archimage_a

Trol- Totally agree, each planet will have a map and seperate IAG and such. Rocco- Could work, but it doesn't really give rich players any sort of an advantage...you might as well just give everything up, build a super fortress around your one remaining city and pump out spaceships that can go toe to toe with people who actually expanded all over space.

Thats just not going to happen, because either: Grim will be building one per year and everyone else will scream because they have only build one every seven years. OR Grim will be building 7 ever year and everyone will scream that they can only build one per year. Either way someone is overpowered, someone is underpowered, and I get screamed at. Making ships take time means that players have a chance to work together, and that space combat can actually be worked out...rather than 7000 ships verses 7000 ships, result, 0 ships.

I imagine the best way to do that is to make it more expensive than even rich countries can afford, so that people have to work together, or fall behind. I think Doom said that the first 3 players are as rich as the next 5. So really FTL ships should cost 3 times whatever the highest player's IAG is. The upshot of working together is that you colonise the same planet or the same system at least, which leads to friction and competition over resources, and ship maintainance fees should ensure that more and more planets are needed to defend your gains....Arms race style. As to planetary fighting, my main idea is to have 'key systems' which are almost impossible to invade because of a massive shield that makes ships and armies worth 1,000,000 times more than normal. But the catch is that the massive shield has to be continuous, and where it isn't defended, like huge expanses of space, it can be crossed without any problem. So players will have to decide how 'key' those systems or planets are. The shield can be redrawn ONCE in a decade and a player may only ever have one shield. Other people's shields don't provide any benefit at all. Everywhere else, the cost of Huge Space Defences(HSD) in maintainance fees, will make plantary defence much more expensive. Orbital Bombardment can wipe out population centers and limit troop deployment, but has to be balanced to with destroying all or at least part of the infrastructure on a planet, making it almost worthless to attack. Verses that, troops transport ships will cost a lot, and can be destroyed in space, destroying millions of expensive troops. Its all up for debate though.

Well, I posted the star map a while ago, and got a provisional FTL system written out. Then we had a debate about whether we should even go into space, so there is still alot of discuss. In anycase, the cost of ships, random events and stuff like that should slow expansion down. Since we know that Hegemony can last the course, we might as well play like it isn't gonna end tommrow :thumbsup:

Just got the demo on Steam, thought about buying the full game, but my money is needed elsewhere...and with exams tommrow it probably wouldn't have been sensible anyway[/sour grapes]

Well, if Posiden wants to lead a rebellion, I have no problem with that, just PM me and I will set the wheels in motion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G97BrR83gAA

E=MC^2 24=6*2^2 (24= 6*4) E[square root]=MC Squareroot 24=6*2 (4.9=6*2)

E=24, M=6, C=2 24=6*2^2 (24=24) 6-24=2^2 (-18=4) 6=2/24^2 (6=0.006) 6=24/2 (6=12) Turns out Sere was wrong anyway.

Hehe, I yield to Snub

There is no way, currently, to practically prove that either one of us is right. One day we might be able to measure the mass of a Star exactly, and if we could do that we could work out exactly how much gravity it should be 'producing', and then determine if it is producing more than it should be, thus meaning that photons have a small mass, or producing just the right amount, thus meaning that photons do not have mass, or have such a microscopic mass that, if the whole universe was converted into photons, there would not be enough mass to create a proton's worth of gravity. ^ Archimage :rolleyes:

But the equations inbetween didn't make sense... E=MC^2 E=MC ME=C M=E/C

Real numbers: 12=6*2^2 (12=12) 6-12=2^2 (6=4) 6=2/12^2 (6=0.0138) 6=12/2 (6=6) Not sure entirely how you managed to get there....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-momentum

It would be interesting to find out.

Its alright Dungeonal, I don't require people to understand, just to know that I know what I am talking about. Anyway, Ico, Momentum also equals Energy divided by the Speed of light. Though Momentum is not my speciality.

Photons are the conveyers of Light, so they must travel at light speed...by defination. Hmmm, this is not correct, though it appears to be because of the first law of motion: Every body persists in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by force impressed. However space is not flat, or even curved, but a mass of waves and troughs and bulges. These bulges and such are caused by gravity warping space. Light, though, travels in a straight line across space, in much the same way as a traveller will walk up a hill and then down the other side, we do not say that the traveller has been pulled up or down the hill by gravity. This gives the illusion that Light is pulled by Gravity. Its a little bit of relativity. Light only ever travels in a straight line, however we observers see it bend. When you think about this it makes a lot of sense. If light had mass, the smallest mass imaginable, then how would it stay at lightspeed when it left a star? The gravitation pull of the star would slow light down, and light would speed up near other stars, planets and bodies. If we take that to be true then we would have to disregard Lightspeed as a constant, it would also mean that E=MC^2 wouldn't work anymore, since C is no longer a constant. There is no way, currently, to practically prove that either one of us is right. One day we might be able to measure the mass of a Star exactly, and if we could do that we could work out exactly how much gravity it should be 'producing', and then determine if it is producing more than it should be, thus meaning that photons have a small mass, or producing just the right amount, thus meaning that photons do not have mass, or have such a microscopic mass that, if the whole universe was converted into photons, there would not be enough mass to create a proton's worth of gravity. Light also appears to have mass because of things such as solar sails...Light must have mass otherwise it couldn't hit the sail and move it. However this is due to the momentum of light, not the mass of light. The light travels and is absorbed or reflected by the surface of the solar sail, transfering the energy from the photon, to the object. If the light is reflected then an additional force is garnered by the third law of motion-To every action opposes an equal and opposite reaction.

Its true, understanding me involves several levels of analysis which have baffled experts(no, really, they were). I prefered the other quote, this one is more of a 'What?' I do like this picture though.

Ha! Hegemony, where the dictators of tommrow get thier kicks.

Actually the term you are looking for is Fascis, the Latin for Bundle.

No, I don't really get your argument, must be density of the gray matter. Anywho, the British responce to American Signature making: Frankie B. Roosalphelt

Oh snap, that explains it, you thought Sri Lanka had 2.6 trillion in IAG, as it is the only part of the world not player controlled. Rookie mistake to make...Must try harder in the future.

IAG can only have increased by roughly 10%(and it has been less than that)(10.355024%) So... 15+1.5=16.5 16.5<18.6

10+5=15 15<18

Just goes to show America and Japan needed nerfing, since, even after 40-50 days, their IAG would have been higher than most of the world. :rolleyes: