Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » New Game Announcements » Glacier IV
Glacier IV Thu, 23 September 2010 15:50 Go to next message
Cieply is currently offline Cieply

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 27
Registered: September 2010
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Hi.

I`ve taken part in Glacier III. I`ve found idea of that game wery interesting, but I hete all-enemy games Confused
I`d like to set up a new game Glacier IV with similar conditions but with normal diplomacy. I`ll just adjust old rules to new game.

Major changes to Glacier IV game:
- seting up other players F/N/E allowed
- NAPs allowed
- No tech trading! to be schoure that this rul is obeyed:
- No schip transfer between players
- No pop-drop (if you want to take controll over someone else planet you have to firstly kill all the people with bombes, packets... and then colonize it by your own colony schip).

We will need someone to create the uniwerse and non playing host.

Glacier IV Game rules
- Only 1 race per player.
- To prevents gen errors mod will play everyone's first turn, deleting all ships and ship designs (by deleting the design itself).
- All fuel transport hulls are banned (Meaning fuel transport for IS, and Super Fuel Transport for all races).
- The tech 0 fuel pod is banned (the con14 tank is legal), anti-mater generator is banned to (IT).
- All MT toys will be legal.
- If you have IFE PRT, the Fuel Mizer is BANNED.
- The best shields that can be used is the Energy 10 Shields. (AR's are the exception)
- No Missiles are allowed, torps are OK. (AR can use missiles on SB's).
- Cooperation is allowed but Single player victory only!
- No tech trading allowed!
- No schip transfer between players
- No pop-drop (if you want to take controll over someone else planet you have to firstly kill all the people with bombes, packets... and then colonize it by your own colony schip).
- Chaff, Splitfleet Dodge, and “Repair after Gating” are allowed!
- Everything else on the standard Cheats list is disallowed. List (Includes False Public Player scores)

Game settings are as follows:
• 12 - 16 players
• Small Universe, Packed, Then stretched to a Large (average 15 planet draw per player at start)
• Distant Player Positions
• Slower Tech Advances: Checked
• Accelerated BBS: Checked
• Galaxy Clumping: Not Checked

Race designs - general restrictions:
- Population growth must be set 8% or less.
- Weapons MUST be set to expensive.
- Construction MUST be set to expensive (AR can set Con to Cheap).
- Proplusion must be set expensive or normal.
- IFE can be selected, but the Fuel Miser is BANNED
- BET Must be selected
- NAS must not be selected (only AR can select NAS)

Special Race Restrictions:
HE - BANNED!
IT - Must check LSP. NRSE not checked. Hydro Ram-Scoop banned. must check Ultimate Recycling.
PP - Must check LSP.
JOAT - Must check LSP. Must not check OBRM.
CA - Must check LSP. TT must not be checked, must check Ultimate Recycling. Orbital Adjuster banned (you still can use Retro Bombs).
SD - No Detonating minefields until Y2470.
SS - Ultrastealth Cloak is BANNED
AR - Can take Cheap Con and Propl
- Can take NAS
- Can use any shield on SB’s and Ships
- Can use missles on SB’s

Turn Generation:
- Turn generates 5 days per week (M-F) until 2450, then the schedule will drop to (M,W,F).

Victory conditions:
- 170% over second player after 2500
- 100% consensus as winner OR
- Highest score at 2560



Other Stuff:
- We are loking for Moderator who will check all races, create universe and send files to AH.
- We are looking for some non-playing Host to (it can be the same person as Mod). If there will be unclear situation if somebody had just broken the rules or no Host will be able to check your tours and decide who is right.
I hope he will check randomly from time to time your tours to find out if we obey the rules Smile So be aware Evil or Very Mad


So this is how my proposition looks like. If you have some other nice ideas im ready for discussion.

Cieply

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Fri, 24 September 2010 11:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Orange

 
Officer Cadet 1st Year

Messages: 215
Registered: November 2005
Location: TO, ONT, CA
Interesting setup - I suggest requiring "Enemy" setting only so that you can't combine i.e. have another player's ships gate in to defend or attack the same colony at the same time. It also limits the potential for backstabs.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Fri, 24 September 2010 15:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Cool beans!

I am too busy at the moment to host for you (which can be tough at times). However I might be interested in playing...well probably not if it is a heavy communication game. lol.

Glad you are taking up the torch!

-Matt

FYI - I have the utilities and directions I sent to the last person to set up the game. If you need them. It's straightforward, of course.



