RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to 2300 Great Game Command Center

08:13, 19th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Rules Discussions.

Posted by Co-GMFor group 0
Germany
player, 159 posts
Fri 11 Dec 2015
at 03:49
  • msg #54

Re: Rules proposal 20151210

First of all, I'm very glad to know about you again. After some time without knowing anything I began to be concerned.

This said, as you had not logged since my last posts, I guess you had not read them, as the changes I see in the rules go to absolutely opposite direction; and even having read in chapter 3 that Arguing about the game, its rules, its realism, <snip>, does NOT constitute playing the game. Such things are at best a distraction and will be treated as such by the GM I'm willing being treated as such by the GM if I really believe some rules are faulty.

Combat Cycle Ref:
The first couple of Turns we were doing well just to have a comprehensive set of rules, by Turn 3 we had that. By Turn 4 the rules had been improved enough that they worked tolerably well for the current situation, but after a while I think things would slowly fall apart. 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.

What has changed
-Altered the 'Nations' file to be 'Settlement List'. Taking some inspiration from the World Generation rules of Traveller, making the file clearly suitable for non-Earth settlements and be clearly incorporated into the rules.

-Looking ahead, made some changes just to make it easier to do the book-keeping: A unique unit number is clearly mandatory. Changes to exactly how cutting edge technology is researched to make it easier to represent on our budget spreadsheets. As Spaceships can move anywhere in a Turn, Supply Units for Spaceships need only be brought to any O/T, not the nearest. Just one way of representing units, the way in section 12.1. Colony income for facilities is determined by number of population units, not facilities; one less thing to track. ODI facilities do not upgrade, they automatically have a Fighter component upon the right tech level. Rewrote the options for dealing with Oil SRU shortfall to be generic SRU shortfall, to not just oil. Got rid of the different toll to mass capacities from various interface facilities for different cargo types. Removed minimum cost to developing a new item. Except for what needs to be brought to the Orbit hex, Interface and Orbital facilities on a Core World do not have an SU requirement.

-Got rid of the remnants of an earlier time when we thought we could have a much more detailed game than we now realize would be a fun and playable thing to do:Got rid of Fuel Bases; they were originally intended to be a ‘hidden base from which to conduct raiding’ sort of thing but various rules changes along the way made them surprisingly useless and largely a duplicate of Naval Bases&Military Rank. Intolerable hexes may not be entered or used; the universe is capable of creating some really nasty real estate which even in 2300AD are inaccessible to facilities and units. Got rid of Naval Base Modules, folding their duties into O/Ts with which they overlapped with extensively anyways. Got rid of Fighter Modules as they could be incorporated into Weaponry Modules. Got rid of Assembly Yards, originally they were intended to be a forward repair station, but over time mutated into something much more complex. Got rid of Coal Gasification option, merged with Alternative Infrastructure.


Personally I don't see how those rules, that mostly difficult the reaching of the space will take us to them.

Where with last rules we needed a shipyard (with the catapults to support it with RMUs) to  build a ship capable to carry passaenges, now we need two shipyards, with double RMU to be uplifted (and two OT as support BTW, instead of just part of a naval base).

And if I complained about the low building capacity of the shipyards, now they have none, just asemble the modules built in ground and uplifted to them (again by any means except catapults, BTW), so needing lots of interface and OTs to a siongle ship.

Instead of naval base modules, we now need OTs (at the rate of 2.5 OTs per Naval Base Module). So, where you needed to expend $50 (and for a Naval Base to enlarge your fleet another 50000 tonnes, you now need to sped 400 in 2 OTs to expand it by 40000 tonnes.

So, please, tell me, how will this take us to the stars if now no enclavement could be uilt in Mars until the developement of the catapults?
Germany
player, 160 posts
Fri 11 Dec 2015
at 16:24
  • msg #55

Re: Rules proposal 20151210. Questions

(don't panic, this time I won't argue anything, just asking for some clarifications;))

Rule 7.3

quote:
The first time a nation builds a particular kind of Colony facility, Module or Military Unit the cost of the item is X2 the normal cost after the calculation for Quality and Tech level


As I understand what is written here, the doubling for developement is also affected by the quality in the case of military units, but I understand the spirit of the rles to be against that...

