Blockade Runner Community Forums

User Creations => Roleplay => Topic started by: Holy Thunder on November 04, 2013, 03:39:05 pm

Title: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 04, 2013, 03:39:05 pm
Thread set aside for discussing the Season 2 game.

I'd really like to see some more players, just because it makes it more fun. Aaron? You have ten minutes twice a week to indulge us?



--

@Me2005: I had level 4 industry as a starting tech. Will that affect my turn 1 CP?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 04, 2013, 05:17:05 pm
@Me2005: I had level 4 industry as a starting tech. Will that affect my turn 1 CP?

Yes, yes it will. 1 AP, 7 CP.

I suppose everyone should post here or with an action post once they've updated. Once I get at least the initial 3 (You, CJ, and Niw) responses we'll start. Thadius hasn't shown interest, though he's welcome back.

Ed: 7 CP, adjusted the sheet numbers.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 04, 2013, 08:46:45 pm
This will be fun.  Niwantaw how closely were you monitoring the old GW?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 04, 2013, 09:00:09 pm
This will be fun.  Niwantaw how closely were you monitoring the old GW?

Fairly lightly. Thanks for catching the 36 points >.> I was sidetracked doing other things while I was doing that.

Gonna be pretty quiet with just us three.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 04, 2013, 09:04:17 pm
I know. I just [know[/i] there are tons of people out there who would dig this, I just don't know where they are.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 04, 2013, 09:49:43 pm
I know. I just [know[/i] there are tons of people out there who would dig this, I just don't know where they are.

I tried to get my friends interested in this but I've had no success.  I have been trying since I began playing the original GW.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 05, 2013, 10:57:21 am
I've tried asking Strait and Thadius, since they seem to be active on the forum, but Thadius doesn't seem to be responsive and Strait may be busy enough with moderating. Three is a good number for me though; too many more and it gets difficult to keep track of what is going on. I think the max we had active at once was 6 or 7 last time, and 4 was probably the average. We'll start and if anyone wants to join in the next couple weeks they'll be allowed to catch up.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Thadius Faran on November 05, 2013, 05:00:50 pm
I'll join in soon. I just wanna see how it works and how people will play it before jumpin in.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 05, 2013, 05:36:33 pm
I'll join in soon. I just wanna see how it works and how people will play it before jumpin in.

I can't speak for individual methods of play, but it works basically the same as the last one. I've added planets, which are like systems only smaller, and changed the spreadsheet that the game uses to be easier for me.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 05, 2013, 05:44:13 pm
Join nao! you know how two people are gonna play already from the previous round and the more that hop in the start the less likely one player will be able to expand unopposed for too long.



On the starting positions:

I'm curious how this'll turn out. Initially it seems that CJ will have the easiest time with expansion having a fair few planets that are easily defended with a only a few "chokepoint" planets however once the initial bout of expansion is finished I'm curious as to how he'll play it.


HT in the top left has a fairly defensible position for pretty much as long as he'd like it. Several sections of planets can be expanded to and defended easily although unless he expands out to the less defensible positions his homeworld will always be somewhat close to the edge of his territory.


I've got a fairly open set of options as to how I can expand although the NPCs sharing my start are probably either going to hamstring me at the start or be a useful kick off. However pretty much regardless of what I do I'm gonna have a lot of ingress points so I suspect I'll have to be somewhat reliant on mobile forces. Which is always fun ^^
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 05, 2013, 05:57:55 pm
@Starting Points

Very good observation.  You are going to be an interesting element in this game.

@NPC (Free Bit of Information)

Unless I am mistaken, according to the map key those NPCs are isolationists.  Keep this in mind when you interact with them...

Automatic Post Merge: November 05, 2013, 06:09:30 pm
I may be wrong.  The color for isolationist and friendly is very similar.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 05, 2013, 06:09:56 pm
@NPC (Free Bit of Information)

Unless I am mistaken, according to the map key those NPCs are isolationists.  Keep this in mind when you interact with them...
Where's the map key? I see nothing referring to what kind of NPC they are >.>
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 05, 2013, 06:10:46 pm
@NPC (Free Bit of Information)

Unless I am mistaken, according to the map key those NPCs are isolationists.  Keep this in mind when you interact with them...
Where's the map key? I see nothing referring to what kind of NPC they are >.>

Far right side of the map.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 05, 2013, 06:23:10 pm
Far right side of the map.

>.> I had an older version of the map. hadn't realized he'd updated it.


Edit: On spending AP on fleet movement:

Is it one AP to move one fleet from point A to point B or are you able to spend one AP to move half a fleet to point B and the other half to point C?

Just making sure I'm clear on that.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 05, 2013, 07:38:17 pm
Far right side of the map.

>.> I had an older version of the map. hadn't realized he'd updated it.


Edit: On spending AP on fleet movement:

Is it one AP to move one fleet from point A to point B or are you able to spend one AP to move half a fleet to point B and the other half to point C?

Just making sure I'm clear on that.

Spend AP to move fleet from position A to anywhere, even splitting them up. Think of each AP as a single system's order.

Side note - not sure it's in the rules or not, but you need FS available in systems  where you have no planets to colonize them. Unlike last time, to continue building up you won't need FS in system; even for building empty planets.

There's also a newer map on the AP-outline post. I fixed the NPC color problem since all three of you are colors mixed with blue. Niw, that's an isolationist there; don't talk to them :S
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 05, 2013, 07:45:13 pm
Would have been nice to know it's essentially a lost planet prior to starting but eh. :L
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 05, 2013, 08:35:23 pm
That system had the potential for giving you a boost but I didn't set up there because I didn't want to risk a repeat of my war with the Theta + Colonists.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 05, 2013, 08:54:57 pm
That system had the potential for giving you a boost but I didn't set up there because I didn't want to risk a repeat of my war with the Theta + Colonists.

I'd gone for it exactly because of the fact it had potential of being good or bad.

But as it's been made an isolationist it's now either a pain in the ass or a "dud" planet.

Either way. Irritating.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 05, 2013, 10:48:14 pm
That system had the potential for giving you a boost but I didn't set up there because I didn't want to risk a repeat of my war with the Theta + Colonists.

I'd gone for it exactly because of the fact it had potential of being good or bad.

But as it's been made an isolationist it's now either a pain in the ass or a "dud" planet.

Either way. Irritating.

It still has potential but you will need to decide whether it's worth spending the resources on a couple of levels of diplomacy to try to improve your chance to negotiate with them...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 05, 2013, 10:49:48 pm
It still has potential but you will need to decide whether it's worth spending the resources on a couple of levels of diplomacy to try to improve your chance to negotiate with them...

Hence it being a pain in the ass :P
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 05, 2013, 10:51:05 pm
Then again there is always the option of murderizing them but that might end badly.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 05, 2013, 10:55:18 pm
Aye. Something will have to eventually be done. Eventually. If I get round to it.

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 06, 2013, 09:01:38 am
@Niw: With a little diplomacy, last round I found NPC's to be most valuable. You have the easiest setup to acquire extra points through trade, an opportunity the rest of us don't have. They also can serve as kind of a buffer if you maintain a friendly relationship.


@Thadius: I think we would all enjoy it if you went ahead and joined, it's definitely a more-the-merrier setup. And the reality is, the later you join the further behind you'll be unless we screw up.

@Me2005:
 
Quote
Side note - not sure it's in the rules or not, but you need FS available in systems  where you have no planets to colonize them. Unlike last time, to continue building up you won't need FS in system; even for building empty planets.

Let's say I have planet A colonized and I want to colonize planet B for 2 PI. I understand you said we don't need FS present. Will colonizing Planet B with 2 PI require just 2 CP, or 1 AP to get there and 2 CP to build it?

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 06, 2013, 11:44:07 am
@Niw: With a little diplomacy, last round I found NPC's to be most valuable. You have the easiest setup to acquire extra points through trade, an opportunity the rest of us don't have. They also can serve as kind of a buffer if you maintain a friendly relationship.

In fairness, I had them on the map before you picked the spot and I had labels up before the game started. If you'd like to move, you can. Now from looking at my diplomacy chart (way improved over the one last time; and different for each NPR-type), they aren't likely to go to war with you for anything, but they don't like being talked to. They're more open to trade since it brings stuff in, but you'd need to succeed in talking to them first. Odds are good that with Diplo 3+ you'd be safe from being attacked. It'll take a high level or a lucky roll (10 on a D10) to get them to let you do anything though.

About the diplomacy tables - would you guys rather me keep them to myself or give you the details of what it takes to interact with different NPR's?

The jist of each one is this:
Friendly - Only attacks if attacked first
Moderate - Might attack if offended, but probably won't unless attacked
Isolationist - On a bad day attacks first, but usually isn't persistent. Just wants to be left alone.
Expansionist - Slightly less likely to attack than isolationist, more likely to be persistent. Very willing to go to war to expand territory.
Pirate - Not as likely as expansionist to go to war, but will attack at the drop of a hat. Aims to capture prizes.

@Me2005:
 
Quote
Side note - not sure it's in the rules or not, but you need FS available in systems  where you have no planets to colonize them. Unlike last time, to continue building up you won't need FS in system; even for building empty planets.

Let's say I have planet A colonized and I want to colonize planet B for 2 PI. I understand you said we don't need FS present. Will colonizing Planet B with 2 PI require just 2 CP, or 1 AP to get there and 2 CP to build it?
[/quote]

Two options here:
A) Colonizing a new planet in a system you already have planets/FS in could require 1 AP + however many CP you want to put into it (the AP counts as 1 point). Colonizing a new planet in a system you do not have FS/planets in could also cost 1 AP, so long as your fleets can reach it in 1 turn.

B) Colonizing a new planet in a system you already have planets/FS in could require however many CP (or AP) you want to put into it. AP are needed for moving fleets into position for new planets in empty systems.

CP are basically free actions used to do things that are very easy for me to keep track of.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 06, 2013, 12:15:43 pm
@Niw: With a little diplomacy, last round I found NPC's to be most valuable. You have the easiest setup to acquire extra points through trade, an opportunity the rest of us don't have. They also can serve as kind of a buffer if you maintain a friendly relationship.

In fairness, I had them on the map before you picked the spot and I had labels up before the game started. If you'd like to move, you can. Now from looking at my diplomacy chart (way improved over the one last time; and different for each NPR-type), they aren't likely to go to war with you for anything, but they don't like being talked to. They're more open to trade since it brings stuff in, but you'd need to succeed in talking to them first. Odds are good that with Diplo 3+ you'd be safe from being attacked. It'll take a high level or a lucky roll (10 on a D10) to get them to let you do anything though.

I realize that they could be potentially useful. But it's no longer pot luck, it's /rigged/ pot luck and thus gonna be a pain in the ass to get it to go in my favour. Hence me for the minute opting to avoid them.

And yes. they were on the map to begin with. That's why I picked the spot. However to begin with it was just a random NPR

And as I'm here now I see no reason to move.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 06, 2013, 03:22:00 pm
I realize that they could be potentially useful. But it's no longer pot luck, it's /rigged/ pot luck and thus gonna be a pain in the ass to get it to go in my favour. Hence me for the minute opting to avoid them.

And yes. they were on the map to begin with. That's why I picked the spot. However to begin with it was just a random NPR

And as I'm here now I see no reason to move.

Well, if it makes you feel better; every player starts with a 1-planet system except you, and yours just has some weirdos who don't want to be talked to. They won't bother you like, say, pirates would.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 06, 2013, 04:16:44 pm
1 planet systems?

Well...

(Rewriting Plan)

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 06, 2013, 04:26:40 pm
1 planet systems?

Well...

(Rewriting Plan)


Not every system, just every player. There are systems out there with up to 8 or 12 planets, IIRC. All of the start systems, except Niw's, has 1 planet in it, and his has an alien living on the other one. You can see your whole system and everything in it right now, in other words.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 06, 2013, 04:31:47 pm
Question:

I built more FS, PI and PS but it wasn't on the new post.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 06, 2013, 05:01:59 pm
Question:

I built more FS, PI and PS but it wasn't on the new post.

What on earth are you talking about?

;D

Nah, forgot to update the statistics. It's in the spreadsheet and on the map, so technically still in the post.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 07, 2013, 08:01:18 am
Quote
- Research a bloody window (AKA Research Sensors 1) 4AP


- Move fleet From Lambda 34 center to Lambda 34a 1AP

To boldly put windows on spaceships to actually be able to see. Because boldly going places is much more interesting when you can actually see.


This is going to be a fun round. Also I think I'm liking the pace.


@Me2005:  The bubbles are a bit fuzzy. How many levels of sensors would I need to see 2 hexes? And will the sensors show how many planets are in the systems in range? I don't want to waste points going to colonize my second system, to find out it only has 1 or 2 planets. Although, after spending 8 points on windows and binoculars, maybe that's a hypocritical statement.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Aaron on November 07, 2013, 10:27:33 am
Quote
Aaron? You have ten minutes twice a week to indulge us?

Can I get a link to the rules? I must confess I know little in the ways of the GW.  ;D
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 07, 2013, 10:59:35 am
Quote
Aaron? You have ten minutes twice a week to indulge us?

Can I get a link to the rules? I must confess I know little in the ways of the GW.  ;D

The rules are a bit hidden in a spoiler on the first page, I'll make them less obtuse to find. I also need to make sure they're fully fleshed-out, which they aren't quite yet, but you should get the drift from what I've got. I haven't bothered Devs about this because I wasn't sure if you could take the time to make action posts or not (It could take awhile, but it seems to me a max of 10 minutes/post is about all it should take).

Quote
Intro
This is a friendly forum game of galactic civilization that puts you in the place of ruler over an advanced civilization. You may research new technologies, upgrade existing ones, build fleets, and control empires spanning worlds. It is all overseen by me, (Me2005) the moderator. If you wish to participate, you are expected to have a post up by the agreed-upon day(s) each week outlining the action(s) you desire to take.

Dice
Chance plays into this somewhat; and as such I will use (simulated) dice of various types to achieve a random result. The shorthand I use for each type is "D#", where "#" is the number of sides and the highest number that can be rolled. Typical rolls are with a D6, D10, and D20, but I will specify which die is used where if necessary. I may post die results when used, I may not; depending on how cumbersome that becomes.

Points
Everything you do will require points. This is so that other players may gauge your strength and I may govern fairly. Here are the different types and how they're earned:

Action Points (AP):
AP are used for doing things. A non-exhaustive list of what things might be done includes: Moving Fleets from planet to planet or system to system, colonizing a planet, exploring a system, mining, conducting diplomacy, attacking, and using system-based weapons (fired from platforms or planets). AP are earned by building up your infrastructure and improving your Efficiency tech level.

Construction Points (CP):
CP are used for building things. A non-exhaustive list of what could be built includes: Fleets, Planet Industry, Planet Military, and any kind of research. AP may be used in leu of CP. CP are earned by building up your infrastructure, improving your Industry tech level, and colonizing additional planets.

Research Points (RP):
RP are used for researching things. Usually either AP or CP can be converted to RP; however, during some of your actions you may receive extra RP as a reward and this must be used for research.

Trade Points (TP):
TP are used for anything. They are separated from the other point-types because they are earned and lost in a much more direct way - trade routes and the Trade tech level. Loosing a route - even temporarily - can cause you to loose these points. Trade routes are created by sending out a trade fleet from a system in your territory to a nearby NPR or player system. A line will be drawn on the map to indicate the line the route follows; and this will be where unseen civilian ships from your nation ply to deliver trade goods to and from your systems. A reciprocal route may be created for 1/2 the FTL cost once a player/NPR establishes a route with you. Any enemy military Fleets moving along this line may blockade the line of all players along it temporarily by spending an AP to do so. Blockading the route will give them a roll on the prize table. They may destroy the route by A) Denying it at the destination system or B) Removing the player-territory of both endpoint systems; and will receive a number of rolls on the prize table equal to the number of segments removed.

Upkeep
Upkeep is what you need to pay to provide for your fleets. I may destroy a number of ships appropriate to lower your upkeep to a level you can afford if you fail to pay it; or I may (more likely) ask you what action you'd like to drop to cover it. It can be lowered with theLogistics tech or by having more planets and fewer FS.

The Map
Listed here are the basic units you are likely to see on the map.

Fleet Strength (FS)
FS is the basic unit by which your combat forces are measured. One point could mean one ship, one thousand ships, or one-tenth of a ship - that is up to you. As the moderator, I will only ever move what you tell me to move and destroy the number of FS that should be destroyed, so you may need to resolve your view of FS with moving (or loosing) half a ship. One CP/AP/TP builds one FS at any planet you own and specify. FS will be displayed as a number in your chosen color on the map. Building FS will increase your Upkeep cost, which can be lowered by loosing ships or by increasing your Logistics tech.

Planets:
Planets are represented as large white dots with the following attributes added:

Planet Strength (PS)
PS is the measure of the military capacity of any planet you own. It is similar to FS in that it can represent a single huge missile launcher or ten-thousand ground troops, but I will deal only with the points directly so the nuances are up to you. One CP/AP/TP builds one PS at any planet you own and specify. PS does not cost upkeep, but does prevent full utilization of the planet for infrastructure. Planets with no PS may be captured without a fight. PS is represented by bright red and dull red dots on a planet - bright is 1 point and dull is 5 points.

Planet Industry (PI)
PI is the measure of the industrial capacity of any planet you own. It does not aid in combat, but does contribute to the number of points you receive each round. PI is taken as an average over all of your planets, so having one 45-point planet and 3 15-point planets is the same as having 4 23-point planets. Planets owned will also contribute a small amount to your CP.

Territory
Territory is the hazy background color on the map. It will attempt to match your chosen color, and each player's territory color and unit color are shown on the right. Your territory will always surround your planets, and may extend into empty space. Your fleets
can expand your territory. Trade routes and stations must reside within your territory.

Trade Routes
Trade routes are shown as lines of a player's color emanating from one player's territory and going to another's. If the territory on both ends changes hands, the route is destroyed. The route may be temporarily blockaded as well.

Hazards
These are shown on the right side of the map. If the symbol shows up in the system you have entered, a modified D20 roll will be made against that hazards' chart. Each hazard has one (or more) techs that may modify your result. To summarize the hazards and their chart results:
Asteroids: 13 or fewer total points will result in a loss of D6 ships. STL and Defense levels will be added to the roll (STL + Defense level of 12 or more grants immunity to Asteroids).
Cosmic: 17 or fewer total points will result in a loss of all ships. Quality level will be added to the roll (Quality of 16 grants immunity to Cosmic).
Pirates: 15 or fewer total points will result in a roll on the pirate table. Fleet size is considered instead of a roll (fleets of 15 or more will not be targeted).
War (hazard): 12 or fewer total points will result in a loss of D10 ships. Diplomacy or Defense levels will be added to the roll (Diplomacy or Defense higher than 12 will be immune to War hazards). War still breaks out, and your ships being directly targeted will not have immunity; this hazard is for fleets crossing war zones.

Artifacts
Artifacts, if found, may be brought back to your systems for +1TP each. They will remain in that system and may be taken away. You may only store 1 per system.

Stations
Stations are researched objects that give various benefits. You must research Stations before building any of them. These platforms are considered to have 5 'health' * your Stations tech level. Level 2 Stations would have 10 health, level 3 15, etc. Station health will be displayed by a number of red pixels on the station, and their owner will be represented by the colored area as shown on the map. Stations may be captured or destroyed, and cannot fight as planets do. They will use the FS modifier for purposes of determining how much damage they take when attacked. Stations can only be owned in systems where you hold territory.

Combat
Combat is done by comparing the modified size of the units involved. FS and PS both have techs that improve their combat modifiers - Weapons and Defenses, Planet Quality and Fleet quality. Modifiers will not be revealed.

FS & PS also have techs that improve their capability against planets - PS has launch and FS has bombardment. Launch allows you to do 1 damage per level to another planet/fleet in-system, bombardment adds 1 to the fleet's attack modifier per level.

Planets can be harder targets than fleets.

Automatic Post Merge: November 07, 2013, 11:14:40 am
Quote
- Research a bloody window (AKA Research Sensors 1) 4AP


- Move fleet From Lambda 34 center to Lambda 34a 1AP

To boldly put windows on spaceships to actually be able to see. Because boldly going places is much more interesting when you can actually see.


This is going to be a fun round. Also I think I'm liking the pace.

That post made me LOL. I suppose you might already have windows, it's just that basically everything in-system looks like a point of light at however many light-minutes/hours you arrive in a system.


@Me2005:  The bubbles are a bit fuzzy. How many levels of sensors would I need to see 2 hexes? And will the sensors show how many planets are in the systems in range? I don't want to waste points going to colonize my second system, to find out it only has 1 or 2 planets. Although, after spending 8 points on windows and binoculars, maybe that's a hypocritical statement.

The bubbles are the exact sizes I plan to use to generate sensor data. Each data ping will be centered on one of your fleets/planets. It's a bit obscure then which level will let you see a full system, but for a ship in the center you'll be able to see most of it around level 6-9, and for planets your whole system should be revealed around 4-5 (assuming you found a 6 planet system). If you control all the planets in a system and can see most of it, I'll probably give you full view of the system anyway for ease.

However, those bubbles easily extend to adjacent systems - level 3 sensors would allow your planets to see new planets in the system directly adjacent if there are any in that spot.

If you guys would like a leg-up, I'll throw you a bone and boost everyone's sensor level by 1. This system really adds value to the telescope station (24 total points, including researching stations) - it can ping anywhere on the board (using standard position notation - so F28a would be system F28, planet-position a) every turn. The data gets lost if you move the ping, but you can use it to see things without sending ships. It will use your current sensor level as it's ping size.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 07, 2013, 02:34:32 pm
So how often does ping happen, or do we have to use AP for that? 

It seems like perfectly good sense is just out reach on this one.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 07, 2013, 02:51:21 pm
So how often does ping happen, or do we have to use AP for that? 

