RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to 2300 Great Game Command Center

05:04, 19th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Rules Discussions.

Posted by Co-GMFor group 0
Germany
player, 443 posts
Mon 20 Aug 2018
at 17:31
  • msg #454

Re: Atlas of known Space

Germany:
I'd wish to comment some points about it, for now and future. Few will have immediate (if any) game effect, just for keeping it as better information:

Heaven and Earth uses the UWP used in Traveller, but MgT 2300AD changes the fist digit from Starport to Interface. As we will have to change it in any case once worlds are developed, should we keep the traditional Traveller one or the MgT 2300AD one?

Earth:

If the first case (traditional Traveller Starport code), then I guess Earth would currently (in game time) be considered B (spaceships building capacity, refined fuel, full repair capacity), not E.

If we use MgT 2300AD one, hen E (cargo rockets) is correct.

Asteroid Belt:

As I already said several times, the Traveller size code for an Asteroid/Planetoid elt is 0, not R, that is reserved for Rings arround some planet (usually Gas Giants).

IMHO, its current UWP should be X00021A-4 (I gave it high law code because I believe laws are strict ther to avoid misshaps and accidents, and Access very controlled), as it already has an outpost and an OT. See that with the new rules proposal TL would be reduced to 3 (Modern age, Renaissence to Napoleonic), As US it's at TL aprox 8.6. Same will happen with Mars and Moon.

If you want, I can take charge of those changings, as I guess you're qute busy already...


I forgot:

Moon:

IMHO its UWP now sould be X200278-4(3), as it has now several settlements (hence the Pop and Gov change) and, as said, its TL ,according new rules proposal would be 3 (again, Modern Age).

I restate the offer to take charge of keeping the atlas of space updated according the news and changes as they occur, so that you'll be freed of this work (you have enough of it). Of course, you'd have veto power.
Referee
GM, 121 posts
Sat 15 Sep 2018
at 01:09
  • msg #455

Rules Proposal 20180801

>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,

???It already states exactly that in the CCC module description???

>assuming an occuped country, the AM will keep being the modifier, regardless
>of the tropos one can deploy there, to avoid a revolt?

Yes. The number of troops figures into what the GM gives as a bonus/difficutlylevel for the a player's PA to pacify the settlement.

>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…

This game is whatever is needed to be fun and playable by everyone, including me, and I have no interest in keeping to some label. Without a professional coding and GM staff, there are lots of things that we are just not going to deal with, a detailed supply disbursement is one of them; and there are lots of problems that we have, keeping the GM from walking away from the pressures of running this game is one of them.

>, 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?

See section 10.7 par#4 sent#2 of the current rulesset. Like every time we get to a complex situation, exceptions to the normal order of things occur at the GM's discretion.

>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

Power is not an Economic unit as far as the rules are concerned, it would be confusing to add Power in there. Someday we will have to get around to creating a sheet for controlling colonies, which will likely include dealing with Power, but right now we have more important things to do.

>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…

A game where everyone is equally guessing, forced to trust the untrustworthy, forced to work to shape the odds on what is going to happen...yes, I am ok with that. We all chose to be part of a PBEM game, the realistic immediate reaction to developing events that you want is fundamentally not going to happen in a PBEM game.

> 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.

5 years is a very long time, and a nation has many different ways of striking back against an enemy. Are you sure that Saudi has absolutely no weapon that can reach them? How do you know this? To repeat: Like every time we get to a complex situations, exceptions to the normal order of things occur at the GM's discretion...it is your job as a player to make an argument to the GM to recognize that the current situation is an exception and that something odd should be done for this situation. e.g. the Chinese player argues that the ICBM units would be unaffected. If we tried to make rules to explicitly handle every possible situation then these rules would be unplayable.

>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.

This is a problem for the players, not the rules.

> Let’s assume this is rolled for Moon instead of the Asteroids, and its
>effective FP would be -12
</i>
No, its effective FP is 0, section 2.3 is quite clear on that, and Terraform facilities cannot do anything to change that because Terraform facilities have nothing about transforming an Inhospitable World into a Hospitable World.

>And I keep believing the word “habitable” In the Farming facility table
>and description should be “hospitable”,

Correct. Fixed.

>Length of time for an Enclave to Survey back to 5 Turns
>
>So good again to being a 4X game... We cannot expect to have any world
>surveied (unless PAs are used, as Germany did for the AB) until at least 2080...

"...unless PAs are used, as Germany did for the AB" You just answered your own problem.

> in a QRC round (about 1-1.5 years, at the 3-5 per turn
The length of time of a QCR is indefinite and not '5yr/n'. So the actual time taken by a given combat could be very short and not necessarily at the same time or duration as another combat in the same round.

>e effective MP is already 2d10-10 (as they are unhospitable), so as they use
>(effective MP-10) in the formula, result is always 0 or lower.

Good point. Fixed.

>Heaven and Earth uses the UWP used in Traveller, but MgT 2300AD changes the
>fist digit from Starport to Interface. As we will have to change it in any
>case once worlds are developed,


and

>Moon:
>IMHO its UWP now sould be X200278-4(3), as it has now several settlements (hence
>the Pop and Gov change) and, as said, its TL ,according new rules proposal would be 3


No, we will not be changing it. Like I said in the section on using the Heaven & Earth Software, we cannot change UWPs regardless of development as it is not editable within H&E without triggering a random based regeneration of the system. There is an option to edit existing UWP codes in H&E, it is non-functional .

>As I already said several times, the Traveller size code for an Asteroid/Planetoid
>elt is 0, not R, that is reserved for Rings arround some planet (usually Gas Giants).

R=0 and S=1 is the way H&E does it, so that is the way we have to do it.

>Let's imagine a ship does not move from the spaceport in the whole turn. It would
>need to be supplied in an OT anyway?

Yes.

>I restate the offer to take charge of keeping the atlas of space updated
>according the news and changes as they occur, s

Thank you, but we are not there yet.
This message was last edited by the GM at 03:53, Sat 15 Sept 2018.
Referee
GM, 122 posts
Sat 15 Sep 2018
at 01:12
  • msg #456

Rules Proposal 20180914

Change to:  How units are represented to conform to how the Unit Listing Spreadsheet works, which is based off how Heaven&Earth generates Star Systems.

