Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
USA
 player, 51 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 15:56
Re: Version 20170401
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 295):

ah, gotcha - misinterpreted that.

Then I'm all for #4
China
 player, 48 posts
Fri 31 Mar 2017
at 22:48
Re: Version 20170401
In reply to USA (msg # 296):

I am all for #4 ...simple easy peasy
Combat Cycle Ref
 GM, 149 posts
Thu 6 Apr 2017
at 22:14
Rules Proposal 20170401
Change to: What CCC modules for Starships do, apparently it had been accidentally removed. What Universities do. What Enclaves do. What is the cost to build an item above local tech level.

Introduction of:

Made clearer: What is needed for Orders. A special thank you to our players, especially the new ones, your questions have helped me to identify numerous things that could have been expressed better.

Rebalancing to: The power of a Pai-Leng SRU, it was too much.

Got rid of: Theoretical tech and unlocking of items, a laborious duplicate of the extra cost to build something above infrastructure tech level. Prototype special ability, hard to properly work into the game for something never used.
Germany
 player, 302 posts
Fri 14 Apr 2017
at 16:30
Rules Proposal 20170401
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 298):

quote:
University : A large research and education establishment. (...) Produces 1 Pai-Leng SRUs on every even numbered Turn in a surface hex of the colony.


Wouldn't it be easier (and IMHO more logical) to have it to contribute to raising TLs (as it was before).

As the divisor to raise TL has changed from 200000 to 150000 (so by a 25%) to represent the theoretical part of it (so the total cost has increased by 1/3), the reductin should also be reduced. I's suggest universities to contribute with a 2% of any one TL increase per turn, cummulative to a msximum of 8% (roughly the quivalent avoiding fractions, as it would be 1.66% and to a maximum of 8.33%).
Co-GM
 GM, 153 posts
Thu 1 Jun 2017
at 21:41
Rules Proposal 20170401
In reply to Germany (msg # 299):

>Wouldn't it be easier
Easier? I do not see how it is any easier. As was originally, it is almost entirely a duplicate of what Research Modules do. Now Universities are the sole regular source of Pai Leng units, giving more utility to both.

This message was last edited by the GM at 21:59, Thu 01 June 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 154 posts
Thu 1 Jun 2017
at 21:57
Rules Proposal 20170601
Change to: Formula for Task roll, no PApoints means 0 Attack Strength. What Research Modules do.

Introduction of:

Made clearer:

Rebalancing to:

Got rid of: If SRU exploration is within a Settlement’s borders then the exact hex does not need to be specified.
Germany
 player, 304 posts
Wed 28 Jun 2017
at 14:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Co-GM:
Change to: Formula for Task roll, no PApoints means 0 Attack Strength.


Some points here:

I know I was the one complaining about the lose of power for the PAs (by about 25%), but multiplying it by 5 might be too much...

Not that I complain, just surprised...

This aside, I liked the idea of being able to make smaller political actions (what it was using only the 0.1 wihtout PAs), as sometimes you're interested in influencing someone where a full PA is a true overkill, but I also understand that it can be abused.

I'd suggest to keep allowing it (making minot PAs that have 1/10th)power, but to limit them somewhat:
  1. allowing each contry a limited number of them (e.g. prestige/5, or GNP/10000, or whatever you think about)
  2. making them to cost something (e.g. $10)


Of course, they could not be cummulative, neithre among themselves nor with full PAs.


Co-GM:
What Research Modules do.


From rules proposal 20170601:

quote:
5.2.1/5.2.2:
To advance beyond the current highest tech level known to humanity has an additional cost. This cost may be reduced by Research Modules (see Section 7.9.1), which can include those dedicated by an ally.


quote:
7.9.2:
Research Module: Labs and scientific apparatus, includes exploratory missions to the surrounding region. At the time of construction the owner may dedicate this module to a particular category of technology. Once per Turn the module will reduce the cost of cutting edge research of that one technology category of either the owner or an ally, see section 5.2. Upto 5 Research Modules in the same Star System may be dedicated to the same technology category. Bonus is cumulative with multiple facilities up to a maximum of 25% off total for the nation. Write this amount saved as a purchase, with a positive value, in your list of purchases on your budget spreadsheet


I'm afraid I became entangled in a bucle here to know the exact effect they have. Is still 1%? is it told in any other rule?

Won't this add to bookeeping (I thought you inteded to reduce it) to have to dedícate each research module to a specific tech category?
Germany
 player, 305 posts
Wed 28 Jun 2017
at 14:56
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
quote:
University: A large research and education establishment. Will boost the tech level of a colony, see section 7.4. Produces 1 Pai-Leng SRUs on every even numbered Turn in a surface hex of the colony.


