Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » New Game Announcements » Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game
| Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Thu, 28 June 2007 21:07  |
|
 mlaub |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
We have enough players! More than enough, in fact.
Count is now 11, and I am closing the gate.
You can still sign up, on the hopes that someone from the list
below doesn't want to play, but otherwise we are full up.
Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------
Hi!
Here is the game idea and rules I have in mind. I'd like to know how many players would be interested in this sort of game. I think anyone above low intermediate could handle it, as long as you test your race. Just post a comment if you would want to play.
Interested players so far:
1. Dogthinkers
2. Sulpholobus
3. Ptolemy
4. Eric
5. mlaub
6. Steve
7. Marduk
8. Soobie
9. Dethdukk
10. Paul
11. Joseph
Standby Reserve - AlexTheGreat
Moderator: Thor has volunteered. Thanks!
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------
Glacier Game rules
Game Play Rules:
- All fuel transport hulls are banned (fuel transport for IS and Super Fuel Transport for all races)
- The tech 0 fuel pod is banned. Any ships that contain this part on game start-up, must be scrapped on the first turn.
- If you have IFE prt, the Fuel Mizer is BANNED (all ships with Fuel Mizers must be scrapped on the first turn)
- The best shields that can be used is the Energy 7 Shields, like the Croby Shamor. (AR SB's are the exception)
- No Missiles are allowed, torps are OK. (AR can use any tech Shields and Missiles on SB's only)
- ALL players MUST be set to 'enemy'
- ALL players MUST have all ships battle orders set to 'attack everyone'
- No pre-game alliances.
- You can form a alliance with 1 race, per 20 year period.
- No tech trading allowed!
- You can Co-operate in battles, but it will be tough, as your ships orders must be set to 'attack everyone'
- Standard No Cheats, Chaff and Splitfleet Dodge allowed
- No packet attacks on the first years of multi generations
Game settings are as follows:- 10-12 players
- Medium Universe, Sparse (roughly 18-21 planet draw per player)
- Distant Player Postions
- Slower Tech Advances: Not checked
- Beginner: Maximum Minerals: Not checked
- Accelerated BBS: Checked
- No Random Events: Checked
- Number of Computer Players: 0
- Public Playing Scores: Not checked
- Galaxy Clumping: Not checked
Race designs - general restrictions.
- Population growth rate must be equal too, or less than, 8%.
- Weapons MUST be set to expensive.
- Construction MUST be set to expensive.
- IFE can be selected, but the Fuel Miser is BANNED
SPECIAL RACE RESTRICTIONS
IT - Must check LSP
WM - Must check LSP
CA - TT Must not be checked, LSP must be checked, must check Mineral Alchemy
JOAT - Must not check OBRM or NAS, must take Mineral Alchemy
SD - No Detonating minefields
HE - is BANNED
Turn Generation
- Turn generates 5 days per week (M-F). No delays, except major holidays if requested.
- First year generations will be in jumps. 1, 5, 5, 5, Then 1 turn generations from then on.
Victory conditions:
Game Ends no later than Y2550, Winner determined as follows:
- Annihilation of all other races. OR
- 100% concensus of winner OR
- Highest score at Y2550
Other Stuff:
- Create your race and password-protect it with a password you don't mind sharing with the moderator.
- A non-playing 3rd party monitor will verify race creation rules have been followed (I need a volunteer!).
- 3rd party monitor will also check the game from time to time to ensure game play rules are being followed. If you change your password, you must inform the monitor.
- Host is playing.
- The game would be generated by Monitor, checked for spacing, rule adherence, and put on Autohost.
Thanks!
-Matt
Added a packet rule, switched to 1, 5, 5, 5 starting generations.
[Updated on: Tue, 10 July 2007 10:55]
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Fri, 29 June 2007 00:11  |
|
|
|
I'll probably join this game...
But I have some questions to ask:
The rules say you can form 1 alliance per 20 year period. Could you clarify this? I'm *assuming* you mean 1 alliance at any one time, can only be changed at 20 year intervals... Am I correct? Also, what is the purpose of the alliance - the rules also state that ALL players must be set enemy, battle orders must be attack everyone, and tech trading is forbidden...? Are some or all of these rules relaxed with your 'ally'?
I'm concerned that CA looks like it could prove over-strong - with only 8% PGR initial populations will be small, so terraforming slow... This multiplies the CA advantage compared to normal... Although one supposes a majority of races in the game will be bi-immune, softening CA's strength, so maybe I'm paranoid 
I suppose IT is more of a worry... Instant moving of pop mitigating low growth a little... Sparse universe makes being able to use gates for logistics look even nicers... No capital ship missiles and poor shields makes armour more viable, and they can gate such ships where others cannot.
But I guess we'll just have to wait and see what appears...
