| Re: Long way between Stars |
Thu, 21 December 2006 12:33   |
|
 Marduk |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 345
Registered: January 2003
Location: Dayton, OH | |
|
| joseph wrote on Thu, 21 December 2006 07:18 |
Also AR would be both weaker and stronger - but can anyone guess why? 
|
Hmm, greater distances between worlds means more travel deaths and greater difficulties in spreading out your population. It also means packets are easier to intercept, bad for AR.
On the other hand, greater distances means more chances to intercept attacks before they get to the orbitals. Also, the ARs much-reduced need for support and supply missions to new colonies will make their colonies useful and productive faster or at a lower cost, relative to the excessive resources you'd have to pour into a new colony mission as another PRT.
I also expect this sort of game would favor wider habs. A bad planet draw is one thing when it makes the nearest greens three years away instead of one or two. But if it means that the nearest greens are ten or more years away, you're pretty well ruined.
A OWW might work, but the extended distances make attack fleets obsolete very fast. Slow tech would be a good match with this sort of game. I'm pretty sure everyone would choose IFE.
If you allowed IT to play and just required them to remove the gates from their initial orbitals, their high starting techs and two systems (assuming you mean Small map and not small as in Tiny) would be good to have. And PP with their two starting systems would fare decently in this sort of thing too - reduced effectiveness of packets, but excellent scouting anyway and once they got the bigger drivers packeting might be worthwhile.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
