Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
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
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 87 posts
Tue 2 Feb 2016
at 19:23
Re: More doubts
In reply to Germany (msg # 126):

>It's 2% or 3%?
2%. I know, I had already see it and fixed the mistake on my master copy.

>inkwell
I am not all that impressed about the usefulness of inkwell for our game. Pretty pictures but it does not really produce much that relates to the rest of the game. It is why I like Heaven&Earth so much, it has a 'World-->Notes' tab into which we can copy/paste a table of one line per hex with a randomly generated table from Excel of Farming and Mining potentials, and additional columns for the tracking of hex ownership, colony facilities etc.

>zero atmosphere rocky bodies inkwells can be set up for may of those
Sure it can be done, but it requries human understanding and intervention to know that it must be done, and then additional human labour to actually do it, 25 000 times, for 25 000 Satellites. It is going to get old. It is why I like Heaven&Earth so much, a world's characteristics, including the map, automatically relate to system generation.


>>we want to lower the size of the basic Hex to 500km
>you'd have to rewrite rules on colony sizes, military movement and probably reconsider how some facilities work

Like I said in one of my earlier replies, H&E has that problem too, which is why I said everything range or area related would have to have a World Size term in it as well. Unfortunate, I love 1000km hexes, but if sacrificing that is what it takes, then that is what it takes.
Germany
 player, 185 posts
Tue 2 Feb 2016
at 19:33
Re: More doubts
Well, as I said, my computer graphic skills are nil, so I cannot help much there. I like H&E, as it generates a whole system and a nice map of the mainworld, but it's based on Traveller, not in 2300AD world/System generation.

In what I could help, though, is in generating systems if needed. I have now access to 2300AD to do it, and I use to have some time to spare.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 88 posts
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 06:06
Re: More doubts
In reply to Germany (msg # 130):

> not in 2300AD world/System generation. In what I could help, though, is in generating
>systems if needed. I have now access to 2300AD to do it, and I use to have some time to spare.

Pick a real StarSystem, start a stop watch, using the 2300AD rules generate all the planets of that StarSystem. What you generate must also include everything that is needed by our rules and be in a format that is usable by all of our players. Stop the stop watch, look at the time that has elapsed, multiply it by the 1000 StarSystems of our star map. Do you have that kind of time to spare? If you can get it all done within the next 6 months then by all means go for it; otherwise, there are levels of fidelity to 2300AD canon material that I think we will have to sacrifice.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 89 posts
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 06:28
Rules proposal 20160202
Understandably, I have been getting a lot of questions about how possible rules changes next Turn will affect actions this Turn. See the file Rules_proposal_v20160202.pdf that I have uploaded to the Files section of the game website. As always, see section 13.1 for a summary of changes, the biggest is a redefinition of Supply Units to be 5000 tonnes and $1 each but SU consumption rate to be 1/5 as much, so SU consumption ends up being 1 or 0. Most relevant to the current situation, an O/T w/Outpost on a different Satellite has 0 SU cost. Hopefully this will all be much less laborious for us to take care of and reduce the pressure to abandon Brigade sized units in favor of Division sized. Beyond that I am sorry but I do not know except to expect that what is in section 4, and anything that depends upon section 4, will have to change to match whatever SolarSystem/Planet generation system is the easiest to use.

P.S. I do not know either what happened to the old forums, it looks like the provider is out of business. <shrug> Fine by me, I cannot think of a single useful byte of information in the old forums.

This message was last edited by the GM at 06:42, Wed 03 Feb 2016.

Germany
 player, 186 posts
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 13:41
Rules proposal 20160202 questions
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 132):

After skip reading them (so, expect moe to come)

First of all, will any of this apply this turn?

