Security troops have changed from earlier versions. Now they have no advantage against MR4 settlements, nor to avoid revolts (as AM takes care of this now).

So, what advantage gives now this ability to make it worth the extra money?

Sorry to bump this old question, but depending on how the turn develops it might be important:



Even more. Let's imagine the conflict in Western Iraq involves Saudi Arabia attacking the Canadian satellites.

1) Would Canadian OT be involved on it?

• According the rules, yes, as it is also in the Orbit hex, where the combat would be.
• OTOH, from the non-rules POV, if the OT is in a geosynchronous position over Canada, the Saudis could not attack it, and if it is orbiting Earth, the Saudis would have the choice by choosing the moment of attack.
• Also, depending on how we read the rules,  Canada could probably use their air force to defend the orbit hex, as they are also adjacent to it, but that would allow Saudi and Canadian fighters to fight among them from their respective countries, something that I see as quite odd, rules aside…

So, in game terms I see three possibilities:

1. Yes, OT is also involved, as it is in the same Orbit hex
   
2. Only if any of the involved sides so decides, as any of them can involve it, regardless the other side’s will
   
3. Only if both parts do decide, as any of them can avoid involving it, regardless the other side’s will

2) Could RCAF intervene from Canada?

According the letter of the rules,  Canada could probably use their air force to defend the orbit hex, as they are also adjacent to it, but that would allow Saudi and Canadian fighters to fight among them from their respective countries, something that I see as quite odd, rules aside…

3) (as in the original question): how would Canadian losses be applied (assuming QCR are in force)?

According 10:11:
I guess there’s an errata there, and it should be “facilities without a combat strength” or “facilities with 0 combat strength” instead of “facilities with a combat strength”, while facilities with a combat strenght are treated as military units, as it has little sense otherwise…

So, I understand if the OT intervenes, it would depend on the combat results, If Canada takes any losses, it losses the OT and the satellites are idled, and if the OT does not intervene, the satellites are automatically idled.

If that is right, though, then the OT, having a combat factor, is more fragile than the satellites. That have not, as the former is destroyed and the latter are just idled.

OTOH, what if the satellites are already idled (e.g. being attacked for second time)? I guess they would be outright destroyed, but I don’t find that in the rules…

And a final question, though I guess this will not be for this turn. According 10:11:
How does this apply to Orbit hex? As a core settlement (as it is on one) or as a colony settlement (as it is composed by facilities, not by Core hexes)?

(BTW, see the errata marked In red)

From History 2045 - 2049 Section in the HP:



While I know the spceific way ro reduce oil needs is (to a point) irrelevant (the important point is which option are you using), can oil needs be reduced by forcusing in nuclear power with the new rules where fisibles are counted among oil SRUs?

Tha's the same as trying to use coal gasiication, now that coal is also counted among SRUs...

In reply to Germany (msg # 406):

This is honestly more a flavour thing, and as you say is irrelevant to a point, but if you need an exact reasoning behind why this would work then consider a smaller amount of nuclear fuel compare to hydrocarbons is needed to produce a comparable amount of power - thereby reducing the SRU usage

On your question about combat - I am afraid I am going to have to defer that to Kelvin.
This message was last edited by the GM at 10:50, Sun 13 May 2018.

Well, this reasoning may fail when you considere fisibles use to be more expensive tan oil proper, and (for the mass) they require quite more shielding, so probably making them equivalent in game terms (and I understand this is the basis of new rules too).

But, in any case, as you say it's just flavour than true game effect .



That's OK, I can wait.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:57, Sun 13 May 2018.

<Germany>>I was reviewing US Budget. It has 3 settlements, Continental US (to give it a distinguising name), Alaska and Hawaii.
>
>As rules stand, I guess US player could raise Alaskan TLs to the macimum allowed
You think this is an exploit? I can think of several severe problems with doing this, but it is not my place to point out exactly what they are, only to laugh when somebody tries.

