Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved>
| RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved> |
Thu, 07 August 2003 18:09  |
|
|
|
RWIAB (Rabid Weasels in a Box) is a -f (factoryless) race only game that should wrap up in a little more than a week.
I plan on polling the players about what they thought were the strengths and weaknesses of the game as they viewed it, plus any suggestions they have for improving RWIAB II. I also plan on posting my post-game observations in the RWIAB game forum on this site when I'm done. [If I do a more thorough go, including the use of the territory maps I have, I'll have to get some site space somewhere for them.]
However, since I think the general community can make useful input as well I thought I'd put a lead-in thread here.
Ok, First some info on the RWIAB (one) game using the original game post. I'll add remarks in color [].
====
-f races only. Non-playing host will verify.
All PRTs eligible. AR qualifies as a -f race.
[-f defined for game terms as 5/25/5 factory settings, or AR PRT]
[Redux: Ended up with 1 AR, 1 SS, 1 HE, 1 JOAT, 2 WM, 3 IS, and an WM observer race. Not what I expected actually.]
Standard cheat disclaimer. Chaff allowed, split fleet allowed (be reasonable please folks). All other cheats/abuses are not allowed. [see Stars! FAQ for a sample list]
Prefer intermediate skill level players. Hopefully, those willing to experiment with non-CA -f races as well.
[Actual range from near beginner to high intermediate I think. However, the game was noteworthy for a lack of drop-outs. Two races that became extinct were spotty in submitting before their final demise, but generally kept fighting beyond the point where I have seen others quit. I was VERY happy with the behavior of the players in this regard.]
Generation Schedule: Tue-Sat 3AM GMT (M-F 10PM US EST)
[Daily weekday gen worked fairly well - though the larger empires were getting cramped for time towards the end.]
# of players: As many as want to cram in... i.e. 15 plus host observer race)
[Ended up with 9 plus the observer. Workable for a medium.]
Victory Conditions
Highest score at 2500, or all resistence collapsing before that point.
[Running down to the wire between the leading races.]
Alliances, tech trading, etc. allowed, but only *one* race will be declared the winner.
Galaxy:
Medium, normal, distant starting positions, ACC BBS start,
public scores *off*
[Not a galaxy that played to -f strengths. I LIKED the non-PPS since it placed an emphasis on using good intelligence gathering techniques and the value of penetrating scanners.]
====
What I'm thinking about for RWIAB II:
1. A smaller (or at least tighter galaxy). Small, packed maybe.
2. A set of artificial Victory Conditions not dependent on score.
Some odder ideas would be to add/subtract further requirements (like limiting hull types), but I think that would be piling on too much on top of the -f.
Any further suggestions or ideas for an all-f game?
- Kurt
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
| Re: RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved> |
Fri, 08 August 2003 13:56  |
|
|
|
| mazda wrote on Fri, 08 August 2003 09:03 |
| overworked wrote on Thu, 07 August 2003 23:09 |
Some odder ideas would be to add/subtract further requirements (like limiting hull types), but I think that would be piling on too much on top of the -f.
- Kurt
|
You mean allow us less than 16 ship designs, or no hull above Con9, or to ban some arbritrary subset of hulls ?
|
Precisely. Way back when, one of my first hosted games was one that was 6-7 races in a small galaxy. Special rule was that you couldn't use any hull that contained more than 'x' (8 I think) hull slots. Basically outlawed anything that was CCs and bigger as warships. The mini-morph was allowed, and someone actually got it in a game. Thus, the game was essentially a series of large FF/DD actions.
- Kurt
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved> |
Sat, 09 August 2003 17:28 |
|
|
|
Use jammers and chaff, silly.  The current balance is pretty good, though I'd prefer that cap missiles were a bit less powerful so that conventional torps would be interchangeable with them. As it is, conventional torps are rarely cost effective. Although... if conventional torps were *cheaper* especially in iron it would make up for decreased firepower. More notes for FreeStars i guess.
But yeah, against a missile heavy enemy try using enough chaff to absorb 4 rounds of fire, and beam BB's with 6 capacitors and a jet.
