archimage_a

Ok... I get alot of claymores and decide to go though the gate, I plan to go to a fairly remote planet, preferably with nothing much around.

I also jerryrig a number of explosives to go off in the secondary armoury.

Archi goes to the second base armoury on level 19, then and check out a zat. Then I use the Zat to aquire the EM field generator, also on level 19

Archi wanders round the base looking for alien tech to swipe.

I join Jen in her killing spree

As promised, locked the thread due to lack of interest and numerous members of the tavern expressing distaste for bringing the idea back. Lets give it a few months and then think about it.

In any case...Shall we just ignore this unless someone wants to join in, ok?

You have until tommrow to drum up support. I am not having Hegemony limp on like Planeteering does.

I will lock this tommrow unless people take part. We said we didn't think it would work, we didn't want it...and yet you carried on anyway. More than that your rules are ridiculous...You can't lose your territory on Earth....So what is the game gonna be about? Invading the other 3 or 4 uber nations...Blasting into space...colonising that? Sorry, but this have no chance of working in my opinion

Well ideally I would generate a new map, play a game of civ or something to find out what countries exist, and then draw lots as to who gets what....Then we can just invent a history to go with it. If people really do all go for the same thing then fine...It will be easy to create a race or whatever which is strong against their strengths and against their weaknesses: You race is able to mind control and decay life? Fine, my race is silicon based, so decaying me makes me grow larger(Silicon Crystals) and I am immune to your mind control. Or I could have an island nation or a nation surrounded by mountains or anything really... Having a race which was able to mind control and decay life, on an island would be near enough pointless, or if I was silicon based it would be fairly pointless, since Silicon is(checks) much heavier than carbon, so shipping would have to be larger. So long as people were slightly creative the game would work well... As to the 'same size, same pop' and everything... I don't have a major problem in being a small country with a small population, I just don't want to be screwed because of it. Because we put such a high emphasis on GDP we are stuffed, if we had a more robust system then fine, but it seems everything is based on this one thing...so unless it is similar for everyone, the smaller GDP nations are stuffed and the larger GDP nations are overburderned...IE they have more money (than sense) than they can spend. For example, there is no point in having a decent education system because you can just throw money at research projects...There is no point in developing healthcare because you can just throw money at a research project to cure a virus....there is no point in having a large army because you can just throw money and get a large army... GDP just sucks all creativity out of the game...and when someone tries to be creative people freak out because 'How can this small country with a small GDP be able to challange us!!!!!!' GDP is all very well, but there needs to be more than just GDP....

Iridium is actually a real metal...not some wonder material Retech Invented... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium I doubt your interpretation on plausible. You suggested a theory which stated that everything light be composed on photons and it might be possible to destablise these photons to beam them across space time. Which has absolutely no grounding in anything...so plausibility doesn't come into it. If you are going to go around stopping countries from annexing other countries then the game will just be 'the world according to Mather'.... I think consolidation or just dumping Earth and doing it on a different planet, would be the better courses of action.

Then what would you suggest to combat that? If we made it dependant on territory then small countries would be stuffed from the start...like Britian and Japan. If we made it dependant on population then India and China would streak ahead of countries like France, America, Canada... If we used present day figures then countries like Japan, which has such a high GDP because America has always protected it, get an unfair advantage when it keeps a high GDP and develops an army and such. If we invented new figures based on resources then the whole thing gets over complicated. What we could do is consolidate, or break up, nations to form player confederacies....So they all had similar sizes and populations and GDPs...

