StarDestroyer.Net BBS

One quick question, will we be able to explore/colonize new systems? Obviously, this depends on how the node system functions, which ties back to my earlier question.

The Romulan Republic wrote:One quick question, will we be able to explore/colonize new systems? Obviously, this depends on how the node system functions, which ties back to my earlier question.

Probably not, I think the general consensus in the past has been that colonization is a massive RP and rules headache.

The Romulan Republic wrote:

Darkevilme wrote:While people are argueing over whether rules are a good idea I think now would be a good time to bring up the need for a backstory or some such for this. The only set things are.

1. No one gets earth, eithers it's an NPC planet or blown to smithereens but we're not having the STGOD 2k7 phenomena of six powers there making it an unbeatable powerbloc. And we're not having an arguement over who is the one person to get earth, no one gets it.

Could be interesting if you work that into the backstory somehow. MIght add a little interest to the setting if their's a back story involving the destruction of the Earth. Maybe its just that the best RPG I was ever in was a post-catastrophy setting, but I think those work well.

An idea i thought of recently is not that earth is DESTROYED so much as lost. No nodes reach it anymore for some reason.

2. FTL is done using nodes: Each node links to another in a different system, you trundle over to the node location and activate the node drive. the transition is instant so most of the time taken by strategic movement is taken by STL movement from node to node across the respective systems.

One nitpick: how did the network get built if you need nodes in place to travle between systems? It may not seem like a big deal, but that kind of thing can put a bullet through the proverbial head of one's suspension of disbelief.

I can think of two possible explanations (only need a node at the start point but not the destination, or else all colonization was done over centuries with STL), and you can probably think of variations on these. It doesn't really matter much, just a nitpick.

The nodes are natural phenomena(seemingly) that are partially understood, hence no ones been able to re open the link to earth cause the nodes can be used but not manipulated. They are not constructed, not solid objects and do not orbit their respective star instead remaining fixed on the line drawn between that star and the destination star.

3. How quickly should we make the default time to make one node jump on the strategic map? this will determine the time it takes a newly arrived fleet to reach a planet in system as well as it's a rough guide for their STL speed and such.

Why not make node jumps instantaneous, with the time involved being the STL transit time to and from the nodes (say they have to be out on the edge of the system for some technobable or safety reason)?

The jumps are instantaneous, i was was asking how fast we should have people cross between nodes. and yes the nodes will be on the edge of systems, no one knows why, they just are.

5. On the subject of node maps how big should the empires be? i'm thinking small scale, half dozen systems max.

Half a dozen is a bit small, if we go the usual route of sci-fi and warfair is in terms of "capturing a system." With half a dozen systems, it would be too easy to lose everything very fast, especially if we go with a rigid ruleset that will spell out the value of each fleet and system, and the losses suffered in each battle. If however we have the option of split-control systems, where perhaps a player had the forces to take only part of the system, then its fine. After all, each system could have dozens of planets or moons, and millions of asteroids. Why must conquering a system be an all-or-nothing affair? Another option would be to go with a game more focussed on diplomacy and small-scale operation than with big conquest, but that's up to you and ultimately the individual players.

Mainly its so the node map isnt totally huge, also it's so it's possible for an empire to conquer another inside the lifespan of the game which might actually provide some benefit to attacking if you could therefore improve your industrial capacity. Sides if you get destroyed in this you can always be some other nation elsewhere in the game.

An idea i thought of recently is not that earth is DESTROYED so much as lost. No nodes reach it anymore for some reason.

Ok, cool.

The nodes are natural phenomena(seemingly) that are partially understood, hence no ones been able to re open the link to earth cause the nodes can be used but not manipulated. They are not constructed, not solid objects and do not orbit their respective star instead remaining fixed on the line drawn between that star and the destination star.

That clears things up, but it also raises the question of colonization. Unless their are nodes in very few systems, it should be possible to quickly colonize new systems.

The jumps are instantaneous, i was was asking how fast we should have people cross between nodes. and yes the nodes will be on the edge of systems, no one knows why, they just are.

