Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » New Game Announcements » Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game)
Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Thu, 19 March 2020 23:20 Go to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1214
Registered: May 2008
It has been requested that a new game be created, as Fledgling Admirals X is stalled by Altruist's absence.

So, here's a new game. I will host; I will not be playing.

Game settings:

Size and Density: 30 planets per player, not Packed.

Special settings: none (i.e. no Max Minerals, no Slow Tech, no AccBBS, etc.)

Victory conditions (real): winner by acclamation.

However, I've seen too many games end boringly because nobody spotted the monster (or because those who did were ignored), so the victory conditions in Stars! will be set in order to act as an "auto-pitchfork", enabling public player scores once someone starts to run away with the game. It's not expected that people immediately surrender upon the scores going public; indeed, the idea is that they shouldn't.

Victory conditions (Stars!): 1 of: (owns 30% planets) (exceeds second place score by 40%), after 2440.

One winner only. I consider "Vichy alliances", where a player totally abandons any attempt at winning the game and settles for "allied to the winner", to be playing against wincon and unfair to the rest of the players. I won't be force-replacing people for it, but... don't expect me to refer to you as "part of the winning alliance".

Race requirements:

Claim Adjuster must take two or more immunities
Hyper-Expansion must take a growth rate of 11% or less
Race file must not have a password. You must not add a password to your game files during play.

If someone sends in a race file that is obviously suboptimal (e.g. growth rate too low, mines too weak, lots of points left over), I will point out what's wrong with it. This is to avoid people dropping when they realise their race is execrable.

Also, if you send in a Space Demolition race and there is already a Space Demolition in the game, I will give you an opportunity to change race. This is due to Exploding Minefield Dodge.

Races are to be sent to my gmail.com account - same username.

Turn schedule:

1/day fixed until 2420, then slowdown to MWF upon request. Holds may be granted in special circumstances.

Stance on bugs/features:

Chaff: Permitted
Split fleet dodge: Permitted
Profitable scrapping: Banned - You may not scrap ships for more minerals than it cost to create them (via UR, CE, BET etc.)
Battle Board Overload: Banned - If ships are excluded from a battle due to you triggering this bug, you must scrap them.
0.2% Minimum Damage: Banned - You may not fire over 100 salvos of missiles and/or torpedoes per round of battle*.
False Public Player Scores: Banned - You may not drop population at Waypoint 0 that you uploaded at Waypoint 1 the previous turn.
North/South Minefield Immunity: Banned with exceptions - You may not set waypoints directly North or South of each other unless both waypoints are planets or you're going at mine-safe speed.
Cheap Starbase: Banned - You may not edit a starbase design while it is in a production queue.
Mineral Upload: Banned - You may not upload minerals to a fleet without its owner's consent. You may not consent to an upload of minerals exceeding your fleet's cargo capacity.
Target List Overload: Banned - You may not send more than 95 fleets to the same waypoint in deep space, or more than 60 fleets to the same planet (with the same arrival time).**
Space Dock Armour slot overflow: Banned - If you have the Regenerating Shields Lesser Racial Trait, you must not design a Space Dock with 22+ units of Superlatanium.
ISB trumps IT gate-scanning: Permitted
Starbase Friendly Fire: Banned - The "Attack Who" in your default battle plan must be set to "Nobody", "Enemies" or "Neutrals & Enemies".
Repair after gating loophole: Permitted
Mine Damage Dodge: Permitted
Exploding Minefield Dodge: Permitted - SD player numbers will be in first-come-first-served order; if you don't change your race when warned, you consent to this possibility.
Colonise without Colonisation Module: Banned - You must use a Colonisation Module to colonise planets. Empty mech slots are permitted as long as they're not "zero of Colonisation Module".
Pop Overflow: Banned - You may not place more than 1 billion population on a planet.
Hacking: Banned - You may not use third-party utilities to extract information from a .m file that could not be obtained through the Stars! client, or to place orders in a .x file that could not be placed through the Stars! client.

*1 Battleship with 20 missiles fires 5 salvos (one for each weapon slot). 50 Battleships of the same design in the same fleet still fire 5 salvos (ships in the same token combine their salvos for each slot). 50 Battleships of the same design in 50 fleets fire 250 salvos, which is banned.

**"Shared-fault" Target List Overload will be dealt with on an ad-hoc basis.

Penalties for bug abuse are at host discretion based on level of intent and level of advantage gained. I will check regularly for most of the banned bugs, although for Battle Board Overload/0.2% Minimum Damage/Target List Overload/Starbase Friendly Fire I'll only check if they're reported (these are all obvious to the victim and as such I would ordinarily expect to be notified immediately).

Let's get playing Stars!


[Updated on: Fri, 20 March 2020 00:00]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Fri, 20 March 2020 02:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
scottsch is currently offline scottsch

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 30
Registered: September 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
woo! I'm in!

Can you say more about the universe size? I get that it depends on the # players. I'm wondering how spread out the planets will be.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Fri, 20 March 2020 03:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1214
Registered: May 2008
scottsch wrote on Fri, 20 March 2020 17:45
woo! I'm in!

Can you say more about the universe size? I get that it depends on the # players. I'm wondering how spread out the planets will be.


As I said, not Packed. Otherwise, as close as possible to 30 planets per player.

5-6: Small Dense
7-8: Medium Sparse
9-10: Medium Normal
11-12: Medium Dense
13-14: Large Sparse
15-16: Large Normal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Sun, 22 March 2020 01:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Braindead is currently offline Braindead

 
Chief Warrant Officer 3

Messages: 194
Registered: April 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
magic9mushroom wrote on Thu, 19 March 2020 20:20

Special settings: none (i.e. no Max Minerals, no Slow Tech, no AccBBS, etc.)

