Dark Hellion wrote:It is primarily a philosophical difference. The thing is that you state that you have to clarify how troop transports and carriers act but these things are ultimately minutia in the grand scale of things. The only reason we need to know how these work in the long run reduces to fluff. Does it matter if troops are transported by landing craft, drop pods or by a platoon of men generating gestalt psychic powers by doing jumping jacks and teleporting to LOS of their aerobics sergeant as long as they all require the same level/type of investment from the player and have the same strengths and restrictions?
So let's say we don't quantify such. Let's say people can claim any transport capacity they want. Are you going to accept it when some guy proclaims he has a $100 value hull carrying half a billion troops? No? What if it has $1000 value? $2000, or at least a fleet worth that much? Where is the line between "munchkin" and "acceptable"? Because if it's not clarified at game start in the rules this is going to be an argument that will be hashed out whenever someone thinks someone else has too many troops in their ships.
Same thing with planetary numbers and population numbers. Does it really matter if you have 10 billion people and I have 10 copies of superman if we both produce the same and it takes the same investment of troops to subdue? I don't think it does as long as we enforce rule #1) Don't be a douche.
Invoking "Don't be a douche" sounds all nice and simple and summed up, but how will it work in practice? What quantifies "being a douche"? There are obvious examples, of course,, but what of a case where a player claims something a bit big but not overtly douchery? Is he being a douche or just imaginative? What if someone proclaims him being a douche but he's not intending to be, or proclaims his innocence?
Its actually more unbelievable that numerous civilizations of a variety of species will all utilize land area, resources and manpower at the same general levels of efficiency and build militaries with the same fundamental design philosophy than just a priori assuming egality and general equivalence of civilizations using the fluff to patch the holes.
Militaries with same general design philosophy? The system as written is crafted to permit multiple ideas. There are no "definite" things set up like specific types of battleships or infantry weapons, it's just a rough quality of kit, quality of troops, and hull size system. A Heavy hull could be a space battleship or it could be a carrier or it could be a heavy cruiser or a system defense ship or whatever someone wants it to be.
The manpower thing has no mechanic beyond letting a player have a number to fix on how many people dwell in his state. If he wants he can claim he has a race of giants that take up the equivalent of 10 normal people, ergo his game stated population of 200 billion is really just 20 billion. Or maybe a race of midget insects who procreate far faster than Humans so every figure of population is duplicated five fold for him - 200 billion becomes 1 trillion.
Where the hell are resources even coming into play? GDP figure is a rough readout of the economic and industrial productivity of a nation and its component sectors - how they do it is never mentioned orr considered.
You are arguing at nothing here. There is nothing in this system saying you
must have a specific thing, save in terms of systems and sectors, and that's so that everyone has an established national size and characteristics and, of course, a starting military force to list.
The rules should be there for situations were two players can't agree on an outcome and a mod has to go "ok, how many points do you each have? Let me roll some dice and see what I get", or a "wait a second, that ain't right" moment.
Agreed.
I mean, we don't have rules for intelligence gathering, counter-intelligence, espionage, assassination and economic sabotage even though all these things are tantamount military concerns far more important than the mechanical functioning of carriers. Why are we trusting players to run an aspect that is necessarily sneaky, duplicitous and obscured but not the general vagueries of combat which are either transparent or only important in retrospect?
So you are arguing that a player should get to decide how many "fighters" or "gunboats" or what have you his carriers have.
Okay, again, let's look at the "don't be a douche" concept. Again, it looks fine on paper. People who are douches "stand out", so to speak.
Or do they? Take SDNW for example? Is Shep a douche? Generally, albeit usually an entertaining one. There are those, however, that would consider Zor a douche too, or Lonestar, or Fingolfin, even if others don't.
The same thing applies to player actions. Player A might do something that Player D proclaims douchery, but Player A doesn't see that, nor does C or F. The mods look at it and say "nope, not douchery". Is Player D simply going to accept that ruling, or is he going to get mad and assume the mods are being assholes or biased and continue to scream about Player A's douchery?
Fast forward five months. Player B does something just like Player A did before. Player F proclaims him to be a douche. A mod looks over it and agrees, not remembering the prior case. But Players B and D do, and they now have "proof" that the mods are biased for Player A and Player F, even if the mod in this dscision was seeing things form a different angle, didn't recall the prior ruling, or wasn't even involved in it. Cue an OOC flamefest as Players B and D screech "BIAS!", Player A tries to show how what he did was in fact "slightly different" even if it wasn't, and Player F perhaps staying out, backpedaling on his douchery claim against B if he forgot the prior ruling, or maybe accusing B and D of being drama queens. Everyone else picks a side eventually, likely following upon in-game alliances or friendships. And the mods are caught in the middle with a flame war on their hands.
If you have a ruleset where things are laid out, these events can be avoided, because in both cases the players have a ruleset they can quote and say "This is/is not douchery".
As it is, this ruleset is already feather-light. It only really applies at country generation, everything else is rule of thumb. I simply cannot fathom that people still consider it "complicated". About the only complicated thing, I'll grant, are the troop carrier rules, and I'm honestly stymied on how to do that properly and have toyed with just proclaiming everyone gets enough troop transports to carry a quarter of their active army at any given time, allowing me to dumb the calculations part. Because, again, I do not get some perverse thrill out of complicating the ruleset just to torment you peons, er, I mean, players, despite what Siege might accuse me of.

(I do, OTOH, get a bit of a chuckle when I make him wail in horror at the sight of an actual ruleset I've derived that's not going the free-form route.

)
Honestly, do you know what you're asking of this approach? To have a ruleset that only exists in the minds and thoughts of the mods, which the mods will use, consciously or not, to judge whether something's douchery or not.