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

UK
 player, 75 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Sat 23 Jul 2016
at 17:57
Re: Version 20160310
In reply to Germany (msg # 166):

Honestly, not at the moment

And even then since we're going to be using the Heaven and Earth (I think it was called) to generate plants I can't remember if we are keeping with Icosahedral world maps or moving to rectangular hex maps?
Germany
 player, 214 posts
Sat 23 Jul 2016
at 20:52
Re: Version 20160310
UK:
In reply to Germany (msg # 166):

Honestly, not at the moment

And even then since we're going to be using the Heaven and Earth (I think it was called) to generate plants I can't remember if we are keeping with Icosahedral world maps or moving to rectangular hex maps?


Heaven and Earth uses ichosaedral maps. The main difference with what was projected for this game is that, instead of al lhexes be equal and the number of them changing, in H&E all maps have the same numbr of hexes, and it's its size that changes.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 101 posts
Sun 4 Sep 2016
at 18:19
Re: Version 20160310
>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?
We are not the game of starting since the dawn of human civilization. The rules only apply to the development of extra-terrestrial colonies and that mean hi-tech, and that means things like satellites are vital.

>I see quite odd that while EU is having real pains to send items to Mars, several RMUs <snip>can be brought to Earth orbit from about triple the distance…
It is getting stuff out of the (Martian) gravity well which is a far greater problem than distance, something that asteroid mining gets to skip.


>>Deadfall: its base downlift depends on atmosphere and planetary size. Which one is applied?
>Not really, I just miss written my post. In any case, my question remains, which one of them will apply?

The one which yields the greatest. Your people are not mindless robots.


>>> 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?

If we are not going to track the TL of individual units, and we are definitely not, then I see no reason to care whether they came from the mother country or the 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…


I do not quite understand what you are asking here.

>They are changing too fast for my taste. 
Unavoidable. Not only did we start this game with nothing, but we also had no idea what to do and nothing to guide us except by hard won experience of what worked and what did not.

>On average we’ve had about 4-5 different sets per turn, and that’s confusing.
Actually no, we have only ever had one rule set per turn. The only exception were times like the combat for the ME2028 conflict where I was desperately trying to fix on the fly completely unworkable rules. Every other rules set you have see has had the word ‘Proposal’ in the title, and it was just 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.
That is an extremely good idea. Will implement.

>Settled hexes:
Right now I do not have a good idea on what a new core world is going to look like, so you idea sounds like something that can wait and see until we have combat on a core world other than Earth.

>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
It is not a question of ‘fit’, hexes are larger for larger worlds so more road is needed to reach facilities which may be spread out around the hex. The only way we can represent ‘more road’ is by requiring more Road facilities.

>Can size S worlds be colonized?
Yes. What made you wonder that they could not be?

>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)

The limits is: When we get tired of detailing Worlds. The average H&E generated system yields 10-20 worlds, that seems like a workable number. Anything smaller than the top 20 for the Sol system can be just swept under the heading of ‘not worth caring about’
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 102 posts
Sun 4 Sep 2016
at 18:28
Version 20160902
Changes since version 20160310

-Changes to: Outposts have SU cost. Using the Project Rho 30 ly map.

-Made clearer: What is the local tech level in all circumstances, important for movement and production of units. Capturing hexes and units.

-Re-balancing to: Mass of a population unit. Cost of 2nd gen Drive Tuner. Military units must stay with range of a friendly Settlement, not just a Friendly Site, otherwise it would be impossible to operate on a non-Core World without a Military Base. Length of time needed by an Enclave before a Colony can be built. An Enclave requires a pre-existing Outpost, a Colony requires a pre-existing Enclave. PApoints cost is doubled, but so is effectiveness. Remade Authoritarian score to be from 0 to 20 to keep it consistent with other metrics. Added the affect of Authoritarian Score to the formula for calculating the odds of a PA succeeding.

