Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Game idea, realistic growth rate
| Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate |
Tue, 25 July 2006 22:09   |
|
|
|
Yeah, I agree that a more realistic growth rate, as compared with territorial expansion periods in the history of individual nations, which would relate to around 6 percent per year.
Bear in mind a few things:
1) Playability - there needs to be some measure of growth or there won't be any population pressures to spark conflict.
2) RW points - at 3% you can buy almost everything at 'perfect' levels in the race wizard. GR needs to be allowed to be high enough to force some design decisions on the players. About 6% is where it starts getting interesting to me. I think a max of 8% would probably work very well, giving potential for more variation.
3) 'Stars' years don't have to be considered as the same as earth years.
4) Technology - if I need more population, I'll just clone some thanks. One could argue a 20% growth rate would be just as appropriate.
I like the concept. I'd suggest something like this:
Small sparse uni remapped into medium size uni
ACCBBS on (so HW hits 25% sooner, encouraging expansion) -> edit: alternatively, ACCBBS off, but mod the start so each HW starts with 500000 or more population
Slow tech on (so we don't max tech before population pressures hit) edit: should probably force all expensive too :/
Max PGR 8% (gives variety of races)
Any hab schemes permitted
HE banned (or max growth rate of 4%)
AR banned 
All other PRTs allowed
If you want a lower growth rate than 8%, make all players leave some points leftover in the race wizard. For example -2000 leaves the same points for a 3i 4% as a 3i 6% had (and makes 7%/8% races completely impractical.) Bear in mind the 4%(8%) HE races we see sometimes in normal games are painfully slow to gather population, so I think an 8% limit without RW penalty is reasonable.
EDIT: just noticed this
| Quote: |
Leaving a lot of APs to def., or none at all?
Denying packet attacks in the first years, or completely?
Banning IT completely, or just banning the advance stargates?
Banning PP completely, or just the 11+ packagethrowers?
Restricting HE to a lower growth rate?
Restricting CA, ex. must take tri-immune?
Adapting AR, allow EN cheap?
|
Points leftover... Depends on what sort of growth rate you want, as I discuss above.
Allow packet attacks at any time - the large distances between worlds should give plenty of warning to all but the most sedate players.
IT: Tricky one. I'd say leave them alone. They might look very good, but then so does SD as mentioned. SS will also be better than usual too, as the distances will give much more notice of attacks by non-SS races than usual. PP has good potential with the emphasis on population kill, although distances will give warning about their packets. IS growth in transit will help a little. WM will dominate with BCs/DNs for much longer than usual thanks to slow tech... JOAT and CA are the only ones that look weak to me, which is a very nice change, lol. This game concept is certainly kind to the toy races.
PP: No restrictions - the distances cripple packets anyway.
HE: Halve the growth rate. I'd be tempted to ban anyway, as with the extreme low grwoth rates the halved pop cap is unlikely to be a problem for them, so it's really just a 'far more RW points vs no gates' debate... Leading to boring (and very familiar) econ HE races.
CA: No restrictions. I don't expect CA would do well in this game (3i or 2i is implied by the growth rate and with slow/exp tech the terra research won't come quick enough to make 0i or 1i plausible even for CA.)
AR: Just ban them, they really don't suit the game concept well, as much as I love them, as population count is not as significant a factor in their econ (planet count and value being far more important.) They wouldn't lose pop travelling as they'll just shift pop in units of 22kt.
...
[Updated on: Tue, 25 July 2006 23:43] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Game idea, realistic growth rate
By: tgellan on Tue, 25 July 2006 05:03 |
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
By: Kelzar on Tue, 25 July 2006 12:40 |
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
By: EDog on Tue, 25 July 2006 22:36 |
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
By: joseph on Tue, 01 August 2006 03:31 |
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
By: iztok on Thu, 27 July 2006 06:03 |
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
By: tgellan on Thu, 27 July 2006 09:55 |
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
By: iztok on Thu, 27 July 2006 13:30 |
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
By: JasonC on Sat, 29 July 2006 15:51 |
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
By: JasonC on Sat, 29 July 2006 16:14 |
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
|
|
Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Jun 25 19:15:48 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
