Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
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…
China
 player, 32 posts
Wed 30 Mar 2016
at 03:09
Re: Version 20160310
In reply to Germany (msg # 153):

After trading thru the rules and your ideas Luis I find a minor flaw. Uplift equipment will be shipped in till the settlement gets to a suitable stage to produce its own(ie enough heavy industry to produce its own uplift of sufficent quantity) once the population achieves Core world status then the TL goes up via the core world formulae with theoretical tech level being the Mother Nations Theoretical tech level).

Also all of your lift calculations are using world size instead of gravity giving you less lift than you would have otherwise. (gravity has many more factors than world size however if we want simplicity then we use world size/8 for gravity for an planet with same density as earth or we can have assigned gravity being real for what we know and assigned by GM for others)

Imported troops/facilities are at the TL they were shipped at so long as they are supplied from home..This is expensive and will prolly go on till the new core world achives a TL capable of producing good enough..till then it may just be a port shipping raw material back home or to the nearest core world to produce stuff.
Germany
 player, 205 posts
Wed 30 Mar 2016
at 15:44
Re: Version 20160310
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 153):

After trading thru the rules and your ideas Luis I find a minor flaw. Uplift equipment will be shipped in till the settlement gets to a suitable stage to produce its own(ie enough heavy industry to produce its own uplift of sufficent quantity) once the population achieves Core world status then the TL goes up via the core world formulae with theoretical tech level being the Mother Nations Theoretical tech level).

(...)

Imported troops/facilities are at the TL they were shipped at so long as they are supplied from home..This is expensive and will prolly go on till the new core world achives a TL capable of producing good enough..till then it may just be a port shipping raw material back home or to the nearest core world to produce stuff.


But 20160310 rules (page 45) talk about settlement space infrastructure TL in the exponent for the formula, not about Mother Country's...

The case of troops is special, as they are Mother Country troops, no settlement ones, so they retain their original TL. If the settlement creates its own units, they will be settlement's TL, not Mother Country's (unless propotype ability is given to them, off course). Think on them as Native troops used by the many empires in history (Victorian Sepoys, US indian guides, etc...) or local militas.

China:
Also all of your lift calculations are using world size instead of gravity giving you less lift than you would have otherwise. (gravity has many more factors than world size however if we want simplicity then we use world size/8 for gravity for an planet with same density as earth or we can have assigned gravity being real for what we know and assigned by GM for others)


True, but the 20160310 use the world size for all those formulas, not the gravity. I guess that's because while H&E (IIRC, I cannot make it to work on my computer) gives the gravity, it only does so for the main world in each system, not for every world. To do so would need to run H&E for every satellite ignoring everything except planetary description (something that can anyway be needed to have maps for them, if we want to).

And I guess that's the same reason why 0 and R (and I guess S) sized worlds (Planeotids/Asteroid belts and smaller bodies) are not colonizable, because in many cases the divisor would be 0, making the formulas to fail. We could assign a 0 sized world a multiplier of 0.5 (or 0.25, as our GM sees fit) to allow them to be colonized, but, off course, there will not be maps for them (again IIRC H&E doesn't make maps for Asteroid Belts), and many things should be taken more abstractly in those cases...
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 97 posts
Wed 30 Mar 2016
at 22:09
Re: Version 20160310
>4.2.1 (this was already in earlier versions):
> SUs can only be produced if you have a Heavy Industrial Group.
Read the description of Ind and Orbital Ind, HIG are not required, it just improves the tech level needed to build SUs
>Is that intentional?
Yes

>5.2.1:
> 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?
Yes

>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)
Correct, good catch


>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)?
Correct. We are bound to what Heaven&Earth does, and H&E treats such small worlds differently so we have to as well. I am not yet at computer which has H&E installed, so I do not remember what that difference is, I think it was that H&E does not generate a usable map.


>quote:
>A Colony may not have more than (10, 25, 50 or 100) / World Size facilities in a <snip>
>The last sentence is incomplete, but if it refers to ground facilities, it’s contradictory to the
>first one...
Good catch, an incompletely converted sentence, will fix.

