I don't know if you've caught/covered this yet but ...

Locked
BLHarrison
Lieutanant Commander
Lieutanant Commander
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:02 pm

I don't know if you've caught/covered this yet but ...

Post by BLHarrison »

In the draft there is no chart for the Orbital statistic. Raw, Biosphere ect. ect. are there.
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Re: I don't know if you've caught/covered this yet but ...

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

Orbital was a last minute change, and I didn't get a chance to update the systems section yet. The chart is the same as RAW et. al., 2D6 / 2 (round down).

That method of assigning system stats is extremely simple, consistent (except for Carrying Capacity, which is a straight up 2D6 roll), and can be easily manipulated via advanced rules when we get to detailed planets and star systems (otherwise known as taking the Star Charts text and basic effects that have been written and more or less finished for 5 years and applying it to the new rules).
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
BLHarrison
Lieutanant Commander
Lieutanant Commander
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:02 pm

Re: I don't know if you've caught/covered this yet but ...

Post by BLHarrison »

Tyrel Lohr wrote:Orbital was a last minute change, and I didn't get a chance to update the systems section yet. The chart is the same as RAW et. al., 2D6 / 2 (round down).

That method of assigning system stats is extremely simple, consistent (except for Carrying Capacity, which is a straight up 2D6 roll), and can be easily manipulated via advanced rules when we get to detailed planets and star systems (otherwise known as taking the Star Charts text and basic effects that have been written and more or less finished for 5 years and applying it to the new rules).
I had a hunch that might be it (the values for orbit I mean), but it could have been one of those things that gets past 15*10^6 proof reads by almost as many different people.

Well have a good, safe, and productive trip
BLHarrison
Lieutanant Commander
Lieutanant Commander
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:02 pm

Re: I don't know if you've caught/covered this yet but ...

Post by BLHarrison »

But in both the recent drafts, in the discription of the "Marine" ability you use the word Assault instead of Marine.

Also, while I'm typeing, Is it correct to beleive that if you had unit with let us say AS 1 PD 1 and Marine 2 the value for the unit would be AS 3 PD 3 during the first phase of an Invasion senero? That is before any rounding if the unit was dropping from a non-assualt transport.
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Re: I don't know if you've caught/covered this yet but ...

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

Oops! I'll get in there and make that correction right now.

You are correct that a unit with 1 AS, 1 PD, 2 Marine would have an effective 3 AS and 3 PD during Invasion scenarios. When I find the Invasion scenario text and add it to the current draft, I need to make clear that Invasion scenarios can only be used if you don't have any ground units already disembarked at the system. The Marine advantage is meant to make it easier for a unit to survive the initial invasion and establish a beachhead in a system.
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
BLHarrison
Lieutanant Commander
Lieutanant Commander
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:02 pm

Re: I don't know if you've caught/covered this yet but ...

Post by BLHarrison »

In one part of the draft the calculation for completion time is given as Construction Cost/2, yet later in the draft the value is given as Construction Cost/5. If it matters my suggestion is to go with the /5 value as it matches so many of the other calculations.

Also on the page were mothballing units is discussed you have such a ships maintaince be 25% of normal, but later on in the same page you have mothballed units costing 0% of normal.

In a related area, while a unit is being placed in reserve or mothballed (i.e. during the X number of turns it takes to place a unit in such a status) does the Empire pay normal maintance?

Also related, if you have a space station(s) or ship(s) with enough Repair capability could you use that Repair Capability to bring units from reserve/mothballed to active status?

Thank you for your time.
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Re: I don't know if you've caught/covered this yet but ...

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

The completion time calculation shifted based on changes in construction cost. When I was playing around with having construction costs be twice that of normal I was using construction cost / 5 for completion time, but since reverting back it really should be construction cost / 2. I will make sure that I clarify this in the document. I started to do that earlier this evening when I read this post, but then got side tracked.

Mothballing I'll have to take a look at. 1E used a 0% maintenance cost for mothballed units, but I have worried that that is too cheap. I may end up splitting the difference and putting it at 10% instead. That is a minimum maintenance expense, but still significant enough in aggregate to dissuade a player from just building up a constant stream of units. I should know for sure how I am going to handle that later tonight.

As for the maintenance issue for units that are being put into or brought out of reserves/mothballs, I am adding a discrete Maintenance Phase to the sequence of play so that it is clear when ships have maintenance applied. Ships that go into reserves or maintenance would not pay maintenance on the turns they complete the switchover.

I think you have a point that Repair/Medical should be allowed as a substitute for bringing units out of mothballs. That's a good idea. I'll implement it!

UPDATE: Okay, the final resolution on the maintenance issue is that Mothballed units have their maintenance costs reduced to 10%. This is a low enough cost to make it easy to fund a reserve of mothballed units, but still applies enough carrying cost to make a player think twice about whether or not they would be better off scrapping or selling the units to get out from underneath the financial burden.
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
BLHarrison
Lieutanant Commander
Lieutanant Commander
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:02 pm

Re: I don't know if you've caught/covered this yet but ...

Post by BLHarrison »

There are two different values shown in the Treaties section as to when a power will consider asking a larger power a Protectorate Treaty vice an Alliance treaty. In the entry for the treaty in the section introducing treaties value of 4 times GDP is used while later on the value is given as 5

Also in the Treaties section almost none of the formulas match the text discription. In addition when you eleminated the + or - values for various treaties you apparently forgot to change the the formula to read "100 – XE + (Relationship - Treaty Modifier)" instead of "100 – XE + (Relationship + Treaty Modifier)"

The other formulas appear not to work at all unless you tack "100" before the rest of the formula.

As an asside, assuming my comments correctly guessed your intentions, it appears that no NPE with a XE of 51 or more will ever offer a Unification Treaty to anyone. It also appears that while a PC Empire can accept a Unification Treaty from a NPE with an XE of 50 (under the 0 or greater rule), an NPE would have to have a XE of 49 or less to have even the smallest of chances of accepting an Unification Treaty from an NPE. Am I correct in guessing that this was intentional, assuming the rarity of the offering?
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Re: I don't know if you've caught/covered this yet but ...

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

Most of these should be resolved in the next draft. I have done some significant reworking on the diplomacy rules since the last public draft was posted. We still have a +-100 range for relationships, but now the culture values just modify your relationship for specific diplomatic activities. I hope to have all of those changes available next week.

Also, the protectorate treaty has been revised to apply when two powers sign an alliance treaty and one has an income 5 times greater than the other.

The current unification treaty has a difficulty level of 100, so an empire with a XE > 50 won't ever consider unification. This is somewhat intentional, as the more xenophobia an empire is the less likely they are going to completely surrender themselves to another power's control. The one solution around this would be to allow relationship values to go above +100, and there is probably nothing wrong with allowing that in most campaigns.
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
Locked