Aurora 4x Games

Community Games => Drgong's Community Game => Topic started by: Drgong on April 06, 2016, 10:31:24 AM

Title: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 06, 2016, 10:31:24 AM
This thread is for out of character team discussion, for anything from house-cleaning to deciding on setting.   All teams are welcomed and encouraged to post here. 


Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 06, 2016, 10:48:19 AM
Background proposal.


The Year is 2100.   Humans suddenly know that they are not alone.

There had been hints, unknown items recovered from the Tunguska event, in the Canadian Shield and Yellowstone, and in the deep mines of South Africa.  Only when the all three groups of items were researched together, two important discoveries were made.   Some sort of Alien race made these items, and once accepting that they use 12-base numbering, that technology that breaks the very concept of Newtonian physics exists.   Research Labs in Russia, the North American Union, and South Africa released the stunning information on December 30, 2099.   The new space race had begun.


The world is dominated by three major powers. 

 The North American Union, consisting of the United States, Canada, and Mexico (insert Team 2 background)

 The Russian confederation (Insert team 1 background),

 The Free State Alliance, a collection of pariah states ranging from a Afrikaner ruled South Africa to the secular state of Iran.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 06, 2016, 10:52:35 AM
Just so everyone see what the buildings will be

Academies - 2
Research Laboratories - 25
Mines - 180
Auto Mines - 20
Conventional Industry - 1600
Naval Shipyard - 1
Commercial Shipyard - 1
Deep Space Tracking Stations - 1
Maintenance Facilities - 5
Ground Force Training Facilities - 2

In addition, each team has 32 ICBM complexes.  Also, I SMed in that each side has the ability to communicate with each other. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on April 06, 2016, 11:03:51 AM
Hmm, I don't care where the ship parts are found in the end (could be Roswell, for all I care), but lets not spread them out over all the planet. One site, or else it becomes hard to believe that the findings would just happen to coincide.
...Unless the rudimentary TN scanning technology (or some signals activated) from the first ship/artifacts made possible to find other ancient wreckage, well, then they could be everywhere in hindsight, so that would be believable.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Red Dot on April 06, 2016, 11:14:20 AM
Quote from: Drgong link=topic=8517. msg88999#msg88999 date=1459957699
The North American Union, consisting of the United States, Canada, and Mexico (insert Team 2 background)

Formed out of the chaos of the Second Great Depression of 2033, the initial economic steps of an enhanced North American Free Trade Accord (NAFTA) were so successful that further continental integration occurred in the 2040s and 2050s.  By 2077, all three nation-states of the USA, Canada and Mexico were ready to cede their sovereignty to the formation of the North American Union.  On 1 August 2077, the creation documents were signed by all three parties at the Geogrpahic Center of the Continent in Rugby, North Dakota.   The Rugby documents (the Declaration of Union and the Constitution) quelled the last reserves of the nationalists in all three nation-states and was a clear victory for the continentalist parties.   The North American Continentalist Party won the first North American elections on 1 March 2078 and has been in power for most of the latter part of the 21st Century.  The NACP has developed a platform of Enhanced Manifest Destiny for North America.   The discoveries of late 2099 has simply given them a new direction - MANIFEST DESTINY in SPAAAACE!
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 06, 2016, 11:40:09 AM
Espionage proposal -

Espionage is lightly built into Aurora, but since I have SM control, and I know both teams want to do espionage, I will have a simple proposal for some added fun to the espionage gameplay.

In addition to the Aurora Espionage, the following is proposed.

Espionage team that is formed and is not targeted is working "Counter espionage"

Every year after the first two years (To give enough time for the academies to produce 5 Espionage officers) on Jan 1 I will make a roll.

(Targeted Espionage Rating + 1d100) - (Counter Espionage rating + 1d100) = Espionage Score

I will only use the rating of the highest untargeted score to generate the Counter Espionage rating.

If the Score is less then 0, nothing happens. (Spying failed)
Low wins (~<20) would be simple stuff, like Geological survey info
good wins (~ <40) might be a info of what they are researching at this time. Location of a task force,  or so
Big wins (~ <80) would be a snapshot of what their industry is doing or some other important information.
Huge wins (+100) would be a technology, class information on a random class, or so on.


So for example, Team Green sends a team with a rating of 75 to spy on Team Blue
Team blue has a unassigned team with a score of 115

if both get rolls of 50, the final score would be -35
if green rolled 100, and blue rolled a 5, the score would be 55, and  the Team Green would find out that Team Green is researching lasers 12cm and Grav Sensor 10. 

For a penalty on the roll, the espionage team can seek specific information
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Red Dot on April 06, 2016, 12:06:30 PM
Espionage proposal -

I like it.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on April 06, 2016, 12:15:03 PM
Drgong, please slow down a bit. I wrote some story snipped open for discussion, and you had it implemented and warped instantly without anyone having chance to say something. Now you come up with espionage which I said I would make a more detailed proposition.(and have actually been writing on for a while now)
We all live in different time zones here, and if I happened to be asleep in the last 3 hours, I would have missed all this. Give it a bit of time.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 06, 2016, 12:22:28 PM
Drgong, please slow down a bit. I wrote some story snipped open for discussion, and you had it implemented and warped instantly without anyone having chance to say something. Now you come up with espionage which I said I would make a more detailed proposition.(and have actually been writing on for a while now)
We all live in different time zones here, and if I happened to be asleep in the last 3 hours, I would have missed all this. Give it a bit of time.

Fair enough Vandermeer, I been working on a expanded espionage system as well, and want to keep it easy on myself running it. 

In addition, if you don't like the proposal just say so.  I am not going to get my feelings hurt.   

This is the only thing set in stone

Quote
The Year is 2100.   

The world is dominated by three major powers. 
 
 The Russian Confederation (Insert team 1 background),

 The North American Union, consisting of the United States, Canada, and Mexico (insert Team 2 background)

 The Free State Alliance, (Insert team 0 background).

I will be more then happy to look at your espionage ideas, I was throwing it out for discussion. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 06, 2016, 01:11:27 PM
Game reports

Before I head off and do real life stuff, I wanted to show what would be in reports to the players.   
I am using the Admin empire so no team secret info is released.  In addition, I would screen cap

1. Anything requested by a player
2. anything of note.
3.  Teams can request a specific screen cap to be in their report, or exclude one of these as unneeded. 

I will post them at the start of each "turn" so players can track what is going on.   

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/drgong/FSA%20Outer_zpsb4kmovgv.jpg)
The Outer system scan for sol.   

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/drgong/FSA%20Outer_zpsb4kmovgv.jpg)
Inner System Scan

Note, you will see that ships are already detected.   Each team has 32 ICBM bases that the sensors detect.

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/drgong/FSA%20Summary_zpskf3jzrwq.jpg)
Empire Summary.  This gives the basic info.   All Empires start the same.

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/drgong/FSA%20industry_zpsg3tiibkl.jpg)
The all important Manufacturing page.   This goes over what you are manufacturing.

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/drgong/FSA%20mining_zpsmud241fq.jpg)
The mining page.   As you can see, I added extra resources on earth since we have three empires who will be mining it.  With 180 mines and 20 automines we should avoid the early game issue of autoturns failing due to shortages of Sorium for the fuel production.

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/drgong/FSA%20Shipyards_zpsizzpcxjc.jpg)
Shipyard screen.   Each empire starts with 1 naval and one Commercial shipyard.  Right now I autonamed them but teams can of course rename their shipyards.

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/drgong/FSA%20Research_zpsmx2tjfrj.jpg)
Research screen - this updates you on what is being researched at this time.  All empires start with 25 labs.  I did redact my scientists as that is a state secret!  ;)


Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on April 06, 2016, 04:38:47 PM
In addition, if you don't like the proposal just say so.  I am not going to get my feelings hurt.
It is good in the way that we already get a bell-curve distribution, but there are flaws in:
- not accounting for multiple teams / heightened effort, which a larger nation should be able to put out
- not involving staff (perfect opportunity to finally give that intel-officer purpose)
- only allowing a single event in a certain time scale, while realistically intel-war might be more intense in some cases

I pretty much took over the severity ranking of your result table though, but also added some things, mostly coming from our RP opportunities here.
-----

(in the following, green text is explanation for a certain mechanic's existence/purpose)
(TLDR: there is a super short summary at the end for good overview instead of explanation. The whole section before the table can essentially be skipped and is only for further interest or to clear up missunderstanding)

Concerning Intel
This espionage system attempts to balance between active spying and manipulation, and the counter-intelligence in such way, that defense is working slightly more reliably, but also doesn't completely eliminate the chance of even a weak attempt possibly getting through here and there. This should keep the unwanted ingame need to maximize the sector at bay, while making everything about it more interesting. It also gives much more excitement to the position "intelligence-minister" or however a faction governs this.

Skill point generation
Officer skill is the only factor that determines the overall chance of success. Firstly, a nation features a counter-intelligence score determined by the best intelligence rating that any officer staff currently located in the capital system has.

(http://abload.de/img/codecogseqnkdk0r.gif)

The active spying efforts against a nation on the other hand are determined by the Aurora skill level of the best team assigned against that particular nation.

(http://abload.de/img/codecogseqn4rmo7r.gif)

{Obviously this favors defense, as you only need to depend on one highest skilled officer, who gets that multiplied by 5 ("a one man team" essentially), and then also receives eventual Admiral boni. A 60% officer could alone get a perfect rating of 300 this way.
On the high end of scores when closing in to 100%, the effects are even exponentially better, but can still be countered partly (s.b.)}


Any additional team assigned hereby betters this score by only 1/5th. {e.g. Two teams of 180 and 150 would generate a total score of 210 (=180+150/5) }
Any espionage team that is not assigned, and even additional staff on the other hand contribute to defense in the same way, except that staff only brings about 1/10th of the usual score. {A staff of score 200 with an additional staff of score 140 and an unassigned team of score 120 would thus accumulate to 238 (=200+14+24) }

Setting things up like this essentially ensures that even a small and weak nation can have near impenetrable defense at first, but a really dedicated and large nation could still muster up the resource to punch through if it really sacrifices for that.

Now, every year an espionage team had been assigned to operate against another nation, it tests its skill randomly with a chance that is:
(http://abload.de/img/codecogseqn2l1j7o.gif)

If the attack succeeds, the counter-intel rolls against their own defense score with the same math involved. Should the counter-intel fail, the attacking side gets 1 "Intel-Point" to be used later, and receives another attack throw against the same chance, but with a ceiling of 90% for the chance. {...so to make infinite wins from theoretic score 300 teams going up against no defenses impossible}

Example:
The "NSA-rulez" espionage team has a total score of 240, granting it 80% chance to succeed.
Konteradmiral "Iron Curtain" Dimitri had an additional team (rating 75) placed for internal affairs, so that his staff's rating of 155 gained another 15 points for a total of 170, so ~57%.
The NSA throws 64 and succeeds, while Dimitri throws a 69 in jubilation, but fails.
NSA gets 1 Intel-Point and gets to try again, this time throwing 74, - another success.
Dimitri, slowly adapting to the concept that lower means better, receives a 11, stopping the second incursion.

This year ends with NSA gaining 1 Intel Point to spend later.


In addition to the above, a score higher than 300 for the attacking team means that this additional value gets deducted from the enemy counter-intelligence.

Example:
NSA now involves german and swedish secret services in its operations, giving it an amazing score of 330 to breach the motherland's motherboards.
Not expecting this degree of puppeteering, Dimitri has his team's rating reduced to mere 140, so ~47%.
While NSA doesn't even have to make a first throw due to 100% success chance, Dimitri fails in his defense with just a 48.
"Borscht and Adidas!" he screams, as NSA prepares for it's second incursion on a 90% chance.(the highest for follow-ups)
They throw a 3 and continue to leak data, as Dimitri fails even the second throw with a 81.

This will continue on and on, granting an Intel-Point for every unparried success, until Dimitri finally rolls 47 or lower, or NSA does get a higher result than 90.



Intel-Points
Intel-Points are most securely spent immediately, but can also tried to be banked to save up for greater leaks or operations.
If an Intel-Point is at the end of the year not spent by a team, and new points are getting rolled, every such Intel-Point must pass against a score of the highest intel staff score times five:
(http://abload.de/img/codecogseqn3j0swm.gif)

Contrary to counter-intelligence, this score cannot be aided by other teams or staff. Only the highest counts.

This mechanic makes sure that the higher tier infiltration are possible, but also really difficult to achieve for an unskilled agency. Saving up should be risky, and big events something dramatic, so lesser meddling hopefully stays more common with this.

Intel-Points can be spent in various ways, and nothing speaks against "purchasing" a particular event multiple times.

Below is a table of what a certain level of effort can gain. (I went a bit OCD in trying to figure this out, so, uhm, it has gotten longer, and I am not even sure of correctness)

Cost|SurveyMilitaryGovernmentScienceSabotage
1Reveal one jump point's general location, or one bodies mineralsReveal a snippet of general design information about a design of choice (e.g. "Beam/Missile armed", "Long/short range", "Has ECM", "weak armor" etc.)

-Secret Project: Especially shield a design against enemy intelligence. Costs for any info rise by one category, and the nation gets informed when a leak still happens.
One of those:
-Name all the political and military leaders with their corresponding position

-Generalized industrial of last year ("had mostly constructed mines,  then some PDC")

-Generalized future plans(no obligation to keep them), like "colonize Mars", "expand mining sites or just Earth". Nothing military.

- Mess with voting (Votings of next year get a "Ghost-vote" equivalent of one player in random directions. Ghost-votes cannot exceed current maximum votes, so 50:50 order and chaos at max. Suffering nation is aware)
-Current area focus (Logistics, Power, etc.) revealed with hindsight on last years occupation

-Misdirection: Leave 5% of research labs pursuing random theoretic technology for next year.
Either:
- hinder Earth mining (reduce current stock of a single resource by 20% of years income)

- hinder mining delivery (reduce stock of all resources by 20% of an external mining site)

- hinder construction (reduce maximum construction by 5%, which are now free; or 10% if either choosing ordnance or fighter production)
2-Reveal direction of survey (which systems survey ships are in or heading to)

-Reveal an archeology site or science bonus site (you get informed that there is one once another 2+ point purchase in survey espionage had been made, but have to buy the information then)

-Reveal specifics about a science vessel design if not armed
-Reveal number of ground troops on a colony or Earth

-Reveal general sets of of ammunition ("2 designs for AMM, 1 ASM, one larger torpedo, 1 buoy/mine"), or reveal specifics of a certain type ("identify one of the AMMs please")

-Reveal a single exact number about a chosen ship/PDC design (Speed, one sensor strength, armor strength, range, even crew number)

-Tell the location and heading of a fleet currently out of sight (sharpness: "tell system" if in uninhabited one, or "tell body/vicinity to body" in colonized systems)
-Printout of current amounts of mines and factories on a colony

-Current population number of a colony, along with growth rate and Administrator skills
-Reveal an unknown colony location (information about unknown colony sheer existence is leaked by purchasing 2+ point events in the government section elsewhere)

-Receive information about all officers asked for (would ask for whole list, but is difficult to do in Aurora; instead maybe "leading scientists of every area" and "all task group leading fleet officers and the staff officers"
-Exact reading of current research projects

-Information about the progress in a sector of technology ("Propulsion stands roughly at TL3" or "has just entered construction TL2")

-Inquire about existence of a certain tech ("have they jump gate const. module?")
-as in Intel 1, but steal the resources instead of just hindering.

-delay a fleets movement for 1 month (not against fighting fleets; if combat breaks out somewhere and the fleet wishes to join, it is freed of the delay; Also: fleets of greater importance or surveillance may cost much more Intel Points - this would need consultation with Drgong)

-precise sensor dodging (detection immunity for either a certain chosen fleet, or against a certain sensor/or colony. Cannot chose fleets entangled in combat. Lasts for sensor field entry to exit, or 1 month per purchase if the fleet doesn't plan to move out)
4-Reveal a complete system survey, minerals+JP

-Space Jam: Block a system for (further) survey attempts (block can be relieved by other side paying 2 points later on)
-Gain complete design information about a certain ship. This costs 2 points more if it concerns a ship with much innovation compared to other known designs of that nation (engines, or mostly updated weaponry), and another 2 points more if it is the first ship to ever be analyzed for that faction

-Revoke transfer of land troops: Nation cannot transfer troops this year to places where the attacker has ground unit too

-False orders: Send a couple ships on a 10b detour, or lock a couple more in task force training. Should conflict break out, they are free to act again.

-Mix up officer assignment of a ship. Either random, or a specific officer if he/she is known and not serving as staff.
-Gain a complete screen of a single colony, seeing the whole colony summary window, the production queue, and the stockpiles

-Industrial espionage: Receive 5% of their wealth for the next year as "gift"

-Budget Cut: Disband a ground battalion (no brigade or division command; can come cheaper with rising amounts of forces)

-Maintain surveillance about votes for a year, getting sketchy information whenever votes happen and about what in general, but not the outcome.

-Shut down fuel refineries on a colony for a year.(cost 8 when chosen consecutively)
-Learn what technologies of a whole line of research the nation knows so far. (e.g. "laser focal strength")-Sabotage a random ship and apply damage to it.(warhead techx10??) To pick out a singular ship, the Intel costs move one category up.

-Laxatives, bought doctors, bribery: Have a ship go without officer for a year, while having him on board.("not in working condition")
8-Synchronize with that nation's whole galactic survey archive

-Take over a freighter-fleet bringing shipments from a ruin planet or alien wrecks (preferably loaded with components), then give it back after unloading in own colony
-Treason and Moles: A chosen ship or PDC(!) does not fire during first eventual engagement next year.

-Informant: Know all the nation's ships position if needed.(including camouflaged ones) This is a flash scan, but can be repeated for a year for just another 1 Intel Point every time.

-Gain technical information about all weapons of a certain type (e.g. all lasers or all launchers), or all available sensor designs
-Attempt to retire officer or government personnel (another intel check at half chance vs. counter-intel for this to confirm)

-Generate 1 player weight of vote in the other nation. Will be randomly assigned unless "surveillance" from tier 4 is also chosen, in which case detailed voting and knowledge about topic is granted. Existing Votes need 1 Intel Points per year to maintain. Maximum amount of bought votes to real ones is 50:50

-Propaganda Campaign: Take over 5% of their population. (?maybe too much?)
-Abduct a chosen scientist to your nation (another intel at half chance check vs. counter-intel for this to confirm)

-Gain a chosen technology, excluding racial tech(?)

-Shutdown research labs (obviously needs time to boot up again after this)

- Reveal information about all their engine designs, or all jump engines.
-Attempt to assassinate officer or government personnel (another intel check at half chance vs. counter-intel for this to confirm)

-Hijack ship of choice (another intel check vs. counter-intel for this to confirm)

-Destroy 10% of construction factories or mines on inhabited colony, or 20% of either refineries, ordnance or fighter factories. A unmanned mining colony may lose as much mines as the attacker has ordnance factories.


The ultra rare events that make espionage teams do something in Aurora vanilla should just be considered bonus to that in my opinion.

The table is likely lacking a lot of possible things, but of course it can be adjusted, and also if you think stuff should be in different categories. Maybe science and survey should be the same thing.
All in all, the severity scale "feeling" is the most important thing about it here, because with that we can just ask Drgong if another thing that is not in the table would work later, and how much points he wants for that.


(http://abload.de/img/intelsumg3qhz.jpg)

Let me now any criticism, and I hope I didn't make it appear too complex. It may look like that written out, but it is mostly one two simple checks whose scores are easy to look up.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 06, 2016, 06:19:04 PM
I really like some of these ideas, and only lukewarm to some.  It is simple, but sounds complex.


Here is a idea to merge the two ideas somewhat.


Espionage is lightly built into Aurora, but since I have SM control, and I know both teams want to do espionage, I will have a simple proposal for some added fun to the espionage gameplay.

In addition to the Aurora Espionage, the following is proposed.

Espionage team that is formed and is not targeted is working "Counter espionage"

*Note, in the first two years I will roll this assuming a team of 75 points exists for counter Espionage (unless a higher one exists) as by the luck you might not even have 5 officers with the training at the start.


(Targeted Espionage Rating +Intel Staff officer + 1d100) - (Counter Espionage rating + (Intel Staff officer x 1.25) + 1d100) = Espionage Score

I will only use the rating of the highest untargeted team score to generate the Counter Espionage rating.

If the Score is less then 0, nothing happens. (Spying failed)
Wins by 1-10 is equal to 1 point.
Wins by 20-30 is equal to 2 points
wins by 30-70 is worth 3 points
Wins by 70-120 is worth 4 points
wins by 120+ is worth 5 points of espionage.

Even if the spy roll fails, a roll of 90-100 generates 1 point.   

if points are not spent in the year, 1/2 (rounding down) carry over to the next year.

1 point

- Reveal one jump point's general location, or one bodies minerals
- Reveal a snippet of general design information about a design of choice (e.g. "Beam/Missile armed", "Long/short range", "Has ECM", "weak armor" etc.)
- List of the staff officers for the side
- Generalized industrial of last year ("had mostly constructed mines,  then some PDC")
- Current area focus (Logistics, Power, etc.)
- 10 regular mines are knocked offline for the rest of the year (I will SM them out and then back in Jan 1)

2 point

- Reveal direction of survey (which systems survey ships are in or heading to)
- Reveal an archeology site or science bonus site (of course, if they don't know a extra site, these points are wasted except you know they don't know)
- Reveal specifics about one part of a ship (Sensor specs, Tube sizes and numbers, magazine size, Powerplant, Number of engines OR power, number and type of beam weapons.)
- Printout of current amounts of mines and factories on a colony
- Exact reading of current research projects
- Inquire about existence of a certain tech ("have they jump gate const. module?")
- reassign a NPC officer

3 point
 - Counter Espionage, remove one point on your empire by spending 3.
 - The current status of the shipyards orbiting one planet.   

4 points

- Gain a chosen technology (Must only be one step, for example, if you are at 10cm laser, and try to steal 15 cm laser, you would get the 12 cm laser.)
- Listing of the summary, Mining, Industry, and research of one colony/home-world

5 points

- Learn the design specs for a class of your choice


All empires start with 2 points that cannot be used to knock out mines.   
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: DIT_grue on April 07, 2016, 07:47:19 AM
Confining my points to Drgong's revised proposal:

In some ways I think Aurora's baked-in mechanisms are a hindrance when the SM is trying to run their own system. (For instance, the technology diffusion limits what you can do there - especially since, IIUC, using an espionage team necessarily creates a way for them to automatically benefit from your old research even if that's the only connection in existance.) Still, that's at least partly irrelevant given the shared homeworld.

Checking I have understood correctly when the Espionage Score test happens - once per year, at the end of the year?

"Even if the spy roll fails, a roll of 90-100 generates 1 point." Actually, it might be good if that applied to both of them (i.e. if attacker rolled 92 and the defender rolled 99, the defender would get 1 point against the attacker and the attacker would get (1 + whatever the Score is worth) points against the defender).

"Reveal direction of survey (which systems survey ships are in or heading to)" Of course, if the spying nation doesn't know about those systems, it should be something like: <A system 2 jumps beyond Manticore.>


It seems like a promising system, with lots of room for interesting shenanigans but not wrapping the whole game around itself.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 07, 2016, 08:55:41 AM
I am fine for both rolls to be able to generate a point.

Also it just a proposal, and if you have a idea of what you want to use spy points for, one could propose it or after the game starts, discreetly discuss the point cost.

I do not want actions that can

1 - Alter the voting of a team

2 - cause massive disruption (More then having mines go offline for the rest of the year) or ships blowing up.   I will reserve ships blowing up to combat. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 07, 2016, 09:58:31 AM
Teams, please check your PMs, you should have a link to your reports.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 07, 2016, 10:11:41 AM
This is to give some background on what treaties are in existence.  Of course, the teams are more then welcome to make new treaties if the teams are agreeable.   

The UN-Revised Treaty - The UN is now located in Geneva.   It provides a forum for discussion.   

Outer Space Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

Treaty of RĂ©union
After the RĂ©union crisis of 2097, the three major world powers agreed to not move major land forces on earth till 2110.   However it does not prohibit construction of new units or placing them outside of Earth.  It can be extended if all powers agree.

Off-Topic: show
This is the treaty that prevents land wars till 2110.



In addition, as a note, a backup of the game has been made of the game set before first orders. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on April 07, 2016, 12:03:56 PM
So, I'm thinking: could we maybe have sub-forums for each team? It would make things easier to organize, and would avoid people misblicking and reading the wrong thread.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 07, 2016, 12:12:00 PM
So, I'm thinking: could we maybe have sub-forums for each team? It would make things easier to organize, and would avoid people misblicking and reading the wrong thread.

