3rd Edition Rules

[Starslayer_D]

The trouble the book had was that they eally just plunked down the raw data, and didn't bother maiking something like said sheets avaiable for the people reading it. It sure would have upped the quality of the product.
Given though how even in our times people manage to spread out manufacture of weapons, I find it really a bit strange that no one is producing knockoffs of every component somewhere.. (as with the AK 47...  you got models of that from a lot of countries)

[crucis]

Another way to limit the use of EX(X), is to make them more vulnerable to the using empire.

If (for example), they were more likely to surrender and fail the data dump roll (due to the higher numbers of civilian scientists on board), and had a higher chance of containing system data of the area, you'd quite quickly see people avoid using EX(X)'s as widely as they do....

Or a) just get rid of the damned EX's and b) change Science Instruments systems to make larger ships more economically viable. 

The way the current rules surrounding X are, the only economically viable solution is to put the single "X" you're allowed to use on the absolutely smallest, cheapest ship possible.  And if EX's didn't exist, it'd just end up being Escorts.

Just to raise a point - when was PP ever a limit? Someone mentioned hitting the limit once, when needing to raise a planetary invasion force. My point, is that having rules for a limiting system (PP), when the limit is rarely ever reached is a waste of space and time - space in the rulebook, and time for the player to check every turn whether they have hit it or not.

I think that the real problem with the way that PP's were implemented was that there was no actual limit on fleet size.  PP's only limited the rate of fleet size growth, since you could only raise 1 PP per EVM.  But there was no limit on the maximum total of PP's you could have in your military at any given time.

If the PP rule was changed to provide such a hard limit, it could provide the limit on fleet sizes that people claim to want.

[crucis]

It wasn't just the finding friend part.

Using the pre-SM#2 ISF, with the slow population growth, often the only source for colonists was the homeworld, and once you have colonised those close by planets, the multi-turn colonisation convoys makes colonisation unrealistic. But, using the pre-SM#2 ISF, pretty soon you will find an alien race that will fall over itself to ally (and eventually amalgamate) with you - providing another source for colonisation (and income).

I'll readily admit that multi-turn non-habitable colonization is fairly unrealistic (and don't have a problem with this).  But I'm not so sure that I'd say that that's so for habitables.  They're worth the trouble.    Of course, given ISF's overly friendly NPR's, perhaps that does contribute to thinking that multi-turn habitable colonization isn't worth the trouble or expense.  But I'd think that if those NPR's were more hostile, one would have to re-assess the value of colonizing those empty habitables.

This changed in SM#2, both by the introduction of PTU/PU to "stage" the colonies growth (i.e. not needing to get the required H/Q onto the desired planet within a tight time frame using the IFN - instead being able to do it a couple of PTU per turn as you can afford to), by the increase in colony growth rate (allowing older colonies to start being sources for newer colonies), and by increasing the hostility of NPRs (making them less likely to become amalgamated with you).

I agree that a more incremental model of colonization has its merits.  But I also have to admit though that I prefer the EVM macro style of economics to the PU micro style.  I liked the fact that my GPV's weren't constantly changing month after month.  it was nice to be able to concentrate on the part of the game I really cared about.  Designing and building ships for The Fleet.  Exploring.  Finding new friends or new enemies.  And so forth.

I'm not interested in being an accountant in the Imperial Colonization Bureau and having to track all those tiny little groups of colonists all over the empire.  I liked the ISF all-at-once model of colonization.  If I want an outpost or a colony, get the FT's in place, load'em up, send'em off to their new world. And then move on to the next thing.  No worrying about managing and tracking any streams of penny packets of colonists to grow those new populations.

And you speak about growth rate, but it's that very growth rate that's the bane of the game.  It's that population growth rate which is the absolute root cause of out of control economies in SM#2 (at least out of control GPV's).  Slam that growth rate down HARD and you fix that vector of the overall problem. 

As for more hostile NPR's, that works for me.  Big time.   

Where SM#2 fell down, was that they didn't make the NPR's big enough. By the middle of the game, you are large enough that if you run into a NPR, and the First Contact roll goes against you - as they are a single system empire, you can quickly conquor them.