What do you mean by "edge of the systerm"? If we're using anti-matter propulsion or laser-driven lightsails, we could probably reach upwards of 50% light speed. If "edge of the system" means as far out as the orbit of Pluto, then that could be covered in less than a day using such technology. Of course you could use a different timescale in-game if its more convieniant, but I don't see any problem with this.

Mainly its so the node map isnt totally huge, also it's so it's possible for an empire to conquer another inside the lifespan of the game which might actually provide some benefit to attacking if you could therefore improve your industrial capacity. Sides if you get destroyed in this you can always be some other nation elsewhere in the game.

I see. However, would it be possible to split control of a system between two or more players?

Dark Hellion wrote:Can I know assume that you are being purposefully dense Dahak, or are you just that naive? No where did you actually answer any of the problems I laid out, just pretended that such problems didn't exist.

Sure, people do get in fights, but there is little incentive for them to. Why should I lose ships to fight you? Political differences? So? I am not going to risk my empire to attack you. We saw this all the time. No one attacked anyone in STGOD 2k7 and only 1 major combat action happened in 2k8. It wasn't like there weren't a lot of people who had ideological differences, there just weren't the difference that were extreme enough to make you want to risk losing everything in some vainglory charge. You act like this isn't a problem and that players are going to willingly RP there races into losing situations. But why?

So what do you want? Force people to attack, just for sake of attacking? I mean, a STGOD is remarkably realistic there. People will not attack others because they woke up with a sore thumb. That's what you have political manoeuvring for, or whatever else you feel like. Blow up stuff and make it appear someone else was it.

And of course defense is a losing proposition, it is simply that attacking anyone with a fleet in system is also suicidal, even when you win, your weakened fleet can't defend your home territory at all. So no one attacks. It isn't playing defense, it is simply not committing suicide, because the last 2 years attacking alone has meant suicide. So, how do we fix this. Give me a suggestion, don't invoke RP like it is some magic solution.

This is something nations in real life had to come up with, too. Keep the attack going, bind enemy forces. And when someone backstabs you, well, that's the risk of war, no?

For your third objection. Of course factions are shades of Grey. This doesn't mean shit as the alliances are all as black as night. There is no stick to make it so that people don't just RP all friendly, thus ensuring their safety. Unless you are xenophobic, you are going to form power-blocs with anyone similarly minded, and then you just have big, boring faceless alliances in a standoff. Like 2k7. Are we simply going to have the moderator break up alliances he/she deems "too convinient" or what? Make some fucking suggestions you stupid prat.

Why do I need to make suggestions about something you cannot change? Either you live with the fact that people will make alliances, or you don't. Again, this is quite realistic. Of course, you could be the backstabbing guy, who puts a knife in the back of your alliance, as you've been working really for the other side all along. STGOD been there.

So far, all I have ever seen you do regarding STGODs is bitch about rules, invoke RPing as a magical solution, and rehash the same fucking idea of a race over and over again. Are you actually interested in contribution or is this just some arena for you to act haughty, pretend everyone turned against you and storm off bitching about 'too many rules'? Would you like to actually suggest real solutions or are you going to keep up the high and mighty bullshit act?

I actually like to play STGODs. That I like to use one idea is because...I like it. I don't see a reason to create freakish cat-people races or other things just for the sake of you being satisfied or something.
I suggest, as I have always done, to just put minimal rules for ship creation, make your race and OOB, name some mods, and *run with it*. All else will come later.
The last time, there was an *endless* discussion about irrelevant details and rules before even the glimmer of a game appeared. And people lost interest.

I would say most of the factors that killed the previous games can be solved with expanded moderation. Wars and the like are more easily resolved and more fairly done so than cops and robbers style antics.

Hell, if you want to mix things up, have 'random' events occur rolled by the moderator, who at this point is looking more like a GM. Stray asteroids hitting planet Y moves refugees to planet Z! Planet Z under great pressure now to secure more resources, etc.

Edit: also, a GM can make Stealth spacecraft, deception, framing for political backstabbery actually secret. You know, inspire paranoia in all the races who aren't Darlocks ;P

The Romulan Republic wrote:

An idea i thought of recently is not that earth is DESTROYED so much as lost. No nodes reach it anymore for some reason.

