nore errata found:



1: shouldn't beams be also listed in the anti-missiles defenses?

2 Example:



The underlined part should read 2 x 11.5² x (roll of 6 x 10%) = 158.7, so 159 so final hits are 371 - 159 = 212 hits done.

In fact, the beam should be read as combat factor 2 in all the examples (as it is used against ICBMs), but I guess it has no effect in other ones.
This message was last edited by the player at 02:27, Tue 05 Mar 2019.

Some suggestions about the RMU/SRU production:

Mining facilities:

As the fact they now cannot be stored any longer (something I understand for game simplicity), this means some will be wasted. As compensation (and to reflect the lower extraction rate or unrecorded storing this would mean), I’d suggest to reduce the 1%/turn production reduction on the mining (be them Astroid or Ground).

SRU production core settlements:

The same way that one can increase short-time production at the cost of reducing long term (option 2), I’d suggest to allow the opposite, allowing to reduce the 5% reduction of production per turn by 1% per 20% reduction of production.

So, if a settlement produces 100 oil SRUs with a los of 5%/turn, it could produce 150 SRUs by raising the los to 10%, or produce 80 SRUs and lower the los to 4%, or 60 SRUs with a los of 3%, etc., or even produce none and keep its 100 SRUs potential.

From post 444:


As I agree this was a heavy task, but I find it will help, I dared to take it by myself and suggesting a variant to include this, that I posted in the Files section as Rules_Variant_proposal.01. I hope I moped up all the cases, but if someone finds any, please, tell me. The document I worked from is the current Rules proposal by Kelvin as it was in marach 1^st

The only changes I made on them are to delete any reference to QL and referring everything to MR. To compensate and adapt, I’ve made some small changes:

• Doubling the cost of units, but now their cost is divided by MR.  The effect of this, based on buying 10 hypothetical units that cost $12 each (to make numbers whole) would be to increase about 40% for MR1 nations, reductions under 10% for MR 2 and 3 and no effect for MR4. See, though, that this may be a little misleading, as the rounding (for MR2-4) may increase this a little).
• Reduced the cost of abilities to 25% basic cost, so that, as the basic costs are doubled, they cost the same as now.
• Increasing the cost of improving MR by using the target, instead of current, MR as divisor. This represents the cost of increasing units QL.
• Counting units instead of SU, as now the units with supply cost 0 (Cadres) are more attractive, as can be rebuild at less cost.

Advantages (the reasons I believe this will help us all):

• Reduces bookkeeping
• Eases the work of the GM:
  • No more need to review if QL of mixed units keeps up with country MR.
  • No more need to review if the QLs of new units keep with MR standards.
  • No need to evaluate a force involved in combat to see if it keeps up with its MR (as occurred with Russians in Armenia).

Disadvantages (no coin lacks reverse):

Would need to adapt the units spreadsheet (but would only be once).
This message was last edited by the player at 01:34, Thu 07 Mar 2019.

>Orbital Shipyard facility
>AM I right or there's something I didn't understand?
>1: shouldn't beams be also listed in the anti-missiles defenses?
Correct. Good catch.

>As compensation
Is this a necessity?

>>>Get rid of quality ratings, using only MR.<snip> OTOH, it would require a heavy rewriting of the rules.
>>And that is why it is not going to happen until it is proven absolutely necessary that we go to such a system.
>As I agree this was a heavy task, but I find it will help, I dared to take it b
"...until it is proven absolutely necessary...", not before then.

Glad to help. The finding of those errata was a by-product of my work on the rules variant proposal, that forced me to read them in a deepth that I have not since some time.



Necessities are something relative...

With old rules, this diminishing of resource extraction could be compensated by the stored ones, and the mines produced about doublé the RMUs than now. With those changes, they are doubly penalized, and I thought this small compensation (that will also reduce the bookkeeping, BTW) would be fair.



OK, but just beware: all too often, when things become absolutly necessary it's late to fix them (at least witout rules changes once orders are already given, and that's quite unfair).

