a_bert

Nah, Sere, Hegemony has never been the same as an RPG such as 2025, dungeoneering etc.. Hex, the problem with that is it it means we have to work out more unit values.. unless it was merely who controlled the space that controlled the planet. If we did it like that, we could split these planets in half but it'd be ludicrous to assume two rival fleets would be hiding on the other side of the world from each other.

Fact is, Empire/Hegemony is driven by PVP, even if it's not direct - if it's just an arms race. Okay, this just popped into my head. We start with the 6 systems plan. There are 4 (or more, if its needed) additional unexplored systems each guarded by an alien civilization, of varying strength, each giving equally strong resources. If you explore these systems, be prepared for a strong NPC defence. And of course, for the more potent warmongers among us to come third party in your battles. I don't want people expanding all over the galaxy so it takes a month to hunt everyone down... That just gets old.

Having more systems does that change that at all, Retech.

I fail to see how it might as well be smaller than Earth. 1) It takes longer to get from one side of space to the other than it does to get from Japan to Europe. 2) After about a fortnight of Hegemony, there are at most 15+ countries left anyway. 3) You have to take specific routes rather than just assuming your troops can get somewhere, unlike in ye olde Hegemony. The point of superweapons is to discourage an attack on you, not kill 90% of the worlds population. But we're not here to argue about that.

The whole point of this game is space superiority. We've had 2 Hegemonys on Earth. The first went into space and I don't know what happened next cause everyone was talking [cabbage] constantly, the second [bleep]ed up because you lost all your marbles. Why do you think we wanted Russia? For it's *resources*. For the added power it'd give us. If we didn't fight for it, we'd fall even further behind. How is that ANY different at all to fighting for these planets?

So.. making people go to war.. over resources.. is not a real reason?

This might suit: If your empire is on the brink of destruction, but the game is still alive and kicking, you get placed under UN protection [invulnerable] for however long at a cost of half your yearly income? This means there is PVP, but it's not game ending. You can fight, and then if you lose you can still rebuild, though you're still gimped because you deserve to be, you lost. No mollycoddling.

This isn't Hegemony, this is Empire. IF there is a desire for an expansist game other than PVP, then we will play that, but PVP will be encouraged to the point of almost forcing it, because otherwise there just won't be enough interest outside the game to cause people to come and keep it alive.

Basically, we'd have 10 systems, each with 2 planets in + your own starting planet in one of said system. If we have even voting, then it'll be BLARGH, because that will be more interesting in the long run. 6 planets is more than enough to hide away and do whatever you want as long as you're not being a total [bleep] about it.

Grim, I have to nitpick this, a year between systems is about 600+ times faster than the speed of light. We are not having instant travel. If you want to get somewhere and attack someone without them being prepared, build stealth ships. Instant travel is unreasonable and [bleep]s up PVP. If enough people want to spend months of their lives turtling off into the middle of nowhere, then fine, we'll do that. Put an ROAR in the end of your next post if you want that, and a BLARGH if you don't.

I'm inclined to agree with Rocco, I really don't get the point of starting with present day technologies. We'll start with 100,000 people each, using my resources system I posted earlier?

iirc, it's around 275k/hour. weee long time ago

I've already said earlier: Roleplay your alien race as much as you want, they're purely cosmetic. It's simply adding too many complications otherwise. Starting wise.. Okay, if we want to start at that low a level, we will.. Please offer a quantifiable way for people to progress to battleships strong enough to do battle then. Don't make me suggest something if you're going to suggest something else afterwards! I think at the moment we're agreed on resources, ship building, combat, FTL travel (a year between systems, only routes posted earlier?) & growth rates. Research needs to be worked out, and I need to know if people agree with 6 systems, a starting planet for everyone with 2 extra planets per system with the resource levels I posted earlier. IF it turns out it's needed, we can add additional systems but the fact is, if someone wants to fight you I'm not going to make them stop.

