Aurora 4x

Community Games => Alex_Brunius' Game => Topic started by: alex_brunius on February 14, 2014, 06:12:07 PM

Title: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on February 14, 2014, 06:12:07 PM
I'm currently aiming for 4 nation Earth start (all nations with several additional players as ministers and other roles recruited), and tech somewhere between Conventional and TN start but closer to conventional.

This means most research fields except some techs in construction/production, Logistics/Ground combat and geo survey sensors will be unavailable at start.
To try to speed up unlocking of further fields nations can make credit investments into specific fields ( Roleplay: hiring private industries and universities to construct theoretical TN labs), or wait until the fields are automatically unlocked as further TN technology spreads (somewhat randomly).

The scenario will be a post apocalyptic scenario and there will also be investment opportunity to expand inwards on Earth by diplomatic/relief aid means.

To speed up the start most of the industry will still be conventional but some will already be upgraded, I'm thinking a base 100 mines + 100 factories per nation, but is open to suggestions for a different amount.
The main thing is it should be balanced with the amount of labs / pop/wealth to provide for an interesting start. I'm thinking perhaps around 400mil pop and 6-10 labs each.

To enforce a peaceful safezone around Earth there will be a UN style organization that will control peacekeeping ground forces as well as be in control of all defensive satellites and silos that will be built (regard them as collectively owned and controlled). Defensive use is automatic (AMM/PD), offensive use authorized only by a majority vote in the council. Overpowering them may be possible but should not be easy and should probably require cooperation of several nations as well as the element of surprise.

Anything outside the safezone (approx 10mil km) will be free for all to explore, claim protect and fight over (This means the moon is included in the safezone).
There will be espionage incentives to build up both shipyards and labs on other bodies later on, as well as the very natural resource incentive.

Each nation will be a bit unique. Either set by me or by chosen perks.
Perks could be for example starting with one extra lab, one extra Ground Training Facility, one extra academy and so on.

Pretty much everything the SM powers allow for will be possible to trade between nations. With this + investment of credits into important areas I hope to make credits an important commodity early game too.


To clarify what I intend to do is an RPG, a role playing game.

You will take the role of ONE character and write stories about this character to give life to the decisions taken and experiences in the universe. Your characters will collaborate with the other characters in the faction that holds other important key positions like admiral, minister of production, head of state and so on, both to provide different insights into the world/story we are building together, and to try to maneuver the nation to a good position among a competition of other nations and unknown threats.

This is a community game, this means everyone being part of it is expected to contribute with stories and internal debate, to as large degree as possible in character.
To allow for internal debate Erik Luken has offered to help with setting up private subforums that only members of each nation will have access to.
I hope it's possible to make in character debates on these forums public after a certain amount of ingame years have passed (so that it's no longer relevant to the current events taking place).
This game hopefully will go on for months and the initial speed I aim for is one ingame year per week of real time.


Mission: Survive, explore and find out what the main goal/scenario is about later on... (if there is one).

I am NOT taking any signups yet. This thread is mostly to brainstorm ideas and get some feedback on if experienced Aurora community members think the setup and starting installations are balanced (100mines+100factories+600CI+400mil pop+8labs per nation).
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Cripes Amighty on February 14, 2014, 11:56:47 PM
Few questions:

As for setup suggestions, I would vote for the highest number of research labs possible (10 from your writeup). Even with technology dissipation, it'll still take a good amount of time before anything major happens in game. 10 research labs won't accelerate the game beyond control. I think it's a relatively nice number to start off with.

I like the numbers of 100 for CFs or mines, although I think that there should be slightly more mines than CFs. Otherwise it just seems like annoying mineral shortages come up a lot more often then they have to. So maybe something like 100 CFs and 125 mines or 75 CFs and 100 mines. 600 conventional industry also seems like a nice number.

I like the idea of perks. However, I think with the listed options (research lab, GFTC, academy), everyone is going to choose the research lab. If the perks are predetermined, whoever gets the GFTC is going to lag behind the rest of the empires, especially because ground forces won't matter on Earth with the UN's watchful eye.

Some good perks might be an additional free tech right off the bat that determines that nation's playstyle. Specifically I would focus on the Construction/Production tech line. There could be three options of either Research Rate 240 (5000 RP), Expand Civilian Economy 20% level 1 (5000 RP), or both Mining and Construction 12 (combined 6000 RP). They're relatively equal and they create rather unique empires. One is heavily industrial, one is focused on scientific advancement, and the other promotes private industry (which would normally not be that great, but with your talk of an enhanced wealth system, it could make a huge difference).

Just some ideas.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: 3_14159 on February 15, 2014, 07:42:12 AM
I'm currently aiming for 4 nation Earth start (all nations with several additional players as ministers and other roles recruited), and tech somewhere between Conventional and TN start but closer to conventional.
Sounds great!

Quote
To speed up the start most of the industry will still be conventional but some will already be upgraded, I'm thinking a base 100 mines + 100 factories per nation, but is open to suggestions for a different amount.
The main thing is it should be balanced with the amount of labs / pop/wealth to provide for an interesting start. I'm thinking perhaps around 400mil pop and 6-10 labs each.
The question of labs will be interesting, and we can set the labs depending on how fast you want advancement to be. Disregarding the possible unavailability of tech, the RP needed to get off Sol will be around ten to twenty thousand RPs. Each lab will produce 240RPs per annum in the beginning. So, fourty years minimum for one lab, and four for ten labs, not counting scientist boni. Warships will probably need around the same number of RPs before becoming useful. Depending on the speed you want, 8-12 labs per faction might be best.

Quote
Each nation will be a bit unique. Either set by me or by chosen perks.
Perks could be for example starting with one extra lab, one extra Ground Training Facility, one extra academy and so on.
I'm going to agree with Cripes, here. The extra lab would probably be the most powerful bonus. It depends on whether your goal is to differentiate the starting conditions, or differentiate the factions later on. The former could be done by assigning them additional BP they can spend on whatever they want (for example, 2400BP = 20CF = 1 lab, and so on) and a few RP with them being exchangable 1:1 [1].
The latter could be done by including advantages or disadvantages for a longer time, quasi in-built traits for the empires. Sadly, I do not have ideas there for the moment.

Quote
I hope it's possible to make in character debates on these forums public after a certain amount of ingame years have passed (so that it's no longer relevant to the current events taking place).
This should be possible. If you make one forum per faction, you can then just move the thread where something was discussed to the public forum.

So, your total list of house-rules is as follows, correctly?

[1] This is the exchange suggested by the build points needed: 1 CP per annum costs 10 CP investment; 1RP per annum costs 10CP investment.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Stardust on February 15, 2014, 11:34:33 AM
Looking forward to this.

