STGOD: A Dead Art? (II)

[Dahak]

Well, it sounds interesting.
BUt I'm not sure if this "outside factor" is too helpful. It might be a focal point for a Big Alliance, after all. I'd prefer a more internal break-down. But that's just me.

As for technology level, I'd really like to go with previous STGODs and a more higher level. With the Imperial Remnant still having the upper hand compared to the player states.

[Dark Hellion]

So, our new scenario is Turn A gundam on a larger scale? Who calls the gay black dude, who gets the cross-dresser, and can I where ridiculously giant glasses?

That is all.

[SirNitram]

So, our new scenario is Turn A gundam on a larger scale? Who calls the gay black dude, who gets the cross-dresser, and can I where ridiculously giant glasses?

That is all.

Dark Hellion finally catches up with Ancient Greece in discovering there are only a few plots in existance, and they're simply redone with new characters and slight variations through all time.

Next week, he discovers the concept of empiricism.

[Dark Hellion]

SirNitram misses sarcasm and a roundabout bunch of obscure gundam references.

[Adrian Laguna]

As for technology level, I'd really like to go with previous STGODs and a more higher level. With the Imperial Remnant still having the upper hand compared to the player states.

We should take care to not go too high a level. The ideal is, for me, warships armed with megaton-range weaponry. This makes sense given we could make 100 MT bombs with modern Earth technology. Given this, the fire-power wielded by whole fleets would be in the gigatonnage range. Teraton bombs could exist but they'd be rare, very expensive, and considered strategic weapons. That's pretty dammed high, but not:



If we assume that planet's the size of Mars, the bigger blast has a diameter approximately equal to the length of California (I measured). If we assume the planet is the size of Earth, then off the cuff I'd say that's CONUS going-up right there. We can all agree that's a bit much, no?

[Starglider]

We should take care to not go too high a level. The ideal is, for me, warships armed with megaton-range weaponry.

It only makes a difference for shooting at unshielded objects. Even small capships in SW are festonned with multi-gigaton cannons, but then they all have shields that can resist that firepower too, while important planets all have planetary shields that can shrug off ludicrous amounts of bomdardment. I find that level of firepower inflation vaguely annoying but it doesn't make any real difference to the game (not even thematically).

The primary things that do make a game difference are FTL speeds, comms speeds and construction rates. In an SW-like setting capships can get anywhere in the galaxy in a few days at most and comms are effectively instantaneous. Settings with advanced nanotech can build capships in days to weeks. STL speeds and engagement ranges don't make much game difference but do make a lot of thematic difference. The overall pace of battle, i.e. how long it takes to get a result in a capship fleet engagement, is a critical thematic parameter that must be agreed ahead of time for narrative consistency.

I have no idea what specific kind of technology Dahak wants that wasn't in the last game. I presume he means higher FTL speeds, for a smaller effective galaxy.

[Academia Nut]

Yeah Nitram, it looks like you would be left in a bad position, because any faction trying to gain legitimacy as the new head of the empire would be gunning for you. I suppose it could still work, but if you choose to do something that plot significant you would be painting a huge target upon yourself.

I suppose for the whole "wink-wink, nudge-nudge, we agree to disagree sort of thing" we could say that you start the game at war with the nation you have a grudge with. We could even put it in something at the beginning like, "And the historians of later ages would mostly agree, it was not the loss of the Sol system that marked the end of the Terran Empire, but rather it was when former Imperial citizens began to fire upon one another, more eager to fight with one another over generations old blood feuds than band together and face the outside invaders."

Also, the whole grind each other into dust thing was why I suggested there be some sort of difference between barbarian and post-imperial factions. Something like:

*Post-imperial factions recieve X points to begin with and X' points each turn in economic output, but must declare at least one other faction to be in a blood feud with, and start the game at war with one other faction

*Barbarian factions recieve (X-Y) points to begin with (Where X>Y) and (X-Y)' points each turn in economic output, and must begin the game at war with another faction, but are not required to have blood feud status with someone

*Imperial remnants are under the control of the mods

This way barbarians are smaller, but more flexible in picking their fights, and are easier to bribe into picking a new invasion path. This is probably adding too many mechanical rules to something that theoretically should be RP'd in the first place, but I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that instead of turtling, people will make short term alliances of convience with people they don't hate to tip the balance in their favour rather than go for the long term build up, ally into power blocs, and then steamroll the little guys.

