Rules Questions

Home of discussions about Ultra Starfire (5th edition) and its predecessor Galactic Starfire (4th edition).

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Rules Questions

Postby QBeamus on Mon 04 Mar 2013 17:06

We've recently begun our first game of Ultra Starfire (after many moons--several of us played the original mini-games) and we've come across a number of rules questions. I'm not sure this is all of them, but here are several:

1. Political States:

Is the political state between any two races limited to a single line from Table T2.03? It seems to me that the political system is written assuming that any time a new political state comes into existance between two races, the previous state(s) cease to be in effect, but the rules never say so explicitly. This has created some confusion, because V5.08 (first line item) says that the current political state modifier for a newly conquerred race is +85, but there is no entry in table T2.03 that is +85--that is, however, the modifer for the sum of the "conquered," "war," and "cease fire" political states. Obviously, this would greatly change the effectiveness of offering a cease fire as a way of improving political relations (the "current" modifier would go from +30 to +15, if one modifier replaces another, or from +30 to +45, if not). Personally, I think only 1 political state between any pair of races can be in effect, because, otherwise, you've got quite a snarl figuring out when a political state ends, but I guess it's not clear, at least with respect to "conquerred," "cease fire," and "war."

2. Conquerred Races:

V5.08.3 (5th line item) says that the -5 cumulative modifier for political offers in successive months is reset if an offer is not made. Does this include if an offer cannot be made, due to the 6 months of enforced non-offers following an accepted offer? If so, it seems like the best thing to do is just keep offering Partner until they accept (or use the forced slave/subject path, if their RC is higher).

3. Revolts:

Does T3.04, second paragraph, which says, "Slave Races do not revolt in Starfire except via Random Event or Enemy Espionage," mean that slave races do not revolt except for these reasons? Specifically, does V5.05.1, which says that slave status (inter alia) does "not prevent reintegration" mean that, should an ally or an unconquerred portion of the conquerred race successfully land troops on a conquerred planet, they will revolt, per V5.05.1.

4. Partners/Trade Agreement

Does T3.10.1, which says that "future trade agreements" between controlled NPR partners do not generate income, mean that (1) trade agreements that are *signed* after the NPRs become partners do not generate income, but trade agreements signed before the second party becomes a partner continue to generate income; (2) trade agreements that begin generating income before the NPRs become partners continue to generate income afterwards, but they can't begin generating income after they both become partners controlled by the same player race (3) trade agreements cannot be signed between controlled NPR partners; (4) trade agreements stop generating income after both parties become partners to the same controlling player race; (5) trade agreements are broken when both parties become partners to the same controlling player race; (6) trade agreements are dissolved without penalty when both parties become partners to the same controlling player race; or (7) something else?

5. Prototyping
We gather, but would like explicit confirmation, that building a Prototype Hull does NOT complete the "prototyping" pre-requisit that permits building the corresponding unit type. Even so, does completing a prototype hull permit building empty hulls of the corresponding type? Also, using the late install rule to build a prototype unit (M1.03.4.2), the rule says you need an H and sufficient Q for the hull; is the one engine that is mandatory in order to complete the prototyping process (M1.03.4) mandatory, or may it be omitted, and added with the late system install, and, if it is truly mandatory, is the cost for it lost, like the cost for the H and Q are?

6. What are we missing regarding inserting troops? Specifically, the rules for planetary anti-shuttle fire make landing by shuttle expensive and dangerous, while landing with freighters is relatively cheap and safe. Why would anyone use ASTs? As a way of getting troops past massive PDCs?
QBeamus
Midshipman 2nd Class
Midshipman 2nd Class
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu 28 Feb 2013 02:16

Re: Rules Questions

Postby procyon on Mon 04 Mar 2013 20:19

I can answer some of these, but for others you will likely have to wait for the official ruling.

QBeamus wrote:6. What are we missing regarding inserting troops? Specifically, the rules for planetary anti-shuttle fire make landing by shuttle expensive and dangerous, while landing with freighters is relatively cheap and safe. Why would anyone use ASTs? As a way of getting troops past massive PDCs?


This one I can get, although others may have differing opinions.