I think something like an interstellar news network type of subforum, where nations can make public announcements and field questions, would be fun.

With regards to diplomacy, allow nations to request private subforums with other nations to discuss mutual interests.

Thanks for taking the initiative to give this a try.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on February 15, 2014, 04:54:05 PM
  • Will the UN be an actual playable empire that the SM (you) controls? If that's true, are they able to construct mobile ships?

The idea in my game is that SM will control everything based on orders and rules of engagement sent each ingame year (or shorter if war / other evens require so). The focus will be on role playing.
They won't build mobile ships, since this isn't required to enforce the peace on Earth.

  • Any general idea on how close to conventional you want it to be (ie. roughly how much RP you're going to give each empire? 0-50k, 50k-100k, etc)?

...

Some good perks might be an additional free tech right off the bat that determines that nation's playstyle. Specifically I would focus on the Construction/Production tech line. There could be three options of either Research Rate 240 (5000 RP), Expand Civilian Economy 20% level 1 (5000 RP), or both Mining and Construction 12 (combined 6000 RP). They're relatively equal and they create rather unique empires.

TN tech will be researched at the start and some installations converted + more research labs then a conventional start normally has, but not much RP to distribute.
It is a good point that research would be the most interesting perk of those lined out, so perhaps nations will be made unique instead by starting with one extra branch of research unlocked and a few thousand RP in it. Or by extra Industry / Mining that are more desirable boosts.
Ill give it some more thought.

  • Will the players be able to determine the setup of the empire, or are you writing up the different nations by yourself and then letting people pick? By setup, I mean the smaller things like the perks you mentioned, the government type, commander nationality, etc. I understand that the installations would be predetermined. Just getting some clarification on this.

Geographic areas controlled and main nationalities will be a set part of the story.

  • Do you have any idea of the kind/number of ministers that you would have? Are you aiming for a general number of people per empire?

This should be up to the Head of state to chose. The first task is to set up a cabinet of open roles, recruit players and determine how much and what influence they should have.
Id probably say minimum amount of 3 players per nation, and recommend minister influence depending on how open the government type is.
It is also flexible so that we could recruit more players later on if there are more colonies or more fleets to control.

  • Will the mineral content of Earth be magnified to support four empires? Or will the provide incentive to get out of the cradle as soon as possible?

Not by a huge amount. The starting amount and minimum accessibility has been raised by quite a bit the latest patches and to start exploring with primitive TN ships on Tech 1 or 2 not much minerals are needed. For example from the 6.4 mechanics "Homeworld minerals have been boosted. Minimum amount is now 50,000, minimum accessibility is 0.4 and there should be generally more minerals overall."

Id rather start with too little then too much, it's easier and more fair to RP and say that additional reserves have been found compared to removing some.



Depending on the speed you want, 8-12 labs per faction might be best.
10 sounds like a good round number then.


So, your total list of house-rules is as follows, correctly?
  • Unlocking of TN techs (through credits and randomly)
  • Relief/Diplomatic aid for earth expansion
  • Espionage
  • UN
  • Trade/Diplomacy

I'm also thinking of adding multinational corporations that can develop some building/research capacity and take part in trade of mainly ship components. These would be based in open government types but have facilities throughout Earth and be able to buy/build/sell components they get their hands on to the highest bidders. Is that something that you guys think sounds interesting and could be worth the extra time & administration?


I think something like an interstellar news network type of subforum, where nations can make public announcements and field questions, would be fun.

With regards to diplomacy, allow nations to request private subforums with other nations to discuss mutual interests.
Each sub forum has unlimited number of threads. One thread for announcement and questions each should be enough.

I think diplomacy between nations should be handled either directly between the Head of States (PMs) or if that responsibility is delegated to for example a minister of foreign relations (that could handle diplomacy and espionage).

Thanks for your Ideas.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Cripes Amighty on February 15, 2014, 06:35:14 PM
Thanks for the clarifications. I'm really looking forward to this.

I'm also thinking of adding multinational corporations that can develop some building/research capacity and take part in trade of mainly ship components. These would be based in open government types but have facilities throughout Earth and be able to buy/build/sell components they get their hands on to the highest bidders. Is that something that you guys think sounds interesting and could be worth the extra time & administration?

This sounds kinda iffy. My opinion is that you either go all or nothing with corporations (meaning focus entirely on corporations or leave them out). I just think that having a bunch of different mini-empires would add more to manage, and I think you'll already have a lot to manage already. However, that is entirely up to you.

I would think though, that if you want to have the same results, you could create a separate list of some existing corporations with a small back story. Every once in a while (random rolls or something similar) they come up with a new component in an area they specialize in. That way you still have the effects you described above without all the in-game micromanaging of installations that would probably just be more of a hassle.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on February 16, 2014, 04:05:12 AM
This sounds kinda iffy. My opinion is that you either go all or nothing with corporations (meaning focus entirely on corporations or leave them out). I just think that having a bunch of different mini-empires would add more to manage, and I think you'll already have a lot to manage already. However, that is entirely up to you.

I would think though, that if you want to have the same results, you could create a separate list of some existing corporations with a small back story. Every once in a while (random rolls or something similar) they come up with a new component in an area they specialize in. That way you still have the effects you described above without all the in-game micromanaging of installations that would probably just be more of a hassle.

If they are included they would not be in game at all as Empires, only exist in my spreadsheets and use SM add / Instant research to add whatever they are selling + disassemble to remove anything they are buying ( ofcourse limited by their credits/factories/labs according to spreadsheets).

I think they could spice up trade and contribute to making Wealth/Credits more useful.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Cripes Amighty on February 16, 2014, 01:23:07 PM
If they are included they would not be in game at all as Empires, only exist in my spreadsheets and use SM add / Instant research to add whatever they are selling + disassemble to remove anything they are buying ( ofcourse limited by their credits/factories/labs according to spreadsheets).

I think they could spice up trade and contribute to making Wealth/Credits more useful.

Sorry, I misunderstood it when I read it. I think that would actually be a great addition to the game.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on February 18, 2014, 07:34:35 AM
Any thoughts on tech trading?

Should it be totally free and open or would that risk to see for example two empires have 100% cooperation and quickly outpace the others that don't cooperate?

Should there be limits in time or any costs involved in directly transferring technology? Any ideas?
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Zincat on February 18, 2014, 08:12:23 AM
First let me say that I really like this concept/idea/playthrough :) Second, if you didn't read it through already I suggest you read the Coldest War let's play by bgreman on the somethingawful forums. Excellent example, though there the players control just one nation, and the GM controls another.

