RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to 2300 Great Game Command Center

14:47, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Rules Discussions.

Posted by Co-GMFor group 0
Saudi Arabia
player, 39 posts
Sat 3 Feb 2018
at 01:29
  • msg #379

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Clarification asked:

Now that I see the spreadsheets, I'm afraid I need some clarification about oil SRUs:

According rules (04.5.1) they can be stored indefinitely, as they can be moved, and so I guess they are treated as are MRUs, SUs or FUs (and so they can be tradad). Is this right?

If yes, shouldn't be a place in the budget where the stored ones are listed (as there were for SUs)?
Germany
player, 363 posts
Sun 4 Feb 2018
at 17:53
  • msg #380

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Not realized until now:

8.7.1:Naval Units

I see now the Aircraft Carrier has armor L, less tan the Helicopter Carrier, that has M. Is that right?
China
player, 49 posts
Mon 5 Feb 2018
at 12:43
  • msg #381

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

In reply to Germany (msg # 380):

No Good place for this it appears that the calculator for interface capacity has a missing -5 in its formulae ie ((base interface) x (TL-5)^2)/World Size

Uncertain as to if this was intended or just a typo..as it is a Massive upward shift in interface capacity )ie 123015 for China as it shows compared to 18015 with corrected amount

Simple workaround to do the TL-5 in the calculation slot corrects this easy enough
Germany
player, 364 posts
Mon 5 Feb 2018
at 14:41
  • msg #382

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 380):

No Good place for this it appears that the calculator for interface capacity has a missing -5 in its formulae ie ((base interface) x (TL-5)^2)/World Size

Uncertain as to if this was intended or just a typo..as it is a Massive upward shift in interface capacity )ie 123015 for China as it shows compared to 18015 with corrected amount

Simple workaround to do the TL-5 in the calculation slot corrects this easy enough


Yes, I pointed it in the Historical interval 2045-2049 thread:
Germany:
After a skip reading of the spreadsheets:

(...)

In the calculators, looking at the interface available one, I’m afraid you forgot to subtract 5 to the TL to apply the formula, as it says me that a single TL 8.8 rocket has a capacity of 9680 (not that I'd complain...)

Not sure where it is better to discuss that...
Co-GM
GM, 182 posts
Tue 6 Feb 2018
at 03:50
  • msg #383

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

>s, SUs or FUs (and so they can be tradad). Is this right?
Yes

>If yes, shouldn't be a place in the budget where the stored ones are listed (as there were for SUs)?
No. See the Blank orders file

>I see now the Aircraft Carrier has armor L, less tan the Helicopter Carrier, that has M. Is that right?
Yes
This message was lightly edited by the GM at 03:50, Tue 06 Feb 2018.
Germany
player, 365 posts
Thu 8 Feb 2018
at 18:08
  • msg #384

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

One more pereceived possible problem:

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. With a unadjusted Budget of $494, the costs would be (unless I botched my numbers, because, BTW, both Alaska and Hawái TL increases cells are not working well)  ablut $6 per 0.1 TL increase (Compare it with the about $850 per 0.1 TL increase in Continental US), so it could reach TL 8.8 in all economic TLs (I exclude biology, as it does not affect what I'm talking here) for just about $42 (again, to compare with Continental US, the cost would be about $6000).

Then, next turn, with TL 8.8 in all economic TLs but biology, Alaska could begin building Enclave or Orbital Factories facilities (paid by the one wanting them, be it US or another country with Us collaboration), as their TLs would allow it to without overcosts...

Or US could mount his interface facilities there to take advantage of its higher (as very cheaper to increase) TL...

And see that France could claim for French Guianna, where GSC spaceport (and so its interface facilities) is located, or Reunión Island or Djubuti to be also treated as a different settlement...

And so could UK about Gibraltar, Falkland Islands or the Islands of the Caribean...

And sure there are more such cases...

