Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
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
UK
 player, 78 posts
 Doctor Who?
 Exactly!
Wed 28 Sep 2016
at 13:32
Re: Version 20160902
In reply to Germany (msg # 178):

Oh! I see. I was reading it to mean 25 units of WMD weapons was the equivalent of 1000 combat points (which now I think about it would be a weird thing to say).
That makes much more sense, thank lluis
Sorry, got it completely wrong.
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 113 posts
Mon 10 Oct 2016
at 23:51
Version 20161006
Changes since version 20160902

-The introduction of: Pai-Leng Special Resource Units, hinted at earlier but now a formalization of the effect of finding something interesting and valuable on a planet that is not Tantalum related, the consequence of rolling a 20 for Farming potential of a World. Military-Space tech as a separate tech.

-Made clearer: What a facility being constructed can and cannot do. Generation of Mineral and Farming potentials and how Special Resource units are generated. Interpreting results of a Task Roll.

-Re-balancing to: Combat Strength of WMDs and Spaceship Weapons. Number of hits generated in combat is rounded up, not down,this makes the combat system more likely to be able to handle combats involving small numbers of units(~10) without the GM having to retain hits or have an excessive number of combat cycles. Collateral damage of WMDs.

-Got rid of:None
Germany
 player, 231 posts
Wed 12 Oct 2016
at 12:46
Version 20161006
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 180):

I had some comments (not many) for the rules, but I was witholding them not to bog the turn any more.

Do you want them now or I wait until the turn is more resolved?
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 115 posts
Wed 12 Oct 2016
at 18:15
Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 181):

The whole point of publishing a rules proposal is to elicit comment from others.
Germany
 player, 234 posts
Thu 13 Oct 2016
at 15:38
Version 20161006
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 182):

Then here go some comments/suggestions:

Comments on rules proposal 20161006


6.6 Task resolution

NOTE: This is not specific for this version, but I just thought about it some weeks ago.

Suggested addition (if it does not add too much complexity to numbers):
If the action is clearly hostile (supporting/fomenting rebellion, lowering stability, etc.), 20-relations is used instead of relations (representing the higher trust opposing factions will have on the player).

7.1 Under Colony:

I see you returned to 3 turns of survey for an Enclave module to allow colonization. I agree with it, as in 2300 AD background many planets were colonized after only 10-15 years of survey:

Just for completeness I post here what I have ready to post about this issue:

quote:
According 2300 AD (mixed information taken from the Historical Background and Colonial Atlas), the Jerome effect was discovered in 2086, by 2100 there were Works toward a prototype of stutterwarp starship and the first one was buit in 2136.
In 2137 ESA launched the first probe to Alpha Centauri and discovered Tirane, in 2038 it sent the first manned expedition and in 2139 (the book says 2129, but I guess it’s an errata) it spent “next four years” studying it. So, we could assume the starfaring nations were in the low 9’s TL (9.1-9.2).

 Unfortunately, it doesn’t talk about when the first settlement (the equivalent to an Enclave) was set, but in 212 there is the Alpha Centauri War. I guess again we can assume that only ESA could have such an Enclave module there (at most), as the war is over its claim for solely colonization.

In any case, the historical background entry for the Alpha Centauri War specifies that “Within 10 years, Tirane had colònies from seven Terran Nations, hinting that they could start a colony from the scratch in 10 years, quite fewer than the period needed for an Enclave module to survey the world in our game. Specifically, Argentinean colony is set as started in 2168 (List of Earth Colonies), while I have serious doubts it could have even an Enclave module before the War, as it was claimed by ESA...

Likewise, Newbayern is said to be discovered by the Bavarians in 2142 and not surveyed for a decade (so up to 2152). It Foundation is set (in the Colonies of Earth list) at 2169. Assuming early 2150’s as the establishment of the Enclave (beginning the survey), it will fall in the 3 turns window, but not in the new 5 turns one...

And I guess none was TL 9.8 to have a Survey Module equipped ship by then...


9.2 Missiles and Orbital bombing modules:

I’d suggest to allow them to be used without MDW (in case of missiles at least against non-stutterwarp ships) at reduced combat value (let’s say, 1 for Missiles and 2 for Orbital Bombing). In the case of orbital bombing, though, due to the lack of accuracy and the devastating effects of it, the collateral damages are applied as if they were MDW regardless of the weapons being so tipped or not.
China
 player, 35 posts
Thu 13 Oct 2016
at 22:49
Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 183):

Orbital Bombard needs to be left ..dropping a rock from space is a weapon of mass destruction..(@ 3 KPS difference in velocity the mass in kilos = the equivlent of the same amount of TNT ..so a million ton rock = 1 megaton bomb @ 3KPS..if travelling faster the size of the explosion starts going up quickly..remember Shoemaker-Levey = a 700 trillion ton blast..11KPS = escape velocity ..and when we double the speed we quadrouple the kinetic energy ..
Germany
 player, 235 posts
Thu 13 Oct 2016
at 23:39
Re: Version 20161006
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 183):

Orbital Bombard needs to be left ..dropping a rock from space is a weapon of mass destruction..(@ 3 KPS difference in velocity the mass in kilos = the equivlent of the same amount of TNT ..so a million ton rock = 1 megaton bomb @ 3KPS..if travelling faster the size of the explosion starts going up quickly..remember Shoemaker-Levey = a 700 trillion ton blast..11KPS = escape velocity ..and when we double the speed we quadrouple the kinetic energy ..

