I can't remember all the details of all the little changes, and new players will probably feel totally lost with a rule book that gets combat and ship building wrong, aswell as things like research (which was tweeked too I think).
Any chance of one seeing the light of day with these new changes?
Oh how I hate that word but I agree, otherwise we will be seeing quite a few Chinese whispers type situations to new players.
Pete
| QUOTE (nortonweb @ May 26 2004, 03:30 AM) |
| Documentation!!!!! Oh how I hate that word but I agree, otherwise we will be seeing quite a few Chinese whispers type situations to new players. Pete |
And please get the online documentation updated!!!
Or find a place where you put all of those changes in one big place.. With some examples please.
Can players use this thread to point out omissions and decrepancies and I will delete the message when they have been added/corrected.
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ May 26 2004, 08:10 AM) |
| I hate documentation. No, I really hate documentation. Still, it has to be done. Can players use this thread to point out omissions and decrepancies and I will delete the message when they have been added/corrected. |
Production.
Ruleboo: Mass production will give 50 points.
According to my friends on IRC its first 10 45prod, then 10 50 prod, then 20 55prod rest 50 prod.
Done this
Rulebook: Normal production: 1-25 50mu, 26-50 40mu, 51-75 30mu
Reality: 1-10 50 mu, 11-20 40 mu, 21-30 30mu
Strion use: text is not really clear.
Reality: every factory uses ONE STRION and improves output with 20% (I think).
Any more???
Research: There were some changes made when it comes to attempting to research certain Ps, Ts and BPs - the negatives were altered, or certain ones could NOT be done without the underlying Ps or Ts? To do with ship research I think.
Platforms: The new rules for building platforms & efficiency etc. Also using platforms remotely - ie not in orbit of a starbase.
Updated 24/6/04
Political Costs: The ability to pay extra for your politcal position and recieve 'free' outpost updates.
ON-Line Turn Card: Should be mentioned. Pointless spending the time putting it together and not telling the newbies
Affiliations (Policals Book): Update the affiliation list. Most are there, but the MOH are missing as an example.
Full Order Listing: Needs updateing to include all the new orders etc
That's all for now....
| QUOTE |
| Er... yeah. That's because originally civilians were their own item type. Then they were converted into Life Trade item so that they could be 'sold' to planets. Civilian item type is now used for ambassadors and unique people. Sorry for the confusion. |
So that'll need altering in the updated rule-books too
| QUOTE |
| Political Costs: The ability to pay extra for your politcal position and recieve 'free' outpost updates. |
I didnt know that
must have been asleephow much and what does it do?
Titus
<snore>
upgrade the political to £4 a week gives unlimited free updates
Dan
That's not mentioned in the rulebook and came as bit of a shock the first (and only) time I requested one.
| QUOTE (Dan Reed @ Jul 4 2004, 07:56 PM) |
| upgrade the political to £3 a week gives you a number of free updates (ten? can't remember) |
It's five (I just asked someone, and then discovered its actually on the KJC website - not the phoenix one)
http://www.kjcgames.com/turnfeesf.htm#bse
http://www.spacious.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=454&hl=
They give a real contextual flavour to the game that will really help solidify a lot of the dry theory in the other books. (I predict ;)
No position details either for me or the affiliation.
I am on the £4 option as I have a lot of outposts <g>.
Geoff
You just need one small list somewhere to make it clear:
"All active complexes require 500 manhours (10 standard employees) to run at full efficiency, except for:
Research complexes - require 2500 manhours (50 standard empoyees) to run.
Caves, and erm, whatever else - do not require any manhours to run. (0 employees)
All inactive complexes require 50 manhours (1 standard employees) to maintain."
(Exceptions? I would expect the 0 cost complexes require 0 manhours when inactive but don't know for sure).
(BTW, can some kind soul just remind me/us exactly which complexes do not need manhours? Caves I'm fairly sure about, not sure if there are others.)
| QUOTE (Duckworth-Lewis @ Jul 6 2004, 08:41 AM) |
| Security and Domes also require 0 manhours (presumably security are run by troops rather than employees) |
Security needs manhours to activate them...
