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

Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 117 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 16:35
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 192):

>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)
I wondered if someone would try to 'game the system' like that. See the 1st sentence in green font in sec 10.11 par#2 of the rules proposal.
Germany
 player, 239 posts
Sun 16 Oct 2016
at 18:30
Re: Version 20161006
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 192):

>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)
I wondered if someone would try to 'game the system' like that. See the 1st sentence in green font in sec 10.11 par#2 of the rules proposal.

Yes, I read it, and I hope you've already realized this is not my style of playing (though it is to warn that there might be a rules glitch there).

In any case, the usual policy for most countires is to send the best units to combat, when they are expected to fight a short war, at least, while in protracted wars a more regular mixup is usually sent.

The main point there is that I found more logical to make the supplies needed dependent on the MR, for the reasons I gave, and, mostly, that the basic maintenance x5 (so usually $5/unit/turn) is far too high.

This message was last edited by the player at 09:29, Mon 17 Oct 2016.

Germany
 player, 240 posts
Wed 19 Oct 2016
at 11:37
Re: Version 20161006
Combat Cycle Ref:
>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.


BUt in the case of those bombing modules, even if they are trowing just high speed rocks, As Michel suggests, I expressely suggested they should be treated as WMD for their colateral damages, but it needs not to have such weapons capacity to throw those rocks. That's what I meant when I suggested to forfeit the need to be WMD capable to develop them, albeit at lower combat power (as they do not irradiate).

And remember beams cannot be so used in planets with atmosphere, so this is not an alternative (altough precisión bombs, if they can be laser GPS or otherwise guided, might be).
Germany
 player, 241 posts
Wed 19 Oct 2016
at 18:29
Re: Version 20161006
5.2: upgrading the Tech Levels:
Something fails in the TL raising formulas…

Using Germany as example:
  • this turn it increased power infrastructure TL to 8.8, and cost was $261. With the new formulas (and assuming an AM of 14, as shown in the rules example), its cost would be 24001*14*8.82*21/7500000= $6.94 (rounded to 7).
  • To increase biology theoretical TL to 8.6 costed Germany $87. With now formulas would cost 24001*8.82*142*21/7500000= $97.14 (rounded to 98).
  • To raise Military-air infrastructure TL to 8.7 would have costed $63. With new formulas it would cost 413*8.72*21/(200*1)= $312.6 (rounded to 313)
  • To raise military-sea theoretical to 8.7, would have costed $45. With new formulas the cost would be 24001*8.72*142*21/15000000= $47.47 (rounded to 48).
  • To raise space theoretical to 8.9 (cutting edge), would have costed S583. With new formulas, cost would be 8.92*10.5*142= 310.5032, so 311, to which we must ass 99.37 (the cost to raise the theoretical TL to 8.9) ,for a total of 409.8732 (rounded to 410)


So (unless I botched my numbers somehow), while the increase of theoretical TLs is quite OK, the cost for infrastructures varies a lot (far too low for economical, far to high for military), while the bonus for cutting edge is a lower than before, but I guess OK too…

As for US, using its GDP and AM (9, as shown in the examples), the numbers would be:
  • To raise economical infrastructure from 8.6 to 8.7: with current rules: $987, with new formulas: $30
  • To raise economical theoretical  TL from 8.7 to 8.8: with current rules: $202, with new formulas: $316
  • To raise military theoretical TL from TL8.6 to 8.7: with current rules: $117, with new formulas: $157
  • To raise military infrastructure to 8.7: with current rules: $387, with new formulas: $1916
  • Extra for cutting edge to 8.9: $128


In this case (again, unless I botched my numbers) the theoretical level is about 50% more expensive, while in the infrastructures we keep the same problem…

This message was last edited by the player at 10:56, Sat 22 Oct 2016.

Germany
 player, 242 posts
Thu 20 Oct 2016
at 01:47
Re: Version 20161006
More comments about Rules_20161006

5.1:Tech level overview (Percieved errata):

Second paragraph: There are 8 technology categories. With the added military-space, there should be 9.

7.8.1: Misile Defense: now that most missiles (more so if WMD tipped) have their combat factors so increased, shouldn’t AMB also have theirs? After all this is their mission…

7.8.2: Scram aircraft: Requires Atmosphere be 5 – 9. As atmospher 4 is hte same density tan 5 (just tainted), shouldn’t it be 4-9?

7.8.3: Fossil fuel plant: Requires Atmosphere type of the World be between 5 - 9. As atmospher 4 is hte same density tan 5 (just tainted), shouldn’t it be 4-9?