And don't forget that you many times complained (probably rightly) about the burden of work GMing this game means, and this will ease it a little, as you would no longer have to watch at the militaries and builds composition.

Remember you said the same initially about using the military infrastructure TL instead of each unit having his own, or about having a Mil-space TL separated from the economic Space one...

At worst, my work would have helped to catch errata, as said above...

About the increased mass of some facilities, let’s see some numbers:

Now an orbital colony masses 750000 tonnes (plues 25000 more for the 5 pop needed). As neither it nor pop can be uplifted by catapult, when available (TL 9.5) it can only be uplifted by rockets and scram aircrafts, those latter being the most efficient. Each Rocket may uplift 2531 tonnes, and each scram aircraft 8859 tonnes

To build an Orbital Colony from earth, as they must be lifted in a single turn, you’d need either 306  rockets (with its 62 spaceports) or 87 Sc, with its 18 spaceports and 18 OTs. But wait, as you need a Space Colony per 20 other facilities in orbit (rounded down), you can have a maximum of 19 such facilities until it is built, and if you have satellites, or any other non OT facility, it’s impossible you can have the 17 needed OTs to support the 85 scram aircrafts…

Let’s imagine a TL 10 (so, half a whole TL over minimum needed) country has already 3 satellite networks (one each), one MD, one OF and one SPS (and it’s likely to have some Shipyards too, but let’s assume it does not). It can at most have 13 OTs, so a maximum of 65 Sc units (probably less, as it would have at least one catapult to raise the RMUs for the OF, and see that without the OF it would need about 20000 uplift tones more for SUs). As it wants to expand more its orbital facilities, it needs an OC

At TL 10, one Sc unit can uplift 10937 tonnes, so 71 Sc would be needed to uplift the OC and its pop. See that even at its maximum, it cannot be uplifted, as no more OTs to support more Sc can be built without the OC that cannot be uplifted for lack of those same Sc…

IMHO, it has 3 options:

1. To negotiate for the needed uplift with other countries or private launchers
   
2. To build rockets. At 3125 tonnes uplift capacity each, it would need 21 of them (and 5 more spaceports, BTW).
   
3. To build simultaneously the OC, the OT and the Sc, as they support other the same turn they’re built. It would need 6 more Sc, with 2 OTs and 2 Sp to support them (and another Sc to uplift the OTs).

So, the cost to do it (aside from the $500 for the OC itself) will be, according the option chosen:

1. Depending on how it is negotiated
   
2. $2350 (21 Rc at $100/unit plus 5 Sp at $50/each)
   
3. $2600 (7 Sc at $300/unit plus 2 OTs at $200/each plus 2 Sp at $50/each)

So, even at TL10, this is a daunting task probably unable to be done by a single country. While each rule involved has sense, the addition of them all leads to the paradox that you need the OC to increase your uplift capacity, and you cannot have the uplift capacity to uplift your OT, at least until TL 10.3 (assuming the orbital facilities are as limited as shown above and you can have 13 OTs, so 65 Sc units).

I give the example of the OC because it is the only one to give those paradoxal problema, while other cases are not so.

Probable easir solution: allow for partial uplifts (example, allowing to uplift facilities in atches of 50%, or even 25%, as long as each turn this is kept and it is built i nconsecutive turns). This will also be more realist, as some such facilities are uplifted in more tan 5 years IRW. As you have said several times, this will add bookkeeping to players, not to the GM...



And, BTW, a unrelated question also about OC:



Can it house more people than those required 5 pop (that ,ay meed more FUs, if more than 10 are so housed), or this is also its maximum (so giving each such OC a FU surplus)?

After the first look to German Budget, I already hav ethe first question:

Germany produced last turn 26 oil SRUs. With the 5% reduction per turn, this turn should have produced 24-25.

It spent 5 PAs plus one reserve PA in developing oil infrastructure (increasing oil production). According the rules, each PA should produce (1d10 + 8 (planet size) + 2 (German hexes) - 1 (time)) x 5 oil SRU, so 50-95 oil SRUs. As Germany spent 6 PAs, the increase should be 300-570 oil SRUs.

