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