RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to 2300 Great Game Command Center

18:04, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Rules Discussions.

Posted by Co-GMFor group 0
Saudi Arabia
player, 67 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 17:33
  • msg #479

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Just s questions about the units files:

You told us the units id # will be successive for new units. So:

  1. Need we to give id# for new units (should we build them), or they will be automatically assigned?
  2. Can we take again the units id # from destroyed units if we rebuild them (same class, of course)?

Co-GM
GM, 201 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 17:54
  • msg #480

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Saudi Arabia:
Just s questions about the units files:

You told us the units id # will be successive for new units. So:

  1. Need we to give id# for new units (should we build them), or they will be automatically assigned?
  2. Can we take again the units id # from destroyed units if we rebuild them (same class, of course)?


I said last time. Numbers are automatically generated. You cannot reuse them. GM will update the unit list anyway, so you don't need to worry about it.
Germany
player, 483 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 18:08
  • msg #481

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

About the facilities spreadsheets:

Is thre any glossary of the meaning of the facilities (in most cases they are obvious, but I have problema with some of them, as F)

For Moon:

German OT is named Mondhaven (Moon Harbour), not Moundhaven

For Earth:

France should have no spaceport nor rockets in 7N12. Instead, it whould have 2 spaceports and 10 rockets in 1N23 (GSC). GCS was initially 1 Spaceport, 3 ESA rockets and 1 French rocket. France upgraded its spaceport in 2040 (Michael listed it as upgrading spaceport in 7N13 (see that this would have been in Poland, where there was none), but as his only spaceport was GSC, in 1N13, I guess this was an error. He also built 6 rockets this same turn (again, I guess in GSC). In 2045 he built 2 rockets for Germany in 7N12 (Damgarten Kosmodrome) and took hte command of the 3 ESA rockets in GSC (1N13).
Saudi Arabia
player, 68 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 18:10
  • msg #482

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Co-GM:
Saudi Arabia:
Just s questions about the units files:

You told us the units id # will be successive for new units. So:

  1. Need we to give id# for new units (should we build them), or they will be automatically assigned?
  2. Can we take again the units id # from destroyed units if we rebuild them (same class, of course)?


I said last time. Numbers are automatically generated. You cannot reuse them. GM will update the unit list anyway, so you don't need to worry about it.


TY for you prompt clarification.

I understood the numbers would be automatically assinged, but was not sure about having to give the numbers or not, and what I had not so clear is that umbers could not be reused to rebuild units.
Referee
GM, 136 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 18:17
  • msg #483

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

In reply to Germany (msg # 477):

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

See the last sentence of msg#476

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

Yes

>Is thre any glossary of the meaning of the facilities (in most cases they are
>obvious, but I have problema with some of them, as F)

They are all written immediately after the name of a facility in the facility descriptions part of sec 7.9.1&2&3 of the rules.

>For Moon:
>
>German OT is named Mondhaven (Moon Harbour), not Moundhaven
>
>For Earth:
>
>France should have no spaceport nor rock

Then change it. I made it clear in several places that maintaining that list is the player responsibility.
Germany
player, 484 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 18:30
  • msg #484

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Referee:
>Is thre any glossary of the meaning of the facilities (in most cases they are
>obvious, but I have problema with some of them, as F)

They are all written immediately after the name of a facility in the facility descriptions part of sec 7.9.1&2&3 of the rules.


TY. I missed this.

Referee:
>For Moon:
>
>German OT is named Mondhaven (Moon Harbour), not Moundhaven
>
>For Earth:
>
>France should have no spaceport nor rock

Then change it. I made it clear in several places that maintaining that list is the player responsibility.


I'm afraid I canot change Orbital hex (for the name of German OT in the Moon).

As per French spaceport/rockets, I don't like to change other's facilities or home pages, prefering just to head up them of the perceived errata...

EDIT: sorry, I could change orbital hex at last. I had some problems before, but they seem to be fixed. I also changed the French spaceport/rockets
This message was last edited by the player at 18:35, Wed 21 Nov 2018.
Germany
player, 485 posts
Wed 21 Nov 2018
at 18:58
  • msg #485

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

7.9.3:

quote:
Fossil Fuel Plant (FfP): Burns non-renewable resources to produce energy for facilities on the surface. Requires Atmosphere type of the World be between 4 - 9 and 1 Raw Materials unit per Turn.