It is better to land the troops in FTs if that is possible - in most circumstances. They take far less damage, and can often have that damage repaired more cheaply that replacing st or ast. But not always.
As you stated - if the planet is a PDC hedgehog that you can't reduce with your warfleet (which happens) - then often sending in the troops on st or ast if cheaper than losing a large number of FTs or warships to a planetary landing.
Those troops will then reduce or shut down the targetted planet's income. Combined with a blockade this can have a pretty fair impact. You can also use the troops to attack the PDCs as you can't end the assault phase until those PDCs have been destroyed per the note at the bottom of Table V4.08.2

The other reason might be to draw in the enemy while concealing you fleet's actual composition. If you are worried that the enemy warfleet may strike at your FTs during a landing - you can use st and ast to perform the landings while allowing your fleet to remain beyond sensor range. You can also use this to bait in some opponents that might be hiding their fleet, as they will send ships to garrison a planet to get the 'Defender controls space" mod, which you can then ambush at the planet.

So there are some instances where an assault/landing using smcft is a better choice than sending in the FTs.

We gather, but would like explicit confirmation, that building a Prototype Hull does NOT complete the "prototyping" pre-requisit that permits building the corresponding unit type.


That is my understanding, but I may be wrong.

Also, using the late install rule to build a prototype unit (M1.03.4.2), the rule says you need an H and sufficient Q for the hull; is the one engine that is mandatory in order to complete the prototyping process (M1.03.4) mandatory, or may it be omitted, and added with the late system install, and, if it is truly mandatory, is the cost for it lost, like the cost for the H and Q are?


Ok, on the late install rule. I'm not the authority, but this is how I understand it.

You don't have to pay for the one engine up front to start the prototype - but you need to have it in that unit's completed 'design' that you set for the build before the last 33% is started. And you can't just pay for it at any time, it has to be in the first 66% of the build time's run.
So your 'completed design' you submit as your prototype before you reach the 66% done point must have at least the H and Q covered plus one engine room. But you only have to pay the hull cost, H, and Q cost up front (handy if you are strapped for MCs and it is going to be an expensive design), and then you have to pay the cost of all the systems (including the Q and H you already paid for) before you reach the 66% complete stage. This allows you to 'fuss' (as my players put it) with the design if needed, and to make the payment on the systems in installments while you get the hull finished up.
But you can't just put the unfinished hull on indefinite hold and leave it sitting with just an H and Q on it and the rest empty and just not do the last 33% (ok, unless it is a base in which case you can ignore the engine, but that is kind of a corner case that was missed in the rules...) unless you really want an extremely fragile and pretty useless design that you will still have to go back and pay for the systems, the cost to now refit all the HS, and usually (depending on SM) the new class cost again of your new unit you just made.
You could, but it would make better sense to use those months eaten up in the first 66% to come up with a good design, pay installments on the systems so you can continue making good economic investments, and then pay off the design and have it ready to go in the end. Putting a nearly empty design into commission just so you can build the next faster - but still have to pay another new class cost if you want the second build to be useful - doesn't seem like a wise choice economically to me.

T3.10.1,


Ok, I'm not anywhere close to the final word on this one, but this is how my group has interpretted it. Other groups have looked at it differently.

We say that ANY races you are partners with lose any income from trade treaties as soon as they become partners. Period. Otherwise you will have the player continue having their NPR partners get the best trade treaties they can before they partner the race - to max out their incomes. They would also have every race max out their treaties between them to max out their incomes. And the more races you partner with, the bigger this bonus would get.
We say that since you already control all the trade that race has, and are getting a trade bonus for the partnership, that is as good as it gets. No bonus other than trade with races you don't control.

The rest of the questions I will pass on for the moment.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Rules Questions

Postby Cralis on Tue 05 Mar 2013 03:23

QBeamus wrote:We've recently begun our first game of Ultra Starfire (after many moons--several of us played the original mini-games) and we've come across a number of rules questions. I'm not sure this is all of them, but here are several:


QBeamus! I've been waiting for your questions :)

1. Political States:

Is the political state between any two races limited to a single line from Table T2.03? It seems to me that the political system is written assuming that any time a new political state comes into existance between two races, the previous state(s) cease to be in effect, but the rules never say so explicitly.


