Too many jump points?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I've haven't played for a while due to finding out about X-COM Long War

It will take me a while to get back into the Rigellian Chronicles so I'm playing around with a campaign idea at the moment that involves setting up a lot of systems (50-100) and then populating them with a variety of different human colonies (like 2300AD if anyone remembers that). No NPRs - just human empires, plus maybe a major alien race that I would play. Essentially a no AI campaign apart from perhaps spoilers.

As part of that that I just generated 75 systems as a potential start-up universe. It was surprising just how many had a lot of jump points. Due to getting a 2300AD feel, I really want a campaign with fewer JPs per system (with subsequently fewer systems close to Sol) and was considering making it a little harder to get beyond 2-4 JPs per system. I could make it optional but I am interested in opinions as to whether the current JP generation is too much and I should cut down the default numbers (probably by making the cap much more dependent on star mass than currently so large numbers of JPs are much rarer)

Any opinions?

[xeryon]

It's fun and a nice challenge to deal with an occasional system with a large number of JP's but it is a pain when you have a few systems in your empire with 8+, particularly if they are adjoining systems.  To be honest it might be fun if the quantity of JP's had a tie in with the colony cost of the system bodies or maybe overall mineral concentrations.  8 JP's in a system no one cares about is one thing, but in a system with high desirability it makes it worth the additional difficulty to manage.

[Vandermeer]

I too think that the current generation goes a bit overboard. In my current game I have discovered maybe somewhat over 50 systems, and quite a few of them turned out to house even 8 jump points. I end up trying to ignore those nodes as dead ends, because making so many links make sense on the galaxy map to maintain oversight becomes really difficult to do. It is also frightening in general to end not on a T-intersection, or a crossroad, but have so many directions open that you have to "work through" before you feel you have really progressed one jump more away from home. There is some style to it if it happens once in a while, so you have some sort of space-hub-anomaly system, but in praxis it seems that every 10th is already that bulky (judging by my this one recent game of mine), and every 4th or so at least exceeds the 4 JP margin.
So I would definitely like to see some curve or so that makes systems over 4 Jps maybe exponentially more unlikely, yet not impossible, - or just something in that direction.

[GreatTuna]

I would prefer this to be optional, though I agree with others in that JP amount goes a little overboard now. I want a choice between "too many" and "too few".

[MarcAFK]

I  agree, the excess of jump points usually drags my games down heavily, an option might be great but perhaps a small tweak might be sufficient , but also maybe an option for seriously limited jump points.
An alternative might be to limit jump points heavily, then have a late-tier technology which allows fallow jump points to be re-explored with perhaps a high chance of connecting to already-explored systems.

[chrislocke2000]

I will add my agreement to this as well, hitting several systems in a row with 6 or 7 jump points makes managing the map a real pain.

[Iranon]

I'd definitely prefer fewer jump points per system.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

It sounds like we have a consensus that the current generation code creates too many JPs. Here is the pseudo-code for what I propose as the new standard.

        NumberJP = 1
        BaseJPChance = 90
        Do While True
            JPChance = Int(BaseJPChance + PrimaryMass)
            If JPChance > 90 Then JPChance = 90
            If RandomNumber(100) > JPChance Then Exit Do
            NumberJP = NumberJP + 1
            If BaseJPChance = 40 Then BaseJPChance = 30
            If BaseJPChance = 60 Then BaseJPChance = 40
            If BaseJPChance = 90 Then BaseJPChance = 60
        Loop

This will produce the following proportions of systems assuming mass of 0.99 or less

1 JP: 10%
2 JPs: 36%
3 JPs: 32.4%
4 JPs: 15.12%
5 JPs: 4.54%
6 JPs: 1.36%
7 or more: 0.58%

For a star with a mass of 5 the proportion would be:

1 JP: 10%
2 JPs: 31.5%
3 JPs: 26.33%
4 JPs: 17.7%
5 JPs: 9.41%
6 JPs: 3.29%
7 or more: 1.77%

For a star with a mass of 10 the proportion would be:

1 JP: 10%
2 JPs: 27%
3 JPs: 25.2%
4 JPs: 18.9%
5 JPs: 11.34%
6 JPs: 4.54%
7 or more: 3.02%

As you can see, higher mass stars make a significant difference in terms of systems with 5 or more JPs. In fact, an optional rule for more JPs would be to assume a minimum star mass for JP generation only. How does this sound?