[Hawkwings]

I think that this scenario has promise, but there still needs to be some sort of incentive for taking territory and fighting. I mean, you could be at war with someone, but only defensive. After all, if there's no reward for conquering the other guys (besides one enemy gone) then why do it?

This needs some sort of industrial bonus for fighting and defeating the enemy. Maybe you capture the enemy shipyards, or salvage their ships for recycling, or gain access to more resources. And there could be a bonus for capturing a faction's capital, like an industrial bonus or some sort of resource bonus.

I'm reminded of playing Risk. You get cards for attacking, plus the more territories you hold, the more troops you get. This encourages people to attack, and gives weaker powers a chance to quickly get a big army if they attack and get the right cards. While I'm not suggesting a fleet production bonus for attacking, I think that there needs to be some sort of incentive. Plus this gives the opportunity for some interesting random factors. Maybe a small power attacked a couple times, and their "random reward" for that was that they found an old Imperial Navy automated mining station that has a large stockpile of resources, or maybe they found a one-shot Galaxy Gun that they can use to severely damage an enemy industrial planet.

Obviously these kinds rewards would be vulnerable to mod abuse, but it's not too much of a deal if the mods control the dying empire. Plus, I'm sure people can come up with more balanced and less abusable rewards.

[SirNitram]

SirNitram misses sarcasm and a roundabout bunch of obscure gundam references.

And the moron misses that his sarcasm wasn't funny, and that those silly Gundam references could be replaced with about any references, including Roman ones. But you're not very smart.

And yea, I know I'm in a bad position, with people against me. That's the point, or are people forgetting what happened when people weren't in bad positions? Stasis.

[Academia Nut]

Yeah, as I said a little while back, we need some definite rules for capturing enemy territory along with looting and pillaging, that way there are major incentives for attacking. Of course, this doesn't just require us to have rules for pillaging, but rules for where the stuff worth pillaging is. What this will probably require is that a number of points be allocated towards industrial/economic facilities. Maybe something like each point spent towards your economy produces .5 industrial points/turn (or whatever math we decide on), so a 100 point planet would produce 50 points each turn. But if the enemy gains control of it, they can choose to keep the planet or pillage it. Pillaging destroys the industrial capacity of the planet (maybe only a certain percentage based on the amount of firepower they brought to the party), but they get an immediate bonus in resources equal to say twice the capacity pillaged. So when attacking you can go for the loot and burn method and quickly generate huge amounts of resources, but if you start losing then you have no independent economy to fall back on.

We might also need to instute a resupply rule so that people can't just invest everything into weapons right away and then start pillaging like mad to quickly build an uberfleet that will be a self-perpetuating process. Might be getting a bit more confusing, but if it was like "For every point of ship you have you must pay 1/10 its cost each turn or start scrapping stuff as it breaks down from lack of resupply" then we could start off with everyone getting 2100 points, which would give them 1500 points for goodies at the start, 300 points to put into industry for maintenance of their ships (300/2=150=resupply costs), and 300 points to go into each turn's new production. Obviously these point values are pretty arbitrary, but you get my point, right? There would clearly also need to be some tweaking to avoid zerg rushing, but it would encourage attacking.

[Hotfoot]

SirNitram misses sarcasm and a roundabout bunch of obscure gundam references.

Your mouth is moving. You might want to see to that.

Nitram's suggestion is a very good one, and much in line with what I was thinking would be a good start to kick things off.

One thing that should be considered is that the rules will need some rewrites, and certain things will have to be addressed, like various technologies or traits that could act as magic bullets. Psionics is a good example of one such trait. In a society with psionics, control of the ability is necessary, or psionicists rise to the fore of the civilization for obvious reasons. Long story short, psionic inhibitors would only make sense, especially for high-ranking officials and such.

The short version, of course, is that every technology or power needs some sort of counter. Nothing should be unstoppable, because the second you have something unstoppable, the game becomes all about getting whatever that is in large quantities.

As far as definite rewards for taking worlds, I had a system from the LA STGOD in which each world/system was worth X amount, and various methods of capture or raiding would gain Y per turn. Making some modifications to the system would not be overly difficult for use in this STGOD. One of the key things, of course, was that investing, while useful, had limitations. If reinforcing one's economy becomes better than invading and taking a territory by force, people are going to sit on their asses spinning on their thumbs.

An "upkeep" rule might help as well, but of course we always have complaints from the "WE DON'T NEED MOAR RULES' gallery as things like this get added.