  1. I guess SU changes will not, as it would require new spreadsheets (or at least to redo them in full) and we're too close to deadline...
  2. will changes in 7.3 (forfeiting increased costs for first time for humanity?


quote:
7.2.4. Upgrading Military Infrastructure tech level
Upgrading the Military Infrastructure tech level of a nation (Military- Ground, Military-Air, and Military-Sea) includes upgrading all the existing military units, the infrastructure of your defence manufacturing sector and of the support network of your military. The Military Infrastructure tech level can never exceed a nation’s current Theoretical tech level. Upgrading to a new Military Infrastructure tech level for a particular category is a project that may not be shared between nations and has a total cost in $ of:

(Number of Supply Units needed for Base Maintenance Only on all Military Units this Turn) X (Target level)2 X 2 (# of decimal increases) / ( 1 000 X (Military Rank)), rounded up to the nearest integer Where ‘# of decimal increases’ is the number of 0.1 increases in the tech level; i.e. an increase of 0.1 would be 1 for 0.2 would be 2, for 0.3 would be 3, etc.


Shouldn't divisor be 200 x Military Rank (to keep with new definition of SU)?

quote:
Orbital Industry: More expensive to build than ground based industries but can make products which are in high demand. If provided with 20 Raw Material Units per Turn then this facility may act as a Local Industry facility (see section 9.8) and generate $40 or 25 Supply Units per Turn.


Shouldn't it be 5 SU (to keep with new definition of SU)?

quote:
Ind: An extensive collection of industry; more diverse than just one product line or one factory but is rather a nexus for a whole range of manufacturing and services. If provided with 20 Raw Material Units per Turn then this facility may act as a Local Industry facility (see section 9.8) and generate $20 or 50 Supply Units per Turn. The hex where this facility is located must have at least 1 Transport category Ground Facility and 1 Power Net in that hex.


Shouldn't it be 10 SU (to keep with new definition of SU)?

quote:
11.4. Landings and Transport:

<snip>Spaceships may only take off from a friendly Spaceport, unless all Propulsion Modulesare Thruster.<snip>


So, a Freude class cannot take off from Mars. I guess this is not needed to set up an Outpost/Enclavement module there, but just to set up ground facilitires/spaceports...
Germany
 player, 187 posts
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 17:34
Rules proposal 20160202
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 132):

Let's see if I understand supply rules, just to make sure where I missumderstand them, as it represents a major change:

9.5:
  1. as long as an OT has only outpost and other non-enclavement modules and is in an uninhabited planet (no colony/core World), no supply cost.
  2. if the outpost in upgraded to enclavment (or enclavement is set up): 1 SU (+1 SU if inhospitable)
  3. if at orbit of a satellite that has colony (or is core world), 1 SU
  4. per 5 other facilities (no modules) in orbit (round up): +1 SU to orbit
  5. per facility on a colony (not Core World) satellite: 1 SU (+1 SU if inhospitable)


Now questions:
  1. Point 1: not even the one to orbit, or those are only when there's a colony/Core world settlement?
  2. Point 2: are those SU to orbit or to ground part of the settlement?
  3. Point 4: if several OTs (let's say 5 of them) without enclavements are set up in a non colony/Core World satellite, will they need the 1 SU in orbit per 5 facilities?


If to ground part, how can it be transported there without being stranded if ships cannot take off without a spaceport?

So, applied to situation in 2035-39:

  1. Crystal Palace would need 1 OT to orbit
  2. Lunastar (or Mars OT) would need none until settlements are set up there. then they will require 1 SU + 1 SU due to being inhospitable
  3. Russian solar array in Moon orbit cannot be operational until 2 pop are transported to Moon (and that needs to start a colony there). When so, it would need 1 SU in orbit for both (Lunastar and solar array), aside from the 1 SU/facility + +1 SU facility because it's inhospitable
  4. Assuming more OTs are deployed in Moon orbit, they will still not need SU unless they have enclavement.


Right?