Easiest way to maintain documentation is to do it on-the-fly and not leave it until later. You're bound to forget something if you put it off. It should be standard practice by now. If you update the game, you then update the rulebook and website, then inform the players of the new downloads.
| QUOTE (HPSimms @ Jul 5 2004, 03:28 PM) |
| I did an update on my political last Friday to check out some urgrent orders and got it. No charge but only the actions since last turn and political affiliation, ranks & political ranks reports were included, which was just fine by me. No position details either for me or the affiliation. I am on the £4 option as I have a lot of outposts <g>. Geoff |
<------- considers asking for a refund.
Judging by my turns, I think moving between quadrants actually costs (ISR rating * orbital ring).
Gamma 10 and moves to Delta 8, it will first move down to Gamma 8 (2 orbitals crossed), then move to Delta 8 (crossed 1 quadrant at 8). Therefore the distance travelled is 10 (2+8). This is multiplied by the ISR rating to calculate Time Units (TU’s) used."
i.e.
8xISR rating (for quadrant change)
+
2x ISR rating (for orbital distance change)
=
10xISR rating
| QUOTE |
| Basically efficient emplyees cost the same as normal employees. If the starbase is running at less than 100% efficiency due to lack of employees then the efficient employees generate more manhours than usual and make up fo rpart (not all) of the shortfall.... |
All the new stuff that David has been working on. Squads, lists, etc, etc.....
Is anything coming of this thread?
IOW are the points raised here getting ammended to the rules? (I'm thinking initially the online rule books, which are easiest to edit and which would be relatively easily converted to offline anyway I think)
If not, what do we do about it? This is a bit of a monster for volunteers, but perhaps KJC would like to offer some freee turns or something to update/maintain the manuals?
| QUOTE |
| ... online rule books ... |
What online rule books? Would you please direct me to them?
| QUOTE (Archangel @ Nov 25 2004, 12:29 PM) | ||
What online rule books? Would you please direct me to them? |
The ones on the website. (I'd give you an address but the website has just died again
) | QUOTE |
| QUOTE (Archangel @ Nov 25 2004, 12:29 PM) QUOTE ... online rule books ... What online rule books? Would you please direct me to them? The ones on the website. (I'd give you an address but the website has just died again ) |
Ha Ha Ha.... ROFLMAO
Thank goodness I had a kidney belt close to hand....
If you look at the left side navigation bar the links underneath Rules link to individual online rulebooks.
e.g.
http://www.kjcgames.com/phoenix/starbase_rulebook.htm
Note, don't go the actual Rules page, you only gets links to pdf versions.
http://www.kjcgames.com/phoenix/introduction.htm
Llywelyn.
1) Personally, I am a hard-copy type of person. I do my best work in the bathroom or in bed. And taking a PC monitor either location is just too much effory
2) Admitting that Mica's idea certainly has merits, I would like to put myself foward to help Moderate some/one of the on-line rulebooks.
I assume it will work a little like it does now, with several different rule-books. And each rule book will have designated mods? I think it would be very difficult for 8 mods to do the whole lot. 2 Mods per rule book (4 books) would be MUCH easier I think. (or whatever the numbers). It also allows mods to 'specialise'. The WMB PD is going to be pretty sodding useless for keeping Combat rules up-to-date as I never use them.
I would also like to signal my support for Clay's suggestion.
It would however be great to read some response from either Mica or Dave in this to Clay's idea here, or even mine included in the Infrastructure discussion.
Actually, responses from anyone would be appreciated.
Now we need a couple of more 'volunteers'
| QUOTE (Archangel @ Nov 26 2004, 10:46 AM) |
| Now we need a couple of more 'volunteers' |
Well, if it's a separate forum then I'll volunteer as well I suppose.
