Enhancement Requests for Race Into Space(Originally on BarisWiki) – Maintained by Leon (raceintospace@yahoo.com)

Last Updated December 5, 2013

Below are bugs that have been reported, things that fans have suggested as possible enhancements to the game, plus things I’ve come up with. And, it should be noted, some of these are just ideas, not really requests.

The lists are roughly in order of perceived priority. Some of these aren’t so much actual enhancement requests as they are ideas that might improve the game. The ideas have a hollow bullet, and use more weasel words than the requests. (Items that have been implemented, or will be in the next release, have been grayed out.)

Bugs to Fix In some cases, I've had to make educated guesses as to which of these are bugs or oversights and not intentional. If you happen to know that any of the following were intentional, let me know (raceintospace@yahoo.com) and I'll delete them or move them to Enhancement Requests.

Duration B Bug – There’s a bug that applies a skipped-duration penalty to your first Duration mission (usually Duration B), regardless whether you’ve skipped any milestones. In RIS, it got worse—sometimes the bogus penalty continues to be applied even after you fly a Duration.

Actually the whole Duration-penalty system is broken in BARIS/RIS. You’re supposed to be docked 5% for every Duration level you’re skipping (e.g., if you went straight to level C after flying your first orbital, or if you went from B to D). But instead, you’re penalized 5% the first time you fly a Duration mission regardless—and after that, you’re either penalized for every Duration mission you fly, or it doesn’t assess penalties at all: e.g., you could go straight from B to F without a penalty.

The best solution would be to fix the whole Duration milestone-penalty system. The next best would be to disable the whole thing, since it just doesn’t work. (It’s been disabled in Race Into Space version .4.8. Hopefully it can be fixed and reenabled at some point in the future.)

If the Duration milestone-penalty system is fixed at some point, the game should offer you a last-minute chance to downgrade a duration mission (at no prestige cost) to the lowest level you can fly without a penalty. For instance, if I schedule a Duration C one turn and a D the next, and something goes wrong with my C mission, I should be able to downgrade the second mission to a C at the last minute, without penalty. In real life, reducing the length of a mission should be a relatively minor change, and it seems unfair to penalize a player for doing it under these circumstances.

Zombie Crew Bug (RIS only, not present in BARIS) – When flying direct ascent, when a crew is killed on a mission, it’s not broken up as it should be. The mission continues, and the crew stays together—it can even be assigned to future missions. What happens is that whenever a mission rolls a failure (even something insignificant like a faulty gauge reading), it shows ALL DEAD and at the end of the mission

you’ll be penalized 10 points for a mission fatality—but in the meantime the mission continues with the “dead” crew. And yes, you can assign the crew to your next mission. (This seems to be fixed in Race Into Space version 1.0.)

As implied by the BARIS Companion (e.g., pgs. 261, 266), components are supposed to be downgraded if they suffer catastrophic failures. Yet it's not unknown for hardware to be downgraded by non-catastrophic failures, where no one gets hurt and no prestige is lost.

On a vehicle’s return from the Moon, BARIS has it go into orbit and execute an Earth Orbital Insertion Burn, Earth Orbital Activities, and an Earth De-Orbit Burn. That's not only inaccurate historically, but also in terms of physics—capsules returning from the Moon didn’t go into orbit before reentering; they went straight into the atmosphere and came down. In fact, their heat shields had to be thicker to handle the extra heat from the higher speed they were going, and there was a reentry corridor they had to hit: come in too straight and you burn up, hit at too much of an angle and you skip off the atmosphere and never come down. Consequently: The Earth Orbital Insertion Burn, Earth Orbital Activities, and Earth De-Orbit Burn should be

replaced with a Reentry Corridor step. The simplest way to do that would likely be to rename one, probably the Earth Orbital Insertion Burn step, then remove (or skip) the other two. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version 1.0, though without the Reentry Corridor step.)

It sometimes happens that when the LM explodes on liftoff from the Moon, the crew aboard the capsule in orbit is also killed. That must be some explosion!

When the computer scrubs a mission on the pad (by a last-minute failure during countdown, for instance), it deletes the hardware. Likewise, when part A of a Joint mission fails before part B launches, you lose the hardware for part B.

B-Kicker Bugs – Currently, there's a bug that allows you to fly Joint EOR to the Moon using an A-Kicker, whereas it should require a B-Kicker. Similarly, there’s a bug that doesn’t require kickers on mission 52, Joint Lunar Orbital: EOR/LOR, even if you’re flying Gemini/Voskhod or XMS-2/Lapot, which should need a B-Kicker to do the job. (This has been fixed in Race Into Space version 1.0.)

If you schedule a Docking Duration mission and the Docking step fails, mission control cancels the rest of the mission and doesn't attempt the Duration steps. (This also happens with EVA and Duration some of the time—that is, if the EVA fails, the Duration steps are sometimes skipped.) That should be corrected, unless there's a valid reason for scrubbing the rest of the mission when a docking test fails.

It occasionally happens that a lunar landing goes fine, but some noncritical failure happens (fixed by the crew, or whatever). All your people return safely to Earth (as per Kennedy's stated goal), but the game doesn't give you credit for the landing—it even docks you prestige points! Any other mission might have cost you prestige, but it would still have given you credit for accomplishing its objective(s): duration, docking, whatever, so long as those part(s) of the mission did succeed. But on the lunar landing, if the whole thing doesn’t go smoothly, you get docked. Modifying the game to count that sort of "partial failure" as a victory would remove a seldom-occurring but very frustrating oversight in the game design.

When a newscast announces that all manned missions for a season will be canceled, the game usually cancels all missions that turn, manned or not. Obviously the game should leave unmanned missions alone if it implies it’s going to.

Duration missions roll for each Duration step on the mission, including Duration A. This shouldn't be, since Duration A isn't really a "Duration" mission: any manned mission is at least Duration A by

definition, and the game doesn't do a Duration roll on non-"Duration" missions. (This has been fixed in Race Into Space version 1.0.)

Half-off sales don't apply to Autopurchase in Vehicle Assembly/Integration—you’re charged full price. They also don’t apply to purchase or repair of launch pads or recruitment of spacemen, though I suspect those later two are probably by design. Certainly Autopurchase should benefit from half-off sales. (This has been fixed in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

The game is supposed to reduce milestone penalties by the average of a crew’s Endurance skills, but it doesn’t seem to do so in practice.

The computer opponent cheats. Among other things, the computer player is given large amounts of money when it suffers defeats, largely nullifying the disincentive to take irresponsible risks. (This can, of course, be alleviated by setting the computer to run at a harder level than the player.)

As I understand it, the cheating may have been done to compensate for the AI having a poorer strategy than it should have had. If the cheating is fixed, the poor AI should be fixed as well.

The newscast saying Gemini/Voskhod capsules will cost +2MB apiece doesn't work—the capsule price doesn't change (either fix this or break the one saying Apollo/Soyuz will cost +3MB apiece). (This has been fixed in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

On Joint Manned Orbiting Lab missions, if the first spacecraft to reenter has a noncritical failure that causes a 20% safety reduction, the second spacecraft will not suffer the safety reduction.

The recruitment screen shows a SERVICE category for each ’naut, which is always blank. Apparently, the designers planned to show where each candidate came from (Navy, Air Force, etc.), but never implemented it. It may be purely esthetic, but would be nice to reenable, to bring the game just a little more in line with their original intentions and hopefully add to the look and feel.

In the Launch Facility screen, if you scrub a manned mission, it continues to show the original mission’s duration level. It also continues to show the original duration level if you downgrade a mission to remove the Duration step. (This has been fixed in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

Controversial Bugs These are bugs we might prefer not to fix. Opinion is somewhat divided on this; if these are fixed, perhaps the fixes could be toggled on and off in Preferences.

I have arranged them roughly in order by which ones I feel strongest about leaving alone.

The newscast saying the next mission has a 50% chance of exploding on launch doesn’t work. (Even Erik Anderson, one of the major original developers, is on record agreeing that this shouldn’t be fixed.)

Scrubbing or Downgrading missions doesn't cost you 3 prestige points (or if this must be fixed, could we set it to not charge you prestige points on unmanned missions—at least for missions that don’t give you prestige points for successful completion, like dummy tests?).

When the authorities demand you perform a given task, there’s no penalty for ignoring it. You are required to fly Duration E before attempting a lunar landing. (What if you're flying minishuttles?

They have a max of Duration D.)

The newscast saying to pay xMB or suffer y% penalty on next mission doesn’t work—your flight won’t in fact suffer a safety penalty. (This has been fixed in Race Into Space version .4.8, and can be toggled on and off in Advanced Preferences.)

EVA suits and minishuttles are indestructible. Also, it’s possible to do a lunar landing with multiple crew members without ever purchasing more than one suit.

o EVA suits: perhaps they could be used up on missions, and the player could simply purchase more (for 0MB). Auto Purchase could buy needed EVA suits as well.

o Minishuttles: This is more complicated, as the indestructibility bug is a lot of what makes them a viable option.

Perhaps the cost of units after the prototype should be reduced from 30MB to 20MB, and minishuttles could benefit from technology transfer (though less than capsules): maybe 10% for Mercury/Vostok, 20% for Gemini/Voskhod, 25% for Apollo/Soyuz or Jupiter/LK-700[Kvartet].

Another advantage might be improved morale. Astronauts signed up to go into space, but really, most of these guys are pilots, and they'd be happier flying a spaceplane than being spam-in-a-can. Morale could drop more slowly for 'nauts in a minishuttle program.