As the oil SRU have changed, wouldn't it be more logical for them to consume 1 oil SRU?
This message was last edited by the player at 10:12, Thu 22 Nov 2018.
Germany
player, 492 posts
Thu 29 Nov 2018
at 17:37
  • msg #486

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Again about the spreadsheet:

I cannot find Mondhaven as settlement (as I can find other such ones). As i was finished in 2045-49, I guess it should be there (though no need for hurry, not enouhg as to change the spreadsheet).
Germany
player, 497 posts
Tue 4 Dec 2018
at 12:52
  • msg #487

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Assuming one player intends to use a PA on a country and the odds (due to low pop, high prestige of the player's country, high reltions, etc.) is quite higher than 10:1 (in some instances it can be far over 100:1:

  1. Can the PA be used to several more or less related goals that cna be achieved with the same actions (e.g. to avoid revolt, raise stability and increase GDP growth)?
  2. If so, should the PA be subdivided in the various goals (e.g. PA#1a: avoiding rebellion, PA#1b: increase teporary stability, PA#1c: increase GDP growth), or just listing the goals and desired effects on its respectrive entries?

Referee
GM, 138 posts
Tue 4 Dec 2018
at 21:24
  • msg #488

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

In reply to Germany (msg # 487):

>Can the PA be used to several more or less related goals
Yes

>If so, should the PA be subdivided in the various goals (e.g. PA#1a: avoiding
>rebellion, PA#1b: increase teporary stability, PA#1c: increase GDP growth), or
>just listing the goals and desired effects on its respectrive entries?

This sounds like making a distinction without a difference. Do what is clearest.
Referee
GM, 139 posts
Tue 4 Dec 2018
at 21:27
  • msg #489

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

In reply to Germany (msg # 486):

The Settlement_List spreadsheet? Ok, yes, it should be there. Will fix for future versions.
Germany
player, 502 posts
Sat 12 Jan 2019
at 17:36
  • msg #490

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Perceived erratad:

quote:
10.6 Damage Allocation

Of all the units on one side, the GM chooses one unit based on the following priority: First, has the greatest mass, next has the greatest Base Combat Strength, next is an ICBM/IRBM/Artillery type unit and finally at the GM’s discretion hopefully with player input as to what is their priority. This unit will absorb hits up to the unit’s Final Combat Strength and if so it is immediately noted as being ‘Damaged’ status in the unit notes (see section 10.2). Units with L/M/H armour require 15/30/50% additional hits, rounded up, to be Damaged. Remaining hits are applied to the next unit which meets the above criteria until it too is reduced to ‘Damaged’ status. If a Military unit is currently ‘Damaged’ status or ‘Reserve’ Quality level, then the unit is instead destroyed. If a Spaceship is destroyed, anything being carried is also destroyed; no additional hits are needed to do that. The process repeats until there are insufficient hits to Damage/Destroy the unit which is next in line, remaining hits are retained for any further combat in the same War Round but discarded after that. If a facility with a Combat Strength is reduced to Damaged status then it is rendered ‘Idled’, may not continue to fight and is subject to capture if there are no other friendly forces in the same hex.

A unit with ‘Damaged’ status is counted exactly the same as a ‘Reserve’ Quality level unit in all ways including supply and movement, except that it can be repaired (see section 10.7). If a Spaceship is reduced to Damaged status then any carried Military units are reduced to Damaged status, no additional hits are needed to do that. Spaceships lose the ability to use any Module listed in the ‘Other’ category of Spaceship construction (see Section 9.1), so any carried unit must be immediately offloaded onto the surface of the nearest World.


As 10.2 is Movement in a War Round, I guess you meant 8.2: Representing Game Units

Likewise, 9.1 has no reference to Reserve spaceships, so I guess you mean 9.2, comment in the Other modules section.
This message was last edited by the player at 17:48, Sat 12 Jan 2019.
Germany
player, 503 posts
Sat 12 Jan 2019
at 18:52
  • msg #491

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Some more comments about Combat Rules:

10.5 Battle Resolution

quote:
For simplicity of display, odds greater than 10:1 and less than 1:10 are grouped together but each integer multiple still counts as a separate column for purposes of column shifting.


In case of odds between 10: and 1:10, does this not apply (so if odds is 10:1, but 3 colum shifts in defender favor, would it be column 3:1, that represents 3 full columns, or 7-10:1, that represents 3 integer less)?


10.11 Quick Combat:

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


1)Do the column shifts apply as told in 10:5 (that does not apply accdording this paragraph), or they are always full columns?