Possible solutions:

The easier (but probably untasty) would be to return treating each nation as a single settlement
not to allow those "satellite" settlements to have higher TLs than the "mother country".
(just for point 1 in this case) for COre Settlements, to limit the facilities building capacity ot a percentage of the settlement GDP (let's say 10-20%, as whole budgets use to be lower than this).
Germany
player, 366 posts
Sun 11 Feb 2018
at 18:03
  • msg #385

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

I keep not seeng the logic (as I already pointed several times) or game easing of having the ships having to be supplied in orbit, even if they can land.

In any case, could this be posposed for next turn?

Gremany uplift capacity has skyrocked from 5000 tonnes (that it has) last turn to 25000 this one, so needing up to 12 rockets more just for this rules change. This, of course, fully conditions its turn, as he needs either to obtain this extra uplift or spend nearly 80% of its Budget just to this goal,  efectively removing it from the game this turn.

I don't ask the same for OTs (even though it also raises uplift needs) because, unlike the ships, I see logic on it.
USA
player, 71 posts
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 09:40
  • msg #386

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

In reply to Germany (msg # 384):

Germany:
not to allow those "satellite" settlements to have higher TLs than the "mother country".


I will certainly be doing this, regardless of rules, as it makes the most sense to me.

I also have a question for the management on the renting of private uplift - is there a maximum global limit to this and how are we going to deal with assigning this?
USA
player, 73 posts
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 14:30
  • msg #387

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

In reply to USA (msg # 386):

I was manually calculating technology costs and have noticed that the calculations from the budget sheet is subtly different from the published formula in the rules.

Currently for the US increasing my biology by 0.1 should be as follows

GDP (166089)x Target Level^2 (8.6^2)x Auth. score^2 (9^2) x 2^no. of increased (2^1)/2,500,000 rounded up

This gives a total cost of 796

The sheet calculation however is producing a figure of $829, this is because it is multiplying by the auth. score^2  before multiplying by target level, so the formula actually being used is

GDP x Auth. Score^2 x Target Level^2 x 2^ no of decimal increases/2,500,000

Its not a massive difference but I thought I'd raise it as a query - do the rules need changing to reflect this as being the correct formula or do the sheets need changing in future?
Germany
player, 367 posts
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 16:30
  • msg #388

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

USA:
The sheet calculation however is producing a figure of $829, this is because it is multiplying by the auth. score^2  before multiplying by target level, so the formula actually being used is

GDP x Auth. Score^2 x Target Level^2 x 2^ no of decimal increases/2,500,000


I don't see why altering the order of the factors should alter the result (commutative property), yet, after runing the numbers by hand (well, with a calculator help) the result I have is 796 in both cases, as you told, so I guess the problem should be another one I cannot identify...

OTOH, the formula for Cutting Edge TL increase forgets to include the ressearch modules on it (the difivisor is 50, while, according to rules, it should be 50+K**).

Not that Germany is going to engage in any Cutting Edge ressearch this turn, but I guess you should know for future turns.
USA
player, 74 posts
Mon 12 Feb 2018
at 17:58
  • msg #389

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Germany:
OTOH, the formula for Cutting Edge TL increase forgets to include the ressearch modules on it (the difivisor is 50, while, according to rules, it should be 50+K**).

Not that Germany is going to engage in any Cutting Edge ressearch this turn, but I guess you should know for future turns.


Rules specifically state you need to work out the credit yourself and enter it as a positive balance on the budget

Rules 07.09.01:
Research Module: Labs and scientific apparatus, includes exploratory missions to the surrounding region. At the time of construction the owner must dedicate this module to a particular category of technology. Once per Turn the module will reduce the cost of cutting edge research of that one technology category of either the owner or an ally, see section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. Upto 5 Research Modules in the same Star System may be dedicated to the same technology category. Bonus is cumulative with multiple facilities up to a maximum of 25% off total for the nation. Write this amount saved as a purchase, with a positive value, in your list of purchases on your budget spreadsheet.


For the sheet calculations - Mathematics is not my strong point, so I honestly do not know. That was what I could find as being the only noticeable difference from the published formula, I didn't check it myself as I was at the tail end of my lunch break at work but and all the other references on the sheet seemed correct - I will have a look at it later, maybe there is something strange going on with bracket placement... I will report back if I work anything out
Germany
player, 368 posts
Tue 13 Feb 2018
at 09:59
  • msg #390

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

USA:
Germany:
OTOH, the formula for Cutting Edge TL increase forgets to include the ressearch modules on it (the difivisor is 50, while, according to rules, it should be 50+K**).

Not that Germany is going to engage in any Cutting Edge ressearch this turn, but I guess you should know for future turns.


Rules specifically state you need to work out the credit yourself and enter it as a positive balance on the budget


Sure, but I guess what I say will be easier (it's only about changing a 50 for a (50+K**) in the formula. I guess that's because of this that the ressearch modules are listed in the spreadsheet (that I guess were modified after rules were witten).

EDIT: What you quote wil lbe useful if you also dedícate to it allies' research modules.

7.9.1, under research module:

quote:
Once per Turn the module will reduce the cost of cutting edge research of that one technology category of either the owner or an ally,

This message was last edited by the player at 10:02, Tue 13 Feb 2018.
Germany
player, 369 posts
Tue 13 Feb 2018
at 12:19
  • msg #391

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Small detail (probable errata):

On the combat table, on a roll of 2 or 3 the results are better for the attacker on the_4:1 table tan on the 5:1-6:1 one. Shouldn't they be swaped (this would give also more smooth results on the 4:1)?
Germany
player, 370 posts
Tue 20 Feb 2018
at 17:05
  • msg #392

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Let’s see if I understood well the Oil SRUs trade rules (as they are an exception to the usual rules in that they cannot be used the same turn):

In consecutive order:
  1. SRU stockpile for this turn is determined
  2. Each turn, the SRUs are produced. Unless ordered otherwise, all SRUs are sent offered into open market. Countries that ordered it can add stockpiled SRUs to open market too.
  3. The ones directly bought to each country are assigned.
  4. Remaining SRUs are in the open market, and assigned to each country buying them proportionally
  5. Countries with shortfalls may assign some or all of their stockpile at the beginning of the turn to overcome them
  6. Countries with remaining SRUs on their stockpile can trade them to overcome next turn shortfalls.


So, to give an example (Germany for this turn, Numbers are not exact):
  1. Germany had 0 SRUs in its stockpile (for the sake of example, let’s imagine it had 30)
  2. SRUs were produced by countries. All SRUs (except those already compromised in exclusive contracts) are offered in open market, except for those countries that ordered to reduce the offer.
  3. Germany (that needs 416 SRUs) has contacts to receive 180 SRUs, so it received them. It now needs 236.
  4. The remaining SRUs in open market were assigned. As they were about 89% of needed ones, each country received about 89% of needed ones. So Germany could buy about 210.. Its shortfall is then about 26 SRUs.
  5. Germany uses 26 of its stockpile to overcome the shortfall. It has 4 SRUs left on it.
  6. Germany can now try to buy SRUs to replenish (or increase) its stockpile for the next turn should it need them.


Is that right?
This message was last edited by the player at 17:10, Tue 20 Feb 2018.
Co-GM
GM, 184 posts
Sun 25 Feb 2018
at 23:37
  • msg #393

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

In reply to Germany (msg # 392):

>Is that right?
Almost. In step 5, the order to use exactly how many stockpiled Oil SRUs has to come in the turn preceding the current turn. The GM will not be engaging in any guessing about how many Oil SRUs the player will want to be drawn from the stockpile. "Enough to eliminate a shortfall" is not an acceptable answer.
Germany
player, 375 posts
Sun 25 Feb 2018
at 23:57
  • msg #394

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Co-GM:
In reply to Germany (msg # 392):

>Is that right?
Almost. In step 5, the order to use exactly how many stockpiled Oil SRUs has to come in the turn preceding the current turn. The GM will not be engaging in any guessing about how many Oil SRUs the player will want to be drawn from the stockpile. "Enough to eliminate a shortfall" is not an acceptable answer.