The introduction of: Shorthand for facilities and modules, consistent as possible with what is in the Invasion module, to make things easier to represent.

Made clearer:

Rebalancing to:

Got rid of: Allowing GDP&pop&SRU of a Core Settlement to be anything other than evenly distributed, it can only be used to cause trouble.
Germany
player, 450 posts
Sat 15 Sep 2018
at 18:55
  • msg #457

Rules Proposal 20180801

NOTE: all of this post is based on rules proposal 20180801, as I hve had no time yet to read 20180914.

Referee:
>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,

???It already states exactly that in the CCC module description???


Let’s see:
CCC description:

quote:
CCC (CCC): Flag Bridge, extra facilities for command, communication, and coordination with other Spaceships and forces on the surface of a World. Helps to improve the initiative of friendly forces, see section 10.3.


10.3:in the Initiative section, where the bonus is listed, but in 10.4 order of the actions, it is listed then conducts attacks by (in order) individual non-CCC grouped Spaceships units first, then all CCC grouped Spaceships together, while I cannot find anywhere in the rules what does this mean, as I cannot find where it is said that ships without CCC cannot attack together.

In rules proposal 20170121, the description was:
quote:
CCC : Flag Bridge, extra facilities for command, communication, and coordination with other Spaceships and forces on the surface of a World . If there is at least 1 CCC Module in a system then all friendly Spaceships are grouped with the CCC Module and may move and attack as one including in concert with forces on the surface of a World .



This was changed in 20170401 to the current one, and that’s why I understand it, but  it’s no longer in the rules, and yet referred in 10.4, and so anyone without access to the older proposals would not know what does this mean.

That’s what I mean, It should be added again in the CCC description (as it was in rules proposal up to 20170121), or removed from 10.4, as not it’s not consistent.


Referee:
>assuming an occuped country, the AM will keep being the modifier, regardless
>of the tropos one can deploy there, to avoid a revolt?

Yes. The number of troops figures into what the GM gives as a bonus/difficutlylevel for the a player's PA to pacify the settlement.


It seems (again) I  have problems to make myself undertood…

I was not talking about PAs, but about the table in pages 27-28.

Let’s imagine Country A has just occupied Country B, which has been left with Stability 5 after its defeat. The possibility of a spontaneous revolt is 8+ (so 30%). But Country B has also an AM of 15, so 3 is subtracted from the roll (even while the fact of the police being helping the occupier is dubious at best), and the rebellion possibility is fully nullified, the number of troops (or lack of them) in occupation duty being fully irrelevant, according the rules.

That was what I meant, and the main use Security troops had...

Referee:
This game is whatever is needed to be fun and playable by everyone,.


As much as I hate to say this, I’m not sure you`’re being successful on this, mostly on the playable part, if the plans done one turn are broken due to rules changes he next one…

About the fun part, while this is arguable, I find totally contradictory with your former sentence:
quote:
The GM does not want players to have more flexibility, 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.


Referee:
A game where everyone is equally guessing, forced to trust the untrustworthy, forced to work to shape the odds on what is going to happen...yes, I am ok with that. We all chose to be part of a PBEM game, the realistic immediate reaction to developing events that you want is fundamentally not going to happen in a PBEM game.


Three’s a long way between the realistic immediate reaction you talk about and being fully unable to react and becoming a mere spectator of the events, and that has a lot to do with the fun part of the game you told about above…

Referee:
Power is not an Economic unit as far as the rules are concerned, it would be confusing to add Power in there. Someday we will have to get around to creating a sheet for controlling colonies, which will likely include dealing with Power, but right now we have more important things to do..


Agreed, but it would be helpful for orbit (right now) and colonies (latter)…

Referee:
> 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.

5 years is a very long time, and a nation has many different ways of striking back against an enemy. Are you sure that Saudi has absolutely no weapon that can reach them? How do you know this? To repeat: Like every time we get to a complex situations, exceptions to the normal order of things occur at the GM's discretion...it is your job as a player to make an argument to the GM to recognize that the current situation is an exception and that something odd should be done for this situation. e.g. the Chinese player argues that the ICBM units would be unaffected. If we tried to make rules to explicitly handle every possible situation then these rules would be unplayable.

Referee:
>  in a QRC round (about 1-1.5 years, at the 3-5 per turn
The length of time of a QCR is indefinite and not '5yr/n'. So the actual time taken by a given combat could be very short and not necessarily at the same time or duration as another combat in the same round.


5 years is a very long term, but a WR not so long. In fact it’s not so long for the troops to move to the conflict zone and being able to affect it (not even for the planes to attack at their range, if you don’t accept it to be used in QCR too)…

OTOH, in a single month they can do all of this, if QCR are not in effect...

And yes, I’m quite sure Saudi Arabia has no weapon able to reach Chinese ICBMs, and should they have, their use would not be dependent on those ICBMs being fired or not. I’m not asking to make rules to explicitly handle every possible situation, but to make them logical enough to allow the GM to rule them without being contradictory with them.

Referee:
> >This is a problem for the game when large supply trains will be required.
This is a problem for the players, not the rules.


The Co-GM put the example of needing supply trains to support you fleet if we don’t allow them to be supplied on any OT, that’s why I bought this to bear…

IMHO, allowing colonies to be TL4 (Victorian) or even TL3 (modern age) is a problem of the rules, but again this is arguable.

Referee:
> "...unless PAs are used, as Germany did for the AB" You just answered your own problem.


So, while you complain (probably rightly) about the many PAs and the work they represent to the GM, you’re claiming that more things should be done by PAs (from surveying in any decent length of time, to what before was solved with security ability) when they didn't need them…

Referee:
<i>>Heaven and Earth uses the UWP used in Traveller, but MgT 2300AD changes the fist digit from Starport to Interface. As we will have to change it in any case once worlds are developed,

and

>Moon:
> IMHO its UWP now sould be X200278-4(3), as it has now several settlements (hence
> the Pop and Gov change) and, as said, its TL ,according new rules proposal would be 3

No, we will not be changing it. Like I said in the section on using the Heaven & Earth Software, we cannot change UWPs regardless of development as it is not editable within H&E without triggering a random based regeneration of the system. There is an option to edit existing UWP codes in H&E, it is non-functional .


