NOTE: all of this post is based on rules proposal 20180801, as I hve had no time yet to read 20180914.
Referee:
>it gives a bonus to initiative in space combat...
>
>In any case, then I’d suggest you to add again it to the CCC module description
>for clarity of the rules, as right now I don’t find anywhere that it is needed,
???It already states exactly that in the CCC module description???
Let’s see:
CCC description:
quote:
CCC (CCC): Flag Bridge, extra facilities for command, communication, and coordination with other Spaceships and forces on the surface of a World. Helps to improve the initiative of friendly forces, see section 10.3.
10.3:in the Initiative section, where the bonus is listed, but in 10.4 order of the actions, it is listed
then conducts attacks by (in order) individual non-CCC grouped Spaceships units first, then all CCC grouped Spaceships together, while I cannot find anywhere in the rules what does this mean, as I cannot find where it is said that ships without CCC cannot attack together.
In rules proposal 20170121, the description was:
quote:
CCC : Flag Bridge, extra facilities for command, communication, and coordination with other Spaceships and forces on the surface of a World . If there is at least 1 CCC Module in a system then all friendly Spaceships are grouped with the CCC Module and may move and attack as one including in concert with forces on the surface of a World .
This was changed in 20170401 to the current one, and that’s why I understand it, but it’s no longer in the rules, and yet referred in 10.4, and so anyone without access to the older proposals would not know what does this mean.
That’s what I mean, It should be added again in the CCC description (as it was in rules proposal up to 20170121), or removed from 10.4, as not it’s not consistent.
Referee:
>assuming an occuped country, the AM will keep being the modifier, regardless
>of the tropos one can deploy there, to avoid a revolt?
Yes. The number of troops figures into what the GM gives as a bonus/difficutlylevel for the a player's PA to pacify the settlement.
It seems (again) I have problems to make myself undertood…
I was not talking about PAs, but about the table in pages 27-28.
Let’s imagine Country A has just occupied Country B, which has been left with Stability 5 after its defeat. The possibility of a spontaneous revolt is 8+ (so 30%). But Country B has also an AM of 15, so 3 is subtracted from the roll (even while the fact of the police being helping the occupier is dubious at best), and the rebellion possibility is fully nullified, the number of troops (or lack of them) in occupation duty being fully irrelevant, according the rules.
That was what I meant, and the main use Security troops had...
Referee:
This game is whatever is needed to be fun and playable by everyone,.
As much as I hate to say this, I’m not sure you`’re being successful on this, mostly on the playable part, if the plans done one turn are broken due to rules changes he next one…
About the fun part, while this is arguable, I find totally contradictory with your former sentence:
quote:
The GM does not want players to have more flexibility, players want players to have more flexibility. The GM wants players to have more stress on having to guess/risk ahead of time if they are making the right choices. This is a game, not a simulation.
Referee:
A game where everyone is equally guessing, forced to trust the untrustworthy, forced to work to shape the odds on what is going to happen...yes, I am ok with that. We all chose to be part of a PBEM game, the realistic immediate reaction to developing events that you want is fundamentally not going to happen in a PBEM game.
Three’s a long way between the realistic immediate reaction you talk about and being fully unable to react and becoming a mere spectator of the events, and that has a lot to do with the fun part of the game you told about above…
Referee:
Power is not an Economic unit as far as the rules are concerned, it would be confusing to add Power in there. Someday we will have to get around to creating a sheet for controlling colonies, which will likely include dealing with Power, but right now we have more important things to do..
Agreed, but it would be helpful for orbit (right now) and colonies (latter)…
Referee:
> China bombs Saudi Arabia with 1 Division of ICBMs, this divison is quite likely
> to be lost, regardless the fact Saudi Arabia has no weapon that can reach them.
5 years is a very long time, and a nation has many different ways of striking back against an enemy. Are you sure that Saudi has absolutely no weapon that can reach them? How do you know this? To repeat: Like every time we get to a complex situations, exceptions to the normal order of things occur at the GM's discretion...it is your job as a player to make an argument to the GM to recognize that the current situation is an exception and that something odd should be done for this situation. e.g. the Chinese player argues that the ICBM units would be unaffected. If we tried to make rules to explicitly handle every possible situation then these rules would be unplayable.
