RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to 2300 Great Game Command Center

05:15, 29th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Rules Discussions.

Posted by Co-GMFor group 0
China
player, 21 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 21:24
  • msg #79

Re: Calrification asked

In reply to Germany (msg # 78):

Yes the Rectenna is the receiver ..not the transmitter ..current tech lets us beam 30kw across 92 miles in atmousphere so long as nothing flys thru the beam..now a few Kilowatts is a fine sciencefare project but is not the terrawatts of power points we are discussing here..

Just as I can build an AM radio receiver that require NO external power to receive and convert signals to sound (no amplifier and minimal volume control) in my garage with radio shack parts ...does not mean I can build the transmitter just as simply ..;o)
This message was last edited by the player at 21:34, Tue 05 Jan 2016.
UK
player, 54 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 21:35
  • msg #80

Re: Calrification asked

In reply to China (msg # 79):

Current world tech is not game world tech. And modules on space stations are not science fair experiment
China
player, 22 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 21:51
  • msg #81

Re: Calrification asked

In reply to UK (msg # 80):

You are correct.. but the rectenna (tech 8.7) works on exactly the same principle as the crystal radio just far more efficient (and bigger) ..it is a receiver..the transmitter technology to make it work is part of the Solar Power Satellite (tech 9.5)see the problem I am trying to show ..(yes I used real world examples simply because they support the case they are the background technology)

I can see lifting a tech 9.5 Solar power satellite in the inner system and beaming said power to a station built at a colony in the outer system at tech 8.7 ..yes it would work ..but having a receiver (rectenna) with no transmission source does what for us exactly

Sure you can have all your power comming from the orbit of mercury to the inner system (by far the most efficent way to do it and least damaging to the panels) Soooo..thats a while off yet

And rereading everything again I see we have had a miscommunication..where I thought somone was discussing utalizing a Rectenna system now in game (seems pointless) not just discussing them in general ..bah shows i should not post when tired ...
This message was last edited by the player at 22:05, Tue 05 Jan 2016.
UK
player, 55 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 22:14
  • msg #82

Re: Calrification asked

In reply to China (msg # 81):

bleh, will have to not post on mobile - makes it very hard to post elequantly.

It may be we are focusing on the name of the system rather than what the system in game is (perhapse it should be renamed to something like Transmitter and Rectenna - or Power Transfer System or the like if the name is a problem)

Rules section 9.6 clearly outlines what it does - it allows you to combine power production and usage for surface and orbital facilities when working out if you have enough power.

It cannot be used to transfer power between different satelites and has as part of the system both transmitters and receavers.

I see no problem with the rules for this item - I see it as being the development of something like a microwave power transmission system.
Saudi Arabia
player, 20 posts
Wed 6 Jan 2016
at 11:49
  • msg #83

Re: Calrification asked


Rule 6.5.5.1, option 1:
quote:
For SRU option #1: Oil exploration represents drilling rigs and costs 1 PA per hex; specify the exact hex where the exploration is to be, and whether it is to be in the land or water area of that hex (Hint: There is no chance of significant amounts of oil being discovered in deep water, i.e. ‘Intolerable’ terrain type, portions of a hex) must be specified at the time of purchase. Permanently increasing oil exploration capacity per Turn costs 1 PA, whether for land or water exploration must be specified at time of purchase.


Can more than 1 PA be used on the same hex?

If so, does each PA require 1 hex capacity, or you can use as much PAs as desired in the same hex and counting still as 1 hex capacity?
Japan
player, 55 posts
Wed 6 Jan 2016
at 20:30
  • msg #84

Re: Calrification asked

UK:
It may be we are focusing on the name of the system rather than what the system in game is (perhapse it should be renamed to something like Transmitter and Rectenna - or Power Transfer System or the like if the name is a problem)

Rules section 9.6 clearly outlines what it does - it allows you to combine power production and usage for surface and orbital facilities when working out if you have enough power.