We have a change coming in SOLAR STARFIRE (which is based on ULTRA) for the description in the intro to T3 that specifically states that two empires can only have a single political state between them and any acceptance of another state or change in the existing state drops that state as soon as the new one is enacted. We saw the same problem.

I'd just say "yes" to your question for ULTRA.

This has created some confusion, because V5.08 (first line item) says that the current political state modifier for a newly conquerred race is +85, but there is no entry in table T2.03 that is +85--that is, however, the modifer for the sum of the "conquered," "war," and "cease fire" political states. Obviously, this would greatly change the effectiveness of offering a cease fire as a way of improving political relations (the "current" modifier would go from +30 to +15, if one modifier replaces another, or from +30 to +45, if not). Personally, I think only 1 political state between any pair of races can be in effect, because, otherwise, you've got quite a snarl figuring out when a political state ends, but I guess it's not clear, at least with respect to "conquerred," "cease fire," and "war."


Hmmm... this appears to be a specific situation for a newly conquered race, to go back to the normal modifiers once they move from conquered to another state. But yeah, it isn't exactly clear.

2. Conquerred Races:

V5.08.3 (5th line item) says that the -5 cumulative modifier for political offers in successive months is reset if an offer is not made. Does this include if an offer cannot be made, due to the 6 months of enforced non-offers following an accepted offer? If so, it seems like the best thing to do is just keep offering Partner until they accept (or use the forced slave/subject path, if their RC is higher).


Offering Partner is a pretty tall offer and you'll have a hard go at that. With the +50 modifier you have a fair chance of going to war under T2.02. On top of that T2.01 states that there is a +5 RC modifier for each offer that is rejected unless you stop offering for a period of time.

The point is that the modifier was not intended to give you a freebie by always making it easier by reducing the modifier for forever. There are some cases where you just need to wait and the modifier resets, but the Current Political Modifier of the newly accepted treaty makes up for that most of the time.

3. Revolts:

Does T3.04, second paragraph, which says, "Slave Races do not revolt in Starfire except via Random Event or Enemy Espionage," mean that slave races do not revolt except for these reasons? Specifically, does V5.05.1, which says that slave status (inter alia) does "not prevent reintegration" mean that, should an ally or an unconquerred portion of the conquerred race successfully land troops on a conquerred planet, they will revolt, per V5.05.1.


V5.05.1 is a special circumstance outside of T3.04, which states that a slave race does not normally revolt. The way the rules are written is that a rule stands on its own EXCEPT where another rule modifies it. So V5.05.1 is an exception to T3.04, just like the GG random events with revolts are also such an exception.

4. Partners/Trade Agreement

Does T3.10.1, which says that "future trade agreements" between controlled NPR partners do not generate income, mean that (1) trade agreements that are *signed* after the NPRs become partners do not generate income, but trade agreements signed before the second party becomes a partner continue to generate income; (2) trade agreements that begin generating income before the NPRs become partners continue to generate income afterwards, but they can't begin generating income after they both become partners controlled by the same player race (3) trade agreements cannot be signed between controlled NPR partners; (4) trade agreements stop generating income after both parties become partners to the same controlling player race; (5) trade agreements are broken when both parties become partners to the same controlling player race; (6) trade agreements are dissolved without penalty when both parties become partners to the same controlling player race; or (7) something else?


1. Yes.
2. Not by a direct reading of the rules (unless I missed something), although there is room to say that this should be followed to prevent exploitation.
3. No. They can be signed, they just generate no income.
4. T3.13 is pretty clear that Partnerships receive Free Trade agreements. However, if they are both controlled by a player, then #1 above would apply (they can sign it, but it does not generate extra income).
5. No. You still need most of the agreements because they are also Political States with modifiers to future acceptance rolls and such.
6. No.
7. Not that I can think of.

5. Prototyping
We gather, but would like explicit confirmation, that building a Prototype Hull does NOT complete the "prototyping" pre-requisite that permits building the corresponding unit type.


