Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
Germany
 player, 324 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:31
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
General Rules comments (vased on Rules Proposal 20170810):

After over 300 posts I think it might be a good idea to summarize what I find could be improved in the rules, including all that has already been said, hoping to ease your job by putting all together in a handful of consecutive posts. I’ve been working on this for some time now, and I adapted it to the newest proposal (20170810).

Of course, you know I’d done several things different (but then, I’d probably not been able to write such a coherent rules, just to modify them), but I accept your approach and just limit myself to point at loopholes, asking clarifications and making suggestions.

Some of them, have already been suggested, and in some cases you refuted them, in others you did not answer, but I’ll give them here again if I keep believing they would help or improve the game-

For easy reading, I’ll keep in usual color the suggestions, in red the clarifications asked (I’d thank you to respond them ASAP) in green examples and in blue comments or reasoning.

Aside from giving some (many?) thoughts to chew, I’d like to also hear others’ opinions, as all too often it seems only you and me discuss about rules.

Overall: adding a glossary.

2.2 Words and their ratings:

I keep thinking atmosphere A (exotic, but neither corrosive nor insidious, usually only needing oxygen support but not protective suits) planets should be treated as inhospitable, not Intolerable (unless other factors dictate otherwise). Examples of those worlds would be Titan (methane atmosphere) or any world with reductive atmosphere (CO2).

2.3: Hexagons:

Separating the Farming and Mining potentials to a rule by itself, instead of having them in the Hexagons one (they have little to none to do with Hexes).

Modifying Mining Potential by the density of the world (as we have it listed in H&E). E.g. a DM of (density-1)*10. For Asteroid/planetoid belts the modifier should be by dependent on nickel-iron (so metals) and carbonaceous (hydrocarbons) zones (e.g. ( (n+c zones)/10)-5 used as DM). See that in both cases the DM may be negative too.

Making Tantalum SRU presence dependent on the density (N zone for Asteroid/Planetoid belts).

All of this is to be more compatible with 2300AD setting and to represent the higher useful ores expected to be in concordance with density. In the case of Asteroid/Planetoid belts, with the metallic and hydrocarbon asteroids for RMUs and just ores for Tantalum, as it is where it is most likely to be found.

Halving MP for unhospitable worlds (Asteroid/Planetoid belts included) instead of having the -10 DM. Up to you if this halving should occur before modifiers (by hex type and/or above modifiers) or after them.

As rules stand now, about half of inhospitable worlds and Asteroid/planetoid belts would have a MP of 0, making them useless. While we can discuss if they would really be profitable, once extra supply needs are taken into account, I guess most of them will have some useful materials…

2.5: Settlement list:

Adding the permanent stability and prestige (to allow players to calculate how they will fade) of the settlements.

3.6: Making Purchases Mid-Turn:

Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM permission (as long as there are $ enough remaining).  At the end of the turn, any unspent $ is automatically converted to SUs.

This will allow more flexibility for players, and probably make response PAs unnecessary. E.g. Country A ends its budget with $300 unallocated. Ad mid turn it decides to buy 1 response PA ($150, s it has the 50% overcost), buys SU 50 to support one WR, rebuild (with GM permission) an Experienced  Destroyer unit ($23, also with the 50% overcost), and to rent 1500 tonnes uplift ($5, also with the 50% overcost) so finishing the turn with $72, that are automatically converted into 72 SU.

4.5: Special Resource Units.

(Clarification aked): can those (specially oil, as is the only one active) be stored?

4.5.4: Altering SRU Demand or Production_

See that once coal is counted as oil SRUs, the coal gasification in option 5 makes (IMHO) little sense.

An option should be given for renewable power sources (solar, wind, tidal, etc.).
Germany
 player, 325 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:33
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
6.5: Political Actions:

Allow for minor PAs (equivalent to 1/10th of a PA. They could be at S10 cost, free but limited (e.g. prestige /4 per turn), or at $10 cost with a limit per turn (in this case I’d suggest a higher limit, as prestige /2).  Those minor PAs cannot be added for the same action, nor with a full PA.
I liked the possibility of being able to perform minor actions (multiplier 0.1), as some times a full political action is an overkill, and doing nothing is not what you want, so a mid-way possibility was, IMHO, right.

6.6: Task Resolution:

For internal actions (In the same country as performs the action), make prestige=10.

7: settlements

I cannot find it right now, but I’d suggest allowing OT modules to be able to be moved from one OT to another in the same orbit. During the moving turn, it is idled (if it is already allowed, to explicit it).


7.4: Settlement TL:

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’d suggest to change it to 0.1/200 pop or to outright remove this modifier.

7.6: Maintenance:

(Not clear if allowed, but it should be explicated) For colony and core settlements, allow for a nation to supply other nation’s facilities by counting among their own facilities/5 for orbital supplies. This must be explicated in the turn orders (as well as which specific facility is included).  E.g.: Germany has 4 facilities in Earth Orbit, while UK has 1. Germany explicitly writes in his turn orders that the SU uplifted to orbit will supply his own facilities plus the UK one. If Germany forgets to explicit it in the orders, UK facility, that relied on it, is idled this turn due to lack of supplies.

7.9.1: Orbital facilities:

ODI: allow them to be up gunned with weaponry modules (as long as they obtain power from some source).

Missile Defense: increase its defense power against missiles. Now that MDWs have had theirs increased, this facility is nearly useless (and it was you who said every facility/unit should have its utility).

Enclave module:  get rid of the outpost prerequisite.
(Clarification asked): could an enclave be set in Earth to get the Pai-Leng SRU?

Civilian/military shipyards: allow them to build 10000 tonnes of ship per turn, instead of just assembly and build 10 modules per turn.

Orbital Industry: make the production TL dependent (e.g. 5 x materials or power TLs, whichever is lower). Allow it to build more supplies (let’s say half of its production capacity)

IMHO, the TL should be as decisive on industrial efficiency as to agriculture or mining. As for SUs, in a setting where interface is so expensive and difficult, it should be expected that every effort is done to produce those things in orbit, if they are to be sent elsewhere.

Solar power Satellite: allow it to reduce oil SRU according the power it gives to the settlement (e.g. power/10). Representing the decreased need of this power due to the solar power received.

7.9.2: Interface facilities:

Personally, I’d like more the formula to be based on gravity (remember, H&E gives it), but I understand that would require major changes.

