Attack of the Ankle-Biters - Replacment player needed. [Archive]

Slick

July 26th, 2003, 05:54 AM

Unfortunately, I don't have time for another PBW game right now, but I just thought of an idea for a game that might spark ideas for someone else. The idea is a normal game of SE4 with Ship Construction turned off or limited such that you only have Frigates (Ankle-Biters) and Colonizers as ship sizes available. That's right, no other ship sizes. Yes, there would be some components that you just couldn't put onto a ship - like spaceyard components. Minefields would now be much more of a threat because it would take a fleet of minesweepers to sweep them. Planet defenses would now be formidable. Defense bases would inspire the fear that they should. Basically you would have to use massive amounts of Frigates to overwhelm your targets. You would have to be very creative in your ship designs. Anyone wanting to use this idea, feel free.

edit: spelling.

Slick.

(Appolgies in advance to Slick for editing the thread title. Didn't want to start a new thread. I will switch it back when we get someone.)

[ February 06, 2004, 21:35: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Captain Kwok

July 26th, 2003, 07:47 AM

Interesting idea, but I'd set up for ships up to the destroyer size. They're a bit more flexible and will make this sort of the game more fun.

Narf'scompatshop

July 26th, 2003, 10:05 AM

THE FIRST PERSON TO SAY IT GETS A HAMMER!

General Woundwort

July 26th, 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Narf'scompatshop:
THE FIRST PERSON TO SAY IT GETS A HAMMER!Say what? "It"? Are you a Knight of Ni by chance? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Pax

July 26th, 2003, 07:44 PM

I'd allow warships up to destroyer size, light carriers, medium transports, colony ships, and starbases up to battlestation.

However, I would also trim off large fighters and large weapon platforms, as they might each in their own way pose too great a challenge to ships of destroyer size or smaller.

It sounds like a GRAND idea for a game, mind. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Phoenix-D

July 26th, 2003, 08:01 PM

If you allow light carriers, they'll be used as warships. Half fighter bays still gives you 400kt weapons space, and enougg size to use Huge mounts (IIRC, at least Large)

Ed Kolis

July 26th, 2003, 08:38 PM

You could create a 300kT "escort carrier", or increase the fighter bays requirement of carriers to something like 75%...

geoschmo

July 26th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
If you allow light carriers, they'll be used as warships. Half fighter bays still gives you 400kt weapons space, and enougg size to use Huge mounts (IIRC, at least Large)It's huge mount, and they would RULE against destroyers. They rule in a normal game until the other player gets LC's. Against even numebrs they even kick LC butt, but LC's are cheaper by a decent amount so it's hard to keep even numbers using carriers.

Allowing carriers would most definetly break this idea.

Geoschmo

[ July 26, 2003, 19:42: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Pax

July 26th, 2003, 08:47 PM

Oops.

I had forgotten that LCVs were 800kT in the unmodded game; I was thinking they were 400-500kT.

So, drop the LCV to ~400kT, adjust remaining features to suit, and allow them in. Versus 300kT destroyers, the 200kT space not occupied by fighter bays isn't going to win the day.

And, keep in mind, that s NOT 200kT of weapons space, that space is also eaten up by engines, control components, sensors, ECM, shields, armor, etc, etc.

As for mounts .... just chop 'em out.

...

I may work up something for such a game, myself. Maybe. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ July 26, 2003, 22:20: Message edited by: Pax ]

Pax

July 26th, 2003, 11:11 PM

So, here's my idea for hull sizes.

ECM%'s were based on a combination of EpM and mass; 300kT and 3EpM were pegged as "nomodifier" (IOW, Destroyers). Every 50kT or 1 EpM difference was worth a 20-point shift in inherent ECM; higher EpM was worth a penalty, as was greater mass.

Base hulls (the Spacedock, Outpost, and Starbase sizes) were assigned a basic progression independant of their size; these hulls, by rights, would have far more efficient built-in active and passive ECM measures (different materials, lack of engine radiation, etc).

The differing EpM is not a stab at newtonian movement, it's merely meant to allow some hulls to get more out of a given engine component than others (the Fast-class hulls, including the PRobe), and others to get less (carriers, transports, the heavy destroyer).

There's no seperate colony ship hull; simply use a Light Transport hull for that.

I think it may be a good idea to cut the size of the Spaceyard ship component to 100 or 200 kT -- or else give it a (for it's size) small amount of cargo space (maybe 600kT, enough for one Large Weapons Platform), so that the 600kT Bulk Transport hull could use it. Thus you could still have spaceyard ships.

So. Thoughts, comments, ideas ... ?

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">| Hull | Short | Size (kT) | ECM% | EpM |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Probe | PR | 50 | +140 | 1 |
|Scout | SC | 100 | +80 | 3 |
|Fast Frigate | XF | 150 | +80 | 2 |
|Frigate | FF | 200 | +40 | 3 |
|Destroyer | DD | 300 | +0 | 3 |
|Heavy Destroyer | HD | 350 | -40 | 4 |
|Fast Carrier | XV | 300 | +20 | 2 |
|Carrier | CV | 400 | -60 | 4 |
|Fast Courier | XT | 200 | +60 | 2 |
|Light Transport | LT | 300 | -20 | 4 |
|Bulk Transport | BT | 600 | -140 | 4 |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Spacedock | SD | 200 | +50 | n/a |
|Outpost | OP | 500 | +0 | n/a |
|Starbase | SB | 1,000 | -50 | n/a |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Satellites | | | | |
| Small | SSa | 60 | ? | n/a |
| Medium | MSa | 90 | ? | n/a |
| Large | LSa | 120 | ? | n/a |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Fighters | | | | |
| Small | SFr | 5 | ? | ? |
| Medium | MFr | 10 | ? | ? |
| Large | LFr | 20 | ? | ? |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Weapon Platforms| | | | |
| Small | SWP | 200 | ? | n/a |
| Medium | MWP | 400 | ? | n/a |
| Large | LWP | 600 | ? | n/a |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|
|Troops | | | | |
| Small | SFr | 10 | ? | n/a |
| Large | LFr | 20 | ? | n/a |
|----------------|-------|-----------|------|-----|</pre><hr /></blockquote>Some notes:
 Probes are developed after Scout, perhaps after Frigate Fast Frigates are developed after Frigates, perhaps after Destroyers Heavy Destroyer, obviously, are developed after destroyers Carriers require both Ship Con and Fighter tech Fast Carriers require more of both Ship Con and Fighter tech than Carriers do Carriers must be 50% fighter bay or more Fast Carriers must be 30% fighter bay or more Fast Courier must be 30% or more Cargo Light Transport must be 50% or more Cargo Bulk Transport must be 75% or more Cargo


[ July 26, 2003, 22:18: Message edited by: Pax ]

Slick

July 27th, 2003, 12:39 AM

Wow! Pax, I don't want to sound negative so please don't take this the wrong way, but that is certainly different than what I originally had in mind. Run with these ideas, this project may turn into a fun mod. If you would like a little more about my original thoughts I would be happy to post them here.

Slick.

Pax

July 27th, 2003, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
Wow! Pax, I don't want to sound negative so please don't take this the wrong way, but that is certainly different than what I originally had in mind. Run with these ideas, this project may turn into a fun mod. If you would like a little more about my original thoughts I would be happy to post them here.

Slick.Sure.

Your original thought was, ISTM, just to chop out the bigger hulls, but then I got to thinking abotu how you could make a small-ships game still have a variety of hulls. That requires greater variation in more than just size, since you're workign in such a small "window" of possible sizes, so some speed variations seemed appropriate.

So I came up with 2 scout, 4 warship, 2 carrier, and 3 transport hulls, for 11 ships in all. Starbases should also drop in size (or they become absolute TERRORS on defense).

The possible changes to the Spaceyard componentare intended solely to permit spaceyard ships; I'm in favor of dropping it to 100kT, since that'd fit on a spacedock, and you could push the 500kT base hull out a ways, tech-wise.

I do plan to explore this further. Generally, I won't likely touch much beyond the hull sizes, and the tech fields that affect them.

To re-introduce some design variation, OTOH, I may *cough*"borrow"*cough* mounts form other sources. Some of the Gatling moutns could be amusing, for example.

Oh ... one thing I forgot to work in is Drones. Make them 50/100/150 (2EpM), perhaps.

Slick

July 27th, 2003, 05:42 AM

Please don't feel obligated to incorporate any of these ideas, but use them if you like.

There were a few of ideas that I was trying to combine. One was the idea that the ratio of ship size to planet size seems too large. Indeed some ships can have more firepower and/or storage than small planets. I think this is unrealistic. Limiting the size of ships to Frigate would go a long way to correct this. Also, based on most sci-fi, planet defenses should be a more formidable. It should be very hard for a ship to glass a planet - even a tiny planet. Taking on a homeworld would take a huge number of ships and the better course of action might be to attack the economy instead of the large planets. The caution here is that planet defenses must be kept vulnerable to fleets or else the game would end in stalemate. Large Weapon Platforms would be very formidable, but still be suceptible to attacks of large numbers and/or blockading.

Also, having small ships would somewhat un-nerf minefields, and make defense bases more formidable as they should be. In the unmodded game a Battlecruiser is larger than a Space Station. Under this scheme, the smallest base should be larger than the largest ship.

Another idea was that there would be only 3 available ship sizes (on purpose): Escort, Frigate, and Colony Ship. Colony Ships would be used only as colonizers. That leaves only Escorts and Frigates (rarely used in the unmodded game) for everything else. You would have to make many different configurations of Escorts and Frigates to accomplish all the functions of an empire. They could do all the essentials: attack ships, carriers, troop transports, mine layers, mine sweepers, etc. However, you couldn't build a spaceyard ship - the best you could do is a repair Frigate with very limited movement (2 engines, or 1 engine and 1 solar sail). Again, these ideas would make more of a challenge out of supply, repair, minesweeping, etc., which come all to easy with large ships. You would have to deal with being unable to put spaceyards and other large components on ships - you could use them only on bases if appropriate.

Only having 2 real hulls for all ship designs would really create a creative duel against humans. This is why I didn't mention creating other hull sizes or using qnp to give more space in the smaller hulls. There is no doubt that, under this system, large fleets would rule small fleets. But there would be real attrition during fleet battles instead of quite lopsided battles where the winning side takes little no losses. I believe that, in general, a small fleet would still be able to take out a somewhat (maybe slightly less than) proportional number of ships against a large fleet. Also, the non-availability of mounts for Escorts and Frigates was intentional. Mounts would only work for WP's and bases to make up for their immobility.

I also think that some of the non-used weapons would be much more useful. I am thinking that a small plague bomb fleet would be a good alternative to attempting to glass a planet (which would mean heavy losses). Because of the limited capacity of Frigates, planet capture would not be so easy anymore. It would also involve heavy losses, but the fruits of victory are great.

Drones, being comparable in size to ships, now also become a much more viable option.

Also, the cost of ship maintenance would be more significant. Frigates and Escorts have lots of "overhead" space used for non-combat systems. Since the obvious way to win a game like this would be to massively produce ships, the economic pain of ship maintenance would really come into play. Do you attack the enemy fleet or his economic base?

Basically if someone wanted to create a full blown mod to address all these issues, it could be done. But a "quick & dirty" way to get a new twist on the game would be to simply eliminate all hulls except Escort, Frigate and Colony Ship.

Of course, AI controlled empires would probably not be very good at this, if they would even work at all.

Well those are the things I was thinking about when I made this post. Use or discard any ideas you like.

Slick.

oleg

July 27th, 2003, 05:58 AM

Why not leave ships sizes as they are but get rid of ship mounts alltogether ? There would'd be much advantage to build bigger ships as it is now.

Taz-in-Space

July 27th, 2003, 06:06 AM

Another idea for including the larger components in the smaller hulls would be to add miniaturization mounts, just make them cost a lot.

Half size components cost twice or even three times as much...
Further miniaturization costs even more...

You then have a choice, make LOTS of ships with standard components OR fewer (more powerful) ships with miniature (but high cost)components.

Slick

July 27th, 2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by oleg:
Why not leave ships sizes as they are but get rid of ship mounts alltogether ? There would'd be much advantage to build bigger ships as it is now.There are other reasons as stated. Cargo capacity, overhead, intentionally limiting what can go on the ship, ... You simply can't build a Frigate with all the goodies. That is what would make it interesting. It forces choices.

