved for manageing NPCs and when the rules are not clear or applicable
  • Long term plans must be posible, with a reasonable security that they will work unless there is more opposition than expected or strategic situation changes.
  • Automatic actions should be automatic. Delays, unexpected problems, etc should be a very rare occurence.
  • All points quoted here by the co-GM are correct in this case (well, maybe point 3 is argeable, as, to give an example, this same comment about Iraq should be true for Syria, and it's not the case)


If we decide for a free form RPG game:
  • Rules are directives, expected to be the basis of the game, but far from holy writ.
  • Long term plans are less sure, as every action produces a reaction and things are not so sure nor previsible. Things as international reactions and so become more important.
  • Automatic actions should have a reasonable chance to work, but delays and unexpected problems can be more common.
  • The details in points 2 and 3 are more important. While I may ignore if I'm helping a legitimate democratic government or a colpist dictatorship in aa strategic game, not so much in a RPG.


Examples (all outcomes are only one of the many posible ones):

1) in a war, I order my troops to be selective to avoid colateral (GDP) damages.

  • Strategical game: as there are no rules for this (at least right now), the only way to avoid this damage is to send less troops.
  • RPG: the GM assumes that this will reduce my troops efectivity, giving me a -2 column shift, but GDP damage is reduced


2) A nation with enough TL but uninvolved to date in Space Actions wants to build a spaceship:
  • Strategical game: it has the tech, it spends the money: it has the ship
  • RPG: the GM informs him that, despite being technologically able to do it, its lack of space experience will make it a risky adventure, unless he first sts up a Space progarm with easier actions.


etc...

I'm not asking to forfeit any one of the facets of the game, but, unless one is stressed over the other one, it becomes even more confusing that it already is, and players do not know how to act or what to expect

As said, all of this is IMHO, and I had to take it out. of course, YMMV
Japan
 player, 59 posts
Sat 5 Aug 2017
at 15:04
Re: Version 20170301
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 288):

Simplify the rules
Co-GM
 GM, 162 posts
Thu 10 Aug 2017
at 04:33
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
In reply to Germany (msg # 312):

>We must decide wich of those two facets we wat to stress.
No, there is no reason we have to decide which facet we want to stress. The first iteration of this game was, by lack of planning, freeform and thus was a beautiful mess. Never have I been privileged to see such wonderful role-playing, that collapsed into personality conflicts because we knew of nothing we could do but conflict personally. This game needs structure, yet if I wanted this game to be 'strategical/4x' then I would give up and play Civilization; I hear 'Stellaris' is amazing.

We will walk the middle path.
Co-GM
 GM, 163 posts
Thu 10 Aug 2017
at 20:31
Rules Proposal 20170810
Change to: Units moved by interface facilities must be moved entirely in one Turn, objects currently in transit are grandfathered. Units that have the ability to be Hidden by default start out as such.

Introduction of:The Sum Basic Combat Strength of an NPC Settlement, as a replacement for detailing individual units.

Made clearer:

Rebalancing to:In Quick Combat, not having enough SU increases Military Rank.

Got rid of:
Saudi Arabia
 player, 31 posts
Mon 14 Aug 2017
at 18:21
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Some comments afte a quick Reading:

Co-GM:
Rebalancing to:In Quick Combat, not having enough SU increases Military Rank.


Fully agreed

This was already in former editions, just realized now:

6.3: revolt modifiers table_
quote:
(Number of friendly Ground Brigades in the Settlement) X 100 /(Number of Population Units in the Settlement), round fractions down. Brigades with ‘Reserve’ Quality level do not count. Brigades with ‘Security’ ability count as 5 regular Brigades


How will a reserve brigade with security abitiy (as the motorized Saudi NG ones) for this?

EDIT:

Options I see:
  1. they don't count, as they are 'Reserve' Quality
  2. they count as 5 brigades, as they have 'Security' ability
  3. halfaway, they count as 2.5 (or. to avoid decimals, as 2 or 3) brigades

I personally would find option 1 as dubious, as they may well represent para-military pólice forces, nearly useless in military terms (they lack heavy weaponry or artillery), but quite useful in internal security duties.

This message was last edited by the player at 18:59, Mon 14 Aug 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 165 posts
Fri 18 Aug 2017
at 07:12
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 316):

>they don't count, as they are 'Reserve' Quality
This one. The example will be edited to make that clear.

>I personally would find option 1 as dubious, as they may well represent
>para-military pólice forces,

Just because a force tries to do something does not mean it is actually effective.
Nigeria
 player, 6 posts
Fri 25 Aug 2017
at 11:24
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
I keep thinking that the political actions resolution formula penalized high prestige when trying any internal action.

e.g. let's imagine two nations each with 20000 pop, AM 12 and stability 10, but nation A with prestige 15, while nation b with prestige 5. Both use 1 PA to attempt decreasing corurption:

  • Nation A: formula is 12(AM)2*1(PA)/(20000(pop)*(15(prestige)-10(stability)+20)2*1/100000), so 144/125=1.152, so 1:1
  • Nation B: formula is 12(AM)2*1(PA)/(20000(pop)*(5(prestige)-10(stability)+20)2*1/100000), so 144/45=3.2, so 3:1


As I don't see any logic on this, I keep suggesting to take prestige out of equation for internal actions, changing it for a constant (let's say 10).
Germany
 player, 319 posts
Sat 26 Aug 2017
at 12:28
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Co-GM:
Introduction of:The Sum Basic Combat Strength of an NPC Settlement, as a replacement for detailing individual units.


I agree this will make bokkeeping quite easier, as well as helping to make exact losses, but, IMHO, two things (that I can think right now) must be clarified:

  1. In case anyone attacks one such nations, would they count as having air for the combat power of player's SAM (see that some nations like Kurdistán or Pashtunistan, have no air power at game scale)?
  2. In case this minor country uses MDWs, as only some units have their combat power increased (artillery, missiles, bombers), how will this affect it?

Germany
 player, 322 posts
Mon 28 Aug 2017
at 15:26
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Just realized (though it was thre since proposal 20170401):

7.9.1: Orbital facilities:

quote:
Orbital Industry: More expensive to build than ground based industries but can make products which are in high demand. If provided with 20 Raw Material Units per Turn then this facility generates $50/Turn and, if paid for with the appropriate number of $, build locally up to 10 Supply Units per Turn.


Why has this been reduced (it was 25 with current rules)?

In a setting where interface is so expensive and difficult, it should be expected that eery effort is done to produce those things in orbit, if they are to be sent elsewhere.

See that this change will (again) blow up German plans already in development, and will make me unable to accomplish my compromises (once again due to rules changes, not to bad planning). This way it is impossible to make long-term plans.
Germany
 player, 324 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:31
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
General Rules comments (vased on Rules Proposal 20170810):

After over 300 posts I think it might be a good idea to summarize what I find could be improved in the rules, including all that has already been said, hoping to ease your job by putting all together in a handful of consecutive posts. I’ve been working on this for some time now, and I adapted it to the newest proposal (20170810).

Of course, you know I’d done several things different (but then, I’d probably not been able to write such a coherent rules, just to modify them), but I accept your approach and just limit myself to point at loopholes, asking clarifications and making suggestions.

Some of them, have already been suggested, and in some cases you refuted them, in others you did not answer, but I’ll give them here again if I keep believing they would help or improve the game-

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.

Aside from giving some (many?) thoughts to chew, I’d like to also hear others’ opinions, as all too often it seems only you and me discuss about rules.

Overall: adding a glossary.

2.2 Words and their ratings:

I keep thinking atmosphere A (exotic, but neither corrosive nor insidious, usually only needing oxygen support but not protective suits) planets should be treated as inhospitable, not Intolerable (unless other factors dictate otherwise). Examples of those worlds would be Titan (methane atmosphere) or any world with reductive atmosphere (CO2).

2.3: Hexagons:

Separating the Farming and Mining potentials to a rule by itself, instead of having them in the Hexagons one (they have little to none to do with Hexes).

Modifying Mining Potential by the density of the world (as we have it listed in H&E). E.g. a DM of (density-1)*10. For Asteroid/planetoid belts the modifier should be by dependent on nickel-iron (so metals) and carbonaceous (hydrocarbons) zones (e.g. ( (n+c zones)/10)-5 used as DM). See that in both cases the DM may be negative too.

Making Tantalum SRU presence dependent on the density (N zone for Asteroid/Planetoid belts).

All of this is to be more compatible with 2300AD setting and to represent the higher useful ores expected to be in concordance with density. In the case of Asteroid/Planetoid belts, with the metallic and hydrocarbon asteroids for RMUs and just ores for Tantalum, as it is where it is most likely to be found.

Halving MP for unhospitable worlds (Asteroid/Planetoid belts included) instead of having the -10 DM. Up to you if this halving should occur before modifiers (by hex type and/or above modifiers) or after them.

As rules stand now, about half of inhospitable worlds and Asteroid/planetoid belts would have a MP of 0, making them useless. While we can discuss if they would really be profitable, once extra supply needs are taken into account, I guess most of them will have some useful materials…

2.5: Settlement list:

Adding the permanent stability and prestige (to allow players to calculate how they will fade) of the settlements.

3.6: Making Purchases Mid-Turn:

Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM permission (as long as there are $ enough remaining).  At the end of the turn, any unspent $ is automatically converted to SUs.

This will allow more flexibility for players, and probably make response PAs unnecessary. E.g. Country A ends its budget with $300 unallocated. Ad mid turn it decides to buy 1 response PA ($150, s it has the 50% overcost), buys SU 50 to support one WR, rebuild (with GM permission) an Experienced  Destroyer unit ($23, also with the 50% overcost), and to rent 1500 tonnes uplift ($5, also with the 50% overcost) so finishing the turn with $72, that are automatically converted into 72 SU.

4.5: Special Resource Units.

(Clarification aked): can those (specially oil, as is the only one active) be stored?

4.5.4: Altering SRU Demand or Production_

See that once coal is counted as oil SRUs, the coal gasification in option 5 makes (IMHO) little sense.

