Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
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on the mating songs of Ebers that the public will watch before they just turn the channel, and even wonder-drugs get superseded.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?