8.8.3:

ICBM: Shouldn’t its combat factor be only for attack pourposes? As is now, to give you an example, trying to attack ICBMs with bombers to try to destroy them in a preemtive attack  is suicidal…

ABMs: now that most missiles (more so if WMD tipped) have their combat factors so increased, shouldn’t AMB also have theirs? After all this is their mission…

8.9. Military Rank and WMD Capable

WMD capability: As it does not distinguish among chemical, biological, nuclear, cyber, etc… I guess all player countries (and many NPCs) have some capacity on it, the main deifference is nukes (to have the political will to use them is an entirely different matter, but a political, not military, one). As rules stand, the Caliphate could arm a spaceship with missile or orbital bombardment modulens, should they have any, while countries like Australia, Canada, Germany of Japan could not. My suggestion would be to make every player country (and probably many NPCs) WMD capable, keeping the difference only for nukes. The limitations for thoseweapons that could need WMD should be specifically for nukes.
Germany
 player, 243 posts
Sat 22 Oct 2016
at 10:57
Re: Version 20161006
Germany:
5.2: upgrading the Tech Levels:
Something fails in the TL raising formulas…


Sorry, I forgot to make the new costs in SUs for units, so my formulas for military infrastructures were wrong. Here are the correct ones:

Germany:
Using Germany as example:
  • To raise Military-air infrastructure TL to 8.7 would have costed $63. With new formulas it would cost 107*8.72*21/(200*1)= $80.99 (rounded to 81)



Germany:
As for US, using its GDP and AM (9, as shown in the examples), the numbers would be:
  • To raise military infrastructure to 8.7: with current rules: $387, with new formulas: $375


So, the military infrastructure tech is not so outragingly higher (though for germany it still increases it, and the main issue remains for economic infrastructures...

I guess simply modifying the divisor should work, though I cannot try with other countries as I don't know their AMs with the new rules.
China
 player, 37 posts
Sun 23 Oct 2016
at 12:12
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 198):

After running a couple dozen or so calculations and projections for Canada, France, and China I come to the conclusion that these formulaes for increases are workable long term.  Makes it difficult but not impossible for to raise theoretical economic tech (actually encouraging nations to work together on this).
Makes it possible to improve economies. Military theoretical tech is also difficult but not impossible to raise.

Infrastructure Tech..For a Large military it is costly to up, not impossible but choices have to be made. For smaller Military not as bad.

Combines with the increased cost for supply units it simplifies things and makes it generally more difficult to maintain a Large Mobile Military force.

In conclusion The West will continue to have the tech edge. The formulae will work for dozens of turns to come and not be breaking down like the current system is now.
It works for small economies to large economies over time. Forces choices to be made by players (some of them harder than others) and lowers the spots to game the system.

How well it will hold up to play remains to be seen but I am for swapping to it.
Germany
 player, 244 posts
Sun 23 Oct 2016
at 14:20
Re: Version 20161006
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 198):

After running a couple dozen or so calculations and projections for Canada, France, and China I come to the conclusion that these formulaes for increases are workable long term.  Makes it difficult but not impossible for to raise theoretical economic tech (actually encouraging nations to work together on this).
Makes it possible to improve economies. Military theoretical tech is also difficult but not impossible to raise.

Infrastructure Tech..For a Large military it is costly to up, not impossible but choices have to be made. For smaller Military not as bad.

Combines with the increased cost for supply units it simplifies things and makes it generally more difficult to maintain a Large Mobile Military force.

In conclusion The West will continue to have the tech edge. The formulae will work for dozens of turns to come and not be breaking down like the current system is now.
It works for small economies to large economies over time. Forces choices to be made by players (some of them harder than others) and lowers the spots to game the system.

How well it will hold up to play remains to be seen but I am for swapping to it.


See that after fixing my first mistake (applying the formula to the SU without taking into account the new SU rules), the only formula that, IMHO, fails is for economical infrastructures, whose cost is far too low (I guess Kevin botched with the divisor).

In fact, German’s increase in militaty infractructures cost is more due to the increased maintenance costs for the new SU rules ($107, where it was 413 SU, so $82.6) than anything else. I guess MR2+ militaries will be even more affected by this…

I would like to make them for any non MR1 country, but I did not make numbers for others because I don't know about their AMs.  I’ll try by extrapolating them from the current ones we know about (US, France and Germany, that are cited in the examples).

China:
Makes it difficult but not impossible for to raise theoretical economic tech (actually encouraging nations to work together on this).


In fact it does not make Theoretical research much different. Of course, it raises it for US, as with its large GDP and low AM it had reached the point where cutting edge ressearch was cheaper than non-cutting edge one, but for others it does not change it too much...

Again IMHO, the fact only one of the partners may gain the extra 1% bonus discourages nations to work together in cutting edge research...
Germany
 player, 245 posts
Sun 23 Oct 2016
at 17:38
Re: Version 20161006
Germany:
I would like to make them for any non MR1 country, but I did not make numbers for others because I don't know about their AMs.  I’ll try by extrapolating them from the current ones we know about (US, France and Germany, that are cited in the examples).

Well, I've done it in a spreadsheet, extrapolating the AMs as said and using for all countries a rise from TL 8.7 to 8.8 (or cutting edge to 8.8).