Are you saying that the results given by H&E cannot be altered as the worlds develop (I have played a little with it, but not that much).?

I guess we could just copy the results on the page where they are editable (you can rely on the players for this kind of work). In any case, I was for now just talking about the Solar System, where some of the UWPs are now obsolete.

And I understand we will keep with Traveller traditional UWP instead of MgT 2300AD one (mostly keeping the starport digit instead of the MgT interface one). That would make Earth having spaceport B in current game time.

Referee:
> >As I already said several times, the Traveller size code for an Asteroid/Planetoid
> elt is 0, not R, that is reserved for Rings arround some planet (usually Gas Giants)..

R=0 and S=1 is the way H&E does it, so that is the way we have to do it.


I’m afraid you’re wrong here…

H&E does not allow a R size digit in the UWP (that represents the main world), nor gives it ever on worlds, as it uses 0 instead. R size digit only appears on satellites around worlds.

Referee:
> >Let's imagine a ship does not move from the spaceport in the whole turn. It would  need to be supplied in an OT anyway?
Yes.


So, I have an experienced ship on Damgarten, where I have some SUs. The ship is not intended to move in the whole turn, but must go to orbit to receive one of those SUs (that must be uploaded too) or it will become reserve (and cost again 75% of its price to be upgraded to experienced again)…

I know some concessions to logics must be done for the game to be playable, but IMHO this goes too far against any logics, and even against playability (or, at best, without increasing playability)…

And, again, I’m not asking to make rules to explicitly handle every possible situation, just to keep them consistent. It’s you who made explicit rules for spaceships that were against the general ones (Supplies must be received where the unit starts the turn) on the basis of standardizing them (and, again IMHO, achieving just the opposite).
Co-GM
GM, 192 posts
Sun 16 Sep 2018
at 11:40
  • msg #458

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Germany:
Referee:
> >Let's imagine a ship does not move from the spaceport in the whole turn. It would  need to be supplied in an OT anyway?
Yes.


So, I have an experienced ship on Damgarten, where I have some SUs. The ship is not intended to move in the whole turn, but must go to orbit to receive one of those SUs (that must be uploaded too) or it will become reserve (and cost again 75% of its price to be upgraded to experienced again)…


I know you usually have a more detailed knowledge of the rules than me, so I may be wrong but I think you've missed the relevant rule for this - units are not permanently reduced to reserve save in that they are treated as such in Quick Combat

Rules 8.3:
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. Unless there is some reason to think that the particular hex occupied
by a unit is cut off then we assume that your staff can handle the details of getting the Supply Unit from the
local Spaceport or Industry to all other hexes on the same World. If a unit is not completely supplied then it
is considered to be damaged in combat as per section 10.7.


Meaning it will count as damaged in combat until supplies can be provided - so its quality is not lowered to reserve permanently requiring it to be upgraded again - it would simply be counted as damaged until supplies are provided
Germany
player, 451 posts
Sun 16 Sep 2018
at 12:00
  • msg #459

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Co-GM:
Germany:
Referee:
> >Let's imagine a ship does not move from the spaceport in the whole turn. It would  need to be supplied in an OT anyway?
Yes.


So, I have an experienced ship on Damgarten, where I have some SUs. The ship is not intended to move in the whole turn, but must go to orbit to receive one of those SUs (that must be uploaded too) or it will become reserve (and cost again 75% of its price to be upgraded to experienced again)…


I know you usually have a more detailed knowledge of the rules than me, so I may be wrong but I think you've missed the relevant rule for this - units are not permanently reduced to reserve save in that they are treated as such in Quick Combat

Rules 8.3:
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. Unless there is some reason to think that the particular hex occupied
by a unit is cut off then we assume that your staff can handle the details of getting the Supply Unit from the
local Spaceport or Industry to all other hexes on the same World. If a unit is not completely supplied then it
is considered to be damaged in combat as per section 10.7.


Meaning it will count as damaged in combat until supplies can be provided - so its quality is not lowered to reserve permanently requiring it to be upgraded again - it would simply be counted as damaged until supplies are provided


Sorry, you're right, my fault. This was changed some years ago (after cheching it, in versiĆ³n 20141215).

I'm afraid sometimes things from earlier versions still come to my head, but this time the change was old enough as for me not to have excuse.

I still find the rule absurd, but the effects are really quite more bearable.
Germany
player, 459 posts
Mon 17 Sep 2018
at 16:13
  • msg #460

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Then we come to another scenario ...

I can leave a ship in Damgarten unsupplied, so it becoming damaged. Of course, I cannot give orders to it in the turn orders, but, if the world situation makes it useful (e.g. for combat pourposes, or to carry some urgent cargo to any outpost), I can repair it in Damgarten and then move it, so in fact having it supplied in ground.

Of course, this does not allow me to use it in a planned way on the turn orders, but only in response moves (WRs).

I don't know if this is intentional (so, making de facto the uplifting of the SU only necessary if the ship will be used for turn planned moves) or a glitch of the rules.

Both cases are posible and both are reasonable (as ships participating in the plannig for the turn will probably move longer, etc., so needing the supplies in orbit, as they will need to leave Earth orbit fully supplied; while the other ones are just "in reserve" and probably not moving far, so they don't need their SUs uplifted), but, before assuming anything and tryint to use what could be a glitch in the rules, I prefer to give a heads up to the GM about it.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:56, Mon 17 Sept 2018.
Germany
player, 469 posts
Mon 24 Sep 2018
at 13:47
  • msg #461

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Germany:
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..


Just one more question here:

Assuming a colony has an opperational (so RMU supplied) heavy industry, but its TL is under 5.5, could it build SUs at the overcost for lower TL?

e.g. Germany is TL 9.4. It has a colony whose TL is 4.4+0.1 per 10-100 pop +0.1 per a heavy industry+0.5 per university, so final TL 5.1 in all economic TLs. As SUs are TL 5.5, they could be built at an overcost of 1000%: 50% x 4(0.4 TL under target) x 5(number o economic TLs affected), so at S10 each SU.