Ok, cool.

The nodes are natural phenomena(seemingly) that are partially understood, hence no ones been able to re open the link to earth cause the nodes can be used but not manipulated. They are not constructed, not solid objects and do not orbit their respective star instead remaining fixed on the line drawn between that star and the destination star.

That clears things up, but it also raises the question of colonization. Unless their are nodes in very few systems, it should be possible to quickly colonize new systems.

Maybe it's hard to actually find the nodes in the first place. Or maybe you must stabilize them first before travel can occur without your ship being chewed up.

The jumps are instantaneous, i was was asking how fast we should have people cross between nodes. and yes the nodes will be on the edge of systems, no one knows why, they just are.

What do you mean by "edge of the systerm"? If we're using anti-matter propulsion or laser-driven lightsails, we could probably reach upwards of 50% light speed. If "edge of the system" means as far out as the orbit of Pluto, then that could be covered in less than a day using such technology. Of course you could use a different timescale in-game if its more convieniant, but I don't see any problem with this.

If everyone else is happy seeing an attack coming 6-12 hours before it arrives then i am as far as these numbers are concerned.

Mainly its so the node map isnt totally huge, also it's so it's possible for an empire to conquer another inside the lifespan of the game which might actually provide some benefit to attacking if you could therefore improve your industrial capacity. Sides if you get destroyed in this you can always be some other nation elsewhere in the game.

I see. However, would it be possible to split control of a system between two or more players?

Sure i dont see why not....well other than the argueing but it could be pretty fun.

Ok, again...after it ate my post...

How big is the volume ships arrive in Nodes? If it's small, people can just mine/protect that area like a fortress (think Starfire's Warp Points and the ugliness of a Warp Point assault...). If the potential re-appearing space is huge, this means the attacking fleet has at least a chance to survive the first instances...
Also an exploration component to the node network would be interesting. Nothing to make life more interesting than to suddenly find out that the enemy discovered a second node to your home system. Of course, it requires an "GM"-like mod, as well.

Another question I'd like to raise: what tech level will we be playing at. I mean, I'm sure the details will be up to the individual players, but I also presume that you don't want a third of the players on the level of the Federeration, a third on the level of the Empire, and a third on the level of the Culture.

Based on the lack of artificial FTL and the small number of worlds per faction I'm guessing (hoping?) that this is leaning towards the hard sci-fi/low power end of the scale, but I thought I'd ask for clarification on this point.

Dahak, perhaps you didn't pay much attention to history, but until about 50 years ago (and then only with nations who are nuclear armed) people have fought each other pretty much constantly, with little regard for political expediency, over a myriad of reasons. During the 19th century Europe alone fought more than 40 wars, and there has been some war fought in Africa continously for at least the last 70 years. Realistically, people get into fights all the time, over very stupid and minor differences, like philosophy, religion or even just ethnic tribal hatreds. The fact of the matter is that no one wants to lose, and it is easier to RP out of a combat then it is to decisively win via RPing; mostly because of the Cops and Robbers syndrome Nephtys points out.

Secondly, in history having a large, aggressive military generally makes it take longer for you to be defeated, unlike in STGOD were aggressive powers are quickly subsumed. Germany did very good in the beginning of both world wars, despite being on the offensive. There is no method to make people RP appeasement, because everyone knows that a nation will run out of steam after fighting another nation. Big aggressive nations kill one other nation, then die to anyone who wants to attack them. This is wholey unrealistic.

And alliances generally occur between parties that have similar ideals, political motives and share a geographical connection. The alliances in STGOD are bullshit alliances of convenience. You don't backstab, because then you are going to get gangbanged by everyone else in the alliance, even if it is their deathblow.

Frankly, we have a system that is politically inbred. Militaries are not powerful enough to overcame basic political expediencies. Small loses of war material cripple you for turns of game time, and months of time IRL, and with no reward for risk, no one is willing to do anything brash. The only attacks made are against clear martyr civs. (Like darkevil in 2k8II) and most political movement is utterly transparent.