If the Research modules are dedicated to a single tech category, I'd suggest to make Universities to allow for a similar rduction but to any category (only one per turn, though), this extra flexibility representing they are larger faiclities. Additionally, it could also be able to help in non-cutting edge research (maybe at a reduced percentage).

Frankly, I find more logical to have them help in research than producing SRUs (but that's just my view, of course YMMV), and it wil lbe more coherent with what you said in post #229 this smae thread:
Combat Cycle Ref:
<i>>Pai-Leng<snip>See, though, that in both cases those are in fact renewable resources,
(...) No, SRU reserves have to fade away, if for only to again encourage expansion.

Co-GM
 GM, 155 posts
Thu 29 Jun 2017
at 04:31
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
In reply to Germany (msg # 302):

> PAs (by about 25%), but multiplying it by 5 might be too much...
You missed that Relations Score was removed from Attack Strength, which reduced strength by very roughly 1/5. It had to be removed to handle cases where the attacker was up against tasks to which a Relation Score does not exist.

> Is still 1%? is it told in any other rule?
Must have gotten dropped. Yes, 1%. Good catch.

>Won't this add to bookeeping (I thought you inteded to reduce it)
It adds to YOUR book-keeping. I am certainly not going to keep track of it, so I do not care.
Germany
 player, 306 posts
Thu 29 Jun 2017
at 13:34
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Co-GM:
In reply to Germany (msg # 302):

> PAs (by about 25%), but multiplying it by 5 might be too much...
You missed that Relations Score was removed from Attack Strength, which reduced strength by very roughly 1/5. It had to be removed to handle cases where the attacker was up against tasks to which a Relation Score does not exist.


You're right, I missed it. Now I must study it a Little more before giving my opinión...

This message was last edited by the player at 13:35, Thu 29 June 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 156 posts
Fri 30 Jun 2017
at 02:52
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 304):

>> Is still 1%? is it told in any other rule?
>Must have gotten dropped. Yes, 1%. Good catch.
Ack!! No!! I forgot!! See the equation that goes with the last paragraph of sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2!
Germany
 player, 307 posts
Fri 30 Jun 2017
at 17:42
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Germany:
Co-GM:
In reply to Germany (msg # 302):

> PAs (by about 25%), but multiplying it by 5 might be too much...
You missed that Relations Score was removed from Attack Strength, which reduced strength by very roughly 1/5. It had to be removed to handle cases where the attacker was up against tasks to which a Relation Score does not exist.


You're right, I missed it. Now I must study it a Little more before giving my opinión...


The main problem I find here, once reevaluated, is for internal actions: high prestige harms you as th formula is now (it already did, but it seems to be worse now).

I'd suggest to return to the old idea of having a ser value for defending prestige when performing internal actions (e.g. a plain 10 as it once was), while keeping the rest of the formula, that seems to work.
Germany
 player, 308 posts
Sun 2 Jul 2017
at 01:15
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Just another point. With the new oil rules, where oil SRUs are less than they were before and can be moved, I understand they can be stored, as FU, SU and MRUs can. Is that right?
Russia
 player, 27 posts
Wed 26 Jul 2017
at 14:27
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Gentlemen, sorry if it was already discussed (I didnt read previous 300+ messages in this thread).

I want to note: rule which decreases sold units to reserve quality really debilitates trade between PC countries. I reckon why it was implemented but still I do not feel that it is neccessary nor brings more pros than cons.
Germany
 player, 310 posts
Wed 26 Jul 2017
at 14:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Time ago we had a fórum where we discussed those details. Kelvin was thinking to close it anyway, but case is that it went down (I don't knwo why) and many comments there were lost. Even if for no other thing, that could have given some insight to new players about why several things are as they are.

The rule to downgrade any unit traded among players (or to NPDs for what's worth) was to represent the selling of specific units the buyer could not build without overcost (due to the unlocking new units and facilities, currently rule 5.3,that then was double cost or $100, whatever was greater).

This represented the selling of cariers (to give you an example) to countries that have not the infrastructure to build them (e.g. the Spanish helicopter carriers sold to Australia as Camberra class, the French one sold to Brazil as the Sao Paulo class or the Russian one sold to China as the Liaoning). The fact they were downgraded to reserve meant that only the bare material was sold, while it had to be refit and recrewed.

Similar cases would be for air or tank units sold to countries without the infrastructure to build them (so having not unlocked the units).

Of course, if the unlocking rule is forfeited, this rule loses (at least) some of its meaning, and could be rethought if Kelvin things it is appropiate...

This message was last edited by the player at 14:39, Wed 26 July 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 160 posts
Wed 26 Jul 2017
at 22:18
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
In reply to Germany (msg # 310):

The entire forum host went out of business, it is ok, there was nothing of use on the forum except several thousand reasons why I feel the need to be so bossy and officious in dealing with this game.