<USA>>>So when does the nation gain the benefits of having the increased tech level for different things?
<Germany>>the whole turn is resolved with the initial values
Exactly, the Settlement_List file will only be reissued between turns, not every time there is a single change. Section 3.2 par#4 exists so we do not have to go through the extreme effort and complexity of dividing a turn into many 'impulses'

>I miss the sentence forbiding to move a facility once placed. Did I skip it, did you forget it or this rule is no longer in force?
I took that out a long time ago as I figured that it was more than a little implied already in the wording of the rest of the rules that we did not need to waste the space explicitly saying it anymore. Besides, some future GM might be willing to put up with players doing that kind of shit, it just will not be me.

>Security troops have changed from earlier versions. Now they have no advantage against MR4 settlements, nor to avoid revolts (as AM takes care of this now).
I know, and this would be why Security ability is going away; an unnecessary complication, there is nothing it can do that is not duplicated by other game aspects.

> Let's assume one country has just engaged war with Argentina and decides to attack his satellites
In regular combat, the weapons of units on the surface cannot reach the orbit hex unless specifically stated in the unit’s description, so no combat in your example occurs. In Quick combat, the grouping and division of who attacks what is decided by GM fiat. The real-life plane bourne anti-satellite weapons under development are capabilities that Canada and Saudi do not have for their airforces until either also has IRBM/ICBMs units, I do not see the necessity of there having to be two different hulls just because there are two different Squadrons.

Combat is between Military units and armed facilities only. Unarmed facilities are handled by sec 10.7 paragraph#3.

No, the rules are never going to do anything that has to do with splitting the Orbit hex into smaller bits. How the players choose to role-play attacks in the Orbit hex is not the business of the GM.

>How does this apply to Orbit hex? As a core settlement (as it is on one) or as a
>colony settlement (as it is composed by facilities, not by Core hexes)?
When someone targets the Orbit hex, there will be damage to it.

>can oil needs be reduced by forcusing in nuclear power with the new rules where
>fisibles are counted among oil SRUs?
See the ‘Alternative Infrastructure’ option, representing a diversifying of a portion of a Settlement’s energy budget into whatever form is less affected by supply difficulties but still has an environmental cost. A given Oil SRU is presumably comprised of a basket of different fuels, we are not ever going to go into exactly what; for Earth, for now, the GM does not see a problem in the supply of nuclear fuel so it is currently a good role-play choice when wording your PA to reduce consumption as the GM sees it as effectively making your other Oil SRU consumption go farther.
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:28, Mon 14 May 2018.

Change to: Tech level used for calculation of mining, asteroid mining, farming, and listening posts to be that of Nearest Core. University once again impacts a colony’s tech level. What Orbital Industry does. Cost of Military Tech and Military Rank, to make sure there is a cost even if the military is very small, or zero. Performance of Spaceships depends on Military-Space, not Space tech level as Space tech can vary with the world but Military-Space does not. Supply cost, it does not help to be at a Friendly Site, the GM does not want to sort out who has permission. What a Military Base does. ‘WMD Capable’ has been renamed ‘WMD Armed’ to remove any confusion about the possibility of possession of ownership of WMDs. How altering the production of SRUs works. What is Stability Score, now it includes environmental damage.

The introduction of: Covering some likely situations to happen with Naval units: Corvettes can traverse some types of hexes, and Naval units can enter land hexes adjacent to water hexes, so now they can actually dock. What are the default actions for SRU use, namely that by default Oil is automatically consumed from stores-->this is a change from what was told to several players, but it is necessary to simplify the orders and to stay consistent with how Supply Units are consumed. SRU production varies with time, World Size and Settlement Size. Oil SRU consumption affects the Stability Score of a Settlement.

Made clearer: A Settlement Tech level is the tech level of what can be manufactured locally, not what is commonly available. How Listening Post works. What are the default actions for Supply and Oil unit use. What orders and Political Actions do NOT need to be specified. How Orbital Re-entry ability works.

Rebalancing to: The difference in tech level between a Colony and it’s nearest Core. Amount of GDP growth per tech level advancement. Supply cost, made Military Base facilities more useful. Production by Farming, Mining and Asteroid Mining Facilities and of SRU by Core Settlements.