Example: a, MR4 nation attacks an MR1 one with an odds of 20:1. 6 columns are moved to left due to MR diference. Will it be fought in the >10:1 column, as would be according 10:5, or in the 1.5:1 one, using full column shifts)?


2)Does this include this part on 10:6?:

quote:
The number of hits from an attack which includes IRBM units, ICBM units, Spaceship Missiles/Fighters/Orbital Bombardment Modules is first reduced by ABM units, SAM units, and Missile Defence facilities by an amount equal to the Final Combat Strength of those weapons x (1d10 rolled by the GM) x 10%, round fractions up, up to a maximum of the number of hits inflicted by weapons which can be intercepted.


See that if so, ABMs and Missile Defense facilities lose their main use in Core Worlds...


quote:
At the GM’s discretion, the side which loses the most hits in each Quick Combat Round can expect to permanently lose about 20% of the original number of hexes, round up,


As this is written (as you know I believe the extreme cases, no mattre how unlikely, are the ones that best show where things fail) let's imagine Russia attacks Estonia with 15 armored brigades and 10 MR airplanes (total combat strenght 105). Estonia has a Base strenght of 10. TL 7.7 and MR 2 according the Settlements spreadsheet

As Russia has TL 8.4, its final combat strenght is 7408
Estonia has a final Combat Strenght of 592

So ratio is >10:1. As both countries are MR 2, no change on it. Roll is 2, so result is 10:100

Estonia loses 100/5=20% of its forces. As 10 x 20% is 2, itloses 2 strenght points

Russia loses 10/5=2% of its forces. As 105 x 2% = 2,1, it loses 3 strenght points

So, at GM option, Russia could have lost 20% (rounded up) of its hexes (so, as Russia has 28 hexes, 6 hexes) to Estonia, while Estonia could have lost no territory...

I guess this is not the spirit of the rules (aside from not too credible, to say the least), so, I suggest to change the wording to:

quote:
At the GM’s discretion, the side which loses the most hits percentage in each Quick Combat Round can expect to permanently lose about 20% of the original number of hexes, round up,

Germany
player, 504 posts
Fri 18 Jan 2019
at 00:55
  • msg #492

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Another detail, though this time without true effect in the game, mostly for clarity:

For player countries, the TL given in the spreadsheet does not (at least in the cases I looked at) with the true one according their budgets (though the difference doesn't use to be large), and this can be a little missleading.

examples:

  • Canada: in the spreadsheet, 8.5. Average TLs 8.7
  • China: in the spreadsheet, 7.2. Average TLs 7.6
  • Germany: in the spreadsheet: 8.4: average TLs: 8.7
  • NordFed: in the spreadsheet: 8.5. Average TLs: 8.6
  • Russia: in the spreadsheet, 8.1. Average TLs 8.3
  • Saudi Arabia: in the spreadsheet, 7.9. Average TLs 8.0
  • UK: in the spreadsheet, 8.4. Average TLs 8.5


I'd suggest for future settlement spreadsheets to put NA in the TL cell (as for the sum of base strenght), as it fan be looked at in the spreadsheets.
Referee
GM, 142 posts
Wed 30 Jan 2019
at 17:45
  • msg #493

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

> As 10.2 is Movement in a War Round, I guess you meant 8.2: Representing Game Units
>Likewise, 9.1 has no reference to Reserve spaceships, so I guess you mean
>9.2, comment in the Other modules section.

Ok, will fix.

> In case of odds between 10: and 1:10, does this not apply
If it applied, I would have said so.

> 2)Does this include this part on 10:6?:
>See that if so, ABMs and Missile Defense facilities lose their main use in Core Worlds...

ABMs and Missile Defense facilities have their Base Combat Strength listed in their description in 8.8.4, which makes them perfectly useful in Core Worlds.

> I guess this is not the spirit of the rules
The GM’s discretion largely represents the ‘spirit of the rules’, so any rule change is unnecessary.

> For player countries, the TL given in the spreadsheet does not (at least in the cases I
>looked at) with the true one according their budgets

With this Turn’s (current!) procedures, when the TL of a player Settlement changes then the listed TL in the Settlement List will not be updated until the next Turn. Give it time and the listed numbers will catch up …at least until we change the procedures again.
Referee
GM, 143 posts
Wed 30 Jan 2019
at 17:49
  • msg #494

Rules Proposal 20190130

Change to: Fossil Fuel Plants consumption, now wanting Oil SRU. Orders now to be sent in Word format only, so the GM can point out corrections. Yield from mining for SRU, eliminating the roll by the GM. That Food units are not needed if there is a Core Settlement of the same owner on the same World.

