Regional Capitals in Partial Grids
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E INPUT:
F&E Proposals Forum:
Regional Capitals in Partial Grids
This is a proposal to bring partial grids more in line with the behaviour of a main grid. It is mostly flavour and the effect on actual gameplay should be fairly minimal.
(4RC.0) REGIONAL CAPITALS (PARTIAL GRIDS)
(4RC.1) CREATION
(4RC.11) Whenever a Partial Supply Grid comes into existence its owner may create a Regional Capital. They need not do so immediately, however they must do so before accepting any ep into the grid. A regional capital may not be created in a grid if one already exists.
(4RC.12) The regional capital may be located at any base or planet in the partial grid subject to the restriction that a base/planet in the owning race's original territory (if one exists) must be chosen over one not in such territory.
(4RC.13) Any satellite stockpile located at the base/planet that becomes the regional capital is dissolved and becomes a part of the partial grid's treasury.
(4RC.2) OPERATION
(4RC.21) The grid's treasury is located at the regional capital.
(4RC.22) Any ep transfer into or out of the partial grid occurs at the regional capital. A partial grid must have a regional capital before an ep transfer mission involving it can be assigned.
(4RC.23) If a partial grid is itself broken in two then the treasury remains with the capital.
(4RC.3) REMOVAL
(4RC.31) If a regional capital is destroyed (in the case of a base) or captured (in the case of a planet) then the treasury is evacuated, if possible, in the same manner as the main capital. The partial grid receiving the treasury must immediately designate a regional capital if one does not already exist to hold the evacuated treasury.
(4RC.32) If a partial grid becomes connected to a main grid then the regional capital is dissolved and the ep is either automatically delivered to the main capital or remains at the base/planet as a Satellite Stockpile (owning player's choice).
(4RC.33) If a partial grid becomes connected to another partial grid then one of the regional capitals is dissolved and the ep is sent to the other capital or stockpiled as above. The owning player may choose which regional capital to dissolve subject to the restriction that a capital in the owning race's original territory (if one exists) must be preserved over one not in such territory.
Peter
Sorry, you lost me - whats the point of the rule?
Partial Grids are fairly easy to understand - the above isn't (to me anyway!)
I have to agree with Raven. I am not sure this adds anything to the game as it is. Just needless complications.
Sorry, you lost me - whats the point of the rule?
The full text above was deliberately 'full' to pre-emptively minimise errata. The short version is:
A normal supply grid has a central treasury. If a partial grid is formed and wishes to conduct economics (receive tax and transfers, pay for supply and repairs) then it also needs to picks a temporary treasury (at a planet or base) until it is reunited with the main grid.
This makes it more consistent with the main grid rules which then avoids needing other errata and rulings (such as the one on Q&A re dividing up a partial grid's EPs if it is subsequently re-split).
Basically, trying to minimize the effects of a partial grid, i.e. make it easier to transfer ep to, build within, and/or perform operation movement-combat from the partial grid.
Whether it is a good rule or not depends on what your view of the purpose of a partial grid. My initial thought is that a partial grid isn't supposed to be fully operational even with cash infusion from the main grid. Therefore, I am not sure I like the idea.
But I want to think on it a little more.
Basically, trying to minimize the effects of a partial grid, i.e. make it easier to transfer ep to, build within, and/or perform operation movement-combat from the partial grid.
You can already do that. The difference is that currently the ep just hovers insubstantially throughout the whole grid.
I don't really have a problem with the proposed rule, but don't really see a burning need for it. Is there something wrong with the money "hovering insubstantially" that I'm not aware of? If there is a potential for abuse there, we could cap how much a partial grid can have, but I'm just not seeing a problem that needs solving. But the rule seems harmless. If you guys want it, you can have some version of it. If nobody wants it, then nobody has to deal with it.
I'm not aware of any problems with the Partial Grid rules. The only Partial Grid that ever has a big chunk of EPs is the Hydran Off Map area and it usually only exists briefly before the Hydran Capital falls. With the Minor Ship Yard rules even the Hydran Off Map rairely has a big chunk of change sitting around. It gets spent on CWs starting on turn 8.
Well Technically the Hydran off-map area is NOT a partial grid if seperate from the capital grid it would be a main grid of its own. I forget the exact wording, but offmap areas form their own main grid.
I also don't know of any abuses with partial grids. Which is why I don't think this rule is really needed. But I admit I haven't sat around and tried to think of abuses of partial grid rules... if you have a partial grid.. you usually have other issues of much more import than trying to rules rape something!
I don't really have a problem with the proposed rule, but don't really see a burning need for it.
Agreed. It's certainly not a 'must have'.
It's mostly just to make partial grid rules closer to main grid rules for consistency, which hopefully would lessen other special cases.
For example, the Q&A ruling for where the cash goes when a partial grid gets divided in two (ie, split the ep proportionally based on the remaining SMN's) has a practicality problem. How many players are actually going to check after every single hex of operational/reaction/retreat movement to see if a partial grid just got divided? The main grid doesn't need to do this since its cash is all at the capital. Making a partial grid act the same could do likewise.
"How many players are actually going to check after every single hex of operational/reaction/retreat movement to see if a partial grid just got divided?"
You wouldn't. You'd do it, at most, at the end of each phase, which is the only time you evaluate such things. But you'd mostly only do it during the Econ phase, which is but once a turn. I believe you are misunderstanding the existing rules.
"for consistency"
What's not consistant about it now?
To have a partial grid, you have to have at least one base or planet. EPs delivered to the partial grid have to go to one of the bases or planets in that grid.
