China:
Where does it specifically say quality represents the number of ships..quality is level of crew training and how well supplied the unit is not its size and composition..
It’s inferred fom what Kelvin wrote in the forum:
http://tgw.awbep.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=107#pid784 and how does he define the quality of units (e.g. in forfeiting the need for a unit to be veteran to have stealth abitly)
quote:
>smaller ships should be able to move population (either by working in groups <snip> in 2300AD setting there are no large >ships able to land, nor ships able to carry 5000 passengers at once, They are either carried among various ships
Just as there is nothing in the rules that it makes a difference if a Tank brigade is actually made up of 1000 little tanks, 400 normal sized tanks or 1 great big tank; there is nothing in the rules that requires a Starship unit be made up of 1 big hull or a whole fleet of little ones whose aggregate characteristics is the same as 1 big hull*. Everyone just assumes a Spaceship unit is 1 hull. If some ships of a Spaceship squadron move faster and can undertake more round trips/Turn that is ok because it is balanced out by other ships of the same squadron which move slower and can only undertake fewer trips. So perhaps your Population unit and Spaceship unit is, at a given moment of time, actually spread throughout the galaxy; but as seen from a book-keeping perspective, the only perspective I care about, it does not matter.
and how does he define the quality of units (e.g. in forfeiting the need for a unit to be veteran to have stealth abitly)
China:
I understand why Germany is all about this Note an OT has 5 spaces for things like interplanetary ships or interface squadrons it controls.. and Germnay jumped the gun on the number of ships it has built.;).
I didn’t know we have to wait for the gun to shot. Germany had the technology and rules allowed for it (to build and support the ships)
Combat Cycle Ref:
> And for the Shipyard to produce the $20 it produces per turn, does it need
> the 20 RMUs uplifted (or tranported) to it?
See the description for shipyards in section 9.8.1
See that my post was made over rules v20151210, where it only said it requires 20 RMU, and your answer that those were to build modules (something BTW it could not do then). It has been clarified in v20151225
Combat Cycle Ref:
> so at mínimum 2 shipyards and those 15-20000 uplift capacity to uplift the modules...
Not seeing this as being a game breaking imposition
<snip>
>> Now, we need several OTs with less modules, developing many
>"orbital towns/villages" instead (at quite higher cost)...
Not seeing this as being a game breaking imposition; and at ‘quite higher cost’ is debatable, see below.
The quite higher cost is quite clear, when a full OT will be needed when you only need a naval Base Module before.
Combat Cycle Ref:
> Perhaps not game-breaking, but sure game-braking.
That is the point.
And why so? Why it needs to be braked?
I understood the goal was speeding it and allowing space exploration and colonization, not to brake it
From your post in December 10
th:
Combat Cycle Ref:
Pretty clearly our original GMs never really expected us to go beyond Earth's atmosphere and many of the choices in the game reflected that. This fall I have had a long time to think about what I expect will be needed to take us to the stars.
You did very nice space and colony making rules, but, IMHO, the last changes are not what we need to take us to the stars, but what we need to be kept in Earth for the time being.
Combat Cycle Ref:
> Now, we need several OTs with less modules, developing many
>"orbital towns/villages" instead (at quite higher cost)...
Not seeing this as being a game breaking imposition; and at ‘quite higher cost’ is debatable, see below.
When I see I need a full OT where I needed a docking module, or 5 full OTs where I needed a Naval base module; I don’t see too much debate on the quite higher costs…
Combat Cycle Ref:
> Can you please argument (be it in logical or gaming arguments) how a single ship
>can need so many OTs for support?
I can. It is exactly the same argument for why a single ship can need so many Naval Base modules for support. Until someone can provide a complete, realistic technical readout of what a Naval Base module or O/T can do then what they can do is completely arbitrary. I chose the limit that I did because I think there are going to be quite a few O/Ts built just to handle the basic needs of colonies and interface.
And even more OTs to keep any significant cargo fleet, not to talk about military one…
Combat Cycle Ref:
> How does that affect already existing spaceship (as no single OT is fully owned by
>Germany or ESA)?
It means you have to quickly come to some kind of an agreement with all of the owners of the 2 O/Ts.
Great!
So, now India, Japan and Russia can blackmail Germany and ESA threating to downgrade their ships to reserve, and ESA’s space exploration plans are not just slowed, but made hostages of other countries…
And don’t tell me I took this risk, as this was not among the risks I took when decided to make a bid for space.
Combat Cycle Ref:
> Then passengers modules were forbidden to be built by ground facilities
Re-read the description for Spaceports.
OK, now you can build them in several turns (or by several facilities working together). Glad v20151225 clarified those points. Shame now you will need too many OTs to support it…
Combat Cycle Ref:
> This fully stops cold one of Germans main focus to now: space exploration.
>Now we need 2 more OTs for them: all the plans are in tears.
>How can one make long term plans (assumed the basis of this game) this way?
You cannot make firm long term plans, nobody can; but we all signed on to a game which started out with NO RULES except a vague understanding that we would generally be following Peter’s inadequate work. That mean everything we have done has been ad hoc and everyone has had to accept that, work around it, and push on regardless. And you Lluis, pushed into an area of the rules which was particularly speculative and untested, you were bound to pay a higher than expected price. Point#4 of section 3 is there for a reason.
Point#4 section 3 also talks about suggesting new rules if you disagree, something I’ve done many times, in many occasions even to fulfil some of your stated goals (simplification, less AM influence in budget, etc.) usually to no avail (some exceptions, off course), sometimes because it will affect previous actions and investments of players.
Yes, I pushed into an area of rules particularly speculative and untested, but also that were quite sound and playable, but they became (at least IMHO) less so with each change.
As I said once, this was supposed to be a strategic 4X (well, maybe not exterminate) galactic exploration and expansion, and is becoming more and more a game of world domination (if not outright a Quest for the oil game). No strategic plans can be done, no space exploration can be done (at least for a long time)…
Combat Cycle Ref:
> Having a limit of 10000t of ships per O/T feels like it will severely limit what we will
>be able to do. The fact that a nation will need to spend $200 on an orbital terminal
>before it can support even a basic space unit
What everyone has been forgetting is that even a modest interstellar empire is likely going to require in the low 10’s of O/T facilities just to fulfill the basic requirements of colonies&interface. That means ‘free’ maintenance on hundreds of thousands of tons of ships, ships which will probably be able to make 10’s of round trips per Turn. All my guesses to be sure, but until we actually get to that point in the game, nobody can really know if it ‘…will severely limit…’ anything.
Colonies (and interface) that will not be there because of the limitations on ship building and support.