An option should be given for renewable power sources (solar, wind, tidal, etc.).
Germany
 player, 325 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:33
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
6.5: Political Actions:

Allow for minor PAs (equivalent to 1/10th of a PA. They could be at S10 cost, free but limited (e.g. prestige /4 per turn), or at $10 cost with a limit per turn (in this case I’d suggest a higher limit, as prestige /2).  Those minor PAs cannot be added for the same action, nor with a full PA.
I liked the possibility of being able to perform minor actions (multiplier 0.1), as some times a full political action is an overkill, and doing nothing is not what you want, so a mid-way possibility was, IMHO, right.

6.6: Task Resolution:

For internal actions (In the same country as performs the action), make prestige=10.

7: settlements

I cannot find it right now, but I’d suggest allowing OT modules to be able to be moved from one OT to another in the same orbit. During the moving turn, it is idled (if it is already allowed, to explicit it).


7.4: Settlement TL:

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’d suggest to change it to 0.1/200 pop or to outright remove this modifier.

7.6: Maintenance:

(Not clear if allowed, but it should be explicated) For colony and core settlements, allow for a nation to supply other nation’s facilities by counting among their own facilities/5 for orbital supplies. This must be explicated in the turn orders (as well as which specific facility is included).  E.g.: Germany has 4 facilities in Earth Orbit, while UK has 1. Germany explicitly writes in his turn orders that the SU uplifted to orbit will supply his own facilities plus the UK one. If Germany forgets to explicit it in the orders, UK facility, that relied on it, is idled this turn due to lack of supplies.

7.9.1: Orbital facilities:

ODI: allow them to be up gunned with weaponry modules (as long as they obtain power from some source).

Missile Defense: increase its defense power against missiles. Now that MDWs have had theirs increased, this facility is nearly useless (and it was you who said every facility/unit should have its utility).

Enclave module:  get rid of the outpost prerequisite.
(Clarification asked): could an enclave be set in Earth to get the Pai-Leng SRU?

Civilian/military shipyards: allow them to build 10000 tonnes of ship per turn, instead of just assembly and build 10 modules per turn.

Orbital Industry: make the production TL dependent (e.g. 5 x materials or power TLs, whichever is lower). Allow it to build more supplies (let’s say half of its production capacity)

IMHO, the TL should be as decisive on industrial efficiency as to agriculture or mining. As for SUs, in a setting where interface is so expensive and difficult, it should be expected that every effort is done to produce those things in orbit, if they are to be sent elsewhere.

Solar power Satellite: allow it to reduce oil SRU according the power it gives to the settlement (e.g. power/10). Representing the decreased need of this power due to the solar power received.

7.9.2: Interface facilities:

Personally, I’d like more the formula to be based on gravity (remember, H&E gives it), but I understand that would require major changes.

7.9.3: Ground facilities:

Heavy Industry:  make the production TL dependent (e.g. 5 x materials or power TLs, whichever is lower). IMHO, the TL should be as decisive on industrial efficiency as to agriculture or mining.


University: instead of producing Pai-Leng, I’d find it more logical to be counted for cutting edge research as research modules are.  Representing quite larger facilities (they cost 16 times as much and need supply and pop), they should not be reduced to a single tech category, and allowed to be used in as many cutting edge research projects a single nation makes In a turn.
Germany
 player, 326 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
8.7.1: Naval units:

Allow cruisers to carry missiles as missile submarines do (but maybe only 1 SAM or IRBM unit) to represent the GC and Aegis units.

8.7.3: Space Units

ICBM: give them a different defense factor (In case they are attacked and don’t want to use WMD). Right now, they are the more powerful defense units too…
ABM: increase its defense power. Now that MDWs have had theirs increased, this facility is nearly useless (and it was you who said every facility/unit should have its utility).

8.7.4: Ground Units

Merge infantry and motorized units. Nowadays, most infantry can have enough motor pool to be seen as motorized, and would reduce bookkeeping.

8.10: Division Sized Units:

Make Division Sized Units to save 20% of their maintenance costs (so 4 SU, instead of 5 SU) per non-reserve division).
This will represent the more efficient centralized supply commands, and encourage the use of divisions, so easing (I hope) the GM work and bookkeeping.

8.11:Representing Game Units

Example (clarification): could you please explain what does the second set of combat numbers represent (the 20/3/4/0)?

9: Spaceships:

It’s not a secret I’d change many more things on them, but I’ll limit myself to point at loopholes and make the game playable. See also comments on orbital shipyards.

Add a factor on spaceships called rating, equivalent to hull modules x 1000. This will be used for every calculation used (OT support, building limits of spaceports/shipyards, etc.).
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.

9.2: Spaceship construction:

Exclude the cargo modules from the limits for building, as they represent mostly empty space.

See also what I posted in the Shipyards)

9.3 Maintenance, Labour, Cost, and Altering:


Decrease the OTs needed to support the ships.

In 2300AD is specified that there are about 600 ships only of the Anjou class (DG page 74). As it has 25000 m3 cargo capacity (over double than the Hudson), I guess they are no smaller than a Hudson. That would mean over 13800000 tonnes of shipping, needing over 1380 OTs to support just the Anjou class ships…<Blue>


9.4: Landings and Transport.

Forfeit the 5000 tons for the population mass, the passenger module being enough.
<Blue>5000 people will mass about 10% of this, and the 10000 tons of the passenger module should be able to handle it (even if we assume half of it is the spinning machinery and engineering sections, it would leave about 1 ton per person)


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.
Germany
 player, 327 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:41
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
10: Combat:

As for now it was decided to resolve combats on core worlds according 10:10 (Quick combat), and so those are the rules I mostly expect to be used for a while, I’ll center my comments on them (though some comments on other things would be done). See also comments on armed forces.

10.6: Damage Allocation

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?

Collateral damages (clarifications asked):

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?
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.


10.9: Air Defense and Ground Support

Include the bombers among the units quartered if fighting only air units. As things are now, a MR unit attacking a bomber unit, other things being equal, is on a clear disadvantage (Basic combat 3 against basic combat 5). Even if the MR has interceptor capacity, it would be 4.5 to 5.

Exclude MR helicopters with interceptor ability from being quartered against air only units. I assume those interceptors represent more VTOL fighters than helicopters properly.

Include DDs or CAs among the units with less reduction if attacked only by air power (alternatively, allow them to carry SAM, as said in the Armed Forces section).

10:10 Quick Combat:


Supplies: I found more logical the supply needs to depend on MR. I’d suggest the SU used per unit in each WR to be (5-MR), so that a MR2 nation would need 3 SU/unit, while a MR1 nation would need 4 SU/unit.

MR represents more than units quality, and the tail-to-tooth ratio is, as I understand it, one of the factors, as well as how well supplied units are. I also find illogical that reserve units consume no supplies.

(Clarification asked) How are damages allocated when they are not enough to destroy a unit?

If we make them as “if not enough to destroy a unit, none”, then a single armored unit cannot be destroyed, no matter how strongly it is attacked, as long as it has supplies (and if reserve, never)…

If we make (at least a unit if there are any losses), then a player attacking two armored divisions against a single infantry brigade and rolling a 1 (10/100) would lose a full armored division…

Suggestion: if not enough to destroy a unit, then none, but any result of 100% would mean at least a unit destroyed (damaged if 10:10 is not used).


General for combat:

I’d suggest raising the possible results over 100 (up to 200 or more at the higher ends) to compensate for armor or for the reduction due to 10:10. As they are now, a single unit with some armor may last forever (or even without it if 10:10 is used).

There should be some way to attack directly the enemy infrastructures/economy (strategic bomber). If so, I guess most non SAM/ABM forces are not too useful In defense…

Examples (taken to extremes) to show what I see flawed in combat (include what is said in the Armed Forces section:

Country A attacks with 5 bombers a hex where there are 1 infantry brigade and 2 ICBM units (10:10 is not used. So the combat occurs at the defenders hex).
  • What is the defense? According rules, if MDW are used defense factor would be 51 (so higher than the bombers), and, if not, 1 (as ICBMs would not fight without using MDWs).
  • Would those ICBMs produce collateral damages if they defend using MDWs (see that they would be using them in their own territory)



Germany attacks Nordic Fed in hex E10 with a single reserve bomber airship (10:10 is in effect). Germany has a basic combat force of 5 against the full NF armed forces in E10 (about 60 brigades, 6 of which are reserve with a basic combat force of about 106). The table is, off course, <1:10. Germany will receive 1damage, not enough to destroy the unit. NF will receive none unless a 10 is rolled, in which case it will receive 2% rounded up damages, so 3, enough to destroy either 3 units with a value of 1 or one with a value of 3. In the meanwhile, Germany has spent no supplies and NF has spent 270 SUs).



Spreadsheet:

Add the prestige somewhere on it.

Modify the Social expanses according the AM (example, to make it easy, multiply it by (AM-14)/40. I set 14 as the non-modified because is the current average).
Remember, higher AM also represents more percentage of social maters (education, health system, etc.) taken by the state, and I find quite illogical than, having more or less the same TLs and GDP per capita, Canada (with an AM of 12) is spending about 56% on them, while US (AM9) is spending about 70%, or that India (AM 13) is expending about 82% on them, while Saudi Arabia (AM 18), with higher TLs and GDP per capita, as well as lower MR is expending about 51%...
This aside, you sadi to want making AM less decisive in the money available for the player than it is, and this would help.


Off course, if they can be stored, SRU stored cell must be added…
Russia
 player, 30 posts
Tue 5 Sep 2017
at 11:56
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
In reply to Germany (msg # 324):

Lluis made a great job clearing rules, I agree with most his propositions.
I would recommend to create a google document so that all propositions, comments and reasoning were in one place.

This message was last edited by the player at 11:56, Tue 05 Sept 2017.

Germany
 player, 328 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 02:40
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
As you said this should be asked in this thread, here I go:
Co-GM:
Quick Combat Round#4

Syrian rebels defending
Syrian rebels: 1 Green Mechanized Brigades (ex-Syrian Army)
Mil Rank 4, Mil tech 7.5, Sum Basic Strength: 3, Final Combat Strength: 168

Odds are 8001/168=47.6 which becomes >10:1 odds, shifted 2*(4-3)=2 = 2 columns to right for Military Rank, final odds >10:1

22:53, Today: Co-GM rolled 9 using 1d10.  Bloody Damascus#9.
Results: 0% permanent to loss Attacker, 100%/5=20% permanent loss to defender,
0.2 X 3 available hits =0.6 = 1

Syrian rebels losses:
None, insufficient to destroy a unit

How in the hell can this last unit, if its combat power is higher than 1, be destroyed?