While this does not solve the steampunk colonies, it could allow them to build its own supplies, even if at an outraging overcost...

Germany:
As an aside,  this would allow to arm ships right now. See that a Bahnbrecher class ship, refitted to dispose of its cargo capacity for orbital bombing modules (34 such modules, counting the 100 empty tonnes it has), would be quite frightening weapon, with a bombardment factor of 170… I don’t judge if this is good or bad, but I guessed your intent was not to allow this until latter (so the need of orbital military shipyards to have more than 1 weapons module in former rules).[/list]


I don't believe this overgunned ships are what it is inteded to have, though they would be perfectly legal with current rules.

If I'm right in this guessing, I'd suggest (taking the idea from most Traveller versions about limiting the weaponry) to limit the weapon modules to 1-2 per hull module. This is a small change in rules, but I guess will do the job if you intend to keep the weaponry of the ships at a level consistent with 2300AD setting.

Of course, I keep finding odd that military ships cannot be built in Orbital shipyards, as (again), neithere the Tayllerand not the Kennedy could ever be built as shown in the rules examples...
This message was last edited by the player at 23:20, Tue 25 Sept 2018.
Germany
player, 473 posts
Fri 5 Oct 2018
at 12:11
  • msg #462

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Just one question about the units list spreadsheet, based on your answer to WR4 orders:

Referee:
>Note 1: 5 of them are built as Unit 1002
The system we have constructed will not allow that. It has to be #1105


Does this mean all new units built must follow higher numbers?

Not that this is a big problem, but I tried (for my own clarity) always to keep consecutive numbers for similar units (so armor units are 0001 to 0006, but I reserved numbers up to 0050 just in case I buid more in the future, etc.).

Would this way of numbering them be no longer possible then?

As said, not a big problem if so, just I want to know it, just for my own organization.
Co-GM
GM, 193 posts
Fri 5 Oct 2018
at 16:40
  • msg #463

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

In reply to Germany (msg # 462):

You are correct. Numbering was something we spent quite a bit of time thinking about and we have gone with this for a number of reasons. Primarily thought we need a standard way of numbering units for all nations
Saudi Arabia
player, 64 posts
Fri 5 Oct 2018
at 16:46
  • msg #464

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Co-GM:
In reply to Germany (msg # 462):

You are correct. Numbering was something we spent quite a bit of time thinking about and we have gone with this for a number of reasons. Primarily thought we need a standard way of numbering units for all nations


OK. And can destroyed units be rebuilt with their old numbers?
Co-GM
GM, 194 posts
Sun 7 Oct 2018
at 04:16
  • msg #465

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 464):

No, once a unit is destroyed/sold/otherwise no longer in existence or belonging to a nation it gets marked as 'destroyed' which is just my shorthand for it being no longer around (even if it was not destroyed)

Whilst this has, in effect, happened in past turns with the inception of this new list we've decided that each time a new unit is built is is issued with an individual reference number that belongs to that instance

There is no mechanical difference between changing the unit from being marked destroyed back to a different quality and constructing a new unit.

I understand you may be concerned by the fact that destroyed units could clog up lists, but google sheets has functions that allow us to filter out those units from being displayed whilst still having that information available to us - this will allow us to keep track of each unit from creation to its end. Rebuilding units with the same reference number would have a couple of negatives from a GM point of view, the main one being we don't want to get to the stage where we think units that have been rebuilt should be destroyed when proof reading our work at end of turn, etc.

The sheet has filter functions at the top, which should help you with finding any units you want in any particular circumstance
Saudi Arabia
player, 65 posts
Sun 7 Oct 2018
at 11:56
  • msg #466

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Oh, don't worry, as I said is not a unsurmountable problem, just a mattrr of my own organization and some color, and, also as said, my intent here is just to know how will this work from now on, not to discuss it (and less so to argue it).

As I said, I reserved some numbers for each unit type, so that I know (for Saudi Arabia, for Germany numbers were different, but the concept was the same) that any unit numbered 0001-0020 was armor, any unit numbered 0031-0060 mech, any unit 0301-0350 MR planes, and so on.

Also, this wway, if I was looking for an armored unit, I knew I had to look in numbers 0001-0020, if I was looking for a MR planes unit, 0301-0350, and so on.

Abaut this rebuilding, it was only a color matter, so to say, pointing that Sauid Arabia was not building a new armored brigada, but rebuilding the lost one. No real game differnece, just a matter of giving some soul to the contry (not worth any further complexity for the GM), more or less as the colorful TOEs listed on the HPs (again, only color, with no game effect)

OTOH, I have no experience in manageing google sheets, and I thought (for what you say wrongly) they were like usual spreadsheets, where keeping this is not difficult (just inserting lines when needed and freely shoosing the ID number).

Now, knowing this (thank you both for your explanations), it's only a matter of changing my way to organize myself, with no other effects or problems...
This message was last edited by the player at 11:57, Sun 07 Oct 2018.
Germany
player, 474 posts
Tue 9 Oct 2018
at 17:07
  • msg #467

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Co-GM:
Germany:
Referee:
> >Let's imagine a ship does not move from the spaceport in the whole turn. It would  need to be supplied in an OT anyway?
Yes.


So, I have an experienced ship on Damgarten, where I have some SUs. The ship is not intended to move in the whole turn, but must go to orbit to receive one of those SUs (that must be uploaded too) or it will become reserve (and cost again 75% of its price to be upgraded to experienced again)…


I know you usually have a more detailed knowledge of the rules than me, so I may be wrong but I think you've missed the relevant rule for this - units are not permanently reduced to reserve save in that they are treated as such in Quick Combat

Rules 8.3:
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. Unless there is some reason to think that the particular hex occupied by a unit is cut off then we assume that your staff can handle the details of getting the Supply Unit from the local Spaceport or Industry to all other hexes on the same World. If a unit is not completely supplied then it is considered to be damaged in combat as per section 10.7.