BTW the reason for the low (10%) chance of no JPs is because with fewer JPs in general, dead-ends are more of an issue.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Here is an example of JP generation using the proposed formula. I have generated systems until I am at least five transits out in all directions. As you can see, there are still a few junctions but much less than before. Chains of system are much more common. This is more like the type of map I had in mind for a 2300 AD campaign. If anything, I would trim the 4+ down a little more but this is a very small sample size.

[boggo2300]

(like 2300AD if anyone remembers that).

Just vaguely

[chrislocke2000]

That's looking pretty good to me, even if it is just a small sample.

Will be interesting to see what that does for player rates of expansion and how much more of a shift into fuel production and management it will require. I suspect that will mean more of a trade off in fuel efficient engines v speed compared to current games.

I also wonder if slightly speeding up JP surveys would be an idea to help balanced the increased transit times for survey ships.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

This is a second test with a slight change to the generation chances. It moves a little % to 3 JP from 4+ JP. Here is old vs new proportions:

OLD
1 JP: 10%
2 JPs: 36%
3 JPs: 32.4%
4 JPs: 15.12%
5 JPs: 4.54%
6 JPs: 1.36%
7 or more: 0.58%

NEW
1 JP: 10%
2 JPs: 36%
3 JPs: 37.8%
4 JPs: 11.34%
5 JPs: 3.40%
6 JPs: 1.02%
7 or more: 0.44%

So now we have about 1 system in 9 (for stars with 0.99 mass or smaller) with 4 JPs and 1 in 20 with 5 or more JPs. Almost three quarters will be 2 or 3 JPs. Junction systems will actually work out a little higher than that because of the higher mass stars making a significant difference at 4+. This feels better than the first version but again it is quite a small sample size. Here is a map generated under those rules:

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

That's looking pretty good to me, even if it is just a small sample.

Will be interesting to see what that does for player rates of expansion and how much more of a shift into fuel production and management it will require. I suspect that will mean more of a trade off in fuel efficient engines v speed compared to current games.

I also wonder if slightly speeding up JP surveys would be an idea to help balanced the increased transit times for survey ships.

I think this will make the logistical side of the game more interesting as you will have to mount quite long-range expeditions, both for surveying and combat operations. Tanker support and forward bases will be more useful and fuel will become even more of an issue. More industrial output will probably be needed for the tail vs. the teeth. We'll see how it goes but perhaps more logistical-based techs, or making the existing ones cheaper, could be an option. Maybe also cheaper maintenance facilities as you are likely to need more bases.

[Bryan Swartz]

Or -- you could just make people deal with it since it isn't that problematic to begin with(logistics in general) . 

I've haven't played for a while due to finding out about X-COM Long War

A wise man you are.  I love Aurora but the only thing stopping me from really getting going on setting up my next campaign has been getting caught up on an interactive Long War dynasty I'm running on another forum. 

[GreatTuna]

I think this will make the logistical side of the game more interesting as you will have to mount quite long-range expeditions, both for surveying and combat operations. Tanker support and forward bases will be more useful and fuel will become even more of an issue. More industrial output will probably be needed for the tail vs. the teeth. We'll see how it goes but perhaps more logistical-based techs, or making the existing ones cheaper, could be an option. Maybe also cheaper maintenance facilities as you are likely to need more bases.

Even in JP-rich environment I still had designs which could fly for dozens of years. I doubt my logistical needs will get larger than that.
I both like (easier to defend chokepoints, easier to sort the map out) and don't like (it feels like tunnels) this. And I still want a choice between that and old variant if possible.