What I would do, is to allow them to be multi-system, with a comparable economy. This would result in players less likely to go to war with them.

Of course, this also has the problem that it makes the game more susceptible to chance.....

I think that part of the assumption is that by you start reaching that point, you should be running into other player races, at least in multi-player games.  But yes, if one is playing solo, it might be an issue.  Of course, when I played solo, I wouldn't have only a single "player" race.  I'd usually have 3 or 4.

Regardless, having the ability to include multi-system NPR's would be nice.  Of course, it does tend to add to the rules mass.   

(Sighs) There is a problem in reducing the population sizes in the belt. This is somewhat painful for me to point out (as I would prefer to remove them entirely) - but a cul de sac empire will need something to spend it's money on - and if O2/O1/AST colonisation is eliminated/reduced, an empire unable to expand (i.e. no WP's) is going to have nothing to spend it's money on.....

I've probably said this before, but in a spacemastered game, I'd have strongly suggested that the SM should make every effort to not let player races get stuck in cul de sacs, even if he'd have to quietly add a WP or 2 to a system that his sysgen die rolls said was an otherwise dead end system.  And of course, if the game is a solo one, you could just do it for yourself.


As for Asteroid Belt colonization in particular, that's not a good enough reason to continue to allow it at the same level is in ISF.  At least not to me.

Anyways, I've moved on from nothing but a bonus for moons and AB's in a more subtle direction to deal with the problem.

I believe it was three (HET) armed destroyers, and they destroyed ~40 F armed BB's.

Good grief.  What did those DD's do?  Use their 2 point speed advantage (and better turn mode) over the BB's to always try to sit at range 16, the max rage for HET lasers, but 1 outside the max range for Force beams?  I don't see any other way for the DD's to do this.  I'm just guessing, but it also sounds like the DDs' race probably had a TL advantage, since if they were about equal, the BB's race could have mounted Fc's instead of F's and that would have changed the outcome entirely.  The DD's HETs would have probably run for it, as they'd have been out-ranged by 4 tac hexes.

And BTW, this incident probably also points to a weakness of the traditional movement model of Starfire.  If pulsed movement had been used in this engagement (I assume it wasn't), it probably would have been very, very difficult for the DD's to always stay in the 1 tac hex range band (at 16 tH) where they could hit the BB's and the BB's couldn't hit back.

[MWadwell]

Or a) just get rid of the damned EX's and b) change Science Instruments systems to make larger ships more economically viable. 

The way the current rules surrounding X are, the only economically viable solution is to put the single "X" you're allowed to use on the absolutely smallest, cheapest ship possible.  And if EX's didn't exist, it'd just end up being Escorts.

And we'd end up with ES's replacing EX's - with a net change of almost ( zero.

If you want to move away from the min-max survey designs (i.e. place a single X on the smallest ship possible), then you need to make an non economic reason for it - which was why I mentioned making the survey ships more likely to be captured and provide survey data on your empire. To avoid that, more people would end up turning their survey ships into warships - which tends to make them DD sized.

I think that the real problem with the way that PP's were implemented was that there was no actual limit on fleet size.  PP's only limited the rate of fleet size growth, since you could only raise 1 PP per EVM.  But there was no limit on the maximum total of PP's you could have in your military at any given time.

If the PP rule was changed to provide such a hard limit, it could provide the limit on fleet sizes that people claim to want.

True - but with the current SM#2 population growth rate, the limit would only apply in the start of the game. By the middle of the game, the allowable fleet size is more bound by the size of the economy then by the size of the population.

That is why I think the PP rules are a waste of effort, as the real problem is the population growth rate.

[crucis]

Ok, enough toying with ideas... but it sure would make a gamechanger when that raid through the closed wp would not only hit 150 PU of hostile setlement (yawn), but also your only source of forcebeamium crystals... *panic*

Sounds more like an utter bore, than a game changer to me.  The minutiae of micro economics do nothing for me.  And not only having to pay attention to PTU's but then mines of ores and crystals and such would bore me to tears! 