Yeah, I will pass too(I think that means nay) Its too early Dice to decide what NPCs do when its a matter like 'Do you want to give up all power and join me?' 'Rolls a 20' 'Hey, look, Iran annexs the USA', is just silly. Dice to decide fundermental theories is pretty silly too, as I argued before, you could make up a new thing, say it cured everything ever as well as created money out of thin air and bam, you roll a 20 and you have a gamebreakium. Uninabitable planets will, 99% of the time, become habitable given the new 'Genetic Theory' which states that Swiss people can change anything they touch's genetic code at will, based on a 20 he got earlier. If we are going to expand into the milky way then commonsense dictates we will find life...even if it is long dead and we just find ruins...I think we should discover some kind of barrier 20 or 30 lightyears out and not be able to go further than that. Maybe one or two NPC races, but no more than that. Annexing taking one year is ridiculous....I start annexing 108 countries. I get 25, I start annexing 83, I get 20, I start annexing 63, I get 15...And so on and so forth....And you would annex Russia, America, Canada, Britian, France, Germany, Poland, Japan, China....9 of the first 25, and you would control most of the planet. No WMDs is silly, I think it should just be made incredibly difficult to make them...IE if you want to produce a Nuclear Weapon you either have to get sanctioned by the UN or you need to do it in secret, spending no more than 100 million a year on a 20 billion project...Once you had them it would be moderately difficult to make more of them.... Global warming should just be got rid of, switching over to green everything would crash the global economy. Maybe if it started in 2040, so there was 30 years to reverse global warming and to ban nuclear weapons and so on and so forth. Economics, I think that there should be a .01% 'anything you like' budget, up to 10% 'We are going to have to raise taxes' budget and a 0.001% 'unaccountable' budget. Then an up 50% 'Loan agreement'. Which would break down thusly: United States: GDP: 14,290,000,000,000 1,290,000,000 'spare' 142,900,000,000 'we need more taxes' 142,900,000 'unaccountable' 7,145,000,000,000 'loan' I think we should wipe the slate clean as to national debt and trade agreements, since it would be in 2040. Then budgets are nominalised(Ie all budgets of player countries are brought within half a trillion of 8 trillion a year, all NPC countries would get 10% of the Average GDP for player countries). GDP growth depends on trade agreements you have with people...0.1% for a generic trade agreement and 0.5% per country you have a specific trade agreement with(Say Food for Oil or something). Up to a max of 3%. For every 3% you have on 'More Taxes' you lose 1% GDP. If you have the full 10% you lose an additonal 1%(So 4%). If you annex a country you take a 50% GDP hit to the annexed country(So its GDP is half what it was) and add it to your country....also all trade agreements you had with that country no longer generate GDP. If you build a colony, it will cost you .5% of your GDP for the first 30 years and then generate .5% per year(up to 5% per year, on top of the 3%, so max is 8%) until it declares independence...which might be 10 years later or 200 years later. That is as complicated as the economy gets...No getting rid of money, no new economic policy, no special deals or whatever... If you create some awesome new thing and have a monopoly on the thing then you can sign specific trade agreements for 0.5%... Costs should be semi-realistic. Since I am most capable in this field I will work that out. If you think you have some special advantage then you can pm me with it and I will factor it, but things will cost at least 50% of my estimate. Anywho, this is all when and if we decide to start another game, but basically the rules would need to be like that...Rigid but allows for customisable play.

I'll post an update tommorow/today... Back in Kent!!!

Nah, I just didn't like the game play.

Hmmm, its not to my tastes

I think that it doesn't matter which idea we suggest people don't want to use RS... Halo ran into developmental difficulties.

I think the game just needs to be more punishing to players, rather than the current 'You are attacked by Pirates' 'I deploy my whole fleet to destroy the pirates'...or 'One of your colonies Declares Independance', 'I virus bomb it and post more guards to my other colonies' There needs to be more of a counter reaction. And technology like 'I create a cure for aids' needs to be realised, as does 'I create a 99.9% effective ICBM shield'. The chances of suceeding in anything short of fifty years are astronomical...after all it is only now that we are beginning to see 'Star Wars' type defences, and only against a small nuclear strike, thats 30 years on....As for missile defences, even there is rarely more than 60% efficent....and that has been going on for over 60 years. So I think the game needs to be less about 'I create an uber defence' and more about 'I create an uber weapon and start devestating your country, what are you going to do about it!' But then, I think we should play in space from the start...so/...

I think you should stop suggesting RS as an idea, the Tavern has clearly decided it doesn't want to participate.

http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=22 People to play in a Star Control game!!!

Anywho

I think the game was dying before then...

In any case...You have a penchant for the modern technology, which would screw up a past era hegemony unless the rules are designed to make new technology less desirable.

Or one in a later era, so WMDs are common place, Railguns are old hat and life goes on... Seemingly Mather is going to develop guns, rail guns, elastic bands and explosives of the most powerful kind in whatever era we choose... If we must do an earlier era then I think we should develop a Divad type response to outlandish technology: So the 'High Tech' weapons fail in serious respects because they are far too far in advance of the period, even with 5 years of research and such... How can this relate to Guns and Grenades? Well Grenades might not explode, they might explode to early, they might explode but only serve to destroy the grenade... Guns might not fire, might create a massive smoke cloud when firing, might melt the barrel after one or two firings... The list of potential problems is endless, but if people are going to complain every time their technology fails. Also if someone spends 40 years developing some high tech weapon, say a hand held grenade, then, after it is first used, everyone else can start developing, taking only 5 years...The latter grenades will be weaker, but only slightly. Thus developing vastly superior weapons is in no one's interest...unless you plan to fight a war against everyone and win it in less than 5 years...obviously. Thus the 'best' way to research, is to improve old weapons and research new tactics and such. If we were doing it in the future then it would be good to define seperate races with seperate advantages.