It seems like perfectly good sense is just out reach on this one.

Sensor ping is free and happens automatically for every fleet, planet, station, and telescope owned. The telescope can just throw it's ping anywhere else every turn; the old one goes away though.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 07, 2013, 08:01:54 pm
Can you have more than one station in one system?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 08, 2013, 10:54:49 am
Can you have more than one station in one system?

Still deciding about that. There isn't really room to draw many more than one, but I suppose in a 1 or 0 planet system I could fit more than one. Maybe 3 in a 0 planet system, 2 in a 1 planet system, and 1 in any other system.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 08, 2013, 11:12:00 am
Can you have more than one station in one system?

Still deciding about that. There isn't really room to draw many more than one, but I suppose in a 1 or 0 planet system I could fit more than one. Maybe 3 in a 0 planet system, 2 in a 1 planet system, and 1 in any other system.


It would seem fair to say yes, and just enable leveled-up stations to produce more points.  So if I put a research station in my home system, that station can only ever produce research points. If I want a fleet-building station, I'll need to put that in another system. That's easier for Me2005.  But if I can level that research station up to produce more research points, it seems like a decent balance. We end up with high-value systems that need protecting, and there's an incentive to have more systems so you can have more types of stations.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 08, 2013, 03:15:37 pm
@Niw's Tea

Do they really drink tea in Britan?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 08, 2013, 03:19:03 pm
@Niw's Tea

Do they really drink tea in Britan?

A lot of people do. I love tea personally. It's glorious stuff. I could go for days with nothing but tea. I have been known to drink liters of tea.


...shame most people these days seem to suck at making it :l
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 08, 2013, 03:27:00 pm
@Niw's Tea

Do they really drink tea in Britan?

A lot of people do. I love tea personally. It's glorious stuff. I could go for days with nothing but tea. I have been known to drink liters of tea.


...shame most people these days seem to suck at making it :l

You should come visit us in the American South.  Most of my family lives in rural Arkansas. The racism isn't as bad as the rest of the world things, the education is improving, and the glory of mud riding cannot be overstated.

And the cold sweet tea we make here is perfectly divine.  One summer as a teenager, I was stuck cooped up in my mom's apartment in North Carolina. I put down about 4 liters a day, and I'd still do it if I had opportunity/energy to make it.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 08, 2013, 03:51:49 pm
Cold sweet tea?

Tea is hot! with a slightly bitter taste! :l

See the madness us brits have to put up with? all these people calling things tea when they are not the delicious tea we require to function effectively?

Spoiler
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02407/tea_2407678b.jpg)

That is a real cup of tea. :l (looks aboot the right strength too)





EDIT: As per the game: Me2005 did you forget to add the 4PI from the second planet? it's not been included in the total.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 08, 2013, 04:41:05 pm
@Niw:
Spoiler

Yeah...I've had that kind, it's okay I guess. But our preferred hot bitter drink over here is coffee--little more kick than hot tea. 

Here's basically what our tea looks like:

(http://jennifersikora.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Alabama-Sweet-Tea-Recipe.jpg)



We call it "tea" because it's made from tea leaves, probably similar to yours. Also probably a different breed, but you can achieve the same effect with your tea.   Take 4 tea bags, mix them with perhaps half a liter of water, and heat it to boiling. 

When it's hot enough, turn the heat off and let it brew for a bit. This varies on taste, but I like it between 10 and 15 minutes, or whenever I can get to it.

Longer is stronger, though you probably already know that. Pour it into a 2-liter jug, and mix between 1/4 cup and 3/4 cups of sugar. This part varies wildly--I like it at about a cup, but I have a pretty wide tolerance.

The hot water should dissolve the sugar pretty quickly, at least most of it. Add another 1.5 liters of cold water and mix until it's all dissolved, and voila. Add ice, or throw it in the fridge for a few hours.

It should keep for at least 3 days in the refrigerator.  Some people make it weak enough to drink alone, some people make it strong enough you almost have to dilute it with ice. Some people mix it with lemonade, which is delicious. Some friends of mine (certainly not speaking for everyone here) call that swamp water, because that's what it looks like.

Try it sometime ;)

@Me2005: warning duly noted regarding NPC's. I was hoping you would update it today!
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 08, 2013, 04:54:09 pm
@Me2005 and HT

It has been noted and will be taken very seriously (Flashback to the Theta and Colonists vs SDF).
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 08, 2013, 06:26:16 pm
EDIT: As per the game: Me2005 did you forget to add the 4PI from the second planet? it's not been included in the total.

Very possible it's neglected in the post. I'll double check.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 09, 2013, 03:45:08 pm
-------Incoming Transmission-------

[size=78%]-------[/size]Transmission Reads[/size][size=78%]-------[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]The Ca-static- pire are coming to -static- quer prepare to be -static- ed[/size]
-------Transmission Lost[/size][size=78%]-------[/size]

It would seem that we are soon to have pirates among us. Their communication prowess is staggering.


Welcome aboard Thadius!  Unless I'm wrong and you're not joining....in which case....  :o
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 09, 2013, 03:52:39 pm
-------Incoming Transmission-------

-------Transmission Reads-------

The Ca-static- pire are coming to -static- quer prepare to be -static- ed

-------Transmission Lost-------

Automatic Post Merge: November 09, 2013, 03:59:18 pm
I believe it says...

Spoiler
The Ca-[Californian?] Empire are coming to [conquer?]-quer prepaid to be [assimilated?/destroyed?] -ed.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 09, 2013, 04:45:40 pm
Haha! I believe somebody was typing on their phone again. I don't want to be prepaid to destruction....  :P


Seriously though Thadius, we'd be glad to have you. The pace has been pretty brisk, and there's plenty of room to grow.  :)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on November 09, 2013, 04:47:59 pm
Nah. Clearly it says " The Calm Puppy loving empire are coming to give hugs and lacquer  prepare to be snuggled.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 09, 2013, 05:17:42 pm
Nah. Clearly it says " The Calm Puppy loving empire are coming to give hugs and lacquer  prepare to be snuggled.

Much better!  I hope they visit me.  Maybe I should leave the door unlocked, just in case they come while I'm sleeping.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 11, 2013, 10:59:37 am
I hope it's not pirates, I've already got those drawn in  :-\

I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be "XXX empire" though, so we should be good.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 12, 2013, 12:48:42 pm

While I am not complaining, you gave me an extra 10 PI in the list.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 13, 2013, 02:51:38 pm

While I am not complaining, you gave me an extra 10 PI in the list.

Meh... I'm leaning towards "I'll just remove that portion of the list," it's obviously causing trouble, and it's on the map as it already. You guys care more about how many AP/CP you get anyway, right?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 18, 2013, 10:41:02 am
The PI and PS is helpful.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 18, 2013, 03:08:31 pm
The PI and PS is helpful.

Meh, maybe I'll add it back in. For now, onward!
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 18, 2013, 04:38:22 pm
Did I set up in an extremely hostile  area?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 19, 2013, 06:56:32 am
I think we're all likely to face some degree of challenge, to keep us from just setting up shop uncontested. It's a bit more trouble, especially when you consider the vision you had when you began, but it's also makes the game more enjoyable with so few players.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 19, 2013, 06:58:14 am
How much diplomacy do I need to befriend the pirates?

Automatic Post Merge: November 19, 2013, 11:18:32 am
Aren't my sensors advanced enough for my planet to see into the adjacent system?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 19, 2013, 11:23:41 am
Did I set up in an extremely hostile  area?

Yes, but so did everyone else >:D

How much diplomacy do I need to befriend the pirates?

Automatic Post Merge: November 19, 2013, 11:18:32 am
Aren't my sensors advanced enough for my planet to see into the adjacent system?

Boatloads/not possible - the best way to keep pirates at bay is sending fleets large enough that they won't bother and then destroying their bases.

Yes, but only just barely. I think you can already see into the next system, but there isn't anything there to see.

I think we're all likely to face some degree of challenge, to keep us from just setting up shop uncontested. It's a bit more trouble, especially when you consider the vision you had when you began, but it's also makes the game more enjoyable with so few players.

Yeah, every starting spot was/is surrounded by NPR's. They're way more common than last round, though they way they've been setup and started out is different. They also fight each other much more frequently.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 19, 2013, 11:27:36 am
So the main reason why I appear to have terrible luck is because I've been doing the most exploration?

Automatic Post Merge: November 19, 2013, 11:31:19 am
About my ships (@Th67 and Ga67) ... can I still move them or are they dead?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on November 19, 2013, 12:33:26 pm
Don't feel bad, CJ--my first foray landed me in a war zone.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on November 21, 2013, 10:48:10 am
So the main reason why I appear to have terrible luck is because I've been doing the most exploration?

Automatic Post Merge: November 19, 2013, 11:31:19 am
About my ships (@Th67 and Ga67) ... can I still move them or are they dead?

They can all still move. Some didn't have anything happen (GA67). The ones boarded by pirates just lost you some CP for this turn.

You've actually had reasonably good luck, this universe is just really hostile. Should make things more challenging than last time :D
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 21, 2013, 01:10:07 pm
Okay.

I'll post my reply around 5:00 PM EST.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on November 30, 2013, 12:25:57 am
Looks like I managed to not arrive too late to the party.

What's the update schedule look like?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on November 30, 2013, 10:25:21 am
Lately we have had some... delays.  Currently we are looking at once a week on Monday.

Welcome Aboard Admiral!  Good Luck and Have Fun!

Automatic Post Merge: November 30, 2013, 10:26:26 am
Have you looked at the previous Galactic War?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on December 01, 2013, 12:36:16 am
Nope, just eating the rules when I'm not at work and jumping in blind; it's always fun.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 01, 2013, 02:30:28 pm
If I am not mistaken we have a new round tomorrow.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 02, 2013, 06:57:27 am
Welcome to the party!  Specifically, we're waiting on Niw to post. He got a job recently, hopefully he's not abandoning us.  Having at least 3 onboard though would help keep it going. I love this game. :)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on December 02, 2013, 10:03:40 am
I know the feeling, on my two days off a week, I usually just fart around on the net or play video games when I should be trying to sign up for some college courses; no energy whatsoever.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on December 02, 2013, 12:43:00 pm
I know the feeling, on my two days off a week, I usually just fart around on the net or play video games when I should be trying to sign up for some college courses; no energy whatsoever.

^ This
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 02, 2013, 02:03:48 pm
Update sometime today. We'll stick to once a week on Mondays until after the new year or until I get more time to post (likely when I finish reading worm  :-X ).
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 04, 2013, 01:07:27 pm
How much does it cost to build a station?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 04, 2013, 02:34:53 pm
I believe it's 12 points to research the station technology, and then 12 points to build a station.

It's unclear whether you need a new 12 points for each kind of station, or whether you can research "station" for 12 points and get access to all of them.

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on December 04, 2013, 11:19:58 pm
seeing as the norm is: main field special research 12pt; subfield special research 12pt; I was guessing that it basically takes 36 points to start up your very first station (24 for the first of each additional type) with overall reduced costs the more of that type you produce (and upgrade)

forget strong stations over numerous stations, seeing ANY stations will be notable
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 05, 2013, 08:02:43 am
So I went back to the main post and checked.

Quote
Stations: - Allows station Construction; upgrades level * 5 station health

Quote
Speaking of Stations; those are new. I've replaced some of the old cost improving techs with stations, and modified some of the old useful techs to use stations. They will all be visible on the map and fairly permanent in any given system. The general "station" tech is required to build any of them (12 points) and will be used to upgrade the station quality. I'm thinking stations will have 5 'health' * your station level * your FS modifier; but that is subject to change. PS/FS/PI/RP stations will generate 1* their level of the appropriate resource each turn, and cost more to build than to upgrade (12/6). This is to encourage big upgraded - and therefore valuable - stations. I'll possibly limit their level at some point. Stations will be capturable without any specific capture tech, similar to planets with no PS.

And then again, in the full "Rules" spoiler:

Quote
Stations are researched objects that give various benefits. You must research Stations before building any of them. These platforms are considered to have 5 'health' * your Stations tech level. Level 2 Stations would have 10 health, level 3 15, etc. Station health will be displayed by a number of red pixels on the station, and their owner will be represented by the colored area as shown on the map. Stations may be captured or destroyed, and cannot fight as planets do. They will use the FS modifier for purposes of determining how much damage they take when attacked. Stations can only be owned in systems where you hold territory.


So looking at that, it seems you only need 12 points for "Station," and then 12 points to build whatever station you want, and 6 points to upgrade that station. 24 points gets you one station, 36 points gets you two stations or a lvl-3 station.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 05, 2013, 11:24:38 am
So looking at that, it seems you only need 12 points for "Station," and then 12 points to build whatever station you want, and 6 points to upgrade that station. 24 points gets you one station, 36 points gets you two stations or a lvl-3 station.

Yep, 12 to get station-building capability, 12 to build *any* station you want. AI and covert ops work the same way - 12 to research the ability to use AI/COps, whatever the part cost is to apply it. So it'd cost 24 to build any one station, but the second (or third, or fifth, or twenty-seventh) could be a different one and it'd only cost 12. I might need to adjust their effects to make them more worthwhile.

On review, I absolutely do not need to do that. I might consider adding a defense platform though; some kind of station that sits in a system and forces engagement with any inbound combat vessels to be with the station first. Probably give it a double-health bonus (each station level gives it 10 health) or each level of that station gives it an extra 5 health. The benefit of it over a fleet is that it can recuperate it's damage if it's not destroyed/captured. Haven't worked that part out exactly, but all stations somehow treat health differently than fleets.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 05, 2013, 01:35:59 pm
I think a defense station would be great. Eventually we're going to conquer enough of the map to hold serious territory, and when we do, we'll want to heavily defend certain chokepoints. Defense stations are a great way to do that.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 05, 2013, 06:42:09 pm
I think a defense station would be great. Eventually we're going to conquer enough of the map to hold serious territory, and when we do, we'll want to heavily defend certain chokepoints. Defense stations are a great way to do that.

I agree.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on December 05, 2013, 06:43:08 pm
I though that's what Launcher Stations made possible?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 05, 2013, 07:08:32 pm
Launcher is basically a interstellar missile launcher capable of damaging planets.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on December 05, 2013, 07:37:24 pm
And fleets.
Quote
Launch: The amount of damage your planets can inflict on planets and fleets in that system. Special tech required to attack planets or fleets out of system.
A launcher station, according to the rules, allows planets to use their launch value at a range of 5 hexes per station level.  I think it will suffice.

What that implies, outside of another station that basically works as its own in-system launcher, is that outside of the current terrain, bottlenecks will be determined by where the largest planetary systems are located and how quickly a player may reach, colonise, and stockpile launch facilities (plus station) there.  Technically, any system may be turned into such a maginot line, but I suspect that Me2005 has geometric rates for all tech levels, so any one system will have a hypothetically limited upper launch value and strike range, thereby implying that systems with the most planets will be the most valuable as defensive positions.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 06, 2013, 07:42:55 am
I have to confess this is amusing, us all checking Me2005's OP like canon.

Launch is under the basic tech heading, not under stations. It's a planetary bombardment tech, whereby your planet sends pain to another planet with guaranteed x PS/PI damage, dice roll to inflict fleet damage. Limit one launch per turn. More levels = more range, more launches, possibly  more damage. We worked it out in GW1 behind closed doors.  8)

A station would be an entirely different animal. Level it up, park a fleet there, and any bad guys entering the system are forced to do business with that first. It shelters your planets in-system. If you worked out the necessary details and invested serious points, maybe you could convince Me2005 to allow a system where all planets can send x auxilary forces per PS to defend any point in-system--which would further bolster your Defense Station effectiveness. It would be formiddable. And like any Maginot Line or worthwhile system, you could find a workaround.


Since the map is an approximation of 3D space onto a 2-D board, the grey areas basically do not exist--or they exist as much longe paths to reach the same destination, like 20 or 30 hexes in another dimension. They cannot be passed without a lot of research, points, and creativity--although with enough work, they can be overcome.

Until/unless somebody goes through all that trouble, the result is a natural system of chokepoints. I will want to control D12, D18, and D24, and eventually D2. That leaves me open (minus NPC) areas to develop, and you must go through one of those four systems to reach my economic power.  For CJ those systems are U65, Delta 62, and Xi 63.  Niw will need a small Maginot Line, but you get the idea.

Cy83r doesn't have such an area, but he also has a wide open area to build in all directions. Your map choice almost begs you to be imperialistic. Meanwhile, the aggressive NPC presence has stymied our efforts at creating interstellar fortresses.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 06, 2013, 10:51:05 am
Quote
Launch is under the basic tech heading, not under stations. It's a planetary bombardment tech, whereby your planet sends pain to another planet with guaranteed x PS/PI damage, dice roll to inflict fleet damage. Limit one launch per turn. More levels = more range, more launches, possibly  more damage. We worked it out in GW1 behind closed doors. 

So YOU were the one who planned out that idea!
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on December 06, 2013, 12:18:48 pm
So, what you're saying is that you created a house rule that is not expressed in the public version, something tantmount to cheating, kidding!, as it gives the veterans an advantage that newbies are not aware of.  I would ask me2005 to update the page 1 document if this house rule is the effective standard instead of my RAW interpretation whereby a launcher station merely augments the range at which planetary launch tech may be used.

Another item of interest, is launch like PS in that it is unique to each planet or a univetsal value gained as soon as a planet is colonized?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 06, 2013, 01:28:56 pm
Launch is a semi-basic technology that applies to planets in a way similar to bombard does to fleets. Bombardment allowed fleets to do a specific minimum of damage to planets. Launch allows planets to do specific damage to other planets in-system, and by chance allows you to try to attack fleets too. I'll need to review the OP on that issue to make sure it's clear, but the intent is for launch to be a planet-vs-planet system, similar to how bombard is a fleet-vs-planet system. It's semi-basic in that each level costs 12 instead of 4 (IIRC). I don't remember if launch does damage X level or if it does X damage and its range is level-based. It's limited in number of uses/turn because, while a fleet can move, a planet  cannot; and the point is to keep you from using your level 1 launcher to wipe out a level 15 planet in one turn (it'd need to take 15 turns).

In either event, I'd like to set it up so you can't create an invulnerable 5-hex-range anti-everything cannon, and I wouldn't mind having star-fortresses you need to address to get into a system. I'll work on that, in the meantime, assume all other (non-combat) stations work as intended.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 06, 2013, 01:37:13 pm
So, what you're saying is that you created a house rule that is not expressed in the public version, something tantmount to cheating, kidding!, as it gives the veterans an advantage that newbies are not aware of.  I would ask me2005 to update the page 1 document if this house rule is the effective standard instead of my RAW interpretation whereby a launcher station merely augments the range at which planetary launch tech may be used.

Another item of interest, is launch like PS in that it is unique to each planet or a univetsal value gained as soon as a planet is colonized?

Yes and no.

Yes--veterans do have some working knowledge of some of the techs, and maybe a better idea of what it would take to make new techs balance out.

No--there is one thing that should be more prominently mentioned in the rules, and that is creative freedom. If there is something that you think would be a great idea, or a tech that you would like to intorduce to the game, you can PM Me2005 about it and ask him. He's remarkably fair about ensuring that everything plays fairly, and most of my ideas (including one already this game) have been shot down or nerfed so badly I had to reconsider them.

The reason this is done in secret is to protect your "intellectual copyright," so to speak. If you take the time to come up with an idea that can be fairly integrated, your advantage is diminished if we all know about it. Seems unfair, unless the same thing applies to everyone.  I really would have liked to see a fight between CJ and myself in the last game, because we had such different tricks up our sleeves and no idea what the other guy had.

In that sense, new guys are at an advantage. Most of the ideas went spent hours wracking our brains for? They're listed right there on the OP to inspire anyone to take advantage of them. And about half the special techs listed are there not because Me2005 thought them up, but because we asked about them and he worked them into the game. You've got access to most of our intellectual accomplishments, plus a fresh look at the game.



To excel in this game, playing your points is only half the battle. Come up with something close (but just outside) the existing rules, that would give you an advantage. Or come up with something entirely new, and don't be shy about it.  Ask Me2005 how to implement it, and play your advantage close to the chest. We can't PM our actions anymore, but we can PM code-names, and I figure in 7-10 more rounds we'll see a lot of code-name actions pop up. The spectators won't see the PM's, but you can rest assured we'll be working on our own secret ideas as fiercely as you are. It's an intellectual arms race,  and why shouldn't it be? Every nation on earth does the same thing. So the only people who fully experience the game will be those of us playing it.


One last thing. If you're not sure what to ask about and you need ideas, just PM or even ask out here. I can think of several offhand, it's the details and worth that keep most of them out.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 06, 2013, 01:57:40 pm
HT is correct; I"ll consider just about anything as an addition to the tech list. I'll vet it and figure out a way to integrate it into the system here, and you can argue with me on whatever points you'd like. Eventually I'll give you a set of rules that are final for that tech and you can choose to develop it or not. Many of the techs developed/designed last game either never got used or never got actually researched in-game.

One example I can probably give is that HT tried to get an anti-capture tech last game that would just straight-up block capture below a certain level (Capture-block level 1 blocks cap level 1). I didn't like that this prevented a tech from working and that this provided no benefit from cap level 2, so I (think I) proposed that it modify the  capture odds downward. That way, cap *any level* still works, just not as well; and cap-block works against any cap.

The list of techs I've posted is for inspiration and acknowledgment of the techs that did get used in one form or another. They form the 'basic' special tech list really; advanced ones will pop up with gameplay.

Edit: I've updated the main post with some rules changes; mainly the Launcher, launch, combat, and stations, but also some elsewhere. Launcher is now 3-hex range; launch can be used against fleets but really isn't meant to be. Capturing stations, which was always conceptual but never written down, is now written (Apparently in stone, based on how you guys are reading my OP's :D ). As is capture of planets. Stations can't fight back, making them prime targets for capture; except the newly added Fortress, which gets to use the FS attack values and bombard/launch against targets in-system. Each level it gets adds 5 health, but those may be removed if that station is attacked. The reason you'd spend 6 points to get 5 points of health, you ask? It can attack for free (no AP needed) and can attack anywhere in one system - making it the first thing that needs to be dealt with anywhere it is constructed.