I do not have that power (that I can see*), I can just make stickies and lock threads or merge threads.  If both teams want this I could ask Erik Luken to see what he has to say.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 07, 2016, 12:28:50 PM
as a Housekeeping note:  I SMed that all the empires can talk to each other.  Just wanted to make sure that was clear for diplomacy. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Shiwanabe on April 07, 2016, 04:55:46 PM
On the topic of starting info, I know it might take a bit, but could we get the stats of the Civilian leaders? Also of use would be the Teams/Academy page to see what teams we have enough members to form.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 07, 2016, 05:43:20 PM
On the topic of starting info, I know it might take a bit, but could we get the stats of the Civilian leaders? Also of use would be the Teams/Academy page to see what teams we have enough members to form.

Before I send that info, I assume you would want it to the team vie PM?
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Shiwanabe on April 07, 2016, 05:44:06 PM
Before I send that info, I assume you would want it to the team vie PM?

Yes, as I suspect I'm not going to be the one directly making use of it.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 07, 2016, 05:49:29 PM
Yes, as I suspect I'm not going to be the one directly making use of it.

I will send it out before I head to bed.  (so next 6 hours or so)
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on April 08, 2016, 08:22:06 AM
Just to add quickly to this: Ok with your espionage system, except one detail: Please work in the primary staff's intelligence officer in some way. Attack or defense, bonus or directly, doesn't matter, but let the officer do something. It would be awesome to have staff personal have more concrete functionality, because as of Aurora vanilla now, you'd only really use operations and survey.

Optionally, something that works out how additional teams influence the score. There is no reason why either a stronger, or spending wise just more focused empire shouldn't be able to intensify the pressure, so that the results don't just exclusively depend on the random individual officer skill that you get.
This might be complex to figure out though, so ok if dropped.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: DIT_grue on April 08, 2016, 09:15:51 AM
Just to add quickly to this: Ok with your espionage system, except one detail: Please work in the primary staff's intelligence officer in some way. Attack or defense, bonus or directly, doesn't matter, but let the officer do something. It would be awesome to have staff personal have more concrete functionality, because as of Aurora vanilla now, you'd only really use operations and survey.

But... ? How is that not already the case?

(Targeted Espionage Rating +Intel Staff officer + 1d100) - (Counter Espionage rating + (Intel Staff officer x 1.25) + 1d100) = Espionage Score


In line with the earlier Diplomacy Team suggestion, perhaps PPV should have an influence, if only negatively (i.e. if you don't meet your requested protection values, no one new will trust you to defend them - or their investments in CI).
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on April 08, 2016, 09:40:42 AM
But... ? How is that not already the case?
Nevermind then. I deliberately looked for this critical, but still didn't see it in my hurry.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 08, 2016, 10:36:01 AM

Optionally, something that works out how additional teams influence the score. There is no reason why either a stronger, or spending wise just more focused empire shouldn't be able to intensify the pressure, so that the results don't just exclusively depend on the random individual officer skill that you get.

I was thinking the same thing so I am was thinking about adding this.   Additional teams will get rolls, however the defensive bonus is 1.5 and not 1.25.  Thus the team past the first one have tougher hill to climb to earn points. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 08, 2016, 11:56:39 AM
Espionage and Diplomacy. 

I will be working some additional gameplay with Espionage and Diplomacy.

These are proposals.

Espionage

Espionage is lightly built into Aurora, but since I have SM control, and I know both teams want to do espionage, I will have a simple proposal for some added fun to the espionage gameplay.

In addition to the Aurora Espionage, the following is proposed.

Espionage team that is formed and is not targeted is working "Counter espionage"

*Note, in the first two years I will roll this assuming a team of 75 points exists for counter Espionage (unless a higher one exists) as by the luck you might not even have 5 officers with the training at the start.

At the end of each year, I will make the following rolls.

(Targeted Espionage Rating +Intel Staff officer + 1d100) - (Counter Espionage rating + (Intel Staff officer x 1.25) + 1d100) = Espionage Score

I will only use the rating of the highest un-targeted team score to generate the Counter Espionage rating. 
If more then one team is targeting a empire, each gets a roll to see if they collect information.  After the first check the defensive roll will be 1.5, instead of 1.25 for the intel officer.

If the Score is less then 0, nothing happens. (Spying failed)
Wins by 1-10 is equal to 1 point.
Wins by 20-30 is equal to 2 points
wins by 30-70 is worth 3 points
Wins by 70-120 is worth 4 points
wins by 120+ is worth 5 points of espionage.

Even if the spy roll fails, a roll of 90-100 generates 1 point. (for both d100 rolls)   

if points are not spent in the year, 1/2 (rounding down) carry over to the next year.

Examples
Team A has a Intel officer rating of 50, and a Espionage team targeting team B with a score of 75.
Team B has a Intel officer rating of 50, and a counter team score of 100.

Example 1
Team A

50+75 + Rolls a 3 = 128

Team B
62.5 + 100 +Roll a 70 = 232.5

Needless to say, team A fails.

Example 2
Team A
50 + 75 + rolls a 89 = 214

Team B
62.5 + 100 + Rolls a 10 = 172.5

Team A gets 3 spy points for that 41.5 point win.

Example 3

Team A
50 + 75 + Rolls a 100 = 225

Team B
62.5 + 100 + rolls a 85 = 247.5

Team A fails, but gets one point for rolling above 90.

How points can be spent.

These are examples.   If  you want to do something ask the admin and I will make a ruling if it not on the list.  I do not want "to blow up a ship" or massive sabotage unless the cold war gets really hot.  But in that case, we have bigger issues to worry about.

1 point

- Reveal one jump point's general location, or one bodies minerals
- Reveal a snippet of general design information about a design of choice (e.g. "Beam/Missile armed", "Long/short range", "Has ECM", "weak armor" etc.)
- List of the staff officers for the side
- Generalized industrial of last year ("had mostly constructed mines,  then some PDC")
- Current area focus (Logistics, Power, etc.)
- 10 regular mines are knocked offline for the rest of the year (I will SM them out and then back in Jan 1)

2 point

- Reveal direction of survey (which systems survey ships are in or heading to)
- Reveal an archeology site or science bonus site (of course, if they don't know a extra site, these points are wasted except you know they don't know)
- Reveal specifics about one part of a ship (Sensor specs, Tube sizes and numbers, magazine size, Powerplant, Number of engines OR power, number and type of beam weapons.)
- Printout of current amounts of mines and factories on a colony
- Exact reading of current research projects
- Inquire about existence of a certain tech ("have they jump gate const. module?")
- reassign a NPC officer

3 point
 - Counter Espionage, remove one point on your empire by spending 3.
 - The current status of the shipyards orbiting one planet.   

4 points

- Gain a chosen technology (Must only be one step, for example, if you are at 10cm laser, and try to steal 15 cm laser, you would get the 12 cm laser.)
- Listing of the summary, Mining, Industry, and research of one colony/home-world

5 points

- Learn the design specs for a class of your choice


All empires start with 2 points vs each empire that cannot be used to knock out mines. 

 Diplomacy

Diplomacy between the empires will be role-played.  However, the diplomatic teams will focus on the unaligned powers.

at the end of the year I will roll a 1d100.  if I roll under the rating score, the empire will obtain a single win roll on a table to obtain population or conventional industry.  This shows that the diplomatic team convinced people and or industries to join the empire.   
If a diplomatic team has a score over 100, it is a automatic success, 100 points is removed from the rating, and I roll again.  This continues till a roll fails or the rating is below zero. 

A tie is viewed as a success.

Examples.

Team A has a diplomatic team score of 80.
Team B has a diplomatic team score of 150.

Example 1
Team A rolls a 40.
They get one win roll.

Example 2
Team A rolls a 95
Team A gets zero win rolls

Example 3
Team B gets 1 win roll automatically for being over 100.
100 points is deducted and they roll again.
if Team B rolls under 50 they will get 2 win rolls
if they roll over 50 on the 2nd roll they get 1 win.

Only one diplomatic team to the unaligned powers can be active. 
For the first two years it will be assumed that each empire has a diplomatic score of 100 unless they produce a team with a higher score. 


Win Table

1 - 1 million population
2 - 2 million population
3 - 4 million population
4 - 6 million populaiton
5 - 10 Conventional Industry
6 - 20 conventional Industry
7 - 40 conventional Industry
8 - 60 conventional Industry
9 - 4 million population, 40 Conventional Industry
10 - 6 million population, 60 conventional industry

Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on April 08, 2016, 12:17:10 PM
I think that with the multiple spy teams will work out.

With the diplomatic teams though there should not be such an absolute value in the win table. If just one win can manage to subtract 1m population of that new tiny Mercury colony they founded, it will be barren instantly, and very unrealistic.

Instead it could be just percentage based, depending on the smaller colony involved, so a tiny Luxembourg cannot suddenly invite 6m new member, but maybe only +2% of their own people count or something, which is to be deducted from the target.(details to be figured out)
Similarly you couldn't drain Luxembourg in just one swoop from outside, but these 2% for example would only reduce them by 10.000 people as of today.

Maybe something comparable with factories.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 08, 2016, 12:23:39 PM
I think that with the multiple spy teams will work out.

With the diplomatic teams though there should not be such an absolute value in the win table. If just one win can manage to subtract 1m population of that new tiny Mercury colony they founded, it will be barren instantly, and very unrealistic.

Instead it could be just percentage based, depending on the smaller colony involved, so a tiny Luxembourg cannot suddenly invite 6m new member, but maybe only +2% of their own people count or something, which is to be deducted from the target.(details to be figured out)
Similarly you couldn't drain Luxembourg in just one swoop from outside, but these 2% for example would only reduce them by 10.000 people as of today.

Maybe something comparable with factories.


I failed to be clear and that is on me.  My apologies.

Diplomatic play between the three teams will be handled by players not by dice rolls.

The proposed diplomatic rolls is to play the three powers trying to convince non-aligned states  (who do not exist in the game) to  join.   They will be simply added by SM, and not taken away from any group.   These are immigration and company transfers.   
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on April 08, 2016, 12:28:13 PM
Oh, that is ok then. I see you actually wrote it in there, so it was my mistake with fly-reading again. Stuff is hectic when you miss one day on the forum suddenly.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 08, 2016, 12:34:18 PM
Oh, that is ok then. I see you actually wrote it in there, so it was my mistake with fly-reading again. Stuff is hectic when you miss one day on the forum suddenly.

No worries - If you or anyone else is unclear on what I said, please let me know.  I much rather clarify something then have people make bad assumptions or mistakes.   My first goal is to make this game fun for those playing. 

Also - Hope all have a good weekend.   
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: DIT_grue on April 08, 2016, 07:51:37 PM
Those look like interesting systems, and no problems occur to me.  :)
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 09, 2016, 10:44:46 AM
Just as a note- I will be away from the computer with Aurora for about 24 hours.   I will respond when I get back. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 10, 2016, 10:52:14 AM
(http://crossfitbalance.com/foggybottom/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Weekend-Update.jpg)

Weekend Update

General stuff

- Good to see players working hard to get their internal organization planned.   
- We are still on schedule.  I might send the offical packets out Monday or Tuesday as players have a lot of choices to make.

Reminders!

-If factories or shipyards are without orders, they will be inactive.
-Research labs that are unused will be given a Admin choice on what to research (so it doesn't stop the auto turns).  If the admin has to choose what you research, more useless the better.  :P
-The turn will go until Auto turns stops due to one of the teams events happening, then everyone will be updated.    So plan your orders accordingly.   So if you want to make a PR blast for being to Luna, make sure your you tell me that the task force at Luna ends it orders at Luna so the auto-turn stops.
-If you want to stop on a set date, let me know, and I will do my best to make it happen.  I cannot promise that it will happen due to to how Aurora runs.

Game Notes

-Early turns might last a few months as people are researching and do not have any units to do stuff.
-If we are close to the end of the year and I think the next turn will go into the next year, I may go ahead and do the end of year off screen checks.  Or I may stop it at Jan 1, or I might let it go to Jan 10th.   I will need some flexibility on that.   
- I am the admin, but Aurora gives you a lot of freedom.  If teams ask me to do something in game, I might have to ask the team how it done in Aurora.    I can promise that I will be a fair referee and work hard to make this a fun game for all.  I cannot promise that I know every way to play Aurora.  I will make test games to test stuff to make sure I understand what you are asking me to do.
- I do ask that teams be reasonable in Admin requests and be considerate of other players.   If your idea requires in a non-combat role a stoppage every game-day to tweak something, consider giving me standing orders.   
-Feel free to rename officers or military units

Janes Information Service

- I am keeping information filed with information filed as Public, FSA Intel, and Admin information.  I am doing this so  I am sure I am making FSA choices based solely on information that is public and/or FSA intel. Since I had a public file, I felt it would help the game if we had it online so that everyone can see it and it can be a reference to all.  I hope it is useful.   I do ask that people submit information in the the other thread so that the main thread can remain uncluttered.     

