Discussions about rules.   Posted by Co-GM.Group: 0
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.
Germany
 player, 340 posts
Thu 5 Oct 2017
at 16:56
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
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.


Us is now space TL 8.7 (as you raised it this turn. Using its current GDP, to raise it to 8.8 would cost (with those rules) $1423. to raise to TL 9 (in at least 2 turns, as in one tourn numbers would be nearly doubled) would cost about $4500 in total (incluiding the cutting edge cost).

See that this is more than a single turn Budget...

Add to this the costs you put for the rockets and spaceport, and sure you would like to supply your troops (about 500 SU/turn, if no extra needed) and do something in the political arena (both, internal and external)...

USA:
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.


We don't know the Asteroid Belt minning potential, and in any case latest kelvin answers are (despite his former answers to my questions in former posts this same thread) taht the Asteroid Belt must be surveyed first, so it won't be until 3 turns after someone sets up an OT and an Enclave on it that, if the MP is over 2 (13+ on 2d10) the Orbital Industry can suply those 5 ships per turn...

And the see that the whole AB is counted as a single hex for the divisor it is used if more than 1 Asteroid Minning facility is set up...

So Ceres, Pallas or Vesta will be richer to mine than the whole rest of the AB (as it has several mountain hexes, each one with a +3 to MP, and able to hold several mining facilities), but you must take the RMUs to the orbital industry (or set up it there), and before that, you already must supply it and your ships, something that no one would be able to...

IMHO, the space exploration is doomed with those rules at least until the development of the Catal¡pults, that would allow to uplift the RMUs to keep an Orbital Industry functioning (at TL 9.3, a Catapult would have over 700000 tonnes capacity, so allowing a single Orbital Industry to receive the MRUs needed, and at TL 9.4  792000, so it could supply 2 of them with a Little support of other uplift means).

So, IMHO, those rules fully stop the space activity for at least 6 turns, probably more.
USA
 player, 62 posts
Fri 6 Oct 2017
at 22:30
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Germany:
<quote USA>In reply to Germany (msg # 344):

Us is now space TL 8.7 (as you raised it this turn. Using its current GDP, to raise it to 8.8 would cost (with those rules) $1423


I work it out as $1020? (179669x(8.8^2)x9x2^0.1/150000)+(8.8^2*9^2/50)

quote:
See that this is more than a single turn Budget...


That's why I said in 20 years game time.

quote:
and sure you would like to supply your troops (about 500 SU/turn, if no extra needed) and do something in the political arena (both, internal and external)...


I've sat down and costed this out as best I can, It would be possible for me to get an enclave established on Luna by 2060 by spending approximately $1900 per turn on space endeavours - this works out at about half my budget.

Not small, not small at all. But it is possible if I decide I'm going to commit myself to space exploration above other things(and nothing distracting happens that requires my attention/money elsewhere)

You can see my rough workings here
https://docs.google.com/spread...lBg/edit?usp=sharing

This message was last edited by the player at 22:31, Fri 06 Oct 2017.

Germany
 player, 341 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 10:01
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
Germany:
<quote USA>In reply to Germany (msg # 344):

Us is now space TL 8.7 (as you raised it this turn. Using its current GDP, to raise it to 8.8 would cost (with those rules) $1423


I work it out as $1020? (179669x(8.8^2)x9x2^0.1/150000)+(8.8^2*9^2/50)


Let's see...

Formula is
quote:
(Combined GDP, unadjusted) X (Target level)2 X (Authoritarian Score of the nation) X 2 (# of decimal increases) / (150 000), rounded up to the nearest integer Where ‘# of decimal increases is the number of 0.1 increases in the tech level; so an increase of 0.1 would be 1 for 0.2 would be 2, for 0.3 would be 3, etc.

(bold is mine)

So, your formula would be (I took out the cutting edge extra as I guess maximum space TL is currently 8.9, as Germany ressearched it this turn):

(179669x(8.8^2)x9x2^1/150000)= $1670

This is more than what I told you before because I used your 2040-44 numbers, so your GDP was $153.106, not the expected next turn that is the 179.669 you used.

