Hard Light Productions Forums
Hosted Projects - Standalone => Wings of Dawn => WoD Forum Game => Topic started by: Spoon on May 11, 2014, 03:40:05 pm
-
I wanted to share some of the ideas I've been thinking up. I'm still working out a lot of details but I figured now is just as well a good time to hear your thoughts on this. It's a really big wall of text though.
First off all to get this out of the way: the game will not be a direct sequel to the first game.
Also I took a bunch of pages out of the book of the gundam game, Gihren's greed(/ambition). I doubt anyone here played it.
I have no idea for a date for this, this is just throwing out ideas.
The game will have two types of turns, the Strategy turn and the Tactical turn and will be split up in three phases. The first phase has the four Terran factions competing against each other in limited warfare and diplomatic games to reinforce their position. The second phase has the Hierachy invade and the LSF established. Then the third and last phase is all about securing the win for your faction.
Like the first game, the UGC, CRF, SF and DD will be the major players. The fleet/admiral distribution will likely be the same (4/4/3/2) but each faction now also comes with two political positions. A minister of foreign affairs and one for internal affairs. Both of these positions will have a stronger roleplay element to them and will be vital for success for your faction. The ministers do not take command of a fleet but instead are responsible for the strategic position of the faction. The Strategy turn is their battlefield.
Foreign affairs handles the direct dealings with other factions. They negotiate deals such as trade treaties with other factions. Also, they have a strong voice when it comes to influencing the decisions of their faction leader.
Internal affairs is the person responsible for making the financial decisions. What is the faction's money spend on? What plans do we initiate? and so forth. His opinions will also have some small amount of influence on the leader, just not as much as the minister of foreign affairs.
General faction mechanics
Money: Generated each turn from owned planets and other locations, as well as any trade treaties and the like. Money makes the universe spin around. Your faction needs money for research, making deals, its military and initiating plans.
Resources: While money is important, you still need actual materials to build ships. Resources is mostly spend on the military, rebuilding fleets and resupplying.
Technology: Each turn a certain (limited) amount of money can be spend to further your factions tech levels. Research is pretty straightforward. You pump money into it until the goal is met and you raise your tech level by one. This will either unlock some passive bonus, a new plan to initiate or other neat stuff. (Each faction follows the same tech path).
Research will be divided in 'General' and 'Military' technology.
Political Influence: This is gonna be an important thing to keep track of. PI comes in 5 levels: Trivial, Poor, Average, Strong, Mighty
PI can be increased by things like winning military battles, skillful negotiations with other factions and such. But will decrease if your military is getting its ass handed to them, or if an admiral decides to violate a treaty, disobeys direct orders from the faction leader and so forth.
An example on how PI comes into play.
Let's say the UGC has an excess of money but is running dangerously low on resources. The CRF on the other hand has the reverse situation. The ministers of foreign affairs contact each other and agree on a 'sell resources' deal. The UGC sells 1000 resources for 1000 money. However the UGC had some rough times and their PI is currently 'Average' wheras the CRF has a 'Strong' PI. This adds a modifier of 1 to the deal. So the UGC eventually sells 1000 resources for only 900 money. Had the CRF's PI been Mighty they would have only paid 800. In reverse, if the UGC had a stronger PI than the CRF, the CRF would have had to pay more money for the deal.
Political influence affects a number of deals like these as a modifier.
Plans: Over the course of the game there will be a number of plans that can be initiated for certain effects. Plans take effect immediately and cost money, some of these plans are faction specific. Like for example, the UGC can initiate a plan to hire a mercenary fleet. This plan can be initiated again once it expires. A lot of other plans are one time things with one time effects.
Faction leaders: I mentioned these a few times now. But who are these faction leaders?
It's a me~ Spoonio~
So yeah, all factions have me as their leader. A horrible prospect I'm sure. I'll roleplay your President/CEO/Empress&Queen. You'll have to deal with their personality and quirks. They may want to declare war on an other faction for some utterly trivial reason or want to backstab an allied faction for whatever reason. This is what the minister will have to try and lead into proper ways and the Admirals may have to obey some questionable orders at times.
Also, if a minister for whatever reason missed the strategy turn deadline, is out of town for a while, the position is not filled because of lack of players or whatever other reason. The leader will handle these affairs instead. (For better or worse :p )
That's the very general gist of the Strategy turn. After which comes the Tactical turn, where the admirals get to do their things.
-
Some things you guys will be already familiar with. A fleet will have a Major and a Minor action to take each turn. However since here all players take their turn at the same time it won't matter in what order you type down your minor or major action, as the way in which things are resolved are fixed.
A list of orders I've currently got:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Major:
-Attack: Engage a fleet within range. Uses one supply
-Travel Starlance: Move through a starlance
-Insystem jump: Move to any sector in the same system. Uses one supply
-Secure sector: Claims important sector for your faction.
Minor:
-Move: Moves the fleet to an adjacent sector
-Secure sector: Claims important sector for your faction.
-Fire Subspace missiles: Attack an enemy fleet with Subspace missiles, can fire through Starlances. Uses one supply.
-Resupply adjacent fleet: Uses one supply to give adjacent fleet two and recover 5% strength. Supply fleets cannot resupply each other.
Takes both Minor and Major action to perform:
Resupply: Must be in a Strategic sector.
Recovers 50% strength, recovers all supply. Costs xxx resources per supply recovered. Defense -10 during resupply.
When done in a sector containing a shipyard, this also upgrades the fleet to current tech levels and/or refits fleet to different type. And repairs the fleet completely.
Resolve Order: Resupply -> Attack -> Move
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now the map this time around will be grid based and things are a bit more in depth.
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/Strategymap_zps3092c7c0.png~original)
Here's a rough example on what I have in mind.
Fleet Mechanics:
- Strength: Or otherwise translated, the Hitpoints of a fleet. Unlike the first game, taking damage does not influence the damage your fleet is able to dish out.
- Defense: This stat tends to be Zero most of the time. But there will be occasions where your fleet takes up position in an asteroidbelt and the like which will give your fleet defense against enemy attacks.
- Supply: Every fleet needs supply to operate. And once they run out, the actions they can take will be highly restricted.
There will be different types of fleets an admiral can choose from:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet types:
Patrol fleet:
- Fighters: Atk 5 Rng 0-0
- Point Defense: Atk 3 Rng 0-0
- Main Batteries: Atk 7 Rng 0-1
- Subspace missiles: Atk 3 Rng 1-2 <Tech level unlock>
Supply: 5
Strength: 110
Rng 0: 15
Rng 1: 7+3
Rng 2: 3
Carrier fleet:
- Fighters: Atk 5 Rng 0-1
- Bombers: Atk 5 Rng 1-2
- Point Defense: Atk 3 Rng 0-0
- Subspace missiles: Atk 3 Rng 1-2 <Tech level unlock>
Supply: 5
Strength: 100
Rng 0: 8
Rng 1: 10+3
Rng 2: 5+3
Artillery fleet:
- Point Defense: Atk 3 Rng 0-0
- Main Batteries: Atk 10 Rng 1-2
- Subspace missiles: Atk 5 Rng 1-3 <Tech level unlock>
Supply: 4
Strength: 90
Rng 0: 3
Rng 1: 10+5
Rng 2: 10+5
Rng 3: 5
Supply fleet:
- Main Batteries: Atk 5 Rng 0-2
- Subspace missiles: Atk 4 Rng 1-2 <Tech level unlock>
Special: Uses one supply to give adjacent fleet two and recover 5% strength.
Supply: 6
Strength: 90
Rng 0: 5
Rng 1: 5+4
Rng 2: 5+4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
(There is no difference between faction fleets. And all of this is subject to change )
As you can see, each fleet has multiple ways of attacking an enemy fleet, leading to different opitimal ranges to attack from. Patrol fleets want to be in the same sector as their opponent so they can inflict maximum damage. Whereas a Artillery fleet wants to keep its distance.
Positioning and teamwork between allied fleets will be the key to success.
The formula is straightforward. Let's take a look at the picture of the map above again:
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/Strategymap_zps3092c7c0.png~original)
Let's say that the 4th CRF is a Patrol fleet and the 1st DD is a Carrier fleet. Both fleets attack each other, at their current range of 1, the 4th CRF suffers 10 damage, bringing its strength down from 110 to 100 wheras the the 1st DD takes 7 damage, putting it at 93. Both fleets have spend 1 supply this turn. The 1st DD has nothing near it to resupply (since this is the CRF hometurf) and will likely do an insystem jump to G-9 next turn to take the starlance to more friendly places.
Using the same example but giving the 4th CRF 1 defense for its positioning at the asteroid. It would take 8 damage instead, 1 damage less for each weapon type its being hit with.
Both turns will use the same map, but each turn will get its own version, displaying different information. My goal is to have all important information be available from just looking at the map with pretty little icons and shizzle. So it won't become a quagmire of spreadsheets.
And that's the general gist of it.
Thoughts? Ideas? Objections? Insults?
-
OK this is probably a bit trivial, but: if you're adding all these extra mechanics to the map and game, will you be reducing the scope accordingly?
-
Will Strategic and Tactical Turn by after one another or happen at the same time?
