RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to 2300 Great Game Command Center

09:46, 19th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Rules Discussions.

Posted by Co-GMFor group 0
China
player, 39 posts
Mon 24 Oct 2016
at 12:17
  • msg #204

Re: Version 20161006

In reply to Germany (msg # 203):

Actually its closer to 75 per war round for the forces currently in NK..costly but not back breaking..(yea I had to go back and reread it) ..So same as it does now overall..maby a buck or two more if i miscounted (did a quick scan count not exact)


As to the tech costs the current system is Broken..regardless of hard choices China will not be able to upgrade more then a three seperate techs 0.1 in a turn (zero chance of closing the gap) and the numbers go down to zero soon thereafter Taking China out of the game at all.
Under the new system China will still be behind the west and still in the game and smaller nations like Canada, Australia, Nordic Federation, Saudi Arabia etc will be able to advance ..the cost limiter is moved to theoretical. The European union will move advance on theoretical tech working asa group..The USA can do it on its own able to take the lead on any theoretical tech (well mabey one of it concentrates on it..

As to the economical being cheaper and not feeling like it did earlier remember it still costs China more than any of the western nations. Remember that theoretical is the more difficult to advance under the new system and will still be a limiting factor as it can only go up so fast.

So yea over all I am more than willing to give the new rules a shot next starting next turn ..

As to why is it cheaper now than before before it was broken this may be a bit to cheap but let it run a couple turns and see. It is simpler much simpler..
Germany
player, 247 posts
Mon 24 Oct 2016
at 14:23
  • msg #205

Re: Version 20161006

China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 203):

Actually its closer to 75 per war round for the forces currently in NK..costly but not back breaking..(yea I had to go back and reread it) ..So same as it does now overall..maby a buck or two more if i miscounted (did a quick scan count not exact)


Let's see...

China now has in Korea 71 units (unless I misscounted them, and after WR2 losses). As none of them is reserve quailty, their base maintenance cost is $71 (according 8.4, page 53 table, remember 1 SU=$1).

According 10.11 (Quick Combat, page 83):
quote:
For each round, Supply Units consumed by each unit involved equals 5 X the unit maintenance cost as if the unit started the Turn in the hex where the GM determines most of the combat occurs, see section 8.3.


So, You're right in that I missread it, as I thought it was 5 times the base cost, while it is 5 times total cost. So, if Chinese troops are considered in frendly site, their cost would be $71 x 5 = $355 per war round, while if they are considered outside a friendly site, the cost would be doubled, to $710 per WR (I guess it would be some point in betwwen, as at least air units acting from frendly bases would be considered in a friendly site).

How long could you maintain the offensive, at least without ressorting to War Footing, for what's only an expeditionary force (remember, your total SU reserve would now be 658 SU)?

China:
As to the tech costs the current system is Broken..regardless of hard choices China will not be able to upgrade more then a three seperate techs 0.1 in a turn (zero chance of closing the gap) and the numbers go down to zero soon thereafter Taking China out of the game at all.
Under the new system China will still be behind the west and still in the game and smaller nations like Canada, Australia, Nordic Federation, Saudi Arabia etc will be able to advance ..the cost limiter is moved to theoretical. The European union will move advance on theoretical tech working asa group..The USA can do it on its own able to take the lead on any theoretical tech (well mabey one of it concentrates on it..


The number of TLs one can rais in a turn depends on many factors, mostly AM, relative costs of military (both, because its costs and for its effect on military infrastructures costs) and expenses (oil, inefficiences, etc), bonus or penalties to economy for stability et al, etc.

China:
As to the economical being cheaper and not feeling like it did earlier remember it still costs China more than any of the western nations. Remember that theoretical is the more difficult to advance under the new system and will still be a limiting factor as it can only go up so fast.


China would need only $27 with those rules to raise its power infrastructure TL to 6.7. S, with those rules you could raise all economic TLs by +0.3 at a cost of about $650, while you spent $972 to raise a single one by +0.1 wiht old rules...OTOH, to raise your military air from 8.4 to 8.5 would cost you about S156 (about a 25% of raising all your economic TLs by 0.3)...

And US, to raise an economic infrastructure TL to 8.8 would cost only $31

For Nigeria, (TL 7 in most economic infrastructures TLs, to raise it to 7.1 would cost now a miser $2 (with old rules, it would have costed S72). So, with the cost of sending the 1st divison (3 experienced and one green brigades) to Korea for a single war round ($20) it could raise all economic infraastructures TLs by 0.2...

In comparison, to raise military infrastructures for Nigeria (all at 6.0) would cost now $4, double of what would cost to raise an economic infrastructure, despite the tiny (to be generous) armed forces Nigeria has...

China:
So yea over all I am more than willing to give the new rules a shot next starting next turn ..


And I'm willing to keep playing with them, but, in Kelvin's words:
Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 181):

The whole point of publishing a rules proposal is to elicit comment from others.



China:
As to why is it cheaper now than before before it was broken this may be a bit to cheap but let it run a couple turns and see. It is simpler much simpler..


Not because it's cheapoer, but to be just a 3% of what costed before, and only for economic infrastructures, IMHO, is broken (or more probably a typo from Kelvin in assigning the divisor).
This message was last edited by the player at 14:25, Mon 24 Oct 2016.
Germany
player, 248 posts
Mon 24 Oct 2016
at 15:47
  • msg #206

Re: Version 20161006

Afterthoughts...

Germany:
China now has in Korea 71 units (unless I misscounted them, and after WR2 losses). As none of them is reserve quailty, their base maintenance cost is $71 (according 8.4, page 53 table, remember 1 SU=$1).

According 10.11 (Quick Combat, page 83):
quote:
For each round, Supply Units consumed by each unit involved equals 5 X the unit maintenance cost as if the unit started the Turn in the hex where the GM determines most of the combat occurs, see section 8.3.


So, You're right in that I missread it, as I thought it was 5 times the base cost, while it is 5 times total cost. So, if Chinese troops are considered in frendly site, their cost would be $71 x 5 = $355 per war round, while if they are considered outside a friendly site, the cost would be doubled, to $710 per WR (I guess it would be some point in betwwen, as at least air units acting from frendly bases would be considered in a friendly site).

How long could you maintain the offensive, at least without ressorting to War Footing, for what's only an expeditionary force (remember, your total SU reserve would now be 658 SU)?


In fact it can even be worse.

quote:
2.2 Worls and Ratings (page 8):

- Inhospitable : An unprotected human would not survive for long but sufficient protection can easily be made e.g. vacuum of space or the surface of the Mars.

As N Korea is now a NBC battlefield, it can well enter in this definition, so costing 1SU ($1) more per unit...

If so, the cost for China could be:
  • 20 ground units, acting in inhospitable, non-friendly site (so 3SU/unit)= 60 SU (if it is not considered inhospitable, at 2SU/unit, cost would be 40 SU)
  • 51 Air units acting from their bases: 51 SU

So, total cost would be 111 SU (91 if not inhospitable), that would mean 555 SU (so &555; 455 SU, so $455 if not consideres inhospitable) per WR...

And this assumes there's no overcosts for air units, as they are acting from their bases, but with the literal reading of the rules (as if the unit started the Turn in the hex where the GM determines most of the combat occurs), they would also be so affected, and then total cost would be $710 per WR if it not considered inhospitable, and $1065 per WR if it is....
China
player, 40 posts
Mon 24 Oct 2016
at 18:35
  • msg #207

Re: Version 20161006

In reply to Germany (msg # 206):

Okay I agree that is insane...way to much supply required for quick vs normal combat...
It should be 1/5th normal mainteance for a quick combat round vs a normal one..considerin g the time differnces..
This message was last edited by the player at 18:37, Mon 24 Oct 2016.
Germany
player, 249 posts
Tue 25 Oct 2016
at 09:30
  • msg #208

Re: Version 20161006

China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 206):

Okay I agree that is insane...way to much supply required for quick vs normal combat...
It should be 1/5th normal mainteance for a quick combat round vs a normal one..considerin g the time differnces..


Neither I believe this. My guess is that both kind of WR should cost the same supplies, as, if in QC each WR represents quite more time tan the detailed system, the tempo is also quite slower, I guess compensating each other.

As I already said, I see detailed war system as high tempo war. Each WR represents about 1 month of high intensity combat. I ncontrast, QC represents a protracted attrition war, with each WR representing seeral months of low intensity war. I guess the supply consumes would be comparable.

See that in oficial rules (v20151225) detailed system the supply cost is 1SU/unit/WR . As it can theoretically last about 60 WRs in a turn, the cost can reach 60 SUs/unit (so $12/unit) for such a war (SUs used to repair units aside). In the same rules, the cost for QC is 10/MR SU/WR/unit (so, from 2.5 for a MR4 unit to 10 for a MR1 unit).

NOTE: for all the following numbers, I'll use a theoretical force of 100 units distributed i nQR exactly as the table in 8.9 gives and convert SUs to $ to ease comparing them.

As the average regular (per turn, as in the spreadsheet) cost for a unit is $0.84 SU for MR1, $0.58 for MR2, $0.34 for MR3 and $0.12 for MR4, this cost is quite higher than the regular cost per turn, but, again IMHO, it makes sense, due to the costs of war and the need of more or less support acording to MR.

The new rules makes all units but reserve equal in costs (about the same as a veteran unit was before), and raise the cost per WR to the tur cost for detailed system and to 5 times that in the QR.

So, For detailed system, the average cost per WR now becomes $0.9 per WR1 and 2 unit, $0.7 for MR3 and $0.3 for MR4, and for QRS, for MR1 and MR2 unit would be $4.5, for MR3 $3.5, and for MR4 $1.5.

But this may be missleading, as, unless defending home countries, reserve units are unlikely to participate, so making usual costs to be $1 per unit in detailed system and $5 per WR in QC, doubled if at ofensive (as the combat will likely occure in unfriendly territory).

See that costs for detailed system go up for a factor of 5 (but we don't expect it to be used often, and less so to last many WR), while the cost for QC go up for a factor of 2.25 for MR1 countries, 4.5 for MR2 countries, about 5.3 for MR3 and 3 for MR4 nations, assuming reserve units also take part. For non defensive actions where reserve units are not expected to participate, the factor of cost increasing would be 2.5 for MR1, 5 for MR2, about 7.5 for MR3 and 10 for MR4.
China
player, 41 posts
Tue 25 Oct 2016
at 22:11
  • msg #209

Re: Version 20161006

In reply to Germany (msg # 208):

Okay so make both types of war cost the same ..currently I am spending 75Billion a turn and dropping as attrition occurs ..so leave it at same cost ..its a reasonable amount ..but weather its quick temp or slow tempo does it matter ..have both cot the same as slow tempo and its no biggie ..MR 4 and MR 3 nations tend not to send out expiditionary forces where MR 1 and 2 Nations do ..so we are okay there
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 119 posts
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 23:03
  • msg #210

Re: Version 20161006

>ICBM: Shouldn’t its combat factor be only for attack pourposes? As is now, to give you
>an example, trying to attack ICBMs with bombers to try to destroy them in a preemtive
>attack  is suicidal…
>ABMs: now that most missiles (more so if WMD tipped) have their combat factors so
>increased, shouldn’t AMB also have theirs? After all this is their mission…

No where in this game is there a requirement that 1 unit be on equal footing with 1 unit of a different type.

>fails is for economical infrastructures, whose cost is far too low (I guess
>Kevin botched with the divisor).

Yes, it was a mistake. Now fixed.

>China will not be able to upgrade more then a three seperate techs 0.1 in a turn
By ‘three’ you mean ‘~eight, just like everyone else, and just like everyone else you have instead chosen other priorities than investing in increasing tech.'

>Inhospitable : An unprotected human <snip> As N Korea is now a NBC battlefield, it
>can well enter in this definition, so costing 1SU ($1) more per unit…

As if this game is not complex enough, there is no way I am going to have that happen.

>As I already said, I see detailed war system as high tempo war. <snip>QC represents
>a protracted attrition war,

No, it does not. QC is for when a battle is too laborious or too unimportant to do in detail. Separate combat rules for insurgencies are gone and they are NOT coming back.

>SU/unit, cost 
Each round in QC has been and always shall include the possibly of combat over a long period of time, many War Rounds, possibly years. It includes repair costs of damaged units otherwise damage would be at full instead of /5. It is going to be ridiculously expensive. If you have a problem with QC wars draining your stockpile of available SU then invest in a larger stockpile ahead of time.

Yes, all of these changes change the balance of power and the value of a given course of action. We do not have the luxury of being a shelf-ready, professionally designed and fully tested game. This is an incomplete amateur made game; you knew there would be changes when you first signed up.
This message was last edited by the GM at 03:43, Wed 02 Nov 2016.
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 120 posts
Tue 1 Nov 2016
at 23:12
  • msg #211

Version 20161101

-Made clearer: Absorbing Settlements.

-Re-balancing to: Calculation for Tech increases, most notably the effect of Authoritarian Score and SU consumed by units to be for all units instead of just those at a friendly Core Settlement (that is actually a change to what is said on the budget spreadsheet).

-Got rid of: Oil rigs, was just another thing to track, has nothing to do with the
2300AD universe, nor is ownership of oil rigs on per nation basis much like how it is actually done.
Germany
player, 250 posts
Wed 2 Nov 2016
at 12:52
  • msg #212

Re: Version 20161006

Combat Cycle Ref:
>ICBM: Shouldn’t its combat factor be only for attack pourposes? As is now, to give you
>an example, trying to attack ICBMs with bombers to try to destroy them in a preemtive
>attack  is suicidal…
>ABMs: now that most missiles (more so if WMD tipped) have their combat factors so
>increased, shouldn’t AMB also have theirs? After all this is their mission…

No where in this game is there a requirement that 1 unit be on equal footing with 1 unit of a different type.


You're right, nowere is it said, but what was said is that each unit should have some use, and now ABMs and Missile Defense satellites are nearly useless, as they cannot match missiles, while being quite more expensive. Similarly, ICBMs are quite powerful a defense against air raids or enemy missiles...

Combat Cycle Ref:
>As I already said, I see detailed war system as high tempo war. <snip>QC represents
>a protracted attrition war,

No, it does not. QC is for when a battle is too laborious or too unimportant to do in detail. Separate combat rules for insurgencies are gone and they are NOT coming back.


Nowere did I talk about insurgencies (I assume it, despite not sharing your view). What I meant as proracted attrition war would be what was most of Iran/Iraq war in the 80's.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>SU/unit, cost 
Each round in QC has been and always shall include the possibly of combat over a long period of time, many War Rounds, possibly years. It includes repair costs of damaged units otherwise damage would be at full instead of /5. It is going to be ridiculously expensive. If you have a problem with QC wars draining your stockpile of available SU then invest in a larger stockpile ahead of time.


I undersand all this, but the costs are still overwhelming. See the numbers I gave for China intervention in Korea. Now that you stated the terrain is not hostile (but still in unfrendly terrain as they were on offensive), the costs would be $455 per WR if the air units are assumed to be in friendly territory, $710 of we read literally the rules (as even air units are fighting in enemy territory).

The force sent by Russia (being just an expeditionary force) is about 39 units. As all of them are fighting out of friendly sites, its cost would have been $390/WR (the equivalent to 1950 current SUs). Even with the strong Russian investment this turn in SUs, it would have had to ressort to War Footing to maintain the 2 WRs this war has lasted.

The force Russia sent against Azerbaijan last turn, being again a small part of its army, consisted in about 50 units. Again, being in enemy territory, the cost would have been about $500 in supplies per WR. As Russia had "only" 1860 SUs (so the equivalent to $372 in supplies), it would have been forced to war footing to launch such offensive.

Do you still think those costs are reasonable, despite all you reasonings?

In fact, this rules would force anyone to go to war footing for any intervention (except very small ones).

Combat Cycle Ref:
Yes, all of these changes change the balance of power and the value of a given course of action. We do not have the luxury of being a shelf-ready, professionally designed and fully tested game. This is an incomplete amateur made game; you knew there would be changes when you first signed up.


Yes, I know, it was one of the first things you told me in your welcome mail when I joined it, but sometimes I feel as you're changing things that work (of course, I cannot tell what really simplifies turn resolution and what does not, as I don't resolve them).

Is really the SU system as it is now so difficult to implement (at leadst if players collaborate by keeping detailed accounting)? IMHO it worked well, and gives enough flexibility to make the game playable (as I already said, the need to move them in 5000 tonnes batches will also slow space exploration/exploit).

And as you said, you tell us about changes before they're implemented because you want our feed-back, and my augury if you implement those SU costs is that they will stop all wars (that may be good) and force most countries to resort to war footing even for minor ones, making the game less playable and stoping other actions.

If you add to this the doubliing cost for PAs (in fact, at $100/PA the increase is nearly 150%), I'm afraid the result will be a near paralysis of most players, at leasdt in acting on Earth.
This message was last edited by the player at 12:58, Wed 02 Nov 2016.
China
player, 42 posts
Sat 5 Nov 2016
at 06:27
  • msg #213

Re: Version 20161006

Either this formulae is bad or the base uplift and downlift values must be adjusted
Base Uplift or Downlift) / (World Size) X 10 ( National Space Infrastructure tech level-5)/2

World size is only a good substitute for gravity if you divide it by 8 ..the size of earth ..then the formulae works again ..otherwise you have to change the base uplift and downlifts to move meaningful amounts to and from orbit..

See Pages 45 and 46...

Rockets Canada = ~283 Tons
Rockets China =  ~110 Tons

Previously
Rockets Canada = ~1769 Tons
Rockets China  = ~887 Tons

So you divided the lift capacity by 8 just as we were going to swing into the system..

Was this your intent? just dividing world size by 8 gives a rough approximation of gravity anyway..



Tech infrastucture and theory
ahh so we go from /10 to multiply by 120% the cost of tech infrastructure upgrade..
Hr,,m the old system was bogging the game down..Coupled with an increase in theoretical cost ..again slowing everything down .. Is this your intent? Now run those numbers out 10 to 25 turns and the number of techs that can be upgraded drop..and yes other things besides tech growth are going to happen in this game is no way for them not to ..btw china was never at 8 to raise without cutting into the required maint costs...(not really a choice there really bad things happen) Now there is a happy medium someplace I am certain ..
This message was last edited by the player at 06:44, Sat 05 Nov 2016.
Germany
player, 251 posts
Sat 5 Nov 2016
at 12:27
  • msg #214

Re: Version 20161006

China:
Either this formulae is bad or the base uplift and downlift values must be adjusted
Base Uplift or Downlift) / (World Size) X 10 ( National Space Infrastructure tech level-5)/2

World size is only a good substitute for gravity if you divide it by 8 ..the size of earth ..then the formulae works again ..otherwise you have to change the base uplift and downlifts to move meaningful amounts to and from orbit..

See Pages 45 and 46...

Rockets Canada = ~283 Tons
Rockets China =  ~110 Tons

Previously
Rockets Canada = ~1769 Tons
Rockets China  = ~887 Tons

So you divided the lift capacity by 8 just as we were going to swing into the system..

Was this your intent? just dividing world size by 8 gives a rough approximation of gravity anyway..


In fact, situation is more complex. Sincé rules 20152512 oficial, each version but 20161006 has changed the formula. Here I give you the results for a 8.5 rocket on Earth:
  • rules 20152512 (oficial): Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 1406
  • rules 20160902 : 10/world size*Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 1757
  • rules 20161101 : Base/world size*10^((TL-5)/2): 17.57


The drastic reduction for 20161101 is due to the droping of the 10 on the formula and because the base has been also reduced by a factor of 10 (so, in fact reducing results by a factor of 100).

But see that for Moon (size 2, gravity 0.165 G), results would be:
  • rules 20152512 (oficial): Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 8520
  • rules 20160902 : 10/world size*Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 7029
  • rules 20161101 : Base/world size*10^((TL-5)/2): 70

And for Mars (size 4, gravity 0.379 G):
  • rules 20152512 (oficial): Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 3709
  • rules 20160902 : 10/world size*Base*10^((TL-5)/2): 3515
  • rules 20161101 : Base/world size*10^((TL-5)/2): 35


Changes in the oficial rules (20151225) are due to the base depending on gravity of the world.

My suggestion would be to keep the current (20151225) formula, as H&E gives us the gravity of each planet/satallite, so no need to use the world size as substitute (unlike the hexes effect).

China:
Tech infrastucture and theory
ahh so we go from /10 to multiply by 120% the cost of tech infrastructure upgrade..
Hr,,m the old system was bogging the game down..Coupled with an increase in theoretical cost ..again slowing everything down .. Is this your intent? Now run those numbers out 10 to 25 turns and the number of techs that can be upgraded drop..and yes other things besides tech growth are going to happen in this game is no way for them not to ..btw china was never at 8 to raise without cutting into the required maint costs...(not really a choice there really bad things happen) Now there is a happy medium someplace I am certain ..


On 20161006 versión the cost for economic infrastructures was onle a 2.85 (on average) of the cost we're using now. As I said, this was absurdly low (not just /10, but /35)...

According my numbers, when comparing 20161101 formula with current one, and again assuming an increase from 8.7 to 8.8, the new coste for economic infrastructure is on average 101.84% of the former one, while theoretical developement cost is, again in average, only 82% of the fpormer cost...

For China, those numbers become 102.52% for infrastructure and 84.09 for theoretical.

Also for China, but to increase from 7.9 to 8, numbers are 102.53% and 84% respectively.

Disregarding N. Korea, whose numbers for a raise from TL 8.7 to 8.8 gives a cost of 75% and 50% respectivelly, but the low numbers due to its low GDP probably make them nor representative, the numbers for infrastructures go form 94.76% (UK) to 112.38% (US), and for theoretical range from 71.47% (Argentina) to 100.99 (US).

I find the formulas now quite adecuate...
China
player, 43 posts
Sat 5 Nov 2016
at 14:39
  • msg #215

Re: Version 20161006

In reply to Germany (msg # 214):

True it is more complex than I was stating ..I was suggesting a nice shift that used world size instead of gravity direct but either will work nicely ..
Ahh yes I see I erred a bit and inserted the proper parenthisis to get the best out come from the formulae he set ..
(base/World size) *10^((TL-5)/2))...

But yes either as is ..or 20160902 formulae will work as well
Germany
player, 252 posts
Sat 5 Nov 2016
at 14:47
  • msg #216

Re: Version 20161006

China:
In reply to Germany (msg # 214):
But yes either as is ..or 20160902 formulae will work as well


Well, this is the most generous for Earth, so would probably speed up space actions, for good or bad...
Germany
player, 253 posts
Tue 22 Nov 2016
at 12:24
  • msg #217

Version 20161101

In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 211):

6.6 Task Resolution

quote:
The GM rolling an unmodified result of ‘1’ is almost always a failure, a ‘10’ may be an unusual success. Success at odds better than 3:1 may result in some multiple of the intended effect, failure at odds worse than 1:3 may result in something opposite to what was intended . If possible, the % Damage to the Defender will be interpreted as the % of the project that has been completed, the % Damage to the Attacker will be % chance of a roll by the GM for a Mishap to occur. If a Mishap occurs, the GM will roll 2D6 and consult the table below; failure at particularly hazardous actions e.g. being caught attempting to blame some other character for what you did, and the GM will instead roll 3D6.


Suggestion: similarly to hazardous tasks, some tasks could be defined as safe (e.g. reducing Economic Drag from Public Debt, that mostly represents just paying it), where missshaps could not occur or are reduced in severity (e.g. rolled just with 1d6, instead of 2d6).

See that if this las option (redicuing misshap roll to 1d6) it will always result on superficial damage (you should define what happens on a roll of 1, it may be no further effect or superficial damage too), unless it's ruled that a 6 means minor misshap anyway...
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 126 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 17:50
  • msg #218

Version 20161101

>the costs would be $455 per WR if the air units are assumed to be in friendly
>territory, $710 of we read literally the rules (as even air units are
>fighting in enemy territory).
No. Reread the definition of a ‘Friendly Site’. It does not say what you think it says.

>Either this formulae is bad or the base uplift and downlift values must be adjusted
Oh! You are right! I went the wrong way when I adjusted the values for Base Uplift/Downlift to account for the World Size term. Should have multiplied by 10 instead of divided by 10. Thank you! Will fix!

>he old system was bogging the game down
That would imply that rapid technological development the purpose of the game. I see no reason to accept that. If you want to have high tech then you have got to prioritize it.

>..Coupled with an increase in theoretical cost ..again slowing everything
>down .. Is this your intent?
More like ‘unconcern’. Everyone has roughly the same cost to tech advance relative to Effective Budget. At an easily sustainable 3-6 tech advances per Turn nations are on track to reach TL12 by roughly 2300-2400AD, a canon appropriate rate. So I care less if the cost goes up or down by a few 10s of % and care more about the formula being simple.

There is nothing in this game that requires that the balance how we used to do things must be the ‘right’ balance. It is simply the balance of how we did things back then.

>1d6 <snip> it will always result on superficial damage
...mmm, but then why should I bother? Damage of any type requires my time to figure out what it is going to be, and I find that often the hardest, most time consuming kind of damage is the lesser kinds because I have to be more creative and subtle than just being brutal.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:56, Mon 28 Nov 2016.
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 127 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 18:05
  • msg #219

Version 20161128

-Introduction of: Division sized units.

-Made clearer: Disbanding units.
Germany
player, 254 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 19:54
  • msg #220

Re: Version 20161101

Combat Cycle Ref:
>the costs would be $455 per WR if the air units are assumed to be in friendly
>territory, $710 of we read literally the rules (as even air units are
>fighting in enemy territory).
No. Reread the definition of a ‘Friendly Site’. It does not say what you think it says.


Tnen my English must be failing me, so please, explain it better for me. Rereading it, I find:
quote:
All friendly surface hexes of a Core Settlement are considered to be a Friendly Site.

Can I see an enemy hes as friendly, or there's something othe I didn't understand?

As I understand that, if you're attacking into enemy territory, it cannot be considered friendly, so it's not a friendly site

Combat Cycle Ref:
>..Coupled with an increase in theoretical cost ..again slowing everything
>down .. Is this your intent?
More like ‘unconcern’. Everyone has roughly the same cost to tech advance relative to Effective Budget. At an easily sustainable 3-6 tech advances per Turn nations are on track to reach TL12 by roughly 2300-2400AD, a canon appropriate rate. So I care less if the cost goes up or down by a few 10s of % and care more about the formula being simpler


Just to punctualize it, not claiming you're wrong: While it's true that TL in 2300AD is given as 11-12 (14 in computers, so electronics in MgT 2300AD), rmember that in this canon there are several decades where no new development is done (the recovery age). Wihtout it, it might well be some higher.

Combat Cycle Ref:
>1d6 <snip> it will always result on superficial damage
...mmm, but then why should I bother? Damage of any type requires my time to figure out what it is going to be, and I find that often the hardest, most time consuming kind of damage is the lesser kinds because I have to be more creative and subtle than just being brutal.

Then, just use the first option I gave and no misshap can occur in those safe actions. It would even be easier for you, as you say.
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 128 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 20:20
  • msg #221

Re: Version 20161101

In reply to Germany (msg # 220):

>enemy territory

"Friendly Site: An <snip> or hex of a Core World that is either owned by the same nation or by a nation that allows its use."

For Earth we are left with the legacy of borders that do not follow our hex boundaries, but the definition of a Friendly Site only refers to the hex. Every hex of combat so far has some part that is a friendly core settlement, and so the hex is going to be treated as a Friendly Site. I have no idea on which side of which border within a hex some % of combat occurred, whether or not combat was inside '...enemy territory' and I am not going to bother to figure it out.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:34, Mon 28 Nov 2016.
China
player, 44 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 22:42
  • msg #222

Re: Version 20161101

In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 221):

For Military infrastructure is that each area seperate for supply points or the whole kit and kaboodle..(I am guessing the way its worded the number of supply points for all military not just the section your raising)
Germany
player, 255 posts
Mon 28 Nov 2016
at 23:28
  • msg #223

Re: Version 20161101

Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Germany (msg # 220):

>enemy territory

"Friendly Site: An <snip> or hex of a Core World that is either owned by the same nation or by a nation that allows its use."

For Earth we are left with the legacy of borders that do not follow our hex boundaries, but the definition of a Friendly Site only refers to the hex. Every hex of combat so far has some part that is a friendly core settlement, and so the hex is going to be treated as a Friendly Site. I have no idea on which side of which border within a hex some % of combat occurred, whether or not combat was inside '...enemy territory' and I am not going to bother to figure it out.


And in case there were no part of the hex that was friendly?

BTW, where is the definition now? I disagree with you about the glossary was useless...
This message was last edited by the player at 00:17, Tue 29 Nov 2016.
Germany
player, 258 posts
Thu 1 Dec 2016
at 04:53
  • msg #224

Re: Version 20161128

Combat Cycle Ref:
-Introduction of: Division sized units.

-Made clearer: Disbanding units.


Perceived errata: When fixing the uplift capacity for interface facilities (page 46) i guess you put a 0 over what it should be in the Rockets uplift capacity: it should (I guess) be 250, not 2500.
Germany
player, 261 posts
Wed 7 Dec 2016
at 16:44
  • msg #225

Comments about Version 20161128

PAs:

I keep thinking that if your intent is to reduce the number of PAs while keeping their power/Price ratio, the cost should be $80. While the nominal cost of PAs was $50 to now, the effect of prestige reduced it to about $40 in practice, so making it doublé powerful but increasing the Price to $100 makes them in fact about 25$ less powerful. Another possibility would be to make the divisor 25000, so keeping the mony/power ratio.

I also believe that with such larger PAs, it sould be specifically allowed (if it was not already, I never had it clear) to use them in more "at large" way, as long the action had either a common goal or a common target.

e.g. 1: instead of using 1 PA each in 4 diferent countries in an attempt to obtain oil contracts, allow now to use 2 PAs (as each represents 2 former ones) to obtain those same contracts "at large", maybe focusing in those specific oil producing counries.

e.g. 2: instead of using 2 PAs in a country to achieve two diferent results, allow 1 PA (again, double power) as "diplomacy in X country" to achieve 2 different specific results.

Germany
player, 262 posts
Wed 7 Dec 2016
at 16:57
  • msg #226

Comments about Version 20161128 (2)

Combat table:

NOTE: this can be purely a matter of personal taste, and so even more argueable than usually.

Personally, I feel de 1d10 to be too lineal, prefering 2d6 (while it needs another result, as there are 11 posible ones), as the gauss bell makes extreme results more unlikely. This, again IMHO, can be more deeple felt if the extreme results (1 and 10) can mean extraordinary good or bad results, that would so occur in about 20% of times (10% good, 10% bad), even more mishaps if the tables give "losses" results for the "attacker".

As things are now, if you try 20 different political actions, you can expect 2 or more mishaps and 2 extraordinary results. IDK what the extraordinary results may mean, but 2 minor mishaps can mean a reduction of 2 in prestige, something quite difficult to overcome and that can jeopardize future diplomacy, and some bad luck in the mishap rolls may be devastating...
Germany
player, 263 posts
Wed 7 Dec 2016
at 18:17
  • msg #227

Suggestion about Version 20161128

Mishaps/excepotional successes also in combat rolls:

Note: this would need some more rolls if they occur, but so happens in Political Actions, and would add a little more uncertainty to combat

Suggestion as to posible outcomes in such cases (roll 2d6):

Results table:

Die roll Mishap                                 Extraordinary success

2-5    Unexpected costs                       Lessened costs
5-8    Battle hardening/cadre loss          Battle hardening/cadre loss
8-10   Counterattack                            Breaktrhough
11+    Ambush                                   Success

NOTE: the dual results on a roll of 5 or 8 is intentional

Explanation:

Unexpected costs: unexpected delays or losses (needs to repair) force the attacker to spend 2d6x5% SU more this WR

Lessened costs: extraordinary light losses makes the combat 2d6x5% cheaper (in SU) this WR (alternatively apply unexpected costs results to the defender).

Example: the attacker’s cost would be 30 SU this WR. On a mishap, this would be increased by 2d6x5% (on a roll of 7, the increase would be 35%, so 11 SU more)

Battle hardening/cadre loss: doll 2d6. On a 2-5 it affects the attacker, on a 9-12 the defender, on a 6-8 both are affected. In a mishap, the attacker can be subject to cadre loss and the defender to battle hardening, on an extraordinary success the reverse is true. In both cases, per each block of 20 units (round up), the affected player has 1d6 units increased (if battle hardening) or decreased (on a cadre loss) one degree in quality. If the side losing cadres is composed only with reserve quality units, they are destroyed.

Example: the attacker has 26 units, the defender 15. On an extraordinary success that affects both, the attacker would have 2d6 units so increased, while the defender would have 1d6 units so decreased in quality (destroyed if it must affect reserve units for lack of higher quality ones).

Counterattack: the defender has the option to fight an immediate new WR as attacker with 2 columns shift on its favor (no new units can be added, though losses are implemented before this fight). This would be part of the same WR and not cost additional supplies.

Breakthrough: Same as counterattack but this time is the attacker who has the option to fight this additional WR.

Example: in the Saudi intervention on Yemen in 2035-39 a mishap is rolled, Yemeni forces can immediately (after losses are applied) attack surviving Saudi units, that cannot be helped by other units in the hexes, with 2 columns shift to their favor. If a breakthrough was achieved, the Saudis can fight another WR against the surviving Yemeni rebels with 2 column shift on their favor.