(I was thinking it would in this forum so I didn't need to volunteer formally
)I'll be able to do a bit now and again as and when I have time (what with aff business, SSS, this forum, erm there was something else... oh yeah Real Life...
)(Oh and I forgot about my actual turns! lol)
| QUOTE (Archangel @ Nov 26 2004, 09:46 AM) |
| Thank you Mica. Now we need a couple of more 'volunteers' |
Happy to volunteer for this if needed :-)
Mark
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Nov 26 2004, 10:28 AM) |
| We will put the rulesbook 'forum' on the KJC site. This will be a dedicated forum to Phoenix, i.e. will not be in added to the current KJC forum. The project can begin just as soon as out ISP finish their upgrades. |
Can i just suggest wiki rather than forum, it lends itself to this sort of thing so much better
Essentially the Invision Power Board has some very good support and some nice skins that are easily implemented. It is also fairly idiot proof
It is not a case of learning a new system, but more a case of finding time to...
Structure:
There will be Four primary forums and each has its own subforum and these then have various entries as appropriate.
Frequently asked questions
-----Waffle and links where appropriate
-----Turn Fees
Positions
-----Introduction
-----Starships
----------Basics
----------Ship Configuration
-----Starbases and Outposts
-----Ground parties
-----Platforms
-----Politicals
Affiliations
-----Each affiliation has their own subforum.
----------Description
----------Messages
----------Contacts
----------Other notes????
Infrastructure
-----Introduction
-----Various sections.
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Nov 26 2004, 04:10 PM) |
| Affiliations -----Each affiliation has their own subforum. ----------Description ----------Messages ----------Contacts ----------Other notes???? |
might be a bit dodgy to give every Aff a subforum automatically - when a new / strange aff is spotted it would be give away whether it wsa a new quiet / secretive player aff, or a GM run aff (ie no subforum).
Not sure if this is a biggie or not - but I always enjoy trying to ferret out those kind of mysteries.
Maybe make the aff subforum opt-in?
(I like the rest of the rulebook-foum idea).
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Nov 26 2004, 04:10 PM) |
| Does this seem about right... Structure: There will be Four primary forums |
Should combat be a fifth primary forum?
| QUOTE |
| might be a bit dodgy to give every Aff a subforum automatically - when a new / strange aff is spotted it would be give away whether it wsa a new quiet / secretive player aff, or a GM run aff (ie no subforum). |
I agree that seperate subforms might give the game away as it were in certain cases.
If each forum is read only with a moderator adding any new content an aff subforum could work,but each PD has to request inclusion for their aff.That way a new aff can stay hidden for as long as they want.
| QUOTE (Duckworth-Lewis @ Nov 26 2004, 04:13 PM) |
| Should combat be a fifth primary forum? |
Yup
Combat
-----Space
-----Ground
-----Boarding
Or should take a more integrated approach
Combat
----Offense
----------Space Weapons
---------------Ammo Based
---------------Beam
---------------Vehicles
----------Ground Weapons
----Defence
----------Shielding
---------------Scints
---------------Shields/generators
----------Point Defence
---------------Ammo Based
---------------Beam
---------------Vehicles
----------Vehichles
-----Troops
----------Mercenaries
----------etc..
-----Tactics
----------Space Encounters
----------Ground Assaults
| QUOTE |
| Or should take a more integrated approach Combat ----Offense ----------Space Weapons ---------------Ammo Based ---------------Beam ---------------Vehicles ----------Ground Weapons ----Defence ----------Shielding ---------------Scints ---------------Shields/generators ----------Point Defence ---------------Ammo Based ---------------Beam ---------------Vehicles ----------Vehichles -----Troops ----------Mercenaries ----------etc.. -----Tactics ----------Space Encounters ----------Ground Assaults |
Defintiely the more intergrated approach.A player will be able to find the relevent section more easily!
The intergrated approach is by far easier in my opinion. This way, players can see at a glance which area they want to look at and have it appropriately divided. --- better organization this way.