As things are, it seems Saudi Arabia should have left only 1 tank brigade to stop the whole Iraqui Army, as it would have been indestructible, and so could resist forever (as long as SUs last).
Co-GM
 GM, 171 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 05:12
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
>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.

>See that this change will (again) blow up German plans already in development, and will
>make me unable to accomplish my compromises (once again due to rules changes, not to
>bad planning). This way it is impossible to make long-term plans.

You gambled and lost on investing in one of the most speculative and untested parts of a speculative and untested game. I cannot expect that you be happy that you gambled and lost, I can expect that you accept that you gambled, and lost.

>In case anyone attacks one such nations, would they count as having air for the combat
>power of player's SAM (see that some nations like Kurdistán or Pashtunistan, have no
>air power at game scale)?

An unimportant detail at the scale of Quick Combat. About to become even more unimportant next Turn when we stop detailing individual units for NPCs and just go with summed combat strength per NPC Settlement.

>(Clarification aked): can those (specially oil, as is the only one active) be stored?
and
>(Clarification asked) How are damages allocated when they are not enough to destroy a unit?
and
>I’d suggest raising the possible results over 100
and
>Off course, if they can be stored, SRU stored cell must be added…
I already know about these issues and have been rewriting the rules accordingly.

>Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM
and
>Allow for minor PAs (equivalent to 1/10th of a PA.
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.

>Overall: adding a glossary.
I am leery of adding back in a glossary, the terms that would go in there are usually too complex to be adequately defined in a glossary format. Sergey had the better suggestion of beefing up the table of contents but I am temporarily stymied by the terrible options for ToC creation in Google Docs. I will figure something out eventually.

>atmosphere A (exotic, but neither corrosive nor insidious, usually only needing
>oxygen support but not protective suits) planets should be treated as inhospitable

Ok.

>Modifying Mining Potential by the density of the world <snip>Making Tantalum
>SRU presence dependent on the density (N zone for Asteroid/Planetoid belts).

Finding world density requires 2 mouse clicks and a drag more than what it takes to find World Size, and that is at least 1 mouse click and a drag more than what I want to do for such a common task. Besides, Mineral Potential and Mineral Units covers a wide range of products and processes, of which metals and bulk world density are only two factors among many.

>An option should be given for renewable power sources (solar, wind, tidal, etc.).
That is option#4. Will modify text to make that clear.

>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).

>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.

>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.

>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?

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>needing over 1380 OTs to support just the Anjou class ship
Invest in more OTs.

>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'.

>Halving MP for unhospitable worlds <snip> have a MP of 0, making them useless.
and
>llow 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?

>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.

>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.

>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.

>Germany has a basic combat force of 5 against the full NF armed forces in E10 (about
>60 brigades,<snip> Germany has spent no supplies and NF has spent 270 SUs).

Which units are part of a round of Quick Combat are "... all those which the GM decrees could reasonably be involved together, not necessarily only those in the same hex as the enemy." Sec 10.11 paragraph#2

>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?

>Modify the Social expanses according the AM
This is not much different than the current system, it just hides the effect of the Authoritarian Score within Social Upkeep.
Germany
 player, 329 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 14:30
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Co-GM:
>See that this change will (again) blow up German plans already in development, and will
>make me unable to accomplish my compromises (once again due to rules changes, not to
>bad planning). This way it is impossible to make long-term plans.

You gambled and lost on investing in one of the most speculative and untested parts of a speculative and untested game. I cannot expect that you be happy that you gambled and lost, I can expect that you accept that you gambled, and lost.


I never thought trusting the rules and playing accordingly was gambling...

The whole Project was risky, I know, and I will accept my loses if it turns out to have a Mining Potential of 0 (I still don't know that), but what has affected the plan, even in it haas higher minning potential, is, once again, rules changes.

I don't complain where I lose what I gambled because bad planning, rotten luck or I was outmaneuvered by another player, but I do when it's rules changes that make me lose, despite if the plan was sound or not, because that confuses me and does not allow me to make long term plans, something absolutely necessary for a strategic game.
Germany
 player, 330 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 17:39
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
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 "clinet 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.<quote>

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. <quote>

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'.<quote>

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.<quote>

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.<quote>

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.
Germany
 player, 331 posts
Thu 14 Sep 2017
at 12:48
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
As I guess al lof us agree rules should be simplified, here comes a suggestion to simplify military matters (already suggested time ago):

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.).

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.

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.

Supplies costs (no real change, counting above proposal):

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).

EDIT 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. END EDIT

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

To solve this:
Germany:
Co-GM:
Introduction of:The Sum Basic Combat Strength of an NPC Settlement, as a replacement for detailing individual units.


I agree this will make bokkeeping quite easier, as well as helping to make exact losses, but, IMHO, two things (that I can think right now) must be clarified:

In case this minor country uses MDWs, as only some units have their combat power increased (artillery, missiles, bombers), how will this affect it?



WMD capable NPCs (fortunately few right now):

As the use of MDWs also gives some increase in combat power for some units (aside from other effects, as may be columns shifts or increased damages), just write this increase in the “MDW capable?” column of the spreadsheet.

Example: Current rest-Pakistan forces (as listed in the NPC section of the HP) would be 324 basic combat points worth. As it has bombers, missiles and artillery, if MDW are used its basic combat points total is 397. So, in the “MDW capable?” cell for Pakistan, instead of a “yes”, just list a 73, so everyone will know that if it engages in MDW war its force would be 397 instead of 324.


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

And another suggestion:

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.

This message was last edited by the player at 13:22, Thu 14 Sept 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 172 posts
Tue 19 Sep 2017
at 22:41
Rules Proposal 20170919
Change to: Downlift of Deadfall. Equation for #of round trips for Spaceships. Number of rounds of Quick Combat, now strictly at GM’s discretion. Damage done during a Quick Combat affects at least one unit. Armour adds to number of hits that can be absorbed. How Missile Defence, SAM, IRBM, ICBM, and ABM units work to make their varying combat strengths be easier to understand. Atmosphere type A results in an Inhospitable, not an Intolerable, World.

Introduction of: Added rules for the Archipelago,  Archipelago(Ice), Scattered Lakes, Scattered Lakes(Ice) terrain types that H&E can generate.

Made clearer: Capture of hexes and Settlements. During Quick Combat: WMD use, collateral damage, and which rules are not used. SU for Outposts and Enclaves are consumed in the Orbit hex.

Rebalancing to:In Quick Combat, not having enough SU increases Military Rank. SU maintenance cost of Enclaves

Got rid of:SRU exploration can only be within a Settlement’s borders and the exact hex does need to be specified. Earth’s special map and rules, must keep consistent with rest of the Worlds. Carried squadrons for Missile Submarines, Helicopter Carrier and Aircraft Carrier, to keep it consistent with Spaceships. Low-G and High-G Special Abilities, a duplicate of Inhospitable and keeps consistent with the usual Hosp/Inhosp split. Long Range Special Ability, a duplicate of Airship and Bombers. Special Abilities affecting Combat Strength, what they do is already listed elsewhere. Limiting total size of a nation’s Spaceship fleet by the number of O/Ts possessed; an unnecessary complication given that Spaceships are limited by SU and Tantalum availability. Supplying landing capable Spaceships from a Spaceport, keeps it consistent with other units. Units that are part of a force that looks for hidden units consume SU, an unneeded complication, and looking does not compare to combat for SU for consumption.
Germany
 player, 332 posts
Wed 27 Sep 2017
at 10:51
Rules Proposal 20170919
After some quick reading:

quote:
9.3: Supply Unit requirement of a Spaceship is the same as a military unit in an Inhospitable World (see section 8.3), regardless if it is landed on a Hospitable World. The Supply Units needed must be brought to any friendly O/T.


Does that mean that any spaceship needs 2 SU taken into orbit (so 10000 tonnes uplift tied) to keep it supplied, even if they start and end the turn in a spaceport?

You claim in 11.1 that this is to keep it consistent wiht other units, but in fact this is inconsistent with the other units' suply, that specify the SU must be delivered to where they are at the begining of turn (8.3, paragraph 2)

See that there's no way Germany can keep his paceship fleet this way, once again rules changes blowing away any long term plans.

With each Rockets unit giving 1985 uplift (Unless I botched numbers), I would need 16 rocket units. As Germany has now 3 such units(and, of course, upgrading the Spaceport or uisng anyoune else's)just to keep the Ship's supplies. Add to this Rauhaven OT (5000 tonnes more), and the needs raise to 18 units just to supply what I have now.

OF course, this will stop cold any space plans, or forcé me to spend about $1800 (last turn Budget was $1948), so doing nothing else just for unexpected uplift increases.

quote:
9.4 #Round trips within a Star System = [3 000 X (# of non-StutterWarp Propulsion Modules) / (Spaceship Mass) + 50 X (# of StutterWarp Modules) ] X (Space tech level – 7.0) / (AU of one endpoint + AU of other endpoint) If the ship has at least one Chemical, Thruster or StutterWarp type Propulsion Module and there are no friendly O/T facilities at an endpoint then add 5 AU for distance calculations.


So, now the non-stutterwarp modules increase the round trips for a stuttterwarp equiped ship?

Let's imagine a TL 9.5 10000 tonnes ship with 1 stutterwarp module. If moveing among Earth and Ganymede (Jupiter's satellite), it can perform (50*1*2.5)/(1+5.2), so 20.16 (so 20) round trips. If this same ship has the 9 needed chemical propulsors to land on Earth. It would add 3000*9*2.5/[10000*(1+5.2)], so 1.09 round trips more, for a total of 21.25 (so 21) round trips.

Frankly, I see no sense on this, but this will not have effects until some turns from now...

Possible errata (or an English lesson for me):

quote:
9.4 Paragraph 5: If a Spaceship is already StutterWarp Module equipt


Of course, you know English language better than myself, but shouldn't this be equiped instead of equipt?