Resuming results:
  • For Economic Theoretical TL raise, on the aerage it becomes 110% of the former one, going from 96.67% (UK) to 135% (US)
  • For Military Theoretical TL raise, the situation is quite the same (unsurprising, as the formula is the same with different divisor).
  • For Economic Infrastructure Tl raise it fails absolutely, as the cost on new rules is on average a 2.85% of the former cost (going from a 2.56% for India to a 4.17% for Israel), Norht Korea is a special case where it would cost a 25%, but that's for the rounding, as in the former rules it was $4, due to its extremely low GDP.
  • For Military infrastructure, average cost now would be about 125% of the former, but here we must considere that, the change comes from the SU rules change, as AM has no part here, and maintenacne, again on average, is now about 137%.
  • As for the costs of Cutting Edge, on average it costs now on average 72% of what it costed, going from 54.81 for Argentina to 156% for China or 214% for US. See that in those latter cases, the impact of GDP counting on the formula is heavily felt (for US it was chaper Cutting Edge ressearch tan Non-Cutting Edge one).

I tested with some other TLs and results are similar (though with some small changes).

All in all, I guess the formulas are better tan I expected, except for the economical infrastructure one.
China
 player, 38 posts
Sun 23 Oct 2016
at 22:31
Re: Version 20161006
In reply to Germany (msg # 201):

Run the economy one out 25 turns and then see if its still broken ..the olde one had already failed misirably..ie made it impossible to get to tech 11 for any nation ..now after about 30 turns the west might just make it to tech 12 with cooperation..the limiting factor being theoertical that goes up faster ..ie Hard decisions will need to be made to succeed but success is possible..

Do not forget Maintenance Costs have gone up for off world equipment by ~200% and military maintenance has gone up ~40%..(yes the SU has gone up 500% but the number of SU required has remained the same or gone down slightly for Elite and Vet over all gone up for Exp and Grn (in money not SU)..

Being able to afford military expiditions has become more difficult for large forces..
being able to sustain operations and have a ready force is going to force choices..

This message was last edited by the player at 22:51, Sun 23 Oct 2016.

Germany
 player, 246 posts
Mon 24 Oct 2016
at 08:23
Re: Version 20161006
China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 201):

Run the economy one out 25 turns and then see if its still broken ..the olde one had already failed misirably..ie made it impossible to get to tech 11 for any nation ..now after about 30 turns the west might just make it to tech 12 with cooperation..the limiting factor being theoertical that goes up faster ..ie Hard decisions will need to be made to succeed but success is possible..


As I said, the only formula now I find broken is the one to raise Economical Infrastructures. This turn, China has raised its Power infrastructure from 6.7 to 6.8 for a cost of $972. With the new rules (assuming AM 16, the semae gives for France in the example, as France had an AM of 38%, though now is 35.5, and China has 39%), its cost would be $27. Do you feel this logical or right?

China:
Do not forget Maintenance Costs have gone up for off world equipment by ~200% and military maintenance has gone up ~40%..(yes the SU has gone up 500% but the number of SU required has remained the same or gone down slightly for Elite and Vet over all gone up for Exp and Grn (in money not SU)..

Being able to afford military expiditions has become more difficult for large forces..
being able to sustain operations and have a ready force is going to force choices..


This maintenance costs will make worse MR more costly,so giving more advantage to MR 1 nations (though its cost is also reflected in the Social upkeep).

As for the supply costs for QCR, they make any war unbearable, and take off the difference among MRs in supply costs. Being MR1 does not only mean to have better units than an MR3 nation, but also more support (C3i, supply, etc), and this was what, IMHO, was represented by its higher war costs. Now, this is forfeited, all countries pay $5 per unit and WR.

As to keep more or less parity a MR3 nation needs about 4 times the force against a MR1 country, and usually has lower TL, so let's asume it needs about 5-6 times the units. When each unit costs it $5, it would be spending about 5-6 times the supplies that the MR 1 nation, so having no chance.

Let's imagine Turkey decides to defy NATO in Turkish Kurdistán and NATO resists military:

In the zone, France has about 17 units, so will spend $85/round in maintenance. Turkey, assuming all its armed forces are used, would use about 105 units, 31 of which are reserve and so do not cost anything, with atotal cost of $370/round. Even going to War footing, Turkwy will not resist much, while France, probably going to war footing too, will, just for supplies.

With this rules, a small expeditionary force may conquest quite large nations just because the defender would have all forces engaged, and so wil lbe out of supplies quite son.

See that any attack to China, if spread over all China's hexes (so engaging all its armed forces), will cost it over $2000 per WR in supplies. How long would it resist?

Just the forces sent to N Korea by China would cost it $375 per WR, while its supply reserve would be $658. China would be out of supply after the 2nd WR, forcing it to go to War Footing if it intends to keep the offensive (and if NK resists, off course). And this is only an expeditionary force for China...

As for ROK, going to War Footing will not support its army (as it's fully engaged) for a single WR (as it would need S850 to be supported, while War Footing will give it about $773...

This message was last edited by the player at 08:33, Mon 24 Oct 2016.