It might also be worth considering whether to convert the minishuttles to 2-person crews. That would have the drawback of requiring development of the 1-person lander, but it would make crew assignment and maintenance much easier (also one of Gemini’s advantages, especially early in the game, at a time when XMS-2/Lapot is also very difficult to get started).

Another idea might be to introduce a chance of recovering minishuttles which are damaged on dummy tests (obviously not those that burn up on reentry, of course). Repairing the damage might cost something like 2-10 MB.

Ideas for New Missions & Prestige Firsts and seconds

o New prestige first: First all-female crew (applies to crews of 2 or more). This should be worth less than first woman in space—maybe 6 pts (vs. 8). This is something the Soviets planned to do with Voskhod 5, before the Voskhod program was cancelled.

o New prestige first: First female EVA. Probably shouldn’t be worth many points—maybe just 3. (This was also planned for Voskhod 5.)

o New mission and prestige first & second: Orbital Medical (or Orbital Science). Same flight profile as standard Orbital mission, but in this mission, there’s a focus on gathering data on humans surviving in space (a telescoping of the missions spent on that during Mercury & Vostok). Worth 3 points for a first, maybe 2 for a second, 1 after. This mission could be made a milestone for EVA, so that EVA missions would face a -3 milestone penalty if this mission hadn’t been flown.

o New mission and prestige first & second: Jt. Orbital Rendezvous (two capsules/shuttles flying past or approaching one another in orbit, but without docking). Manned docking is worth 8 points for a first and 4 for a second, with 1 point each afterward. Maybe rendezvous should count for 4 points for a first, 2 for a second, and 0 afterward, with -3 for failure.

o Prior to developing docking, both the US and USSR flew missions where two capsules passed close to one another in a synchronized orbit. The Soviets did it first with Vostok 3 and 4, and the mission caused quite a stir: so it makes sense that this would yield prestige points. It would provide some additional incentive to develop Voskhod if its docking capability is removed, and it would give players something

else to do with Mercury/Vostok if EVA is removed. The new mission might be called something like Jt Capsule Flyby, Jt Rendezvous, or Jt Nondocking Rendezvous.

o New mission and prestige first: Artificial Gravity Experiment (maybe abbreviated to ARTIF GRAV EXP). Artificial gravity experiments were planned for Voskhod 3 and 4 (later postponed to only 4): the idea was to connect the capsule to the upper stage of the rocket by a tether, and use a solid-fuel engine to begin rotation. Gemini 11 actually performed such an experiment while tethered to an Agena target vehicle, with some success. As a prestige first this might be worth something like 6 points. It could be basically a standard manned Orbital mission, with an Orbital Experiment step or two after Earth Orbital Activities.

o New mission and prestige first (and second?): First lunar satellite. It was sort of a big deal when the Soviets put the first artificial satellite in orbit around the Moon, analogous (though far less momentous) than when they put up the first satellite in Earth orbit. This would be done with Ranger/Cosmos.

o New mission and prestige first & second: Lunar Sample Return, like what the Soviets attempted with Luna 15 (bringing back samples before the other side could complete the manned landing). The mission would use the Surveyor/Luna probe, and a simple probe landing would be a milestone step for the sample return mission.

o Another idea for a new mission and prestige item: a mission to the Van Allen Belts. Gemini 10 traversed part of the Van Allen Belt as a part of preparing for our journey to the Moon.

o New US option for lunar landing: Lunar Surface Rendezvous. It was sometimes proposed to land a separate lander near the landing site: this one could have extra supplies, and the astronauts’ lander could be made lighter by leaving out the takeoff engine and fuel. The crew would return in the other lander. In RIS, this might allow the Americans to do a Joint mission using smaller rocketry, like the Soyuz Lunar Landing.

Some name changes might be in order: Saturn V -- Saturn (Different variants of Saturn were used, not just the V configuration)

(Left alone because discussion on SourceForge ran against it) A-Series -- R-7 (The R-7 designation wasn’t known in the West when BARIS was written)

(Implemented in RIS 1.0) N-1 -- N1 (The Soviets didn’t seem to use hyphens with this rocket, maybe because it was

part of the N1-L3 complex) (Implemented in RIS 1.0) Vulkon -- Vulkan (This is how the name is usually transliterated nowadays--but really it's a judgement call on how to represent an a pronounced like "ah")

(It’s been renamed LK-700 instead, see below) L-3 -- LK (The L3 was the designation for the whole lunar program, including the N1, Soyuz capsule, and lander [LK = Russian abbrev. for Lunar Ship])

(Implemented in RIS 1.0) Duet -- LKM (The LKM [LK Modified] was a proposal for an N1-launched lander which would put

a crew of 2 or 3 on the Moon for two weeks—this was a part of the L3M project, a modified and expanded version of the LK following Apollo 11.)

(Implemented in RIS 1.0) MOL(USSR) -- Salyut or Almaz (The closest Soviet equivalent would be the Salyut or Almaz series) Baikonour -- Baikonur (Similar to Vulkon/Vulkan, it's a question of best transliteration. It's now more common to spell it without the "u".) (Implemented in RIS .4.8) Korolov -- Korolyov (His name was spelled with the Cyrillic letter ë, which is pronounced “yoh”,

rather than “eh” or “oh”.) (This has proven difficult to change, since the gameis hard-coded to read exactly 7 characters.)

EOR/LOR -- EOR (Mission 52, "Joint Manned Lunar Orbital LM Test EOR/LOR", should be changed to just "Joint Manned Lunar Orbital LM Test: EOR".) (Implemented in RIS .4.8)

Possible name changes to the Soviet direct ascent program: Kvartet -- LK-700 (These are the names of the direct ascent program the Soviets were slowly Vulkon -- UR-700 developing alongside N1-L3. The capsule and rocket would have been different from Kvartet & Vulkon, but these are the historical names.)

(Implemented in RIS 1.0)

Simpler Enhancements Allow crews to be assigned to missions as soon as they're assembled—eliminate the need for a turn of

training before being assigned to a mission. This could be toggled on and off in Advanced Preferences, so anyone who prefers to play the game with the original requirement could do so. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

Perhaps a crew that’s assigned to a mission while in Training mode (i.e., it was put together that turn) should suffer a 1-point milestone penalty on that mission.

If people feel the extra turn wait is important, the program might at least keep track of who was in a team at the start of the turn, so that if you break a team and decide to rebuild with the same members for whatever reason, you won't have to wait a turn—since the team is effectively unchanged.

Allow a player to assign a Primary crew to a mission without a Backup crew: you'd take a chance of a scrub, but it would let you schedule a mission if you don't have two full crews ready. This should also be toggled in Preferences. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version 1.0, but not the suggestions below.)

This would likely make it tempting for players to skip assigning backup crews, so perhaps we should add a pop-up window warning the player that assigning no Backup crew runs the risk of a scrub if something happens to the Primary. The message should come up when the player clicks Assign when scheduling the mission. It should probably have an OK and a Cancel button.

It makes some sense in game terms that when you suffer a catastrophic failure, you can research only to Max R&D, and beyond that you have to start over, 1% per launch. But when your hardware is degraded due to a newscast, you should be able to research back to where you left off. The rules in Liftoff! allow you to do so—why not RIS? (This is now allowed as an advanced option in RIS 1.0 and above.)

Give an option to Delay a mission, as well as Scrub it. It would also be helpful to be able to downgrade a mission from manned to unmanned.

Bring back the PBEM option. (TCP/IP would be even better, but would require a lot more coding, so it’s in the More Involved section.)

Mission animation requires CDROM Frame Data to work properly. The DOS code should be changed where it reads data from the disk. This was done during development, so the existing code may be in there, just commented out. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space.)

Boosters are too easy of an option in BARIS. For the launch, it takes the average of the rocket and booster Safety, which potentially lets you skate by with a rocket or booster that’s not yet ready. Realistically speaking, boosters are a separate component and it should be more dangerous to use them. Historically it was considered risky to use strap-ons with the Titan on manned missions because the boosters were solid-fuel and their burn couldn't be throttled, so if something went wrong they couldn’t be shut off.

There could be two separate steps: so when you're using boosters, the Launch step might be divided into a Booster and a Rocket step, or perhaps a Launch and an Ascent step.

Perhaps better, and much easier to implement, we could simply change the formula the game uses to calculate the safety of the Launch step: rather than take the average of the rocket and booster Safety, they could be multiplied against each other. This method is used in probability to calculate the chances of an AND occurrence: that is, to tell the chance that item A and item B will both happen. So if your rocket is at 90% Safety and your boosters are at 70%, rather than take the average (80%), the launch step would be .9x.7=.63 =63%. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8, though advanced options will let you use the old formula instead.)

It’s equally important (and probably easy to forget, which is why I mention it) to make this change apply to the computer player as well.

When you hit End Turn, if you have a mission ready to launch and one of its components isn’t yet at Max R&D, you should be warned and given a chance to go back to research it. Ideally, you should receive the warning only if you have enough funds to do some research. If you have 2MB left and the component that needs research is an Atlas, you should be warned—but not if you had 2MB and it was the Saturn V that needed research.

Another End Turn warning: if you have an LM or a Kicker-C but haven’t prototyped your docking modules yet, the game should probably warn you.