>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
Are such nations listed as ‘Colony’ type settlements in the Settlement_List file? Go check. I do not have the file with me right now but I am pretty sure they started the game as ‘Core’. …and to head off what I know you are going to say, reread the sentence on what is the criteria for Colony promotion to Core. It does not say what you think it says.

>7.3:
>The reference to pop/5000 as modifier for settlement TL is now superfluous,
It is? Not seeing that being true.

>as if it reaches this level it becomes a Core World settlement.
No, that is not how Colony Settlements are promoted. Reread the sentence on what is the criteria for Colony promotion to Core.

> Suggestions: either to reduce the Pop needed for the +0.1 TL
For other reasons than you think, the divisor will be reduced.
>a colony may have a maximum infrastructure TL of Theoretical TL/2 + 3.5 (<snip> IMHO
>there should be a way to increase it above those basic TLs
That is not the complete result of that formula. More importantly, no, Colony tech level is supposed to always be significantly less than that of a Core type Settlement.

>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?
See the last part of the last sentence of section 7.1

>7.9.1:
>Asteroid mining: As it is described now, you need at least space infrastructure TL <snip>
> on Mars, you need Space theoretical TL 11.4.
I am not seeing this as being a very significant limitation. In the example of the Sol system, the Asteroids are minable from Earth at tech level 8.9

>Wouldn't be easier to allow colonies to be built in Asteroid Belts
To repeat, we are limited to what H&E does, and H&E does not do small worlds like others so we cannot either.

If you, are a fan of the TV series ‘The Expanse’ and are absolutely in love with the idea of colonies in asteroid belts, consider what is the definition of the size and shape of the Orbit Hex of a World -->’indefinite’ is the word used. Think about what that really means to things like the exact location of some of the structures of Orbital facilities such as an ‘Orbital Colony’.

>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
To repeat, we are limited to what H&E does, and H&E does not do small worlds like others so we cannot either. There are levels of fidelity to canon material that will have to be sacrificed.

>7.9.2:
>Deadfall: its base downlift depends on atmosphere and planetary size.
You have mis-seen an ‘and’ in the rules where there is an ‘or’

>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).
Good catch, will fix.

> Again due to the low TL colonies would have, with the new interface numbers it becomes
> very difficult to have decent interface there.
<sigh> Game balance issues. Interminable. I will figure out something.

>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
Matching what is in Traveller UWPs is now a powerful argument as it is the basis for H&E. Will likely reduce the threshold to 2000.

>Also all of your lift calculations are using world size instead of gravity giving you less lift
>than you would have otherwise. (gravity has many more factors than world size however if
> we want simplicity then we use world size/8 for gravity for an planet with same density
>as earth or we can have assigned gravity being real for what we know and assigned by GM
> for others)
To be clear, having numerical Atmospheric pressure and Gravity at surface are sacrifices upon the alter of H&E. Traveller based Atmosphere code and World Size is the only thing H&E deals with and so that is the only thing we will deal with from now on. H&E is a harsh god, but it is the only god with the power to bring order to the universe. All Hail H&E! Heresy will be met with fire!

> The case of troops is special, as they are Mother Country troops, no settlement ones, so
>they retain their original TL. If the settlement creates its own units, they will be
>settlement's TL,
Careful here!! I deleted the assignment and tracking of tech levels of individual military units a long time ago and it is absolutely never, ever, coming back. Settlement tech level is only important for unit construction, and that is all. The closest there is to what you speak of is the limitation of Quality Level of units built in Colony Settlements to be ‘Reserve’ or ‘Green’, which amounts to much the same as lower tech level.

>H&E (IIRC, I cannot make it to work on my computer)
!!!This is not good! Have you seen the instructions in section 11.5 about overcoming the compatibility issues?!

