Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
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).
Referee
 GM, 97 posts
Thu 4 Feb 2016
at 16:03
Re: Rules proposal 20160202 questions
Germany:
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).

GM Andreas says: Thank you Lluis. I appreciate it. I may not always say so or ask you to do anything but I really do appreciate the offer. This turn you will be asked to help out.
Germany
 player, 190 posts
Fri 5 Feb 2016
at 18:51
Re: More doubts
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 131):

Then I understand you will use something more like MgT 2300AD UPP...
UK
 player, 67 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Sat 6 Feb 2016
at 11:41
Re: More doubts
In reply to Germany (msg # 144):

Not really a rules thing but thinking about the need to try and recruit more players - There's a group on Facebook dedicated to 2300AD and I was wondering if it might be worth posting there to see if we can get some more players?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2300AD/
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 92 posts
Tue 9 Feb 2016
at 04:08
Re: More doubts
In reply to UK (msg # 145):

>There's a group on Facebook dedicated to 2300AD
I know, I have been a member of that group for several years now. While I do sincerely want to increase our numbers, as long as the state of our rules and infrastructure is so ..fluid.. I would rather keep new recruits to the 'friends & family' sort as I (hope) they will be less variable and more forgiving.

There will be a time soon when we throw things open to the wild.
Referee
 GM, 99 posts
Tue 9 Feb 2016
at 06:50
Re: More doubts
UK:
In reply to Germany (msg # 144):

Not really a rules thing but thinking about the need to try and recruit more players - There's a group on Facebook dedicated to 2300AD and I was wondering if it might be worth posting there to see if we can get some more players?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/2300AD/

Thanks for the tip, I joined it. Also: I agree with Kelvin on recruitment.
Germany
 player, 193 posts
Fri 12 Feb 2016
at 13:38
Re: More doubts
quote:
9.1. Settlement Building Overview

<snip>

A Colony becomes a Core type Settlement when its population exceeds 10 000 Population Units.


If among several contries' colonies a satellite reaches the 10000 pop threshold, will it become a Core World or it must be in a single colony?

See that in the latter case (a single colony):
  • It would be nearly imposible to reach this threeshold (the game is expected to reach about 60 turns. If 40 of them are developing a colony, it would reach an average of 250 pop transported to it)
  • Colonies can become unbearable (as it would need about 5000 facilities in a colonoy to reach Core World level, and there may be several such colonies in a single satellite)
  • Many Earth nations (incluiding more than one player nation) would be a "colony" under that definition


In fact, for game easiness, I'd suggest to drastically reduce this threeshold (maybe down to 1000 pop)
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 93 posts
Wed 17 Feb 2016
at 22:30
Re: More doubts
In reply to Germany (msg # 148):

Note the use of the word 'Settlement', not 'World' or 'Satellite'.

>It would be nearly imposible to reach this threeshold
I will though agree with you somewhat, the threshold will be reduced to 5000 PU (25million people), that is about what you get after ~150 years of a 'Heavy' type colonization effort (as defined on pg94 of the Director's Guide) after correcting for GDW's math mistake, which is about what it took to make those Core type Settlements on Tirana in the canon 2300AD universe.

It is *supposed* to be ridiculously expensive and time consuming to bring a Colony Settlement up to the level of Core, it has to reflect why in the 2300AD universe it happens so rarely.


>Many Earth nations (incluiding more than one player nation) would be a "colony" under that definition
Just as I have no intention of complicating the game so that it properly handles even very low technology nations, I also have no intention of complicating the game so that it properly handles every aspect of nations so small they have no chance of establishing a significant presence in space within the timeframe of the game.

This message was last edited by the GM at 03:31, Thu 18 Feb 2016.

Germany
 player, 196 posts
Thu 18 Feb 2016
at 16:52
Re: More doubts
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 148):

Note the use of the word 'Settlement', not 'World' or 'Satellite'.


I told about satellites (not settlements) because the main question was if the threeshold must be reached by a single settlement or may be reached among various ones (by different nations).

Combat Cycle Ref:
>It would be nearly imposible to reach this threeshold
I will though agree with you somewhat, the threshold will be reduced to 5000 PU (25million people), that is about what you get after ~150 years of a 'Heavy' type colonization effort (as defined on pg94 of the Director's Guide) after correcting for GDW's math mistake, which is about what it took to make those Core type Settlements on Tirana in the canon 2300AD universe.

It is *supposed* to be ridiculously expensive and time consuming to bring a Colony Settlement up to the level of Core, it has to reflect why in the 2300AD universe it happens so rarely.


The numbers in 2300AD Director Guide assumed an initial settlement plus yearly growth (I asume that includes natural growth and immigration). In the game, most Pop must be taken from the mother country by state transports, so I have serious doubts that the average 167 Pop needed by turn to reach the 5000 pop in 30 turns (150 years) will be posible.

Again that's why I asked if various nations' settlements can be grouped to reach it.

See that in 2300AD setting only Earth and Tirane are considered Core Worlds, though (IIRC, I don't have my colonial atlas handy right now) Nibelungen also has over 25 million people in a single settlement, and I'm not sure if any other can reach it by adding the various settlements on it (Beta Canum? Joi?).

That would put most colonies, even those with several million inhabitants, as Colonies (meaning that they go according section 9 of the rules), with the added complexity this bears (Core World rules ae quite simpler).

OTOH, if it's allowed among several settlements, the problem arises when another nation begins to settle an already settled satellite that has reached this status, so a mínimum colony size needs to be set, or they will begin to be seen as Core World from the first Pop...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Many Earth nations (incluiding more than one player nation) would be a "colony" under that definition
Just as I have no intention of complicating the game so that it properly handles even very low technology nations, I also have no intention of complicating the game so that it properly handles every aspect of nations so small they have no chance of establishing a significant presence in space within the timeframe of the game.


Don't read me wrong, I'd never dared to suggest that. After all, this will force me to treat Nordic Federation and Saudi Arabia (both well under the 10000 Pop) according to rule 9 (as a colony), something that will be even a greater mess.

I just meant that if nations well under the Core World threeshold can even be player nations (the smallest one, Israel, has less than 2000 pop), I feel the threeshold too high in comparison, and that 10000 pop threshold (that means about 5000 facilities), or even 5000 pop one (that means about 2500 facilities) can be quite complex to handle.

See that a colony with 100 facilities (so about 200 pop) will already have a GDP of $200 ($1 per pop) plus what its factories produce (so I guess it can easily go to about $500-1000), and a settlement with over 2000 pop (and so 1000 facilities) can easily have larger GDP than Israel (current unadjusted GDP $2085), that, being no Core World, and, unless this money is counted in its national GDP, will not be affected by AM, oil needs, etc....

All this said, specific questions (as always numbered to ease answers):

  1. must the threeshold (whatever it be) be reached by a single settlement or along all the settlements in a satellite?
  2. where do the money produced by a settlement goes (aside from RMU and FU brought to Mother nation, that go in cells C51 and C52 respectivelly)
  3. how is handled a new settlement (by another nation) in a satellite that has already reached the Core World threeshold?


And again, no hurry for the answer, as this will not be a problem for a while. Mostly this is for you to think about before it is needed (and so, I guess you have time enough, though earlier answers will bewelcome, off course).

This message was last edited by the player at 08:05, Fri 11 Mar 2016.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 96 posts
Fri 11 Mar 2016
at 16:42
Version 20160310
Changes since 20160222

-The adoption of the Heaven & Earth software for the generation and maintenance of the game map; necessitated by it being the only software which could handle the expected +1000 Star Systems we will have in the game. This meant a major change to the definitions for Atmo, G, Breathability, Hospitable/Inhospitable/Intolerable, and anything range or area based, into the strict adoption of norms for the GDW game Traveller.

-Made clearer: What is ‘WMD Capable’.

-Rebalancing to: How much other facilities affect the production of Farming and Mining. Movement of Air Units in a Turn. Movement of units across the surface of a Heaven&Earth generated world, the effect of terrain and facilities. Initiative points required to force hidden status units to reveal.

-Got rid of the remnants of an earlier time when we thought we could have a much more detailed game than we now realize would be a fun and playable thing to do: The industrial facilities which make up a Heavy Industry Group must all be in the same hex, eliminates questions of sharing. Individual hexes are not Hospitable/Inhospitable/Intolerable, entire Worlds are. No Spaceship combat except in Orbit hexes, eliminates difficult questions about interception.
Germany
 player, 203 posts
Thu 24 Mar 2016
at 18:55
Version 20160310
After reading (though not too toughly) the new rules version (20160310), some comments (some of them would also apply to previous rules sets, just now realized):

4.2.1 (this was already in earlier versions):

To produce SUs, all economical TLs must be 5.5 or higher. That means that until they are all at theoretical TL 10 (where a university may give you the 0.5 extra needed), SUs can only be produced if you have a Heavy Industrial Group. Is that intentional?