When you're assembling crews, 'nauts that have announced they're leaving should be marked so you can see, at a glance, not to assign them to a crew. The easiest way might be to always show their names in black once they’ve declared they're planning to retire (the game makes a person's square black one turn before he/she is going to leave, but they often aren’t black right after announcing retirement). (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

Astronauts and cosmonauts seem to retire at a faster rate than they did historically. Perhaps the overall decrease in morale over time should be adjusted slightly.

Maybe the astro/cosmonauts could get along just a bit better, at least after the first group. The way the game is structured, you have to pair them up long-term in crews that don’t often change. With the overwhelming importance of Capsule skill, that generally means persons with other skills are chosen for their ability to get along with the pilot, and their strengths in special skills become almost irrelevant. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

Of course, this would be alleviated if assigning crews were made easier—per some other requests in this doc that would remove the turn-long Training delay before assigning crews to a mission, for instance, or ideas for making it easier to tell who gets along with whom. But perhaps crew members could get along just a little better.

Incidentally, there are some odd discrepancies: for instance, I’ve noticed that Jan and Marion Dietrich (Group II) usually don’t get along—yet they were twins and were close friends. In fact Marion strongly encouraged her sister to accept the invitation they received to be tested for the Mercury 13. Of course, maybe who gets along with whom is random, in which case this sort of thing is unavoidable—but I could swear I’ve seen recognizable patterns: Klimuk never gets along with many of his fellow cosmonauts, for instance. (Too bad he’s the best pilot in his Group.)

Another possibility is simply offering new options for astronaut compatibility: one option where ’nauts are more compatible than they are in the default game, and one where they are all compatible.

Yet another idea, either alone or in addition to the above, is to make it less destructive to people's morale when they're paired with people they dislike. Historically, astronauts considered themselves professionals and were very flexible about getting along with people they didn't like, especially since they had to do that if they wanted to get into space. The dynamic should stay in the game, but should have a less dramatic effect on crew morale.

Flying a mission where one member of the crew has been on at least one space flight could give the mission a +1 Safety. This would give players an incentive to mix rookies with veterans, as both sides did historically. Alternatively, maybe the total mission experience of the crew could be added to the chances of a successful repair during a mission step failure. So a Gemini crew whose members had 1 and 3 missions, respectively, prior to this one would get a +4 at recovering from mission step failures (this idea would bring the game a little closer to Liftoff, where the chances of recovery from step failures depended entirely on crew experience).

If this were done, it would be important to indicate next to each person's name how many missions they've flown. (This is indicated now in Race Into Space .4.8, although the +1 Safety has not been—currently the number of missions flown just helps with ’naut administration and look & feel of the game.)

The game gives morale boosts to ’nauts assigned to Primary crews. How about if those assigned as Backup crews also got a slight morale boost, maybe +1?

It might be a good idea to impose a small milestone penalty when the backup crew is flying a mission. Historically (at least in the US), backup crews weren’t trained as heavily as primaries because the training facilities were limited and the primaries had to take precedence. Perhaps a mission flying its backup crew should get a 1-point penalty, or some kind of penalty for recovering from step failures.

Any bonuses that bring a mission step's safety above 98% (or maybe 99%) could instead be put toward making it more likely the crew will recover successfully from any failures on that step.

In the end game screen, in addition to showing the crew who accomplished the Moon landing, it should indicate which person was the first to stand on the Moon. Maybe at the bottom of the top screen where it lists the crew members, it could say, for instance, “FIRST MAN ON MOON: YOUNG” (or “FIRST WOMAN ON MOON: SAVITSKAYA”). It’s a little thing, and entirely esthetic, but it would be satisfying to know at a glance who in your game was the first to set foot on the Moon. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version 1.0.)

The R&D and Purchasing Buildings should show the date—maybe placed between the title ("RESEARCH", "PURCHASING") and how much cash you have left. I often get in there and, somewhere along the way, forget whether it's Spring or Fall--so I have to quit out of there to find out whether I need to save my money for next turn or not, then I have to go back to R&D or Purchasing to continue what I was doing. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

The Vehicle Assembly/Integration Building should show how many MBs you have left. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

The Vehicle Assembly/Integration Building should show what Autopurchase of the currently selected hardware will cost. Perhaps the button could show something like “AUTOPURCHASE (COST: 30 OF 65 MB)”. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version 1.0.)

It seems odd that players can downgrade a Lunar Landing to a Lunar Orbital but not a Lunar Orbital LM Test. That may be an oversight—in any case, a Lunar Landing should be downgradable to a Lunar Orbital LM Test, as well as a plain Lunar Orbital.

When you're assembling crews, you control assignments with two buttons: ASSIGN CREW (adds 'naut to crew) and BREAK CREW (removes all crew members). Three buttons could be added that would make crew assignment easier: o UP and DOWN buttons, so you could, say, put that guy with the high Capsule skill at the top, and

move the one with Docking talent to second place, without breaking and recreating crews.

o A REMOVE (or something like that) button that would remove the highlighted crew member, so you could take him/her out without breaking the whole crew.

When you get the newscast that cancels your missions due to bad weather, it should instead cancel just one of your planned missions on the pad (“What, a 6-month thunderstorm?”). Better yet, maybe that mission could be automatically delayed rather than simply scrubbed.

An Autosave feature should be added. This is important, since original BARIS crashes sometimes in DOSBox, and much more often when running (the CD version, at least) natively in Windows 98. (This was implemented in Race Into Space version .2.)

When you click the button to Reassign Hardware for a mission, the launch should be set up with the hardware configuration you last chose, rather than reverting to the original default hardware.

In the building where you assign 'nauts to crews, it would be helpful if the skills needed for a given slot were highlighted. For instance, a Soyuz crew might look like this:

POPOVICH CA: 2 LM: 3 EV: 0 DO: 1 EN: 3BYKOVSKY CA: 2 LM: 2 EV: 1 DO: 1 EN: 4LEONOV CA: 3 LM: 2 EV: 3 DO: 2 EN: 2

(This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

In the window where you select crews for a mission, next to each crewmember it should show a green/yellow/red/black box for the crew member’s morale. This will help players assign missions to crews that are starting to drop in morale; the manual, in fact, recommends you rotate all your crews through missions so they all stay happy, and this would help the player do that. I know that when I have more than one crew that’s about equally well equipped for a given mission, I often want to give the primary slot to the one whose morale is suffering—but to do that I have to cancel the mission altogether and go back out to the capsule program building. If morale were visible here, that would be unnecessary. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

When selecting crews for a mission, it would be handy to highlight the crew members’ relevant skills as part of the crew. (This will be implemented in the next release.)

There should be a screen that shows you succinctly what milestones you've accomplished, and what you have yet to accomplish. There is something like that already (the Prestige Summary), but it's awkward and doesn’t show you at a glance. A related item would be helpful: a quick list of the missions you've flown in that game, perhaps with dates and a brief summary of how each went (success, partial failure, catastrophic failure), and marked with Prestige First(s) or Prestige Second(s) when appropriate.

When a manned mission fails but the crew is saved, you shouldn't be penalized the full 10 prestige points. As it is, the game mechanics suggest that as far as world opinion is concerned, losing your 'nauts is no worse than saving them from the brink of disaster; Mission Control might as well have given up on Apollo 13. Maybe failures without fatalities should cost just 7 points. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version 1.0.)

When you're scheduling a mission and it shows a penalty, you should be able to click on a link or button to see what milestones you're missing, instead of having to figure it out. For lunar landings, the window could also show any penalties you face due to lack of LM Points.

The window that asks for final confirmation to proceed with a mission should also offer the link or button showing what milestones are missing.

The Future Missions window should warn you if you won't be able to purchase capsules or rockets next turn due to the newscast, so you don’t end up scheduling a mission that you’ll have to scrub anyway because you can’t buy equipment for it.

The Mission Summary screen should list any prestige firsts (or seconds) accomplished on that mission. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version 1.0.)

It would be a nice extra if the screen could also display other things the mission accomplished: DM +5%, LM +1PT, Recon +5%, etc.

o It would be helpful if skills other than Capsule could be made more useful. As it is, Capsule is the only really worthwhile skill. Some ideas:

o Capsule functions could be split up a little. This would spread the duties around; in particular, it would give the third member of direct ascent crews something significant to do—as it is, the two “EVA Specialists” are made to look almost like passengers. Capsule would still apply to piloting operations, but other skills could stand in for one of the following:o Navigation . We could do something that was referred to in the manual but apparently never

made it into the game. The manual talks about “navigation and docking” (p. 31, 32) rather than just Docking skill. Navigational steps that are currently handled by Capsule skill could be rolled against Docking instead. This would be handled by the single member of Mercury/Vostok (and DO skill should be highlighted in the Mercury capsule screen). On other spacecraft, it would be done by the crew member currently assigned as a Docking Specialist. The following mission steps should probably be assigned as Navigational:

Earth De-Orbit Burn Lunar Mid-Course Act. Earth Mid-Course Act. Reentry Corridor

o Shipboard operations . Steps such as Earth Orbital Activities could be handled by someone other than the pilot—either LM or EVA could substitute for Operations. Starting with Soyuz, the Soviets placed a high value on having an engineer from the design bureau—someone who had helped build the capsule—on board as Flight Engineer. There doesn’t seem to have been a US equivalent during the Space Race, but the astronauts did become intimately familiar with how things worked on their capsules, and maybe those functions are worth splitting off from the actual piloting. This would make sense in the context of Apollo, since the third member (Command Module Pilot, e.g. Mike Collins) flew the capsule while the Commander (Armstrong) and LM Pilot (Aldrin) descended in the lander.