It cannot be used to transfer power between different satelites and has as part of the system both transmitters and receavers.

I see no problem with the rules for this item - I see it as being the development of something like a microwave power transmission system.

Player Andreas/Japan says: I agree. So Japan could build a Rectenna module/Power Transfer System at Crystal Palace and don´t have to worry about building powerplants in orbit as we can beam power from the surface to all the modules we want?

GM Andreas says: I am not sure about this. Will this unbalance the game though? What does IRL physics say; is it the same thing to send/receive to/from space/surface? And more importantly :) Kelvin?
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 81 posts
Fri 8 Jan 2016
at 22:30
  • msg #85

Re: Calrification asked

>Does that mean that anyone can explore any hex at a cost of 1 PA, but (unless it
>already has some exploration capacity as listed on it) the first time it has to
>purchase the exploration capacity at 1 PA (so costing 2 PAs the first time, and
>again if one wants to expand its prospecting capacity)?
I *think* you have misunderstood.
-It costs 1 PA to increase drilling capacity, land or sea -That capacity can be used permanently, in any appropriate hex
-It costs 1 PA to use that drilling capacity to attempt to find significant, commercially exploitable reserves


>If so, does Nordic Federation (being a major oil exporter) have no such capacity?
So are many nations that are major oil exporters, it does not mean that they have significant oil exploration capacity


Also, I understand this would increase oil reserve (cell K50), right?
Yes

>If Japan wants to build a research module it pays 50$ (25$+25$ because first built) right?
Yes

>>But does japan also need to build a orbital habitat before its 1st research
>>module or when it constructs its 11th research module?
>Bold section is key part - you would require one for your 10th facility on the satellite
What he said

>In 8.4: 5 more relations (equivalent to former 10 ones) more than anyone else.
>In 12.10: the number of round fought are now (20-relations)/5, so, if both countries
>have 10 relations (former 0), they can now fight 2 rounds, where they could 1 in former rules.
>Is that intentional?
Yes

>Rule 6.5.5.1, option 1:
>Can more than 1 PA be used on the same hex?
Yes

>If so, does each PA require 1 hex capacity
Yes
>, or you can use as much PAs as desired in the same hex and counting still as 1 hex capacity?
No
Germany
player, 170 posts
Sun 10 Jan 2016
at 15:21
  • msg #86

Spreadshets

Somthing odd happens in the spreadsheets, as if any expneses form cells D33-41 are not fully paid (leading to a shortfall), the growth effect for next turn is positive. As I believe this is not intentional and they should be negative, I guess there's some kind of tipo in the formulas...
UK
player, 56 posts
Sun 10 Jan 2016
at 16:35
  • msg #87

Spreadshets

In reply to Germany (msg # 86):

#Round trips within a Star System = 3 000 X (# of non-StutterWarp Propulsion Modules) X (Space Infrastructure tech level – 7.0) / [(Ship Mass) X (AU of one endpoint + AU of other endpoint)], if the result is >1 then round fractions down, if the result is <1 then round down to the nearest 0.1 and multiply total cargo that may be carried in a Turn by that number. The AU of an endpoint is measured from the semi-major axis of a satellite’s orbital ellipse to its primary, not the distance between the endpoints. If the ship has at least one active ‘Chemical’ or ‘Thrusters’ type Propulsion Module and there are no friendly O/T facilities at an endpoint then add 5 AU for distance calculations.

This is confusing me with regards to the 'AU of one endpoint + AU of other Endpoint)

If I were sending a ship to Mars from Earth the total of these two sums would be 1+1.523?
Germany
player, 171 posts
Sun 10 Jan 2016
at 18:48
  • msg #88

Re: Spreadshets

UK:
In reply to Germany (msg # 86):

#Round trips within a Star System = 3 000 X (# of non-StutterWarp Propulsion Modules) X (Space Infrastructure tech level – 7.0) / [(Ship Mass) X (AU of one endpoint + AU of other endpoint)], if the result is >1 then round fractions down, if the result is <1 then round down to the nearest 0.1 and multiply total cargo that may be carried in a Turn by that number. The AU of an endpoint is measured from the semi-major axis of a satellite’s orbital ellipse to its primary, not the distance between the endpoints. If the ship has at least one active ‘Chemical’ or ‘Thrusters’ type Propulsion Module and there are no friendly O/T facilities at an endpoint then add 5 AU for distance calculations.

