Combat Cycle Ref:
In reply to Combat Cycle Ref (msg # 2):
> For what I've seen to now, resolving insurgencies as a full fledged war has benn not
>precisely simple...
Actually it is very simple. The greatest work/stress for me has been finding out exactly where and what each nation’s units are doing. Lluis, you have made it the simplest for me but it was still time consuming, I thought my Russia was ok but now I see it is a mess
Glad to hear (bold part). Be sure I try. I guess it's time consuming. If I may help in any way, just ask.
Combat Cycle Ref:
>Military
> Simplifying it is a must. Right now, every pretty war is bogging down the game.
As above, the main thing bogging down the game is trying to figure out where each military unit is and what it is doing. If players would be more helpful in that then wars would not be a problem. ….that and the interminable negotiations which never seem to go anywhere but take my time to sort out what happens.
Yes, negotiations and interminable (real life, time zone differences, etc. don't help here), but they are also the fun part (and I guess the basis) of the game.
Combat Cycle Ref:
> As rules stand now, it would be impossible to deploy space industries or to colonize, as
>interface is too limited by this.
As I recall, the example that you used to prove your case was based on running everything from Earth and with low technology. I would be concerned if that *DID* work.
I can understand your POV to a point. Let me put you another example:
Now, a passenger module needs 10000 tonnes. Off course this means they must be larger than that, as they will need some more modules (at least hull and propulsion ones). As you cannot build ships larger than 10000 tonnes without a Civilian Shipyard Module (Something that I cannot understand if they may represent several smaller ships), you cannot build a passenger carrying ship until you build such a module.
As this module needs 20 RMU to be operative
1, you need 400000 uplift tonnes capability to use it (aside from any module you must uplift, as it can only build 5 modules), to build a passenger carrying ship you need to have already access to catapults (or a ridiculously high number of rockets and their supporting OTs).
So, to build a passenger carrying ship (TL 8.0), you need at least TL 9.3 for Space and materials, and TL 9.0 in electronics.
Suggestion: to return to former rules in some ways:
- make the passenger module 5000 tonnes (it's about 1 ton per passenger)
- in exchange, return to 1 ship representing just one hull, and to the 10000/G limit to land/take off from surface
- return to ships being able to be built by surface industry if they can land in the satellite in question (not fixed 10000 dtons).
Note 1: clarification asked: must those 20 RMU be baid for in Core Worlds (that are unlimited sources of them) or just the capability to uplift them be present? See that in the first case, the $20 they produce are forfeited by its cost...
Another detail: See that as rules stand now, Assembly Yard is only useful to repair ships (and as prerequisite to a Civilian Space Yard), as any ship build by them can also be from surface (as long as it's streamlined). Not sure they are worth it. They could be droped and shipyaards (maybe made more expensive to compensate for it) be able to repair ships.
Combat Cycle Ref:
>>Much greater initial variability between nations on their Authoritarian Modifier
>A simple (but long reaching) solution would be to use an AM dependent multiplier for the social expenses
>I suggest 70+AM
>Some examples as how would this have affected several countries if applied last turn
Changes to how the budgets are calculated leads to endless screaming from the players who feel they have been singled out.
Well, I would be badly affected by it in most countries I play too (Nigeria excepted), but that would give sense to what issaid in 6.1 about the citizens expect in return..
Combat Cycle Ref:
> the definition for the "amphibious" ability for air and space units to be flawled.
>As it is, it forces the carriers to carry units that are 5 times more massive than regular ones
As carriers have no mass capacity limitations that is not a problem.</quite>
But it still seems odd to me. And the mass of the units is (I guess) mostly to move them by spaceship (in case of ships I guess dissaseembled), and in this case it will affect if someone tries to move a carrier grup to another satellite. And it's rearly worth it (except to be used from carriers), as they can be moved by civilian shipping anyway (though it needs one CR once in position (BTW, this applies to 12:10 too, where each combat turn represents several combat rounds?)
Now about 20150915 rules (after skip rading them)
Combat Cycle Ref:
Any definition that you choose to justify continuing to incorporate TL in military unit cost can be turned around and used to justify TL in the cost of colony facilities.
Not me this time (disappointed ;)). While higher TL uses to be more expensive, also less of it uses to be needed, so compensating it.
The only "but" I find in the new prices is that some units (infantry, MR airships, SAM, Patrol Ships) with a cost of $2 are not worth to be built as reserve, as its cost is $1, the same as Green. Not sure if this is intentional.
Another major change I see you've done is to change Relations and Prestige from -20/+20 to 1-20, and you've also changed the formula for PAs (a must with this change) by also reducing the divisor for defending strenght.
Aside from this forcing to change the Nations spreadsheet, some numbers I've run by changing those factors (halving them, rounding down, and adding 10, as I guess would be the correct formula and the one I'll use in all the coments), in most cases the relation is halved.
While this may seem logical when you try to modify relations (as now each relation means double than before), not so for other uses, as you need double PAs for most things. Again, not sure if this was intentional.
Another effect is that now is quite more difficult to have a client state, as you need 20 relations (now easier to achieve), but you also need 5 more tan any other country, something now quite more difficult. Again, not know if intentional.
EDIT (afterthoughts): OTOH, PAs are now a little cheaper, more so the lower your prestige was, as prestige is some higher. Some examples:
- IC, prestige -11 (th lowest) had a cost of $61 per PA. Now with prestige 4 they would cost $46 ($14 saving)
- China had prestige 3 (close to 0) and paid 47 per PA. Now, with prestige 11 it would pay $39 ($8 saving)
- Japan, with prestige 16 (the highest) país 34 per PA. Now with prestige 18 it would pay 32 ($2 saving).
Again, IDK if it's intentional. If not, I'd suggest to change the cost to 60-prestige*1.5. This way, the costs would be 54 for IC, 44 for China and 33, more close to before...
This message was last edited by the player at 11:35, Mon 21 Sept 2015.