Depending on whetever all decission have to happen at the same time or after one another has a huge impact on how in-faction communication can be organized and enforces certain hierarchies in faction - e.g. the decisions of the Strategic Players (Ministers) are going to be far more important if the Turn happen sequentially since the Tactical Players have to work with the decission already being fixed, it will give the Strategic Players more room to enforce policy since the Tactical Players have to react to their decissions ... with synchronous turns the decission making structure will be more fluid as all Players actions have equal weight, due to the fact that no ones actions pre-from the actions of the others, and it will certainly deminish the dominance of single players but it might also lead to less "focused" play...
EDIT: also shotgun on the New Britannia Ministy of State! ;)
-
Simultaneous action reveal owns in games with intrigue.
-
The turns happen after one another. So one week its strategy, then next its tactical, then back to strategy and so forth.
Makes the workload a bit easier on me and in effect gives a player two weeks inbetween turns to get their orders in.
-
How are you going to make us all act individually? We can talk to each other.
Next, what's to stop us all just building ourselves up for the invasion? There's no sense in softening ourselves up for the now-on-hard-mode-Hierarchy invasion to sweep in and clean up what's left. Ideally, the warfare would leave each faction stronger than weaker when the Hierarchy arrives, with the ones who perform the best getting more bonuses, to provide motivation to engage in it, so even if one faction gets stomped, they are still in a stronger position than they started, or at least not a weaker one.
Won't the smaller factions be at a huge disadvantage?
Do you have the power to create private forums within your own forum and assign people to them? You could make one for each faction then, so they could talk to each other without the other factions seeing.
Are we reprising our old roles? I still wish to be with the CRF.
I do like the idea of you being everyone's leader. That way if we're stomping each other, it's because you told us to.
-
How are you going to make us all act individually? We can talk to each other.
Interest to make the game fun for one; Interest to have your faction turn out to be on top once things settle down
Next, what's to stop us all just building ourselves up for the invasion? There's no sense in softening ourselves up for the now-on-hard-mode-Hierarchy invasion to sweep in and clean up what's left. Ideally, the warfare would leave each faction stronger than weaker when the Hierarchy arrives, with the ones who perform the best getting more bonuses, to provide motivation to engage in it, so even if one faction gets stomped, they are still in a stronger position than they started, or at least not a weaker one.
In part the "fearless leaders" of the factions will do that; in other parts the political influence system should do it as for the beginning of the game all factions have nothing else that will gain them points but hitting on another...
Won't the smaller factions be at a huge disadvantage?
Smaller might also mean that there are less ressources that have to go fleet upkeep and a more focussed research/political effort as you don't have to cover the interests of as many Admirals...
-
Question. Regarding moves in the Tactical section, will there be a defend action? Will on the tactical section, will there be the ability to move not just around planets and asteroids, but also in deep space as well? Like for example on the fringes of the a system. It would be a good idea because otherwise we get the same problem as in the first game where there's too many bottlenecks and it becomes a game of brute force (There was literally only one turn in the first one where there was a flanking maneuver done by both UGCR fleets).
Won't the smaller factions be at a huge disadvantage?
If you're referring to the UGC, Spoon's got that covered. Speaking of which, I'll probably reprise my role as admiral of the 1st UGCR, especially if niffiwan takes 2nd UGCR.
-
Will we see the Cyrvans? Will we be able to enter Hierarchy Space?
-
Question. Regarding moves in the Tactical section, will there be a defend action?
I've been messing around with it but I haven't found a 'sweet spot' for a functional defend action yet.
Will on the tactical section, will there be the ability to move not just around planets and asteroids, but also in deep space as well? Like for example on the fringes of the a system. It would be a good idea because otherwise we get the same problem as in the first game where there's too many bottlenecks and it becomes a game of brute force (There was literally only one turn in the first one where there was a flanking maneuver done by both UGCR fleets).
Starlances will always be natural bottlenecks, but I'll do my best to have each system be as nifty as possible. Either way bottlenecks should not be as big of a problem considering you can do an insystem jump to get from point A to Z for the cost of one supply.
I'm aware of the defender's advantage though. Especially since the core worlds of each faction also get garrison fleets/starbases protecting their stuff.
Won't the smaller factions be at a huge disadvantage?
If you're referring to the UGC, Spoon's got that covered. Speaking of which, I'll probably reprise my role as admiral of the 1st UGCR, especially if niffiwan takes 2nd UGCR.
The UGC has a really favorable position on the map and a a lot of dough. And the bling bling is seriously important.
As a general starting situation this is what most factions are at:
CRF:
Money: Low
Resources: High
Tech: Lowest
PI: Strong
Fleets: 4
Relations: SF Neutral, UGC Cold, DD Neutral, Cyrvans Neutral, Hydra Neutral, Silva Warm
SF:
Money: Medium
Resources: High
Tech: Low
PI: Strong
Fleets: 4
Relations: CRF Neutral, UGC Warm, DD Cold, Cyrvans Neutral, Hydra Neutral, Silva Warm
UGC:
Money: Highest
Resources: Medium
Tech: Medium
PI: Average
Relations: SF Warm, CRF Cold, DD Cold, Cyrvans Neutral, Hydra Warm, Silva Warm
DD:
Money: Medium
Resources: Medium
Tech: Highest
PI: Poor
Relations: SF Cold, UGC Cold, CRF Neutral, Cyrvans Neutral, Hydra Neutral, Silva Neutral
Hydra Foundation: Neutral faction, Resources
Silva Coorperation: Neutral faction, Tech
Cyrvans: Kinda hard to deal with, but maybe super strong allies?
-
How are you going to make us all act individually? We can talk to each other.
Interest to make the game fun for one; Interest to have your faction turn out to be on top once things settle down
I'm assuming everyone will want their faction to come out on top in the end (there will be a reward of some kind for the players of the winning faction)
Next, what's to stop us all just building ourselves up for the invasion? There's no sense in softening ourselves up for the now-on-hard-mode-Hierarchy invasion to sweep in and clean up what's left. Ideally, the warfare would leave each faction stronger than weaker when the Hierarchy arrives, with the ones who perform the best getting more bonuses, to provide motivation to engage in it, so even if one faction gets stomped, they are still in a stronger position than they started, or at least not a weaker one.
In part the "fearless leaders" of the factions will do that; in other parts the political influence system should do it as for the beginning of the game all factions have nothing else that will gain them points but hitting on another...
That's called meta gaming, Lorric. Where's the fun in that?
Either way, defying your leader's wishes is going to leave your faction in a weaker overal state.
-
Maybe the Cyrvans ought to be a force of nature; cryptic, unpredictable, doesn't listen to any Jerrans.
For the subspace missile attack, while it's only minor, but is there anyway to counter/defend from it?
I don't have any faction preferences, but I'll take whatever chess piece Spoon throws at me if the board has space.
-
Looks like the SF is flat out superior to the CRF. However, I guess there will be other considerations, but having Earth as a piece of real estate would be one hell of a consideration I'm guessing.
I'm assuming everyone will want their faction to come out on top in the end (there will be a reward of some kind for the players of the winning faction)
Honestly, I'm pretty meh about that. But a reward might well change that. Right now, my main desire would be to survive the Hierarchy invasion, and if that doesn't happen, no one gets a reward anyway.
That's called meta gaming, Lorric. Where's the fun in that?
Either way, defying your leader's wishes is going to leave your faction in a weaker overal state.
So what would you be having us do? All act individually, even within our own faction? No more discussion threads?
-
So what would you be having us do? All act individually, even within our own faction? No more discussion threads?
Oh no, not at all. Discuss away, among yourselves, among your competition. Most of the information is going to be in the open anyway.
Why would you want to act indiviually in your own faction anyway? That seems highly counterproductive.
Maybe the Cyrvans ought to be a force of nature; cryptic, unpredictable, doesn't listen to any Jerrans.
For the subspace missile attack, while it's only minor, but is there anyway to counter/defend from it?
I don't have any faction preferences, but I'll take whatever chess piece Spoon throws at me if the board has space.
I'll mark you down for the last position that remains open. Though this is not a sign up thread yet, since I dont know when (if at all!) this would even start.
The CSA will definitely do its own thing.
There is no specific defense against SSM attacks right now, maybe as an unlockable action later on in the tech tree? I don't know yet, right now I don't think it really needs a specific counter meassure cause it's a pretty weak attack for a single supply.
-
So what would you be having us do? All act individually, even within our own faction? No more discussion threads?
As far as I've understood it the faction leaders set goals in first place, then the players get together to develop their strategy to accomplish said goal - with the Strategic Players having the power to set the framework for the Tactical actions ...
In order to maximize what your faction can do you'll have coordinate on a Strategic level what is the best course to support you Tactical level while on the Tactical level you will have to deal with the feedback you will bring to the next Strategic Turn; as such you are encouraged to communicate with members of your faction in order to optimze the gains in either turn
Although the Strategic Players can set policy and so can push a certain course of action, building a consensus with your faction's Players is encouraged...
Most of the information is going to be in the open anyway.
Please define "most of information"...
-
Oh no, not at all. Discuss away, among yourselves, among your competition. Most of the information is going to be in the open anyway.
Why would you want to act indiviually in your own faction anyway? That seems highly counterproductive.
Well that sounds good to me. It's this everyone acts at the same time thing. Some seem to have the impression no one knows the orders until they all happen at the same time. Is that not so then?
*stuff*
Where are you getting all this? Have you already spoken to Spoon about this or something?
