RolePlay onLine RPoL Logo

, welcome to 2300 Great Game Command Center

09:19, 28th March 2024 (GMT+0)

Rules Discussions.

Posted by Co-GMFor group 0
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 144 posts
Thu 9 Mar 2017
at 04:00
  • msg #279

Re: Version 20170301

>what figure should be entered for the prestige of the defender?
The Prestige of the defending Settlement as found in the Settlement_List file

>I guess this applies to most items, but does it apply to pop units too
See sec 9.4, paragraph#1

> What number is used in the forumlas as size
See sec 2.2 paragraph#1

>They cannot uplift SUs (they could until version 20160202?
>What about Pai-leng? I know the variety of this may make it uncertain...

No, either could easily include fragile items. I will allow movement of Oil SRU though.
Germany
player, 294 posts
Thu 9 Mar 2017
at 04:25
  • msg #280

Re: Version 20170301

Combat Cycle Ref:
>I guess this applies to most items, but does it apply to pop units too
See sec 9.4, paragraph#1


Ok, it reads (I guess the bolded part is the relevant one):
quote:
Spaceships can carry units and facilities to other Worlds, and once an FTL drive is developed, to other Star Systems. Spaceships that currently have ‘Reserve’ Quality level may not transport anything. Transporting a Population Unit requires the services of 1 Passenger Module as well as 5 000 Tonnes of cargo capacity to carry the mass of the Population Unit. Transporting a Military Unit requires the services of 1 Passenger Module or 1 Orbital Assault Module, as well as enough Cargo capacity to carry the mass of the unit. An O/T facility is required to transfer units between Spaceships and Interface facilities in the Orbit hex.

But it does not specify if the passenger module and the cargo capacity must be from the same ship...

To say it clear, the Goethe was built having in mind to make it a pop carrier when needed. It has 13000 cargo tonnes, that can be converted into a passenger module and 3000 cargo tonnes (remember when it was buit, as per oficial rules 20151225 and proposal v20160202, a Pop unit required a passenger module and 2000 tonnes of cargo). now, as a pop unit requires 5000 tonnes instead of 2000, unless this extra cargo may be carried with another ship help, I have a very large and expensive ship that cannot accomplish its intended mission.
Germany
player, 295 posts
Thu 9 Mar 2017
at 16:20
  • msg #281

Re: Version 20170301

Probable errata:

The Price of the Hudson calss spaceship is wrong. It is listed as $1.74, while adding all its components it should be $22.4
Saudi Arabia
player, 24 posts
Fri 10 Mar 2017
at 19:42
  • msg #282

Re: Version 20170301

quote:
4.5.1: The busy life on a comfortable Core type Settlement requires a tremendous amount of energy, this is represented by the Special Resource Unit of Oil, this includes all forms of non-renewable energy such as hydrocarbon gases and liquids, coal , and fission of heavy elements. 1 Oil SRU = approximately 1/10000th of the Earth’s production in 2000AD. At game start the prevailing market rate is $1 per Oil SRU.


Have you pondered well the laws in unintentional cosequences of those changes?

See that the bolded part would mean a great change on geostrategics. Nations as Germany, US or China, that are now screaming for oil SRUs will be then more relieved if coal is counted among it, as they have it in relative abundance (that's why they could try coal gasification), and others will have uranium or similar elements...

Also, changing its price will greatly affect the changes. Will fractional changes be allowed (they have to now, even though you hate fractional prices)?

Also, in former rules a SRU was described as 1/1000th of world's production. By reducing it to 1/10th of what it was (by mass, Price, etc) will make it the 1/10000th you say, but if you add coal and fissibles to theequation, things change...


quote:
#5 - Alternative Infrastructure : Option only available for Oil SRU. This represents various efforts to replace overall economic dependence on the SRU with something else. A nation can reduce their Oil SRU consumption at a cost of 1 - 3 PApoints per Oil 2 0 SRU replaced the next Turn depending upon the GM’s judgment of your plan. E.g. Nuclear / hydrogen / biofuels / coal gasification / hydroelectric power generation, etc., and has some kind of a significant downside e.g. the electricity to separate the hydrogen from the water had to be come from somewhere, radioactive waste, the crops grown for the biodiesel means less food for people to eat etc.


See that the bold parts lose its sense when the SRUs include coal and fissibles.