So, assuming Saudi Arabia wants to build a reserve CVH (cost is $30). As 7.3 applies, what's the cost?

  1. $15: $30, quartered because it's reserve, doubled because 7.3, then rounded up (in this case no effect)
  2. $38: $30, quartered because it's reseve, +$30 (it's standard cost) due to 7.3, the nrounded up.


Rule 9.8.2:


quote:
-Scram Aircraft (Sc): A squadron of hypersonic aircraft which with the assist of reusable rockets are capable of reaching orbit. Because Scram Aircraft fly they are much safer and more efficient at bringing cargo down. Requires a breathable atmosphere of at least 0.5 Atmo to function. Has sufficient range to take items between the surface of a satellite to the Orbit hex of any moon of that satellite.


Can they be used to bring things to the Moon, having it no atmophere, regardless having range to do it?

Probably more to come as I read the more in deep...
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 79 posts
Sat 26 Dec 2015
at 04:02
  • msg #56

Re: Rules proposal 20151210. Questions

>, as you had not logged since my last posts, I guess you had not read them
I did read them, I just consider them superseded by the recent changes and so not needing a direct response.


>> thatArguing about the game, its rules, its realism, <snip>, does NOT constitute
>> playing the game. Such things are at best a distraction and will be treated as such by the GM
>I'm willing being treated as such by the GM if I really believe some rules are faulty.
>don't panic, this time I won't argue anything, just asking for some clarifications;)
Jeez Lluis, if I had intended that sentence in section 3 to be some kind of statement of a zero-tolerance policy thing then I would never have tolerated this entire thread in the first place. I thought I was pretty clear there that such discussions were at the sufferance of the GM, I suffer this thread because it is usually both polite and constructive. Over the years there have been plenty of others which were neither.


> to  build a ship capable to carry passaenges, now we need two shipyards, with
>double RMU to be uplifted

Hmmm, a clarification needs to be made, I never intended to imply that shipyards required RMU to function as shipyards, just when producing modules.

> And if I complained about the low building capacity of the shipyards, now they have none,
Shipyards were never intended to be about making large number of modules.

>, just asemble the modules built in ground and uplifted to them (again by any means
>except catapults

Sounds like a plan!


> Instead of naval base modules, we now need OTs (at the rate of 2.5 OTs per
>Naval Base Module).

Given the expected large number of the OTs that will be built, I do not see this as being some sort of game-breaking limitation.


> As I understand what is written here, the doubling for developement is also affected
>by the quality in the case of military units<snip> As 7.3 applies, what's the cost?
Neither option. I can see that my original explanation was inadequate. I will rewrite it. Good catch.

>Scram Aircraft <snip> Can they be used to bring things to the Moon, having it no
>atmophere, regardless having range to do it?
Given that normal rockets do not have their engines ‘on’ all the way to the moon but rather acquire all of their necessary momentum while in the boost phase, while still well within their Earth’s atmosphere; I do not see going to the moon to be a problem for Scram Aircraft either. Even if there was a problem then I am sure you competent engineers will take care of the details and do something like strapping on some disposable rockets or some such sort of solution without bothering you.
Germany
player, 161 posts
Sat 26 Dec 2015
at 15:45
  • msg #57

Re: Rules proposal 20151210. Questions

Combat Cycle Ref:
>, as you had not logged since my last posts, I guess you had not read them
I did read them, I just consider them superseded by the recent changes and so not needing a direct response.


>> thatArguing about the game, its rules, its realism, <snip>, does NOT constitute
>> playing the game. Such things are at best a distraction and will be treated as such by the GM
>I'm willing being treated as such by the GM if I really believe some rules are faulty.
>don't panic, this time I won't argue anything, just asking for some clarifications;)
Jeez Lluis, if I had intended that sentence in section 3 to be some kind of statement of a zero-tolerance policy thing then I would never have tolerated this entire thread in the first place. I thought I was pretty clear there that such discussions were at the sufferance of the GM, I suffer this thread because it is usually both polite and constructive. Over the years there have been plenty of others which were neither.