10.3:
  1. Any non reserve unit costs 1 SU (quality irrelevant, as long as it's not reservenote 1)
  2. Any unit outside freindly site (so, own country or one that allows you to deploy them): +1 SU
  3. Any unit in inhospitable hex (incluiding sea ships?), +1 SU


Note 1:  I guess it will be featured in the expenses as per MR...
UK
 player, 65 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 19:52
Rules proposal 20160202
In reply to Germany (msg # 134):

For star mapping have you seen Dr Ganymead's near star map? (http://evildrganymede.net/2013...roject-introduction/)

The particularly interesting stuff for our purposes i think might be the subway maps of the arms he put together

http://evildrganymede.net/wp-c...0/Chinese_subway.png
http://evildrganymede.net/wp-c...rican_Arm_Subway.png
http://evildrganymede.net/wp-c...08/French_subway.png
USA
 player, 27 posts
Wed 3 Feb 2016
at 21:14
Rules proposal 20160202
In reply to UK (msg # 135):

Heya guys - looking through the settlement list and just want to check something?

If i remember correctly the Russian outpost on Luna has not yet been completed - the Russian budget shows 0.17 of the actual module has been built and paid for but I see on the settlement list that their prestige is marked as (- continued arctic drilling, + First sole outpost on the moon)

I thought the rules said you couldn't gain benefits until the thing is constructed? Particularly when they might just get beaten to it.
China
 player, 29 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 01:30
Rules proposal 20160202
In reply to UK (msg # 135):

Yes found those subway maps awhile back ..those will work for the 7.7Ly shipping even if some of the orginal canocal are not quite within reality ..Been going thru the Brown dwarfhths to see how badly it messes up the subway maps (not known in the late 70's/Early 80's) and to say it changes it would be an understatement.
UK
 player, 66 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 01:46
Rules proposal 20160202
In reply to China (msg # 137):

The linked maps are an attempt to do the 2300ad star map using real star positions rather than canonical ones
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 90 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 06:48
Re: Rules proposal 20160202 questions
<quote Germany>
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 132):

>First of all, will any of this apply this turn?
You have asked that question enough times, you should be able to guess what my answer is

>Shouldn't divisor be 200 x Military Rank (to keep with new definition of SU)?
>Shouldn't it be 5 SU (to keep with new definition of SU)?
>Shouldn't it be 10 SU (to keep with new definition of SU)?
I already know

>So, a Freude class cannot take off from Mars. I guess this is not needed to set up an Outpost/Enclavement module there, but just to set up ground facilitires/spaceports...
Yes

>Point 1: not even the one to orbit,
Correct

or those are only when there's a colony/Core world settlement?
Correct

Point 2: are those SU to orbit or to ground part of the settlement?
It says 'To Orbit Hex'

Point 4: if several OTs (let's say 5 of them) without enclavements are set up in a non colony/Core World satellite, will they need the 1 SU in orbit per 5 facilities?
Nothing says that

>So, applied to situation in 2035-39: <snip>Right?
Correct.

>10.3:
That is what it says

>I thought the rules said you couldn't gain benefits until the thing is constructed? Particularly when they might just get beaten to it.
I know, I jumped the gun on that one, I already had it in my notes that if it becomes important then I will fix it.
Germany
 player, 188 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 12:11
Re: Rules proposal 20160202 questions
Combat Cycle Ref:
>First of all, will any of this apply this turn?
You have asked that question enough times, you should be able to guess what my answer is


Then I guess next turn (as there's no time to change everything). If not so, please, move de deadline at leat 24 h and disregard the turns I send.
Referee
 GM, 96 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 14:36
Re: Rules proposal 20160202 questions
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
>First of all, will any of this apply this turn?
You have asked that question enough times, you should be able to guess what my answer is


Then I guess next turn (as there's no time to change everything). If not so, please, move de deadline at leat 24 h and disregard the turns I send.

GM Andreas says: Next turn
Germany
 player, 189 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 15:23
Re: Rules proposal 20160202 questions
Referee:
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
>First of all, will any of this apply this turn?
You have asked that question enough times, you should be able to guess what my answer is


Then I guess next turn (as there's no time to change everything). If not so, please, move de deadline at leat 24 h and disregard the turns I send.

GM Andreas says: Next turn

Then I guess you have my turns.

I restate my ofer to help in any way you think I can. As I said, I have some time to spare (but don't relly on my computer skill).