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 06, 2013, 03:12:18 pm
@Nerfing of Capture tech
Personally I felt that the capture tech was not over-powered and I knew people would eventually research a counter-tech.


Quote
We can't PM our actions anymore, but we can PM code-names, and I figure in 7-10 more rounds we'll see a lot of code-name actions pop up. The spectators won't see the PM's, but you can rest assured we'll be working on our own secret ideas as fiercely as you are. It's an intellectual arms race,  and why shouldn't it be? Every nation on earth does the same thing. So the only people who fully experience the game will be those of us playing it.

Toward the end of GW I was holding a lot of stuff back because it was clear that GW was about to end.

This will be fun  ;D
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 07, 2013, 02:48:44 pm
Well, OP in the sense of being stronger than its counterparts.  A lot.  I've got some free time at work, so here's some comparisons just for fun. Aside from a now-nerfed Capture, pretty sure these still work as advertised.

Capture and EMP both disable the ships using them at level 1, so I'm using 24 point calculations. At level 2, ships using the ability still get to fight. These will be for 100 vs 100 even battles, for a good hypothetical benchmark.  Then I'll do a 100 vs 100 where the enemy is twice as strong as you. We don't know exactly what it takes to reach a 2x modifier, but this will give a point of reference. Then I'll do a 100 vs 50 against a normal enemy, and 100 vs 50 against anenemy twice as strong. That way you see the advantage of fighting with a larger force.

Without special techs (or with identical special techs), a 100 vs 100 even fight should end with 100% loss of all forces.  A 100 vs 100 fight against an enemy who is exactly twice as strong as you, should end with 100% losses for you, and 50% losses for him.  And  Me2005, if you don't mind, please verify this.


Here we go...for practical purposes, dice rolls will be assumed effective for exactly the predicted proportion.


Capture:
Spoiler
By far the most powerful. Overpowered, infact. Pre-engagement, each ship gets a 50/50 chance to capture an enemy ship. This is before  modifiers are applied.  At level 2, ships engaged in captures can still fight. Captured ships cannot fight for either side.

100 vs 100--Your ships capture 50 of his ships, and the fight becomes 100 vs 50. You kill 50 of his ships, and the fight becomes 100 vs 50. Result: 50 you, 0 him, 50 captured ships. The next turn you have 100 ships, as though you never fought an opponent who was otherwise your equal in every way.

100 vs 100, 2x stronger--Your ships capture 50 of his ships, and the fight becomes 100 vs 50. His ships are twice as strong as yours, so you both lose 100%. The next turn you have 50 ships, and he has none.

100 vs 50, regadless of modifiers--unless your luck is bad, you capture all of his ships and the fight never comes to engagement. You capture all of his ships, and start the next turn with 150 ships.

This was waaay OP. To counter it, I rsearched Self-Destruct. When a ship was captured, I rolled a 1/20 die for critical fail. Every non-failing captured ship self-destructs, but first attempts to collide with one of his ships with a 1/6 chance of causing damge. I still lost the ships, but he didn't get them, and I took some with them. 

100 vs 100, evenly matched--50 ships are captured. Self Destruct kicks in, and 2 ships fail. The remaining 48 ships self-destruct and cause 8 casualties. The fight becomes 92 vs 50, and he leaves with 42 survivors.

But if I'm twice as strong as him (and I think I may have been), the fight would have been  100-post modified vs his 92. I would have 8 post-modified survivors. My 2x combat modifer would then be divided back out, leaving me with 4 actual FS next turn.


Edit: I will actually start a new thread discussing these techs in the new GW.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on December 07, 2013, 09:18:39 pm
Oh goodie, I'm mostly unstoppable when it comes to using what I'm given, but I've got two techs I'd like to suggest for vetting.

Drones: while I plan on using a combination of AI, vanguard, decoys, and mines to represent what drone forces bring to the table, it would be nice to have a general effect tech, but I'm not sure how it'd work... watch this space for actual ideas.

Fussiler: strikes last in combat resolution, miss chance increase, reduces effectiveness of shields, may be combined with barrage to debuff fleet defense, a point of FS is either Fussiler or standard armament (decided at production) and cannot change unless refitted at a Fleet Station or friendly planet, losing a turn (may refit as many FS as levels of station or industry each turn).
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 07, 2013, 10:00:21 pm
The capture tech (Invented and first tested by me) saved my life during my war with the Theta and the Colonists.

I had no clue how the Theta were fighting my boarding parties.  They were spacefaring cows.  Did they strap guns to their backs or have a hat with guns on it?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 09, 2013, 12:19:51 pm
I had no clue how the Theta were fighting my boarding parties.  They were spacefaring cows.  Did they strap guns to their backs or have a hat with guns on it?

Mostly by stampeding and goring.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 09, 2013, 01:06:38 pm
I had no clue how the Theta were fighting my boarding parties.  They were spacefaring cows.  Did they strap guns to their backs or have a hat with guns on it?

Mostly by stampeding and goring.

Note To Self:
Add bullfighting as an offered course at the academy.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on December 09, 2013, 04:58:13 pm
Woah, wait hang on, Me2005, are all techs 12 points to upgrade or something?

Just confused because I thought I read it as 4 for general techs and 12 for specials, my accounting is in my post.

EDIT: okay, yeah, with the exception of bombardment getting changed just before this update, all my maths should be correct, why did only half of the techs get upgraded?

P.S. Ah, okay, you took CP out of the Industry upgrade and put it into Bombardment, but even so, I should be getting at least +1 Industry
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 09, 2013, 05:28:41 pm
Woah, wait hang on, Me2005, are all techs 12 points to upgrade or something?

Just confused because I thought I read it as 4 for general techs and 12 for specials, my accounting is in my post.

EDIT: okay, yeah, with the exception of bombardment getting changed just before this update, all my maths should be correct, why did only half of the techs get upgraded?

P.S. Ah, okay, you took CP out of the Industry upgrade and put it into Bombardment, but even so, I should be getting at least +1 Industry

Only Bombardment/Launch cost 12 of the 'basic' techs. I forgot to write down the industry upgrade in the post, but in the chart you've got Industry 3.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 09, 2013, 05:48:35 pm
Also, question. I have now invested 44 points into sensors. Were my ships able to see anything in the neighboring sectors before they came home?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 10, 2013, 10:54:29 am
Also, question. I have now invested 44 points into sensors. Were my ships able to see anything in the neighboring sectors before they came home?

Yes, but barely; if it's not on the map you can see a tiny sliver of the expansionist's territory on the edge of the next system down. If your STL was higher, they might have traveled the system and then come home, giving you a view most of the way into each adjacent system. As-is, you're probably best off continuing to put points into sensors and maxing out; I think the max lets you see a few systems away
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 12, 2013, 11:39:48 am
@Holy Thunder's RP:

Amazing story!  I'm going to try to write my own. (No promises)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 12, 2013, 12:20:43 pm
Thanks! I had it cooking a couple of days,and the juices were just flowing yesterday.

I'm really looking forward to hearing yours, I think you've got some great material. Dont' worry about specifics--I absolutely stink at writing dialogue, and you'll notice it's nonexistent here.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 16, 2013, 11:30:40 am
I realized just a bit ago I don't have a sheet on my (and others') current development, and that's pretty easy to obtain. Thanks Me2005 for making the posts public, so I can keep track of what I have. (-:
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 16, 2013, 11:39:58 am
I realized just a bit ago I don't have a sheet on my (and others') current development, and that's pretty easy to obtain. Thanks Me2005 for making the posts public, so I can keep track of what I have. (-:

So I am not the only one who likes to keep tabs on each other.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 16, 2013, 12:56:34 pm
I realized just a bit ago I don't have a sheet on my (and others') current development, and that's pretty easy to obtain. Thanks Me2005 for making the posts public, so I can keep track of what I have. (-:

Yeah, I figured it was always possible to figure out what people had by going back and reading everything, and I got tired of trying to figure it out when I missed something, so I just post what level you've achieved now. Much simpler, clearer at-a-glance.

No post from Niw again, can anyone check to see what's up with that? I'll update later today.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 16, 2013, 03:39:31 pm
sad...my cool story never happened. Or I will have to throw enough stuff at it until it does retroactively happen.

Is that the average ratio fo PS to FS with 2 weapons, 1 Quality, and 2 Defense, or did they have extra oomph?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 17, 2013, 11:11:08 am
sad...my cool story never happened. Or I will have to throw enough stuff at it until it does retroactively happen.

Is that the average ratio fo PS to FS with 2 weapons, 1 Quality, and 2 Defense, or did they have extra oomph?

Without tipping too much, the expansionists are more heavily invested in technologies that would help them expand. Planets are also pretty hard targets for unspecialized ships.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 17, 2013, 12:26:46 pm
sad...my cool story never happened. Or I will have to throw enough stuff at it until it does retroactively happen.

Is that the average ratio fo PS to FS with 2 weapons, 1 Quality, and 2 Defense, or did they have extra oomph?

Without tipping too much, the expansionists are more heavily invested in technologies that would help them expand. Planets are also pretty hard targets for unspecialized ships.

That would be quite logical.  If one's goal is to expand then their technology would be more heavily in defending their territory.

It is highly likely that the expansionist already have levels of bombardment.

Good luck Archon.  Defend your worlds well.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 17, 2013, 12:45:36 pm
Lol...duly noted. I trust Me2005 enough this time to not demand explanations and such. I can take my lumps.

Although, that's bad news for potentially future foes, as I have no intention of losing further battles. I know roughly how big the gap is, I know how to clear it, and I now have pretty decent reason to wipe the Avians off the map.

A song verse just came to mind. Has anybody heard the old miner's song "16 tons?"

"If you see me coming, better step aside
A lotta men didn't--and a lotta men died.
One fist of iron, and the other of steel--
If the left one don't get you then the right one will."


**Edit: On the tab-keeping note, glad to see your scanner CJ. Better way of knowing what friends to make and avoid.

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 17, 2013, 12:52:39 pm
FLASH BACK!!!

WTF
Commander Jackson, Fleet Admiral of the SDF
Home System: The Motherland (TA6, adj. RA6)

Research complete

System Improved

IB35- Theta fleets inbound!

Battle of IB35:
Your fleet was annihilated; despite fighting valiantly, the aliens appear to have advanced repair technology. At the end of the battle, they have received no apparent losses.

Negotiations @ NB36 - Negotiations with the Theta continue to go poorly (4) - being at war they simply opened fire, after receiving reinforcements from regions unknown.

Battle of NB36:
This was a massive engagement; your fleets jumped in, only to find themselves outnumbered 3:1. Negotiations failed, and no comm channel appeared to reach this group you are at war with. You inflicted fairly heavy losses, but at a massive cost. All hands lost.

Wormhole - Your activity in this system has caused a flare up in the wormhole! Incoming mass detected!

Battle of YB33:
20 Lightbringer ships inbound! Your fleet reels as it is surrounded and destroyed!
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 17, 2013, 12:53:39 pm
Is it offensive to say I loved it when you accidentally insulted the diplomat's mother?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 17, 2013, 12:57:12 pm
Total casualties that round
FS 25

NB36- Lost FS 18 against the Theta
IB35- Lost FS 1 against the Theta
YB33- Lost FS 6 against the Lightbringer; and that fleet got lost and founded the Deltan Federation.

Total forces before that round
FS 52


Is it offensive to say I loved it when you accidentally insulted the diplomat's mother?

Me = WTF
I was really mad when that happened.  Almost half of my military with Lvl 5 Weapons and defenses gone in my first battle.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 17, 2013, 01:57:53 pm
Level 5? We were closer in par than I'd expected.  :o
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 17, 2013, 03:48:20 pm
Level 5? We were closer in par than I'd expected.  :o

Just imagine what would have happened if I had not been murderize.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 17, 2013, 04:22:50 pm
FLASH BACK!!! ...

Man, was that all in one round? That was really harsh of me. Probably a good idea to not do so many potentailly dangerous things on any given turn.

Level 5? We were closer in par than I'd expected.  :o

If you'd like, I can approximate a battle between you two with all the forces you had left at the end of GW 1...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 17, 2013, 04:32:45 pm
That would be interesting. There's enough that didn't actually happen so that the loser (me, I fear) can forestall any gotcha remarks with their intended plans. For instance, I knew combat was at least 2 rounds away and was getting techs online accordingly. I suspect CJ was in the same boat.

But it would be interesting to know.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 17, 2013, 04:40:13 pm
@was that all in one round

Yes and I was mad and that led to mistakes

@Simulated battle

Sure!  I am pretty sure I'll lose though...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 17, 2013, 07:31:23 pm
That would be interesting. There's enough that didn't actually happen so that the loser (me, I fear) can forestall any gotcha remarks with their intended plans....

@Simulated battle

Sure!  I am pretty sure I'll lose though...

*Battle Simulator 1000*

HT with 96 PS and 109 FS
CJ with 143 PS and 111 FS

In a straight-up tech-free fight, HT destroys CJ's entire fleet and has 38 FS remaining. Beginning bombardment, his ships destroy 59 PS before being destroyed. His planets swing into the fray (how, exactly, no one will ever know because they were all killed by the Lightbringer), and he comes out victorious with 27 PS remaining.

Applying tech; HT wins the FS fight with 56 FS remaining (I think, I might not be applying tech right anymore and it's hard to tell because I deleted the old tables). CJ comes out with 37 surviving planets, and is defeated with HT having 65 PS remaining.

HT was really developing at the end, and what turns the fight every time is his superior offensive capabilities; with a Fleet Quality rating of 3x that of CJ's giving him a 3 point FS-mod advantage. He also had a slight advantage in planetary combat, with higher quality planets.

This does not account for tactical combat or strategic combat, only providing a direct comparison of the numbers. The gap wasn't unsurmountable, and cutting HT's AP support would have been reasonably trivial. Thadius could have supported/not supported one of you, and some techs did not apply to the situation that either of you would have fielded in a real battle and not a Lightbringer-caused direct confrontation of forces.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 17, 2013, 09:26:51 pm
Excellent. But a serious strategic issue I had to overcome, was that Cmdr. Jackson's forces were closer to home than mine. I had a huge fleet upstairs fending off the light Bringers.

Further south CJ had local superiority. I had hoped to force the confrontation away from his planets with a greater FS than I had. But if the next turn we thought on Thadius' neutral turf, with my 57 FS against his 73 FS, who would have won then?

My bet is on CJ. My tech advantages weren't enough to overcome his numbers and I knew it. If we had fought in that theater, as it lay, he would have staked out the entire southern not-LB map.




Next fun question. How would our fleets have each fared against 100 Light Bringer FS?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 18, 2013, 06:31:12 am
I knew my numbers would not be sufficient enough to overcome Holy Thunder's  technological lead.  My building up on numbers was just an extra bonus from my war with Thadius Faran.

Automatic Post Merge: December 18, 2013, 12:35:10 pm
Quote
Next fun question. How would our fleets have each fared against 100 Light Bringer FS?

Good question.  How would our combined forces fared against 100 LB FS and then how would we have fared against the entire LB?

Against 100 LB we probably will win but against the entire LB I fully expect that we will be completely wiped out.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 18, 2013, 12:47:40 pm
Next fun question. How would our fleets have each fared against 100 Light Bringer FS?

Both of your fleets combined would have lost to 100 LB FS, and they would have had 50 FS left after the battle. In fact, every player fleet on the board combined would be wiped out with 100 LB FS and they'd still have 27 FS remaining at the end of the battle. Straight numbers again, no tech.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 18, 2013, 12:56:18 pm
And that is why I accepted the LB offer.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 18, 2013, 02:30:09 pm
Wow...what would it have been with tech?

The map hack (wormhole split) messed up pretty much everybody's game plan and outright sank Thadius. They could have developed without that and still kicked our collective tushies. I will plan accordingly this time. 

**Addendum**Me2005, it looks like active players have their posts in, if  you have time to update it early.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 18, 2013, 04:28:38 pm
I vote yes for early round.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 18, 2013, 04:47:56 pm
Wow...what would it have been with tech?

The map hack (wormhole split) messed up pretty much everybody's game plan and outright sank Thadius. They could have developed without that and still kicked our collective tushies. I will plan accordingly this time. 

**Addendum**Me2005, it looks like active players have their posts in, if  you have time to update it early.

The LB were meant to ruin everyone's day, though definitely came in too early. I should have let player-conflict happen and introduced other NPR's first. The LB are also meant to be neigh-impossible to defeat in an outright assault, you're supposed to *static*

I'll look into updating by the end of the week.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 18, 2013, 05:51:08 pm
Quote
The map hack (wormhole split) messed up pretty much everybody's game plan and outright sank Thadius. They could have developed without that and still kicked our collective tushies. I will plan accordingly this time. 
.

Why didn't the wormhole near me split?  Was my fleet effective enough to at least stop that before getting lost in the wormhole?

Quote
The LB were meant to ruin everyone's day, though definitely came in too early. I should have let player-conflict happen and introduced other NPR's first. The LB are also meant to be neigh-impossible to defeat in an outright assault, you're supposed to *static*

I know! I got some information that suggests that if- (your informant got disintegrated by bright light)

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on December 18, 2013, 06:40:19 pm
I find myself wondering what the upgrade curve on tech costs is; didn't expect to get that last Industry upgrade until I'd finished paying the cost out this turn.  I also just realized that I'm going to need to start researching *static* fast.

Figuring out enemy strengths and tech levels just from battle results is going to be annoying - I hate reverse engineering maths.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 18, 2013, 08:08:15 pm
Pretty sure you can also look into espionage as an option. With enough training and research, your spies can surely obtain that information without fighting for it.

Trouble is, that would cost quite a few points. I didn't do it because I assumed my opponents would be spending those points on building technologies that would actually crush my fleets.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 18, 2013, 08:39:36 pm
My current schedule has me doing nothing of great interest until round 14 15.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 19, 2013, 11:55:22 am
I find myself wondering what the upgrade curve on tech costs is; didn't expect to get that last Industry upgrade until I'd finished paying the cost out this turn.  I also just realized that I'm going to need to start researching *static* fast.

Figuring out enemy strengths and tech levels just from battle results is going to be annoying - I hate reverse engineering maths.

Upgrade cost is fixed upfront. 4 For basic techs (except bombard/launch), and usually 12 for everything else. Upgrade effect peters out for most basic techs; the first few levels grand instant boosts, then you need 2 levels, then 3, then 5... Or however it actually goes for whatever thing. Special techs are just capped at whatever level makes sense; you can't, for example, get more than 10 levels in a tech that grants you a 10% boost to something.

Combat stats are more difficult, but between players should be easy enough - a higher-level player will beat a lower-level player with the same number of ships. It's obscure now because you don't know what the Expansionists/etc. have. HT is correct though, you can always get spies and find out what levels their techs are.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 19, 2013, 12:10:39 pm
There is always the question about whether the players actually know what to research.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 19, 2013, 12:23:26 pm
Weapons / Defense---4 points per level, applies to both FS and PS. Probably works on a long shallow curve.

Fleet Quality: doesn't apply to planets. A somewhat steeper curve of improvement I think.

System Quality: doesn't apply to fleets.

Pre-engagement techs: are rolled in the order of mines, barrage, EMP, capture. All this hAppens before your weapons / defense / quality differences are accounted for. Does not apply to enemy PS unless you do something different with it.

Bombardment: fleets get a bonus against planets.



Now they know. (-;
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 19, 2013, 01:10:02 pm
Not what I meant.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 19, 2013, 02:35:05 pm
If there were no hard decisions on what to research, it wouldn't be a game  ;)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 19, 2013, 02:54:44 pm
If there were no hard decisions on what to research, it wouldn't be a game  ;)

Exactly.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 19, 2013, 04:53:19 pm
Agreed. For instance, while gearing up for the Avian assault and then keeping my gains, I'm probably going to fall behind on points...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 23, 2013, 10:09:29 pm
@Battle Simulator

 Did use the 50% Success Rate Capture Tech in the simulation?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 24, 2013, 01:24:18 pm
@Battle Simulator

 Did use the 50% Success Rate Capture Tech in the simulation?

I think so, but there may have been counter-capture tech in the works. I know there was some pre-capture stuff happening to damage your fleet before you got a chance to capture too.

@ wormhole split - Yours didn't split because you stopped them from splitting it. But then, you outraged them and got wiped out; so there's that ;D

Update likely postponed to next week.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 24, 2013, 02:10:42 pm
@wormhole split

I see... I'll make sure to add that detail to my story.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 24, 2013, 02:17:37 pm
@CJ--Mines, EMP, and Barrage go before Capture. Mines first because they were already there, and then in order of  impact--EMP going first because it's the weakest at only disabling units. Barrage next because it destroys them, then Capture last because it keeps them.


I had Barrage 2, so 1/5 of my ships got a kill before Capture took effect.  Then 19 of every 20 successful captures self-destructed. Of those, 1 out of every 6 self-destructing captured ships took one of your ships with it.  And THEN we got to the conventional fight.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 24, 2013, 04:13:58 pm
I had Barrage 2, so 1/5 of my ships got a kill before Capture took effect.  Then 19 of every 20 successful captures self-destructed. Of those, 1 out of every 6 self-destructing captured ships took one of your ships with it.  And THEN we got to the conventional fight.

Actually, 'mines' were considered beyond the scope of the battle, and self-destruct wasn't fully researched yet (in my notes anyway). You just had more levels into ship fighting power.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on December 30, 2013, 07:01:13 am
Just for the records--I've missed this.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on December 30, 2013, 11:29:51 am
Update should come today. It might also come on Thursday, depending on my schedule.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on December 30, 2013, 09:11:32 pm
I sent FS 1 from [La60] to [Th61-1], not [Xi61-1].