Glad to know

Combat Cycle Ref:
> to  build a ship capable to carry passaengers, now we need two shipyards, with
>double RMU to be uplifted

Hmmm, a clarification needs to be made, I never intended to imply that shipyards required RMU to function as shipyards, just when producing modules.


And for the Shipyard to produce the $20 it produces per turn, does it need the 20 RMUs uplifted (or tranported) to it?

Combat Cycle Ref:
> And if I complained about the low building capacity of the shipyards, now they have none,
Shipyards were never intended to be about making large number of modules.


It may be just a semantic matter, (and in this you're on advantage, English being your language), but I always thought a Shipyard builds full ships, not just parts of it (modules)...

And see that this is in contradiction with the previous answer, as if it does not produce even modules, then the 20 RMUs cannot be needed to produce them...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>, just asemble the modules built in ground and uplifted to them (again by any means
>except catapults

Sounds like a plan!


Yes, a plan that makes high uplift capacity to build such a ship, aside from 2 shipyards mínimum.

A ship capable to carry passengers must be at mínimum 15-20000tonnes (as the passenger module is already 10000, and you'll need at least some hull, power and drive modules for it to function), so at mínimum 2 shipyards and those 15-20000 uplift capacity to uplift the modules...

Combat Cycle Ref:
> Instead of naval base modules, we now need OTs (at the rate of 2.5 OTs per
>Naval Base Module).

Given the expected large number of the OTs that will be built, I do not see this as being some sort of game-breaking limitation.


Perhaps not game-breaking, but sure game-braking.

As the game stood before (or at least as I understood it), you didn't expect a large number of OTs, just one per country (or colony) that would be enlarged with modules as needed (docking, habitat/colony, power, etc..), and a large "orbital city" will be developed this way. Now, we need several OTs with less modules, developing many "orbital towns/villages" instead (at quite higher cost)...


Combat Cycle Ref:
> As I understand what is written here, the doubling for developement is also affected
>by the quality in the case of military units<snip> As 7.3 applies, what's the cost?
Neither option. I can see that my original explanation was inadequate. I will rewrite it. Good catch.


Waiting for the clarifications them...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>Scram Aircraft <snip> Can they be used to bring things to the Moon, having it no
>atmophere, regardless having range to do it?
Given that normal rockets do not have their engines ‘on’ all the way to the moon but rather acquire all of their necessary momentum while in the boost phase, while still well within their Earth’s atmosphere; I do not see going to the moon to be a problem for Scram Aircraft either. Even if there was a problem then I am sure you competent engineers will take care of the details and do something like strapping on some disposable rockets or some such sort of solution without bothering you.


I mainly asked because, if I understood well, the reverse will not be true: you cannot base Scram Aircrafts in the Moon (as it has no atmosphere). If so, I find it a little odd that the same Scram Aircraft that, if based on Earth, can land and take off in/from Moon cannot be based there and do the reverse trip...

Lets put an example to illustrate some more questions this brings to my mind:

Imagine a country has one Scram Aircraft unit in Earth with a Base Uplift of 200 (let's make numbers easy), and wants to use it to send things to Moon. It can uplift 10000 tonnes, and it could downlift about 180000 on Moon without problem if there were atmosphere.

  • Can it downlift this same amount of cargo without the lift given by atmosphere?
  • Can it also take some cargo on the return trip?
  • If not (as they cannot opérate from Moon, as it has no atmosphere), could it do it should Moon have atmosphere (as can be in other planets)?
  • Could it do it (with the appropiate numbers) if it was a rocket (that needs no atmosphere)?

Germany
player, 162 posts
Sat 26 Dec 2015
at 19:44
  • msg #58

Re: Rules proposal 20151210. Questions

Reflections about Spaceships rules:

Construction:


When first written, the rules about ships made one unit to represent one ship, and put a limit on how large a ship could land on a planet.  Ships able to land could be built on ground facilities, while larger (or unstremlined) ones could not, needing orbital facilities to be built. IMHO this made quite sense.