This is confusing me with regards to the 'AU of one endpoint + AU of other Endpoint)

If I were sending a ship to Mars from Earth the total of these two sums would be 1+1.523?


I answeres that to Kelvin time ago and he confirmed that yes, this is.

I know this means that a trip from Mercury to Ceres would then be 3.087 AUs, while from Mars to Ceres 4.223 AUs...
UK
player, 57 posts
Sun 10 Jan 2016
at 19:22
  • msg #89

Re: Spreadshets

In reply to Germany (msg # 88):

I just wanted to check - and thinking about it that also makes sense as you could be making that trip when the two bodies are on other sides of the system primary
Germany
player, 172 posts
Sun 10 Jan 2016
at 19:49
  • msg #90

More suggestions:

11.3:

quote:
A landed Spaceship may take off from the surface to the Orbit hex if (number of Chemical or Thrusters Modules for Propulsion that the Spaceship has) is greater than (Ship Mass / 1000 X G of the satellite if taking off from a friendly Spaceport facility) or (Ship Mass / 500 X G of the satellite if taking off without a friendly Spaceport facility). In taking off, the Spaceship may not carry any Items or Population units while doing so unless the G of the satellite is <0.01G.


Suggestion (adenda): cargo modules do not count on the ship mass for those formulas, as they are assumed empty.

See that this does not apply to landing, as cargo modules are not assumed empty, nor to passengers modules, as we can asume most its weight is not due to the passengers themselves, but to habitats/facilities for them.
This message was last edited by the player at 14:54, Tue 12 Jan 2016.
UK
player, 58 posts
Mon 11 Jan 2016
at 00:06
  • msg #91

More suggestions:

In reply to Germany (msg # 90):

Another thing to note is that it lists this growth for all the 'core worlds' on the spreadsheet - may need to add an if statement to check there is actually a core world in existance for it calculating growth and such?

May not really be necessary but messing around if I remove the upkeep from a field I get infrastructure overload because its workign out that the growth over all the worlds would kick that in.
China
player, 23 posts
Mon 11 Jan 2016
at 01:30
  • msg #92

Re: Spreadshets

UK:
In reply to Germany (msg # 86):

#Round trips within a Star System = 3 000 X (# of non-StutterWarp Propulsion Modules) X (Space Infrastructure tech level – 7.0) / [(Ship Mass) X (AU of one endpoint + AU of other endpoint)], if the result is >1 then round fractions down, if the result is <1 then round down to the nearest 0.1 and multiply total cargo that may be carried in a Turn by that number. The AU of an endpoint is measured from the semi-major axis of a satellite’s orbital ellipse to its primary, not the distance between the endpoints. If the ship has at least one active ‘Chemical’ or ‘Thrusters’ type Propulsion Module and there are no friendly O/T facilities at an endpoint then add 5 AU for distance calculations.

This is confusing me with regards to the 'AU of one endpoint + AU of other Endpoint)

If I were sending a ship to Mars from Earth the total of these two sums would be 1+1.523?