I would like to suggest a few things:

1) A non-player Supermod who would be tasked with rules enforcement and with mantaining secret movements. Thus the Game thread will contain only the obvious movements, replays of events that have already happened, and news reports. This way, we eliminate the metagaming near entirely, and allow for numerous tricksy plays.

2) Node mechanics: Nodes should move slightly, on an erratic and somewhat inscrutable path covering circuits of several light minutes over the course of around a years time. This would make the building of static defenses impossible at Node points, yet allow for ships to be stationed at a node to ambush incoming ships. With the hidden rules above, this allows for defenses to be very strong if a player is predictive enough, or allows for offensive actors to cripple trade, prevent reinforcement and allow the time to actually conquer a system.

3) Shield Mechanics: I propose that we have a ubiquitous tech that is a shield, similar to Dunes Holtzman shield, capable only of covering large bodies which move on a regular path. This shield would allow even a medium sized colony to withstand weeks of bombardment from a fleet. However, slower moving, properly shielded metallic objects not containing excessive, unshielded volatile material (aka NO WEAPONS) such as Drop Ships, Drop Pods, Aerospace fighters, Prefabbed dropped buildings could penetrate. This would consign Naval Units to fighting other Naval Units, make dug in ground forces a total pain in the ass (like real life) and generally promote aggressive movement from planet to planet, dropping off troops and then moving on to avoid being pincered between a defense fleet and the planet. It also allows small fleets and fleet remnants to do things that are significant, but doesn't allow them to simply raze a small planet like the previous STGODs allowed.

What say ye?

Dahak wrote:Ok, again...after it ate my post...

How big is the volume ships arrive in Nodes? If it's small, people can just mine/protect that area like a fortress (think Starfire's Warp Points and the ugliness of a Warp Point assault...). If the potential re-appearing space is huge, this means the attacking fleet has at least a chance to survive the first instances...
Also an exploration component to the node network would be interesting. Nothing to make life more interesting than to suddenly find out that the enemy discovered a second node to your home system. Of course, it requires an "GM"-like mod, as well.

I reckon quite large. Though the node does not orbit a star so you'd have to burn fuel constantly if you wanted to keep your fleet/fortresses on the node point. You could but you'd probably only try it if you had very advanced warning of the attack via that node.

Which is why i'm considering the idea of there being no FTL coms to stop fights all being knife battles around node entries. Oh sure you can flick a coms drone back and forth across the node easy enough but once on the other side it then has to use a laser to tell the next drone the important message and so on...

Though this may not be a good idea.

And on Romulan's point, yes it's going to be low sci fi unless i hear any objections to the idea. Sorta like the last game really where essentially we were vaguely on par with startrek, megaton weaponry and stuff. Though of course with some leeway.

Add edit: I like Dark Hellion's idea of moving jump nodes.

We where on par with ST last game? I was pretty sure we were chucking around GT weapons, had KT ranged infantry weapons and shielding, and most planets were coated in mega-architecture. I thought we were at the level of some of the more primitive Culture-verse space civs.

I do like the idea of low-tech civs. The only FTL comms (if they exist at all) being available as expensive, bulky (planet-based), physics cheaters that can only transfer really low information content. Morse code in space basically. System A can tell the home planet "hey, Joe is attacking us" and that is about it.

Ships move on fusion torches, take a decent time to traverse a system, and generally engage in slug-fests.

Ground forces being puds with vehicles, only the elites having power armour.

Sounds fun.

Dark Hellion wrote:And alliances generally occur between parties that have similar ideals, political motives and share a geographical connection. The alliances in STGOD are bullshit alliances of convenience. You don't backstab, because then you are going to get gangbanged by everyone else in the alliance, even if it is their deathblow.

Frankly, we have a system that is politically inbred. Militaries are not powerful enough to overcame basic political expediencies. Small loses of war material cripple you for turns of game time, and months of time IRL, and with no reward for risk, no one is willing to do anything brash. The only attacks made are against clear martyr civs. (Like darkevil in 2k8II) and most political movement is utterly transparent.