-
*stuff*
Where are you getting all this? Have you already spoken to Spoon about this or something?
It's what I do for a living (sort of): analysing and anticipating how communication and decission-making are organized...
-
I wonder if I'd be better suited to one of the ministerial positions...?
I don't know enough about them.
-
... Speaking of which, I'll probably reprise my role as admiral of the 1st UGCR, especially if niffiwan takes 2nd UGCR.
I'd love to :)
UGC:
Money: Highest
Resources: Medium
Tech: Medium
PI: Average
Relations: SF Warm, CRF Cold, DD Cold, Cyrvans Neutral, Hydra Warm, Silva Warm
Bwahaha, money vs honour :drevil:
As for the rules themselves, there's certainly a lot more detail that the previous set (and I'm a details person so that's good :D). And I think my role-play-fu is kinda weak, so I'm happy to stick with the tactical game, we just need to recruit some hard-headed corporate negotiators.
I do note that the artillery fleet seems to have the edge in the damage department and with sufficient manoeuvring room they have a decent chance of "kiting" opposing fleets (if the enemy uses an intrasystem jump they can't attack). Will orders be secret from other players or will they be open like in game 1? If they're secret then I can see it being very difficult to stay in range 0 of an artillery fleet.
With supply limiting attacks (and more) and being fairly low I can see resupply being quite important. Could you give an indication as to how large the map will be? Are the systems the same as the 1st game? In particular, how far away from supply bases would fleets generally need to operate?
On defence/movement, does a hostile fleet in a sector inflict retreat damage on fleets leaving that sector? (by movement or intrasystem jump?)
Also, the "Secure Sector" action appears as both a major and minor order?
Lastly, regarding the example system map you showed, could you confirm if the following ranges are correct?
H1 <-> G1: range 3
H4 <-> G7: range 4
H4 <-> G9: range 6
-
As far as I've understood it the faction leaders set goals in first place, then the players get together to develop their strategy to accomplish said goal - with the Strategic Players having the power to set the framework for the Tactical actions ...
In order to maximize what your faction can do you'll have coordinate on a Strategic level what is the best course to support you Tactical level while on the Tactical level you will have to deal with the feedback you will bring to the next Strategic Turn; as such you are encouraged to communicate with members of your faction in order to optimze the gains in either turn
Although the Strategic Players can set policy and so can push a certain course of action, building a consensus with your faction's Players is encouraged...
Si Si, well said.
Please define "most of information"...
Pretty much everything, but I reserve the right to occasionally do things under the table with PM's :p
Like wise, this applies to players, if a faction decides that they wanna keep a plan secret from other factions they could decide to shoot each other (and include me of course :p )a few pm's to avoid the prying eyes of the transparant discussions threads.
I do note that the artillery fleet seems to have the edge in the damage department and with sufficient manoeuvring room they have a decent chance of "kiting" opposing fleets (if the enemy uses an intrasystem jump they can't attack). Will orders be secret from other players or will they be open like in game 1? If they're secret then I can see it being very difficult to stay in range 0 of an artillery fleet.
Kiting is loads of fun! Except for the person being the kite.
Orders are open, so it is indeed very hard with these current mechanics to actually catch up to an arty fleet. But this is mostly assuming a vacuum situation of a 1 on 1 engagement that ignores the map objectives. If an arty fleet tries to kite its way to victory in a defending senario it could find itself just looking at an enemy fleet taking important sectors right under its nose. It also has less supplies than other fleets so its operational time will be pretty short if it operates alone.
But yeah, it has not eluded me, I'll definitely give that a closer look before we start this.
With supply limiting attacks (and more) and being fairly low I can see resupply being quite important. Could you give an indication as to how large the map will be? Are the systems the same as the 1st game? In particular, how far away from supply bases would fleets generally need to operate?
I wish I could give you super detail answers about this buuuut I havent actually made the map yet so I can't ;)
On defence/movement, does a hostile fleet in a sector inflict retreat damage on fleets leaving that sector? (by movement or intrasystem jump?)
Right now no, maybe an idea for a defense/fortify position order? I still have to give this some thought.
Also, the "Secure Sector" action appears as both a major and minor order?
Yes, so you can use either action to secure the sector.
Lastly, regarding the example system map you showed, could you confirm if the following ranges are correct?
H1 <-> G1: range 3
H4 <-> G7: range 4
H4 <-> G9: range 6
Correct.
-
This sounds awesome! I'm so in to fight (and die) again for the Glory of the Delest Dynasty and whoever is actually leading!
Orders are open, so it is indeed very hard with these current mechanics to actually catch up to an arty fleet.
If orders are open people can react and modify their orders depending on what others do. Doesn't this lead to some kind of order changing competition where the person wins who can stay online until a few minutes before the deadline? Especially with an artillery fleet it can make a huge difference if you end up with distance 0 (dead meat) or 1 (shoot and kill) and that depends on your move order and that of the enemy.
-
This sounds awesome! I'm so in to fight (and die) again for the Glory of the Delest Dynasty and whoever is actually leading!
Orders are open, so it is indeed very hard with these current mechanics to actually catch up to an arty fleet.
If orders are open people can react and modify their orders depending on what others do. Doesn't this lead to some kind of order changing competition where the person wins who can stay online until a few minutes before the deadline? Especially with an artillery fleet it can make a huge difference if you end up with distance 0 (dead meat) or 1 (shoot and kill) and that depends on your move order and that of the enemy.
This. All of this. If you are planning PvP on a tactical level, Spoon, you should really consider hidden orders.
Beyond that, I like this very much indeed. Will probably go for a political position.
-
I still like the idea of a private forum within WoD for each faction. If you can't do that Spoon, your friend Axem can. If he wants to. Oh, and I also hope the Hierarchy will play in the same spirit. If all factions move like this, it makes me think of the game Vandal Hearts II for PS1, a turn based strategy game where both you and the computer moved at the same time, and the only game I've ever seen where that happens. Have a look at what I mean if you like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnXPe2J0Is&list=PL15D9050E372B75EB
-
I still like the idea of a private forum within WoD for each faction. If you can't do that Spoon, your friend Axem can. If he wants to. Oh, and I also hope the Hierarchy will play in the same spirit. If all factions move like this, it makes me think of the game Vandal Hearts II for PS1, a turn based strategy game where both you and the computer moved at the same time, and the only game I've ever seen where that happens. Have a look at what I mean if you like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnXPe2J0Is&list=PL15D9050E372B75EB
With attacks coming before moving in the forum game you can be sure that your attack hits the mark, then the gambling starts (if we get hidden orders as I hope we do). :cool:
Doing it like in this game could be interesting as well if your attack order just says 'attack fleet X' that's usually possible at several ranges and if not then the attack is canceled. Though it would make artillery fleets overpowered.
-
This sounds awesome! I'm so in to fight (and die) again for the Glory of the Delest Dynasty and whoever is actually leading!
Orders are open, so it is indeed very hard with these current mechanics to actually catch up to an arty fleet.
If orders are open people can react and modify their orders depending on what others do. Doesn't this lead to some kind of order changing competition where the person wins who can stay online until a few minutes before the deadline? Especially with an artillery fleet it can make a huge difference if you end up with distance 0 (dead meat) or 1 (shoot and kill) and that depends on your move order and that of the enemy.
This. All of this. If you are planning PvP on a tactical level, Spoon, you should really consider hidden orders.
Beyond that, I like this very much indeed. Will probably go for a political position.
Ah darn, I was hoping you guys wouldn't bring this up :p
I'll have to ask an admin what the possibilities for this are.
I still like the idea of a private forum within WoD for each faction. If you can't do that Spoon, your friend Axem can. If he wants to. Oh, and I also hope the Hierarchy will play in the same spirit. If all factions move like this, it makes me think of the game Vandal Hearts II for PS1, a turn based strategy game where both you and the computer moved at the same time, and the only game I've ever seen where that happens. Have a look at what I mean if you like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnXPe2J0Is&list=PL15D9050E372B75EB
Huh, interesting. Never seen a game with a system like that.
-
Please define "most of information"...
Pretty much everything, but I reserve the right to occasionally do things under the table with PM's :p
Like wise, this applies to players, if a faction decides that they wanna keep a plan secret from other factions they could decide to shoot each other (and include me of course :p )a few pm's to avoid the prying eyes of the transparant discussions threads.
Hmmm... I currently pondering the implications this will have on the possibility and execution of deception in the Strategic Turn; which has a quite a bit of impact on how much risk-adverse behavior and/or rigid strategizing is encouraged...
Maybe if I knew more about when what information is revealed (e.g. in a turn summary for each Strategic and Tactical turn), my questions might just be answered
-
It's very easy to set up a private IRC channel, though you may also want something with more persistence.
-
How about all the factions just use Skype chats (those who don't want to use IRC or PMs)? It's free and easy to use.
-
I think the private forums would be the most convenient. All these instant communication ideas require everyone to be online at the same time, and we're all in different timezones with our own lives. Also, they don't preserve the strategising to look back on. Just think about how things went in the last forum game, and how we needed days and pages worth of material to get on the same wavelength, and this game looks to be much more complex than the last one.
Another bonus for the private forums would be at the end of the game, their contents could be revealed to everyone. That would be interesting. :)
-
Just jumping in here: Skype has all the functions you'd want a forum to have. You can message groups of people, it has deferred message delivery (meaning that, no, not everyone in your group has to be online at the same time for everyone to see your messages), and it has a message history going back quite a long way.
