First of all, thanks for the answers. Now my response and reasoning on some of them:
Referee:
>Since rules proposal 20170401 the CCC module definition no longer says it is needed
>for several ships to fight together, fignting each one individually if there was not.
I said that their purpose was found to be missing, a mistake which was corrected within that proposal.
Well, it gives a bonus to initiative in space combat...
In any case, then I’d suggest you to add again it to the CCC module description for clarity of the rules, as right now I don’t find anywhere that it is needed, but the reference on the attack order in 10.4, but no one that has no access to former rules sets would understand it.
Referee:
>>Nigeria wants to add in reinforcements after reading the results of its invasion of
>>Benin in Round#2, these reinforcements will not arrive until Round#4'
>What about units that are already in range (e.g. air units)?
The "...in range" thing is a judgement specific to the combats occurring now and may or may not have any bearing on combats in the future as per the discretion of the GM.
See 10.8 for the definition for “in range” for air units.
Referee:
>About security troops:
No. The ability is being deleted as a duplicate of what can be done with Political Actions. Regular military units can fight brigade-level sized rebel forces or be featured in your argument for the success of your Political Action, but we are not doing Security ability ever again.
I keep disagreeing, as they are a very specific specialization, but I abide.
Then, assuming an occuped country, the AM will keep being the modifier, regardless of the tropos one can deploy there, to avoid a revolt?
Referee:
>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.
You are placing a lot of importance on a very strict definition of the term 'non-renewable'. I see no reason for that.
As I said, I pointed it just because it was contradictory with the definition. If you want to keep its production as renewable, then I’d suggest you to remove the non-renewable part on the definition.
Referee:
>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.
Within a 5 year Turn any unit can reach anywhere on the map that it is able to access (section 8.9) and back again, and the definition of every unit includes its own transports. So 'where a unit is' needs not be absolutely the same as 'where the supplies are', and I absolutely refuse to let this game descend any further into the minutiae of the routine disbursement of supplies because this is a game and not a simulation.
Oh, sorry, I understood it was a simulation game…
In fact I understood it was a 4X game, now I’m less sure about what it is at each rules set…
And please, as you refuse to talk about the logics on it, just about the rules effects (something that may be even understandable), tell me how allowing the ships to be supplied at their start point of the turn (
just as any other unit) adds minutiae to the game.
And so, if the situation of the Invasion game in Eta Bootis occurred in this game, then yes, Borodin’s fleet could be supplied by taking the supplies to an Earth OT, despite being several warp transit away, some of them occupied by enemy forces. Is this right?
Referee:
>(# of Population units of the area in revolt)
is not the population units of the Settlement, I would have said so if it was. Regardless, I will grant that it still yields numbers which are too high and will do something to adjust.
That’s why I didn’t talk about multi- hex countries, as Russia or US.
In the cases of France, Spain and Syria they are one hex countries, and so I guess the area would be the whole country (as the minimum area used is one hex, I understand), while in the other cases they are 2 hexes countries, so if only 1 hex is affected the rebels force would be halved…
Referee:
>In the use oc Economic units it could be useful to add power.
What? What is "...use oc Economic units..."?
The Use of Economic Units (there’s a typo, and
oc should be
of) is a table in the (in fact several of them) in the “Orders for <nation><Turn>" document you put In the files section of the game’s HP (I specified at the beginning of the post I was talking about this document). It’s just under the “Interface Uplift/Downlift” section and over the "Military units" one.
Referee:
>I keep thinking this would not only give more flexibility to players, but even In the
>end avoiding response PAs to be used just because they have been bought.
>
>Other example of possible increased flexibility due to having unspent money:
The GM does not want players to have more flexibiity, players want players to have more flexibility. The GM wants players to have more stress on having to guess/risk ahead of time if they are making the right choices. This is a game, not a simulation.
So the GMs intent is to keep the players blind and guessing, and this is a lottery game, where you must take the decisions before having any clue…
Few games want the players with hands so tied…
Referee:
>(note: this assumes the parts of 10.6 and 10.8 told above apply to 10.10)
Why would you assume this?
