RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to 2300 Great Game Command Center

11:08, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Rules Discussions.

Posted by Co-GMFor group 0
Germany
player, 344 posts
Wed 11 Oct 2017
at 12:11
  • msg #354

Re: Rules Proposal 20170919

USA:
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.


I see your point, but  Imostly disagree. I guessthis is how do we see the meaning of prestige, being, as I understand it, more an international image than an internal one (this being represented more by stability).

And even if not, it would be as much a positive way "this government has taken us to where we are" as a brake for it, as you point.

OTOH, in some internal actions (as to pay debt, reduce inefficiencies, etc), I don't see why prestige should be a hindrance...


USA:
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


Again I see it different. From the rationale POV, I see that highet AM countries have greater control on the population, so are more likely to move them where they want. As I already poitned when AM was set as a basis for the internal PA actions, though, I feel that from the game balance POV this represents a true problem for low AM countries...

THose changes in society you tell that low AM would produce, are quite random, and I see them represented in the greater economic growth and lower TL costs, but ehen those changes are directed by the government (or the powers that be, that are more what players represent), things are different, as told above...
Co-GM
GM, 174 posts
Sat 4 Nov 2017
at 20:57
  • msg #355

Re: Rules Proposal 20170919

<Kinda geeking out here. Writing this from the Hayden Library of MIT! I feel like I should be building a bigger bomb, or a more powerful reactor, or a…>

>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?


Hmmm, ok, but giving a break for landed Spaceships is too complicated. That requires the GM to look into the orders of every spaceship just to see where it last ended up. It is going to be Base Maintenance for every ship, regardless of where it is.

>y, once again rules changes blowing away any long term plans.
I do not make changes to the game for laughs, I make changes to the game because I believe that they are necessary to correct some fault with the game. EVERY turn so far has seen SIGNIFICANT changes to the rules, matched by voluminous requests from players for MORE changes, namely by you Lluis. Do not expect me to ever accept the argument that rules changes are unacceptable because they ruin some long term plan of yours.

>Of course, you know English language better than myself, but shouldn't this be
>equiped instead of equipt?
and
> I guess it should say section 8.12 (MDWs) instead of 8.8 (Military Rank)

Ok, good catch, will fix.

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

An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.

>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?

I forgot, it made no difference anyways.

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

and
>How many hits they count if destroyed in 10:10? Again offensive power? Defensive one?
See section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.

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

Deletion.

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

Then they just cannot have those items.

> Combat (overall)<snip>Damage to units is ignored unless the opponent’s weapons
>can reach those units. <snip> Air Units: the part relating to air units range (e.g. Bombers 3 hexses away on Eaarth may participate).<snip>or is the damage ignored and
>the carrier planes immune to SAM and other AA fire?<snip> ASAT

That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of today’s rules proposal)

> While I understand the reasons for the Earth map change, I frankly don't like it,
The old map had to go because it bears little resemblance to the rules and the current political climate. Which hexes exactly does the Azerbaijan currently cover? Can Russia now directly attack Persia through the Caucuses? Does hex H25 count as Mountains or Land? Is the Land or Water or Ice modifier applied to the mineral potential of a mine in hex E07? Is there an adjustment to the range of things because the hexes of the old map cover a physically smaller area than those expected for a size 8 world? Etc, ect, ect. That old map had to go.

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

I had already made a number of changes that modify the importance of Auth Score, it is a very deeply imbedded thing that I refuse to move any other way but cautiously, but the most relevant change is the change to cost of economic tech upgrades in today's rules proposal.
This message was last edited by the GM at 00:15, Sun 05 Nov 2017.
Co-GM
GM, 175 posts
Sat 4 Nov 2017
at 21:13
  • msg #356

Rules Proposal 20171103

-Change to: In each round of Quick Combat, each side has a turn at being the Attacker, makes QC flow better with the rest of the rules. A Military Base facility need not be inside a Settlement’s borders. Economic tech levels of Core Settlements are on a per Settlement basis, not national. Formula for calculation of the tech level of a Colony Settlement, made possible to more accurately calculate from just the spreadsheet. How modifiers to a revolt and size of the military of a Settlement in revolt is calculated, now possible to more accurately calculate using just a spreadsheet. Spaceship maintenance requirement is always Base. How Aggressive production works to make it able to be properly calculated in the spreadsheet.

-The introduction of:

-Made clearer: How to use the HEAVEN & EARTH software.

-Rebalancing to: Return to original combat results table, giving more advantage to the Attacker. Formula and Base for Interface Uplift/Downlift, made more consistent with rest of rules. Cost of tech upgrades with Authoritarian Score.