EDIT: hmm, I'm prolly just being paranoid I can see 'advantages' to pretty much every race in this game... Longer distances and exp con research improves value of SS cloaking for longer...PP likes the fact other races aren't encouraged to research in en (defenses, ultra-driver)... AR likes being the only one to have capital ship missiles (even if only on bases) and can like quite happily with 8%... SD is missing exploders, but enjoys the extra distance to fill with minefields, their hulls do ok for fuel too... Very healthy envionment for IS croby-minigun horde... WH hulls will value for longer, especially the battlecruiser... JOAT looks to be suffering though, lol, with it's planet size bonus not looking so usefull
[Updated on: Fri, 29 June 2007 00:24] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Fri, 29 June 2007 11:25 |
|
| Orange |
 | Officer Cadet 1st Year |
Messages: 215
Registered: November 2005
Location: TO, ONT, CA | |
|
Looks good to me - I would like to join. tks
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Fri, 29 June 2007 13:24 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Thu, 28 June 2007 23:11 |
I'll probably join this game...
But I have some questions to ask:
The rules say you can form 1 alliance per 20 year period. Could you clarify this? I'm *assuming* you mean 1 alliance at any one time, can only be changed at 20 year intervals... Am I correct?
|
Yep!
| Quote: |
Also, what is the purpose of the alliance - the rules also state that ALL players must be set enemy, battle orders must be attack everyone, and tech trading is forbidden...? Are some or all of these rules relaxed with your 'ally'?
|
Well, I personally can't stand the way some games play out. One large alliance forms around the top player, and no one wants to attack the union. I credit this to,
1. Tech trading
2. Using allies gates
3. Ability to coexist in minefields via ally status.
4. More than 1 ally.
In this game, an ally will be a double edged sword. Co-operation will be tough, to impossible, in battles. Plus the other problems above, means you need to make a sacrifice to have an ally. And, it won't gain you to much.
| Quote: |
I'm concerned that CA looks like it could prove over-strong - with only 8% PGR initial populations will be small, so terraforming slow... This multiplies the CA advantage compared to normal... Although one supposes a majority of races in the game will be bi-immune, softening CA's strength, so maybe I'm paranoid
|
Your hab should be good enough that the CA advantages, plus the disadvantages I outlined, will compensate. I am sure that the CA would eventually catch up, but with the game scheduled to end no later than 2550, it won't matter much.
| Quote: |
I suppose IT is more of a worry... Instant moving of pop mitigating low growth a little... Sparse universe makes being able to use gates for logistics look even nicers... No capital ship missiles and poor shields makes armour more viable, and they can gate such ships where others cannot.
|
I tested this one a bit.  LSP takes care of most of the issues. Without LSP, it has a definate econ advatage.
| Quote: |
I can see 'advantages' to pretty much every race in this game... <snip>
|
I tried...
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | |
| Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Sat, 30 June 2007 11:23 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Marduk wrote on Sat, 30 June 2007 03:48 |
I would be interested if the game does not start until after July 8th. I expect I could learn a lot from playing under these conditions.
|
No Problem! We still need a few players, and everyone will need a little time to get their race together. Although, it would be nice to get everything sent to Ron by the 10th...
Hints:
1. Don't try and take everything on your race. You get a lot of race points, and that has a tendancy to go to your head. At least for me it did.
2. 8% GR is the max, you can go lower...
3. I highly recommend a few dry run test beds. My first one took less than 10 minutes. I realized the design would not work with the rules, and went on to the next design, and the next. By the end of a half an hour, I was very close to what was to be my final design.
Also, you want to familiarize yourself with just how slow the initial growth is going to be. That way, you will realize that barring a packet attack from a PP, you are fairly safe for the first 20 years. Then plan your growth accordingly.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Sat, 30 June 2007 14:25 |
|
|
|
Count me IN!
I love playing primitive games.
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: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Sun, 01 July 2007 03:09 |
|
|
|
One question.
The parameters state 'Random Events: No'
Does this mean 'No Random Events' or 'No Random Events NOT checked'?
I strongly encourage checking No Random Events since a comet strike on a HW in a slow growth game will effectively eliminate a player.
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: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Sun, 01 July 2007 03:39 |
|
|
|
Hmmm..
If a PP sends packets during the multi generation phase, he has no way of knowing whether the target planet is inhabited. It is possible for a small packet to hit a HW unintentionally. Granted though, a 70kt packet travelling 250 ly at warp 8 isn't going to do much damage.
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: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Sun, 01 July 2007 10:05 |
|
|
|
OK, so even if you are allied, you still have to have enemy status, you can't tech trade and you have to have attack everyone as your battle orders...
I'm struggling to work out what are you actually trying to restrict with the one ally thing? This reads like a no-allies setup. (Which is fine.)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Sun, 01 July 2007 10:10 |
|
|
|
I agree with Dogthinker - I see no potential advantage at all to making an ally. Non agression treaties would accomplish the same thing.