Professions should be added, even if they don't go anywhere in the immediate future. These are areas that are going to be expanded into and as such, placing the index for them maintains the organization -- and reminds us/them it still needs done
BTW....
I will volunteer where ever there's need on this project.
Llywelyn
aka Larry Lawrence
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Nov 26 2004, 10:06 PM) |
| Now I'm getting worried that there's a lot of navigation involved. Yes it's easy to navigate, but there are a lot of levels to go and down... |
Yup, I agree, too many levels and you can spend your life clicking away just to see something. Every tried shopping on Tesco Online, you will be more than familiar.
The search function will probably be used a lot which means it does not matter how many levels we have if people go straight for search.
even better if the navagation was a menu then you could always get to what you wanted
| QUOTE (ptb @ Nov 29 2004, 09:14 AM) |
| why not show the whole navagation tree as an index? rather than having to go down with each click you can just go directly to the point you want. even better if the navagation was a menu then you could always get to what you wanted |
The site jump option will effectively be an index.
The only hiccup I can see is putting tables in the messages.
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Nov 29 2004, 05:04 PM) |
| The only hiccup I can see is putting tables in the messages. |
Ooo. Good point. And they are going to be fairly important... Perhaps an alternative forum engine that allows better html support?
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Nov 29 2004, 04:46 PM) | ||
Ooo. Good point. And they are going to be fairly important... Perhaps an alternative forum engine that allows better html support? |
It can be set to have html functions although I have to check them out. We have put up a test board using the 2.03 version of the power board. I will have a play...
Would it be better to have:
1) One single, large FAQ
2) A single FAQ broken into General, Ships, Politicals, GPs, Combat, SAs etc.
3) A small FAQ placed in each section?
Somethings could appear in multiple places if you break it down into sections, but having them all thrown in together will be horrid to navigate...
If that is done, possibly each FAQ ought to have within it links to the other related FAQ's?
BTW, I also would be more than happy to help with putting rulebooks together, although knowing my time availability I might be of more use coming in to proof-read sections rather than actually trying to find time to write them in the first place :-)
Richard
AFT
The intention is to start with the "current" rulebooks (not very I know, but the latest ones we have) and amend then as things progress - first to catch up, then to incorporate changes
Dan
I have read through all of the above posts and find them both informative and interesting.
However, it is appears that most have omitted to consider players who:
a) play by phone, fax or post.
are from international sources with internet links with peformance levels that are pitiful on a good day.I understand that many of our community are based in the UK and are likely to have broadband links, or at the very least links with superior performance to the more remote members. I do think though that we need a tool that can be used by all of the players, whatever the method of communications they may use.
I use the word tool as it has already been mentioned that search facilities will be required.
More later... gotta do some work...
| QUOTE (Archangel @ Dec 1 2004, 02:39 PM) |
| a) play by phone, fax or post. are from international sources with internet links with peformance levels that are pitiful on a good day. |
Well the simplest solution to that is to have manuals like we do now, ie html pages, which are exportable to pdf's, for offline users, much more easily than exporting a forum.
It's simple enough to just make the html editable for whoever looks after the documentation, or alternativly using a WYTIWYH (what you *think* is what you get, as opposed to what you see is what you get) editor that generates the html.
| QUOTE (Archangel @ Dec 1 2004, 01:39 PM) |
| Hi All, I have read through all of the above posts and find them both informative and interesting. However, it is appears that most have omitted to consider players who: a) play by phone, fax or post. are from international sources with internet links with peformance levels that are pitiful on a good day.I understand that many of our community are based in the UK and are likely to have broadband links, or at the very least links with superior performance to the more remote members. I do think though that we need a tool that can be used by all of the players, whatever the method of communications they may use. I use the word tool as it has already been mentioned that search facilities will be required. More later... gotta do some work... |
Postal players: Zero
Phone players: Zero
Fax players: Zero
Players in international locations with pitiful internet access: Zero (or as close to).