Grammar/typos/Clarity

I was never a English major.   I will make errors in my writing.  I am sure that errors exist in this post.   Feel free to ask for clarification if I post something that is not understandable.   
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 10, 2016, 01:18:58 PM
Teams, I am still having some players trickle in, and I am sure we will have more players come in as we play.

Each team will get one more player, as we have two that have asked to join.    I will assume unless told otherwise that teams are open to having new players. (And new players will have to understand that many choice roles for RP roles might be already taken).   If both teams close off to new players I will start a waiting list.   
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 12, 2016, 11:49:57 AM
New players, check to see if you can see your forums.


Also, hope all is well.  As soon as the orders are in I will process the first turn. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: SwordLord10 on April 20, 2016, 10:03:11 AM
Quote from: Drgong link=topic=8517. msg89486#msg89486 date=1460479797
New players, check to see if you can see your forums.


Also, hope all is well.   As soon as the orders are in I will process the first turn. 
I'm not quite sure as to where I am supposed to say that I would like to join on the Ruskie's side, so I'm putting it here.  Just want to make sure that this name is open Kutzenov Sergetov
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Erik Luken on April 20, 2016, 11:05:36 AM
New players, check to see if you can see your forums.


Also, hope all is well.  As soon as the orders are in I will process the first turn.

I've not been following the thread. So I don't know if any new players have joined or not. Best bet is to have Drgong send me a message and let me know. Or tag me with @Erik Luken in the message (btw, this works for anyone).
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: SwordLord10 on April 20, 2016, 11:45:20 AM
Quote from: Erik Luken link=topic=8517. msg89932#msg89932 date=1461168336
I've not been following the thread.  So I don't know if any new players have joined or not.  Best bet is to have Drgong send me a message and let me know.  Or tag me with @Erik Luken in the message (btw, this works for anyone).
Don't start without me! I must join the Ruskies
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on April 20, 2016, 11:56:31 AM
3
.
.
.
2
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
Rocket launch! The TN age has started, and Russia is into of space again.

People who couldn't make it:
- SwordLord10
- That's it. (http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_seb_zunge.gif)


// Seriously though, even Zook who came late and was very active too, will only officially join after today's first turn, so next week. We will get you a seat. :)
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: FrederickAlexander on April 20, 2016, 12:03:24 PM
Well I would Join the NAU to balance the teams out if needed.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on April 20, 2016, 12:07:40 PM
Actually, current team members is 8:9 even with SwordLord, but you are still free to chose any side.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: FrederickAlexander on April 20, 2016, 12:24:39 PM
Quote from: Vandermeer link=topic=8517. msg89940#msg89940 date=1461172060
Actually, current team members is 8:9 even with SwordLord, but you are still free to chose any side.
That said I would still wish to Join NAU
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: SwordLord10 on April 20, 2016, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Vandermeer link=topic=8517. msg89937#msg89937 date=1461171391
3
.
.
.
2
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
Rocket launch! The TN age has started, and Russia is into of space again.

People who couldn't make it:
- SwordLord10
- That's it.  (http://hxxp: www. greensmilies. com/smile/smiley_emoticons_seb_zunge. gif)


// Seriously though, even Zook who came late and was very active too, will only officially join after today's first turn, so next week.  We will get you a seat.  :)
Darn it, I was really hoping to be in the first turn,  I guess I must wait, unless I misunderstood something(I haven't slept in 2 days)
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 20, 2016, 02:07:22 PM
Darn it, I was really hoping to be in the first turn,  I guess I must wait, unless I misunderstood something(I haven't slept in 2 days)

The first turn runs tonight - I am sending Erik requests but since we are starting with a conventional start for the most part, turn 2 will still be very early in the game.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 20, 2016, 02:22:55 PM
our 2nd intake of new players has been submitted.  Russia orders are coming to clarity, looking forward to running a turn :)
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 20, 2016, 02:38:19 PM
Players have been added.  Enjoy!
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 20, 2016, 06:13:36 PM
Turn has been processed!!!

Current time is April 1, 2100

Working on screen caps. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: SwordLord10 on April 21, 2016, 10:39:23 AM
You said you would PM each team  with screenshots, I have received no such PM, and I have seen in the people speaking like they have seen them. Has turn 1 even run yet? Did you not send the PM's yet, or did you just forget about me?
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 21, 2016, 10:59:42 AM
You said you would PM each team  with screenshots, I have received no such PM, and I have seen in the people speaking like they have seen them. Has turn 1 even run yet? Did you not send the PM's yet, or did you just forget about me?

Turn 2 thread in your side forum will have a link to the zip file of screenshots.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on April 23, 2016, 09:19:28 AM
Just as a note - I will be away from the computer for the next 24 hours.  Next Friday I will also be away from the computer all day.

Have a good weekend teams.

Thank you once again for working hard to get the first orders in.  Right now both teams have valid orders and once you decide if you want to make any changes we can run the next turn.

Orders are due by Wednesday at 5pm EST.  That said, if no orders are given, I will just continue the pre-existing orders.  Of course, if you have changes, please submit them before then. 


Also, if both teams are okay with the orders as is, letting me know before Wednesday will mean I can run the game sooner, which will move the game along.


Also, as of right now, upon detecting a new built ship is a "turn stop" event.       
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on May 01, 2016, 11:25:30 AM
Hope all had a good weekend.  make sure you are finalizing the turn so you are not rushing at the last moment.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on May 23, 2016, 09:55:04 AM
That in the UN thread currently is a mess I have to say, but I have some suspicion why you react this way now. Our system of voting and which position singular players hold is vastly different to yours, so I guess Red Dot felt we didn't represent us seriously (both, in the Cafe and now) when sending people that aren't highest rank?
That would explain this ridiculous lieutenant colonel invention, or the third secretary nonsense, because in your system every player is already ambassador or some sort of leader of military or design or whatever, and you would only speak in their name normally - an important name.

The system we have however works much different. We randomly drew 5 officers from the official list each, who then grant us voting influence in different sectors, depending on what position these officers hold. (positions have been given meritocratically to talented officers so far, and more responsibility means more vote)
Though we are not technically restricted to not invent other characters, these 5 likely form most of the RP of each player. If we want to say something, we use one of those that seems most suited, but of course far from everyone can be Admiral-Super-Chef, so you see us presenting Captain of 2nd Rank (=Commander), Colonels instead of Generals (which is still Captain equivalent, mind), or non-leader politicians (still interim-ambassador though).
They are of course especially low ranked now in the beginning, because the original seed only gave each nation a single admiral for example, and the rest captains. So this demographic will likely rise in time, but it is good this way, because that gives opportunity for growth stories for your officers.

Since you all invented your own characters, who all get some major administrative fleet admiral, or science director uber-position I assume, I get that it may strike you as odd to be dealing with normal personnel, but really, who cares, because it is still realistic (probably even more - the king doesn't build every house personally), and there is no difference as long as these people have their mandate for negotiation.


So now you know that this is no lofty or snooty acting on our side. Both these meetings were meant completely serious, and I hope that it was just this misunderstanding that you were reluctant to bring up the same on both these incidents.
It is just agonizing to see having well prepared meetings completely ridiculed and disregarded. We might as well drop RP altogether if that continues to go this way every time.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on May 23, 2016, 11:50:05 AM
Well, it was never clear who we were talking to. We discuss foreign policy internally, and the ambassador speak for everyone (he has no real power otherwise though: anything serious will go back to be discussed and voted on by Congress, where we each have a vote with Red Dot being tiebreaker as president).

So, are you each representing only yourself, or are you talking in the name of the Russian federation?
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on May 23, 2016, 12:14:27 PM
I think this is just a misunderstanding that the NAU was not under the impression that this was more in the lines of offical representatives and not just role playing minor figures.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on May 23, 2016, 02:46:56 PM
Well, it was never clear who we were talking to. We discuss foreign policy internally, and the ambassador speak for everyone (he has no real power otherwise though: anything serious will go back to be discussed and voted on by Congress, where we each have a vote with Red Dot being tiebreaker as president).

So, are you each representing only yourself, or are you talking in the name of the Russian federation?
We also counsel about what we want to do. Plans are presented, including for diplomatic course and points on a meeting, and when we agree, then the people you speak with here are actually representing Russia's opinion, yes.
Hmm, there has recently been more liberalization in dealings so as to speed up talk ignition, because that has been lacking in the past. However, I figure whenever something is really at stake, like in some trade deal, that would need asking back, so you can't buy all our ICBM bases by promising someone Swordlord to give back Alaska. ;)

Anyway, really formal meetings that have been introduced for, what, weeks now, are of course ratified, with negotiation mandate and all.

I think this is just a misunderstanding that the NAU was not under the impression that this was more in the lines of offical representatives and not just role playing minor figures.
Yeah, these figures we have are indeed our outer face. ..And inner too btw. .
Well, well, the song of different ideologies and misunderstanding.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Red Dot on May 23, 2016, 03:45:39 PM
I am glad my Third Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs got this mess untangled. I was getting very frustrated about the perceived lack of profile of our RC discussion counterparts.  I think I even used the term "underling" and "minions" in our Team Thread. With Vandermeer's explanation, we have a better idea of who we are dealing with.  IRL, we would have had a better idea of the system of government of the RC and better knowledge if our counterparts were adequate to the level of discussions. With that being clarified, Dr Pinscher-Doberman will not be attending the meeting in South Dakota.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vasious on May 23, 2016, 08:19:08 PM
Well, it was never clear who we were talking to. We discuss foreign policy internally, and the ambassador speak for everyone (he has no real power otherwise though: anything serious will go back to be discussed and voted on by Congress, where we each have a vote with Red Dot being tiebreaker as president).

So, are you each representing only yourself, or are you talking in the name of the Russian federation?

All Delegates have been empowered with the voice and Authority of the Central Committee, to conduct all business in accordance with the prescribed objectives.

The Central Committee votes on Policy, then the delegates are directed to actively pursue that policy, bring critical matters to the central committee to vote as required.

Any dealings with the delegates of the Russian Confederation, should be conducted as if the meeting is with the Chairman of the Chairperson of the Central Committee themselves.


Alexis Kuzmin
Konteradmiral
Admiral of the Fleet
Chief of Naval Staff
Interim Chairperson of the Central Committee
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on May 24, 2016, 01:35:35 AM
Ok, make sense. I'll provide a copy of our Constitution to Jane's Information service so you have an idea how we're working.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on May 24, 2016, 01:07:41 PM
Wait, I guess since my character is in command of he 7th infantry division, he would be a General, not a Colonel. Also, if it would be possible, I want screenshots of my character's(and future characters') personality traits in game, so I can RP them a bit better.
Aren't you in the wrong thread here? ;)
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on June 02, 2016, 06:32:26 PM
Just so everyone knows.

If we end up launching nukes and or blasting each other to the stone age with mesons - I will end this game as "Game over"

(http://images2.static-bluray.com/reviews/6568_1.jpg)

that said, if that does happen, I will most likely set up another community game with modified rules so that we can actually have a space game. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on June 03, 2016, 10:01:54 AM
Okay, I think we need a discussion on the whole Peacekeep crisis between players of both sides.

First of all, don't worry, we're backing down. We're just discussing in private how exactly to do it from a RP perspective.

That was the easy part. Now, for the rest. First, in the interest of full disclosure, I must say it is me who came up with the details of our ultimatum, or, as we called it internally, plan DARK LETTER, although it was approved unanimously.

When we discussed it, we knew it was a very aggressive move. I, at least, though that it would create some nice drama, and tension, and roleplaying opportunities (although loosing the vote on the way to respond to the death of our spying team prevented me from increasing tensions progressively). We coming up with my demands, one thing I kept in mind was that the goal was not to get to an early game over, but to secure some advantage (mostly placing observers on your production for free spying) and humiliate Russia a bit, hoping to score points with the non-aligned. I mean, we could just have well have launched a nuclear first strike if our goal was to win.