-Got rid of:Fossil Fuel Plants no longer have to prove that their consumed RMU came from a biosphere, duplicate when located on a world with a breathable atmosphere. Got rid of Glossary, duplicate of what was said elsewhere. Colony type Settlements can produce units of up to Theoretical tech level as well. Local tech level of a Colony is only important for producing new units, not movement or uplift/downlift or RMU&FU production; eliminates the need for closely and constantly re-calculating local tech level and the very un-2300AD universe like emphasis on local heavy industry. No refund on pre-existing Outpost or Enclave modules, it raised questions about partial/non-standard upgraded facilities. Ind/Heavy Industry Groups replaced with just Heavy Industry facilities, simpler and a reflection of heavy industry being rare in the 2300AD universe. PApoint cost is not reduced by Prestige, duplicate of Prestige already affecting the performance of PAs. Eliminated ‘Number in squadron’ from the unit description tables, a holdover from when we thought we could let players choose any nation to play and bring it up to speed themselves, now it just opens up to questions about initial force sizes.

This message was last edited by the GM at 18:43, Sun 04 Sept 2016.

Germany
 player, 215 posts
Sun 4 Sep 2016
at 18:55
Re: Version 20160310
Combat Cycle Ref:
>I see quite odd that while EU is having real pains to send items to Mars, several RMUs <snip>can be brought to Earth orbit from about triple the distance…
It is getting stuff out of the (Martian) gravity well which is a far greater problem than distance, something that asteroid mining gets to skip.


But even skipping the uplifting to orbit, total transport capacity from Mars to Earth for EU is about 20000 tonnes a turn, so about 1 RMU, while, as said, if we asume a minning potential of 10 for the Asteroid Belt, we can take about 87 RMUs from there to earth in a turn (and without the need to tie off eny ship).

Combat Cycle Ref:

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


I do not quite understand what you are asking here.


What I meant was if the units created in a colony will be colony's or Mother Country's, but I guess you already answered it with your former answer.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>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.
That is an extremely good idea. Will implement.


Glad I have some ideas you like from time to time ;)

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Settled hexes:
Right now I do not have a good idea on what a new core world is going to look like, so you idea sounds like something that can wait and see until we have combat on a core world other than Earth.


Agreed, no urgency on it. Just some more things for your mind to chew...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>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
It is not a question of ‘fit’, hexes are larger for larger worlds so more road is needed to reach facilities which may be spread out around the hex. The only way we can represent ‘more road’ is by requiring more Road facilities.


There's another way (I think I already suggested it), though this also worls and may really even be simplier: to make costs for those facilities world size dependent.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Can size S worlds be colonized?
Yes. What made you wonder that they could not be?

>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)

The limits is: When we get tired of detailing Worlds. The average H&E generated system yields 10-20 worlds, that seems like a workable number. Anything smaller than the top 20 for the Sol system can be just swept under the heading of ‘not worth caring about’


Well, I thought they cannot because there are some of them on 0 size belts, and they cannot be colonized, and because it was not specified its size for all the formulas.

As I said, MT:WBH assignates to them size 0.6, and I guess we can use it.

I also believe that Asteroid Belts should be colonizable, assuming there are some such bodies available (and so we will avoid the incongrueancy I told above about mining the Asteroid Belt before being able to exploit Mars).
Germany
 player, 216 posts
Mon 5 Sep 2016
at 11:40
Re: Version 20160902
Combat Cycle Ref:
Changes since version 20160310

Comments after skip reading them (mostly basing on th things you comment to change). Sorry if some questions seem stupid or might be avoided by reading it more thoughfully (in some cases I just want to confirm I understood it well):

Combat Cycle Ref:
-Changes to: Outposts have SU cost.


Again, I understand such modules in non colony settlements don't need supplies moved there, just to be paid in the closer colony/core world

Combat Cycle Ref:
Length of time needed by an Enclave before a Colony can be built. An Enclave requires a pre-existing Outpost, a Colony requires a pre-existing Enclave.


See that the length of an enclave to allow for it to be enlarged to a Colony is shown as 5 turns in 7.1 (under Colony)and 3 turns in 7.8.1 (under Enclavement module). I feel 5 turns to be too much, compared with a single turn by a Survey Module equiped ship (after all, an Eclavement is about 5000 pwople, and 25 years is quite a long time). This would, once again, delay any Settlement building...

Combat Cycle Ref:
PApoints cost is doubled, but so is effectiveness.


I don't like this change. It makes PAs rarer and less able to be "dispersed". Even one PA in current rules is often an overkill, doubling it will doublé the overkill, while, IMHO, giving no true advantage to the game. Not all PAs are used in large Countries...