Personally I would lean on the side of doing Navigation rather than Shipboard Operations, though perhaps we could do both.The new crew complements could look something like this:

Gemini/Voskhod Command Pilot – Docking Spec. – Navigator CA, DOLM Pilot – EVA Spec. – Operations Spec. LM, EV

Apollo/Soyuz & XMS-2/Lapot

Command Pilot CALM Pilot – EVA Specialist – Operations Spec. LM, EVDocking Spec. – Navigator DO

Jupiter/LK-700 [Kvartet]

Command Pilot CALunar Pilot LMNavigator DOOperations Specialist EV

(maybe change Operations Specialist to Flight Engineer for the USSR)o Add the crew’s average Endurance skill to your chances of success on Duration steps.o A lunar mission (pass, orbital, or landing) could get a +1 on each step of the mission (or maybe

on each step outside Earth orbit) if its crew’s Endurance averages 3 or above. (The manual suggests that Endurance is helpful on lunar missions, but it doesn’t seem to matter in actuality.)

o Add the average EVA skill of your landing party to the Lunar EVA step of a lunar landing.

o When the mission gets a failure roll that involves exertion (e.g., a 'naut overexerting on an EVA), chances of a successful resolution should be higher if the relevant crew member has a high Endurance, as well as a high EV skill.

o On LM tests and lunar landing missions, maybe the chances of successfully recovering from a failure could be handled slightly differently: instead of adding the crewman’s straight LM skill, maybe it could be the LM skill squared. That is, a skill of 1 would still add only 1%, but a skill of 2 would add 4%, 3 would add 9%, and 4 would add 16%. That would give you some real incentive to use good LM skills on missions using the lander.

o Perhaps there should be two EVA steps on the lunar landing. Lunar EVA should be kind of risky the first time, it seems to me.

o The pilot of a Vostok capsule had to eject and parachute to the ground, rather than landing with the capsule. This isn’t really much of a Capsule function; perhaps EV could be used as a stand-in for a candidate’s parachuting skill, and the Recovery/Landing step could roll against the pilot’s EV skill. That would help reflect the Soviets’ emphasis on parachuting ability among its first cosmonaut candidates, though sadly Group I has no candidates with outstanding EV skills. Mostly this would make certain candidates slightly more desirable than they are now: mainly Bykovsky, Bondarenko, and Zudov/Rafikov. Perhaps if we did this, we should tweak the EV skills of the Group I cosmonauts to make candidates such as Gagarin, Titov, and Tereshkova better at that step. When the ’naut roster was drawn up way back when, the game designers had very little to go off—they gave 3s and 4s to those who were especially good at some things, as Aldrin was at docking, but after that they assigned 0s, 1s, and 2s randomly. They certainly had no reason to spend time working out the probable LM skills of Group I candidates, none of whom (in the game) would ever fly a lunar lander.

o In Mission Control, VAB/VIB, and launch confirmation, it would be helpful to show the length of duration of a scheduled mission, e.g.:  ORBITAL-EX (B). (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

o At some point we might want to remove the Mercury/Vostok ability to fly EVA missions. They didn't have that capability historically. It also gives the human player a bit of an unfair advantage, since the computer doesn't usually fly EVA with Mercury/Vostok. If this change is made, we should remove highlighting of the EV skill for Mercury in the crew assignment screen, and the screen where crews are assigned to missions.

o However, this probably shouldn’t be done until we’ve added another mission to compensate—possibly Orbital Rendezvous (see new mission proposals above)—since there’s so little else that can be done with the capsule. It would be best to hold off on removing EVA until a compensating mission is added.

o Mercury/Vostok EVA capability would need to be removed from the AI as well, or we’ll have some pretty unhappy players. ;)

o When assigning 'nauts to crews, perhaps those who don’t get along with the highlighted person should turn red. That would make it easier to figure out who gets along with whom, without having to form and break numerous crews.

o When a player is considering planning an (Orbit) mission, it would be helpful to have an indication somewhere as to whether there currently is a DM in orbit, whether it will still be there next turn, and also if there are any about to launch.

Modify the time it takes probes to reach Jupiter and Saturn. Currently, it takes 2 turns to reach Mars, which is about right, but Jupiter and Saturn both take 7 turns in BARIS. Seven turns (3½ years) is too long for Jupiter and too short for Saturn. Historically, it seems to have taken the equivalent of about 4 turns to reach Jupiter, and six to thirteen to reach Saturn. For gameplay it might be best to use a low

figure for a Saturn flyby, perhaps 8 turns. Also the Saturn flyby should earn the player more prestige points, in compensation for the much longer wait. Probe Launch Jupiter Saturn Pioneer 10 3/72 12/73(1yr,9mo) -- Pioneer 11 4/73 12/74(1yr,8mo) 9/79 (6yr,5mo) Voyager 1 9/77 3/79 (1yr,6mo) 11/80(3yr,2mo) Voyager 2 8/77 7/79 (1yr,11mo) 8/81 (4 yrs)

o Should Mercury and Venus always be available, or should there be launch windows for them like with the other planets? (I don’t know the answer to that; I’m just asking.)

It would be handy if the UNDO button in the Purchasing screen would undo all purchases you’ve made in the current turn. Currently, it undoes all purchases you’ve made since you opened the Purchasing screen. If you close it and go back to the spaceport, you can’t go back into Purchasing and undo your earlier purchases.

Perhaps the R&D and Purchasing screens could show if a program currently holds a Failure Avoidance card. (As it is, spacecraft show that in the capsule/shuttle screen and LMs show it in the LM Program building, but there’s no indication anywhere if any of your rockets has Failure Avoidance, and that would be good to know.) It’s really only rockets that needs it, so if there’s a better place to put that information for your rockets, that would be even better. (This will be implemented in the next release.)

Perhaps the VAB/VIB could indicate when a component you have selected holds a Failure Avoidance card. That screen is crowded, so a simple asterisk could show next to the item, or perhaps it could be printed in a different color or something.

When your research is stronger or weaker due to a recent newscast, the R&D and Purchasing buildings could indicate that in some way. (This will be implemented in the next release.)

Maybe give the player the option to switch the Primary for the Backup crew, perhaps flying the mission at a 1% penalty since it’s now using the Backup crew. The Primary crew could lose the morale points it received for being part of a primary crew, and the Backup crew could gain the same number of points. The best place to offer the option might be in the Launch Facility screen, where your crews are displayed already.

The BARIS Companion (p. 232) mentions that if you have 'nauts in Mercury/Vostok and have started a more advanced program, those still in Mercury/Vostok will start to lose morale more quickly, starting four turns after you prototyped the more advanced program. It might be helpful if the game warned you about it. Maybe the program building (where you assign 'nauts to teams) could warn you: something like "OBSOLETE PROGRAM" once the penalty starts to take effect. Or maybe it could show OBSOLETE PROGRAM: YES/NO the way it shows AVOID FAILURE: YES/NO.

o Someone suggested a Calendar or Planning Room: basically a notebook of sorts where you could plan out your missions & programs in advance. The idea is to be able to plan roughly ahead so you don’t forget to develop EVA suits, DMs, or whatever.

When you send a 'naut to Advanced Training, maybe they could get a boost in morale to compensate for the extra time they spend there. That would help make Advanced Training more worthwhile.

Advanced Training should be less of an all-or-nothing option. Currently, if you leave someone in Advanced for the full four turns, their skill in the relevant area goes up by two points—but if you pull

them out early, they get nothing. Meanwhile they were out of action for however long and it cost 3MB to send them there in the first place. If a ’naut is withdrawn from Advanced III or IV (i.e., they’ve already served 2 or 3 turns there), the

computer should give them one point of skill instead of the usual two. (This will be implemented in the next release.)

The game shouldn’t allow a player to send someone to Advanced Training in a skill that he/she already has a 4 in. (This will be implemented in the next release.)

When someone is sent to Advanced Training for something he/she already has a 3 in, Advanced Training should last only two turns and cost 2MB instead of 3MB. Mechanically, since the game is hard-wired to let people out after Advanced IV, maybe they could be sent directly to Advanced III—or, if short_training is enabled in the config file, they could be sent to Advanced II instead—but the skill point given after Advanced II should be suppressed when short_training is enabled. (This will be implemented in the next release.)

Refunds should be available if you withdraw someone early from Advanced Training: the full 3MB at Adv I, 2MB from Adv II, 1MB from Adv III, 0 from Adv IV. (This will be implemented in the next release.)

If you withdraw someone from Advanced I or II, you should be able to reassign them to Advanced Training sometime in the future, since he/she hasn’t received any benefit (skill) from it yet. (This will be implemented in the next release.)

If you withdraw someone from Advanced III or IV, they should be eligible to be sent to Advanced Training again, though only for half the training (i.e., they should be sent directly to Adv III). Likewise, anyone who is sent directly to Adv III because they have a 3 in that skill should be eligible for another half training, as if they had been withdrawn from Adv III or IV previously.

It would be a nice extra if the Basic and Advanced Training screens would show astronauts’ morale (This will be implemented in the next release.)

