Re: Rated Game Proposal
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Great to hear, Gandalph!

Re: Rated Game Proposal
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The game proposal can be modified if enough players indicated a wish for a particular change. I added the modification to prohibit openers and closers because I thought there might be a good chance tech would be in good progress. I also made tech cost cheap for 2 other reasons: (1) I think people get tired of always having to labor through the same techs and never getting to the rarely-used expensive ones, and (2) No mines.

The way I see the map being layed out...the enemy should be met around turn 20 (or so).

But, as I said, we can change this if the final teams suggest it. An alternative would be starting with medium tech (which gives PDs and a few other things, I think) and then medium or high tech cost. One thing I didn't take into consideration is that there will be a lot of pop-swapping...and THAT should increase the research centers, too.

Re: Rated Game Proposal
 

Draft update:

Removed from draft consideration:

Primitive
BBegemott

Re: Rated Game Proposal
 

The Partnership income will also play a part (why did I forget this point?). Assuming there are four players in a team, who have roughly the same income, each player would actually have 40% of the income of the entire team. (If Trade Savvy is left on average)

A Partnership at 20% with a teammate bringing in 25% of the income of the team means +5% more of this income for you. With three partners, it means +15%, and +20% with four partners, thus doubling your income. So once the game reaches turn 20 and beyond (depending on when you can sign the treaties), your income will be much higher. (How much higher depends on the income of your allies)

Re: Rated Game Proposal
 

Also a good point (depending on the trade level people would settle for). But remember, I also wanted to give a chance for people to take other special racial traits...and that takes extra research, too.

We can let others comment. Perhaps better to change it to medium cost. Just a thought.

Re: Rated Game Proposal
 

I forgot this query in my Last post: why would this game be "Low tech cost"? Or is it intended that this game should virtually be a Full Tech game once the teams met? (Obviously, not all techs would be researched, but only the fundamentals. I don't quite believe that anybody will bother with Tachyon Sensors)

Four players would be able to research a *lot* with this cheap technology cost. For example, APB XII costs a mere 440,000 points, Physics I included. In fact, you would be limited by the "one level in a given technology per turn" rule rather than by your income in research points here. (Technology came very quickly in the Pairs game, where it was only two players and a medium tech cost.)

Re: Rated Game Proposal
 

I would be interested in this...

Re: Rated Game Proposal
 

I've been quite busy lately so I found this thread only now. I've intented to cut down my games but this sounds so interesting that I'm in. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Rated Game Proposal
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I knew you (and some others) were busy and that is why I stated up front that I fully expect the game to take 72 hours between turns when we get into the game good. Thanks for throwing in http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif .

Re: Rated Game Proposal
 

You have my sympathy Asmala, for I made the same tough decision of cranking down my number of games. The results were quite impressive, since I joined (or will join) three more games. *Grumbles*

As for this tech cost Slynky, I would indeed be more in favour of a Medium tech cost. It keeps a non-linear progression (unlike low tech cost), while still being very cheap. (Granted, my single mindedness on research makes all but a few techs very cheap) With such a game, a team might even research a technology such as Radioactives Extraction all the way to level IX! (Nay, that does still seem very unlikely)