Got rid of: $ production by Civilian and Military Shipyards, made them too powerful. Discussion on how to get started in the game has been moved to the website. Security ability, a duplicate of what is done with Political Actions, oddly it already had no specific benefit. Limitation of % of units with abilities per Military Rank, most abilities govern how a unit moves, which could have led to some strange situations e.g. only a fraction of the units on an Inhospitable world could have Inhospitable ability. That Military Rank % Quality Levels of units will be checked every turn, too much work for the GM, now only applies to building new units. Military Rank varying by Settlement, opened up too many problems. SRU Reserves and the exploration for, an underused and unneeded thing which could be brought more into line with how Mineral and Farming Potential is handled.
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:20, Mon 14 May 2018.

But formerly they were allowed to be moved by exchanging at 2:1 ratio (so Germany could remove 2 rockets from Damgarten and convert them into 1 rocket in another spaceport, to give you an example).

And orbital facilities should, IMHO, be allowed to be moved for a part of its cost and being idled for a turn (aside from the cargo capacity needed, off course) as, unlike the ground ones, they are not tied to anything.



This is quite contradictory with your reasoning of removing ASAT ability. Taken from msg #29 this same thread, when it was forfeited:



So, you first get rid of ASAT units by claiming any unit can attack them (even if by indirect means), then, when someone suggests this might be done, you forbid it because only a few units may reach orbit, and only ICBMs seem to have the capability to reach Orbit hex, so to be able to attack it you need to be WMD capable, as it’s a prerequisite to build ICBMs…

Is this right?



Then the only way to target a colony’s facilities is as collateral damage, even if there are no units (or armed facilities) in the hex. Is that right?

And if I didn’t skip any, the only facilities with a combat factor are military base, OT and ODI…



This is now moot if only ICBMs can attack orbit hex…



And can coal gasification be used too? If so, can anyone now use it or we return to the listed countries from former rules?

When I saw there were a new set of rules I though I had to swallow something I said in my former post, but I see this is not the case ;).

Now, after a skip reading of them (mostly changes, marked on green), my first impressions:

Most are clarifications and redacting, nice to have them.

SRUs: I’ll talk latter about them, as they deserve their own post...

Political actions (not a new thing):

I see changing the # of war rounds an overshoot. Being a simple action with a defense of 100 (so a final 10), anyone with a prestige of 8+ will have a nearly automatic success, and needing a full PA is, IMHO, excessive. I’d handle as increased SU cost to try.

Settlements:

TL: the initial TL is far too low. Assuming a country with TL 9.4 tries to build a colony, this colony will be TL 4.7. Assuming he builds the first heavy industry when it has 10-100 people, it will be 4.9, not enough to build even anything but roads and farming and mining facilities. And to build SUs locally you need TL 5.5, so it would rarely (if at all) be possible until you’re TL 10+. This will (again) slow space development a lot.

I also see that the production for all mining and farming facilities has been lowered quite a lot (as the divisor has been increases by 5, before square rooting it). That means the first such facility produces now 2.5 times less than before...

As per Asteroid mining, I keep seeing unfair that it is all counted as a single hex for this divisor, making it quite less rich that any S sized world with the same Mining Potential, as the S sized world has more hexes and some of them increase MP. I keep suggesting other such facilities not modifying the production, as they can easily be AUs afar.

Of course, the orbital factory needs in RMUs have also been lowered (to half previous), but the heavy industry has not, so needing more mining facilities per each one needed before...

See that for SRU mining this means (assuming a roll of 10 and it’s the first mine in a size 10 world, so the maximum minable):

• Oil: (10+10) x 10 / 2.45 = 81.6 rounded down to 81
• Pai-leng: (10+10) x 0.5 / 2.45 = 4
• Tantalum: (10+10) x 0.1 / 2.45 = 0.8, rounded down to 0

So, how can one mine tantalum?