It seems however that this wasn't perceived as such by the Russians players. As such, Drgong was forced to jump in to have prevent the game from collapsing. This lead to the present situation, where we feel punished because of our aggressive play style, and I'm sure you feel cheated because we basically abused the huge advantage that TN weapons give over convetional weapons.

So I'd love to hear how things were and are perceived from the Russian point of view. I think we should also discuss what exactly is within the limit of acceptable actions within the game.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on June 03, 2016, 11:03:09 AM
With the ICBM:s currently being our only useful military asset (well, as far as you know about) we have a problem if it is taken away from us. Even if you just push for a smaller advantage and we accept it will put us in an even weaker position to resist the next demand, and the next and so on. Logically if we fold the first time you can push us all the way to game over.

Given the aggressive rhetoric it was easy to believe this was your intention.

As I remember it the whole point of the ICBM:s we got from start was to discourage any game-ending aggression too early. And together with the third power FSA who also has ICBM:s any possibility of first strike victory.

I'm not feeling cheated, more like "WTF are those guys doing?". Playing aggressive is fine I don't think you should feel punished for that. But I think you pushed too hard and for the wrong thing here.

Good to hear you will be backing down, because we actually would have launched, at least according to discussions so far. Cuba crisis 2.0 is over.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on June 03, 2016, 11:11:00 AM
Well, without the FSA's offer to join any strike of yours, we would just have swatter your ICBMs from the sky.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on June 03, 2016, 01:51:53 PM
You know the game mechanics much better than me on the swattering, we could anyway not have known for sure on my team.

Perhaps it was a good play then by the FSA then since it made you back down and they won't have to worry about being the next target of your meson beam after the russian ICBM:s are gone.

About limits for acceptable actions I cannot give much specifics. I think it should be possible for RP to influence the game and give advantages but that it should mainly be decided by playing Aurora. I want the game to go out in space and be decided there, I don't want cheese like fuel-tank armoured ships or whatever else there is that is generally considered abusive of designers intent.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on June 03, 2016, 01:55:53 PM
Well, I think I wasn't clear. The feeling we got from Drgong on our side was that half of the russian team was considering giving up the game because of Dark Letter, and that the FSA was acting as it did because Drgong had to save the game from ending on turn nine. That's a large part of the reason we were backpedalling internally even before the FSA's announcement, for metagame reasons.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on June 03, 2016, 02:05:39 PM
Well, I think I wasn't clear. The feeling we got from Drgong on our side was that half of the russian team was considering giving up the game because of Dark Letter, and that the FSA was acting as it did because Drgong had to save the game from ending on turn nine. That's a large part of the reason we were backpedalling internally even before the FSA's announcement, for metagame reasons.

Yes, that is a major part of the reason for the FSA choice, as we most likely damaged our good ties with the NAU in doing so.  I really didn't want to see the Russian team down to 2-3 players of those players most expressed irritation that this wasn't the game they signed up for.

However I do recommend on all sides to invest in some sort of way to make sure you have Mutually assured destruction, even if it to tell someone to bug off.  the ICBMs were only going to be useful protection for 2-3 years max as tech advances. 


Also, as a aside, I was planning on launching research probes - does the teams want me to go ahead and move the game 10 seconds with a launch so you can study it? run it normally with a announcement of a launch, or stop the game on the launch for turn 10.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on June 03, 2016, 02:14:45 PM
I gave you my personal view, others from my team might feel different.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on June 03, 2016, 02:25:36 PM
I don't we we care that much about the details of the probe.

Thanks anyway Bughunter, I'd love to hear more opinions too.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vasious on June 03, 2016, 10:02:44 PM
As Bughunter said, it was not about the loss of the ICBM sites per se, but the "Do as we say or be Meson Beamed to death"
Disband the ICBM sites or be Meson beamed to death
Give us full access to your shipyard or we Meson beam them to death
Never build any weapons or we Meson beam you to death.
We concede to the FSA disarmament program, we are still going to Meson beam you to death as we wont accept anything but our deamnds

Kind of ties our hand as to how we can play the game if you suddenly decide that building a colony deserves Meson beam to death
If you can use the threat once and get away with it why would you stop there and just keep demanding more and more.

Plus the aggression came quite out of the blue, as we were operating on the idea of ten years of uneasy peace was the intent of the game so, the conflict or near conflict would be off world.
the conquest of the New world between England Spain and France fighting for control of the Americas, with the Outer systems being that realm, but the conflict being a silent war the did not really spill over to earth.

The funny thing was Meson PDCs were discussed in our initial strategies but was deemed against the spirit of the game to try and develop and Earth First Strike weapon.

So when we were suddenly issued with an ultimatum, in the middle of negotiations on how the peaceful exploration of the solar system go forth, it was kind of confusing as to what the aim was, felt like it was an attempt to "win" by knocking us out early either by destroying us, or imposing a treaty that gave you full control of what we could do under constant thread of immediate attack.

At first I thought it was because we did not sign your ban on nuclear weapons in space treaty and that I had failed to say the RC considered it already bound by moral and legal principals not to do so anyway, but then it became clear it was a demonstration of power, with the shooting of Lake Leman.

anyway I had hoped to use the UN to put pressure on this act but it did not seem to work.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Red Dot on June 03, 2016, 10:26:51 PM
In our defence, we did come out and ask what was included in the Reunion Treaty and the reply we received from Drgong was "prevents ground attacks only." I don't think he could see where we could go with that narrow restriction and it basically killed the arguments against the Peacekeeper Gambit by the "No War" faction.

One the technology was ready, it then became a case of 'we better do it to them before they do it to us.'
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: FrederickAlexander on June 03, 2016, 11:13:44 PM
I feel my absence may have have been untimely.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: AL on June 03, 2016, 11:26:12 PM
Also untimely was that one of our key members (Vandermeer) was absent during this entire episode. With the time pressure of the NAU's demands combined with the more pessimistic analyses that our members had on the situation, the situation blew up pretty quickly.

In any case, it's good to know everything will be back in order soon. And thanks for the reminder to make code-names for everything, I completely forgot about that part.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on June 04, 2016, 12:35:28 AM
Yeah, probably bad communication there. To me it seemed clear that we couldn't pressure for more than we were asking, because since mesons can't target pop or industry, after blowing up your shipyards we'd have no leverage left. All you'd need to do is dedicate your industry to build a big meson PDC and kill our. Which would have left to a meson arms race, which would not have been in our interest at all.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: FrederickAlexander on June 04, 2016, 07:41:32 AM
Perhaps there was more going on behind both the absence of key members and the aggressive actions taken >.>
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on June 04, 2016, 10:38:45 AM
I want to say thank you to both teams for putting the game as a whole as a prioity.  I enjoy being a admin, and glad for the most part everyone is enjoying themselves.

For making it to turn 10, dealing with our first game crisis, and making it to 2101, I am going to give a small gift to the two teams.

NAU and RUS will get a free 1,000 point research tech.  Just let me know in the orders which tech that costs no more then 1,000 points and it will be instant researched.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on June 04, 2016, 11:57:49 AM
Let me make one clear statement, and I am rarely clear in these matters, and usually try to say it politely:
Even Steve from the british isles couldn't amass the amount of "bloody" you would have to patch onto the "idiots" to express just how idiotic and useless this whole situation is, especially since it has been prepared over long time apparently.

NAU may not know, ok, though that is still disaster, but more shameful even, my teammates didn't realize, even though we talked about exactly this possibility early in initial strategy discussions. (Drgong has forum access, so he could have known too)
The reason this is all ridiculous to painful tear niveau: Mesons on planets do NOT protect from ICBM strikes

Seriously, how could that have slipped you all? You can set your PDC to either final defensive, or area defense. Final defense would work against direct attack, but why should the opponent chose military installations as targets, when he can just obliterate population or ground forces who cannot be protected?
For area defense however there is an interval needed to cause detection, and I explained basically first day in the Russia thread for us that this is not going to work out.(btw., I had never had to test this in practise to know..)
The thing goes like this:

5-second intervall
Missiles started at end of turn

5-second intervall
Missiles would get detected and shot now, but ohh nose, point-blanck range, oh the hazards of cold war and forcibly shared neighborhood -- they already hit. Lights out.

I mean, huh? Every mid-range missile combat should teach you this! (http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_aufsmaul.gif) The missiles are always one interval out in flight when you see them! Am I the only one here who plays this game?
Also, Russian comrades: You should have known, because I told you so, and you agreed! >:( >:( (I will link you the corresponding thread later, but this was in our very first briefing too, when we were still chatting on Discord..)


So since I have never actually had opportunity to see this in action (even though the mechanics are clear), I set up a game and mirrored our situation somewhat, so you get some proof.

Designs:
Off-Topic: show
(https://abload.de/img/unbenannt3dzad.jpg)
(https://abload.de/img/unbenannt2oeyu8.jpg)


Setup:
Off-Topic: show
(https://abload.de/img/unbenannt3pxaok.jpg)
-----

Off-Topic: show
(https://abload.de/img/unbenann5tnyxe2.jpg)
-----


Firing turn:
Off-Topic: show
(https://abload.de/img/unbenannt7kbsmz.jpg)
-----

Obviously NAU still hasn't detected the missile strike, but SM window logs it, and Russia can see.

Strike Turn:
Off-Topic: show
(https://abload.de/img/unbenannt8rjs61.jpg)
-----

NAU had no chance to detect, because missiles move before everything. Strike and kill because population was targeted. Disaster ensures. Hundreds of millions dead in the long run. Just like coming Trump America if scientific ignorance in leadership keeps staying a voting advantage.

Proof of operation fitness:
Just to show that there hasn't been anything wrong with any design or setting here, I also shot a second salvo towards a waypoint, so the beam-PDC would could take its ample detection time.
Off-Topic: show
(https://abload.de/img/unbenannt937sic.jpg)
-----

The mesons only have 15k range, so they couldn't fire after the missiles flew one turn out (because, again, they move first), but you can see they detect them on second turn and try to fire, so the setup is fine.

Result:
Off-Topic: show
(https://abload.de/img/luminous-beings-are-wvps0d.jpg)



Other things:
- Vasious mentioned that we also decided Meson would be against game spirit, but not for their missile interception quality, which we had collectively known at that point to be nil. The game spirit thing came from a comment of AL that let me do a test game. He figured that though mesons cannot be used from orbit to ground, maybe they still work ground to ground.... . Well, they do, which means ofc: Forget spaceships and missiles, because a shared start game is decided by who first has a meson firing capacity large enough to alphastrike all enemy icbm bases away in 5-seconds.
There is no detection delay and targeting, just fire and win. This was outrageous, and we decided against of course.
...Just so you know we could have sacked you through superior knowledge if we wanted for, what, the third time now?? (http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_razz.gif)

- Where is the rest of the forum? Other people can read here too! Am I really the only one? (http://www.greensmilies.com/smile/smiley_emoticons_buch.gif) (I don't even play all that often)
I mean, I understand not knowing all the details, because I learn new things frequently here from discussions as well, but really no one else with this?
Again too, because we have some other things in Russia discussed that also nobody seems to know of. Or before, PDC hangars seemed to get ignored, and nobody knew they would repair and maintain for free. Or how to set up carriers seemed to be a mystery to most. Also how to keep Aurora running smoothly on longer games, or what the game variable limits are.
..Maybe I should found a school, I could get rich! But you all failed, see you all next year in 2102.^^

So, that is enough shaming for today. ;D

NAU and RUS will get a free 1,000 point research tech.  Just let me know in the orders which tech that costs no more then 1,000 points and it will be instant researched.
I can't speak for others, but I am against this. Gifts of this kinds are none if the other team gets it too (plus minus gift), and there is no reason to give it just to one. Also it feels like it weirdly breaks continuity.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Panopticon on June 04, 2016, 12:14:54 PM
Edited post to take out language and not descend quite to that level.

You shame only yourself, Pre TN ICBMs, which are the only ones we are talking about defending, take something like fifteen minutes to reach their targets, plenty of time for even a feeble Meson base to shoot down rather a lot of them.

Your entire remaining post is more or less meaningless now.

Not really sure I'd pay for that school.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on June 04, 2016, 12:21:01 PM
Yeah, there is a minimum 10.000 km distance. pre-TN ICBM flies at 10 km/s, so take 1000s or 16min40s to reach their target. I didn't know final defensive fire didn't protect populations though.

Also, without active sensors, you cannot target PDC or ground installation.


I agree with your opinion re:gift though.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on June 04, 2016, 01:00:17 PM
Edited post to take out language and not descend quite to that level.