The introduction of: Surplus of Oil leads to bonus to GDP growth. A Division sized unit can be made from any number of Brigade sized units, not just 5. Aggressive production for Pai Leng and Tantalum SRU.

Made clearer: Power is not a unit. Gaining WMD ability is not a seperate mechanic from Task resolution. Outposts and Enclaves can be made up of more than one O/T+Module pair. That Food, Tantalum, Pai-Leng, and Raw Material Units are, like Supply Units, transferred automatically within a World to the hex that needs them. PAs may not be used to alter the orders of other players. Supply and Population Units can only be stored between turns at certain Settlement types.

Rebalancing to: Raised downlift of Deadfall, cost of Spy net, mass of Enclave module & GPS Net & Orbital Colony & SPS, cost of Reserve & Green units, and Tantalum production with mines: was too low. Reduced downlift of Rockets, Oil production boost with Infrastructure option, production by farm&mine, farming on ice: was too high.

Got rid of: Trade Codes which are impossible to calculate from available information. Storing of Oil, Food, Tantalum, Pai-Leng, and Raw Material Units, precisely tracking them has already become a bureaucratic nightmare, which is only going to get worse when offworld settlements are built.
Germany
player, 505 posts
Thu 31 Jan 2019
at 22:42
  • msg #495

Rules Proposal 20190130

After a skip reading of the new rules, here it goes the first batch of comments. For now, they are only perceived errata or redundancies and some clarifications asked, not entering on the changes themselves (this will com latter):

Referee:
Got rid of: (...) Storing of Oil, Food, Tantalum, Pai-Leng, and Raw Material Units, precisely tracking them has already become a bureaucratic nightmare, which is only going to get worse when offworld settlements are built.



So, any unused such economic unit at the end of the turn is just forfeited, without any benefit (oil in Core Settlements excluded, as it is already explained)?


quote:
7.9.1 Orbital Facilities

Naval Shipyard (Nav):
Assembles up to 10 000 tonnes of Modules per Turn into Spaceships in the Orbit hex. For Spaceships larger than 10 000 tonnes of mass, one Spaceport facility in the same Orbit hex must be allocated per 10 000 tonnes of mass


Can a spaceport be in the Orbit hex, or it should be in the same world?


quote:
7.9.1 Orbital Facilities

Asteroid Mining
(…)Raw Material Units = (Nearest Core Settlement Material tech level) x (Effective Mining potential of the Size 0 or R World after modifiers) / (...)


And also

quote:
7.9.3. Ground Facility

Mining
(…)Raw Material Units = (Nearest Core Settlement Material tech level) x (Effective Mining potential of the hex after modifiers) / (...)

Farming (…)Raw Material Units = (Nearest Core Settlement Material tech level) x (Effective Farming potential of the hex after modifiers) / (...)


As the Effective Mining and Farming potentials are defined in 2.3, I see the addition of “after modifiers” redundant. Not that it disturbs me, but I feel it unnecessary.



quote:
8.11. Division Sized units
Any number of Brigade/Squadron sized units of the same type, same modules, same Special Abilities, same owner, and in the same hex may be grouped together to form a Division


Does this mean that a single elite brigade (s lower quality will give less than the 5 points required to form the division) can be declared to become a reserve division just by stating it (and then upgrading it, if so wanted) at the begining of the turn?
This message was last edited by the player at 13:12, Fri 01 Feb 2019.
Germany
player, 506 posts
Mon 4 Feb 2019
at 08:02
  • msg #496

Re: Rules Proposal 20180801

Referee:
> 2)Does this include this part on 10:6?:
>See that if so, ABMs and Missile Defense facilities lose their main use in Core Worlds...

ABMs and Missile Defense facilities have their Base Combat Strength listed in their description in 8.8.4, which makes them perfectly useful in Core Worlds.


Well, they of course add their Base Combat Strenght to defense, but if they don't stop the launched WMD they don't protect from the high collatral damages they produce, that is one of their main uses, IMHO.


Another clarification asked:

quote:
7.2: Settlements Types

Enclave:
An existing Outpost type Settlement may be upgraded to a small, proto-colony by installing an functional Enclave Module on each Orbital Terminal facility.