According the current preadsheet, German production is now 203 SRUs, so, the increased production is 178-179 SRUs (quite less than the mínimum 300 that could have been, according the rules, and that would be if all the rolls were 1s).

I guess there's an error somewhere here...

Addenda to previous post:

Its still worse, as Germany is using option 2, so in fact its total oil productin is 135, so an increase of 110 since last turn with 6 PAs (while each of them should increase 50-95 SRUs, according the rules)...

I guess I have to be used to them, as the changes in some expenses (mostly debt) really shocked me (in most cases, being increased about fivefold), but after analyzing them I guess you used it to balance things to keep them more or less as they were after you changes in economic and military TLs and size upkeeps against what was formerly just Tl upkeep.

In any case, in some specific cases I guess this does not work well. As an example, see that in the specific case of Saudi Arabia this leaves it in deficit after just paying its upkeep and expenses if not for the oil income.

About oil, the fact it now affects directly the budget instead of the GDP represents IMHO a big danger, as any price change will affect players’ budgets quite more than before, to the point of blowing up the game. See that should it increase again to $3/SRU (it has reached $5), most oil needing countries will be greatly affected (France or Japan will have its budget halved, while UK will have it reduced by about 1/3 and US by nearly 85%), while oil exporting ones will be dominating (NF will increase its budget by about 70%, Russia by about 40% and Saudi Arabia by about 400%), so making oil even more dominating factor than it has been to now.

As per specific points I see as errata:

• Australia: there appears a large sum on “sum of tech upgrades” costs (cell D68), while no tech upgrades appear to be made. There are 2 Australian budgets, I refer to the one that does not specify date (the other specifies 2050, so I guess is from the past turn).
• German Budget: #of hexes should be 2. As explained, oil produced not consistent with actions in 2050 turn according the rules.
• Russia: the Pai-leng produced by the enclave should not be, as current rules don’t talk about enclave producing them (and in previous ones, it was only in orbit of a core settlement, and Moon is not right now).

After a first look on them, I don’t see more obvious errors (what means a good job, BTW, being 19 budgets, each of them with many changes). I cannot rule out more appearing latter (and I hope each player will look at his own one(s) more carefully than myself).

The oil SRU increase also seems to be wrong for other countries:

• India: Produced 133 SRUs in 2050. With the 5% reduction, it should produce 127 in 2055. According the news, it has invested in oil infrastructure. As india has 6 hexes, even a single PA should increase (according the rules) its production by 70-115, quite over the 24 SRUs it has increased. And I don't know if it invested more than a single PA.
• NordFed: Produced 408 SRUs in 2050. With the 5% reduction, it should produce 388 in 2055. According the news, it and France have invested in its oil infrastructure. As NF has 5 hexes, even a single PA should increase (according the rules) its production by 65-110 (per PA, and there were at least 1 own and 1 French, so 130-220), quite over the 43 SRUs it has increased. And I don't know if it invested more PAs.
• Persia: Produced 625 SRUs in 2050. With the 5% reduction, it should produce 594 in 2055. According the news, it has invested in oil infrastructure. As Persia has 28 hexes, even a single PA should increase (according the rules) its production by 180-225, quite over the 123 SRUs it has increased. And I don't know if it invested more than a single PA.
• Russia: Produced 1689 SRUs in 2050. With the 5% reduction, it should produce 1605 in 2055. According the news, it has invested in oil infrastructure. As Russia has 28 hexes, even a single PA should increase (according the rules) its production by 180-225, quite over the 123 SRUs it has increased. And I don't know if it invested more than a single PA.
• Saudi Arabia: produced 1689 SRUs in 2050. With the 5% reduction, it should produce 1605 SRUs in 2055. Having invested 1 PA, and having 6 hexes, the increase (according the rules) should be 70-115 SRUs, not the 219 in has increased.