You shame only yourself, Pre TN ICBMs, which are the only ones we are talking about defending, take something like fifteen minutes to reach their targets, plenty of time for even a feeble Meson base to shoot down rather a lot of them.
Oha, that I didn't know indeed, because I had never used them. So 10k is minimum distance for missiles too, interesting.

Well, that was some serious flaw, and I am glad FSA had some failsafe up their sleeves. We could've probably still just nuked FSA territory to up the radiation if we felt ruthless enough.

Quote
Not really sure I'd pay for that school.
Oh, you are just upset now. Well, enough of that from me now.

Also, without active sensors, you cannot target PDC or ground installation.
Do you mean that PDC without actives cannot get targeted at all? That might have gone through the tests, though I was quite sure I just built a hangar for the shooting practice.(?)
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on June 04, 2016, 01:21:49 PM
No, I mean if you don't have active sensors to paint target, ICBM bases can only target population, not enemy PDCs.

But yeah, we did run test. Since we're not going to be shooting anytime soone now, I think I can afford to show the Peacekeeper's design.

(http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=8675.0;attach=1889;image)

As you can see, it's very basic, optimised to shoot ICBMs and PDCs. (Fun fact: before trying, I didn't know that PDC without turrets still have a non-zero tracking speed).

10 mesons firing every 15 seconds make 660 ICBMs shot down over the 1000 sec launch time. More than enough to shoot down everything you guys had. Not quite enough to stop a joint launch, but we were hoping that our own nuclear arsenal would be a detterent of that, since we could launch six nukes for every one that  uoade it way to America.

That was before Drgong found the flaw in our design though. Can you find it?
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on June 04, 2016, 01:58:06 PM
I see nothing today, as if the design isn't even there. :D (did not realize the downtime kicked me that much out of shape)


Very noble though to want to show the design.

Quote
No, I mean if you don't have active sensors to paint target, ICBM bases can only target population, not enemy PDCs.
Oh right, I thought you were addressing the "ground-meson beats all PDC" issue.
But this also means that you didn't seem to know about the meson not working past TN anymore. (or better, past 2k km/s ordnance) I already said in Russia thread, that I should probably not have revealed this for your surprise. ;)
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on June 04, 2016, 02:07:41 PM
Well, we didn't know it was entirely ineffective. But yeah, we know our PDC would not be nearly as effective. Why do you think we wanted to get your IDBM bases out of the picture before then? :D
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vasious on June 04, 2016, 04:36:40 PM
Now that the Crisis is Resolved, what can we do to start to thaw the frosty world relations
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Red Dot on June 04, 2016, 08:40:41 PM
You will have to live through an isolationist period in NAU policy. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on June 04, 2016, 10:46:37 PM
I will withdraw the "Gift" idea - it was a way I was handicapping the FSA, who I felt had to take too much a role in the crisis.   Since no one likes the idea scratch the idea.
----------------------------------------------

As for "What would happen if it launched."  I ran the war a number of ways.
I actually ran the war in my "Test" game.   Something that is easy enough.

War 1 - Russia Launches standard launch of ICBMS

NAU defeats launch in nine minutes.   Russia eliminated from game as mesons eliminate shipyards and ICBM bases.

War 2- Russia Launches "Drgong style" launch of ICBMS

NAU defeats launch in  15 minutes,   Russia Eliminated by Meson

War 3 - Russia and FSA launch standard launch of ICBMS

Close, but NAU defeats all launches by the skin of their teeth, FSA and Russia Eliminated

War 4 - Russia and FSA "Drgong style" launch of ICBMS

About 240 ICBMs impact NAU.

War 5  Russia and FSA  "drgong style" launch, with the previously undisclosed FSA ICBM+/Ratel Missiles.

X = number of ICBMS+
in 10 seconds,  X number of impacts on NAU , taking out shipyards and population.    ~240-(X) impact NAU.  We all die.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or in summary - Russia was defenseless unless they launched in coordination with the FSA, and even then, the only REAL counter was the fact that the FSA had spent the time and energy to develop missiles that strike so fast that mesons cannot counter.   

Secondly, the FSA only threatened to do so to keep Russia from getting knocked out of the game in turn nine.     The FSA was not a threatened by the NAU moves as we had security though the ICBM+ and good relations with the NAU.

Had is a key word.

Also, Russia might want to figure out how to obtain some way to counter the NAU meson (Plus perhaps some sort of FSA meson system that may be coming online.) As they really do not want to have to depend on the FSA for their existence.   Once will be out of friendship and admin goodwill.  2nd time the FSA won't be so generous. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: kks on June 05, 2016, 07:57:18 PM
First of all, I want to apologize for the miscommunication and misunderstandings we had. We discussed it and we did not want any game ending war, but I personnaly really underestimated how that would result in such trouble. Sorry.

I would like to continue the RP on the espionage incident at the meeting before all that smeg happend, as we have prepared a few more answers but I didn't expect the PDC to be finished that soon, and this was why I let the RP in the UN thread open for you to answer. In the mails we exchanged it we talked about having it as a hearing, so if you would like to participate in it and give it a little bit and better flair, feel free to do so. Alternatively I can just write the rest myself, if you prefer that. Or nothing at all.
It will take some time though, as I haven't enough time for that until tuesday.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: MarcAFK on June 06, 2016, 12:08:33 AM
What's this drgong style of ICBM launch?
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: AL on June 06, 2016, 12:20:58 AM
I'm guessing something along the lines of launch one missile per FC per 5s increment to create a huge number of independent salvos, since the PDC presumably has a 15s cycle time on each meson cannon and is bottlenecked by a low number of FC's.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on June 06, 2016, 12:59:16 AM
Pretty much, yeah.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on June 06, 2016, 12:14:25 PM
I would like to continue the RP on the espionage incident at the meeting before all that smeg happend, as we have prepared a few more answers but I didn't expect the PDC to be finished that soon, and this was why I let the RP in the UN thread open for you to answer. In the mails we exchanged it we talked about having it as a hearing, so if you would like to participate in it and give it a little bit and better flair, feel free to do so. Alternatively I can just write the rest myself, if you prefer that. Or nothing at all.
It will take some time though, as I haven't enough time for that until tuesday.
I would like to continue this too. There was some planning behind it with the talking points, and it would be a shame not to be able to play it out.

I could still not answer yesterday nor today, because the trouble for me just doesn't settle, you have no idea. :(
I hope I can bring something together between Tuesday and Friday evening. After that I have to take care of a friend, and it will be full time for days until at least the Wednesday after or more.

As you can see, it's very basic, optimised to shoot ICBMs and PDCs. (Fun fact: before trying, I didn't know that PDC without turrets still have a non-zero tracking speed).
Quote from: Vandermeer
I see nothing today, as if the design isn't even there. :D (did not realize the downtime kicked me that much out of shape)
I meant it as a joke before, but seriously though, I cannot see the design. The picture isn't there for me. Could it be blocked, but I see all the other pictures people post?(..I think)
You seem to see it, soo...


As for "What would happen if it launched."  I ran the war a number of ways.
I actually ran the war in my "Test" game.   Something that is easy enough.

War 1 - Russia Launches standard launch of ICBMS

NAU defeats launch in nine minutes.   Russia eliminated from game as mesons eliminate shipyards and ICBM bases.

War 2- Russia Launches "Drgong style" launch of ICBMS

NAU defeats launch in  15 minutes,   Russia Eliminated by Meson

War 3 - Russia and FSA launch standard launch of ICBMS

Close, but NAU defeats all launches by the skin of their teeth, FSA and Russia Eliminated

War 4 - Russia and FSA "Drgong style" launch of ICBMS

About 240 ICBMs impact NAU.

War 5  Russia and FSA  "drgong style" launch, with the previously undisclosed FSA ICBM+/Ratel Missiles.

X = number of ICBMS+
in 10 seconds,  X number of impacts on NAU , taking out shipyards and population.    ~240-(X) impact NAU.  We all die.


I only have to object to the "PDC gets destroyed by Mesons" parts. Here is an early quote from Russia Thread interna (some stuff black marked):

If we get a sufficient number of meson bases, couldn't we use those to take out enemy bases in an alpha strike?
Oh, come to think of it, - that has actually never been tested since PDC is not built by NPRs. Normally you cannot use Meson from orbit to surface, so I didn't consider this, but if PDC just get treated as ships by Aurora, it might actually work for the first time.

----
So, I have been running a quick test game on this, and sensational news: It does work!
I repeat: We can Alphastrike their missile bases into nothing before Earth's obliteration, because mesons still work on PDC where they always failed when being used on planetary population or ground forces otherwise.

[...], we could probably easily achieve a stage where all their bases may fall in an instant 5-second.(simulations for that may follow) Then we just have to outlive the assault of their ground forces to win. This gives [...] more weight I suppose.
Really good news, a winning possibility without fallout, and I stand corrected with that [...] impeding doomsday scenario [...].


It just dawned on me that this kind of introduces another but much more cheap way to win the game. I am not for it, but just so you know:[...], we could indeed just focus on very cheap meson bases [...], so we get as much of that as possible. Have [...], and after the 10 years truce ends, we could just overrun their capital and take over all their belongings without even having to set a foot in space.

...Not the Aurora way to do things, but that is most positively an even more effective strategy with same-planet-start players now. Just so you know that we also have the moral high-ground by neglecting such dishonorable warfare practice, so if we later beat NAU, we can also say that "we didn't even give it our best shot" too. ;)
For the sake of generating an interesting (and longer lived?) story, I guess we shouldn't go all out on this meson PDC plan. Still, that doesn't stop us from doing the [...], so we still have a fallback plan at least if [...] doesn't go so well.
Yes, I agree. Also I feel that the thing with PDC being able to be targeted was maybe not intended anyway, since they usually don't show up on any player radar, and NPR and spoilers are known to have issues with targeting them too.
Even if not though, it feels cheap.


...So, the thing with mesons is that you cannot ever shoot them from orbit to ground, because the log will show something like "is a precision weapon, and can as such not be targeted on planetary surface" (meaning probably: no collateral)
I see no real reason why that condition should change for when they are mounted on ground to begin with, so it is maybe a bug or was overlooked by Steve, which seems likely, because PDC vs PDC is a rare game setting to say the least.
...It could also be that attacking PDCs was actually intended, because they would be more compact and ship-like, but even if it was intentional, from the above argument you can see that it is very unhealthy for any Aurora-feel game, because it restricts warfare to who can rush out their meson turrets fast enough. The mesons destroy shipyards and PDC, so even when you have TN missiles, they would just be the prime weapon in hopes to alphastrike all enemy launch bases away, and completely paralyze all the enemy can do from then. (you can build it secret too, by just building one huge base, so the enemy cannot see it coming. ...Then 5 seconds and over)

This is why I propose to make it illegal  to use them towards ground targets. We can get Steve to comment on that probably to make clear whether he wanted that or not.

If it would stay though, I would feel really punished for making the "moral" choice before, because we have seen this early, and all these sudden death scenarios from Drgong above could to date have easily rolled in our direction as well if we had decided to abuse this when we could've.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on June 06, 2016, 01:12:04 PM
Quote
...So, the thing with mesons is that you cannot ever shoot them from orbit to ground, because the log will show something like "is a precision weapon, and can as such not be targeted on planetary surface" (meaning probably: no collateral)
False- you can target PDCs from orbit, just not ground troops or populations since they are so dispersed.   This is one of the more noteworthy bonuses for Mesons as a beam weapon - unlike the other beam weapons, they can shoot though atmosphere. (Lasers are useless)

Quote
I see no real reason why that condition should change for when they are mounted on ground to begin with, so it is maybe a bug or was overlooked by Steve, which seems likely, because PDC vs PDC is a rare game setting to say the least.
It is a very real possibility in a 3 way race to the stars.  I would not expect if you launched at someone that they wouldn't have swatting down your missiles would not one by one eliminate your PDCs.   PDC->PDC combat can happen when you share a world.
 

