2E Playtest file Errors and Corrections

Locked
nimrodd
Commander
Commander
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:59 am
Location: DFW, TX

2E Playtest file Errors and Corrections

Post by nimrodd »

The following posts I have are for VBAM2E_20110821.pdf.

Page 20 towards the bottom of the second paragraph of section 2.3.10 Infrastructure Upgrade
For example, a colony with 3 Census and 3 Shipyards would have a maximum shipyard capacity of 9 EP.
The above only gives Utilized Shipyards, not Maximum Shipyard Capacity. Maximum Shipyard Capacity is determined by Utilized Shipyards x Orbital.

Page 24 in the first paragraph of Colony Generation, there is a reference to Colony Size Chart.
A colony's size is determined by taking its Census plus its total infrastructure and comparing the result against the first column of the Colony Size Chart.
There is a Colony Importance Chart on page 22, but it only uses Census to determine that.

Page 53 the example under 3.4.8 Resolving Intel Missions, is wrong.
5 difficulty mission supported by 4 utilized Intel against opposing system with 6 defensive Intel = 5 / (4 x 6) = 20% chance of success.
It should read,
"5 difficulty mission supported by 4 utilized Intel against opposing system with 6 defensive Intel = 4 / (5 x 6) = 13.3% chance of success."
And do you round up, down or normal?

Also on page 53, Espionage: Army and Espionage: Colony list effects taking place for the next 6 turns and 10 turns respectively. This is also scattered throughout the reset of the Espionage section. Is this supposed to represent 1/2 a campaign year and a full campaign year? Most use 5 turns and 10 turns, but a couple of 6 turns snuck in.

Page 55, the Sabotage: Agriculture Mission Difficulty should probably be "Mission Difficulty: 2 + (Agriculture ÷ 2)" instead of "Mission Difficulty: 2 + (Productivity ÷ 2)". Also, do these calculations round, up, down or normally?

Page 60, the last sentence of 3.4.4 Treaties should read "The effects of all of these treaties are to put an empire in a better position to weather external threats to its sovereignty."

Page 63, in the middle of the first paragraph of Alliance Treaty, it states "The leader must also approve any armistice treaty that is offered or signed by the alliance to end a conflict with an enemy." Yes, this is so, but according to Armistice Treaty, "Alliance members must unanimously agree to the terms of and sign an armistice treaty in order for it to be valid.", so the sentence in Alliance Treaty is misleading, since the leader must approve it, but so does everyone else.

Page 66, the Breaking Chance example in 3.4.4.5 Breaking Treaties is confusing.
Breaking Chance
(100 – IN) x 20%
[round up]
When I first read it, I saw it as (assuming IN = 50) (100 - 50) x 20% or a 1000% chance. I think what confused me was that in this ONE example, you put in the % sign for a percentage calculation. I think it would be clearer if you wrote it as "(100 - IN) x 0.2" or "(100 - IN) / 5" and left off the % sign, since it doesn't show on other calculations.

Page 67, in the 3.4.5 Declarations Hostilities Chance, it should read "(AG - Relationship x 2) + Declaration Modifier".

Page 69, in the 3.5.4.4 Rescinding Declarations section, you state:
Hostilities, war, and total war declarations are automatically rescinded when the affected two parties sign an armistice treaty. This is the only way that these declarations can be rescinded.
There is also Surrender Declaration that will end those.

Page 75, the example at the bottom of 3.6.1.1 Initial Relationship, should read "which rounds down to 45."

Page 83, the first paragraph in the second column needs to change all "Tech" references to "Intel".

Page 88, the last sentence of the first paragraph of X.X.4 Combating Piracy:
The minimum construction cost of space combat units required to provide a bonus to a system's piracy check is equal to 10 times the system's Jump Lanes value. A system with 4 Jump Lanes would require at last 40 EP of space combat units to be well-defended, for example.
conflicts with the Piracy Check Modifiers at the top of the page:
Military presence in system is greater than or equal
to Commerce value (+1)
Page 93, 3.11.1 Unit Construction says:
The maximum construction cost of starship units that can be purchased at a colony each turn is equal to its shipyard capacity (Utilized Shipyards x Orbital).
Is this "Purchased" or "Under Construction"? If "purchased", a system with Utilized Shipyards of 5 and Orbital of 5, could crank out 1 BattleShip each turn (once construction time is complete) if the EMPIRE could afford the EP?

Also on page 93 in the 4th paragraph of 3.11.1 Unit Construction, it states"
The number of Construction Phases that a unit must be under construction before it is finally completed is called its completion time and is equal to its construction cost divided by 5 (round fractions up).
This also occurs in the 4th paragraph of 3.11.2 Repairs on page 94 and the 2nd paragraph of 3.11.3 Field Repairs on page 95.

Page 97, the last paragraph of 3.12.3 Tech Advancement:
Empires that don’t control any colonies or Census can’t receive tech advances because they have too few resources available to even consider frittering what resource they do have away on frivolous research projects.
This needs some clarification, as it seems to state that an Empire just starting the game cannot do any research until they have a colony with Census, even if they have a Homeworld with Tech Infrastructure.