That said I see a lot of problems with having 4 nations. Like, a LOT of problems.

Be it trading, tech trading, military cooperations, alliances or the like, there are too many possibilities of one or two nations being knocked off really quickly, thus halving the people who can play or so. Perhaps not killed, but effectively neutered as far as the possibility to expand goes.

Two nations cooperating could easily and quickly dispatch the other 2, be it through tech, wealth, or military assault. There is not much the other 2 nations could do, especially if they do not see it coming. Wars in aurora can last just a few hours, so the other 2 nations could realistically not defend themselves. And once you've lost all your ships/ installations away from earth, starting again from scratch is basically impossible. Also you risk a few charismatic/sneaky characters influencing the game too much with that, thus ruining the fun for others.
I am also against any "arbitrary" ban on trading or such, because it does not make sense.

A few possible way to deal with that:
- have just 2 players-controlled nations. If you want, you can control a third. This way you do not risk the players knocking themselves out too quickly, because they are in direct competition and have no reason to trust each other.
- Have more than 2 nations available, but give them "limitations". For example you could have a "peaceful, democratic" nation where the public opinion is very much against war unless first attacked, and another "xenophobic, isolationist" nation which does not trade/cooperate except in some rare cases. Basically, every nation has some situations which limit the players in some way thus preventing the race-to-win.
- Implement via RP a "spy system", which ensures a certain probability that player deals become public and thus become known to the other nations. This only works of course if you enforce all deals to pass through you. But it does not really works if the players decide to help each other outside the accepted channels, like via PM.

Regardless, having more than 2 players controlled nations could become ugly for a number of reasons in my opinion. I do heartily approve of the game concept though :P

Edit:
A couple of other reasons to keep the number of player controlled nations down:
- it would be hard to keep everything going (orders, queues, exploraion and the like) with ONE player controlled nation (because the players must agree upon the orders and such), let alone 4. I mean, it's possible but.... how much time you want to dedicate to this? :p
- in this game, like ALL other community games I've ever saw online, there WILL be defections. People stopping because of real life/boredom/no internet/whatever. With 4 player controlled nations, just a couple of defections could end up in a zombie nation, devoid of all important command positions. I think keeping the nation number low would help in ensuring a healthy amount of players per nation.

So, to sum it up, I think doing, say, 2 player controlled nations would be more realistic and more likely to succeed in the long run.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Alfapiomega on February 18, 2014, 09:05:42 AM
First let me say that I really like this concept/idea/playthrough :) Second, if you didn't read it through already I suggest you read the Coldest War let's play by bgreman on the somethingawful forums. Excellent example, though there the players control just one nation, and the GM controls another.

That said I see a lot of problems with having 4 nations. Like, a LOT of problems.

Be it trading, tech trading, military cooperations, alliances or the like, there are too many possibilities of one or two nations being knocked off really quickly, thus halving the people who can play or so. Perhaps not killed, but effectively neutered as far as the possibility to expand goes.

Two nations cooperating could easily and quickly dispatch the other 2, be it through tech, wealth, or military assault. There is not much the other 2 nations could do, especially if they do not see it coming. Wars in aurora can last just a few hours, so the other 2 nations could realistically not defend themselves. And once you've lost all your ships/ installations away from earth, starting again from scratch is basically impossible. Also you risk a few charismatic/sneaky characters influencing the game too much with that, thus ruining the fun for others.
I am also against any "arbitrary" ban on trading or such, because it does not make sense.

A few possible way to deal with that:
- have just 2 players-controlled nations. If you want, you can control a third. This way you do not risk the players knocking themselves out too quickly, because they are in direct competition and have no reason to trust each other.
- Have more than 2 nations available, but give them "limitations". For example you could have a "peaceful, democratic" nation where the public opinion is very much against war unless first attacked, and another "xenophobic, isolationist" nation which does not trade/cooperate except in some rare cases. Basically, every nation has some situations which limit the players in some way thus preventing the race-to-win.
- Implement via RP a "spy system", which ensures a certain probability that player deals become public and thus become known to the other nations. This only works of course if you enforce all deals to pass through you. But it does not really works if the players decide to help each other outside the accepted channels, like via PM.

Regardless, having more than 2 players controlled nations could become ugly for a number of reasons in my opinion. I do heartily approve of the game concept though :P

Edit:
A couple of other reasons to keep the number of player controlled nations down:
- it would be hard to keep everything going (orders, queues, exploraion and the like) with ONE player controlled nation (because the players must agree upon the orders and such), let alone 4. I mean, it's possible but.... how much time you want to dedicate to this? :p
- in this game, like ALL other community games I've ever saw online, there WILL be defections. People stopping because of real life/boredom/no internet/whatever. With 4 player controlled nations, just a couple of defections could end up in a zombie nation, devoid of all important command positions. I think keeping the nation number low would help in ensuring a healthy amount of players per nation.

So, to sum it up, I think doing, say, 2 player controlled nations would be more realistic and more likely to succeed in the long run.

A simple solution would be as well to have people aware of this and make sure players do not want to cheat in such way. If you create I.e. Russia, USA, EU and China it would be likely that USA and EU comes closer together. So instead you can create Russia, USA-EU, China and United nations of Africa :)
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Sematary on February 18, 2014, 10:33:39 AM
A simple solution would be as well to have people aware of this and make sure players do not want to cheat in such way. If you create I.e. Russia, USA, EU and China it would be likely that USA and EU comes closer together. So instead you can create Russia, USA-EU, China and United nations of Africa :)
Or as the US and EU ally, China and Russia ally. Honestly I see this going either one of two ways, one it quickly becomes a free for all or two no one is willing to commit enough forces to destroy anyone, both of those options are survivable.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Zincat on February 18, 2014, 12:28:18 PM
A simple solution would be as well to have people aware of this and make sure players do not want to cheat in such way. If you create I.e. Russia, USA, EU and China it would be likely that USA and EU comes closer together. So instead you can create Russia, USA-EU, China and United nations of Africa :)

I am sorry but no matter how you name the nations, in a competitive game people WILL try to minmax, even if they are roleplaying. Minmaxing here means: Cooperate far more than nations would in a real scenario.

Let's make an example, we have nations A, B, C, D all player controlled. It's relatively early, and there are a few small colonies mostly in sol, some warships, some mining operations on various planets.

There is basically no risks for, say, nations C and D to ally and crush the others assets outside earth. The ally and trade techs. Then, let's say a combined C and D task force suddenly attacks B. B's fleets and colonies get obliterated by the 2 to 1 odds. Even if A and B ally on the spot, A's ships are likely too far to help. After B's fleets are done for, the combined C and D fleet kills A's ships at 2 to 1 odds as well.

In a real world scenario this would never work. You could not be sure if A and B know of your plan. You would not totally trust your partner. You would not think that the UN would stay silent before this. What if the UN suddenly attacks your nation on earth? But here there are no risks, thus this tactic has very high chance to succeed.

Now, with two nations (coalitions?) none of this would obviously happen. Also, as stated before, more players per nations. But I'd rather like the 2 player controlled + 1 Gm controlled setup.

Nations A and B are player controlled, C is GM controlled. A and B can trade with each other, but they do not know if the other is also trading with C. For that matter, they do not know if C is playing them for fools against each other. This would instill a sense on mistrust, and would always keep everyone on their toes.

Anyway, this was just my opinion and obviously Alex_Brunius will choose what to do. Back to basic suggestion, another 2 or so:
- Besides having TN researched, I would go against giving the players initial RP to distribute. We all know which techs are the most important at the start. Not giving any RP would force people to be creative, and maybe to trade, depending on which starting researchers they have. Would add incentive to cooperate with, spy, and betray the other nations.
-I would also as stated before add an house rules to espionage. If a team manages to do something, there's a flat chance (40%?) that the nation who was targeted will know (General! Nation A stole the plans for our new ships!)
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on February 18, 2014, 04:38:31 PM
Be it trading, tech trading, military cooperations, alliances or the like, there are too many possibilities of one or two nations being knocked off really quickly, thus halving the people who can play or so. Perhaps not killed, but effectively neutered as far as the possibility to expand goes.

Your right that it will be pretty easy to knock out a nations expansion, especially so early on when they are vulnerable. Their shipyards on Earth should be protected by UN though.

This is only a big problem if Earth has no minerals left. If that should happen I hope that credits are so much worth that the nations credits on Earth are desirable enough by others to trade minerals in exchange. Here having civilian corporations could also be a nice move that trade minerals in for desperate nations that can pay good money for them.


- Have more than 2 nations available, but give them "limitations". For example you could have a "peaceful, democratic" nation where the public opinion is very much against war unless first attacked, and another "xenophobic, isolationist" nation which does not trade/cooperate except in some rare cases. Basically, every nation has some situations which limit the players in some way thus preventing the race-to-win.

Some of this is already part of the plan. Open democratic nations can receive bonuses for trade deals with and growth of civilian corporations but in turn be prevented from starting any offensive wars not approved by the population and voters. ( Basically any war except against hostile murder robots).

- Implement via RP a "spy system", which ensures a certain probability that player deals become public and thus become known to the other nations. This only works of course if you enforce all deals to pass through you. But it does not really works if the players decide to help each other outside the accepted channels, like via PM.

Since I will be doing all the updates based on orders given on the forums all deals have to pass through GM by the nature of the game. Espionage will be in and it might even be possible orders to go to war are leaked to the enemy before shots can be fired.

In a real world scenario this would never work. You could not be sure if A and B know of your plan. You would not totally trust your partner. You would not think that the UN would stay silent before this. What if the UN suddenly attacks your nation on earth? But here there are no risks, thus this tactic has very high chance to succeed.
-I would also as stated before add an house rules to espionage. If a team manages to do something, there's a flat chance (40%?) that the nation who was targeted will know (General! Nation A stole the plans for our new ships!)

I hope such things could also happen in the game through espionage rules and through some voting in the UN organization. Espionage is a great game mechanic for building mistrust even within the same nation. ( Can we be sure that the Admiral will not run off with the fleet loyal to him and claim planet "Eden" far away to be an entirely new nation where he is head of state? ). Secrets will not be safe and all info needs to go through the GM.


- it would be hard to keep everything going (orders, queues, exploraion and the like) with ONE player controlled nation (because the players must agree upon the orders and such), let alone 4. I mean, it's possible but.... how much time you want to dedicate to this? :p
- in this game, like ALL other community games I've ever saw online, there WILL be defections. People stopping because of real life/boredom/no internet/whatever. With 4 player controlled nations, just a couple of defections could end up in a zombie nation, devoid of all important command positions. I think keeping the nation number low would help in ensuring a healthy amount of players per nation.

The only mandatory and first post any HoS will have to appoint will be vice HoS / successor. Judging from interests in these games we will have no problems filling up defectors quickly, but the way I see it worst case you end up with what your asking for, a GM controlled nation extra on Earth :)
For anyone being late with orders the plan is that turn will be carried out anyways based on previous orders or what I think is reasonable ( minimal changes ).


I am sorry but no matter how you name the nations, in a competitive game people WILL try to minmax, even if they are roleplaying. Minmaxing here means: Cooperate far more than nations would in a real scenario.

This is also partially the reason I want to focus on persons and roleplaying an individual instead of being directly in charge of a nation.

If you instead try to "minmax" your character to have as much power / influence (or whatever your characters goals are) as possible that may even be totally against what is best for the nation!
( Spymasters trading away state secrets behind the back of Head of State because they have been promised a prominent role as leader of a colony for a competing nation further down the line ).
( Minister of Transportation/Production playing a corrupt corporate associate trading away most of that part of the budget as "bribes" to civilian transport companies ).
( ViceAdmiral being a compassionate character refusing orders to fire since an hostile vessel was shown as picking up prisoners of war and rescuing civilians ).


This is just my vision of what I want to do, some of it may prove to hard to manage though... but I have seen people attempting similar setups with even even more playable nations, so what the heck! :)
You are also right that much of it of course depends on the players. To tell a good story we have to work together and always try to think of what the character your playing and writing lore around would do, not how to "exploit" the game mechanics for advantages inside aurora.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Sematary on February 18, 2014, 06:17:36 PM
I am sorry but no matter how you name the nations, in a competitive game people WILL try to minmax, even if they are roleplaying. Minmaxing here means: Cooperate far more than nations would in a real scenario.

Let's make an example, we have nations A, B, C, D all player controlled. It's relatively early, and there are a few small colonies mostly in sol, some warships, some mining operations on various planets.

There is basically no risks for, say, nations C and D to ally and crush the others assets outside earth. The ally and trade techs. Then, let's say a combined C and D task force suddenly attacks B. B's fleets and colonies get obliterated by the 2 to 1 odds. Even if A and B ally on the spot, A's ships are likely too far to help. After B's fleets are done for, the combined C and D fleet kills A's ships at 2 to 1 odds as well.

In a real world scenario this would never work. You could not be sure if A and B know of your plan. You would not totally trust your partner. You would not think that the UN would stay silent before this. What if the UN suddenly attacks your nation on earth? But here there are no risks, thus this tactic has very high chance to succeed.

