Vanas wrote:That'd mount the gun on it, not in it. Though, the idea does have some merit.
I guess we could just work on smaller cruiser-sized railguns. Maybe medium cruiser-sized.
I'd just feel silly weilding a navy composed of command modules and engines duct-taped to truly massive guns. Kinda. If we can just work on the in-ness of it...*ponders*
You could do it EAS Monolith style, from B5:IFH. It's a modified Nova class ship, mounting on it's back a railgun half the ship's length by stripping off the top pulse turrets...
Yes, but that's more a cruiser mounting a gun the size of a frigate, not the other way around.
Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.
Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'
Ah, yes, because we had so many carrier engagements in the previous, almost entirely peaceful STGOD.
Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.
Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'
I would not like a low tech level. Just as Nitram likes his style of play, I have somehow set myself to my own. But I think that has already been registered
And I certainly would opt against fighter-wank. It should be up to one's decision if one likes fighter or capships.
Otherwise, I'd go with the point system...
Anyways, how's going to mod it? I'd pitch myself into the ring, if it were not for the difference in time zones
Great Dolphin Conspiracy - Chatter box
"Implications: we have been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown, and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown. Apart from the unknown, everything is obvious." ZORAC GALE Force Euro Wimp Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
If we do end up using the unified points pool I'd like to co-mod. What I'll do is produce a sample declaration and also do the audits, make sure everyone understands what's going on. Modding this STGOD will basically just be a matter of adding numbers and ensuring that people don't embelish too heavilly on what they've declared.
Now, that being said I'd like to address concerns that this system adds too much complexity. Yes, it does add a layer of complexity that we didn't otherwise have, however it is important to note that the goal of this system is to complement the current RPing process, not replace it. That's why we're not introducing things like stat points for ships shields, weapons, armour, stealth and the like...
The actual declaration process is very simple, you give the ship a name, a point value, a specialty and if applicable a tag. A short description of how the ship behaves in battle would be helpful but otherwise it'll just be assumed to be a generic warship or fighter. When in combat just check the modifiers and we're away, the rest is roleplay.
Anyway, I'll post more on this later, including a revision based on suggestions given, got to get back to work.
***
Alrighty, now basically once we've got point values sorted out the intention is just to give us a basic idea which side will have an advantage and roughly how big an advantage they have, if it's significant or vague. I personally wouldn't expect a person that brings 1130 total points to a battle to defeat someone that brings 1100 points as a given, essentually we're just looking at rough guidelines of probably outcomes.
Last edited by Spyder on 2005-12-03 01:45am, edited 1 time in total.
If they have no other modifiers then yes. Although some would argue that the escorts would be in a better tactical situation, I'll explain this further in a minute. If there are specialties then this can change. I'd rather that we stick to whole point values for the sake of simplicity, this would preclude 1 point vessels from being able to take on a specialty and allow the 25 point capital to specialise up to 12 points. So you could in theory have a warship take on those 25 escorts and actually be worth 37 points, thus having a clear advantage.
You could also have 12 2 point vessels with an extra point for specialising, thus making them worth 3 points each. This gets a little more interesting as if both ships are specialising against each other then it's 37 vs 36. There would be a lead to the 25 point capital but it's not a clear lead. This is where traditional STGOD roleplay comes in. Sure, the 25 point capital has a very slight advantage in capability however, the escorts do have an advantage that they can attack from all directions, which some players would argue puts them in a better tactical situation.
One thing that I would like to make very clear is that this system is still going through it's design process. I have a reasonable amount of experience in STGODing so I've been able to come up with a few design goals and a platform to start from but ultimately I'd like the finished product to be a group effort. I'm glad people are pointing out the flaws and providing suggestions for the system, that's good because it gives us an opportunity to look at and revise the rules as needed.
The process so far:
Purpose:
Overall purpose is to complement STGOD RPing and provide a solid structure that can be used as a basis for player interaction and RPing.
Design Goals:
It needs to be simple to declare
It needs to be flexible
It needs to be simple to execute
It needs to be consistant
It needs to be easy for mods to audit players
Declaration Simplicity
Declarations were simple in the old STGODs, just a description of your forces and some numbers would suffice. Firepower was never a requirement but was often submitted regardless. Trying to work with other people's firepower calculations did actually add an element of complexity that many found frustrating when people declared their ships several orders of magnitude too high or too low. Also, there were many an argument over what effect a certain weapon would have on a certain type of defense.
This point based system that was created on SDN is a good start. It does add a very small layer of complexity in that people must apply points to their ships and they know that they only have limited pools to work from, however it does ensure that everyone stays within the same order of magnitude and gets people accountable.
The declaration process for what I'm proposing is very similar. The declaration process doesn't actually require any more elements if you aren't going to specialise your ships (infact it would actually require less as you don't need to specify ship sizes.) What you have the option of doing is applying modifiers that alter your ship's behavior.