10:10: Quick Combat (overall):

As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using PAs to increase the # of rounds.

Let’s imagine someone attacks an NPC that has 20 Sum Basic Combat. Among his units and column shifts, it achieves >10:1 odds. The result for the defender is automatically 100, so 20%:
  • Round 1: defender’s force is 20. Takes 20% losses (4 SBC)
  • Round 2: defender’s force is 16. Takes 20% losses (3.2, so 4 SBC)
  • Round 3: defender’s force is 12. Takes 20% losses (2.4, so 3 SBC)
  • Round 4: defender’s force is 9. Takes 20% losses (1.8, so 2 SBC)
  • Round 5: defender’s force is 7. Takes 20% losses (1.4, so 2 SBC)
  • Round 6: defender’s force is 5. Takes 20% losses (1 SBC)
  • Round 7: defender’s force is 4. Takes 20% losses (0.8, so 1 SBC)


So, it would take 10 rounds to fully destroy it, each round spending 5 SU per unit involved, while the NPC, I guess not subjected to supplies needs, keeps resisting. In the meanwhile, any 1 rolled means at least one unit lost by the attacker (regardless its combat power)…

This message was last edited by the player at 17:58, Wed 27 Sept 2017.

Saudi Arabia
 player, 36 posts
Wed 27 Sep 2017
at 18:00
Last WR resolution
A question about last turn resolution (as you told me to ask such things here):

rule 10.6 Battle resolution:

quote:
If attacked by Ground Units, all friendly Artillery, SAM, Space and Air Units must be with an equal number of friendly other Ground Units in the same hex, else divide the Combat Strength of the Artillery, SAM, Space and Air Units by 5


As I don't see this being among the rules suspended by 10:10, why was this not applied on the IC SAM last unit?

This message was last updated by the player at 16:44, Fri 29 Sept 2017.

Germany
 player, 333 posts
Wed 27 Sep 2017
at 18:10
Rules Proposal 20170919
Some more as I read:

7.6:
Oh great, I hadn’t realized it. Now the OTs in other systems also need SU to be taken to them, so, to the problems told in my former post we must add those…

7.9.3 under Military Base (possible errata):

In the example given, the hex number for the US base should be actualized to the new hex coordinates.

8.7 (overall. Also affecting 10 overall and 10:10 specifically):

How is the different combat power of units (e.g. a carrier) in Quick Combat? Do they use their offensive power? Their defensive one?

How many hits they count if destroyed in 10:10? Again offensive power? Defensive one?

How do the carriers and SSBN changes affect current OBs? Simply by deleting all carried units?

Frankly, IMHO most of those changes just add confusion and complexity (though they may reduce SU needs for the Carriers and SSBN…)

8.11 First example in page 65
quote:
French #1240: Veteran Spaceship:10/1/3/0:B:L:Alpha Centuari, Triania, Orbit: N/A: 20/3/4/0, carrying unit#455a<quote>
It seems I didn’t explain well my question in former posts. What are the combat factors? Are they the 10/1/3/0 or the 20/3/4/0? And what represents the other set of numbers?

10.2.2 (probable errata)_

<quote>Air units may move as a non-Infantry type Ground unit, see section 10.3.3

There’s no section 10.3.3 (or at least I didn't find it).
Germany
 player, 334 posts
Thu 28 Sep 2017
at 16:44
Rules Proposal 20170919
even more:

2.5 Settlement List (Probable errata):

WMD capable: An ability to consistently devastate large areas. See section 8.8

I guess it should say section 8.12 (MDWs) instead of 8.8 (Military Rank)

Contradictory info:
7.9.1:
quote:
ODI: <snip>Has a Base Combat strength of 15 (4 Beam, 6 Missile, and 5 Orbital Bombardment)
<snip>
Weaponry Module: <snip>adds 2 Beam and 6 Missile

8.12 WMDs and WMD Capable Nations:
quote:
<snip>Possession of ICBM units or Spaceship Missile or Spaceship Orbital Bombardment Modules requires that the nation be ‘WMD Capable’.


Then, what happens with the weaponry module equiped OTs and ODIs combat factor for non WMD countries?

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
  • 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 hexses away on Eaarth may participate).


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?

ASAT (also in older rules, but I just realized):

(note: all of this assumes 10.10 is used)

1) Let's asume one country has just engaged war with Argentina and decides to attack his satellites. He attacks with 1 infantry unit, but as the satellites have combat factor 0, attack is in table >10.1, but as result will be 100% of 0, no damage is achieved, and so they cannot be destroyed, but on a 1 die roll, the infantry unit is, as it receives 10% of 1, but at least a unit. Is that right?

2) Instead of Argentina the same situation is against China. In this case, as it has an OT, that I guess will defend with factor 1 it uses 1 MR plane. As 10.8 is not used, it attacks with a 3:1, so some damage will be achieved, let's assume 60%, reduced to 12% due to 10.10, so 0.12 hits. If we elimiate satellites (0 combat factor), we can elimiate all of them without absorving any damage, and as the remaining damage must destroy at least one unit, the OT too, so the logical result (from rules wiewpoint)is to eliminate the OT and no damage to the satellites (that were the targets...). Is this right?
Germany
 player, 335 posts
Fri 29 Sep 2017
at 16:09
Rules Proposal 20170919
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…
Germany
 player, 336 posts
Fri 29 Sep 2017
at 16:51
Rules Proposal 20170919
While I understand the reasons for the Earth map change, I frankly don't like it, and I'm not sure the many changes (begining with all units positions, in some cases, knowing what hex a country really is, and I guess the changes in the settlements spreadsheet) it will require are worth the standarization.

Personally, I'd return to the former one, but I understand that's a matter of taste and even that may change as I get accostumed to it.
USA
 player, 57 posts
Mon 2 Oct 2017
at 09:21
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Germany:
After some quick reading:

quote:
9.3: Supply Unit requirement of a Spaceship is the same as a military unit in an Inhospitable World (see section 8.3), regardless if it is landed on a Hospitable World. The Supply Units needed must be brought to any friendly O/T.


Does that mean that any spaceship needs 2 SU taken into orbit (so 10000 tonnes uplift tied) to keep it supplied, even if they start and end the turn in a spaceport?



We are currently looking at a situation where, for the ships in current use, we're going to have to uplift their own mass in supply, and the same for O/Ts

This is going to put a serious throttle on the space action economy, and whilst it messes up both the plans Lluis and I have separately, the main worry I have from this change is that Space will end up almost the sole preserve of the big boys.

Lets be honest, who other than nations with huge budgets like US and China are going to be able to afford the cost of building sufficient uplift to support more than a few ships in the next 10 turns without neglecting lots of other, essential, stuff. Having landing ships resupply from the ground gave nations that can't afford to maintain that level of uplift early on the ability to still access space.

We already have the problem that tech advancement is quite slow as people spend money trying to fix problems in their nations with PAs rather than investing in tech, we're now adding on to that problem by essentially requiring a $1300 'buy in' price to get an orbital terminal and enough uplift to get supplies up for your first ship ($100 for 2 Spaceports, $200 for an O/T and £1000 for 10 rockets, and nearly the same cost per additional ship now that the limit to total size has been removed based on O/Ts

I'd like to suggest that maybe we deffer this change, if this is absolutely what you want to do, until the next turn so we can work, as players, to cushion the blow to the system we have in place, but I'd really like to suggest we perhaps revise how supply for spaceships works, to prevent limiting access to space for what I'm going to call 'mid-tier nations'.

Also - Lluís, hope you're OK and didn't get caught up in the unpleasantness going on with the independence referendum.

This message was last edited by the player at 09:23, Mon 02 Oct 2017.

Germany
 player, 337 posts
Tue 3 Oct 2017
at 17:31
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
Germany:
After some quick reading:

quote:
9.3: Supply Unit requirement of a Spaceship is the same as a military unit in an Inhospitable World (see section 8.3), regardless if it is landed on a Hospitable World. The Supply Units needed must be brought to any friendly O/T.


Does that mean that any spaceship needs 2 SU taken into orbit (so 10000 tonnes uplift tied) to keep it supplied, even if they start and end the turn in a spaceport?



We are currently looking at a situation where, for the ships in current use, we're going to have to uplift their own mass in supply, and the same for O/Ts

This is going to put a serious throttle on the space action economy, and whilst it messes up both the plans Lluis and I have separately, the main worry I have from this change is that Space will end up almost the sole preserve of the big boys.

Lets be honest, who other than nations with huge budgets like US and China are going to be able to afford the cost of building sufficient uplift to support more than a few ships in the next 10 turns without neglecting lots of other, essential, stuff. Having landing ships resupply from the ground gave nations that can't afford to maintain that level of uplift early on the ability to still access space.


See that this has happened with most of the rules changes affecting space, each one fully dismanteling any plans one could do for space exploration.

USA:
We already have the problem that tech advancement is quite slow as people spend money trying to fix problems in their nations with PAs rather than investing in tech, we're now adding on to that problem by essentially requiring a $1300 'buy in' price to get an orbital terminal and enough uplift to get supplies up for your first ship ($100 for 2 Spaceports, $200 for an O/T and £1000 for 10 rockets, and nearly the same cost per additional ship now that the limit to total size has been removed based on O/Ts


Just curious, why this OT? Remember that rockets don't need OT (otherwise we could never uplift even the first OT).

USA:
I'd like to suggest that maybe we deffer this change, if this is absolutely what you want to do, until the next turn so we can work, as players, to cushion the blow to the system we have in place, but I'd really like to suggest we perhaps revise how supply for spaceships works, to prevent limiting access to space for what I'm going to call 'mid-tier nations'.


Even deferring it, there's no way space exploration could be kept with this limits, more so if you add the reduction of SU building capaity of Orbital Industries (from 25 SU/turn to 10 SU/turn maximums).

Considering also that SUs cannot be launched in catapults (something I agree has logic), that means any ship would tie a good number of uplift capacity, regardless where they begin the turn.