Slick.

oleg

July 27th, 2003, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by oleg:
Why not leave ships sizes as they are but get rid of ship mounts alltogether ? There would'd be much advantage to build bigger ships as it is now.There are other reasons as stated. Cargo capacity, overhead, intentionally limiting what can go on the ship, ... You simply can't build a Frigate with all the goodies. That is what would make it interesting. It forces choices.

Slick.<hr /></blockquote>True http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Then may be give smaller ships attack and defence bonuses ? Like in Proportions or AIC mods. It's got to be more difficult to hit smaller ships. It follows from basic physics and mathematics, I think.

Pax

July 27th, 2003, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
One was the idea that the ratio of ship size to planet size seems too large. Indeed some ships can have more firepower and/or storage than small planets. I think this is unrealistic. Limiting the size of ships to Frigate would go a long way to correct this.Planet cargo capacity can also be increased.

Also, based on most sci-fi, planet defenses should be a more formidable. It should be very hard for a ship to glass a planet - even a tiny planet. Taking on a homeworld would take a huge number of ships and the better course of action might be to attack the economy instead of the large planets.Oh, I agree, 110% -- though the economy in SE4 is untouchable, as it occurs behind the scenes.

Also, having small ships would somewhat un-nerf minefields, and make defense bases more formidable as they should be. In the unmodded game a Battlecruiser is larger than a Space Station. Under this scheme, the smallest base should be larger than the largest ship.Well, as you can see, that's not entirely true, but the largest base is around three times the size of the largest warship (and over double the size of a carrier, and nearly double the size of the largest noncombatant ship). Only one ship is bigger than the next-biggest base, and not by much at that ... not to mentionit's not a combat hull.

Another idea was that there would be only 3 available ship sizes (on purpose): Escort, Frigate, and Colony Ship. Colony Ships would be used only as colonizers. That leaves only Escorts and Frigates (rarely used in the unmodded game) for everything else.That's where your ideas and mine unavoidably part ways. 8)

You would have to make many different configurations of Escorts and Frigates to accomplish all the functions of an empire. They could do all the essentials: attack ships, carriers, troop transports, mine layers, mine sweepers, etc. However, you couldn't build a spaceyard ship - the best you could do is a repair Frigate with very limited movement (2 engines, or 1 engine and 1 solar sail).Actually, with 15kT to work with, at best you have a satt/minelayer. I would NEVER make a 150kT carrier (one launch bay, MAYBE two ... ? nosir ... gotta be at least 5, thanks!)

Again, these ideas would make more of a challenge out of supply, repair, minesweeping, etc., which come all to easy with large ships. You would have to deal with being unable to put spaceyards and other large components on ships - you could use them only on bases if appropriate.I consider a SYS to be an essential component of imperial expansion. especially where bases are so key for repair and defense, a big base or two sitting on a warp point provides more defense, when the targets are destroyers or smaller, than they do currently.

Only having 2 real hulls for all ship designs would really create a creative duel against humans.See, that, I don't see. You'd boil it down to one or two "best" designs, and then it'd be a race to see who could build more of them per turn.

Also, the non-availability of mounts for Escorts and Frigates was intentional. Mounts would only work for WP's and bases to make up for their immobility.Which IMO also limits creativity. Even given two shisp with identical shield/engine/etc, both using the same tonnage of the same direct-fire gun ... if one goes with an enhanced-targetting mount, whiel the other goes with a Gatling-style mount, both ships could play out very differently. Who's to say which one would win, without trying the two out?

Because of the limited capacity of Frigates, planet capture would not be so easy anymore. It would also involve heavy losses, but the fruits of victory are great.With only frigates for cargo transport, I'd never even TRY. Consider: it's now much more punishing to try and land troops on a defended planet (read: one with WPlatforms). If each ship then only had 40-60kT dedicated to cargo bays ... planet capture would be functionally impossible, IMO.

Well, we'll see what I can cook up (if anything). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Slick

July 27th, 2003, 08:14 AM

With larger hulls, it might have to be called "Knee-Biters" instead of "Ankle-Biters" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slick.

geoschmo

July 27th, 2003, 03:14 PM

So slick, are you gonna do this?

Geoschmo

Slynky

July 27th, 2003, 06:24 PM

Well, here I come with my big mouth http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

Just random thoughts.

I'm somewhat/curiously interested in Slick's suggestion for a game. I'd rather see it go up to a destroyer (mentioned below, I think) than hang at frigates. I'm just guessing but having frigates be your "dreadnaughts" might make a planet impregnable. Certainly, one with moderate cargo space for WPs. Throw in 100 mines and some space defenses and it becomes a real problem. Also, did I just miss it or have satellites been mentioned? Would fighters be allowed (you just can't build a carrier)?

The other discussion, which would seem to indicate a mod, is interesting, too. I rarely play mod games, though (hell, it took me years just to become a half-assed player with the standard game...I'd hate to think of my learning curve in a mod... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif ). Besides, Slick's game could start right away http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif .

The mention of miniturization of components would seem to defeat the purpose of a game with small hulls. After all, if one can build a 5 or 600Kt ship with all the components (due to miniturization) that a dreadnaught can currently hold, doesn't the game really stay about the same?

Slick, what kind of racial points were you comptemplating?

Slick

July 27th, 2003, 07:11 PM

So slick, are you gonna do this?
Not sure what exactly you are asking. My original post mentioned that I didn't have time for another game right now so I won't be setting up a game. I just posted my idea in case anyone thought it might be interesting and/or wanted to expand on it.

Slick, what kind of racial points were you comptemplating? What I had in mind would be a game where all players were limited to small ship sizes. I think if it were a racial trait and other races had big ships, the small ship empire would be unwinnable.

If I were going to do this (I don't plan to in the near future), I think the easiest way would be to edit only vehicles.txt. Then play a test game to find if there are fatal flaws, tweak if necessary, then start a real game.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Sheez. I feel bad now. I just wanted to post an interesting idea I had. I sure wish I had more time to run with it. Either on the mod side or on the play side. Work and real life will be keeping me very busy well through the end of the year and possibly into next.

Pax, best of luck with any of your efforts. You may be right about planets being too hard to attack with Frigates. I guess playtesting will tell. I also agree that miniaturization (sp?) mounts will counteract the idea.

Slick.

geoschmo

July 27th, 2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
Not sure what exactly you are asking. My original post mentioned that I didn't have time for another game right now so I won't be setting up a game. I just posted my idea in case anyone thought it might be interesting and/or wanted to expand on it. Yeah, I read that. I was thinking maybe that the discussion had increased your own interest to the point where you were going to go ahead and do it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slynky

July 27th, 2003, 07:22 PM

Not sure why vehicles.txt would have to be edited. If you mean removing ship classes, I think honor could take care of that. Otherwise, perhaps I missed a suggested change or two somewhere... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

I once played a game with Lord Chane where we did something a LITTLE bit different. We limited fleet sizes to 10 ships. Gentleman's agreement. So, even with ships of any size, it was hard to take large and huge breathables. I guess because people knew there could only be 10 ships in a fleet, so it became more worthwhile to build WPs as it became more possible to defend planets. So, in a way, "ankle-biting" will be a bit similar, I think. Of course, with 10 ships to a fleet, there was a finite limit of total tons one could throw against a planet. It wouldn't be the same with 100 frigates... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif .

Slynky

July 27th, 2003, 07:24 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slick:
Not sure what exactly you are asking. My original post mentioned that I didn't have time for another game right now so I won't be setting up a game. I just posted my idea in case anyone thought it might be interesting and/or wanted to expand on it. Yeah, I read that. I was thinking maybe that the discussion had increased your own interest to the point where you were going to go ahead and do it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif <hr /></blockquote>Yeah, Geo, he might be thinking, "DRAT! It's gaining interest and I DON'T have time!"

Problem is, IF one thinks they don't have time, it's usually the case. After all, there are lots of players who THINK they have time for another game and DON'T... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

geoschmo

July 27th, 2003, 07:40 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
After all, there are lots of players who THINK they have time for another game and DON'T... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .Well I just don't know who you are talking about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I did some quick tests and frigates might be fine. Yeah taking out big planets would be a lot tougher, but I don't think it would be impossible. Even with the big weapons plats with high tech weapons you can overcome it with enough ships. What it would do is make you build ships with the anti-planetary weapons and keep you fleets in formation. For example it might take 200-300 frigates with APB and no formation to take out a homeworld, but 50-75 frigates with napalm in a wall formation might be able to pull it off. And a mass of drones might do the job even easier. I havn't tested that.

On the other hand since you are limiting ships you could also limit weapons platform sizes. and maybe Drones as well.

One thing that could be a problem though is some fo the stellar manip comps won't fit on a frigate, or even a destroyer.

Geoschmo

[ July 27, 2003, 18:41: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Slynky

July 27th, 2003, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
After all, there are lots of players who THINK they have time for another game and DON'T... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .Well I just don't know who you are talking about. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I did some quick tests and frigates might be fine. Yeah taking out big planets would be a lot tougher, but I don't think it would be impossible. Even with the big weapons plats with high tech weapons you can overcome it with enough ships. What it would do is make you build ships with the anti-planetary weapons and keep you fleets in formation. For example it might take 200-300 frigates with APB and no formation to take out a homeworld, but 50-75 frigates with napalm in a wall formation might be able to pull it off. And a mass of drones might do the job even easier. I havn't tested that.

On the other hand since you are limiting ships you could also limit weapons platform sizes. and maybe Drones as well.

One thing that could be a problem though is some fo the stellar manip comps won't fit on a frigate, or even a destroyer.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>Nope, NOT talking about anyone in particular, Geo. Just remembering the number of games where it seems someone dropped out due to lack of time.

Wall formation? Hehe, since I see my "walls" turned every-which-way, it'd be my luck they'd go in "single file" formation to the planet... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif .

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif NO Stellar Manip? Well, you can't put an opener and a repair component on a frigate (and without the repair, it's not worth the build). Those 2 items are 250Kt alone. Now, you can work a bit with a destroyer (if you have master comp 3, quantum engine...note, I said "engine", and sail 3).

Krsqk

July 27th, 2003, 08:26 PM

You'd just start having 2-ship "mini-fleets" for stellar manip. One with the opener/closer, one with the repair. Not as pretty or convenient, but still functional. Of course, I get the idea that's the whole point of this mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slick

July 27th, 2003, 08:29 PM

Actually, with 15kT to work with, at best you have a satt/minelayer. I would NEVER make a 150kT carrier (one launch bay, MAYBE two ... ? nosir ... gotta be at least 5, thanks!) That's where the inventive designs come in. If you want 5 launch bays on a Frigate, it can be done. One option would be:

1 MC
1 Engine
5 Fighter Launch Bays
1 Solar Sail

Slow but viable. If the engine was a QE and a Solar Sail III, the speed would be 7 which isn't too bad. I would envision trading engines for space in lots of designs. This goes back to the idea of having to pay much more attention to managing supplies.

Slick.

Slick

July 27th, 2003, 08:32 PM

Oh oh... It's beginning to happen... Must resist... I may (repeat may ) rethink about working on something along these lines. Excuse me while I go soak my head to get this foolish idea out of my head.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Slick.

Pax

July 27th, 2003, 08:36 PM

I'm actually going to work on this small-ships mod; it'll be a nice break form bashing my head against the "wth weapons do I give each paradigm" brick wall I've reached with Exodus, and it sounds like a real fun game in it's own right.

On the subject of stellar manipulation: methinks I shall have to work on those too; get most of 'em at least able to shoe-horn into a bulk freighter with minimal engine/control components ... hmm, giving them 1kT of cargo would work.

Slynky

July 27th, 2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
Oh oh... It's beginning to happen... Must resist... I may (repeat may ) rethink about working on something along these lines. Excuse me while I go soak my head to get this foolish idea out of my head.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Slick.Hmmmm, I thought I "saw" some digital drooling there, Slick http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

Fyron

July 27th, 2003, 09:56 PM

Pax, if you give a comp the Cargo ability with 0 cargo space, it still counts as a cargo space to satisfy vehicle requirements.

geoschmo

July 27th, 2003, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by Krsqk:
You'd just start having 2-ship "mini-fleets" for stellar manip. One with the opener/closer, one with the repair. Not as pretty or convenient, but still functional. Of course, I get the idea that's the whole point of this mod. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Actually a repair bay would be a pretty tight fit on a frigate. It would be so slow it might be more efficent to send your faster warp opener or closer ship back to a planet for repair.