-
On the flipside, I've had plenty of occasions with skype where a message was delivered a full week after it was send... Also digging for orders through several chat logs worth hardly seems ideal and I don't want to force people to install and use software they would normally not use or want.
-
This. If the forums support 'private' threads and it is not a Herculean task to set such threads up, it is my belief that they would be the best option. It would put everything on HLP and allow Spoon to moderate the 'private' forums as well, with a minimum of fuss (you never know when a GM's ruling might be necessary). Plus, we're all already registered users of HLP...
Re Lorric's suggestion about the private threads being unlocked post-game: I STRONGLY recommend against this. I have repeatedly participated in play-by-mail RPs and it is generally thought that revealing private communications in PvP games is the worst possible idea. It is easy for players to write things in their private faction mails that could be interpreted as highly offensive post-reveal by the other players - and that really were not originally thought to be so, either by the writer or the GM. Essentially, you might get a two-month insult conga dumped on you with little to no warning.
EDIT: I might also point out that the 'quarterback' problem appears to be still present in this version of the game (although greatly reduced). Fleets have specific strengths and weaknesses and the optimal solution to any given situation should, in theory, be determined by mathematical formulas. That is, an admiral five systems away might still give me advice on how to run my fleet and be right, in a way that is mathematically provable.
I.e. I might think that moving to sector B and firing my guns at Fleet IV is the best solution, but Player X tells me that moving to Sector C and firing at Fleet III is a better option. He pulls up my (modified but still highly useful) Enioch Mk.2 spreadsheet, inputs the relevant data and ta-da! demonstrates that his approach is better for our cause. At which point, I have absolutely no reason not to do what they suggested.
Am I wrong in this?
-
I would prefer a forum/thread as it is easy to read (also for stuff that happened like 3 months ago), persistant and reliable :)
This. If the forums support 'private' threads and it is not a Herculean task to set such threads up, it is my belief that they would be the best option. It would put everything on HLP and allow Spoon to moderate the 'private' forums as well, with a minimum of fuss (you never know when a GM's ruling might be necessary). Plus, we're all already registered users of HLP...
Re Lorric's suggestion about the private threads being unlocked post-game: I STRONGLY recommend against this. I have repeatedly participated in play-by-mail RPs and it is generally thought that revealing private communications in PvP games is the worst possible idea. It is easy for players to write things in their private faction mails that could be interpreted as highly offensive post-reveal by the other players - and that really were not originally thought to be so, either by the writer or the GM. Essentially, you might get a two-month insult conga dumped on you with little to no warning.
As long as Spoon moderates it and I think he'll read it to know what everyone is planning - he is the god of the game anyway - there shouldn't be any grave insults in there and it could be made public. This forum has rules, admins and mods and even a private thread is not exactly privat communication like e-mails or skype. Also I don't expect this to get a huge spam fest that's impossible to moderate without spending too much time doing that.
-
As long as Spoon moderates it and I think he'll read it to know what everyone is planning - he is the god of the game anyway - there shouldn't be any grave insults in there and it could be made public. This forum has rules, admins and mods and even a private thread is not exactly privat communication like e-mails or skype. Also I don't expect this to get a huge spam fest that's impossible to moderate without spending too much time doing that.
It doesn't need to be actual insults. It only needs to be a perceived insult. Something along the lines of 'Yes, if we do that, I'm sure that we can get that sucker, Admiral MS to take the brunt of the Hierarchy assault!' This (or something like this) might not ring any particular warning bells for the Mods, but how would you feel if such communications became public three months from now and you realized that four players actively worked to fool you, because (hypothetical example, obviously), you were considered the most 'gullible' of the Faction X admirals? While you, personally, might not have a problem with that, other players might. It might cause bad feelings along the lines of 'everybody was picking on me' and 'everybody thinks I'm stupid', do they? Or even worse 'User X thinks I'm an idiot for not seeing through his ploy and he has made a laughingstock out of me!'.
The fact is that there's going to be a lot of behind-the-scenes maneuvering and there's going to be a lot of Diplomacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_%28game%29)-like politicking as well. There's a reason Diplomacy has been considered to be a friendship-ending game. It's best, I think, if the behind-the-scenes bit of the game remains behind the scenes.
-
We all worked so well together in the first game and produced something very special. It would be a shame if this new game was to cause rifts between us. Can't we just go invade Hierarchy Space? :)
-
That is not for me to say. I only wanted to put the warning out there, as a society game and play-by-email RP veteran.
Note that such PvGM+PvP games can be loads of fun, if the OOC / IC wall is kept up at all times. However, some players are either unwilling or unable to do so, through no fault of their own. Why give them reason to extend an in-game vendetta (which can be very fun to pursue indeed) to a RL grudge (which, usually, is not)?
EDIT: Spoon, just making sure that you've noticed, but I've added a concern in y earlier post (see three posts up, bright yellow). Could you address that when you have the time, please?
EDIT 2: Also, I expect you have a decent counterweight for planning to give the DD only 2 pieces on the board - first impressions of the game mechanics seem to show that fleets are the most important variables around. More fleets = more options to earn PI, new real estate, resources etc. It definitely looks like the DD can't even trade to gain power: their PI is abysmal in regards to the other factions and they'd come out the losers in every deal.
Now, of course, since I'm a DD player, me noticing perceived 'imbalances' regarding my faction first is expected (and evil and impolite and a nuisance to the other players and yourself, Spoon). Please do not consider the above a complaint, just an expression of curiosity regarding your planned approach to balancing out the factions.
-
On the subject of quaterbacking:
Having a NPC faction leader who possibly could "kick over the anthill" a quaterbacking player is building might rememdy that if the GM is aware of the situation; suddenly chaning the course the faction has to follow, -if we are unafraid of such micro-management- by issueing special hidden orders to single players (kinda messy because somehow you'd have to reward players by pulling rabbits out of a hat) or by using the PI-System to penalize a faction in which a single player becomes dominant (without breaking cooperation in a faction this might be hard stunt to pull of)
EDIT: another way would be (again) to limit the information publicly avalible ... the type of a fleet could remain hidden from everyone the player commanding said fleet and any player attacking it - as to make it not supidly unpredictable for an attacking player, recon missions/probes/what-have-you could be added as action to every fleet ... but that would have to more well thought out...
On the subject of communication:
I'd encourage for all factions, once established, to self-organize on the subject, to use the plattform of their choice and not to determine a plattform right now; this all is a problem of execution of concept not of the concept itself, which we are discussing right now
-
EDIT 2: Also, I expect you have a decent counterweight for planning to give the DD only 2 pieces on the board - first impressions of the game mechanics seem to show that fleets are the most important variables around. More fleets = more options to earn PI, new real estate, resources etc. It definitely looks like the DD can't even trade to gain power: their PI is abysmal in regards to the other factions and they'd come out the losers in every deal.
Now, of course, since I'm a DD player, me noticing perceived 'imbalances' regarding my faction first is expected (and evil and impolite and a nuisance to the other players and yourself, Spoon). Please do not consider the above a complaint, just an expression of curiosity regarding your planned approach to balancing out the factions.
UGCR is the one with 2 fleets. I'm more than certain of that. DD has 3. They also have better tech than everyone else. Which was totally counter to what they were in the first game.
UGCR just has lots and lots of bling bling. :P
-
As long as Spoon moderates it and I think he'll read it to know what everyone is planning - he is the god of the game anyway - there shouldn't be any grave insults in there and it could be made public. This forum has rules, admins and mods and even a private thread is not exactly privat communication like e-mails or skype. Also I don't expect this to get a huge spam fest that's impossible to moderate without spending too much time doing that.
It doesn't need to be actual insults. It only needs to be a perceived insult. Something along the lines of 'Yes, if we do that, I'm sure that we can get that sucker, Admiral MS to take the brunt of the Hierarchy assault!' This (or something like this) might not ring any particular warning bells for the Mods, but how would you feel if such communications became public three months from now and you realized that four players actively worked to fool you, because (hypothetical example, obviously), you were considered the most 'gullible' of the Faction X admirals? While you, personally, might not have a problem with that, other players might. It might cause bad feelings along the lines of 'everybody was picking on me' and 'everybody thinks I'm stupid', do they? Or even worse 'User X thinks I'm an idiot for not seeing through his ploy and he has made a laughingstock out of me!'.
I can see the problem and although I wouldn't feel insulted by this at all (don't get me started about certain card and board games) other people might. I wouldn't post something like this outside of a clear RP style comment.
About quarterbacking:
Spoon can give general orders to a faction or open for the faction to a specific player that have vague formulations where everyone can interpret them different. I mean the leaders are politicians ;) A way to fulfill them may be outside of any mathematical solution. Foreshadowing certain *semi-random* events could also make a perfect mathematical solution crumble by not knowing when/where something happens and what exactly.
...
Now, of course, since I'm a DD player
...
:yes:
Also the bigger the challenge the better.
DD forever!! ;7
-
:yes:
Also the bigger the challenge the better.
DD forever!! ;7
Obviously.
I think I'll go for a political role this time. Fleet Admiral (Rtd.) Kalazonitov, Minister of Foreign Affairs, anyone?