OTOH, now that oil represents power generation means in general, one way to reduce the needs by renewable plants should exist. They cannot fully replace oil, as they are unlikely to be efficient for engines, at least without the side effects you talk about, but when it's about the whole power production, things change, and renewables (be them eolic, tidal, geotermic, solar, biomass, etc...) are a true option.
USA
player, 48 posts
Sat 11 Mar 2017
at 16:43
  • msg #283

Re: Version 20170301

Combat Cycle Ref:
>what figure should be entered for the prestige of the defender?
The Prestige of the defending Settlement as found in the Settlement_List file


Right, but when affecting your own nation, both the defending prestige and the attacking prestige are your prestige, correct?
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 145 posts
Sat 11 Mar 2017
at 17:01
  • msg #284

Re: Version 20170301

In reply to USA (msg # 283):

Yes
USA
player, 49 posts
Sun 12 Mar 2017
at 02:55
  • msg #285

Re: Version 20170301

In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 284):

Ok, I'd like to talk about Auth mod and political actions as I have two points.

Some of this is hard to analyse correctly as I have no real idea of how it is calculated other than trying to go through the spreadsheet and work it out - which is not something I have managed fully, but playing with the sheet has given me some ideas so here is what I have found.

Firstly - it feels to me that once a nation has a moderately large economy, it should always look to have a high than 'average' authoritarian modifier

Secondly - The PA system currently has a major, significant problem - part of this arises from the authoritarian modifier but also it arises from how we affect our own nations compared to how others affect our nation

To begin with;

The benefits of a lower auth mod are

1) Cheaper tech development
2) Higher base growth

whilst the down side to a lower Auth mod are:

1) Less Money available to use
2) Harder to affect your own nation from PAs

From what I'm seeing, for the US in particular at this moment in time, going authoritarian has little downside in RAW.

From what I can see, increasing the authoritarian mod in the US would result in an increase in the cost of my current civilian tech increasing slightly, and tech development also increasing slightly, but unless I'm planning originally on increasing more tech, I don't loose. In fact, the additional spendable money I would get will allow me to research an additional theoretical tech and still have money left over to buy additional PAs - which I can then use to try and boost my economy with political actions.

A higher auth mod means more money, and with careful management you can avoid the immediately without the downsides

In addition - it also means it is easier to effect political change in my own nation. This leads to some really odd situations.

Case in point

Taiwan is currently a US puppet - our relations are 20 - Taiwan has a prestige of 14, the us has prestige of 16.

Using the PA calculator I have worked out that, if Taiwan were to use a single PA for a difficult task against the US then its 'odds verses a settlement' are 1.4415...

However, if the US uses a PA to influence itself, its odds are currently 0.256...

So, the US would be better paying Taiwan to affect the US rather than doing it itself, because Taiwan has over 5 times more political clout with the US citizenry compared to their own government.

Lets take this another step, the US wants to increase its base stability - this is a formidable task - and it wants to have a really good chance of doing this

The US government could pay a Taiwanese consulting firm to do this for them, for Taiwan to have odds of 10 to 1 - making it pretty much a guaranteed thing - would require 16PAs - a large but not impossible number - so the US could pay Taiwan $1700, giving Taiwan a profit of $100 from the deal to boot, and almost certainly succeed.

Alternatively, the USA can pay for it itself, to reach the same odds the US would need to spend 86 PAs - this seems to come from the fact that relations play a massive part in the chance of success.

For us to reach parity the US would need to have a stability of around 10 - pretty high at the moment in game terms.

So, if we want to look at gaming the rules this means I should now look for nations with relations of 14 with a target I want to hurt. I should boost my relations to 20 hoping no one notices, and then use them as a proxy to cause untold chaos in a nation I dislike with my puppet that still has good relations with them for much cheaper than I could do it myself - and put a fall guy in place to boot!

Now, I know all of the above, if I tried to do it in game would;

1) be really pathetic - its about having fun not 'winning'
2) get me kicked out of the game
3) really annoy the management

which is why it wouldn't happen, my main concern is that the rules do seem to punish having a lower authoritarian modifier without really giving you a reason to do it and that the current PA rules throw up some rather strange situations.