Geoschmo

Pax

July 27th, 2003, 11:01 PM

Well, I'm almost done ... I'm just finishing up the VehicleSizes.txt file now.

I got a touch ambitious,and tweaked a few other ocmponents -- more range for torpedoes, gave the GHB armor-skipping, cut the range of the PPB by one, upped MB range by one ... the general sort of things being discussed in the Stock Balance mod. Tweaked the unit-launch components to have their launch rate be porportionate to their tech level (1/2, 2/4, 3/6 respectively). Lowered PDC range. Improved the Shard Cannon slightly. A few things like that.

Also a couple minor stylistic/concept things (TK Projectors now skip all shields ... their cost may need to be tweaked later).

OH, yes: upped armor hp/kt significantly for normal armor, and slightly for most others.

Added a couple neat toys:

MultiColony
Twice as big and costly as any one module, but, can do the work of all three. Need to have all three colonisation techs to build it.

Advanced Bridge
10% sensor/ECM bonus and small antiboarding defense.

Advanced Crew Quarters
Does double-duty as CQ and LS.

Advanced Fighter Cockpit
As Advanced CQ, for fighters

Drone Fighter Control Computer
MC for fighters

Lastly, I co-opted Deathstalker's Mount Mod, adjusted a few to be useful for the smaller ships, trimmed out all miniaturising mounts (except those aimed at remote mining), and chopped off the bigger mounts.

As for changes to Technology, the only real changes (other than organising things a bit differently in the research screen) are these:

<blockquote>code:<hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Ship Construction
Old = 9; cost = 10,000
New = 6; cost = 20,000

SC Hull(s)
1 Scout, Light Transport
2 Probe
3 Frigate, Fast Courier
4 Destroyer
5 Fast Frigate
6 Heavy Destroyer, Bulk Transport

Base Construction
Old = 3; cost = 100,000
New = 3; cost = 100,000

BC Hull
1 Spacedock
2 Outpost
3 Starbase</pre><hr /></blockquote>Hull sizes, ECM, EpM, etc are all per my table below. I should probably be ready to upload a beta Version in a couple hours (gonna break for supper ... a man's gotta eat, after all! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ).

Pax

July 27th, 2003, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
That's where the inventive designs come in. If you want 5 launch bays on a Frigate, it can be done. One option would be:

1 MC
1 Engine
5 Fighter Launch Bays
1 Solar Sail

Slow but viable. If the engine was a QE and a Solar Sail III, the speed would be 7 which isn't too bad. I would envision trading engines for space in lots of designs. This goes back to the idea of having to pay much more attention to managing supplies.

Slick.Unarmored, unshielded, and naked of PDC ... nonviable, IMO. You'd have to lose three launch bays, toss a shield, a PDC, some emissive armor, and maybe a cargo bay on.

But then, you're down to three fighter bays, each one with not a WHOLE lot of cargo capacity in and of themselves. You can launch, what, twice? Three times? In Groups of three?

No thanks. Give me ~100kT more, so I can pile on two more launch bays, another cargo bay, and a second PDC ... and we're beginning to talk "Carrier" rather than "auxiliary Fi-Con" ...

Fyron

July 27th, 2003, 11:27 PM

TK Projectors now skip all shields Why would they skip shields? The weapon creates a force just like any other force, and would be inhibited by the energy barriers of the shields.

Pax

July 27th, 2003, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
<blockquote>quote:<hr /> TK Projectors now skip all shields Why would they skip shields? The weapon creates a force just like any other force, and would be inhibited by the energy barriers of the shields.<hr /></blockquote>As I see it, the weapon generates kinetic energy directly at the target point. The energy does not cross the intervening space between the generator and the target point. That, at least, is how I have always envisioned telekinesis as operating. So as I said, a stylistic sort of change, based on how I envision the TK projector working.

The weapon, as a result, will almost definitely need to be adjusted to be more costly, both in terms of research and price to build. But it better fits how I "see" telekinesis working.

Pax

July 28th, 2003, 12:34 AM

File uploaded (sucker compressed to under 90KB, lol):

Small Ships (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1059345071.zip) mod, v 1.0a, Beta 1.

Feedback and such will be welcome.

geoschmo

July 28th, 2003, 01:04 AM

Originally posted by Pax:
But then, you're down to three fighter bays, each one with not a WHOLE lot of cargo capacity in and of themselves. You can launch, what, twice? Three times? In Groups of three?

No thanks. Give me ~100kT more, so I can pile on two more launch bays, another cargo bay, and a second PDC ... and we're beginning to talk "Carrier" rather than "auxiliary Fi-Con" ...That the point though Pax. If your enemy is only using frigates then that small number of fighters can make a significant difference. It's part of the whole package deal.

But your mod idea is cool too. I like them both. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 28, 2003, 00:05: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 01:12 AM

So why would the shields not interfere with the mental energy going out to create the telekinetic bLast? They could still block that, forcing the telekinetic bLast to begin just outside of the shield layer.

Pax

July 28th, 2003, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
So why would the shields not interfere with the mental energy going out to create the telekinetic bLast? They could still block that, forcing the telekinetic bLast to begin just outside of the shield layer.Maybe you are not seeing this part:

"[...] does not cross the intervening space [...]"

I don't think any mental energy goes from Point A (the projector) to Point B (the target ship), at all. Therefor a shield between A and B is of no use, and has no effect.

That is how I envision telekinesis working -- and therefor that is how it will work in the SmallShips mod. So far, as a preliminary balance, I've cut the damage of the weapon in half (making it always inferior to the PPB, except against phased shields).

Considering the increase in relative armor hp/kt, it's not a be-all end-all weapon. Against Crystalline races, you want shields (and armor-skipping weapons); against Psychic races, you probably want armor (and MCs). I don't see why it's such a problem for you.

Pax

July 28th, 2003, 01:23 AM

One thing I forgot to mention: turns out SE4 is hard-coded NOT to allow an MC-like control component for fighters. 8P So the Drone Fighter Control is out.

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 01:35 AM

Something has to travel between the projector and the target. It can't just magically leap there.

geoschmo

July 28th, 2003, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Pax:
One thing I forgot to mention: turns out SE4 is hard-coded NOT to allow an MC-like control component for fighters. 8P So the Drone Fighter Control is out.I am pretty sure you can make a component for fighters that has the abilities of cockpit and lifesupport. But the AI will use two of them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

You can also have identical fighter hulls that do not require these components. Call it built in drone fighter control or something. But that might not be what you were wanting.

Geoschmo

[ July 28, 2003, 00:43: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

geoschmo

July 28th, 2003, 01:46 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Something has to travel between the projector and the target. It can't just magically leap there.Are you seriously debating telekinetic powers skipping shields, and using a realism argument? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif ROFL!

Geoschmo

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 01:50 AM

Well, I was going under the assumption that he was not wanting to include magic in the mod. Anything technological or pseudo-realistic has to make some sort of travel path. Instantly warping there is absurd unless you are doing something like folding space (an absurd notion in and of itself), which is well beyond the scope of telekinesis. Even wormholes have a path of travel in realspace.

geoschmo

July 28th, 2003, 01:58 AM

But nothing about telekinesis requires a path. It's using mental energy to manifest a force out of nothing. If we are going to accept a weapon that violates the laws of thermodynamics as it's fundamental operating principle, we don't have to say the force is created out of nothing at the point of the projector. We can simply say the force is being created out nothing at the point of the target. Either one is acceptable once we get past the initial violating assumption.

EDIT: Put it this way, if the force required a path from the mind creating it to the target it would punch a hole through their own ship on the way out. Unless the psychics are strapped to the outside of the hull. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 28, 2003, 01:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Pax

July 28th, 2003, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Well, I was going under the assumption that he was not wanting to include magic in the mod. Anything technological or pseudo-realistic has to make some sort of travel path. Instantly warping there is absurd unless you are doing something like folding space (an absurd notion in and of itself), which is well beyond the scope of telekinesis. Even wormholes have a path of travel in realspace.Tell me, Fyron, have you ever heard of the phenomenon called "quantum tunnelling" ... ?

Matter -- that's matter not just energy -- instantaneously jumps form point A to (say) point H ... and does not pass through points BCDEF or G. And it's a real-world current thing, not just SF.

Further, there's also the whole "quantum pair" infinite-distance instantaneous information transfer effect. Create two particles; they will have opposite spin. They will always have opposite spin. If you send particle B to the other side of the universe, uncountable billions of lightyears away while keeping particle A HERE ... and then reverse B's spin ... at the exact same moment, particle A will also reverse it's spin.

All that's required is, they both be in the same universe. (as far as we know so far, anyway; it migh even work across THOSE barriers). A forcefield wouldn't change that. Heck, fourty billion klometers of armor wouldn't change that.

So it is entirely within the realm of quantum physics to posit a mechanism, by which energy can be "created" or otherwise accumulated at some marked distance from teh generator, without effect upon or from intervening energy, matter, space, etc.

So much for your "it has to be magic" argument, hmm? I guess "everything technological or pseudo-realistic" doesn't actually HAVE to have apath of travel, now, does it?

8P

Oh, as for folding space being absurd: tell it to Einstein. He was under the (apparently absurd) notion that space IS foldable, warpable, bendable,e tc. Seems he had this crazy notion gravity does JUST that.

But, of course, that's not possible; never mind the fact that we've PROVEN gravity warps space (that bit, at least, is no longer theory).

Slick

July 28th, 2003, 05:46 AM

*sigh*

not again...

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Slick.

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 07:23 AM

That is all fine. It still does not have anything to do with telekinesis, which is a projection of force powered by mental (psionic) energy from the being doing the telekinesis.

Phoenix-D

July 28th, 2003, 07:57 AM

Explain why the shields could block mental force, then. (hell, explain why they could block -any- force, aside from maybe electromagnetic)

Jack Simth

July 28th, 2003, 08:11 AM

Pax

July 28th, 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
That is all fine. It still does not have anything to do with telekinesis, which is a projection of force powered by mental (psionic) energy from the being doing the telekinesis.So ... you have proof of this "fact", perhaps ... ? You can describe to us the precise energy type, the mechanics of the resultant wave form, it's mechanism of generation, and the physics and mechanics of it's propagation through matter, EM fields, and/or vacuum? Maybe even shed some light on the biological and/or technological structures neccessary to generate such effects and waveforms, complete with working schematics?

If so, then please, do tell ...

Prove to us that quantum tunelling is not as equally valid for energy as it is for matter. Then prove that the energy wave-form(s) associated with the use of telekinetic or psychokinetic events does not, and can not, utilise quantum tunnelling, or any similar phenomenon.

Of course, you can't. I've refuted your claim that only magic can allow such a thing to happen, with real-world current-technology examples of actual, hard science.

You are relying solely on newtonian physics for your argument; I am delving into the possibilities inherent in quantum physics for mine. Therein lies the downfall of your argument: quantum physics always trumps newtonian physics. The only factor they have in common would be, AFAIK, the First Law of Thermodynamics.

It is IMO entirely feasible, and scientifically possible, that the TKProjector randomly re-balances kinetic energy in the target -- taking some FROM one place, and adding it TO another place -- and that several aspects of quantum mechanics governs the means and methods by which this is acomplished.

I have therefor posited that such is the mechanism by which telekinesis works, ergo, shields are about as useful against a powerful (or in this case, artificial and/or artificially amplified) telekinetic as a papier-mache hull would be against a Shard Cannon X. Which is to say, not at all.

So, I say again -- if you dislike it this much, why not simply not play this particular mod ... ?

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Explain why the shields could block mental force, then. (hell, explain why they could block -any- force, aside from maybe electromagnetic)Actually, and I'm working form half-remembered stuff here, but I remember one of the Voyager satellites had to have several course corrections after bouncing off of Jupiter's EM field. Sunward, the planets' EM fields are compressed by the constant pressure of the solar wind; my understanding is, this creates areas of exceptionally strong EM flux, in layers of "shells", around the planets.

In the case of a giant like Jupiter, these can have a very real effect on even relatively-massive physical objects. At least twice, perhaps more often, that Voyager satellite I mentioned had it's course deflected away from Jupiter, neccessitating several repeated tries to cross that point in Jupiter's EM field before the flyby could be managed.