This one I know and understand the reason for ..Furthest trip to furthest trip over the course of a turn as opposed to trying to make shortest trips all the time ..(near impossible)..It works and since is applied to all is fair enough..The reason for adding more distance for calcualtion for chemical and thrusters is no refuel if no OT at other end ..so cannot thrust as much and must take holmann style trips..
Germany
player, 173 posts
Mon 11 Jan 2016
at 08:01
  • msg #93

More details

Shouldn't the Lunastar Outpost in Moon deployed by the Crystal Palace joint group be listed in the History section?
Germany
player, 174 posts
Tue 12 Jan 2016
at 18:57
  • msg #94

More details

Can ítems (be there FU, RMU, SU or modules/partial facilities) be stored in an OT (so that you can use latter without having to uplift/transport them)?
USA
player, 22 posts
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 13:33
  • msg #95

More details

In reply to Germany (msg # 94):

Question about Outpost Modules;

Mass is listed as 5000/5000

Rules say the second number must be down-lifted to the satellite of the nearest colony/core world - given this is being build on the moon I'm guessing I need to uplift 10,000 and then somehow get 5000 down to the surface of the moon?

I'm also not sure on the rules for downlifting to the moon? As I see it I need to but I don't have any downlift there yet as I don't have anything on the moon - am I able to use the downlift that is on earth? If so can I use that downlift elsewhere in the solar system?
Germany
player, 175 posts
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 18:51
  • msg #96

Re: More details

USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 94):

Question about Outpost Modules;

Mass is listed as 5000/5000

Rules say the second number must be down-lifted to the satellite of the nearest colony/core world - given this is being build on the moon I'm guessing I need to uplift 10,000 and then somehow get 5000 down to the surface of the moon?

I'm also not sure on the rules for downlifting to the moon? As I see it I need to but I don't have any downlift there yet as I don't have anything on the moon - am I able to use the downlift that is on earth? If so can I use that downlift elsewhere in the solar system?


We'll have to wait for Kelvin's offical answer, but as I undertand:

Earth is the nearest Colony/Core World, so the part to be delivered to the surface of the nearest Colony/CW would remain in Earth surface.

So, only the Orbitlal part (so the left of the slash) must be uplifted/transported (that in the case of the Moon is equivalent, s rockets have enough range to deliver it to Moon's orbit).

To this, you must add the outpost, as no colony exists in the satellite it will orbit.
USA
player, 23 posts
Wed 13 Jan 2016
at 19:18
  • msg #97

Re: More details

In reply to Germany (msg # 96):
My original text Ignore this:
Ok - but since an outpost is being established then I'd imagine we have to put something on the surface?

Also - if this is the case - do we then need to have the ground based parts of the orbital stuff (IE the orbital terminals) on the surface of the moon.

The reason i say this is that if we don't then it seems like we could also establish a colony on the moon - or on another planet like Mars - without actualy landing anything on the planet?


EDIT - I'M AN IDIOT

Managed to forget I checked this with Kelvin not too long ago - the first number is the mass that must be in orbit and the second number is the TOTAL MASS (Not the mass that must be downlifted) which does mean that the outpost module does not need any mass to be downlifted - that being said the Orbital terminal would do (5000/10000) so does this mean i have to downlift 5000 to the moon if I set up an O/T and am I able to do this using just rockets from earth?
This message was last edited by the player at 23:38, Wed 13 Jan 2016.
Germany
player, 176 posts
Thu 14 Jan 2016
at 17:13
  • msg #98

Re: More details

USA:
In reply to Germany (msg # 96):
My original text Ignore this:
Ok - but since an outpost is being established then I'd imagine we have to put something on the surface?

Also - if this is the case - do we then need to have the ground based parts of the orbital stuff (IE the orbital terminals) on the surface of the moon.

The reason i say this is that if we don't then it seems like we could also establish a colony on the moon - or on another planet like Mars - without actualy landing anything on the planet?


<snip> that being said the Orbital terminal would do (5000/10000) so does this mean i have to downlift 5000 to the moon if I set up an O/T and am I able to do this using just rockets from earth?


No. THose 5000 tonnes must be taken to the nearest Colony/Core World (so in this case to Earth, so they are forfeited, you only need the 5000 tons for orbit).

Rules are not clear about what would happen when anyone starts a colony in Moon(or any other satellite, for what's worth), as it will become the nearest Colony...