And remember PAs cost was thought to be $40, raised to $50 to compensate for the Prestige effect on them. If prestige effect on the cost is forfeited, cost should return to $40 (or $80 if you insist in doubling them).

At $100 per PA, some countries can hardly afford them, so efectively nearly removing them as player countries...

Combat Cycle Ref:
Remade Authoritarian score to be from 0 to 20 to keep it consistent with other metrics. Added the affect of Authoritarian Score to the formula for calculating the odds of a PA succeeding.


I'm afraid this messes things too much as game has been developing to now...

From Rules 20151225 Official (13.2):
quote:
-Much greater initial variability between nations on their Authoritarian Modifier. Smaller and much less direct impact of Authoritarian Modifier on final effective budget.


This seems to go against the first paragraph of this quote...

This aside, if this is implemented, the formulas for TL developement must be changed, as the AM for us (to follow the example you give in thw rules, as I have no idea of what would it now be for other countries) changes from 0.2 to 9, so the AM2 given in the formulas changes from 0.04 to 81...

On its use in the PAs use, I have ambivalent thoughts... On one side, I see it logical that the countries with higher control have it easier to influence its own contry. OTOH, this gives more advantage to higher AMs, that already have enough...

Combat Cycle Ref:
Got rid of: Glossary, duplicate of what was said elsewhere.


Even so, it was a useful quick reference...

Combat Cycle Ref:
Local tech level of a Colony is only important for producing new units


Which kind or units? In your last answer you told me military units are seen as National for TL pourposes, not settlement's...

Combat Cycle Ref:
No refund on pre-existing Outpost or Enclave modules, it raised questions about partial/non-standard upgraded facilities.


Then I understand they will be kept in the OT (and must not be iddled to serve as prerequisite).

If so, to deploy an Enclave, you need 1.5 power (as the outpost must be kept) and 2 "slots" of OT capacity...

Another (minor) detail is that, if they are not refounded, the reference to refounding in 5.3

Combat Cycle Ref:
Ind/Heavy Industry Groups replaced with just Heavy Industry facilities, simpler and a reflection of heavy industry being rare in the 2300AD universe.


Then no light industry exists?

So, any RMUs are only for exporting unless you have Heavy Industry (or to support orbital industry)?

As always, sure more to come as I read them thougher...
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 103 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 06:02
Re: Version 20160902
>But even skipping the uplifting to orbit, total transport capacity from Mars to
>Earth for EU is about 20000 tonnes a turn, so about 1 RMU, while, as said, if we
>asume a minning potential of 10 for the Asteroid Belt, we can take about 87 RMUs
>from there to earth in a turn (and without the need to tie off eny ship).

Is there a question or a problem here? You seem to have described what the rules do.

>>The only way we can represent ‘more road’ is by requiring more Road facilities.
>may really even be simplier: to make costs for those facilities world size dependent.
..as well as making mass, power consumption, labour needed, etc, etc be world size dependent.

>I also believe that Asteroid Belts should be colonizable,
No. H&E does not generate usable maps for size 0 or R worlds, this makes it impossible to meaningfully place facilities or military units. It does not matter if it is unrealistic to not allow size 0 worlds to be colonized, we are limited by our gaming resources, if realism or the rules do not match what our gaming resources can do then realism or the rules **must be bent to match the resource**. We do not have to like that, but we do have to accept that.

>>PApoints cost is doubled, but so is effectiveness.
>Even one PA in current rules is often an overkill, doubling it will doublé the overkill,
The cost is doubled but so is price. The power per $ is unchanged; and then there is the removal of the price reduction for Prestige which effectively reduces this ‘overkill’.

>It makes PAs rarer
>At $100 per PA, some countries can hardly afford them,
That would be the prime reason what I did it. Nothing takes more of the GM’s time then handling PAs; currently we are at around 100 separate actions per turn, I shudder to think what it will be once we get to larger empires.

>and less able to be "dispersed". 
Not at all

>so efectively nearly removing them as player countries…
We NEVER promised that player countries were equal. If a player has a problem with his nation being unable to afford PApoints then he never should have agreed to play that nation to begin with.

>This aside, if this is implemented, the formulas for TL developement must be changed
Obviously

>>Remade Authoritarian score to be from 0 to 20 to keep it consistent with other metrics.
>I'm afraid this messes things too much as game has been developing to now…
That would be the prime reason for making the change. The game has been developing in the direction of trying to account for small changes to the society of the player nations. A game of this scale has no business trying to account for such small changes to Authoritarian Score.

