Rules & Statistics Analysis and Discussion

[GreyJaeger]

Well, since I heard, "we will just have to agree to disagree" twice now, I take it you are tired of discussing this. I was actually hoping to get an understanding of this, but obviously I am just too obtuse.

[Dave Baughman]

Well, since I heard, "we will just have to agree to disagree" twice now, I take it you are tired of discussing this. I was actually hoping to get an understanding of this, but obviously I am just too obtuse.

If you're looking to get an understanding of how the system works, I'm happy to discuss it all day. The part that I was getting tired with yesterday (and to be fair, it was exacerbated by me racing the clock to finish a paper for school) was the arguing over whether or not the rule should exist at all in its current form.

I don't want to come off as just being a jerk who doesn't want to talk about the issue at all, but at the same time honestly the level of snark was getting pretty frustrating.

[GreyJaeger]

Keep the rule, in any form you want. I never asked for it to be changed. I made a suggestion at most.

I am going to state what my issue is as simply as I can. Everything else in the game requires something tangible to be placed on the line up front. You want to launch a raid, you have to have a unit. You want to perform an Intel Op, you have to put up the cash to go forward. An initial investment of resources. ME does not. It is the inconsistency that rankled me.

[Dave Baughman]

Strictly for the purpose of playing the devil's advocate, would you prefer if instead of the current income/loss from the project (2d6-2% income or 2d6+2% loss) it was a flat 2d6% and there was a project cost of 2% of national income to execute it?

Writing it that way would make the 'cost' of the project more explicit, though it would make the 'bite' on the enemy more pronounced, especially when a small faction runs it, since the -2% on the income result would be based on the attacker's national income rather than the defender's.