When passengers modules were enlarged to be able to care for a full pop unit, we found that a ship having them had to be too large to land on a 1 G planet. You answered this by ruling that a ship unit might also represent several ships, higher quality ones representing more ships.  With this, the law of unintended consequences hit us, as:
  • If quality represents the number of ships, cargo capaicity should depend on it. If an experienced  20000 tonnes unit represents 4 5000 tonnes ships, then this same unit as reserve should represent a sing le 5000 ships (with its cargo capaicity reduced accordingly), while making it elite should represent 12 of them, with its cargo capacity increased accordingly.
  • In the 5000 tonnes ship could perfectly be built in ground facilities, there’s no logical reason why the 60000 tonnes represented by the elite unit could not (even if they need more than a single spaceport)
  • If you can only build 10000 tonnes per spaceport, but increasing quality represents more ships, the same spaceport, by increasing the quality of a unit, is building quite more shipping than allowed…


My suggestion on this would be to return to the basics, each unit representing one ship (so quality not affecting tonnage nor cargo), quality representing readiness, crew quality and state of repair/disrepair of the ship, limiting again the maximum size of ship to be able to land (and the 10000/G tonnes always convinced me). To allow passenger carrying to be able to land, reduce the passenger module to 5000 tonnes, that represent about 1 ton per passenger, and is more than double the POP unit mass as described in 6.5.2, that would represent living space and spin habitats.

Command and Control:


Since the beginning I’ve been advocating for the limits for command and control (be it Naval Base Modules or OTs) to be by unit, not by tonnage. I’ve always seen quite asurd that a single ship might need more than one (see that a Tallyrand, as described in 11.1, being a 62000 tonnes ship, would require 3 OTs by itself).

By ruling this, large are more attractive and, if coupled with the points above, those large ships would be unable to land, as most in 2300AD setting are.

Interface:

This has been a source of disagreement with you since the beginning.

While in 2300 AD setting interface facilities are very important, there are also planets that have them quite undeveloped and rely on ships able to land for interface (as Crater for passengers, according Colonial Atlas).

I find absurd the limitation to take off loaded for a ship, as  a 10000 tonnes ship without cargo modules can take off with its full mass, while the same ship, if it has 5000 tonnes of cargo capacity cannot, having a limit of 5000 tonnes to take off. Off course, this could be abused, using a ship as interface (hey, if my ship with 5000 tonnes of cargo can take off loaded, I make it to take off 500 times and I have an uplift capacity of 2500000 nearly free1), and this must be avoided, even if quite artificially.

Note 1: see that this can be done for downloading now. E.g. if I have a catapult in Moon able to put 500000 tonnes of FUs/RMUs in orbit and a streamlined ship able to land on Earth with 5000 tonnes, nothing in the rules as written precludes it to be used to downlift it all by making 100 landings

I already suggested some options (off course, not mutually exclusive):
  • To add 1 AU/LY to the trip distance per such a landing/take off done (representing increased time and maintenance needed)
  • To put a SU cost to each such landing/take off (representing increased maintenance, heat shielding wear, fuel…)

Germany
player, 163 posts
Mon 28 Dec 2015
at 11:03
  • msg #59

Rules proposal 20151225. Questions

11.2
quote:
A nation must have one O/T facility for every 10 000 tonnes of non-Reserve Quality Level Spaceships, rounded down, that a nation possesses, excess must immediately be reduced to Reserve Quality Level.

(bold is mine)

So now the OT requirements for spaceships are doubled (when I was complaining they were far too high)?
Now a single Tallyrand ship would need 6 OTs by itself. Can you please argument (be it in logical or gaming arguments) how a single ship can need so many OTs for support?
How does that affect already existing spaceship (as no single OT is fully owned by Germany or ESA)?

Many times you told me that some suggested change was not a bad idea, but will affect too much already done investments by some players. This is exactly the case (well, we can discuss about not being a bad idea). This fully stops cold one of Germans main focus to now: space exploration.