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: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Sun, 01 July 2007 11:49 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Sun, 01 July 2007 09:05 |
I'm struggling to work out what are you actually trying to restrict with the one ally thing? This reads like a no-allies setup. (Which is fine.)
|
I really don't want 8 players co-ordinating attacks on 1, for example. You can still send messages, like "please don't attack my scouts", but an ally describes someone you are planning, conspiring, and co-ordinating with. You can still gain an advantage co-operating with another player, even set to enemy. I just want that sort of communication limited to 1 "ally".
Example. (from player A) "Hey player B, Let's attack player C, and divide his planets up among us. <snip detailed battle plan>
That help?
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Sun, 01 July 2007 12:06 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Ptolemy wrote on Sun, 01 July 2007 02:39 |
Hmmm..
If a PP sends packets during the multi generation phase, he has no way of knowing whether the target planet is inhabited. It is possible for a small packet to hit a HW unintentionally. Granted though, a 70kt packet travelling 250 ly at warp 8 isn't going to do much damage.
Ptolemy
|
Good point. I guess it is semantics. OK, Packet scouting uses 1 click of material, sent to an unknown planet. It scans on the way, and you scan the planet it hits. If it hits a inhabited planet, it was unintentional, therefore not an attack per se. Plus, only 1 packet will be sent, as more than one packet to the same location is an attack, no matter the size.
Also, an attack with a scouting packet by my calculations will kill 1,000 colonists. Hardly noticeable. IMO.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Sun, 01 July 2007 19:23 |
|
| Marduk |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
| mlaub wrote on Sat, 30 June 2007 11:23 |
Although, it would be nice to get everything sent to Ron by the 10th...
|
Hmm, I would be able to get a race finalized before I leave this week, so that should not be a problem.
| Quote: |
3. I highly recommend a few dry run test beds. My first one took less than 10 minutes. I realized the design would not work with the rules, and went on to the next design, and the next. By the end of a half an hour, I was very close to what was to be my final design.
|
I am still trying to figure out how to benchmark. Just doing a pure economy test I have been having trouble getting to 25k by 2450 - I am used to being able to race to large freighters and having something to put in them. Include decent levels of scouting and building warships and minelayers and I come nowhere near 25k. Is getting the tech for Jihad cruisers by 2432 good, bad, adequate? Edit: Other than the no-missiles stipulation, of course.
| Quote: |
Also, you want to familiarize yourself with just how slow the initial growth is going to be. That way, you will realize that barring a packet attack from a PP, you are fairly safe for the first 20 years. Then plan your growth accordingly.
|
Something else I was wondering about. Given how small and fragile the races will be, doesn't that make an early rush more attractive? Though it would be very hard to capitalize on without population, so you would likely be doing as much good for the other neighbors of your target as for yourself. Assuming it worked at all.
| Quote: |
Also, an attack with a scouting packet by my calculations will kill 1,000 colonists. Hardly noticeable. IMO.
|
I would notice, I assure you.
[Updated on: Sun, 01 July 2007 21:31] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Sun, 01 July 2007 22:28 |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Just doing a pure economy test I have been having trouble getting to 25k by 2450
|
I guess you haven't played many Primitive games.... Forget 25k by 2450 - you won't get there. Nobody will. A more realistic target is around 6 or 7k. Look at the race design options - selecting 7% growth provides over 600 resource points - that click from 7 to 8 is COSTLY.
Nobody gets the pop they need to grow fast - pop dropping a neighbor with even 5k pop is a costly lttle war - HW is only maybe producing 14k pop per year around year 20.
You're in a medium SPARSE universe - test in one. With a one immune, I had 16 planets colonized but, 5 of them had less than 10k pop in 2450. Of the rest, some wre OK greens also. There just wasn't pop to put on them.
Dont forget - scrap all your ships with the fuel pod. You can't use it.
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: Glacier - A Primitive/Slow Growth game |
Mon, 02 July 2007 01:12 |
|
| mlaub |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA | |
|
| Marduk wrote on Sun, 01 July 2007 18:23 |
I am still trying to figure out how to benchmark. Just doing a pure economy test I have been having trouble getting to 25k by 2450 - I am used to being able to race to large freighters and having something to put in them. Include decent levels of scouting and building warships and minelayers and I come nowhere near 25k.
|
LOL. Very different, isn't it?
| Quote: |
Is getting the tech for Jihad cruisers by 2432 good, bad, adequate? Edit: Other than the no-missiles stipulation, of course.
|
If you can manage that tech, you are doing great! You are using expensive con and Weapons, right?
| Quote: |
I would notice, I assure you.
|
Ya, I guess have to agree. That player would become my number 1 target.  Many people are wary of PP attacks. In a game like this, you paint a big target on yourself if you start whipping packets. It's definately a good way to make enemies and advertize your HW location early in the game.
-Matt
Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Pages (3): [1 ] |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 27 15:33:16 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Other PRT-s will probably perform way weaker under given conditions. 
) Everything else I seem to be able to make fun looking races out of 