Meaning it will count as damaged in combat until supplies can be provided - so its quality is not lowered to reserve permanently requiring it to be upgraded again - it would simply be counted as damaged until supplies are provided


This opens several more questions, as most CD and repair rules are for detailed combat, and we're not using it:

1) What happens if a Combat damaged unit (while we keep with QCR this means it has not received supplies) does not receive its SUs at the beginning of a turn?

If it keeps CDd, then this can be used as what my suggestion in post #330 this same thread called Cadres: units could be kept CDd so that you save SUs. E.g. let's imagine Germany has 20 Green mech brigades as Landwher. As he consideres them as reserves, he keeps them unsupplied and so they are kept as CDd, but 20 SUs are saved each turn.

If it is Combat Damaged again (so destroyed), one could leave unsupplied half the units he wants as reserves, and at the next turn supply them (so repairing them) and left unsupplied (so CD ) the other half. E.g. Again let’s imagine Germany has 20 mech brigades as landwher that wants to keep as reserves. He an supply only 10, so CD the other 10, and the next turn supply the ones CDd while leaving the other 10 without SUs, so saving 10 SU per turn.

In both cases, if I understand well the rules, they'd need a whole WR to be repaired, so would be usalbe only as reserve units on the WR they are repaired (mobilization takes some time...).

Would this be allowed (after all, keeping reserve units as Cadres is a quite usual practice among most nations)?

See that in any case, as those units are counted for the basic supply needs, they are accounted for TL increases or other formulas that use basic SU needs as a basis.

2) According the Spaceport (and shipyards) description, as well as 10.7, each spaceport or shipyard can only repair 1 ship per WR. Of course, this is thought for detailed combat rules. As we’re using QCR, how many ships can one such facilities repair in a QCR WR (as they represent several detailed ones)?
Referee
GM, 130 posts
Thu 11 Oct 2018
at 02:43
  • msg #468

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

In reply to Germany (msg # 467):

>in 10.4 order of the actions, it is listed then conducts attacks by (in order)
>individual non-CCC grouped Spaceships units first, then all CCC grouped Spaceships
>together, while I cannot find anywhere in the rules what does this mean, as I
>cannot find where it is said that ships without CCC cannot attack together.

That would be inherent in the phrase "...conducts attacks by (in order) individual non-CCC grouped Spaceships units first,"

>Stability 5 after its defeat. The possibility of a spontaneous revolt is 8+ (so
>30%). But Country B has also an AM of 15, <snip> the number of troops (or lack of
>them) in occupation duty being fully irrelevant, according the rules.

What did you expect with your choice of numbers? Was there some expectation that there always had to be a meaningful chance of a massive, brigade level, armed rebellion happening?

>>his game is whatever is needed to be fun and playable by everyone,.
>As much as I hate to say this, I’m not sure you`’re being successful on this, mostly
> on the playable part, if the plans done one turn are broken due to rules changes
>he next one…

Then go join a game where the rules are absolutely and completely done and set and perfect from the beginning without the possibility or need of alteration ever. In the mean time, we all made the mistake of joining a game where the rules at the outset were quite literally nothing more than a vague expectation that we would have rules, eventually. Changes to the rules will happen and plans will be broken because of those rule changes, accept it or leave.

>Are you saying that the results given by H&E cannot be altered as the worlds
>develop (I have played a little with it, but not that much).?

Yes. While there is a menu option in H&E for it, it does not work.

>Assuming a colony has an opperational (so RMU supplied) heavy industry, but its
>TL is under 5.5, could it build SUs at the overcost for lower TL?
Yes. Is there a problem with this?


>1) What happens if a Combat damaged unit (while we keep with QCR this means it
>has not received supplies) does not receive its SUs at the beginning of a turn?
>If it is Combat Damaged again (so destroyed)

This one

>one could leave unsupplied half the units he wants as reserves, and at the next
>turn supply them <snip> saving 10 SU per turn.

Then a portion of your army is unprepared for action.

>As we’re using QCR, how many ships can one such facilities repair in a QCR
>WR (as they represent several detailed ones)?

Units are not damaged in QCR so the question is irrelevant.


>See that in any case, as those units are counted for the basic supply needs, they
>are accounted for TL increases or other formulas that use basic SU needs as a basis.
Yes. Is there a problem with this?
Referee
GM, 131 posts
Thu 11 Oct 2018
at 02:49
  • msg #469

Rules Proposal 20181010

Change to:  Cost to increase Mil tech level depends on Sum Maintenance cost, easier to calculate. How cost of tech increase is calculated, a smoother rise with number of increases. How Supply is done for Orbital facilities for Colonies, simpler.

The introduction of: Connection to and the importance of the Unit Listings and Facility Listings spreadsheet.

Made clearer: Where orders are to be posted.

Rebalancing to:Number of round trips/Turn that a StutterWarp equipt ship can make, it was too high.

Got rid of:



Unless anyone can immediately find some critical fault with this rule-set then this is the rules-set which we will be using for the 2050-2054 Turn.
Germany
player, 475 posts
Thu 11 Oct 2018
at 10:58
  • msg #470

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Referee:
In reply to Germany (msg # 467):

>Stability 5 after its defeat. The possibility of a spontaneous revolt is 8+ (so 30%). But Country B has also an AM of 15, <snip> the number of troops (or lack of them) in occupation duty being fully irrelevant, according the rules.
What did you expect with your choice of numbers? Was there some expectation that there always had to be a meaningful chance of a massive, brigade level, armed rebellion happening?


I have no problem with your numbers, but I think quite odd that having a garrisson (or lack of it) has no influence in a conquered country's revolt possibility (where the security forces represented, I guess, in the AM modifier are not so surely trying to avoid it).

That's what I tried to point, not sure if this is intentional or a glitch of the game.

Referee:
>Are you saying that the results given by H&E cannot be altered as the worlds
>develop (I have played a little with it, but not that much).?

Yes. While there is a menu option in H&E for it, it does not work.


Forgive me, but I don't understand how will we use it and its consequences.