So in the least, it's possible for an EM-based field to deflect energy and/or physical objects ... if the field is strong enough, and it's density is somehow compressed sufficiently.

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
From the context, it would appear that Pax is suggesting that in his view of how the currently commonly considered imaginary field of telekenesis, the energy generated by the psis' is transmitted through a mechanism that skips distances and interviening matter/energy/whatever in a similar manner to quantum tunneling or the unknown mechanism of quantum pairings; thus skipping shields.Exactly, unequivocably, and precisely correct.

Loser

July 28th, 2003, 02:14 PM

I knew this thread had too many Posts to be a mod or PBW discussion anymore. Some of you guys jump topics more than Cecilia jumps hippies.

[edit: to != too]

[ July 28, 2003, 18:37: Message edited by: Loser ]

geoschmo

July 28th, 2003, 03:00 PM

geoschmo

July 28th, 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Explain why the shields could block mental force, then. (hell, explain why they could block -any- force, aside from maybe electromagnetic)What I can get from his comments is that the shields aren't blocking the mental energy, but the physical force being manifested by the mental energy. And in a limited way this does make some sense. For example, if I were trying to argue Fyron's point for him I would suggest the following:

Geoschmo speaking for Fyron based on his comments...The telekinesis weapon can simply be thought of as another type of energy beam weapon. Where normally you have a gun using some physical process to generate a physical stream of anti-protons or phased polarons, you have a living sentient being using mental enrgy to generate a stream of some kind of damaging force. The force that actually is created is not mental energy, it's created by mental energy, and thus shuld be blocked by shields. Unless the force is being created with some shield skipping properties, such as phased polarons, and that is not implicitly stated.

Now, the glaring hole in the logic of the above statement is that the physical force being created from mental energy has to start somewhere. If we assume it starts from the point of the being with the mental energy, then reasonably as Fyron says it would be blocked by shields. However if this were the case it would also reasonably be blocked by the inner hull of the ship the being is sitting in and punch a hole in it equivalent to it's destructive force on teh way out. Your ship would take as much damage as the enemies, and your psychics would be vented into space every time they used their powers. The three ways to get around this are to say that
1. The psychic is strapped to the hull. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
2. The telekinetic projector component that is installed on the ship is some kind of special material that allows physical forces to pass through it without damaging it, but only in one direction. (out)
3. The mental force does not actually create the physical force at the point of the psychic, but at some other point along the target line between the psychic and teh target.

Fyron either believes 2, or 3 and makes the assumption that the point the mental energy creates the physical force is outside of the targets shielding. Or he believes some other process is at work that I have not considered and he has yet to explain it to us.

If he believes 3 he has not explained why it is unreasonable to assume the mental energy cretaes the physical force at the point of the target, underneath the tragets shielding.

Geoschmo

oleg

July 28th, 2003, 06:35 PM

But why we assune you are trying to directly push enemy ship ? Psycic can arguable focus on the bulet or a handfull of anti protons and accelerate them toward enemy ! The reason may be the short range of telekinetic power. It can easily go down witha distance.

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 07:34 PM

Oleg's point about mental powers being limited in range is quite valid...

Name := Telekinetic Projector I
Description := Projects a battering ram of telekinetic force against its target.
Lets see... projects a battering ram of telekinetic force... This means that the projector projects the force, not some sort of mentalic wave that moves to the ship which projects the force. Force is most certainly stopped by the shields, as evidenced by most other weapons.

Jack Simth

July 28th, 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Oleg's point about mental powers being limited in range is quite valid...
It sort of is - again, you're discussing theoretical technology based on something that is currently commonly considered imaginary. The question of "is it valid, or not?" depends on which piece of fiction one looks at. For some, it is; for others, it isn't. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Name := Telekinetic Projector I
Description := Projects a battering ram of telekinetic force against its target.
Lets see... projects a battering ram of telekinetic force... This means that the projector projects the force, not some sort of mentalic wave that moves to the ship which projects the force. Force is most certainly stopped by the shields, as evidenced by most other weapons.<hr /></blockquote>At worst, that just means he needs to change the description for his mod. However, it doesn't say where the battering ram starts. Unless shields hug the hull perfectly, there's no particular reason why the force can't form inside the target's shields to batter at the hull.

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 08:29 PM

The projector projects the battering ram. It obviously starts at the projector.

Jack Simth

July 28th, 2003, 09:00 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The projector projects the battering ram. It obviously starts at the projector.Not at all - a projecter, pretty much by definition, produces something at a distant locale.

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 09:16 PM

No. It produces it immediately, and projects it to a distant locale. A movie projector creates the patterns of light and then projects those patterns accross the intervening space to the screen. It does not create the patterns of light at the screen. This can be seen by moving something in the way, which blocks the path of the light, and so it does not appear on the screen.

Jack Simth

July 28th, 2003, 09:33 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
No. It produces it immediately, and projects it to a distant locale. A movie projector creates the patterns of light and then projects those patterns accross the intervening space to the screen. It does not create the patterns of light at the screen. This can be seen by moving something in the way, which blocks the path of the light, and so it does not appear on the screen.Ah, but a movie projector doesn't exactly produce patterns of light, it produces images; most modern projectors must be adjusted for the distance to the screen in order for the image to form properly. The image doesn't form until the pattern of light hits a screen. The ability to stop images from forming properly is a side effect of the principals modern movie projectors run on, not something inherent in the concept of a projector. A telekenetic projector would (obviously) run on different principals. As such equipment is currently fictional, and the principles it would hypothetically run on are unknown if they exist, one can't say with certainty that a different currently fictional piece of equipment (shields) would stop those hypothesised principles from performing their task. If Pax wants the TK Projectors in his fiction to skip shields, they can.

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 09:39 PM

The movie projector creates patterns of light. Whether those patterns of light form (meaningful) images or not is not determined by the projector itself, but by the position of the screen and the optical receivers of the veiwers.

Again, the TKP specifically states that it creates a battering ram of force and projects it to the target.

Jack Simth

July 28th, 2003, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
The movie projector creates patterns of light. Whether those patterns of light form (meaningful) images or not is not determined by the projector itself, but by the position of the screen and the optical receivers of the veiwers.
Perhaps for movie projectors, sure. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

Again, the TKP specifically states that it creates a battering ram of force and projects it to the target.Actually, it says:
Projects a battering ram of telekinetic force against its target. Not creates a battering ram of force and projects it to the target The two are a bit different; yours specifies where the force forms to an extent; the original does not.

However, it's interesting how all you debate against is the specifics of how I defined a movie projector, while not addressing:
The ability to stop images from forming properly is a side effect of the principals modern movie projectors run on, not something inherent in the concept of a projectorOr
A telekenetic projector would (obviously) run on different principals. As such equipment is currently fictional, and the principles it would hypothetically run on are unknown if they exist, one can't say with certainty that a different currently fictional piece of equipment (shields) would stop those hypothesised principles from performing their task.For that matter, you have dropped other sub-threads of this discussion as well:
Originally posted by Jack Simth:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Oleg's point about mental powers being limited in range is quite valid...
It sort of is - again, you're discussing theoretical technology based on something that is currently commonly considered imaginary. The question of "is it valid, or not?" depends on which piece of fiction one looks at. For some, it is; for others, it isn't. <hr /></blockquote>Likewise, you seem to have dropped Geo's points (reply 56) on the holes in not skipping things would cause problems (although that is related to my comments on Oleg's point), and Geo's point on where the force originates once past the inital breach of physics (reply 55 and 47). Further, you seem to have neglected commenting on something else I said "At worst, that just means he needs to change the description for his mod." (referring, of course, to the description for the TK projector. With that possibility open, your arguments based on the TK projector's description don't hold much water.)

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 10:09 PM

Jack, don't start this garbage again. My Posts implicitly responded to Geo's and yours. Not every sub thread needed to be responded to.

The component description says it projects a battering ram of force, which means it creates that bettering ram and then sends it off to the target. I am going to stop going around in circles and repeating myself, as it is getting tiring. If you do not want to see my point, that is your problem, not mine.

[ July 28, 2003, 21:11: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Jack Simth

July 28th, 2003, 10:39 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Jack, don't start this garbage again. And now you are resorting to insults? Interesting. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
My Posts implicitly responded to Geo's and yours. Not every sub thread needed to be responded to.

The component description says it projects a battering ram of force, which means it creates that bettering ram and then sends it off to the target. I am going to stop going around in circles and repeating myself, as it is getting tiring. If you do not want to see my point, that is your problem, not mine.No, you don't implicitly respond to them. For example, you again refer to the description of the component, while I had already said "At worst, that just means he needs to change the description for his mod." While that is just one I dig up as an example, you haven't addressed it at all. The others I listed a post or two ago haven't been addressed either. You may think you have, but you haven't.

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 10:42 PM

Go read Pax's thread on his small ship mod...

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Pax, IMO you need to change the description of the TKP, as its description supports my interpretation and not yours. That will eliminate the possibility of any dispute, and is not hard to do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif 

[ July 28, 2003, 21:45: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

geoschmo

July 28th, 2003, 10:49 PM

Ok Jack, appears that Fyron is agreeing with you in this case. Since both of you are of the opinion that a simple fix is to change the description of the component.

This horse is dead, we are making glue.

Geoschmo

Jack Simth

July 28th, 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Go read Pax's thread on his small ship mod...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Pax, IMO you need to change the description of the TKP, as its description supports my interpretation and not yours. That will eliminate the possibility of any dispute, and is not hard to do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif <hr /></blockquote>Ah, so you responded in a different thread, and expected me to follow your jump? Strange. Ah well, at least we agree on a possible solution. That works for me.

Hmm, I see Geo posted before I could respond. Ah well.

Pax

July 28th, 2003, 11:02 PM

So. Back to the original subject.

If one is simply cutting out anything above Frigate or Destroyer size, that means much of stellar manipulation will be gone, too.

As well, the Ship Construction tech would need to be rebalanced to reflect the shorter track it's on, and the relatively-larger impact a single level of it can have on a game. Base construction too, since you don't really want 1500kT bases facing fleets of 200kT-300kT ships ... or do you?

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 11:07 PM

I think he did want 1500 (and 2500) kT bases against 200 kT ships. It might not be that great of and idea though. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slick

July 28th, 2003, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
If you want to discuss the mines further, please take it to a different thread.Then you should extend the same courtesy to others and take the current discussion elsewhere as well. It certainly is not what I started this thread to discuss.

Also, to whomever changed the title of my post: that was very crass.

Slick.

Fyron

July 28th, 2003, 11:44 PM

Slick, you never made a request to move the discussion. That is the difference here. Had you requested it, I would have happily obliged. Topic drift is the norm, you know.

[ July 28, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Slick

July 28th, 2003, 11:49 PM

I am requesting it.

Slick.

geoschmo

July 28th, 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
If you want to discuss the mines further, please take it to a different thread.Then you should extend the same courtesy to others and take the current discussion elsewhere as well. It certainly is not what I started this thread to discuss.

Also, to whomever changed the title of my post: that was very crass.

Slick.<hr /></blockquote>Sorry, that wasn't meant to be crass. We do that sometimes when topics drift severly from their original subject so that when people walk into them expecting to discuss the topic stated in the title they aren't totally confused. It's a moderator thing. No offense was intended.

Geoschmo

Fyron

July 29th, 2003, 12:00 AM

Slick, the discussion is over, so... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

July 29th, 2003, 04:50 AM

I have decided to go ahead and give this idea a try. The game is up on PBW waiting for players.

Attack of the Ankle Biters
...I have made a couple small changes (I think they are small changes anyway) I hope Slick doesn't mind. I think they are improvements.

First I am going to allow transports, since they are a ship size you get from the start anyway. And even though they are bigger then frigates the cargo requirment means they will not out gun them. I think they will serve well as carriers, but of course there are many other uses for transports.

Second the players will be limited to small weapons platforms, small drones and space stations (small bases). This is just for balance since the largest war ship anyone is going to have is a frigate.

I haven't decided if this will work better as a mod or just a gentlemans agreement to avoid using the Banned techs. Eitehr will work. My main concern with the GA is if people miss their turns the AI will not abide by it. We can discuss that among the players that join.

