[Updated on: Mon, 24 November 2008 06:39]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Why Beginner Maximum Minerals?
Also, it looks like all races would end up being essentially factoryless with those settings, why not just specify factoryless races? I don't know about anyone else but I'm not paying 20 resources for a factory.

How about this? Require 1/700 pop efficiency, since that's affordable with those race settings, and leave the factory/mine settings free.

[Updated on: Fri, 21 November 2008 19:13]

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Coyote wrote on Fri, 21 November 2008 18:04

Why Beginner Maximum Minerals? Also, it looks like all races would end up being essentially factoryless with those settings, why not just specify factoryless races? I don't know about anyone else but I'm not paying 20 resources for a factory. How about this? Require 1/700 pop efficiency, since that's affordable with those race settings, and leave the factory/mine settings free.

I dunno. With 8% growth rate, I might pay 20 resources for a factory that gives me 1.2 resources per year. That's a 6% ROI, nearly doubling my econ growth rate until I run out of germ. I'm not saying it's a great choice, I'm saying it's an interesting choice to have to make, and it doesn't seem a slam dunk to just go factoryless. Not to me at first glance anyway.

Although I don't mind the idea of forcing 1/700, and just saying "do what you will" with factories and mines.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sat, 22 November 2008 10:37]

Report message to a moderator

skoormit wrote

You've got the "no start at 3" requirement listed twice.

oops

skoormit wrote

I'm interested in playing this, but I prefer a clear victory objective. Exceed second place score by 100% is always good.

I think that is a good idea. Fixed.

Coyote wrote

Why Beginner Maximum Minerals?

My game parameters were a bit ambiguous. I did not intend B:MM. Fixed.

Coyote wrote

Also, it looks like all races would end up being essentially factoryless with those settings, why not just specify factoryless races? I don't know about anyone else but I'm not paying 20 resources for a factory.

I want factories to be painful.

Coyote wrote

How about this? Require 1/700 pop efficiency, since that's affordable with those race settings, and leave the factory/mine settings free.

Now there is a thought. Let me keep that in reserve.

swp1 wrote

well, it certainly doesn't leave much to the imagination.

My hope is that such heavilly restricted race parameters will force a different type of play, putting greater emphasis on style.

skoormit wrote

. I dunno. With 8% growth rate, I might pay 20 resources for a factory that gives me 1.2 resources per year. That's a 6% ROI, nearly doubling my econ growth rate until I run out of germ. I'm not saying it's a great choice, I'm saying it's an interesting choice to have to make, and it doesn't seem a slam dunk to just go factoryless. Not to me at first glance anyway.

I finished 'Gunboat Diplomacy' a close(to second not first) third of eight with 10,25,14 factory settings. My race was a variation on JCs Altai. When the time came to build, it really hurt, but the pay off was dramatic.

magic9mushroom wrote

0.2% Min damage ok?! Not Good IMO.

I just have this image of being thrown into a bin full of rusty razors. What is not to like? If I redact that allowance, can I sign you up?

Coyote wrote

No, AR would be thouroughly boned in this game setup. Slow tech? Generalized research? Energy cost normal? They'd be paying eight times normal cost to increase their resources - equivalent to an industrial race paying 72 resources per factory. They'd need enegrgy cheap and no GR to be on an even keel.

Should I allow AR(and only AR) to take energy cheap? Or should I allow each race to take one research inexpensive (barring weapons and propulsion)?

Altruist wrote

Breaking with tradition and decency... tststs. But seriously, I am a bit concerned that players get used to use this cheats/exploits and (accidently) apply them also in other games. Do you think it necessary for your game-setup that the players use the cheats? * cheap starbase This means for the price of an empty dock or starbase you get a fully equipped orbital defense making it invincible for quite a long time until the attackers can produce really big fleets. Is this your intention? Doesn't it make the game very boring? I always thought that the thrill of the primitive games is rather the fights with clubs.

I would like to see how folks cope. Cheap SB is out if someone picks AR. I am not married to the idea of allowing exploits other than chaff and split fleet. I just put it out there.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Hi!

I've been in one such a game. My general impression is your game rules are WAY WAAAY to restrictive. Game will progress extremely slow, or will end abruptly, before fights even start.

The initall hab is 1 in 92. With full non-TT terra is the hab still only 1 in 9. At the start most of players will have ONLY the HW and maybe a small yellow in "their" space.

If one guy gets lucky and finds just ONE good planet in "his" space, will he grow so fast that he may break the "Exceed second place score by 100% " in time when the second-place player starts collecting tech for the first terra-11.

There will be so small amount of resources, that the "crunching" of tech levels 10 for terra-11 will take decades, and will not start much before turn 50. Just growing will be THE MOST important thing for the first 70 or so turns.

In such over-nerfed conditions PRT advantages become very strong. Especialy:
- the SD with its detonationg MFs can make it's territory and planets literarily untouchable for the first half of te century. Its mini-layer hull is also an excellent fuel tank, that will allow him to expand significantly faster than most other players.
- PP's packets will be packets of Doom, because there will be lots of minerals from remote mining, players will be quite close, tech for defenses will be slow, and whatever could hit this slow-growig pop will make BIG impact.
- The WM with its early advantages in weapons tech (rad terra-7!) and combat speed will catch just about everything in his space. Mid-game BC hull will be a monster ship, available long before BBs come out.

"Cheap orbitals" cheat allowed will make attacks insanely expensive. Building in 2 turns a fully armed, shielded and armored Dock, that can deal with 20 DDs, for a cost of one DD is IMO a game-breaking rule in this low-econ game, where almost every ship counts.

In this extremly-slow tech game disalowing "start at 3" checked gives races with good starting techs BIG avantage. For an IS or an HE to get to where JoaT has been at start , it will take decades and several thousands resources.

If you want the game to be fun, allow players to do something besides scouting . Current setting of the game way to much support the "sit-and-grow" approach. IMO you should:
- increase the intitial hab to at least 1 in 20, so players'll have a chance to find two greens in "their" space. This way you'll also decrease the impact of the lucky hab draw. Bigger econ will also make impact on all aspects of the game, allowing players to take bigger risks.
- Interesting tech settings could be: all tech expensive, one or two normal (not weapons); all players must check the start at 3.
- And please ban "cheap starbases". In this game this cheat is just too unbalancing.

My

BR, Iztok

[Updated on: Mon, 24 November 2008 04:30]

Report message to a moderator

Thank you all for your notes. I have made several concessions per your recommendations. I removed slow tech advance and nonstandard exploits and have added some room for hab variability. LRT restrictions are clarified. Players may take up to two inexpensive research fields & Non-Joat may take start at three. Minimum factory and mine costs are reduced. Still very restrictive. Playable?

Report message to a moderator