-Got rid of: Another round of removing from the Settlement_List file nations too small to ever affect the game. No need to declare a Client state such, it happens upon the right numerical conditions.
USA
player, 66 posts
Sat 4 Nov 2017
at 22:37
  • msg #357

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Co-GM:
( GDP, unadjusted) X (Target level)2 X (Authoritarian Score of the Settlement)2 X 2 (# of decimal increases)/ (50 000 000)


Just a very quick scan but I'm pretty sure you've got the number of 0s in the last amount wrong? Otherwise tech for me goes from costing over $1000 to $5?
Co-GM
GM, 176 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 00:08
  • msg #358

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

In reply to USA (msg # 357):

Ack! Yes, I had not updated the text with my latest formula. The divisor should be 2 500 000.
Germany
player, 345 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 02:29
  • msg #359

Rules Proposal 20171103

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 356):

Also some skip reading:

7.9.2:
 I see you changed the formula for interface uplift and downlift, with a net result of reducing it (despite raising the base) once TL reaches 8.7, more so as the TL increases:

  • At TL 9 the average is about 85% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 9.5 the average is about 61% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 10 the average is about 42% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 10.5 the average is about 29% of the uplift previous formula gave
  • At TL 11 the average is about 19% of the uplift previous formula gave


Is this reduction (relative to current) intentional?

And I guess in the case of deadfall, you didn't upgrade right the base, as it is equal or lower than the former one, unlike all others.

8.7.2.

Bombers (both, planes and Airships) are said that May attack with a WMD tipped (see section 8.12) Base Combat Strength of 15 if part of an Attacking force in a combat which includes Ground or Naval units. Do I read it wrong or as it is writen they cannot attack alone (nor in combination with space units) with WMD?
Germany
player, 346 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 03:21
  • msg #360

Re: Rules Proposal 20170919

Co-GM:
>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?


Hmmm, ok, but giving a break for landed Spaceships is too complicated. That requires the GM to look into the orders of every spaceship just to see where it last ended up. It is going to be Base Maintenance for every ship, regardless of where it is.


So I understand they will need only 1 SU, but in orbit. I don't see the complication you say, at least no more than keeping their location at the begining of any turn (after all it's only write its location as XXX hex or Orbit hex), and yet it makes it quite more difficult to keep them supplied.

And, as I said, from the rationale POV, ships use to be supplies in port, not out of it, and if the ship is going on and of its base spaceport, I keep believeing it should be able to be supplied there...

Co-GM:
>y, once again rules changes blowing away any long term plans.
I do not make changes to the game for laughs, I make changes to the game because I believe that they are necessary to correct some fault with the game. EVERY turn so far has seen SIGNIFICANT changes to the rules, matched by voluminous requests from players for MORE changes, namely by you Lluis. Do not expect me to ever accept the argument that rules changes are unacceptable because they ruin some long term plan of yours.


In fact, I guess lately I'm more suggesting rules maintaining than changing, But I concede I am the most vocal (at least openly, I cannot tell about what you receive in PMs) on it.

But I'm afraid not only my long term plans are affected, as US seemed to also be.

Fact is that plans for over the turn in play are nearly sure to have to be alteres because of rules changes, and space plans are the ones more affected, to the point that what I planned for next turn is unlikely to be possible just for this reason.

Co-GM:
>As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using
>PAs to increase the # of rounds

An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.

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

and
>How many hits they count if destroyed in 10:10? Again offensive power? Defensive one?
See section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.


I'm afraid I cannot find any such answers in the 10.11 of the version 20171103 of the rules.

Are you sure they are in this section (I had not yet time to read all them in deep)?

Co-GM:
> Combat (overall)<snip>Damage to units is ignored unless the opponent’s weapons
>can reach those units. <snip> Air Units: the part relating to air units range (e.g. Bombers 3 hexses away on Eaarth may participate).<snip>or is the damage ignored and
>the carrier planes immune to SAM and other AA fire?<snip> ASAT

That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of today’s rules proposal)


please, what rule are you refering to, aside from the paragraphs and sentences? If you mean 10:11 (as we were talking about), I cannot see the answers on it...
This message was last edited by the player at 22:27, Mon 13 Nov 2017.
Saudi Arabia
player, 37 posts
Sun 5 Nov 2017
at 03:26
  • msg #361

Re: Rules Proposal 20170919

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 355):

Co-GM:
>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?

I forgot, it made no difference anyways.


I may accept you forgot about it, but, please, don't say it made no difference, as it meant another round of combat (with the SU costs being what they are) and that IC survived as entity (with its combat power divided by 5, so being under 1, it would have been eliminated in WR3 and IC would have been conquered then).

EDIT: Just to be clear: I don't say this will have finished IC as NPC, just as settlement. It would keep being a problem, and finishing it would still require political action to root out terrorist cells and defeat it ideologically.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:06, Sun 05 Nov 2017.
Russia
player, 31 posts
Tue 7 Nov 2017
at 10:09
  • msg #362

Rules Proposal 20171103

In reply to Co-GM (msg # 356):

quote:
Cost of tech upgrades with Authoritarian Score.