Other stuff:

Starting resources: 20000
Starting planets: 3
Home planet value: Good
Score display: allied
Technology level: Low
Racial points: 2000
Quadrant type: Midlife
Quadrant size: Depends on number of players
Event frequency: Low
Event severity: Catastrophic
Technology cost: Medium
Victory conditions: Last man standing. You are free to make all the in game alliances you want, as long as you kill each other in the end. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Maximum units: MAX
Maximum ships: MAX
Computer players: NONE
Computer difficulty: NA
Computer player bonus: NA
Neutral empires: No
Other game settings: No more then 100 mines per sector. The game will allow to cooperate with an ally and lay more then 100 mines in a sector. I am banning that practice by house rule for this game. Because of the tiny ships it's going to be difficult enough to keep enough sweepers to handle 100 mines. It's asking to much to allow more then that for this game.

Ship/Tech/Planet trading, surender, retrofit series, and any other stuff that some people call gamey will be allowed for this game. I don't want to have to enforce a bunch of rules, and I think the small ships and no ally victory will help limit most of that stuff anyway. If the game allows it I will.

If some ugly bug noone knows about right now comes up don't abuse it without discussing it with me first. We will make a group ruling on whether it's allowed.

Just play nice.

geoschmo

July 29th, 2003, 05:04 AM

So everybody join the game, and maybe if we actually talk about the game for a while in this thread Slick won't be able to fight the urge to join the game himself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geoschmo

Slick

July 29th, 2003, 06:34 AM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif You dirty guy! I promised myself I wouldn't play this game due to RL, and now it looks like you are gonna force me. GRRR!!! I'll play on one condition not mentioned in your setup: if the turn length is 48 hrs (or more) I'll play. There, are you happy??!! You made me do it. I can't believe you made me do it! In fairness to the other players getting my turns in on time, I'd need the 48 hrs occasionally. On a normal turn, I could get them in at least daily, though.

You twisted, evil, manipulating, ...well actually pretty super guy...

What say you?

Slick.

Slick

July 29th, 2003, 06:37 AM

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

You already set it up for 48 hrs!!!!

You dirty, rotten, sneaky...... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

*trots off to create his empire*

Slick.

Joachim

July 29th, 2003, 07:55 AM

Great idea!

Count me in. The real challenge is working through various racial techs to work out the impact of only having little ships... sounds of deep pondering.

Slick

July 29th, 2003, 07:56 AM

3 in a row. Not like me at all. Needless to say that I haven't played this type of game yet, and this is not a complaint, but I think the game will be ruled by Transport Carriers. We'll see how it actually turns out, but I think everyone will gravitate to fighters due to the cargo capacity of the transports. Either way it will be fun and a learning experience.

Slick.

Narrew

July 29th, 2003, 08:58 AM

Just signed up, is Intel going to allowed or not?

geoschmo

July 29th, 2003, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
3 in a row. Not like me at all. Needless to say that I haven't played this type of game yet, and this is not a complaint, but I think the game will be ruled by Transport Carriers. We'll see how it actually turns out, but I think everyone will gravitate to fighters due to the cargo capacity of the transports. Either way it will be fun and a learning experience.

Slick.Hmmm, well I can run some tests and see how they stack up. It's only room for three more launch bays over a frigate and it's slower becasue of the engine limit. I am thinking a couple dozen frigate wraships with one PDC each ought to be able to handle a large number of fighter. But I could be wrong. We could limit people to small fighters as well if we think they are going to dominate that badly. But I don't know. I could be wrong of course but fighters are just so suceptable to PDC, I just can't imagine them dominating anything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

geoschmo

July 29th, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Narrew:
Just signed up, is Intel going to allowed or not?I hadn't planned on taking out intel. At this point it's in. That could change before game start but if it does I will give you an opportunity to adjust your empire file of course.

Geoschmo

Ragnarok

July 29th, 2003, 02:00 PM

I'll probably join tonight if that's ok. This sounds like it will be an interesting game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

July 29th, 2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Ragnarok:
I'll probably join tonight if that's ok. This sounds like it will be an interesting game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif No problem. I have it set for 20 players at the moment, although I likely wont wait for 20. We'll leave it open a few days. I only really want people that are interested in the idea and will stick with it so I am not going to beat the bushes to drum up players or anything.

Geoschmo

Slick

July 29th, 2003, 05:05 PM

So as it stands, the restrictions will be per gentleman's agreement? I have no problem with that.

Slick.

Loser

July 29th, 2003, 05:29 PM

Would it be too much trouble to quick-n-dirty mod that? I'm asking because I really don't know.

I'll join for sure if the restrictions are firmed up, but I'll probably join anyway.

geoschmo

July 29th, 2003, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
So as it stands, the restrictions will be per gentleman's agreement? I have no problem with that.

Slick.I think the controlling factor here will be people's willingness to use a mod. I have no problem setting one up, the changes involved are simple. And I know the guy who put's them on PBW. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif But if using a mod means we turn off some people that don't like using mods we can try to do it as a GA. But if anyone misses a bunch of turns the AI is going to screw things up a bit.

By the way I ran some tests of transport carriers. One transport with five engines and all bay I's can hold 14 small fighters or 8 large fighters. Two frigates with two DUC V's, one PDC V, one combat sensor and one ecm each can deal with 14 small fighters with DUC 3's with little or no damage to the Frigates. 8 large fighters with more DUC 3's and combat sensors and ecm can seriuosly damage or kill one of the frigates, but the second one still gets them and the carrier. And though the maintenance on a transport carrier is a little lower then two frigates, the cost and time to build and collect the fighters should offset that.

With better fighter bays you could cram more fighters on, or someone might be able to design a slightly better fighter then I can. But the difference if any will be one of a minor degree I think. And facing a fighter heavy race a player could always throw a few fighter killer frigates in each fleet with fewer guns and more PDC.

So I think unless someone comes up with some factor I am missing we are safe with transports in the game. Fighters will be more of a factor then they are in the regular game, but shouldn't dominate.

Geoschmo

[ July 29, 2003, 16:36: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Slynky

July 29th, 2003, 07:04 PM

Well, as others might remember, I'm one not prone to mods. So, I'd prefer the gentleman's agreement. After all, I think all the ship discussions are verifiable during play. So, unless I'm overlooking something, ungentlemanly people can be caught.

As to AI doing something if a turn is missed, that's the player's loss. I.e., if the AI researched destroyers, just don't build one. IF the AI later builds a destroyer, you must scrap it. If one misses so many turns that the AI researches, builds and moves a destroyer into play, THAT player shouldn't be playing any more anyway (IMHO). If a player drops, can't the position be "scrapped"?

Finally, I'd suggest limiting fighters to smalls. Bad enough they are around 1/3 the size of a frigate already.

geoschmo

July 29th, 2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Finally, I'd suggest limiting fighters to smalls. Bad enough they are around 1/3 the size of a frigate already.Well I wouldn't object to that if everyone thinks it's a good idea. But actually a small fighter is less then a tenth of the size of a frigate (15Kt). Large fighter is only an eigth the size (25Kt). Are you thinking of drones maybe? Small ones are half the size of a frigate. And the large ones are almost as big as the frigate, and no maintenance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif That's why I felt it prudent to limit them to small only.

The platforms and bases I thought should be limited because of the mounts that the larger sizes get. Too powerful for 200Kt ships to face I believe.

The medium and large fighters don't get mounts, and aren't so big that I think they are a problem. But if everyone wants them out that is fine too.

Geoschmo

Slynky

July 29th, 2003, 07:23 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
Finally, I'd suggest limiting fighters to smalls. Bad enough they are around 1/3 the size of a frigate already.Well I wouldn't object to that if everyone thinks it's a good idea. But actually a small fighter is less then a tenth of the size of a frigate (15Kt). Large fighter is only an eigth the size (25Kt). Are you thinking of drones maybe? Small ones are half the size of a frigate. And the large ones are almost as big as the frigate, and no maintenance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif That's why I felt it prudent to limit them to small only.

The platforms and bases I thought should be limited because of the mounts that the larger sizes get. Too powerful for 200Kt ships to face I believe.

The medium and large fighters don't get mounts, and aren't so big that I think they are a problem. But if everyone wants them out that is fine too.

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>Actually, I'm almost ashamed of what weight unit I was thinking when I wrote that (well, if you insist...a satellite http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif )

geoschmo

July 29th, 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Actually, I'm almost ashamed of what weight unit I was thinking when I wrote that (well, if you insist...a satellite http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif )I considered limiting sattelites, but decided against it. They medium and large ones do have mounts, but not even as good as the small WP and base mounts. And even the large ones aren't that big. Plus since there is no way to build bases on warp points anymore, someone may want to use some sats there for defense. But if people think we should limit the sats I don't have a problem doing it. I am open to suggestions for limiting more stuff. I just don't want to get into allowing more stuff as that gets away from the original idea IMHO. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 29, 2003, 18:39: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Fyron

July 29th, 2003, 07:38 PM

If everyone uses the None AI type, then there should not be a problem with missing turns and the AI screwing things up. It won't design or build ships, or do research. Very simple solution. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

geoschmo

July 29th, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
If everyone uses the None AI type, then there should not be a problem with missing turns and the AI screwing things up. It won't design or build ships, or do research. Very simple solution. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Or they can just check the box in the minister screen that AI should not make changes during simultaneous games. I have been getting away from telling people to use the "None" files since the NoAI mod is now obsolete.

Geoschmo

Loser

July 29th, 2003, 07:47 PM

Is there now a firm NO on the whole 'mod' question?

Slick

July 29th, 2003, 08:00 PM

I see this game as much a research project as for fun. I also have no problems with majority decision. I vote for no limits on fighters.

Slick.

geoschmo

July 29th, 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Is there now a firm NO on the whole 'mod' question?Yes. If having a mod is keeping you from joining we will not have a mod and go with the GA. If missed turns become a problem we will deal with it as it comes up.

Geoschmo

Narrew

July 29th, 2003, 08:23 PM

well, if it is modded then I wouldnt have to remember http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif of course I will go with the majority

Gryphin

July 29th, 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
I see this game as much a research project as for fun. I also have no problems with majority decision. I vote for no limits on fighters.

Slick.Along those lines players may want to remain flexible during the game and be prepared to adopt new Gentlman Agreements.

Slynky

July 29th, 2003, 08:31 PM

I'm in (FWIW).

I'll hold off on empire design (and upload) until I get something more firm on Intel.

Loser

July 29th, 2003, 08:46 PM

I actually would rather it were modded so that the agreement cannot be modified. I want every opportunity to exploit weaknesses and advantages in this system of limitation that have not yet been discussed or discovered. I want everyone to have that opportunity because I think it will make things more interesting, more active, more chaotic.

I'm in if the mod is enforced.

I vote no limits on Fighters, Satellites, or Mines. No Intel would allow us to focus more on the interesting limitations of ship building involved here, so I'll vote no Intel, but it's not a determining factor.

[edit: I'm in anyway, but I would like to see the changes made in the files.]

[ July 29, 2003, 19:52: Message edited by: Loser ]

Phoenix-D

July 29th, 2003, 09:12 PM

Its possible to enforce some limits without a mod, I think.

Move, say, Escorts, Colony Ships, Frigates and small transports to Propulsion. Edit the files so Ship Construction is bannable. Start the game, ban ship construction. You -should- start with all those ships available. Now change the files back. If I'm right- I'll test this later- they'll all stay.

Fyron

July 29th, 2003, 09:14 PM

P-D, changing tech reqs requires using a mod. If you do not use the mod to play the game, the ships will move back to Ship Construction.

Phoenix-D

July 29th, 2003, 09:22 PM

Hmm. Well, if that workaround doesn't work..

Well, the other idea doesn't work either. Though it might be interesting for another game. If you edit the max tech level down, then start a max tech game, then change everything back, the result is a max tech game..except you still have whatever tech you modded down available for research.

Fyron

July 29th, 2003, 09:24 PM

It would still be best to just use a mod... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

geoschmo

July 29th, 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Hmm. Well, if that workaround doesn't work..

Well, the other idea doesn't work either. Though it might be interesting for another game. If you edit the max tech level down, then start a max tech game, then change everything back, the result is a max tech game..except you still have whatever tech you modded down available for research.Yeah, this does sound interesting. Also you could modify the tech area.txt to change the "raise level" entries and then start a medium tech game. The result would be a medium tech game, but with selected techs advanced farther then normal.

