Hegemony Argument Thread

[Retech]

But we're treating planets almost like countries in a sense, since once your space forces are victorious, it doesn't matter how big the ground is. So you could see it play out like this:

 

Lots of people fight for the good planets

Few people are crushed and basically destroyed

People split the good planets

Everything gets dull

 

or

 

Lots of people fight for good planets

Many people are crushed and basically destroyed

Last two or three fight, with the one controlling the good planets being victorious

Game over

[a_bert]

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.

[Retech]

I was referring to the fact that it was so short. :P

[The_Mather1]

It'd be better to have the game area expand as the game goes on and rather have us cooperate to defeat alien superpowers as we make our way towards the end of the total game area.

[archimage_a]

So what is the system for researching?

Since a 'death star laser' module would, under your system, take the same amount of time as a life support module.

Or one of those incredibly long Railguns could, if a person felt like an idiot, be put into one square.

Ore more realistically, someone could make their railgun just small enough to fit in their destroyer, but keep really high stats for it.

 

Also combat...how would people fight?

 

I am fine with anything, as long as I can play without screwing myself because the rules arn't defined properly.

 

your old post

http://forum.tip.it/topic/251910-hegemony-argument-thread/page__view__findpost__p__4193212

[Nero]

With their fists.

[a_bert]

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.

[Seraphi]

Okay, I do have some thoughts, though I'm worried it may become too complex.

 

Since just having tier Y module and tier Z module is kind of boring, they could have other effects against certain other things. For example, somebody is using a basic missile module, so you create an anti-missile laser module, which is crap at defending against anything but missiles.

 

I'm still opposed to the 3 system notion, since it means that the game goes bang and is over in a flash. I believe a better number would be 7-10, with 2-3 habitable planets and then 2-3 other planets in.

[archimage_a]

Ok. Two problems.

First the worker efficeny module is useless. Going from 5,5,5,5

It gives you 5,5,8,4

Compared to the Speed module.

Which gives you 5,5,6,8

 

So, if we assume workforce is the same in both:

 

Worker Efficency

5*4*1,250(10,000/8)=25,000

(same with defence)

 

Speed

5*8*1,666(10,000/6)=66,666

(Same with defence)

 

Thus if you had a more 'worker efficent' ship you would need more workers to get the same efficeny as if you increased speed.

 

 

The two alternatives I could think of don't make things better.

 

If WE increased the 'number' of workers on board

Worker- 5*4*80,000(10,000*8)=1,600,000

Speed- 5*8*60,000(10,000*6)=2,400,000

 

If workers generally caused more problems, and so efficency helped them stop being useless.

WE- (5*4)/1,250(10,000/8)=0.016

Speed- (5*8)/1,666(10,000/6)=0.024

 

Even if it was corrected to speed gives 5,5,8,4(Which caught my eye originally)

WE- 5*4*1,250(10,000/8)=25,000

Speed- 5*8*2,500(10,000/4)=100,000

 

If it was reversed to 5,5,8,6 and 5,5,4,8

WE- 5*6*1,250(10,000/8)=37,500

Speed- 5*8*2,500(10,000/4)=100,000

 

I don't know, the system just doesn't work as it is. *

 

 

The second problem is, who rolls the dice? Since there is little chance that either I or Dusty would trust the other.

'Oh yeah I got a 20'

'Really, so did I'

'Want to roll again?'

'I don't know, twenty twenties seems pushing my luck'

 

If you are going to do it then fine, how do you want us to tell you(since wading through the thread every day is a hard job, especially when people have 20 different plans posted.

 

Edit:

If you wanted to be somewhat clever about it you could just switch the two names over... So it went:

Attack*Work Efficency*(Workforce/Speed)

That way an inefficent(but fast) ship would need more crew to get the same results as a efficent(but slow) ship.

 

5,5,6,8 needs 26,667 workers

to match

5,5,8,4 with 10,000 workers

[Nero]

The second problem is, who rolls the dice? Since there is little chance that either I or Dusty would trust the other.

'Oh yeah I got a 20'

'Really, so did I'

'Want to roll again?'

'I don't know, twenty twenties seems pushing my luck'

This is true.

 

Also, I think it's fair to say from the start that I will be ignoring anything that gets past a certain complexity level. Once the game starts to feel more like work then fun I end up losing all interest in it.