[Academia Nut]

Quite frankly, formulating the rules for a STGOD is like formulating a mathematical expression to fit to observed data. The fewer terms, the better, until you find you need a new term to better fit your data. We clearly need some major incentives for attacking, but to do that we need to delineate where the good spots to attack are. But since people won't want to paint targets on themselves, these good spots must be equally good for them too, otherwise we would all live on desert worlds and say, "What do you want to come here for?". Looking at this situation, we we clearly need to institute some measure of control to keep people from going "I invest everything I have in my ships and then attack the guy who tried to make a balanced economy so that I can loot it and make even more ships!"

So to those who don't like rules, point out where things are getting excessive, but otherwise shut up. All the rules additions I've suggested I've tried to keep as simple as possible, and only made suggestions where it looks like there will be a problem in the future. So either make a better suggestion or keep your bitching to yourself.

[Hotfoot]

Hey, I agree that you need a clearly defined set of rules. This is something I've been arguing for since the very beginning of this last STGOD. I'm just telling you that even now you can expect some resistance to said rules by potential players.

Granted, I think that certain events in the previous STGOD were clear examples of why solid rules are needed BEFORE the game kicks off, but like many STGODs, people want to get started so badly they jump the gun.

[Academia Nut]

Yeah, before we do anything, we're definitely going to hammer out a clear, concise set of rules and a cohesive background so that we can get to killing each other properly! Last game we rushed to kill one another, and it all ended up as a tea time instead of Ragnarok. Well nuts to that! Like Sun Tzu said, those who rush to war without preparation are doomed to failure.

[Battlehymn Republic]

So how will alien races fit into this?

[Adrian Laguna]

We should take care to not go too high a level. The ideal is, for me, warships armed with megaton-range weaponry.

It only makes a difference for shooting at unshielded objects. Even small capships in SW are festonned with multi-gigaton cannons, but then they all have shields that can resist that firepower too, while important planets all have planetary shields that can shrug off ludicrous amounts of bomdardment. I find that level of firepower inflation vaguely annoying but it doesn't make any real difference to the game (not even thematically).

It does matter because of what happens after the shields go down. I want to be able to perform General Order 24, that is destroy a planet's industrial worth from orbit. However, that could be partially protected against with a civil defence system consisting of a large network of underground bunkers. That is, a good chunk of your population could be realistically saved, as well as some small portion of industry/agriculture (probably just barely enough for the population to survive until aid comes). If your ships can pull BDZs, then those on the ground are fucking fucked and nothing will change that.

Incidentally, I'm a proponent of handing out a certain level of planetary defences for free. It could potentially be points you can distribute among your worlds however you desire, or specific amounts for major and minor worlds with the option to upgrade. Though careful balance is needed. Planets are inherently tough nuts to crack, and realistically you could spend months siegeing and seizing one. Months during which significant fleet assets would be tied-up for little gain. This would in turn encourage high caution in diplomacy and war making which, while ideal in a real life situation, is deadly to an STGOD.

[Noble Ire]

I think that SirNitram's proposal holds promise, but I'm also curious as to where alien species might fit into it, if at all.

On another note, I also liked the concept that someone put forward awhile ago of having several players combine their points to form a belligerent, game-catalyst power. Were this allowed, I would be fully willing to be involved in such a cooperative.

[Dark Hellion]

You know, I actually like Nitrams suggestion, I am just wondering why I get my head chewed off for making a minor reference to a gundam series that like 7 people in the world have watched? Its not like this thread isn't full of spammy bullshit. So what gives? I didn't insult you, I didn't say your idea sucked. Why did you even have to devote the time to rebutting it. Honestly. It wasn't meant to be some golden humor, just a minor chuckle for anyone who is also participating in the Gundam thread is OSF right now. The only thing I made fun of was how Tomino makes characters and stories by mix and matching cliches.

I am all for playing if you will allow me. I will try to make less mistakes this time, and I am truly sorry about the mistakes in the last game, honestly they where unintentional. But really, I think everyone here needs to take a deep breathe, because there is a lot of temper for what amounts to dicking around playing cops and robbers on the internet.

[SirNitram]

You know, I actually like Nitrams suggestion, I am just wondering why I get my head chewed off for making a minor reference to a gundam series that like 7 people in the world have watched? Its not like this thread isn't full of spammy bullshit.

You made an unfunny reference and got mocked. Deal with it.