But even above this, above the fact Germany would have to mothball part of its space fleet, above the fact space exploration will be put to halt, there are two points:
  1. the reason that this will keep it consistent wiht other units is flawed, as other units must receive the SUs where they begin the turn, while spaceships in orbit, regardless where they begin the turn.
  2. the rules must allow for long term plans, and any rules change must considere that. If each rules change means your long term plans are void, the game simply cannot be played


After all, what do supplies represent? fuel, munitions, food (to an extent, as it is considered side), small stuff, etc. What of all this might not be served on ground facilities? Unlike ground units who are receiving them on a continuous basis (and even then they must, in game terms, receive them where they start the turn, regardless where they go), ships, be them sea or space, load their supplies at port, and don't use to receive more until they reach a new port.

Of course, the fact OTs must receive their supplies in the orbit they are on, even if equally fucking from the point 2 prespective, has at least some logic on it.

Another point on uplift is the fact that the facilities now must be uplift (and I guess transported) in a single turn. While I understand that simplifies bookkeeping, this may work for most of them, assuming someone wants to build and deploy a Solar Power Satellite at TL 9.5 (when it is available), he would need 9 units of scram aircrafts (the best uplift at TL 9.5, as catapults cannot launch them, again understandable) just for it, and to launch an Orbital Colony, it would need 23 Scram Aircraft units. I’d suggest to allow them to be deployed in batches (let’s say of 25%). As for the bookkeeping, as you answered me, this will add to players’ bookkeeping, not to GM’s
USA
 player, 58 posts
Tue 3 Oct 2017
at 18:14
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Germany:
USA:
<quote Germany>
After some quick reading:

<quote USA>We already have the problem that tech advancement is quite slow as people spend money trying to fix problems in their nations with PAs rather than investing in tech, we're now adding on to that problem by essentially requiring a $1300 'buy in' price to get an orbital terminal and enough uplift to get supplies up for your first ship ($100 for 2 Spaceports, $200 for an O/T and £1000 for 10 rockets, and nearly the same cost per additional ship now that the limit to total size has been removed based on O/Ts


Just curious, why this OT? Remember that rockets don't need OT (otherwise we could never uplift even the first OT).


My reading was you needed an OT to provide the supplies to the ship

Rules proposal 9.3:
Supply Unit requirement of a Spaceship is the same as a military unit in an Inhospitable World (see section 8.3), regardless if it is landed on a Hospitable World. The Supply Units needed must be brought to any friendly O/T.

This message was last edited by the player at 18:30, Tue 03 Oct 2017.

Germany
 player, 338 posts
Tue 3 Oct 2017
at 18:41
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
Germany:
USA:
<quote Germany>
After some quick reading:

<quote USA>We already have the problem that tech advancement is quite slow as people spend money trying to fix problems in their nations with PAs rather than investing in tech, we're now adding on to that problem by essentially requiring a $1300 'buy in' price to get an orbital terminal and enough uplift to get supplies up for your first ship ($100 for 2 Spaceports, $200 for an O/T and £1000 for 10 rockets, and nearly the same cost per additional ship now that the limit to total size has been removed based on O/Ts


Just curious, why this OT? Remember that rockets don't need OT (otherwise we could never uplift even the first OT).


My reading was you needed an OT to provide the supplies to the ship

Rules proposal 9.3:
Supply Unit requirement of a Spaceship is the same as a military unit in an Inhospitable World (see section 8.3), regardless if it is landed on a Hospitable World. The Supply Units needed must be brought to any friendly O/T.


You're right, but I understand Apophis station is counted as such (even if your allies don't allow you to use theirs, as they would also be friendly...
USA
 player, 59 posts
Tue 3 Oct 2017
at 18:49
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Germany:
Even deferring it, there's no way space exploration could be kept with this limits, more so if you add the reduction of SU building capaity of Orbital Industries (from 25 SU/turn to 10 SU/turn maximums).


I will disagree on that point though, it will just make it incredibly hard currently. But, once a beanstalk is constructed space becomes a lot simpler to deal with. That will be very late in the day, and makes the development of space now much, much harder.

The question here comes down to how hard should it be to get into space in a meaningful way. Perhaps the thing we should consider is, have we started getting into space far earlier than was envisioned and so the space system has to be limited, because we are doing things at this tech level we aren't expected to be able to? That is the problem you have with untested, living rules, and unfortunately we have to deal with the problems that causes.

Another thing, now I think about it, is that this addresses a problem we previously discussed, which is why would you build bigger ships that can't land. Now you'd build them because they require less supplies uplifting than a fleet of smaller, landing capable ships.

Indeed, i would like to suggest that supply requirements for ships using either only solar sails or stutter-warp require only 1 SU per turn (since they don't require fuel) as this would address another thing we discussed - which is 'why use solar sails' - again, not sure if Kelvin would care for that, but it makes sense to me.

This drives people to build shipyards etc, which I think you did previously point out were a lot less important under the previous rules, since larger ships are now objectively better - the converse to this is that it does preclude the idea of developing small specialist ships in favour of much larger multi purpose ships - this again has its own problems.

A single turn should, depending on how the next turn works out, give people enough time to dedicate some money to getting more uplift developed. I suppose this might also be balanced out by an increase from the GM in commercial uplift available - after all, if a market exists I can see people trying to fill it.
USA
 player, 60 posts
Tue 3 Oct 2017
at 18:51
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
In reply to Germany (msg # 341):

Yes, I was talking in general terms about the cost for any nation to get its first ship into space, outlining the cost for 'my first spaceship' as it were.

My point isn't that its going to be hard for the US to get into space, its that its going to be almost impossible for people who aren't the US and other major powers
Germany
 player, 339 posts
Wed 4 Oct 2017
at 10:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
Germany:
Even deferring it, there's no way space exploration could be kept with this limits, more so if you add the reduction of SU building capaity of Orbital Industries (from 25 SU/turn to 10 SU/turn maximums).


I will disagree on that point though, it will just make it incredibly hard currently. But, once a beanstalk is constructed space becomes a lot simpler to deal with. That will be very late in the day, and makes the development of space now much, much harder.


Before the Orbital Elevators it comes the Skyhook, at TL 10.0 (in Space and Materials), so we could have it by 2105, assuming we can raise the TL for both 0.1 per turn…

In the meanwhile, we will have many problems to keep any space exploration (not to talk about full colonies), even while we could have developed the Stuttrewarp drives…

And remember the beanstalks were built in 2300AD when there already were several colonies, not to develop them…

USA:
The question here comes down to how hard should it be to get into space in a meaningful way. Perhaps the thing we should consider is, have we started getting into space far earlier than was envisioned and so the space system has to be limited, because we are doing things at this tech level we aren't expected to be able to? That is the problem you have with untested, living rules, and unfortunately we have to deal with the problems that causes.


Not so when we began to do it, it was perfectly feasible, and that's why I claim for stable rules that alow you long term plans.

The Enclave is TL 8.8 (so just above our capacity right now, in fact we could build them at overcost), but the capacity to support them seems to be quite latter…

USA:
Another thing, now I think about it, is that this addresses a problem we previously discussed, which is why would you build bigger ships that can't land. Now you'd build them because they require less supplies uplifting than a fleet of smaller, landing capable ships.

Indeed, i would like to suggest that supply requirements for ships using either only solar sails or stutter-warp require only 1 SU per turn (since they don't require fuel) as this would address another thing we discussed - which is 'why use solar sails' - again, not sure if Kelvin would care for that, but it makes sense to me.

This drives people to build shipyards etc, which I think you did previously point out were a lot less important under the previous rules, since larger ships are now objectively better - the converse to this is that it does preclude the idea of developing small specialist ships in favor of much larger multi purpose ships - this again has its own problems.


Let’s assume you’re right and I want to build a solar sail moved 30000 ship. I need 3 full shipyards to build it (or one for 3 turns) assuming I can uplift the modules (remember, they cannot be uplifted by Catapult), as each shipyard can only build 10 modules each (it will require at least 30 hull modules plus the Solar Sails propulsion), and it needs 20 RMU (400000 tonnes, but this time Catapults may do it)) to produce those modules…

USA:
A single turn should, depending on how the next turn works out, give people enough time to dedicate some money to getting more uplift developed. I suppose this might also be balanced out by an increase from the GM in commercial uplift available - after all, if a market exists I can see people trying to fill it.


Perhaps, as long as one is willing to compromise half its budget for two turns just to develop those rockets to keep a 2-3 ships fleet…

Of course, that puts your country effectively out of play for 2-3 turns…
USA
 player, 61 posts
Thu 5 Oct 2017
at 09:44
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
In reply to Germany (msg # 344):

This next turn the USA will have 18 rockest (I built 4 this turn as I was planning on pushing some things pretty hard in the upcoming turns. Not any more mind, but still)

This means if I build an additional launch pad and 7 rockets (topping me out at 25 rockets)I will have a native uplift of just shy of 45k - which is more than enough to support my current needs. If I increase my space infrastructure level by 0.1 that increases to nearly 50k uplift.

I need to uplift 4SU for my 2 ships, 3SU for 3 o/ts (earth, luna and Ceres) and I think 1SU (maybe 2... need to check) for the other orbital installations I have in earth orbit (so 40-45k uplift required)

That means an investment of $750 (700 for rockets and 50 for a launch pad) and I'm good for the next turn and if I up the space infra level I have excess. This is what I need to be able to support what I currently have. One turn is more than doable for me without hitting how much I can do

It is not a small amount of money, but for the USA it is more than practical. Another turn can see me with even more uplift.

It is not unfeasible for the US in a couple of turns to have 50 Rockets and space infrastructure at 9.0. That gives an uplift of 125,000 in the next 20 years of game time.

That's a massive level of growth in a very short period of time! To the point where I will probably begin to sell uplift after next turn to others.

Factor in that a single orbital industry can supply 5 ships, and free up 50k uplift. 5 ships is a lot of space ships, it may not feel like it but 5 ships is a huge number of pre-stutterwarp ships.

Yes, it will need minerals but if you can either get these from the asteroid belt or take production off earth to a place where uplift is much easier, then it becomes, again, a much smaller problem - and for the US doing this on earth in a couple of turns would likely not be an insurmountable problem.