Now, with two nations (coalitions?) none of this would obviously happen. Also, as stated before, more players per nations. But I'd rather like the 2 player controlled + 1 Gm controlled setup.

Nations A and B are player controlled, C is GM controlled. A and B can trade with each other, but they do not know if the other is also trading with C. For that matter, they do not know if C is playing them for fools against each other. This would instill a sense on mistrust, and would always keep everyone on their toes.

Anyway, this was just my opinion and obviously Alex_Brunius will choose what to do. Back to basic suggestion, another 2 or so:
- Besides having TN researched, I would go against giving the players initial RP to distribute. We all know which techs are the most important at the start. Not giving any RP would force people to be creative, and maybe to trade, depending on which starting researchers they have. Would add incentive to cooperate with, spy, and betray the other nations.
-I would also as stated before add an house rules to espionage. If a team manages to do something, there's a flat chance (40%?) that the nation who was targeted will know (General! Nation A stole the plans for our new ships!)

I am not sure I accept your premise and I disagree with your proposed solution. I think that a two nation only (three if there is one controlled by GM) set up would actually promote warfare between the two as they will be direct rivals in everything. With multiple nations alliances will (hopefully) be in flux as things that make sense at one point stop making sense later.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Cripes Amighty on February 18, 2014, 07:46:39 PM
The more I think about Alex Brunius' game setup, the more I like it. Focusing on the characters and the RP behind it makes everything a lot easier to manage while creating a more interesting AAR. Most of the multiplayer games are too hush hush and no stories seem to evolve from them. 

While I don't completely agree with all of Zincat's points, I do think that four nations might be too much for a game like this, but that two is too small. Perhaps three nations would be better? This gets rid of the "rival in everything" problem you would have with only two nations, but cuts down on the ability to form alliances. It seems unlikely that an alliance would form between two powers to eliminate the third.

Example: A and B agree to take out C. However, everyone realizes that doing so would leave only A and B standing once C is gone. So can A really trust B and can B really trust A? They're going to be positioning themselves to get the better loot and better overall position throughout the war, as any reasonable nation would do. Can B actually trust A to uphold their end of the deal, or will A just let B try to take out C and thus weaken both B and C so that A is the strongest? And what about C? Does anyone really love C?!?!

I think you get my point.

Four nations seem to open up the possibility of creating alliances which might just result in a 1 v 1 anyway. I know this possibility is limited anyway though, since the SM will be controlling it all.

Any thoughts on tech trading?

Should it be totally free and open or would that risk to see for example two empires have 100% cooperation and quickly outpace the others that don't cooperate?

Should there be limits in time or any costs involved in directly transferring technology? Any ideas?

I don't see why there should be any limitations on tech trading. I just don't think any government would willingly give away information concerning high-tech military hardware, even if they were getting something in return. For that to happen, they would have to be getting a much better deal, to the point that it would hurt the other nation more then it would benefit them, at which point no trade would occur. That's my opinion at least.

Technology dissemination, on the other hand, makes sense. That and espionage.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on February 19, 2014, 02:11:29 AM
I think you can make any amount of nations work. 4 is mostly because I think it would be to much workload with more then that.

I don't see why there should be any limitations on tech trading. I just don't think any government would willingly give away information concerning high-tech military hardware, even if they were getting something in return. For that to happen, they would have to be getting a much better deal, to the point that it would hurt the other nation more then it would benefit them, at which point no trade would occur. That's my opinion at least.

Technology dissemination, on the other hand, makes sense. That and espionage.

Yes. Hopefully open trading will see it much more common to actually sell products (components, engines, missiles, fighters and the likes). This means the nation don't directly "give" away base technology but rather finished stuff and can charge per unit sold. Should also lead to interesting priorities on construction and for those that make production calls, and interesting diplomacy (we paid for 15 ion engines 2 years ago already and need them now, where are they?! They will be obsolete before we see any of them! )

Trading away a licence to build (limited or unlimited) amounts is also an option, or partnering with civilian corporations that do the building for example in return for getting a part of the profits or getting to use the technology them self in future products.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: 3_14159 on February 19, 2014, 04:52:14 AM
On nation number:
I myself would prefer three or four nations, as I believe that would balance the risk of war with the risk of not-war. Implementing an espionage system would help making backstabbing less attractive.

On tech trading:
I believe that wholesome tech trading (p.ex. Ultraviolet lasers for Ceramic composite armour) should be allowed, but have some in-game drawbacks entailed. For example, you still need to research a certain percentage of the tech (representing integrating it into your tech base), or the tech transfer being easier to intercept via espionage.
Also, I like your idea of component trading and licensing.

On tech osmosis:
Another idea would be an automatic transfer of technological knowledge if in use or traded.
Sublight has had the rule that prerequisites of a traded technology would be revealed to everyone. Another possibility would be that, once you research something, everyone gets the tech two steps behind - for example 10cm lasers if you're using 15cms.
I myself would prefer the trade variant at most, though I dislike tech osmosis for the fact that it has the risk of making empires too similar.

On orders:
My idea would be for everyone to give standing orders that should be followed, and plans which are one-time changes to that. For example, you could have all exploratory ships follow a certain plan, all warships another, and so on. Production plans would be made a few months before the construction actually starts, and for a year or so. This would tie in with the below espionage system, would award planning and give you a clear set of things we want ships to do.

On espionage:
Now, it gets interesting. Assuming that you want a system completely outside of aurora, I propose using several areas of espionage: Military deployments, military plans, ship capabilities, research projects and industrial projects plus counter-espionage. Each of these areas can have several espionage targets. For example, ship capabilities could be a short description, or complete blue-prints.
Each of the above areas would fill up with a random number of points per turn/year/five-day increment. Whenever there are enough for one of the espionage targets, you slowly get corresponding information. These points represent the penetration in that area. The more points you have in one, the higher the chance of being detected, but the more valuable the information.
For example (and those are all numbers I've just made up on the spot): Assume that we are talking about ship capabilities, with 100 points representing a description, 250 representing solid numbers and 1000 blueprints. For 2500, you could build the ship in your own facilities.
Each five-day-increment, you gain between -2 and 7 points. So, on average, you require 100 days to slowly gain descriptions, 250 for solid numbers and 1000 for blueprints. If you have, for example 100 points, you have a chance of 5% per increment to gain a description of a random ship - so, if the enemy has twenty ship types, you'll need about five and a half year to get information on all.
On second thought, the above might be much, much too complicated.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Cripes Amighty on February 19, 2014, 01:24:45 PM
On espionage:
Now, it gets interesting. Assuming that you want a system completely outside of aurora, I propose using several areas of espionage: Military deployments, military plans, ship capabilities, research projects and industrial projects plus counter-espionage. Each of these areas can have several espionage targets. For example, ship capabilities could be a short description, or complete blue-prints.
Each of the above areas would fill up with a random number of points per turn/year/five-day increment. Whenever there are enough for one of the espionage targets, you slowly get corresponding information. These points represent the penetration in that area. The more points you have in one, the higher the chance of being detected, but the more valuable the information.
For example (and those are all numbers I've just made up on the spot): Assume that we are talking about ship capabilities, with 100 points representing a description, 250 representing solid numbers and 1000 blueprints. For 2500, you could build the ship in your own facilities.
Each five-day-increment, you gain between -2 and 7 points. So, on average, you require 100 days to slowly gain descriptions, 250 for solid numbers and 1000 for blueprints. If you have, for example 100 points, you have a chance of 5% per increment to gain a description of a random ship - so, if the enemy has twenty ship types, you'll need about five and a half year to get information on all.
On second thought, the above might be much, much too complicated.