[MWadwell]

I agree that a more incremental model of colonization has its merits.  But I also have to admit though that I prefer the EVM macro style of economics to the PU micro style.  I liked the fact that my GPV's weren't constantly changing month after month.  it was nice to be able to concentrate on the part of the game I really cared about.  Designing and building ships for The Fleet.  Exploring.  Finding new friends or new enemies.  And so forth.

Why not have your cake and eat it too?

Incremental colonisation (i.e. PTU/PU), with a fixed base income per population size. I.e. all populations between 250 and 400 PU are “Small”, and have a fixed EVM of 300.

I'm not interested in being an accountant in the Imperial Colonization Bureau and having to track all those tiny little groups of colonists all over the empire.  I liked the ISF all-at-once model of colonization.  If I want an outpost or a colony, get the FT's in place, load'em up, send'em off to their new world. And then move on to the next thing.  No worrying about managing and tracking any streams of penny packets of colonists to grow those new populations.

Heh – it’s funny. I don’t have a problem keeping track of all of the “penny packets of colonists”, but I hated tracking all of the IFN freighters. Different horses I suppose….

And you speak about growth rate, but it's that very growth rate that's the bane of the game.  It's that population growth rate which is the absolute root cause of out of control economies in SM#2 (at least out of control GPV's).  Slam that growth rate down HARD and you fix that vector of the overall problem.

I agree.

I think that part of the assumption is that by you start reaching that point, you should be running into other player races, at least in multi-player games.  But yes, if one is playing solo, it might be an issue.  Of course, when I played solo, I wouldn't have only a single "player" race.  I'd usually have 3 or 4.

That assumes that all PvP contact is going to result in warfare.

I can remember one campaign, where there were 4? 5? Players, and no PvP initiated combat – the fighting started when NPR’s that were allied to players went to war.

Regardless, having the ability to include multi-system NPR's would be nice.  Of course, it does tend to add to the rules mass.   

Yeah – which is a masive bummer…..

I've probably said this before, but in a spacemastered game, I'd have strongly suggested that the SM should make every effort to not let player races get stuck in cul de sacs, even if he'd have to quietly add a WP or 2 to a system that his sysgen die rolls said was an otherwise dead end system.  And of course, if the game is a solo one, you could just do it for yourself.

True – but also consider NPR’s, as a NPR stuck in a cul de sac isn’t going to be much of a challenge….

As for Asteroid Belt colonization in particular, that's not a good enough reason to continue to allow it at the same level is in ISF.  At least not to me.

I don’t see a need for AB colonisation – as long as there is a replacement.

For example, a replacement may be that you can buy IU in excess of the 50% PU limit – but that they only provide 50% of the benefit…..

Good grief.  What did those DD's do?  Use their 2 point speed advantage (and better turn mode) over the BB's to always try to sit at range 16, the max rage for HET lasers, but 1 outside the max range for Force beams?

Yep.

I don't see any other way for the DD's to do this.  I'm just guessing, but it also sounds like the DDs' race probably had a TL advantage, since if they were about equal, the BB's race could have mounted Fc's instead of F's and that would have changed the outcome entirely.  The DD's HETs would have probably run for it, as they'd have been out-ranged by 4 tac hexes.

The Rigellian DD’s did have a TL advantage – but it was more down to ship design limitations then tech limitations (i.e. the Bugs could have mounted longer ranged weapons, but they were a pure assault design caught away from the WP).

And BTW, this incident probably also points to a weakness of the traditional movement model of Starfire.  If pulsed movement had been used in this engagement (I assume it wasn't), it probably would have been very, very difficult for the DD's to always stay in the 1 tac hex range band (at 16 tH) where they could hit the BB's and the BB's couldn't hit back.

Well, even with pulsed movement, it wouldn’t have made any difference to the final outcome. Due to the speed advantage of the DD’s, when they lost initiative, they would have just moved out of range – and when they later won initiative they move back into range.

[crucis]

Why not have your cake and eat it too?

Incremental colonisation (i.e. PTU/PU), with a fixed base income per population size. I.e. all populations between 250 and 400 PU are “Small”, and have a fixed EVM of 300.

I'll think about it, but I suspect that there are a number of ways that the rules lawyers could twist it around badly, if it wasn't carefully conceived.




Re: coming down HARD on growth ...

I agree.