As to whether we do this as a mod game or not. I really don't care, but I don't want to limit the field. I understand some people haven't quite got the hang of using the mod picker utility. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

If we went with a mod though it would be an extremly simple one. I would only need to modify one file, the techarea.txt file.

Geoschmo

Slick

July 30th, 2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
I'm in (FWIW).

I'll hold off on empire design (and upload) until I get something more firm on Intel.Yeah, what he said. Intel?

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Hmmm, well I can run some tests and see how they stack up. It's only room for three more launch bays over a frigate and it's slower becasue of the engine limit. I am thinking a couple dozen frigate wraships with one PDC each ought to be able to handle a large number of fighter. But I could be wrong. We could limit people to small fighters as well if we think they are going to dominate that badly. But I don't know. I could be wrong of course but fighters are just so suceptable to PDC, I just can't imagine them dominating anything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

GeoschmoWhat am I missing here? The Fighter Bay has the "cargo" ability which means it counts towards the cargo limit. I think Transports make much better carriers than Frigates. They can carry more launch bays and more cargo bays. Maybe they won't dominate that much but I think they might shift the focus to making carrier fleets out of transports. This is kinda off from the original idea. Thoughts?

Slick.

[ July 30, 2003, 02:48: Message edited by: Slick ]

Joachim

July 30th, 2003, 04:00 AM

I vote for the mod - mainly so I dont have to remember not to research a particular item http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

On intel - dont mind.

On racial traits - anything goes? What about the much talked about Talisman and AS. Will they have an even worse impact on the game with only little ships? I dont have the XP to comment. But if you are doing a small mod we could also agree to ditch certain other items.

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 04:04 AM

Originally posted by Slick:
Maybe they won't dominate that much but I think they might shift the focus to making carrier fleets out of transports. This is kinda off from the original idea. Thoughts?

Slick.I think that the fact that you are limited to frigates will make fighters a little more viable. I don't think having acces to transports is going to have any measurable impact whatsoever. Did you check out my later post where I ran the tests? Two frigates with one PDC each easily handled a transport full of small fighters. Almost no damage to the frigates at all.

I think anyone that tries to dominate this game by using transport carriers is making a big mistake. Fighters just are too weak to be used as a main offensive component. They are support.

That being said if you don't want them in we can ban them too. I think you are gonna wish you had them for other things, moving pop around, minelaying, sat laying, transport type stuff. But I have no problem disallowing them. You want to put it to a vote or shall I just make a ruling?

Geoschmo

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 04:10 AM

Originally posted by Joachim:
On racial traits - anything goes? What about the much talked about Talisman and AS. Will they have an even worse impact on the game with only little ships? I dont have the XP to comment. But if you are doing a small mod we could also agree to ditch certain other items.Actually Talisman is too big to be a factor in this game. It will fit on a frigate, but take up a lot of room that could go for shields or weapons. A fleet full of frigates with talisman are going to be damn expensive compared to the cheap cannon fodder your opponents will be throwing at you. I think this would be a huge mistake, but I'd love to see someone try to pull it off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

AS is smaller, so it woudl have some use. But you are gonna see some huge fleet battles in this game. You might get a few with AS, but there will be a lot more facing you, and the ones you capture wont be all that strong. I think on balance there will be no difference in using AS in this game and in a normal game. I see no reason why it would be mroe powerful then normal.

Geoschmo

Fyron

July 30th, 2003, 04:13 AM

Talisman is 50 kT. It is 25% of a Frigate (200 kT). So, with bridge, LS, CQ, Talisman, that is 120 kT left over. Add some engines, 60 kT (unless you don't mind being slow). I think that the small ship sizes will effectively neuter the Talisman.

AS should not be that big a deal because there are no mounts guaranteeing 100% success, and there would be so many ships that you cant subvert them all.

Joachim

July 30th, 2003, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Joachim:
On racial traits - anything goes? What about the much talked about Talisman and AS. Will they have an even worse impact on the game with only little ships? I dont have the XP to comment. But if you are doing a small mod we could also agree to ditch certain other items.Actually Talisman is too big to be a factor in this game. It will fit on a frigate, but take up a lot of room that could go for shields or weapons. A fleet full of frigates with talisman are going to be damn expensive compared to the cheap cannon fodder your opponents will be throwing at you. I think this would be a huge mistake, but I'd love to see someone try to pull it off. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo<hr /></blockquote>No issue of Sat stacks with it or WP stacks?

deccan

July 30th, 2003, 04:16 AM

Hmm, as I recall geo was giving away places in his games only a couple of weeks ago, and now he's starting a new one? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Anyway, I'll like to join this one too please. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by Joachim:
No issue of Sat stacks with it or WP stacks?Well, I guess that would still be an issue. But I have always felt that was a minor issue anyway as it's purely defensive. Limiting it to small WP's means the range advantage isn't going to be that tremendous for the defenders. Where the WP with talisman becomes truely evil is with the large WP mounts that can reach out and touch you just about anywhere on the map. That won't be a problem here.

Geoschmo

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
Hmm, as I recall geo was giving away places in his games only a couple of weeks ago, and now he's starting a new one? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Well, I never said I was going to play in this game did I? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Being game owner gives mee a fix without taking too much time.

But I will admit it's been a struggle not click the little apply to join button myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Ragnarok

July 30th, 2003, 04:26 AM

I'll go with majority as well.
We got a nice bunch of players in this game. Should be rather interesting. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

tesco samoa

July 30th, 2003, 04:30 AM

geo i figured that out as well.

like running games....

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 04:32 AM

We got nine players already. You guys want to stop at ten or keep going?

Krsqk

July 30th, 2003, 04:35 AM

I would prefer a mod, but I won't be too peeved if we don't get one. I just know I'm going to be doing a bunch of turns, and I'll look at this one and say, "Hey! Why haven't I researched LCs yet?" and start going gung-ho on them. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

deccan

July 30th, 2003, 04:38 AM

Don't think anyone has mentioned this before, but small transports = less troops dropped on planets. Maybe reduce the number of turns per ground combat to compensate?

I'll prefer it if this were a mod too.

tesco samoa

July 30th, 2003, 04:42 AM

i vote no for intel

tesco samoa

July 30th, 2003, 04:46 AM

p.s. i asked gandalph if he wants to play in this game... Seems to be right up his alley

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
Don't think anyone has mentioned this before, but small transports = less troops dropped on planets. Maybe reduce the number of turns per ground combat to compensate?

I'll prefer it if this were a mod too.Well, you may not even get small transports. Try doing it with frigates. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

It may turn out being simply impossible to conquer heavily populated worlds and they will have to be glassed.

Reducing the combat runs would allow reinforcments to arrive before the combat ended though wouldn't it? Interesting idea.

Dang I really wish SE4 would let more then one ship drop troops per turn. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Geoschmo

deccan

July 30th, 2003, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
i vote no for intelI'm not religious about this but the thing I have about turning intel off is that it creates yet another trait to minimize to get racial points off of.

Slick

July 30th, 2003, 07:28 AM

Ok, since this is a partial research project and partial fun game I think we should just draw the line in the sand over a few things and let the cards fall where they may. Here's the plan:

- Purpose: to have fun and to explore the idea of the original post in this thread for a possible mod.
- No mod for this game. Players agree to remain flexible and report any improvements to the setup or suggestions to this thread. If it becomes necessary to institute another gentleman's agreement during mid-game due to some unforeseen issue, we will as appropiate - this is would be to extend the viability of the game both for more data gathering as well as more fun. Please don't be too wrapped up in winning the game. If successful, this effort will lead to a polished mod which can be used for more serious games.
- Players will play in the spirit of the idea of this game as discussed in this thread to the maximum extent in an effort to flesh out any improvements while still having some fun.
- Players commit to finishing the game and getting turns in on time.
- Intel ok
- Existing settings as per the intro file description at PBW
- Any satellites ok
- Any fighters ok
- Transport Carriers ok.
- If planet capture is too hard, it may be a result of the original idea which is that planets are expected to be very tough. Consider an alternate approach like attacking the economy, or blockading, etc. However, after playing, if deemed too difficult, it can be addressed.
- any/all racial traits, max/minimizing characteristics, etc for empire setup is ok.
- edit: And one more thing, since Geoschmo suckered me into this game even though I said I was overloaded, Geoschmo also playes this game ( http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif )

Anything I missed? I say give it 1 more day for people waiting on the game definition to firm up then we start.

Last call for $0.02 on the setup. Speak now or hold your peace.

Slick.

[ July 30, 2003, 07:44: Message edited by: Slick ]

Fyron

July 30th, 2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by tesco samoa:
i vote no for intelI'm not religious about this but the thing I have about turning intel off is that it creates yet another trait to minimize to get racial points off of.<hr /></blockquote>If the game is going to use a mod, the Cunning trait can be modified to have a minimum of 100. No free points, no fuss, no muss.

Slick, if the game is for researching how to make this idea viable, it would make more sense to create the mod now, to iron it out.

I should point out that attacking a planet IS how you attack the economy. You have two choices: glass or capture. There is a third, reduce the planet, but that is very hard to accomplish in Strategic combat. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ July 30, 2003, 08:24: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 12:50 PM

Fyron, your opinion is noted, and as always appreciated. You've given us some good things to think about, but from this point on I think the goal is to reach some agreement among the players actually in the game. So unless you are gonna join... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[ July 30, 2003, 20:30: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Slick

July 30th, 2003, 05:31 PM

I don't have a big problem with using a mod. If we can still meet the intent of the game and address these issues, the someone can make it.

- First, I won't be making the mod for this first run of the game. I haven't really put anything even this simple together yet and I would just delay the start of the game in the unlikely event that I found time to make it. I have no problem if someone else wants to make it.

- Second, the mod should absolutely minimize changes to the game and only change the ship restrictions (and WP's, etc) mentioned in this thread and the game setup info at PBW. This is because we should minimize the variables so that we won't have to have many games to iron out tweaks.

- Last, and most important, players agree to remain flexible for gameplay issues. If some unforeseen issue comes up, we may yet have to address it with a gentleman's agreement. Should this happen, I don't want to have to restart the game with a new mod. It is the feedback from this game that would lead to all the other tweaks that people are mentioning like satellites, planet capture, etc.

That's my opinion on the matter of a mod. All 3 of these would be easier with no mod, but I'll play with one if these issues won't be a problem.

Slick.

[ July 30, 2003, 16:31: Message edited by: Slick ]

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 05:31 PM

Ok, game has twelve players. I think that is enough. Once we settle the final issues about the game settings people can get their empires in and away we go. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 05:38 PM

If we want a mod, I can make a mod. That's no problem. With the changes already mentioned in the thread the only file that will need altered is the techarea.txt file. Maybe the settings.txt file if we want to change the number of combat turns to make capturing the big planets with multiple transports an option.

Changes to the mod in game would not require a restart unless we do something silly like rearanging the order of the components file. We could even add components as long as they are added at the end and the game won't have to be restarted.

The only stumbling block I see to using a mod is if we lose some players because of it. What about it Slynky? You want to give it a try with a mod? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I'd hate to have you leave the game over it.

Geoschmo

[ July 30, 2003, 20:49: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

tesco samoa

July 30th, 2003, 05:44 PM

i am ok with out a mod.... and with one.

But if the choice is mod or slinky.... i choose slinky...

on the condition that slinky learns how to use mods before the game is over

I can remember that ships can only be reserched once

Slick

July 30th, 2003, 05:45 PM

Just a clarification. If this game shows hope, I will be fumbling my way through finalizing a mod for it. It may be that Geo's original requires no changes, which would be great. But I am expecting some tweaking issues to come up during the game.

BTW, I'll submit my empire when I get home from work today in about 12 hrs.

Slick.

Loser

July 30th, 2003, 05:51 PM

The mod should be simple, only changes need to be made would be to the Tech file: cap Ships, WPs, and Bases, yes?

If someone will PM me I will give you my e-mail address and you can send me the text file, then I'll send that to Geo.

[Edit: Geo already volunteered... answered the phone (work) halfway through making the post and posted it anyway]

[ July 30, 2003, 16:53: Message edited by: Loser ]

Slynky

July 30th, 2003, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
If we want a mod, I can make a mod. That's no problem. With the changes already mentioned in the thread the only file that will need altered is the techarea.txt file. Maybe the settings.txt file if we want to change the number of combat turns to make capturing the big planets with multiple transports an option.