5.2.1:

I guess the 1% increase for cutting edge research (that in case of joint research only the one paying 50% or more receives) is additional to the 1% for increasing a theoretical TL (so that a country making the research alone will receive a 2% boost, while in join research each partner will receive 1% boost and the one paying over 50%, if any, 2%). Right?

5.2.4 (probably just an errata):

You kept the 1000 as divisor in the formula. It should be 200 (as each SU is now what before were 5)

7.1:
quote:
World Size may not be 0 or R.

So, an asteroid belt cannot be colonized (see also below under the Asteroid Mining Facility)?
quote:
A Colony may not have more than (10, 25, 50 or 100) / World Size facilities in a surface hex without access to the appropriate number of Power, Road, Railway, Airfilm or Maglev type Ground facilities <snip> A Colony may not have more than (100, 250, 500, 1 000 / World Size) surface access to the appropriate number of Road, Railway, Airfilm or Maglev type Ground facilities,

The last sentence is incomplete, but if it refers to ground facilities, it’s contradictory to the first one...
quote:
A Colony requires a Communication Net Orbital facility for every 1 000 Population units, and a GPS Net Orbital facility for every (50 / World Size) hexes it covers

See that no Earth nation would fulfill the communications requirements as now things are, and a few (Brazil, China, Canada, Russia, USA…) would not even fulfill the GPS ones (that in Earth would be 1 GPS/7 hexes)…

7.3:

The reference to pop/5000 as modifier for settlement TL is now superfluous, as if it reaches this level it becomes a Core World settlement. Suggestions: either to reduce the Pop needed for the +0.1 TL increase or to outright delete the reference to pop.

As rules are now (and not only in this rules set, but already in previous ones), a colony may have a maximum infrastructure TL of Theoretical TL/2 + 3.5 (so, if your country is at theoretical TLs 10, the maximum colony TLs would be 8.5, so about Earth’s in 2010, according the same game). IMHO there should be a way to increase it above those basic TLs (maybe by using PAs?), even if it is limited somewhat.

7.8 (this was already in earlier versions):

Must all industry facilities to be active to have one as heavy industry or they may be idle, due to lack of supplies, pop, RMU or power?

As rules stand, one could build 5 industrial facilities in a planet while having only one mining facility producing 20 RMUs and 2 pop available and declare only one of them active, but having a heavy industry it could build items or (IMHO even more important) claim the +1 TL and locally produce the needed supplies with it. Is that intentional or all facilities must be active?

See that this is not fully illogical if we assume it centers its efforts on the heavy industry, even if most supporting industries are undermanned…

7.9.1:

Asteroid mining: As it is described now, you need at least space infrastructure TL over 7 for this to have any utility. That, even for quite close asteroid belts (0.5 AUs distant), means either:

  • Theoretical space TL 9 + 25 Heavy Industrial Groups (so 125 industrial facilities).
  • Theoretical space TL 10 + university + 5 Heavy Industrial Groups (so 25 industrial facilities).
  • Theoretical Space TL 11 + 5 Heavy Industrial Groups (so 25 industrial facilities)


See that, to put our own Solar System as an example, if you intend to mine the AB from Mars, being the orbital difference 1.2 AUs You need to have at least Space TL 8.2 in Mars colony, and, even with university and 25 Heavy Industrial Groups (so with +3.5 TL) you’d need to have a Space theoretical TL of 9.4, and if you only have 5 HIG (plus university) on Mars, you need Space theoretical TL 11.4.

Of course, all those situations in a colony are quite difficult to achieve, making asteroid mining only for Core Worlds or very developed or high tech settlements. Is this intentional?

EDIT:
Wouldn't be easier to allow colonies to be built in Asteroid Belts, assuming several asteroids are used as one hex (and transport failities to be in space shuttles instead of small watercrafts as would on an arxipielago colony in a satellite?

Also, looking at 2300AD setting (that we try to use as our basis), remember that the Bavarian colony in Rho Eridani (Heidelsheimat) supports a mining colony in an Asteroid belt orbiting its companion (DM-56 328), at 59.25 AUs (Colonial Atlas, page 57). So, it either supports a space infrastructure TL 66.3 (dubious) or there is a colony in the AB itself. END EDIT

7.9.2:

Deadfall: its base downlift depends on atmosphere and planetary size. Which one is applied? The grater one (as was in previous versions) or the lower one?

8.5:

In reserve,  green and experienced it is said:  are limited as to the hex type they may enter (see section 8.9 and 10.3). I don’t find the references to limitations by quality in 8.9 nor in 10.3


As always, probably more to come...