[a_bert]

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)

[The_Mather1]

No, we allready desided on the Warp gates which travell instantly to a gate and some other sort of FTL that uses six years to travell to another system.

[a_bert]

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.

[The_Mather1]

There has been no hostility against that, and to avoid gameplay going boring you can expand the game area as we go.

[Seraphi]

(Mather just wants warp gates so he can go "WEEEEE SGC!", I reckon.)

 

I'd prefer 6 systems, and a normal ftl method.

[Retech]

I agree with Ross.

 

 

 

The only opposition I have to gates is that they could be abused, and they remind me too much of stargate. Oh, when I finally figured out what a ZPM was, it's much more overpowered than I thought. <_<

[a_bert]

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?

[Retech]

I think that people would be more willing to go through the effort of customizing their ships if this was a more expansive universe like the first Hegemony, but it seems like a lot of effort for a big sploosh at the beginning.

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

is my.

'Having a moderator decide if there is a rebellion or less work and allowing secret missions to work if you pm a mod' going to happen or not?

Basically the difference will be; that the moderator decides the outcome of things and has a bit more power.

 

For example a battle will be decided by the logic of the moderator, not a 10 page stream of arguments and the same could apply to techs and money.

 

Also, proxy control, what is this?

you can't proxy control a country if your a 'mod' the country leader must be willing to do it or there are other ways which could probably happen in 1984 oceania but this is really a bit silly.

 

Could the money system be based on a points system?

every million = 1 point, this point can be applied to something.

[Retech]

is my.

'Having a moderator decide if there is a rebellion or less work and allowing secret missions to work if you pm a mod' going to happen or not?

Basically the difference will be; that the moderator decides the outcome of things and has a bit more power.

 

For example a battle will be decided by the logic of the moderator, not a 10 page stream of arguments and the same could apply to techs and money.

 

Also, proxy control, what is this?

you can't proxy control a country if your a 'mod' the country leader must be willing to do it or there are other ways which could probably happen in 1984 oceania but this is really a bit silly.

 

Could the money system be based on a points system?

every million = 1 point, this point can be applied to something.

 

The first thing already exists.

The second thing also already exists

We abolished money

[VEGHATERMEATLOVER]

is my.

'Having a moderator decide if there is a rebellion or less work and allowing secret missions to work if you pm a mod' going to happen or not?

Basically the difference will be; that the moderator decides the outcome of things and has a bit more power.

 

For example a battle will be decided by the logic of the moderator, not a 10 page stream of arguments and the same could apply to techs and money.

 

Also, proxy control, what is this?

you can't proxy control a country if your a 'mod' the country leader must be willing to do it or there are other ways which could probably happen in 1984 oceania but this is really a bit silly.

 

Could the money system be based on a points system?

every million = 1 point, this point can be applied to something.

 

The first thing already exists.

The second thing also already exists

We abolished money

 

Thats not what I asked.

[archimage_a]

I am relatively happy with the 6 system approach.

I have already made my argument for having three different types of Engine, allowing people to use different strategies.

 

Also, its not that it is a numbers game, its that we want to work out all the numbers now so we can forget about them and let Dungeonal deal with the specifics.

I am still not entirely sure how the game will work though, since it seems there are going to be...4 different modules and then 5 different sizes for each. So 20 modules in total. Which kinda cuts down on modability, since anyone with excel can work out the 'best' configuration and just mass produce that.

 

Maybe there can be 'types' of attack, Hit and Run(Speed*Attack), Broadside attack(Attack*Defence) and Ranged Attack(Speed*Defence).

Defending ships get Defence Tactics(Defence*Defence), Elastic Defence(Defence*Speed) and Hold the Line(Defence*Attack)

 

Worker Efficency is then added on to that ' *(10,000*4) 'style

 

That way Defence gets a large bonus over attack(since you could design a ship with masses of defence and little of anything else, where as the other need some kind of balance.)

[Retech]

Then what is it that you're asking?

 

 

I'm pretty sure that most of that is common sense.

[a_bert]

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?

[archimage_a]

:thumbsup: I think there should be an agriculture cap...since force feeding people does not make them give birth(So far as I am aware) So a max of 5% growth rate would be a good idea.