So, you're asking us to decide without knowing how many do we need, and having no way to fix any shortages once the spreadsheet is received,despite how many oil SRUs do we have in our stockpile...

E.g. let's imagine Germany has 50 oir SRU in stockpile, and it decides to use 20 of them for next turn. Then it finds it still have 8 oil SRU shortfall, and his only decisions are to use option 8 (so paying extra for all his purchased SRUs, included those 20 coming from its own storage) or endure the shortfall.

OTOH, he may use all 50, just to find he only needed 28, so having thrown away 32 precious oil SRUs...

Is that what you're telling us?
Germany
player, 376 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 00:17
  • msg #395

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

See that there is a quite easy way to solve it, without needing any change in the spreadsheet: allow cell K46 to be used for this goal, using the already stockpiled oil SRUs.
Russia
player, 34 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 14:36
  • [deleted]
  • msg #396

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

This message was deleted by the player at 14:37, Mon 26 Feb 2018.
Russia
player, 35 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 14:37
  • msg #397

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

Germany:
See that there is a quite easy way to solve it, without needing any change in the spreadsheet: allow cell K46 to be used for this goal, using the already stockpiled oil SRUs.


I think this is the most logical way.
Germany
player, 377 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 17:54
  • msg #398

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

I’m sorry, but I am fully unable to understand how rules for the use of stockpiled SRUs work with your answers. The only thing I have clear is that they are a full exception to trade rules (something you always try to avoid).

If usual rules were applied (as per SU trade, to give an example), people could sell and buy those stockpiled SRUs, and use them this same turn (I keep thinking the easiest way would be using cell K46) to overcome their shortfalls. You clearly stated the oil SRUs bought for stockpile cannot use the same turn (I still cannot understand why, as it would not affect the open market prices, nor will they need any change in the spreadsheets and would give the players some reaction capacity without resorting to option 8, as well a me being unable to understand why any oil SRU obtained from this black market option 8 represents, or by military forcing a country to sell it to you, as option 7 represents, can be used this same turn, but those leally bought ones cannot; but I abide it).

Then you tell us that the number dedicated to overcome shortfalls must be stated before knowing what those shortfalls are, another clear exception to rules. And what happens with any assigned SRUs over the shortfalls? Are they gone for good? Are they returned to stockpile (see that then the wise option is to assign the whole stockpile)? And what if there’s still shortfall after those assigned stockpiled SRUs are accounted for? Are they paid as the bought ones (at x5 price) even if they were already yours?

To give another example, the fact the SRUs obtained by option 6 (exclusive purchase) are assigned before buying to the open market, not only makes it impossible to use this option to avoid shortfall (unless the market is oversupplied), but you also have to pay x5 those SRUs that you have already had assigned. I understand this may be difficult to six without adding another cell to the budget spreadsheet without adding a cell to specifically point how many SRUs have been obtained this way, but that makes option 6 useless, unless you intend to use option 9 (going without), as then they reduce your shortfall or if you’re able to fill your full needs with option 6, but that would require more contracts than anyone can realistically achieve.

 I’m sorry for so much ranting and questioning, and I know time is coming short, but it is very frustrating this such important part of the game (both the money for this turn and the growth rate for the next are strongly affected by it) is so unclear that any way I try to treat it may lead to finding myself in the same situation that this turn (a shortfall that cannot overcome without using option 8) despite any investment I might do.

So, please, clarify it, if possible with a specific example of step by step management of a country (be it a specific one or an imaginary one), so that even one so dumb as myself (as this is how I feel when trying to figure how does this work) can understand it. I think this might even be wort a slight delay in this turn (that wold also help India, that has just now shown up), if not, for the next turn at least, as this makes very difficult to make my turn if I cannot know what effect might my actions have in this so important part of the game.