Quote
...It could also be that attacking PDCs was actually intended, because they would be more compact and ship-like, but even if it was intentional, from the above argument you can see that it is very unhealthy for any Aurora-feel game, because it restricts warfare to who can rush out their meson turrets fast enough. The mesons destroy shipyards and PDC, so even when you have TN missiles, they would just be the prime weapon in hopes to alphastrike all enemy launch bases away, and completely paralyze all the enemy can do from then. (you can build it secret too, by just building one huge base, so the enemy cannot see it coming. ...Then 5 seconds and over)

That is why you have 32 missile bases - each of them with 10 launchers.  Unless you are using now outdated ICBMs, there is no way that someone can rush enough mesons to take out 32 missile bases in one shot.  That would take almost 1,000 mesons.   Russia is right now dependent on FSA military goodwill since they have not deployed a single countermeasure.   Even a simple Trans-newtonian missile of 2000 km/s with a warhead can make sure that you have MAD.   

or the TL:DR

Mesons can fire on non-defuse targets
This includes PDCs
meson PDCs can fire on other PDCs
Simple Trans-newtonian missles make a meson strike useless as there no way you can build enough Mesons to take out every base, and a TN missile will be detected by sensors as it produces a X-sized nuclear explosion on the target.  Even taking out active sensors, they can still be aimed at the populations. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on June 08, 2016, 02:44:59 PM
Can we give a design to another nation without giving them all the techs leading to that design?
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on June 08, 2016, 02:45:58 PM
Can we give a design to another nation without giving them all the techs leading to that design?

I will check and see, but I do not think so.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Vandermeer on June 10, 2016, 07:50:14 AM
False- you can target PDCs from orbit, just not ground troops or populations since they are so dispersed.   This is one of the more noteworthy bonuses for Mesons as a beam weapon - unlike the other beam weapons, they can shoot though atmosphere. (Lasers are useless)
The point here is that NPR don't have PDC, so this might have been overlooked, because it sure never happens in any usual game any player would have.
...Doesn't have to, and I am standing 50:50 with it too in whether it was intended or not (I thought I made that clear in the last post.. // with the Russia quotes too...), but what really moves me to propose this kind of ban is the terrible effect on PvP gaming. :P => Not "Space!" anymore, but meson rush, and ground combat.


Quote
It is a very real possibility in a 3 way race to the stars.  I would not expect if you launched at someone that they wouldn't have swatting down your missiles would not one by one eliminate your PDCs.   PDC->PDC combat can happen when you share a world.
No problem with missile vs. missile PDC, because they have the mutual extinction causing delay, but don't you see how it monopolizes the game when you do the same with beam weapons?

Also, why haven't you said anything when we discussed this before in Russia? I understand you cannot read everything in all those threads of both parties, but this went through some messages at least. We denied Meson buildup because we thought it was immoral or against the game's spirit, and now we stand here, having none, and hearing about glorious righteous winning scenarios because "you fools should have done it too".
Yeah, we would have.
 

Quote
That is why you have 32 missile bases - each of them with 10 launchers.  Unless you are using now outdated ICBMs, there is no way that someone can rush enough mesons to take out 32 missile bases in one shot.  That would take almost 1,000 mesons.   Russia is right now dependent on FSA military goodwill since they have not deployed a single countermeasure.   Even a simple Trans-newtonian missile of 2000 km/s with a warhead can make sure that you have MAD.   

or the TL:DR

Mesons can fire on non-defuse targets
This includes PDCs
meson PDCs can fire on other PDCs
Simple Trans-newtonian missles make a meson strike useless as there no way you can build enough Mesons to take out every base, and a TN missile will be detected by sensors as it produces a X-sized nuclear explosion on the target.  Even taking out active sensors, they can still be aimed at the populations.
As said, yes, we would not have destroyed NAU at this time, but if we'd known that meson ground attack is perfectly good sports in this game, we would have shifted all investment to that too, as it is perfectly logical to do that with it becoming the sudden most prominent winning factor of PvP Aurora.
So with us on that same table, the whole thing would have played out differently, depending mostly whether we actually finished our PDC early, or NAU.
Drgong and Russia Spoiler:
(probably us though, since we needn't do some other tech first, as you know)
It probably wouldn't have been over if you or NAU had the TN missiles at this time, but also it wouldn't have happened as it did, plus, we now probably get an armament spiral for the future trying to out-meson each other, as the faction who doesn't do it will fade eventually, no matter any hypothetical armada they'd be able to put out. (look at what i said in the old Russia quotes: "most effective winning strategy")
(at least until they got a really solid base somewhere else, which won't happen, or the resources on Earth got consumed by the PDC buildup, which only delays the problem, as then the hunt for outside resource comes or already runs, and then the spiral continues)



Don't get me wrong though. The thing with the knowledge of missiles needing 10k km flight to strike was really good, so NAU has my compliments for knowing that. (actually said that in Russia some days ago) Even with an early Meson Base on our side, we would have fallen into that trap, because really no one seemed to know, which means NAU would have won once they had both, one  meson, and some TN missiles. (they then surprisingly block our conventionals, and pierce our own meson defense)
So without the ammunition from FSA it would have ended at that point.
...But sudden ultimate defeat from meson bombardement? No, that would not have happened. Nukes would have been needed, just like it should be, as I keep advertising.

Also, once we eventually had TN missiles, it is back to meson spiral only gameplay.


Well, I am nearly off to meet at airport now, so I can't continue the argument. Last word is on others then.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on June 10, 2016, 08:29:10 AM
Quote
Also, why haven't you said anything when we discussed this before in Russia? I understand you cannot read everything in all those threads of both parties, but this went through some messages at least. We denied Meson buildup because we thought it was immoral or against the game's spirit, and now we stand here, having none, and hearing about glorious righteous winning scenarios because "you fools should have done it too".
Yeah, we would have.

Chillax dude, then end results is that we wasted time designing tech and systems that are of no use because apparently first strikes have been banned now.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on June 10, 2016, 12:48:59 PM
Chillax dude, then end results is that we wasted time designing tech and systems that are of no use because apparently first strikes have been banned now.

Don't worry, since we cannot let you have all the cold war MAD arms race fun by yourselves we are wasting some resources into it too.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on June 10, 2016, 10:33:54 PM
Okay, I am going to break it into digestible parts.

Quote
Also, why haven't you said anything when we discussed this before in Russia? I understand you cannot read everything in all those threads of both parties, but this went through some messages at least. We denied Meson buildup because we thought it was immoral or against the game's spirit, and now we stand here, having none, and hearing about glorious righteous winning scenarios because "you fools should have done it too".
Yeah, we would have.

My job is to be a admin, not a strategy coach- I will correct something that is a turn stopping error, or something that is data-driven since I have access to the database and you guys just have screenshots.  For example, Everyone started with 32 missile bases, if someone says "they have 15 bases" I would correct them.   Ignoring the fact that Meson armed ships can attack ground targets though atmosphere, and say, laser or Mass driver armed ships cannot is something that comes from the realm of game knowledge, and dare I say a choice early on on what type of beam weapon ships to build.
 
Secondly Mesons are NOT "Game over" since you can research and build TN-missiles before a Meson system can come online.   Russia hasn't built a single PDC or ship, while the other teams have built at least  4 probes, PDCs, or in the case of the FSA, two ships.    Russia failed to build  ANYTHING to upgrade their military.   

Also, I don't share admin information.   

It not my job as admin to make sure you had a sound strategy.   The FSA was well prepped for a meson rush, and had a active sensor and Meson-proof missiles in hand.   Now mind you, this is even after I am doing specific things to handicap the FSA.   If the FSA can make it happen, so could Russia, maintaining MAD is by default a early game goal.     


Quote
As said, yes, we would not have destroyed NAU at this time, but if we'd known that meson ground attack is perfectly good sports in this game, we would have shifted all investment to that too, as it is perfectly logical to do that with it becoming the sudden most prominent winning factor of PvP Aurora.
So with us on that same table, the whole thing would have played out differently, depending mostly whether we actually finished our PDC early, or NAU.

Not correct again.
The FSA, NAU, or Russia can easily develop TN missiles that nullify mesons as a game breaking weapon before a team can build a Meson system that can take out 320 ICBMS.  This is a simple as looking at the game. 

Meson Rush vs. TNICBM rush
TNICBM requires
PWR - 1500
Nuclear Thermal engines - 2500
1.5 EP NT missile engine 75 points
Size 5 missile with one engine, .1 in fuel, and a warhead that does 4 damage with 14 agility (also a range of 90 million KM and a speed of 6000 KM/S) - 124 RP

Congrats, you have TNICBMs for the cost of 4,199 RP

Mesons require
PWR - 1500
10 CM meson - 1000
Meson focusing - 1000
Beam fire Control - 1000
Fire control Speed - 2000
Fire Control S01.2 20-2500 - 80RP
R1.5/C1 Meson Cannon 300RP
Active Sensor - 1000
Active Search Sensor MR0-R1 100RP

total: 7,980

Or to be blunt - it takes 190% of the effort to rush a meson base as it does to build TNICBMs. 




I have said it before in this thread.

So I am going to be Really blunt about it.

The fact is - if we are playing "Hardcore" -
Russia lost in Turn 9. 

 You guys failed to do a number of things. 

You failed to make any sorts of friend or allies
you failed to do anything to make Russia safe from TN weapons
The NAU didn't Rush Mesons - they been launching Probe at Trans-newtownian speeds for months.  That should of alerted you that NAU had TN-engine tech.   
this isn't about spirit of the game, this is just failing do basic things to protect yourself.

Now luckily, I am playing the FSA as mostly friendly unless you screw them over.   The "Peacekeeper" system was of zero threat to the FSA for the following reasons.
We had built a understanding with the NAU
We invested and made sure even if the NAU decided to go aggressive on us, we had TNICBMs online so that at least we could get a nuke in retaliation if they strike.   

Now mind you, the FSA was able to do that even with.
--Building two ships for nothing more then role playing.
--building a vastly overpowered sensor array
--designing and building the "De beers" survey probes
--a number of Classified projects

All prior to designing and building our "Honey Badger" system

And we STILL beat the NAU "Rush" to mesons.   and that with the FSA handicaps.

So deciding that I really didn't want to end the game on turn 9 for Russia as admin
 -- even if it was no fault of the NAU,

I was forced to make Meta choices for to continue the game.

Thus the FSA forced the NAU  to backdown on Russia, even if Russia was opposed to FSA policies.   Which mind you screwed over the FSA long term plans, ruined FSA diplomacy,  Ruined the good fun of the NAU players who had caught your with your pants down, and best yet, the FSA is not demanding a long list of concessions for this.  This is due to the fact that I am acting as the admin, not a FSA player.   If I was playing as a player, I would of simply let the NAU walk over you with a treaty dealing with letting the NAU and FSA claim asteroids without fighting. 

To the credit of the NAU players --After I screwed them over for the betterment of the game. They have at least the courtesy not to complain and understand that I made choices for the continuation of the game, not the best for the FSA.   The fact is that they beat you not with a "Meson Rush", but due to the poor planning on team Russia. 

To complain about Meson Rushes when:
It wasn't a meson rush
And the Admin though the FSA bailed you out without even a thank you

is rather off-putting.   


Quote
Chillax dude, then end results is that we wasted time designing tech and systems that are of no use because apparently first strikes have been banned now.

To be fair, it forcing the FSA and Russia to spend a lot of money and effort upgrading their missile systems.    Also first strikes are not banned, just discouraged.   I am the first to call out my mistakes as a admin - and I failed to figure out something that would of rewarded you for correct play.   

Quote
Don't worry, since we cannot let you have all the cold war MAD arms race fun by yourselves we are wasting some resources into it too.

Indeed, the FSA and Russia will have to spend plenty of time and money making sure that MAD survives....
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on July 23, 2016, 12:31:01 PM
Just going to react to what Bughunter said in PM, do you guys think it'd be a good idea to ban tech trades? I mean, we all used it, but they're just so powerful since giving a tech doesn't cost anything... On the other hand, they do speed things a bit.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: DaMachinator on July 23, 2016, 12:54:10 PM
What blew up while I was at work?
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on July 23, 2016, 01:32:36 PM
What blew up while I was at work?

Most of this thread was post peacekeeper crisis.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on July 23, 2016, 01:33:57 PM
Just going to react to what Bughunter said in PM, do you guys think it'd be a good idea to ban tech trades? I mean, we all used it, but they're just so powerful since giving a tech doesn't cost anything... On the other hand, they do speed things a bit.

Speaking as the FSA (and not as admin) I prefer tech trades due to the fact that it speeds up the tech progress as we did start with almost no tech.

Speaking as the Admin
I am fine saying the FSA can't do tech trades - though I would prefer to complete any already agreed on trades as I based research priories based on the agreed trades. 