7.9.3: Ground facilities:

Heavy Industry:  make the production TL dependent (e.g. 5 x materials or power TLs, whichever is lower). IMHO, the TL should be as decisive on industrial efficiency as to agriculture or mining.


University: instead of producing Pai-Leng, I’d find it more logical to be counted for cutting edge research as research modules are.  Representing quite larger facilities (they cost 16 times as much and need supply and pop), they should not be reduced to a single tech category, and allowed to be used in as many cutting edge research projects a single nation makes In a turn.
Germany
 player, 326 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
8.7.1: Naval units:

Allow cruisers to carry missiles as missile submarines do (but maybe only 1 SAM or IRBM unit) to represent the GC and Aegis units.

8.7.3: Space Units

ICBM: give them a different defense factor (In case they are attacked and don’t want to use WMD). Right now, they are the more powerful defense units too…
ABM: increase its defense power. Now that MDWs have had theirs increased, this facility is nearly useless (and it was you who said every facility/unit should have its utility).

8.7.4: Ground Units

Merge infantry and motorized units. Nowadays, most infantry can have enough motor pool to be seen as motorized, and would reduce bookkeeping.

8.10: Division Sized Units:

Make Division Sized Units to save 20% of their maintenance costs (so 4 SU, instead of 5 SU) per non-reserve division).
This will represent the more efficient centralized supply commands, and encourage the use of divisions, so easing (I hope) the GM work and bookkeeping.

8.11:Representing Game Units

Example (clarification): could you please explain what does the second set of combat numbers represent (the 20/3/4/0)?

9: Spaceships:

It’s not a secret I’d change many more things on them, but I’ll limit myself to point at loopholes and make the game playable. See also comments on orbital shipyards.

Add a factor on spaceships called rating, equivalent to hull modules x 1000. This will be used for every calculation used (OT support, building limits of spaceports/shipyards, etc.).
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.

9.2: Spaceship construction:

Exclude the cargo modules from the limits for building, as they represent mostly empty space.

See also what I posted in the Shipyards)

9.3 Maintenance, Labour, Cost, and Altering:


Decrease the OTs needed to support the ships.

In 2300AD is specified that there are about 600 ships only of the Anjou class (DG page 74). As it has 25000 m3 cargo capacity (over double than the Hudson), I guess they are no smaller than a Hudson. That would mean over 13800000 tonnes of shipping, needing over 1380 OTs to support just the Anjou class ships…<Blue>


9.4: Landings and Transport.

Forfeit the 5000 tons for the population mass, the passenger module being enough.
<Blue>5000 people will mass about 10% of this, and the 10000 tons of the passenger module should be able to handle it (even if we assume half of it is the spinning machinery and engineering sections, it would leave about 1 ton per person)


Allow 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.
Germany
 player, 327 posts
Sat 2 Sep 2017
at 17:41
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
10: Combat:

As for now it was decided to resolve combats on core worlds according 10:10 (Quick combat), and so those are the rules I mostly expect to be used for a while, I’ll center my comments on them (though some comments on other things would be done). See also comments on armed forces.

10.6: Damage Allocation

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?

Collateral damages (clarifications asked):

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?
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.


10.9: Air Defense and Ground Support

Include the bombers among the units quartered if fighting only air units. As things are now, a MR unit attacking a bomber unit, other things being equal, is on a clear disadvantage (Basic combat 3 against basic combat 5). Even if the MR has interceptor capacity, it would be 4.5 to 5.

Exclude MR helicopters with interceptor ability from being quartered against air only units. I assume those interceptors represent more VTOL fighters than helicopters properly.

Include DDs or CAs among the units with less reduction if attacked only by air power (alternatively, allow them to carry SAM, as said in the Armed Forces section).

10:10 Quick Combat:


Supplies: I found more logical the supply needs to depend on MR. I’d suggest the SU used per unit in each WR to be (5-MR), so that a MR2 nation would need 3 SU/unit, while a MR1 nation would need 4 SU/unit.

MR represents more than units quality, and the tail-to-tooth ratio is, as I understand it, one of the factors, as well as how well supplied units are. I also find illogical that reserve units consume no supplies.

(Clarification asked) How are damages allocated when they are not enough to destroy a unit?

If we make them as “if not enough to destroy a unit, none”, then a single armored unit cannot be destroyed, no matter how strongly it is attacked, as long as it has supplies (and if reserve, never)…

If we make (at least a unit if there are any losses), then a player attacking two armored divisions against a single infantry brigade and rolling a 1 (10/100) would lose a full armored division…

Suggestion: if not enough to destroy a unit, then none, but any result of 100% would mean at least a unit destroyed (damaged if 10:10 is not used).


General for combat:

I’d suggest raising the possible results over 100 (up to 200 or more at the higher ends) to compensate for armor or for the reduction due to 10:10. As they are now, a single unit with some armor may last forever (or even without it if 10:10 is used).

There should be some way to attack directly the enemy infrastructures/economy (strategic bomber). If so, I guess most non SAM/ABM forces are not too useful In defense…

Examples (taken to extremes) to show what I see flawed in combat (include what is said in the Armed Forces section:

Country A attacks with 5 bombers a hex where there are 1 infantry brigade and 2 ICBM units (10:10 is not used. So the combat occurs at the defenders hex).
  • What is the defense? According rules, if MDW are used defense factor would be 51 (so higher than the bombers), and, if not, 1 (as ICBMs would not fight without using MDWs).
  • Would those ICBMs produce collateral damages if they defend using MDWs (see that they would be using them in their own territory)



Germany attacks Nordic Fed in hex E10 with a single reserve bomber airship (10:10 is in effect). Germany has a basic combat force of 5 against the full NF armed forces in E10 (about 60 brigades, 6 of which are reserve with a basic combat force of about 106). The table is, off course, <1:10. Germany will receive 1damage, not enough to destroy the unit. NF will receive none unless a 10 is rolled, in which case it will receive 2% rounded up damages, so 3, enough to destroy either 3 units with a value of 1 or one with a value of 3. In the meanwhile, Germany has spent no supplies and NF has spent 270 SUs).



Spreadsheet:

Add the prestige somewhere on it.

Modify the Social expanses according the AM (example, to make it easy, multiply it by (AM-14)/40. I set 14 as the non-modified because is the current average).
Remember, higher AM also represents more percentage of social maters (education, health system, etc.) taken by the state, and I find quite illogical than, having more or less the same TLs and GDP per capita, Canada (with an AM of 12) is spending about 56% on them, while US (AM9) is spending about 70%, or that India (AM 13) is expending about 82% on them, while Saudi Arabia (AM 18), with higher TLs and GDP per capita, as well as lower MR is expending about 51%...
This aside, you sadi to want making AM less decisive in the money available for the player than it is, and this would help.


