|
|
|
|
 |

April 10th, 2004, 03:14 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Rated Game Proposal
Quote:
Originally posted by Gandalph:
I would be willing to give it a go, so count me in.
|
Great to hear, Gandalph!
__________________
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)
|

April 10th, 2004, 03:23 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Rated Game Proposal
Quote:
Originally posted by Alneyan:
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.)
|
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.
__________________
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)
|

April 10th, 2004, 03:26 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Rated Game Proposal
Draft update:
Removed from draft consideration:
Primitive
BBegemott
__________________
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)
|

April 10th, 2004, 04:00 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,603
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
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)
|

April 10th, 2004, 04:15 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
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.
__________________
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)
|

April 12th, 2004, 04:01 PM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,229
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Rated Game Proposal
I would be interested in this...
__________________
Ragnarok - Hevordian Story Thread
-------------------
I think...therefore I am confused.
They were armed. With guns, said Omari.
Canadians. With guns. And a warship. What is this world coming to?
The dreaded derelict dwelling two ton devil bunny!
Every ship can be a minesweeper... Once
|

April 15th, 2004, 01:23 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,499
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Rated Game Proposal
BUMP
(trying to get Asmala and Rex to give a read  )
__________________
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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
|