>gravity, it only does so for the main world in each system, not for every world. To do so would
>need to run H&E for every satellite ignoring everything except planetary description (something
>that can anyway be needed to have maps for them, if we want to).
…wait, I thought you said you could not make H&E work on your computer?? ….Anyways, no, H&E can and does generate an entire system, including UWP codes and maps for each world, regardless if they are the main world or not. One of many reasons why I chose H&E.

This message was last edited by the GM at 00:55, Thu 31 Mar 2016.

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 98 posts
Wed 30 Mar 2016
at 22:25
Re: Version 20160310
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 156):

Obviously, I have made a lot of changes to the rules over time, plenty of them recently. Time for me to ask you guys a question: Do you like the state of the rules? Do you think we are headed in the right direction? Do you think that we are headed/approaching/distant/off-track of a fun and playable game? Have we strayed far from what you expected when you first joined? Is that a bad or a good thing? Are we too simple or too complex?

I have always tried to keep my innumerable changes to what I thought was needed to make a functional game, but that still means many choices were at my preference. Anything you would like to see done differently? Not necessarily specific rules but more general things add/subtracted/differently?

No Lluis, we are not going to have separate combat rules for Insurgencies or allow loaded Spaceships to take off. Not going to happen bud.

This message was last edited by the GM at 00:52, Thu 31 Mar 2016.

Germany
 player, 206 posts
Thu 31 Mar 2016
at 12:07
Re: Version 20160310
Combat Cycle Ref:
>4.2.1 (this was already in earlier versions):
> SUs can only be produced if you have a Heavy Industrial Group.
Read the description of Ind and Orbital Ind, HIG are not required, it just improves the tech level needed to build SUs
>Is that intentional?
Yes


Then an industry produces 20 SUs regardless the settlement TL? And, if so, why is a SU minimum TL listed (aside from game colour/information)?

Combat Cycle Ref:
>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
Are such nations listed as ‘Colony’ type settlements in the Settlement_List file? Go check. I do not have the file with me right now but I am pretty sure they started the game as ‘Core’. …and to head off what I know you are going to say, reread the sentence on what is the criteria for Colony promotion to Core. It does not say what you think it says.


Off course they are Core World, as any Earth nation, but, what I mean is that if China (to give the most extreme example, this may be applied also to other countries), having over 250000 pop and 15 hexes (at world size 8) does not need any communications or GPS satellite nets, and receives benefits from having a single one of each, why should a colony with 2000 pop need 2 communication satellite nets?

And see that this also means that is likely that once a colony reaches core world status it has some unneeded satellite nets , as they will cease to be necessary anymore…

Combat Cycle Ref:
That is not the complete result of that formula. More importantly, no, Colony tech level is supposed to always be significantly less than that of a Core type Settlement.


The only other affecting factor is pop, and, at the levels it was, it would not affect too much…

And see that in 2300AD setting (again based in MgT one, as is the one to use TLs) this is not always true. To give you an example, Hochbaden, having only pop digit 6 (not exact population is given, but, if we look at classical 2300AD Colonial Atlas it’s about 4 million people, so about 800 pop) and is listed as TL 12, the same than Earth. And there are some colonies with TL 11, as some Earth countries.
And even in some cases things are reversed:
  • American, Brazilian and Manchu colonies in Tirane (though In game would be a CW settlement). Listed as TL 12, respective mother countries are listed as TL 11.
  • Far Riyadh (Saudi colony in Beta Hydri). Listed as TL 11, while Saudi Arabia itself is TL 10
  • Texan and Incan colonies  in Rho Erdani. Listed as TL 12, while Inca Republic itself is TL 9 and Texas at TL 11

Of course, we’ll have the problem on theoretical TL in game terms here…

Combat Cycle Ref:
>7.9.1:
>Asteroid mining: As it is described now, you need at least space infrastructure TL <snip>
> on Mars, you need Space theoretical TL 11.4.
I am not seeing this as being a very significant limitation. In the example of the Sol system, the Asteroids are minable from Earth at tech level 8.9


Why at TL 8.9?