I guess that the question then is what constitutes "coming down hard on growth".  I personally never had a problem with ISF's effective no growth model. 

That assumes that all PvP contact is going to result in warfare.

I can remember one campaign, where there were 4? 5? Players, and no PvP initiated combat – the fighting started when NPR’s that were allied to players went to war.

Good grief!  I can't imagine a PvP campaign where the players didn't want to go to war against each other.  It almost sounds like a devious SM conspired to get the ball rolling!

True – but also consider NPR’s, as a NPR stuck in a cul de sac isn’t going to be much of a challenge….

I suppose that it depends on the situation, etc.  I'm not entirely sure whether every NPR should be a challenge.  But if the SM felt that the player did need a challenge, he could always arrange for 1-2 of those miraculous WP's to suddenly get added to the NPR's system data sheet.

On another level, this is arguably a symptom of a mild to moderate problem with the number of WP's tables in the sysgen rules.  Maybe having only a single WP in a system should be much more rare.  It would go against the canonical history, but it could help out the game itself.

OH!  Another option that might be viable could be for the SM to use one of the Ultra oddities ... a nearby star system that was close enough to get to through deep space as a way to find a way out of the cul-de-sac.    One of those options places the "nearby" star system 10-40 StMP distant.  2.5 to 10 months of deep space travel.  (During which, your ships should have to be carrying all of their own maintenance.  No allowing the CFN to miraculously catch up and keep them in supply.)

I don’t see a need for AB colonisation – as long as there is a replacement.

For example, a replacement may be that you can buy IU in excess of the 50% PU limit – but that they only provide 50% of the benefit…..

That's an interesting thought.  Or rather at double the cost (which does double the ROI).

Another one might be to allow such races to exceed the population limits in other locations.  And again, perhaps, at an increased cost.

The purpose of the increased costs would be to make such investments highly dubious for people with other options, but allow those without those other options (i.e. those in a cul-de-sac) to have something in which to invest, even if it's a bad investment.

But even so, such a race would still fill up those locations and find themselves in the same bind.

Yep.

The Rigellian DD’s did have a TL advantage – but it was more down to ship design limitations then tech limitations (i.e. the Bugs could have mounted longer ranged weapons, but they were a pure assault design caught away from the WP).

Ooooops.  Now the rest of the story comes out.  The Bugs built BB's with weapons with shorter ranges but more short range punch, but they got caught deep space by an enemy with longer ranged weapons, more speed, and a better turn mode.  It sounds to me as if the Bugs were hoist by their own petard, as it were.

[procyon]

there are a number of ways that the rules lawyers could twist it around badly, if it wasn't carefully conceived.

You will always have that.
If someone wants to game the game, instead of play the game - they will.  Not much you can do about it.
But they miss out on what the fun is really about.

Good grief!  I can't imagine a PvP campaign where the players didn't want to go to war against each other.

Then you are completely alien to the games my family plays.
They may conspire against each other on many occasions, but out right war is fairly rare and has always been limited to fueding over a planet or systems.
Other than the occasional 'commerce raiding' by the oldest girl - the players tended to work together in our games to deal with the 'nasty old SM...'   

[MWadwell]

I'll think about it, but I suspect that there are a number of ways that the rules lawyers could twist it around badly, if it wasn't carefully conceived.

True – but all that would need to be changed from the existing SM#2 rules would be the economic calculations (and a simple change at that - replacing the PU with a fixed number).

The colonisation/costs/etc. rules would remain unchanged.

Re: coming down HARD on growth ...
I guess that the question then is what constitutes "coming down hard on growth".  I personally never had a problem with ISF's effective no growth model. 

I did – as it forced people into the “find friends” strategy with NPRs – after all, without population growth you cannot colonise too far from your homeworld (and so colonisation dies).

My preference would be to come down hard on Large and Very Large population grown, and moderately on Medium population growth. I would leave all of the other population growth alone.

That way, colonies grow to the size to support new colonisation (i.e. medium populations), without becoming economic powerhouses…..

Good grief!  I can't imagine a PvP campaign where the players didn't want to go to war against each other.  It almost sounds like a devious SM conspired to get the ball rolling!