There were a number of methods suggested and considered on ASVS before we decided on the tagging and modifier system. We discussed the idea of making things like defense installations cost less or having points spent towards certain things have inherrantly different values. The problems we faced were that many of these suggestions required all players to pull out their calculators and start converting values when making their declarations. This didn't meet with many of the design goals.
This is when the idea of having a unified pool that we simply apply modifiers to in certain situations was suggested. Having one pool made it simple to add up and using simple modifiers required only the most basic math that anyone could add up in their head.
Flexibility
One thing about having a unified points pool is that the pool that gets used for everything can be used for anything. For example, you can't build space stations with escort points but including space stations in this system would require a simple edit. We could expand a unified points pool to encompas just about anything. We could have unspent points count to growth, we could expand them to include science and research, or espionage or just about anything with a few tweaks. This flexibility is important because it allows STGODs to retain their fluid nature. The idea is to mold the system to the principles of the STGOD, not the other way around.
Simplicity of Execution
There were a number of problems in the old style STGODs. Because people kept insisting on fire power numbers people were constantly having to rectify the firepower levles with defensive capabilities. "Let's see, what effect should these 400gt blasts have against this "random technobabble" armour. It's ultimately impossible and leads to many an argument and much frustration. The current system does fix that to an extent but there are still problems with cruiser vs lots and lots of escorts, or fighters.
The proposed solution takes the current system one step further, retaining the simplicity of a little number matching while allowing them to focus more on a ship's capabilities. What's more is that there won't be any confusion about the capabilities of an enemy ship either.
Consistency
8 points worth of 2 point escorts stand a good chance of taking down a 6 point cruiser and a good chance of being taken down by a 10 point cruiser. No more escort vs cruiser confusion.
Auditing
The auditing process is made slightly easier, all the mod has to do is add up the total points spent and compare it to the player's allocation.
***
Anyway, taking all that into consideration no system is perfect so if anyone's got any ideas on how we can make this system better then let's hear them.
Spyder wrote:Although some would argue that the escorts would be in a better tactical situation
If that's the case. Why should I bother building capital ships in the first place? A fleet of just escorts would be great, I'd be able to police my space very effectively, and still be able to effectively fight fleet engagements. I could even split up my forces more effectively.
Spyder wrote:Although some would argue that the escorts would be in a better tactical situation
If that's the case. Why should I bother building capital ships in the first place? A fleet of just escorts would be great, I'd be able to police my space very effectively, and still be able to effectively fight fleet engagements. I could even split up my forces more effectively.
n^2 law. Each second a horde of 1 pointers engages something larger, their numbers will drop. As numbers drop, so does firepower they can project.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
We should add a factor to show that true capital ships are, on a point for point basis, need more enemy points to come over.
The cap ship will have a serious advantage over the smaller ships, even if the numrical value would be equal. I always thought the split between "Capital", "Cruiser", and "Escorts" points in the old system was a fair reflection of that.
Great Dolphin Conspiracy - Chatter box
"Implications: we have been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown, and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown. Apart from the unknown, everything is obvious." ZORAC GALE Force Euro Wimp Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
Spyder wrote:Although some would argue that the escorts would be in a better tactical situation
If that's the case. Why should I bother building capital ships in the first place? A fleet of just escorts would be great, I'd be able to police my space very effectively, and still be able to effectively fight fleet engagements. I could even split up my forces more effectively.
n^2 law. Each second a horde of 1 pointers engages something larger, their numbers will drop. As numbers drop, so does firepower they can project.
Also bigger ships will be carrying more troops for taking and holding planets. Bigger fighter comlpements too, with the exception of cheaper ships classed as dedicated carriers.
Dahak wrote:We should add a factor to show that true capital ships are, on a point for point basis, need more enemy points to come over.
The cap ship will have a serious advantage over the smaller ships, even if the numrical value would be equal. I always thought the split between "Capital", "Cruiser", and "Escorts" points in the old system was a fair reflection of that.
If you can think of something that'll work then we can look at adding it to the revision. Personally I think n^2ing is something best left to roleplay rather then an assigned number. It's really more tactical then hard rule.
I would say, as a rule of thumb, any ship which is 3 times the value of your ships, is going to take more than a straight trade-off. This is because, well, can you really expect a swarm of Zergling-esque patrol boats to go up against a superdreadnought designed to battle entire fleets? No, of course not. However, I emphasize this would be a rule of thumb. Tactics and setups that would somehow favor the tiny ships might tilt it.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Which brings another point... What about tactics and such?
I mean, given the "pure" point system, any battle would always be pre-decided by the point value of battling fleets.
Can we adapt these rules to allow for tactics, maneuvres, et al? If I lure a fleet of greater numerical value into a trap or a position where my less numerical fleet clearly has a tactical advantage, will we adapt the pointing system?
