STGOD 2K5 OOC Thread

[InnocentBystander]

Too much work.

[SirNitram]

It's not really much different than what we have; it mostly just removes the awkward 'How do I convert cruisers to capitals?' and introduces the idea of actually specializing warships.. For example, my Psychopaths could become specialists in ripping apart other capitals, while my dinky Unrelentings would shove it all to ripping up fighter groups, as they're little more than PD platforms.

[Hotfoot]

Interesting system. In the one I've been working on, I just count fighters as a type of attack method, alongside direct fire and missles. Counting them as seperate points is an interesting method though.

[White Haven]

Eh....I like SOME of that, but when ti gets into the boarding actions and payloads...that I could do without. Too cumbersome.

[Spyder]

It's actually not that much more then what we do at the moment, infact the current system was used as the basis.

The only difference is that you have the option of adding a modifier or a tag.

Thor class destroyer [4 points][+2 vs fighter]

In some ways it is actually simpler because you don't have to declare size classes as they happen automatically depending on how many points you sink into the ship. It also eliminates the problem of deciding how many escort points should be neccessary to eliminate a cruiser point. Also, only having one point pool should make it easier for mods to audit players as well; just add up the total and see if it's above or below the player's allocation.

Having one point pool makes it more flexible as well simply because the points can be used for anything. It provides a solid foundation that we could expand to include things like growth rate, quality of life or other non-military expenses. For example people wouldn't just be able to say "My civilisation is good, pure and fully democratic and has just a strong a military as this iron fist military dictatorship over here.

[Spyder]

Eh....I like SOME of that, but when ti gets into the boarding actions and payloads...that I could do without. Too cumbersome.

There are some problems with the boarding actions, I agree. It relies on someone who's attempting a boarding action to wait to see how the other person responds, and that the other person will respond appropriate within the context of the system. Something which from experience rarely happens in an STGOD.

To tell you the truth, that part was sort of tacked on. If we just wanted to handle boarding actions the traditional way then that'll probably be fine.

As for payloads, there were brough up as a means to outfit smaller vessels with WMDs. I quite like the idea but I'm not married to it if people would rather live without it.

[SirNitram]

I would say drop the boarding bit entirely. I'm tempted to keep payloads; but this is because I've built ships that would use those rules(The Dominator from the Overseer was definately that, as it was an obscene weapons platform more than anything else, as was the superlaser-equipped Long Haul).

[Dahak]

I daresay we should try and get a complete new universe and not just re-use this. Again...

And about rules... Shouldn't we also have some rules for espionage, social stability, manipulation,...? So that the characteristics of a given society (like telepathy, or police state,...) has more meaning to actual gameplay, besides what's written in the OOB.

[White Haven]

Other potential problem I ran across, while my hands were on autopilot building a system, is the issue of specializations. While I love the idea, I do see a flaw, at leas ton the surface. Let's say we have that 4-point Thor frigate, with a +2 capital specialization. That, in-universe, represents the shielding and armor necessary to survive capitol bombardment and respond in kind, at least to an extent. Now, in-universe, what prevents that same shielding and heavy weaponry from being used against cruisers, and indeed, why is a ship so shielded and armed /penalized/ against them?

Also, with the use of a unified points pool, you end up with other inconsistencies. Let's say we've got a hypothetical nation that's vast, but has a relatively low tech base. They've got a fleet of Imbecile-class battleships, that were absolutely the shit when they were new, and still would be against a comparable tech-base. But against a modern navy, they're roughly as well-armed and defended as frigates but as slow as modern capitol ships, if not more so. In-game, they're pointed as frigates, for obvious reasons. Now, again, in--universe, why does an opposing vessel, say, that Thor with the +2 cap specialization, operate as a 2-pointer against them, when they're in essence vastly underpowered battlewagons? They're big. They're slow. They're a textbook example of what you use heavy weapon emplacements to deal with. But a craft armed to destroy capitol ships can't do dick to them.

It's a good system, but given the diverse nature of an STGOD's powers, this sort of thing needs to be worked over beforehand.

And yeah, new universe.

[Rogue 9]

For example people wouldn't just be able to say "My civilisation is good, pure and fully democratic and has just a strong a military as this iron fist military dictatorship over here.

And? Note the governmental system of the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. Free enterprise (which can hardly exist without political freedom) can actually allow for a stronger and more technologically advanced military, as it encourages competitors to come up with the best product in all industries, including defense contracts. The Monolithic State Defense Factory has no such motivation, as it stays in business no matter what. I would object strongly to mandating that free societies must be militarily weaker.

[Spyder]

I've looked at some rules for espionage, encountered a few of the same problems present with the boarding rules. It's a difficult area because say if you have points towards espionage then you have things were espionage in some areas should be easier then in others, also telepaths pretty much mean free espionage points, which is a little unfair if we're making non-telepaths pay for their espionage.

[Dahak]

I've looked at some rules for espionage, encountered a few of the same problems present with the boarding rules. It's a difficult area because say if you have points towards espionage then you have things were espionage in some areas should be easier then in others, also telepaths pretty much mean free espionage points, which is a little unfair if we're making non-telepaths pay for their espionage.

Well, I meant a system that's at least blunts stunts like "I use my super-duper Ultra-Spy of DOOM to destroy your parliament, just because I CAN" kind of happenings. This always results in a shit storm, page upon page of bitching until a mod uses the big stick and hit one of the opponents on the head. A system which might add some guidelines and loose rules might help to keep this down to the minimum.

I didn't mean telepaths in particular, just used them as an example. But I think characteristics of a nation should also reflect in the rules. If I have a nation A that is cyborg, for instance, and uses and needs biomechanical components should be considered to at least have an edge in that particular field over a nation B which has much less focus on this.

[Spyder]

For example people wouldn't just be able to say "My civilisation is good, pure and fully democratic and has just a strong a military as this iron fist military dictatorship over here.

And? Note the governmental system of the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. Free enterprise (which can hardly exist without political freedom) can actually allow for a stronger and more technologically advanced military, as it encourages competitors to come up with the best product in all industries, including defense contracts. The Monolithic State Defense Factory has no such motivation, as it stays in business no matter what. I would object strongly to mandating that free societies must be militarily weaker.

Well obviously a grand power could have both a larger military and a better quality of life then a minor military dictatorship. What I'm saying is if you take two power of equal size and one's spending 80% of it's budget on the military and 20% on QoL and there's another that's spending 100% of it's budget on it's military then the power that's spending 100% is going to have more ships and a totally ignored populace, it's not an ecomonic argument, it's math.

QoL spending doesn't have to have anything to do with left vs right economics. That 20% could just as easilly reflect infrastructure to support free enterprise as it could direct spending on citizens. What would make the 100% military spender suffer (bear in mind, this isn't actually in the rules, these are just ideas for future expansion) is that they'd have the lowest growth rate. Eventually, the player that's bothered taking some time to look after his civilisation will overtake.

[Spyder]

Other potential problem I ran across, while my hands were on autopilot building a system, is the issue of specializations. While I love the idea, I do see a flaw, at leas ton the surface. Let's say we have that 4-point Thor frigate, with a +2 capital specialization. That, in-universe, represents the shielding and armor necessary to survive capitol bombardment and respond in kind, at least to an extent. Now, in-universe, what prevents that same shielding and heavy weaponry from being used against cruisers, and indeed, why is a ship so shielded and armed /penalized/ against them?

Also, with the use of a unified points pool, you end up with other inconsistencies. Let's say we've got a hypothetical nation that's vast, but has a relatively low tech base. They've got a fleet of Imbecile-class battleships, that were absolutely the shit when they were new, and still would be against a comparable tech-base. But against a modern navy, they're roughly as well-armed and defended as frigates but as slow as modern capitol ships, if not more so. In-game, they're pointed as frigates, for obvious reasons. Now, again, in--universe, why does an opposing vessel, say, that Thor with the +2 cap specialization, operate as a 2-pointer against them, when they're in essence vastly underpowered battlewagons? They're big. They're slow. They're a textbook example of what you use heavy weapon emplacements to deal with. But a craft armed to destroy capitol ships can't do dick to them.

It's a good system, but given the diverse nature of an STGOD's powers, this sort of thing needs to be worked over beforehand.

And yeah, new universe.

One important thing to consider is that specialisations wouldn't neccessary reflect defenses but more the overal ability to deal with a particular enemy before it deals with you.

That being said, what if we changed the specialisation system so that it was simply, fighter/warship/stationary ?

That would solve the problem of ships being able to take out capitals but not cruisers while still allowing for fighters/bombers and the like, and would even allow for specialty bombardment weapons.

[Dahak]

For example people wouldn't just be able to say "My civilisation is good, pure and fully democratic and has just a strong a military as this iron fist military dictatorship over here.