The other countries that invested in oil (Canada, Indonesia, Persia and USA) have numbers that may be possible according the rules, depending on how many PAs have they invested (I don't know this, of course), but I guess you should check all those countries to find the error.

As both countries I play are affected by this, I’m afraid I cannot plan my turns until this is fixed.

In reply to Saudi Arabia (msg # 513):

I support my friend, and would add that the consumption reduction PA are not effective either, providing average reduction of 10% by PA, but having to confront an annual consumption increase of 5% every year.

Please provide more explanation or correct that flaw.

Despite 4 PA spent on Production increase and consumption reduction, I cannot respect some engagement made last turn that should have been easy to reach.

This is because your GDP was increased by a 5% (and BTW, it is every turn, not every year), and oil needs are directly tied to GDP. SHould your GDP have decreased, so would you oil needs too. In German case, it was decreased (though less tan I expected when I sent my turn, as there were some changes in the resolution that made German GDP reduction less than expected, from a 0.85 increase when I sent the turn to 0.96 when I received the results spreadsheet. Something similar happened to otehr countries, for what I've seen).

That's of course another point to discuss, as it would not be stupid to asume part of the GDP increase is in cleaner techs. Maybe modifying the oil needs by the square root of the GDP change would be better (so making the changes, positive or negative, less GDP dependent), but that's another discussion...

Time ago, IIRC when Andreas took the GM role, I once suggested to make oil needs power TL dependent, increasing up to TL 8.0 and decreasing latter by a 5% per 0.1 TL increase over 8.0 (so at TL 10, when most power may be assumed to come from Fusion power, oil would be no longer a problem), but it was refused, as both Andreas and Kelvin perefered to make it more players' actions dependent...

There have been at times innumerable fixes to errors and rebalancings occuring, to both upkeeps as well as Oil, and you have missed a number of key factors in your analysis. One of the few that I can discuss publicly: The nation of Australia is comprised of 2, not 1, Settlements.

The numbers are as they are currently stated in the sheets, and these numbers will in the future continue to change as per the rules or when the GM finds something that needs to be done.

>>but having to confront an annual consumption increase of 5% every
>oil needs are directly tied to GDP.
Correct

>asume part of the GDP increase is in cleaner tech
I see no value to the game to make that assumption.

>as both Andreas and Kelvin perefered to make it more players' actions dependent
Correct.

Then what do we have rules for, if they don't apply?

from the rules 20181010_Oficial, applied last turn (bold added in all quotes here):



IMO they are crystal clear.

From Q&A point 7:



So, if no secret mechanics, the rules should apply as they were (and BTW, the fact you say in your answer “One of the few that I can discuss publicly” also hints that there are secret reservoirs of knowledge, something I always said it’s logical in any such a game, but then don’t claim there are not).


And in your message (in the HP) with date Feb 3rd, you clearly stated:



So, again, rules should apply as they were.

And yes, I know also about 1.3:



But this time this "doing anything hes sees fit" clarly does not keep the game playable, when tules are broken to a point players can no longer be sure their actions will have the results rules say (and, at least to me, this adds confusión, not fun, to the game).

Neither can you claim this being a unexpected rules loophole, uncertainty or exploit (you know I report them when I find them, and never use them without a confirmation they are not), as I warned you the effects they would have (post 413 this same thread):



I had no answer, and you kept the rules as they were, what could we (players, or at least myself) understand but that you were ok with it? Can you blame the players when we (again, at least myself) acted according them?

So, again, can we trust the rules? Are they for us to know how the game is played?

Because when rules clearly state what will be the result (within a margin), and the result is not this one, I get confused. How can I make any meaningful decision this way? And this is not (as too often before) planning for another turn and finding that rules changes make may plans meaningless, but changing the rules mid-turn, when the decision is already made.
This message was last edited by the player at 18:12, Sat 20 Apr 2019.

In reply to Germany (msg # 517):

You will carry on in exactly the same way as when you realized that you had made the mistake of joining a game which was not professionally designed, curated, or even existed, and had to be created from scratch in the middle of play.