Great Dolphin Conspiracy - Chatter box
"Implications: we have been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown, and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown. Apart from the unknown, everything is obvious." ZORAC GALE Force Euro Wimp Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
Dahak wrote:Which brings another point... What about tactics and such?
I mean, given the "pure" point system, any battle would always be pre-decided by the point value of battling fleets.
Can we adapt these rules to allow for tactics, maneuvres, et al? If I lure a fleet of greater numerical value into a trap or a position where my less numerical fleet clearly has a tactical advantage, will we adapt the pointing system?
These are a guideline.. Nothing more. A way to establish what the rough difference in power is. As per normal, ideally outcomes are decided between players, and the moderators will take into account tactical and strategic considerations.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.
Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.
Exactly, if we wanted to numerize everything we wouldn't bother with STGOD threads, we'd just set up a web page somewhere where people input their numbers and it pops out a winner. It would be like the progress quest of STGODs.
The system has to support roleplay, not take it over.
Okay, so we're settled on a unified system, specializations for stationary, fighter, light, and heavy warships? Correct me if I missed some dissent, but that seems like the general consensus, yes?
That brings us back to the setting again...I'm indifferent as to high or low-tech, but it seems there're more people posting with a desire for a higher tech-base. Anyone else want to weigh in?
Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.
Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'
I like the idea of the lower tech, in a cluster idea.
Tech around say, Homeworld 2 PDS level. Rails guns, torpedoes, auto cannons and all that fun stuff. None of this 'turbolaser' shit.
According to wikipedia, "the Mohorovičić discontinuity is the boundary between the Earth's crust and the mantle."
According to Starbound, it's a problem solvable with enough combat drugs to turn you into the Incredible Hulk.
One point that I feel should be addressed, as it hasn't been handled especially well in the past:
The restart. Do we completely disallow them, on the basis that anyone who gets hammered that badly has had their chance? Do we institute a system where anyone whose empire gets vaped can come back, but drops a power level each time, or some similar force reduction? Do we institute ironclad rules preventing the willing of your remaining assets to you allies, followed by starting up a new power that joins your old power bloc(honestly, this is one of the things that bugged me the most in STGOD4)?
I suggest, if you get killed, your nation gets absorbed by whoever you were at war with, everything becomes theres, and you have to start at a lower power level.
consequences wrote:One point that I feel should be addressed, as it hasn't been handled especially well in the past:
The restart. Do we completely disallow them, on the basis that anyone who gets hammered that badly has had their chance? Do we institute a system where anyone whose empire gets vaped can come back, but drops a power level each time, or some similar force reduction? Do we institute ironclad rules preventing the willing of your remaining assets to you allies, followed by starting up a new power that joins your old power bloc(honestly, this is one of the things that bugged me the most in STGOD4)?
I think it depends entirely on the player involved. If you brought it all unto yourself through sheer amount of stupidity (Laz-Style), then good riddance.
But certainly, no nuked player should get a "new" empire of equal or larger size. There should be a disadvantage for killing your nation...
Great Dolphin Conspiracy - Chatter box
"Implications: we have been intercepted deliberately by a means unknown, for a purpose unknown, and transferred to a place unknown by a form of intelligence unknown. Apart from the unknown, everything is obvious." ZORAC GALE Force Euro Wimp Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority.
I think that once you're toast your new nation should "remain undiscovered" for 30 days, time which you can use to build characters and plot. After the 30 days the nation can then either be brand new or formed from a resistance movement within the conquered nation.
Also, if you're conquered there should be an exception that'll allow you to spring back into action immediately at the strength you where after the final battle, provided that you surrender to your conquerers and obey them. It'll be up to the conquerers as to whether or not they'll accept your surrender, they'll feel free to ask for tokens of loyalty, such as laying to waste your former allies' fleets while they consider.
I prefer the 'undiscovered' bit, although I'd go for a shorter time-frame, more like two weeks. The last thing we need is for a few prolific posters to be destroyed, and hence unable to participate in the story for a month.
Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.
Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'
I'm revising the rule set now. Just looking over it, the version I posted was missing the carrier rules.
The rule discussed on ASVS was that any warship can only carry up to twice it's point value in fighters, a dedicated carrier can carry as much as it wants although it's only worth half its value against attacking warships.
A a 4 point dedicated carrier could carry hundreds of fighters but be little more then a huge frame with engines that go pop as soon as 3 or more point frigate shows up.
It's a rule designed to give the fighter nuts something to play with and the warship nuts something to shoot at.
edit: scratch the rule about stationary points, I think it'll be alright.
edit2: Upon further inspection of the rules it looks as though I did actually post the bit about carriers... please ignore everything in this post after the first sentence.
Agent Fisher wrote:I suggest, if you get killed, your nation gets absorbed by whoever you were at war with, everything becomes theres, and you have to start at a lower power level.
That's how STGOD4 got so ridiculous. Laz handed over four entire powers to Monacora.