Off course, if they can be stored, SRU stored cell must be added…
Russia
 player, 30 posts
Tue 5 Sep 2017
at 11:56
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
In reply to Germany (msg # 324):

Lluis made a great job clearing rules, I agree with most his propositions.
I would recommend to create a google document so that all propositions, comments and reasoning were in one place.

This message was last edited by the player at 11:56, Tue 05 Sept 2017.

Germany
 player, 328 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 02:40
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
As you said this should be asked in this thread, here I go:
Co-GM:
Quick Combat Round#4

Syrian rebels defending
Syrian rebels: 1 Green Mechanized Brigades (ex-Syrian Army)
Mil Rank 4, Mil tech 7.5, Sum Basic Strength: 3, Final Combat Strength: 168

Odds are 8001/168=47.6 which becomes >10:1 odds, shifted 2*(4-3)=2 = 2 columns to right for Military Rank, final odds >10:1

22:53, Today: Co-GM rolled 9 using 1d10.  Bloody Damascus#9.
Results: 0% permanent to loss Attacker, 100%/5=20% permanent loss to defender,
0.2 X 3 available hits =0.6 = 1

Syrian rebels losses:
None, insufficient to destroy a unit

How in the hell can this last unit, if its combat power is higher than 1, be destroyed?

As things are, it seems Saudi Arabia should have left only 1 tank brigade to stop the whole Iraqui Army, as it would have been indestructible, and so could resist forever (as long as SUs last).
Co-GM
 GM, 171 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 05:12
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
>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.
Germany
 player, 329 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 14:30
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Co-GM:
>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.


I never thought trusting the rules and playing accordingly was gambling...

The whole Project was risky, I know, and I will accept my loses if it turns out to have a Mining Potential of 0 (I still don't know that), but what has affected the plan, even in it haas higher minning potential, is, once again, rules changes.

I don't complain where I lose what I gambled because bad planning, rotten luck or I was outmaneuvered by another player, but I do when it's rules changes that make me lose, despite if the plan was sound or not, because that confuses me and does not allow me to make long term plans, something absolutely necessary for a strategic game.
Germany
 player, 330 posts
Wed 13 Sep 2017
at 17:39
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
Co-GM:
>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.


Then don't be surprised then those Political Actions are undertaken by other countries as Liam specified in post 285 this same thread...

Another possibility would be, as I suggested then, to considere each country his own "client state" and apply, as rules say (6.8), that Usually, the GM will lower by one the difficulty level of a Political Action which is attempting to alter a player’s Client StateUsually, the GM will lower by one the difficulty level of a Political Action which is attempting to alter a player’s Client State>Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM

quote:
Exclude SUs from this increased cost and SUs and PAs from GM
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.


I understand your point here, but I guess the result could even be the opposite, as now you have to buy your response PAs before you know if they are needed, and then, of course, you use them, needed or not. This way, you's just not spend the money, and if the response PA is needed you spend on it, and if not you spend this money in SUs, so avoiding (maybe) this PA being bought and used, but in no case will more PAs be bought, and so used. Also, it would allow the response PAs to be rid off, so simplifying the rules.

As an example, Canada ended (according the result budgets you published) this turn with $182 unspent money and no response PAs bought. As it involved in the Iraq/Saudi crisis, I guess it bought one PA (at 150% cost, so losing no money). I guess he’ll use most its other money in SUs (I guess also at 150% cost and needing GM permission). If he had not been involved in any crisis, I guess all the money would have gone to SUs, so avoiding a Political Action, that would not have been avoided if he had bought a response PA instead of leaving this money unspent.

And what would have happened with this money if the GM had not allowed him to make those mid-turn purchasing?

quote:
>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).


See that at this point the Settlement will probably have about 1000 facilities, so I guess the GM will be glad to turn it into Core Settlement for the shake of simplicity. And in any case, I guess most will so become before reaching the 10000 pop units that would be required to add a single +1 to the TL…

quote:
>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.


Then I don’t expect to see too many ODI facilities in the game, to the point I’ll get rid of them. Time will tell (I hope)…

<:
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.


Why so?

I’d better invest in ICBMs, that give me 2.5 times the same combat power, not only against missiles, and cost only about 57% of an ABM and 20% of a Missile defense satellite net. And I can even attack the enemy with them, not only defend myself…

quote:
>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?


I thought they where those given in option#4 of 4.5.4, where solar power is not listed… After all it is named Conservation/efficiency, and this will be more Alternative Infrastructure (option#5) but without those significant downsides.

But you already agreed to include those renewables into those options, so I will not extend myself on that, but I guess no extra PAs to reduce the oil should be needed in this specific case, being considered included in the facility, as it is its main use in Core Worlds (to provide cheap and clean power), aside from the GDP bonus.

quote:
>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.


As I understand the rules, those transports Morgan told you about would be amphibious ability helos in this game (as they can move and fight as reserve in all sea hexes)…

But, as rules stand now, the only units that cannot be protected by SAMs against missiles and air attacks are naval units in deep seas, precisely the ones that most do it. I can agree more about IRBMs.

quote:
>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.


Beware this sentence does not turn against you, as there are many cases where it’s yourself who does generalizations that could be answered with it…

And this was only a suggestion to simplify the rules and bookkeeping, I won’t insist on it…

quote:
>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.


I understand that, but in the example you give about the Tayllerand you give 2 such sets of numbers: French #1240: Veteran Spaceship:10/1/3/0:B:L:Alpha Centuari, Triania, Orbit: N/A: 20/3/4/0, carrying unit#455.

That’s why I asked.

quote:
>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.


Because infantry brigades and aircraft carriers are standardized units (though if most does not mean all, they shouldn’t be ;)), while spaceships are more detailed.

And I don’t see the complication of just adding to the rules a sentence as “Ship's tonnage is considered to be hulls x 1000 tonnes”, so that when you talk about tonnage everyone knows what are you talking about. And as you could delete then the clarifications about carried items mass not to be counted bu simply talking about tonnage instead of mass, it could even shorten the rules.

quote:
>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.


Don’t complain then if any player finds the way to profit from this loophole… You know I prefer to warn you about loopholes than using them.

quote:
>needing over 1380 OTs to support just the Anjou class ship
Invest in more OTs.


Let’s see, the game is thought to last until 2300, so 60 turns… So, to reach the level of shipping traffic found in 2300AD setting, we must build an average of 23 OTs per turn only for the Anjou class ships

Add to this the military fleet, colony ships, and other class freighters/lineers…

And unless something heavy happens, we will not have the recovery age on 2300AD, so one could expect to reach farther than the 2300AD setting…

quote:
>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'.


And then what does the passenger module (that masses double that) represents?

quote:
>Halving MP for unhospitable worlds <snip> have a MP of 0, making them useless.
and
>allow 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?


About avoiding those MP 0 planets, just to allow players more freedom of action (though I admit this might be a matter of taste or setting wanted), about allowing chemical rockets to land in outposts/enclaves mainly because otherwise the ships setting up the ground part of it cannot land, so they cannot be set up as rules stand now.

I’d find logic, though, to return to the old concept of needing more chemical modules to land/take off on a planet without spaceport.

quote:
>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.


Ok, I understand that, and even guessed this will be the case. That’s why it was just a clarification asked.

quote:
>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.


I agree, but a 100/0 result on an air raid should mean nearly no plane reached its target, so the damage would be (at least) reduced for collateral damages too.

quote:
>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.


And yet you discard many rules that would simplify the game on the grounds of perceived realism…

And then tell me what’s the meaning of multi-role aircrafts, if even in detailed combat rules they are at disadvantage over bombers


quote:
>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?


 So are many other factors that are also featured into the streadsheet, but having them on it simplifies the job quite a lot. I guess this will be the case this time too.

This message was last edited by the player at 12:51, Sat 28 July.

Germany
 player, 331 posts
Thu 14 Sep 2017
at 12:48
Re: Rules Proposal 20170810
As I guess al lof us agree rules should be simplified, here comes a suggestion to simplify military matters (already suggested time ago):

8. Armed Forces:

Get rid of quality ratings, using only MR. This, of course would require some changes:

Costs:

Current costs for $100 worth units evenly distributed in QR according table in 8.8 are 207 for MR1, 142.5 for MR2, 67.5 for MR3 and 37.5 for MR4.

Here I’d give two options:

Double costs and divide them by MR. Costs multipliers compared with current would be 2 for MR1, 1 for MR2, 0.75 for MR3 and 0.5 for MR4. Special abilities costs should be halved (multiplier 0.25) if they are to be kept as now.

Just multiply the units cost for an approximation of the numbers above: 2 for MR1, 1.4 for MR2, 0.75 for MR3 and 0.4 for MR4.

Reserve units:

Units combat damaged would be considered Cadres. They are subject to all current rules for reserve units (cannot initiate combat, cost no SUs, etc.).

Detailed Combat:

In non-Quick combat rules, all MR1 units are considered Veteran, all MR2, experienced, all MR3 Green and all MR4 reserve. All Cadres are considered reserve, despite their MR.

Units can be voluntarily downgraded to Cadre (representing reserve cadres as today most countries have). They can be returned to full unit status at the cost of 1 SU per unit (5 SUs for Division sized units) at any moment.

Newly bought units are considered Cadres for the turn they are built.

Supplies costs (no real change, counting above proposal):

Each non-Cadre unit needs 1 SU to be supplied per turn. If not received, it is turned to Cadre.

Each unit (Cadres included) needs (5-MR) SUs to be supplied per Quick Combat Round. Effects of not receiving them are unchanged.

Of course, division sized units multiply it by 5 (or by 4 if the rule I suggested in my revision is accepted).

Transfer of units among countries:

Just get rid of it. As the development costs are no more in play, it has lost meaning, and the fact a unit is built or bought is irrelevant now (if you want to give another country units, just give them the money to buy them).

EDIT Increasing MR:

Of course, its cost should be raised (I leave to you how much), as it would now represent the increasing of units' QR too. END EDIT

----------------

To solve this:
Germany:
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:

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



WMD capable NPCs (fortunately few right now):

As the use of MDWs also gives some increase in combat power for some units (aside from other effects, as may be columns shifts or increased damages), just write this increase in the “MDW capable?” column of the spreadsheet.

Example: Current rest-Pakistan forces (as listed in the NPC section of the HP) would be 324 basic combat points worth. As it has bombers, missiles and artillery, if MDW are used its basic combat points total is 397. So, in the “MDW capable?” cell for Pakistan, instead of a “yes”, just list a 73, so everyone will know that if it engages in MDW war its force would be 397 instead of 324.


----------------------------

And another suggestion:

Elite units ):

Allow for a new special ability; elite.  Those units represent the cream of their armies (mostly used as expeditionary forces), and are considered 1 MR lower than their armies. If they act along with other units of their army, the usual MR is used.

Example: the US Marines have elite ability. A force of marines only is sent as intervention force to a hot spot. They are considered MR0 for all aspects. So, they pay 5 SU per Quick Combat Round for maintenance, but they receive 2 extra column shifts in their favor.

This message was last edited by the player at 13:22, Thu 14 Sept 2017.

Co-GM
 GM, 172 posts
Tue 19 Sep 2017
at 22:41
Rules Proposal 20170919
Change to: Downlift of Deadfall. Equation for #of round trips for Spaceships. Number of rounds of Quick Combat, now strictly at GM’s discretion. Damage done during a Quick Combat affects at least one unit. Armour adds to number of hits that can be absorbed. How Missile Defence, SAM, IRBM, ICBM, and ABM units work to make their varying combat strengths be easier to understand. Atmosphere type A results in an Inhospitable, not an Intolerable, World.

Introduction of: Added rules for the Archipelago,  Archipelago(Ice), Scattered Lakes, Scattered Lakes(Ice) terrain types that H&E can generate.

Made clearer: Capture of hexes and Settlements. During Quick Combat: WMD use, collateral damage, and which rules are not used. SU for Outposts and Enclaves are consumed in the Orbit hex.

Rebalancing to:In Quick Combat, not having enough SU increases Military Rank. SU maintenance cost of Enclaves

Got rid of:SRU exploration can only be within a Settlement’s borders and the exact hex does need to be specified. Earth’s special map and rules, must keep consistent with rest of the Worlds. Carried squadrons for Missile Submarines, Helicopter Carrier and Aircraft Carrier, to keep it consistent with Spaceships. Low-G and High-G Special Abilities, a duplicate of Inhospitable and keeps consistent with the usual Hosp/Inhosp split. Long Range Special Ability, a duplicate of Airship and Bombers. Special Abilities affecting Combat Strength, what they do is already listed elsewhere. Limiting total size of a nation’s Spaceship fleet by the number of O/Ts possessed; an unnecessary complication given that Spaceships are limited by SU and Tantalum availability. Supplying landing capable Spaceships from a Spaceport, keeps it consistent with other units. Units that are part of a force that looks for hidden units consume SU, an unneeded complication, and looking does not compare to combat for SU for consumption.
Germany
 player, 332 posts
Wed 27 Sep 2017
at 10:51
Rules Proposal 20170919
After some quick reading:

quote:
9.3: Supply Unit requirement of a Spaceship is the same as a military unit in an Inhospitable World (see section 8.3), regardless if it is landed on a Hospitable World. The Supply Units needed must be brought to any friendly O/T.


Does that mean that any spaceship needs 2 SU taken into orbit (so 10000 tonnes uplift tied) to keep it supplied, even if they start and end the turn in a spaceport?

You claim in 11.1 that this is to keep it consistent wiht other units, but in fact this is inconsistent with the other units' suply, that specify the SU must be delivered to where they are at the begining of turn (8.3, paragraph 2)

See that there's no way Germany can keep his paceship fleet this way, once again rules changes blowing away any long term plans.

With each Rockets unit giving 1985 uplift (Unless I botched numbers), I would need 16 rocket units. As Germany has now 3 such units(and, of course, upgrading the Spaceport or uisng anyoune else's)just to keep the Ship's supplies. Add to this Rauhaven OT (5000 tonnes more), and the needs raise to 18 units just to supply what I have now.

OF course, this will stop cold any space plans, or forcé me to spend about $1800 (last turn Budget was $1948), so doing nothing else just for unexpected uplift increases.

quote:
9.4 #Round trips within a Star System = [3 000 X (# of non-StutterWarp Propulsion Modules) / (Spaceship Mass) + 50 X (# of StutterWarp Modules) ] X (Space tech level – 7.0) / (AU of one endpoint + AU of other endpoint) If the ship has at least one Chemical, Thruster or StutterWarp type Propulsion Module and there are no friendly O/T facilities at an endpoint then add 5 AU for distance calculations.


So, now the non-stutterwarp modules increase the round trips for a stuttterwarp equiped ship?

Let's imagine a TL 9.5 10000 tonnes ship with 1 stutterwarp module. If moveing among Earth and Ganymede (Jupiter's satellite), it can perform (50*1*2.5)/(1+5.2), so 20.16 (so 20) round trips. If this same ship has the 9 needed chemical propulsors to land on Earth. It would add 3000*9*2.5/[10000*(1+5.2)], so 1.09 round trips more, for a total of 21.25 (so 21) round trips.

Frankly, I see no sense on this, but this will not have effects until some turns from now...

Possible errata (or an English lesson for me):

quote:
9.4 Paragraph 5: If a Spaceship is already StutterWarp Module equipt


Of course, you know English language better than myself, but shouldn't this be equiped instead of equipt?

10:10: Quick Combat (overall):

As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using PAs to increase the # of rounds.

Let’s imagine someone attacks an NPC that has 20 Sum Basic Combat. Among his units and column shifts, it achieves >10:1 odds. The result for the defender is automatically 100, so 20%:
  • Round 1: defender’s force is 20. Takes 20% losses (4 SBC)
  • Round 2: defender’s force is 16. Takes 20% losses (3.2, so 4 SBC)
  • Round 3: defender’s force is 12. Takes 20% losses (2.4, so 3 SBC)
  • Round 4: defender’s force is 9. Takes 20% losses (1.8, so 2 SBC)
  • Round 5: defender’s force is 7. Takes 20% losses (1.4, so 2 SBC)
  • Round 6: defender’s force is 5. Takes 20% losses (1 SBC)
  • Round 7: defender’s force is 4. Takes 20% losses (0.8, so 1 SBC)


So, it would take 10 rounds to fully destroy it, each round spending 5 SU per unit involved, while the NPC, I guess not subjected to supplies needs, keeps resisting. In the meanwhile, any 1 rolled means at least one unit lost by the attacker (regardless its combat power)…

This message was last edited by the player at 17:58, Wed 27 Sept 2017.

Saudi Arabia
 player, 36 posts
Wed 27 Sep 2017
at 18:00
Last WR resolution
A question about last turn resolution (as you told me to ask such things here):

rule 10.6 Battle resolution:

quote:
If attacked by Ground Units, all friendly Artillery, SAM, Space and Air Units must be with an equal number of friendly other Ground Units in the same hex, else divide the Combat Strength of the Artillery, SAM, Space and Air Units by 5


As I don't see this being among the rules suspended by 10:10, why was this not applied on the IC SAM last unit?

This message was last updated by the player at 16:44, Fri 29 Sept 2017.

Germany
 player, 333 posts
Wed 27 Sep 2017
at 18:10
Rules Proposal 20170919
Some more as I read:

7.6:
Oh great, I hadn’t realized it. Now the OTs in other systems also need SU to be taken to them, so, to the problems told in my former post we must add those…

7.9.3 under Military Base (possible errata):

In the example given, the hex number for the US base should be actualized to the new hex coordinates.

8.7 (overall. Also affecting 10 overall and 10:10 specifically):

How is the different combat power of units (e.g. a carrier) in Quick Combat? Do they use their offensive power? Their defensive one?

How many hits they count if destroyed in 10:10? Again offensive power? Defensive one?

How do the carriers and SSBN changes affect current OBs? Simply by deleting all carried units?

Frankly, IMHO most of those changes just add confusion and complexity (though they may reduce SU needs for the Carriers and SSBN…)

8.11 First example in page 65
quote:
French #1240: Veteran Spaceship:10/1/3/0:B:L:Alpha Centuari, Triania, Orbit: N/A: 20/3/4/0, carrying unit#455a<quote>
It seems I didn’t explain well my question in former posts. What are the combat factors? Are they the 10/1/3/0 or the 20/3/4/0? And what represents the other set of numbers?