>So, if no secret mechanics,
That is not what that sentence says, nor is it necessarily what is going on here.

Something strange happens in Greman (at least, I have not checked others) mil-TLs upgrading in the spreadsheet.

As any of them would be cutting edge, the cost shouls be (according current formulas $338 for land, air or sea, and 346 for space. If I try in the spreadsheet as it is, costs given are $867 for land. air or sea and $94 for space

Clarification asked:



Does this afect in any way the passengers modules (that may be seen as a kind of cargo)?

To give an example:

The DRMS Hoffen (5000 tonnes cargo capacity + passenger module) tries to bring cargo to Júpiter. According the movement formula, it could to 0.84 round trips. So, it is rounded to 0.8. What could he take to Jupiter?

Possible options (as always, numbered to ease answer):

1. Passenger modules are not affected, so it could take the passengers + 4000 (5000 x 0.8) tonnes of cargo
   
2. As passengers are 10000 tonnes of "special cargo", it could take a total of 12000 (15000 x 0.8) tonnes, that would be the passengers and 2000 tonnes more.
   
3. It cannot take any passengers to Júpiter, and the cargo is reduced to 4000 tonnes
   
4. Other (please, specify)

Just one detail about the facilities list:

Hex 4N14 is shown in the map as being MidAtlan.

According Settlements spreadsheet, it is a colony settlement owned by Gerdau-Aban  (sited in Brazil). According the NPC section in the HP it has 1 FfP and 2 M facilites there.

In the facilities list spreadsheet, though, it is listed as a core hex (not colony) owned by an NPC, and no facilities are listed.

In the calculators from the files, the dowlifting capacity for Rockets is wrong. The base hsa been kept to 1000, while with the current rules should be 500.

From talks with Russia (as he says it's not a secret, I guess I can reproduce them here):



So can assembled spaceships be uplifted (and I guess downlifted) by conventional rockets?

Again, see that this is in full contradiction with the rules for spaceports:



This aside, this definitively kills the orbital shipyards, as they now become, at most, useful for ship repairs if they cannot land (and even so, if they can be downloaded by downlift capacity, even this is dubtful).

To build a spaceship in an orbital shipyard, you have to uplift the modules, that amount to the full spaceship tonnage and assamble them in the shypayrds. If you can uplift the assambled spaceship, the shipyards are useless in ship construction.

Not to tal kabout how rockets elswhere in the world could uplift a cargo assambled at an specific spaceport (most cargoes can be built  anywhere and moved to the spaceport, but I guess assambled ships cannot be "sent by train" to another spaceport, less so if the uplift capacity is from several spaceports in different places). But I guess this is among the "minutia out of the game scope"...

Not suggesting the Russian spaceship to be deleted, not wanting to prejudice him (after all, errors have been accepted before to avoid unwanted consequences), but I think this must be clarified, as it represents a full change in spaceship construction rules, as to now most of us (at least) understood non landing capable spaceships ccould only be assambled in orbital shipyards, with al lthe incon veniences this mean (and I keep saying this is what rules say).
This message was last edited by the player at 15:43, Wed 19 June 2019.

Resume of questions and clarifications I'd wish to have answered (based on rules proposal). Feel free to answer here or just modify the Rules proposal so that they are answered (if they lead to such changes or rewritting them):

Possible immediate game effect (so I'd like to be answered ASAP):

1) Can ships unable to land be uplifted/downlifted by rockets (see Msg #523)?

2) About outposts (7.9.1):


Should an outpost settlement already be in the World, would other OTs deployed there also need an outpost, or as there's already a settlement they don't need it?

In other words: can a single outpost support several OTs (as it is already a settlement)?

See that this would be a change from previous assumption, where you specified each OT in an uninhabited World would need its own outpost module, but as the wording in the rules is now, it would seem that a single outpost, being a settlement, would suffice...

OTOH, this will seem to be contradictory with 7.2  Enclave settlement definition:


So if, to give an example, Germany has 2 OTs in Mars and only 1 Enclave Module on one of them, would it be an Enclave settlement?

