Any new developments

[duxdarius]

Hi,

I am anxious to start a small play-test campaign using the 2nd ed rules. Any chance you could port a few more updates? So we could have a skeleton of rules so we can play a bit.

Cliff

[Tyrel Lohr]

I've been buried by my day job the last month, but here is a pretty much total dump of the assembled notes for each of the chapters, completely unfiltered:

http://www.vbamgames.com/VBAM2E-promo.zip

The only major elements that are still conspicuously missing are the space and ground combat rules. For now, you can use the CSCR Alpha rules for both of these instances, as the final rules will be effectively the same (and thus why the ground combat rules aren't written in final form yet -- I am waiting to complete the rewrite on the CSCR rules first).

There are some contradictory rules in there, and some things that I am still going to change. The tech prerequisites are probably going to go away, at least for right now, as they don't seem to be adding anything to gameplay and just seem to be muddying the waters a bit.

My current focus, the last few times I have had time to work on the rules this last month, has been on streamlining the flow of actually starting a campaign and making sure all of those elements are in place.

-Tyrel

[duxdarius]

Thanks for posting those rules. I can now start reading and getting started setting up a play-test game.

Well I have a group of guys willing to give it a try for a while. We will be starting with some pretty basic emerging interstellar empires.

I will keep you posted and I am sure we will have lots of questions for you as we progress.
Thanks
Cliff

[Tyrel Lohr]

I know some of the rules are still pretty rough, and there have been a few changes in the diplomacy section that I am still not 100% sure about. But I would really appreciate all questions about problems regarding trying to start a campaign.

Another word of warning is that the Intel rules still have the old skill check system values in place, so some quick conversions would have to be applied there to get them back to work with the final D100 campaign check system.

Most of my work the last two months has revolved around trying to get the setup process somewhat streamlined. As it is now, you need to:

* Choose Campaign Type (Moderated vs. Unmoderated)

* Define Campaign Scope (see 4.0 Campaign Maps)

* Select Scenario -- though at this point there aren't any scenarios written; you could always adapt one from 1E, however.

* Create Campaign Maps

* Create Empires (using rules at the back of 7.0 Empires)

* Create tech lists -- all interstellar begin with TL 0 in all Common technologies, so that makes that simple. Just add the tech level increases and unlocks from empire generation.

* Create force lists using unit design system

* Spend initial starting points


That process should get you up and ready to run the game.

Each campaign turn, you then have a few processes that you will need to perform:

* Empire Morale Check
* Empire Piracy Check
* Adjust Income in Income Phase
* Adjust Population Pool

I think that is the highlights... I am thinking about adding an optional empire diplomacy check roll, too, but I think that might be overkill.

You will also notice that some of the chapters are in absolute shambles... some are mid edit, others have legacy components still extent that need to be removed. For example, in the AIX diplomacy stat overviews, there are charts and modifiers present that no longer exist or hold any relevance. Those were from an earlier version of the rules but were removed once I realized that we were just going to use the AIX values for everyone, and that they could just be added/subtracted where necessary to get the desired results.

If you need any help stepping through the game setup process, just let me know. It would be a good trial to make sure that I am not taking anything for granted or making strange leaps in logic.

-Tyrel

[duxdarius]

some items have come up that I am forwarding on.
Trade Value. There is conflicting information between 6.0 and 7.0 on calculating or otherwise determining Commerce Output, which affects trade value. Also, it is implied but nowhere implicitly stated that you need at least 2 systems with Trade Links before you can collect trade income. In fact, it seems to imply in 8.6.3 that a single system that has a Trade Link and is a Supply Node and is in Good Order may contribute its Trade Value without any other connections.

And what’s with all the extra math? Like Trade income is 10% of Trade Value and dividing Agricultural Output by 2. If there’s no compelling reason for the base number to differ from the final numbers than they shouldn’t be. With Agri Output, if you want half the production, then cut the Biosphere number in half to begin with.


Also, why does a planet suddenly need 2.5x as much food if it’s being blockaded? Agri Output on blockaded worlds is divided by 5 rather than halved like normal and I can see no valid reason for this at all.

[Tyrel Lohr]

some items have come up that I am forwarding on.

I have started running into some of these artifacts too as I start going through and doing final editing runs on the near-final chapters, so I really appreciate the extra pointers to where things are inconsistent, wrong, etc.