We have made a start on the rules forum. There is not much to see, but enough to give you the opportunity to bitch about the colour
Rules Forum
But the CGI issue is still around...
Unless it's just me????
GTDoug.
| QUOTE (gtdoug @ Dec 1 2004, 03:36 PM) |
| I'd love to bitch about the colour... But the CGI issue is still around... Unless it's just me???? GTDoug. |
Which CGI issue?
David has said he will look into the code to sort out a way of printing an entire forum.... This will allow the printing of the individual rulebooks.
I am not sure what else was necessary.
For the last couple of days I've not been able to use any of the KJC sites that require CGI... not 100% of the time anyway - more like 20% of the time...
This includes the KJC hosted Forums, the online order editor and the Phoenix pages. Obviously this Forum is hosted elsewhere and is no problem.
This all started when Force 9 were doing their upgrade last week and hasn't got better yet...
This is from three different sites using differing ISPs and pcs.
Sorry - it's off topic...
GTDoug.
something about an error has occured.
Is it linked with all the trouble the websites had over the last few days?
Coz I'm still only getting intermittant access to the cgi stuff
| QUOTE (Ted @ Dec 1 2004, 04:07 PM) |
| I couldn't get into the page either. something about an error has occured. Is it linked with all the trouble the websites had over the last few days? Coz I'm still only getting intermittant access to the cgi stuff |
CGI / Frontpage Data Migration - 25th Nov to 3rd Dec
Service Affected:- CGI / Frontpage
Maintenance Window:- 24 Hours a Day - 25th Nov to 3rd Dec
Detailed description of work to be performed:-
We have had an ongoing project in place to migrate all of our CGI and Frontpage data across to a new storage platform to improve the performance and fix a number of outstanding issues.
As it's always the way..tradition almost!
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Dec 2 2004, 02:12 AM) |
| We have made a start on the rules forum. There is not much to see, but enough to give you the opportunity to bitch about the colour Rules Forum |
Looking good so far! I like the Time/Space idea, with an area to explain the "Phoenix-physics".
Colour: no pink = me happy
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Dec 1 2004, 04:12 PM) |
| bitch about the colour |
Well it is a bad combination for reading. And there is a lot of reading involved in this particular forum.
| QUOTE (Steve-Law @ Dec 2 2004, 07:21 AM) | ||
Well it is a bad combination for reading. And there is a lot of reading involved in this particular forum. |
I gave some thought to the colour and found that once I had started reading it became progressively easier to read (took me back to my years of dos text editors).
There is however a luvly Lo-Fi Version button in the centre at the bottom of the page. Hitting this changes the entry to black on white.
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone) |
| I gave some thought to the colour and found that once I had started reading it became progressively easier to read (took me back to my years of dos text editors). |
It probably depends on your monitor settings. I found it a easier to read here than at home (I tend to work with lower brightness at home to reduce eye strain).
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone) |
| There is however a luvly Lo-Fi Version button in the centre at the bottom of the page. Hitting this changes the entry to black on white. |
Nice feature.
There appears to be some problem with some of the tags/formatting in that version: e.g.
http://cgi.kjcgames.com/phoenix/forum/lofi...ex.php/t12.html
And in the "full" version some of the stuff wraps badly on 800x600 screens.
...
| QUOTE (J'ron-P'to @ Dec 21 2004, 11:35 PM) |
Do Targeting computers add their Bonus to the accuracy of Space Fighter, Bombers and Interceptors?  |
Another one to be clarified in the rules when it's set-up
http://www.spacious.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=322
Dan
IPB WARNING [2] main(./conf_global.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory (Line: 142 of /index.php)
I am wondering when the rest of the rules are going to be transfered over though... Kinda difficult to check them when they're not there. I am trying a few things I havn't done before (platforms etc) so would like the current rules on there, both to know what the hell I'm doing, but also to check they're correct.
Any news?
I can now access the rulebook.I had trouble just before Christmas and couldn't get onto the site until after the new year.Been ok since!