Page 100 Mothballing costs contradict each other in Maintenance State Chart and the second paragraph of X.X.3 Mothballed. I think that 25% is too high for Mothballed maintenance and that it should be reduced to about 10% as you stated elsewhere, Tyrel.

Page 103, the second paragraph of 3.15 Maintenance reads:
Maintenance expense is calculated by taking the total maintenance cost of all an empire’s units, making sure to account for their current X.X Maintenance States, and multiplying it by 10% (round fractions up). This is the number of economic points that the power must pay each turn to properly maintain its military forces. Refer to X.X Maintenance for more information on this topic.
Does this mean that Maintenance Cost is the total for the whole year, instead of monthly?

Page 107, the example under X.2.4 Ramming Orders makes no sense at all.
100 - (AG + XE) ÷ 2
Round fractions down
Aggressive empires or those that are naturally xenophobic are more likely to train crews willing to commit the ultimate sacrifice for their nation.
This formula results in the reverse of what the second quote states from the following paragraph.

Example 1 AG=75 & XE=75
100 - (75 + 75) ÷ 2 = 100 - (150) ÷ 2 = 100 - 75 = 25% for the highly aggressive and xenophobic race.

Example 2 AG=25 & XE=25
100 - (25 + 25) ÷ 2 = 100 - (50) ÷ 2 = 100 - 25 = 75% for the non-aggressive and non-xenophobic race.

A better result might come from just averaging their AG & XE or (AG + XE) ÷ 2. This would give the two example races above (obviously), a 75% chance for Example 1 and a 25% chance for Example 2.
Jimmy Simpson
User avatar
Vandervecken
Lieutanant Commander
Lieutanant Commander
Posts: 58
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 11:33 am
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: 2E Playtest file Errors and Corrections

Post by Vandervecken »

Thanks Nimrodd ! As much as I'm interested in what wonders will be put in to the 2E Companion, Menagerie, etc ...; this post will help the VBAM crew get 2E out quicker. And I need it out soon so that I can get my "old folks home" of gamers going exploring space and kicking arse again.

P.S. Since some of our kids will be playing, the "old folks home' will only apply to about half of the lined up Players.
I weary of the Chase. Wait for me. I shall be merciful and Quick.
User avatar
Tyrel Lohr
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:48 am
Location: Lusk, WY
Contact:

Re: 2E Playtest file Errors and Corrections

Post by Tyrel Lohr »

I'm very far behind, having spent last weekend slogging through Diplomacy and doing some rewrites (and still waffling on some aspects of the rules that I think need altering based on prior experience with the rules). I think I have most of Jimmy's errata incorporated into the book in one form or another, so here's the rundown of changes, corrections, and comments:

The above only gives Utilized Shipyards, not Maximum Shipyard Capacity. Maximum Shipyard Capacity is determined by Utilized Shipyards x Orbital.
Thanks for catching that. As a design history side bar, at one point Productivity was completely excised from the rules, and everything was Census x Stat. That means shipyard capacity has ranged everywhere from Census x Shipyards to utilized Productivity x utilized Shipyards to the current utilized Shipyards x Orbitals. It has been a wild ride.
There is a Colony Importance Chart on page 22, but it only uses Census to determine that.
I've made a note about this when I find and integrate the outstanding text for the colony generation appendix entry and get those rules completed.
SNIP Intel
That is my next project after Diplomacy. The last incarnation of the intel rules, which that is something of a hybrid of, has worked out in practice, but there are still nagging issues that I want to make sure to work out when I rewrite that chapter.

One of the issues you pointed out is the duration of the bonuses some of the missions offer. I have gone between half a campaign year and a full campaign year, but I am leaning towards just going with a D6 roll. Not as easy to remember or consistent, but it adds some uncertainty for the player in moderated campaigns because they won't know for sure how long their intel advantage is good for.
Also, do these calculations round, up, down or normally?
Originally I wasn't going to round, but rounding up is probably for the best. I've made a note to this effect in my rules draft.
Page 63, in the middle of the first paragraph of Alliance Treaty, it states "The leader must also approve any armistice treaty that is offered or signed by the alliance to end a conflict with an enemy." Yes, this is so, but according to Armistice Treaty, "Alliance members must unanimously agree to the terms of and sign an armistice treaty in order for it to be valid.", so the sentence in Alliance Treaty is misleading, since the leader must approve it, but so does everyone else.
Crap, I missed this on my editing pass through that section. I have reworded the rules so that it is the alliance leader that must approve the armistice treaty. That means that if you're part of an alliance you're more or less along for the ride if you're not the most powerful member. This isn't great for player empires, but good for situations where you are trying to replicate political alliances like the Axis, Allies, and Comintern.