[Updated on: Sat, 09 August 2003 17:31] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved> |
Tue, 12 August 2003 08:00 |
|
|
|
Thread moved to The Bar since it is not a new game announcement, but instead a discussion of game rules/set-up. Refer to the sticky at the top of the "New Game" forum for the clarification on where to post these threads.
<wearing Moderator hat>
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved> |
Thu, 14 August 2003 08:33 |
|
| Micha | 
 | |
Messages: 2342
Registered: November 2002
Location: Belgium GMT +1 | |
|
| overworked wrote on Fri, 08 August 2003 00:09 |
What I'm thinking about for RWIAB II:
1. A smaller (or at least tighter galaxy). Small, packed maybe.
2. A set of artificial Victory Conditions not dependent on score.
|
Most planets? Afterall -f want LOTS of planets, score is too much dependent on resources and that's not really where -f races excel in ... although with only -f races it would still be an indication ...
| Quote: |
Some odder ideas would be to add/subtract further requirements (like limiting hull types), but I think that would be piling on too much on top of the -f.
|
You're right here, don't put too much special stuff in a game, some will just get lost ... Like the game Raindancer mentioned in another thread, it was and a Torus shaped universe and races had to take a certain amount of "bad" LRTs and in-game victory conditions, IMHO this was too much, it seemed to provide a bunch of crappy (almost broken) races for which the VCs kicked in too soon to really enjoy the strangely shaped universe ...
mch
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved> |
Thu, 14 August 2003 16:06 |
|
|
|
Current thoughts for RWIAB II:
1) Small packed galaxy. 1/4 the volume of a medium, sparse with about the same number of planets. Easier to settle, thus faster growing -f races.
2) Number of players in galaxy will depend on number of submissions. If I get 12 or more I'll seriously consider doing *two* games with 6+ each (observer optional). If I split I'll also poll the players a bit and try to divide the players on the basis of relative experience.
3) "cheat rules" will be the same. Chaff allowed. Split fleet allowed; though I urge players to consider *why* they're doing fleet splits when they do. Other FAQ listed cheats and exploits banned upon pain of host's extreme displeasure.
4) Victory conditions will not be solely based on score at 2500 like RWIAB (the first) was.
a) It was noted that good intel allowed one to get a good estimate of enemy pop. With this a decent estimate of enemy resources could be made. With some additional information you could then calculate an enemy's score and relative place.
b) Also noted that planet count with -f races is a major factor in score. Each colony is a multiplier essentially on the value of your fleet, and score in general beyond resources. And being -f with no reason to sit on a built-up planet with factories for more resources there is all the more reason to spread simply to get more planets/points. Though as an end-game thing it is somewhat interesting, I don't like massive planet settling simply for the case of score.
c) I think the single victor/no alliance win rule has worked. The diplomatic interactions were pretty varied up to 2480 or so at least. Some lesser races settled for "aide de camp" roles before this time, but I also feel this is part of the game since otherwise I'd expect races that are out of contention to seriously consider dropping -- and the players in RWIAB did not.
[Thus I'll probably give some credit to supporting roles in the post-game. I also note that at least 5 races held the score lead at various points in the game.]
d) I think the VC(s) should be a bit more esoteric the second time through.
Therefore, I'm still thinking what a nice set of VCs should be.
- Kurt
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved> |
Thu, 14 August 2003 21:47 |
|
 The Taubat |
 | Officer Cadet 3rd Year |
Messages: 263
Registered: December 2002 | |
|
| overworked wrote on Thu, 14 August 2003 15:49 |
| The Taubat wrote on Thu, 14 August 2003 08:12 |
great news, I have a freind who wants to play and has been wanting to play in RWIAB I, only thing is the only for him to play would on one of our computers, you wouldnt mind two players who use the same computer would you?
|
Personally, the only issue I really foresee with it is that the situation begs for the two of you to ally/exchange information from the get-go. This will be viewed by some as an unfair advantage. 
The ideal situation, of course, is to get enough people interested in the RWIAB II game (when I advertise it) that I immediately split the tremendous number of submitted races into RWIAB III at the same time... then I just put the two of you in different games. 