-
Re Lorric's suggestion about the private threads being unlocked post-game: I STRONGLY recommend against this. I have repeatedly participated in play-by-mail RPs and it is generally thought that revealing private communications in PvP games is the worst possible idea. It is easy for players to write things in their private faction mails that could be interpreted as highly offensive post-reveal by the other players - and that really were not originally thought to be so, either by the writer or the GM. Essentially, you might get a two-month insult conga dumped on you with little to no warning.
Noted.
Personally I'm pretty insensitive when it comes to these things and wouldn't mind reading what kind of foul plots everyone was brewing against me but different people have different sensitivities to these things. So you make a fair point.
But I suppose that's a bridge we'll cross when we get there (which is... really far away at this point in time :p)
EDIT: TEXT IN BRIGHT YELLOW
Am I wrong in this?
Gah, my eyes!
You are probably right to some degree here, but I think the problem will be alleviated somewhat by having the NPC leader around. You could also just make a general agreement within your faction to keep the quarterbacking to a minimum. Also nothing is obligating you to take orders from a fellow admiral. I also hope that the game will turn out in such a way that there will be plenty of occasions where there might not be a singular optimal action to take. (But that might be a bit too hopeful on my part? we'll see.)
EDIT: another way would be (again) to limit the information publicly avalible ... the type of a fleet could remain hidden from everyone the player commanding said fleet and any player attacking it - as to make it not supidly unpredictable for an attacking player, recon missions/probes/what-have-you could be added as action to every fleet ... but that would have to more well thought out...
While this would be ideal and lovely, I think thats starting to fall outside of the scope of the limitations a forum game has.
EDIT 2: Also, I expect you have a decent counterweight for planning to give the DD only 2 pieces on the board - first impressions of the game mechanics seem to show that fleets are the most important variables around. More fleets = more options to earn PI, new real estate, resources etc. It definitely looks like the DD can't even trade to gain power: their PI is abysmal in regards to the other factions and they'd come out the losers in every deal.
Now, of course, since I'm a DD player, me noticing perceived 'imbalances' regarding my faction first is expected (and evil and impolite and a nuisance to the other players and yourself, Spoon). Please do not consider the above a complaint, just an expression of curiosity regarding your planned approach to balancing out the factions.
UGCR is the one with 2 fleets. I'm more than certain of that. DD has 3. They also have better tech than everyone else. Which was totally counter to what they were in the first game.
UGCR just has lots and lots of bling bling. :P
What Andrew said.
Its SF&CRF 4, DD 3, UGC 2
And yeah the DD looks pretty poor from just that little list on paper. But that's not taking into account their position on the map, what real estate they start with, what plans they might be able to initate that other factions can not.
There's also the matter of leadership. SF looks pretty good on paper right? But since they have that cumbersome thing called Democracy the actions from higher up might be sluggish at times. Whereas the CEO of the UGC might not support actions that are too expensive because of greed. The DD on the other hand, lead by a single Empress not afraid to do things a bit more dirty, might get things done sooner.
-
WALL OF RESPONSES
All my fears are allayed (for the time being). Will be here if you need me (say, for Excel spreadsheets that will make your life easier).
-
Everyone else seems to have raised the points I wanted to raise, so I'll just say that this looks like it could be very interesting!
Let's say that [...] the 1st DD is a Carrier fleet.
Except Admiral Jason "Bombardment" Ralwood would clearly be in command of an Artillery Fleet. ;)
-
Nobody going to make a mention on how this might far too complex? :p
-
Nobody going to make a mention on how this might far too complex? :p
I thought it could do with a few extra mechanics, actually. :D
-
Nobody going to make a mention on how this might far too complex? :p
I *like* complex :nod:
(admittedly that might be to my own detriment...)
-
Nobody going to make a mention on how this might far too complex? :p
Well, I will. :p
The old forum game was, while complex, still simple enough that someone without much time and effort to devote to strategizing could still follow what was going on. While dedicated folks like Lorric will probably dig the complexity you've got going on here, it might be harder for those people with little time and effort to devote.
0rph3u5, Lorric and I would be interested in taking both the CRF minister positions. Do you really want that particular post? If you want to keep it, I certainly understand, but I thought I'd ask on our behalf.
-
0rph3u5, Lorric and I would be interested in taking both the CRF minister positions. Do you really want that particular post? If you want to keep it, I certainly understand, but I thought I'd ask on our behalf.
I'll just confirm this. We were talking about it yesterday. Lepanto and I are friends and think we would work very well together in the minister positions, not just because we are friends, but because Lepanto has much experience in role playing, and the foreign minister would fit him very well we think, while the internal affairs one is about plans and strategies, which if the previous game is anything to go by would suit me.
-
Nobody going to make a mention on how this might far too complex? :p
Complexity is a non-issue to me as long as there is approriate feedback, so that you have a chance to get a working knowledge of the game mechanics ...
0rph3u5, Lorric and I would be interested in taking both the CRF minister positions. Do you really want that particular post? If you want to keep it, I certainly understand, but I thought I'd ask on our behalf.
I'll just confirm this. We were talking about it yesterday. Lepanto and I are friends and think we would work very well together in the minister positions, not just because we are friends, but because Lepanto has much experience in role playing, and the foreign minister would fit him very well we think, while the internal affairs one is about plans and strategies, which if the previous game is anything to go by would suit me.
Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here by quite a stretch? As Spoon pointed out this isn't about sign-up yet... once it gets there we can talk thisover...
That of course doesn't mean that expressing interest in a certain position is pointless; actually it is a way to provide Spoon with feedback on how we sand individually to certain ideas...
(as for my stance on the specific issue: I wouldn't mind playing for another faction or in another role (although so far none of presented fleets really fits the way I like to fight my battles - Carrier fleet comes close))
-
Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves here by quite a stretch? As Spoon pointed out this isn't about sign-up yet... once it gets there we can talk thisover...
That of course doesn't mean that expressing interest in a certain position is pointless; actually it is a way to provide Spoon with feedback on how we sand individually to certain ideas...
(as for my stance on the specific issue: I wouldn't mind playing for another faction or in another role (although so far none of presented fleets really fits the way I like to fight my battles - Carrier fleet comes close))
You know the amusing thing is Lepanto said pretty much that to me. I wanted to bring this up yesterday, but he stopped me. He wanted to wait until there was an official sign up thread to do it. But now he's done it himself anyway. :)
Perhaps he was concerned because others were bringing the subject up. But I tell you this so that you know we're prepared to talk about it when the time comes if you like. Me, I was eager to make our intentions known, but it's quite alright now that they are known to wait until the positions start being given out. :nod:
And thank you for replying. :)
-
I know this is not the recruitment thread, but I am rocking baack and forth in anticipation and joy.
Please Please Please, CRF CRF CRF, PLEASE OH PLEASE
(I want to play CRF again). :)
In other news, I need to read through in a little more detail, but at this stage, it is sounding fairly solid and is coming together nicely. Keep it up, can't wait to see this develop further!
-
I know this is not the recruitment thread, but I am rocking baack and forth in anticipation and joy.
Please Please Please, CRF CRF CRF, PLEASE OH PLEASE
(I want to play CRF again). :)
I hope we can work together again Veers. I love the enthusiasm. :)
-
I think this is turning out to be pretty good as well. And yes I know you're not recruiting Spoon but I still have some interest in joining in this time as a fleet if there's room (not sure which faction though).
-
Hmm, are we keeping or ditching the morale concept for the fleets?, tying it in with morale of the entire populace or so forth?
-
I havent found a way to keep morale without it just becoming a dull extra modifier. The CRF will get some plans involving zeal but thats about it I think.
-
Nobody going to make a mention on how this might far too complex? :p
i expressed concern! admittedly i paid little attention to the first forum game, but from what i saw i did appreciate how comparatively simple the mechanics were
-
Sounds good, I'm just trying to add additional modifiers to make it more complex for no apparent reason :P
But yea, I can't see much good for it right now. Unless it was a global faction level which may assist work something like
High morale = greater production/income/war support
Less morale = less of the above, more likely to surrender etc.
Which may not fit in at all at this stage. Morale seems to be one of those fiddly things that is just out of place in nearly everything
E: 512th post, ooyea. I still have a 512 mem stick here somewhere
-
Morale is a neat idea, but it was kinda superfluous in Forum Game 1; it wasn't really much of a separate tactical factor.
-
The zeal speeches were nice though. :)
The trouble with morale, if you make it a minor effect, it's not very important. If you make it a major one, it has the potential to be like a train picking up speed until it's unstoppable. It should be good in a niche as a CRF special, where it can have a noticeable effect when used, but then the effect expires so it's not overpowered.
-
Will the LSF do anything? And will there be other 'Spoon-controller' enemy fleets? Like pirates, terrorists, UEU remnants, etc?
-
Will the LSF do anything?
The 2nd phase of the game is going to be the founding of the LSF ... I don't know what Spoon exactly has planned but I got the implication that the LSF will be controlled by all factions depending on their political influence ... that might also mean that LSF may no engage in PVP...
Another idea that comes to mind but would be nightmare to organize (though it would carry some nice possibities of intrigue) would be that the LSF once founded is set up of existing players who have their faction changed to LSF ... that aside from the nightmare of organization is however unlikely because the LSF was the smallest force in the last game; if the numbers stay the same of the LSF would only have 4 slots (2 Strategic/2 Tactical) to fill (just noticed that would be one for each faction ... hmmmmm....)
