Hi,

I'm considering since a very long time to host a game of, what I call, realistic parameters. By this I understand mainly the growth rate. I consider the technologie at that time to be as advance as to grant the technologies found in stars! and ways to live in most hostile environments (namely tri-immune). I'd like to get comments on the idea and the setup, so here it comes...

I checked in google for the human growth rate, it is nowadays about 1%!!!!! I didn't find values for the colonisation days though... In game, as that would be a colonisation era, this could be increased but only a bit.

I'd even consider slow tech AND all expensive, that way tech will hit a stable floor sooner for the different races. In this context I'd even prefer to set the tec level for each race to 0, even for IT, PP or JOAT. Every race would also start with 1 planet only!
BET: seems like fitting in the concept, as all we know, new technologie is always nearly impossible to pay for
GR: There are always some guys that are not employed by the government

The universe itself should be "adapted". The idea is taking a tiny universe, then strech that to the desired size. That way IT and PP start with 1 planet. By streching the universe to a larger size, will lower the star density, which will in effect decrease the speed and range of ships. Depending on playernumber and desired size, one could play with the density of the starting universe.

On the other hand, the population on the HW would be increased to a very high level, like 80%.

I don't know how HE and AR would fit in this...?

Of course such a game would quite longer than a "normal" game. But that could be handled by turn order

To consider:
Leaving a lot of APs to def., or none at all?
Denying packet attacks in the first years, or completely?
Banning IT completely, or just banning the advance stargates?
Banning PP completely, or just the 11+ packagethrowers?
Restricting HE to a lower growth rate?
Restricting CA, ex. must take tri-immune?
Adapting AR, allow EN cheap?
...

Waiting on comments
Tgellan


(update: added thoughts on GR, BET)

[Updated on: Tue, 25 July 2006 05:15]

Report message to a moderator

tgellan wrote on Tue, 25 July 2006 11:03

I checked in google for the human growth rate, it is nowadays about 1%!!!!!

Overcrowding, no doubt. This HW is overdue for some serious pop moving!

Quote:

I didn't find values for the colonisation days though...

I've often heard figures of as many as 8 babies per fertile woman. That would make it 25%!

Quote:

The universe itself should be "adapted". The idea is taking a tiny universe, then strech that to the desired size. That way IT and PP start with 1 planet. By streching the universe to a larger size, will lower the star density, which will in effect decrease the speed and range of ships. Depending on playernumber and desired size, one could play with the density of the starting universe.

Sounds cool. Like, say, a 20-year trip to the nearest star, and woe to you if it's not liveable!

Quote:

I don't know how HE and AR would fit in this...?

HE: Critters (as in the movie) small fuzzy things with too many teeth.

AR: Your favourite Alien Race. Smart, strong, but ultimately fragile.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Interesting idea... here are a few more monkey wrenchs....

Better ban SD from detonating minefields if it takes 20 years to get to the next planet.

What about IS growing all the way during that 20 year voyage?

AR colony ships would be empty by the time they got to their destination.

I envision a very defensive game, even with slow & expensive tech 20 year old warbirds would be well outdated by the time they reached their target.

Report message to a moderator

Yeah, I agree that a more realistic growth rate, as compared with territorial expansion periods in the history of individual nations, which would relate to around 6 percent per year.

Bear in mind a few things:
1) Playability - there needs to be some measure of growth or there won't be any population pressures to spark conflict.
2) RW points - at 3% you can buy almost everything at 'perfect' levels in the race wizard. GR needs to be allowed to be high enough to force some design decisions on the players. About 6% is where it starts getting interesting to me. I think a max of 8% would probably work very well, giving potential for more variation.
3) 'Stars' years don't have to be considered as the same as earth years.
4) Technology - if I need more population, I'll just clone some thanks. One could argue a 20% growth rate would be just as appropriate.

I like the concept. I'd suggest something like this:

Small sparse uni remapped into medium size uni
ACCBBS on (so HW hits 25% sooner, encouraging expansion) -> edit: alternatively, ACCBBS off, but mod the start so each HW starts with 500000 or more population
Slow tech on (so we don't max tech before population pressures hit) edit: should probably force all expensive too :/
Max PGR 8% (gives variety of races)
Any hab schemes permitted
HE banned (or max growth rate of 4%)
AR banned
All other PRTs allowed

If you want a lower growth rate than 8%, make all players leave some points leftover in the race wizard. For example -2000 leaves the same points for a 3i 4% as a 3i 6% had (and makes 7%/8% races completely impractical.) Bear in mind the 4%(8%) HE races we see sometimes in normal games are painfully slow to gather population, so I think an 8% limit without RW penalty is reasonable.

EDIT: just noticed this

Quote:

Leaving a lot of APs to def., or none at all? Denying packet attacks in the first years, or completely? Banning IT completely, or just banning the advance stargates? Banning PP completely, or just the 11+ packagethrowers? Restricting HE to a lower growth rate? Restricting CA, ex. must take tri-immune? Adapting AR, allow EN cheap?