Automatic Post Merge: December 31, 2013, 12:49:28 pm
Sudden Freakout Moment!:

Will pirates attack planets?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on January 02, 2014, 02:08:12 pm
I sent FS 1 from [La60] to [Th61-1], not [Xi61-1].

Automatic Post Merge: December 31, 2013, 12:49:28 pm
Sudden Freakout Moment!:

Will pirates attack planets?

I'll fix that with the next update.

And yes, most likley >:D
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on January 07, 2014, 04:08:31 pm
I'd like to take a minute and thank Me2005 for his hard work in keeping this up. The Update was up for quite some time, and I'm appreciative. I enjoy it.

 I assume my loss of 1 AP/CP is due to the reduced PS/PI ratio and/or having a lower average planet strength?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on January 07, 2014, 07:24:00 pm
I assume my loss of 1 AP/CP is due to the reduced PS/PI ratio and/or having a lower average planet strength?

Yep
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on January 07, 2014, 09:22:01 pm
From main thread--

Spoiler
Aha, okay, damn, in that case can I get a complete overview of your notes on my faction and the current numerical output of researched techs in a PM?

Sorry about the RP being absent, just getting over a couple days working and no sleep at to be found.

5AP/10CP
Upkeep: 0?


NORDIC Oversight Committee: Planetary Industry +4 @A53-1 [4CP]; PI +2 @A55-1 [2CP]; Sensors +1 [4CP]

ARCF Fleet Manoeuvres: Sensors +1 [4AP]; Exploration FS1 @A55-1->A55-2 [1AP]

If your PI to FS ratio is high enough, you have enough industry to support your fleet. No points are required for upkeep. If your fleet gets too big for your PI to handle, you must spend points on upkeep. It's a handy little balancer.

Also, don't sweat the RP stuff. Your posts are always cool. The RP you use tends to remind me of those snippets at the beginning of the chapter, in some books.

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on January 07, 2014, 09:43:51 pm
Wow, and here I was thinking I would be struggling to catch up with the current playerbase the way the Tech upgrades were taking me forever.  PI costs 1 point?  Oh, hell yes.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on January 08, 2014, 05:03:18 pm
Wow, and here I was thinking I would be struggling to catch up with the current playerbase the way the Tech upgrades were taking me forever.  PI costs 1 point?  Oh, hell yes.

There's a limit to PI per planet, so that boost only lasts so long. 45 PI/planet, and that's a planet with 0 PS (basically: It's defenseless and can be captured willy-nilly). It also falls off, but you guys have hit a sweet spot around 12-13 CP/7-9 AP or whatever where it's pretty stable for you (as we've seen).(45 PS 1 planet = 7AP/10CP by itself - no levels in anything else. 2 planets = 6/9; 3 = 5/8; eventually at 100 it's -1/21 though, because planets themselves contribute to CP slightly)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on January 08, 2014, 05:08:04 pm
Handy dandy.

Also can't help but notice all the actions are in just a day after the update. We're a rabid little bunch.  8)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on January 09, 2014, 08:49:51 pm
Since there's little for me to do other than continue building up my initial fleet and industrial base as rapidly as possible, my actions don't take so long.  the RP headlines used to come to me, but some IRL stuff has been taking up my mental life so I don't have anything left for writing fluff at the moment.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on January 10, 2014, 06:57:16 am
And dude that's cool. I wrote an epic story that didn't happen at all because the bad guys were way stronger than I'd thought, it happens.  The game's a crazy lot of fun to me even though I'm gonna be in my corner for a while, but then there's a good chance than in 20 or 30 turns we'll end up with a super-tough bad guy to fight. It's better when the updates come twice a week or more, but I suspect that's a bit of a strain on Me2005's schedule.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on January 10, 2014, 11:28:38 am
Sorry for kinda dropping. I've been pretty much braindead for the last month between working and attempting to sort out Uni.  I might be back in a month or two I'll have to pm Me2005 about it.

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on January 10, 2014, 12:09:50 pm
@ Niw: No problem. I'll possibly give you all the missed points back if you aren't interacting with other players with them.

@All: Just spent some time upgrading GIMP's brush library so I don't need to do everything by hand. I now have number, station, hazard, scan, and pixel brushes, which should hopefully cover everything I usually need specific shapes of. And I can do everything without switching tools and scales. Hopefully that'll increase my efficiency at drawing the maps, which in turn means I'll be more likely to update them regularly.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on January 10, 2014, 01:57:42 pm
Awesome! I know it's a lot of work, and again, it's appreciated.

Good-natured, not-as-terribly-upset-as-it-might-sound feedback, for any future versions: It may be that sensors should possibly not take 50+ points  of investment to see NPC activity in the sectors immediately adjacent to your own. Given the immediate and palpable impact of other 4-point and even 12-point techs, that seems a bit much. Not saying that it should be changed this round since you've already set it up, just for future reference. I do hope this makes stealth very difficult for others near me.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on January 10, 2014, 02:10:24 pm
Good-natured, not-as-terribly-upset-as-it-might-sound feedback, for any future versions: It may be that sensors should possibly not take 50+ points  of investment to see NPC activity in the sectors immediately adjacent to your own. Given the immediate and palpable impact of other 4-point and even 12-point techs, that seems a bit much. Not saying that it should be changed this round since you've already set it up, just for future reference. I do hope this makes stealth very difficult for others near me.

In hindsight, the way circles scale didn't do what I wanted as well as I'd hoped. Next time you'll probably start around 8-9 and go up, but 16 won't be "see everything anywhere close to you" as it looks like it is now. If it's not actually that, I'll add more levels when you get there.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on January 10, 2014, 03:00:23 pm
Adding levels sounds like a cool idea, gives a bit more incentive to push so hard for it. :)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on January 17, 2014, 02:37:58 pm
Waiting on Cy83r.

Also, another tech idea--Blitzkrieg, a 12-point special tech. For 1 additional AP, an invading fleet can attack the second planet in a system if the first attack is successful. Additional levels allow for additional planet conquests in the same turn, within the player's STL.  So at level 3 you could spend 3 AP and conquer 3 planets, assuming the first 2 are successful. At level 4 you could spend 4 points to attack 4 planets, and so on--unless you only have lvl 3 STL.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on January 17, 2014, 02:56:27 pm
*raise eyebrow*

Why are your ideas mirroring mine?

First your "Projected FTL" now "Blitzkrieg".
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on January 17, 2014, 03:02:47 pm
Waiting on Cy83r.

Also, another tech idea--Blitzkrieg, a 12-point special tech. For 1 additional AP, an invading fleet can attack the second planet in a system if the first attack is successful. Additional levels allow for additional planet conquests in the same turn, within the player's STL.  So at level 3 you could spend 3 AP and conquer 3 planets, assuming the first 2 are successful. At level 4 you could spend 4 points to attack 4 planets, and so on--unless you only have lvl 3 STL.

Didn't you start the tech tread, specifically for stuff like this? :P

Interesting idea, I think it could work exactly that way.

BTW: I haven't been writing down many of these ideas in my spreadsheet (thus making them official and irrevocable) until someone actually spends points developing one of them. So if any of you choose to develop a tech we've talked about, I've probably forgotten what it is and you'll need to quote me/you where I said it was ok when you want to do it. But you can put it directly into your action post (spoilered, if you need to), especially if I've been as direct as above ("I think it can work exactly like that" or "I think it'd work, but it'd need to be X, Y, and Z"). If you want me to change it or I haven't been obviously explicit, PM me or work it out in the tech thread first.

Another BTW: Do I have limits on how far apart your development can be? I think I *intended* for your owned planets to be no more than 1 FTL jump apart from your other territory. STL can take longer, but usually because I expect you to develop the planets in order so one planet could supply the next. Warpgates are basically the only tech you can develop to allow your planets to be infinitely far apart (aside from high-level FTL with bonus intervening territory-skipping).
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on January 17, 2014, 03:28:24 pm
That hasn't been specified, but I think it's an understood. But due to the hostile environment, it hasn't been put to much of a test yet.   ;D
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on January 19, 2014, 10:54:01 pm
Sorry, 6-day week with oodles of overtime I'm not disciplined enough to save.  I was told that hours would be cut after christmas and it's rather the opposite - I've been doing nothing but sleeping and working lately.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on January 24, 2014, 01:52:38 pm
Sorry, 6-day week with oodles of overtime I'm not disciplined enough to save.  I was told that hours would be cut after christmas and it's rather the opposite - I've been doing nothing but sleeping and working lately.

You keep doing that, we'll wait until you have time to post. Unless it gets to be too long, then we'll start posting again anyway.



Interesting side-note - I've got charts for mining and exploration actions, but no one seems to have used them. Basically, in a system with asteroids you could choose to mine and roll the dice to gain *something*, and in a system with nothing/planets/whatever, you could explore and roll the dice to find *something*. Your stats are supposed to affect those rolls, but I'm thinking I'll need to modify them since you're all at high enough levels that a D10 roll +stat doesn't make sense.

Another note, I'll be adding a formal rule about cut-off colonies, so you can use more strategies when conducting interstellar war.

Edit: and here it is:

*NOTICE*: If your planets are separated from your territory by more space than your FS can cover in 1 round, they may go into "Decline." This may cause them to loose PI/PS or defect/surrender to other NPC's/Opponents. The rate at which they decline may be decided later, but will probably be effected by the strength of the system as a whole and the distance and duration of separation.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on January 24, 2014, 03:12:06 pm
Cool beans.


You mentioned this setup was to encourage us to build up before we run off gallivanting across the galaxy, and I think by and large that's what we've done. Given how hard the Expansionists hit, I'm gonna be loaded for bear when it's time to strike out. But I am looking forward to the "maturation" stage when that happens.

It's a shame we don't have more players...maybe with the new releases when they come.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on January 29, 2014, 06:14:48 pm
And we have network uplink.  Sorry, for being out so long, but hey, I now have a hard drive running windows instead of linux so I can start making shiny shiny spacecraft.
Spoiler
I just lost 30GB+ of data, thousands of images, hundreds of e-books, over four hundred songs, and nearly three dozen personal projects.  Funeral services for those ephemeral losses will be hosted by the Imaginary Family Mortuary Services across a cloud server composed of all attending parties, cake and punch will be provided.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on January 29, 2014, 07:02:40 pm
And we have network uplink.  Sorry, for being out so long, but hey, I now have a hard drive running windows instead of linux so I can start making shiny shiny spacecraft.
Spoiler
I just lost 30GB+ of data, thousands of images, hundreds of e-books, over four hundred songs, and nearly three dozen personal projects.  Funeral services for those ephemeral losses will be hosted by the Imaginary Family Mortuary Services across a cloud server composed of all attending parties, cake and punch will be provided.

Yowza; sorry for your loss. You probably know better than I do, but do you have the harddrive? I've hooked up dead Windows drives to live Macs with USB drive-enclosures and recovered everything in the past.

Otherwise, we're happy to have you back. Post in the war thread so I can update; it'll probably be delayed until Friday/Monday so you have until then.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on January 29, 2014, 09:41:10 pm
And we have network uplink.  Sorry, for being out so long, but hey, I now have a hard drive running windows instead of linux so I can start making shiny shiny spacecraft.
Spoiler
I just lost 30GB+ of data, thousands of images, hundreds of e-books, over four hundred songs, and nearly three dozen personal projects.  Funeral services for those ephemeral losses will be hosted by the Imaginary Family Mortuary Services across a cloud server composed of all attending parties, cake and punch will be provided.

Ouch... 
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on January 30, 2014, 08:27:07 am
That really sucks man, hope you can get at least some of that back somehow. On the marginally bright side, we didn't go forward at all without you. :)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on January 31, 2014, 03:54:51 pm
*Just Read Update*

...

That turned out better than I could have ever expected...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on January 31, 2014, 04:10:10 pm
*Just Read Update*

...

That turned out better than I could have ever expected...

Updating the update to include HT's tech that I forgot about XD

Forgot how poorly that can go. Leaving it as-is; EMP worked more against than for HT and barrage didn't hit anything. I recommend upgrading weapons/defenses, Planet & ship quality to prevent further mishaps.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Cy83r on February 02, 2014, 05:48:21 am
update from the wii, installing a beefier graphics card borked everything a second time.  carry on without me and i'll catch up when i've the chance
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on February 05, 2014, 04:36:06 pm
@La68 Scan:

Earlier you said that there were friendly and pirate NPRs in this system.  Not a pirate and an isolationist.   Was the friendly NPR destroyed?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on February 06, 2014, 12:49:26 pm
@La68 Scan:

Earlier you said that there were friendly and pirate NPRs in this system.  Not a pirate and an isolationist.   Was the friendly NPR destroyed?

Possibly, or I was possibly confused. Whatever color the NPR is is what's there.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on February 06, 2014, 02:57:59 pm
Scan: Pirate activity; Friendly activity; War detected.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on February 06, 2014, 03:09:01 pm
...

Yes, but you can still see the area on the map. I have trouble with colors sometimes, so it's likely that I slipped up - look at the attached map on that post and see if the area is a different color.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on February 06, 2014, 04:30:09 pm
Yes, but you can still see the area on the map. I have trouble with colors sometimes, so it's likely that I slipped up - look at the attached map on that post and see if the area is a different color.

It appears to be the same color.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on February 06, 2014, 06:59:40 pm
It appears to be the same color.

And the color on the key? Whatever that is is what the NPR is.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on February 06, 2014, 08:51:50 pm
After comparing it to the other existing NPRs I think that it is a Friendly.  The Isolationists look more transparent than the Friendly NPR.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on February 10, 2014, 04:54:38 pm
After looking at it in even more detail...  I think it is Isolationist...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on February 13, 2014, 05:10:49 pm
*Looks at CJ*

>.>

Waits...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on February 24, 2014, 05:01:43 pm
Those NPRs are Isolationists and I  believe they are losing a war against the Pirates.

this will not be a repeat of GW: Round 29...

Automatic Post Merge: February 24, 2014, 05:04:06 pm

Commander Jackson, Fleet Admiral of the SDF
Home System: The Motherland (TA6, adj. RA6)

Research complete

System Improved

IB35- Theta fleets inbound!

Battle of IB35:
Your fleet was annihilated; despite fighting valiantly, the aliens appear to have advanced repair technology. At the end of the battle, they have received no apparent losses.

Negotiations @ NB36 - Negotiations with the Theta continue to go poorly (4) - being at war they simply opened fire, after receiving reinforcements from regions unknown.

Battle of NB36:
This was a massive engagement; your fleets jumped in, only to find themselves outnumbered 3:1. Negotiations failed, and no comm channel appeared to reach this group you are at war with. You inflicted fairly heavy losses, but at a massive cost. All hands lost.

Wormhole - Your activity in this system has caused a flare up in the wormhole! Incoming mass detected!

Battle of YB33:
20 Lightbringer ships inbound! Your fleet reels as it is surrounded and destroyed!

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on February 26, 2014, 09:05:21 am
I can see why you wouldn't want to repeat that.



Side note--what do we get from mining Asteroids?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on February 26, 2014, 11:54:51 am
I can see why you wouldn't want to repeat that.



Side note--what do we get from mining Asteroids?

Well, probably less asteroids (beneficial for avoiding getting killed by asteroids) and points. The absolute worst result is that you convert an AP to an RP. I'm going to call the removal a visual thing; probably 1 mining-option per visual asteroid in a system.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on February 27, 2014, 03:23:40 pm
@Theta:

(me = reading while eating a granola bar)
*reads moderates response

Me:  (raises eyebrow)

*Reads tech stats on moderate ships

Me: (smiles while taking another bite)

Quote from: Me2005
Oddly enough, these moderates resemble cows and call themselves the Theta.

Me: (chokes on food)

Automatic Post Merge: February 27, 2014, 03:43:28 pm
BTW:  I am still alive. I didn't choke to death on my food.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on February 28, 2014, 08:21:36 am
lol...redux!  ;D

This should definitely prove interesting...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on February 28, 2014, 01:08:24 pm
Figured it'd be fun. The Theta were such a noble race; they conquered a vast swath of the galaxy, brought alliances to bear against you players (or mostly just CJ), and exported vast quantities of milk.  ;D
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 01, 2014, 10:41:20 am
Figured it'd be fun. The Theta were such a noble race; they conquered a vast swath of the galaxy, brought alliances to bear against you players (or mostly just CJ), and exported vast quantities of milk.  ;D

Respect to them.

Is their refusal to allow me to station my agents on their ships partly because of Hoof controls?

Automatic Post Merge: March 01, 2014, 10:42:45 am
Despite your scientists' difficulty in working their tech (blasted hoof-controls require *stomping* on to operate), they've identified a ...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 03, 2014, 08:41:05 am
So I had a thought over the weekend.

Me2005 has now moderated like 75 turns of this game without directly controlling a faction himself, except for the LB. I'd like to propose we let Me2005 start a faction of his own subject to the same rules, provided he can agree to separate player Me2005 from moderator Me2005.  That is, allow himself the same challenges, potential failures, and NPR conflicts that we also have to deal with. In the event of player conflict, we would place our entire post in spoilerage and trust him to not look until he's submitted his own actions.

He has distinct advantages, which we can mitigate with conditions. For instance:

1) Me2005 has an intimate knowledge of exactly how the game works, and will be able to amass action points at a terrifying rate. This can be partially offset by letting him start as we did, and by us having 20+ turns head start. It can also be partially offset by 2).

2)Me2005 has full disclosure of our actions, including code-name projects we keep secret from each other. While we can trust him to try keeping moderator-knowledge separate from his player-knowledge, some of that will bleed over. To offset this and his knowledge advantage, Me2005 would not be allowed any classified actions or research, with the exception of specific deployment details of mines, cloaked ships, or decoy fleets. Even using his superior knowledge would tip his hand, and if so inclined, CJ and I could simply follow suit.

These limitations would keep him from becoming insurmountably powerful, while allowing him to participate himself in the game we enjoy so much. That way, when the inevitable Big Bad comes along, it'll have 3 players to deal with instead of just two.

What do you guys think?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 03, 2014, 10:41:42 am
@Me2005 as a Player:

interesting idea.


@Current Round:

I completely forgot to write a response to the current round.  I may be a little delayed in responding.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 03, 2014, 11:04:27 am
So I had a thought over the weekend.

Me2005 has now moderated like 75 turns of this game without directly controlling a faction himself, except for the LB. I'd like to propose we let Me2005 start a faction of his own subject to the same rules, provided he can agree to separate player Me2005 from moderator Me2005.  That is, allow himself the same challenges, potential failures, and NPR conflicts that we also have to deal with. In the event of player conflict, we would place our entire post in spoilerage and trust him to not look until he's submitted his own actions.

While I appreciate the thought, I also don't feel the need to have a race of my own at present. I'll tailor the results of bigger events to there being just two of you as I have been tailoring NPR actions in response to Cy83r and Niw leaving (note that the previously-active races near them haven't really done anything since they dropped out).

Quote
He has distinct advantages, which we can mitigate with conditions. For instance:

Understatement of the year. I know how the entire system works, and which points to apply where to get what advantages. Besides that, I also have the entire un-fogged map of the universe, the dice setups for how NPR's respond to various actions, and the combat tables.

Let's sum it up this way: Other than the blatent cheating that the LB could do initially to get onto the map, the LB were me running a race. I also make decisions for all of the NPR's on things that aren't setup on tables and how to apply the die results to the real map, so my ledger is already pretty full.



If, in 'light' (heh) of all that, you insist, I can set up a 'special' NPR that isn't initially hostile to you two and isn't accessible but can help against threats. Maybe limited to one system, except by vote from you two to allow me to expand to another system. I think there are places on the map that could support that.

In other news, update will likely be postponed until tomorrow.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 03, 2014, 11:40:26 am
Quote from: Me2005
Let's sum it up this way: Other than the blatent cheating that the LB could do initially to get onto the map, the LB were me running a race. I also make decisions for all of the NPR's on things that aren't setup on tables and how to apply the die results to the real map, so my ledger is already pretty full.

I was watching the LB development with extreme interest.  I knew that you would know what to do so I compared your playstyle with mine and used that information to learn how to play even better.

I was beginning to apply some LB tactics after I got the Theta and Colonists out of my hair...

@Explanation for Random Appearance of Theta:

They got here the same way that my guys got to this system, through the wormhole.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 05, 2014, 01:45:07 pm
Questions I think I asked, but don't remember the answer to: Are you guys allowing your citizens to freely trade? Can they be armed-traders (privateers)?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 05, 2014, 04:43:04 pm
@Andromada Council Backstory:

Amazing!


Questions I think I asked, but don't remember the answer to: Are you guys allowing your citizens to freely trade? Can they be armed-traders (privateers)?

Do you mean pirates?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 05, 2014, 06:22:17 pm
@Andromada Council Backstory:

Amazing!

Thanks! I didn't have one when I came up with their name/location/etc. yesterday, but today it just hit me like a brick.

Quote
Do you mean pirates?

Eh... Yes and no. You can allow your citizens to engage in *legal* piracy, where they go around disabling and boarding other players' ships. It'd be super-rare, I'd have to roll a pirate encounter and then roll you as the pirate. And we haven't had any encounters since several rounds ago, though that's partly due to the lack of exploration (you don't get encounters in systems controlled by someone).

Allowing your peeps to have ships would allow them to be in (almost) *any* encounter, which is more likely to happen.

Pirate-pirates are assumed to be fringes from many societies as-is. So you can't really prevent your peeps from being regular pirates. The distinction from privateers is that some of the privateer's booty might find its way back to you. Privateers might also be given charters good against only certain players.

At this point, any players' ships could reasonably have gotten to any other players' space, so everyone would be approved targets for everyone else.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 05, 2014, 09:45:15 pm
Thanks! I didn't have one when I came up with their name/location/etc. yesterday, but today it just hit me like a brick.