Changes to the mod in game would not require a restart unless we do something silly like rearanging the order of the components file. We could even add components as long as they are added at the end and the game won't have to be restarted.

The only stumbling block I see to using a mod is if we lose some players because of it. What about it Slynky? You want to give it a try with a mod? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I'd hate to have you leave the game over it.

GeoschmoWell, being just a simple Georgia boy, I like to keep things simple. I played with a mod or two before but somehow, I started getting those %#*! errors during gameturn execution (that you have to click 'OK' to over and over). So, I wiped all the crap out and started from scratch. Haven't had a single error yet. So, you can see my reluctance.

Secondly, Making batch files to run the game with, or editing the path file. Annoying to me. I like being able to click on my 1.84 icon and then choosing the game I want to work on. Simple. Error-free.

Personally, I can't see all the fuss about a gentleman's agreement. Can't be that complicated. After all, if you can remember all the details of the game, surely remembering a few ship limitations and such can't be overwhelming.

But...

Since there seems to be so many people who want a mod for this "test" game, I will resign to going along with it. Somebody will just have to expend some extra energy and tell me the easiest way to go about running a modded game and (switching back to) my regular games.

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Somebody will just have to expend some extra energy and tell me the easiest way to go about running a modded game and (switching back to) my regular games.Mod-picker, definetly mod-picker. I'll find a link...

Loser

July 30th, 2003, 08:56 PM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1059590690.gif
AH-HA-HAH-HA-AH-A-A-A
*falls off chair, coworkers stare, again*
First time using that sig?
A bit rough on the boy, but damn funny.

[ July 30, 2003, 19:56: Message edited by: Loser ]

Fyron

July 30th, 2003, 08:57 PM

Should this happen, I don't want to have to restart the game with a new mod.You can always change the mod and keep playing, you know.

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 08:57 PM

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I had a little trouble getting the image to display right, but I got it now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slick

July 30th, 2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
You can always change the mod and keep playing, you know. Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Slick, if the game is for researching how to make this idea viable, it would make more sense to create the mod now, to iron it out.
 Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
It would still be best to just use a mod... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif What are you trying to say? Do you think we should use a mod?

The point is noted. Thanks for the input.

Slick.

Fyron

July 30th, 2003, 09:32 PM

Those were different responses to different things you said...

tesco samoa

July 30th, 2003, 10:24 PM

/offtopic

what is w.w.f.d.

geoschmo

July 30th, 2003, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
/offtopic

what is w.w.f.d.W.W.F.D. is a state of mind. It is attitude. A way of life in which one seeks after harmony, peace, and true understanding.

[ July 31, 2003, 12:50: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

tesco samoa

July 31st, 2003, 01:11 AM

sounds good slick

Loser

July 31st, 2003, 01:16 AM

We do have four or five votes for the mod, and I think the game has enough people to survive if the mod drives anyone away. Can we put this to a vote or is there even a possibility you'd relent on that issue, Slick?

geoschmo

July 31st, 2003, 04:35 AM

Ok, official ruling is Intel is allowed, and we will be using a mod. So now everyone can do their empire files.

Geoschmo

deccan

July 31st, 2003, 06:44 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Ok, official ruling is Intel is allowed, and we will be using a mod. So now everyone can do their empire files.

GeoschmoIs there anything to download and install?

Kamog

July 31st, 2003, 07:18 AM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
/offtopic

what is w.w.f.d.What is W.W.F.D.?

I searched around and found these possibilities:

What would a friend do?
What would Freud do?
What would fighter do?
What would Florence do?
Winning with Food Day
World Wide Field Day
Walla Walla Fire Department
What would Fred do?
West Warwick Fire Department
Western Wake Fire Department
What would Fabu do?
Women and Water Development Fund
What was for dinner
What would Fang do?
What would Feynman do?
What would Falwell do?
West Winfield Fired Deparement
What would fishermen do?
What would the fathers do?
What would Foy do?
...

OK, so just take any name that begins with F and insert in the blank:
What would ______ do?

Phoenix-D

July 31st, 2003, 07:24 AM

Or, in this case the answer is:

What would Fryon Do?

Fyron

July 31st, 2003, 08:48 AM

Gah, you're worse than Geo, can't even spell my name right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif Pheonix-Dunce. Yeah, thats it.

Phoenix-D

July 31st, 2003, 07:30 PM

No, I just changed your name when you weren't looking. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

tesco samoa

August 1st, 2003, 01:46 AM

heh i figured it out when i went to bed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

geoschmo

August 1st, 2003, 05:28 AM

Here's the mod for the game:

http://seiv.pbw.cc/Download/filelib/854/anklebiter.zip

I ended up having to change the vehicle size file as well as teh tech area file to eliminate the option of building carriers.

I did not change the combat turns at this time. We can keep an eye on it and if it looks like planet capturing is too hard we can consider changing it.

For those that need it, here's the link to Matryx's mod picker.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/newuploads/1039630481.zip

I highly recomend it. It's easy to use, and has decent documentation included with pictures and everything. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Geoschmo

[ August 01, 2003, 04:36: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Slick

August 1st, 2003, 05:37 AM

Error, Will Robinson. On the mod link.

edit: Got it directly from the PBW mod download page.

Slick.

[ August 01, 2003, 04:39: Message edited by: Slick ]

geoschmo

August 1st, 2003, 05:49 AM

The mod link won't work if you aren't logged into PBW. Sorry about that.

Geoschmo

QuarianRex

August 2nd, 2003, 05:54 AM

Is it too late for an extra player? I noticed that PBW is down (or maybe it's just me). Sounds like a sweet concept. I'd like to get in on it if there is still time.

Slick

August 2nd, 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by QuarianRex:
Is it too late for an extra player? I noticed that PBW is down (or maybe it's just me). Sounds like a sweet concept. I'd like to get in on it if there is still time.The Last time I was able to get into PBW, the game hadn't started yet and the number of players was around 12/20, but we were just about to start...

Slick.

geoschmo

August 21st, 2003, 03:20 PM

Ok, this game is still on track. Waiting on empires from Tesco and Krsqk. Ragnarok had to withdraw so we are back to 11 players. If someone wants to join and can get in before those two get their empire files in I will allow it.

Actually maybe I ought to take a poll of the players in teh game and make sure they havn'e lost interest. I'd hate to have people dropping out on the first turn.

Geoschmo

Slynky

August 21st, 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:

Actually maybe I ought to take a poll of the players in teh game and make sure they havn'e lost interest. I'd hate to have people dropping out on the first turn.

GeoschmoI'm still up for it. Kinda wondered why people didn't use the time PBW was down to create an empire, though.

Joachim

August 21st, 2003, 04:04 PM

Still Keen http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Slick

August 21st, 2003, 05:11 PM

I'm in.

Slick.

tesco samoa

August 21st, 2003, 06:05 PM

hi. it will be up tonight.

P.s. I will be away next weekend as it is the labour day weekend... Just giving advanced warning now... No worries I will set everything to ram...

Loser

August 21st, 2003, 06:14 PM

I'll be in tonight. Originally posted by tesco samoa:
No worries I will set everything to ram...Won't everyone?

[ August 21, 2003, 17:15: Message edited by: Loser ]

Krsqk

August 22nd, 2003, 12:59 AM

Will have an empire up tonight.

I didnt' get one up while PBW was down because...well...I forgot about this game. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Since I didn't have a .GAM file for it, it slipped under my radar. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

geoschmo

August 22nd, 2003, 10:30 PM

The only one that hasn't replied they are still interested is Gandalph. Come to think of it though I haven't seen him in the forum in a while. Is he on vacation or something?

Geoschmo

geoschmo

August 23rd, 2003, 03:57 AM

Ok, game on!

I am going to assume that Gandalph is just out of town for a couple days and that he really is planning on playing. I don' tsee him skipping out on us. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Joachim

August 23rd, 2003, 03:58 AM

No he is around (Gandalph) - we are slaughtering each other's fleets in KOTH.

geoschmo

August 23rd, 2003, 05:39 AM

Well maybe I don't have a good email for him or soemthing. Do me a favor and send him a message in your game and ask him to check the thread here.

Gandalph

August 23rd, 2003, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Well maybe I don't have a good email for him or soemthing. Do me a favor and send him a message in your game and ask him to check the thread here.You have the right email address, my sending server is having problems right now. I have intermittent failure to communicate (love the movie) with recipient servers, especially the likes of AOHell, Yahoo, Hotmail, and other such freebies. I am working on the issue and WILL get it resolved. Until then, know that I receive your emails, you just don't always receive my replies.

BTW - I am not only in the game, but I was the first to upload my turn!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Loser

August 23rd, 2003, 05:19 PM

Whoop-pah!
Let's get this party started!

Slick

August 27th, 2003, 05:20 PM

Put on your steel-toe boots and lace 'em all the way up. My little guys are hungry. Best of luck to all and have fun!

Slick.

Slynky

August 28th, 2003, 02:34 AM

To all game players: I�ll be unable to process turns from Friday till Monday afternoon (I�ll be at Dragon*Con all weekend).

Loser

September 5th, 2003, 02:39 PM

Oh man, for so long to get so few turns done...

It's turn 4 and I have found that I have the homeworld of a different empire one system away from each of my three homeworlds. I don't think they know just how crowded this corner is, but they'll figure it out as soon. There are four of us packed into this one corner.

What exactly is the protocol on requesting, suggesting, or pursuing the restart of a game?

geoschmo

September 5th, 2003, 03:05 PM

Well, my official position on restarts is that restarts suck. I prefer to always go with the cards dealt and make the best of things. And I adhere to this consistantly even when my own starting position is piss poor.

Perhaps if you impress upon your neighbors the advantage to all of peaceful cooperation, at least for a while.

That being said I guess if you can make a suficent case for a restart and a large number of people are wanting one we could do it. The earlier in the game the better.

Loser

September 5th, 2003, 04:05 PM

Peace is peace, but lack of expansion is Death.

Sorry, I posted that I would stick with the game even without a restart in the post I made in the PBW forum, but neglected to mention that here.

Still, if anyone else is in favor, I would be most enthusiastic. Perhaps, with a weekend coming up, we could catch up on the four turns we've done so far in a matter of hours.

geoschmo

September 5th, 2003, 04:36 PM

Ok, I just sent this out as an email to everyone:

Players,

Ok, looks like this game has got bit by the "cram half the empires in
one corner" bug. We have a request to restart the game. Personally I
don't like restarts, but I can understand the desire for everyone to have
a decent shot at survival in the game. What I am going to do is take a
poll. I want everyone to reply to this question:

"Should we restart the game using a randomly generated map modified
with approximatly evenly spaced non-specific starting positions?"

Everyone please vote "Yes please", "Please don't", "Don't care", or
"Definetly not, and if you restart I'll be forced to withdraw from the
game".

We have twelve players in the game. If we get at least nine votes of
"Yes please" or "Don't care", no more then three votes of "Please don't",
and no votes of "Definetly not" we will do the restart. I don't want to
lose anyone either way.

GeoschmoI'll keep a tally. If you want your vote kept confidential I will do so.

tesco samoa

September 5th, 2003, 05:15 PM

it is a small map i just figured we were all close to people

Gandalph

September 5th, 2003, 05:20 PM

My email is still being fixed (by me) so I will cast my vote here.

Don't Care

geoschmo

September 5th, 2003, 05:36 PM

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
it is a small map i just figured we were all close to peopleIt was a medium map actually. Appears to be around 70 systems. That could be sufficent for 12 players if the spacing were better. Aparently one player is in a corner and has three empires around him all within a one system distance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

If we restart I'll gen a map of around 100 systems and have someone place common starting points.

Loser

September 5th, 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Aparently one player is in a corner and has three empires around him all within a one system distance. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif It's kind of funny, actually. The first guy I met said something like "Well this could be nice, we'll divide this corner between the two of us." Then I met the other two, bordering my other two homeworld systems.

I doubt any of them have met each other, if fact, a couple probably aren't even aware they're met me yet (haven't uploaded their turns yet), but they'll meet each other real soon.

Slynky

September 5th, 2003, 07:09 PM

I don't really mind my position too much. Yeah, a bit cramped but I have a fairly good choice of planets (set down on 3 various sizes of breathables already). I've popped into 2 people's home systems (one of them Loser's) already. So, yes, I'm one of the people around him.