This message was last edited by the player at 19:51, Thu 24 Mar 2016.

Germany
 player, 204 posts
Tue 29 Mar 2016
at 18:38
Re: Version 20160310
Germany:
After reading (though not too toughly) the new rules version (20160310), some comments (some of them would also apply to previous rules sets, just now realized):

4.2.1 (this was already in earlier versions):

To produce SUs, all economical TLs must be 5.5 or higher. That means that until they are all at theoretical TL 10 (where a university may give you the 0.5 extra needed), SUs can only be produced if you have a Heavy Industrial Group. Is that intentional?


After thinking a little more about that, I guess that, as the theoretical TL will be higher than 5.5, the x5 cost applies, so producing only 1/5 of the SU until TL 5.5 is reached (so, a ground industry would produce 4 SU, while an orbital one 2 SU). Right?

More comments:

Again due to the low TL colonies would have, with the new interface numbers it becomes very difficult to have decent interface there.

To put an example. Let’s assume a country with Space TL 9.5 sets up a colony on Mars (world size 4, according Megatraveller:Solomani&Aslan) and builds there a Catapult for bulk uplift, a rocket facility for more delicate uplift and some downlift and a deadfall for bulk downlift.

As the colony would be TL 4.8 (half 9.5, rounded to nearest decimal), the interface capacity would be:
  • Catapult uplift would be 10*5000*10-0.1/4, so 9929
  • Rocket uplift: 10*25*10-0.1/4, so 50
  • Rocket downlift: 10*10*10-0.1/4, so 20
  • Deadfall downlift: 10*500*10-0.1/4, so 993

Now assume the colony has also a University, so raising TL to 5.3. Numbers would be:
  • Catapult uplift would be 10*5000*100.15/4, so 17657
  • Rocket uplift: 10*25*100.15/4, so 88
  • Rocket downlift: 10*10*100.15/4, so 35
  • Deadfall downlift: 10*500*100.15/4, so 1766

Now assume it has also a Heavy Industrial Group, so raising TL to 6.3. Numbers would be:
  • Catapult uplift would be 10*5000*100.65/4, so 55836
  • Rocket uplift: 10*25*100.65/4, so 279
  • Rocket downlift: 10*10*100.65/4, so 112
  • Deadfall downlift: 10*500*100.65/4, so 5584

Now imagine it has 5 HIG, raising TL to 7.3. Numbers would be:
  • Catapult uplift would be 10*5000*101.15/4, so 176567
  • Rocket uplift: 10*25*101.15/4, so 883
  • Rocket downlift: 10*10*101.15/4, so 353
  • Deadfall downlift: 10*500*101.15/4, so 17657

And finally, if it has 25 HIG, so raising TL to 8.3, numbers would be:
  • Catapult uplift would be 10*5000*101.65/4, so 558355
  • Rocket uplift: 10*25*101.65/4, so 2792
  • Rocket downlift: 10*10*101.65/4, so 1117
  • Deadfall downlift: 10*500*101.65/4, so 55836


And in a world like Tirane, with size 8, numbers will be halved, while King (aside from being intolerable due to size, and so the colony could not be there in our game) will have real pains to uplift anything...

As you can see, only a well developed colony (with 125 industry facilities) has decent uplift capacity, regardless the TL of the mother Nation (and so its theoretical TL). That does not mean interface rules are flawed, but, IMHO, that colonies TLs are too low.

When comparing with 2300AD background, we find the maximum TL is 12 (according MgT that is the version where TL is used, but coherent with what is listed in classical 2300AD). SO, the maximum TL a colony could have would be 9.5 (half the theoretical one +3 for 25 HIG, +0.5 for university, pop notwithstanding, as if it reaches the 5000 pop that would give it a +0.1 it becomes a Core World). Yet, their TLs use to be quite higher (see in pages 40-42 as TLs for colonies use to be on the 10-11 range, though some are as low as 8 or as high as 12).

So,  specific suggestions (about this and other colonial things):
  • to allow colonies to raise their infrastructure TLs (with the use of PAs or other means) once they have a university.
  • to avoid colonies with several thousand facilities (that may become unbearable), reduce the Core World threshold to 2000 pop (I give this number, equivalent to 10 million people, because is the threshold for pop digit 7 in Traveller UWP, and so to lose the non-industrial trade code).
  • as each hex size is now depending on the World Size and many rules have been adapted to that, should facilities like power distribution or transport, that affect an area, be also adapted to that, be it by adapting cost/mass to hex size or affecting more hexes according to world size?


As always, probably more to come…