| New Game: Antiballistics |
Mon, 02 October 2006 17:54  |
|
|
|
Antiballistics
# of players: 6 or 8
Skill level: Intermediate and above
Ranked: No
Version: 2.6/2.7j rc3/4
Autohost: Yes
Turns generated: 24 hours up to year 2430, then 48 hours. Weekends and holydays off.
Host is playing: No (Micha is hosting, I am playing)
Universe size: Small, packed, distant starting positions
Starting conditions: ACC BBS, no random events, no public score
Victory conditions: Last Man/Last Team standing or consensus
PRTs forbidden: None
Restrictions:
- no cheats (except chaff and split-fleet dodge)
- no pregame alliances
Special Rules:
1) Research fields weapons and construction mustn't be cheap.
2) Each player must have 100 leftover points in the race wizard.
3) Starting Germanium mineral concentration on HW will be 50% or less.
4) Everyone has to be set to enemy except one ally. The ally can be changed once every 10 years, i.e. 10 years must pass since last time you set someone to "Friendly". Tech exchange between enemies is not allowed.
5) No capital missiles (jihads etc.), no battleships and no dreadnoughts are allowed during the game. Torpedos are ok.
Additonal notes:
Player relations: No agreements or treaties or cooperation of any form is allowed between teams. Players without an ally (solo-players) may negotiate a NAP with another team but the formal player relations must be kept at enemy and the player can't have more than 1 NAP at the same time.
Expert Players: might not want to choose JOAT or CA to keep it a challenge
Email address where race files should go to:
micha / at / starsautohost / dot / org (fix it first)
Players so far:
1. *Per
2. *Altruist
3. *ccmaster
4. *mlaub
5. *Shadow Whist
6. *Evaron
7. *Eric
8. *velvetthroat57 / CAL
9. wchart
(* race files sent in)
Game full. Now with 9 players instead of 8.
I suggest we try to start our game and first turn on Monday, 16th October.
{Mod edit: updated race file status}
[Updated on: Sun, 15 October 2006 08:02] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Mon, 02 October 2006 18:21  |
|
|
|
hi ,
The idea sounds nice I will join .
Maybe you could make a change think it is better to get not backstabed by your ally .
Special Rules :
4) Everyone has to be set to enemy except one ally. The ally can be changed once every 10 years, i.e. 10 years must pass since last time you set someone to "Friendly". Tech exchange between enemies is not allowed.---> And tell your Ally 10 year before you set him to enemy again .
ccmaster
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Mon, 02 October 2006 20:02 |
|
|
|
Well, that looks fine so far. Half an hour after the announcement and we have already 3 players and a host.
By the way, the game idea is a mix of the games which were hosted by wizard lately and some ideas by Per who will be playing as well. Mine was rather only the posting part because I am eager to play this game *grin
| Micha wrote on Tue, 03 October 2006 00:23 |
Altruist, I feel like I owe you a favour for the great game we had.  If you want to I can check the race files for you and gen the game,
|
Oh, what a pity. I was hoping to see you ingame as a player. But you are certainly also welcome as a host... if you don't change your mind and join as a player.
| ccmaster wrote on Tue, 03 October 2006 00:21 |
hi ,
Maybe you could make a change think it is better to get not backstabed by your ally .
Special Rules :
4) Everyone has to be set to enemy except one ally. The ally can be changed once every 10 years, i.e. 10 years must pass since last time you set someone to "Friendly". Tech exchange between enemies is not allowed.---> And tell your Ally 10 year before you set him to enemy again .
|
It's always a good idea to include an agreement about how and when to cancel an alliance but I would leave this rather to the diplomacy of the players ingame than to hardcode it into the rules of the game.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Mon, 02 October 2006 23:19 |
|
|
|
Altruist, I don't think Micha was volunteering as host - rather just checking the race files for you and generating the game. That in itself would be enough since you can then host it yourself even if you are playing.
If you really do want someone else to host the game, I can host it for you.