>If so, to deploy an Enclave, you need 1.5 power (as the outpost must be kept) and 2 "slots" of OT capacity…
No, the Outpost is not kept, an Enclave is a Settlement.

>Then no light industry exists?
There has not been any ‘light industry’ facility for quite some time.

>So, any RMUs are only for exporting unless you have Heavy Industry (or to support orbital industry)?
Correct

This message was last edited by the GM at 06:05, Tue 13 Sept 2016.

Germany
 player, 217 posts
Tue 13 Sep 2016
at 08:47
Re: Version 20160902
Combat Cycle Ref:
>But even skipping the uplifting to orbit, total transport capacity from Mars to
>Earth for EU is about 20000 tonnes a turn, so about 1 RMU, while, as said, if we
>asume a minning potential of 10 for the Asteroid Belt, we can take about 87 RMUs
>from there to earth in a turn (and without the need to tie off eny ship).

Is there a question or a problem here? You seem to have described what the rules do.


From the player POV no problem, even glad that the space ressearch and developement might bring profits quite earlier than I expected, but from the logical POV, my mind refuses to accept that we can bring from the Asteroid Belt quite more materials than the space shipping capacity we have (you don't even need any space shipping capacity to transport those 1500000+ tonnes...)

Combat Cycle Ref:
>>The only way we can represent ‘more road’ is by requiring more Road facilities.
>may really even be simplier: to make costs for those facilities world size dependent.
..as well as making mass, power consumption, labour needed, etc, etc be world size dependent.


Maybe my wording was por here, whne I said "this may even be simplier" i was refering to your proposal, just pointing that it was not the only solution, even while agreeing it can well be the best one.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>I also believe that Asteroid Belts should be colonizable,
No. H&E does not generate usable maps for size 0 or R worlds, this makes it impossible to meaningfully place facilities or military units. It does not matter if it is unrealistic to not allow size 0 worlds to be colonized, we are limited by our gaming resources, if realism or the rules do not match what our gaming resources can do then realism or the rules **must be bent to match the resource**. We do not have to like that, but we do have to accept that.


Sure rules **must be bent to match the resource**, but they can be bent in several ways, and one of them would be to treat them more abstractly, as we do with the "orbital hex" in every satellite.

You explicited S sized planets are colonizable, and in the Astroid Belt you included 3 of them (I guess there could be more, but, as you said, we must limit the number of satellites if we want the game playable).

We can guess (or assume) any planetoid/asteroid belt will have such S sized bodies, and so allow them to be colonized (even if counting each of them as a single hex, for simplicity) and make that a must to exploit it.

In fact, this would be to make Asteroid Belts colonizable as S sized planets (assuming the colony is in one of those bodies) and only allow the Asteroid Mining to be used on them, instead of magically teleport over 1 AU all those ressources we have no shipping to transport.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>>PApoints cost is doubled, but so is effectiveness.
>Even one PA in current rules is often an overkill, doubling it will doublé the overkill,
The cost is doubled but so is price. The power per $ is unchanged; and then there is the removal of the price reduction for Prestige which effectively reduces this ‘overkill’.


It does not reduce the overkill. Your reasoning here seems to me as saying "exchanging the rifles to bazookas will not be an overkill against a single soldier, because even if the destructive power of the round is greater, so is its cost".

Going for more than a 5:1 in any PA action is a waste of ressources. Now we already find some of our actoins to be at higher ranges, and now we're told we must even double them, in force and cost (in fact, more than double in cost, as the average cost for 2 PAs was about $80, variable according to prestige, while now the cost of the equivalent 1 PA would be $100).

Combat Cycle Ref:
>It makes PAs rarer
>At $100 per PA, some countries can hardly afford them,
That would be the prime reason what I did it. Nothing takes more of the GM’s time then handling PAs; currently we are at around 100 separate actions per turn, I shudder to think what it will be once we get to larger empires.


>and less able to be "dispersed". 
Not at all


The only way not to reduce the dispersal capacity is to allow PAs to be usedon several countries at once, and that would avoid the reducing on actions you're advocating for.

