Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals
| Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals - Team names |
Fri, 07 October 2005 05:12   |
|
| Micha | 
 | |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 00:02 |
| Quote: |
In a teamgame there are no seperate players, each team is one entity. I always highly appreciate teams actually playing and coming out as a team, upto race and teamname. (large part of our pre-game discussion are those names  )
|
Agreed! I think Larry, Moe, and Curly was one of our teams theme. Can't think of the others off hand... Can you imagine the ship names? 
|
I've seen a Three Stooges team before, years ago, game was called HAL2 (Have A Life), don't think it was you, IIRC at least one of them was from South Africa.
Anyway, yes, those kind of names can be fun.
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals - Univers size |
Fri, 07 October 2005 06:06 |
|
 mazda |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 655
Registered: April 2003
Location: Reading, UK | |
|
| Micha wrote on Thu, 06 October 2005 21:05 |
Funny to haven't seen any number crunching yet comparing max mines versus MA, or the various mineral/resource outputs of the different PRTs ... :)mch
|
Maybe we want to keep any little ideas to ourselves !
I think that the observations about which *single* race is best are correct.
However I think a team can make better use of the space.
If you all took similar habs then you could hand all the HW over to a OWW JoaT.
So what can the other 2 races do with all the other planets ?
A factoryless, wide hab, OBRM IS with 10+/3/25 mines, MA and maybe improved pop eff could certainly *start* to get a comparable amount of minerals per turn, to a single HW, out of 25 planets at conc 1.
Mines get upto 27 per turn, say MA gets upto 66 at 200% capacity, more if pop eff is increased (although increaed mine eff would be better before all planets are overpopped)
To beat that you would start to need to build factories, and I don't think the points are there in the RW (never mind the Germ invested in factories and the very low return on that investment).
The point is that you don't lose anything by filling all the other planets with pop and mines
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals - Diplomacy |
Fri, 07 October 2005 06:16 |
|
| Micha |
| |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 00:02 |
| Quote: |
Anyway, 5 teams might indeed be better for diplomacy, I still have to point out again: one team will be in the middle no "safe" places like the other 4 teams
|
Why not? You could make the universe into a big fat donut with a Star shape in the center, which effectively divids it into fifths (Picture a star circumscibed by a circle plus a little buffer). Just make the star middle and the corners empty of planets. I think that would be pretty easy, as I have played with that utility before. Not sure it would work with the other utilities, but it would be interesting to try it.
|
| SinicalIdealist wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 01:24 |
Micha: Re single winner only.
The best way of ensuring this is probably to use a "Reclaimation" style victory conditions. To win, a race (or each team member) must hold 1 (or more) pre-specified worlds (usually remapped to center of universe w/ very distinctly different habs) for a specified number of years w/ a starbase of X rating (usually in excess of 10,000).
The problem is the setup is a pain in the ass. The upshot is that it almost ensures that the victory conditions you are trying to enforce hold up without losing diplomacy (which is just about my favorite part of the game).
|
Heh, our last games where all like that and we wanted to try to _not_ do that for a change. Have a simple non-remapped fight/massacre with at the end only one team standing.
We tend to take one idea per game, a univ remapped into a certain shape is an idea, minmin is an idea, we'd like to keep those in seperate games, keeping it simple. Mixing the idea's does not make them necessarily both work "better" .... What does having minmin add to fighting in a ring shaped universe? They have nothing to do with eachother ...
Having a minmin game and shaping it into a ring with the only reason for that being to be able to have a fifth team? That doesn't add anything to the minmin concept ... However I'm not ruling out anything yet. A donut (hmm, food!) or whatever +5 teams is an option, of course that means finding even more teams.
As examples previous games:
Capture the planets: 4 teams of 2, no remap, goal was to own as much as possible of the 4 planets in the corners and the one closest to the middle by 2480.
Penta: 5 (!) teams of 3, univ remapped into a pentagram with in the middle a small pentagram, goal was to own the most of the 5 planets in the corner and one in the middle by 2500.
Rings: 4 teams of 3, univ remapped into 3 rings of planets, the planets in the different rings had different values (highest in the middle ring) and goal was to have the most points by 2500.
(some links to gifs might be dead, I changed ISPs recently and haven't brought my new webspace upto date yet)
Also the TWW game had as victory condition owning 8 HW out of 16 ... yet the game did _not_ end anything close to that ...  Therefor the 'all enemy" in it's successor TWWT ...
As for the setup being a PITA, I have my minions for that! MUHAHAhahahaha ... ha ... hm ... donjon? please? pretty pretty please? 
mch
PS: sorry of all the links ...
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals |
Fri, 07 October 2005 13:37 |
|
|
|
It's difficult for weaker teams to focus on the bigger picture unless they are able to negotiate temporary agreements with other parties. In the long run, occasional joint strikes against a superior foe is necessary.
g.e.
====
"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. DickReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals - UR/BET |
Fri, 07 October 2005 16:57 |
|
|
|
It's not cheating if it doesn't create minerals/resources out of nothing. I thought this had been dealt with to some extent. What I was really asking is whether it is possible for one race to reap the advantages of the LRTs and allies to make use of that one' race's LRTs or whether they had been entirely nerfed.
g.e.
====
"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. DickReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals |
Fri, 07 October 2005 16:58 |
|
|
|
| PricklyPea wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 11:33 |
Having done a quick testbed, I found that even 6% makes a huge difference to the style of the game and IMO is anti-thematic.
|
In such a way that it makes 1WWs useless?
g.e.
====
"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. DickReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals |
Fri, 07 October 2005 19:47 |
|
|
|
On the other hand, a fast growing 1WW w/ 2 greens (IT/PP) could red colonize and take out nearby opposition pretty effectively.
I would seriously consider playing 1 if not *2* 1WWs. A team would really only need 1 non-1WW (or 2WW) to compete.
The plan? Build up quick, blitz the nearest, weakes HW with everything. Rinse, spin, repeat.
[Updated on: Fri, 07 October 2005 19:50]
g.e.
====
"When the newspapers have been read, the TV sets shut off, the cars parked
in their various garages. Then, faintly, I hear voices from another star.
(I clocked it once, and the reception is best between 3:00 A.M. and 4:45
A.M.). Of course, I don't usually tell people this when they ask, "Say,
where do you get your ideas?" I just say I don't know. It's safer."
-P. K. DickReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New game idea - Expert: Minimum Minerals |
Sat, 08 October 2005 00:40 |
|
| PricklyPea |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 534
Registered: February 2005 | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 17:13 |
| SinicalIdealist wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 15:58 |
| PricklyPea wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 11:33 |
Having done a quick testbed, I found that even 6% makes a huge difference to the style of the game and IMO is anti-thematic.
|
In such a way that it makes 1WWs useless?
|
<shrug> about 1,000 mins difference on a 25/x/25 min race and about 467 for a 10/x/25 race in a 25 year period. I actually see that as a little incentive to go out and get planets... or did I do the math wrong?
-Matt
|
True. But you get minerals quicker and I guess 50kt+ minerals and 1000+ res per planet per turn could be worth it.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu May 09 16:16:58 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
)