Well, that new rule increases Russian tech program cost by whooping $1700+ (despite that I invest into research more than any Russia player ever before, and still Russia falls behind in TL comparing to all space-capable countries).

While I agree that in theory this rule adds balance to the game, I would propose delaying this rule for a turn or two so I could arrange preparations and soften impact.
Germany
player, 347 posts
Wed 8 Nov 2017
at 17:15
  • msg #363

Rules Proposal 20171103

quote:
6.4:

Being a ‘Petro-state’ causes a lot of problems, so having Oil SRU production exceed what is consumed by more than 50% will reduce the Stability of a Settlement.


While I understand your point here, see that this will include Nordic Federation, that I guess it's not the case. It also could discourage dome contries that might border this treshold to reduce its oil consume, and the effect of including coal and fisibles into it is yet to be seen (and goes against this statmen of 'petro-state').

I'd suggest to change this consideration made on the oil production in relation to needs for the percentage (to be determined) of GDP that comes from oil and oil overcosts they charge (as those overcosts are likely to bring more corruption).
This message was last edited by the player at 17:45, Wed 08 Nov 2017.
Germany
player, 348 posts
Wed 8 Nov 2017
at 18:00
  • msg #364

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Russia:
In reply to Co-GM (msg # 356):

quote:
Cost of tech upgrades with Authoritarian Score.


Well, that new rule increases Russian tech program cost by whooping $1700+ (despite that I invest into research more than any Russia player ever before, and still Russia falls behind in TL comparing to all space-capable countries).

While I agree that in theory this rule adds balance to the game, I would propose delaying this rule for a turn or two so I could arrange preparations and soften impact.


Where do you take those $1700+ from?

According to my spreadsheets, numbers would be (assuming unadjusted GDP to be your current $33150 with your increase of 1.24, so $41106):

To raise biology from 7.3 to 7.4 (your cheapest):
  • former formula: 41106 x 7.42 x 17 (AM) x 21 /150000 = 511
  • New fçormula: 41106 x 7.42 x 172 x 21 /2500000 = 521



To raise electronics from 8.2 to 8.3 (your average):
  • former formula: 41106 x 7.32 x 17 x 21 /150000 = 642
  • New fçormula: 41106 x 7.32 x 172 x 21 /2500000 = 655 


To raise space from 8.5 to 8.6 (your highest):
  • former formula: 41106 x 8.62 x 17 x 21 /150000 = 690
  • New fçormula: 41106 x 8.62 x 172 x 21 /2500000 = 703


So, the true effect is about a 2% increase for an AM of 17, and far from the 1700+ you said...
Germany
player, 349 posts
Wed 8 Nov 2017
at 19:42
  • msg #365

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

In fact, according my spreasheets, the cost on current rules as percentage of former ones, according AM, is:
  • AM 9===> 54%
  • AM 10==> 60%
  • AM 11==> 66%
  • AM 12==> 72%
  • AM 13==> 78%
  • AM 14==> 84%
  • AM 15==> 90%
  • AM 16==> 96%
  • AM 17==> 102%
  • AM 18==> 108%

Russia
player, 32 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 09:46
  • msg #366

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

In reply to Germany (msg # 364):

quote:
Where do you take those $1700+ from?


According to rules 20170124 dividor was 200 000, not 150 000 in your calculations.

"(Combined GDP, unadjusted) X (Target level) 2 X (Authoritarian Score of the nation) X 2 (# of decimal increases) / (200 000)"

So I had for TL upgrade 8.3-8.5 the following:
40 000 x 8.5^2 x 17 x 2^2 / 200 000 = 982

now I would have:
40 000 x 8.5^2 x 17^2 x 2^2 / 2 500 000 = 1 336

which is +36%
USA
player, 67 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 10:11
  • [deleted]
  • msg #367

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

This message was deleted by the player at 10:12, Thu 09 Nov 2017.
Germany
player, 350 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 12:59
  • msg #368

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Russia:
In reply to Germany (msg # 364):

quote:
Where do you take those $1700+ from?


According to rules 20170124 dividor was 200 000, not 150 000 in your calculations.

"(Combined GDP, unadjusted) X (Target level) 2 X (Authoritarian Score of the nation) X 2 (# of decimal increases) / (200 000)"

So I had for TL upgrade 8.3-8.5 the following:
40 000 x 8.5^2 x 17 x 2^2 / 200 000 = 982

now I would have:
40 000 x 8.5^2 x 17^2 x 2^2 / 2 500 000 = 1 336

which is +36%


Well, I based my numbers on rules 20170919 (the last proposal), where divisor was reduced to 150000 but theoretical TLs were delted (of course, this only applied to higher TLs, as lower ones were well under theoretical ones already achieved).
Germany
player, 351 posts
Thu 9 Nov 2017
at 16:35
  • msg #369

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

See that if you add the theoretical TL raising, you should add about $175/level, and, as you're raising 2 levels, it would add about 350 (that must be in a previous turn, BTW), so the net effect (once the treshold of current theoretical TL is reached) is quite less (about 1332 vs 1336).
USA
player, 68 posts
Sun 12 Nov 2017
at 23:15
  • msg #370

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

In reply to Germany (msg # 369):

Just to confirm - the mapping software seems to work fine for me
Co-GM
GM, 177 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 04:58
  • msg #371

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

>Bombers (both, planes and <snip>. Do I read it wrong or as it is writen they cannot
>attack alone (nor in combination with space units) with WMD?

Will clarify: The Defending force must include Ground or Naval

>>>As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using
>>>PAs to increase the # of rounds
>>An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.
>I'm afraid I cannot find any such answers in the 10.11 of the version 20171103 of the rules.

That paragraph doubles number of attacks which can occur in a Turn, doubles the potential losses of territory and units in a Turn.

>> That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of
>>today’s rules proposal)
>please, what rule are you refering to, aside from the paragraphs and sentences?
>If you mean 10:11 (as we were talking about), I cannot see the answers on it.

10.11 Those sentences reference that the GM sorts out all such special cases if the GM chooses to make an exception to the regular procedure for these cases.

>>>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?
>>I forgot, it made no difference anyways.
> please, don't say it made no difference,
You guys choose to make an attack with the expensive to maintain forces that you had which had overwhelming odds even with my mistake ... and I wrote sec 1.3 par#2 & 1.2 par#4 for good reason. It makes no difference.

>this rule adds balance to the game, I would propose delaying this rule for a turn
>or two so I could arrange preparations and soften impact

No. Russia has gotten away with a significant advantage in tech cost for a long enough time already.
Germany
player, 352 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 17:04
  • msg #372

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Co-GM:
>Bombers (both, planes and <snip>. Do I read it wrong or as it is writen they cannot
>attack alone (nor in combination with space units) with WMD?

Will clarify: The Defending force must include Ground or Naval


Then no strategic bombing (targeting enemy infrastructure), nor attacks to air bases without surface units is allowes with MDWs (while they are with conventional weapons) by bombers (but they are for missiles)?

I'd suggest to just delete the part ot the sentence refering to the need of ground/naval units to be present (on any side), so leaving just: May attack with a WMD tipped (see section 8.12) Base Combat Strength of 15 if part of an Attacking force in a combat where the Defender includes Ground or Naval units


Co-GM:
  >>>As rules stand, it keeps impossible to conquer a country in a turn without using
>>>PAs to increase the # of rounds
>>An obsolete concern, see section 10.11 paragraph#2 of the new version.
>I'm afraid I cannot find any such answers in the 10.11 of the version 20171103 of the rules.

That paragraph doubles number of attacks which can occur in a Turn, doubles the potential losses of territory and units in a Turn.


As long as the other side (the one with less than 1:10 ratio) also atacks, which will be quite stupid on its part...

If it does not, the problem remains as it was. The main problem on this (as well as in the carrier/escort problem I told about in post 336 this same thread( is that the losses depend on the own forces, being counted as a percentage of them, and so having more forces will increase your losses (if any), while minimal forces will reduce it to a point where it's disadvantageous for a side to have more forces than strictly needed.

Co-GM:
>> That is what is covered by section paragraph#3, sentence#2 and paragraph#2 sentence#3 (of
>>today’s rules proposal)
>please, what rule are you refering to, aside from the paragraphs and sentences?
>If you mean 10:11 (as we were talking about), I cannot see the answers on it.

10.11 Those sentences reference that the GM sorts out all such special cases if the GM chooses to make an exception to the regular procedure for these cases.


But clear rules make easier for the GM to resolve it without having to resort to arbitrary (and surely difficult to accpet for someone) decisions.

Frankly, I don't like the changes you made on carriers, as they make them quite vulnerable to attack and devoids them of their own raison d'être.

Carriers main particularities on real world are:
  • They don't risk themselves to attack (or do it to a lesser extent tan other units), being in fact just mobile bases for their planes.
  • They give more flexibility, as their air units may be used from land if they are damaged or ground bases exist
  • Their air groups give them a good defense, aside from a forcé projection (attack) capability)
  • They may well lose their planes while being themselves unscrached (so having more air groups might be a strategy).
  • Their air groups may vary according to needs (e.g. more helos or airships instead of planes)
  • OTOH, they are more expensive to build and maintain, as you need also to build and maintain their air groups.

None of this is represented in the new rules, while all was well represented in the older ones.

OTOH, I see this change well applied on boomers (SSBs), as they are in fact missile mobile and stealthy missile launching platforms, and hteir missiles are just offensive weapons.
Saudi Arabia
player, 38 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 17:24
  • msg #373

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Co-GM:
>>>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?
>>I forgot, it made no difference anyways.
> please, don't say it made no difference,
You guys choose to make an attack with the expensive to maintain forces that you had which had overwhelming odds even with my mistake ... and I wrote sec 1.3 par#2 & 1.2 par#4 for good reason. It makes no difference.


I understand this, and I begun my post by stating that I accepted it, never claiming that it should be fixed. I just pointed that the fact the war was extended another WR and will keep this turn made a difference on hte mistake (BTW, not only yours, as none of us relized it after WR3, as otherwise it would not hae repeated on WR4).
Germany
player, 353 posts
Wed 22 Nov 2017
at 18:05
  • msg #374

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

NOTE: As I have just realized you posted new oficial rules, which I have not yet read (but I guess no major changes will be, aside some errata fixing, as you use to comment the major changes), all what is written in this post would not be for immediate use, but only more ideas for your mind to chew for future turns.

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

Germany:
If it does not, the problem remains as it was. The main problem on this (as well as in the carrier/escort problem I told about in post 336 this same thread( is that the losses depend on the own forces, being counted as a percentage of them, and so having more forces will increase your losses (if any), while minimal forces will reduce it to a point where it's disadvantageous for a side to have more forces than strictly needed.


I know it's easy to criticize without offering alternatives, so, risking being even more accused of being the one that suggests more changes (or returning to older rules, and always trying not to affect too much long term plans on the suggestions), here I give you another suggestion I've been outlining for some time. I guess it should require more polishing (and probably some adapting of initiative and maybe some other combat rules details), but I think (I may well be wrong) that would not really affect players too much, though it would significantly change the combat system.

I guess it would work better with the suggestions I gave in post #330 this same thread (forfeiting specific unit QR and using only MR), but I think they will also work with current ones.


Germany:
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.


Alternative combat resolution system

This system is (I guess) more simple but more dice heavy (though not by much), and would solve most of the problems I pointed in former threads. It might require some modifications on the initiative for detailed combat system:

All combat power numbers are calculated as they are now, but, instead of using a table, just roll 2d-2, add modifiers (up to +8 or -8), and multiply it by 5 (by 1 if QCR are used) to read it s percentage of your own combat power delivered as losses. Of course, both sides roll for this. No minimum 1 unit applies.

DMs:
  • + enemy MR
  • -own MR
  • +/- TL differential/0.2
  • +2 WMD are used
  • Needless to say, any DM the GM feels necessary to represent specific situations (surprise, et.)


Results below 0 are 0. There’s no upper limit

Example 1 (detailed combat): Country A is MR1, Mil-ground 8.4 and has 2 elite armor brigades attacking Country B, that is MR3 and Mil-Ground TL 7.6 and has 4 experienced armor brigades and 4 experienced mechanized brigades. No WMD are used.

Country A combat power is 2 x 5 x 8.4^2 x 2, so 1411.2 (rounded to 1411) combat points.

Country B combat power is (4 x 5 + 4 x 3) x 7.6^2, so 1848.32 (rounded to 1848) combat points.

DMs are +3 -1 + (0.8/0.2), so +6 for Country A and -6 for Country B.

Country A rolls 10, modified to 16, so delivers 80% damage. Damage for Country B units is 1411 x 80%, so 1128.8 (rounded to 1129) combat points. As each Country B armor brigade is worth 288.8 combat points (433.2, rounded to 433 after armor effect), 2 such brigades are CD and 263 combat points are left. As each mech brigade is worth 173.28 (225.26, rounded to 225 after armor effect) combat points, one is CD and the remaining 38 points are discarded.

Country B rolls 7, modified to 1. So delivers 10% samage. Damage for country A is 1848 x 10%, so 184.8 (rounded to 185) combat points. As each Country A armor brigade is worth 705.2 (1058.4, rounded to 1058 after armor effect) combat points, no damage is accrued (though they may be kept, if the GM so decides).

Example 2(QCR): an MR2, TL 7.8 country attacks with 2 green armor brigades, 4 experienced mech brigades and 5 veteran MR air units against a MR4, TL 7.2 NPC with a force of 50 SBC. No WMD are used.

Total player force is (2 x 5 + 4 x 3 + 5 x 3) x 7.8^2, so 3467 CPs

Total NPC force is 50 x 7.2^2, so 2592 CPs.

DMs are +/-2 per MR and +/- 3 per TL, so +/- 5.

Player rolls 7, as DM is +5, final result is 12 so delivering 12% damage. NPC’s losses are 3467 x 12%, so 416 CPs. As each SBC is worth 51 CP, 8 SBCs are lost.

NPC also rolls a 7, as DM is -5, final result is 2, so delivering 2% damage. Player’s losses are 2592 x 2%, so 52 CP. As the weakest unit (MR air or mech) is worth 182 CP. No losses are accrued.