Maybe its because it's 0120 in the morning, but I'm not sure what you are asking here. AA.CON.03 covers what protoypes allow, but if you are asking that if prototyping a (empty) hull does not allow you to build a specific class -- then you are right.

Even so, does completing a prototype hull permit building empty hulls of the corresponding type?


Yes. In fact, one of the examples shows that, within the limits of how you have to build them.

Also, using the late install rule to build a prototype unit (M1.03.4.2), the rule says you need an H and sufficient Q for the h1ull; is the one engine that is mandatory in order to complete the prototyping process (M1.03.4) mandatory, or may it be omitted, and added with the late system install, and, if it is truly mandatory, is the cost for it lost, like the cost for the H and Q are?


I think Procyon covered this better than I will at the moment.

6. What are we missing regarding inserting troops? Specifically, the rules for planetary anti-shuttle fire make landing by shuttle expensive and dangerous, while landing with freighters is relatively cheap and safe. Why would anyone use ASTs? As a way of getting troops past massive PDCs?


Depends upon the situation. If there is little resistance, FT work fine. Actually both work fine.

If there are lots of PDCs, then FT are suicide and only Ast can get hem down better and for cheaper than building new landing FT or attempting to land (and not be destroyed) with FT.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Rules Questions

Postby QBeamus on Tue 05 Mar 2013 09:01

Thanks for the responses so far. First, a couple of follow-up questions:

1(a). Ok, if V5.08.3 (first line item) is a specific rule that makes the "current" modifier for being conquered +85, when would the +40 in table T2.03 apply? Is there some way a race can become conquered other than by losing a consolidation phase? By definition, the modifiers listed in V5.08.3 begin after losing a consolidation phase, and continue to apply until a different political state is achieved. Indeed, only some new political states will cause the usual political rules to take effect again, causing V5.08.3 to cease to operate. Presumably, for example, if you signed a trade agreement, and given that there can only be one political state in effect at a given time, then the +85 modifer for "conquered" would cease to apply, though the rest of the modifiers in V5.08.3 would continue. Conversely, if you signed a defensive military treaty, then V5.08.3 would cease, and the usual political rules would operate.

2(a). You say that "Offering Partnership" is a pretty tall offer," and that "you have a fair chance of going to war under T2.02." But T2.02 says war checks only result if the current political state is "non-intercourse," "non-agression," or "negotiation"--not "conquered." Furthermore, V5.08.3 explicitly notes that with the modifers listed, "it would not be surprising for the conquered race's modified RC to be greater than 100 for 20 months." Which is to say, even ignoring the +50 for Partnership, the modified RC would be great enough to provoke a war check--often, 20 war checks in a row. So it makes sense that T2.02 leaves "conquered" off the list of states that allow an "irritated NPR" to take a war check--otherwise, every conquered race WOULD revolt, it would just be a question of how long it takes. (And with an RC of over 100, revolt would be pretty friggin' likely.)

In practice, no would would ever attempt diplomacy--they'd just use the forced slave/subject route. Which would be fine, but it seems odd to include all this machinery for a system that no one would ever use.

3(a). Seems like T3.04 ought to be updated to mention V5.05.1, lest someone reading it get the wrong impression. I did. More of a comment than a question.
QBeamus
Midshipman 2nd Class
Midshipman 2nd Class
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu 28 Feb 2013 02:16

Re: Rules Questions

Postby procyon on Tue 05 Mar 2013 22:13

QBeamus wrote:Is there some way a race can become conquered other than by losing a consolidation phase?


Not generally.

Presumably, for example, if you signed a trade agreement, and given that there can only be one political state in effect at a given time, then the +85 modifer for "conquered" would cease to apply... et al..


Yep. If you get a treaty - you got lucky and got a treaty. Now they like you. ;)

You say that "Offering Partnership" is a pretty tall offer," and that "you have a fair chance of going to war under T2.02." But T2.02 says war checks only result if the current political state is "non-intercourse," "non-agression," or "negotiation"--not "conquered."


If you have any other treaty and fail a similar check under the same section - your current treaty drops one level. But a note that conquered reverts to war (which is technically a step higher...) would be appropriate to me.

