Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Game idea, realistic growth rate
| Re: Game idea, realistic growth rate |
Thu, 27 July 2006 09:55   |
|
 tgellan |
 | Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 75
Registered: May 2006
Location: Luxembourg | |
|
| iztok wrote on Thu, 27 July 2006 12:03 |
Just a note from my experience with "primitive" games (PGR 8% max, fac's cost 15+, mine costs 10+, 2000 RW points remaining):
Those games are SLOW. In medium normal uni at 2540 my race with 28 planets was leading with 28k resources and (NO slow) tech 17/16/12/17/12/8. Yes, after 140 turns I had 28k resources, 9k more than the second race. 8(
|
Well, as there is no restriction yet on leftover points, factory settings or mines, I think this shouldn't become a problem as 2-3 immunities will be likely and factory settings one can only dream off in normal games. For instance 15/x/25 with OBRM this will give about 4125 for factories alone. With pop. res. on 100% cap. varying from 440 - 1571 depending on settings. This gives a max res without any overpopulation for any PRT except JOAT (and AR) of 5696 res!!! So with only 5 planets you've got your 28k res (28482). In fact these were the basic thought for setting the research values as worse as possible...
In order to grow the population to this level, I proposed to start with the HW at a high population level like 80%. With 6% after 33 years you've got 5.6M people (optimal growth supposed) enough to have these 5 planets on 100%. And that at 3-imm. so no cost for terraform, and these planets could be the four planets next to the HW...
Some numbers at 6%
2400 - 880k
2404 - 1M
2416 - 2M
2427 - 4M
2431 - 5M
2443 - 10M
2471 - 51M
2483 - 105M
2500 - 282M
| iztok wrote on Thu, 27 July 2006 12:03 |
With effectively only a few of planets to settle and BIG distances among them and with slow tech I predict your game to die off because of boredom. The defensive play will be highly revarded, attacks will be countered several turns in advance, and with slow tech and every tech expensive wars (if any) will be fought with red laser DDs and bazooka CCs. The whole game would be more like exercise in optimised growth than a wargame.
|
I agree that the start will mostly be very slow, and granted the beginning will definetively be what you call an exercise in optimised growth. But at some moment, anyone will just skip this optimisation, either for MM or for the travel distances, and so on. At that moment, another player, that did not do quite that fine optimizing growth will still have a chance to catch up...?
About counterdesigns, as the defender also needs to handle the slow research, will he really get that a big advantage? In fact I thought that the longer travel time would just compensate the slower research time?
At some moment once the population has kicked off, and an empire has grown to a critical size, resources should just take over the restrictions set on research. So I think, in the beginning there will be skirmishes, costly, but they are well able to completely cripple an empire. Then in the final stage, there will be huge fleets, as the ressources are there... in between, both growing hords of older ships, and some small numbered prototypes...
| iztok wrote on Thu, 27 July 2006 12:03 |
My suggestions:
- use much more planets. With very wide habs about 10-15 stars per player should be quite good, and still low on MM.
- don't stretch the universe. I'd rather suggest density close to "dense" (a planet per 5000ly^2), so attacking and fighting would be faster, more intense, and more rewarding.
|
I think this is against the very idea, in fact that would realy lead to fast fightings with very low tec, and in that crippling +50% of the empires by locking them in, on their HW, in the long run, this would result on a 2-players game?
| iztok wrote on Thu, 27 July 2006 12:03 |
- don't demand all tech expensive. Allow two normal. This way some races will get to their tools faster. However weapons and con should remain expensive (maybe WM could have con normal). And bio expensive for CA too.
|
Well, I was pondering above this one too. Problem is, will anyone not choose weapons? Second would be construction, I'd say... Both will be better on defense than offense, comments?
| iztok wrote on Thu, 27 July 2006 12:03 |
- &q |
...
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 19:14:09 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