I wish that would happen to me.  Without being hit by a literal brick of course.

Quote from: Me2005
Eh... Yes and no. You can allow your citizens to engage in *legal* piracy, where they go around disabling and boarding other players' ships. It'd be super-rare, I'd have to roll a pirate encounter and then roll you as the pirate. And we haven't had any encounters since several rounds ago, though that's partly due to the lack of exploration (you don't get encounters in systems controlled by someone).

Allowing your peeps to have ships would allow them to be in (almost) *any* encounter, which is more likely to happen.

Pirate-pirates are assumed to be fringes from many societies as-is. So you can't really prevent your peeps from being regular pirates. The distinction from privateers is that some of the privateer's booty might find its way back to you. Privateers might also be given charters good against only certain players.

At this point, any players' ships could reasonably have gotten to any other players' space, so everyone would be approved targets for everyone else.

I was thinking about something like exactly like that for a special tech.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 06, 2014, 10:43:12 am
I was thinking about something like exactly like that for a special tech.

Well then, you're in luck! Just allow your citizens to engage in privateering, and if the opportunity comes up, they'll rob your opponents blind!
Warning: May cause outbreak of war, hard feelings, and hurt diplomatic relations.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 06, 2014, 11:41:19 am
Well then, you're in luck! Just allow your citizens to engage in privateering, and if the opportunity comes up, they'll rob your opponents blind!
Warning: May cause outbreak of war, hard feelings, and hurt diplomatic relations.

That is exactly why I am hesitant to sanction such actions.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 06, 2014, 02:45:29 pm
Hmmm.... ;D
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 06, 2014, 03:40:07 pm
 I just noticed that I have made a typo in Round 24 when I researched Sensors.  I researched sensors 11 in round 14 and I spent a total of 8 points on upgrading from 11 to sensors 12. 

I should have Sensors 13 as of round 24.  Not Sensors 12.

Round 24 Actions
GWv2- Round 24

Deltan Federation (DF)

Actions
AP 8/CP 14/TP 2/RP 3

Theta Actions (TAP = Theta Action Point/TCP = Theta Construction Point)
TAP 8/TCP 2

-Research: Sensors 12 - RP 3, TP 1, AP 4



Round 14 Actions
GWv2- Round 14

Deltan Federation (DF)

Actions
AP 8/CP 12

-Build FS 8 [De66-1] - AP 8

-Research: Weapons 2 - CP 4 ( you said we started with 1)

-Research: Defense 2 - CP 4 (see above)

-Research: Sensors 11 - CP 4

-Scan: [La68]

RP Stuff
General Order for Ships at De66 and De68:
Be prepared for potential hostile incursions from Th67 and Th69.

Side Note
I am pretty sure that there is PI 20 at De68-1 and De68-2. Current map only shows PI 19.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 06, 2014, 05:49:37 pm
I just noticed that I have made a typo in Round 24 when I researched Sensors.  I researched sensors 11 in round 14 and I spent a total of 8 points on upgrading from 11 to sensors 12. 

I should have Sensors 13 as of round 24.  Not Sensors 12.

Round 24 Actions

Round 14 Actions


Ok, sensors upgraded to 13. Map will change next round.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 10, 2014, 07:27:22 am
Looks like Turn 26 would be a good time for a bonus round... 8)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 10, 2014, 09:16:12 am
Looks like Turn 26 would be a good time for a bonus round... 8)

Hm... No complaints here.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 10, 2014, 10:47:32 am
Just noticed we had 3 sets of building, and probably more building to come. Double rounds speed that process along a bit, so we can get to the actiony parts sooner.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 10, 2014, 11:13:57 am
Just noticed we had 3 sets of building, and probably more building to come. Double rounds speed that process along a bit, so we can get to the actiony parts sooner.

Alright, we'll do a tech/building triple-round Thursday. Use your bonus points for tech or building, but not moving things.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 10, 2014, 11:38:11 am
Alright, we'll do a tech/building triple-round Thursday. Use your bonus points for tech or building, but not moving things.

Excellent!

Automatic Post Merge: March 10, 2014, 04:10:05 pm
Will the NPRs (like the Pirates) get triple actions?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 11, 2014, 12:05:36 pm
Excellent!

Automatic Post Merge: March 10, 2014, 04:10:05 pm
Will the NPRs (like the Pirates) get triple actions?

Maybe. Maybe not. It'll depend on what you're doing to them.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 13, 2014, 12:02:17 am
Maybe. Maybe not. It'll depend on what you're doing to them.

You'll see...

Automatic Post Merge: March 13, 2014, 04:11:06 pm
@Operation:

They were supposed to warp in all at once...  The talk about flanking was just for extra fluff...

Automatic Post Merge: March 13, 2014, 04:13:58 pm
@Kittens:

...

I neglected to mention that I had a Feline Sentient in my faction...

Automatic Post Merge: March 13, 2014, 04:34:21 pm
@My lesson from GW1:

I just noticed that only half of my fleet was sent.  I learned that half-measures is just asking for trouble.

I decided in that PM to go ALL in.  My entire fleet along with the Theta.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 13, 2014, 05:25:02 pm
@My lesson from GW1:

I just noticed that only half of my fleet was sent.  I learned that half-measures is just asking for trouble.

I decided in that PM to go ALL in.  My entire fleet along with the Theta.

This may require a separate update, I'll let you guys know.

Edit: ...And update complete. Whew, one of the longest ones I've ever had to do. Also one of the highest loss rounds ever. Good thing the LB aren't around... Yet
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 13, 2014, 06:15:46 pm
@CJ: Ouch man. Remember the Powell Doctrine. If you must needs use force, do it with overwhelming numbers.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 13, 2014, 06:33:53 pm
@CJ: Ouch man. Remember the Powell Doctrine. If you must needs use force, do it with overwhelming numbers.

To be fair, he did have numbers on his side. Just not overwhelming numbers, as the pirates aren't pushovers. However, they aren't long-term planners either, so it's likely that he'd be able to beat them back in short order with the right actions.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 13, 2014, 07:07:24 pm
@CJ: Ouch man. Remember the Powell Doctrine. If you must needs use force, do it with overwhelming numbers.

I SENT ABSOULUTELY EVERYTHING!

Automatic Post Merge: March 13, 2014, 07:08:59 pm
This may require a separate update, I'll let you guys know.

Edit: ...And update complete. Whew, one of the longest ones I've ever had to do. Also one of the highest loss rounds ever. Good thing the LB aren't around... Yet


<Rage goes Here>

Automatic Post Merge: March 13, 2014, 07:24:30 pm
I will be most likely be posting late...

This is just unfair is going to be a challenge to bounce back from this...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 13, 2014, 10:12:00 pm
@Me2005: I have a concern.

My understanding was that the amount of PI influenced our points as well as our ratio of PI to PS. If the ratio were all that mattered, after all, we would have incentive to have no more than one maxed out planet for each station we wanted.

  But that's just not holding up, as I just added 32 PI with no change in my CP or AP.

In fact, at the end of turn 7 I had only 21 PI, and I had 8 AP / 13 CP. I now have 97 PI, more than 4 times that amount, and I've only gained 1 AP / 1 CP from it. It's saying two fully-built planets and two new planets can only produce barely more than one half-built planet, and I don't get that.

What gives?

@ CJ--Man, when he said "It depends on what you do to them," you should have known you couldn't take advantage of the bonus points to launch a military campaign, without the target also getting bonus points. It can still be bounced back from though.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 14, 2014, 11:23:30 am
@Me2005: I have a concern.

My understanding was that the amount of PI influenced our points as well as our ratio of PI to PS. If the ratio were all that mattered, after all, we would have incentive to have no more than one maxed out planet for each station we wanted.

  But that's just not holding up, as I just added 32 PI with no change in my CP or AP.

In fact, at the end of turn 7 I had only 21 PI, and I had 8 AP / 13 CP. I now have 97 PI, more than 4 times that amount, and I've only gained 1 AP / 1 CP from it. It's saying two fully-built planets and two new planets can only produce barely more than one half-built planet, and I don't get that.

What gives?

The ratio of PI is solely what governs your income as far as PI goes, but you do get a slight bump for each additional planet. It looks like the Lightbringer, who have 1 PI and 1 planet, get 3 CP/round. If I bump them to 10 PI and 10 Planets, they get 5 CP/round. 20 PI/20 planets is 7 CP round; while 20PI/10 planets is 1 AP/6CP. If they maxed out 1, 10, and 20 planets, they'd have 3AP/7CP, 7AP/12CP, and 7AP/14CP respectively. Of course, they also have level 0 everything, so many points can be got from technology, but you can see the progression of CP increase happening (It seems to continue at about 2 CP/10 planets). AP from PI maxes out at 7 from my brief experiments here.

Admittedly, it is more difficult to get more points as you expand, but that's kind of the idea - I don't want you getting hundreds of points per turn easily as that makes it harder to update. In-game, the theory is that your citizens have a standard of living on one planet, and if that planet is better than another planet, you need to artificially support the other planet with wealth from the first to keep people there.

The goal is to encourage expansion and investment in diverse technologies while also keeping 'turtling' in one spending item to a minimum.

As an aside, an interesting, yet undiscussed, tech would be one that expanded available planet-slots. Super expensive to  really make good use of (45+ points per planet), but would provide a minor benefit. (double slots gives the LB a 5 planet hold of 8/12 - more AP than any offering and as many CP as a maxed-out 10 planet setup).
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 14, 2014, 12:23:25 pm
Understood, and good idea on planet expansion.

I would then like to again propose that we set a cap on station levels. It makes no sense that I can spend 450 points on planetary industry across 10 planets and get only 2 CP out of it, or spend the same amount on one station and get 75 RP from it. It's inherently unbalanced. Is really like to see at least a slightly larger bump on quantity of PI, even if it's one per ten, then one per fifteen, one per 20, 25, 30, and so on. That would make more sense to me, but I understand you've got your whole system.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 14, 2014, 12:39:55 pm
Understood, and good idea on planet expansion.

I would then like to again propose that we set a cap on station levels. It makes no sense that I can spend 450 points on planetary industry across 10 planets and get only 2 CP out of it, or spend the same amount on one station and get 75 RP from it. It's inherently unbalanced. Is really like to see at least a slightly larger bump on quantity of PI, even if it's one per ten, then one per fifteen, one per 20, 25, 30, and so on. That would make more sense to me, but I understand you've got your whole system.

I'll take a look at the math; for stations maybe we can cap them at 10?

Ed: Modified planet worth (to .5 from .2) and a number that affects CP/AP production slightly.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 14, 2014, 01:45:32 pm
10 seems reasonable.  10 would be a nice round number for PI and FS, 12 would be a nice round number for RP.  Launchers, Fortresses, Scanners, etc. seem not to be a big deal, but however you want to do it.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 14, 2014, 02:27:03 pm
10 seems reasonable.  10 would be a nice round number for PI and FS, 12 would be a nice round number for RP.  Launchers, Fortresses, Scanners, etc. seem not to be a big deal, but however you want to do it.

Interesting point. 12 for RP stations, 10 for most others; I don't think there's a reason to have more than a level 1 Scanner or Warpgate (if there is, 10 is still probably reasonable) and I don't think there's a reason to limit fortresses.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 18, 2014, 11:15:24 am
@ CJ - Launch is like bombardment, and costs 12 per level. Everyone starts at 0.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 18, 2014, 11:27:52 am
Okay... Let me fix that...

Automatic Post Merge: March 18, 2014, 11:30:04 am
Fixed
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 18, 2014, 12:42:54 pm
So...launch is like bombardment against FS, but different than barrage?  :o
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 18, 2014, 02:50:11 pm
So...launch is like bombardment against FS, but different than barrage?  :o

Launch is bombardment for planets. It has a 50/50 fail rate against ships, if they're explicitly targeted, and can only be used once per planet per turn. Requires a launcher to fire at anything out-of-system.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 19, 2014, 11:30:32 am
@CJ: Well-played on the last turn, by the way.  Good balance there, fending off the baddies and still working on infrastructure.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 19, 2014, 07:54:19 pm
@CJ: Well-played on the last turn, by the way.  Good balance there, fending off the baddies and still working on infrastructure.

Thanks.  Those Pirates really caught me off guard.

We may have lost a battle... but we haven't lost the war!
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 20, 2014, 04:20:28 pm
The pirates at I19 look unpleasant. 40 FS? Must have plans.

@Me2005: With everything you do being transaparent, I would like to go ahead and encourage you to expand as you see fit. Since you can't exactly sneak up on us, it seems fitting that you (or rather, your special NPC) should be able to pursue domination as much as the rest of us.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 20, 2014, 06:39:11 pm
@Me2005: With everything you do being transaparent, I would like to go ahead and encourage you to expand as you see fit. Since you can't exactly sneak up on us, it seems fitting that you (or rather, your special NPC) should be able to pursue domination as much as the rest of us.

Thanks! Currently there are plots abrewing that prevent the Adromedans from exploring further, but they need to develop a few more rounds first (errr... approximately as many as it takes to get closer to you guys in level). Alternatively, I could take the starting-techs I let you guys pick and I'd probably be able to move on with the plan in the next two-three rounds.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 21, 2014, 07:09:53 am
I'm cool with taking the starter techs, all the better for saving time. :)

You mentioned in PM something about modifying the core system. What's up with that?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 21, 2014, 10:43:45 am
I'm cool with taking the starter techs, all the better for saving time. :)

You mentioned in PM something about modifying the core system. What's up with that?


I would think that the core system (if it is a location) is a system in the center of the galaxy.


Automatic Post Merge: March 21, 2014, 10:46:51 am
Q35?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 21, 2014, 11:11:03 am
Actually, it's the underpinning of our point system. I'd noticed you added 3 PI and got 2 CP and 2 AP from it, and Me2005 said he'd modified the core system.  Just curious how it's different now.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 21, 2014, 11:51:42 am
You mentioned in PM something about modifying the core system. What's up with that?
Ed: Modified planet worth (to .5 from .2) and a number that affects CP/AP production slightly.

The cp number was adjusted less than 1 point (probably .2-.5), don't know what it was now though.

I think the specific instance HT is thinking of is right when I updated the system, which gave both of you a boost; but made it appear that CJ had added 3 PI and gained huge resources from it.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 21, 2014, 12:40:58 pm
That makes sense, he has significantly more planets than I do.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 24, 2014, 05:18:21 pm
So...that was a quick round, lol
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 24, 2014, 06:03:01 pm
So...that was a quick round, lol

Yes it was.

Automatic Post Merge: March 24, 2014, 06:04:46 pm
Are there faction specific special "artifacts"?

It has come to my attention that a marker has highlighted O55.

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 25, 2014, 10:25:15 am
Yes it was.

Automatic Post Merge: March 24, 2014, 06:04:46 pm
Are there faction specific special "artifacts"?

It has come to my attention that a marker has highlighted O55.


Not unless you request one and we work it out in PM. In this case, this one is a plot device and a highlight so you can see where I'm about to go on a quest to.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 25, 2014, 01:15:14 pm
Quote from: Me2005
Depending on how NPCs are created, setting up an aggro for them on anyone firing at anyone else shouldn't be too hard, but disabling weapons fire is safer. (PS - if you're learning programming, perhaps you can setup the GW as a program to speed up posts  ?)

I could actually play with this via Excel and make it happen. Mind you, it would probably have a slightly different rule system regarding points and combat modifiers, and I would make everything transparent except the actual combat upgrade modifiers--I too like the relative mystery of combat. It would take some time, but the main advantage would be the dice rolls. Once the techs are in place, I'm pretty confident I can make dozens of rolls happen with just a few entries.

Also, next Friday I'm finally (at long last) getting my laptop fixed. With that will come a download of Visual Studio, which will allow me to make all of this into a Visual Basic program. Visual Basic probably doesn't generally handle stuff like this, but I'm pretty good at complicated. ;)

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 25, 2014, 03:17:06 pm
I could actually play with this via Excel and make it happen. Mind you, it would probably have a slightly different rule system regarding points and combat modifiers, and I would make everything transparent except the actual combat upgrade modifiers--I too like the relative mystery of combat. It would take some time, but the main advantage would be the dice rolls. Once the techs are in place, I'm pretty confident I can make dozens of rolls happen with just a few entries.

Also, next Friday I'm finally (at long last) getting my laptop fixed. With that will come a download of Visual Studio, which will allow me to make all of this into a Visual Basic program. Visual Basic probably doesn't generally handle stuff like this, but I'm pretty good at complicated. ;)

I've got an excel sheet that does most of the work now, it's just that it'd be easier if (best first):
A) You guys could enter your own actions and the system could auto-resolve them for us.
B) I could enter the actions in (as I do now), but everything else could be fully automated
C) My map could auto-update
D) Combat could be fully-automated (I have to manually do the special attacks, which is why they often get overlooked)
E) Changes could be auto-traced so my post could be written automatically/easier

Dice rolls are something of a pain, but I've got "=random(1,X)" cells to handle those for all the common die types.

The combat sheet is actually pretty slick currently, for regular combat rounds I enter numbers in the appropriate spots and it spits out the result. All that's left for me is to divide that out by the winning player's modifier and give the remaining fleets, which I could probably convince the sheet to do, but it seemed like more work than it would be worth.

If you could figure out a program that basically used excel to define things for me, and could also interact with a map, I could probably get it to work; I'm pretty confident in my excel skills. It's just the stinking program-language I can't figure out, and why "y=z^2+x+4" can't read like that instead of "=get" (or whatever)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 25, 2014, 04:42:50 pm
A) That would require some hosting or a shared document, potentially google drive which would take much of this off the forums. It'd be difficult to make it happen without letting us in on the formula.

B)This I can do, except for the mapping. I can even give you a running coordinate list of PS/PI/FS and stations/strength.  Each turn we enter our info, you update the spreadsheet, and it all sticks.  You probably already have much of that.

C) The map I can't help you with, at least not until I get VB (and spend a lot more time with it). With Visual Basic, it would be something on the other side of a nightmare to automatically apply the dots to the planets, but with many many hours of at-home work it might be possible. Excel, I can fool with here at work. A non-hex system might be easily doable, but the hexes are really nice. I'll look into this at some point soon.

D) This I can do. I'm right now writing a document using my own combat modifier system. The vision is that you go to the "Combat" tab, select the combatants from a drop-down box of possibilities, enter the FS / PS info, and the combat will automatically calculate based on our stored tech data. I've already written it to account for weapons, defense, repair, and fleet/system quality.

Special Techs and dice rolls can also be written in, they just require a lot of space. 
Here's how I see it:
1) Click on the appropriate name in each dropdown box. This will be a catalyst that automatically loads tech data.

2) A vlookup tool finds that name in a table storing everyone's tech info, and populates the corresponding techs for every applicable combat tech (even ones they don't have).

3) Enter in the amount of FS / PS / PI / Decoys involved in each side of the fight. This will be a a catalyst that automatically calculates the battle results.

4) Pre-Battle Special Techs are looked at in the order they're processed--mines, EMP, Barrage, and then Capture. Each will function as a separate round of combat before the conventional battle.

5) A separate rolls tab will include room for up to 200 FS per side per battle (easily expanded if needed). To take Barrage as an example--the worksheet will execute (and display) one roll (random number) with a cap at 20, 19, or whatever is appropriate to the player's level of barrage. Then a "countif" formula will count the number of critical rolls (how many 20's are there in this table?). Then an adjacent table will execute one roll for each critical roll, capped at 6 (or 7, or whatever) to determine the number of destroyed enemy FS. If Decoys are involved, they will take 50% of the hits. 

This will happen for each side, and the survivors (if any) will be calculated for the Capture round. The survivors of that will be calculated for the conventional round, after standard and Special Tech modifiers have been applied. Repair will be automatically added in post-battle. Then the surviving fleet will be run back through the filters and displayed.

All you've done is selected the combatants and their FS / PS / PI / Decoys, and Excel magic does the rest.

E)Not entirely sure how that would work, tracing a history of changes. Pretty sure it won't work for Excel, but you could save a different instance for each turn if you wanted, so you could look back in time.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 25, 2014, 04:52:31 pm


So... I guess this is a continuation of a discussion from a PM?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 25, 2014, 04:58:25 pm
nope, just a response to his response to my random post in another thread. The one about Player Evolution I believe. I'm taking first-semester programming classes, and he suggested I could try to build GW into a program.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 25, 2014, 05:33:51 pm
C) The map I can't help you with, at least not until I get VB (and spend a lot more time with it). With Visual Basic, it would be something on the other side of a nightmare to automatically apply the dots to the planets, but with many many hours of at-home work it might be possible. Excel, I can fool with here at work. A non-hex system might be easily doable, but the hexes are really nice. I'll look into this at some point soon.


Rats.

In my head, this would work by creating an offset grid over a starry background image w/hexes built onto it. The 'hexes' would be covered entirely by boxes of the grid, so the rows of the grid would overlap a bit. Each grid-square instance would be a system. Systems could have planet-instances, station-instances, and fleet-instances drawn in in pre-plotted positions; fleets would just be colored text counters, the stations could be special characters (that I have mostly drawn), and the planets could either try to draw themselves or be picked off a reference image of all possibilities (which I could create). Then the combat and stuff could get resolved off a (ideally, built-in to the map-program) excel sheet that is mostly already programed.

Shoot, with the basis setup properly, we could do some high-quality graphics instead of the pixel stuff I'm doing now. Unfortunately, as I've mentioned, I've got little to no idea how to go about actually making that a thing.

Actually, there is a program that I've seen that does something like this. It's called Nandeck (http://www.nand.it/nandeck/) and is supposed to be used for decks of cards, but could possibly handle something like this. Not sure if it'd be easier than what I'm doing now, but maybe it's a start?

D) This I can do. I'm right now writing a document using my own combat modifier system. The vision is that you go to the "Combat" tab, select the combatants from a drop-down box of possibilities, enter the FS / PS info, and the combat will automatically calculate based on our stored tech data. I've already written it to account for weapons, defense, repair, and fleet/system quality.