For detailed combat, if one side delivers more damage than needed to leave all enemy units CD, excess damage keeps on those CD units, fully destroying them.

Example: a force composed by 2 experienced, TL 7.0 MR air units accrues 350 CPs damage. As each unit is worth 3 x 7^2 x 1.15, so 169 CP, both are damaged and 22 points remain. As now each unit is worth 16 CP damage, one of them is fully destroyed, and the remaining 6 points are lost.

Any unit with BCS 0 resists damage as if its BCS was 1 and armor was U.

Example: to damage (leave idled) a TL 8 GPS network, you need to deliver it 64 CPs as damage.

Strategic bombing:

Air bombers (be them planes or airships), missiles (ICBMs and IRBMs) and spaceships may perform strategic bombing, attacking civilian targets on an enemy hex. If so, only SAM MR planes (if bombers attack) and ABMs (if missiles or spaceships attack) defend against them. They roll for damage as usual (representing general accuracy), and any damage they receive from defenses are subtracted from the damage done (aside from damaging them if able to, mainly for air units). Final damage is doubled for collateral damages, but no enemy unit is damaged.

Example: a bomber planes wing and two bomber planes squadrons (MR 3 and TL 8) perform Strategic bombing against a hex that has 6 SAM units (MR 1 and TL 8). No WMD are used. Total DMs are -2 for the bombers and +2 for the defenders, and combat strengths are 2240 for the bombers and 1920 for the defenders. The attacker rolls 9, for a final result of 7, so delivering 35% damage (2240 x 35% = 784 CP damage). The defender rolls 3, for a final result of 5, so delivering 25% damage (1920 x 25% = 480 CP damage). As each bomber squadron is worth 416 CP, one is CD, and the bomber’s damage is reduced to 784-480 = 304 CP. Those 304 CPs are doubled to 608. If it was a colony hex, this would destroy 2 pop and 2 facilities. On a core world, this would not be enough to have any real effect.

Optional:

Any natural 12 (or any modified 16+) means an additional 1d6-1 is added to result, repeating it if a 6 is rolled (so giving open ended results).
This message was last edited by the player at 22:05, Thu 23 Nov 2017.
Germany
player, 354 posts
Wed 29 Nov 2017
at 15:10
  • msg #375

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Germany:
Alternative combat resolution system

Why this suggested change?

IMHO, it avoids most of the problems we now face:

  • No more undestroyable units
  • No more leving troops behind (if they don't hange the odds) as they would only add to your own losses, if any. Now each factor might count.
  • No major changes to military/combat system. Most of the rules are compatible (though, as said, some changes may be necessary, mostly on initiative if detailed combat is to be used).


Thoughts? oppinoons? doubts? suggerences?

Don't be shy, your opinion and suggerences are important (at least for me, I guess also for Kelvin).
Germany
player, 357 posts
Sun 21 Jan 2018
at 15:04
  • msg #376

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

To keep with the example:

According the settlement table, IC has now reinforces itself up to 10 Sum of BC. Let’s imagine the coalition attacks it with strength enough to achieve 10:1 odds (so achieving a  mearly assured 20% damages/WR):

  • On WR1 IC will begin with 10 BC and lose 20% (so 2)
  • On WR2 IC will begin with 8 BC and lose 20% (so 1.6, rounded to 2)
  • On WR3 IC will begin with 6 BC and lose 20% (so 1.2, rounded to 2)
  • On WR4 IC will begin with 4 BC and lose 20% (so 0.8, rounded to 1)
  • On WR5 IC will begin with 3 BC and lose 20% (so 0.6, rounded to 1)
  • Etc…


So, unless IC is kind enough to also attack on a suicide odds (something I frankly don’t expect), it will take at least 8 WRs to fully destroy it, needing at least 3 PAs and 5 SU/unit per turn (while IC has no supply problems, so being able to keep it for as long as it lasts).

Again: how can one full destroy the enemy to occupy its territory this way?

And of course, the carriers’ problem remains. In a combat among two carrier units, the one attacking first wins, as it will fight with 6 BC against 1, and this defending will be quartered if 10:11 is not in force, as it is a surface unit attacked by an air one…

Co-GM:
-Rebalancing to: Return to original combat results table, giving more advantage to the Attacker.


There must be an error here…

When comparing it with the one in rules 20170124 (the last oficial ones) I don’t see any advantage to attacker in the tables change. Quite opposite to that, they increase in most odds the attacker’s losses while reducing defender’s…
Germany
player, 358 posts
Mon 22 Jan 2018
at 11:38
  • msg #377

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

I apologize beforehand for this post, as I know you will not like it, and I really hoped you will change your mind in several points after reading our comments (mostly Liam’s and mine) and I’d never have to release it, but I’m afraid I’ll fail on all you if I don’t now.