 :)



Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on July 23, 2016, 01:51:42 PM
Not sure if it is a good idea (especially for my team) but yes I would like to remove FSA tech trades. As Sheb said they are extremely powerful. Also in a normal game of Aurora you don't have that option.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on July 23, 2016, 02:05:32 PM
I have a idea for making the game a little more curious, to make diplomacy a little more fun. 

Quote
- Set up the non-aligned nations (EU) in game, give them 500M population, no missile bases, no shipyards and say, 15 labs. (or give them the starting 1000 and 10,000 ton shipyards, but still years behind everyone else)

Each year 2% of their total earth population emigrates to one of the three powers.

Emigration is determined by your diplomatic score towards the EU.

Diplomatic score is as follows. 

Diplomatic team score + d100 + Bonus.


Bonus is the following
Commercial vessel donated to the EU - Tonnage/1000
Military vessel donated to the EU - Tonnage/100
Research donated - RP/10


This is a general idea that been in my head to improve the diplomatic function which right now is very random.  The EU would not be a threat to any of the great powers (Smaller, and way behind tech wise) and its military solely used for defensive reasons.  They would only sign treaties that all three major powers sign.

Edit: The "bonus" resets to zero at the start of the year. 

 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on July 23, 2016, 02:07:15 PM
Not sure if it is a good idea (especially for my team) but yes I would like to remove FSA tech trades. As Sheb said they are extremely powerful. Also in a normal game of Aurora you don't have that option.

Okay, I will put it to a quick vote of the players teams with three options, and the most restrictive will win.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8859.0

Please vote. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on July 23, 2016, 02:15:12 PM
Interesting but I see a problem. If they are only defensive and no threat there is no reason not to always donate all your tech and whatever else you can spare to them. Would they not just become a positive feedback loop for whoever is in the lead?
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on July 23, 2016, 02:17:35 PM
Interesting but I see a problem. If they are only defensive and no threat there is no reason not to always donate all your tech and whatever else you can spare to them. Would they not just become a positive feedback loop for whoever is in the lead?

The bonus would reset to Zero at the start of every year,  (Forgot to type that out.) So at most you would be earning a bonus for one year.

I could also set up some sort of internal political system to determine their policies if the players wanted, think of this as a idea, not something that going to be rolled out unless the players like the idea.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on July 24, 2016, 09:43:52 AM
Just so everyone knows - I have slept on the what type of "Crisis" or Event I could do with the current setup. 

I have determined one that will at least let NAU and RUS to have some fun.  FSA will have to sit out in it as part of it is a "Search" and I as the admin I will know exactly where it is at so the FSA will Just be curious on other things. (I had a friend place Ruins without me knowing in the database, but in this case I will know exactly where it is at.)

Keep a eye out for "Ark" related RP. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on July 24, 2016, 10:05:04 AM
The EU idea could be nice. Could I also suggest that we see the number of CI each sides gains from propaganda each year? It'd be nice to have some friendly competition for propaganda between side.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on July 24, 2016, 10:07:07 AM
The EU idea could be nice. Could I also suggest that we see the number of CI each sides gains from propaganda each year? It'd be nice to have some friendly competition for propaganda between side.

I would need to figure out the "Points" for propaganda.   Of course, I could just count the number of RP posts in the RP thread with up to 10 per game year giving you a CI each...
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on July 24, 2016, 10:10:20 AM
Wait, you mean the CI we've be getting up to now where not linked to our propaganda?  :P
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on July 24, 2016, 10:20:54 AM
Wait, you mean we have been getting CI?  :P
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on July 24, 2016, 10:22:28 AM
You could also just go for gut feeling a complex system that you're not going to explain to us. As long as the advantages aren't game breaking, I don't think people would complain.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on July 24, 2016, 10:44:15 AM
You could also just go for gut feeling a complex system that you're not going to explain to us. As long as the advantages aren't game breaking, I don't think people would complain.

That is true.   Here are the spiffed up ideas - I as the admin like this idea, but if the players think it sucky it won't happen.
Diplomacy

Diplomacy between the empires will be role-played.  However, the diplomatic teams will focus on the EU.

The EU is set up as a nation with 500 million population.  2% of the earth's population will emigrate to one of the three powers at the end of the year.   How this population emigrates is directly  related to the diplomatic points with the EU you have.  (It will be a direct ratio - Example, if 250M people are emigrating,  team A has 100 diplomatic points, team B has 100 diplomatic points, and the team C has 50 diplomatic points, each point is worth 1 million people.  If only 125 were emigrating, then it would be worth only .5 million people)

Points are calculated as the following. 

Diplomatic team score + random score (d100) + yearly bonus

Bonus is the following
Commercial vessel donated to the EU - Tonnage/1000
Military vessel donated to the EU - Tonnage/100
Research donated - RP/10

The bonus is reset at the end of the year. 

The EU will be far behind the major powers, and I will role play a political system.   

They will not sign a treaty unless all 3 powers join. 

Propaganda

The NAU and RUS will receive up to 10 CI each year based on propaganda

While I will keep it secret, ways to increase your score

Post RP articles in the RP thread
Great successes
Military wins, winning "Events"
Working together and proposing treaties that all parties sign.

Ways to lose points

Breaking treaties
being weak
being too aggressive.

Since I am keeping the formula secret, and the FSA is not intended to be the winner, the FSA cannot get CI. 

Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on July 24, 2016, 10:50:44 AM
Yay. For the propaganda, you might even consider semi-regular challenge. ("A Nigerian heir is looking for an account to stash his fortune of 1000 wealth. The side that makes the best case for being the true home of the decadent wealthy will get it"). We have a very popular kind of game on Bay12 called design game, where two team of players design weapons for countries in a semi-historical setting, and thos kind of propaganda challenge were very popular (although they shouldn't give too big a bonuses, the game is about playing aurora here).
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on July 24, 2016, 11:56:41 AM
You could also just go for gut feeling a complex system that you're not going to explain to us. As long as the advantages aren't game breaking, I don't think people would complain.

I like this, or the other idea from Sheb with semi-regular challenges and rewards. Or both at the same time.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: AL on July 25, 2016, 06:04:28 AM
Seconded! (or is it third now?) They don't have to be huge rewards either, just a couple mines here, or a bag of wealth there would be plenty to keep things lively. Hopefully it wouldn't be too much extra work for you to get this going.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on July 25, 2016, 12:03:09 PM
Okay - a update

EU been added - had to add a group anyways to do the Turkish Arc thing.
I will wait one more day on the Tech Trade vote.   Right now I think the most direct way to do something is no tech trades for the FSA, and give everyone 5 more research labs to speed research up.  (Will be added at the end of next turn so people do not have to fiddle with orders)
There will be a 1 in four chance on a turn that there will be a RP event as Sheb proposed
Not to spoil anything, but in a turn or two (Depending on how long the turn is) Sol will be a little less secure.     It will keep everyone on their toes for a while.  Do not worry, it not invaders or Star Swarm or the like.

okay, a little spoiler.

(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/babylon5/images/d/dc/Raider_Fighter.gif/revision/latest?cb=20090823011305)
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on July 31, 2016, 11:58:25 AM
Will have to ask - is there a lost of interest in this game?   Team forums are dead atm. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on July 31, 2016, 03:08:23 PM
No still here, still loyal to mother Russia, will be back posting soon.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Sheb on August 01, 2016, 03:36:08 AM
I was away on a hike for af ew days.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: AL on August 03, 2016, 05:04:08 PM
I've been getting progressively more busy with uni lately, but still doing my best to check in at least once every day.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on August 03, 2016, 11:29:29 PM
No worries.

I will run the turn in the morning.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on August 19, 2016, 11:00:18 AM
Did a lot of updating to Janes, and included colonies and claims since now people are starting to really expand outside of earth gravity well.

Also I going to drop a note over on reddit to try to get some new players.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on August 24, 2016, 02:18:28 PM
Admin question - is there a way to transfer POWs to the original side?   the game thinks the people rescued are POWs...
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: AL on August 24, 2016, 05:05:44 PM
I think there was a thread a month or so back about this - my recollection is no, they are stuck as POW's forever. We could just RP the transfer though.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on August 26, 2016, 12:41:15 PM
I think there was a thread a month or so back about this - my recollection is no, they are stuck as POW's forever. We could just RP the transfer though.

Fair enough, and I guess the officer was too injured to continue duties  :)
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on September 05, 2016, 11:15:47 AM
Since it was such a short round due to the combat, I will be posting the logs, and if the teams want a update screenshots, I will make them.

Since it a holiday weekend, I would like if turns could be in by Wednesday at 5pm, but they are due Thursday at 5pm.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: NuclearStudent on September 10, 2016, 07:18:40 PM
On a random note

Can we have some sort of in-game mechanic that will prevent future Peacekeeper Incidents from reaching one-sided planetary war? 

Like, for example, if General Planetary War happens, a side can release or threaten to release TN neurotoxins that wreck the earth entirely. This would be abstracted by radiation levels being set to something like 10000, simulating both sides going all-out with biological warfare. One side would get an advantage, in the  sense that they would have more surviving equipment to take off planet, but both sides would be objectively worse off and less secure because of extrasolar threats.

It will still let war be possible in the far future (when a full space race is done and people have powerful extraterrestrial colonies) while restraining near term actions. It also will allow people to be more aggressive, because they know it will be within the rules.

 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on September 11, 2016, 03:14:04 AM
If/when war happens I think it would be more fun if it was a space war. I generally agree with what you write but not sure on what the best way to achieve it would be.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: NuclearStudent on September 11, 2016, 04:53:54 PM
I agree that I don't know what the best way would be. But, I do think it's important to have a system more game-friendly than Drgong's intervention. While he should absolutely have the last word, if there is no in-game incentive to avoid doing something, then that breaks immersion.

I bring this up now not because the NAU is planning to nuke the Russians, but because the NAU might want to. If the situation comes up where it would be the plausible rational self-interest of one nation to start an earth war with another nation, it would unnatural and unfun to avoid doing the sensible thing.

Therefore, while tensions are at an all time low and conflict is far away, it is the best time to make sure an earth war never becomes the sensible thing to do.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on September 26, 2016, 02:18:36 PM
In the log there is a comment that suddenly everyone is hostile.

Since everyone shares the same system, the "friendly" drops over time.   I re-boosted everything back to "friendly" vie SM.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on October 14, 2016, 04:04:21 PM
Sending out a check since both teams missed the deadline.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on October 15, 2016, 05:06:56 AM
Probably due to the short time since the last one, personally I have been a bit busy lately but still here.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on October 15, 2016, 11:24:29 AM
okay, lets try the 19th at 5pm.   
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on November 03, 2016, 08:21:24 AM
I always found it a bit funny (and confusing) that I had a pseudoamerican avatar and Sheb a communist one, almost suggested to him that we switched with each other but would have been even more confusing probably.. But now I switched to something more appropriate instead :)
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on November 16, 2016, 05:25:49 AM
Might not look like much is happening out here on the public board but we are busy on our side of the iron curtain with SwordLord returning to the team recently sparking some activity. How are things in the NAU?

Previous attempts were maybe not great successes always, but if anyone feels like doing some in-character RP or similar we are up for it.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: NuclearStudent on December 18, 2016, 12:54:22 PM
Might not look like much is happening out here on the public board but we are busy on our side of the iron curtain with SwordLord returning to the team recently sparking some activity. How are things in the NAU?

Previous attempts were maybe not great successes always, but if anyone feels like doing some in-character RP or similar we are up for it.

NAU not very active.

Also up for doing RP if you want it.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Bughunter on December 19, 2016, 02:17:45 AM
We are also a bit on standby at the moment waiting for Drgong to get some more free time. Not that I mind waiting, I understand it must be taking a lot of effort to run a game like this and that he also has other things to do.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on January 04, 2017, 09:31:11 AM
I am dealing with a health issue in the family.    (I am fine.)  But I am doing some caretaking.

Sorry it taking so long folks. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: AL on January 04, 2017, 03:32:36 PM
Hope they get well soon! Take as much time as you need Drgong.
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on January 04, 2017, 07:06:54 PM
Lets get both teams 2 days to make sure there stuff is ready, and I should be able to run it this weekend as I will be getting a break from caretaking duties. 
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on January 09, 2017, 12:36:55 PM
Okay, tomorrow I set aside to run the *($()#*$ turn!  ;D

Also will be updating the other stuff as well.   
Title: Re: Game discussion
Post by: Drgong on January 10, 2017, 12:10:53 PM
UN registry is up date.
Janes is up to day except ships. 
Running turn. 

Turn complete.

Battle of Earth has commenced.   :o