Posted by: Tregonsee
« on: September 17, 2010, 01:39:10 PM »Wow guys, just wow. I have been away for several months, and look what happens...
Several things:
1) Is there a chance that someone (Steve W, Administrators) break off this thread? I mean, I came back thinking that this thread was about getting the UTM, something I still want, and it has morphed to Starfire economics and scaling issues. Someone looking for these new issues might never find it, based on the thread title.
2) I don't think it is the economics that is stretching out things in Starfire, but it is a symptom. The problem seems to be scope of command. One single person cannot easily manage all of the decisions that need to be made in a timely manner. Whether it is economics of 20+ planets or fleets of several hundred corvettes, it is too big and clunky to easily handle without computer aid, and even then it is hard-
2a) In a battle, you take a ship, find out what weapons you have usable, find a suitable target ship(s) (by determining what is shields down, breathing atmosphere, fired a certain weapon type last turn, etc), figure range, fire weapons, figure missile interceptions if any, and apply damage. Imagine trying to do that for a 400 ship simultaneous WP assault against a fleet, deployed Base Stations of varying types, minefields, DSB-s, and IDEWs of multiple types. It actually got to be work, not a fun battle. This took place over 5+ nights and then I had to finish it up using SA because the logistics of getting together to finish the battle was just too great...
3) As for such a battle, even in SF classics, there was an acknowledgement of the complexities involved. There is such a big span of control that no one person can control it all. In 2nd Stage Lensman by E. E. "Doc" Smith, they built huge special ships that all it was was a "tank" by which the battle could be "seen" by the Admirals.
4) The economics seem to be more like a runaway petri dish without the petri dish capping growth.
THEREFORE, I make the following suggestions for discussion-
A) A limit be placed on the number of ships an Admiral can control, and limit on how one gets admirals. This could be a limit like the old personnel points without having to track so hard. It would induce players to have smaller amounts of larger ships over massive "swarm attacks", and would force a player to be a little more conservative in tactics, in that they have to conserve the number of Admirals they have, and would even have an inducement for more diplomacy between players (Admiral prisoner exchanges).
B) Economics is based on two basic concepts- population and its growth, and the money derived thereof. Now in every military that I know of, the budget is based on a yearly basis. People can grow and die and be born all of the time (monthly population growth) but the money is given on a yearly basis. You get that amount and it has to last the entire year. This does several things:
B1) Chops amount of money available for shipbuilding, etc by a factor of 12. We only get taxed once a year, right? Government gets yearly budgets and doles the money out by quarter for various things.
B2) Since you don't get money again for 12 more turns, it forces more planning, and for you to set aside money for emergencies.
B3) Less bookkeeping. Now a colony placed at the end of the year will produce the same amount of tax revenue as one that has been around for awhile, but it is also true (at least in the US) that a wedding or childbirth affects the whole tax year for income taxes, even if it occurrs on 31 December. Sorry, it can't be easily helped.
B4) If emergencies occur, one can sell ships or IUs for fast cash.
B5) These changes would lead to smaller fleet sizes as well, which lead to smaller and more manageable battles.
I hope everyone does not mind me getting on this soap box, but I read the whole thread without replying, having to read 6+ pages...
Several things:
1) Is there a chance that someone (Steve W, Administrators) break off this thread? I mean, I came back thinking that this thread was about getting the UTM, something I still want, and it has morphed to Starfire economics and scaling issues. Someone looking for these new issues might never find it, based on the thread title.
2) I don't think it is the economics that is stretching out things in Starfire, but it is a symptom. The problem seems to be scope of command. One single person cannot easily manage all of the decisions that need to be made in a timely manner. Whether it is economics of 20+ planets or fleets of several hundred corvettes, it is too big and clunky to easily handle without computer aid, and even then it is hard-
2a) In a battle, you take a ship, find out what weapons you have usable, find a suitable target ship(s) (by determining what is shields down, breathing atmosphere, fired a certain weapon type last turn, etc), figure range, fire weapons, figure missile interceptions if any, and apply damage. Imagine trying to do that for a 400 ship simultaneous WP assault against a fleet, deployed Base Stations of varying types, minefields, DSB-s, and IDEWs of multiple types. It actually got to be work, not a fun battle. This took place over 5+ nights and then I had to finish it up using SA because the logistics of getting together to finish the battle was just too great...
3) As for such a battle, even in SF classics, there was an acknowledgement of the complexities involved. There is such a big span of control that no one person can control it all. In 2nd Stage Lensman by E. E. "Doc" Smith, they built huge special ships that all it was was a "tank" by which the battle could be "seen" by the Admirals.
4) The economics seem to be more like a runaway petri dish without the petri dish capping growth.
THEREFORE, I make the following suggestions for discussion-
A) A limit be placed on the number of ships an Admiral can control, and limit on how one gets admirals. This could be a limit like the old personnel points without having to track so hard. It would induce players to have smaller amounts of larger ships over massive "swarm attacks", and would force a player to be a little more conservative in tactics, in that they have to conserve the number of Admirals they have, and would even have an inducement for more diplomacy between players (Admiral prisoner exchanges).
B) Economics is based on two basic concepts- population and its growth, and the money derived thereof. Now in every military that I know of, the budget is based on a yearly basis. People can grow and die and be born all of the time (monthly population growth) but the money is given on a yearly basis. You get that amount and it has to last the entire year. This does several things:
B1) Chops amount of money available for shipbuilding, etc by a factor of 12. We only get taxed once a year, right? Government gets yearly budgets and doles the money out by quarter for various things.
B2) Since you don't get money again for 12 more turns, it forces more planning, and for you to set aside money for emergencies.
B3) Less bookkeeping. Now a colony placed at the end of the year will produce the same amount of tax revenue as one that has been around for awhile, but it is also true (at least in the US) that a wedding or childbirth affects the whole tax year for income taxes, even if it occurrs on 31 December. Sorry, it can't be easily helped.
B4) If emergencies occur, one can sell ships or IUs for fast cash.
B5) These changes would lead to smaller fleet sizes as well, which lead to smaller and more manageable battles.
I hope everyone does not mind me getting on this soap box, but I read the whole thread without replying, having to read 6+ pages...