I assumed what I told before about those rules:
Germany:
Combat (overall)
10.10 rules specify that several other rules are ignored. I think some parts of those rules should be still applied. Specifically:
- 10.6: Damage Allocation: specifically the part saying
quote:
Damage to units is ignored unless the opponent’s weapons can reach those units. E.g.; if China bombs Saudi Arabia with ICBM, Chinese ICBMs are safe from damage, no matter the result…
- 10.8: Air Units: the part relating to air units range (e.g. Bombers 3 hexes away on Earth may participate).
Because otherwise we assume that if QCR are in effect:
- Planes have no range
- If, just s an example, China bombs Saudi Arabia with 1 Division of ICBMs, this divison is quite likely to be lost, regardless the fact Saudi Arabia has no weapon that can reach them.
And I believe that, be it a game or a simulation, some logic must apply…
Referee:
>So good for the escorts…
See the list of advantages that may be bought in section 10.3
Yes, but the fact is that you carrier is safe from damage, regardless the odds, if alone, while it’s quite likely to be damaged if escorted.
Referee:
> I jsut suggest to give the carriers a single combat factor, both to attack and defense
The difference comes from the hulls of the carrier actually being at risk on the defense.
And they are, but as the game is now the carrier’s air group does not defend it, only being used for attacking. And the carrier squadron does not just represent the carrier, but also the frigates, AEGIS cruisers an so in the squadron, don’t they?
And see that if 10.6 does not apply in QCR as I assumed before (see above), the CVs hulls are also in risk in attack, even if they are not in reach of the defending units….
Referee:
>So, assuming the first colonies are set with an average TL of 9, they are set at TL 4,
> so more or less Victorian age. Not that I don’t like steampunk (I played, and
> enjoyed, 1889), but I don’t see it logical, nor believe this is the goal…
>
>This will also mean they would not be able to produce their own supplies until they
>have, at least, 100 pop, 5 Heavy Industry Facilities and a university.
This is a problem for the players, not the rules.
This is a problem for the game, when it’s impossible to have a self-sustaining colony until you reach average TL 10.
This is a problem for the game when large supply trains will be required.
It will be curious when we have steampunk colonies (Extra-terrestrial colonies with Victorian TL)…
But when (if) we’ll reach this point, rules will have changed so many times, that there’s no pint to discuss this now..
Referee:
>Add to the description (or to the table) “only can be built in hospitable worlds”.
>As rules stand now, imagine the roll for Moon FP is 11 (effective -9). By deploying
>4 such facilities, we could raise it to 11 and begin farming the Moon. I don’t
>believe this to be the spirit of the rule…
You have confused the action done to Farming Potential with the action done to Mining Potential.
Why so? The Asteroid Belt is given a FP of 8. Let’s assume this is rolled for Moon instead of the Asteroids, and its effective FP would be -12. So, 4 Hydroponics facilities (assuming it has TL 4) would raise it to 8 and allow to farm it (as it is habitable, albeit not hospitable).
And I keep believing the word “habitable” In the Farming facility table and description should be “hospitable”, as habitable world, not being defined, is any one that can be inhabited, and this includes inhospitable ones (but not Hostile ones).
Referee:
>In most Science Fiction settings, including 2300AD, orbital shipyards are quite
>more efficient than ground based ones, aside from being able to build ships that
>cannot land. This is not the case here.
I do not see a reason why they would be more efficient, not that it matters, this is a game balance issue, and orbital shipyards have been substantially reworked anyways in the following rules proposal for different reasons.
They are more efficient in most Science Fiction settings, including 2300AD, Of course this one can be different (just depends on how much do you want it to diverge from 2300AD).
As per game balance, again it seems we use language differently…
Referee:
>If the former, then building a 2000 tonnes ship (let’s say a Hornet class) consumes
>the whole capacity of a spaceport
This one.
Then building a 2000 tonnes SDB or a 10000 tonnes cruiser needs the same shipbuilding capacity?
Ok, I asked for clarification and I have it.
This message was last edited by the player at 13:30, Mon 24 Sept 2018.