In practice, no would would ever attempt diplomacy--they'd just use the forced slave/subject route. Which would be fine, but it seems odd to include all this machinery for a system that no one would ever use.


For the most part, that path (conq/slave/subject/other) is the easiest path if you trounce your opponent.
But if you don't - and end up in a stalemate across a WP or three - then other forms of resolution start to become appealing. Getting a treaty of some type will help reduce the maint overhead of maintaining your defenses...

And (depending on the game) - occasionally the NPR you are facing will try to improve the situation. If you are in a fairly 'peaceful' stalemate and the NPR suddenly starts getting stomped by a third race - the rules do allow for that NPR to begin seeking alliances (and if you have an SM he will likely start trying to open contact, and perhaps not have ulterior motives...).

Hope that help.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Rules Questions

Postby Cralis on Tue 05 Mar 2013 23:39

QBeamus wrote:Thanks for the responses so far. First, a couple of follow-up questions:


Heh, Procyon covered these pretty good so I'm just going to interject a little...

1(a). Ok, if V5.08.3 (first line item) is a specific rule that makes the "current" modifier for being conquered +85, when would the +40 in table T2.03 apply?


I'm not really all-up on invasions, although I'm gearing up to rewrite V for SSF. I'm thinking this was supposed to be temporary, such as the first month. But it isn't clear in the ULTRA rules what Marvin intended.

Is there some way a race can become conquered other than by losing a consolidation phase?


Conquered? No.

By definition, the modifiers listed in V5.08.3 begin after losing a consolidation phase, and continue to apply until a different political state is achieved. Indeed, only some new political states will cause the usual political rules to take effect again, causing V5.08.3 to cease to operate. Presumably, for example, if you signed a trade agreement, and given that there can only be one political state in effect at a given time, then the +85 modifer for "conquered" would cease to apply, though the rest of the modifiers in V5.08.3 would continue. Conversely, if you signed a defensive military treaty, then V5.08.3 would cease, and the usual political rules would operate.


Yes.

2(a). You say that "Offering Partnership" is a pretty tall offer," and that "you have a fair chance of going to war under T2.02." But T2.02 says war checks only result if the current political state is "non-intercourse," "non-agression," or "negotiation"--not "conquered." Furthermore, V5.08.3 explicitly notes that with the modifers listed, "it would not be surprising for the conquered race's modified RC to be greater than 100 for 20 months." Which is to say, even ignoring the +50 for Partnership, the modified RC would be great enough to provoke a war check--often, 20 war checks in a row. So it makes sense that T2.02 leaves "conquered" off the list of states that allow an "irritated NPR" to take a war check--otherwise, every conquered race WOULD revolt, it would just be a question of how long it takes. (And with an RC of over 100, revolt would be pretty friggin' likely.)


Ah, yeah good point, otherwise they'd be going to war with you immediately (again and again and again...) But that also means you'll never be able to offer them a Partnership, and probably not for a long, long time after that 20 months because at that point they'll have changed states and they'll go back to war with you again.

In practice, no would would ever attempt diplomacy--they'd just use the forced slave/subject route. Which would be fine, but it seems odd to include all this machinery for a system that no one would ever use.


The diplomacy system was designed for negotiations with unconquered empires. In that, I don't see why you'd think nobody would use it... unless you plan on always conquering first :)

3(a). Seems like T3.04 ought to be updated to mention V5.05.1, lest someone reading it get the wrong impression. I did. More of a comment than a question.


ULTRA will not likely get any typo fixes for the foreseeable future. Fortunately there was something like 6 or 8 years of development so it is pretty clean. All of the SDS focus is on SOLAR STARFIRE.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Rules Questions

Postby QBeamus on Thu 07 Mar 2013 17:47

2(b): @Cralis: As I read V5.08.3, what you do after you conquer someone is immediately begin offering them a Partnership. They will, of course, refuse. Next month, you offer it again. Pursuant to the fifth line item of V5.08.3, their RC will be REDUCED by 5, rather than increased, as it would be under the usual political rules. No doubt, they'll refuse again, but at this point you can see what's going to happen--if they don't revolt due to a weak garrison, they will, eventually, accept, and go directly from "Conquered" to "Partner." If their RC is high, this will take longer than just forcing them through the Slave/Subject route, but for low RC races, this is the way to go.