I've also recently seen some behavior where multiple turns off the same machine in the same game has triggered the copy protection. [It was plagueing Xdude recently.] That *might* be the JRC4 patch for some odd reason since I think Xdude is using it. I'm still using JRC3 and have been able to do multiple turns in a situation where Xdude couldn't. [The copy protection violations I caused in AFON3 was due to me having the same seriel # on two different machines and stupidly mixing turns.  ]
- Kurt
|
well I may not be allys with him, I have told him time and time again I may be a warring race from the start and pick of races one at a time, and he does not know how to play -f really well, and Ill most likly ally when it suits me (say a CA, SD, IT races)
and as far as info trading goes Ill stick with ingames messages and e-mail, ill most likly not even know who is who.
Royal Sha'a'kar of the Taubat peopleReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved> |
Mon, 18 August 2003 15:19 |
|
|
|
| overworked wrote on Thu, 14 August 2003 16:06 |
UPDATED Current thoughts for RWIAB II:
1) Small packed galaxy. 1/4 the volume of a medium, sparse with about the same number of planets. Easier to settle, thus faster growing -f races.
2) Number of players in galaxy will depend on number of submissions. If I get 12 or more I'll seriously consider doing *two* games with 6+ each (observer optional). If I split I'll also poll the players a bit and try to divide the players on the basis of relative experience.
3) "cheat rules" will be the same. Chaff allowed. Split fleet allowed; though I urge players to consider *why* they're doing fleet splits when they do. Other FAQ listed cheats and exploits banned upon pain of host's extreme displeasure.
|
The above three are pretty much set -- I'll put out the rough players/size matrix in the next week or two when the official game ad goes out.
Ok, my latest little brainstorm on Victory Conditions. I want something dependent on an ability to have minerals, resources, and tech... plus at a minimum a noticable military advantage in the galaxy in terms of fleets and/or empire size.
Empire size will tie pretty closely to resources with -f races. [Check]
So, I need something that implies the ability to have tech, minerals, and use them in a semi-productive manner, *while* still being a dominant power...
And I had just talked to a player about testbedding races and the fairly well known battleship testbed...
{lightbulb}
Germ of idea -- races get victory points by transferring standard testbed BBs to the observer race *at* the observer HW. Victory is passing a lower limit (like 100 BBs); AND maintaining/exceeding a fixed point lead (like 50) over the 2nd place race for 5-10 years.
Standard BB design (all race designs can build this):
BB Hull [Con 13]
4 Prop-9 Standard engine
8 Organic Armor [Bio 7]
6 Bear Shield [Ener 10]
1 Overthruster [Prop 12]
3 Battle Super Computer [Elec 11]
3 Jam 20
20 Juggernaut Missile [Weap 20]
<the testbed BB uses ARMS - Weapons 24; easing this requirement>
Ok, we have a fairly broad tech requirement: 10-20-12-13-11-7.
And, a nice kicker in that a race trying for dominance has to build numbers of non-optimal battleship *and give them away*. You need a good mineral supply for this - plus a fairly dominant galactic position.
And the transfer site requirement means that access to a central galactic position is necessary. An automatic friction point for control of the space lanes.
Thanks to Leit, Orca, and Sotek for some initial criticism. Anyone else wish to add comments? Feedback welcome since I'm interested to see what players think of the idea.
- Kurt
Time flies like an arrow.
Fruit flies like a banana.
- Groucho MarxReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved> |
Mon, 18 August 2003 15:47 |
|
| Ozone |
 | Warrant Officer |
Messages: 115
Registered: April 2003
Location: Twilight Zone | |
|
| overworked wrote on Mon, 18 August 2003 15:19 |
UPDATED Current thoughts for RWIAB II:
{lightbulb}
Germ of idea -- races get victory points by transferring standard testbed BBs to the observer race *at* the observer HW. Victory is passing a lower limit (like 100 BBs); AND maintaining/exceeding a fixed point lead (like 50) over the 2nd place race for 5-10 years.
Standard BB design (all race designs can build this):
BB Hull [Con 13]
4 Prop-9 Standard engine
8 Organic Armor [Bio 7]
6 Bear Shield [Ener 10]
1 Overthruster [Prop 12]
3 Battle Super Computer [Elec 11]
3 Jam 20
20 Juggernaut Missile [Weap 20]
<the testbed BB uses ARMS - Weapons 24; easing this requirement>
Ok, we have a fairly broad tech requirement: 10-20-12-13-11-7.