I like the idea of something like this. I also think, that since this will be based heavily on characters, that a person's espionage and intelligence score should have some factor on operations. That way whenever their score is improved, it increases your ability to successfully carry out espionage. Maybe intelligence affects counter-espionage work? Or maybe it's just added into the espionage score.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Erik Luken on February 19, 2014, 01:40:42 PM
Regarding espionage:

One could hack together a system from SFB or another game that supports such things. I've got it in Astra Imperia. I drew the inspiration for that from SFB. I don't recall if Starfire had anything like that. Or if any other games do.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Sematary on February 19, 2014, 02:46:08 PM
Regarding espionage:

One could hack together a system from SFB or another game that supports such things. I've got it in Astra Imperia. I drew the inspiration for that from SFB. I don't recall if Starfire had anything like that. Or if any other games do.

I would be in favor of Astra Imperia's intelligence system being modified for a game like this.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Erik Luken on February 19, 2014, 02:47:03 PM
I would be in favor of Astra Imperia's intelligence system being modified for a game like this.

I like him ;)
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on February 19, 2014, 03:03:18 PM
Sounds like I have some reading up to do, can anyone help me out and point me in the right direction as to where I can find the espionage rules for Astra Imperia or "SFB"?

Edit: Looks like I found Astra Imperia v15 download.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Erik Luken on February 19, 2014, 03:11:53 PM
Sounds like I have some reading up to do, can anyone help me out and point me in the right direction as to where I can find the espionage rules for Astra Imperia or "SFB"?

Edit: Looks like I found Astra Imperia v15 download.

Meh. Check your mail.

SFB = Star Fleet Battles. If I recall, Section J is the intel rules.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on February 19, 2014, 04:12:25 PM
Meh. Check your mail.

SFB = Star Fleet Battles. If I recall, Section J is the intel rules.

Thanks! I appreciate the effort and must say Astra Imperia looks really cool :)

After a brief look I can at least say the following: The espionage should use similar logic/common sense rules.

Ships built in orbit of Earth will be possible to for most to easily tell rough tonnage, amount of engines and amount of guns when they launch. (Not fighters though, unless they launch, since they can be transported to hangars without being revealed).
Depending on rules of engagement some speed and active sensors may also be detected upon ships leaving drydocks unless they are towed away. Crew Training inside Sol system will also allow some speed information to be picked up by those that have sensors to do so... I am thinking about if I should require live firing of real missiles/weapons (that will be automatically detected) in order to allow crew training to complete past a certain percentage, what do you think?

In general I will try to use the information provided by Aurora and reduce the amount of rolls needed to a minimum though to keep things a bit more possible to handle.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Sematary on February 19, 2014, 04:18:21 PM
Thanks! I appreciate the effort and must say Astra Imperia looks really cool :)

After a brief look I can at least say the following: The espionage should use similar logic/common sense rules.

Ships built in orbit of Earth will be possible to for most to easily tell rough tonnage, amount of engines and amount of guns when they launch. (Not fighters though, unless they launch, since they can be transported to hangars without being revealed).
Depending on rules of engagement some speed and active sensors may also be detected upon ships leaving drydocks unless they are towed away. Crew Training inside Sol system will also allow some speed information to be picked up by those that have sensors to do so... I am thinking about if I should require live firing of real missiles/weapons (that will be automatically detected) in order to allow crew training to complete past a certain percentage, what do you think?

In general I will try to use the information provided by Aurora and reduce the amount of rolls needed to a minimum though to keep things a bit more possible to handle.

I have always though that ship training should constitute at least some live firing although I do get that most firing would only have to be simulated.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Erik Luken on February 19, 2014, 04:47:51 PM
Thanks! I appreciate the effort and must say Astra Imperia looks really cool :)

After a brief look I can at least say the following: The espionage should use similar logic/common sense rules.

Ships built in orbit of Earth will be possible to for most to easily tell rough tonnage, amount of engines and amount of guns when they launch. (Not fighters though, unless they launch, since they can be transported to hangars without being revealed).
Depending on rules of engagement some speed and active sensors may also be detected upon ships leaving drydocks unless they are towed away. Crew Training inside Sol system will also allow some speed information to be picked up by those that have sensors to do so... I am thinking about if I should require live firing of real missiles/weapons (that will be automatically detected) in order to allow crew training to complete past a certain percentage, what do you think?

In general I will try to use the information provided by Aurora and reduce the amount of rolls needed to a minimum though to keep things a bit more possible to handle.

Astra Imperia was not really written with a multi-faction start in the same system scenario envisioned.

Even with 1st Gen long range scanners, a week's worth of observation will get you to level 3, and almost halfway to level 4. There probably should be some sort of rule that "if you see it, you gain the knowledge." So if you saw ship X under drive, you'd be able to tell the drive type. Though for types higher than your own it should be "Unknown advanced".

As for strategic intel, with a multi-faction start you'd have at least levels 1, 3, & 5. Probably 2 and 4 as well, though that intel will be outdated quickly. And I guess you'd have level 11 at start too. :)
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Alfapiomega on February 21, 2014, 02:18:38 AM
Exactly as Semetary said I don't think there is an ideal number of nation (well, 135 is quite close to ideal but meh).

Whether we have 2, 3, 4 or 10 there will be alliances and hate in game. As we are people though I believe we can set some ground rules so that the game does not imediately spiral into a blodshet where all gang up on one. 

So I would use only the amount of potential players and the capability of SM as a guideline.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on February 21, 2014, 03:51:39 AM
Another question I would like feedback on:

Should every player characters be linked to an Aurora character?