Germany began his plans with the knowledge that 4 Freude class ships can be built before needing a Naval Base Module. Then passengers modules were forbidden to be built by ground facilities: the plans were already quite broken, but perhaps salvageable with extra effort. Then, when half of them were already built, this was changed to each 2 of them would need an OT. Assuming we can count on Crystal Palace and Lunastar, the plans were still feasible (barely). 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?

quote:
News headline:
Damgarten Kosmodrome, Germany: ESA has informed today that all plans about Mars OT have been stopped today due to the state of disarray ESASS Freude and DRMS Bahnbreacher fell after some sudden changes in physical laws affected them

How does that sound?
UK
player, 51 posts
Wed 30 Dec 2015
at 21:15
  • msg #60

Rules proposal 20151225. Questions

In reply to Germany (msg # 59):

I have to admit I've not been overly concerned by the space rules as of yet as I've been trying to get my terrestrial affairs in order mainly so I've not paid too much attention to the rules on the maintenance of space forces so I'm afraid I can't remember what the previous rules were like on this point.

My question would be - why are we concerned with the ability to maintain ships using orbital terminals when we are not bothered by things like this for ground forces? I can understand that we might want some limiter on ships supportable but this seems fairly restrictive - maybe we could limit ships with military modules by the number of O/Ts but allow earlier colonisation and commercial exploitation of the solar system by not requiring this for ships without weapons so long as they can, like ground units, trace an unobstructed line of supply - so require the nation to have access to (not necessarily own but have an agreement to use) an O/T in system and the ability to uplift enough supplies to that O/T? (This would also help simulate a space economy as poorer nations looking to cash in on resources in space will look to rent uplift/Orbital terminals)- maybe even require the nation to have ships capable of carrying the required supplies between systems if we feel we absolutely have to track the amount of supplies a nation could ship in the 5 year period?

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 (not even a military one) will cut most nations out of the early space race. (Not to mention that this basically is adding £1200 (6 O/Ts at $200) - over 3x the listed cost of the  ship - to the effective cost of a Tallyrand BB)

I think it also produces a very 'winner takes all' feel to early space combat. If someone wins an early war in space then the order 'my units destroy/scuttle all orbital terminals in the Earth orbit hex belonging to X' means that nation is exiled from space and will have to spend significant amount of time and money raising O/Ts before being able to return to space. I guess you can not allow that as the GM but I see no reason beyond game balance why space infrastructure could not be destroyed in a war like this.
China
player, 16 posts
Thu 31 Dec 2015
at 02:19
  • msg #61

Rules proposal 20151225. Questions

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.. 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 will say this having been on the brunt end of several handwavium changes. Roll with it write it up as Germany got overzealous in its construction and has a spare ship or three for its survey forces.

And have faith that we will hammer out something workable.  Now unfortunalty Traveller as a whole took a large blow recently with the passing of Don Mckinney.(keeper of all things cannon for traveller,2300, etc)

As to what is and what is not cannon for mongoose 2300 or even traveller 2300 those are just guidlines ..as we started with the same base rules as the great game to write the cannon with a twist we did not start with WWWIII..and then goto space and that was the basis for the 2300 AD cannon as written(of which our rules writer has been one of the largest contributers to tracking erratta for 2300AD and its succssors)  and sometimes needs a gentle or sometimes not so gentle nudge that this is not the original 2300 universe anymore but an alternate one. Some things will not conform to the original game background and others will. For me its been a nice side project to distract me occasionally from reality.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:44, Thu 31 Dec 2015.
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 80 posts
Thu 31 Dec 2015
at 23:23
  • msg #62

Rules proposal 20151225. Questions

> 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

> so at mínimum 2 shipyards and those 15-20000 uplift capacity to uplift the modules...
Not seeing this as being a game breaking imposition

> Perhaps not game-breaking, but sure game-braking.
That is the point.

> 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.

> Imagine a country has one Scram Aircraft unit in Earth with a Base Uplift of 200
>(let's make numbers easy), and wants to use it to send things to Moon. It can
>uplift 10000 tonnes, and it could downlift about 180000 on Moon without problem
>if there were atmosphere.