Referee:
> in a QRC round (about 1-1.5 years, at the 3-5 per turn
The length of time of a QCR is indefinite and not '5yr/n'. So the actual time taken by a given combat could be very short and not necessarily at the same time or duration as another combat in the same round.
5 years is a very long term, but a WR not so long. In fact it’s not so long for the troops to move to the conflict zone and being able to affect it (not even for the planes to attack at their range, if you don’t accept it to be used in QCR too)…
OTOH, in a single month they can do all of this, if QCR are not in effect...
And yes, I’m quite sure Saudi Arabia has no weapon able to reach Chinese ICBMs, and should they have, their use would not be dependent on those ICBMs being fired or not. I’m not asking to make rules to explicitly handle every possible situation, but to make them logical enough to allow the GM to rule them without being contradictory with them.
Referee:
> >This is a problem for the game when large supply trains will be required.
This is a problem for the players, not the rules.
The Co-GM put the example of needing supply trains to support you fleet if we don’t allow them to be supplied on any OT, that’s why I bought this to bear…
IMHO, allowing colonies to be TL4 (Victorian) or even TL3 (modern age) is a problem of the rules, but again this is arguable.
Referee:
> "...unless PAs are used, as Germany did for the AB" You just answered your own problem.
So, while you complain (probably rightly) about the many PAs and the work they represent to the GM, you’re claiming that more things should be done by PAs (from surveying in any decent length of time, to what before was solved with security ability) when they didn't need them…
Referee:
<i>>Heaven and Earth uses the UWP used in Traveller, but MgT 2300AD changes the fist digit from Starport to Interface. As we will have to change it in any case once worlds are developed,
and
>Moon:
> IMHO its UWP now sould be X200278-4(3), as it has now several settlements (hence
> the Pop and Gov change) and, as said, its TL ,according new rules proposal would be 3
No, we will not be changing it. Like I said in the section on using the Heaven & Earth Software, we cannot change UWPs regardless of development as it is not editable within H&E without triggering a random based regeneration of the system. There is an option to edit existing UWP codes in H&E, it is non-functional .
Are you saying that the results given by H&E cannot be altered as the worlds develop (I have played a little with it, but not that much).?
I guess we could just copy the results on the page where they are editable (you can rely on the players for this kind of work). In any case, I was for now just talking about the Solar System, where some of the UWPs are now obsolete.
And I understand we will keep with Traveller traditional UWP instead of MgT 2300AD one (mostly keeping the starport digit instead of the MgT interface one). That would make Earth having spaceport B in current game time.
Referee:
> >As I already said several times, the Traveller size code for an Asteroid/Planetoid
> elt is 0, not R, that is reserved for Rings arround some planet (usually Gas Giants)..
R=0 and S=1 is the way H&E does it, so that is the way we have to do it.
I’m afraid you’re wrong here…
H&E does not allow a R size digit in the UWP (that represents the main world), nor gives it ever on worlds, as it uses 0 instead. R size digit only appears on satellites around worlds.
Referee:
> >Let's imagine a ship does not move from the spaceport in the whole turn. It would need to be supplied in an OT anyway?
Yes.
So, I have an experienced ship on Damgarten, where I have some SUs. The ship is not intended to move in the whole turn, but must go to orbit to receive one of those SUs (that must be uploaded too) or it will become reserve (and cost again 75% of its price to be upgraded to experienced again)…
I know some concessions to logics must be done for the game to be playable, but IMHO this goes too far against any logics, and even against playability (or, at best, without increasing playability)…
And, again, I’m not asking to make rules to explicitly handle every possible situation, just to keep them consistent. It’s you who made explicit rules for spaceships that were against the general ones (Supplies must be received where the unit starts the turn) on the basis of standardizing them (and, again IMHO, achieving just the opposite).