What I understood is that H&E would be used to generate systems, and then copied and pasted (or the document just moved) to the Atlas of Known space. If so, I guess those documents could be edited, by adding the changes players' actions would do (as raising TLs or spaceport class), as they would no longer be in the H&E program, but in the HP of this game as documents.

Am I wrong with this?

And see that in any case, the changes I suggested (altering the spaceport in Earth UWP and Pop and TL in the outpost worlds) were not only doable, but easy to do, at least as the Atlas is now.

Referee:
>Assuming a colony has an opperational (so RMU supplied) heavy industry, but its TL is under 5.5, could it build SUs at the overcost for lower TL?
Yes. Is there a problem with this?


Au contraire. I just wanted this clarified before I cna do space plans.

Referee:
>one could leave unsupplied half the units he wants as reserves, and at the next turn supply them <snip> saving 10 SU per turn.
Then a portion of your army is unprepared for action.


I know. That's what reserves use to be in most armies, units kept at less tan full readiness to save costs, but easy to return to full operational status if needed.

Referee:
>As we’re using QCR, how many ships can one such facilities repair in a QCR WR (as they represent several detailed ones)?
Units are not damaged in QCR so the question is irrelevant.


Unless they are left out of supplies (or the supplies cannot be uplifted to orbit, in the case of ships), as I was talking about (and as I thought was obvious in the previous posts I quoted, as well as msg #460, quoted here to ease your work)...
Germany:
Then we come to another scenario ...

I can leave a ship in Damgarten unsupplied, so it becoming damaged. Of course, I cannot give orders to it in the turn orders, but, if the world situation makes it useful (e.g. for combat pourposes, or to carry some urgent cargo to any outpost), I can repair it in Damgarten and then move it, so in fact having it supplied in ground.

Of course, this does not allow me to use it in a planned way on the turn orders, but only in response moves (WRs).

I don't know if this is intentional (so, making de facto the uplifting of the SU only necessary if the ship will be used for turn planned moves) or a glitch of the rules.

Both cases are posible and both are reasonable (as ships participating in the plannig for the turn will probably move longer, etc., so needing the supplies in orbit, as they will need to leave Earth orbit fully supplied; while the other ones are just "in reserve" and probably not moving far, so they don't need their SUs uplifted), but, before assuming anything and tryint to use what could be a glitch in the rules, I prefer to give a heads up to the GM about it.


So, no, it's not irrelevant, and I think an answer is needed.

Referee:
>See that in any case, as those units are counted for the basic supply needs, they are accounted for TL increases or other formulas that use basic SU needs as a basis.
Yes. Is there a problem with this?


Absolutly no problem. I was just trying to point the details and implications of what I was asking, so that no missunderstundings could appear.
Germany
player, 477 posts
Sun 4 Nov 2018
at 19:45
  • msg #471

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Just some more questions regarding the Orbital Shipyards:

Rules definition:

quote:
Orbital Factory (OF): More expensive to build than ground based industries but can make products which are in high demand. This facility generates 1 Pai-Leng every 5th Turn of the game i.e. a game start date of 1985 then an Orbital Industry would produce a Pai-Leng on turn 2010, 2035, 2060, etc. If provided with 10 Raw Material Units in a Turn then this facility build 10 Supply Units in the same hex.


  1. As I understand it, the Pai-leng production is done regardless it receives the RMUs or not, that are just relevant for the SUs production.
  2. Also, as I understand, this Pai-leng production is in fixed turns (each 5th one), regardless when it was deployed (I guess for game simplicity).


Are those things right?

Just for clarification, I have no problem on any of this, nor judging it, jsut wanting to know if I understand them right.
Saudi Arabia
player, 66 posts
Sat 17 Nov 2018
at 13:05
  • msg #472

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

There seems to be a glitch in the Military TL development:

If Saudi Arabia tries to raise all of them by +0.2, the costs are :

  • Mil-Air: $42
  • Mil- Ground: $42
  • Mil-Sea: $42
  • Mil-Space: $30

Which is in agreement with my numbers .

But if I try to raise higher all mil TLs but air (the first one) , cost only increases by $1 per 0.1 extra…

And if I reduce the raising for Mil-Air to 0.1, while keeping the other ones to 0.2, the costs then appear as:

  • Mil-Air: $18
  • Mil- Ground: $19
  • Mil-Sea: $19
  • Mil-Space: $14

And the raisings still only increase by $1 per 0.1 extra I raise…

If I don’t raise Mil-Air TL, then the raising of all other military TLs is only $1 per 0.1 increase, so being able (as the spreadsheet shows) to increase Ground, Sea and Space TLs by 0.5 each for a total of $15.

Not that I complain for those costs, but I guess they are wrong…

I checked other countries and the problem is not exclusive for Saudi Arabia…
Germany
player, 478 posts
Sat 17 Nov 2018
at 13:33
  • msg #473

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Saudi Arabia:
There seems to be a glitch in the Military TL development:

German Case is a little different, but keeps being:

As Germany raised last turn all its military TLs to the theoretical maximums (8.8 for Space, 8.7 for Air, Sea and Ground), any of them would need the cutting edge bonus (over $300).

If I try to raise all of them by 0.1, sots are:

  • Mil-Air: $242
  • Mil- Ground: $242
  • Mil-Sea: $242
  • Mil-Space: $89 (despite it would be raised to 8.9, not to 8.8 as all the rest)

See that in all cases they are inferior to the cutting edge bonus…

If I don’t raise Mil-Air, but I raise the others by 0.1, costs are:

  • Mil-Air: $0 (of course)
  • Mil- Ground: $177
  • Mil-Sea: $177
  • Mil-Space: $23

So, I’m quite sure this glitch exists.

As fixing al spreadsheets will take time, and as I guess making the increases in the spreadsheet eases next turn ones,  my suggestion would be to add the rest of the cost as an additional expense.

So, as an example, if Saudi Arabia intended to raise its Mil-Space (only) TL by +0.3 (real cost $55, marked cost $3), then he would have to add another line in expenses as “mil-space TL raising” for the additional $52.