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Sat, 25 September 2010 10:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cieply is currently offline Cieply

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 27
Registered: September 2010
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Quote:

I have the utilities and directions I sent to the last person to set up the game. If you need them. It's straightforward, of course.


I`d be grateful. You can send it to me as Private Message

Cieply

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Sat, 25 September 2010 12:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
dexy is currently offline dexy

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 20
Registered: July 2005
Location: Sweden
Hi.
I haven't played stars for a while now but I am interested to participate in this one.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Sat, 25 September 2010 13:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
brian12110

 
Crewman 2nd Class

Messages: 13
Registered: April 2004
Location: upstate new york
I'm also interested in getting into this game.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Sun, 26 September 2010 18:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ManicLurch is currently offline ManicLurch

 
Lt. Junior Grade

Messages: 462
Registered: May 2009
Depending on when this game starts (hopefully later rather than sooner), I might be interested as well.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Mon, 27 September 2010 02:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pydna is currently offline pydna

 
Warrant Officer

Messages: 131
Registered: April 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
looks interesting, just wondering why you've penalised almost all other race types except AR?

Is this the intention of the other Glacier games?


[Updated on: Mon, 27 September 2010 02:07]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Mon, 27 September 2010 10:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Cieply wrote on Sat, 25 September 2010 09:10



I`d be grateful. You can send it to me as Private Message

Cieply

Sent. Had a computer crash on Friday... so sorry for the delay.

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Mon, 27 September 2010 16:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cieply is currently offline Cieply

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 27
Registered: September 2010
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Quote:

just wondering why you've penalised almost all other race types except AR?


Glacier games are not my idea. But us I understand those punishments have two puposes.
One - to slower dow economical and thechnological development.
Second - to restore the ballance between PRTs.

Quote:

when this game starts (hopefully later rather than sooner)


We are waiting for 12-16 players. It`ll take some time.

Quote:

I suggest requiring "Enemy" setting


As I wrote before I hate all-enemy games. But if we and host will be wathfull there schould not be any problem.

Quote:

Sent

thx

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Tue, 28 September 2010 10:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
pydna wrote on Mon, 27 September 2010 01:05

looks interesting, just wondering why you've penalised almost all other race types except AR?

Is this the intention of the other Glacier games?


I am the original host of the first 3 Glacier games.

As mentioned, it has nothing to do with penalizing. It was my attempt at trying to level the playing field. Some races have an advantage in a slow growth game, which I tried to mitigate.I feel I did a fairly good job of it.

As to AR, several people have tried to play AR, none have made it to the end, in the top 3 spots. Most have been wiped out in the early years. I assume this is partly to strategy and partly to race design, but also to the race limitations. I would not change the AR settings either way, from the Glacier3 settings. I think they are about right. AR does need a helping hand.

My only other recommendation would be to check the "no random events" box. The last game was way over balanced by several tech M.T. taking the same path though the universe. Only a few of the races were able to get to the M.T.'s, and they were able to get a tech lead that was insurmountable to other races near them. Interestingly, the race that won was not one of the races that had access to the MT. But, then, neither were his immediate neighbors.

Race that have won -

Glacier I - 7% SS (resulting in modifying the rules for SS)
Glacier II - 7% SD (Lengthy discusion with AR player who survived to the end, resulted in AR changes)
Glacier III - 8% SS (This game was a race between an IT, WM and SS with a couple contenders, including an AR. The SS won, because he is an *excellent* race designer and player.)

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Tue, 28 September 2010 14:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cieply is currently offline Cieply

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 27
Registered: September 2010
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Quote:

I suggest requiring "Enemy" setting


Some aditional rules:
- all battle plans must be set "attack enemy" - it will prewent wolf-lamb
- we are not allowed to scrap schips on someone else orbit.

Quote:

My only other recommendation would be to check the "no random events" box


Ok. you are right
NRE will be checkt.

Quote:

The last game was way over balanced by several tech M.T. taking the same path though the universe.


Yes. Tech gaing MTs were one of the reasons why I was killed so fast in Glr III. Other two were my mistakes and wery good playing enemy (The Mob).

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Tue, 28 September 2010 22:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
pydna is currently offline pydna

 
Warrant Officer

Messages: 131
Registered: April 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
mmmm

good luck with your game

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Wed, 29 September 2010 18:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mac1 is currently offline Mac1

 
Chief Warrant Officer 2

Messages: 159
Registered: November 2008
If the game is not going to start very soon i may be interested in joining, depends if i manage to finish my current game.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Wed, 29 September 2010 21:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

pydna wrote on Sun, 26 September 2010 23:05

looks interesting, just wondering why you've penalised almost all other race types except AR?