Now, I understand why this seems odd to you--it seems odd to me, too. I can't comment on whether this rule was intended to give you "a freebie way of reducing the modifier forever," but it is not ambiguous--the rule explicitly states that you get a -5 modifer per month, and that this modifer "is instead of" the +5 modifier from T2.01.

It is precisely the big value that this accumulated -5/month, combined with the massive RC you start with, and the fact that the magnitude of both of these are so much greater than the difference between the acceptance modifer for different political states, which makes the best strategy to simply begin by offering them the state you wish to end up with, and stick with it until it works.

Now, Procyon says that the second paragraph of T2.02 means that a "Conquered" race that refuses an offer (since it is not in "Negotiation," "Non-agreession," or "Non-intercourse") will revolt, because "War" is one step below "Conquered." (And with a modified RC that is "likely to be over 100 for 20 months," they'll almost certainly roll below 1/2 their RC.) Which means that anyone who offers a conquered race anything is almost certain to immediately provoke a revolt and get nothing for their trouble.

I don't think this is correct. In the first place, the the literal rules do not say so--T2.02 cites Y17.02, which lists all of the political states' degradation path, and "Conquered" is not listed as degrading to "War." (It's not listed at all.)Equally importantly, I think, if this were true, it would make V5.08.3 a monkey's paw. This is the "the machinery" I was referring to, not Chapter T. Why have a big, complex rule for calculating what happens when you try to seek a "political solution," if the practical effect of the rule is "you set off a revolt." I suppose a possible answer is that you really have to use V5.08.4 to have any hope of using V5.08.3, but that seems implausible to me, purely from the flavor of V5.08, if nothing else.
QBeamus
Midshipman 2nd Class
Midshipman 2nd Class
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu 28 Feb 2013 02:16

Re: Rules Questions

Postby Cralis on Fri 08 Mar 2013 01:56

Before we start, understand that I have not yet re-written Section V for the Solar Starfire rules (which are based on Ultra), and I never had the opportunity to do a real ground combat under Ultra Starfire. So this is relatively new ground for me as well.

QBeamus wrote:2(b): @Cralis: As I read V5.08.3, what you do after you conquer someone is immediately begin offering them a Partnership. They will, of course, refuse. Next month, you offer it again. Pursuant to the fifth line item of V5.08.3, their RC will be REDUCED by 5, rather than increased, as it would be under the usual political rules. No doubt, they'll refuse again, but at this point you can see what's going to happen--if they don't revolt due to a weak garrison, they will, eventually, accept, and go directly from "Conquered" to "Partner." If their RC is high, this will take longer than just forcing them through the Slave/Subject route, but for low RC races, this is the way to go.


It looks like the fundamental problem is that it doesn't have any limiter such as "but not below the race's original RC." But I understand why... it is likely the conquered race will have an RC of 150+ and without a cumulative, negative modifier, it will never get lower than 100.

Now, I understand why this seems odd to you--it seems odd to me, too. I can't comment on whether this rule was intended to give you "a freebie way of reducing the modifier forever," but it is not ambiguous--the rule explicitly states that you get a -5 modifer per month, and that this modifer "is instead of" the +5 modifier from T2.01.


Oh I understand what the intent was, as mentioned above. I don't see anything wrong with the intent.

It is precisely the big value that this accumulated -5/month, combined with the massive RC you start with, and the fact that the magnitude of both of these are so much greater than the difference between the acceptance modifer for different political states, which makes the best strategy to simply begin by offering them the state you wish to end up with, and stick with it until it works.


Yeah... I got to thinking about it and I thought there was a rule that stated the only treaty you can offer a conquered population was non-aggression or something, but I don't see it. I agree that it does not make sense to offer trade, alliances, partnerships, or anything of the like with a race you are current "at war" with.

Now, Procyon says that the second paragraph of T2.02 means that a "Conquered" race that refuses an offer (since it is not in "Negotiation," "Non-aggression," or "Non-intercourse") will revolt, because "War" is one step below "Conquered." (And with a modified RC that is "likely to be over 100 for 20 months," they'll almost certainly roll below 1/2 their RC.) Which means that anyone who offers a conquered race anything is almost certain to immediately provoke a revolt and get nothing for their trouble.


