Work with me here...

[Carthaginian]

Harbor depths sound especially good... especially since we are dealing with a fictitious planet and can have everyone assured at least a single 'good' port.

Mike's idea of '3 Values' seems like a good idea- I'd have to see more on how it was presented before I say I like it, but ATM is sounds reasonable. If it gets too complicated, it won't be so interesting anymore.

We have to have some kind of tech development... unless we have an over-arching agreement like the WNT or LNT governing the pave of development (such as in WW). We could, in fact, go precisely that route; tech has been 'capped' at a certain level and there has to be an 'international conference' in order to raise the tech level.

The character points, as I said above, are a strong selling point with me.
I support them pretty strongly- in the event that a nation is handed off, they will serve as a guide for a new player at the start... something that can be changed over time, but something to prevent 'about face' changes.

[miketr]

My concern with character points is how to balance them?  What exact effect do they have? 

A role playing persona is easy enough to set.

Michael

[snip]

As long as the paperwork is minimized with any "character points" system I am amendable to it.

Im apprehensive about ditching a tech system compleatly, as it can cause problems when ppl try and push it regardless of setting.

Harbor depth and the harbor systems being talked about are good.

On resource tracking: We dont necessarily need to track how much of a given resource is needed, just if access to it is posible. While it would be more then posible to track numbers given some map creation programs (Civ III and IV), access should create enough of a system to make it something that can influence policy.

[The Rock Doctor]

As an example that I am not necessarily proposing, consider a system with four traits, each rated on a scale of 0 to 10:

1.  Chauvinism:  how well you get along with others in a peaceful way.  0 = well, 10 = bad.
2.  Militarism:  how likely you are to resort to violence.  0 = pacifist, 10 = psychotic.
3.  Determination:  how likely you are to tolerate hardship.  0 = whiner, 10 = dogged stubborn.
4.  Risk-taking:  How likely you are to take chances.  0 = no risks, 10 = footloose & fancy-free.

You'd get 20 pts to spend.

1.  If you (Chauvinism = 3) wanted to pitched a non-aggression pact to an NPC (Ch=8), the odds of him refusing would be (8-3) * 10 = 50%.

2.  Your fleet is getting clobbered (60% casualties) but you (Militarism = 9) order a death ride.  The odds of your fleet obeying are (9*10) - 60% = 30%.

3.  You want to raise taxes to fund your war machine.  Exact math to be determined, but your determination score would influence whether or not your public rioted at the thought.

4.  You want to spend a pile of cash developing ballistic missiles, which nobody has.  You'd have to make a succcess roll against your risk-taking to be approved.

...something like that.  I'll look for my Imperial Starfire rules tonight...

[snip]

Im strangely attracted to it.

[miketr]

My view point on tech is there has always been a constant tug on how much hindsight was being used in designs.  I say just end the debate; open the door up to whatever.  X reason there are no air planes or don't work.

On resources.  I don't want to deal with endless debates as to what effect disruption on access is.  To be very blunt I am not impressed by past attempts to moderate on this issue.  Doubling down by adding another element without attempting to do the under pinning to make to handle it is just a waste of everyone time.  If you want resources then lets do it right.  If all you are going to do at the end is some type of hand waving solution then why are you bothering?  Just call it flavor text.

Michael

[miketr]

...something like that.  I'll look for my Imperial Starfire rules tonight...

POOF, all hail the Unified Rules Document; pity Marvin and Steve were total DORKS.

Rocky when did you play Starfire and what versions?

Michael

14.05 RACIAL OUTLOOK
Any NPR (or, for that matter, player race) has a Racial Outlook (RO) which governs the way in which that race approaches the rest of the galaxy. A racial outlook may be thought of as a mind-set made up of a host of cultural and intellectual elements. For the purposes of STARFIRE, only three of these elements really matter: Racial Chauvinism (RC); Racial Militancy (RM); and Racial Determination (RD). Whenever an NPR (or, for that matter, a starting player race) is generated, these three attributes are generated by rolling percentage dice once for each. The RO of any race is the average of its RC, RM, and RD. Each of these attributes has its own role to play in different rules sections, but at this point we will simply define them.