Nah – just a bunch of conservative players.

I suppose that it depends on the situation, etc.  I'm not entirely sure whether every NPR should be a challenge.  But if the SM felt that the player did need a challenge, he could always arrange for 1-2 of those miraculous WP's to suddenly get added to the NPR's system data sheet.

On another level, this is arguably a symptom of a mild to moderate problem with the number of WP's tables in the sysgen rules.  Maybe having only a single WP in a system should be much more rare.  It would go against the canonical history, but it could help out the game itself.

OH!  Another option that might be viable could be for the SM to use one of the Ultra oddities ... a nearby star system that was close enough to get to through deep space as a way to find a way out of the cul-de-sac.    One of those options places the "nearby" star system 10-40 StMP distant.  2.5 to 10 months of deep space travel.  (During which, your ships should have to be carrying all of their own maintenance.  No allowing the CFN to miraculously catch up and keep them in supply.)

I would like to see the number of WP’s per system increase slightly – as my feeling is that it is too low.

I can’t remember the statistical calculations (on average number of WP’s/system, as well as the odds of a 1 WP system, 2 WP system, 3 WP system, etc.), and so I can’t provide anything more then a feeling about this though….

That's an interesting thought.  Or rather at double the cost (which does double the ROI).

Another one might be to allow such races to exceed the population limits in other locations.  And again, perhaps, at an increased cost.

The purpose of the increased costs would be to make such investments highly dubious for people with other options, but allow those without those other options (i.e. those in a cul-de-sac) to have something in which to invest, even if it's a bad investment.

But even so, such a race would still fill up those locations and find themselves in the same bind.

True – but it would take time, and allow them to build up (slightly), giving them the chance that they may be able to break out…..

It would also allow them to pay the increase R&D costs (as the tech levels go up).

Ooooops.  Now the rest of the story comes out.  The Bugs built BB's with weapons with shorter ranges but more short range punch, but they got caught deep space by an enemy with longer ranged weapons, more speed, and a better turn mode.  It sounds to me as if the Bugs were hoist by their own petard, as it were.

Yep.

[MWadwell]

the players tended to work together in our games to deal with the 'nasty old SM...'   

Heh - you sound proud of that.

Nowadays the PC crowd would frown down on someone who made their kids paranoid about them.... 

Me - I'm a believer of the "You may not love me, but you will obey me" school of thought. (Or as Bill Cosby said in one of his standup routines - "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it....."  )

[crucis]

True – but all that would need to be changed from the existing SM#2 rules would be the economic calculations (and a simple change at that - replacing the PU with a fixed number).

The colonisation/costs/etc. rules would remain unchanged.

It wouldn't be quite so simple as that.  The point I made about rules lawyering is that I wouldn't want a person to just dump 1 PTU on a world and think that they could get the Outpost EVM for that.  it would given them no incentive to keep adding PTU's to the world, if that world had a max population of Outpost.  I think that the minimum number of PTU's would have to be AT LEAST equivalent to the midrange value of PTU's for that pop bracket, and perhaps a bit higher (67%?  75%?).

I did – as it forced people into the “find friends” strategy with NPRs – after all, without population growth you cannot colonise too far from your homeworld (and so colonisation dies).

I actually have been thinking about toning down the ISF growth times to more reasonable levels.  Honestly though, i never worry about growth rates for outposts and colonies.  If we're talking about a habitable world, I wouldn't stop until I reached Settlement, maybe even Small.  And if we're talking about non-habitables, then growth isn't a part of the equation.

My preference would be to come down hard on Large and Very Large population grown, and moderately on Medium population growth. I would leave all of the other population growth alone.

That way, colonies grow to the size to support new colonisation (i.e. medium populations), without becoming economic powerhouses…..

That's understandable, and pretty  much around what I was thinking.  You can colonize a world up to Small with some effort, and reach Medium within a playable amount of time (40 system turns?).  But that Large may be reachable in a longer campaign, and VLg probably almost not at all.

I would like to see the number of WP’s per system increase slightly – as my feeling is that it is too low.

I can’t remember the statistical calculations (on average number of WP’s/system, as well as the odds of a 1 WP system, 2 WP system, 3 WP system, etc.), and so I can’t provide anything more then a feeling about this though….