Points leftover... Depends on what sort of growth rate you want, as I discuss above.
Allow packet attacks at any time - the large distances between worlds should give plenty of warning to all but the most sedate players.

IT: Tricky one. I'd say leave them alone. They might look very good, but then so does SD as mentioned. SS will also be better than usual too, as the distances will give much more notice of attacks by non-SS races than usual. PP has good potential with the emphasis on population kill, although distances will give warning about their packets. IS growth in transit will help a little. WM will dominate with BCs/DNs for much longer than usual thanks to slow tech... JOAT and CA are the only ones that look weak to me, which is a very nice change, lol. This game concept is certainly kind to the toy races.

PP: No restrictions - the distances cripple packets anyway.

HE: Halve the growth rate. I'd be tempted to ban anyway, as with the extreme low grwoth rates the halved pop cap is unlikely to be a problem for them, so it's really just a 'far more RW points vs no gates' debate... Leading to boring (and very familiar) econ HE races.

CA: No restrictions. I don't expect CA would do well in this game (3i or 2i is implied by the growth rate and with slow/exp tech the terra research won't come quick enough to make 0i or 1i plausible even for CA.)

AR: Just ban them, they really don't suit the game concept well, as much as I love them, as population count is not as significant a factor in their econ (planet count and value being far more important.) They wouldn't lose pop travelling as they'll just shift pop in units of 22kt.

[Updated on: Tue, 25 July 2006 23:43]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

RE: Forced GR... Tricky. My gut feel is no, for the reason that it makes it even harder to specialise in any one area (i.e. discourages SS from getting good elect, or PP from good energy.) The result is a lot of players with a similar spread of techs - not much characterisation.

RE: Forced BET... Again, a tricky one. Suits the realism factor. I could live with this, but bear in mind it makes it harder to make an offensive based on superior tech - consider that the attacking fleet needs to be larger than defending fleet so you probably won't be able to justify 200% costs, whereas the defender has more time to catch up the research or doesn't need to build as much, so can effectively defend at a tech level below. When you combine this with the longer flying time between stars we risk a very passive game. Or perhaps we'll just see massive low tech frigate hordes

So thats a "no" for GR, and a "don't mind" for BET

Report message to a moderator

multilis wrote on Tue, 25 July 2006 16:54

Quote: I've often heard figures of as many as 8 babies per fertile woman. That would make it 25%! Growth rate per year. 8 kids (from 2 parents) at average birthing age of 24, would be around 6% growth rate.

Doh, I had forgotten about *time*!

Report message to a moderator

Dogthinkers wrote on Wed, 26 July 2006 04:09

AR: Just ban them, they really don't suit the game concept well, as much as I love them, as population count is not as significant a factor in their econ (planet count and value being far more important.) They wouldn't lose pop travelling as they'll just shift pop in units of 22kt.

Do you mean AR would actually become too strong with these settings?

Report message to a moderator

Hi!
Just a note from my experience with "primitive" games (PGR 8% max, fac's cost 15+, mine costs 10+, 2000 RW points remaining):
Those games are SLOW. In medium normal uni at 2540 my race with 28 planets was leading with 28k resources and (NO slow) tech 17/16/12/17/12/8. Yes, after 140 turns I had 28k resources, 9k more than the second race. 8(

With effectively only a few of planets to settle and BIG distances among them and with slow tech I predict your game to die off because of boredom. The defensive play will be highly revarded, attacks will be countered several turns in advance, and with slow tech and every tech expensive wars (if any) will be fought with red laser DDs and bazooka CCs. The whole game would be more like exercise in optimised growth than a wargame.

My suggestions:
- use much more planets. With very wide habs about 10-15 stars per player should be quite good, and still low on MM.
- don't stretch the universe. I'd rather suggest density close to "dense" (a planet per 5000ly^2), so attacking and fighting would be faster, more intense, and more rewarding.
- don't demand all tech expensive. Allow two normal. This way some races will get to their tools faster. However weapons and con should remain expensive (maybe WM could have con normal). And bio expensive for CA too.
- "all-enemies" diplomacy. That means NO communication, NO cooperation, NO border agreements, ALL players from the start set to enemy. Maybe allow players with less than 1/3 points of the leader to tech-trade, but that to be publically announced.
- cripple a bit econ races: CA must have at least two immunities, JoaT no NAS, IS some 40 points left.
- no mineral packets bigger than minimum size in first 60 turns. No packet attacks on HWs through the whole game.
- SDs may also not detonate their MFs in first 60 turns.
My .

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

tgellan wrote on Thu, 27 July 2006 15:55

I proposed to start with the HW at a high population level like 80%. With 6% after 33 years you've got 5.6M people (optimal growth supposed)...

