>I keep thinking that the political actions resolution formula penalized high
>prestige when trying any internal action.
and
>For internal actions (In the same country as performs the action), make prestige=10.
...and I keep trying to get Americans to accept the clearly superior metric system and they keep responding with something like
https://www.reddit.com/r/funny...wo_kinds_of_country/ Prestige stays in that formula.
>See that this change will (again) blow up German plans already in development, and will
>make me unable to accomplish my compromises (once again due to rules changes, not to
>bad planning). This way it is impossible to make long-term plans.
You gambled and lost on investing in one of the most speculative and untested parts of a speculative and untested game. I cannot expect that you be happy that you gambled and lost, I can expect that you accept that you gambled, and lost.
>In case anyone attacks one such nations, would they count as having air for the combat
>power of player's SAM (see that some nations like Kurdistán or Pashtunistan, have no
>air power at game scale)?
An unimportant detail at the scale of Quick Combat. About to become even more unimportant next Turn when we stop detailing individual units for NPCs and just go with summed combat strength per NPC Settlement.
>(Clarification aked): can those (specially oil, as is the only one active) be stored?
and
>(Clarification asked) How are damages allocated when they are not enough to destroy a unit?
and
>I’d suggest raising the possible results over 100
and
>Off course, if they can be stored, SRU stored cell must be added…
I already know about these issues and have been rewriting the rules accordingly.
>Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM
and
>Allow for minor PAs (equivalent to 1/10th of a PA.
PAs are bar none the most time consuming part of the GM's job. We are currently averaging 80-90 per turn already and I will do nothing to encourage players to submit more.
>Overall: adding a glossary.
I am leery of adding back in a glossary, the terms that would go in there are usually too complex to be adequately defined in a glossary format. Sergey had the better suggestion of beefing up the table of contents but I am temporarily stymied by the terrible options for ToC creation in Google Docs. I will figure something out eventually.
>atmosphere A (exotic, but neither corrosive nor insidious, usually only needing
>oxygen support but not protective suits) planets should be treated as inhospitable
Ok.
>Modifying Mining Potential by the density of the world <snip>Making Tantalum
>SRU presence dependent on the density (N zone for Asteroid/Planetoid belts).
Finding world density requires 2 mouse clicks and a drag more than what it takes to find World Size, and that is at least 1 mouse click and a drag more than what I want to do for such a common task. Besides, Mineral Potential and Mineral Units covers a wide range of products and processes, of which metals and bulk world density are only two factors among many.
>An option should be given for renewable power sources (solar, wind, tidal, etc.).
That is option#4. Will modify text to make that clear.
>As they use to become core settlements once they reach about 2000 pop (pop digit
>7 in the UWP), the adding of 0.1/1000 pop seems quite odd to me
I am not quite sure what you are saying here, but a Colony becomes "...a Core Settlement at GM discretion..." (sec 7.2, Core, sentence#2).
>ODI: allow them to be up gunned with weaponry modules
You would have to account for the H armour class of the ODI expanding to include the module. More importantly, I am not wanting to expand modules for facilities, they are already a back door to fractional facilities and I will not have that.
>Missile Defense: increase its defense power against missiles.
and
>Interception: again, now that the MDW weapons factor has been so increased and the
>defenses are not, the interception is quite less likely to occur. Is that intentional?
Invest in more Missile Defense facilities.
>Solar power Satellite: allow it to reduce oil SRU according the power
What did you think would be an example of a practical manifestation in investing in option#4 of 4.5.4?
>Allow cruisers to carry missiles as missile submarines do (but maybe only
>1 SAM or IRBM unit) to represent the GC and Aegis units.
A long time ago Morgan tried to give China a vast number of Helicopter Carriers because many transport vessels of the actual Chinese Navy happen to sport helicopter landing pads on their top decks. A few short range missiles does not make for an IRBM squadron any more than a helicopter landing pad on a cargo ship makes for a Helicopter Carrier Unit.
>Merge infantry and motorized units. Nowadays, most infantry can have enough motor
>pool to be seen as motorized, and would reduce bookkeeping.
'most' is not good enough, we have to account for 'every', and there are plenty of units that fail to rise to this game's standard of what is a motorized unit.
>Example (clarification): could you please explain what does the second set of
>combat numbers represent (the 20/3/4/0)?
For Spaceships their base combat strength is listed by separate Beam/Missile/Fighter/Orbital Bombardment strengths. Must have gotten dropped in one of the reorganizations, will modify text.
>Add a factor on spaceships called rating, equivalent to hull modules x 1000
See section 9.1, the same way we do not have a similar rating for an infantry brigade vs. aircraft carrier is that the majority of a unit is actually made up of support units...and such a factor would be a significant complication.
>As rules stand now, nothing forbids a player to build a 10000 tonnes ship with
>20 hull modules and next turn refitting it and having it fully functional, or
>to use the same trick to have larger ships than his OTs will support, expecting
>to refit them when those OTs are built.
Not seeing how there is much to be gained by this and hence why I should forbid it.
>needing over 1380 OTs to support just the Anjou class ship
Invest in more OTs.
>Forfeit the 5000 tons for the population mass, the passenger module being enough.
That 5000t represents the mass of people, baggage&tools, oxygen, and food. The number was chosen to match the mass of an Infantry Unit as infantry weapons are easily included in the term 'baggage&tools'.
>Halving MP for unhospitable worlds <snip> have a MP of 0, making them useless.
and
>llow spaceships to land or take off also from an Enclave hex.
>This assumes those enclaves have “mini-spaceports” for landings, and would
>allow players to deploy SUs or FUs beforehand to help establish colonies.
That is why you want to do it. Why should I allow it?
>As rules stand, it seems that if MDW are used, all combat power, not just the MDW
>part, is divided by 25 (for colonies) or 250 (for core worlds). Is this right?
and
>In case this minor country uses MDWs, as only some units have their combat power increased
When WMDs are being used it is assumed that more than just Bombers, IRBMs and ICBMs are using WMDs, but that *every unit is using some kind of WMD* e.g. that is why whole column shifts occur when WMDs are used.
>Does the result in the table affect in any way the damages? As rules stand, if
>10000 points of bombers attack a hex where they are met by 40000 points of defenses
>and the result is 100/0, the collateral damages are the same as if they are not met
>by any defenses and the result is 0/100.
The combat table only covers what is done to military units. The ugly reality of WMDs is that their destructive power is much more than just their successful destruction of military units.
>Include the bombers among the units quartered <snip>
>Exclude MR helicopters with interceptor ability from <snip>
>Include DDs or CAs among the units with less reduction
What is the gain with this...makes the game more realistic? An insufficient reason; we are trying to simplify the rules.
>Germany has a basic combat force of 5 against the full NF armed forces in E10 (about
>60 brigades,<snip> Germany has spent no supplies and NF has spent 270 SUs).
Which units are part of a round of Quick Combat are "... all those which the GM decrees could reasonably be involved together, not necessarily only those in the same hex as the enemy." Sec 10.11 paragraph#2
>Add the prestige somewhere on it.
It is already listed in the Settlement_List file. What purpose would there be to having it in the Budget Spreadsheet too?
>Modify the Social expanses according the AM
This is not much different than the current system, it just hides the effect of the Authoritarian Score within Social Upkeep.