Sure, but then to be MDW capable should not be a prerequisite to develop the Orbital Bombardment Module for starships...
China
 player, 36 posts
Fri 14 Oct 2016
at 00:20
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 185):

Okay then leave that out...Since Kinetic Kill weapons are low tech and everyone has the basic science of it..so they get it after asteroid capturing ..or WMD capacity..
Best of both worlds..
USA
 player, 33 posts
Sat 15 Oct 2016
at 21:35
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to China (msg # 186):

I really don't want to say this but trying to deal with the US military at this moment convinces me the military forces need to be further simplified.

Suggestions would be

1 - Military bases - get rid of them as a concept (at least on Core Worlds) - so long as the nation you have troops in is happy for them to be there then that means you will have the option to build that kind of thing anyway - abstract it away or just remove it on core worlds.

2 - War rounds - Currently a war round is the smallest amount of time we consider in game - rules currently define it as a month of RL time - why do we they say that ICBMs can only attack once in a war round? I thought everything could only attack once per war round? is this the residue of a previous change? I'd also like to see stricter enforcement of this time OR make a war round a longer time (say 1 year) and break it up into  combat rounds which make up 1 or 2 months of time.
Currently the korean war has had two combat rounds, which have used massive amounts of supplies. A large war like this could take up 10s of thousands of supply units - this means we either will have to get used to stocking up on so many supplies that the numbers begin to get silly (for the US to sustain all its non reserve troops in operation for 1 month it will require close to 8000 supplies per round)
so I would say we need to reduce the supply cost of operating for a monthly war round OR in order to facilitate more than 3 rounds before everyone runs out of supplies we need to sub divide the round - which would add complexity and so is not what I think would be best

3- Number of Units - I don't like to suggest this. I can currently live with the work required to keep track of a large army like the US' because a large part of me really likes the current set up - I can identify individual units, I can record deeds they've done, where they were, interesting things they got caught up in - it adds to the flavor of the game - but there's just too damned many of them. Can anyone see a way of managing the number better (I've tried using a spreadsheet to keep track and monitor costs - makes it easier but I'm having trouble keeping the 'big picture' in focus and once this spreads out to other planets I know I'm most likely doomed to lose track of it all.
I feel like we need to abstract the the military side of the game more to keep administration to a minimum and to make the CCR's job easier and combat faster to calculate. Resolving this makes the other points rather moot too
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 116 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 02:11
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to USA (msg # 187):

>Sure, but then to be MDW capable should not be a prerequisite
>to develop the Orbital Bombardment Module for starships...

I do not see why MDW capable should not be a prerequisite. Wiping out large swaths of the surface from orbit is exactly the point and definition of an Orbital Bombardment Module. If you are not smashing whole cities at a time then you are just using Beam Modules.

>1 - Military bases - get rid of them as a concept (at least on
>Core Worlds) - so long as the nation you have troops in is happy
>for them to be there then that means

That is already included in the definition of a 'Friendly Site', see section 1, and it is Friendly Sites which determine the range of a unit, see section 10.6.

>2 - War rounds - Currently a war round is the smallest amount
>of time we consider in game - rules currently define it as a month of RL time

Except in the Quick Combat section that is being used for this Korean War where:
"Each round of the Quick Combat system is independent of the usual system of War Rounds/Hexes, and is
actually comprised of many War Rounds/Hexes so may be of an indefinite length and size to be determined by the GM.
emphasis added.

> why do we they say that ICBMs can only attack once in a war round? I thought
>everything could only attack once per war round? 

See above, but more importantly, reread section 12.4. Except for ICBMs and the like, everything can attack an unlimited number of times in a War Round, up to the discretion of the GM. ...Except of course with the Quick Combat system, where yes, everything only attacks once per round.

>3- Number of Units -
Ooohh, boy!! That is something I have known about and have been struggling with for years! This is the reason why we will never again deal with units smaller than Squadrons/Brigades. This is the reason why I am getting increasingly snippy about making sure each unit has a unique identifier and a specific hex location. This is the reason why the Quick Combat system exists.

Getting things more simpler from there has options ranging from
-The unpleasant, like removing the Quality level from each non-Reserve unit and making QL be the same dependant on Military Rank, or halving the list of possible types of military units.
-The the downright brutal, like reducing the possible types of military units to just 'Air' 'Ground' and 'Naval'. Or clumping every 5 Brigades/Squadrons into Divisions/AirWings/Fleets and just live with the eye popping numbers for mass that needs to be moved to move and supply a unit to a different world-->because there is absolutely no way I am going to permit parts of units to be spread out across several world/Turns/Spaceships. Every part of a unit has to move together or you have made the complexity *worse*. Probably would have to rewrite the definition of the Orbital Assault module to be something which includes a small detachment of Space Marines so we can have a ground force that can be moved in a reasonable sized Spaceship.