Hmph, you just say that because you know that the Anti-Imperial League would've crushed your squabbling little Allied Free Humanity or whatever you would've called yourselves.

I think the wobbly nodes are a good idea as well.

Also, about our Babylon 5 or whatever. If our tech level isn't particularly high, the station or whatever could be like say, the Citadel in Mass Effect: an artifact of some earlier civ which is still functional and just happens to be 'centrally' located between several major power's borders and makes for a convenient place for everyone to meet and back stab each other.

...though I may just be suggesting that because it jives nicely with my civ idea's tech worship...

So Wobbly nodes are in, which would explain why the nodes take some exploring to find. You have to search a large volume of space for it then map its path within a certain degree of accuracy.

And FTL coms done purely with drones flying through jump points and using data transmission lasers?
That good with people?

Though tech level wise you should be able to have 'higher tech, more expensive, fewer' troops same as always. If someone wants his troops to all be powered armoured that's okay, there will be less of them. If he wants his 'troops' to be twenty foot high bears with psycher forcefields and lightning eyes, that's fine but there will be a lot less of them.

I'm not sure on the Shield Mechanics idea, it could work i suppose if we wanted a game where ground combat was a lot more important than previous games of (orbital superiority=ground victory inevitable)

Darkevilme wrote:And FTL coms done purely with drones flying through jump points and using data transmission lasers?
That good with people?

I can dig that, it'd make piracy and other shady shenanigans much more viable at the least.

The shield suggestion was basically to do two things.

Primarily, it would make ground forces have a respectable influence upon the game. A person who developed well organized ground forces and had a good diplomatic face can easily "Free" boarder colonies or just harass the fuck outta someone and disrupt progress and general order.

Secondarily, it reduces the necessity of a player to always rush to the defense of every single colony. A small colony will still hold out for some time and you don't have to fear the enemy fleet razing the planet in response to your defensive maneuvers.

Dark Hellion wrote:Dahak, perhaps you didn't pay much attention to history, but until about 50 years ago (and then only with nations who are nuclear armed) people have fought each other pretty much constantly, with little regard for political expediency, over a myriad of reasons. During the 19th century Europe alone fought more than 40 wars, and there has been some war fought in Africa continously for at least the last 70 years. Realistically, people get into fights all the time, over very stupid and minor differences, like philosophy, religion or even just ethnic tribal hatreds. The fact of the matter is that no one wants to lose, and it is easier to RP out of a combat then it is to decisively win via RPing; mostly because of the Cops and Robbers syndrome Nephtys points out.

Well if we had mature players we could just rp it. Otherwise, we need a simple (emphisis on simple) point system, and/or an imparital mod. My big reservation with a point system is that if its explicitely spelled out how powerful each side is, and the outcome is mathematically determined and known in advance, their's no incentive to even fight at all. Probably the best way around this is if fleet movements pre-battle can be kept covert, and covert transactions could be handled through a mod.

Secondly, in history having a large, aggressive military generally makes it take longer for you to be defeated, unlike in STGOD were aggressive powers are quickly subsumed. Germany did very good in the beginning of both world wars, despite being on the offensive. There is no method to make people RP appeasement, because everyone knows that a nation will run out of steam after fighting another nation. Big aggressive nations kill one other nation, then die to anyone who wants to attack them. This is wholey unrealistic.

Could this be because every player starts with roughly equal military power? An STGOD war is like a war between the US and Russia: they are both superpowers, and both have loads of WMDs. No one's going to be left standing.

And alliances generally occur between parties that have similar ideals, political motives and share a geographical connection. The alliances in STGOD are bullshit alliances of convenience. You don't backstab, because then you are going to get gangbanged by everyone else in the alliance, even if it is their deathblow.

I know I make ideological alliances in these sorts of things. How other players conduct their diplomacy I don't know.

Frankly, we have a system that is politically inbred. Militaries are not powerful enough to overcame basic political expediencies. Small loses of war material cripple you for turns of game time, and months of time IRL, and with no reward for risk, no one is willing to do anything brash. The only attacks made are against clear martyr civs. (Like darkevil in 2k8II) and most political movement is utterly transparent.