Slow Tech would be a pretty big penalty for AR in any case, I think.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Mon, 04 October 2010 05:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
skandal is currently offline skandal

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 25
Registered: August 2003
Location: Poland
i can set up the game and host

about rules - why IS isn't handicapped?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Mon, 04 October 2010 10:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
skandal wrote on Mon, 04 October 2010 04:19

i can set up the game and host

about rules - why IS isn't handicapped?



It is.

It can't use its fuel transport, and IS has 25% extra cost to weapons. This has a bigger effect in a slow game.

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Mon, 04 October 2010 12:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
skandal is currently offline skandal

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 25
Registered: August 2003
Location: Poland
i won't play, only have been asked to be a host, so it's not my business Wink
though...
every race has some restrictions except IS, which under such rules seems to be very powerful. maybe you should consider this...

banning fuel tansport isn't harsh handicap
25% cost also won't be a bigger problem than in "normal" game. and with cap misiles banned it will practically affect only bor.


[Updated on: Mon, 04 October 2010 12:10]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Mon, 04 October 2010 14:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
skandal wrote on Mon, 04 October 2010 11:00

i won't play, only have been asked to be a host, so it's not my business Wink


It's not mine either. I have no involvement other than he is using the same basic rules I created. If he chooses to modify them, that is his business.
Quote:


though...
every race has some restrictions except IS, which under such rules seems to be very powerful. maybe you should consider this...

I encourage anyone who plays or hosts stars to test races and conditions before playing. Since many of the players were repeats in the glacier games, and the last game was not an all IS game...nor did an IS win any of the first 3 games...I will conclude here that you are not seeing all the implications of the rules. Wink
Quote:


banning fuel tansport isn't harsh handicap
25% cost also won't be a bigger problem than in "normal" game. and with cap misiles banned it will practically affect only bor.



Banning the fuel transport is huge. You take away free fuel, which is very important at the beginning, and even more so for this game variant, as he is not allowing cheap prop. Further, you take away the extra fleet repair for the IS, as Fuel exports are banned too.

I don't believe you were involved in my 3 games, and it does not sound like you are doing anthing but eyeballing this, so forgive me for sounding like a jerk here. I thoughly tested the races, and that is how I came to my conclusions. The vast majority of the game is fought with BB's, and 25% weapons cost in minerals and *Resources* has a huge effect when that ship consists of 20 weapon slots, and 19 non armor slots. Most people don't use armor, so they can gate. So, at a 50/50 Weap vs everything else, you say that ~12.5% extra ship cost in Bora and Res is not gonna make a difference? I think you are sadly mistaken. Smile

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Tue, 05 October 2010 13:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cieply is currently offline Cieply

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 27
Registered: September 2010
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Additional pop grow is quite large handicap.
I have no idea why nobody has chosen IS.

So:
- Pop grow for IS must be set 7% or lower (it will give 3% grow on a board).
- IS can use any kind of Schield on transport schips: SmL, MF, LF, SF, Privateer and Galeon.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Tue, 05 October 2010 14:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cieply is currently offline Cieply

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 27
Registered: September 2010
Location: Warsaw, Poland
My proposition of punishments:
- intentional, regular tech trading - 5 years ban
- using orbital adjuster to terraform sb. planet - 5 yers
- using orbital adjuster to deterraform sb. planet - 1 year (retro bomb is legal).
- detonation of mine field before 2470 - 1 year
- illegal component - 1 year + deleting design (without scrapping schips)
- droping people on planet owned by second race - 1 or 3 years, if you got a tech.

If host `ll deside to give somebody lower (or higher) punishment, it`s OK, he is a God in this universe and he allways has a las world.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Tue, 05 October 2010 14:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Cieply wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 12:37


I have no idea why nobody has chosen IS.

I did not say that IS was not played. IS was played quite a bit, but was beat by other races.

So your pop penalty is probably just going to make sure that no one plays IS, unless they had planned on playing a 7% to begin with.

-Matt



Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Tue, 05 October 2010 17:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Cieply is currently offline Cieply

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 27
Registered: September 2010
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Quote:

So your pop penalty is probably just going to make sure that no one plays IS, unless they had planned on playing a 7% to begin with.



I`m little bit anxious of IS Flying-Orgy. It`s quite powerful source of additional colonists. If someone `ll be able to develop his IS enough to build up such one, he `ll become to powerfull.

I`ll make penalty little bit less opresive:
- if you take 8% grow IS SF is banned
- if you take 7% or less SF is OK
- bonus (any shields on transport ships) is the same in both cases.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Wed, 06 October 2010 00:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

It'll only be as proportionally powerful for colonist growth as it is in any other game, and it'll take a lot longer to get one going. And besides, it can't be used for popdrop, so one big reason for doing it is gone.

[Updated on: Wed, 06 October 2010 00:50]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Glacier IV Wed, 06 October 2010 14:29 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
mlaub is currently offline mlaub

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 744
Registered: November 2003
Location: MN, USA
Cieply wrote on Tue, 05 October 2010 16:47


I`m little bit anxious of IS Flying-Orgy. It`s quite powerful source of additional colonists.


I have no stake in this game, or the rules. So, really I don't care either way. Just thinking I'll explain why I never considered this a threat, and why it never became overbalancing in the first 3 games of Glacier, IMO.

IS Flying-Orgy is certainly powerful in a normal game, were you have limited planets to inhabit and high growth. It then becomes quite impressive with compounding interest over time. However, in a low growth game, that is simply not the case. Even with a 8%, you will have alot of planets to populate, and if you stop and get an orgy going early enough to make a difference in the orgies growth, you are most likely going to lose, badly.

Consider it a mathmatical problem, and go test it. You will see that your irrational fear of orgies is not relevent in this context. I mean, it takes almost 1/8 the game time just to get the HW up to speed. I highly doubt that someone would spend 10-20 years after that to get a decent orgy going. And, the longer you delay, the harder it becomes. Lets say you are a 8%, and you do take the time to get an orgy going...at say turn 2475 or 2480, when you *might* have spare pop to use for this endeavor. Lets call it 500,000 to start it off (that's a stretch, as you are trying to maximize res in this time period) It will still take you 43 years before the orgy is pumping out 100k colonists a year. I'm sorry, but that is not very good payback. And, you could only populate 2.5 planets with the growth.

In that same time period, the population is much more valuable on the ground. It is only near the end of the game, when you are trying to maximize your score, by fully populating your planets were this might become an advantage. I say that lightly, tho, as I am confident you will never overpopulate your planets, and the 25% extra cost to weapons is still the elephant in the room.


Turn 0 Population is 500000
Turn 1 Population is 520000
Turn 2 Population is 540800
Turn 3 Population is 562432
Turn 4 Population is 584929
Turn 5 Population is 608326
Turn 6 Population is 632659
Turn 7 Population is 657965
Turn 8 Population is 684283
Turn 9 Population is 711654
Turn 10 Population is 740120
Turn 11 Population is 769724
Turn 12 Population is 800512
Turn 13 Population is 832532
Turn 14 Population is 865833
Turn 15 Population is 900466
Turn 16 Population is 936484
Turn 17 Population is 973943
Turn 18 Population is 1012900
Turn 19 Population is 1053416
Turn 20 Population is 1095552
Turn 21 Population is 1139374
Turn 22 Population is 1184948
Turn 23 Population is 1232345
Turn 24 Population is 1281638
Turn 25 Population is 1332903
Turn 26 Population is 1386219
Turn 27 Population is 1441667
Turn 28 Population is 1499333
Turn 29 Population is 1559306
Turn 30 Population is 1621678
Turn 31 Population is 1686545
Turn 32 Population is 1754006
Turn 33 Population is 1824166
Turn 34 Population is 1897132
Turn 35 Population is 1973017
Turn 36 Population is 2051937
Turn 37 Population is 2134014
Turn 38 Population is 2219374
Turn 39 Population is 2308148
Turn 40 Population is 2400473
Turn 41 Population is 2496491
Turn 42 Population is 2596350
Turn 43 Population is 2700204
Turn 44 Population is 2808212
Turn 45 Population is 2920540
Turn 46 Population is 3037361
Turn 47 Population is 3158855
Turn 48 Population is 3285209
Turn 49 Population is 3416617
Turn 50 Population is 3553281




Global Warming - A climatic change eagerly awaited by most Minnesotans.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Big Vanilla
Next Topic: New game: Hagakure
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri May 03 02:29:43 EDT 2024