  1. Should those extra 5000 tonnes have to be taken there to fulfill the full deployement?
  2. If so, what happens meanwhile (until they are delivered)?
  3. Will they be forfeited (for game's simplicty shake)?


See that same happens with the supporting pop (2 pop units). As long as there's no colony, they can be in Earth (again, the nearest Colony/core WOrld), but once the colony is there, they hsould be in the Colony. WIll the OT remain iddle until delivered?

And also, to answer all those questions: when is a world considered to have a colony for all thsoe pourposes?

When the first facility (I guess usually a spaceport) is established?
USA
player, 24 posts
Thu 14 Jan 2016
at 17:41
  • msg #99

Re: More details

In reply to Germany (msg # 98):

Right, thats what I'm thinking

What I'm also confused by is the fact that once we set up an outpost an entry is made in the settlement's list and is listed on the spreadsheets as a colony which would suggest the full amount would have to be taken there - as would supplies for the items on that planet

Or am i reading this wrong?
Nordic Federation
player, 2 posts
Thu 14 Jan 2016
at 17:54
  • msg #100

Re: Calrification asked

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Does that mean that anyone can explore any hex at a cost of 1 PA, but (unless it
>already has some exploration capacity as listed on it) the first time it has to
>purchase the exploration capacity at 1 PA (so costing 2 PAs the first time, and
>again if one wants to expand its prospecting capacity)?
I *think* you have misunderstood.
-It costs 1 PA to increase drilling capacity, land or sea -That capacity can be used permanently, in any appropriate hex
-It costs 1 PA to use that drilling capacity to attempt to find significant, commercially exploitable reserves


In fact, I think I have explained myself awfuly, instead of missunderstanding, as what you say is what I inteded to say myself.


Combat Cycle Ref:
>If so, does Nordic Federation (being a major oil exporter) have no such capacity?
So are many nations that are major oil exporters, it does not mean that they have significant oil exploration capacity


I asked because in the NF HP it's mentioned 1 off-shore oilprospecting rig (built 2025) in Arctic. (see that this was before I took the country and before many rules changes too). Does it count as one hex sea exploration capacity?
Germany
player, 177 posts
Thu 14 Jan 2016
at 19:07
  • msg #101

Re: Calrification asked

quote:
9.1. Construction

Each Colony starts with a single, friendly Orbital Terminal, which usually starts out as equipped with an Outpost Module (see section 9.8.1) then upgraded to an Enclave Module then upgraded to a full Colony. To be upgraded to a full Colony the Satellite must first have been surveyed by a ship equipped with a Survey Module (see section 11.1) for 1 Turn or have an Enclave (see section 9.8.1) Module in place for at least 3 Turns.


For the ship:

Must it begin and end the turn in the satellite to be fully surveyed, or just go to it and stay until the end of the turn without doing anything else (or at most returning to base)?

For the Enclave:

Can several Enclaves join to shorten it (e.g. in Turn x, one Enclave is on a planet. On turn X+1, another one (and the first one accrues 1 turn of survey), in turn X+2 can both Enclaves say they accrued 3 survey turns worth and begin to colonize in turn X+3)?
Referee
GM, 92 posts
Fri 15 Jan 2016
at 09:03
  • msg #102

Re: More details

Germany:
Shouldn't the Lunastar Outpost in Moon deployed by the Crystal Palace joint group be listed in the History section?

GM Andreas says: I think so, please add it. Although I must confess I am a bit unclear on what is joint and what is Russian. Kelvin?
Referee
GM, 93 posts
Fri 15 Jan 2016
at 09:05
  • msg #103

Re: More details

Germany:
Can ítems (be there FU, RMU, SU or modules/partial facilities) be stored in an OT (so that you can use latter without having to uplift/transport them)?

GM Andreas says: Me and Kelvin spoke about this a long time ago and as I recall: Yes, unlimited amount of stuff can be stored at an OT.
Sign In