Is this another way of saying that all check boxes will be left unchecked?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Sun, 22 March 2020 02:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1214
Registered: May 2008
Braindead wrote on Sun, 22 March 2020 16:57
magic9mushroom wrote on Thu, 19 March 2020 20:20

Special settings: none (i.e. no Max Minerals, no Slow Tech, no AccBBS, etc.)

Is this another way of saying that all check boxes will be left unchecked?

Yes.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Mon, 23 March 2020 05:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jscoble is currently offline jscoble

 
Master Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 107
Registered: January 2008
Location: Cape Town
I feel that the "single winner only" idea restricts the range of possible diplomacy. I get the idea of wanting to not have a player who has just two planets left claiming to win by being allied to the super-monster who ends the game controlling half the map, but what about two players who are both strong, and work together?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Mon, 23 March 2020 08:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
vmanuel is currently offline vmanuel

 
Chief Warrant Officer 2

Messages: 160
Registered: October 2004
Location: Dallas, TX USA
I'm in like Flynn!


Editor in Chief of the Kaynan Space News.
All Space, All The Time - Kaynan!
www.myhood.biz

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Mon, 23 March 2020 09:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1214
Registered: May 2008
jscoble wrote on Mon, 23 March 2020 20:28
I feel that the "single winner only" idea restricts the range of possible diplomacy. I get the idea of wanting to not have a player who has just two planets left claiming to win by being allied to the super-monster who ends the game controlling half the map, but what about two players who are both strong, and work together?

They can defeat everyone else and then have a grand battle for the fate of the universe. Or one can backstab the other before then once they think they can win alone.

See, that's the thing. Backstabbing is part of "the range of possible diplomacy" too, and it's nearly absent in multi-winner games. It's also absent in games where people think "allied to the winner" is preferable to "fought and lost" (multi-winner is basically just formalising that). Diplomacy is more interesting when you've got to balance the benefits of co-operation against your own goals, rather than simply having the ideal solution rendered obvious (in multi-winner this is "all for one, one for all"). It's also more interesting when tempting someone into stabbing their ally by pointing out their ally will beat them in the endgame is a thing you can actually do.

I've been backstabbed before in Stars!, and the game in which it happened was by far the most memorable I've played. The Epworthian backstab of the Saxons made it into the strategy guide. I like games where everyone's ready to stab their ally if their ally looks like they're going to pull away from the pack, rather than simply rolling over and going "yay team".

Single-winner has more interesting diplomacy than multi-winner. That's why I take such a hard line on it.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Fri, 27 March 2020 04:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1214
Registered: May 2008
Currently in:

scottsch (no race file)
vmanuel (no race file)
Ludi Magister (no race file)

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Fri, 27 March 2020 10:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1214
Registered: May 2008
To maintain impartiality, I'll post this in public where everyone can see it:

AccBBS gives pop, but nothing else. The races that hate AccBBS (and are thus stronger in standard start than they'd be in AccBBS) are the ones that would prefer to not get just pop - those that have something else to do to grow their economy, whether that be building factories for races that have them or researching Energy/spreading out for AR.

You'll also have a bit more time to scout for worlds, and a bit more time to prepare for transporting colonists. This makes some of the picks to ease the latter (e.g. IFE, start@3) less necessary, although you should still make sure you can get ready to move before you reach 25%.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Sat, 28 March 2020 08:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Raythe is currently offline Raythe

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 23
Registered: February 2016
Location: Nebraska
Oh, I'm DEFINITELY in. Race file to follow.


Keep calm and carry on!

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Sat, 28 March 2020 15:21 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Abbadon is currently offline Abbadon

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 21
Registered: January 2003
Location: UK
Once more, Into the Breach huh?
Surely we can do better than that..

Count me in please

Thanks for the tip off Victor.

Abbadon

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Sat, 28 March 2020 17:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Raindancer is currently offline Raindancer

 
Officer Cadet 2nd Year

Messages: 233
Registered: February 2003
Location: Finger Lakes NY, USA

I am in. By what date do we need race files in?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Sat, 28 March 2020 23:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1214
Registered: May 2008
Okay, we've got 7 "in"s now so I'll start things moving.

Race files should be in by 20th April. I'm willing to stretch it by a couple of days if you tell me beforehand.

Currently in:

LittleEddie (race file received)
scottsch (no race file)
vmanuel (no race file)
Ludi Magister (no race file)
Raythe (no race file)
Abbadon (no race file)
Raindancer (no race file)

Game is still open to new players.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Sun, 29 March 2020 05:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ludek

 
Crewman 2nd Class

Messages: 19
Registered: December 2009
I'm interested

Question:
Does galaxy clumping will be on?

I assume no(i'm asking for clarification), but if it will be put upon debate my vote is to enable it - it creates more interesting tactically enviroment.


[Updated on: Sun, 29 March 2020 05:56]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Once More, Into the Breach (vanilla game) Sun, 29 March 2020 08:14 Go to previous message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1214
Registered: May 2008
ludek wrote on Sun, 29 March 2020 20:44
I'm interested

Question:
Does galaxy clumping will be on?

I assume no(i'm asking for clarification), but if it will be put upon debate my vote is to enable it - it creates more interesting tactically enviroment.


I'd prefer not. Opinions are divided on whether it's tactically interesting (clumps are still possible without it, just not omnipresent), and it tends to advantage JoaT due to the starting penscans - as JoaT is unrestricted in this game that might be a bridge too far.

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Fledgling Admirals X (FA10)
Next Topic: Notice for posters
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Mar 30 09:34:03 EDT 2020