Trade Value. There is conflicting information between 6.0 and 7.0 on calculating or otherwise determining Commerce Output, which affects trade value. Also, it is implied but nowhere implicitly stated that you need at least 2 systems with Trade Links before you can collect trade income. In fact, it seems to imply in 8.6.3 that a single system that has a Trade Link and is a Supply Node and is in Good Order may contribute its Trade Value without any other connections.

Commerce Output is is equal Census x Commerce. This is a stat that I am pretty ambivalent about but other members of the team liked, so it stuck around (I would prefer to kill it, because it has been difficult to find any real purpose for it to exist).

Also, you make income from any active trade links that your empire controls. This was simplified from the 3-system routes from 1E, so that you just add the trade values from all systems where you have active trade links and earn that income.

And what’s with all the extra math? Like Trade income is 10% of Trade Value and dividing Agricultural Output by 2. If there’s no compelling reason for the base number to differ from the final numbers than they shouldn’t be. With Agri Output, if you want half the production, then cut the Biosphere number in half to begin with.

The trade calculation is the same as in 1E (10% of final total), except that in 1E you had to multiply 10% times each trade route instead of just taking 10% at the end, IIRC.

Agricultural output is an issue, though. The reason why it is as high as it is right now is because otherwise food production doesn't have any meaningful impact on a planet's trade value. There is also the problem that you drop the range of Biosphere values from 0-6 to 0-3 by doing that, which causes even more problems long-term.

Now, all that being said, do you guys think it would be preferable to change the commerce income rules so that you just get a fixed level of benefit from each colony output so that a colony would have a +1 trade value or a +4 trade value -- i.e., the exact amount of income you will earn if you have a trade link in the system. The only way to make that work, however, would be to have a lookup chart for each to make that calculation, especially if the stats are changed so that they are not necessarily unequal.

The problem is that we have values that don't come out even but should provide roughly the same commerce benefit to the colony. Considering your "default" homeworld from 1E, you have 60 economic output (6 RAW x 10 Census), 100 production output (10 Census x 10 Productivity), 60 agricultural output (6 Biosphere x 10 Agricultural), and 100 commerce output (10 Census x 10 Commerce). Therein lies the problem: some of the stats have a maximum of 60, while others are at 100. This wasn't a huge problem in 1E, as we only used economic output for trade route calculations. In 2E, though, it has been a balancing act. The goal is to keep the trade value for these colonies about around 6 EP, where they were before, while integrating the expanded colony outputs.

A simpler calculation, but one that wouldn't take into account the outputs, would be to change the trade value calculation for a colony to be RAW + Biosphere + Census + Productivity + Commerce + Agricultural. That indirectly incorporates them, but keeps the values lower. A homeworld would then have 6 + 6 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 = 52. If you weighted the RAW/Bio by doubling them, you could increase this to 64, which would give the same trade value (when divided by 10) as a 1E homeworld.

When looking at minor colonies (all stats at 3), 1E would give the colony a 9, while the above equivalent would be (3+3)x2+3+3+3+3 = 24. With the current 2E rules as written, the trade value should instead be equal to (9 + 9 + 9 + 9) / 4 = 9, or the same as in 1E.

I guess the question becomes whether the addition or average is easier to perform, or if either gives a better result? The second question would be if income values should be calculated on a system-by-system basis, or else wait until the final Commerce Income calculation as they are now.

Also, why does a planet suddenly need 2.5x as much food if it’s being blockaded? Agri Output on blockaded worlds is divided by 5 rather than halved like normal and I can see no valid reason for this at all.

That's a typo; Census used to require 5 agricultural output each instead of just 2, but then those values were halved (yes, it was already done once) to make it a bit easier to calculate.

-Tyrel

[Gareth_Perkins]

Now, all that being said, do you guys think it would be preferable to change the commerce income rules so that you just get a fixed level of benefit from each colony output so that a colony would have a +1 trade value or a +4 trade value -- i.e., the exact amount of income you will earn if you have a trade link in the system. The only way to make that work, however, would be to have a lookup chart for each to make that calculation, especially if the stats are changed so that they are not necessarily unequal.

I think commercial income should vary according to a couple of different factors - and output is only going to be one of them (albeit an important one),

Location should also be a big factor (how many systems are within easy reach) as well as other Empires (nearby friendly Empires should boost commercial income a lot with trade across the border, nearby hostile Empires should drop commercial income a lot (as traders avoid the sector, traders are lost, insurance costs rise, etc).