Part of the problem is the numbers of Starless Nexuses and Red Dwarf stars, since they're the ones with the big negative modifiers.  (Or perhaps the modifiers themselves...)  Regardless, it's easy enough to tweak these things to try to increase the numbers of 2 and 3 WP systems, and reduce the number of 1 WP systems.

True – but it would take time, and allow them to build up (slightly), giving them the chance that they may be able to break out…..

It would also allow them to pay the increase R&D costs (as the tech levels go up).

Actually, this isn't a concern.  There will be no flat fee Research or Development costs.  They'll all be based on percentages of imperial income.  So even if this poor NPR was stuck in a cul-de-sac, they'd be able to afford their R&D as well as the big and nasty major player empire.

[crucis]

You will always have that.
If someone wants to game the game, instead of play the game - they will.  Not much you can do about it.
But they miss out on what the fun is really about.

True on most counts.  That said, my point about being careful still stands.  You don't want to make it too easy for them.  Like I said in my post to MattW, you don't want to let anyone place a single PTU on a world and get an EVM that's all out of proportion to the investment, to that single PTU.  The minimum number would need to be high enough to justify calling the population an "outpost" and giving it an outpost's EVM.

[MWadwell]

It wouldn't be quite so simple as that.  The point I made about rules lawyering is that I wouldn't want a person to just dump 1 PTU on a world and think that they could get the Outpost EVM for that.  it would given them no incentive to keep adding PTU's to the world, if that world had a max population of Outpost.  I think that the minimum number of PTU's would have to be AT LEAST equivalent to the midrange value of PTU's for that pop bracket, and perhaps a bit higher (67%?  75%?).

Well, when you consider that we are trying to discourage small colony sites (i.e. eliminating growth for hostile outposts/colonies, reducing AB population limits, etc.), then a simple way to eliminate the above rules lawyering, is to make a rule that Outposts produce no income, and that only Colonies or larger produce income. That way you need at least 17 PU to produce income.

And when you factor in other changes (such as the lack of population growth for hostile outposts), this will result in Outposts only being formed for one of two reasons:
1)   As stepping stones to large populations;
2)   For specific purposes (i.e. military sensor post, communications post, etc.)

I actually have been thinking about toning down the ISF growth times to more reasonable levels.  Honestly though, i never worry about growth rates for outposts and colonies.  If we're talking about a habitable world, I wouldn't stop until I reached Settlement, maybe even Small.  And if we're talking about non-habitables, then growth isn't a part of the equation.

Due to the need for secondary colonisation sites, I would wait until at least Medium populations before slowing down the population growth rates.

But I would keep some population growth rate for Large and Very Large populations, as otherwise the initial starting colony becomes a single basket that the biggest part of your economy is sitting in…..

 

Part of the problem is the numbers of Starless Nexuses and Red Dwarf stars, since they're the ones with the big negative modifiers.  (Or perhaps the modifiers themselves...)  Regardless, it's easy enough to tweak these things to try to increase the numbers of 2 and 3 WP systems, and reduce the number of 1 WP systems.

O.K.

Actually, this isn't a concern.  There will be no flat fee Research or Development costs.  They'll all be based on percentages of imperial income.  So even if this poor NPR was stuck in a cul-de-sac, they'd be able to afford their R&D as well as the big and nasty major player empire.

But wouldn’t the percentage rise as the TL rises?

Or would you propose that there is a flat fee regardless of the TL being researched?

[crucis]

Well, when you consider that we are trying to discourage small colony sites (i.e. eliminating growth for hostile outposts/colonies, reducing AB population limits, etc.), then a simple way to eliminate the above rules lawyering, is to make a rule that Outposts produce no income, and that only Colonies or larger produce income. That way you need at least 17 PU to produce income.

And when you factor in other changes (such as the lack of population growth for hostile outposts), this will result in Outposts only being formed for one of two reasons:
1)   As stepping stones to large populations;
2)   For specific purposes (i.e. military sensor post, communications post, etc.)

I suppose that this is possible. 