Armed forces:

The extra for foreign deployment seems right for me, as it is expensive to keep troops out of their bases.

So I think about the changes in the Orbital Assault ability, I guess representing the jump á la Starship Troopers or paratrooper like assault (if any of you is member of CotI board, I suggest you to read the thread on this link (specifically post #5) http://www.travellerrpg.com/Co...owthread.php?t=38859 to see how I envision them in 2300AD), except for naval units. I can imagine ground troops so jumping, even AFVs being so thrown, but ships? I always thought that sending them to other worlds would be dismantled and to be assembled there...

I have dual thoughts about getting rid of security ability. While it was me who asked what advantage they have now, I thought its advantage now would be as modifier for political actions (mostly in calming people in uncontrolled countries). After all, it’s not the same to send soldiers than police (even militarized) to those spots, the army being more prone to live fire, while the police more to anti-riot tactics.  BTW, I guess that’s why the French Gendarmerie lost this ability now...

As for the maintaining of the ratios at buying units, I see it as a PITA. My usual practice was to buy units as reserve (as they would be so in the turn of buying anyway) and then upgrade them next turns as needed. I keep advocating for the individual QR being rid of, as already told before.

I keep asking why are there two sets of combat value numbers in the Taillerand example:


According the example in building ships, it should be 10/3/6/0 (10 beams, 1 each, 1 missile, adds 3, and 3 fighters, adding 2 each). Which one is the correct, and what does the other one mean?

Spaceships:

While I see logical to use the mil-space for their movement, could this be delayed to the 2055 turn? I’d see quite odd to have the ships slower in next turn (maybe even not being able to accomplish the planned trips) without anything we can do this turn to fix it.

SRUs

Forgive me to say this, but I think I must not having understood it, as otherwise I believe you messed it even more than it was.

So I tell you with an example how I understood it to work now and you please tell me what I understood wrong:

Germany will need for 2050 (assuming they grow up as GDP does and no changes occur this turn) about 450 oil SRUs.

I have 30 SRUs in storage, produce 26 and (if I accept all them) contracts to buy 260 SRUs more (at a cost of $650). So I first will spend my stored ones, then my produced ones, then the directly bought, and this will leave me with a deficit of 134 SRU.

Assuming the market is supplied at 90% (as was approximately last turn), I’d be able to buy 90% of my deficit, so about 120, leaving still 14 SRUs deficit that I have no way to cover unless I use military compulsion or golden rule (paying extra for the ones I’ve already paid extra) or go without (with the effect in my GDP growth and probably stability).

See that had I not used my stored ones as the first ones, I’d have had a deficit of 164, obtained 147 and been left with a deficit of 17, that I could have covered with my stored ones.

So, if I understood well how it does work, unless you can cover the full needs with your own production, stored and direct purchases, none of it (stored and direct purchases) have any mean, as you will still have deficit.

About the options given in 4.5.4:

• 1 infrastructure: do I read it well? Let’s see...
  
  •   US uses a PA to obtain oil. It will obtain (1d10+10 (number of hexes, discounting Alaska and Hawaii) + 8 (world size)) x 5 increased production, so next turn it will produce 95-140 SRUs more
  •   Germany uses 1 PA on it, and (having 2 hexes) next turn would produce 55-100 SRUs more. If it spends 6 Pas it will produce (on average rolls) 465 SRUs more, so becoming a net exporter....
  •   China, having 10 hexes will gain as US. As its deficit will be next turn (same assumptions than with Germany above) 153 SRUs, so with a PA or two it could overcome it..
  So, if I undertand this option right, oil will not only become scarcer as time goes, but probably be quite plentiful.
• 5)Exclusive purchase: as hinted above, if I understood the whole SRUs rules right, fully useless unless you can buy your full needs this way (something quite unlikely).
• I see all other options right, though I’d see Fusion as option 3 (same as renewables), as it is expected not to produce wastes and very efficient (though, of course, it requires some higher TL).

So, as I find many oddities here, please, tell me, what did i missunderstood?