No. The Scram Aircraft based on Earth may not downlift anything to the Moon, even if the Moon has an atmosphere. As per the description in section 9.8.2 the Scram Aircraft, like other interface, may only bring things to the Orbit hex of the Moon.

>advocating for the limits for command and control (be it Naval Base Modules or OTs) to
> be by unit, not by tonnage. <snip>By ruling this, large are more attractive

I can think of no reason why the rules should favour bigger ships; and a bigger ship is going to require more support than a smaller ship.

>Interface:<snip> to take off.
No

> 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.

> 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.

> Then passengers modules were forbidden to be built by ground facilities
Re-read the description for Spaceports.

> 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.

> why are we concerned with the ability to maintain ships using orbital terminals when
>we are not bothered by things like this for ground forces?

We are, as per section 6.2 the cost of which factors into ‘Social Upkeep’. It is another part of how treatment of ground forces is simplified compared to Starships, had to given that there are always going to be so many more ground forces than Starships.

> 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.

>If someone wins an early war in space then the order 'my units destroy/scuttle all
>orbital terminals in the Earth orbit hex belonging to X' means that nation is exiled
> from space

Worse, I can just see some rules spitting game lawyer type using O/T destruction as an argument for reductions in the quality of their enemy’s forces. Fortunately there is a simple fix, the reduction is Spaceship Quality will be changed from ‘immediate’ to ‘next Turn’

> Where does it specifically say quality represents the number of ships
It does not, the idea is that unit quality covers a deliberately very large and fuzzy range of possible things that can be done to improve performance for a given unit, including the possibly that a given Spaceship unit is actually split up between more than one hull.

> and Germnay jumped the gun on the number of ships it has built.;) I will say this
>having been on the brunt end of several handwavium changes. Roll with it

Yup.
China
player, 17 posts
Fri 1 Jan 2016
at 00:05
  • msg #63

Rules proposal 20151225. Questions

In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 62):

And now we see the carrot each O/T handles 10K tons of ships in a addition to their other benefits not in place of .. kinda nice actually ..and it wont take long for various nations to have multiple O/T's up and running..
Germany
player, 164 posts
Fri 1 Jan 2016
at 19:47
  • msg #64

Rules proposal 20151225. Questions

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 10th:
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.
China
player, 18 posts
Sat 2 Jan 2016
at 20:31
  • msg #65

Rules proposal 20151225. Questions

Another Problem ..not rules related Spreadsheet related..Need to add more signifigant digits to Column L rows 28 to 44) since 3 does not reflect costs for China to upgrade most of its infrastructure..it reads ###.## so a 4th significant is needed there as I suspect India and USA may run into similar issues ..It does however reflect in D-43 correctly ...
Germany
player, 165 posts
Sun 3 Jan 2016
at 11:38
  • msg #66

Rules proposal 20151225. Questions

Some more questions

9.4. Maintenance (clarification asked):

I’m afraid this puzzles me. According this rule, each orbital facility requires 1 SU at its orbit, and, this aside, extra supplies if they are outside surface of a core world. Yet, in the example, those extra supplies are not counted for. Isn’t orbit, by definition, outside surface of a core world? Or it does not count because the rest of the supplies are assumed to be for ground support facilities (as Houston, Baykonur, etc.), and so are counted as being in a Core World surface?.

If the latter, then I understand those extra supplies are now only needed for Lunastar. Is that right?

Spreadsheets:

I see there’s now no specific section for extra supplies needed due to deployments, nor for supplies needed for orbital facilities.

Should then they be just marked as another purchase?
Germany
player, 166 posts
Sun 3 Jan 2016
at 12:25
  • msg #67

Some reflections…

NOTE: I post that here for lack of another, more adequate, place

I want to share with you some reflections about the Budget expenses:

Inefficiences:

While the world inefficiencies has clearly a negative connotation, they, in fact are some of the basis or our economies. Just to put some examples:
  • If we make a too efficient use of antibiotics (using the newer ones only when really needed, at least until they can become generics, and so cheaper), who will develop new ones?
  • The use of dead tree books and newspapers is probably inefficient against the use of electronic ones, but it keeps the paper mills, editorials, etc… running, so the unemployment low.
  • The most paradigmatic example of inefficiency is fashion. We discard clothing, complements, etc. in perfect shape just because they are out of fashion. But at the same time is an important part of our economies, maintaining many jobs.



