StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Teleros wrote:Looks okay to me, although my first thought is that the space fleet is a bit top-heavy (intentional?).

People look through what he's ordering, check his GDP, realize he's spending a third or even half of his GDP on military expenditures.

Hmm, how exactly are those GDP figures working? It looks to me like GDP is actual GDP (ie not tax revenues etc), and then players have a "military production tax" of that figure (because 30% is excessive when not in war... let's say 10% using the above example). So your weekly / monthly expenditure is £56,000 * 0.1 = £5,600, which is enough to lay down a lot of keels per month in peacetime (in what was it... 4 years? I can have 9 Ultraheavies coming off the line every month, before population & GDP growth, and trade income).

In addition, as I understand it now, income from trade agreements will be up to players. Let's say I can bring in an extra £10,000 in "GDP" from that... another £1,000 per month to spend on more warships.

In short, I'm still wondering about some sort of framework / rules for trade agreements & shipyards as a cap on ship production.

Ryan Thunder wrote:Oh, that reminds me; what percentage of our GDP is avaliable for our expenditure? I mean, realistically, what is the absolute maximum that a government could command without imploding the economy? Obviously, consuming 90% or more of it would probably be very bad, but I've no idea how to determine a rule for this myself with any sort of certainty...

Steve wrote:I mean more like this.

Player A posts massive military expenditures in Year 2. People look through what he's ordering, check his GDP, realize he's spending a third or even half of his GDP on military expenditures. He's not at war, so this is pointed out as excessive. Player A is being a munchkin and doesn't care, he wants his bigass military. Mods bring mod hammer down with post about stock market crash and forced cancellation of military orders by the legislature slashing the budget.

Without the number figures, Player A could whine "but I'm not building that much!" With the figures, mods can point to it and say "Quit your bitching or you get another smack with the hammer".

Shroom Man 777 wrote:

Steve wrote:I mean more like this.

Player A posts massive military expenditures in Year 2. People look through what he's ordering, check his GDP, realize he's spending a third or even half of his GDP on military expenditures. He's not at war, so this is pointed out as excessive. Player A is being a munchkin and doesn't care, he wants his bigass military. Mods bring mod hammer down with post about stock market crash and forced cancellation of military orders by the legislature slashing the budget.

Without the number figures, Player A could whine "but I'm not building that much!" With the figures, mods can point to it and say "Quit your bitching or you get another smack with the hammer".

What if the player is a robotocracy and the robots don't care about stock market whatsits since they are Von Neumann probes designed to build giant guns in space?

What if this is Space (North) Korea we are talking about?

Ryan Thunder wrote:Treat it like mobilization from the previous game. You can sustain it for X years before your economy collapses into utter ruin.

That should be done with a simple one-size-fits all rule, though, IMHO, just to minimize the complication of it.

Steve wrote:I believe Imperial Japan hit 30%.

Of course, their economy was in terminal meltdown before Pearl Harbor, so.....

PeZook wrote:

Steve wrote:I believe Imperial Japan hit 30%.

Of course, their economy was in terminal meltdown before Pearl Harbor, so.....

Poland hit 50% several times in the 1930s, with similar effects.

Hence the "remotely like today". If you want to avoid economic collapse and maintain this kind of spending, you pretty much need to go to war and pillage someone.

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:If anyone is going to suggest an elaborate ruleset, let him write up the spreadsheet/program/whatever and then distribute it out. Otherwise, don't bother suggesting one because not everyone has the damn time to write his/her own spreadsheet.

PeZook wrote:It's hard to even get an accurate GDP statistic for the USSR.

Steve wrote:Okay, Warp Gate system. Conceived to ensure PC interactions by government characters and such. Two ways to do it:

A) Warp Gates only lead to one other. As in, Warp Gates A and C connect as do B and D, but you cannot take A to B or D to C.

B) They function like a Stargate, and you can pick destinations.

• 85M troops (conscripts, Tier III equipment)
• 5 × ISV-200 Escort ($15)
• 5 × ISV-100 Dreadnought ($100)

• 70M troops (conscripts, Tier II equipment)
• 6 × ISV-200 Escort ($15)
• 6 × ISV-100 Dreadnought ($100)

• 42M troops (conscripts, Tier II equipment)
• 5 × ISV-200 Escort ($15)
• 5 × ISV-100 Dreadnought ($100)

• 42M troops (conscripts, Tier II equipment)
• 5 × ISV-200 Escort ($15)
• 5 × ISV-100 Dreadnought ($100)

• 15M troops (conscripts, Tier II equipment)
• 1 × SV-300 Guardian ($75)

• 15M troops (conscripts, Tier II equipment)
• 1 × SV-300 Guardian ($75)

RogueIce wrote:

Steve wrote:Okay, Warp Gate system. Conceived to ensure PC interactions by government characters and such. Two ways to do it:

A) Warp Gates only lead to one other. As in, Warp Gates A and C connect as do B and D, but you cannot take A to B or D to C.

B) They function like a Stargate, and you can pick destinations.

I prefer B, as it is more flexible. While A can lead to...interesting...situations I think it'd be too much of a pain to play the Warpgate linking game. Since we're already going to have to outline our hyperspace highways on the map anyway.

Can I have an iris on my Warp Gates?