The rules clearly state that a conquered race will not revolt under normal circumstances, so I don't think Procyon's suggestion -- while likely to be realistic -- would work under the ULTRA STARFIRE rules.

I don't think this is correct. In the first place, the the literal rules do not say so--T2.02 cites Y17.02, which lists all of the political states' degradation path, and "Conquered" is not listed as degrading to "War." (It's not listed at all.)Equally importantly, I think, if this were true, it would make V5.08.3 a monkey's paw. This is the "the machinery" I was referring to, not Chapter T. Why have a big, complex rule for calculating what happens when you try to seek a "political solution," if the practical effect of the rule is "you set off a revolt." I suppose a possible answer is that you really have to use V5.08.4 to have any hope of using V5.08.3, but that seems implausible to me, purely from the flavor of V5.08, if nothing else.


Conquered is not listed as a state, because it's state is "War" (last paragraph of T3). Negotiations with a conquered empire is a special circumstance and not part of normal negotiations.

The bulk of Section T is for negotiations with everyone you haven't conquered yet. That is part of the reason why the conquered rules are mostly in V5.08

I'd go with whatever path you think makes sense. This is certainly giving me something to think about for SSF though.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Rules Questions

Postby procyon on Fri 08 Mar 2013 02:21

QBeamus wrote:I don't think this is correct. In the first place, the the literal rules do not say so--T2.02 cites Y17.02, which lists all of the political states' degradation path, and "Conquered" is not listed as degrading to "War." (It's not listed at all.)Equally importantly, I think, if this were true, it would make V5.08.3 a monkey's paw. This is the "the machinery" I was referring to, not Chapter T. Why have a big, complex rule for calculating what happens when you try to seek a "political solution," if the practical effect of the rule is "you set off a revolt." I suppose a possible answer is that you really have to use V5.08.4 to have any hope of using V5.08.3, but that seems implausible to me, purely from the flavor of V5.08, if nothing else


Ok, I've been so busy with my wife and kids trying to set up our next extention of our Nem. Camp that I really didn't look too hard at what you were fussing with.

Yes, I agree that the rule you are hung up on (V5.08.3) seems to create a problem. We also decided that a long time ago.

We house ruled in a fix that worked for us. Here it is for your thoughts.

Where it says " -5 RC per month (...). This is restarted if an offer is not made or a revolt occurs."

We decided that there was a typo. Simply remove the word "not". It makes more sense.
So we read it as " -5 RC per month (...). This is restarted if an offer is made or a revolt occurs."

In this case if you follow V5.08.4, and/or simply leave them alone - they tend to settle down.
If you offer a treaty - you pester them and reset this progress.

So the easy path is Conq/Slave/Subject. And while this is going on, and you probably are investing in the NPR to make them more effective - you are also prepping them for a time when you can offer them more 'lucrative' treaties.

I see that cralis also posted, but I haven't read his yet. Forgive me if I duplicate his efforts.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Rules Questions

Postby QBeamus on Thu 14 Mar 2013 08:50

procyon wrote:Yes, I agree that the rule you are hung up on (V5.08.3) seems to create a problem. We also decided that a long time ago.

We house ruled in a fix that worked for us. Here it is for your thoughts.

Where it says " -5 RC per month (...). This is restarted if an offer is not made or a revolt occurs."

We decided that there was a typo. Simply remove the word "not". It makes more sense.
So we read it as " -5 RC per month (...). This is restarted if an offer is made or a revolt occurs."



This seems like a workable system, but I don't think it's inherently superior to what the rules say, and it is clear to me that it not what the rules intended. The bit you replaced with an elipsis makes clear that the -5 modifier is replacing the +5 modifier that normally results from a refused offer, so it is clear that it is a refused offer that triggers the -5, not the absence of an offer.
QBeamus
Midshipman 2nd Class
Midshipman 2nd Class
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu 28 Feb 2013 02:16

Next

Return to Ultra Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron