Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
Referee
 GM, 94 posts
Fri 15 Jan 2016
at 09:06
Re: Calrification asked
Nordic Federation:
I asked because in the NF HP it's mentioned 1 off-shore oilprospecting rig (built 2025) in Arctic. (see that this was before I took the country and before many rules changes too). Does it count as one hex sea exploration capacity?

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

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

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

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

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

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


9.1, final of the last paragraph:

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


So:

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


Next turn, as is production

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


Yes, as it's prerequisite.

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

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

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

9.8.1: Orbital facilities:

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

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


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

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


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



11.1 Spaceship construction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that what you're looking for?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

What about this other one?

Germany:
11.3:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quote:
7.2.2. Upgrading Military Theoretical tech level

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


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

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


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

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

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

Thats a decision that management would have to make but I can see several problems with it - you'd have to rewrite rules on colony sizes, military movement and probably reconsider how some facilities work