10.2.2 (probable errata)_

<quote>Air units may move as a non-Infantry type Ground unit, see section 10.3.3

There’s no section 10.3.3 (or at least I didn't find it).
Germany
 player, 334 posts
Thu 28 Sep 2017
at 16:44
Rules Proposal 20170919
even more:

2.5 Settlement List (Probable errata):

WMD capable: An ability to consistently devastate large areas. See section 8.8

I guess it should say section 8.12 (MDWs) instead of 8.8 (Military Rank)

Contradictory info:
7.9.1:
quote:
ODI: <snip>Has a Base Combat strength of 15 (4 Beam, 6 Missile, and 5 Orbital Bombardment)
<snip>
Weaponry Module: <snip>adds 2 Beam and 6 Missile

8.12 WMDs and WMD Capable Nations:
quote:
<snip>Possession of ICBM units or Spaceship Missile or Spaceship Orbital Bombardment Modules requires that the nation be ‘WMD Capable’.


Then, what happens with the weaponry module equiped OTs and ODIs combat factor for non WMD countries?

Combat (overall)

10.10 rules specify that several other rules are ignored. I think some parts of those rules should be still applied. Specifically:
  • 10.6: Damage Allocation: specifically the part saying
  • Damage to units is ignored unless the opponent’s weapons can reach those units. E.g.; if China bombs Saudi Arabia with ICBM, Chinese ICBMs are safe from damage, no matter the result…
  • 10.8: Air Units: the part relating to air units range (e.g. Bombers 3 hexses away on Eaarth may participate).


Carriers (again):

(note: this assumes the parts of 10.6 and 10.8 told above apply to 10.10)

This new use of carriers has IMHO other problems too:

Let’s imagine, using 10.10, 1 carrier unit attacks from an adjacent hex an island where there are several ground units. The final combat result is 40 for the attacker.  That means 0.6 SBC, but, as rules specify, at least one unit. So, is the Carrier sunk by those units that cannot reach it, or is the damage ignored and the carrier planes immune to SAM and other AA fire?

ASAT (also in older rules, but I just realized):

(note: all of this assumes 10.10 is used)

1) Let's asume one country has just engaged war with Argentina and decides to attack his satellites. He attacks with 1 infantry unit, but as the satellites have combat factor 0, attack is in table >10.1, but as result will be 100% of 0, no damage is achieved, and so they cannot be destroyed, but on a 1 die roll, the infantry unit is, as it receives 10% of 1, but at least a unit. Is that right?

2) Instead of Argentina the same situation is against China. In this case, as it has an OT, that I guess will defend with factor 1 it uses 1 MR plane. As 10.8 is not used, it attacks with a 3:1, so some damage will be achieved, let's assume 60%, reduced to 12% due to 10.10, so 0.12 hits. If we elimiate satellites (0 combat factor), we can elimiate all of them without absorving any damage, and as the remaining damage must destroy at least one unit, the OT too, so the logical result (from rules wiewpoint)is to eliminate the OT and no damage to the satellites (that were the targets...). Is this right?
Germany
 player, 335 posts
Fri 29 Sep 2017
at 16:09
Rules Proposal 20170919
More problems with the treatment of the Carriers:

Detailed combat:

Let’s imagine a carrier is alone and is attacked by a multi-role helicopter (all other factors being equal):

The carrier has a defense factor of 1 (not being on attack, it does not use its MR plane 6 factor). The helicopter has a combat factor of 3. As the carrier is surface unit and the helicopter air unit (it only counts as ground vs planes), the carrier combat factor is quartered, so odds is 12:1 (>10:1). The result against the carrier is automatically 100%, but as it has L armor (so needing 115% hits to damage it), no immediate effect (though damage is retained). On its turn, the carrier counterattacks. As now the combat factor is 6 and it counts as a MR air unit (so quartering the helicopter combat factor), the odds is 8:1. Again, a helicopters have armor, no immediate effect will be felt, though damage will be retained…

But carriers rarely go alone, so now let’s imagine this same carrier is escorted by a destroyer unit, making the total combat value 4 (again, quartered to 1). The minimum result for the defenders is 40%, so damaging the carrier. Even on a 100%, as the carrier has greater mass, it is the unit damaged.

So good for the escorts…
Germany
 player, 336 posts
Fri 29 Sep 2017
at 16:51
Rules Proposal 20170919
While I understand the reasons for the Earth map change, I frankly don't like it, and I'm not sure the many changes (begining with all units positions, in some cases, knowing what hex a country really is, and I guess the changes in the settlements spreadsheet) it will require are worth the standarization.

Personally, I'd return to the former one, but I understand that's a matter of taste and even that may change as I get accostumed to it.
USA
 player, 57 posts
Mon 2 Oct 2017
at 09:21
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Germany:
After some quick reading:

quote:
9.3: Supply Unit requirement of a Spaceship is the same as a military unit in an Inhospitable World (see section 8.3), regardless if it is landed on a Hospitable World. The Supply Units needed must be brought to any friendly O/T.


Does that mean that any spaceship needs 2 SU taken into orbit (so 10000 tonnes uplift tied) to keep it supplied, even if they start and end the turn in a spaceport?



We are currently looking at a situation where, for the ships in current use, we're going to have to uplift their own mass in supply, and the same for O/Ts

This is going to put a serious throttle on the space action economy, and whilst it messes up both the plans Lluis and I have separately, the main worry I have from this change is that Space will end up almost the sole preserve of the big boys.

Lets be honest, who other than nations with huge budgets like US and China are going to be able to afford the cost of building sufficient uplift to support more than a few ships in the next 10 turns without neglecting lots of other, essential, stuff. Having landing ships resupply from the ground gave nations that can't afford to maintain that level of uplift early on the ability to still access space.

We already have the problem that tech advancement is quite slow as people spend money trying to fix problems in their nations with PAs rather than investing in tech, we're now adding on to that problem by essentially requiring a $1300 'buy in' price to get an orbital terminal and enough uplift to get supplies up for your first ship ($100 for 2 Spaceports, $200 for an O/T and £1000 for 10 rockets, and nearly the same cost per additional ship now that the limit to total size has been removed based on O/Ts

I'd like to suggest that maybe we deffer this change, if this is absolutely what you want to do, until the next turn so we can work, as players, to cushion the blow to the system we have in place, but I'd really like to suggest we perhaps revise how supply for spaceships works, to prevent limiting access to space for what I'm going to call 'mid-tier nations'.

Also - Lluís, hope you're OK and didn't get caught up in the unpleasantness going on with the independence referendum.

This message was last edited by the player at 09:23, Mon 02 Oct 2017.