Some more thoughts, after reading the rules deeper. As it’s too easy to criticize I try to offer suggestions to fix the problems I see:

Mining potential/farming potential:

After my comment and your answers in the Asteroid zone, some comments:

Point 2.3: Hexagons (just before the MP/FP tables):



I’d suggest you to stick on this, instead of giving a farming potential to inhospitable worlds and then modifying by -20. If you do so, one could deploy terraforming facilities on it and raise the farming potential over 1, allowing some inhospitable hexes to be farmed.


Example: let’s imagine farming potential for Moon is rolled as 16. It is modified to -4, but, RAW, each terraforming facility would raise it for that hex by 5 (10/2). As Germany has biology 8.5, I can build 5 such facilities in a hex and raise its farming potential to 20…

Of course, this is not the spirit of the rules (or at least that’s what I understand)….

Suggestion (again): to keep with the quoted sentence and adding to it No modifiers are allowed to them.


Asteroid Belts:


Some comments on them (some of them redundant, as also told about before):

1. Traveller nomenclature reserves the size code R for rings around planets (or GGs, as Saturnus ring would be or the various minor satellites Jupiter has), while Asteroid/planetoid belts are given the size code 0. SO, the Asteroid belt should be X000000-inhospitalable instead of XR00000-inhopsitalable.
   
2. They represent quite large areas, and I keep thinking they should not be considered a single hex for reduction by multiple facilities. I’d suggest to divide them in several (let’s say 12, using the clock reference) “hexes”, each adjacent to the previous and next one (and the 12 and 1 being adjacent) for combat purposes, so that they would not be so poorer than any other inhospitable world (where you have many hexes, and some of them even with positive modifiers if they are mountain hexes) in mining potential. As it is now, if Ceres rolled the same MP, it would be quite richer than the whole rest of the belt.

Shipyards



I fully disagree with you here: civilian shipyards are nearly useless, as they only serve as repair yards and to allow (at quite high cost) to build ships unable to land, while military ones only serve (aside from the civilian ones’ uses) to allow to upgun and armor ships.

Both shipyards can assemble 10000 tonnes of ship, but can only build 10 modules per turn (and for that, you have to uplift 400000 tonnes of RMUs). So, imagine we want to build the cheapest ship able to take SUs to mars (design credits to Liam):

Solar Sail ship
                           Number   Mass   Power    Cost
Unarmored (U)         10      500      0           1
Solar Sail                  9        4500      0          9
Cargo                        5        5000       0        0
               Totals:                  10000      0      10

As it has 24 modules, it would take 3 shipyard/turns to be built (in fact, 2.5, as 5 shipyards could buy modules for 2 such ships), or building the modules on surface and then uplift them (with anything else than catapults, BTW, as they are to delicate for them), so, assuming you build the cargo modules and 5 solar sail ones on the shipyard, you still need 3000 tonnes of uplift capacity to produce it in a single turn.

And trying to build in orbit a Freude or De Grass ship, having 39 and 40 modules per ship respectively, would need 4 shipyard/turns, so making quite stupid to build them in orbit. Only the 2000 tonnes Hornet, having 10 modules, could (barely) be built In a single turn by them…

You say this is too powerful?

Suggestion: return to the old way to allow 10000 tonnes of ship to be built per shipyard (while keeping the restrictions by non-military ones), regardless of the modules needed. After all, you’re sending the shipyard 400000 tonnes of RMUs, so being able to build 10000 tonnes of ship (2.5% materials efficiency) may even be too low…

Military:

While, as I said, I agree with making the maintenance of military units deployed abroad more expensive, the fact they need 10 SU per combat round seems to me outrageous.

That would mean sending a small force (let’s say 3 brigades) In support of an ally where you don’t have any base (let’s say sending German units to help NF outside the shared hex 7N12) will have an unacceptable cost.

Suggestion (already done before): return to MR dependent SU cost (to represent the higher tail-to-tooth ration of lower MPs). E.g. 5-MR SU/unit/WR, and keep the +1 for abroad deployment.