There needs to be trade offs though Rocco, so that ships are *unique* and not just *huge*. Archi, that's a far more exciting way to work out attack, yeah. Do you mean the module you build on your battleship can only do one type of attack, which is powerful vs one type of defence, neutral to one and is countered by the other type of defence? i.e. Hit and Run is strong versus hold the line, neutral versus defence tactics, and weak vs elastic defence? Strong = 2x multiplier, neutral = 1x, and weak = 0.5x? Basically.. the more powerful your module, the more workers needed to work it. So, an attack module of T2 adds 6 to attack, removes 3 from defence, and adds 2 to worker efficiency. EDIT: If there is a demand for stealth attacks, then fine, it can be another module, which replaces defence on the ship it's on. Stealth starts at 0. BUT, for X, Y and Z resources, a planet can build a radar system which has a rating of N, and then the stealth of the inc ships is rolled against it to determine if the attack is known or not.?

There will be no "I SECRETLY REVEAL A THOUSAND BILLION BATTLESHIPS IN YOUR PALACE". Proxy control is irrelevant and won't happen. No. We're using the resources system we've already agreed on - however (@everyone); Instead of having 1 man consumed = 5 more man, we'll scrap that and confirm a maximum growth rate of 5% a year, going down as the game goes on. The growth rate is determined by how much population you put into your farming industry. 4% = 1% growth rate, etc. Acceptable?

ok rocco we'll just say "MY SHIP IS BETTER" and then you can be the winner If you want to customise your ships, we need to be able to quantify how 'strong' your ship is. I never, or if I did then I apologise, but I don't think I did, say that system is final or what you say can't be incorporated/used instead. Worker efficiency was just how I termed life support, or something to that extent. People want lots of customisation, people want different sorts of FTL, people want different resources.. I'm trying to find a compromise that is acceptable to all. Please, don't just say the system means nothing, surely you understand some of it? What is unnecessary? What would you replace, and with what?

The thing is Mather, this slows down the gameplay a bit and gives people time to prepare. There has been (unless I'm totally misinterpreting everyone) some hostility to that approach.

I'll roll the dice. Announce your attacks in the thread, but PM the specifics of it to me (ship number, workers etc). To be honest, I'm fairly sure that just leaves the complexities to me. All you need to decide on is what kind of fleet you want.. A fast one, a strong one, a tough one.. If you want specific modules, then I think it would still keep it simple enough to say that we can incorporate counters for various weapons in. Something like, if you build a anti-missile defence system [armour module] then it's bonus is increased 2x vs the enemy battleship if that battleship is lazers. Attack*Work Efficency*(Workforce/Speed) Defence*Work efficiency*(workforce/speed) I'm aware this seems complex/complicated/rigid, but to be as fair as possible in encounters, I feel like a numerary system is the best way to do it. But this combat system is not final. If you can think of a better, or even simpler way to do it, then post away and we'll consider it. Instead of just the 3 point system, we'll increase it to 6, with an extra 2 planets in each system aside from the starting system, then. Sol, Alpha Centauri, Midgard, Ix Lo, Chi Gamma, Betelgeuse. [hide=System layout?][/hide] There is what I suggest for a layout, 1 year to jump between systems, and only those routes (i.e. Midgard->Sol->Ix Lo, not Midgard->Ix Lo)