Let's imagine that a country has, for whatever reason, more tan a single OT (with their needed outposts) in a planet. Does he have to deploy enclavements in all their OTs for it to become an Enclave, or just upgrading a single OT will?
Germany
player, 507 posts
Mon 11 Feb 2019
at 19:04
  • msg #497

Rules Proposal 20190130

In reply to Referee (msg # 494):

Just a heads up:

8:11 División Sized units:

quote:
Any number of Brigade/Squadron sized units of the same type, same modules, same Special Abilities, same owner, and in the same hex may be grouped together to form a Division. (...) The Supply and Food Unit maintenance requirements, transport capacities and requirements, upgrading costs and mass will be equal to 5X that of a Brigade/Squadron sized unit of the same type.


From the momento modules and transport capacities are named, I understand this includes spaceships.

If so, see that this would, to give an extreme example, allow Germany to:

  1. upgrade the Hoffen (unit 1106, currently a reserve 24000 tonnes ship) to elite (cost $499)
  2. convert it to a división (as it would have 5 points, it would be a reserve one)
  3. upgrade it to Green (cost $250)


This way, Germany will have 120000 tonnes of shiping, with 5 passenger modules and 30000 cargo capacity (so have won 96000 tonnes of spaceship, 4 passenger modules and 24000 cargo capacity) without having used any of its 30000 tonnes building capacity.

Quite expensive, true, but doing the same for the DRMS Bahnbreacher (an experienced 10000 tonnes ship wiht 5000 cargo capacity) would cost about $364 and convert it into a Green 50000 tonnes división with 25000 cargo capacity...

Likelwise, if we imagine the Hoffen to be SW capable (let's say with 2 SW modules), the resulting division would be so (so having won 8 SW modules) without spending any tantalum SRU.

I'm afraid to fix those problems would require lots of special rules and clarifications, so my suggestion here is just not to allow spaceships to be so upgraded, either by not allowing Spaceships wings or by ruling that i nthe case of spaceships, wings can only be formed by merging 5 identical ships (except for quality, the would be as it is by points).
Referee
GM, 146 posts
Wed 27 Feb 2019
at 15:25
  • msg #498

Rules Proposal 20190130

>So, any unused such economic unit at the end of the turn is just forfeited, without any benefit

>Does this mean that a single elite brigade (s lower quality will give less than the 5
>points required to form the division) can be declared to become a reserve division

That is exactly what the rules say.

>Can a spaceport be in the Orbit hex,
No

>>on each Orbital Terminal facility.
>more tan a single OT (with their needed outposts) in a planet. Does he have to
>deploy enclavements in all their OTs for it to become an Enclave, or just upgrading a single
>OT will?

I do not know how to explain it more clearly than the last 4 words of the rule you quoted.

>Just a heads up:<snip>Quite expensive, true,
Significant amount of money spent on a one-time upgrading/converting the Spaceship that could have gone to buying additional permanent Interface capacity. Sounds like a good balance to me.

>Likelwise, if we imagine the Hoffen to be SW capable (let's say with 2 SW modules),
>the resulting division would be so (so having won 8 SW modules) without spending
>any tantalum SRU.

That is a problem only because of the rule allowing the scrapping of SW modules getting a Tantalum SRU back. Will be deleting the rule allowing for getting a Tantalum SRU back, it always opened up questions, and now is just an exploit.
Referee
GM, 147 posts
Wed 27 Feb 2019
at 15:34
  • msg #499

Rules Proposal 20190401

The time needed to prepare intermediate versions of the rules is too much for a low-priority thread, not going to do it anymore. Use the link in the files section of the website to see the latest.

I have updated the Spaceship Designer spreadsheet to reflect these changes.
This message was last edited by the GM at 15:36, Wed 27 Feb 2019.
Germany
player, 508 posts
Wed 27 Feb 2019
at 16:12
  • msg #500

Re: Rules Proposal 20190130

Referee:
>Can a spaceport be in the Orbit hex,
No


Then I asume the quoted text would mean "For Spaceships larger than 10 000 tonnes of mass, one Spaceport shipyard facility in the same Orbit hex must be allocated per 10 000 tonnes of mass"

Referee:
>>on each Orbital Terminal facility.
>more tan a single OT (with their needed outposts) in a planet. Does he have to
>deploy enclavements in all their OTs for it to become an Enclave, or just upgrading a single
>OT will?

I do not know how to explain it more clearly than the last 4 words of the rule you quoted.


But you didn't answer my question. In this case (2 OT/outpost facilities in the same planet), if only 1 Enclavemnt module is set up on an OT, but not in the other one, will the settlement be an Outpost one or an Enclave one?