As an aside, several problems on it with RAW:

1. Should German bombers support Turkey from Germany (well inside range), that would, according the rules, cost 10 SU per unit, as the hex where combat occurs is outside Germany and Germany has no base on Turkey.
   
2. As now Hawaii and Alaska count as separate settlements from US, and no military bases are shown there, would the US units deployed there pay this overcost?

Sure more to come…

Bumping this question, as answer would be needed to plan my moves:

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 415):

> Taken from msg #29 this same thread, when it was forfeited:
???You are going to try and hold a PROPOSAL from almost 3 years ago against the CURRENT, OFFICIAL rules? Do you have any idea just how much the game has changed since then? It is almost a completely different game. What was said back then or why is not important, only the current, offical rules have any meaning.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:30, Wed 13 June 2018.

It weas not just a proposal, as the ASAT ability was forfeited under this reasoning, and under the understanding that this did not mean the orbital units or facilities were safe from any attack. If this was latter changed, please, tell me when it was and where it was specified. And if for the time (and rules sets) since then, we could discuss again many things that were left as they are by then (including other abilities).

I'm going to try to understand a specific issue in the rules according what was said the last time it was told about, be it 3, 5 or 7 years ago, when I joined the game. AFAIK, nothing else has been said about the ASAT capacities since then, and I find no reference to it in the rules, so I stick on the last discussion about it.

In any case, the question remains: which kind of units may now have ASAT capacity (if any) from a country without WMD?

Or are satelliotes and units in orbit absolutely imprevious to any attack from ground (WMD tiped ICBS aside)?

See that the ASAT systems are being studied since the 1970's...

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 417):

>which kind of units may now have ASAT capacity (if any) from a country without WMD?
The rules have been clear about this for literally years: A unit's ASTAT capacity is minutia, without something like WMD&ICBM/IRBM Saudi's ability to destroy a (orbital) facility is none, and that is all we care about.

For all we know Saudi F-15s have been launching ASM-135 type missiles at Canadian satellites since 2040 and blowing up no small number of them and maybe Canadian operators are sweating to maintain the network in the face of these losses with a large amount of the facility's maintenance SU in 2045 going towards replacement satellites, or not, it is minutia as far as the game is concerned. That level of action no more destroys a facility, a network, than shooting down 12-24 aircraft destroys a Plane Squadron. Until we go to the ridiculous detail of adding to the game elements like exact amount of Candian replacement&repair rates, the exact Candian excess capacity needed to maintain operational effectiveness, Saudi ammunition supplies, Saudi kill ratio, the exact effectiveness of all Candian counter-measures, the exact location and defensive capabilities of all Canadain ground stations, the exact effectiveness of all Saudi counter-countermeasures, and the political will needed to continue to fight over X amount of time, etc, etc...then you have to bring to the fight a lot more than a handful of ASTAT missiles to destroy a *facility*, you have to bring in something with real, dedicated capability to do that. Anything less is irrelevant to a game of this scope.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:09, Thu 14 June 2018.

I abide your decision (of course), but can you please tell me where in the rules or when in this thread was this made clear?

Maybe I skipped or missunderstood it, but what I quoted form 3 years ago was the last I read about it, and it was quite contrary to what you say now.

Otherways, please just tell us you have changed your mind (is your right as rules writter/keeper and as GM), but don't tell me is so clear.

In reply to Referee (msg # 410):

Some more comments and doubts about SRUs:

4.5.3 Pai-leng SRU:




See that regardless being defined as non-renewable, there are several renewable sources for it (orbital factories, Universities, enclaves in core worlds…).




I understand that this adding $50 (that I guess are variable as any SRU, BTW) to the settlement is optional, as they can be stored for latter selling or use. Is this right?

4.5.4.Altering Special Resource Unit Demand or Production


When it says round fractions down, does it mean for the reduction or for the remaining capacity (I’m afraid it can be read both ways)?

So, if a settlement is producing 10 SRUs, the reduction would be 0.5 SRU and the capacity would be modified to 9.5. Will it be rounded as reduction is 0.5 rounded down, so no reduction, or as 9.5 remaining capacity, rounded down to 9?

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

Obtaining Tantalum or Pai-leng:

I already told about it, but now let’s analyze it better:

According to 2.2 only 1% of the worlds will have them (at least in exploitable quantities)

On core worlds:

On Earth, by spending 1 PA you obtain (1d10+8+hexes in settlement)/20 rounded down tantalum SRUs production. That means that if the settlement is only 1 hex, you have no possibility to increase your production: if 2 hexes, you have 10% possibilities per PA to increase it by 1, with 10% more per extra hex, and your country should be at least 22 hexes to have any possibility to raise it by 2…

For Pai-leng, the divisor would be 4, so you’ll have some more possibilities…

On Colonies:

A mining facility may increase the settlement tantalum production by ((1d10+size)/10)/(5+facilities)0.5. So, for your first such facility in the hex, the divisor would be 2.45, and so the true formula would be (1d10+size)/24.5. As this is rounded to the nearest integer, you’ll need to roll at least a 13 for it to produce 1 Tantalum SRU. So it will produce it 10% of the times in a planet 3 world, with an increase of 10% possibilities per extra world size with no possibilities to produce 2 SRUs/mine. Of course, if you have more such facilities in the hex, this is even more rare… And this only if the world has it….

For pai-leng, again, possibilities are higher, as the divisor is only 2. So for the first facility I na hex, it would be (1d10+size)/4.9, making it easier…

On Asteroid Belts:

An Asteroid mining facility may produce 1d10/24.5, so no possibilities (regardless its presence in the belt or lack of it).

For Pai-leng (if it can at all be found in inhospitable worlds, as Asteroid Belts are), the formula would be 1d10/4.9, so, at least, you can produce 1-2 on the first.

And depending on how the reduction is applies, this will only last for a single turn or two, as if the reduction is rounded down on the remaining production, a production of 1 will be 0 next turn.

BTW, what happens on a mine dedicated to SRUs when the production is reduced to 0? It becomes a regular mine, or it just stops being productive, becoming a useless facility?

Just realized, but the problem comes from former sets too (no urgency on it, as I don't expect to be used for a while):

Space design/combat

Since rules proposal 20170401 the CCC module definitios no lenger says it is needed for several ships to fight together, fignting each one individually if there was not.

Yet, in 10.4 (Combat Cycle) it still talks about individual non-CCC grouped Spaceships units first, then all CCC grouped Spaceships together.

So, it's still a CCC needed for grouping ships in detailed combat?

From your last message:


What about units that are already in range (e.g. air units)?

Does this mean that if Saudi Arabia intends to reinforce its defense from the Iraqi atack the troops sent will not arrive until WR3 (see that if 10:11 was not in effect, they will reach the combat in the same WR, even while it represents less time)?
This message was last edited by the player at 11:36, Sun 24 June 2018.

About security troops:

While I understand many of thir uses have been forfeited, I still think security troops have a role in the game.

It’s true they no longer avoid revolts in own country (AM takes care of this now, I guess representin the Police at large), but what about occupied countries?

Suggestion: to keep them, with their main uses being to help avoid recolts in occupied countries/territory (where AM does not apply) and as modifiers in PAs where their capacities may be relevant.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:17, Sun 24 June 2018.

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 422):

>What about units that are already in range (e.g. air units)?
"...already in range" is a dangerously broad thing. For the Armenia vs. Turkey and Saudi vs. Iraqi conflicts alone, I am ok for now with allowing units which do not need to physically move from one hex to another to be added in the coming Round. For any other conflicts, I will give my opinion on them on a case by case basis.

When I said in range, I mostly meant air units that can attack/defend in hexes other than the one they are in. Of course, this would also include carriers and missiles, for the same reasons.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:15, Tue 26 June 2018.

From WR2 resolution in 2045-49 turn thread:



From France HP:



So, in fact the french lost 15 BFP instead of 7, more tan double...