>meant that only the bare material was sold, while it had to be refit and recrewed.
That is the true reason why units are downgraded.

>  if the unlocking rule is forfeited, this rule loses (at least) some of
>its meaning, and could be rethought if Kelvin things it is appropiate...

That is just the thing, the unlocking rule has not been truly forfeited, it has just been broken up and transformed into various modes which do not require a spreadsheet be maintained on which technologies have been developed.
Germany
 player, 311 posts
Fri 28 Jul 2017
at 18:35
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
Co-GM:
Ok, finally managed to find a computer that would not be improved by slathering it with formic acid. I finally have some hope of doing this War Round shortly.

Before we begin I need to make a general statement about 3 kinds of questions which I am seeing coming up, and yes, these will be made clearer in the rules for next turn.

#1 Questions along the lines of '...after all the changes to borders due to wars, then within a hex on Earth, does nation X still border with nation Y?'

    There was a time when we could and did care about national borders within a hex based on a 2010 vintage map. That time has past and borders within a hex on Earth have changed, especially in the Middle East, and we are not going to detail them. From now on, within a hex on Earth we will assume that any land unit can reach any other point within the same hex without starting a war in attempting to make the crossing*, unless the GM explicitly says otherwise.

*what happens at the end point of the move is a completely different situation.

#2 Questions about what kind of society is an NPC, e.g. are they democratic or not.

     Beyond the deliberately vague listings for 'Trade Code' and 'Stability' in the Settlement_List file there is no mechanism for generating and tracking such things, and especially no mechanism on how they would automatically evolve to over time in response to events in the game, nor do I ever foresee a need to have such a mechanism. In the course of telling a story the GM might occasionally make a reference as to the current nature of an NPC's government/society for the purpose of role-play, but it is ONLY for the purpose of role-play.


#3 Questions about what actions an NPC have been doing, especially to another NPC.

     Nations were chosen to be available as PC nations because taken together they dominate anything important, that means that in general any NPC vs. NPC conflict is unimportant. Unless the GM feels a particular NPC vs. NPC conflict is of unusual interest to the rest of the players then do not expect to see a combat roll, or even a mention in the History section. The GM has more important things to do. So perhaps Iraq has been engaged in a vicious war with a portion of the IC and this is causing a drain of the resources and reinforcements of the IC away from the IC's conflict with the West ... or perhaps Iraq and the IC have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship of trade and trust. Whatever it is, do not expect it to be detailed, or even mentioned, until the GM determines it is useful to do so.

All of this (mostly points 2 and 3, as point 1 is clearly an artifical artifact to ease the game) puzzles me, as I agree and disagree at once.

IMHO, we should first define once nad for all what kind of game we want to play. We all know that the gae is at once a strategical (expected to become a x4 as time passes) game and a free RPG one. We must decide wich of those two facets we wat to stress.

If we decide for the strategical game:
  • Rules should take precedence on GM decisions, those being reserved for manageing NPCs and when the rules are not clear or applicable
  • Long term plans must be posible, with a reasonable security that they will work unless there is more opposition than expected or strategic situation changes.
  • Automatic actions should be automatic. Delays, unexpected problems, etc should be a very rare occurence.
  • All points quoted here by the co-GM are correct in this case (well, maybe point 3 is argeable, as, to give an example, this same comment about Iraq should be true for Syria, and it's not the case)


If we decide for a free form RPG game:
  • Rules are directives, expected to be the basis of the game, but far from holy writ.
  • Long term plans are less sure, as every action produces a reaction and things are not so sure nor previsible. Things as international reactions and so become more important.
  • Automatic actions should have a reasonable chance to work, but delays and unexpected problems can be more common.
  • The details in points 2 and 3 are more important. While I may ignore if I'm helping a legitimate democratic government or a colpist dictatorship in aa strategic game, not so much in a RPG.


Examples (all outcomes are only one of the many posible ones):

1) in a war, I order my troops to be selective to avoid colateral (GDP) damages.

  • Strategical game: as there are no rules for this (at least right now), the only way to avoid this damage is to send less troops.
  • RPG: the GM assumes that this will reduce my troops efectivity, giving me a -2 column shift, but GDP damage is reduced


2) A nation with enough TL but uninvolved to date in Space Actions wants to build a spaceship:
  • Strategical game: it has the tech, it spends the money: it has the ship
  • RPG: the GM informs him that, despite being technologically able to do it, its lack of space experience will make it a risky adventure, unless he first sts up a Space progarm with easier actions.


etc...