So, how do I vote? I guess a "don't care" will suffice even though I do care...I just don't care enough to argue about it. Just figuring what has happened in other restarts I've been in, I'll get positioned beside nebulas and empty systems.

PS: With 12 slots, it's highly impractical 4 turns can be accomplished in several hours. After all, it's taken nearly 14 days to do 4 turns (and though I was gone over this past weekend, the game wasn't ready to run when I returned, so it wasn't me holding it up).

tesco samoa

September 5th, 2003, 09:48 PM

well perhaps it will affect the long term outcome but creating another game just screws some other players.

I am in the 'Don't Care' mode and will take what cards I am delt

Slick

September 5th, 2003, 10:43 PM

I'll go with the majority as stated, however, I would mention that the intent of the game is to explore a game with the smaller ships. If the game turns into an early slugfest, it will not be much different from a standard game.

Slick.

Loser

September 5th, 2003, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by Slick:
If the game turns into an early slugfest, it will not be much different from a standard game.That's what I'm saying!

Not that I'm at all impartial here. But yeah, what he said.

deccan

September 6th, 2003, 12:23 AM

Put my official vote in as don't care.

geoschmo

September 6th, 2003, 08:29 AM

Ok, by my accounting so far everybody has either voted Yes or Don't care. But I still have not heard from Joachim or Krsqk. Please let me know guys.

Krsqk

September 6th, 2003, 07:07 PM

I don't care.

Should have checked the forum a little more carefully, I guess. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif

Slynky

September 7th, 2003, 03:57 AM

Since I haven't seen a "no" vote, I'm not going to bother doing my turn. Looks like this one's headed back to the game regenerators.

Loser

September 7th, 2003, 07:50 AM

It only takes a second. I did mine.

Joachim

September 8th, 2003, 12:38 AM

Dont Care....

Sorry for taking a few days to reply - away at wedding.

J.

Slynky

September 11th, 2003, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Loser:
Perhaps, with a weekend coming up, we could catch up on the four turns we've done so far in a matter of hours.Don't get me wrong...I know it isn't the weekend but, as I said earlier...kind of...(as we bear down on the deadline for turn submission) slim chance of ever getting 4 turns done in a day (let alone a matter of hours).

Joachim

September 12th, 2003, 05:02 AM

Any idea where Krsqk is?

When do we go on anyway?

narf poit chez BOOM

September 12th, 2003, 07:58 PM

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=009906

'ping Krsqk' thread.

geoschmo

September 20th, 2003, 02:46 PM

I guess Krsqk was unable to resolve or work around his technical issues. I suppose we should find a replacement for him. Anyone interested?

Geoschmo

Loser

September 20th, 2003, 03:21 PM

Come one people. You know you want to give this one a shot!

Game just started!

No Turns Missed, yet!

Neat-o Concept Game!

Join, join, join!

Slynky

September 20th, 2003, 04:25 PM

Yeah, it shows red (processing) but nothing's happening at the moment.

Alneyan

September 20th, 2003, 05:07 PM

I would be interested, as this is a different game, but I am already in quite a few games and... *Gets rid of his work* Well, if you do accept me, then I will take over Krsqk. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

deccan

September 21st, 2003, 01:15 AM

Are we waiting for someone or are we waiting to decide if we need another restart? There hasn't been a new turn in like forever.

SpaceBadger

September 21st, 2003, 05:09 PM

This sounds like a fun game. I see that Alneyan already volunteered for the open slot, but could y'all keep me in mind as a reserve in case somebody has to drop out?

SpaceBadger

Edit: typo

[ September 21, 2003, 16:12: Message edited by: SpaceBadger ]

Slynky

September 24th, 2003, 04:53 PM

I'm guessing this game is (has been) cursed. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif

Loser

September 24th, 2003, 04:56 PM

Didn't Slick say something about a storm?

Loser

September 24th, 2003, 04:56 PM

[edit: double]

[ September 24, 2003, 15:56: Message edited by: Loser ]

Slick

September 24th, 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Didn't Slick say something about a storm?That was a couple of weeks ago. Been working lotsa hours lately. Will get in my turn after work today. Sorry for the delay.

Slick.

Loser

September 24th, 2003, 05:07 PM

Thanks, Slick. Much appreciated.

Slynky

September 24th, 2003, 05:07 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
Didn't Slick say something about a storm?Oh, don't get me wrong. Slick mentioned he was tight for time when the game was being discussed (a few months ago).

My point was that it has been cursed from the beginning. I think THIS game is the cause of the long PBW problem. Also, if you think about it, when this game was being discussed, that's when Gryphin got sick and "disappeared" (imagine soundtrack from "Twilight Zone"). Then the hold-up on the game by people not submitting turns for some reason. THIS game is probably the reason for Krsqk's (sp?) continuing problem.

Don't you see, PEOPLE!?!? You could be next! This game is cursed!

[ September 24, 2003, 16:08: Message edited by: Slynky ]

Loser

September 24th, 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Slynky:
Don't you see, PEOPLE!?!? You could be next! This game is cursed!Not me, I have a circle of salt around my router.

Slynky

September 24th, 2003, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Loser:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Slynky:
Don't you see, PEOPLE!?!? You could be next! This game is cursed!Not me, I have a circle of salt around my router.<hr /></blockquote>Salt?! Are you crazy, man? That just keeps snails away. You need some REAL power to fight THIS evil force!

Beware! (if you could only see my finger wagging at all of you)

Loser

September 24th, 2003, 05:29 PM

Ah, but it's not just a ring of salt, it's a circle.

deccan

September 25th, 2003, 06:08 AM

Is Intel on in this game? I forgot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif

Slick

September 25th, 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by deccan:
Is Intel on in this game? I forgot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/blush.gif Yes it it on. Now does anyone know where I can hire some good field agents? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Slick.

Slynky

December 31st, 2003, 01:50 AM

Bump http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Loser

December 31st, 2003, 02:01 AM

This game is on-going. What's with the bump?

Slynky

December 31st, 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Loser:
This game is on-going. What's with the bump? See the "Ratings" thread. (it was bumped just for convenience)

Loser

December 31st, 2003, 02:31 AM

Gotcha.

But this game can't be rated unless everyone agrees, can it?

I don't have a problem with rating the dang thing, but there are a good number of people in it. Law of averages makes it ... foreseeable that not all may consent.

Slynky

December 31st, 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Loser:
But this game can't be rated unless everyone agrees, can it?

I don't have a problem with rating the dang thing, but there are a good number of people in it. Law of averages makes it ... foreseeable that not all may consent. Because I make mistakes, or because people thought they notified me and didn't, I allow for a person to be enrolled as a rated player if everyone being rated agrees to it. They may decide it's OK because of his position in the game, his ranking in the game, knowing him to be an honest fellow, etc. Of course, others may decide, for various reasons, to not allow a person to join in the rated players after the game has been started.

This approach is intended to stop people from seeing the map and then saying they want to be rated. As far as I have seen, I don't think people are like that that are in the Rated system.

Bear in mind, NONE of this has to do with anyone NOT enrolled in the Ratings system (yet playing in the qame in question).

HOWEVER, it would appear that a Rated player participating in a game that he has decided NOT to be rated in might ALSO have a concern about a player requesting to be rated after the game has started. Something that I really haven't thought of till now...seeing that you are a rated player yet not participating in Anklebiters as a rated player, Loser.

Loser

December 31st, 2003, 02:43 AM

Rate me, rate it, that's fine.

Of course, I've forgotten the procedure. Perhaps saying that here is not enough?

Slynky

December 31st, 2003, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Loser:
Rate me, rate it, that's fine.

Of course, I've forgotten the procedure. Perhaps saying that here is not enough? LOL...I'm afraid you'd need to take the same approach as Gandalf must... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif .

In all seriousness, I wish more people would click on my URL for mail in my siggy...that's the best chance I won't missed a request for a game to be rated.

Slynky

January 1st, 2004, 03:07 AM

To the following players in the game:

Deccan, Geoschmo, Joachim, and Tesco Samoa.

Please respond to me via email and indicate if you think it's OK to allow Gandalph to have his empire rated in this game or NOT OK. Your decison in this matter will be kept private and a single "no" vote will end the voting.

Thank you.

Narrew

January 1st, 2004, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by Slynky:
To the following players in the game:

Deccan, Geoschmo, Joachim, and Tesco Samoa.

Thank you. Dang, I am in the game and don't coun't, but my mommy says I am special http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Slynky

January 28th, 2004, 03:34 AM

I'd just like to post that I received the Last vote on allowing Gandalph to count this game as a rated game (though it had already started and many turns have been played) and the vote is unanimous in favor.

I will update the site tomorrow by adding Gandalph to the list.

rextorres

January 28th, 2004, 03:41 AM

I don't mean to rock the boat, but I assumed I was going to be rated as well.

geoschmo

January 28th, 2004, 05:17 AM

Deccan dropped out of the game. This leaves an open spot if anyone is interested. I don't know much about his empire other then it's in 7th place out of 12.

Also Slynky, since he was rated, what effect does his dropping out have? Does this go as a loss for him, and a win for the other rated players?

Geoschmo

Slynky

January 28th, 2004, 08:46 PM

I don't know, Geo. I'm not sure how much he was working with other players and how much effect that will on them. For me (and another partner), he was the third of a triumvarate (sp?). As such, I suspect it will have a significant effect on us! Especially if the AI takes over and declares war on me as happened TWICE in the Mediocrity game with other partnerships. I made a game-long pact with Deccan and have done nothing to protect my border with him. This is yet another reason I hate group games (slowness, as you know, being my other pet peeve). There is also another reason his parntnership is important to me (but I won't say here).

So...if we play on and the AI declares war on me, I'm not going to stick around like a good little boy (as I did in Mediocrity) so as not to mess the game up for other people, I'm just going to assume my game is going to fall to pieces and withdraw as well (and take the rating hit) because I won't invest lots of time into a game where the chances of doing well are slim. My time is more valuable than that.

And, I'll make a sign to hang on the front of my monitor that says, "Slynky, no matter how much fun a game may sound, do NOT join a game with more than 4 players!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

geoschmo

January 28th, 2004, 08:55 PM

No offense Slynky but you don't leave me a lot of room to manuever. If I wait for a replacment you wont like a delay. If I don't wait for a replacment then you wont like the AI ruining your plans. Either way you might withdraw and leave me looking for another replacment.

Maybe I need to make me a sign that says "Don't accept Slynky in to any games." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif j/k

Honestly, I hope you find a way to remain in the game. My intention is to wait at least a few days for a replacment. I prefer not to let the AI run it as well.

For me it's one more reason why my strategy of not depending on other empires is a good idea. I may not win as many becuse I am doing it all myself, but others leaving doesn't devastate my plans. And when I do win it's sweeter cause I did it all myself. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Alneyan

January 28th, 2004, 09:08 PM

*Glances at his own sign stating "You shall not get involved in more than ten games at any given moment" and decides to post at any rate* If you would like Slynky, I could join as a temporary remplacement at the very least so there will be no additional delays. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Kidding aside, I gather the turns in Ankle Bitters are not as long to do as, say, in a game such as Galactic Combat Three? If so I believe I could join, as most of my games don't need too much time. (That is, if you exclude my own silliness when I forgot to send my turns... It happened a couple of times, but I swear I thought I had sent the turns to PBW. Is that PBW own poltergeist striking again? *Whistles innocently*)

Slynky

January 28th, 2004, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by Alneyan:
*Glances at his own sign stating "You shall not get involved in more than ten games at any given moment" and decides to post at any rate* If you would like Slynky, I could join as a temporary remplacement at the very least so there will be no additional delays. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Kidding aside, I gather the turns in Ankle Bitters are not as long to do as, say, in a game such as Galactic Combat Three? If so I believe I could join, as most of my games don't need too much time. (That is, if you exclude my own silliness when I forgot to send my turns... It happened a couple of times, but I swear I thought I had sent the turns to PBW. Is that PBW own poltergeist striking again? *Whistles innocently*) I'd be honored if you'd join (while advertising the position as open for a permanent player).

Anklebiters is the longest of my game turns to do (not that that means much to you). It's also a modded game, so there is that additional bit of information you might want to know. It takes me about 15-20 minutes to do it (but I think I am a slower player than others).