And where would all those pop grow on, when the next planet is 100+ LY far and the HW is already highly crowded?

Another thing: with 800k starting pop I'd play IS. Would lift 550k it in MFs and'd get each turn 30k instead 16k newborns. What would that mean in the long run I'd leave for testbeds I highly suggest you to perform to ged rid of such glitches.

BR, Iztok

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sun, 30 July 2006 21:24]

Report message to a moderator

m.a@stars wrote on Thu, 27 July 2006 17:56

Do you mean AR would actually become too strong with these settings?

There'd be a danger of that. 6% AR is an *almost* playable race in normal games - it starts extremely fast and has potential to be a very dangerous neigbour (not what you'd normally expect from an AR...) It softens up badly in mid game (once initial colony rush ends) but has massive capacity available for late game if it can hold out. It is also bad for diplomacy as it needs a huge amount of room in early game to thrive. I don't think I'd ever be very tempted to take it into a normal game, but in a game where all the other races were also capped at 6% it starts looking very nice. Slow+exp energy would hurt it a lot though. I've been toying about using a 6% AR for duelling, but I think it's growth is too weak in the 2430-2450 period. But now I'm getting off topic... We should take any further discussion on AR into the AR subforum.

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

Dogthinkers wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 04:21

[email m.a@stars[/email] wrote on Thu, 27 July 2006 17:56]Do you mean AR would actually become too strong with these settings? There'd be a danger of that. 6% AR is an *almost* playable race in normal games - it starts extremely fast and has potential to be a very dangerous neigbour (not what you'd normally expect from an AR...) It softens up badly in mid game (once initial colony rush ends) but has massive capacity available for late game if it can hold out. It is also bad for diplomacy as it needs a huge amount of room in early game to thrive. I don't think I'd ever be very tempted to take it into a normal game, but in a game where all the other races were also capped at 6% it starts looking very nice. Slow+exp energy would hurt it a lot though. I've been toying about using a 6% AR for duelling, but I think it's growth is too weak in the 2430-2450 period. But now I'm getting off topic... We should take any further discussion on AR into the AR subforum.

AR in such game is too weak, IMO.
AR economy is starbase. Having Dath Star in 40-50 year in normal game gives AR's HW almost the same economy as for usual race HW econ. In this game, when AR would be able to reach C17? Because small number of planets, AR cannot spread out, so cannot have any benefit from square root formula. While all others would have factories from their 80%-filled HWs, AR would stagnate without no enough resources because 80% AR initial HW gives little of resources, and no way to improve this.

Also, AR have no way to survive the satrabse-killing order. Any SS race (BTW, SS would benefit from such game a LOT ) can sneak to AR's HW with war ships unnoticed or noticed too late and kill just starbase. Lose of one planet inthis game where small numebr of planets per race anyway is really critical. Evacuate? Well, you can. And then lose pop in space for 10 years or so, being chaces by SS fleet?

You are kidding. AR cannot be strong in such game.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Mon, 31 July 2006 15:51]

Report message to a moderator

Tomasoid wrote on Mon, 31 July 2006 21:25

AR in such game is too weak, IMO. AR economy is starbase. Having Dath Star in 40-50 year in normal game gives AR's HW almost the same economy as for usual race HW econ. In this game, when AR would be able to reach C17? Because small number of planets, AR cannot spread out, so cannot have any benefit from square root formula. While all others would have factories from their 80%-filled HWs, AR would stagnate without no enough resources because 80% AR initial HW gives little of resources, and no way to improve this. Also, AR have no way to survive the satrabse-killing order. Any SS race (BTW, SS would benefit from such game a LOT ) can sneak to AR's HW with war ships unnoticed or noticed too late and kill just starbase. Lose of one planet inthis game where small numebr of planets per race anyway is really critical. Evacuate? Well, you can. And then lose pop in space for 10 years or so, being chaces by SS fleet? You are kidding. AR cannot be strong in such game.

I guess the question is how many planets you think the AR can get... Sure, not as much as in more dense universes, but I think it'll most certainly get a lot more than any other races. I've ran tests with 6% AR in sparse and it still ran well in early game. I don't see the HW as important - a 6% AR shouldn't have any more pop there than anywhere else. In some tests I did recently (not for this concept) I pulled the homeworld down to about 2% capacity. I wouldn't bother trying to get death stars - 6% AR is very happy in space docks. I was also assuming non-acclerated starts rather than 80% capacity homeworlds - that's still up for discussion. Obviously thanks to sqrt any bonus starting pop is far less usefull to AR. Starbase killing order is a general weakness of AR, arguably less dangerous in this game than usual - more distance = more warning, less pop = less to carry.

Anyway, like I said, discussion of AR is off topic, I shouldn't have indulged myself before, and I've gone and indulged myself even more now (burp)

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator