I apologize beforehand for this post, as I know you will not like it, and I really hoped you will change your mind in several points after reading our comments (mostly Liam’s and mine) and I’d never have to release it, but I’m afraid I’ll fail on all you if I don’t now.
I see very few improvements in the new rules when comparing them to 20170124 (the last official ones), as I see few solutions to the problems we had and add quite a lot of new ones. Note that in my analysis I will not follow the rules structure (by chapters and points), but I will talk about specific subjects that are usually affected by more than one of the rules’ chapters (most of it has already been pointed in former posts):
Bookkeeping and organization of the turn: While you made some changes on it, I don’t see problems on it, and the standardized orders may even be an improvement, as they mean little problems to the players and probably simplifies GM’s work. I must wait for the budget spreadsheets to be able to fully comment this, but I don’t expect problems on it (to now, Your changes on spreadsheets have been mostly, it not outright all, positive).
Oil and SRUs: I don’t see any advantage on the new system, while I see some problems with it. Aside from the change of definition, that, after your last answer, I see only as a color note (aside from removing the coal gasification and nuclear power as alternatives to oil), the fact that now oil is treated less abstractly and oil SRUs are treated as RMUs, FUs or SUs adds to bookkeeping and allows trading it in the same turn (and more profit for oil producing countries).
Example: as rules stand now, nothing will forbid Saudi Arabia from, instead of putting its oil to the open market, to sell all of it to itself at face value ($1/SRU) and then selling it to interested countries at (let’s say) $4/SRU. This way, not only will it control who receives it, but this money will go directly to its budget, not to the GDP (so, not being affected by AM).
I also keep missing the possibility of reducing the oil needs with renewables (wind, tidal, solar, geothermic, etc.), that would be akin of alternate infrastructure, but without significant downsides.
Political rules: those keep being sound. The few changes done have some interesting (though not necessarily bad) effects, though…
The change in the combat table also affects them. Not sure if this is good or bad, but is there anyway.
On the stability table, changed the modifier due to military units by a modifier based on AM, I guess assuming more AM means more state security. I like this change…
The new formula, giving less importance to relations makes it easier to influence low relations countries. Again, not sure if this is good or bad…
Military and combat: this is (IMHO) one of the most problematic areas…
- Carriers: I already pointed (see posts # 335, 336 and 372 in his same thread) most of the problems I see In the new treatment they receive. Another problem would be (in detailed combat) which TL would they use. Mil-air? Mil-nav? Mil air when attacking and mil-nav when defending? Average among both?
- Supply (not new to this rules set): the combat supply rules on QCR mean that we assume an elite USMC (MR1) armor brigade receives the same supplies than a Nigerian (MR3) green infantry one. As I said many times, MR represents among other things the tail-to-tooth ratio, and better MR units should cost more to supply in war than worse MR ones. I keep suggesting to return to MR dependent supply cost in QCR.
- Combat table: the change you made clearly favors the defender. While I don’t see anything wrong on this, this is just opposite to your stated goal.
- QCR combat: the fact of now allowing for two combat rolls per WR is likely to have also problems. First of all, it would be important to see who attacks first, mostly if there are units with different attack and defense factors (Carriers, missiles, etc), something given to GM decision without any more hint. I also foresee slowing the game, as more combat rolls would be needed. OTOH it does not solve the fact that no army can be fully destroyed as long it has more BC or units that WRs, as it is unlikely any side with a poor odds will attack (less so with the new combat table).
- NPCs: I see their simplification to SBC as a positive change, despite the loss of detail, as it would probably speed the game and reduce the bookkeeping. I also believe that NPCs should not be immune to lack of supplies. I’m not suggesting keeping track of their supplies, just a roll (e.g. 11+ on 2d6, +1 per previous WR this turn) per WR for it to run out of supplies (unless they receive outside aid). E.g. while Saudi Arabia has to spend quite a lot on SUs if the war with Iraq is kept, Iraq would be immune to it as rules stand, despite needing (as last turn description) about 135 SUs/round to supply its army and having a GDP of just $138…
- New combat factors: even at risk of being seen as a pest, I must insist in the lack of use for ABMs and Missile Defense Satellites with the new WMD factors (and even so I agree with those increased WMD combat values), making them not cost-effective at all. It was yourself who once said that every unit should have a use, and now they have not. I also must insist in the inefficiency of MR air units when compared with bombers, as even in detailed combat rules they have no advantage over them in air combat.
- I keep asking how to damage combat factor 0 units (as the satellites, if attacked), as even a 100% damages would mean 0 damage points (see post #335 this same thread)
Space: this is probably the other more conflictive area. The increased orbital supply needs, mostly when the lowered uplift capacities are accounted for, will put any space development to a halt. Germany’s uplift needs just for supply what it has now have gone from 1 SU (5000 tonnes) for its facilities around Earth to 6 SU (3 for ships, 1 for OT in Earth, 1 for OT in Mars, 1 for Earth orbit facilities, so 30000 tonnes, 5000 of them must be moved to Mars) due to the changes, while its uplift capacity (as it is now TL 8.8) has been lowered from 5955 tonnes (1985/rocket) to 5415 (1805/rocket) due to new formula. In the US case, its needs have raised from 1 Su (5000 tonnes) for its facilities on Earth orbit to 6 SU (2 for ships, 1 each for OT on Earth, Luna and Ceres and 1 for facilities on Earth orbit so 30000 tonnes, 5000 of them must be moved to Ceres), and its uplift capacity (space TL 8.7) has been lowered from 24766 (1769/rocket) to 23954 (1711/rocket). So in both cases they have gone from being able to supply their projects to having to build more rockets just for this goal.
While the OTs supplies changes, while disturbing, may be given some logic, in the case of the ships, IMHO, it has not even this logic, as ships (be them sea or, probably, space) use to be supplied in ports, not is it consistent with other units that are supplied in the hex they begin the turn. They also forfeit the main advantage for a ship to be able to land (the other advantage, being able to unload cargo, is reduced when you cannot use them to land on a planet unless it already has a spaceport).
OTOH, the forfeiting of the OT support needs would help somewhat (after lobbying for it for several turns, I won’t, of course, complain for it). I also like the appearance of the space colony facility.
Of course, the need now to upload facilities in full in a single turn makes the largest facilities quite difficult to deploy, mostly as they cannot be uplift with catapults (something I understand). I don’t believe the reduced bookkeeping for this is worth the difficulty it implies to deploy them (after all, paraphrasing you in another thing, it’s players’ bookkeeping, not GM’s).
In resume:
I’m afraid most those rules (mostly military and space ones) will bog down the game, as the most active players in space exploration (US an Germany) would have to halt it while changing the plans and retooling their assets (I hope not to see how new rules changes make it all useless again), while on the military front supply problems and difficulty to ever win a war will eternize inconclusive wars (that, OTOH, slow the game quite a while), and the SRUs situation becomes even more messed.
So, I ask (even beg) you to reconsider some of those changes before they take real effect and bog down the game even more than real life already does it. I guess we’ll need some time (I hope not too much) for the new players to understand the game and be up to date, and it can also be used for it.
Believe me when I say I hate my own conclusions, and really hope to be wrong in most of them, but, as said, I think I’ll fail to you all (and to the game itself) if I shut down my mouth now.
And, again, let me encourage other players to freely give their opinions. There are many points where Kelvin and myself disagree, and probably the best option is somewhat in between, and other players’ opinion may help us all to find it.
This message was last edited by the player at 11:46, Mon 22 Jan 2018.