Uniqueness should count for something (systems with ancient ruins for example),

Systems with highly apt biospheres/environmental conditions should count for something, as you note, but are sort of a part of output (or should be factored into the extra construction costs),

Could we figure something out using that as a basis? As far as travel links are concerned you could consider as a starting point adding up the worlds within two jumps of the world under consideration, your worlds counting as +1, a friendly Empires worlds as +2 (-1 from these if the two-jump route must go through a restricted jumplane? Maybe only count these if there is a colony on the world?) and hostile worlds as -3(?) (whether there is a colony or not - a claimed world should count), then add on some sort of factor for commerce/agriculture (I think ruins, etc should work as a bonus extra)?

[duxdarius]

The trade calculation is the same as in 1E (10% of final total), except that in 1E you had to multiply 10% times each trade route instead of just taking 10% at the end, IIRC.

Agricultural output is an issue, though. The reason why it is as high as it is right now is because otherwise food production doesn't have any meaningful impact on a planet's trade value. There is also the problem that you drop the range of Biosphere values from 0-6 to 0-3 by doing that, which causes even more problems long-term.

Now, all that being said, do you guys think it would be preferable to change the commerce income rules so that you just get a fixed level of benefit from each colony output so that a colony would have a +1 trade value or a +4 trade value -- i.e., the exact amount of income you will earn if you have a trade link in the system. The only way to make that work, however, would be to have a lookup chart for each to make that calculation, especially if the stats are changed so that they are not necessarily unequal.

The problem is that we have values that don't come out even but should provide roughly the same commerce benefit to the colony. Considering your "default" homeworld from 1E, you have 60 economic output (6 RAW x 10 Census), 100 production output (10 Census x 10 Productivity), 60 agricultural output (6 Biosphere x 10 Agricultural), and 100 commerce output (10 Census x 10 Commerce). Therein lies the problem: some of the stats have a maximum of 60, while others are at 100. This wasn't a huge problem in 1E, as we only used economic output for trade route calculations. In 2E, though, it has been a balancing act. The goal is to keep the trade value for these colonies about around 6 EP, where they were before, while integrating the expanded colony outputs.

A simpler calculation, but one that wouldn't take into account the outputs, would be to change the trade value calculation for a colony to be RAW + Biosphere + Census + Productivity + Commerce + Agricultural. That indirectly incorporates them, but keeps the values lower. A homeworld would then have 6 + 6 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 = 52. If you weighted the RAW/Bio by doubling them, you could increase this to 64, which would give the same trade value (when divided by 10) as a 1E homeworld.

When looking at minor colonies (all stats at 3), 1E would give the colony a 9, while the above equivalent would be (3+3)x2+3+3+3+3 = 24. With the current 2E rules as written, the trade value should instead be equal to (9 + 9 + 9 + 9) / 4 = 9, or the same as in 1E.

I guess the question becomes whether the addition or average is easier to perform, or if either gives a better result? The second question would be if income values should be calculated on a system-by-system basis, or else wait until the final Commerce Income calculation as they are now

.

Onward and downward though,
The Intel system has got to go. I couldn’t figure out how to make it work actually, but it’s obvious things like the bonuses/penalties from the government focus were meant for a system more like the diplomacy rules than what’s in the current intel section. Frankly, doing intel using a system like the diplomacy rules makes much more sense. Having two so totally dissimilar rule sets but having their basic point pool function the same is just plain stupid.

Speaking of the diplomacy rules, I find no compelling reason at all for having an Aggression stat less than 100%. There are NO benefits at all for having lower aggression and A LOT of penalties. Not just in diplomacy but everywhere it’s used. Xenophobia and Integrity both have valid reasons to take different values and you get useful benefits with high and low values but there is no compelling reason at all for aggression beyond handicapping those taking lower values.

I don’t have any idea how to fix or balance aggression. It at least needs a note in its description warning of the consequences for taking lower values and recommending values under 75 not be taken except to balance more skilled vs. less skilled players.

For Intel, use the racial stats as a bonus/penalty depending on the action, have attacking IP plus target census subtract defending IP and infrastructure and multiply the difference by 5 and adjust for difficulty. Current government focus rules wouldn’t have to change at all. The major/minor success/fail rules are fine.

Thanks,
--Mav