[Dark Hellion]

Ok,I made a minor reference to a Gundam show that I am 90% convinced you have not seen. The joke was that this show follows the exact plot you layed out, and featured a cast of very odd characters in unusual predicaments. It was never meant as a direct reply to your post, nor as an actual criticism of your idea. It wasn't even meant for you at all because you obviously have not seen the fucking thing I referenced. Just like you referencing the Netheril in your sig is meaningless to me because I don't regularly play D&D. So why you wasted any time in responding at all? The post wasn't meaningless if you know the show, which admittedly few do, as I was making fun of Turn A gundam for having a cliched plot, not you, because from what I understand STGOD is all about the cliches. You then respond with what looks like a serious post. What am I supposed to do there?

Maybe I don't get human interactions very well, but lets redo this situation, with a Halloween theme as well.

Person A: So, there is this evil god of destruction that requires it to possess a female body to destroy the world.
Person B: Watch out, Dan Akroyd is going to sue someone. Better call the Ghostbusters for this one. Who has the black dude, which guy smokes all the time, and can I have big hair?

Person A: Holy fuck you moron I was referencing Shinto legends.

Person B: (is he serious, I made a fucking lame ghostbusters joke. Maybe he missed. I hope he missed it, because otherwise, what the fuck is his problem.)

Now, do you see where I am coming from?

[SirNitram]

Yes, I see where you're coming from. A temper tantrum that you got mocked. Instead of simply moving on, you're now making a theatrical fucking production out of this. You're not exactly convincing me you're a mature and insightful person here. Maybe you're convincing some of those on the sidelines, but I'll doubt it. Just let it go, for gods' sakes. You look like a pathetic little kid with these pointless tirades.

[Dark Hellion]

And randomly sniping on an aside clearly meant for other people is so much more mature, correct?

[SirNitram]

And randomly sniping on an aside clearly meant for other people is so much more mature, correct?

I'd wager an offhand mocking comment, however immature, is probably better than this pathetic little tantrum, drawn out endlessly, because your ego is sore.

[Dark Hellion]

My, smell the hypocrasy. Who had to respond to a one sentence aside to support his idea? Who then escalated it after the customary tit-for-tat?
You picked a fight Nitram, and I haven't tried to do anything but defend myself. So what the fuck gives? You have taken every fucking opportunity to fire back, and yet continuously tell me to drop it because? Why don't the same fucking rules apply to you? Tell me.

I couldn't care less if you didn't think my opening was funny. You still don't even know what the fuck it is about because you haven't seen the referenced material. It could have been the greatest joke in the world if you had seen the material. It isn't, but how do you know? So, now your knee jerk comment gets called out, so what do you do, lets see, shoot the messenger, he is an easy target. Wow, nice move.

It would be easy to drop this if you didn't want to take every fucking opportunity to make some behind the back insult at me for otherwise making a dumb joke. But whatever makes you feel mature.

[SirNitram]

You know, if you were honest for five seconds, I'd let this drop, but the idiotic lies you threw in there just because you thought you could get away with it are getting the reply. I'm sure you think this earns you some 'points' on some invisible meter.

'Hypocrisy'. 'Picking a fight'. 'Shoot the messenger'. 'Behind the back insults'. 'Feeling mature'. Are you trying to put yourself on display as a pathetic retard? I made a mocking comment about your pathetic attempt to reference an obscure as hell anime, and you, not me, decided to make a theatrical production about the fact I 'didn't get it'. I got it: It's a similar plotline and you tried to make a joke. It wasn't funny. I don't need to waste part of my life tracking down some obscure peice of shit you watched to know it wasn't funny. You made a generic comment that fits just as well if you swap in 'The Fall of Rome' and name some various historical figures. Still. Not. Funny.

And then we have your epic-level whine about how I'm mercilessly after you or some equally incoherent gibberish because I'm mocking you for continuing on about this, when you keep dredging it up with these long ass posts. 'Shoot the messenger'? No, that'd be blaming you for something you didn't do. I'm blaming you for two things you have done, you half-wit: Made a stupid comment, and got in a snit fit when you were mocked for it.

'Behind the back insults'? Are you illiterate? They're right here, in the open. Nothing 'Behind the back'. Only a fucking moron intent on some stupid little personal vendetta would try to twist and contort these events into these claims. I've been up-front and straightforward the whole time. I've been insulting, but each post just reminds me you deserve no respect.

If you truly want to continue, I can get this childish tangent of yours flushed, because it doesn't belong in this thread. But you wouldn't want that, I'm sure. You can't keep this facade of maturity you are so desperate and needful to maintain up when it's isolated and on display.