I see very few improvements in the new rules when comparing them to 20170124 (the last official ones), as I see few solutions to the problems we had and add quite a lot of new ones. Note that in my analysis I will not follow the rules structure (by chapters and points), but I will talk about specific subjects that are usually affected by more than one of the rules’ chapters (most of it has already been pointed in former posts):

Bookkeeping and organization of the turn: While you made some changes on it, I don’t see problems on it, and the standardized orders may even be an improvement, as they mean little problems to the players and probably simplifies GM’s work. I must wait for the budget spreadsheets to be able to fully comment this, but I don’t expect problems on it (to now, Your changes on spreadsheets have been mostly, it not outright all, positive).

Oil and SRUs: I don’t see any advantage on the new system, while I see some problems with it. Aside from the change of definition, that, after your last answer, I see only as a color note (aside from removing the coal gasification and nuclear power as alternatives to oil), the fact that now oil is treated less abstractly and oil SRUs are treated as RMUs, FUs or SUs adds to bookkeeping and allows trading it in the same turn (and more profit for oil producing countries).

Example: as rules stand now, nothing will forbid Saudi Arabia from, instead of putting its oil to the open market, to sell all of it to itself at face value ($1/SRU) and then selling it to interested countries at (let’s say) $4/SRU. This way, not only will it control who receives it, but this money will go directly to its budget, not to the GDP (so, not being affected by AM).

I also keep missing the possibility of reducing the oil needs with renewables (wind, tidal, solar, geothermic, etc.), that would be akin of alternate infrastructure, but without significant downsides.

Political rules: those keep being sound. The few changes done have some interesting (though not necessarily bad) effects, though…
The change in the combat table also affects them. Not sure if this is good or bad, but is there anyway.
On the stability table, changed the modifier due to military units by a modifier based on AM, I guess assuming more AM means more state security. I like this change…
The new formula, giving less importance to relations makes it easier to influence low relations countries. Again, not sure if this is good or bad…

Military and combat: this is (IMHO) one of the most problematic areas…
  • Carriers: I already pointed (see posts # 335, 336 and 372 in his same thread) most of the problems I see In the new treatment they receive. Another problem would be (in detailed combat) which TL would they use. Mil-air? Mil-nav? Mil air when attacking and mil-nav when defending? Average among both?
  • Supply (not new to this rules set): the combat supply rules on QCR mean that we assume an elite USMC (MR1) armor brigade receives the same supplies than a Nigerian (MR3) green infantry one. As I said many times, MR represents among other things the tail-to-tooth ratio, and better MR units should cost more to supply in war than worse MR ones. I keep suggesting to return to MR dependent supply cost in QCR.
  • Combat table: the change you made clearly favors the defender. While I don’t see anything wrong on this, this is just opposite to your stated goal.
  • QCR combat: the fact of now allowing for two combat rolls per WR is likely to have also problems. First of all, it would be important to see who attacks first, mostly if there are units with different attack and defense factors (Carriers, missiles, etc), something given to GM decision without any more hint. I also foresee slowing the game, as more combat rolls would be needed. OTOH it does not solve the fact that no army can be fully destroyed as long it has more BC or units that WRs, as it is unlikely any side with a poor odds will attack (less so with the new combat table).
  • NPCs: I see their simplification to SBC as a positive change, despite the loss of detail, as it would probably speed the game and reduce the bookkeeping. I also believe that NPCs should not be immune to lack of supplies. I’m not suggesting keeping track of their supplies, just a roll (e.g. 11+ on 2d6, +1 per previous WR this turn) per WR for it to run out of supplies (unless they receive outside aid). E.g. while Saudi Arabia has to spend quite a lot on SUs if the war with Iraq is kept, Iraq would be immune to it as rules stand, despite needing (as last turn description) about 135 SUs/round to supply its army and having a GDP of just $138…
  • New combat factors: even at risk of being seen as a pest, I must insist in the lack of use for ABMs and Missile Defense Satellites with the new WMD factors (and even so I agree with those increased WMD combat values), making them not cost-effective at all. It was yourself who once said that every unit should have a use, and now they have not. I also must insist in the inefficiency of MR air units when compared with bombers, as even in detailed combat rules they have no advantage over them in air combat.
  • I keep asking how to damage combat factor 0 units (as the satellites, if attacked), as even a 100% damages would mean 0 damage points (see post #335 this same thread)


Space:
this is probably the other more conflictive area. The increased orbital supply needs, mostly when the lowered uplift capacities are accounted for, will put any space development to a halt. Germany’s uplift needs just for supply what it has now have gone from 1 SU (5000 tonnes) for its facilities around Earth to 6 SU (3 for ships, 1 for OT in Earth, 1 for OT in Mars, 1 for Earth orbit facilities, so 30000 tonnes, 5000 of them must be moved to Mars) due to the changes, while its uplift capacity (as it is now TL 8.8) has been lowered from 5955 tonnes (1985/rocket) to 5415 (1805/rocket) due to new formula. In the US case, its needs have raised from 1 Su (5000 tonnes) for its facilities on Earth orbit to 6 SU (2 for ships, 1 each for OT on Earth, Luna and Ceres and 1 for facilities on Earth orbit so 30000 tonnes, 5000 of them must be moved to Ceres), and its uplift capacity (space TL 8.7) has been lowered from 24766 (1769/rocket) to 23954 (1711/rocket). So in both cases they have gone from being able to supply their projects to having to build more rockets just for this goal.