What I had in mind was (using the Ultra pop numbers) this.  If an OP is 1-20 PTU and a Colony is 21-60 PTU, I'm thinking that in this model, you'd have to emplace at least 15 PTU to achieve Outpost status, or at least income producing Outpost status.  As for Colony, you;d then have to increase to about 45-50 PTU's to become an income producing Colony.

Honestly, though this isn't doing much for me.  Once again, it comes down to the annoyance of tracking all those pesky PTU's.  Having to know how many PTU's all your outposts and colonies and settlements have, so that you can know how many more you need to get produce income at that level or to jump to the next level.  It's just too micro for my taste. 

I think that the problem here is that I'm an old school pure ISF guy who grew up enjoying a simpler strategic game of Starfire and I'm dealing with 3e fans who often grew up playing the SM#2 modified version of ISF.  And I just don't find that micro level of granularity in the economics and colonization appealing or interesting.  It doesn't bother me to have to scrounge together the FT's and money to do colonization, rather than sending off the colonists in dribs and drabs.  Regardless, don't think that I'm nuking this line of thought.  I'm just venting my general distaste for this general level of economic granularity that I'm generally not fond of in SM#2 (and Ultra, etc.)

Due to the need for secondary colonisation sites, I would wait until at least Medium populations before slowing down the population growth rates.

I think that the first serious slowdown occurs between Small to Medium.  Below that, pop growth is probably fairly quick, though I'd think that it's more likely that players won't want to wait for OP's to grow into Colonies, or Colonies into Settlements.  As I think I said before, I think that they'll absolutely take habitable pops all the way up to Settlement without a second thought.  Perhaps even Small, though that may be less of a guarantee.

And BTW, if by "secondary colonization sites" you mean secondary colonization source populations (i.e. other than the homeworld), I'm not all that sympathetic to the idea of having to keep growth high enough to produce these secondary source pops just so that there are colonization pop sources ever 4 StMP.  I can understand why non-habitable colonization may be too expensive beyond that 4 StMP threshold, but habitable colonization should be worthy of doing considerably far beyond that.

But I would keep some population growth rate for Large and Very Large populations, as otherwise the initial starting colony becomes a single basket that the biggest part of your economy is sitting in…..

There is "some" pop growth.  I just don't think that most players are going to play campaigns that are long enough to see a Small grow into a Medium AND then see that Medium reach Large status.  You have to remember that pop growth is the root cause of the economic explosiveness problems.  I don't think that having a bunch of Mediums and Smalls is too big of a problem.  It's when you start seeing Large's and VLg's show up that things really get out of control.



 

But wouldn’t the percentage rise as the TL rises?

Or would you propose that there is a flat fee regardless of the TL being researched?

I want to do away with the both the flat hard set numbers for both TL Research and tech system Development and replace them with a fees that are based on a percentage of your empire's income.  Obviously, the base percentage for TL Research would be much higher than for tech item Development.  And this doesn't take into any sort of acceleration like Crash, Perceived Threat, Assisted, and so forth.  But it will all be based on percentages of income so that the smallest empires can afford to do research, and the largest ones will be paying more.  But frankly, I'm thinking that the percentage will be the same, regardless of TL.


I'm also thinking that there will be a couple of categories, Critical Projects and Hazardous Projects, which will increase cost, time, and risk of the projects.  Critical projects are meant to be the "game changing" tech systems, like fighters, cap missiles, anti-matter warheads, etc.  Hazardous projects are those that are particularly dangerous, like anti-matter, X-ray Laser detonation chambers, laser buoys, etc. As you can see, anti-matter warheads are both critical and hazardous projects.

[Erik L]

Actually, this isn't a concern.  There will be no flat fee Research or Development costs.  They'll all be based on percentages of imperial income.  So even if this poor NPR was stuck in a cul-de-sac, they'd be able to afford their R&D as well as the big and nasty major player empire.

I normally don't comment on Starfire since I've not played in a decade, but with percentages... Consider say... the US researching something with 10% of its GNP. Then consider Honduras researching the same item with their GNP. Both are dedicating 10%, but I'd think the US would get the research done faster just because of the extra money and manpower that their 10% brings in. Unless you have something up your sleeve that addresses this?