ENES: Abandoned Stars

[Niklas]

Words can't express how sorry I am for this. I really really liked this NES, it was something different from the crowd. I guess begging you to reconsider is out of the question, so...

In fact, I liked the setting so much that I could even consider modding it, or something very similar, myself. Too bad I wouldn't get to play, but modding could be almost as fun. Would you other players be interested again if I were to start something similar? It wouldn't be exactly the same thing, I would tweak the rules a bit here and there, but the similarities would far outweigh the differences. (And you would all have a chance to speak up about any changes you would want to see ).

What say ye?

Btw, Erik, modding is vastly different from playing, I would be honored if you are interested. (And I wouldn't mind getting a few things from you from this NES...)

 

[TerrisH]

Go for it!

 

[Symphony D.]

I'd play it. It could use a fair share of tweaks though. Not terribly-developed ship class idea. Having Cruisers as the smallest ship size other than Fighters and Scouts never made much sense to me.

 

[foolish icarus]

Seconded .

 

[Sheep]

I would play as well

 

[TerrisH]

hmm, on a side note, did anyone relize the true nature of my Nation and have a rough Idea on what I based it on, besides erik?

 

[alex994]

I would play it as well

 

[Niklas]

Ok, 5 people have given their preliminary interest which is enough for me to give it a try. My modding will undoubtably be different from Erik's in many regards, in particular I will try to tone down my own role. As the mod I will be the backdrop, my updates will not be stories to the same extent that Erik's were, I will expect you to provide the stories.

@Symph: Thanks for the suggestion. While I agree that the ship system is not very thorough and realistic, I will also defend Erik's idea of a simplistic system. Personally I know next to nothing about warfare in space, so it would make no sense for me to try to come up with a system where people have fancily crafted ships and fleets and equally fanciful battle tactics, as I would still mostly be looking at numbers when deciding outcomes (sure, I'll listen to your tactics and factor them in). Better then to have a system with a balance between realism and simplicity. That said, I will change the current ship system somewhat, and I don't mind adding in a few more ships to the mix. Your post that you linked to will be useful, thanks for that. I would also welcome any and all more specific suggestions as how to craft the rules for this.

@all: If you have any other thoughts on rule tweaks, please speak up!

@TerrisH: No, not really. I pictured it as some sort of equivalent of a OTL evil exploitive multinational company freed from all forms of governmental regulations. If there was more to it than that, I didn't catch it. I guess stories would have helped.

 

[TerrisH]

well, besides the fact that the orgins of that Corperation was in orginized crime and that we had branches already established in most of your nations already, you got it right.

 

[Niklas]

Hehe, oops. That would have been interesting to be sure.

 

[Symphony D.]

I could work on some spiffier technology titles if you gave me the list (spiffy technology titles are what it's all about; see also: Alpha Centauri). I also believe they should have defined prices... I wasn't a big fan of the not-getting prices when asking for them but fractions instead thing (a government accounting agency can't give you an estimate?).

Also, I think a new map is in order. I did like the explore-the-map-yourself aspect of things. Less silly star names too, please.

What else... the colonization and reactivation system needs to be reworked. Reactivation wasn't really worth it (it takes 3 turns to break even for every single point you invest; should be diminshing returns or something, with early growth nearer to or at 1:1) while colonies always gave you 10PP for 10PP start-up; direct 1:1 profit instead of 1:3. It was always better to colonize when possible instead of investing.

Stats on the front page, not with every update... or the update links on the front page. Otherwise it's a hassle tracking everything down.

Infantry levels need to be adjusted. Smaller populations or not, it should still be at least 1,000 instead of 100. That must be some well-paid infantry for 10 of them to equal a single exo-atmospheric fighter craft.

 

[Niklas]

I could work on some spiffier technology titles if you gave me the list (spiffy technology titles are what it's all about; see also: Alpha Centauri). I also believe they should have defined prices... I wasn't a big fan of the not-getting prices when asking for them but fractions instead thing (a government accounting agency can't give you an estimate?).