The grammar and typos in parts of the game (newscasts, mission failure reports, etc.) should be cleaned up. (This has been accomplished in a Grammar Mod released on The Docking Module [1], and Race Into Space has incorporated the Grammar Mod as of version .4.5.)

o How about a window that shows the results of the previous turn's launches? It would be a bit like the Viewing Stand, which shows the newscast for the current turn, but would show more information.

o When you're about to watch a launch, it would be nice to be given the option to watch it in still-photo if your Preferences are set to movies, and vice versa.

o The Lunar Module building should show AVOID FAILURE: YES/NO just like the capsule and shuttle buildings do. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

o In the capsule/shuttle window, female ’nauts are shown in a different color in the list, but not when assigned to crews. It would be handy (or at least a “nice to know” kind of thing) if crew lists would show women in a different color, so you could see at a glance which of your crews contain women—without having to read all the names and try to remember which were women. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

o In the launch facility window, where it displays the primary and secondary crew assigned to the mission waiting to launch, it should indicate the crew number(s). This would make it easier to look up your crews in the capsule/shuttle building, since you could just remember the crew numbers rather than having to remember the names of your crew members. For instance:

PRIMARY CREW (CREW III) SHATALOV GUBAREV AKSYONOV

SECONDARY CREW (CREW IV) GLAZKOV DZHANIBEKOV LYAKHOV

(This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

o When ’nauts are withdrawn prematurely from Basic Training, perhaps they should lose more skills than they do now—especially if they’re withdrawn from Basic I. That would give players more incentive to let them complete Basic Training. As it is, there’s very little drawback to pulling them out as soon as you need them, whereas realistically, not letting them complete Basic Training should incur some significant handicap. It seems like you should see a lot of 0 and 1 stats (and maybe even some -1s—let’s face it, some people are real klutzes at some things) with people who are pulled out of Basic very early.

o Maybe ’nauts should lose a point of skill for every turn they’re pulled out early: so they’d lose 3 points if withdrawn from Basic I, 2 points if taken out of Basic II, and 1 point if pulled from Basic III. It should be random, so someone pulled out of Basic I might lose 1 point each from CA, LM, and DO, or 1 from LM and 2 from EV, or even 3 from a single skill.

o This would help compensate for the enhancement request to not require a new crew to train for a year before it can be assigned to a mission.

o Currently, an Unmanned Lunar Pass or Orbital offers little or no advantage to the player. Perhaps flying an Unmanned Lunar Pass or Orbital could subtract 1 from any outstanding milestone penalties on the Manned Lunar Pass and Orbital. Multiple Unmanned Lunar Pass missions could reduce or altogether remove the milestone penalty from skipping the probe landing, for instance. (If that’s too much, perhaps the Pass and Orbital could each be worth one point off the milestone penalty, but additional Passes and Orbitals wouldn’t be worth additional points.)

o There’s a historical basis for this one. The Soviets sent a number of unmanned Soyuz capsules around the Moon in preparation for a manned lunar pass or orbital. They didn’t come back intact often enough, so the Soviets never man-rated the Soyuz for a lunar flight in time to win the Space Race—but this would be one way to add some small recognition for the importance of unmanned testing of capsules for lunar missions.

o Another idea might be that, if you suffer catastrophic failure on a lunar mission, your hardware can be researched back to Max R&D plus the number of Unmanned Lunar Passes and Orbitals you’ve flown, to a maximum of, say, four points above Max R&D.

o Maybe there should be a Safety penalty (like a milestone penalty) on flying a manned mission with a piece of hardware that hasn't been flown at least once. This would help encourage players to dummy-test before putting lives at risk.

o It might be a good idea to let docking modules display in the R&D building as well as in Purchasing. Rather than showing options to research it, of course, it would show a message that DMs cannot be researched. One of the most common questions from new people is where to go to buy DMs; they look for them in R&D and assume they won’t find DMs by clicking on Purchasing, since everything else that shows in Purchasing also shows in R&D. Showing DMs in R&D and explaining there that they can’t be researched would help a bit with the game’s learning curve. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

o On dummy tests, rather than simply telling whether the mission was an overall success or failure, the mission summary screen (or a screen linked to from there) could display which components got a safety upgrade, and how many points. (This could also be done on all flights, but it's on dummy tests that the player is most often looking for this information.) For instance, on an unmanned docking test that attempted docking but failed:

SAFETY GAINED:PROTON 1 PTBOOSTERS 1 PT

SOYUZ 1 PTDM 5 PTS

In the Hospital/Infirmary and Cemetery/Kremlin Wall screen, it would be helpful if clicking on the window in the bottom right would take you to the highlighted person’s entry in Astronaut/Cosmonaut History.

Astronaut/Cosmonaut History should show more information about each person’s status. The LOCATION line currently shows INJURED, RETIRED, APOLLO PROGRAM, etc. It would be handy if underneath that it would display:

What mission he/she died on How he/she was injured: “ON VOSTOK II”, “WHILE PLAYING TOUCH FOOTBALL”, etc. How long ago he/she retired, and why: “FOR FAMILY REASONS”, etc. How long he/she has been in the Astronaut Complex or current capsule/shuttle program

Of course, the counter (1 OF 30, for instance) would need to be moved—maybe to the right of EVA skill; there’s some space available there.

o It might be helpful if the Future Missions screen would indicate somehow if you’re facing an LM Point penalty (and how much), in addition to showing when you’re facing a milestone penalty.

o In the capsule/shuttle screen, “FLT. CREW” could show in a different color if the crew is currently assigned to a mission. Currently, teams that are assembled show in white; teams that are being assembled (i.e., that aren’t yet complete) show in dark red, and empty crews show in light red.

o When a manned mission fails a roll and the computer then checks to see the effects of the failure, perhaps that roll should face a small penalty (1 or 2 points) if the backup crew is unavailable or if none was assigned in the first place. Historically (at least in the case of Apollo 13), the backup crew provided its expertise and ran simulations to help get the crew get out of danger.

o There could be a higher astronaut/cosmonaut morale boost after successful manned missions.

o When the player is given a choice of spending money (e.g., the option to purchase another launch pad, whether to pay xMB to avoid y% safety penalty, etc.), it should show the number of MBs you currently have left. This would really only matter if the bug that makes this ineffective is fixed. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

o It seems a shame that the Soviet player has almost no incentive to build the historical Soviet LM, the LK (called L-3 in BARIS), so there’s really no reason to do so unless you’re flying Voskhod—meaning virtually no one will perform a true historical Soviet landing in BARIS (or rather, as close to what they had planned as the game will allow). One idea might be to reduce the weight of the LK[L-3] by 100 lbs to let players fly part A of a Joint LOR with an unboosted Proton.

o A helpful extra would be an Astronaut/Cosmonaut Feedback Page that shows what your 'nauts are happy and unhappy about. This would help a player maximize retention, and would give extra look and feel to the things that affect 'naut happiness, as the player would be able to directly see the effects of decisions he/she has made. In the example below, Glenn is happy because he gets along with the crewmate he's paired with, Shepard is unhappy because he doesn't get along with his, and both are unhappy because you just suffered a catastrophic failure. Morale Astronaut Factors 87 Glenn + Flew 2 missions + Compatible crew - Catastrophic Fail 54 Shepard - No missions - Incompatible crew - Catastrophic Fail

It would probably be a good idea to modify the BARIS splash screen so it no longer shows Buzz’s name, for copyright reasons. We don’t have permission to use his name with RIS; that was specific to commercial BARIS. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

How about a bit more intelligence in the Intelligence Report? As it is, you can flip a coin as to whether your intel is accurate—60% at level 1, 50% at level 2, 40% at level 3 (Companion, p. 278). A half-accurate report isn't very useful. In particular, certain combinations are very unlikely and it’s reasonable to expect your intelligence agency not to report them unless it’s pretty sure your opponent has both. Below are some possible rules that might be added to the Intel section of the game.

If the player sees a prestige first movie, the CIA/KGB should recognize the hardware (rocket, capsule, etc.) and give it a Safety estimate—which should probably be somewhere close to Max R&D, and add that to the CIA/KGB Statistics.

There should be only a tiny chance of reporting a shuttle and direct ascent capsule if your opponent doesn’t really have both. There should be somewhat higher, but still unlikely, reports of the following if they’re not accurate:

Apollo/Soyuz & shuttle or direct-ascent capsule Saturn V / N-1 & Nova/UR-700[Vulkon] Direct ascent capsule and LM (or C-Kicker) Both 1- and 2-person LM (or either of those plus C-Kicker) Nova/UR-700[Vulkon] & boosters

If the computer blows up a launch pad, you should have a chance of finding out about it: maybe your usual 60/50/40 (depending on difficulty level) +20%.

Estimates should update periodically. That is, when the CIA/KGB has estimated a piece of hardware at below its Max R&D, it should later bump the estimate up to Max R&D or a bit above in Statistics.

Another idea might be to give the Soviets significantly better intel than the Americans. The accuracy of intel in BARIS is based on Fritz's estimate of how the CIA did during the Space Race. But NASA's plans weren't secret, and the Soviets had a very good idea what we were doing. Overall the Soviets seem to be at a bit of a disadvantage in this game--especially in the CD version, with Gemini more reliable--and improving their intel would help the game balance.

o In the launch pad window, it would be handy to show morale boxes next to the names of the ’nauts assigned to that mission. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version 1.0.)

o In the screens where you select crews for a manned mission, change PAD: 1/2/3 to PAD: A/B/C. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

o In the Capsule/Shuttle screen, where it shows Max Duration: X days, it would be a nice extra to follow that with the Duration level that number of days represents: e.g., MAX DURATION: 21 DAYS (LVL F) for Apollo, Soyuz, Jupiter, LK-700[Kvartet]. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version .4.8.)