It may restrict the story somewhat but the main problem I see with doing this is subjecting everyone to randomness. Both in terms of sudden accidents killing of a character your really like, and in terms of randomness giving better stats/promotion points/so on to non-player characters so that player characters are not used or even may be released of service.

If Aurora had a solid SM feature that allowed editing bonuses (like you can with character personality traits) I would do this in a heartbeat, but now I am not so sure...
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Alfapiomega on February 21, 2014, 04:22:47 AM
Another question I would like feedback on:

Should every player characters be linked to an Aurora character?

It may restrict the story somewhat but the main problem I see with doing this is subjecting everyone to randomness. Both in terms of sudden accidents killing of a character your really like, and in terms of randomness giving better stats/promotion points/so on to non-player characters so that player characters are not used or even may be released of service.

If Aurora had a solid SM feature that allowed editing bonuses (like you can with character personality traits) I would do this in a heartbeat, but now I am not so sure...

Not sure about this...
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: 3_14159 on February 21, 2014, 06:43:13 AM
Another question I would like feedback on:

Should every player characters be linked to an Aurora character?

It may restrict the story somewhat but the main problem I see with doing this is subjecting everyone to randomness. Both in terms of sudden accidents killing of a character your really like, and in terms of randomness giving better stats/promotion points/so on to non-player characters so that player characters are not used or even may be released of service.

If Aurora had a solid SM feature that allowed editing bonuses (like you can with character personality traits) I would do this in a heartbeat, but now I am not so sure...
Hm... it depends on the characters' roles, I'd say. For example, an admiral in command of a certain fleet should be represented, a captain, too. The general administrator might be difficult to do. How about just renaming people if someone gets too good? It's not ideal, but might work for some.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on February 22, 2014, 05:22:02 PM
Hm... it depends on the characters' roles, I'd say. For example, an admiral in command of a certain fleet should be represented, a captain, too. The general administrator might be difficult to do. How about just renaming people if someone gets too good? It's not ideal, but might work for some.

Seems like a decent compromise. I don't quite like how many accidents Civilian administrators and Scientists are suffering from random deaths, but for personnel aboard experimental TN tech spaceships trekking around I envision the environment potentially being a bit more hazardous.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Thyrann on March 13, 2014, 10:42:40 AM
Hi there. 
This type of game definitely took my interest.  I would like to be part of this.   I have a few questions and suggestions.

On research trade: I think a good possibility is that complete technologies cannot be traded at all.  I like the idea of trading the components used by the tech.   Buying the technology would mean that you have to spend at least 200RP for studying the blueprints.   Or something like that.

On RP side: as I’ve been reading through this thread.   Several main characters are pretty well defined (CNO, Colony administrators).  Others are not in Aurora by default.  Head of State and Head of R&D comes to mind.   I think they should be represented as well.   I have noticed that unassigned personnel get killed much more often.   Maybe they can create a diplomatic team as they should have been used to diplomacy as a heads of departments.  That would ensure them being in the game. 
Question is, should player determine character traits or let game do it, or should SM/GM define traits or mix of beforesaid?

On starting positions&situation: I definitely prefer one system (no necessarily Sol), with at least one planet/moon per faction.  And definitely more people per faction as the selling your (nefarious plan) agenda to the rest of the people of your faction could be fun.  Maybe even giving list of some buffs/nerfs to each faction based on fixed amount of “bonus points” for lack of a better term.  Something like this was in Master of Orion.  I know about research is basically a nobrainer choice, so cost could be higher.
Buffs: boosted research/production/more installations/free tech
Nerfs: negative buffs/unfinished terraforming/lack of resources

Understandably it will pile up work for GM/SM, but only in the beginning.  And it could be significant bonus to RP as factions could be much more diverse.  Just a thought.

Finally the main plot: Clocks are ticking…  I think it’s a splendid idea.   Some sort of external threat is a great motivator for creating alliances and not going straight to FFA slaughterhouse.  ;)

Looking forward to this game.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on March 13, 2014, 11:55:08 AM
On research trade: I think a good possibility is that complete technologies cannot be traded at all.  I like the idea of trading the components used by the tech.   Buying the technology would mean that you have to spend at least 200RP for studying the blueprints.   Or something like that.

10-20% of the full RP cost as a fee to understand and integrate the knowledge of complete base technologies seems reasonable (for non-components). Now how to do this in practice?

I guess it could be managed through designing a dummy component that will cost "roughly" this amount of RP and then having the receiving faction research it + SM remove it. That is assuming it's possible to design components in the same field...

Another option is to leave 1 lab unassigned for the correct calculated time, but that will be tricky to both calculate and track (remember) accurately.

I think the risk if we allow full tech trade is that two factions could just agree to trade 2000 RP for 2000 RP and then share everything they research, Both stand to gain vastly more then they stand to lose. So this might be a good idea to ban? Only allow one side trading tech in exchange for credits or something else and perhaps limit it to maximum of one base tech trade per faction and turn.

On RP side: as I’ve been reading through this thread.   Several main characters are pretty well defined (CNO, Colony administrators).  Others are not in Aurora by default.  Head of State and Head of R&D comes to mind.   I think they should be represented as well.   I have noticed that unassigned personnel get killed much more often.   Maybe they can create a diplomatic team as they should have been used to diplomacy as a heads of departments.  That would ensure them being in the game. 
Question is, should player determine character traits or let game do it, or should SM/GM define traits or mix of beforesaid?

I want to give participants as much freedom to RP their characters as possible, so traits will certainly be free to chose by the players. However they should not always be universally known, and since they don't actually do anything (that I know of) in-game there isn't much point to fiddle too much with it. If I change any traits in the actual Aurora game it is probably of military leaders just to have it there as a reminder & pointer for me on how they would act in terms of risk and other situations that may appear.

I think it's more fun to request that each participant lists their own traits/background history and motivations for their character them self, and then try to act and RP based from that.

Besides as I wrote before it's almost impossible to change anything even with SM access when it comes to leaders, so I mostly see this ending up being a time-hog that don't contribute much to the game or RP.

On starting positions&situation: I definitely prefer one system (no necessarily Sol), with at least one planet/moon per faction.  And definitely more people per faction as the selling your (nefarious plan) agenda to the rest of the people of your faction could be fun.  Maybe even giving list of some buffs/nerfs to each faction based on fixed amount of “bonus points” for lack of a better term.  Something like this was in Master of Orion.  I know about research is basically a nobrainer choice, so cost could be higher.
Buffs: boosted research/production/more installations/free tech
Nerfs: negative buffs/unfinished terraforming/lack of resources

Understandably it will pile up work for GM/SM, but only in the beginning.  And it could be significant bonus to RP as factions could be much more diverse.  Just a thought.