If before I wanted to use a PA on Somalia and one on Kuwaint, I could do and each was a separate action (and each an overkill, as if the dificulty multiplier was 1 the ratio was over 12:1) and cost was about $80. Now I must either use a $100 PA  on each  of them ($200 and 24:1 ratios, and that's what I call doubling the overkill) or one to affect both. If I do the latter, no actions are reduced, unless it is treated as a single action (and so a single roll), but I find quite illogical that so separate actions are solved as a single one...

And remember there are some uses for PAs that were not population related, so doubling the power of the PAs has no real meaning (as making some space actions), while doubling the cost has.

And don't worry about those larger empires. As rules for space settlement are becoming, they will never exist.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>so efectively nearly removing them as player countries…
We NEVER promised that player countries were equal. If a player has a problem with his nation being unable to afford PApoints then he never should have agreed to play that nation to begin with.


Off course they aren't equal, and not only in this sense, but when they agreed the conditions were not those, as the country could be able to afford some PAs (fortunatley, most of those nations are now NPCs or the same player plays also more playable ones).

Combat Cycle Ref:
>>Remade Authoritarian score to be from 0 to 20 to keep it consistent with other metrics.
>I'm afraid this messes things too much as game has been developing to now…
That would be the prime reason for making the change. The game has been developing in the direction of trying to account for small changes to the society of the player nations. A game of this scale has no business trying to account for such small changes to Authoritarian Score.


First of all forgive me to say (just for humor relief) that your wording seems to mean that messing it was the prime reason for making the change.

Now serously, it was yourself that said that would like to have much grater AM variability among the countries...

And beware the law of unintended consequences, as this change can have effects in formulas that we don't realize until the most inconvenient moment...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>If so, to deploy an Enclave, you need 1.5 power (as the outpost must be kept) and 2 "slots" of OT capacity…
No, the Outpost is not kept, an Enclave is a Settlement.


Then the outspost simply disappears absorbed by the Enclavement? If so, I'd suggest to reduce the enclavement cost and mass to represent it, unless your intent is (again) to make more expensive and difficult to set it up.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Then no light industry exists?
There has not been any ‘light industry’ facility for quite some time.


When I told about light industry I meand not heavy one, I though it would be clear. What I menat is that no RMUs may be used in the colony itself until you set up Heavy Industry there?

Combat Cycle Ref:
>So, any RMUs are only for exporting unless you have Heavy Industry (or to support orbital industry)?
Correct


That means no colony may produce its own supplies until heavy industry is set up (again difficulting settlement of planets). Not too consistent with 2300AD setting, where more than one colony has this non-heavy industry while lacking heavy one.
UK
 player, 76 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Wed 28 Sep 2016
at 10:39
Re: Version 20160902
In reply to Germany (msg # 174):

Rules (12.6) on WMD Damage:
In any attack occurring in an inhabited hex on a Core World, for every 1 000 Combat Strength points (25 of any WMD tipped weapons employed) of the Attacker that can reach the hex and hit the defender then as collateral damage the population, GDP and SRU production of that hex is permanently reduced by 1%


I thought I should bring this up given what's happening here - in the current situation a large area has been hit by WMDs from China - who has a total force of 14 units

Under the current rules the entirety of China's WMD ICBM forces cannot (under the rules) damage the economy of a target (its combat strength currently being 474)which seems weird given the real world potential of WMDs.

TO me WMDs are under-powered in terms of the economic damage they do (particularly when most WMD stockpiles are strategic rather than tactical). The use of WMDs (particularly on civilian targets) feels like it should be much more significant - just thinking about nuclear weapons in particular and their real world impact vs what we see in game

What does everyone else think?

Currently a full scale launch from all major powers could probably achieve a 3-4% reduction in GDP - whilst I know this is a significant drop in game terms it feels very small in the immediate term - unless GMs are planning on having additional problems/ expenses in the budget?
Germany
 player, 221 posts
Wed 28 Sep 2016
at 12:59
Re: Version 20160902
UK:
In reply to Germany (msg # 174):

Rules (12.6) on WMD Damage:
In any attack occurring in an inhabited hex on a Core World, for every 1 000 Combat Strength points (25 of any WMD tipped weapons employed) of the Attacker that can reach the hex and hit the defender then as collateral damage the population, GDP and SRU production of that hex is permanently reduced by 1%


I thought I should bring this up given what's happening here - in the current situation a large area has been hit by WMDs from China - who has a total force of 14 units

Under the current rules the entirety of China's WMD ICBM forces cannot (under the rules) damage the economy of a target (its combat strength currently being 474)which seems weird given the real world potential of WMDs.