OTOH, too much of them is clearly damaging to the economies, as much more is paid for what could be cheaper.

So, in game terms, I think those inefficiencies can be fought to a point (difficult to define). Past it (or lowering them too quickly), they should be damaging for the GDP growth.

Corruption:
quote:
Corruption in a government is like lubricant on an engine. Not enough, and the engine breaks down. Too much of it, and the engine does not work.

Allegedly: Miquel Roca (Catalan politician and one of the fathers of Spanish Constitution)


Corruption is one of the most difficult things to work with. It includes many things:
  1. officers/bureaucrats asking for bribes
  2. nepotism
  3. frauds
  4. politicians favoring specific companies/lobbies in order to get their own benefit (be it in contributions for their campaigns, good posts once retired from politics, etc.)
  5. fiscal evasion (if not strong enough as to deserve its own entry)
  6. assigning contract without the due open contests


And sure more things.

While the points 1-4 are clearly against the good working of economy, points 5 and 6 are not always so. Some fiscal evasion in specific cases may save companies from bankruptcy, so keeping jobs and economy running, and some direct assignment of contracts may speed things that would otherwise eternize in contests, so benefiting economy.

Aside from this, corruption is difficult to fight. If too high, because it’s too assumed by society, and because the same officials that should fight it are probably affected by it. If low, because the remaining corruption is the undetectable (or even beneficial for economy, as stated above).

So, like inefficiencies, in game terms, too low (or too quickly lowered) a corruption may even be prejudicial for the economy, leading to a lowering of GDP growth.

National Debt:

While again another concept with negative connotation, fact is that most economists consider it as a need. Banks invest in national debt as a sure value. So do pension plans and investment agencies. If a nation has no such debt, its economy is as likely to suffer as if it has too much of it. Many economists say a healthy level is about 40-60% of the yearly GDP.

So, again, while too high a National Debt will lower the DGP, so will (due mostly to its effect on finances business) too low (or too quickly lowered) a debt.

OTOH, it should be one of the easiest such costs to lower (being quite straightforward: you pay your debt, and you stop paying interests). I’d suggest to make its lowering an easy (or even simple, if it’s high) political action (for computing the defense in 8.5).

Other such expenses:

Such as unemployment, unrest , integration problems, specific problems/crisis, etc.) have not such dual effects, and lowering them as much as possible (up to eradication) should have no ill effects.

-----------

As said, those are only reflections (and I'm not an economist, so take them with a grain of salt). If they help the GMs, so the better, if not, I hope you enjoyed Reading them.
UK
player, 52 posts
Sun 3 Jan 2016
at 13:06
  • msg #68

Some reflections…

In reply to Germany (msg # 67):

I think the way to view these costs would be to say that this is what your economists could be saved if everything was working correctly and property - so its a representation of the biggest problems your society faces and the waste of economic potential they represent rather than the actual cost of things (so for the UK the budget sheet shows NHS ineficiences - whilst the actual cost of the NHS proper would be in my social upkeep?)
China
player, 19 posts
Sun 3 Jan 2016
at 14:57
  • msg #69

Some reflections…

In reply to UK (msg # 68):

Ahh I see you are looking at it from a free market standpoint ..and purely cash flow ..but regardless of government type corruption affects safety and effectiveness of troops and largest factor Morale and Trust of the population..if the population trusts and believes that its government will deliver then it has a strong economy but as soon as it stops trusting and its morale goes down then the economy will tank .. Visable known corruption leads to lower morale and trust leads to a tanking economy..

some things that appear less efficient are actually needed for the health and well being of the people..ie a variety of food leads to better health but is not efficient for the economy..antibiotic research will go on as things become immune to the previous ones used..and fashion ..well the only ones that do the ditch clothes cause its "out of style" are the upper 1% no one else can afford that they tend to buy the cast off clothing mend it and wear it ..or they buy heavy duty inexpensive well made working clothes (like myself) and tend to use timeless fashion ..ie good grooming washed and pressed shirts and washed and pressed slacks.  I have 4 bowties, 6 neckties and 3 suits(shades of grey) for when I need them (they are all at least 20 years old of the wash and wear type not the dry clean only type)..Most folk in the middle to lower classes do the same and that is the bulk of the population.
Nordic Federation
player, 1 post
Mon 4 Jan 2016
at 14:22
  • msg #70

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.


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)?

If so, does Nordic Federation (being a major oil exporter) have no such capacity?

Also, I understand this would increase oil reserve (cell K50), right?
Referee
GM, 91 posts
Mon 4 Jan 2016
at 23:37
  • msg #71

Calrification asked

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

But does japan also need to build a orbital habitat before its 1st research module or when it constructs its 11th research module?

Does a Satelite power rectenna module work bothways? Could I beam power from the surface to orbit and so power orbital facilities?
South Korea
player, 1 post
Mon 4 Jan 2016
at 23:49
  • msg #72

Re: Calrification asked

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

But does japan also need to build a orbital habitat before its 1st research module or when it constructs its 11th research module?


Rules:
-Orbital Habitat: <snip> One facility required for every 10 non-‘Orbital Habitat’ or ‘Orbital Colony’ Orbital Facilities or Modules (round down) that the owning nation has about a satellite.


Bold section is key part - you would require one for your 10th facility on the satellite (9/10 rounded down is 0 while 10/10 is 1) So if Japan were to build two O/Ts and 7 Modules it would then need an orbital habitat before it could build more in the orbit hex of that particular satellite

Referee:
Does a Satelite power rectenna module work bothways? Could I beam power from the surface to orbit and so power orbital facilities?


Rules as written would suggest yes as it says 'shared'?
Japan
player, 54 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 05:07
  • msg #73

Re: Calrification asked

South Korea:
Rules as written would suggest yes as it says 'shared'?

And physics support this I would imagine. However it does limit the use/need/purpose of orbital power modules...
Germany
player, 167 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 13:03
  • msg #74

Re: Calrification asked

With the restructuration of the Prestige and Relations from -20 to +20 to from 1 to 20, differences are halved.

This changes several formulas and cases:

  • 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?
This message was last edited by the player at 13:07, Tue 05 Jan 2016.
Germany
player, 168 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 13:06
  • msg #75

Re: Calrification asked

Japan:
South Korea:
Rules as written would suggest yes as it says 'shared'?

And physics support this I would imagine. However it does limit the use/need/purpose of orbital power modules...


Not necessarily so. This may be true in Core Worlds, where power is considered unlimited, but in colonies, it can really lead to opposite...
UK
player, 53 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 13:26
  • msg #76

Re: Calrification asked

Japan:
And physics support this I would imagine. However it does limit the use/need/purpose of orbital power modules...

I'd argue otherwise - this means you can have all your power in orbit and production on the ground or power on the ground and then have only power consuming units in orbit- potentially really useful for very small bodies with only one or 2 hexes (The asteroids for example) Or for where you want to maximize the ship building potential of a satellite so you have ore mining and ship yards in orbit so you don't have to uplift the raw materials - just send the power up instead
China
player, 20 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 21:10
  • msg #77

Re: Calrification asked

In reply to UK (msg # 76):

The Entire point of Solar Power Satellites and beamed power transmission..However your looking at needing at least a theoretical Tech level of 9.5 for the transmitter..
the lower level for a rectenna may not be helpfull atm..Later on thou being able to beam power up or down will be suefull ..some places in the outer system you will have power going out from a Tokamak or in the habital zone and inner system power beamed down from satellite..
Germany
player, 169 posts
Tue 5 Jan 2016
at 21:13
  • msg #78

Re: Calrification asked

China:
In reply to UK (msg # 76):

The Entire point of Solar Power Satellites and beamed power transmission..However your looking at needing at least a theoretical Tech level of 9.5 for the transmitter..


The rectena module is TL 8.7, according to the rules...
Sign In