That is why I'm worried that this will have a much more adverse effect on nations who aren't the USA, but why I believe that 1 turn would help cushion the blow significantly - especially if others can build rockets to sell that uplift to other nations when they don't need it.
Germany
 player, 340 posts
Thu 5 Oct 2017
at 16:56
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 344):

This next turn the USA will have 18 rockest (I built 4 this turn as I was planning on pushing some things pretty hard in the upcoming turns. Not any more mind, but still)

This means if I build an additional launch pad and 7 rockets (topping me out at 25 rockets)I will have a native uplift of just shy of 45k - which is more than enough to support my current needs. If I increase my space infrastructure level by 0.1 that increases to nearly 50k uplift.

I need to uplift 4SU for my 2 ships, 3SU for 3 o/ts (earth, luna and Ceres) and I think 1SU (maybe 2... need to check) for the other orbital installations I have in earth orbit (so 40-45k uplift required)

That means an investment of $750 (700 for rockets and 50 for a launch pad) and I'm good for the next turn and if I up the space infra level I have excess. This is what I need to be able to support what I currently have. One turn is more than doable for me without hitting how much I can do

It is not a small amount of money, but for the USA it is more than practical. Another turn can see me with even more uplift.

It is not unfeasible for the US in a couple of turns to have 50 Rockets and space infrastructure at 9.0. That gives an uplift of 125,000 in the next 20 years of game time.

That's a massive level of growth in a very short period of time! To the point where I will probably begin to sell uplift after next turn to others.


Us is now space TL 8.7 (as you raised it this turn. Using its current GDP, to raise it to 8.8 would cost (with those rules) $1423. to raise to TL 9 (in at least 2 turns, as in one tourn numbers would be nearly doubled) would cost about $4500 in total (incluiding the cutting edge cost).

See that this is more than a single turn Budget...

Add to this the costs you put for the rockets and spaceport, and sure you would like to supply your troops (about 500 SU/turn, if no extra needed) and do something in the political arena (both, internal and external)...

USA:
Factor in that a single orbital industry can supply 5 ships, and free up 50k uplift. 5 ships is a lot of space ships, it may not feel like it but 5 ships is a huge number of pre-stutterwarp ships.

Yes, it will need minerals but if you can either get these from the asteroid belt or take production off earth to a place where uplift is much easier, then it becomes, again, a much smaller problem - and for the US doing this on earth in a couple of turns would likely not be an insurmountable problem.

That is why I'm worried that this will have a much more adverse effect on nations who aren't the USA, but why I believe that 1 turn would help cushion the blow significantly - especially if others can build rockets to sell that uplift to other nations when they don't need it.


We don't know the Asteroid Belt minning potential, and in any case latest kelvin answers are (despite his former answers to my questions in former posts this same thread) taht the Asteroid Belt must be surveyed first, so it won't be until 3 turns after someone sets up an OT and an Enclave on it that, if the MP is over 2 (13+ on 2d10) the Orbital Industry can suply those 5 ships per turn...

And the see that the whole AB is counted as a single hex for the divisor it is used if more than 1 Asteroid Minning facility is set up...

So Ceres, Pallas or Vesta will be richer to mine than the whole rest of the AB (as it has several mountain hexes, each one with a +3 to MP, and able to hold several mining facilities), but you must take the RMUs to the orbital industry (or set up it there), and before that, you already must supply it and your ships, something that no one would be able to...

IMHO, the space exploration is doomed with those rules at least until the development of the Catal¡pults, that would allow to uplift the RMUs to keep an Orbital Industry functioning (at TL 9.3, a Catapult would have over 700000 tonnes capacity, so allowing a single Orbital Industry to receive the MRUs needed, and at TL 9.4  792000, so it could supply 2 of them with a Little support of other uplift means).

So, IMHO, those rules fully stop the space activity for at least 6 turns, probably more.
USA
 player, 62 posts
Fri 6 Oct 2017
at 22:30
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Germany:
<quote USA>In reply to Germany (msg # 344):

Us is now space TL 8.7 (as you raised it this turn. Using its current GDP, to raise it to 8.8 would cost (with those rules) $1423


I work it out as $1020? (179669x(8.8^2)x9x2^0.1/150000)+(8.8^2*9^2/50)

quote:
See that this is more than a single turn Budget...


That's why I said in 20 years game time.

quote:
and sure you would like to supply your troops (about 500 SU/turn, if no extra needed) and do something in the political arena (both, internal and external)...


I've sat down and costed this out as best I can, It would be possible for me to get an enclave established on Luna by 2060 by spending approximately $1900 per turn on space endeavours - this works out at about half my budget.

Not small, not small at all. But it is possible if I decide I'm going to commit myself to space exploration above other things(and nothing distracting happens that requires my attention/money elsewhere)

You can see my rough workings here
https://docs.google.com/spread...lBg/edit?usp=sharing

This message was last edited by the player at 22:31, Fri 06 Oct 2017.

Germany
 player, 341 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 10:01
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
Germany:
<quote USA>In reply to Germany (msg # 344):

Us is now space TL 8.7 (as you raised it this turn. Using its current GDP, to raise it to 8.8 would cost (with those rules) $1423


I work it out as $1020? (179669x(8.8^2)x9x2^0.1/150000)+(8.8^2*9^2/50)


Let's see...

Formula is
quote:
(Combined GDP, unadjusted) X (Target level)2 X (Authoritarian Score of the nation) X 2 (# of decimal increases) / (150 000), rounded up to the nearest integer Where ‘# of decimal increases is the number of 0.1 increases in the tech level; so an increase of 0.1 would be 1 for 0.2 would be 2, for 0.3 would be 3, etc.

(bold is mine)

So, your formula would be (I took out the cutting edge extra as I guess maximum space TL is currently 8.9, as Germany ressearched it this turn):

(179669x(8.8^2)x9x2^1/150000)= $1670

This is more than what I told you before because I used your 2040-44 numbers, so your GDP was $153.106, not the expected next turn that is the 179.669 you used.

And if you tried to raise to 8.9 this turn it would be:


(179669x(8.9^2)x9x2^2/150000)= $3416...

This message was last edited by the player at 10:08, Sat 07 Oct 2017.

USA
 player, 63 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 12:05
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
In reply to Germany (msg # 348):

yes, my mistake
Germany
 player, 342 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 12:36
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 348):

yes, my mistake


Better realizing it now than latter. Glad to help.
USA
 player, 64 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 15:42
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
In reply to Germany (msg # 350):

Right, so now I'm not massively misreading.

I'm afraid I just have to come back to the question of the cost of upgrading tech coupled with Auth modifiers.

I understand that it's expensive but I really don't think it should cost over half my annual budget to just upgrade one tech by 0.1

Either lower Auth mods need a much larger effect on tech costs or I have to accept I can only spend turns as the US increasing my tech levels and doing nothing else

I accept there have to be tough choices in what we spend budgets on but currently for the US having a low auth mod makes that decision much, much harder. There is little to no up side to having a lower auth mod as the reduction in the cost of tech is nothing compared to the loss of spendable money.

Currently, either you engage with the world and consign yourself to doing no research (which is one of two things that a lower auth should help you with) or accept that you're going to be spending almost all your budget on tech and do nothing else.
Germany
 player, 343 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 16:47
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Again IMHO what really fucks those low AM countries is the effect on their internal PA actions.

For you, one PA directed to internal actions, is worth 81 points, while the defense has a multiplier of 900 (prestige 16 - stability 6 +20 squared) ,and, if your prestige raises, it would still be more difficult to make intenral actions.

For Germany, each PA is worth 196, and the defense has a multiplier of 784 (prestige 17, stability 9), so having quite an advantage.

For china, to give you another example, the PA is worth 256, while the defensive multiplier is 576. so having even more advantage...

As those actions are the way to raise stability or to reduce expenses (see that your budet before those exmenses is over 9000, and you spend more than i ressearch worht in drag for debt alona), having high prestige or low AM makes it quite more difficult.

See that the true difference among your effective Budget and China's is on those expenses, as the Budget before them is 7000 for China and 9000 for you, while the effective one is 6300 for China and 3800 for you...

That's why I suggested to use a flat prestige modifier on internal actions, as I keep seeing absurd that more prestigious countries have more difficult to make internal actions (as you have more prestige, you have more difficulty to pay your debts or to raise your stability), but you already read Kelvin's answer...

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

Enterily another matter: I'd like to hear here more voices than just Liam's, Kelvin's and mine...

Don't be shy, sure everyone has somthing to contribute

This message was last edited by the player at 16:58, Sat 07 Oct 2017.

USA
 player, 65 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 18:02
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Germany:
That's why I suggested to use a flat prestige modifier on internal actions, as I keep seeing absurd that more prestigious countries have more difficult to make internal actions (as you have more prestige, you have more difficulty to pay your debts or to raise your stability), but you already read Kelvin's answer...


The thing is I can kind of understand this - this is the internal reaction of 'why do we need to reform, we're so amazing and everyone says so, why change a working formula' and that kind of thinking you get in societies that are powerful yet need reform.
The main problem I have is this in addition to low auth mods. A lower authoritarian society should be able to adapt better than a high authoritarian society. Changes to society and power structures are much easier to cope with, as a government, than for a society that relies on strict centralised control. Couple the fact that higher auth means easier ability to make changes AND gives you more money, then there isn't really much of a trade off here, its pretty much all good for high auth and all bad for low auth. The only tangible benefit I can see is the higher base growth for low auth, but again i have addressed this elsewhere

quote:
Enterily another matter: I'd like to hear here more voices than just Liam's, Kelvin's and mine...

Don't be shy, sure everyone has something to contribute


Yep, I know it can be a bit overwhelming reading the rules changes and working out what they mean for you and your country some times, but understanding what negative and positive effects of the rules are helps figure out how to improve and balance them.
I also know that the level of analysis that Lluis and Kelvin operate on can be intimidating in this thread, but they don't bite... except Kelvin when he's really in character - but since this is an OOC thread you'll be fine ;)
Germany
 player, 344 posts
Wed 11 Oct 2017
at 12:11
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
Germany:
That's why I suggested to use a flat prestige modifier on internal actions, as I keep seeing absurd that more prestigious countries have more difficult to make internal actions (as you have more prestige, you have more difficulty to pay your debts or to raise your stability), but you already read Kelvin's answer...