The economic growth factor from a lower auth mod. is possibly being understated by me, as there is always a limit to what you can do to boost you economy with PAs, but for research in particular I believe you can get round it, from my rough calculations increasing the US' auth mod by 2 would give me enough money to allow me to purchase an additional infrastructure upgrade - that means I'm already combating the drop in growth if I use that money to buy that or I have more flexibility than if my auth mod remained the same. For a drop in base growth of 2% having at least $1000 additional spending money seems like an easy choice

There will always be a point at which there is a diminishing return, but it feels like the 'best' resting point for authoritarian modifiers is going to be above the mid point

I can see it being useful once you have access to a very large number of mineral RUs which you can down-lift and convert into spendable cash, but the question is will we reach that point, and even if we do, nations that start out with the higher auth mod will be in a better position to deal with it because it will be cheaper for them to reduce their auth mods, as their higher auth mod will make each individual PA they spend more effective that turn, and also because they will have more money to spend at that time.

I am presuming there are other things in the background I do not know about, but I just wanted to point out the problems I see in the current way it is being dealt with, particularly when it comes to the way PAs currently work.

I think that Kelvin will probably point out other ways in which the auth mod affect things I have not notices, which may change how I view that

however, I think it is fairly clear that there may need to be a re-examination of how much relations affect PAs?

Can anyone see or tell me of anything I've gotten wrong here - does anyone have any observations or counterpoints?
This message was last edited by the player at 02:59, Sun 12 Mar 2017.
Germany
player, 297 posts
Mon 13 Mar 2017
at 17:06
  • msg #286

Re: Version 20170301

USA:
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 284):

Ok, I'd like to talk about Auth mod and political actions as I have two points.


As one who plays a country with high AM (Saudi Arabia), one with average AM (Germany) and one with low AM (Nigeria), I guess i have some grounds to compare, I mostly agree with all you say here.

USA:
Some of this is hard to analyse correctly as I have no real idea of how it is calculated other than trying to go through the spreadsheet and work it out - which is not something I have managed fully, but playing with the sheet has given me some ideas so here is what I have found.
 Firstly - it feels to me that once a nation has a moderately large economy, it should always look to have a high than 'average' authoritarian modifier


In short, for what I’ve seen, AM*2.5% is the share of the budget (once Social Upkeep is deducted) you’ll have to pay expenses and play with.

I agree that low AM seems to hinder a country too much. One way I suggested to solve (or at least alleviate) it would be to feature AM also In Social Upkeep (e.g. by modifying it by (AM-12) x 2.5%, assuming 12 to be the “standard” AM and making the modification correspondent to its effect.

This will also keep (IMHO) with the spirit of AM and with what is said in AM definition in 6.4:
quote:
Lower Authoritarian Scores generally represent nations which support laissez-faire policies and let their nation take its course.

(...)

Higher Authoritarian Score mean the establishment is deeply invested in many aspects of society and its effective reach is far greater.


USA:
Secondly - The PA system currently has a major, significant problem - part of this arises from the authoritarian modifier but also it arises from how we affect our own nations compared to how others affect our nation


Again agreed.

To give another example, should Germany try to affect himself with a PA on a difficult (multiplier 1) action, odds would be 1.6:1

This same PA used by France (relations 17), would give an odds of 3.5:1

If France tries to use the same PA to influence itself in a likewise way, odds would be 2.04:1. If Germany uses the same PA for the same reason, odds would be 5.3:1.

In this case (both of them), AM is higher (so internal actions easier, and off course, we’re talking about friendly (though not client) countries…

One way to alleviate this would be to treat own country as if it was a client state (usually reducing difficulty by one grade). After all, relations agamong countries (even client states) would never be as good as internal relations in a country…

This will, off course, benefit everyone and ease things for all players, but I’m not sure o its effect in game balance
Germany
player, 298 posts
Tue 14 Mar 2017
at 09:04
  • msg #287

Re: Version 20170301

More side effects of new rules:

quote:
4.5.1: The busy life on a comfortable Core type Settlement requires a tremendous amount of energy, this is represented by the Special Resource Unit of Oil, this includes all forms of non-renewable energy such as hydrocarbon gases and liquids, coal , and fission of heavy elements. 1 Oil SRU = approximately 1/10000th of the Earth’s production in 2000AD. At game start the prevailing market rate is $1 per Oil SRU.


This also means that planets that before were not expected to have oil SRUs can now be expected to have (or at lesst not ruled out). A vacuum planet can hardly be expected to have oil reserves, as it does not have, neither has had, the biosphere needed for it; but it can be expected to have fissible materials, even i nexploitable quatities.

SUs:

We're now seeing too some more unexpected effects of the change of SUs from $0.2/1000 tonnes to $1/5000 tonnes.