More Involved Enhancements (and Ideas)o Add a TCP/IP option for multiplayer (as well as reenabling PBEM mode, mentioned in the Simpler

Enhancements section). The Modem option would be a nice-to-have, but probably not worth the effort since few would ever use it—so it might be best to replace the MODEM button a TCP/IP button.

o If significant changes are made to the game, there should be an option to play Classic BARIS: the game as it was published in 1993, but ported to Windows, Mac, and Linux, and with bug fixes and minor enhancement requests.

Much of the Soviet footage in the game isn't real. This is entirely understandable, considering what was available in the West when this game was being put together, but some of it could be substantially improved today. (Write to raceintospace@yahoo.com for copies of the footage mentioned below.)

Replace the N1[N-1] launch sequences with actual movies of the N1 test launches. There is plenty of footage of N1 test launches available now, including not only explosions but flights that look as though they were successful—that is, the movies end while the rocket is still ascending. I have created movies for these, but have had trouble getting them to work in RIS.o The N1 movies that would be good to replace are: lon1_02.ogg, lon1_02.ogg, n1la_01.ogg,

n1lh_01.ogg, n1lh_02.ogg, n1lh_03.ogg, n1ll_01.ogg, n1ll_02.ogg, n1ll_03.ogg, n1nl_01.ogg, n1pl_01.ogg, n1sr_01.ogg.

Replace the UR-700[Vulkon] launch sequences with actual (or modified) movies of the Energia (a scaled-down version of what would have become the Vulkan, had the full configuration ever been built). I have created movies for these, but have had trouble getting them to work in RIS.o The UR-700 movies that would be good to replace are: ppix_10.ogg, rock_36.ogg,

vulk_01.ogg, vulk_03.ogg. For movies of the Lapot approach and landing, replace the M2-F2, M2-F3, and HL-10 footage

with drop tests of the Spiral prototype, and replace the test pilot emerging from the HL-10 with footage of a pilot climbing out of the Spiral prototype at Monino. I have created movies for these, but have had trouble getting them to work in RIS.o This seems to be controlled by seq.key in gamedat, and looks like it’s referenced in

gamedata.h. The minishuttle movies seem to be mild_* and mini_* in video/mission. o The minishuttle images that would be good to replace with real Spiral footage are:

mild_06.ogg, mild_08.ogg, mini_04.ogg, mini_09.ogg, mini_11.ogg It might be nice to doctor the sequences showing the LK[L-3]. The model for the movies in

BARIS was based on the poor-quality images and information that was available about it in 1992 (which is also why the 1-man Soviet lander was given the wrong name). We now have good-quality images of the LK lander as it was actually built, which was noticeably different from the BARIS model, and with modern software it should be possible to digitally remaster the L-3 landings and LM tests showing a more accurate LK lander. (This would be a lot of work, and I’d be surprised if anyone wanted to undertake it, but I thought I’d mention it just in case.)

It would be a bit more lifelike to replace the Sputnik and Vostok launch movies with actual launch movies of either or both of those. The Sputnik and Vostok rockets looked noticeably shorter and squatter than the Voskhod and Soyuz rockets (which are Boosted R-7[A-Series], in game terms). (Unfortunately I don’t have movies of these launches, but they should be easy enough to get ahold of.)

Unfortunately, the changes re. Sputnik/Vostok might require changes in programming before the game will draw distinctions between Sputnik/Vostok & Voskhod/Soyuz rockets.

I’ve asked Krzysztof what would be involved in replacing the mission movies, and his response was: “Not much is needed - just recode the video as Theora with compatible settings (AFAIR no sound, specific frame rate, specific resolution). I think sound is kept as a separate file - if you change the length, you might have to regenerate some of the index files (?). Easiest would be to try that.” I’ve opened the movies in PiTiVi, and they seem to be done at 160x100px, 8fps. I’ve placed a Word doc of instructions for what I’ve tried thus far on the Sourceforge page.

Perhaps an intermediate rocket failure (between “fixed” and “scrubbed”) would be a good addition: the launch is delayed 2 months to effect repairs. This could cost you, say, 3 prestige points and perhaps a random 0-5MB to make the repairs. It might even involve a Safety penalty on the mission, with the

game giving you the option to Delay or Scrub it instead of going ahead with the launch. This would parallel many of the difficult decisions that had to be made on the pad during the Space Race.

o Make assigning 'nauts to crews more user-friendly: some way to get a bird’s-eye view of who gets along with whom. Additionally, there should be some way of finding out who in Basic Training gets along with others there, or with those currently in the 'Naut Complex (for when you're considering pulling them out of Basic Training early to build extra crews).

o It might be a good idea to change the way technology transfer works. Currently, it’s all or nothing: your Mercury, say, could be at 74% Safety and the Gemini wouldn’t get anything from your Mercury research when you prototype it—but research it just 1% more and your Gemini will now start at 20% instead of 5%. It would make more sense to make it proportional: give a point of tech transfer for every so many points you’ve done on the preceding technology above the starting 5%, rounded down, but capped at what 75% would give you (i.e., the original Tech Transfer figures). (This will be implemented in the next release.)

CAPSULES  Program  Safety Factor Bonuses - 1 pt for every:

Mercury Gemini: 4.7 Apollo: 4.7 Jupiter: 14

Gemini Mercury: 2 Apollo: 2.8 Jupiter: 7

Apollo Mercury: 2 Gemini: 2 Jupiter: 3.5

Jupiter Mercury: 2 Gemini: 2 Apollo: 2

Multiple Programs Programs Safety Factor Bonus

Mercury & Gemini Apollo: 2

Mercury & Eagle Jupiter: 2.3

Mercury & Cricket Jupiter: 2.3

Gemini & Eagle Jupiter: 2.3

Gemini & Cricket Jupiter: 2.3

Apollo & Eagle Jupiter: 2.3

Apollo & Cricket Jupiter: 2.3

  ROCKETS  Program Safety Factor Bonuses - 1 pt for every:

Atlas -- Titan: 3.5 Saturn V: 7 Nova: 14 Boosters: 2.8

Titan at Atlas: 2.3 -- Saturn V: 2.3 Nova: 3.5 Boosters: 2.8

Saturn V Atlas: 2.3 Titan: 2 -- Nova: 3.5 Boosters: 2.8

Nova Atlas: 2.3 Titan: 2 Saturn V: 2.3 -- Boosters: 2.8

Boosters Atlas: 2.3 Titan: 3.5 Saturn V: 7 Nova: 14 --

Multiple Programs Programs Safety Factor Bonuses - 1 pt for every:

Atlas & Titan Saturn V: 1.3 Nova: 2.3

Atlas & Saturn V Titan: 1.2 Nova: 2.3

Atlas & Nova Titan: 1.2 Saturn V: 1.3

Boosters & Saturn V Titan: 1.2 Nova: 2.3

Boosters & Nova Titan: 1.2 Saturn V: 1.3

SATELLITES Program Safety Factor Bonuses - 1 pt for every:

Explorer Ranger: 1.75 Surveyor: 1.75

Ranger at Explorer: 1.6 Surveyor: 1.6

Surveyor Explorer: 1.6 Ranger: 1.6

There are several newscasts that affect the game only under certain circumstances: for instance, the one saying the primary crew has caught a cold and will be replaced by the backup crew ("What primary crew? All I'm doing this turn is an unmanned docking test!"). Perhaps we could create a set of "dummy" newscasts which don't affect the game and could be displayed instead so that the game doesn't display a newscast that doesn't make sense. An example might be "Engineers have proposed an orbiting ringlike space station to help maintain a permanent presence in space."

This set of "dummy" newscasts could also be used to replace the newscasts that don't work (see "Controversial Bugs").

Of course one major complication is that changing the text in the newscasts would cause a mismatch with the audio. That would have to be addressed in some way.

o Some people have expressed an interest in alternate victory scenarios. Perhaps the following could be offered in a sequel:

First to the Moon (as in BARIS) Last to the Moon (most prestige points wins) Last to the Moon or x years after first landing (most prestige points wins: let player(s) choose

how many years after the first landing the points will be counted, if second player hasn’t landed yet)

Prestige Victory at 19xx (most prestige points wins: let player(s) choose the year, from 60 to 80)

Similar to the newscast that the government requires you to launch a particular mission next, there could be one offering you a mission for rewards, e.g.: "The CEO of BigCompany will give you 3 megabucks if you fly his company's radar experiment on your next docking mission. This will cost you 2 Safety points on that mission. Accept/Decline", etc.

o It would be desirable to see a movie of your Mars, Jupiter, or Saturn flyby when your probe makes it there. Currently, all you get is a one-liner in the newscast, which is much too easy to miss. Maybe the movie could be added to the mission movie sequence: you’d see it in there along with your other planned missions, but without a Scrub option, and you’d see a movie of its success or failure. (Note: movies were made showing these flybys; they’re already there in video/mission, so we’d just need to display them.)

o Remove Voskhod's docking and lunar capabilities. Historically, Voskhod couldn’t dock, change its orbit, or be used for a lunar landing (its heat shield couldn't have withstood reentry at interplanetary speed). However, something should be done to compensate the Soviet player for the loss of the lunar Voskhod option.

Voskhod should be made much cheaper, since it has fewer capabilities than Gemini and, historically, most of Vostok was reused for Voskhod—the two capsules were much more alike than Mercury and Gemini were. In fact, Voskhod was created by modifying Vostok capsules that had already been built! Voskhod should cost around 15MB to prototype and 4 or 5 MB/capsule, get more Technology Transfer from Vostok, and should cost 1MB per team to research—so long as Vostok is at at least 75% Safety. This would give the Soviet player the same temptation the Soviets faced historically to grab multi-man, duration, and EVA prestige firsts with a quick upgrade from Vostok. Otherwise, with a Gemini-like price but less-than-Gemini capability, Voskhod would be a plain (and obvious) waste of resources.

Note that this change would have to be worked into the AI as well, since the computer often flies Voskhod.

Voskhod should probably be left alone in the Basic Model, however, since costs and Safety are supposed to be equal in the Basic. This could, in principle, leave an option for those who want to play the old BARIS Voskhod.

Another idea would be to add a fourth capsule program for the Soviets, the Zond. It would be a two-seater like Voskhod, but with Soyuz-like reliability and maybe cost figures somewhere between the BARIS Voskhod and the Soyuz (it would have to be carefully done to balance it in the game, of course). Considering the historical Zond was a variant of the Soyuz capsule, perhaps they should both get the same amount of tech transfer from Vostok and Voskhod. Also they should probably each get the same amount of tech transfer from the other.

Another idea is to give the Soviet player the choice of either Voskhod (the cheap but limited capsule), or a ship equivalent to the Voskhod in BARIS called Zond. In beta versions of BARIS, 18 months after you started Voskhod, you were given the option to upgrade it, in which case the Voskhod became the Zond capsule, with safety equivalent to Soyuz. This feature was pulled from the game because it caused too many problems and never worked quite right, which suggests that trying to recreate something like it may turn out to be impractical. Worth mentioning though.

o Change the way the MOL (and, for the USSR, Salyut/Almaz) is done. The MOL was to be a Gemini capsule launched on top of a cylindrical module made from an empty booster stage (like Skylab), but the station would reenter and burn up after one use. Salyut was to be a real space station, also like Skylab. Granted it’s unrealistic to try to duplicate the original thing for the game, but the MOL in BARIS is much too hazardous to be worth it, since it involves risking the lives of two crews for a minor prestige gain. A simple solution would be to make it a Joint mission where a single crew docks with an unmanned capsule/shuttle: presumably the unmanned craft is specially outfitted with the lab equipment, etc. This would be a bit like the Soyuz-R space station proposed before the Soviets on the Almaz proposal.

o Give the player some special bonus for flying the MOL; as it is, the mission is so dangerous and provides so little benefit that it’s not worth doing. Perhaps it could serve as a free and permanent DM in orbit for any other Docking tests you want to make. Or better yet, the game could give the player something the military would have been in a position to give, since MOL (and Salyut’s dark twin, Almaz) were really military spying missions. Perhaps the player could receive a crew of military spacemen as sometimes happens with a particular newscast. Or better yet, maybe the military could reimburse the player double what the mission cost (if shuttles are used, the military would pay once but not twice for each shuttle used), or maybe the player’s budget could be raised by 5-10MB outright as a sort of stipend from the military.

o Make it possible to translate the whole game: i.e., make all text that appears onscreen referenced from files which can be modded.

o Rework the code that accesses text in external files (the stuff in news.dat and fails.cdr, for instance) so that special characters can be displayed in the game—especially letters with accent marks.

o When recruiting 'nauts, it might be helpful to have the option to recruit additional 'nauts for a higher cost, or fewer and save a few MBs. Maybe 3MB/'naut in the first recruitment and 2MB/'naut thereafter. (This would be similar to rules in Liftoff!.)

o A new Astronaut/Cosmonaut “skill” might add a useful dimension to the game: Dependability. Someone with a low Dependability would be more likely to retire early, make public statements that embarrass the space program (such as complaining to the press about safety concerns in your space program), or even disregard instructions from mission control. Gagarin and Tereshkova are good examples: they were chosen partly for what would be called their Dependability skills. This might give the player some reason to hire candidates who never get picked due to their current skill sets—including

Tereshkova herself—and a disincentive to hire good pilots who are likely to be problematic, such as Nelyubov.

o Additionally, a ’naut with a Dependability of 3 or 4 should add 1 or 2 (respectively) to the prestige you get on a Prestige First or Second. Both countries got a lot of mileage showing off their brave people who achieved firsts for their country, and it was a big deal for the hero to make a good impression in front of crowds.

For multimember crews, it should be the Dependability of the crew member who performed the First or Second: the pilot on a Lunar Pass, the Docking specialist on a manned Docking mission, the LM pilot on an LM test, etc. Maybe on Duration missions the game could use the crew member with the highest Endurance, or perhaps simply take the average of the crew’s Dependability skills.

o Here’s an idea for a new newscast card: “Astronaut/Cosmonaut _________ has completed an advanced degree in [astrophysics/lunar maneuvering/extravehicular activity/spacecraft docking]. His/her [capsule/lunar module/EVA/docking] skill has increased as a result.” – the affected ’naut’s skill in that area is increased by one. This could be a relatively common card, as a number of cosmonauts, and some astronauts, completed advanced degrees during their time with NASA.

Perhaps this card could replace some of the newscasts that don’t work, as suggested in the “dummy” newscast suggestion in the Simpler Enhancements section.

Of course, changing any of the newscasts introduces the complication that what’s written won’t be what the newscaster is saying in the movie above…

o Astro/cosmonaut skills could have a bigger impact in mission success/failure. Possibly their skill sets would improve with experience as well as training. One idea might be:

A 'naut's skill increases when they've performed that skill on a mission. Example: on Apollo/Soyuz & XMS-2/Lapot, the skill breakdown is: 1 Command Pilot 2 LM Pilot - EVA Specialist 3 Docking Specialist So on an LM Test - EVA mission, the first crew member would see his CA skill

improve, the second would see both LM and EV go up, and the third would have an increase to his DO. On a simple docking test, though, only the pilot and the docking specialist would see improvement.

Obviously we couldn't let skills increase very much--that would unbalance the game. Maybe if it went something like this:

Skill Level Increase ≤1 +1 per mission 2-3 +1 every other mission 4 +1 every third mission 5 MAX

o Allowing players to develop a 1-man shuttle of limited capability (along the lines of Dyna-Soar and Spiral) and later the XMS-2/Lapot. There’d have to be some sort of name change, of course. A 2-person intermediate has also been suggested. A possible naming scheme might be:

US: Dyna-Soar or X-20 for the single-seater, Lunex or XMS-2 for the lunar shuttle (Lunex was a real-world proposal for a lunar shuttle, conceived in 1958)

USSR: Spiral for the single-seater, Lapot for the lunar shuttle (the idea being that by the time the second shuttle is developed, the nickname "Lapot" has caught on enough they decided to give that name to the new program)

o Extending the game to include Skylab, Space Shuttle, etc. (don't forget Buran!), possibly to as far out as a Mars landing. Again, there should be an option to play either Classic BARIS or Extended RIS.

Additional missions would include Lunar Rover Landing, Lunar Geology Landing (modeled on Apollo 17), Lunar Base construction, and longer Duration missions.

o As it is, the lunar landing probe mission is one milestone that players can generally afford to skip: it makes the manned lunar pass risky, but acceptably risky given the time and money needed to land a probe. If you really want to make the probe landing worth the players’ while (as it was historically), make it a milestone step only for the manned landing. That would mean the penalty won’t be done away with by flying the Manned Lunar Pass.

It might also be a good idea to reduce the cost of the landing probe. Its high price (both to purchase and research) is one reason it tends to be skipped. Raising its Max R&D would also help.

o Extending the game a bit at the early stage, allowing use of a smaller rocket than the Atlas/R-7[A-

Series]. That rocket would of course be the Redstone for the US, and perhaps the R-5 for the Soviets (since that was used in their proto-space program to send dogs on suborbital flights). The Redstone/R-5 should be able to launch a satellite or a one-man capsule on a suborbital flight, but nothing more.

o Perhaps the Atlas/R-7[A-Series] could be allowed to launch lunar probes with the addition of a Centaur/Block Ye upper stage (possibly with decreased reliability).

o Limited reusability for capsules has been suggested. Historically, a Gemini was refurbished and reused for an unmanned test for the MOL, and there were other designs for a reusable Gemini. The way it might work would be like this - during the mission planning screen, when flying capsules (except Mercury/Vostok), you could select an Attempt Reusabilty button. If you successfully completed, say, 2 or 3 of these missions, you get the buy bonus of 20% reliability like you do when you go from Gemini to Apollo. Now, a couple of things:

An additional die roll would be required to see if you can successfully reuse the craft - assuming you pass this, you don't actually have to buy a new Gemini/Voskhod for the next flight. Of course, if you fail that role, you lose the capsule.

In addition, any attempted reuse mission would cost a certain number of MB, and also make them lose 5 to 10% safety during the mission.