And, a nice kicker in that a race trying for dominance has to build numbers of non-optimal battleship *and give them away*. You need a good mineral supply for this - plus a fairly dominant galactic position.
And the transfer site requirement means that access to a central galactic position is necessary. An automatic friction point for control of the space lanes.
Thanks to Leit, Orca, and Sotek for some initial criticism. Anyone else wish to add comments? Feedback welcome since I'm interested to see what players think of the idea.
- Kurt
|
Jugs are tech 16 not 20 (you probable mean Dooms). I think that IT's would have an unfair advantage since they would be able to gate the VC ships.
[Mod edit: Fixed quote.]
[Updated on: Mon, 18 August 2003 17:08] by Moderator
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
 Re: RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved> |
Mon, 18 August 2003 22:30 |
|
| The Taubat |
| Officer Cadet 3rd Year |
Messages: 263
Registered: December 2002 | |
|
my point exactly, but I was thinking of something else, after like 50-70 years, (this could be intresting) a small battle is held in orbit of a planet every ten years, all races that are still in the game (no alliances in the battle), has to contend or is immediatly disqualified, or lose one of the battles, after year 100 the race that won the most battles wins the game, I suggest the Observer race be an AR and people give a ceartian amount of scrappers to the obsearver race to help get him good miners, then the winner of the battle takes home a ceartain amount of minerals in freighters, fun? I think so anyways
Royal Sha'a'kar of the Taubat peopleReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved> |
Wed, 20 August 2003 21:04 |
|
|
|
Hmm, I had a longish post lined up to further discuss VCs and then got side-tracked into a IRC discussion... which sort of looped back into using SCORE with some modifications...
So, Take 3 on a possible VC method.
1) PPS is turned on in 2485 (or 2490) [done via a simple VC in the game settings.]
This basically casts a glaring spotlight on where everyone is going into the last decade. This also allows the observer to gather rough data every turn without having to download and look at everyone's files.
2) Score for winning is a race's *average* score in the period from 2495-2500 (or alternately 2490-2500). This could be using regular score - or a modification to the regular score formulas.
[Alternate scoring ideas]
(At this point I'm looking at tweaks to what the game uses.)
a. Devaluing resources. Current formula is Res/30 points; i.e. 100 points for each 3000 resources. One idea is to reduce this by some factor. A 30% reduction would be by subtracting Res/100 from the above formula.
Decoupling points from planet count is of interest as well.
b. Increasing fleet value. For cap ships this would be a modified formula, or maybe just a simple X points per cap ship. Escort points could be increased, or a higher ceiling for said points (currently 1 pt/escort up to number of planets). Though it might be worthwhile to be discerning about whether chaff should count or not.
Looking at ship power ratings would be a bit more specific and probably not worth the effort.
[end some initial ideas]
Something the IRC discussion brought up was what the earmarks of a successful -f design are. The general consensus was two things:
1. Successful (and rapid) expansion
2. A quick kill on a neighbor (thus gaining real estate)
#1 is reflected in empire size - and efficient expansion and pop movement will keep resources in rough correspondence. These are actually fairly well reflected in using score.
#2 is a lot harder to ascertain. Who got a "kill"? And how to do reward the behavior? (and do you need to since the 'kill' is rewarding unto itself.)
[The equivalent in RWIAB I was the Sea Monkeys getting boxed in and wiped out before 2440. Whose kill? The Kitties made the initial attack. The Cancer however boxed in the one border. And the Nix killed off the final Sea Monkey ships and colony.]
Feedback welcome, it's been an educational exchange of views.
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Apr 20 10:07:26 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
anyways, I cant wait till it starts, -f is fun and you arnt bogged down with building facs, however a -f HE is NOT fun but an intresting idea to say the least. I suggest that there be NO alliances to really mix things up, -f is a QS to warship production or what not, so thats bound to make things intresting.
Re: RWIAB Redux + ideas for RWIAB II <new and improved>
but just to keep in mind and to be clear up front to how this will be handled ... for instance do the BBs that got KIA count? 