Countries like India and Indonesia (and Bigelow Aerospace Corporatoin) are clearly hurt by it:

  • Bigelow: owns 1 OT and 2 rockets (I guess aprox 3000 uplift capacity)
  • India: owns two satellite networks and 2370 uplift capacity
  • Indonesia: owns 1 satellite network and 1118 uplift capacity


So, formerly, they needed 1000 tonnes (for Bigelow and Indonesia) and 2000 tonnes (india) uplift capacity, being all of them able to take care of their own needs.

Now, with the new SU rules, they need each 5000 tonnes, so no one of them can take care of their own needs...

Suggestions:
  • round the SU needed in orbit to the closer whole numbre (so that, having 1-2 facilities won't need any)
  • set the needed uplift to 1000 tonnes/facility (but keep the 1 SU cost 5 facilities, round up


Both suggestions have their good and bad side, but I find unfair that they deployed (or bought) their facilities counting they can affrd them,nd they find they cannot due to a change in rules not to their own flawl.
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 146 posts
Wed 29 Mar 2017
at 23:28
  • msg #288

Re: Version 20170301

>to talk about Auth mod and
Ooohh, yeah. I know allll about that. The first GM, Luke, likely unintentionally set up Authoritarian mod to be even more powerful than it currently is. It is one of the things that I have been doing behind the scenes is to chip away at that. I have tweaked, and touched it several times, but always very subtlety and slowly. If there is one thing that I have learned is that players get mighty upset when they think you are arbitrarily messing with their cash flow.

>Now, I know all of the above, if I tried to do it in game would;
>
>1) be really pathetic - its about having fun not 'winning'
>2) get me kicked out of the game
>3) really annoy the management

<arches eyebrow> Read section 1.4, Q&A#1

>More side effects of new rules:<snip> coal , and fission of heavy elements<snip>
>This also means that planets that before were not expected to have oil SRUs can
> now be expected to have <snip>

You sound as if you did not think that my adding in of that effect was intentional.

> SUs:We're now seeing too some more unexpected effects of the change
>of SUs from $0.2/1000 tonnes to $1/5000 tonnes.

Then those nations can rent uplift or improve their Space tech level. As I have said before, there is nothing magical, inherent, righteous or just about the settings of the initial capabilities of each nation. Me or one of the earlier GMs picked them, usually out of thin air. Even if it is unfair to burden them with this now, I do not care, we are not going back to fractional ANYTHING.
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 147 posts
Wed 29 Mar 2017
at 23:34
  • msg #289

Version 20170401

Now I have a question for you guys, ALL of you guys. For some time now I have been unhappy with the utility of theoretical tech&unlocking, but I want to hear from you guys before I make such a fundamental change.

Do you want to:

#1 Keep it the same: We have had it for quite some time now, it is working

#2: Get rid of the extra cost for unlocking tech for the first time (section 7.3). A duplicate of the expense for Theoretical tech, could be replaced by a slight increase in the expense for Theoretical tech. For such an insignificant element in the game, as is it implies a requirement that the player and GM create and keep updated a table for each nation of which things have been unlocked or not. <ugh> I have enough to do even without that.

#3: Get rid of Theoretical  tech. Research modules and Universities can produce Pai-Leng units;  I will do something with Prototype ability. I despise that the sharing of researching of cutting edge tech means it is impossible for a budget spreadsheet to be completely self-contained; I have to cross-check with those of other players to see if they did it right too.

#4 Get rid of Theoretical tech and Unlocking: It galls me to think that about 2% of the rules could be replaced with the sentence “For every 0.1 above available tech level, add +X (?1?) to the modifier for cost” and a slight rewording of a few other things.
This message was last edited by the GM at 23:35, Wed 29 Mar 2017.
Persia
player, 2 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 04:34
  • msg #290

Re: Version 20170401

Combat Cycle Ref:
Do you want to:

Simplify simplify simplify
Russia
player, 26 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 09:24
  • msg #291

Re: Version 20170401

Combat Cycle Ref:
Do you want to:


#1 Keep it the same
USA
player, 50 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 09:42
  • msg #292

Re: Version 20170301

Combat Cycle Ref:
Do you want to


I agree the current system needs shaking up. Getting rid of unlocking sounds like a really obvious choice now you say it - getting rid of theoretical tech altogether sounds like it will make it easier for you but has knock on effects I can think of in a couple of areas.