Ambush/success: the combat table is read on the table with 1d6 columns shift to the left (ambush) or right (success) with this same roll.

Example: In the same Saudi intervention, an ambush is achieved as result. The same roll’s result is read in 1d6 tables to the left (let’s say3), so on the 1:1.5 instead of the 2:1, the result being 100/0.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:22, Wed 07 Dec 2016.
Germany
player, 264 posts
Tue 13 Dec 2016
at 18:22
  • msg #228

Suggestion about Version 20161128

Note: those comments are not exclusive from this version, but more a general comment about how to handle them (oil aside, as we have already some experience on it). As the problems I'll present here won't present themselves for a while, there's no hurry, just some thoughts for you to digest.

Farming and mining potentials:

As mining potential is (at least partially) density dependent, and H&E gives us the planet densities, I’d use it as modifier for it. I nthe specific case of asteroids/planetoids belts, I’d tie it to its size (in AUs), asteroid size and nickel/iron zone, all of them also given by H&E

About Farming potential, I’d give a minimum of it for hospitable atmospheres, as photosynthesis (or similar process) is needed to maintain high enough O2 levels. Very low farming potentials in a breathable atmosphere planet should indicate either the presence of a Pai_leng resource (e.g. Kimajano) or right sided amino acids (and so incompatible with Earth’s) ecosystems (as an aside, I’ve always been amazed that some of the agricultural planets in 2300AD setting, as Beta Canum or Heidelsheimat have right handed amino acid ecologies) .

4.5: SRUs:

The game describes 3 kinds of SRUs. I won't talk about oil here for the resons given above.

Tantalum:

I understand the critical importance of it in 2300AD setting, but I see several problems in handling it:
  • Unlike oil, you cannot foresee with any degree of exactitude how many Tantalum SRUs will a country (and so worldwide) need, so, the GM will have a hard time to predict beforehand how many will be in the free market and what will the demand be.
  • When will it become a SRU? when the Stutterwarp is unlocked? when several contries have Access to Stutterwarp and so the competition begins?
  • Its Price is (IMHO) faar too high. See that at this price, to build a Kennedy class cruiser you would need $900 in SRUs for a $244 worth ship... Until de advent of the Stutterwarp, while far from worthless, it would not be so highly priced, and I'd find logical to begin with a lower price when it becomes a SRU and raising or falling as the demand and supply change.


Pai-Leng:
quote:
This Special Resource unit also covers the finding of any small, valuable, non-renewable, physical objects

As you say, this represents exotic resources that you can find in other planets. Like the Pai-Leng properly or the organic compounds in Kimanjano (and maybe even the Helim expected to be available to mine in Moon). See, though, that in both cases those are in fact renewable resources, unlike what you say in the rules, as would the contact (and I guess trade) with primitive alien sophonts…

I’d also would allow the PAs given by it to be used for some other purposes than just raising prestige (e.g.  to increase trade, as it would represent a valuable trade asset or stability, as it would give some bonus on own population), even if some are tied to exactly how is it described (e.g. in the case of the Pai-Leng as described in 2300AD setting, it would surely help to fight an epidemic, and if Helium is so considered, it would sure be useful to reduce oil needs once Fusion power is available).

Also, as they may represent quite a variety of things, I'd give them variable initial prices, not a plain $50 (let's say modify it by (2d6-7)x5%)

General comments:
2.2:
quote:
If the result of the roll for Minerals is a 20, the GM will re-roll and also note the presence of a Tantalum Special Resource (see section 4.5.2) in one or several hexes. If the  result of the roll for Farming is a 20, the GM will re-roll and also note the presence of a Pai-Leng Special Resource (see section 4.5.3) in one or several hexes.

See that this has several side effects:
  • It makes values of 20 in mining or farming extremely rare (about 1/10000), as if they are rolled (1% possibility) they are rerolled, so needing to roll a 20 in 2d10 twice for them to exist.
  • I find logical to tie the presence of Tantalum to mining potential, as it is usually given as tied to density, but, as H&E gives us the planet density, I’d find more logical to tie it to this density, regardless the mining potential, that can also be affected by other things (as being unhospitable, something I also find logical, as mining potential also means organic compounds).
  • As for Pai-Leng, see that in 2300AD setting, both resources I assumed to be represented by it (Pai-Leng proper and organic compouns from Kimajano) are found in planets with low to none farming potential (In the case of DUkou because it’s frozen, and in the case of Kimajano because it lacks a true ecology). So, I find illogical (or at least against 23000AD setting) to tie it to farming potential, as given in the rules.
  • OTOH, the presence of oil (should it be kept as SRU in other planets) is expected to be tied to the presence (be it past or present) of vegetation, so I’d find it more logical for it to be tied to farming potential

So, my suggestion would be to make oil presence (if record is kept in extraterrestrial colonies) tied to farming potential, tantalum to planet density and Pai-Leng totally random (odds to be determined by the GM/CCR).
Sign In