Racial Chauvinism: RC is a quantification of how the race views other sentient races. It combines fear of the unknown, eagerness for new knowledge, arrogance, caution, etc. The higher the RC, the less tolerant of and eager for contact with alien civilizations a race will be.

Racial Militancy: RM is a quantification of a race's aptness to the use of military force to resolve difficulties. It combines ferocity, timidity, military tradition, courage, etc. The higher the RM, the more likely a race is to resort to war in a threat situation and the more willing it is to accept casualties in warfare.

Racial Determination: RD is a quantification of a race's obstinacy, or how likely it is to persevere in a course of action once adopted. It may be thought of as stubbornness and may reduce the willingness of a race's military units to surrender, but should not be confused with militancy. A race need not be militant to be
determined.

[The Rock Doctor]

POOF, all hail the Unified Rules Document; pity Marvin and Steve were total DORKS.

Rocky when did you play Starfire and what versions?

Michael

Yay!  I figured I'd have to spend my evening in the basement hunting for it.

I played around 1993-1996.  Not sure which versions, exactly.  Plain ol' tactical stuff first, then the Imperial campaign version.

[Carthaginian]

I think you're forgetting something about the Civ maps. They are rectangular, so your world would be a cylinder without bottom and top. Maybe even a torus/donout or Möbius strip! If we don't want nuclear power, than we should just say that this is world simply has no uranium...

A year is too long, a half year still long and it feels strange to me. I like quarters, but this might be too much - how about terms (4 months)?
Advantages for short terms include:
- not much to change from previous report
- less important. It doesn't really matter if you forget something. Just remember for the next
- better reactions on each others course of action without changing previous ones

First off, nothing is going to be perfect. Yes, the Civ maps will be cylindrical... but so are all naval charts in the world, and this is a naval sim. ;) We should be able to do fine with it; we all know that the planet is round, the map is just an abstraction.

I like your 'Trimester Report' idea- best compromise between the flexibility of quarters and simplicity of halves.

[snip]

Could we move the economic snipping elsewhere please?

[Carthaginian]

I agree... economics at PhD level was one of the things that appeared to play a part in stalling/killing the reboot.
I'd just as soon it not take place here.

The economic system should be as simple as possible... period.
It is supposed to enable the game, not become the game.

[miketr]

I agree that I don't want to do this particular fight, again, for the 3rd time now.  It was a blood bath behind the scenes, it was a blood bath when the system was presented and like a zombie crawling its way out of the grave its more blood.  Yah this is my idea of fun, NOT.  The fighting just sucked the life out of me, it wasn't fun.

Rocky has stepped up here, I view myself as part of the peanut gallery at this point.  My game mod mandate ended when the game imploded instead of took off.  New game new leadership.

At the same time a system needs to be agreed to; I am not sure how much the debate can be ignored.

Michael 

 

[miketr]

As requested I moved the overt economic stuff to a new thread.  Will be back in a day or two.

Michael

[The Rock Doctor]

Whats wrong with just having 3 attributes for ports to track?

Support, Repair and Construction?

If you want a port that is just a building hub then just shove up the construction value and call it a day.

In either case certain assumptions were built into N4 with respect to upkeep.  I would suggest a return to scratch on costs if a new system is to be used.  To figure the balance between upkeep and construction.

I'm not sure I'd distinguish between Repair and Construction - but in that case, we could just have two stats, and players could mix and match them as they required.  Yeah, I'd be cool with that.

Costs can certainly be done from scratch.

[The Rock Doctor]

As requested I moved the overt economic stuff to a new thread.  Will be back in a day or two.

Michael

Thanks, Mike.

I appreciate the interest you, Nobody, and others have in the issue.  It's something I still need to wrap my head around.