While the OTs supplies changes, while disturbing, may be given some logic, in the case of the ships, IMHO, it has not even this logic, as ships (be them sea or, probably, space) use to be supplied in ports, not is it consistent with other units that are supplied in the hex they begin the turn. They also forfeit the main advantage for a ship to be able to land (the other advantage, being able to unload cargo, is reduced when you cannot use them to land on a planet unless it already has a spaceport).

OTOH, the forfeiting of the OT support needs would help somewhat (after lobbying for it for several turns, I won’t, of course, complain for it). I also like the appearance of the space colony facility.

Of course, the need now to upload facilities in full in a single turn makes the largest facilities quite difficult to deploy, mostly as they cannot be uplift with catapults (something I understand). I don’t believe the reduced bookkeeping for this is worth the difficulty it implies to deploy them (after all, paraphrasing you in another thing, it’s players’ bookkeeping, not GM’s).

In resume:

I’m afraid most those rules (mostly military and space ones) will bog down the game, as the most active players in space exploration (US an Germany) would have to halt it while changing the plans  and retooling their assets (I hope not to see how new rules changes make it all useless again), while on the military front supply problems and difficulty to ever win a war will eternize inconclusive wars (that, OTOH, slow the game quite a while), and the SRUs situation becomes even more messed.

So, I ask (even beg) you to reconsider some of those changes before they take real effect and bog down the game even more than real life already does it. I guess we’ll need some time (I hope not too much) for the new players to understand the game and be up to date, and it can also be used for it.

Believe me when I say I hate my own conclusions, and really hope to be wrong in most of them, but, as said, I think I’ll fail to you all (and to the game itself) if I shut down my mouth now.

And, again, let me encourage other players to freely give their opinions. There are many points where Kelvin and myself disagree, and probably the best option is somewhat in between, and other players’ opinion may help us all to find it.
This message was last edited by the player at 11:46, Mon 22 Jan 2018.
Germany
player, 359 posts
Fri 2 Feb 2018
at 18:20
  • msg #378

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Some more (and old) suggestions

One of the older complains I’m making about the game is the lack of response capacity players have to events. As the Budget must be fully defined at the beginning of the turn, once things begin to happen the only possible responses are to use response PAs (that must be bought before you know if you need them, so sometimes leading to more PAs that really intended) or to give a military response, probably becoming low of supplies (as any military action is very expensive on them).

That’s why I insist in this point:

Germany:
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?


I keep thinking that the change in rules is minimal for the advantages in game flexibility and reaction capability it gives to players.

As rules stand now, players are encouraged to spend all their money in the budget at the beginning o the turn, as anything else would need GM permission (aside from being more expensive). Then, when you find that some PA is said to require more effort (money) or some ally does not act as accorded (be it for omission, for not solving his turn, or whatever reason), you cannot do anything until next turn, having null reaction capacity. This also forces players to buy response PAs  before it is known if they will be needed, or to risk having no reation capacity (or having to indebt themselves heavily for next turn)-

From the rationale point, it’s logical to think that some money might be kept as reserve for just those cases, and that SUs are built along the whole turn as needed (or as decided to increase the reserve), as are PAs.  See the example I gave about Canada actions last turn.

Asteroid belts:

I keep feeling that the fact they are treated as a single hex for the multiple facilities exploiting them is too limiting and has no rationale under it. Asteroid Belts are very extensive, and have very different RMUs sources.

Again, when you compare Vesta (530 km diameter), that can have literally hundreds of mining facilities without such reduction, scores of them even with the bonus terrain may give, so making it quite richer than the rest of the Asteroid Belt…

So, I keep suggesting to forfeit the divisor for more Asteroid Mining Facilities working on the same Asteroid Belt.

Suggested clarification:

09 (spaceships) point 4 (Landings and Transport):

quote:
Paragrpah 3: Spaceships that currently have ‘Reserve’ Quality level may not move between surface and Orbit hex unless World Size is 0, R or S.


I understand that they can though move from Orbit to a surface hex (after all, you allowed the damaged Bahnbrecher to land to be repaired., as otherwise no ship could be repaired until the Orbital Shipyards appear), albeit with no cargo (as they can carry none, being reserve quality). Just asking for this to be specified in the rules.
Sign In