The thing is I can kind of understand this - this is the internal reaction of 'why do we need to reform, we're so amazing and everyone says so, why change a working formula' and that kind of thinking you get in societies that are powerful yet need reform.


I see your point, but  Imostly disagree. I guessthis is how do we see the meaning of prestige, being, as I understand it, more an international image than an internal one (this being represented more by stability).

And even if not, it would be as much a positive way "this government has taken us to where we are" as a brake for it, as you point.

OTOH, in some internal actions (as to pay debt, reduce inefficiencies, etc), I don't see why prestige should be a hindrance...


USA:
The main problem I have is this in addition to low auth mods. A lower authoritarian society should be able to adapt better than a high authoritarian society. Changes to society and power structures are much easier to cope with, as a government, than for a society that relies on strict centralised control. Couple the fact that higher auth means easier ability to make changes AND gives you more money, then there isn't really much of a trade off here, its pretty much all good for high auth and all bad for low auth. The only tangible benefit I can see is the higher base growth for low auth, but again i have addressed this elsewhere


Again I see it different. From the rationale POV, I see that highet AM countries have greater control on the population, so are more likely to move them where they want. As I already poitned when AM was set as a basis for the internal PA actions, though, I feel that from the game balance POV this represents a true problem for low AM countries...

THose changes in society you tell that low AM would produce, are quite random, and I see them represented in the greater economic growth and lower TL costs, but ehen those changes are directed by the government (or the powers that be, that are more what players represent), things are different, as told above...
Co-GM
 GM, 174 posts
Sat 4 Nov 2017
at 20:57
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
<Kinda geeking out here. Writing this from the Hayden Library of MIT! I feel like I should be building a bigger bomb, or a more powerful reactor, or a…>

>Does that mean that any spaceship needs 2 SU taken into orbit (so 10000 tonnes
>uplift tied) to keep it supplied, even if they start and end the turn in a spaceport?


Hmmm, ok, but giving a break for landed Spaceships is too complicated. That requires the GM to look into the orders of every spaceship just to see where it last ended up. It is going to be Base Maintenance for every ship, regardless of where it is.

>y, once again rules changes blowing away any long term plans.
I do not make changes to the game for laughs, I make changes to the game because I believe that they are necessary to correct some fault with the game. EVERY turn so far has seen SIGNIFICANT changes to the rules, matched by voluminous requests from players for MORE changes, namely by you Lluis. Do not expect me to ever accept the argument that rules changes are unacceptable because they ruin some long term plan of yours.

>Of course, you know English language better than myself, but shouldn't this be
>equiped instead of equipt?
and
> I guess it should say section 8.12 (MDWs) instead of 8.8 (Military Rank)

Ok, good catch, will fix.

>As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using
>PAs to increase the # of rounds

An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.

>As I don't see this being among the rules suspended by 10:10, why was this not
>applied on the IC SAM last unit?

I forgot, it made no difference anyways.

>How is the different combat power of units (e.g. a carrier) in Quick Combat? >
>Do they use their offensive power? Their defensive one?

and
>How many hits they count if destroyed in 10:10? Again offensive power? Defensive one?
See section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.

> How do the carriers and SSBN changes affect current OBs? Simply by deleting all
>carried units?

Deletion.

>  what happens with the weaponry module equiped OTs and ODIs combat factor for
>non WMD countries?

Then they just cannot have those items.

> Combat (overall)<snip>Damage to units is ignored unless the opponent’s weapons
>can reach those units. <snip> Air Units: the part relating to air units range (e.g. Bombers 3 hexses away on Eaarth may participate).<snip>or is the damage ignored and
>the carrier planes immune to SAM and other AA fire?<snip> ASAT

That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of today’s rules proposal)

> While I understand the reasons for the Earth map change, I frankly don't like it,
The old map had to go because it bears little resemblance to the rules and the current political climate. Which hexes exactly does the Azerbaijan currently cover? Can Russia now directly attack Persia through the Caucuses? Does hex H25 count as Mountains or Land? Is the Land or Water or Ice modifier applied to the mineral potential of a mine in hex E07? Is there an adjustment to the range of things because the hexes of the old map cover a physically smaller area than those expected for a size 8 world? Etc, ect, ect. That old map had to go.

> I'm afraid I just have to come back to the question of the cost of upgrading tech
>coupled with Auth modifiers.

I had already made a number of changes that modify the importance of Auth Score, it is a very deeply imbedded thing that I refuse to move any other way but cautiously, but the most relevant change is the change to cost of economic tech upgrades in today's rules proposal.

This message was last edited by the GM at 00:15, Sun 05 Nov 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 175 posts
Sat 4 Nov 2017
at 21:13
Rules Proposal 20171103
-Change to: In each round of Quick Combat, each side has a turn at being the Attacker, makes QC flow better with the rest of the rules. A Military Base facility need not be inside a Settlement’s borders. Economic tech levels of Core Settlements are on a per Settlement basis, not national. Formula for calculation of the tech level of a Colony Settlement, made possible to more accurately calculate from just the spreadsheet. How modifiers to a revolt and size of the military of a Settlement in revolt is calculated, now possible to more accurately calculate using just a spreadsheet. Spaceship maintenance requirement is always Base. How Aggressive production works to make it able to be properly calculated in the spreadsheet.

-The introduction of:

-Made clearer: How to use the HEAVEN & EARTH software.

-Rebalancing to: Return to original combat results table, giving more advantage to the Attacker. Formula and Base for Interface Uplift/Downlift, made more consistent with rest of rules. Cost of tech upgrades with Authoritarian Score.

-Got rid of: Another round of removing from the Settlement_List file nations too small to ever affect the game. No need to declare a Client state such, it happens upon the right numerical conditions.
USA
 player, 66 posts
Sat 4 Nov 2017
at 22:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Co-GM:
( GDP, unadjusted) X (Target level)2 X (Authoritarian Score of the Settlement)2 X 2 (# of decimal increases)/ (50 000 000)


Just a very quick scan but I'm pretty sure you've got the number of 0s in the last amount wrong? Otherwise tech for me goes from costing over $1000 to $5?
Co-GM
 GM, 176 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 00:08
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to USA (msg # 357):

Ack! Yes, I had not updated the text with my latest formula. The divisor should be 2 500 000.
Germany
 player, 345 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 02:29
Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 356):

Also some skip reading:

7.9.2:
 I see you changed the formula for interface uplift and downlift, with a net result of reducing it (despite raising the base) once TL reaches 8.7, more so as the TL increases:

  • At TL 9 the average is about 85% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 9.5 the average is about 61% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 10 the average is about 42% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 10.5 the average is about 29% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 11 the average is about 19% of the uplift previous formula gave


Is this reduction (relative to current) intentional?

And I guess in the case of deadfall, you didn't upgrade right the base, as it is equal or lower than the former one, unlike all others.

8.7.2.

Bombers (both, planes and Airships) are said that May attack with a WMD tipped (see section 8.12) Base Combat Strength of 15 if part of an Attacking force in a combat which includes Ground or Naval units. Do I read it wrong or as it is writen they cannot attack alone (nor in combination with space units) with WMD?
Germany
 player, 346 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 03:21
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Co-GM:
>Does that mean that any spaceship needs 2 SU taken into orbit (so 10000 tonnes
>uplift tied) to keep it supplied, even if they start and end the turn in a spaceport?


Hmmm, ok, but giving a break for landed Spaceships is too complicated. That requires the GM to look into the orders of every spaceship just to see where it last ended up. It is going to be Base Maintenance for every ship, regardless of where it is.


So I understand they will need only 1 SU, but in orbit. I don't see the complication you say, at least no more than keeping their location at the begining of any turn (after all it's only write its location as XXX hex or Orbit hex), and yet it makes it quite more difficult to keep them supplied.

And, as I said, from the rationale POV, ships use to be supplies in port, not out of it, and if the ship is going on and of its base spaceport, I keep believeing it should be able to be supplied there...

Co-GM:
>y, once again rules changes blowing away any long term plans.
I do not make changes to the game for laughs, I make changes to the game because I believe that they are necessary to correct some fault with the game. EVERY turn so far has seen SIGNIFICANT changes to the rules, matched by voluminous requests from players for MORE changes, namely by you Lluis. Do not expect me to ever accept the argument that rules changes are unacceptable because they ruin some long term plan of yours.


In fact, I guess lately I'm more suggesting rules maintaining than changing, But I concede I am the most vocal (at least openly, I cannot tell about what you receive in PMs) on it.

But I'm afraid not only my long term plans are affected, as US seemed to also be.

Fact is that plans for over the turn in play are nearly sure to have to be alteres because of rules changes, and space plans are the ones more affected, to the point that what I planned for next turn is unlikely to be possible just for this reason.

Co-GM:
>As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using
>PAs to increase the # of rounds

An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.

>How is the different combat power of units (e.g. a carrier) in Quick Combat? >
>Do they use their offensive power? Their defensive one?

and
>How many hits they count if destroyed in 10:10? Again offensive power? Defensive one?
See section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.


I'm afraid I cannot find any such answers in the 10.11 of the version 20171103 of the rules.

Are you sure they are in this section (I had not yet time to read all them in deep)?

Co-GM:
> Combat (overall)<snip>Damage to units is ignored unless the opponent’s weapons
>can reach those units. <snip> Air Units: the part relating to air units range (e.g. Bombers 3 hexses away on Eaarth may participate).<snip>or is the damage ignored and
>the carrier planes immune to SAM and other AA fire?<snip> ASAT

That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of today’s rules proposal)


please, what rule are you refering to, aside from the paragraphs and sentences? If you mean 10:11 (as we were talking about), I cannot see the answers on it...

This message was last edited by the player at 22:27, Mon 13 Nov 2017.

Saudi Arabia
 player, 37 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 03:26
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 355):

Co-GM:
>As I don't see this being among the rules suspended by 10:10, why was this not
>applied on the IC SAM last unit?

I forgot, it made no difference anyways.


I may accept you forgot about it, but, please, don't say it made no difference, as it meant another round of combat (with the SU costs being what they are) and that IC survived as entity (with its combat power divided by 5, so being under 1, it would have been eliminated in WR3 and IC would have been conquered then).