As an option, we can just ignore cells J53-56 and K53-56 and put the whole expenses in raising military TLs as regular expenses (so, in the above case, cell J56 would be left untouched, and the “mil-space TL raising” would be the full $55.
Germany
player, 479 posts
Sat 17 Nov 2018
at 13:58
  • msg #474

Some questions about the settlements spreadsheet

1) I see both Koreas are still in the settlements spreadsheet. Are they still divided, or the end of the War was a full conquest of the Norhtern one?

2) I see Germany is listed as a single hex, while it is shown in the map in two hexes (6N14, 7N12). Same happens with France (6N13, 5N17)and maybe some others. Which one is right (see that this has influence if any of them tries to use PAs to increase oil production).
Germany
player, 480 posts
Sun 18 Nov 2018
at 14:23
  • msg #475

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Sorry to bump those questions, but I think htey deserve an answer, and would help to solve my turn or better understand the game:

Germany:
Referee:
In reply to Germany (msg # 467):

>Stability 5 after its defeat. The possibility of a spontaneous revolt is 8+ (so 30%). But Country B has also an AM of 15, <snip> the number of troops (or lack of them) in occupation duty being fully irrelevant, according the rules.
What did you expect with your choice of numbers? Was there some expectation that there always had to be a meaningful chance of a massive, brigade level, armed rebellion happening?


I have no problem with your numbers, but I think quite odd that having a garrisson (or lack of it) has no influence in a conquered country's revolt possibility (where the security forces represented, I guess, in the AM modifier are not so surely trying to avoid it).

That's what I tried to point, not sure if this is intentional or a glitch of the game.


So, does garrisson affect the revolt possibility in occupied countries?

Germany:
Referee:
>Are you saying that the results given by H&E cannot be altered as the worlds
>develop (I have played a little with it, but not that much).?

Yes. While there is a menu option in H&E for it, it does not work.


Forgive me, but I don't understand how will we use it and its consequences.

What I understood is that H&E would be used to generate systems, and then copied and pasted (or the document just moved) to the Atlas of Known space. If so, I guess those documents could be edited, by adding the changes players' actions would do (as raising TLs or spaceport class), as they would no longer be in the H&E program, but in the HP of this game as documents.

Am I wrong with this?

And see that in any case, the changes I suggested (altering the spaceport in Earth UWP and Pop and TL in the outpost worlds) were not only doable, but easy to do, at least as the Atlas is now.


While this is not for the current turn resolution, just a matter of bookkeeping (so no hurry here), could you explain how will H&E be used



Germany:
Referee:
>As we’re using QCR, how many ships can one such facilities repair in a QCR WR (as they represent several detailed ones)?
Units are not damaged in QCR so the question is irrelevant.


Unless they are left out of supplies (or the supplies cannot be uplifted to orbit, in the case of ships), as I was talking about (and as I thought was obvious in the previous posts I quoted, as well as msg #460, quoted here to ease your work)...
Germany:
Then we come to another scenario ...

I can leave a ship in Damgarten unsupplied, so it becoming damaged. Of course, I cannot give orders to it in the turn orders, but, if the world situation makes it useful (e.g. for combat pourposes, or to carry some urgent cargo to any outpost), I can repair it in Damgarten and then move it, so in fact having it supplied in ground.

Of course, this does not allow me to use it in a planned way on the turn orders, but only in response moves (WRs).

I don't know if this is intentional (so, making de facto the uplifting of the SU only necessary if the ship will be used for turn planned moves) or a glitch of the rules.

Both cases are posible and both are reasonable (as ships participating in the plannig for the turn will probably move longer, etc., so needing the supplies in orbit, as they will need to leave Earth orbit fully supplied; while the other ones are just "in reserve" and probably not moving far, so they don't need their SUs uplifted), but, before assuming anything and tryint to use what could be a glitch in the rules, I prefer to give a heads up to the GM about it.


So, no, it's not irrelevant, and I think an answer is needed.


Again, as I have (I think) proved you it's not only not irrelevant, but quite important for the current maintenance of DRM (as I have serious doubts about being able to supply all ships in orbit), could you please answer?


Germany:
Just some more questions regarding the Orbital Shipyards:

Rules definition:

quote:
Orbital Factory (OF): More expensive to build than ground based industries but can make products which are in high demand. This facility generates 1 Pai-Leng every 5th Turn of the game i.e. a game start date of 1985 then an Orbital Industry would produce a Pai-Leng on turn 2010, 2035, 2060, etc. If provided with 10 Raw Material Units in a Turn then this facility build 10 Supply Units in the same hex.


  1. As I understand it, the Pai-leng production is done regardless it receives the RMUs or not, that are just relevant for the SUs production.
  2. Also, as I understand, this Pai-leng production is in fixed turns (each 5th one), regardless when it was deployed (I guess for game simplicity).


Are those things right?

Just for clarification, I have no problem on any of this, nor judging it, just wanting to know if I understand them right.

Co-GM
GM, 200 posts
Mon 19 Nov 2018
at 01:56
  • msg #476

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

quote:
>could you explain how will H&E be used


H&E will be used to create the maps for every planet and to store them for you to look at when deciding on candidates for colonies etc - this is to prevent us from having to generate literally hundreds, if not thousands, by hand but it can be unstable - It is good for making and viewing the maps.

H&E is only being used to create and store the different solar system and planetary maps

We are not going to copy every map because of the number of planets, but the ones for inhabited planets will be posted

The problem is you can set things down on planets that are not exactly habitable, fight on them, do all sorts of insane things, this means we have maps for all of them whether they're going to be used or not... and now I'm thinking about the mechanics of system generation and how we give that to you

Regardless, keeping notations of what has been built where cannot be done on H&E (even if it can be, should anyone suggest it I would scream bloody murder about the number of ways that could go wrong)

There will instead be spreadsheets to list all constructions on planets that have settlements

Kelvin has also explained already why editing the system code does not work - it triggers H&E to regenerate maps based on the revised code, meaning the system map and statistics on H&E, including all the planet maps, will change - so it is not possible to do this.

Does that clear it up?

quote:
>Again, as I have (I think) proved you it's not only not irrelevant, but quite important for the current maintenance of DRM (as I have serious doubts about being able to supply all ships in orbit), could you please answer?