I am aware of the situation and will continue to monitor it. The immediate solution is to continue to use the Quick Combat system for wars on Core worlds, it is quite abstract, and use the more detailed rules for battles everywhere else, where a single unit can make a big difference.
USA
 player, 34 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 10:26
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 188):

Mass.... Forgot about that.

The only other thing I can suggest would be even more brutal which is to abstract away all different military types and just use combat power? That does get rid of a lot of stuff like armour though.

Law of unintended consequences however says current quick combat system is probably the best way to go.
Germany
 player, 236 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 12:05
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to USA (msg # 187):
Many points you give here… Enough to be answered in several posts to facilitate lecture and answers.

Unlike Kevin, I miss the forum, as, even if not used, it at least gave us (and mostly any new player who was not in play when it was active) an hindsight about how we reached current rules and why some things are (or are not) done…

Post 1: concept

About War rounds, remember that initially they represented just hours (making them unplayable), then were changed to about a month, but with multiple Combat Cycles on them. With Quick Combat Rules, they are still more abstract.

Viewing (relative) recent history (the last 50 years or so, so my life), we find that most wars begin with a high tempo phase and then they either end (as most Israeli interventions, or Desert Storm) or develop into a protracted attrition war (as 1980’s Iran-Iraq war, or Afghanistan or Iraq interventions). Detailed system could represent the former, while QCR could represent the latter.

That’s why I suggested that wars were begun with detailed system for a WR and then change to QCR, with the possibility of resorting again to detailed rules by expending either PAs or more supplies, to represent offensive bursts (best example would be Iran-Iraq war). It was considered (probably rightly) that this would bog down the game. Just imagine this Korean intervention using the detailed rules: while they would probably represent better the surprise actions and the building up of units, we’d probably still be resolving the first attacks (or at best some Combat Cycle In the WR1).
Germany
 player, 237 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 12:06
Re: Version 20161006
Post 2: units:

While I guess it would be no surprise if I say I like detail and color (just see the TOE of my played countries), I must admit that I can do it because I have some spare time and all the countries I play have limited military forces. I wouldn’t even dare to try with Russian, US or Chinese militaries…

I keep believing, for the same reasons Kelvin gave above, that the Brigade sized units are the best compromise among flexibility and playability. Even so, that gives us many units, and makes difficult to keep track of all of them, more so if dispersed among several zones/theaters, even for Germany, I cannot imagine for the CCR, no matter how hard we try to facilitate his work.

One way I suggested time ago to reduce the burden is precisely what Kevin calls unpleasant: to eliminate Quality Ratings and base all units in the MR of the Country (I also suggested changing the Reserve qualification to Cadre, both for damaged units and for those In reserve status properly). Of course this will have other side effects, making armies more standardized, for good or bad, but would allow to use similar units interchangeably (e.g. a Russian armor brigade would be just so, regardless its numeration), and probably reduce the need to keep track of them.

Another way (though with only a minor effect) to reduce the units would be to assume the carried units (Carrier Air Groups, SSGs missile units) as included in the unit, not allowing them to be separated from it. 

This message was last edited by the player at 09:25, Mon 17 Oct 2016.

Germany
 player, 238 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 12:07
Re: Version 20161006
Post 3: supplies:

Again recurring to game history, initially it was used 1 SU= $1. Then it was changed to 5 SU= $1, as it could represent more the difficulties to supply units (mostly outside Earth surface proper) than the cost. Now, new Rules Proposals return to the 1 SU= $1, and make them (of course) more difficult to transport.

Personally, I liked the 5 SU= $1, as it allowed for better discrimination among different quality units/armies (be them by unit or according to MR) and to slowly build supplies on other planets (as Mars) in preparation for future developments (where I could use remaining few 1000s of uplifting or cargo capacity to send supplies there, I now would need it in 5000 tonnes groups). It also eased things for newly spacefaring nations to maintain a few orbital facilities, as having just a satellite network costed you 1000 tonnes uplifting capacity, while now would need 5000 and 4/5 of them would be superfluous.

As for combat, initially it costed 1 SU/unit/WR to maintain them, so making wars (relatively) affordable. QCR made it MR dependent, something I found reasonable (after all, better MR represents more support, and so more supplies needed). So, a MR1 unit needed 10 SU/WR ($2), while a MR4 unit only needed 2-3 SUs. As no more than 4 WR (some more if the players wanted to increase tempo with PAs) are expected to be fought in a Game Turn, wars may still be affordable (albeit more expensive if many units fight)…

The new proposal, though, aside from keeping the 1 SU= $1, makes the cost dependent on the quality of the unit, and making it 5 times the peace turn cost (so, $5 per unit unless reserve, that would cost nothing). With those rules, the best option is to send the reserve units to war if using QCR, as they would cost nothing (aside from making losses more affordable)… Of course, I don’t believe this is what the rules intent. It also makes the MR irrelevant in maintain a protracted attrition war. IMHO the MR dependent cost (at $2/MR cost) was far better a solution.

This message was last edited by the player at 09:27, Mon 17 Oct 2016.