The only thing this does is say "the EPs are hanging out here"
Unless your intention is to allow those EPs to be assailed in some way (raids, espionage&sabotage, etc.), then we don't really need text to say that one thing; you can assume it in your head when you are playing.
I think the "harm" here is that it clutters up an already huge rulebook with a "rule" that does nothing except add an aestetic; we can just as easily add to the warbook a line that says "the EPs are assumed to be stockpiled at the bases/planets in the parital grid" and be done with it. It would accomplish exactly the same thing, be more aestheticly pleasing to those that care, and take up a minimum of space.
Some things are abstracted on purpose; if this were an operational movement game (and I'm STILL waiting on Module V, SVC 
), then what you propose would fit nicely. I just don't think it is relevant to the scale of F&E.
I think the "harm" here is that it clutters up an already huge rulebook
I agree. The 'cover all bases' version I put at the top would over-stuff the rule book. It would need a more succinct version that would absorb other rules & errata of similar size to be officially worthwhile.
Would these regional capitals be aligned, as close as they can, with their pre-existing political equivalents?
For example, one could picture the three on-map ducal provinces in the Lyran Empire as serving these purposes...
...and if they did, perhaps there could be some indication of the political consequences in certain empires if this scenario comes to pass?
Gary,
while I don't think this proposal will find much wind under its sail, I think as its proposed they are more ad-hoc entities. As partial grids are created these regional capitals would be designated as needed and where convenient rather than upon existing SFU canon.
Be that as it may, there is still the point that in Lyran (and probably Kzinti) space, there already exists the kind of feudal power structure that would leave certain lords that, well, wouldn't be too keen on tolerating the concept of some 'lesser' province or planet being elevated to regional capital status at their expense.
Much as the Lyran Emperor or Kzinti Patriarch might love to place such a capital where they deemed most practical, the nature of politics in both empires would add significant complications to such efforts.
(Not least when even the friendliest Duke or Pentarchal noble might stow away the advantages this rule grants for a future power play...)
And besides, why not add a reason for this rule to be that little more interesting for Lyran and Kzinti players?
Especially once Civil War is on the cards.
Be that as it may, there is still the point that in Lyran (and probably Kzinti) space, there already exists the kind of feudal power structure that would leave certain lords that, well, wouldn't be too keen on tolerating the concept of some 'lesser' province or planet being elevated to regional capital status at their expense.
Makes sense. But yet more complexity 
. I suspect that is more suitable to a module than main rules. And it would only be relevant if future rules allowed raiding of capitals or the break-away of provinces. Maybe with Civil Wars?
Hmmm... special addenda for the Feds - bases/planets in the Orion Enclave are excluded as a regional capital if at all possible as the region is too politically unstable! I guess the Q&A on current partial grids would need to handle that too. Ie, when it goes neutral it takes its proportional share of partial grid EP with it!
(4RC.12) The regional capital may be located at any base or planet in the partial grid subject to the restriction that a base/planet in the owning race's original territory (if one exists) must be chosen over one not in such territory. For this rule the Orion Enclave does not count as 'original territory' for the Federation due to political instability.
Quote:Be that as it may, there is still the point that in Lyran (and probably Kzinti) space, there already exists the kind of feudal power structure that would leave certain lords that, well, wouldn't be too keen on tolerating the concept of some 'lesser' province or planet being elevated to regional capital status at their expense.
*shrugs* you asked what the rule said, I answered what I thought it said basically that you could pick what Base/Planet you wanted to be this regional capital.
I stick by that, the rule as proposed makes no allowances for political situations. I am of the opinion this rule has scant chance of consideration, not because its flawed but because it is superfluous.
But in your games Gary, if it came up you would certainly be allowed to choose whatever base/planet you wanted, and if that fell inline with SFU canon then that is great.
But the point I was trying to make is that if this rule was to be used, why not alter it somewhat to take these bouts of political infighting into account, and propose it as an addition to Civil Wars?
That way, the rule could turn into something that would have more relevance - at least for those empires that are prone to civil conflicts.
Has something like this rule previously existed? I just noticed in the Carrier War Salvage section:
(439.12) In the case of divided supply grids, the salvage proceeds are added to the central supply point of the partial grid.
One advantage of this rule is less book-keeping & checking. Another is less maths when a grid becomes split.
Currently if you have a partial grid then you need to write down on paper EACH NODE that makes up the partial grid, and in the income phase you need to check each of these nodes to see if it has now become a part of another grid and, if so, proportionally divide up the treasury
If you have a central treasury you only need to write down ONE NODE (which could even be marked with a counter) and no treasury rearrangement occurs on a split.
Also, the FEAR ruling on splitting the treasury using the current partial grid rules only included EP; it did not rule on what happens to pods in the treasury of a partial grid. So we need yet another rule to make the current system work.
SVC:
I don't really have a problem with the proposed rule, but don't really see a burning need for it. Is there something wrong with the money "hovering insubstantially" that I'm not aware of?
It requires extra note keeping (you need to write down EACH node in a partial grid)... it requires extra rules to be added for where ep & pods go when a partial grid is split... it requires tedious extra checking (and occasional math) in the income phase to accomplish it... and it requires every current (& future) rule that accesses a treasury to have two cases rather than one.
Treating capital treasuries (at a single node) and partial grid treasuries (in a cloud) differently means that every rule that references treasuries (eg, delivering ep) needs two seperate cases rather than one. And that applies to all future rules too. So, for example, if a 'raid ep' rule was added it would need two cases.
Compare this to adding somthing like "if a partial grid is formed then designate a regional treasury; if two treasuries become connected dissolve one of them" and thereafter using a single rule for all treasury accesses.