The ability to build things within your theoretical tech but not within your infrastructure can be useful - it also will give colonies ways of spending more money to build things they could not normally with their infrastructure- though one might even say that is more reason to get rid of it...

Part of me would really like to see it go, but at the same time I can see utility in having theoretical tech levels.

Of the options you give I'd definitely go for 2 BUT if going down the route of no 4 will make it that much easier for you then we should go for it.
Germany
player, 300 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 12:56
  • msg #293

Re: Version 20170301

Combat Cycle Ref:
>More side effects of new rules:<snip> coal , and fission of heavy elements<snip>
>This also means that planets that before were not expected to have oil SRUs can
> now be expected to have <snip>

You sound as if you did not think that my adding in of that effect was intentional.


I just wanted to make sure it was, as the changes are many and deep...

And see that this will be quite a dificult turn to solve, as we don't really know what will be our SRU needs nor production for next (and latter) turns...

Combat Cycle Ref:
> SUs:We're now seeing too some more unexpected effects of the change
>of SUs from $0.2/1000 tonnes to $1/5000 tonnes.

Then those nations can rent uplift or improve their Space tech level. As I have said before, there is nothing magical, inherent, righteous or just about the settings of the initial capabilities of each nation. Me or one of the earlier GMs picked them, usually out of thin air. Even if it is unfair to burden them with this now, I do not care, we are not going back to fractional ANYTHING.


I understand we're not going to use fractionals again, but, as you say, I see it quite unfair for those countries now having to expend money in what they didn't expect (and making what were wise decisions now unwise ones).

See that none of my suggestions involved fractionals, while keeping the wisdom of their decisoins and avoids this unfairness.
Germany
player, 301 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 13:14
  • msg #294

Re: Version 20170401

Combat Cycle Ref:
Now I have a question for you guys, ALL of you guys. For some time now I have been unhappy with the utility of theoretical tech&unlocking, but I want to hear from you guys before I make such a fundamental change.

Do you want to:

#4 Get rid of Theoretical tech and Unlocking: It galls me to think that about 2% of the rules could be replaced with the sentence “For every 0.1 above available tech level, add +X (?1?) to the modifier for cost” and a slight rewording of a few other things.


That's my vote. First of all as I agree with what Persia said. This aside, both changes will speed up the game development.

For Theoretical TLs:

You (and all who were already playing when those discusión were in the fórum) know that I think that once some product is commertialized, others will tape it to know the theoretical principles, and those wil lbe widely known.

Of course, that means the cutting edge extra cost will apply directly to raise the TL (what now is known as infrastructure TL) above anyone else. And to keep the same growing rates, it should also mean that the +1% GDP should be added to raise generic Tl (in true fairness, this should explude those who already have earned it, but that would mean more bookkeeping).

For unlocking:

As you say, this can be seen as part of the cost for the TL research, and will (again) reduce bokkeeping.

As this would also get rid of deploying facilities to new planets/satellites, I'd suggest a cost of 1PA to start a colony (upgrading an enclavement to colony, so deploying its first operational facility, OTs aside) to represent the cost of adapting to the new environ.
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 148 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 15:28
  • msg #295

Re: Version 20170401

In reply to USA (msg # 292):

>The ability to build things within your theoretical tech but not
>within your infrastructure can be useful

That is the entire purpose of “For every 0.1 above available tech level, add +X (?1?) to the modifier for cost”
USA
player, 51 posts
Thu 30 Mar 2017
at 15:56
  • msg #296

Re: Version 20170401

In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 295):

ah, gotcha - misinterpreted that.

Then I'm all for #4
China
player, 48 posts
Fri 31 Mar 2017
at 22:48
  • msg #297

Re: Version 20170401

In reply to USA (msg # 296):

I am all for #4 ...simple easy peasy
Combat Cycle Ref
GM, 149 posts
Thu 6 Apr 2017
at 22:14
  • msg #298

Rules Proposal 20170401

Change to: What CCC modules for Starships do, apparently it had been accidentally removed. What Universities do. What Enclaves do. What is the cost to build an item above local tech level.

Introduction of:

Made clearer: What is needed for Orders. A special thank you to our players, especially the new ones, your questions have helped me to identify numerous things that could have been expressed better.

Rebalancing to: The power of a Pai-Leng SRU, it was too much.