We need players who are interested in more than winning by any means nessissary, and we probably need a situation where war is not an all-or-nothing deal.

1) A non-player Supermod who would be tasked with rules enforcement and with mantaining secret movements. Thus the Game thread will contain only the obvious movements, replays of events that have already happened, and news reports. This way, we eliminate the metagaming near entirely, and allow for numerous tricksy plays.

This is mostly fine, though secret movements could be handled through simple rping if everyone was to behave maturely.

2) Node mechanics: Nodes should move slightly, on an erratic and somewhat inscrutable path covering circuits of several light minutes over the course of around a years time. This would make the building of static defenses impossible at Node points, yet allow for ships to be stationed at a node to ambush incoming ships. With the hidden rules above, this allows for defenses to be very strong if a player is predictive enough, or allows for offensive actors to cripple trade, prevent reinforcement and allow the time to actually conquer a system.

A potentially interesting dynamic could be created here, though also a problematic one. The node system makes spying on a hostile power all but impossible unless you have at least some fairly extensive diplomatic relations with them, so an attacker could secretly mass the bulk of their force for a suprise attack against a single node. Given the delayed response time for reinforcements to reach a node in another system, an attacker could hit a node with overwelming force, then redeploy before a counterstrike could be launched. The possibillity that your enemy was doing the same might be a deterent, but unless I'm missing something the attacker could muster an overwelming numerical advantage in any first strike.

Of course the enemy's counterstrike could likely do the same thing, so without static defenses the aggressor would have to either keep the bulk of their forces in the captured system (risking their home territory), or just make a quick raid and then withdraw. Depending on the player's inclinations, then, we'd probably have either a situation where no one dares to make more than probing raids, or a situation where territory changes hands very quickly and everything probably ends up leveled. Unless I'm missing something.

On the other hand, how useful would static defenses be against such a massed first strike? I'm not saying yay or nay yet, merely raising questions.

3) Shield Mechanics: I propose that we have a ubiquitous tech that is a shield, similar to Dunes Holtzman shield, capable only of covering large bodies which move on a regular path. This shield would allow even a medium sized colony to withstand weeks of bombardment from a fleet.

Which would give reinforcements ample time to arrive.

However, slower moving, properly shielded metallic objects not containing excessive, unshielded volatile material (aka NO WEAPONS) such as Drop Ships, Drop Pods, Aerospace fighters, Prefabbed dropped buildings could penetrate.

Good luck landing drop ships without taking out the ground-based weapons, or holding a planet once your fleet has to withdraw vs reinforcements/pounding from said ground-based weapons.

This would consign Naval Units to fighting other Naval Units, make dug in ground forces a total pain in the ass (like real life) and generally promote aggressive movement from planet to planet, dropping off troops and then moving on to avoid being pincered between a defense fleet and the planet. It also allows small fleets and fleet remnants to do things that are significant, but doesn't allow them to simply raze a small planet like the previous STGODs allowed.

Its not a bad idea, if you can deal with the above.

To make Wars less of a clear penalty, gain more production during wartime. As in, real operations. Your building rate triple/quadruples during a harsh war, but can only last so long.

Nephtys wrote:To make Wars less of a clear penalty, gain more production during wartime. As in, real operations. Your building rate triple/quadruples during a harsh war, but can only last so long.

If this can be done without making the rules overly complicated, then yes. It certainly reflects the reality of total war between major powers.

I think what we really need is to somehow set up everything to encourage small scale conflict. Like sending a group of destroyers to take a valuable and disputed planetoid in a neighboring system, rather than expeditionary fleets omega and tau trying to take the whole system.

I think that the best way to encourage that would be to just say that pretty much everyone knows (and has known for a while) everyone else in the game (with the exception of terrible horrors from beyond space which should be discouraged because if they aren't then everyone wants to be It). So instead of epic space battles leveling systems right off the bat, we start with minor disputes that either happen in the shadows (squadron of stealth destroyers blowing up freighters to force your neighbor to rely on you for protection), or result in small scale conflict which gets hastily justified after the fact back at Babylon 5 ("I've received evidence from my government that the Zrillian miners aboard that station were in fact, supporting and harboring pirates who frequently attacked lawful shipping in Zebranky space. Since the Zrillian government did not act to rectify this, WE took matters into our own hands!").