At one point I had sent you a draft of the whole sheet. My combat setup is a grid currently, since I had no idea how many combatants there would be in any battle and drawing drop-downs is a pain vs. using some form of lookup for the list of players and then using columns to determine their position in the battle (attacking ships/planets/stations vs. defending ships/planets/stations/etc.). That already exists and works well enough, except when specials come into play.

Special Techs and dice rolls can also be written in, they just require a lot of space. 
Here's how I see it:
1) Click on the appropriate name in each dropdown box. This will be a catalyst that automatically loads tech data.

2) A vlookup tool finds that name in a table storing everyone's tech info, and populates the corresponding techs for every applicable combat tech (even ones they don't have).

3) Enter in the amount of FS / PS / PI / Decoys involved in each side of the fight. This will be a a catalyst that automatically calculates the battle results.

4) Pre-Battle Special Techs are looked at in the order they're processed--mines, EMP, Barrage, and then Capture. Each will function as a separate round of combat before the conventional battle.

5) A separate rolls tab will include room for up to 200 FS per side per battle (easily expanded if needed). To take Barrage as an example--the worksheet will execute (and display) one roll (random number) with a cap at 20, 19, or whatever is appropriate to the player's level of barrage. Then a "countif" formula will count the number of critical rolls (how many 20's are there in this table?). Then an adjacent table will execute one roll for each critical roll, capped at 6 (or 7, or whatever) to determine the number of destroyed enemy FS. If Decoys are involved, they will take 50% of the hits. 

This will happen for each side, and the survivors (if any) will be calculated for the Capture round. The survivors of that will be calculated for the conventional round, after standard and Special Tech modifiers have been applied. Repair will be automatically added in post-battle. Then the surviving fleet will be run back through the filters and displayed.

All you've done is selected the combatants and their FS / PS / PI / Decoys, and Excel magic does the rest.

That there is a bear of a way to do it. Maybe worthwhile, but I don't have time for it right now.

E)Not entirely sure how that would work, tracing a history of changes. Pretty sure it won't work for Excel, but you could save a different instance for each turn if you wanted, so you could look back in time.

I thought you could use review tools on Excel, but even then, I'm not sure that's what I want. It'd be a way to output a map + the results of all the actions, as I'm doing now only automated.



Right now, it  takes me about an hour to do a full round of actions; often excluding NPR actions. A big turn might take more, and when I've got other things to do IRL I'm inclined to try to rush through the turn rather than expound on it (as has happened lately with the Andromeda Council's RP; they're going the direction I had planned, but the explanations aren't as well-done as they could be). For example, more players would mean fewer updates/week, and managing NPR's is a pain. If we could figure out a way to cut that down to a few minutes; and ideally generate a basic AI-template for NPR actions, I could do the updates to as often as you can handle.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 25, 2014, 06:51:27 pm

That there is a bear of a way to do it. Maybe worthwhile, but I don't have time for it right now.


Meh. It'll be time consuming, yes, but the combat side of this is well within my reach to automate. The only difference is the meat of how the hidden modifiers work.  I once built an excel sheet for Crazy Tribes that helped me organize launch times for 70 different bases launching attacks against three or more targets, using 7 kinds of troops traveling at different speeds, so that I could launch all of my attacks within convenient windows of the day and have them all land within a ten-minute window. And do it in less than 20 minutes. That was a bear of a thing to do.

The combat itself will be easy to do. The point-spending system will be a little trickier, but I can make it so that all you have to do is change numbers in boxes (although I'm sure you already have that) and have everything show up in a neat little box. It can give you a list of our full techs, planet and fleet locations and strengths, and station levels / strengths. I'm pretty sure I can even do it in a user-friendly manner. Each turn that involved just changing the spreadsheet or moving / adding PS / PI, you could copy our full table and just paste it into a spoiler. Boom done.

I can automate just about any finite, specific calculate-and-display task in Excel down to copy/paste.  What I can't do without building my own system is replicate the AI actions or tendencies, or random finds/events. That's a very game-master-ish part of the game, and it would change the game on some level for me to get involved there. Maybe I can try to run the next game if you like, but the existing system I wouldn't touch. 

Maps--I found hexographer.com, which is really neat and has a free version. It's not automated, but it's probably easier than what you're using. It also has a paid version which looks really good, but it's paid.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 26, 2014, 10:57:33 am
Maps--I found hexographer.com, which is really neat and has a free version. It's not automated, but it's probably easier than what you're using. It also has a paid version which looks really good, but it's paid.

Actually, I'm looking at ruby right now to see if that's viable. Looks like it does *real* math, which I appreciate, but I think the object-creation aspects may still be beyond me at this point. Hexographer looks like it'd generate maps well, but I've already done that. Moving stuff around, once the map is generated, doesn't look much easier than I've gotten it - I've got several layers setup to do all that and it's about as easy as it can get, it's just tedious and easy to forget stuff.



Ed: Listening through some PA podcasts on their DnD game "Acquisitions Inc." I never played DnD, but those guys are interesting/funny enough on their own so that got me started. BUT! listening has given me some insight into what could be done different/better here. It seems like we spend loads of time developing, with some intermittent action here and there. My thoughts (very early) are thus:
*I could modify CP-stuff to only take CP - you can't build with AP or RP or whatever
*I could then make it so you pick most of your levels at the outset, with minor additional levels at significant points (i.e. - you kill off a race of pirate-kittens and steal their stuff)
*You would be doing more exploring and action-ing, but still build up your society (though not in technology as quickly)
*There would be a more in-depth focus on ship/weapon composition, you'd have different types of offense/defense and be stronger/weaker against those types; possibly even with actual ship and installation makups

Now, I'm not stopping GW2 until we've gotten to a good stopping point, which isn't now. I also don't think I can run such a thing right now. I did want to bring up the possibility of such a ruleset and see what you think though.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 27, 2014, 03:17:25 pm
Wrong map...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 27, 2014, 03:22:53 pm
I would be open to that to some extent, especially the in-depth weapon system.  NPC's that proactively would be another way to add more "actiony" stuff and give us incentive to particpate in the action--although it would be more work for you. But as long as it's not entirely story-driven, you'll probably find us with a tendency to develop in preparation for whatever. Given the way the LB royally burned our buns for overextending in the last run, that's probably inevitable.


Another possibility would be allowing control of multiple factions by any given player, or effectively each managing one or two NPC's in addition to our faction. That gives us room to simulate conflicts, create drive stories, and even fight each other to some extent without putting everything at risk. It's more clerical work for you, but I can try to mitigate that through the Excel document I'm working on. And you don't have to worry so much about coming up with all of the NPC AI stuff.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 27, 2014, 05:55:15 pm
I would be open to that to some extent, especially the in-depth weapon system.  NPC's that proactively would be another way to add more "actiony" stuff and give us incentive to particpate in the action--although it would be more work for you. But as long as it's not entirely story-driven, you'll probably find us with a tendency to develop in preparation for whatever. Given the way the LB royally burned our buns for overextending in the last run, that's probably inevitable.

Well, I'm considering cutting my work down substantially by decreasing what you can actually *do*. For example, maybe you'd be a huge expansive empire at 5 systems and 10 ships. But each ship gets more attention, and NPC's would probably be more interactive. Shoot, you guys might even be cooperating or something.


Another possibility would be allowing control of multiple factions by any given player, or effectively each managing one or two NPC's in addition to our faction. That gives us room to simulate conflicts, create drive stories, and even fight each other to some extent without putting everything at risk. It's more clerical work for you, but I can try to mitigate that through the Excel document I'm working on. And you don't have to worry so much about coming up with all of the NPC AI stuff.

The biggest issue isn't me motivating the NPR's to do stuff, it's translating your actions to the board/sheet. I can update any given NPR pretty easily, but I'm usually burned out by the time I get the rest of the update in and there are a ton of NPR's to do. If I limit what you can do - or outright fix it in place - that'd make solving turns easier. Another example, you might not move in a turn, but still take damage or negotiate with someone or whatever. If the board stays the same it's easy for me to post updates, and I have more time for them.



Now, I suppose the question is, how fine/coarse grain do I go? We've been getting finer as the versions move on (system-wide control to planetary); going finer still would remove the grand-strategic scale I've had and replace it with a more tactical scale. I could go as small as "You players are all captains of different ships in a fleet" or keep the independent nations and let you interact how you want (which I like better), but at a more limited, grittier scale (ships replace fleets, ships are not "you get many per turn" items and are greater investments, etc.).



Semi-separate ideas list for things you'd pick at the start and wouldn't really change:

- Type of FTL you use. Might be Warp (you move constantly through systems at FTL, so can be affected by things in real space but also can adapt for them), ranged Hyperspace (basically what we use now, you jump point-to-point from each system) and unranged (you can skip over systems), FTL rails/gates (you need infrastructure to go FTL), etc.
- Type of weapons you use, and defenses that are good/bad against them (lasers, kinetic impactors, missiles, explosives, radiation, etc.)
-What your society is like; are you warlike, industrious, explorers, creative, etc.?

You would pick how your society operates, and then at set opportunities, you could trade/swap knowledge with other races. Sometimes that would mean loosing what you had, others it might mean keeping both. I'm not sure exactly what those opportunities would look like or how the exchange would go yet though.

Ideas?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 27, 2014, 07:14:10 pm
Quote from: Me2005

Semi-separate ideas list for things you'd pick at the start and wouldn't really change:

- Type of FTL you use. Might be Warp (you move constantly through systems at FTL, so can be affected by things in real space but also can adapt for them), ranged Hyperspace(basically what we use now, you jump point-to-point from each system) and unranged (you can skip over systems), FTL rails/gates (you need infrastructure to go FTL), etc.
- Type of weapons you use, and defenses that are good/bad against them (lasers, kinetic impactors, missiles, explosives, radiation, etc.)
-What your society is like; are you warlike, industrious, explorers, creative, etc.?

You would pick how your society operates, and then at set opportunities, you could trade/swap knowledge with other races. Sometimes that would mean loosing what you had, others it might mean keeping both. I'm not sure exactly what those opportunities would look like or how the exchange would go yet though.

Ideas?

Sounds interesting.  It sounds a lot like what you were mentioning to me during the Original GW when I was asking questions about the LB.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on March 28, 2014, 08:56:31 am
I really like the existing system, it would just be far better if it were easier for you to update. I confess my concern with planetary vs system control was for just that reason.

As an alternative--what if fleets and specific planetary strengths were recorded on an algebraic basis as opposed to a graphical basis? It would be less flashy, but it would also be easier to automatically update. For example, your turn update:

VS

blah blah regurgitating my actions

Upkeep: 0

fleets
A16: 1 FS
A17: 23 Decoy
B10: 1 FS
B16: 2 FS
C11: 9 FS
C15: 1 FS
C17: 3 FS / 9 Decoy
D18: 22 FS / 9 Decoy
E17: 1 FS

planets
A15--11 PI
A17--40 PI / 5 PS
B16--15 PI
C17--11 PI
D18(1)--35 PI / 10 PS

stations
A15--Research(6)
A17--Research(12)
B16--PI(3)
C17--Shipyard(2)
D18--Fortress(1)

AP:10

CP:16

TP:4

RP:18

+2 Free FS & 3 free PI every turn (ship must be at shipyard to start)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This would place a bit more work for us, but would be dramatically easier for you to update. The map can simply have representations of what planets we own and where our fleets are, and the data list can tell us more info about those things.  And since it's algebraic instead of geometric, I can plug it into Excel so that you have a user-friendly entry form, and it spits out a different format of user-friendly data you can just copy and paste.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on March 28, 2014, 10:35:54 am
I tried to do that during the original GW.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on March 28, 2014, 12:04:24 pm
I really like the existing system, it would just be far better if it were easier for you to update. I confess my concern with planetary vs system control was for just that reason.

Eh, planets haven't been too troublesome; though figuring out who controls which when sometimes is. The existing system is nice for its grand scale, but lacks a lot of detail when you get into some of the more actiony parts. Battles are literally a (complex) arithmetic problem, after all the specials do their thing.

Quote
As an alternative--what if fleets and specific planetary strengths were recorded on an algebraic basis as opposed to a graphical basis? It would be less flashy, but it would also be easier to automatically update. For example, your turn update:

VS

blah blah regurgitating my actions

Upkeep: 0

fleets
A16: 1 FS
A17: 23 Decoy
B10: 1 FS
B16: 2 FS
C11: 9 FS
C15: 1 FS
C17: 3 FS / 9 Decoy
D18: 22 FS / 9 Decoy
E17: 1 FS

planets
A15--11 PI
A17--40 PI / 5 PS
B16--15 PI
C17--11 PI
D18(1)--35 PI / 10 PS

stations
A15--Research(6)
A17--Research(12)
B16--PI(3)
C17--Shipyard(2)
D18--Fortress(1)

AP:10

CP:16

TP:4

RP:18

+2 Free FS & 3 free PI every turn (ship must be at shipyard to start)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This would place a bit more work for us, but would be dramatically easier for you to update. The map can simply have representations of what planets we own and where our fleets are, and the data list can tell us more info about those things.  And since it's algebraic instead of geometric, I can plug it into Excel so that you have a user-friendly entry form, and it spits out a different format of user-friendly data you can just copy and paste.

Hmm... At first, I thought you were wanting to go all-text, which wouldn't work because keeping track of all that in anyones head would be impossible. Reading it again, that makes more sense. I'm not sure if it'd be beneficial or not though - it'd save me having to really know anything about your ships (I just copy your location list and paste it into the sheet, resolve if there's a conflict), but I'd need to translate everything into the system somehow and that'd be a pain. The part that would be most painful is adding new players; I'm envisioning needing 1 column per player per system letter/number (each cell would have multiple sub-cells for the players occupying it).

But that'd open up some nice automation options...



A separate topic again: Stuff I'm working with for designing your own ships and using them in a more tactical setting.

So, what I'm thinking is a modified Mobile Frame Zero (http://mobileframezero.com/mfz/) setup (much of this is ripped straight from that) like so:
*Each ship has a class, from 1-5 (0 to be covered later)
*Each ship gets a number of system-dice equivalent to it's class-level, plus 2 white dice
*Systems are as follows, and are limited to 2 of each per ship:
-Blue (Defense) - used to protect your ship(s)
-Yellow (Spot) - used to help hit your enemies' ships
-Green (FTL) - used to allow your ship to go FTL. Ships without will need another method of FTL to traverse systems in our setting. Rolling the die will do something, I haven't figured out what exactly yet though.
-Red (Attack) - comes in 4 flavors: Fighter, Point, Offense, and Support. Now thinking about it, in our game this may not make sense, because you aren't moving so 'range' isn't really a thing. Perhaps though point, offense, and support make sense, and fighters just have special rules: Point is against fighters and incoming munitions, offense is against everything but at a detriment against fighters/munitions, and support is AOE or burst or a 'Dr.' style weapon. Option B is to eliminate most 'flavors' and just allow you to take as many red dice as you'd like.
-Black (Hanger/bay) - holds other ships. Esp. useful in situations where not all of your ships have FTL, I'm thinking each black die allows you to hold one class-level (so a 5 would take 5 die).
-White (Reactor) - can be used for anything (combat at close range). Each ship gets 2 automatically.
*Systems, when combined, confer bonuses. Any ship that has 2 of any system gets a bonus die for that system. Hangers might allow you to take a second bonus for 4.
*Ships would, based on tech or just free-option, allow you to take different reactor types. So far I've got three that make sense:
-Standard. Bonus to hit rolls
-High-energy. Bonus systems based on ship class (up to 3); your ship is destroyed completely if the reactor takes a hit (which is possible, but not super-likely, as discussed later).
-Redundant. -1 system available on ship, reactors can't be destroyed until everything else is.

Now, I'm aware that there wouldn't be much point to a redundant class-1 or 2. Might need to figure something else out there. Maybe -1 white dice but everything else is the same.

Attacks:
*Start by picking a target vessel and rolling a D20 to see if you hit
-20 is a hit wherever you want
-1 is a miss
*Roll other dice. Dice are assigned individually; you could roll your WWGBRR ship and get 2W5W4G2B3R6R. You could assign one attack die to one attack, and the other to another; or both to one. If you have multiple dice you can use each one once per round (I'm thinking, in MFZ you assign one and keep it).
*Compare the roll to the ship's system count (1-8, with bonuses) + either their defense or movement roll. If you rolled higher, it's a hit
*Roll for damage, compare to the defense value the target assigned.
-Per our above example, if two of those ships are fighting and the roll hit; the Target assigns his white '5' to defense (since the blue '2' is worthless here), while the attacker assigns the '6' to attack. 1 damage is done to the attacked ship. The damage are recorded by removal of dice from the target according to the target's desire, unless a 20 has been rolled (which basically means the white dice get removed first).
-Opt. B: defense < offense, offense does 1 damage.

Engagements:
Two fleets meet in a system. Their composition is 2 frigates (class-1), one destroyer (class-2), and one cruiser (class-3) each.

Fleet A:
WWY
WWR
WWRB
WWRR(R)B

Fleet B:
WWY
WWY
WWRR(R)
WWRBG

Dice in () are bonus D8's

Fleet A was already there, so it'll go first; I'll work out initiative later.
It activates the first frigate and rolls 2W4W4Y. It assigns the 4Y to the opponent's cruiser and holds the W's for defense.
It then activates it's cruiser and rolls 3W5W2R4R7R. It attacks the opposing cruiser, rolling a 12 on the to-hit D20. The Opposing cruiser rolls up and gets 1W3W5R4B3G. Applying any die to it's current 5 to-hit does nothing to prevent a hit, so it holds onto the blue dice. The attack hits, and A's cruiser goes in all guns blazing with the 7, 4, and 2 R dice. B tries to save it with the 4B and both W's, resulting in 11-8=3 damage. B chooses to remove the spent B and both W dice, in hopes of making a hit.
B gets to finish using the crippled cruiser, and returns fire. It rolls a 9 to-hit, and A laughs and applies the 5 W to dodge the hit. B then uses the G dice to (Not sure, escape?)
A continues, and fires up its second frigate for 1W3W2R. It attacks the crippled B cruiser, rolling a 5 to-hit and thus missing (since the cruiser started with 5 systems, it gets 5 as it's minimum hit number, it doesn't matter that it is now down to 2 systems).
A cringes a bit and fires up its last ship, the destroyer. It rolls 1W4W6R3B, and decides not to harass the crippled cruiser, instead targeting B's destroyer. It rolls a 7 to-hit, B rolls 1W2W4R3R6R. A hits B's destroyer with the 1 W and 6 R for 7 damage, destroying it (7-2=5, as many dice as the destroyer has).
B gets to go, and is in sorry state. B rolls its remaining frigates, getting 4W3W5Y and 6W2W2Y. The first uses its dice and tries to hit A's cruiser, rolling a 5. Since no spot is applied and a ship can't spot for itself, it spots for the second frigate and ends its turn. The second frigate attacks, rolling a 4 to-hit, but with the 5 spot has no trouble making the shot. It fires for 8 damage, which nearly destroys A's cruiser (even after the damage reduction of 3), bringing it to it's knees with 1W remaining.

The round restarts with ???

Not sure, maybe green comes in here; MFZ does it based on who has the lowest 'score,' here, it might be who has the fewest dice left.

Not 100% sure how the round would play in practice; we'd probably roll up all ships involved and I'd give the actions NPR ships did, while you'd give your response. A typical response, "use smart defense to attacks" could let me figure it out until it was your turn. Battles would take place over days though, and you'd be able to use different tactics as you saw fit. The above description was, for me anyway, pretty thrilling. I did not expect B to come back like that.

I think I should adjust how the white dice work though, right now they're just replacements for red/blue and that's about it. I'm thinking that saying "any white dice is good for 1 damage" would solve that a bit. Green need a worthwhile purpose, and I'd like them to have a tactical use rather than just a strategic one. Oh, maybe repair (FLT-equipped ships being important to keep running)?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on April 03, 2014, 04:29:03 pm
Um...  Did my attack on Theta 69-2 succeed?


@Andromada Homeworld:

Did you really have to open Pandora's Box?

Automatic Post Merge: April 03, 2014, 04:34:07 pm
@Also about "Pandora's Box" (my name of the plague)

Does this mean we are all screwed?  Are we able to beat these daemons that you have unleashed on the galaxy?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on April 03, 2014, 05:38:51 pm
Um...  Did my attack on Theta 69-2 succeed?

No clue! I'll run it later, it'll probably do ok (how many PS do they have?)


@Andromada Homeworld:

Did you really have to open Pandora's Box?

Automatic Post Merge: April 03, 2014, 04:34:07 pm
@Also about "Pandora's Box" (my name of the plague)

Does this mean we are all screwed?  Are we able to beat these daemons that you have unleashed on the galaxy?

Unlike the LB, this time yes, I do have a plan for how you can beat them. They'll start with some FS/PS equivalent strength on their 'home', and spread to surrounding space. Each time they spread, the plague will start at strength 1 and, for each planet they devour, gain 1 strength. I'm not going to tell you how they spread or what happens when they do (how they devour planets), in case I need to change it later. For now, consider it a latent threat that could either be a a minor encounter, a nuisance that needs pruning now and again, or an unstoppable galaxy-devouring Juggernaut. Pirates are likely to cause more trouble in the immediate term

>:D

ED: Any thoughts on my above posts about a modified system? (Like more nuanced combat, dislike, like the simple strategic system we have?)

Or on the mapping stuff in the General thread I posted, which could likely end up in a GW setting? (Which would you rather use sending ships places? I think the chart would allow entirely different kinds of FTL to be used, instead of just the point-to-point you're using now)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on April 03, 2014, 06:29:46 pm
I'm a fan of the GW stuff, but I'd be willing to try the individual kind of game. Would probably be more RP ish.