Modules are of different tiers. Tier 1 takes up one square. Tier 2 takes up 2. Tier 3 takes up 3, and can be arranged only in a -' shape, if you get what I mean. X i.e. XX Tier 4 takes up 4, and can be arranged; XX XXXX XXX XX X Tier 5 takes up 5 and can only be arranged as a +. X XXX X Modules include.. Weaponry, armour, worker efficiency, speed.. Other suggestions? A crude system for combat: decided on your modules. Weaponry affects how powerful your weapons are. Tied with armour. Armour affects how much damage your battleship can take. Worker efficiency affects how many population your battleship needs to run. You can overload them, or just put the bare minimum on them. Tied with speed. Speed affects how good your ship is at landing hits & dodging enemy fire. A weaponry module adds 3 per tier and subjects 1 from armour per tier, and vice versa. A worker efficiency module adds 3 per tier and subjects 1 from speed per tier. A speed module adds 3 per tier and adds 1 to worker efficiency per tier. i.e. a basic battleship starts with rating 5 | 5 | 5 | 5, for the above sets. Ship X with the same basic rating, has 25,000 on board, but also a Tier 2 weapon set, making it's attack value increase by 6 but decreasing it's armour by 3. Ergo; it's stats are 11/2/5/5 Attack rating of ship X is it's weaponry * it's speed * (workforce/worker efficiency) = 11*5*(25,000/5) = 275k Defence rating of ship Y is it's armour * it's speed* (workforce/worker efficiency) = 2*5*(25,000/5) = 50k Ship Y has only 20,000 people, and instead has a tier 3 speed boost. It's stats are therefore, 5/5/3/14. Attack rating of ship Y = 5*14*(20,000/7) = 200k Defence rating of ship Y = 5*14*(20,000/7) = 200k Combat calculation = (Smallest rating /largest rating)*100 = (Defence of Y/Attack of X)*100 = (200/275)*100*k =27% in favour of X. (Other way around) = (Defence of X/Defence of Y)*100 = (50/200) = 75% in favour of Y. = 27/75*100 = 64% in favour of Y. Roll on 1-100. If <=64, Y wins battle & ship X is destroyed. If >64, X wins battle & ship Y is destroyed. I hope that doesn't seem too complicated, or exploitable. Or RIGID. If we want a way to add other stuff into the equation, then just say and we'll work it in. In large battles, ships will be divided into squadrons of 10 and average ratings will be taken. Half losses will occur, and the other half will have to return to planet. EDIT: no idea why I said smallest/largest. Just attack of X/Defence of Y and then reverse it. Bed now.

Well, okay. It seems like there is recognizeable opposition to that proposal. What do you suggest instead, to curb growth rates? God forbid the person who defeated his enemies wins. That almost sounds logical.

The reason I proposed 4 was to curb growth rates, so we don't have 70k battleships a year. This isn't Hegemony, this is Empire. In a way, we are starting on a small scale. Travel between planets in the same system is of a similar timescale to across continents, and between systems it's just like across oceans.. As if we're just saying the same things, but roleplaying them using different words.

indeed Also, here's a system for forcing PVP. Everyone starts on their own planet. Each planet spawns with (but is not limited to) 750,000 of each resource. They are used up at whatever rate you use. They replenish at 125,000 a year. There is one extra planet in each system which spawns with (but is not limited to) 1,000,000 of each resource. It replenishes at 250,000 each year. This way, unless you want to be left behind in the dust, you need to make some good decisions to get a slice of the planet. EDIT: Retech, not really, considering how limited you would be to growth for the first week or so at least.

Ok, sorry, was at a party rebuilding my self esteem (and it worked; thanks v mask!) Roleplay your race as much as you want, they will only be cosmetic. Unless someone REALLY has an issue with the system I proposed back on page 24 (I think), that's the one we'll use. I don't see any benefit to factories. All your doing is changing the word "population" to "factories". I understand the idea of having less habitable planets, and that makes a lot of sense, though people should be allowed to choose which system to start in & they need trade offs. Unless someone REALLY has an issue with the 3 system system, then we'll use Sol, Midgard & Alpha Centauri. It takes a year to transfer from one system to another. Please condense your posts, just say whether you agree, whether you don't and if so, what you suggest instead. It's already gone midnight and sometimes I struggle to get past some of the padding you guys put in normally.

Oh, whats that, more people means you can build more factories means you can build more ships? I don't see what the point of the middle man is. What was the disadvantage to having a huge population? EDIT: If we want farms to give out more population per pop you put in, we simply make it so that when a battleship is completed it consumes the workforce (and then some) that built it.

An upgrade to your ship. The thing is Retech, if it's not small like that, suddenly everyone has populations of a few hundred billion and then they're making thousands of ships every year within a fortnight and its hard to keep track of and rather than being tactical its just a zerg rush, even with Archi's proposed command limit, it wouldn't stop it. EDIT: all though I guess we could research more efficient ways of farming if people want to zerg