Distance is 1.7 AUs (according HP Known Universe section, the Asteroid Belt is at 2.7 AU radius), so TL 8.7 would be enough.

And see that this means Germany and NF could deploy it next turn (while Germany would have to pay over costs due to material infrastructure TL being only 8.6). While I won’t complain on it, I see quite odd that while EU is having real pains to send items to Mars, several RMUs (if the AB has an average mining potential of 10 it would be 87 RMUs, massing 1740000 tonnes) can be brought to Earth orbit from about triple the distance…

Combat Cycle Ref:
>7.9.2:
>Deadfall: its base downlift depends on atmosphere and planetary size.
You have mis-seen an ‘and’ in the rules where there is an ‘or’


Not really, I just miss written my post. In any case, my question remains, which one of them will apply?

Combat Cycle Ref:
> The case of troops is special, as they are Mother Country troops, no settlement ones, so
>they retain their original TL. If the settlement creates its own units, they will be
>settlement's TL,
Careful here!! I deleted the assignment and tracking of tech levels of individual military units a long time ago and it is absolutely never, ever, coming back. Settlement tech level is only important for unit construction, and that is all. The closest there is to what you speak of is the limitation of Quality Level of units built in Colony Settlements to be ‘Reserve’ or ‘Green’, which amounts to much the same as lower tech level.


But will those troops be from Mother Country or local colony?

After all, being different settlements (as now Earth Nations are also settlements), this would not be against the one troop TL per settlement…

Combat Cycle Ref:
>H&E (IIRC, I cannot make it to work on my computer)
!!!This is not good! Have you seen the instructions in section 11.5 about overcoming the compatibility issues?!


I hadn’t, but I have now, and followed your advices, and still it does not work. It appears an error message and does not allow me to click through it.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>gravity, it only does so for the main world in each system, not for every world. To do so would
>need to run H&E for every satellite ignoring everything except planetary description (something
>that can anyway be needed to have maps for them, if we want to).
…wait, I thought you said you could not make H&E work on your computer?? ….Anyways, no, H&E can and does generate an entire system, including UWP codes and maps for each world, regardless if they are the main world or not. One of many reasons why I chose H&E.


It does not, but it did in my former computer, several years ago. That’s why I always said IIRC (If I Recall Correctly)
Germany
 player, 207 posts
Thu 31 Mar 2016
at 17:04
Re: Version 20160310
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 156):

Obviously, I have made a lot of changes to the rules over time, plenty of them recently. Time for me to ask you guys a question: Do you like the state of the rules? Do you think we are headed in the right direction? Do you think that we are headed/approaching/distant/off-track of a fun and playable game? Have we strayed far from what you expected when you first joined? Is that a bad or a good thing? Are we too simple or too complex?

I have always tried to keep my innumerable changes to what I thought was needed to make a functional game, but that still means many choices were at my preference. Anything you would like to see done differently? Not necessarily specific rules but more general things add/subtracted/differently?


Well, there are several points where we disagree in preferences, that’s not a secret, but I’d say in general rules are sound, at least for what is playing on Earth. Space rules are mainly untested, and so there will sure appear problems we don’t foresee (as has recently happened with the need to define Star Systems, that has lead to adopting H&E and the rules changes this has needed...).

To detail a little more in the points you ask (and all of it IMHO, off course):

Liking the state of the rules: They are changing too fast for my taste. On average we’ve had about 4-5 different sets per turn, and that’s confusing. Not that I was not warned, you warned me in no uncertain terms in the welcome mail you sent me when I joined (back, 5 years, a full turn, ago…), but we should try to avoid that many confusing changes, where many points are never tested, as they are changed before they are applied. This also leads to unintended consequences, as I guess we all have suffered… I’d like some more inputs before publishing them (but that would need to consult people and could lead to endless discussions) to avoid those problems.

Thinking that we are headed/approaching/distant/off-track of a fun and playable game: most of it is still to see, as most of the rules have not yet tested. As you know, I think most of the latter rules limit space exploration too much, so keeping the game on Earth and delaying the space part (what may be a little straying off track, but is not against the game to be fun).

Strayed from what I expected when I joined: well, I expected a galactic X3 game, and for now it’s mostly an Earth domination one, but that’s more because we have not yet reached space (something Germany is trying hard to fix). Anecdotic point: in the rules that as they were when I joined the game, on Spaceships section, it said: These will hopefully be done by 2030, which I expect to be about the beginning of the space age. Until then though, oh well. Curiously enough, the date was quite right...

Simplicity: the game is not simple, but I think it cannot be if we want to keep some semblance to realism and 2300AD setting. Some things could be simplified a little more, but that would probably have again unwanted consequences.

Anything you would like to see done differently? Not necessarily specific rules but more general things add/subtracted/differently? Must I answer this question? Haven’t you had enough? ;)

Overall: unfortunately, the main problem the game has is not rules dependent and is the least probable to be fixed of all: the pace of the game. Right now the game has been runing for about 5 years, and we have solved 5 turns. As game moves further, I expect we all to be more used to it (so speeding it), but also more complexity to be added (new settlements, etc.). All in all, it's quite difficult (if not outright imposible) to fix, mostly due to RL

Combat Cycle Ref:
No Lluis, we are not going to have separate combat rules for Insurgencies or allow loaded Spaceships to take off. Not going to happen bud.


You forgot: no indebting will be allowed (and probably some more) ;)

Don't worry, I will not insist on those points, You know my opinion, and if you ever find they may be right, we'll talk again about them
Japan
 player, 57 posts
Thu 31 Mar 2016
at 19:25
Re: Version 20160310
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 156):
quote:
Do you like the state of the rules?

For me the game world/story is more important than the rules. The rules are not perfect but it works. I am happy with all the work you put in.
quote:
Do you think we are headed in the right direction?

Yes and no. Simplification, clarity is a good direction. I have a hard time keeping up with the many changes.
quote:
Do you think that we are headed/approaching/distant/off-track of a fun and playable game?
I am having fun. For me playability is more important than realism and I think there is room for a bit more playability.
quote:
Have we strayed far from what you expected when you first joined?

No.
quote:
Is that a bad or a good thing?

Good.
quote:
Are we too simple or too complex?

Simplify, simplify, simplify.
quote:
Anything you would like to see done differently?

1.Id like to speed things up -but I dont know how. Real Life Problems takes time. Expand the management? Delegate specific tasks to players?
2.Get players more involved.
3. Get more players. I am afraid this will generate more work and drag things out even more.
quote:
Not necessarily specific rules but more general things add/subtracted/differently?
I will get back to you.
Germany
 player, 208 posts
Mon 4 Apr 2016
at 15:56
Suggestions about hexes outside Earth
Some suggestions to give a little variability to hexes in planets outside Earth. IMHO de ratio for added complexity vs realism is worth it. As always, exact details are open to discussion (if the suggestions are accepted).

Variable farming/mining potential:

While I understand that having different farming/mining potential for every hex adds too much bookkeeping and complexity to the game, IMHO we could give them a little variation according the kind of terrain on it (as H&E shows us different kinds of terrain.

Examples (according kinds of terrain, numbers open to discussion, as always):
  • Desert: farming potential halved
  • Mountains: farming potential -2, mining potential +2
  • Sea coast: farming potential +2

And other terrains could affect likewise

Settled hexes:

As rules stand now, once a settlement reached Core World status all the planet seems to be so affected, and all hexes in the planet seem to become unlimited sources of food, RMUs, etc.

This is hardly realist, as it’s likely that only a small part of the planet to be settled, or that there will be other smaller settlements in the same planet, or that someone starts a new colony on it.

To handle this, I suggest adding to the game the concept of Settled Hex, in contrast to unsettled one.

