|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: EPIC |
Tue, 27 March 2012 07:18 |
|
Combat | | Warrant Officer | Messages: 118
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Yea could lead to early wars but that don't mean the wars will go anywhere and a early superpower should create a dog pile effect as well.
Also those IT second planets tend to step on toes early a lot of the time.
An epic is not epic unless there is struggle.
[Updated on: Tue, 27 March 2012 07:22]
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: EPIC |
Tue, 03 April 2012 16:59 |
|
Combat | | Warrant Officer | Messages: 118
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Just to let you know, Calamere a few things have changed since the initial posting including map size dropped to medium, I still have to send some of the new changes to Ashlyn so she can adjust for the changes.
[Updated on: Tue, 03 April 2012 17:00]
He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: EPIC |
Tue, 15 May 2012 07:58 |
|
|
Having one game almost at an end, I'd like to reserve a spot on the player list.
EDIT: no longer valid. Please count me out.
[Updated on: Wed, 16 May 2012 07:46] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: EPIC |
Thu, 04 October 2012 05:13 |
|
magic9mushroom | | Commander | Messages: 1361
Registered: May 2008 | |
|
Combat wrote on Tue, 27 March 2012 09:40Weap and Con +75% not a handicap for CA in a no tech trade game?
You've made Weap cheap require LSP, and Con not expensive require no OBRM. So no, it's not a large handicap, especially when they can just put those points into 20% growth and faster factories.
...You seem to really want people to play HE, though. No restriction for the PRT when even AR has them, and the engine restrictions miss HE completely (HE's favoured combo is noIFE/NRSE/PropExpensive because of the Settler's Delight).
Just to be clear, I'm not interested in this sort of restricted-race-design game, I was just noting those points.
[Updated on: Thu, 04 October 2012 05:15] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: EPIC |
Sun, 07 October 2012 11:51 |
|
|
Combat wrote on Tue, 27 March 2012 00:40Improbable race development, for example combining IFE with Prop +75% how would a race that struggles with propulsion tech develop such great engines.
Easy...
IFE does not mean "great engines" but ONE great engine: the fuel mizer. When you choose IFE, you usually have decided to stay low-prop for quite a while. See it as "after the first discovery of a decent engine, everybody was content and lost interest in further propulsion-investments".
IT
I wouldn't penalize IT even more. IT is forced to take 2 cheap fields: con and prop. I've tried to design a race and adding a 3rd cheap tech: weapons. The result is horrible.
So, while it is true that the general setting: large/sparse/clumping favours IT, the rules applying to IT make it very difficult to design a decent race. Any IT will be very weak with weap cheap or barely decent with weap exp or normal.
If people disagree, I'd repeat Combat's question: Can you show me the race design?
Combat wrote on Tue, 27 March 2012 00:40Weap and Con +75% not a handicap for CA in a no tech trade game?
Unfortunately not. The standard CA-monster comes with : TT with bio cheap and rest expensive. With relative narrow habs (at the beginning), the CA can afford superb HP fact/mine settings. The game will last very long, it will be fun and then the CAs will stomp everybody and afterwards fighting it out in between of them.
Might be easiest to just ban CA for this setting.
The game idea I do like and against better knowledge I was tempted several times to take part... but very long and economy focused games are just not my thing.
But when Combat is still interested and enough players show up, I am offering to be the 3rd party and can also do the hosting at autohost. Otherwise... after all this time... perhaps, closing the thread might be an alternative idea.
[Updated on: Sun, 07 October 2012 11:55] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|