Got rid of: Theoretical tech and unlocking of items, a laborious duplicate of the extra cost to build something above infrastructure tech level. Prototype special ability, hard to properly work into the game for something never used.
Germany
player, 302 posts
Fri 14 Apr 2017
at 16:30
  • msg #299

Rules Proposal 20170401

In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 298):

quote:
University : A large research and education establishment. (...) Produces 1 Pai-Leng SRUs on every even numbered Turn in a surface hex of the colony.


Wouldn't it be easier (and IMHO more logical) to have it to contribute to raising TLs (as it was before).

As the divisor to raise TL has changed from 200000 to 150000 (so by a 25%) to represent the theoretical part of it (so the total cost has increased by 1/3), the reductin should also be reduced. I's suggest universities to contribute with a 2% of any one TL increase per turn, cummulative to a msximum of 8% (roughly the quivalent avoiding fractions, as it would be 1.66% and to a maximum of 8.33%).
Co-GM
GM, 153 posts
Thu 1 Jun 2017
at 21:41
  • msg #300

Rules Proposal 20170401

In reply to Germany (msg # 299):

>Wouldn't it be easier
Easier? I do not see how it is any easier. As was originally, it is almost entirely a duplicate of what Research Modules do. Now Universities are the sole regular source of Pai Leng units, giving more utility to both.
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:59, Thu 01 June 2017.
Co-GM
GM, 154 posts
Thu 1 Jun 2017
at 21:57
  • msg #301

Rules Proposal 20170601

Change to: Formula for Task roll, no PApoints means 0 Attack Strength. What Research Modules do.

Introduction of:

Made clearer:

Rebalancing to:

Got rid of: If SRU exploration is within a Settlement’s borders then the exact hex does not need to be specified.
Germany
player, 304 posts
Wed 28 Jun 2017
at 14:37
  • msg #302

Re: Rules Proposal 20170601

Co-GM:
Change to: Formula for Task roll, no PApoints means 0 Attack Strength.


Some points here:

I know I was the one complaining about the lose of power for the PAs (by about 25%), but multiplying it by 5 might be too much...

Not that I complain, just surprised...

This aside, I liked the idea of being able to make smaller political actions (what it was using only the 0.1 wihtout PAs), as sometimes you're interested in influencing someone where a full PA is a true overkill, but I also understand that it can be abused.

I'd suggest to keep allowing it (making minot PAs that have 1/10th)power, but to limit them somewhat:
  1. allowing each contry a limited number of them (e.g. prestige/5, or GNP/10000, or whatever you think about)
  2. making them to cost something (e.g. $10)


Of course, they could not be cummulative, neithre among themselves nor with full PAs.


Co-GM:
What Research Modules do.


From rules proposal 20170601:

quote:
5.2.1/5.2.2:
To advance beyond the current highest tech level known to humanity has an additional cost. This cost may be reduced by Research Modules (see Section 7.9.1), which can include those dedicated by an ally.


quote:
7.9.2:
Research Module: Labs and scientific apparatus, includes exploratory missions to the surrounding region. At the time of construction the owner may dedicate this module to a particular category of technology. Once per Turn the module will reduce the cost of cutting edge research of that one technology category of either the owner or an ally, see section 5.2. Upto 5 Research Modules in the same Star System may be dedicated to the same technology category. Bonus is cumulative with multiple facilities up to a maximum of 25% off total for the nation. Write this amount saved as a purchase, with a positive value, in your list of purchases on your budget spreadsheet


I'm afraid I became entangled in a bucle here to know the exact effect they have. Is still 1%? is it told in any other rule?

Won't this add to bookeeping (I thought you inteded to reduce it) to have to dedícate each research module to a specific tech category?
Germany
player, 305 posts
Wed 28 Jun 2017
at 14:56
  • msg #303

Re: Rules Proposal 20170601

quote:
University: A large research and education establishment. Will boost the tech level of a colony, see section 7.4. Produces 1 Pai-Leng SRUs on every even numbered Turn in a surface hex of the colony.


If the Research modules are dedicated to a single tech category, I'd suggest to make Universities to allow for a similar rduction but to any category (only one per turn, though), this extra flexibility representing they are larger faiclities. Additionally, it could also be able to help in non-cutting edge research (maybe at a reduced percentage).

Frankly, I find more logical to have them help in research than producing SRUs (but that's just my view, of course YMMV), and it wil lbe more coherent with what you said in post #229 this smae thread:
Combat Cycle Ref:
<i>>Pai-Leng<snip>See, though, that in both cases those are in fact renewable resources,
(...) No, SRU reserves have to fade away, if for only to again encourage expansion.

Sign In