Right now the best option seems to do nothing, renouncing to have any control on it and accept results as you do with an earthquake o other natural disasters, and keep using option 8, as it is the only effective one that I can understand how it works, but I guess that’s not the spirit of the game
This message was last edited by the player at 17:55, Mon 26 Feb 2018.
Germany
player, 378 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 18:05
  • msg #399

Re: Rules Proposal 20171103

OTOH, if the use of the initial stockpiled oil SRUs (so, he ones pbtained on previous turns) on cell K46 was allowed, the effects (IMHO) would be:

  • as said, no changes on spreadsheet would be required
  • also as said, no effect on open market prices once the turn is sent
  • give a sense to this stockpiled SRUs and to option 6 (as you'd need less SRUs fro myour stockpile)
  • give the players some control over this so important issue in their nations
  • give players options to overcome the shortfall aside from option 8


As you see, I cannot find disadvantages to it, so if there are ones I cannot see, please tell me about them.

I believe I use to accept thins when they are justified, either for game simplicity effect or for some logical "realism" reasons, but in this case (as in the need to supply landed ships in orbit, but that's another issue), aside from being full exceptions to the game rules, I cannot find any of those reasons, seeing them as adding complexity to the game with no "realism" justification.
USA
player, 77 posts
Mon 26 Feb 2018
at 22:17
  • msg #400

Clarification on upgrading tech levels

In reply to Germany (msg # 399):

Question about increasing tech levels

5.2.1:
Each Core Settlement has their own Economic tech levels. Upgrading an Economic tech level of a Core Settlement includes upgrading the tech of all infrastructure networks, new hardware and teaching new methods to your population, and all of your facilities. In the Turn following, the Core Settlement will also receive a 3% one-time boost to GDP growth per 0.1 tech level gained.


I was looking at the rules and something struck me, I've been working on the assumption that tech upgrades do not take effect until next turn, but that is not always true of other purchases.

The thing that got me thinking is that I can purchase items that will work normally other than for producing units, RSUs etc, but will offer things like uplift. Are there such things when it comes to tech upgrades?

So when does the nation gain the benefits of having the increased tech level for different things? Examples of where this might be important that I can think of are:

*If the US were to upgrade it's electronics tech from 8.6 to 8.8 and its space from 8.7 to 8.8 this turn, would it use the tech levels at the start of the turn to build an enclave (so $500) or would it be at the upgraded tech levels (so $200 as it meets the basic requirements)?

* Do space ships use the space tech level at the start of the turn, or the level it is being upgraded to during the turn, when working out how many round trips they can make

* Is uplift calculated by the tech level of the world at the start of the turn or the tech level being upgraded to during the turn

* Do units fight using the tech level at the start of turn, or the level being upgraded to - does this change if we move into a war budget when items can be explicitly purchased and deployed during the turn?
Russia
player, 36 posts
Tue 27 Feb 2018
at 07:07
  • msg #401

Re: Clarification on upgrading tech levels

USA:
*If the US were to upgrade it's electronics tech from 8.6 to 8.8 and its space from 8.7 to 8.8 this turn, would it use the tech levels at the start of the turn to build an enclave (so $500) or would it be at the upgraded tech levels (so $200 as it meets the basic requirements)?


This is actually very important question: does statistics in the budget file depict situation for the beginning of the turn, or for the end of the turn? The same question is not only for TL, but also for other stats like authority, stability, etc., which can change during the turn.
Germany
player, 379 posts
Tue 27 Feb 2018
at 11:33
  • msg #402

Re: Clarification on upgrading tech levels

Unless this has changes from previous turns (and there's no indication of this), the whole turn is resolved with the initial values (except for units QR, whose change take effect immediatly).

So, if you begin the turn at TL 8.6 in anything, all your turn will be solved as TL 8.6, even if you raise it.

Likewise, if you begin your turn with relation 15 with a country, all the turn will be solved at such level, even if you used PAs to raise it and you latter try to use response PAs on this same country, Any effect of your previous (but in the same turn) PA are not yet applied.
Germany
player, 384 posts
Sun 11 Mar 2018
at 04:44
  • msg #403

Re: Clarification on upgrading tech levels

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?
Sign In