EDIT: Just to be clear: I don't say this will have finished IC as NPC, just as settlement. It would keep being a problem, and finishing it would still require political action to root out terrorist cells and defeat it ideologically.

This message was last edited by the player at 13:06, Sun 05 Nov 2017.

Russia
 player, 31 posts
Tue 7 Nov 2017
at 10:09
Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 356):

quote:
Cost of tech upgrades with Authoritarian Score.


Well, that new rule increases Russian tech program cost by whooping $1700+ (despite that I invest into research more than any Russia player ever before, and still Russia falls behind in TL comparing to all space-capable countries).

While I agree that in theory this rule adds balance to the game, I would propose delaying this rule for a turn or two so I could arrange preparations and soften impact.
Germany
 player, 347 posts
Wed 8 Nov 2017
at 17:15
Rules Proposal 20171103
quote:
6.4:

Being a ‘Petro-state’ causes a lot of problems, so having Oil SRU production exceed what is consumed by more than 50% will reduce the Stability of a Settlement.


While I understand your point here, see that this will include Nordic Federation, that I guess it's not the case. It also could discourage dome contries that might border this treshold to reduce its oil consume, and the effect of including coal and fisibles into it is yet to be seen (and goes against this statmen of 'petro-state').

I'd suggest to change this consideration made on the oil production in relation to needs for the percentage (to be determined) of GDP that comes from oil and oil overcosts they charge (as those overcosts are likely to bring more corruption).

This message was last edited by the player at 17:45, Wed 08 Nov 2017.

Germany
 player, 348 posts
Wed 8 Nov 2017
at 18:00
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Russia:
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 356):

quote:
Cost of tech upgrades with Authoritarian Score.


Well, that new rule increases Russian tech program cost by whooping $1700+ (despite that I invest into research more than any Russia player ever before, and still Russia falls behind in TL comparing to all space-capable countries).

While I agree that in theory this rule adds balance to the game, I would propose delaying this rule for a turn or two so I could arrange preparations and soften impact.


Where do you take those $1700+ from?

According to my spreadsheets, numbers would be (assuming unadjusted GDP to be your current $33150 with your increase of 1.24, so $41106):

To raise biology from 7.3 to 7.4 (your cheapest):
  • former formula: 41106 x 7.42 x 17 (AM) x 21 /150000 = 511
  • New fçormula: 41106 x 7.42 x 172 x 21 /2500000 = 521



To raise electronics from 8.2 to 8.3 (your average):
  • former formula: 41106 x 7.32 x 17 x 21 /150000 = 642
  • New fçormula: 41106 x 7.32 x 172 x 21 /2500000 = 655 


To raise space from 8.5 to 8.6 (your highest):
  • former formula: 41106 x 8.62 x 17 x 21 /150000 = 690
  • New fçormula: 41106 x 8.62 x 172 x 21 /2500000 = 703


So, the true effect is about a 2% increase for an AM of 17, and far from the 1700+ you said...
Germany
 player, 349 posts
Wed 8 Nov 2017
at 19:42
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In fact, according my spreasheets, the cost on current rules as percentage of former ones, according AM, is:
  • AM 9===> 54%
  • AM 10==> 60%
  • AM 11==> 66%
  • AM 12==> 72%
  • AM 13==> 78%
  • AM 14==> 84%
  • AM 15==> 90%
  • AM 16==> 96%
  • AM 17==> 102%
  • AM 18==> 108%

Russia
 player, 32 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 09:46
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
In reply to Germany (msg # 364):

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


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

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

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

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

which is +36%
USA
 player, 67 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 10:11
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

which is +36%


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

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

Will clarify: The Defending force must include Ground or Naval

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will clarify: The Defending force must include Ground or Naval


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


Germany:
For easy reading, 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% samage. Damage for country A is 1848 x 10%, so 184.8 (rounded to 185) combat points. As each Country A armor brigade is worth 705.2 (1058.4, rounded to 1058 after armor effect) combat points, no damage is accrued (though they may be kept, if the GM so decides).

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

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

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

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

Player rolls 7, as DM is +5, final result is 12 so delivering 12% damage. 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).

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

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

Why this suggested change?

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

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


Thoughts? oppinoons? doubts? suggerences?

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

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

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


So, unless IC is kind enough to also attack on a suicide odds (something I frankly don’t expect), it will take at least 8 WRs to fully destroy it, needing at least 3 PAs and 5 SU/unit per turn (while IC has no supply problems, so being able to keep it for as long as it lasts).

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

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

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


There must be an error here…

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

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

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

Oil and SRUs: I don’t see any advantage on the new system, while I see some problems with it. Aside from the change of definition, that, after your last answer, I see only as a color note (aside from removing the coal gasification and nuclear power as alternatives to oil), the fact that now oil is treated less abstractly and oil SRUs are treated as RMUs, FUs or SUs adds to bookkeeping and allows trading it in the same turn (and more profit for oil producing countries).

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

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

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

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


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

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

OTOH, the forfeiting of the OT support needs would help somewhat (after lobbying for it for several turns, I won’t, of course, complain for it). I also like the appearance of the space colony facility.

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

In resume:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s why I insist in this point:

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


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

As an example, Canada ended (according the result budgets you published) this turn with $182 unspent money and no response PAs bought. As it involved in the Iraq/Saudi crisis, I guess it bought one PA (at 150% cost, so losing no money). I guess 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 that the change in rules is minimal for the advantages in game flexibility and reaction capability it gives to players.

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

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

Asteroid belts:

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

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

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

Suggested clarification:

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

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


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

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

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

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

8.7.1:Naval Units

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

(...)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was reviewing US Budget. It has 3 settlements, Continental US (to give it a distinguising name), Alaska and Hawaii.

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

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

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

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

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

And sure there are more such cases...

Possible solutions:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

This gives a total cost of 796

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

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

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

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


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

OTOH, the formula for Cutting Edge TL increase forgets to include the ressearch modules on it (the difivisor is 50, while, according to rules, it should be 50+K**).

Not that Germany is going to engage in any Cutting Edge ressearch this turn, but I guess you should know for future turns.
USA
 player, 74 posts
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 17:58
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Germany:
OTOH, the formula for Cutting Edge TL increase forgets to include the ressearch modules on it (the difivisor is 50, while, according to rules, it should be 50+K**).

Not that Germany is going to engage in any Cutting Edge ressearch this turn, but I guess you should know for future turns.


Rules specifically state you need to work out the credit yourself and enter it as a positive balance on the budget

Rules 07.09.01:
Research Module: Labs and scientific apparatus, includes exploratory missions to the surrounding region. At the time of construction the owner must dedicate this module to a particular category of technology. Once per Turn the module will reduce the cost of cutting edge research of that one technology category of either the owner or an ally, see section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. Upto 5 Research Modules in the same Star System may be dedicated to the same technology category. Bonus is cumulative with multiple facilities up to a maximum of 25% off total for the nation. Write this amount saved as a purchase, with a positive value, in your list of purchases on your budget spreadsheet.


For the sheet calculations - Mathematics is not my strong point, so I honestly do not know. That was what I could find as being the only noticeable difference from the published formula, I didn't check it myself as I was at the tail end of my lunch break at work but and all the other references on the sheet seemed correct - I will have a look at it later, maybe there is something strange going on with bracket placement... I will report back if I work anything out
Germany
 player, 368 posts
Tue 13 Feb 2018
at 09:59
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
USA:
Germany:
OTOH, the formula for Cutting Edge TL increase forgets to include the ressearch modules on it (the difivisor is 50, while, according to rules, it should be 50+K**).

Not that Germany is going to engage in any Cutting Edge ressearch this turn, but I guess you should know for future turns.


Rules specifically state you need to work out the credit yourself and enter it as a positive balance on the budget


Sure, but I guess what I say will be easier (it's only about changing a 50 for a (50+K**) in the formula. I guess that's because of this that the ressearch modules are listed in the spreadsheet (that I guess were modified after rules were witten).

EDIT: What you quote wil lbe useful if you also dedícate to it allies' research modules.

7.9.1, under research module:

quote:
Once per Turn the module will reduce the cost of cutting edge research of that one technology category of either the owner or an ally,

This message was last edited by the player at 10:02, Tue 13 Feb.

Germany
 player, 369 posts
Tue 13 Feb 2018
at 12:19
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Small detail (probable errata):

On the combat table, on a roll of 2 or 3 the results are better for the attacker on the_4:1 table tan on the 5:1-6:1 one. Shouldn't they be swaped (this would give also more smooth results on the 4:1)?
Germany
 player, 370 posts
Tue 20 Feb 2018
at 17:05
Re: Rules Proposal 20171103
Let’s see if I understood well the Oil SRUs trade rules (as they are an exception to the usual rules in that they cannot be used the same turn):

In consecutive order:
  1. SRU stockpile for this turn is determined
  2. Each turn, the SRUs are produced. Unless ordered otherwise, all SRUs are sent offered into open market. Countries that ordered it can add stockpiled SRUs to open market too.
  3. The ones directly bought to each country are assigned.
  4. Remaining SRUs are in the open market, and assigned to each country buying them proportionally
  5. Countries with shortfalls may assign some or all of their stockpile at the beginning of the turn to overcome them
  6. Countries with remaining SRUs on their stockpile can trade them to overcome next turn shortfalls.


So, to give an example (Germany for this turn, Numbers are not exact):
  1. Germany had 0 SRUs in its stockpile (for the sake of example, let’s imagine it had 30)
  2. SRUs were produced by countries. All SRUs (except those already compromised in exclusive contracts) are offered in open market, except for those countries that ordered to reduce the offer.
  3. Germany (that needs 416 SRUs) has contacts to receive 180 SRUs, so it received them. It now needs 236.
  4. The remaining SRUs in open market were assigned. As they were about 89% of needed ones, each country received about 89% of needed ones. So Germany could buy about 210.. Its shortfall is then about 26 SRUs.
  5. Germany uses 26 of its stockpile to overcome the shortfall. It has 4 SRUs left on it.
  6. Germany can now try to buy SRUs to replenish (or increase) its stockpile for the next turn should it need them.


Is that right?

This message was last edited by the player at 17:10, Yesterday.