Ptolemy
Though we often ask how and why, we must also do to get the answers to the questions.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Tue, 03 October 2006 12:12 |
|
|
|
| tgellan wrote on Tue, 03 October 2006 10:30 |
Did you leave Nubians out of that rule on purpose?
That would mean, if someone invest enough into construction to actually reach Nubians, these Nubians will then face cruisers  ?
|
If you get nubians in a small galaxy with 6-8 players while con mustn't be cheap... you surely deserve victory.
[Updated on: Tue, 03 October 2006 12:14] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Tue, 03 October 2006 17:08 |
|
|
|
| Kotk wrote on Tue, 03 October 2006 22:05 |
Small/packed/6-8 players... its 30-40 planets per nose and one got ally so rightful access to 60-80 territory. Alliance that managed to stay out of dogfight has amp nubs around 2470 in described conditions.
|
Well, join the game and win with nubians then. *evil grin
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Wed, 04 October 2006 19:26 |
|
|
|
1. Per
2. Altruist
3. ccmaster
4. mlaub
Two or four more players and we can start.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Fri, 06 October 2006 11:14 |
|
|
|
Hi Shadow Whist, welcome.
I have edited the first post and included the host (micha) and the players (5 so far).
While talking about start... probably a good idea to start thinking about your race design and please, send your race file to micha (email see 1st post).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Mon, 09 October 2006 00:40 |
|
|
|
We are still 1-3 players short to start...
But nevertheless I've sent my race-file to Micha already, too.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Mon, 09 October 2006 01:49 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
No capital missiles (jihads etc.)
|
To add a little extra variation in tactics, perhaps limited missiles could be allowed if everyone agreed. For example at most one missile per ship with no torps allowed on missile ship. Another option - missile ship may not weight more than 100kt.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Mon, 09 October 2006 17:28 |
|
|
|
| multilis wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 07:49 |
To add a little extra variation in tactics, perhaps limited missiles could be allowed if everyone agreed. For example at most one missile per ship with no torps allowed on missile ship. Another option - missile ship may not weight more than 100kt.
|
Would be an interesting option.
But I suggest we discuss this when we have at least 6 players especially since I would like t hear some feedback wether this would be seen as adding too many special rules.
Eh, while talking about at least one additional player still needed... multilis, does your input mean you are interested?
[Updated on: Mon, 09 October 2006 17:30] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Mon, 09 October 2006 18:17 |
|
 mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Altruist wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 16:28 |
| multilis wrote on Mon, 09 October 2006 07:49 |
To add a little extra variation in tactics, perhaps limited missiles could be allowed if everyone agreed. For example at most one missile per ship with no torps allowed on missile ship. Another option - missile ship may not weight more than 100kt.
|
Would be an interesting option.
But I suggest we discuss this when we have at least 6 players especially since I would like t hear some feedback wether this would be seen as adding too many special rules.
Eh, while talking about at least one additional player still needed... multilis, does your input mean you are interested?
|
1 missile? or 1 stack of missiles? e.g. 2 missiles on a CC, 3 on a BC. <shrug> changes the game parameters. By weight you must mean actually 1 missile.
I think torps would be better, unless you get to Dooms...but what a waste of a ship hull unless you used a DD or something...
I'd vote against, I think, but it might be funny to see it.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Tue, 10 October 2006 08:34 |
|
|
|
| Evaron wrote on Tue, 10 October 2006 07:53 |
I'll play if you still have room. I've not played in a little while so can I get a day to review race design a bit and decide what I want to do?
|
Welcome, Evaron.
Definetly you can get some time.
Updated first post in this topic.
I suggest we try to start our game and first turn on Monday, 16th October. If more players join until then, fine. Please, send in your race files in the next days.
There was a suggestion that for tactical variety we should allow capital missiles on ships if the total weight of the ship doesn't exceed 100kt (which makes 2 missiles max per ship). Please, post your opinion and vote about this (only players taking part in the game).
[Updated on: Tue, 10 October 2006 08:57] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game: Antiballistics |
Tue, 10 October 2006 09:12 |
|
|
|
Hi ,
so much rules are never good so I would say no missiles .
ccmaster
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