Referee:
>Just a heads up:<snip>Quite expensive, true,
Significant amount of money spent on a one-time upgrading/converting the Spaceship that could have gone to buying additional permanent Interface capacity. Sounds like a good balance to me.


Well, the total cost is about $750. To build 4 more Green Hoffen class ships, one would need:

  • 12 new spaceports, as each is 24000 tonnes ($600, though, of course, those wil lbe permanent)
  • The ships themselves, at $100/each ($400)

So, by expending $750, you don't spend $1000 (albeit you won't hav ethe extra 12 spaceports)...

Referee:
>Likelwise, if we imagine the Hoffen to be SW capable (let's say with 2 SW modules),
>the resulting division would be so (so having won 8 SW modules) without spending
>any tantalum SRU.

That is a problem only because of the rule allowing the scrapping of SW modules getting a Tantalum SRU back. Will be deleting the rule allowing for getting a Tantalum SRU back, it always opened up questions, and now is just an exploit.


That's not the only problem here, as to build those extra 4 Hoffen class ships with 2 stutterwarp modules each you'd need 8 more Tantalum SRUs, so you save them (probably not available, and even if they are, at a cost of $100/SRU, costing more than the whole upgrade).

And in this case, as the ships are 24000 tonnes each, even if the whole Division/Wing is 120000 tonnes, I guess the -1 sutterwarp for being every 25000 tonnes will not apply, so the increased stutterwarp cargo capacity by quite a lot without needing more Tantalum nor losing speed.

I keep suggesting that, as spaceships are quite more detailed than other units and its building capacity quite more limited, to only allow those spaceships wings by using 5 identical ships.
Germany
player, 509 posts
Thu 28 Feb 2019
at 12:59
  • msg #501

Re: Rules Proposal 20190130

Ooops...

Posted in the wrong thread, so deleted and posted i nthe correct one
This message was last edited by the player at 13:10, Thu 28 Feb 2019.
Germany
player, 511 posts
Sat 2 Mar 2019
at 14:01
  • msg #502

Re: Rules Proposal 20190130

Found another perceive errata:

quote:
9.2 Spaceship COnstruction

A Spaceship is made up of a number of Modules, each with their own, mass, cost, and power requirements. Spaceship Modules can be built on the surface hexes of a friendly Core Settlement or a Heavy Industry facility or Orbital Shipyard facility


As I understand (according their description, and despite my oposition) that Orbital Shipyards can no loguer build any ship modules, I guess the orange part should be deleted.
Saudi Arabia
player, 70 posts
Sat 2 Mar 2019
at 19:10
  • msg #503

Re: Rules Proposal 20190130

I cannot understand well the example you give in 8.7 (specially the underlined part in the quote, as the veteran cost has alreay been featured.):

quote:
E.g. Russia wants to build a Veteran ABM unit, at the time Russia’s Space tech level is 8.4, and Military-Space tech level is 7.9, the maximum tech level known to humanity at this time is 8.6 in both categories. Final cost is ( $35 base cost ) + (1 + 1 for Veteran) X (1 + 50% X 10((8.5 minimum Space tech level needed to build + 0.5 for Veteran unit - 8.4 Russia’s Space tech level ) + (8.5 minimum Military-Space tech level needed to build 0.5 for Veteran unit - 7.9 Russia’s Military-Space tech level)) = $665. If the maximum Military-Space tech level known to humanity was 8.4 then the ABM could not be built.

By reading the rules, I understand it should be:

quote:
E.g. Russia wants to build a Veteran ABM unit, at the time Russia’s Space tech level is 8.4, and Military-Space tech level is 7.9, the maximum tech level known to humanity at this time is 8.6 in both categories. Final cost is ( $35 base cost ) + (1 + 1 for Veteran) X (1 + 50% X 10((8.5 minimum Space tech level needed to build -  8.4 Russia’s Space tech level ) + (8.5 minimum Military-Space tech level needed to build - 7.9 Russia’s Military-Space tech level)) = $315. If the maximum Military-Space tech level known to humanity was 8.4 then the ABM could not be built.

This way, as the military–space lacks 0.6 TN and the Space lacks 0.1 TL (for a total lack of 0.7 TLs), the basic cost ($35) is doubled for veteran and multiplied by 4.5 (100% + 7 x 50%) for lack of TL, for this $315 total.

AM I right or there's something I didn't understand?
Sign In