For sake of simplicity, a settled hex would be any colony hex that has at least power distribution and a transport facility (and maybe any other one) on it.

Also for sake of simplicity, all land hexes in Earth are considered settled (possible exception: Antarctica, described as all hexes south of row U, included).

When a settlement reaches Core World status, only settled hexes are so affected, while unsettled ones are not changed in any way. The settlement may be enlarged by converting adjacent hexes (or ones connected by sea) to Settled (so by building power distribution and transport facilities to them).

Thoughts? oppinions?
Germany
 player, 209 posts
Mon 4 Apr 2016
at 16:48
Re: Version 20160310
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
>H&E (IIRC, I cannot make it to work on my computer)
!!!This is not good! Have you seen the instructions in section 11.5 about overcoming the compatibility issues?!


I hadn’t, but I have now, and followed your advices, and still it does not work. It appears an error message and does not allow me to click through it.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>gravity, it only does so for the main world in each system, not for every world. To do so would
>need to run H&E for every satellite ignoring everything except planetary description (something
>that can anyway be needed to have maps for them, if we want to).
…wait, I thought you said you could not make H&E work on your computer?? ….Anyways, no, H&E can and does generate an entire system, including UWP codes and maps for each world, regardless if they are the main world or not. One of many reasons why I chose H&E.


It does not, but it did in my former computer, several years ago. That’s why I always said IIRC (If I Recall Correctly)


It Works now (by changeing the compatibility to Windows 98/Windows Me, though my computer runs on Windows 7).

Strangely, if I give it an UWP it generates maps that are not in color, but if I ask it to run a random UWP, no matter how do I change it to what I need, maps are in color.
Germany
 player, 210 posts
Tue 5 Apr 2016
at 16:23
Re: Version 20160310
Possible errata:

quote:
2.2:Hospitable: <snip> Atmosphere type must be between 5 - 9

quote:
7.9.2: Scream Aircraft: Local Prerequisite: Atmosphere 5 - 9


The difference among atmosphere 4 and 5 is that 4 is tainted, wile 5 is not, both being thin in density. If taint is not a determinating factor (and the fact they both include atmospheres 7 and 9, also tainted, makes me think it's not), it should be Atnosphere 4-9 in both cases.


quote:
7.9.3: Road Net: <snip>1 required for every (100 non-‘Transport’ category Ground facilities in the same hex / World Size)


This means that in a size world 8 hex (about 1000 km across) you need 1 Road net per 12-13 non-‘Transport’ category Ground facilities, while in a size 4 world hex (about 580 lm across) you need 1 per 25 such facilities.

So, on a larger hex you can fit less such facilities for the same road net. Is this intentional (assuming the Road net is more dense i nsmaller hexes) or it should be reversed (assuming that in a larger hex you can fit more facilities)?

In the former case, see that, being a denser Road net the smaller the hex, it should be noted that the same facility would mean about the same road milleage, so hex size should not be a factor in the number of other facilities it is able to support...
Germany
 player, 211 posts
Wed 6 Apr 2016
at 16:16
Re: Version 20160310
Another posible errata:

quote:
7.1:Colony: <snip> World size may not be 0 or R


Can size S worlds be colonized?

If not, they should be added to the sentence.

If they can:
  • see that there may be several of them in an Asteroid/planetoid belt (we have 5 of them on Sol's AB), so (at least partially) voiding the forbiding to colonize 0 sized worlds...
  • What planet size applies for the formulas (MT:World Builders Handbook, from what H&E derives along with CT:Grand Census) gives them 0.6)

Germany
 player, 212 posts
Fri 6 May 2016
at 18:03
Re: Version 20160310
Any idea about the timetable?
Germany
 player, 213 posts
Mon 18 Jul 2016
at 12:50
Re: Version 20160310
Mostly to Liam, but also to anyone else that can do it:

You made a good job with Moon's map. Would you be able (and have the time) to do a similar map for Mars (at the new scale of the game)?

This message was last edited by the player at 18:57, Tue 19 July 2016.