I've gotten the tech tree from Erik, and I will use that as a start. I will not give out the full tech tree right away as I enjoyed the exploration part of it. Thus I will not give you a full list of techs, but you are most welcome to spam me with spiffy tech titles (I fully agree on their importance). I will expand and revamp the tech tree a bit anyway, and if nothing else such a list would serve as some very nice inspiration.

Regarding giving out prices, I can go either way. I would find it most interesting to give out estimates, like Erik did initially. Techs will probably be a bit more expensive in general than in Erik's version.

Also, I think a new map is in order. I did like the explore-the-map-yourself aspect of things. Less silly star names too, please.

A new map is already in progress, and I will be using the same system for exploration that Erik did.

What else... the colonization and reactivation system needs to be reworked. Reactivation wasn't really worth it (it takes 3 turns to break even for every single point you invest; should be diminshing returns or something, with early growth nearer to or at 1:1) while colonies always gave you 10PP for 10PP start-up; direct 1:1 profit instead of 1:3. It was always better to colonize when possible instead of investing.

The colony cost is my pet peeve as well, and I have plans for it. I will re-introduce colonization ships, cost will tentatively be 30 PP, and a new colony will have a production of 5 PP. This will put the initial return at 1:6, making colonization a trade-off between efficient PP increase and expansion.

I don't agree with you regarding reactivation though. It should definitely not be 1:1, ever, since then it would never be any question what would pay off more, even in the very short run. Diminishing returns is interesting, but would be a bit complex, in particular with respect to systems with differing max production capacity (should it really cheaper to activate the last PP of a low-PP world than for a high-PP world?). Unless I get a really good suggestion otherwise, I will keep reactivation at 1:3.

I'm also considering a categorization of colonies depending on size, to determine what facilities exist there, e.g. shipyards for deployment of new ships.

Stats on the front page, not with every update... or the update links on the front page. Otherwise it's a hassle tracking everything down.

Stats on the front page, and update links.

Infantry levels need to be adjusted. Smaller populations or not, it should still be at least 1,000 instead of 100. That must be some well-paid infantry for 10 of them to equal a single exo-atmospheric fighter craft.

Fair enough.

 

[Symphony D.]

I would find it most interesting to give out estimates, like Erik did initially.

Right, but estimates from a government agency are always in dollar (pound, euro, whatever) figures. They don't express it as a percent of previous research spending. I'm saying estimates should be in Production Points--that is not to say that you might go overbudget and spend more, or make a breakthrough and spend less, but that it should be expressed in a simple fashion. If you say "We estimate cost to be 5PP, barring unforseen circumstances" and the player invests 5PP, and it ultimately winds up costing him 6PP, it went overbudget. If he is cautious, he can invest more, or he can go with the esimate.

It's much more logical (and realistic) than saying "We estimate the cost to be 1/3 of the previous year's research budget," which requires they player to do the math himself and adds absolutely nothing to the mechanic. It's the same thing, but with unnecessarily more work.

Unless I get a really good suggestion otherwise, I will keep reactivation at 1:3.

The old DasNES economic system actually does this easily. For example, you have economic levels, like the following:

Depression (-2)-Bankrupt (-1)-Recession (-1)-Very Poor (0)-Poor (0)-Not Bad (+1)-Normal (+1)-Good Enough (+2)-Growing (+2)-Rich (+3)-Very Rich (+3)-Richer (+4)-Richest (+4)-Economic Powerhouse (+5)-Monopoly (+6)

You cannot spend any of that money the turn you upgrade. This is effectively the same operation as being forced to spend your current level to get to the next level. If you are at Good Enough(+2), you spend 2EP to get to Growing(+2). At the transition points (eg: Growing(+2) to Rich(+3)) you spend 2, and gain 1. Hence 2:1. But as you move up the chain (say, (+5) to (+6)) you are spending 5 to gain 1. Hence 5:1 It introduces a system of diminishing returns very simply.