And will there be other 'Spoon-controller' enemy fleets? Like pirates, terrorists, UEU remnants, etc?
What role should they fill in the game? - Without the star map this is hard to gauge
Usually in Strategy Game that have PVP as main element PVE only fills the role to postpone Player confrontation by providing additional objectives (e.g. WC3), to add cost to player expansion or add additional risk to extensive strategy (e.g. SoSE)
-
There are not exactly those 'creeps' in WC3 or local militia in SoASE, more like the pirates, except they don't have that kind of big base, and they appear almost the same way as the Tec's Insurgency ability. So I assume they are more like random events to shake things up. Like when pirates are raiding your supply lines then the fleets beyond the raided area will get penalty for resupplying until they are dealt with, or you need to take them out for the supplies they steal. Terrorists may do things like messing up your political relations and cause damage to infrastructures. Also, there may be bounties given by neutral factions to deal with certain pirate or terrorist. UEU remnants are probably combination of both, and they are more dangerous, they will try guerilla warfare to regain their position and are probably packing technologies never seen before.
Maybe other things, like hireable mercenaries, they are basically neutral fleets which the players cannot control but may agree to do something for the player for a price, and sometimes they are hired by the government. They will then do their things, and when they are done, they will stick around depots for resupply, and then depending who they are, they will either return to their 'home' or keep wandering around for more jobs. They may also be hired by neutral factions to hold off some of the above threats.
-
So, we are talking a bundle of things here...
Mercs are in; Spoon said so earlier. They will be the providence of one of ministers but if they are neutral fleets or supplement existing faction fleets (like they did in Forum Game I) we don't know yet....
"Insurgents" (lets stick to the SoSE term as not to muddy the discussion) in a form of neutral fleet would serve no purpose here, I think ... In SoSE they exist to encourage a even distribution of defences across hostile empires forcing them intp additional investments, instead of allowing them to pool your fleet and resources at chockepoints in your empire which even before first expansion was a huge problem -- how and if chockepoints will work out in the Forum Game II only Spoon can answer since no other knows the starmap yet
The other thing is the limited opporunity to act in the forum game; the number of fleets is set and determines the number of actions in the tactical turn; that alone makes difficult to integrate a system into the game that requires fleets to travel around since travelling drom system to system takes an entire turn (its a major action) - it would drastically slow down the game if fleets had to do more travelling beyond foward to attack and backward to resupply
As for "Acts of God" (random events out of nowhere) I'm pretty sure they are in but they don't neccessarily require to put more "pieces on the board" ... esspecially since they can fall in the providence of two ministers (hint*hint)
-
Just posting to let you guys know, that I'm working on the second forum game. Thanks to the power of spreadsheets (for easy calculations and a slight random factor) and the prospect of having seperate private forums for each faction, the tactical combat should be tons of fun.
I'll soon be posting more concrete things as I work out all the basics.
-
Coolness. :cool: Looking forward to it. Hope it isn't as mathhammerable as the last one (not that the last one wasn't still cool, of course, it's just that this one will be even cooler, right?)
-
Looking forward to it! :pimp:
But the Heirarchy will be playing for keeps this time... :nervous:
-
mUcH ExCiTe
HYYYYPE
-
Yay!! I'm all in to fight for the glory of DD again.
Hope the randomness and faction seperation work out as expected.
-
Wooooh. Looking forward to it :yes:
-
Arrg, now I really need to get past that asteroid ambush mission!
-
Sign me up!
Ummmmm, what do I do?? :lol:
-
Sign me up etc etc. I've got to keep the Kalazonitov legacy alive.
Probably as a DD politico, if the old ideas / outlines are still a go.
-
I still need to type down all these rule explanations and shizzbizzle on how these things work. But this early tactical combat test with Axem as a guinea pig worked pretty well!
In a tl;dr explaination: Each admiral gives up to 5 orders to his fleet for a turn, then these orders get executed in order, simultaneously.
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/Tactical_zpsedrxauv7.jpg~original)
At the start of the combat, Axem picked the blue side, I gave orders for green.
Axem ordered his fleet to:
1. Move Fleet Port
2. Move Fleet Forward
3. Fire on Any target
While I said to:
1. Detach 2nd SF Left, advance port
2. Advance fleet forward
3. 2nd SF Center fire on 1st Patrol left
4. Advance 2nd Left forward
5. 2nd SF Left fire on any target
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/Tactical%20T2_zpsfcidy3we.jpg~original)
Axem's left flank was pretty badly mauled while my center fleet took a hit. But my left fleet was now in a terrible spot.
Axem then ordered his fleet to:
1. Fleet fires on 2nd SF Left
2. Detach Left Patrol to Port
3. Move Fleet backwards.
4. Detach Right Patrol to Starboard
I assumed my left flank was going to be completely destroyed anyway so I only issued these three orders:
1. Advance Fleet port
2. 2nd SF Center fire on 1st Patrol Center
3. Advance fleet Forward
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/Tactical%20T3_zpspiqycutg.jpg~original)
However due to some poor luck on Axem's weaponry hit rolls, the left support flank actually survived with exactly 1 hp. In turn though, the main batteries of my center assault fleet managed to score only 2 out of 8 hits. So the rng wasn't with us both.
I still have to think of a good way to improve the presentation on the image on what happened during the turns. (I'm thinking of little arrows with icons to go with it) But it was pretty easy for me to process the turns thanks to my amazing new spreadsheet skills, automating the majority of things for me.
It kind of feels like playing a game of chess with numbers, trying to anticipate what your opponent will do and getting into the optimal firing position for your fleet. I think it's pretty fun!
Sign me up etc etc. I've got to keep the Kalazonitov legacy alive.
Probably as a DD politico, if the old ideas / outlines are still a go.
Yeah I'm still aiming to make those general ideas work.
-
Morale: HALP
:lol:
Would that grid be something that players would go into for combat, or part of a larger overall map?
-
The tactical map grid is just for the combat and not part of the strategic map
-
Next step: implementing this turn-based tactics gameplay in FSO. ;)
-
Looks like a good balance of easy-to-learn and hard-to-mathematically-solve.
-
I hate to be the complicator, but you do realise that you could place some 'terrain' on this kind of map?
Line-of-fire blockers, asteroids, debris fields etc.
...D&D 4th ed has spoiled me. :doubt:
-
So I've missed the signup?
-
So I've missed the signup?
Dekker, please. There hasn't even been a sign up yet :p
I hate to be the complicator, but you do realise that you could place some 'terrain' on this kind of map?
Line-of-fire blockers, asteroids, debris fields etc.
...D&D 4th ed has spoiled me. :doubt:
There will be asteroid fields on some grids
-
I'm just excited! :P
So in anticipation, what can I do for my "faction" in advance?
-
If it seems like I suddenly gone quiet all of the sudden with regards to the forum game, that's probably because I did! I ran into a few creative roadblocks, was drawing a lot of blanks, lost all momentum I had and I just sort of petered out.
Sorry everyone, please have patience untill I regain my drive. This game will happen eventually, honest!
I'm just excited! :P
So in anticipation, what can I do for my "faction" in advance?
I'm glad you are excited, but there's nothing you can do just yet right now :)
-
Sure, man take your time. Good things need quite a lot of it.
Also, if we can help, if only to throw ideas at you and see which stick, let us know.
-
So I've missed the signup?
Dekker, please. There hasn't even been a sign up yet :p
So have I missed the signup? :P
Managed to catch up on a few topics while I was in China, but couldn't remember my passw0rd...
Looking good though, can probably start more generic RP posts if anybody is interested in that again. Otherwise, I'll be sitting tight.
CRF! CRF! CRF!
-
I've no idea what is required RP wise. :nervous:
-
CRF! CRF! CRF!
Yes! CRF! CRF! CRF! :)
I've no idea what is required RP wise. :nervous:
Well I very much doubt anything will actually be required of you or anyone else regarding RP. It was totally optional last time.
You can see what we got up to with RP last time and see if it would appeal to you if you like though in the RP thread:
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=85262.0
-
I feel like teh worse, for leaving this be for so long. I have, however, regained that drive that I spoke of and have the beginning of the strategic map to show.
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/WoD%20Forum%20Game/Strategy%20map2_zpsrazz1ryt.jpg~original)
So I guess the roadmap is:
Finish the map (it's quite a bit of effort, so it'll take me a while to do it).
Once that is done, I'll write up the rules thread and open up the sign up. I'll let the sign up run for a bit, give enough people time to sign up if they want.
Estimated time, an optimistic week or two.
-
Really going all-out detail-wise! I approve. :cool:
Take as long as you need, but I'll be ready when signups go up!
-
Really going all-out detail-wise! I approve. :cool:
Take as long as you need, but I'll be ready when signups go up!
The notion is seconded, does the notion carry?
-
[Hype Intensifies]
-
Estimated time, an optimistic week or two.
an optimistic week or two.
WTF, I thought this was months if not a year away. Hype hype hype.
-
I have completed the map
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/WoD%20Forum%20Game/Strategy%20map2_zpsli8u3g4e.jpg~original) (http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/WoD%20Forum%20Game/Strategy%20map2_zpsli8u3g4e.jpg~original)
(Without all the garrison fleets that is, so it's almost completed.)