And if you tried to raise to 8.9 this turn it would be:


(179669x(8.9^2)x9x2^2/150000)= $3416...

This message was last edited by the player at 10:08, Sat 07 Oct 2017.

USA
 player, 63 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 12:05
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
In reply to Germany (msg # 348):

yes, my mistake
Germany
 player, 342 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 12:36
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 348):

yes, my mistake


Better realizing it now than latter. Glad to help.
USA
 player, 64 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 15:42
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
In reply to Germany (msg # 350):

Right, so now I'm not massively misreading.

I'm afraid I just have to come back to the question of the cost of upgrading tech coupled with Auth modifiers.

I understand that it's expensive but I really don't think it should cost over half my annual budget to just upgrade one tech by 0.1

Either lower Auth mods need a much larger effect on tech costs or I have to accept I can only spend turns as the US increasing my tech levels and doing nothing else

I accept there have to be tough choices in what we spend budgets on but currently for the US having a low auth mod makes that decision much, much harder. There is little to no up side to having a lower auth mod as the reduction in the cost of tech is nothing compared to the loss of spendable money.

Currently, either you engage with the world and consign yourself to doing no research (which is one of two things that a lower auth should help you with) or accept that you're going to be spending almost all your budget on tech and do nothing else.
Germany
 player, 343 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 16:47
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Again IMHO what really fucks those low AM countries is the effect on their internal PA actions.

For you, one PA directed to internal actions, is worth 81 points, while the defense has a multiplier of 900 (prestige 16 - stability 6 +20 squared) ,and, if your prestige raises, it would still be more difficult to make intenral actions.

For Germany, each PA is worth 196, and the defense has a multiplier of 784 (prestige 17, stability 9), so having quite an advantage.

For china, to give you another example, the PA is worth 256, while the defensive multiplier is 576. so having even more advantage...

As those actions are the way to raise stability or to reduce expenses (see that your budet before those exmenses is over 9000, and you spend more than i ressearch worht in drag for debt alona), having high prestige or low AM makes it quite more difficult.

See that the true difference among your effective Budget and China's is on those expenses, as the Budget before them is 7000 for China and 9000 for you, while the effective one is 6300 for China and 3800 for you...

That's why I suggested to use a flat prestige modifier on internal actions, as I keep seeing absurd that more prestigious countries have more difficult to make internal actions (as you have more prestige, you have more difficulty to pay your debts or to raise your stability), but you already read Kelvin's answer...

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

Enterily another matter: I'd like to hear here more voices than just Liam's, Kelvin's and mine...

Don't be shy, sure everyone has somthing to contribute

This message was last edited by the player at 16:58, Sat 07 Oct 2017.

USA
 player, 65 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 18:02
Re: Rules Proposal 20170919
Germany:
That's why I suggested to use a flat prestige modifier on internal actions, as I keep seeing absurd that more prestigious countries have more difficult to make internal actions (as you have more prestige, you have more difficulty to pay your debts or to raise your stability), but you already read Kelvin's answer...


The thing is I can kind of understand this - this is the internal reaction of 'why do we need to reform, we're so amazing and everyone says so, why change a working formula' and that kind of thinking you get in societies that are powerful yet need reform.
The main problem I have is this in addition to low auth mods. A lower authoritarian society should be able to adapt better than a high authoritarian society. Changes to society and power structures are much easier to cope with, as a government, than for a society that relies on strict centralised control. Couple the fact that higher auth means easier ability to make changes AND gives you more money, then there isn't really much of a trade off here, its pretty much all good for high auth and all bad for low auth. The only tangible benefit I can see is the higher base growth for low auth, but again i have addressed this elsewhere

quote:
Enterily another matter: I'd like to hear here more voices than just Liam's, Kelvin's and mine...

Don't be shy, sure everyone has something to contribute


Yep, I know it can be a bit overwhelming reading the rules changes and working out what they mean for you and your country some times, but understanding what negative and positive effects of the rules are helps figure out how to improve and balance them.
I also know that the level of analysis that Lluis and Kelvin operate on can be intimidating in this thread, but they don't bite... except Kelvin when he's really in character - but since this is an OOC thread you'll be fine ;)