| The Hunt for Red October |
Thu, 01 May 2008 10:25  |
|
 cyph34r |
 | Petty Officer 2nd Class |
Messages: 57
Registered: January 2007 | |
|
Each player will start the game with a empty nubian hull with qj5 engines named Red October.
The objective is to destroy the other Player’s RO while protecting your own. Once you have lost your Red October you are set to dead/inactive. The last person (not alliance) standing wins, so this game is ripe for backstabbing.
Game summary:
8-10 Players
Max 36 hours between turns for the first while.
Medium Dense Universe
AccBBS and No random events checked
SS, CA banned. JOAT must have 50 points remaining if taking NAS.
RO-specific rules
-if your RO is destroyed you will be set to dead/banned
-split-fleet dodge cannot be performed by a fleet containing the RO
Interested Players:
cyph34r (me)
rolfverberg
micha
sulpholobus
Setup:
Alex?
[Updated on: Wed, 07 May 2008 09:32] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Thu, 01 May 2008 13:28  |
|
| Alter Ego |
 | Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 283
Registered: November 2002
Location: Germany | |
|
Hi!
I agree, an interesting idea. However, would banning cloaked nubs not go against the theme as well? Modern subs are not easy to find - except by ships especially equipped for the purpose (lots of good scanners in Stars-terminology).
Regards
AE
War does not determine who is right. Just who is left.
Bertrand Russell
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Fri, 02 May 2008 05:18 |
|
|
|
| cyph34r wrote on Fri, 02 May 2008 00:25 |
SS, CA banned. JOAT must have 50 points remaining if taking NAS.
|
If cloaking of the RO's is permitted is there any need to ban SS?
Sulpholobus.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Sun, 04 May 2008 06:59 |
|
| Alter Ego |
| Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 283
Registered: November 2002
Location: Germany | |
|
| cyph34r wrote on Fri, 02 May 2008 15:42 |
I think it might give people too much of an edge but again it depends on what people think, if nobody is against it then sure
|
It'll depend on whether you want to hunt (IS would be a prime choice) or escape the hunters (SS...)
I'd stick to banning CA and penalising JoaT.
Regards,
AE
War does not determine who is right. Just who is left.
Bertrand Russell
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Sun, 04 May 2008 09:46 |
|
|
|
| cyph34r wrote on Thu, 01 May 2008 10:25 |
I'm looking for suggestions on this one, but here are my thoughts so far.
Each player will start the game with a Nubian (this can be done via hex-editing/whatever - right? I might need some help here) named Red October. I'm looking for a neutral 3rd party who can help me with this/check in on the game now and then.
|
There is no need for hex editors or such like. Here's how you can produce the nubs or any other special starting ships:
1. Use StarEd to create a Mod with the nub hull set to free (Iron, Bora, Germ, Res all set to zero) + set tech requirements to zero in all categories.
2. Do the same for all components to be used in the ship's construction except that the minimum res you can set is one.
NOTE: AFAIK StarEd does not handle JRC4 so you need to use JRC3 which is no problem since the game can be created with JRC3 but played using JRC4 OK.
3. Create the game using the Mod.
4. In 2400 the special ships are built. I suggest that they are built by the nearest race that will eventually own them but not that race itself (see below).
5. In 2401 transfer the ships from the race's builder to the race that will own them.
NOTE: The race cannot build it's own ships because the ships will revert to best components at current techs when you switch to the unmodded JRC4 version of Stars - eg. if you use the TS10 engine then you will get the QJ5 if the race has only Prop0 after the switch. If, however, the ships are transfered first then the ships will retain their original design.
6. In 2402 switch to JRC4. I suggest you gen one more turn to check all is OK.
7. send the files to Ron.
Cheers,
John Mac/AlexTheGreat
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Sun, 04 May 2008 09:57 |
|
| Alter Ego |
| Officer Cadet 4th Year |
Messages: 283
Registered: November 2002
Location: Germany | |
|
Hi!
In that case, each race would know one other's RO-design beforehand. The element of surprise would be gone. It might be better to insert one host-race which creates the ROs for all participating races, sends them off into space and then transfers them. The host's HW could be set out-of-bounds after that and the host can retire from active play.
Regards,
AE
[Updated on: Sun, 04 May 2008 10:01]
War does not determine who is right. Just who is left.
Bertrand Russell
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Sun, 04 May 2008 10:15 |
|
|
|
I forgot to say:
I can do the setup for you if you like (I won't play).
With regard to stealth:
IMO an unfetted SS would have too big an advantage. However, it would be possibly to allow SS as a PRT by banning the "Red October" being included in a fleet with other ships (all races) & then the SS Red October is designed with no additional cloaking but other races have 2 Super-Stealth Cloaks (72% so SS still gets a small advantage). Stick scanners on the Red October & use lighter scanners on it for non-SS producing the same ship weight as the SS - that way other non-WM races cannot tell the difference. BTW, I see no reason why a fleet could not shadow the Red October to protect it.
I'd also ban tachyon detectors in this game so that you avoid ending up with nearly all IS races.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Sun, 04 May 2008 10:21 |
|
|
|
| Alter Ego wrote on Sun, 04 May 2008 09:57 |
Hi!
In that case, each race would know one other's RO-design beforehand. The element of surprise would be gone. It might be better to insert one host-race which creates the ROs for all participating races, sends them off into space and then transfers them. The host's HW could be set out-of-bounds after that and the host can retire from active play.
Regards,
AE
|
Yep. That's a good alternative.
I assumed that the ROs would all be identical but maybe not. If not then parts of the remarks in my last post are mute.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Sun, 04 May 2008 22:28 |
|
|
|
| AlexTheGreat wrote on Mon, 05 May 2008 00:15 |
I forgot to say:
I can do the setup for you if you like (I won't play).
With regard to stealth:
IMO an unfetted SS would have too big an advantage. However, it would be possibly to allow SS as a PRT by banning the "Red October" being included in a fleet with other ships (all races) & then the SS Red October is designed with no additional cloaking but other races have 2 Super-Stealth Cloaks (72% so SS still gets a small advantage). Stick scanners on the Red October & use lighter scanners on it for non-SS producing the same ship weight as the SS - that way other non-WM races cannot tell the difference. BTW, I see no reason why a fleet could not shadow the Red October to protect it.
I'd also ban tachyon detectors in this game so that you avoid ending up with nearly all IS races.
|
If everyone can have 98% cloaking and you don't allow the RO to merge with another fleet then the overcloaking advantage is gone and everyone has an even playing field. Or perhaps you can limit it to only overcloaking such things as scouts and SFX's.
After that, although SS will have more slots for goodies, since they cannot be weapons, your choices and any subsequent advantage are quite limited.
As to IS and their TD, it takes awhile to get it. I think if they can reach it they deserve to have it.
Depending on the rules IS only came 3rd or 4th in my PRT choices for what I'd go for.
Sulpholobus.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Sun, 04 May 2008 23:38 |
|
|
|
| Alter Ego wrote on Sun, 04 May 2008 23:57 |
In that case, each race would know one other's RO-design beforehand. The element of surprise would be gone. It might be better to insert one host-race which creates the ROs for all participating races, sends them off into space and then transfers them. The host's HW could be set out-of-bounds after that and the host can retire from active play.
|
Except that the RO can have race specific toys.
Also, with each component costing 1 res that is 39 res (max) for each RO. With 10 races that's 390 resources. Seems a lot for a host race to have in it's first year.
Perhaps the RO's could be built by the actual owner. Transferred to a host. Then transferred back. Takes 2 years longer.
Having said that, including a host race alters the distribution of planets. A host race will provide some races with extra space to expand into since said host race will not be participating to prevent them expanding into what would have been its empire/region of influence.
Sulpholobus.
[Updated on: Mon, 05 May 2008 01:19] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Mon, 05 May 2008 00:29 |
|
| Soobie |
 | Officer Cadet 3rd Year |
Messages: 270
Registered: May 2007
Location: Australia | |
|
Is IFE compulsory?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Mon, 05 May 2008 01:24 |
|
|
|
| Soobie wrote on Mon, 05 May 2008 14:29 |
Is IFE compulsory?
|
That's what it says in the opening post.
Sulpholobus.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Hunt for Red October |
Mon, 05 May 2008 13:58 |
|
| rolfverberg |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 103
Registered: March 2006
Location: Ithaca, NY, USA | |
|
I just found this posting and have enjoyed the discussion so far. I didn't see a tally about players joining yet, although the post has a good number of people discussing the concept.
If still open for another player, I would like to join it. It sounds like a fun concept to me.
Cheers, Rolf.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Or if not do people think that this should be a mandatory LRT
and in notepad or whatever "find and replace" that by zero.