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