IMHO this hows one of the main problems of Divisons. Aside from limiting your flexibility, they are more vulnerable to damage (as the "at least one unit" means a full división where they would have only 2-3 brigades...

Of course, against this there is the less bookkeeping needed, but is it worth it? I guess we will have as many answers as we have players to this...

In any case, to make divisions more attractive, I restate my suggestion of making them cheaper to maintain: 4 SUs/non-reserve División. See that as this will affect the basic SU needed, it would als oaffect any TL/MR improvement...

As a game feature, it would represent the increased efficiency of centralized supply and command, while as a metagame one it would represent an incentive to reduce bookkepping and a compensation for those problems they have.

As the turn is nearing its end (or so I understand from Kelvin statement about not being WR4 unless something unexpected happens), I guess it’s time to return to those discussions.

While I have many new (and old) suggestions,  I’ll try to limit myself to one per post, beginning with the ones I believe are more urgent (would affect game right now), and leave those that would not apply now for latter (I hope soon, but cannot promise). I will also try to always give alternatives to any rule I believe should be changed, as just criticizing them is quite easy, but leads to nowhere.

To begin, I must say there are some inconsistences among the stated goals of the rules and how they apply:

SRUs:

As stated in post 413 above, the new oil rules would lead to an oil oversupply instead to growing scarcity with time.

After so much stating you won’t accept exceptions when they can be avoided, the whole oil SRU trade is an exception, as they cannot be used on the turn they are bought, their use must be stated before knowing how many are needed, etc. I’ll talk (again) abaut this in its own post, a I believe it deserves it.

As per pai-leng, while it is defined as any small, valuable, non-renewable, physical objects that are likely to generate a great deal of scientific or cultural interest back on a Core Settlement, and yet there are at least 3 renewable sources of them: Orbital Factories, Enclave Module on a core world and Universities.

Alternative:  changing those benefits, so that pai-leng keeps as being a non-renewable source:

• Orbital Factories: return to the plain $50
• Enclave Module: not sure. Maybe a small bonus to economy (e.g. 0.5%) or to grow rate (e.g.0.01)…
• Universities. Same as research modules but to any TL research. This can be usable just for 1 of them each turn or more (even to all done this turn by the owning Country). While this latter possibily may seem too powerful, remember its cost is 16 times the one of a Research Module, and how many categories will the owning country be able to perform cutting edge research at once?

Combat:

While the sated goal when the table was changed was to give more importance to attackers, the table in fact achieved the opposite, as attacking is harder now.

Alternatives:

• Return to former table
• Use the system suggested in post 374 this same thread (more about this latter).

Supply:

Spaceships supply rules, while stated to be to make them consistent with other units are in fact another whole exception, inconsistent with them.

While rule 8.3 clearly states During the current Turn, the player must arrange for the delivery of these Supply Units to the World that a unit occupied at the start of the Turn., the rules for spaceships state it must be delivered to an OT (so to orbit) regardless where the ship begins the turn.

Aside from the inconveniences this brings to any spaceship owner (as uplift is quite scarce) and its (IMHO) lack of any logic (as stated in older posts, most ships are supplied while in port for the whole travel, and I guess spaceships will do likewise), one can hardly say (to say the least), that this makes them consistent with other units.

3.4 Historical Articles:

See that most currently puyblisied ones don't fit this format of Titular, place: article.

Not a major problema, bu I guess worth to be pointed...
This message was last edited by the player at 12:28, Sun 29 July 2018.

Now some clarifications asked:

4.5.4: Altering SRU production capacity:



The rounding down is for the reduction or for the capacity left?


7.6: Facilities maintenance:

Where must the non-orbital SUs be spent (sorry, I cannot find it in those rules)?

In former rules it was to the “nearest colony or core world), but as you told me:



So I don’0t dare to assume what was said in former rules still keeps…

7.9.1 (Asteroid Mining Facility and 7.9.3 Mining:

If those facilities are built to extract SRUs, what happens with them when those are exhausted according 4.5.4?