This idea could be staggered out and made to fit a numeric system like that used in this NES as well. For example:

Between 0 to 40PP is 1PP to upgrade for 1PP gained.
Between 41 to 60PP is 2PP to upgrade for 1PP gained.
Between 61 to 80PP is 3PP to upgrade for 1PP gained.

So on and so forth. It's not complex and solves the problem rather simply. You could make the tiers an exponential decay of value to make it difficult to get a planet beyond a certain point (reflecting the difficulty of maximizing planetary output).

Also, depending on the cost of military vessels (presuming a Frigate costs, say, 7PP) I would think a ballpark of 1:3 through 1:5 would be good for colonies, otherwise you have the opposite problem of there being no reason to colonize when you can upgrade your homeworld (even if you use a flat 1:3 upgrade). Vertical vs. Horizontal Expansion should be a player preference, I think, not a decided advantage either way (or each should have its own advantages to compensate).

 

[Niklas]

Right, but estimates from a government agency are always in dollar (pound, euro, whatever) figures. They don't express it as a percent of previous research spending. I'm saying estimates should be in Production Points...

Gee, I was never introduced to these wonders in Erik's system, never got an answer to my inquiries about research costs. I see what you're saying now, and I'm with you completely. Estimates will be in PP, nothing else.

... This idea could be staggered out and made to fit a numeric system like that used in this NES as well. For example:

Between 0 to 40PP is 1PP to upgrade for 1PP gained.
Between 41 to 60PP is 2PP to upgrade for 1PP gained.
Between 61 to 80PP is 3PP to upgrade for 1PP gained.

So on and so forth. It's not complex and solves the problem rather simply...

I have no problems appreciating the benefits of a system with diminishing returns from a game balance perspective, my worry was more about the realism. But when considering what it would mean to make this anywhere near realistic - noting specific planets within systems for starters - I simply don't want to go there. So yes, I will consider introducing a system like this. But I will still not, at any step in the stair, use 1:1. Using your numbers, I would more likely set the costs to 2-3-4 per PP gained.

Also, depending on the cost of military vessels (presuming a Frigate costs, say, 7PP) I would think a ballpark of 1:3 through 1:5 would be good for colonies, otherwise you have the opposite problem of there being no reason to colonize when you can upgrade your homeworld (even if you use a flat 1:3 upgrade). Vertical vs. Horizontal Expansion should be a player preference, I think, not a decided advantage either way (or each should have its own advantages to compensate).

I agree to your conclusion, that vertical vs horizontal should be balanced, but surely you would agree that colonizing does have an advantage of its own to compensate? A colony, albeit initially costly and not very productive, is really a longer term investment in that it increases the maximum production capacity. Wait too long with that colony and someone else will grab it. That said, 1:6 was really the highest value I was toying with, and I gave it to see what the reactions would be. Now I have one reaction. But also consider that I think in terms of higher costs for reactivation.

 

[Symphony D.]

Wait too long with that colony and someone else will grab it.

That's true, but while they spend their money doing that, you can be using your quicker-return funding to build up a military and snatch their hard-earned work away for them on the cheap.

Kidding aside, anything less than 1:6 is good, I think (even 1:5). I had to actually deal with 1:6 return rates during the game for reactivation (a penalty I wouldn't have taken if I'd thought about it some more; it was much harsher than those of most other people), and not once did I bother investing in it as a consequence; and if it had continued, I likely wouldn't have for at least the next five turns or so.

I can understand no 1:1, anyway. A few more steps could be added as well, depending how high you want to take development.

 

[Niklas]

Just a short heads-up so you don't think I've given up.

Rules are nearing completion and a preview/signup thread should be up in a few days. What's left to do is the tech tree (have only rough sketches ATM) and the map (which I won't do until I have a rough estimate on how many players there will be).

If there are any spiffy technology titles you want me to use, now would be the time to send them.

 

[Niklas]

Here is a link to my preview/signup thread: NiNES: A Broken Galaxy