If not, it would give place to several further questions:

• Assuming the previous question  answer is “yes” and, having already an outpost settlement on Mars the second OT has no outpost, which kind of settlement would it be (of course, Germany could deploy the Enclave In the OT without outpost, so keeping both modules, but this would need more power)?
• Imagine Germany has an OT with an Enclave module in Mars (so becoming an Enclave settlement), and then decides (for whatever reason) to deploy another OT there. As it already has a Settlement there, it will not need an outpost, but wat would happen with the Settlement? Will it keep as an Enclave? Will  it become an outpost one again  (as the Enclave has absorbed the outpost, I guess we can assume the outpost to also be there)?
• And in any case, I understand the Enclave will survey Mars in 5 turns, even if the second OT avoids it to be considered an Enclave settlement…

3) Passengers and round trips under 1 (see post #520)

4) About 6.5:


Is UN also included here  (so needing anyone to devote at least 1PA on it)?

No immediate game effects (so answer may wait):

5) Orbital Colonies: how many pop can one such facility lodge (it is specified it produces 10 FU  and needs at least 5 pop, but I guess more can be lodged there, even if you have to take there the food from  elsewhere, if you can lodge there more than 10 pop)?

Note: Edited to include point 4 (and making former point 4 to be now point 5)
This message was last edited by the player at 14:55, Mon 01 July 2019.

In reply to Germany (msg # 524):

1) Yes. A Spaceship is a unit.
2) Section 7.2 Outpost already says "...each"
3) See section 9.4 paragraph#1
4) "... if they are to receive any consideration for actions beyond being part of a common mailing list"
5) 5

First of all, thank you for you quick answer , but in some points it is quite incomplete:



Then    a derivated question: can a ship not able to land be built in spaceports, i n full oposition to the spaceports description (that is what brought the question)?




Ok, but there were several more question on this point, mostly about Enclave settlement...



Remember, the question was refered to msg#520, so I list it here for completness:



See my reference was to 9.4 last paragraph .

Let's see 9.4 paragraph 1:



Now can you please tell me where can I find the answer here (maybe I'm too dumb to find it)?



So any Orbital Colony will become a net food exporter...

Not that I have any problem with it, just it surprises me and seems me odd...
This message was last edited by the player at 03:01, Mon 15 July 2019.

Then, some paradoxes:



So, assuming a 30000 tonnes spaceship is damaged, as it occurred with the Bahnbreacher in its Apophis mission (and so unable to land), it could be downloaded by a Freude or Bahnbrecher class ship in 6 round trips (or by 6 such ships)...

And, of course, this makes the Naval Shipyards a perfectly prescindible facility. Tell me what use will it have if rules are so applied.

Suggestion: don't allow spaceships to be uplifted/downlifted by other means than their own capacities.





So, As Russia has now an OT with an Enclave in Moon, it has an Enclave settlement...

This would mean any other Russian OT would not need an outpost, a sthere's a settlement already there...

But if Russia deploys this OT without another Enclave, it will be no longer an enclave settlement, so needing an outpost, and the settlement becoming (I guess) once again an outpost one (again, I assume the Enclave includes the outpost on it), so effectivelly downgrading it by deploying another facility on it...

Suggestion: to change the Enclave settlement definition to only needing 1 enclave, regrdless other OTs in the World Orbit. The would mean any other OT will not need an outpost, but I guess the pop in an Enclave will be enough as to be counted as several outposts.
This message was last edited by the player at 03:00, Mon 15 July 2019.

I was reviewing the rules proposal  and I saw some changes (not sure if new) in 8.4 (military units maintenance), aside ro formfeitig (as yo ualready commented) tthe extra Su for being out of a base/national territory:

1. You deleted the forfeiting of the FUs needed to maintain units if at a Core settlement, so I  understand now we will have to provide them (so paying for them, as Core settlements are unlimited producers).
   
2. Now reserve units don't need food units

Is this all right?