Ohma wrote:I think what we really need is to somehow set up everything to encourage small scale conflict. Like sending a group of destroyers to take a valuable and disputed planetoid in a neighboring system, rather than expeditionary fleets omega and tau trying to take the whole system.

Eliminating sheilds and allowing heavy static defenses could discourage all-out attacks. But the node system (for whatever advantages it offers) makes stealth raiding an enemy system a questionable proposition at best, unless ships passing through have cloaks, using the node doesn't have any detectable effect, and static defenses are impossible. You see the problem? Maybe we could have it in the backstory that certain systems are unclaimed, and remain neutral territory by treaty?

I think that the best way to encourage that would be to just say that pretty much everyone knows (and has known for a while) everyone else in the game (with the exception of terrible horrors from beyond space which should be discouraged because if they aren't then everyone wants to be It). So instead of epic space battles leveling systems right off the bat, we start with minor disputes that either happen in the shadows (squadron of stealth destroyers blowing up freighters to force your neighbor to rely on you for protection), or result in small scale conflict which gets hastily justified after the fact back at Babylon 5 ("I've received evidence from my government that the Zrillian miners aboard that station were in fact, supporting and harboring pirates who frequently attacked lawful shipping in Zebranky space. Since the Zrillian government did not act to rectify this, WE took matters into our own hands!").

Frankly, on the kind of scale an interstellar civilization could have, we could have some damn big battles without anything crippling occuring to either combatant. And a mix of small-scale combat, diplomacy, and political/espionage-related intrigue could be more interesting than simple powergaming slugfests. Hell, from experience, I know it is.

One issue with "erratic nodes":
you have to know how or where to they move, otherwise you cannot use them for shipping. Once you know that, you can just use mobile mines and/or forts to protect it, basically "mobile fixed defense".
Because if it would jump huge distances at once, it would cause some...problems, if you send a fleet to save a colony of yours, just to have the node jump before the fleet arrives.

I think we can do this. We can also solve how and when new ships arrive, by having some period of time defined as long enough to receive a batch of ships.

If you all want to start a new game, may I propose a very simple set of rules, and volunteer for GM? I'd like to see another game go, given how fun they are to read.

Anyway, we'll figure out a map with jump points as we've mentioned before. But rules here, if I may propose?

PROPOSED SIMPLE RULESET

Every OOB is 1000 points navy, 500 points Army/Non-Mobile Assets.. One may rebalance that somewhat, but the conversion rate is it takes 2 points of Army to make 1 point of Navy over 1000. This allows some variety, while also promoting balance.

Every empire has 250 Planet Points to distribute between worlds of their empire. Each planet Point represents how much production the planet makes per build cycle, and the size of the local garrison.

Every in-game 6months-year (varies based on participation), we get a batch of new ships.

Some combat losses will be determined partially by Formula, unless both players specifically wish a certain result to be RPed. Damage dealt will be simple like 10d(Points of Fleet)/20 * modifier. The modifier is a judged component based on RP conditions. For example, if you are surprise attacked and have your fleet at standby, the attacker gets a large bonus modifier, and a 'first strike' bonus of dealing damage first, before you can deal back. Otherwise, a mutual engagement is simultaneously resolved.

A disengaging fleet may suffer one round of half damage enemy fire to escape the enemy fleet to beyond weapon range.

A fleet with more lighter elements will have greater initiative, and have more leeway in their maneuvers should such be seen as an advantage in the judging, or to stay away or leave the system. However, a heavier fleet spreads damage over less targets. Damaged ships still operate at 100 percent capacity, and can be repaired at half the cost of replacing the unit's pointage.

That's mostly it.

