Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
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.