This is Kelvin's bailiwick, so this is not a ruling, but let me tun through what I think you're asking as covered by existing rules

You're wanting to know how many units could be repaired in a Quick Combat Round (QCR);

Rules for units out of supply state;

Rules 10.7:
If there are insufficient Supply Units available to be consumed then the remaining units which are considered as damaged in combat as per section 10.6, by default the GM chooses to which units this happens to.

Damaged status for a unit may be removed if, at the beginning of the War Round the unit is at a Friendly Site when it receives extra Supply Units equal to its Base Maintenance cost for the Turn (see table in section 8.4)


Rules for Spaceports state;
Rules 7.9.2:
Spaceport (S):<quote> [snip] Will count as a Friendly Site for Spaceships which can land there.  [snip] This facility may modify or repair the Damaged status of any number of landed Spaceships per Turn but can only repair the Damaged status of 1 Spaceship per War Round (see section 10.7).


Now, your question is specific to QCRs, basically, you are asking for the rules to set how many war rounds per QCR which will give you the number that can be repaired by each spaceport

Rules for QCRs state;
Rules 10.11:
[snip...]
Each Quick Combat Round is independent of the usual system of War Rounds/Hexes, is actually comprised of many War Rounds/Hexes, so may be of an indefinite time and size to be determined by the GM


So, this is solely at the GMs discretion based on how long they feel each QCR is from the role-play pace the pace they are setting. There is no fixed number because how long QCRs are is where role-play and the GMs judgement comes into it.

In summary : If a question starts 'how many times in a QCR can I...' the answer is going to be 'as many times as the GM says for that round'
Germany
player, 481 posts
Mon 19 Nov 2018
at 18:49
  • msg #477

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Co-GM:
<snip>Does that clear it up?

Yes, and not…

I mean, we have now only one system so listed to work with (Sol, of course), and making those changes in its planet entries (in fact only in the UWP used as titles for the entires) would be quite easy.

When another system is disclosed, will we list it as Sol is now (even in it’s only a listing of the systems, without the maps and other info, that would be in the archive as you tell)? If so, making those changes would be equally easy.

This would give us a better first glance idea of the systems and its development status (the main reason for UWP to exist, BTW).

Co-GM:
You're wanting to know how many units could be repaired in a Quick Combat Round (QCR);

Rules for units out of supply state;

Rules 10.7:
If there are insufficient Supply Units available to be consumed then the remaining units which are considered as damaged in combat as per section 10.6, by default the GM chooses to which units this happens to.

Damaged status for a unit may be removed if, at the beginning of the War Round the unit is at a Friendly Site when it receives extra Supply Units equal to its Base Maintenance cost for the Turn (see table in section 8.4)


The problem on all of this is that 10.11 (quick Combat) rules clearly specify:

quote:
Also ignored for Quick Combat are sections 10.3 (Initiative), 10.4 (Combat Cycle), 10.5 (Battle Resolution), 10.6 (Damage Allocation), 10.7 (After Combat), 10.8 (Air Units), 10.9 (Air Defense and Ground Support), and 10.10 (Hidden Status and Stealth Ability).


OTOH, we’re not really talking about combat, as what I’m talking about  is unsupplied units not in combat, so he relevant parts of the rules is 8.4:

quote:
If a unit is not completely supplied then it is considered to be damaged in combat as per section 10.7.

Co-GM:
Rules for Spaceports state;
Rules 7.9.2:
Spaceport (S):<quote> [snip] Will count as a Friendly Site for Spaceships which can land there.  [snip] This facility may modify or repair the Damaged status of any number of landed Spaceships per Turn but can only repair the Damaged status of 1 Spaceship per War Round (see section 10.7).

Agreed

Co-GM:
Now, your question is specific to QCRs, basically, you are asking for the rules to set how many war rounds per QCR which will give you the number that can be repaired by each spaceport

Partially…

I ask how many spaceships may a spaceport repair in a turn if not In combat, and in a QCR war round if they are needed in latter such WR when they are damaged due to lack of supplies (or if they can be so “repaired” with the turn orders, specifying that as they are not orbit supplied, they cannot be used for turn orders, just for WR ones if so needed).

This is In fact uncovered by the rules, as I guess it was (as many other situations that are unavoidable to develop while the game is run, but not expected nor thought about beforehand) not expected to happen, and must be inferred from the rules. That’s why I ask how will this be handled.

Co-GM:
Rules for QCRs state;
Rules 10.11:
[snip...]
Each Quick Combat Round is independent of the usual system of War Rounds/Hexes, is actually comprised of many War Rounds/Hexes, so may be of an indefinite time and size to be determined by the GM

Agreed, but the reference to each QCR being comprised of many WRs would make the easy answer each spaceport may repair many ships in a QCR WR.

Co-GM:
So, this is solely at the GMs discretion based on how long they feel each QCR is from the role-play pace the pace they are setting. There is no fixed number because how long QCRs are is where role-play and the GMs judgement comes into it.

In summary : If a question starts 'how many times in a QCR can I...' the answer is going to be 'as many times as the GM says for that round'

Agreed again, and that’s why I ask.

The most logical (IMHO) answer would be that if ships are left unsupplied in the turn orders (the most likely reason is to save orbital SUs), they can be repaired in any numbers by a spaceport in a single WR, but they are not operative in this WR (as any other unit being so repaired).

But as my logics do not always coincide with Kelvin’s, that’s why I ask and would like a clear answer to process my turn, as it is unlikely I can supply all my ships (at least without severely curtailing my space development plans) due to lack of uplift capacity.
Germany
player, 482 posts
Tue 20 Nov 2018
at 18:42
  • msg #478

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

About mining facilities (both, Asteroid and surface ones):

Current RMU formula is:

quote:
Raw Material Units = (Nearest Core Settlement Material tech level) X (Effective Mining potential of the hex + World Size) / (5 + Current number of Mining facilities in the hex)0.5- 1% for every Turn after the World was Surveyed,


I understand this -1% per turn os for exhausting lodes and so on, but does it apply even if the planet (or asterorid) is not exploited yet?

I'd suggest to apply from the first explotation of the planet/asteroid.
Sign In