Example simple combat:
Earthling Rocket Armada: 10x 5-point Cruisers (50 pts), vs Space Roman Navy 30x 2 point Frigates (60 pts).
The Earthlings are using new weapons gained from an ally designed against Roman ships for marginally improved effect. +10 percent effectiveness modifier.
Turn 1:
50pts Earthling Fleet Attack Roll (10d50): 221 * 1.10. >>> 12 Damage Dealt.
60pts Roman Fleet Attack Roll (10d60): 282. >>> 14 damage dealt.
Results: 2 Sunk Earthling Cruisers, 1 badly damaged. 7 Sunk Roman Frigates.

Turn 2:
36 pt Earthling Fleet (Effective 40) attack roll (10d40) : 157 * 1.10 >> 9 Dealt
46 pt Roman Fleet Attack Roll (10d46): 253 >> 13 Damage dealt
Results: 3 Sunk Earthing cruisers, one damaged. 6 Sunk Roman Frigates, 1 damaged.

Turn 3:
23 pt Earthling Fleet (Effective 25) attempts to withdraw.
39 pt Roman fleet pursues. (10d39): 198 >> 10/2 >> 5 damage dealt.

Final Battle Results:
18pt Earthling fleet withdraws from combat.
39pt Roman Fleet has a party after the decisive combat. End of combat.

(OR)

Turn 4:
Roman Fleet attempts to pursue! Roman fleet is lighter (2 pt average) vs (5 pt average). Roman ships can chase for one more turn if they roll over a 40 on a 1d100 (2/5).
Roll> 45. Roman fleet pursues!
18pt Earthling fleet (Effective 20) still attempting to with draw, but returning fire. (10d20): 85 >> 5 Damage
39pt Roman Fleet (Effective 40) chases: 255 > 13/2 > 7 damage.

Turn 5:
Roman Fleet attempts to pursue!
Roll> 32. Earthling Fleet Escapes.

Final Battle Results:
11pt Earthling Fleet remains (3 Cruisers)
34pt Roman Fleet (17 Frigates)

Naturally, this can all be RPed out for the details.
---

For Ground invasions, we can assume all cities/major military bases have umbrella shields that can resist bombardment for some time. So the most expedient way of attacking is by land invasion (with orbital fire support counteracted by ground batteries), or land-based strategic city busting, under the shields.

As is there's no real way to actually surprise anyone with normal ships except Dahak's node fortresses as anyone else will see you coming hours before you arrive. We could conceivably add a freespace style in system jump drive to allow for surprise to be more feasible but it'd screw up travel times and the intercepts upon which my original reason for proposing node systems rely.
The alternative is to say that all ships have Soft Sci fi / space opera level stealth and that you dont necessarily see all ships in any one system unless their closeish by default. This would allow for more sneaky stuff though very much isnt hard SF.
Neither options are perfect i guess.

And Is Dahak proposing that the standard procedure would be to burn fuel week in week out day after day in orbital correction to keep a large number of starfortresses in place around the node? The way i see it such things should almost certainly cost upkeep and probably points as well. We can always make the meander speed fast enough for the nodes that it becomes impractical to chase them for anything but a short period of time and instead you set off for where it's going to be with a fleet.

And I think the universal planetary shield proof against bombardment is pretty much shot down for the simple fact that you NEED orbital support to start a ground invasion. Thirdfain didnt engage in operation 'spread the love' and destroy with nukes every military base and citadel within hundreds of miles of his landing site on Teldus just for fun. Well, probably, ya never know.

Yah, I don't understand Dahak's objections either.

Mines, for instance. Let's say that the node has an exit that is the exceedingly small (astronomically speaking) radius of 1/4 of a light second (75,000 km). Lets also say that each mobile mine can cover a 3km x 3km x 3km area (massive for any normal macroscopic object). You would only need around 15 QUADRILLION mines to cover the area. Lets say each mine masses in at 1 metric ton. You would need to use 1/1000 the total mass of the moon, or 10 times the mass of Phobos.

If Dahak really wants to completely convert a moon to mines, with the requisite point cost that would entail, go ahead.

And really, doesn't something with heavy armour, lots of weapons and mobility already exist in the game (Dahak's mobile fortresses). I believe they are called battleships.