I agree that debates between important leaders in the factions parliament/senate/secret war rooms/palace is certainly one of the things I think can add a lot of fun to the game!

Currently thinking if I should have one list of research "perks" and one of other "perks" too and let each faction HoS at the start chose one from each list to provide a bit unique flavor and feeling to the factions. That might be one way to do it.

Finally the main plot: Clocks are ticking…  I think it’s a splendid idea.   Some sort of external threat is a great motivator for creating alliances and not going straight to FFA slaughterhouse.  ;)

The "main plot" (or goal/victory condition) will be secret and that's part of the fun :)

My initial aim is just to get a game up and running and get the factions out into space, then we can start worrying about why they are there. Right?
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: Thyrann on March 14, 2014, 07:02:06 AM
Or the techtrade could be done by researching 10% and then finishing it he SM/insta research way.  Its a little complicated too.
On the other hand the component way is probably easier.   It doesn't need to contain the same technology, only the same area, and you can name it as "technology blueprint study - Ion Drive" for example.

Cant wait to join.  :-)
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: MagusXIX on March 20, 2014, 04:49:17 PM
When can I sign up?

My main request is a well organized forum.

  -Main Forum
      -Factionless folder for game discussion (Out of character discussion, place for non-players to discuss, announcements thread, U.N. Conferences, etc)
      -Folders for each faction
          -Public Announcements Thread (Place where your faction can announce to everyone what it is up to.  In-character press conferences, speeches, etc.)
          -Private threads for super sekrit plots.

Something along those lines.  A standardized format for posting will help keep things organized and clutter free, and aid in keeping everyone on the same page.  It sucks when in-character threads are cluttered with a bunch of other crap.  Imagine a thread that's supposed to be an in-character U.N. Conference that gets cluttered with comments and questions from anyone and everyone, in game or not.

Basically ... we'd just need specific folders for specific types of information/communication, and a separate place for out-of-character comments and non-players to post.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: MagusXIX on March 20, 2014, 05:06:54 PM
Another concern I have involves the nature of RPing on forums.  Forums tend to lend themselves to a more communique style of RP.  Trying to do something in a conversational style can easily lead to confusion and thread bloat.  Using some sort of chat system (IRC, Skype, etc) to have actual conversations in tandem with using the forums to send in-game mails, speeches, and the like seems like the way to get the best of both worlds.

Using an outside chat system comes with the problem that none of it will be recorded for everyone to see.  This is particularly important because the SM really does need to be in on all relevant communications between players .  I don't know of any really good solutions for this, though.  :-\  Anyone have any suggestions?
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: MagusXIX on March 20, 2014, 07:07:57 PM
Also, I'm in favor of player characters actually being in-game characters.  If a character dies, the player can simply start playing as someone new.

If it's done this way I'd recommend turning off that checkbox that allows characters to teleport magically to their new command assignment.  This would force player characters to have to move around via some sort of shuttlecraft, which could open up room for some very interesting assassination attempts.   8)
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on March 21, 2014, 04:21:11 AM
When can I sign up?

I will clearly announce on this forum when signups are open. It will be after 6.4 is released.

My main request is a well organized forum.

Currently I plan doing it like this:

- One main story/RP thread on external forums ( since I want to involve more people then just the Aurora crowd ).
- One main UN / Federation of Nations thread on these forums for open diplomacy between nations and motioning/voting on international laws or embargo.
- Four restricted subforums with one active main RP thread each. Once every 5 "turns" = ingame years the RP thread will be locked and a new one created. After 10 ingame years have passed the old main RP thread will be moved to the main public forum here.
- Several "support" threads ( informational, gamerules and subplot RP ) in the main public forum here.
- Anyone is allowed to create a public subplot thread about your own character life and adventures here if you have enough story and commitment to support it and don't want the story to be cluttered by other discussions.

Another concern I have involves the nature of RPing on forums.  Forums tend to lend themselves to a more communique style of RP.  Trying to do something in a conversational style can easily lead to confusion and thread bloat.  Using some sort of chat system (IRC, Skype, etc) to have actual conversations in tandem with using the forums to send in-game mails, speeches, and the like seems like the way to get the best of both worlds.

Using an outside chat system comes with the problem that none of it will be recorded for everyone to see.  This is particularly important because the SM really does need to be in on all relevant communications between players .  I don't know of any really good solutions for this, though.  :-\  Anyone have any suggestions?

I agree that there isn't really any good solutions to this problem. I will require everyone that want to take part to create an account on these Aurora forums. If someone has a open and simple chat where people meet up to prepare RP dialogues/conversations that would be a welcome addition. Another decent solution I have used in other RP forum games is to use PMs and require to CC the game master (me) or at least forward the conversation to me once it's concluded.

Also, I'm in favor of player characters actually being in-game characters.  If a character dies, the player can simply start playing as someone new.

If it's done this way I'd recommend turning off that checkbox that allows characters to teleport magically to their new command assignment.  This would force player characters to have to move around via some sort of shuttlecraft, which could open up room for some very interesting assassination attempts.

In fiction characters will ofcourse use civilian shuttles or bigger military craft to move around. For management reasons however the shuttles wont be designed until they actually are fired upon in combat. In that case I will assume they are unarmed fighter sized craft using the same speed as the fastest civilian liner. It will be up to the military to decide if real armed military ships or even dedicated military designs can be spared for shuttle duty.

Assassinations will be possible both via military and via sabotage (espionage) means. It could spawn alot of cool RP for example if the former leadership of a captured colony goes underground trying to avoid assassination and lead the civilian resistance.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: MagusXIX on April 25, 2014, 11:10:56 AM
So ... how 'bout this game?   8)
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on April 25, 2014, 11:28:44 AM
So ... how 'bout this game?   8)

Do you think there will be enough interest to get at least a 5-10 players from this forum now that Panopticons community game is also up and running here?

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php/board,203.0.html

Especially now when summer is coming up soon.

I will need a little time to prepare, plan and get familiar with 6.4 + keeping our eyes out so no game-breaking bugs are found anyways so we will wait a few weeks I think. I also need to finish up some IRL stuff too release time for Aurora.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: MagusXIX on April 25, 2014, 02:10:31 PM
How did I miss that!?  :o  I'm not sure if there will be enough interest or not.  We'll have to see if anyone else chimes in?  I am still interested, for one.
Title: Re: Setup suggestions and ideas.
Post by: alex_brunius on May 05, 2014, 03:13:57 AM
Looks like it's best to postpone my community game some months until autumn then due to lack of interest/summer/other games running.