-
Oooh, that's looking very cool :D
-
It makes me wish to put board game pieces on that ... Well done
-
Hng.
Delest is screwed. Oh well, I love a challenge.
I can immediately tell where 60% of the fighting will take place.
-
Looks like the CRF will be first in line to meet the Hierarchy going by that entry point at the bottom. I think those were the systems, those neutral ones, that we were in in the new WoD as well...
Delest is screwed.
Why do you say that?
-
Perhaps, but Tamy could also be linked to Cyrvan systems, or others as well. We'll just wait and see. And perhaps because the Delest don't have any real way to expand or travel?, SF can travel through UGR (likely based on relations), B can travel south, Delest less so due to political alignments and lack of node access to Tamy. ?
But the map looks fantastic Spoon! Can't wait to have this in action (and same with 0rph3u5, I think that we you should boardgame this up and sell for mighty profits!!!
-
Delest is screwed.
Why do you say that?
Because look at their expansion options:
Based on ONLY the information we have available from the map, the Delest start as Joe Average in funds and resources (med- to low starting capital and low-ish income), but with a considerable political and diplomatic penalty. Expansion appears to be the only option for them, if they are to compete with the other factions.
Let's see what expansion options they have, shall we?
Fortune is tasty, but literally every faction has a starlance leading to it. It's going to be hotly contested, and I doubt anyone will get to mine the system for too long.
Virgo is 'secure' but it only appears to offer +100/+700 if fully colonised. I don't know what the colonisation rules are like, but it is a questionable investment.
Furthermore, the Delest are completely isolated from the front lines; assuming the Cyrvans / Hierarchy come from Orion (and no sneaky starlances open up elsewhere), the Delest fleets will have to negotiate passage through at least 5 systems to reach Tamy and they will have to cross other nations' sovereign territory. Given the diplomatic penalty the Delest start with, that might be a problem.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not crying 'Delest weak, Spoon fix!'. For one thing, we don't know the rules yet; and we also don't know what surprises our GM is going to be throwing our way. Furthermore, we have no idea what starting fleets each faction will have, or other factors. What I am saying is that Delest appear to start from an inherently inferior geopolitical position. How this will affect the game is yet to be seen.
-
I did just notice,
1. Britannia - Auriga. The jump point from the Auriga System that leads to the Serpens System, is actually maked as the Authuria system.
2. Britannia - Serpens. The jump point from Serpens to Virgo & Fortune is only marked as Virgo (text saving possibly?)
3. Neutral - Draco. The jump point from Draco to Algol is marked as the Tamy starlance.
I can't see anything else, didn't notice any spelling mistakes but I wasn't looking for them. I'm not that detailed right now, :(
-
Interesting...
I don't see that the current map has to be a disadvantage for Delest. Not having access to the front could be quite good depending on the situation. Imagine a relatively long and exhausting war between the fractions followed by a hostile invasion through Tamy. Now especially Britannia might end up being punded from all sides and potentially forced to accept a peace treaty that is not exactly in their favour just to survive.
In the end it's all theory and we'll see how it woks out. As for me I still prefer sticking to DD :D
And one question about the map:
Is there any difference between single point to point starlances and ones that are connected to the same point? Can the latter be used to bypass the system, are they one way starlance or is it just the illustration due to a lack of space within the map?
-
Thanks for the high praise, glad you guys like it :)
I did just notice,
1. Britannia - Auriga. The jump point from the Auriga System that leads to the Serpens System, is actually maked as the Authuria system.
2. Britannia - Serpens. The jump point from Serpens to Virgo & Fortune is only marked as Virgo (text saving possibly?)
3. Neutral - Draco. The jump point from Draco to Algol is marked as the Tamy starlance.
I can't see anything else, didn't notice any spelling mistakes but I wasn't looking for them. I'm not that detailed right now, :(
Woops, good catches. I shall fix everything.
And one question about the map:
Is there any difference between single point to point starlances and ones that are connected to the same point? Can the latter be used to bypass the system, are they one way starlance or is it just the illustration due to a lack of space within the map?
Starlances are always two way traffic. You can't use those points to bypass a system completely, but it is possible to go through both lances in one turn.
-
No worries, I'll be studying the map again after the changes. Got to make sure it is right and that I have some sort of idea of how things could play out. :)
EDIT:
Uploaded the CRF Records from the first game. I never completed them or anyone elses :(. But I did just draw up a *hopefully* easier template for the upcoming session. If anybody likes it. :)
Just tried to make it much smaller and easier to use. Only adding essential information rather than a record of each turn like I tried last time. Faction Image, Admiral/Fleet details, as detailed or barebones as you'd like.
Thoughts?
[attachment deleted by nobody]
-
Once again, a map
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/WoD%20Forum%20Game/Strategy%20map2_zpsyc3iwr3m.jpg~original) (http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/WoD%20Forum%20Game/Strategy%20map2_zpsyc3iwr3m.jpg~original)
So my initial idea was to have every fleet's info be displayed in a little box next to its current location, but alas my concerns about running out of pixel real estate were validated. So only the garrison fleets get that honor, and I moved the status of the player fleets in seperate boxes.
-
That's really a problem .... esspecially since the info right now is kinda all over the place (literally)
Wouldn't it be easier, and more accessable to boot, if you would move the player fleet and faction info out of the map and into a new space that frames the map?
kinda like this, except with straight lines:
__________________________
| |__________SF__________| |
| | | |
| C | MAP | U |
| R | | G |
| F | | C |
| |_____________________| |
| |_________DD__________| |
This might also allow for easier editing, I think
-
Point taken, I shall reevaluate. Might need to add some extra pixels to the side then. (I hope the map doesn't become too big, it's already 2000 x 2000 currently)
-
(I hope the map doesn't become too big, it's already 2000 x 2000 currently)
Hmmm.... I come up with a few options that would mitigate that problem but each would require additional work everytime you edit the map ... which I think wouldn't help at all as the game progresses -- maybe if could chare a little bit about the restrictions you have to work with (e.g. the 2k x 2k limit seems rather arbitrary to me at first glace) I can be of better help
-
I like where the faction info is right now, but the fleets I am unsure about. Perhaps put them opposite the faction info? I'm not a big a fan of the above idea but it depends on how much space you need. There is definitely more space with the above idea
F | | F
L | | A
E | MAP | C
E | | T
T | | I
S | | O
-
I like where the faction info is right now, but the fleets I am unsure about. Perhaps put them opposite the faction info? I'm not a big a fan of the above idea but it depends on how much space you need. There is definitely more space with the above idea
F | | F
L | | A
E | MAP | C
E | | T
T | | I
S | | O
It would be an improvement, but the problem would remain, I think
You see the original version (to be found here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87541.msg1791015#msg1791015)) had the great advantage of being able to convey all information needed to play with without having to look at it more than twice (once to look at the faction info on the right and another to focus on the map). An added advantage was that it conveyed all open information at once.
But with the addition of the fleet info [here (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=87541.msg1791273#msg1791273), things got a bit less elegant:
For one you had to look at least three points on the map to get all the relevant information to play (1 - faction info on the right; 2 - your faction's fleet info; 3 - focus on map) and if you wanted all all open information you needed to focus on 5 sources of information.
Your approach would reduce the sources of information back to three, which is good. But their positioning is less than optional as you would have first look to both the far right and the far left (having to go the futherest distance between either) before you had all the information you needed to just acertain the status of your faction on the map in the centre. It would however still convoy all open information with these 3 looks which is a point in its favor.
My suggested approach would sacrifice conveying all open information for putting minimum of information required to play into just two sources (1 - your faction bar; 2 - the map); which also does a good job at guiding players' awareness towards their faction info, focusing them on it and (hopefully) incentifying using it to as primary source of decision making.
The downside of course is that looking up all open information now takes up between 5 and 8 looks ( either 1 to each faction bar then at the map, or 1 to one faction bar, then to the map and then to next faction bar and back at the map, repeat until you run out of factions) and that guiding the players to pay less attention to all the information may not be what Spoon wants.
Of course, all this before there will be non-player fleets on the map... which is a problem I had not considered previously either...
-
Hmmm.... I come up with a few options that would mitigate that problem but each would require additional work everytime you edit the map ... which I think wouldn't help at all as the game progresses -- maybe if could chare a little bit about the restrictions you have to work with (e.g. the 2k x 2k limit seems rather arbitrary to me at first glace) I can be of better help
It's completely arbitrary, I just don't know how well it works for people on smaller (laptop) displays. But I guess a few extra pixels to the side won't make that much of a difference now.
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/WoD%20Forum%20Game/Strategy%20map2_zps2f94nceo.jpg~original) (http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/WoD%20Forum%20Game/Strategy%20map2_zps2f94nceo.jpg~original)
It's been two weeks now, so I guess I should at least report on the progress. Which is that I have like ~60% of the rules written down at this point. (I hope I'm not making this way too terribly complex for a forum game :nervous: ) And as you can see above, the map is like 95% done. I still need a bit of time to take a step back and go through the rules and play test a few things to make sure it's actually fun.
-
On a laptop, and it works fine for me.
-
It's completely arbitrary, I just don't know how well it works for people on smaller (laptop) displays. But I guess a few extra pixels to the side won't make that much of a difference now.