The diplomatic chances have been completely reworked too, based on some numbers I've been testing the last six months. Here they are in all their glory:

Treaty Acceptance Chance: 100 - XE + (Relationship - Treaty Difficulty)
Breaking Chance: 100 – (Relationship + IN + Treaty Difficulty)
Declaring Chance: AG - (Relationship + Declaration Difficulty + Highest Treaty Difficulty)

[NPE Only]
Hostilities Chance: (AG – Relationship) x 10% (RU)
Offering Chance: (100 - XE + Relationship) x 10% (RU)

The treaty and declaration difficulties all start at zero now and then go up, with higher numbers being more difficult. Relationship values are also now on a +-100 scale (I figured out a way to make that work without breaking things too horribly, as per the formulas above) with +-0 as true neutral.
Page 69, in the 3.5.4.4 Rescinding Declarations section, you state:
Hostilities, war, and total war declarations are automatically rescinded when the affected two parties sign an armistice treaty. This is the only way that these declarations can be rescinded.
There is also Surrender Declaration that will end those.
Another good catch. After reviewing the problem and comparing it against the changes I've intended for surrenders and ceasefires, I rewrote Rescinding Declarations so that it says that the most common way to rescind is via an armistice treaty. I also added an automatic rescinding of any declaration that an empire has a <=0 declaration chance for. If both empires automatically rescind all their declarations they enter into a ceasefire, but are still in a state of War until the armistice treaty is signed.

This change is fairly serendipitous because it provides a natural mechanism by which empires that experience rapid relationship boosts can deescalate a conflict, and it can be used to represent a Korean scenario in which two powers are still technically at War but are not actively fighting one another.
Is this "Purchased" or "Under Construction"? If "purchased", a system with Utilized Shipyards of 5 and Orbital of 5, could crank out 1 BattleShip each turn (once construction time is complete) if the EMPIRE could afford the EP?
This is the correct interpretation. I played around with different unit costs and construction limits, but this ended up being the most manageable method. The original extended construction rules from 1E made construction capacity an overall limit, so if you had 25 capacity you could only build 25 EP of units at a time. The problem with that is that you end up tying up capacity and making it impossible to build/repair other units until the one is discharged. For colonies that are generating a number of EP per turn about equal to their building capacity that becomes a problem because then an empire ends up with a huge reservoir of EP, whereas if it can build up to its capacity per turn there is a perpetual siren's call to just build more and more units until your economy just can't sustain it anymore.

The other positive side effect from a game design standpoint is that the 25 shipyard capacity colony from your example actually can build a battleship a turn. That kind of faster ship production in combination with the construction completion times allows players to build up larger fleets and armies, but it is a time consuming process that requires some long-term planning.
Also on page 93 in the 4th paragraph of 3.11.1 Unit Construction, it states"
The number of Construction Phases that a unit must be under construction before it is finally completed is called its completion time and is equal to its construction cost divided by 5 (round fractions up).
This also occurs in the 4th paragraph of 3.11.2 Repairs on page 94 and the 2nd paragraph of 3.11.3 Field Repairs on page 95.
Fixed it.
Page 97, the last paragraph of 3.12.3 Tech Advancement:
Empires that don’t control any colonies or Census can’t receive tech advances because they have too few resources available to even consider frittering what resource they do have away on frivolous research projects.
This needs some clarification, as it seems to state that an Empire just starting the game cannot do any research until they have a colony with Census, even if they have a Homeworld with Tech Infrastructure.
I added a note to the preceding paragraph to include the empire's homeworld colony when totaling the number of colonies it controls. I tried to be as unambiguous about it as I could in the Colonies chapter that the homeworld is just another colony (or more correctly a certain importance level of colony), but you're right that it is good to reinforce that here.
Page 100 Mothballing costs contradict each other in Maintenance State Chart and the second paragraph of X.X.3 Mothballed. I think that 25% is too high for Mothballed maintenance and that it should be reduced to about 10% as you stated elsewhere, Tyrel.
Yes, this has been fixed in the draft. 10% is pretty fair, especially as an empire can quickly reconstitute a fighting force in a hurry if it has to without wasting a lot of economic points to build all of the ships and troops from scratch. Paying 10% of its maintenance for that luxury is a good deal for most powers.
Page 103, the second paragraph of 3.15 Maintenance reads:
Maintenance expense is calculated by taking the total maintenance cost of all an empire’s units, making sure to account for their current X.X Maintenance States, and multiplying it by 10% (round fractions up). This is the number of economic points that the power must pay each turn to properly maintain its military forces. Refer to X.X Maintenance for more information on this topic.
Does this mean that Maintenance Cost is the total for the whole year, instead of monthly?
That is correct. Originally the numbers didn't fit perfectly, but it was maintenance that made me decide that switching to a 10-turn campaign year as the default did make more sense.
Snip Ramming
You're right, I flipped the formula. :oops: I have switched it to (AG + XE) ÷ 2 as recommended, as that does appear to be what was intended.
[i]"Touch not the pylons, for they are the messengers!"[/i]
Locked