A system of Test Points might be a good idea. A piece of hardware used successfully on a mission would gain 1 Test Point in addition to 1 point of Safety. Test Points would be added to Max R&D to effectively raise the Max R&D for that component. That way if you research the R-7[A-Series] rocket to 84% (1 point shy of Max R&D) and have a dummy test scheduled, you can fly that test, bringing the rocket to 85%, and still research it another point the following turn, to 86%. As it is, you would be best off scrubbing the dummy test and doing research instead. Test Points would be erased on a piece of hardware that suffered a catastrophic failure, but not on something that was downgraded in a newscast. (This has been implemented in Race Into Space version 1.0, allowed as an option in advanced preferences.)

o Build in an added dynamic for female 'nauts. Maybe you could get a prestige point for every launch with at least one woman aboard: the world sees you as exceptionally progressive since you’re flying women consistently, and not just for show. But this would come with a penalty: discontent among your male 'nauts, who are upset with women invading “their” space (Tereshkova has commented about the male cosmonauts feeling that way, and Glenn and others testified before Congress against the Mercury 13). Male 'naut morale would probably take a hit every time a mission flew with a woman aboard, maybe except for those who are included on the mission.

o An Astronaut/Cosmonaut Summary Screen would be helpful. It might show something like this:NAME GRP MISSIONS SPACECRAFT FLOWN FIRSTS

GLENN I 1 MERCURY ORBITALGRISSOM II 3 GEMINI, APOLLO EVA, DUR B

o A lot of people have voiced frustration over the fact that after a catastrophic failure, you can't research hardware back to where you left off, but only to Max R&D. Then you have to start recovering your reliability one launch at a time. This is mostly a problem for capsules/shuttles, not for other components, since capsules/shuttles need to be above Max R&D because they’re rolled against so much. It’s mostly an issue right near the end of the game, as the lunar missions (lunar pass, orbital, landing) have about twice as many Capsule steps (10 or 11 vs. 5) as earth-orbital missions, so the chances of a catastrophic failure are much greater and one of those will delay you at a time you can least afford it. The main concern is to maintain game balance, since just allowing players to research back to where they left off would remove the major advantage of the more expensive craft.

o One suggestion for an alternative might work something like LM points. After a catastrophic failure, you're allowed to research back to where you left off—BUT, you'll suffer a milestone penalty on any mission including that hardware until it's earned a certain number of Catastrophe Points (CPs). Each CP you're lacking would give you, say, a -3 penalty. You might get one CP per flight, or one for manned and two for unmanned (to encourage players to fly dummy missions).

o Unfortunately this idea has the potential to completely unbalance capsule/shuttle choice, since the higher Max R&D is most of what makes the more expensive craft viable options. The solution might be to assign CPs based on vehicle type:

o 5 for Gemini/Voskhod o 3 for Apollo/Soyuz o 2 for XMS-2/Lapot o 1 for Jupiter/LK-700[Kvartet]

o Another possibility is more direct. Allow players to research back to where they left off after a catastrophic failure, but for capsules/shuttles, invert the recovery research costs:

VEHICLE CURRENT PROPOSEDGEMINI/VOSKHOD 2 8 MB/teamAPOLLO/SOYUZ 5 5 MB/teamXMS-2/LAPOT 7 3 MB/teamJUPITER/LK-700 8/9* 2 MB/team [Kvartet] * 8 points for both in the Basic Model

This would help preserve game balance by making Gemini/Voskhod more costly to recover from disasters, and make life easier for players who've chosen to fly more “responsible” spacecraft. Part of the difference in cost structure could be explained as how hard the space agency has to work to restore public or government confidence in its vehicles. This could be combined with a “responsibility adjustment” which would adjust the prestige loss on catastrophic failures:

VEHICLE ADJUSTMENTGEMINI/VOSKHOD +5APOLLO/SOYUZ ±0XMS-2/LAPOT -3JUPITER/LK-700[KVARTET] -2

The mission summary screen should show the adjustment to give the player a feel for what impact the choice of vehicle makes on his/her prestige.

o Perhaps rather than having to recover at 1% per launch, a player would suffer a forced grounding of his/her manned program for a given length of time, possibly depending on type of vehicle: much longer for Gemini/Voskhod, for instance. The grounding could be made longer still if your hardware wasn’t very reliable or if you had recently suffered another catastrophic failure: call it a Recklessness Penalty. This may not be enough on its own though; it might need to be worked in as part of another solution.

o Or maybe the player could R&D back to where he/she left off, but it would cost a lot more to research beyond Max R&D: say, 20MB per point. That would make it 60MB costlier to get

Gemini back up and running than Apollo or Jupiter. Or the cost per point might depend on the capsule, being weighted toward the lower end: 20 for Gemini, 15 for Apollo, 10 for XMS-2 or Jupiter, for instance.

o And maybe the number of researchers you could assign while researching back to Max R&D could be limited: 2 teams for Gemini, 3 for Apollo, 4 for XMS-2, 5 for Jupiter; or maybe 3 for Gemini, 4 for Apollo/XMS-2, 5 for Jupiter (all same for Soviet equivalents).

o Another, less drastic, idea is that rather than trying to solve the problem, it would be more practical to reduce it. As mentioned above, the issue is most acute with Capsule stages of lunar missions, because the capsule/shuttle is rolled against 10 or 11 times on those, making failures much more common than on earth-orbital missions. One of the suggestions in the Simpler Enhancements section was to replace the Earth Orbital Insertion Burn, Earth Orbital Activities, and Earth De-Orbit Burn stages with a Reentry Corridor stage, which would bring lunar missions down to 8 or 9 Capsule stages (implemented in RIS 1.0). Perhaps that idea could be carried further—for instance, by removing the Mid-Course Act. stages. That would bring lunar missions down to 6 or 7 Capsule stages—still a bit more dangerous than earth-orbital, but not nearly as dangerous as they are now.

o I realize that lunar missions are in fact more dangerous than earth-orbital ones in real life, and in principle it makes sense that the game should reflect that. But the way this works out in BARIS game mechanics makes lunar missions too dangerous. With this suggestion they would still be more hazardous than earth-orbit missions, but would cause many fewer late-game body blows than the game currently gives.

. o While orbital tests of the American LM were all manned, the Soviets tested their lander unmanned in

Earth orbit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_Lander). Perhaps the Soviets could be allowed to fly unmanned LM tests—that would be one advantage to the Soviet player. (Unfortunately it would also require creating one or more Unmanned LM Test missions.)

o Alternatively, if it was the increased automation of the LK that allowed it to be tested unmanned, it would make sense for the Cricket LM to also be testable without a crew. Rather than an advantage for the Soviet player, it could be an advantage—for either side—to build the one-person LM.

o It might be a good idea to have Vehicle Assembly/Integration take place when you plan the mission, rather than the turn you launch it. That would prevent accidentally planning a mission that the player wouldn’t have the hardware for (e.g., planning a Gemini docking test when the Proton hasn’t even been started). Of course, provision would have to be made to allow the player to plan the mission and purchase components (e.g. the docking module) later. Maybe VAB/VIB would take place twice per mission: once for planning and reserving the hardware, and once for final assembly/integration, allowing some modifications to the mission hardware.

o Education Option - when a mission experiences a failure, the player is challenged with a space question. Giving the correct answer will avert the failure. This should be toggled on and off in Preferences, set to Off by default.

o Lobbying Option - Allow players the option to spend some MB to lobby for increased funding. This could be done like R&D, where the number of "lobbyist teams" (instead of scientist teams) you select increases your chances of success, and/or the amount of return in the form of budget increases. This should be toggled on and off in Preferences, set to Off by default.

o Instead of each capsule being a specific vehicle with set costs and capabilities, it could be abstracted to simply being a program with certain goals (e.g. Mercury - put a man into space) but have different possible designs and configuration options. Here are a couple of possible ways to do this:

o Have different designers propose different basic designs for the capsule, each with different pros and cons. For, e.g. the "class" of vehicles for Project Mercury, have a "Lockheed" design which is more expensive but more reliable, a "Boeing" design which is cheaper but less reliable, and a "Northrup Grumman" design which can do a milestone the other designs can't (e.g. Duration B, EVA, etc.). (P.S. IRL McDonnell had the Mercury construction contract, and Mercury, unlike Apollo and some other programs, was an in-house NASA design).

This would be more true to the history of spaceflight. Designs don't just drop from the sky ready to be researched--the designs are based on political decisions about needs, costs, and capabilities. Just look at the different concept designs for Project Apollo on Astronautix or the competing designs offered by the different Soviet bureaus or the proposals by Von Braun and the ABMA for Project Orbiter versus the Navy and Project Vanguard.

o Have different "blocks." In real life there were Gemini Block I with batteries, block II with fuel cells, and in Apollo there was Block I (which ended with Apollo I), Block II which went to the moon, and proposed Blocks III and IV which could have gone to Venus or Mars. Basically, have a set design but have the ability to add features and capabilities (and/or improve reliability), like in Master of Orion, as those features and capabilities are researched. So for example, there'd be a basic Gemini capsule but you could research fuel cells and upgrade the program to Gemini Block II.

If you made the capabilities of each capsule customizable, you could have people trading designs on the Internet and flying them maybe in a "sandbox" mode.

o It might be desirable to treat the cost of launch pads more realistically. As it is, a pad costs 20MB whether it's for the Atlas, Titan, Saturn V, or Nova—realistically, pads have to scale up to match the size of rocket. NASA was looking into some serious engineering obstacles to build the proposed Nova pad. Currently, the cost of upgrading your launch pads is built into the rocket prototype, but cost to buy or repair pads remains the same. Maybe rocket prototypes should cost a bit less, and the cost of launch pads should run something like:

o Atlas/R-7[A-Series]: 5MB to buy or replace, 5MB to repair o Titan/Proton: 10MB to buy or replace, 5-10MB to repair o Saturn V / N1[N-1]: 15MB to buy or replace, 10-15 to repair o Nova / UR-700[Vulkon]: 25MB to buy or replace, 15-25MB to repair

Perhaps each launch pad could be rated for a particular type of rocket. To launch a larger rocket, you’d have to upgrade your pad, say for a 5MB cost per level (15MB to upgrade directly from Atlas to Nova, for instance).