|
|
|
|
|
June 8th, 2006, 08:30 AM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Pairs challenge match
I'm a bit behind, I guess, but I was waiting till all parameters were finalized.
__________________
ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third. (Ambrose Bierce)
|
June 8th, 2006, 11:30 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Pairs challenge match
Uploaded empire.
Since Parasite created the game, I'm thinking the only person with rights would be Geo to override and be able to make the game.
To set a few things to rest:
I'm thinking we need to forget stellar manip. While I think the proposed rule has merits, it might cause a situation where the opposing team wonders if a link was created between to systems that were colonized (or if it was colonized after the link was made). Though, I imagine by the time stellar manip was around and an opener was made, every system would be inhabited by someone.
So, I'm not steadfast on this one if someone wants to play it that way.
20,000 and 20,000 units/ships.
Any way to swap tech or anything between partners is fine.
Another suggestion since at least one player (my partner) is not fully satisfied with the Balance Mod...and I DO need to make him happy. We can go with standard game map OR use one of the FQM mods. Those are nice and still random. If we want to use it, then we can decide on which one when we get someone to set the game up.
Cheers!
__________________
ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third. (Ambrose Bierce)
|
June 9th, 2006, 03:33 AM
|
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 1,152
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Pairs challenge match
The main thing I don't like about warp openers is the sheer chaos that opening warp points directly to core enemy systems can cause, making effective strategy almost impossible beyond trying to ensure the destruction is mutual. I wouldn't miss the ability to speed up travel within my own empire too much if we just banned warp manipulation completely, though, but I think the rest of stellar manipulation should be left in. All the other offensive stellar manipulations are counterable with reasonably low investment.
Direct tech trading should definitely be allowed, as that's a major part of team play.
For the map, how about FQM Standard Paradise?
|
June 9th, 2006, 09:35 AM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Pairs challenge match
Quote:
douglas said:
The main thing I don't like about warp openers is the sheer chaos that opening warp points directly to core enemy systems can cause, making effective strategy almost impossible beyond trying to ensure the destruction is mutual. I wouldn't miss the ability to speed up travel within my own empire too much if we just banned warp manipulation completely, though, but I think the rest of stellar manipulation should be left in. All the other offensive stellar manipulations are counterable with reasonably low investment.
Direct tech trading should definitely be allowed, as that's a major part of team play.
For the map, how about FQM Standard Paradise?
|
I think FQM SP is fine and Stellar is fine but no openers and closers.
Parasite is not available this weekend, but the game can get started anytime we find someone to do a map.
Let's recap to make it easy:
No intel;
No Religious;
No openers/closers;
Starting resources: 20000
Starting planets: 1
Home planet value: Good
Score display: Allied
Technology level: Low
Racial points: 3000
Quadrant size: Medium
Event frequency: Low
Event severity: High
Technology cost: Medium
Victory conditions: Last team or partial team
Maximum units: 20000
Maximum ships: 20000
Have I missed anything?
__________________
ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third. (Ambrose Bierce)
|
June 10th, 2006, 10:29 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Pairs challenge match
Any chance of someone creating this game for us?
__________________
ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third. (Ambrose Bierce)
|
June 14th, 2006, 05:28 PM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Pairs challenge match
Quote:
Slynky said:
Any chance of someone creating this game for us?
|
*polite bump*
__________________
ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other's pocket that they cannot separately plunder a third. (Ambrose Bierce)
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|