Okay,
then you might consider adding some rows of transparant pixels to turn it back into a square; it helps with the automatic scalling most browsers are capable of (because scalling the relations in a square are easier to calculate, then with recktangle)
I also checked it with my tablet earlier, and it looks good there too
Last but not least: the new version is good and very functional
(I hope I'm not making this way too terribly complex for a forum game :nervous: )[...] I still need a bit of time to take a step back and go through the rules and play test a few things to make sure it's actually fun.
Not force it... and just remember that all you have to do is allow the players engagement with all apsects of your rule set for them to make it fun
-
About this map, I don't know about the rest of you, but have any of you just paused for a moment or two just to marvel at it? Quality-wise, I could absolutely see that on a professionally made board game or packaged in some other game on a sheet of high quality A3 paper, akin to how some games, eg. Rome Total War, came packaged with a World map.
It's beautiful. It's a work of art if you ask me. How do you even make something like that?
-
With photoshop :p
(but thanks!)
Also, everything is going just peachy, absolutely nothing to worry about. I have not run into any rule issues that I have not yet had the courage to sit down and work out.
No problem. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfGLUzsKtUo)
-
I'm curious to read more about britannia.
-
If you need a 2nd set of eyes for the rules, feel free to send me a PM ...
-
Oh no, not another 'Spoon makes excuses for why he completely failed to meet his own estimate' post.
I should confess why my positive estimate of 2 weeks is completely shattered at this point. It actually comes down to a bit of 'insecurity' on my end. You see, during the first forum game, there were times where I kind of started feeling like it was becoming a chore to keep up with the game. While it was great seeing so many people involved in it and having fun with it, on my end it involved a lot of dumb math (and ho boy, I was so poorly organized). And I guess there's also the pressure of having multiple people expecting me to be on time with stuff (not always my strong suit!).
So it kind of comes down to me being afraid of starting the game and then burning out after a few weeks, which would suck for everyone involved. I do have a lot of stuff automated right now and neatly organized, so hopefully it will be different this time around.
So I was reminded of what a very wise arachnid said on irc; he suggested doing a short 'tutorial' campaign to get people accustomed to the rules and such. Which could also be a great way to test how much of a 'mental drain' this would be for me and to work out kinks in the rules and the like. (On that subject, I've had Orph3u5 take a look at the rules as they are and he had some good suggestions)
Would you guys be interested in doing a 10 turn (20 week) long test game first and see how things work out? It'll take place on a smaller, symmetric map and without faction leaders (making ministers effectively the leaders of the factions for the test game). By the end of the 10th turn, the scores shall be tallied and the winners can drink to their own success.
-
A short test run sounds cool to me!
-
Agreed, I suppose. My only concern is that I'm very interested in minister gameplay and that the other DD players might not want to have me play the 'faction leader' role. If any objections arise, I'd be happy playing a normal admiral.
EDIT: Also, don't worry Spoon. There's no reason to apologise or feel bad - you're going above and beyond the call of duty just by trying to set up another game.
-
I'm happy to help out in any capacity, test game, full game, assistance with behind the scenes etc.
But a shorter campaign will also help iron out any unexpected rules or gameplay. Will be exciting for a *potentially* full length, indepth, drawn out campaign later. :)
Britannia please.
-
Awesomeness. :D
As you are well aware, all games need beta-testing, and this one's no different. Happy to participate. Though 20 weeks seems a bit long for just a test game; how about cutting it to 5 turns?
In any case, I'm submitting my resume for the Britannian Foreign Ministership.
-
I'll be happy to participate in this. :)
So the ministers are still part of the plan. That's great. Lepanto and I talked months ago how we'd like to be the CRF ministers. So I am hoping you'll let me be the internal one for the CRF. I believe there was an internal one and an external one, yes?
-
Count me in for any testgame no matter how short or castrated it is :D
Still 20 weeks is quite a long test run. How long do you expect the real game to go?
-
I should confess why my positive estimate of 2 weeks is completely shattered at this point. It actually comes down to a bit of 'insecurity' on my end. You see, during the first forum game, there were times where I kind of started feeling like it was becoming a chore to keep up with the game. While it was great seeing so many people involved in it and having fun with it, on my end it involved a lot of dumb math (and ho boy, I was so poorly organized). And I guess there's also the pressure of having multiple people expecting me to be on time with stuff (not always my strong suit!).
So it kind of comes down to me being afraid of starting the game and then burning out after a few weeks, which would suck for everyone involved. I do have a lot of stuff automated right now and neatly organized, so hopefully it will be different this time around.
About this, I never felt like there was any pressure being put on you last time by anyone, though your mention of IRC reminds me there might have been places I couldn't see. IRC, PMs... But if there wasn't, I don't think it's something you really need to worry yourself about if you need to take more time between turns on occasion. We seemed to get along fine last time delays or no delays and I think the whole thing was a great success.
Also last time you were plagued by repeated illness and you said you normally rarely get ill. So chances are that won't happen again.
It seems like a good idea though to do this kind of dummy run and see if it works and if you enjoy it. We all want you to succeed and I'm sure there'll be help available if you ask for it. I don't know if I'd be able to help too, right now you want us just to play the game, so here I am.
Anyway, I think Enioch said it best.
EDIT: Also, don't worry Spoon. There's no reason to apologise or feel bad - you're going above and beyond the call of duty just by trying to set up another game.
You're giving something to us for free, again, and we don't have any right to feel entitled to it.
Still 20 weeks is quite a long test run. How long do you expect the real game to go?
This is a very good question, and definitely shows up I think why you might feel the need to do this test run regarding burnout. If just the test run is going to take 5 months, then I guess the real game is going to be a very long term commitment.
Anyway, I hope it all goes well and am looking forward to seeing what you have in store for us... :)
-
You guys are so rad :D thanks for being cool people.
In that case I shall endeavour to get the rules up ASAP (need to edit a few things for the test game and edit a test game map)
I'll be happy to participate in this. :)
So the ministers are still part of the plan. That's great. Lepanto and I talked months ago how we'd like to be the CRF ministers. So I am hoping you'll let me be the internal one for the CRF. I believe there was an internal one and an external one, yes?
I merged the two ministers to just one, because after looking at it more closely, the minister for internal affairs didn't seem all that exciting.
As you are well aware, all games need beta-testing, and this one's no different. Happy to participate. Though 20 weeks seems a bit long for just a test game; how about cutting it to 5 turns?
Still 20 weeks is quite a long test run. How long do you expect the real game to go?
This is a very good question, and definitely shows up I think why you might feel the need to do this test run regarding burnout. If just the test run is going to take 5 months, then I guess the real game is going to be a very long term commitment.
I don't actually have a good grasp on how long I want the game to run. Because I simply can't make a good prediction in my mind on how things will turn out. Because of the political aspect, things could turn into a huge war, or a very long stalement etc. Also due to the potential of tactical battles resolving with very few results (because of its prediction based gameplay) I think that 5 turns may be too little to get a good grasp on how things are (or it might be exactly enough, we'll have to see)
While a turn takes 2 weeks, its divided in two phases (intrigue and strategy), 1 week for each phase.
About this, I never felt like there was any pressure being put on you last time by anyone
True, you guys have been excellent. It's not so much direct pressure, but more the feeling of "I need to get this done or else I'll disappoint/inconvenience people".
Also last time you were plagued by repeated illness and you said you normally rarely get ill. So chances are that won't happen again.
I actually discovered why I was feeling so **** for so long, turns out I have grown kind of lactose intolerant over the years. And as a frequent chocolate milk drinking and pizza eater, I was just causing myself stomach aches and headaches, and I simply couldn't figure out why I was feeling like absolutely rubbish. Until I came across it on a internet search, then it all clicked. So since then I've been able to take measures, so while my bowels do still occasionally protest, I've been feeling back in top shape for the most part.
-
Good to know you won't be having health issues again. :)
Will the admirals have anything to do during the intrigue phase, and the ministers anything to do during the strategy phase?
Also, since you're merging the ministry positions, Lorric and I came to the agreement that I'll be CRF Minister during the test game and he'll be CRF Minister during the main game. Unless anyone else desperately wants either position, of course.
-
Just posting to confirm what Lepanto said. We flipped a coin using this:
http://cgi.cs.duke.edu/~des/vct/vct.cgi
Lepanto found it. Brilliant site, any number of people can use it to settle things with random chance. Definitely one for my bookmarks. I hope this will be okay Spoon.
And I also am pleased you got to the bottom of your health issue. :)
What wasn't mentioned is since I won't be the minister in the test game, I'd like to be an admiral for the CRF please.
That is, unless there are other positions besides Admirals and Ministers?
-
Will the admirals have anything to do during the intrigue phase, and the ministers anything to do during the strategy phase?
Also, since you're merging the ministry positions, Lorric and I came to the agreement that I'll be CRF Minister during the test game and he'll be CRF Minister during the main game. Unless anyone else desperately wants either position, of course.
Neat, good to see you guys worked that out already.
Admirals give orders for tactical battles during the intrigue phases, while ministers can do diplomacy 24/7 with other ministers.
That is, unless there are other positions besides Admirals and Ministers?
There are no other positions besides those two.
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/WoD%20Forum%20Game/Strategy%20map%20test%20game_zps1xqlaxh0.jpg~original)
Done the map for the short test campaign, working on the finishing touches for the rules right now.