And? Note the governmental system of the most powerful nation on the face of the planet. Free enterprise (which can hardly exist without political freedom) can actually allow for a stronger and more technologically advanced military, as it encourages competitors to come up with the best product in all industries, including defense contracts. The Monolithic State Defense Factory has no such motivation, as it stays in business no matter what. I would object strongly to mandating that free societies must be militarily weaker.

Well obviously a grand power could have both a larger military and a better quality of life then a minor military dictatorship. What I'm saying is if you take two power of equal size and one's spending 80% of it's budget on the military and 20% on QoL and there's another that's spending 100% of it's budget on it's military then the power that's spending 100% is going to have more ships and a totally ignored populace, it's not an ecomonic argument, it's math.

QoL spending doesn't have to have anything to do with left vs right economics. That 20% could just as easilly reflect infrastructure to support free enterprise as it could direct spending on citizens. What would make the 100% military spender suffer (bear in mind, this isn't actually in the rules, these are just ideas for future expansion) is that they'd have the lowest growth rate. Eventually, the player that's bothered taking some time to look after his civilisation will overtake.

Shouldn't we also consider...alternative styles of economy? THis is a sci-fi game, after all.

[Spyder]

Shouldn't we also consider...alternative styles of economy? THis is a sci-fi game, after all.

The point I'm trying to get at is that if we do decide to include non-military spending in the system, exactly what the remainder does get spent on doesn't really matter. All the surplus indicates is that the civilisation is taking some time out to maintain or improve its internal way of life. Exactly what it's way of life is, doesn't matter. In the context of the STGOD you can make any society work as long as it's properly maintained, the number of points devoted to it would simply reflect how well maintained your society is. If you really really wanted to you could devote 10000 points to your civilisation and have a "Nazi Communist hippy Islamic fundie" Utopia. Sound fun to us? No, but the citizens are like the happiest Nazi Communist Hippy Islamic fundies ever.

"SEIG HEIL PROLETARIATE! God is great!" *takes a bong hit*

[Spyder]

Ok, revisions

Drop boarding actions

Maybe drop payloads

Change it so that craft can specialise against fighters/warships/stationary rather then fighters/escorts/cruisers/battleships,

I could have sworn there were four things, is there anything I'm forgetting.

[consequences]

Ok, revisions

Drop boarding actions

Maybe drop payloads

Change it so that craft can specialise against fighters/warships/stationary rather then fighters/escorts/cruisers/battleships,

I could have sworn there were four things, is there anything I'm forgetting.

Quantify Espionage, growth due to quality of life investments, and other traditionally fuzzy factors?

Oh, and since I've been silent as yet, yeah, I think a complete break and new verse would be a good thing, and like the ruleset so far.

[Spyder]

Espionage is difficult, but there's no doubt a way. QoL investments could be easilly done, all we'd need to do is tie it to a growth rate somehow. One way we could do this is % of points unspent = % growth pa, paid out every month or so.

So for an example, someone has 100 points, doesn't spend 20 then they'll earn an extra 20 points by the end of the year. Paid out at very roughly 1.6 or 1.7 points per month. The problem is this will add a layer of complexity that I'm not altogether comfortable with, we should probably try to avoid anything that'll require the use of financial calculators.

Another way which might be simpler would be monthly growth = 10% points devoted to growth. 20 unspent points gets you two points on the first of every month.

[White Haven]

Eh, not sure on the wisdom of quantifying that much...maybe, eh, I dunno. Not against it, just cautious. As fas as the 'verse...well, let's start to set out some basics. Real-world-future? Far-future? SW-tech? Higher? Lower? Any major technical constraints? Alternate-verse? Start to get some rough parameters for the environment set out, yesno?

[Agent Fisher]

Tech wise, I think we should go like the Neo-Battlestar Galactica route. FTL Jumpdrives, no shields, ftl comms, limited FTL sensors, projectile weapons and missiles.

[Nephtys]

Tech wise, I think we should go like the Neo-Battlestar Galactica route. FTL Jumpdrives, no shields, ftl comms, limited FTL sensors, projectile weapons and missiles.

I'd prefer newtonian motion myself! And non-wonky weapons (keep it to trusty lasers, particle beams, missiles, variations of above.)

Maybe do a star cluster instead of whole galaxy. With jump point-like network.

[SirNitram]

Primitive technologies do restrict me so from playing the Wierd Star Gods route I so like(Even the Black Alliance had a dash of that with their Culture-Tech; they were just the gods of Vice, Sex, Booze, and Negotiable And Disease-Free Affection.).

[Rogue 9]

I'm sticking with my trusty railguns, though it might be time for a slightly different nation.

[Agent Fisher]

I just want a lower tech base from what we had.