Mostly though, what we need is a number of players. I'd recommend a "features wanted" thread to get others interested. Find out what people want in a numbers-based Rap game, and make that happen. It's the only way to get people on board.

Two things stand out:

1) We're gonna need transparency. People are iffy when too much happens behind the scenes. Even if the actual mathy stuff is complicated, there's surely an easy way to express what happens.  We should know exactly what it takes to get more points, and we should know exactly what effects our weapons upgrades should have. It'll make newcomers more open to it.

The concern was that doing so will take the mystery out of combat. This can be alleviated in two different ways. First, consider putting a roll on it. Your uber-simplified combat strength starts at 10, which really means that your attack can vary between 8 and 12, with criticals ranging from 4 to 16. Your defense is 5,meaning it ranges from 4 to 6, with criticals from 2 to 8. Your ship defaults to 50 hp, and damage is (attack roll) - (defense roll). Battle is five rounds unless one side wins--if neither side wins outright, whoever "lost" more hp retreats in the direction they came. Voila. Completely transparent, completely variable, and with LOADS of room for custom-fitting our ships. And that's just one possible way.

2) An ability to simultaneously direct/develop our own RP character while still being able to interact with each other at will. GW has loads of world-building element and colossal scale, but it's difficult to meaningfully interact with each other at the moment. We could fight, eventually, but the winner takes all and the loser is utterly crushed.

What comes to mind is a privateer sort of thing, within a much larger Galactic Confederation. The term (as opposed to Federation) implies a looser coalition, with potential for many backgrounds, but one overarching government. We start with ship building points that allow either several ships, or a single really nice ship. We get a set income, increased by investing (subject to die rolls and player/NPC meddling), mining, pirating, or doing contract work for the moderator. We can fight, put bounties on each other, try to build businesses, whatever.  Instead of managing a host of NPCs, you can simply make up appropriate enemies, characters, and crises.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on April 03, 2014, 07:10:17 pm
I'm a fan of the GW stuff, but I'd be willing to try the individual kind of game. Would probably be more RP ish.

Agreed, which is kind of why I'm looking into it. Seems many want a more RPish experience. Though what I've seen is straight RP with no rules, which seems kind of self-defeating ...?

Mostly though, what we need is a number of players. I'd recommend a "features wanted" thread to get others interested. Find out what people want in a numbers-based Rap game, and make that happen. It's the only way to get people on board.

Also agree, also need a way to allow many players without as much work on my end.

Two things stand out:

1) We're gonna need transparency. People are iffy when too much happens behind the scenes. Even if the actual mathy stuff is complicated, there's surely an easy way to express what happens.  We should know exactly what it takes to get more points, and we should know exactly what effects our weapons upgrades should have. It'll make newcomers more open to it.

The concern was that doing so will take the mystery out of combat.

My above post has a totally new combat system (basically Mobile Frame Zero without movement, it'd need some work but should be ok) that would be 100% transparent, so long as I just *give* you dice rolls to use. I *think* It'd be possible for me to take your ship-sheets and output random rolls for you to use for your whole involved fleet, and then you apply the rolls however you please. Maybe I keep the hit/miss rolls on my end so you don't automatically know, maybe I provide those spoilered and trust you not to use them until you need them. The main problem is that there could be quite a few back-and-fourth rounds for combat, but I can at least step back and let the involved parties do that part once I've handed them rolls, providing a deadline for re-rolls (I roll new battles m-w-f, you figure them out between then).

My thoughts on weapons/upgrades are that you'd pick tech you wanted at the start, and it would be available for you to use throughout with little improvement. When you did improve, it'd be a situation where you know what will happen (+1 to damage/spot/defense/hit/etc.; new ability; reroll; repair option, etc.).

An example would be that you would pick between EMP or Barrage as a new special ability 'tech' that can be used once or 3 times per battle and disable larger numbers of ships or destroy smaller numbers; respectively. Once used, you can't use them again until the next battle/I say you have recharged.

2) An ability to simultaneously direct/develop our own RP character while still being able to interact with each other at will. GW has loads of world-building element and colossal scale, but it's difficult to meaningfully interact with each other at the moment. We could fight, eventually, but the winner takes all and the loser is utterly crushed.

I think the system I'm proposing would allow this. You'd all have a much smaller number of ships, and likely start out on the same team. I'd give you advantages over NPC ships (likely, way more dice/hp and the ability to repair).

What comes to mind is a privateer sort of thing, within a much larger Galactic Confederation. The term (as opposed to Federation) implies a looser coalition, with potential for many backgrounds, but one overarching government. We start with ship building points that allow either several ships, or a single really nice ship. We get a set income, increased by investing (subject to die rolls and player/NPC meddling), mining, pirating, or doing contract work for the moderator. We can fight, put bounties on each other, try to build businesses, whatever.  Instead of managing a host of NPCs, you can simply make up appropriate enemies, characters, and crises.

This sounds like what I'm talking about. I'd need to flush out a whole universe though, so ... suggestions welcome, to say the least :S

I've got a 52-system map (in the map thread) that I'm happy with. I think 52 provides a good number of places to visit, without being completely giant and impossible to explore. The way the system is set up, you could pick your races' FTL type from basically any setup you can imagine at the start and pay for it with some kind of setup points (also used to pick other techs/bonuses). The trick is I need a list of all FTL types that make sense and a way to apply points to them.

Really, I need lists of many types of tech and a way to apply points/bonuses to them. Examples I can think of:
FTL system
(We'll assume STL is sufficient based on FTL, and that all involved basically travel around at the same rate)
Weapon systems
Defense systems
Systems that imply quality
Logistical systems (how long can you go between refuels?)
Boarding tech
Special abilities for combat
Special abilities for non-combat
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on April 04, 2014, 07:20:28 am
In the interest of less work on your part, the five-round (or however many round) combat system can be automated completely.  Same basic principle as the GW spreadsheet I started working on. We each get an excel worksheet with our respective tech, and you just enter in our names for calculating the combat. All automatable.

I'm taking my laptop in for repair today, and once it's finished I'll get Visual Studio for free via my college. Then I could probably write an actual program to do all this, using actual variables and codes instead of thousands of Excel cells to just simulate it.

52 systems is a lot to make up for. I was actually thinking to make us all pre-know each other, from a unspecified war history. Give everybody their own origin system if they want a crazy race/background, or just say they're from the general populace. 

For RP, really truly man, I wouldn't try to flesh out a whole universe we're probably not going to get to. Make it up as you go, and flesh it out as we encounter it.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on April 04, 2014, 10:38:22 am
In the interest of less work on your part, the five-round (or however many round) combat system can be automated completely.  Same basic principle as the GW spreadsheet I started working on. We each get an excel worksheet with our respective tech, and you just enter in our names for calculating the combat. All automatable.

Well, automating the combat kind of takes out the human aspect I was hoping to introduce - namely, that you get to decide what you do, rather than the computer optimizing your result. You want to hammer that enemy Titan? Go right ahead and throw everything you've got at it. I can pretty easily figure out how to automate your ships (once designed) and the dice throws for the whole fleet on all sides.

Now, if you're talking about using a totally different combat system, I'm open to that.

Quote
52 systems is a lot to make up for. I was actually thinking to make us all pre-know each other, from a unspecified war history. Give everybody their own origin system if they want a crazy race/background, or just say they're from the general populace. 

52 Systems also feels like a good number. I'd expect to leave several of them unnamed, but I still need to come up with some of the basic stuff (what the condition of the universe is, who is fighting who, why these things happen, etc.).

Quote
For RP, really truly man, I wouldn't try to flesh out a whole universe we're probably not going to get to. Make it up as you go, and flesh it out as we encounter it.

This is a part of the plan, the other part is designing some of the situation from the start.

Now, I'm curious what you're planning for combat. The MFZ setup uses dice as HP and effects, so each system is a die and loosing it looses that system. Very clean and easy to understand, takes a few rounds to resolve combat but in a more close-up RP setting I think that's ok. You appear to have a plan for an auto system, which I'd like to hear about.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on April 04, 2014, 04:14:29 pm
I'm just thinking simple, intuitive, straightforward. A combat process that requires multiple rounds of input would drag it out f o r e v e r on our timelines, but really we need just a few straightfoward areas that can be (relatively) easily digested. For instance, this:
Quote
*Each ship has a class, from 1-5 (0 to be covered later)
*Each ship gets a number of system-dice equivalent to it's class-level, plus 2 white dice
*Systems are as follows, and are limited to 2 of each per ship:
-Blue (Defense) - used to protect your ship(s)
-Yellow (Spot) - used to help hit your enemies' ships
-Green (FTL) - used to allow your ship to go FTL. Ships without will need another method of FTL to traverse systems in our setting. Rolling the die will do something, I haven't figured out what exactly yet though.
-Red (Attack) - comes in 4 flavors: Fighter, Point, Offense, and Support. Now thinking about it, in our game this may not make sense, because you aren't moving so 'range' isn't really a thing. Perhaps though point, offense, and support make sense, and fighters just have special rules: Point is against fighters and incoming munitions, offense is against everything but at a detriment against fighters/munitions, and support is AOE or burst or a 'Dr.' style weapon. Option B is to eliminate most 'flavors' and just allow you to take as many red dice as you'd like.
-Black (Hanger/bay) - holds other ships. Esp. useful in situations where not all of your ships have FTL, I'm thinking each black die allows you to hold one class-level (so a 5 would take 5 die).
-White (Reactor) - can be used for anything (combat at close range). Each ship gets 2 automatically.
*Systems, when combined, confer bonuses. Any ship that has 2 of any system gets a bonus die for that system. Hangers might allow you to take a second bonus for 4.
*Ships would, based on tech or just free-option, allow you to take different reactor types. So far I've got three that make sense:
-Standard. Bonus to hit rolls
-High-energy. Bonus systems based on ship class (up to 3); your ship is destroyed completely if the reactor takes a hit (which is possible, but not super-likely, as discussed later).
-Redundant. -1 system available on ship, reactors can't be destroyed until everything else is.

Now, I'm aware that there wouldn't be much point to a redundant class-1 or 2. Might need to figure something else out there. Maybe -1 white dice but everything else is the same.

Attacks:
*Start by picking a target vessel and rolling a D20 to see if you hit
-20 is a hit wherever you want
-1 is a miss
*Roll other dice. Dice are assigned individually; you could roll your WWGBRR ship and get 2W5W4G2B3R6R. You could assign one attack die to one attack, and the other to another; or both to one. If you have multiple dice you can use each one once per round (I'm thinking, in MFZ you assign one and keep it).
*Compare the roll to the ship's system count (1-8, with bonuses) + either their defense or movement roll. If you rolled higher, it's a hit
*Roll for damage, compare to the defense value the target assigned.
-Per our above example, if two of those ships are fighting and the roll hit; the Target assigns his white '5' to defense (since the blue '2' is worthless here), while the attacker assigns the '6' to attack. 1 damage is done to the attacked ship. The damage are recorded by removal of dice from the target according to the target's desire, unless a 20 has been rolled (which basically means the white dice get removed first).
-Opt. B: defense < offense, offense does 1 damage.

Reading through it, there's a lot of potential value there. But the first two tries, my eyes just kind of glazed after a few lines in. If we start with a few basics and leave room for optional stuff, it becomes much easier. HP, Attack, Defense.

The battle calculating isn't terribly difficult, but a bit deep for casual reading. The focus (in my mind) is on a single ship being a pretty big deal, a lasting entity. Require individual ships to have names for tracking purposes.

-Default is five rounds (just a number, subject to change). Whoever loses the higher percentage of HP retreats if both parties survive. 

-In the event of fleet encounters, ships deal and receive the damage on an evenly distributed basis. If I have four ships and you have five, your ships each take 1/4 of my combined damage while my ships each take 1/5 of your distributed damage.  If a ship reaches 0 HP before the end of the fight, it is destroyed and will not participate in the next round.

-This leaves room for detailed instructions--i.e. "Concentrate fire on the Iron Maiden and then withdraw" or "fight 3 (or 6, or 9) rounds and withdraw" or "fight to the death"

-Player-specific requests will roll 50/50 at the outset of each round. Engine/maneuvering tech will improve the odds of getting what you want. Players at odds will roll directly against each other, say if one player wants to withdraw and the other wants to pursue.

-In the event of ship death with the player's character on board, that character will escape in a pod. A readily available (and costly) safety-tech can be equipped to instantly transport the player back to whatever neutral world is assigned. There would of course be counter-techs and the like. Without the escape equipment, you're just stuck there in a pod, at your opponent's mercy if your fleet loses.  If your fleet wins, you just move to another ship. (This can be modified based on input)

In this environment, there is still plenty of room for special techs, on a per-ship basis. For instance:

-Various weapon/armor types with specialties. No need for complication. Something like: Standard and Special Weapons  would do. And then:
---Standard Armor (strong against Standard, weak against Special),
---Special Armor (vice versa), and
---Composite Armor(weaker than either, but defends equally against both weapon types). 

Variety, but not too complicated. Adding a third weapon type, for instance, leads to difficult balancing issues. Replace "Special" with "Heavy" or whatever term suits you.

--Escape pods--as previously mentioned, pods that automatically warp you to a pre-set destination upon ship destruction. A critical-fail roll is involved, of course, and a counter-tech would be available to have a 30% or 50% chance at catching you anyway. Will not work if the ship is boarded. If your ship is boarded and defeated, you are captured and at the other player's mercy. If he/she decides to kill you, the player resurrects at (home world) as a near relative to the original character.

-EMP: at the beginning of each round, a dice roll to prevent the other player's attack. Unlike GW, an EMP shield would provide a 100% counter to an EMP of the same level.

-Barrage: at the beginning of each round, a dice roll to do double damage. Counter-tech available, under whatever name.

-Critical Shot: at the beginning of each round, a dice roll to negate enemy armor. Relatively low probability, no counter.

-Boarding party: At the beginning of each round, a dice roll to close and board. If successful, this will open a different level of combat, to be resolved within the same round.
details
--Each level of this will include 10 boarding crew, who will fight for your opponent's ship. They will each have 20 HP and 10 attack, and the boardee's crew will each have 10 HP and 5 attack. The victim's crew number will be (remaining HP of the ship)/2.  Simple calculation, winner gets the ship.

--If the boarding action fails, the would-be victim will receive 1 damage for each crew member killed, while the boarding ship will receive 2 damage for each boarding crew killed. Survivors will be rounded up to the nearest whole.

--"Defensive Garrison" tech is available which would provide 10 defenders at 10 HP and 10 attack, per level. These fighters would die before the regular crew have to get involved. The defending ship will not take damage from defensive garrison losses.

--If the ship being boarded also has offensive "boarding party" tech, their boarding crew will fight before the regular crew does. The defending ship will not take damge from boarding crew losses.

--If the boarding action is successful, the boarding crew will take over the ship. If the fight is over, the new owner can keep/sell/scuttle the ship as he chooses. If the fight is still going, the boarding crew will fight the ship at 5 HP per surviving boarding crew. The ship can deal damage and die in battle like any other.

--Drones/fighters--At the beginning of the fight, your ship deploys 2 fighters per level, each having limited HP and attack. The fighters share in the damage received, unless your ship is specifically targeted.

------

To give ships and upgrades value, I'm thinking ship classes based on starting HP and equipment slots. Our starting ship, for instance, may be a frigate with 50 HP, 10 attack, 5 armor, and 3 equipment slots. The attack/armor/HP can be upgraded, and the individual techs can be upgraded, but the frigate can still only house 3 equipment slots.

So you get drones, an escape pod, and a boarding crew--and that's it. You want more techs, you buy another ship.  Or upgrade to a [insert next ship name here] that starts with 5 equipment slots, 80 HP, 16 attack, and 8 armor.

And so on. What do you guys think?  CJ, what's your input?  Also, any other lurkers out there, please give us some input.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on April 04, 2014, 06:43:29 pm
I'm just thinking simple, intuitive, straightforward. A combat process that requires multiple rounds of input would drag it out f o r e v e r on our timelines, but really we need just a few straightfoward areas that can be (relatively) easily digested. For instance, this:
...
Reading through it, there's a lot of potential value there. But the first two tries, my eyes just kind of glazed after a few lines in. If we start with a few basics and leave room for optional stuff, it becomes much easier. HP, Attack, Defense.

How does this suit for readibility, since that was an example multi-round battle trying to explain everything all at onece:

*Each player starts with one 4-point ship
*Each point may be used for one of the following systems:
Red: Attack
Green: Escape/chase (FTL if equipped), maybe also initiative?
Blue: Defend (Directly reduces attack)
Yellow: Spot (increases attack value; used to support teammates)
+2 free White: Can be used for anything
*Each system counts as 1 HP
*Each system is a d6, and the highest value rolls will be given at the start of any new round (if you have 2 blue systems, I'd tell you you rolled a 5, not a 3 and a 5)
*Doubles of any system grant a bonus D8 (that isn't an extra HP, just a bonus to rolling). This bonus can stack, so if you have 4 Red systems you get 2 extra D8's.

After the ships are built, I'd post an encounter like this:

An enemy cruiser (WWGBBRRR) is coming in range. It rolled W6W5G4B3B2R1R6R5, taking R6, G4, B6 (W) as it's combat values. HT rolled R5 Y4 B3 G5 and CJ rolled R7 G4 B5. What do you do?

Though in this case, there aren't many options. There's one ship, so you'd either attack it or run away, having HT preferably go first and spot for CJ. Hits are excess of R vs. B; maybe rolled on a 50/50. So in this case, you and CJ would have done 4+7-6=5 damage (Yours was moot, covered entirely by the defense; unless we go for degrading defense, in which case it'd be 4+7+5-6=10. I think I prefer a 'defense is the same against all incoming attacks' setup, as more than 3 ships in an engagement would basically auto-kill anybody). If we roll 50/50, 2-3 of those 5 damage would be hits and the cruiser would need to choose what was removed. On it's turn, I'd run it and it would target HT, since you've got the killer modifier, and you'd take 3 damage - the 50/50 would likely reduce this to 1-2.

This whole echange would look like you and CJ posting "attack the cruiser" or "flee" and could be automated by me if you'd predetermined what you were going to do.

Next round, I reroll everything and remove damage. You guys could specify what order you'd like things removed before hand as a standing order to speed the process up. The cruiser is down to WWG (with straight-up damage applied; or a stunning hit roll), HT WRYBG (since the cruiser rolled badly), and CJ's at 100%. The dice are W5W4G6, W1R6Y3B4G5, and W1W2R3R4G5B6R+7, and the Cruiser flees with G6.

This would be posted as the die numbers and a "The cruiser successfully flees with G6". Depending on the situation, you'd return to base to repair, repair in the field, find another target, or do something else.

Quote
-Default is five rounds (just a number, subject to change). Whoever loses the higher percentage of HP retreats if both parties survive.

I'm hoping for a normal engagement to last 1-5 rounds, especially with some automation and standing orders on your/my part, so I don't think this is necessary. 

Quote
-In the event of fleet encounters, ships deal and receive the damage on an evenly distributed basis. If I have four ships and you have five, your ships each take 1/4 of my combined damage while my ships each take 1/5 of your distributed damage.  If a ship reaches 0 HP before the end of the fight, it is destroyed and will not participate in the next round.

I'd prefer to have damage specified per ship, though we could always abstract large fleets as large ships (you have 10 of the above cruisers fighting 10 of the above lighter ships, they roll the exact same dice and 4 cruisers escape, one of them missing 2 die).

Quote
-This leaves room for detailed instructions--i.e. "Concentrate fire on the Iron Maiden and then withdraw" or "fight 3 (or 6, or 9) rounds and withdraw" or "fight to the death"

Which is what I'd like to enable, current battle rules are lacking this for sure.

Quote
-Player-specific requests will roll 50/50 at the outset of each round. Engine/maneuvering tech will improve the odds of getting what you want. Players at odds will roll directly against each other, say if one player wants to withdraw and the other wants to pursue.
...In this environment, there is still plenty of room for special techs, on a per-ship basis. For instance:

-Various weapon/armor types with specialties. No need for complication. Something like: Standard and Special Weapons  would do. And then:
---Standard Armor (strong against Standard, weak against Special),
---Special Armor (vice versa), and
---Composite Armor(weaker than either, but defends equally against both weapon types). 

Variety, but not too complicated. Adding a third weapon type, for instance, leads to difficult balancing issues. Replace "Special" with "Heavy" or whatever term suits you.

One thing that we're talking past each other on is highlighted here: I'm talking about taking very limited techs, and some of them would be built into the ships or used entirely for the RP end of things. Most of my working examples are systems that would replace another die slot on any ship you built:
EMP   Chance to disable target vessel   Crit - roll d6 for rounds disabled
Interdiction   Chance to prevent FTL escape   Crit - roll d6 for rounds interdicted
Marines   Improve boarding odds   Crit - immediately use captured vessel
Stealth   Avoid engagements/gain initiative   Crit - +D6 to next attack
Long-Range   Free hit against ships without long range   Crit - D6 extra damage
Marketplace   Additional income   No combat advantage
Diplomacy Suite   Diplomacy bonus   No combat advantage
Passenger Cabin   May carry large numbers of passengers   No combat advantage
Bombardment   Aids in assulting planets   Crit - roll D6 for additional damage
Spinal Mount   Allows all weapon dice to be combined, hits on crit otherwise miss and just use 1 die as normal

Hmm... On reading my attack theory, a 'split attack' might be useful too - allows you to fire *roll* additional times at -1 to damage each, using your existing red dice (so CJ's ship above could fire up to 3 times). On crit, no -1. Might need to spend some time balancing that back out with spinal mount. We'll see.

Oh, and points could be spent leveling those techs up, so you'd be a better die per system. At some point that might apply to every system, though likely not immediately. Points wouldn't be as much of a thing, you'd have some kind of valuable thing (points, money, credits, resources) that gets spent, and when spent it doesn't come back. At the start you'd either have some amount of that to spend as you see fit or a ship + a few techs or maybe just the ship.

The specific brand of FTL you use would give you some kind of benefit too (Warp being able to go to anywhere from anywhere vs. jump drive needing to travel lanes but being faster along those lanes); though as I'm developing it it seems like giving the party a ship with FTL is the way to go until later.

Quote
-In the event of ship death with the player's character on board, that character will escape in a pod.

Almost exactly what I'm thinking. They'd be either picked up later by their party or picked up by the enemy (and tortured) while they need to make a new/temporary character to convince their party to go reclaim their main.

Quote
-EMP: at the beginning of each round, a dice roll to prevent the other player's attack. ...

Interesting. *Scribbles*

Quote
-Barrage: at the beginning of each round, a dice roll to do double damage. Counter-tech available, under whatever name.

Likely replaced by expendable 1-shot torpedoes use as many as you like at once but buy them back later.

Quote
-Critical Shot: at the beginning of each round, a dice roll to negate enemy armor. Relatively low probability, no counter.

Spinal mount and spotting die are similar to this.

Quote
-Boarding party: At the beginning of each round, a dice roll to close and board. If successful, this will open a different level of combat, to be resolved within the same round.

Marines would be a special used specifically for boarding actions, which would probably be a green-green challenge on a nearly destroyed ship. They'd give you a bonus roll on that action per special die.

Quote
--Drones/fighters--At the beginning of the fight, your ship deploys 2 fighters per level, each having limited HP and attack. The fighters share in the damage received, unless your ship is specifically targeted.

I've got a setup for fighters, I'm thinking it'd just be sub-ships with fewer systems. My above example has you guys (in my head) in fighters, though it might make sense to make them even weaker (WGBR probably). The system you take is a black dice, and its roll determines how long the fighter can fight before needing to return to base (which it'd do automatically unless EMP'd).

Quote
To give ships and upgrades value, I'm thinking ship classes based on starting HP and equipment slots. Our starting ship, for instance, may be a frigate with 50 HP, 10 attack, 5 armor, and 3 equipment slots. The attack/armor/HP can be upgraded, and the individual techs can be upgraded, but the frigate can still only house 3 equipment slots.

So you get drones, an escape pod, and a boarding crew--and that's it. You want more techs, you buy another ship.  Or upgrade to a [insert next ship name here] that starts with 5 equipment slots, 80 HP, 16 attack, and 8 armor. 

My thought is that your starting ship has X slots and the slots are the HP. Upgrading the ship might upgrade the quality of the slots, but I can handle huge numbers of slots fairly easily since it's just removing a value; and you can absorb huge numbers of slots since I just give you the highest values. And buying a better ship is basically just buying the slots; it could be more expensive to buy additional slots than to buy additional equipment for your existing slots.

I could also place limits on the amount of special equipment any ship can take, or base class on the number of white dice you get.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on April 07, 2014, 12:43:03 pm
Had a thought over the weekend: Loosing all of your ship's dice could result in your ship being disabled, rather than destroyed. Disabled ships could be boarded, perhaps with a 50/50 movement check (to see if you can match trajectories and dock with the target) and a 50/50 boarding check (against/with marines, if they're available), while not engaged by any enemies. Boarding can take place over multiple rounds if the boarder doesn't get attacked.

Without considering attacks, that basically gives a 25% success chance for any boarding action in any one round.

Stuff you'd get from boarding would be cash, prisoners (if players/important NPC's), cargo, modules, and potentially the entire target ship. You could also destroy (by choice or accidentally) a boarded ship, and probably choose to destroy/accidentally destroy a disabled ship instead of boarding it.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on April 07, 2014, 01:04:59 pm
Both approaches have merit, but I don't think they would mesh that well...it would probably have to be one or the other. Yours seems to offer more in-fight variance, but W6W5G4B3B2R1R6R5 isn't going to be very player-friendly I think.

At any rate, I'd say it's close to a dead topic without 3rd-party input to see what people would play.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on April 07, 2014, 02:06:49 pm
Both approaches have merit, but I don't think they would mesh that well...it would probably have to be one or the other. Yours seems to offer more in-fight variance, but W6W5G4B3B2R1R6R5 isn't going to be very player-friendly I think.

I'd probably just give you the highest of those; i.e.: R6 G4 B3 W5 W6. It's also possible that I could color the text to make it 64356. Add in line breaks and letter identifiers and it becomes easily readible to me as:
R6
G4
B3
W5
W6

Quote
At any rate, I'd say it's close to a dead topic without 3rd-party input to see what people would play.

Agreed. And I'm not sure if there are enough people remaining around here willing try it. I've got the outline of a campaign in my mind though, so that's kind of a drag.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on April 21, 2014, 11:35:41 am
Update today likely, I got sick last week and couldn't do it  :P
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on April 21, 2014, 03:54:47 pm
I am supposed to have a total of 23 FS in Delta 68
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on April 21, 2014, 04:34:24 pm
I am supposed to have a total of 23 FS in Delta 68

After merging all those ships you had 32 I thought ? 19+4 that were there, + 11 around the other planets.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on April 21, 2014, 05:40:38 pm
I did nothing with my FS 24 in [Theta 67],

I merged my FS at [Theta 69] to give me a total of FS 32 at [Theta 69-1]

And I built FS 19 at [Delta 68].  Adding that to the existing fleet of FS 4, and I have a total of FS 23 at [Delta 68]

Automatic Post Merge: April 21, 2014, 05:46:59 pm
Currently, the map is incorrect in the following:

FS 4 at Delta 68

Automatic Post Merge: April 21, 2014, 05:47:39 pm
Update today likely, I got sick last week and couldn't do it  :P

I hope you get well soon. Or if you already have,  stay well!
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on May 14, 2014, 09:36:16 am
Despite there only being a few of us, I"m finding this second round of GW to be quite entertaining.

I must warn of a pending sporadic absence starting in about two weeks, I may be slow to update somewhat--we'll be hiking 150-175 miles on the Appalachian Trail over the first two weeks in June, then headed for a week to Wisconsin where hopefully I'll have better cell reception than last time.  (And yes, that'll use almost every bit of vacation I have for the year.) 

But as I said, it's entertaining, so I'll do the best I can to keep up. A bonus round soon would also be great.  :)
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on May 14, 2014, 11:09:34 am
Despite there only being a few of us, I"m finding this second round of GW to be quite entertaining.

I must warn of a pending sporadic absence starting in about two weeks, I may be slow to update somewhat--we'll be hiking 150-175 miles on the Appalachian Trail over the first two weeks in June, then headed for a week to Wisconsin where hopefully I'll have better cell reception than last time.  (And yes, that'll use almost every bit of vacation I have for the year.) 

But as I said, it's entertaining, so I'll do the best I can to keep up. A bonus round soon would also be great.  :)

Alright, we'll go on hold when that happens. It may coincide nicely with my own 2-week break. Or it may not, and we'll have a whole month of nothing. If you post multi-actions or PM me an action-chart before you go I'll be able to update on the regular schedule.

It's difficult to do action bonus-rounds, but development/tech rounds aren't as hard. We can probably do one of those next week.

How's the new GW thing coming? I haven't done anything with the dice-ships stuff I was working on, mostly because there doesn't seem to be as much interest as in your setup and I've been busy.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on May 14, 2014, 11:57:37 am
About being absent...

I am going to South Korea for 2 weeks starting on the 23rd of May.

I may or may not be able to get wifi there.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on May 14, 2014, 02:52:12 pm
About being absent...

I am going to South Korea for 2 weeks starting on the 23rd of May.

I may or may not be able to get wifi there.

Well, well; we're all going to be out around the same time. Mine is looking like mid-June. I'll update today, we'll do a double Monday, and then nothing until everyone is able to do it.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on May 15, 2014, 07:41:05 am
Should be interesting to see how the ad hoc updates go...yay everybody getting summer vacations! \o/

@new game: I've been pretty busy lately, and I'm at a dreaded tedium-point where updating new rounds will involve moving and updating hundreds of formulas. If I'd used VB I could just call formulas for that (unhappy sigh). But I'll be diving back into it shortly, and I think I've got a solution in mind for the mapping.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on May 15, 2014, 01:22:09 pm
@new game: I've been pretty busy lately, and I'm at a dreaded tedium-point where updating new rounds will involve moving and updating hundreds of formulas. If I'd used VB I could just call formulas for that (unhappy sigh). But I'll be diving back into it shortly, and I think I've got a solution in mind for the mapping.

I warned you about that :P

The best way to set things up is to put *every value* in a new cell. Call all subsequent rows to a top value-row, if you're copying values over several collumns (sideways drag) just put them in the appropriate places twice. I remember reading a way to copy-paste without auto-redirecting (usually to empty cells), but it seemed easier to do it the above way to start.

Make sure you can handle all of our requests quickly and easily, the hardest part for me here is making large multi-window updates between 3 programs simultaneously. I have to update the spreadsheet with unit counts and tech levels, the map with unit positions, and the post with results.

Possibly also consider setting it up so you can either copy-paste to the result window or generate an output somewhere automatically. I could probably do that for tech, but at this point I think I'll just let the game run its course and start anew next time with lessons learned.

I've updated to the newest excel, and man, some of those templates are great looking. I'm thinking that making a sheet that you could screenshot would be a good alternative and not impossible .
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on May 15, 2014, 02:46:41 pm
It'll be easy when it's done, or at least easy for me--I tend to suck at making not-me-friendly interfaces I'm Excel. Part of why its so difficult ult to build is that I force the end-result process to near zero work.

Regarding the values, it's just the nature of the beast. I've got formula tables assigning a target to each ship's attack slots from available combatants, figuring out what equipment they have, putting that into motion, determining how many hits each type equipment scored, selecting targets for damage-dealing equipment, and (the big bad block) determining how much incoming damage each ship gets and how many other ships are attacking it (for armor-multiplying purposes)--for 350 combatants on each side.

So that's done. And once you've got the first formula down, you just set absolute values at the right places and drag the formula out. Change the references for the other side, and drag it to fill out the 350 slots from there.

So round 2 means copying everything and pasting it below. Sort out how much hp/shields everyone has left, who died, who got captured, who has how many drones left, etc. but then I've got to change the references for the big bad formulas on the incoming damage block, and for each of the umpteen special equipment calculators, their target blocks, and so on. That's where it gets tedious, and where bugs happen.

Whereas if I used VB, the first round would be an utter nightmare--but instead of limiting it to 50 ships, 300 drones, and 10 rounds at the top, I could expand fleets and rounds indefinitely by just putting the big nasty functions in one place, planning for variable sizes of incoming data, and calling the same functions over and over.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on May 19, 2014, 07:20:30 pm
Is the Plague eating the planets?  I have noticed a single green pixel in places corresponding to places where there should have been a planet.

I may have just been seeing things though. (Just reconfirmed that I am not seeing things.)

*Thinking back it was mentioned that the Plague would consume the galaxy.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on May 20, 2014, 10:52:21 am
Is the Plague eating the planets?  I have noticed a single green pixel in places corresponding to places where there should have been a planet.

Yep, and gaining 10 plague-FS-equivelant every time.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on May 22, 2014, 06:31:36 pm
Why hasn't my territory shading covered Xi-57?  Is this system going to go into decline if I do not build another system nearby?



@Sensor Free Map:

I am fine with it...
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on May 22, 2014, 06:59:05 pm
Why hasn't my territory shading covered Xi-57?  Is this system going to go into decline if I do not build another system nearby?

Totally overlooked it. Write it into your post and I'll try to remember next time.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on May 22, 2014, 08:24:08 pm
Question:

Are special techs completely useless?! I started with 73 FS. At a 1/6 rate, I should have had 13 EMP hits. At 1/20 success rate, I should have had 3 barrage hits doing 1-6 damage each. And at a 1/20 rate, I should have successfully captured at least 3 plague FS-equivalent for study. All of this against 10 enemy FS. Instead, despite 3 layers of special tech and overwhelming numbers, i traded ship for ship. What gives?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on May 22, 2014, 09:15:55 pm
@EMP
Is the Plague using stolen ships or is it a flying mass of biomass?

@Capture
I don't think you can capture Plague ships.

@Barrage
There is no reason why it should not work.

@Trading Ship for ship
1 Decoy lost. Survivors report that the plague appears to have learned that the decoys are not real, and adapted appropriately. No amount of weapon's force appeared to have any bearing of the plague's capabilities - it adapts and trades damage strength-for-strength. Your anti-plague tech prevents it from spreading once it has done its work...

Sounds like the Borg but nerfed so they do not become immune to damage.  Instead they are buffed to equal strength to what they are fighting.

Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on May 23, 2014, 10:46:05 am
@EMP
Is the Plague using stolen ships or is it a flying mass of biomass?

@Capture
I don't think you can capture Plague ships.

@Barrage
There is no reason why it should not work.

@Trading Ship for ship
Sounds like the Borg but nerfed so they do not become immune to damage.  Instead they are buffed to equal strength to what they are fighting.

Think of plague as it's own thing, represented by numbers, and not as 'fleet strength.' It doesn't use ships at all, it just consumes.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on May 23, 2014, 11:31:32 am
So why do special techs seem to have no effect?



Unrelated update: my wife took an extremely fast racquetball right to the eye yesterday, and her full-recovery time is just after our projected trip-start time. My awesome hike has been postponed until sometime in July.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on May 23, 2014, 03:14:32 pm
So why do special techs seem to have no effect?

Some very specific ones do have an effect, and an important one at that. Many other others, especially regular combat techs, do not. Mostly because the plague doesn't engage in regular combat, and instead (as my scientists learned last round) absorbs your crew's life-force/souls. And it's intangible.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on May 29, 2014, 05:28:57 pm
I did send FS to Z-58 to initiate trade :-/

Automatic Post Merge: May 29, 2014, 05:31:04 pm
I sent FS 14 there.

It appears that the FS 14 went to Xi-57 instead of Z-58.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on May 29, 2014, 05:56:01 pm
I did send FS to Z-58 to initiate trade :-/

Automatic Post Merge: May 29, 2014, 05:31:04 pm
I sent FS 14 there.

It appears that the FS 14 went to Xi-57 instead of Z-58.

Ah, ok, I'll need to fix that. Put it into your next post, assume you've got an extra TP, and I'll fix it next time I post.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on July 01, 2014, 02:13:48 pm
It appears that for the first time in Galactic War history, three players are about to come into direct contact.

This will be interesting.

Very interesting.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on July 01, 2014, 03:00:01 pm
It appears that for the first time in Galactic War history, three players are about to come into direct contact.

This will be interesting.

Very interesting.

A distinct possibility, presuming that the plague doesn't wipe the floor with everyone first >:D
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on July 01, 2014, 03:11:01 pm
A distinct possibility, presuming that the plague doesn't wipe the floor with everyone first >:D

Looking back at the scan free map...

And after doing a little math and guesswork...

If the Plague in the area near T16 and V28 is not stopped...

It will give us a lot of grief.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on July 01, 2014, 04:15:09 pm
Looking back at the scan free map...

And after doing a little math and guesswork...

If the Plague in the area near T16 and V28 is not stopped...

It will give us a lot of grief.

I'm actually concerned that it will succeed in sterilizing the map, just leaving pockets around us active players.

And once contact is established in-game between my faction and HT's, we may need a thread for diplomacy. Or we may just hijack this one. But I can't say much more on that until contact is formally established :(
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on July 01, 2014, 04:20:17 pm
I'm actually concerned that it will succeed in sterilizing the map, just leaving pockets around us active players.

The purpose of my recent expansion was to limit the damage of the plague to the western side of the map and attempt to mitigate the damage in the south.

Quote
And once contact is established in-game between my faction and HT's, we may need a thread for diplomacy. Or we may just hijack this one. But I can't say much more on that until contact is formally established :(

I could make the RP thread.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on July 03, 2014, 08:03:34 pm
I have created the thread for diplomacy/RP (http://forums.blockaderunnergame.com/index.php?topic=2501.0)!
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on July 07, 2014, 09:19:49 am
Question:

Both the Voltaran Sovereignty and the Andromeda Council have been broadcasting their anti-plague technology. 

Does that mean that I (or the Deltan Federation) now possess their anti-plague technology?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on July 07, 2014, 11:09:25 am
Question:

Both the Voltaran Sovereignty and the Andromeda Council have been broadcasting their anti-plague technology. 

Does that mean that I (or the Deltan Federation) now possess their anti-plague technology?

You aren't close enough to HT to get his, you will probably come close enough to get mine soon. I only broadcasted the last couple rounds though.

Generally, 'close-enough' is 'within sensor range.' With a little bit of wiggle room and preference given to nations that have been first-contacted.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on July 11, 2014, 03:13:13 pm
Hey guys, I'm on my way out of town. This is my big hike, 190 miles on the Appalachian trail. Will have limited Internet access every several days, but mostly I'm gone for two weeks.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on July 11, 2014, 03:45:02 pm
Hey guys, I'm on my way out of town. This is my big hike, 190 miles on the Appalachian trail. Will have limited Internet access every several days, but mostly I'm gone for two weeks.

No problem. I'll take my time updating this round likely then, I've been tired & busy lately.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on July 14, 2014, 04:32:19 pm
Hey guys, I'm on my way out of town. This is my big hike, 190 miles on the Appalachian trail. Will have limited Internet access every several days, but mostly I'm gone for two weeks.

Have fun!

Update in progress.

...

Scan: "Very interesting..." - you'll have to wait for the map to finish updating to know just what's up though >:D

Prediction!

Intel shows that the scanned region of space is densely packed with Planets.  Intel also states that the Plague was approaching this region of space.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on July 28, 2014, 07:55:16 am
Back from vacation!  Hiked 170 miles in 12 days. 

Waiting for the updateto finish--fire when ready!
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on July 28, 2014, 10:50:09 am
Alright, it'll come in the next day or two.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on July 28, 2014, 01:12:34 pm
Back from vacation!  Hiked 170 miles in 12 days. 

Waiting for the update to finish--fire when ready!

Did you have fun?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Holy Thunder on July 29, 2014, 09:18:48 am
It was so much fun! We crossed a few thresholds we hadn't before, and that made us feel more like "legit" AT hikers. We had to resupply twice, once from a convenience store. We hiked almost two full days in the rain, and one of those days we climbed 2,200 feet in five miles. By the middle of it we preferred sharp uphill to sharp downhill, and one night we shared a shelter with a homeless crazy man. We saw four bears (2 cubs), had two deer come within 30 feet of us without spooking, and my wife killed around 17,000 mosquitoes.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on July 29, 2014, 02:49:17 pm
...and one of those days we climbed 2,200 feet in five miles. By the middle of it we preferred sharp uphill to sharp downhill

You're clearly confused about the definition of 'sharp uphill.' 2,200 feet is the distance you climb in two miles around here. A local favorite day-hike in my neck of the woods is 4 miles each way, takes about 2-4 hours, and goes up 4,000 feet. One that I've done was 8,800 feet at the peak (starting around 2k) and has sections as steep as 3k/mile. >:D

Not even sure I'm in that kind of shape anymore, but there you go :D
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on July 29, 2014, 04:38:45 pm
A few errors in this update.

-Xi 57
FS 28

-Sigma 57
FS 0

-Delta 68
FS 2

Trade route connecting [Gamma 51] and [X-54].

It was so much fun! We crossed a few thresholds we hadn't before, and that made us feel more like "legit" AT hikers. We had to resupply twice, once from a convenience store. We hiked almost two full days in the rain, and one of those days we climbed 2,200 feet in five miles. By the middle of it we preferred sharp uphill to sharp downhill, and one night we shared a shelter with a homeless crazy man. We saw four bears (2 cubs), had two deer come within 30 feet of us without spooking, and my wife killed around 17,000 mosquitoes.

I have to try that someday.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Niwantaw on July 29, 2014, 05:03:09 pm
You're clearly confused about the definition of 'sharp uphill.' 2,200 feet is the distance you climb in two miles around here. A local favorite day-hike in my neck of the woods is 4 miles each way, takes about 2-4 hours, and goes up 4,000 feet. One that I've done was 8,800 feet at the peak (starting around 2k) and has sections as steep as 3k/mile. >:D


here in england we call those things "cliffs"
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on July 29, 2014, 05:20:19 pm
here in england we call those things "cliffs"

You have shallow cliffs. Out here, we call them "rock scrambles."

Pretty sure the Scots would agree with me though- I've seen their mountains, and while they aren't all that tall, they are pretty severe. ;D
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on August 23, 2014, 09:28:26 pm
Who here feels like I should explain my hostilities toward Thadius Faran in the original Galactic War to the general public?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on August 25, 2014, 10:41:18 am
Meh, I'd go either way. I don't even know if Thadius comes around here that often anymore.

RE: Plague tech- you spend 1 AP to receive/implement the tech I distributed. I'd need to check for specifics, but mine basically allows specially-equipped fleets to stop the plague in it's tracks.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on September 06, 2014, 08:12:55 pm
I will keep that in mind for the upcoming round.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on September 20, 2014, 10:19:24 am
*Just Read the Post-Mortem*

...

Thus ends the Galactic War saga, thanks for playing everyone! Hope you had fun, sorry it had to end, but that's the way these things go.

...

WHY MUST ALL GOOD THINGS COME TO AN END?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on September 22, 2014, 10:54:23 am
Yep, that's the way they go. If things pick up again, if I get more time, or if one of us figures out a better way to do it, it could come back.
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Commander Jackson on May 27, 2016, 05:16:59 pm
Me2005, were you a part of the Stellaris game developer team?
Title: Re: GW: Season 2 Meta-Thread
Post by: Me2005 on June 10, 2016, 04:00:21 pm
The what? *googles* Huh, may be vaguely cribbing this GW stuff, I'd need to research further to really know. If they are, I hope they get a hold of me or something.

From the look of it though, it could be random happenstance. It's an turn based grand-strategy game about space with a high level of choice and loads of procedural generation.