Germany
 player, 337 posts
Tue 3 Oct 2017
at 17:31
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
Germany:
After some quick reading:

quote:
9.3: Supply Unit requirement of a Spaceship is the same as a military unit in an Inhospitable World (see section 8.3), regardless if it is landed on a Hospitable World. The Supply Units needed must be brought to any friendly O/T.


Does that mean that any spaceship needs 2 SU taken into orbit (so 10000 tonnes uplift tied) to keep it supplied, even if they start and end the turn in a spaceport?



We are currently looking at a situation where, for the ships in current use, we're going to have to uplift their own mass in supply, and the same for O/Ts

This is going to put a serious throttle on the space action economy, and whilst it messes up both the plans Lluis and I have separately, the main worry I have from this change is that Space will end up almost the sole preserve of the big boys.

Lets be honest, who other than nations with huge budgets like US and China are going to be able to afford the cost of building sufficient uplift to support more than a few ships in the next 10 turns without neglecting lots of other, essential, stuff. Having landing ships resupply from the ground gave nations that can't afford to maintain that level of uplift early on the ability to still access space.


See that this has happened with most of the rules changes affecting space, each one fully dismanteling any plans one could do for space exploration.

USA:
We already have the problem that tech advancement is quite slow as people spend money trying to fix problems in their nations with PAs rather than investing in tech, we're now adding on to that problem by essentially requiring a $1300 'buy in' price to get an orbital terminal and enough uplift to get supplies up for your first ship ($100 for 2 Spaceports, $200 for an O/T and £1000 for 10 rockets, and nearly the same cost per additional ship now that the limit to total size has been removed based on O/Ts


Just curious, why this OT? Remember that rockets don't need OT (otherwise we could never uplift even the first OT).

USA:
I'd like to suggest that maybe we deffer this change, if this is absolutely what you want to do, until the next turn so we can work, as players, to cushion the blow to the system we have in place, but I'd really like to suggest we perhaps revise how supply for spaceships works, to prevent limiting access to space for what I'm going to call 'mid-tier nations'.


Even deferring it, there's no way space exploration could be kept with this limits, more so if you add the reduction of SU building capaity of Orbital Industries (from 25 SU/turn to 10 SU/turn maximums).

Considering also that SUs cannot be launched in catapults (something I agree has logic), that means any ship would tie a good number of uplift capacity, regardless where they begin the turn.

But even above this, above the fact Germany would have to mothball part of its space fleet, above the fact space exploration will be put to halt, there are two points:
  1. the reason that this will keep it consistent wiht other units is flawed, as other units must receive the SUs where they begin the turn, while spaceships in orbit, regardless where they begin the turn.
  2. the rules must allow for long term plans, and any rules change must considere that. If each rules change means your long term plans are void, the game simply cannot be played


After all, what do supplies represent? fuel, munitions, food (to an extent, as it is considered side), small stuff, etc. What of all this might not be served on ground facilities? Unlike ground units who are receiving them on a continuous basis (and even then they must, in game terms, receive them where they start the turn, regardless where they go), ships, be them sea or space, load their supplies at port, and don't use to receive more until they reach a new port.

Of course, the fact OTs must receive their supplies in the orbit they are on, even if equally fucking from the point 2 prespective, has at least some logic on it.

Another point on uplift is the fact that the facilities now must be uplift (and I guess transported) in a single turn. While I understand that simplifies bookkeeping, this may work for most of them, assuming someone wants to build and deploy a Solar Power Satellite at TL 9.5 (when it is available), he would need 9 units of scram aircrafts (the best uplift at TL 9.5, as catapults cannot launch them, again understandable) just for it, and to launch an Orbital Colony, it would need 23 Scram Aircraft units. I’d suggest to allow them to be deployed in batches (let’s say of 25%). As for the bookkeeping, as you answered me, this will add to players’ bookkeeping, not to GM’s
USA
 player, 58 posts
Tue 3 Oct 2017
at 18:14
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Germany:
USA:
<quote Germany>
After some quick reading:

<quote USA>We already have the problem that tech advancement is quite slow as people spend money trying to fix problems in their nations with PAs rather than investing in tech, we're now adding on to that problem by essentially requiring a $1300 'buy in' price to get an orbital terminal and enough uplift to get supplies up for your first ship ($100 for 2 Spaceports, $200 for an O/T and £1000 for 10 rockets, and nearly the same cost per additional ship now that the limit to total size has been removed based on O/Ts


Just curious, why this OT? Remember that rockets don't need OT (otherwise we could never uplift even the first OT).


My reading was you needed an OT to provide the supplies to the ship

Rules proposal 9.3:
Supply Unit requirement of a Spaceship is the same as a military unit in an Inhospitable World (see section 8.3), regardless if it is landed on a Hospitable World. The Supply Units needed must be brought to any friendly O/T.

This message was last edited by the player at 18:30, Tue 03 Oct 2017.

Germany
 player, 338 posts
Tue 3 Oct 2017
at 18:41
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
Germany:
USA:
<quote Germany>
After some quick reading:

<quote USA>We already have the problem that tech advancement is quite slow as people spend money trying to fix problems in their nations with PAs rather than investing in tech, we're now adding on to that problem by essentially requiring a $1300 'buy in' price to get an orbital terminal and enough uplift to get supplies up for your first ship ($100 for 2 Spaceports, $200 for an O/T and £1000 for 10 rockets, and nearly the same cost per additional ship now that the limit to total size has been removed based on O/Ts


Just curious, why this OT? Remember that rockets don't need OT (otherwise we could never uplift even the first OT).


My reading was you needed an OT to provide the supplies to the ship

Rules proposal 9.3:
Supply Unit requirement of a Spaceship is the same as a military unit in an Inhospitable World (see section 8.3), regardless if it is landed on a Hospitable World. The Supply Units needed must be brought to any friendly O/T.


You're right, but I understand Apophis station is counted as such (even if your allies don't allow you to use theirs, as they would also be friendly...
USA
 player, 59 posts
Tue 3 Oct 2017
at 18:49
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Germany:
Even deferring it, there's no way space exploration could be kept with this limits, more so if you add the reduction of SU building capaity of Orbital Industries (from 25 SU/turn to 10 SU/turn maximums).


I will disagree on that point though, it will just make it incredibly hard currently. But, once a beanstalk is constructed space becomes a lot simpler to deal with. That will be very late in the day, and makes the development of space now much, much harder.

The question here comes down to how hard should it be to get into space in a meaningful way. Perhaps the thing we should consider is, have we started getting into space far earlier than was envisioned and so the space system has to be limited, because we are doing things at this tech level we aren't expected to be able to? That is the problem you have with untested, living rules, and unfortunately we have to deal with the problems that causes.

Another thing, now I think about it, is that this addresses a problem we previously discussed, which is why would you build bigger ships that can't land. Now you'd build them because they require less supplies uplifting than a fleet of smaller, landing capable ships.

Indeed, i would like to suggest that supply requirements for ships using either only solar sails or stutter-warp require only 1 SU per turn (since they don't require fuel) as this would address another thing we discussed - which is 'why use solar sails' - again, not sure if Kelvin would care for that, but it makes sense to me.

This drives people to build shipyards etc, which I think you did previously point out were a lot less important under the previous rules, since larger ships are now objectively better - the converse to this is that it does preclude the idea of developing small specialist ships in favour of much larger multi purpose ships - this again has its own problems.

A single turn should, depending on how the next turn works out, give people enough time to dedicate some money to getting more uplift developed. I suppose this might also be balanced out by an increase from the GM in commercial uplift available - after all, if a market exists I can see people trying to fill it.
USA
 player, 60 posts
Tue 3 Oct 2017
at 18:51
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
In reply to Germany (msg # 341):

Yes, I was talking in general terms about the cost for any nation to get its first ship into space, outlining the cost for 'my first spaceship' as it were.

My point isn't that its going to be hard for the US to get into space, its that its going to be almost impossible for people who aren't the US and other major powers
Germany
 player, 339 posts
Wed 4 Oct 2017
at 10:37
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
Germany:
Even deferring it, there's no way space exploration could be kept with this limits, more so if you add the reduction of SU building capaity of Orbital Industries (from 25 SU/turn to 10 SU/turn maximums).


I will disagree on that point though, it will just make it incredibly hard currently. But, once a beanstalk is constructed space becomes a lot simpler to deal with. That will be very late in the day, and makes the development of space now much, much harder.


Before the Orbital Elevators it comes the Skyhook, at TL 10.0 (in Space and Materials), so we could have it by 2105, assuming we can raise the TL for both 0.1 per turn…

In the meanwhile, we will have many problems to keep any space exploration (not to talk about full colonies), even while we could have developed the Stuttrewarp drives…

And remember the beanstalks were built in 2300AD when there already were several colonies, not to develop them…

USA:
The question here comes down to how hard should it be to get into space in a meaningful way. Perhaps the thing we should consider is, have we started getting into space far earlier than was envisioned and so the space system has to be limited, because we are doing things at this tech level we aren't expected to be able to? That is the problem you have with untested, living rules, and unfortunately we have to deal with the problems that causes.


Not so when we began to do it, it was perfectly feasible, and that's why I claim for stable rules that alow you long term plans.

The Enclave is TL 8.8 (so just above our capacity right now, in fact we could build them at overcost), but the capacity to support them seems to be quite latter…

USA:
Another thing, now I think about it, is that this addresses a problem we previously discussed, which is why would you build bigger ships that can't land. Now you'd build them because they require less supplies uplifting than a fleet of smaller, landing capable ships.

Indeed, i would like to suggest that supply requirements for ships using either only solar sails or stutter-warp require only 1 SU per turn (since they don't require fuel) as this would address another thing we discussed - which is 'why use solar sails' - again, not sure if Kelvin would care for that, but it makes sense to me.

This drives people to build shipyards etc, which I think you did previously point out were a lot less important under the previous rules, since larger ships are now objectively better - the converse to this is that it does preclude the idea of developing small specialist ships in favor of much larger multi purpose ships - this again has its own problems.


Let’s assume you’re right and I want to build a solar sail moved 30000 ship. I need 3 full shipyards to build it (or one for 3 turns) assuming I can uplift the modules (remember, they cannot be uplifted by Catapult), as each shipyard can only build 10 modules each (it will require at least 30 hull modules plus the Solar Sails propulsion), and it needs 20 RMU (400000 tonnes, but this time Catapults may do it)) to produce those modules…

USA:
A single turn should, depending on how the next turn works out, give people enough time to dedicate some money to getting more uplift developed. I suppose this might also be balanced out by an increase from the GM in commercial uplift available - after all, if a market exists I can see people trying to fill it.


Perhaps, as long as one is willing to compromise half its budget for two turns just to develop those rockets to keep a 2-3 ships fleet…

Of course, that puts your country effectively out of play for 2-3 turns…
USA
 player, 61 posts
Thu 5 Oct 2017
at 09:44
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
In reply to Germany (msg # 344):

This next turn the USA will have 18 rockest (I built 4 this turn as I was planning on pushing some things pretty hard in the upcoming turns. Not any more mind, but still)

This means if I build an additional launch pad and 7 rockets (topping me out at 25 rockets)I will have a native uplift of just shy of 45k - which is more than enough to support my current needs. If I increase my space infrastructure level by 0.1 that increases to nearly 50k uplift.

I need to uplift 4SU for my 2 ships, 3SU for 3 o/ts (earth, luna and Ceres) and I think 1SU (maybe 2... need to check) for the other orbital installations I have in earth orbit (so 40-45k uplift required)

That means an investment of $750 (700 for rockets and 50 for a launch pad) and I'm good for the next turn and if I up the space infra level I have excess. This is what I need to be able to support what I currently have. One turn is more than doable for me without hitting how much I can do

It is not a small amount of money, but for the USA it is more than practical. Another turn can see me with even more uplift.

It is not unfeasible for the US in a couple of turns to have 50 Rockets and space infrastructure at 9.0. That gives an uplift of 125,000 in the next 20 years of game time.

That's a massive level of growth in a very short period of time! To the point where I will probably begin to sell uplift after next turn to others.

Factor in that a single orbital industry can supply 5 ships, and free up 50k uplift. 5 ships is a lot of space ships, it may not feel like it but 5 ships is a huge number of pre-stutterwarp ships.

Yes, it will need minerals but if you can either get these from the asteroid belt or take production off earth to a place where uplift is much easier, then it becomes, again, a much smaller problem - and for the US doing this on earth in a couple of turns would likely not be an insurmountable problem.

That is why I'm worried that this will have a much more adverse effect on nations who aren't the USA, but why I believe that 1 turn would help cushion the blow significantly - especially if others can build rockets to sell that uplift to other nations when they don't need it.