TO me WMDs are under-powered in terms of the economic damage they do (particularly when most WMD stockpiles are strategic rather than tactical). The use of WMDs (particularly on civilian targets) feels like it should be much more significant - just thinking about nuclear weapons in particular and their real world impact vs what we see in game

What does everyone else think?

Currently a full scale launch from all major powers could probably achieve a 3-4% reduction in GDP - whilst I know this is a significant drop in game terms it feels very small in the immediate term - unless GMs are planning on having additional problems/ expenses in the budget?


See that there's an error on the numbers in this attack (that, luckily, has no consequences in the results):

From Historical interval 2035-2039, Msg#20

Germany:
Germany:
Combat Cycle Ref:
Pink Elephant Delta Decrypt:..Release Full spre<unrecoverable>ary Targets repeat Military Targets only ...WMD release author<unrecoverable> ..
-Chinese Central Command directive #1A29F999

China attacking
4 Experienced ICBM Squadrons
5 Veteran IRBM Squadrons
5 Experienced IRBM Squadrons

Mil Rank 2, Mil tech 7.8, Sum Basic Strength: 48, WMDs used so attack strength becomes 84, Final Combat Strength: 474


One more question:

If the sum of base stregth is 84, and TL is 7.8, Final combat strength whould'n be 5110.56 (84*7.82)? Or there are some other modifiers?

See that, if so, numbers would be:

Odds are 5110/25229=.2025, which becomes 1:5 odds, shifted { 2 to Right for WMD usage by attacker, 1 to Right for units are in the middle of combat and out in the open } final odds 1:2.

With a result of 7 on 1d10, result would be 60/5_12% losses on attacker and 20/5=4% loses on defender. As attacker losses are ignored, the result (IMHO luckly) remains exaclty the same.


Even more (again for better understanding of the rules), after Reading it more throughly (see that there's no effect on final result):

As I understand them (12.6, 12.9 from v20151225 Official), the ABM/SAM intercept should be:
quote:
Air Defebses;
1 ABM (japanese): 10 x 1.5 (enenmy has IRBMs)=15
32 SAM (2 ROK, 32, NK): each 2 x .25 (SAM vs IRBM/ICBM)=64

Sum of basic combat strength: 79, Final Combat strength:1698 4326

1698 4326 * 20% (roll)= 340 865 hits intercepted:

So, total combat power by China would be 5110-340 865= 4770 4245

Combat would be 4770 4245/25229=0.189 0.168, which becomes 1:6 odds, shifted { 2 to Right for WMD usage by attacker, 1 to Right for units are in the middle of combat and out in the open } final odds 1:2.

With a result of 7 on 1d10, result would be 60/5_12% losses on attacker and 20/5=4% loses on defender. As attacker losses are ignored, the result (IMHO luckly) remains exaclty the same.


Is that right?

EDIT NOTE: I changed the numbers due to applying 12.9 when we're using 12.10. No significant changes occur

So, assuming my numbers are right, the total combat strenght is 5110, reduced to 4770 4245 due to anti missile defense, the economic damage would be 190.8 169.8% (4770 4245/25, as all is MDWs). And though it is not specified, I guess Pop would also be affected (not sure how many).

Do you still think it is under-powered?

This message was last edited by the player at 15:30, Wed 28 Sept 2016.

UK
 player, 77 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Wed 28 Sep 2016
at 13:19
Re: Version 20160902
In reply to Germany (msg # 176):

You're dividing by the wrong number to calculate the % loss. The rules wording says that 1000 combat points is the equivalent of 25 WMD tipped weapons, not that the damage done is calculated from every 25 points of combat damage

As written the rules state that for every 1000 points of combat strength 1% is damaged.

This means with the revised combat strength you calculate of 5110 (approx) then China can cause 5% damage to the enemy (which is better than the 0% I originally thought but hardly represents the potential damage of China launching a strike with all available ballistic missiles being WMD tipped.
Germany
 player, 222 posts
Wed 28 Sep 2016
at 13:24
Re: Version 20160902
In reply to UK (msg # 177):

But all those combat points are due to MDW, so the divisor is 25