I'm not asking to forfeit any one of the facets of the game, but, unless one is stressed over the other one, it becomes even more confusing that it already is, and players do not know how to act or what to expect

As said, all of this is IMHO, and I had to take it out. of course, YMMV
Japan
 player, 59 posts
Sat 5 Aug 2017
at 15:04
Re: Version 20170301
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 288):

Simplify the rules
Co-GM
 GM, 162 posts
Thu 10 Aug 2017
at 04:33
Re: Rules Proposal 20170601
In reply to Germany (msg # 312):

>We must decide wich of those two facets we wat to stress.
No, there is no reason we have to decide which facet we want to stress. The first iteration of this game was, by lack of planning, freeform and thus was a beautiful mess. Never have I been privileged to see such wonderful role-playing, that collapsed into personality conflicts because we knew of nothing we could do but conflict personally. This game needs structure, yet if I wanted this game to be 'strategical/4x' then I would give up and play Civilization; I hear 'Stellaris' is amazing.

We will walk the middle path.
Co-GM
 GM, 163 posts
Thu 10 Aug 2017
at 20:31
Rules Proposal 20170810
Change to: Units moved by interface facilities must be moved entirely in one Turn, objects currently in transit are grandfathered. Units that have the ability to be Hidden by default start out as such.

Introduction of:The Sum Basic Combat Strength of an NPC Settlement, as a replacement for detailing individual units.

Made clearer:

Rebalancing to:In Quick Combat, not having enough SU increases Military Rank.

Got rid of:
Saudi Arabia
 player, 31 posts
Mon 14 Aug 2017
at 18:21
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Some comments afte a quick Reading:

Co-GM:
Rebalancing to:In Quick Combat, not having enough SU increases Military Rank.


Fully agreed

This was already in former editions, just realized now:

6.3: revolt modifiers table_
quote:
(Number of friendly Ground Brigades in the Settlement) X 100 /(Number of Population Units in the Settlement), round fractions down. Brigades with ‘Reserve’ Quality level do not count. Brigades with ‘Security’ ability count as 5 regular Brigades


How will a reserve brigade with security abitiy (as the motorized Saudi NG ones) for this?

EDIT:

Options I see:
  1. they don't count, as they are 'Reserve' Quality
  2. they count as 5 brigades, as they have 'Security' ability
  3. halfaway, they count as 2.5 (or. to avoid decimals, as 2 or 3) brigades

I personally would find option 1 as dubious, as they may well represent para-military pólice forces, nearly useless in military terms (they lack heavy weaponry or artillery), but quite useful in internal security duties.

This message was last edited by the player at 18:59, Mon 14 Aug 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 165 posts
Fri 18 Aug 2017
at 07:12
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 316):

>they don't count, as they are 'Reserve' Quality
This one. The example will be edited to make that clear.

>I personally would find option 1 as dubious, as they may well represent
>para-military pólice forces,

Just because a force tries to do something does not mean it is actually effective.
Nigeria
 player, 6 posts
Fri 25 Aug 2017
at 11:24
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
I keep thinking that the political actions resolution formula penalized high prestige when trying any internal action.

e.g. let's imagine two nations each with 20000 pop, AM 12 and stability 10, but nation A with prestige 15, while nation b with prestige 5. Both use 1 PA to attempt decreasing corurption:

  • Nation A: formula is 12(AM)2*1(PA)/(20000(pop)*(15(prestige)-10(stability)+20)2*1/100000), so 144/125=1.152, so 1:1
  • Nation B: formula is 12(AM)2*1(PA)/(20000(pop)*(5(prestige)-10(stability)+20)2*1/100000), so 144/45=3.2, so 3:1


As I don't see any logic on this, I keep suggesting to take prestige out of equation for internal actions, changing it for a constant (let's say 10).
Germany
 player, 319 posts
Sat 26 Aug 2017
at 12:28
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Co-GM:
Introduction of:The Sum Basic Combat Strength of an NPC Settlement, as a replacement for detailing individual units.


I agree this will make bokkeeping quite easier, as well as helping to make exact losses, but, IMHO, two things (that I can think right now) must be clarified:

  1. 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)?
  2. In case this minor country uses MDWs, as only some units have their combat power increased (artillery, missiles, bombers), how will this affect it?

Germany
 player, 322 posts
Mon 28 Aug 2017
at 15:26
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Just realized (though it was thre since proposal 20170401):

7.9.1: Orbital facilities:

quote:
Orbital Industry: More expensive to build than ground based industries but can make products which are in high demand. If provided with 20 Raw Material Units per Turn then this facility generates $50/Turn and, if paid for with the appropriate number of $, build locally up to 10 Supply Units per Turn.


Why has this been reduced (it was 25 with current rules)?

In a setting where interface is so expensive and difficult, it should be expected that eery effort is done to produce those things in orbit, if they are to be sent elsewhere.

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.