This site is in archival mode. A replacement is being developed. In the meantime, please use the PBW2 Forums for community discussions. The replacement software for this site will use a unified account system with PBW2, and any newly created threads will carry over.
Welcome to Spaceempires.net
Login or Register

Search
Modules
· Content
· Downloads
· Forums
· Game Info
· Image Gallery
· Links
· Shipyards
· Topics
· Staff

User Info
· Welcome, Anonymous
Membership:
· New: Astorre
· New Today: 0
· New Yesterday: 0
· Overall: 3155

People Online:
· Visitors: 35
· Members: 0
· Total: 35

  

Spaceempires.net :: PBC#5 - Prestige / Influence proposal :: View topic
Forum FAQ :: Search :: Memberlist :: Usergroups :: Profile :: Log in to check your private messages :: Log in


PBC#5 - Prestige / Influence proposal
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Spaceempires.net Forum Index -> Technical Matters
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SuicideJunkie
Leaky Guru


Joined: May 28, 2005
Location: Canada!

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 5:56 am    Post subject: PBC#5 - Prestige / Influence proposal Reply with quote

Ships get prestige ratings based on firepower, hitpoints and cargo to start with.
Later on, their empirical kill/loss ratio in combat and individual ship XP level should dominate the value.

Note: The design info should only take a little extra work to capture with automated scripts, since it is all visible in the design screen.

Code:
Potential defense value formula = (1 + sqrt(lsHP/40)) * (aHP) + ssHP
Potential value formula = dvf * dps / 100 + min(fighter count, fighter launch rate * 4) * avg value of fighters carried)

EG: Fierce class gunboat frigate
100/40 shields, 104dps weapons, 832 armor. 0 cargo.
dvf = (1+sqrt(40/40)) * 832 = 1664
Value = sqrt(1664 * 104) + 0 * 5
= 416


EG2: Angel A mini carrier with max cargo of 24x S-2 Lumia
Lumia: 15 shields, 16*2/2 weapons, 18+15 hull.
dvfLumia = (1) * 33 + 15 = 48
ValueLumia = sqrt(48 * 16) + N/A
= 27.7

Angel A: 0 shields, 8*2 weapons, 80 armor. 360 cargo.
dvf = (1+sqrt(0/40)) * 80 = 80
Value = sqrt(80 * 8) + min(12, 6 * 4) * 27.7 = 25 + 332
= 357


Owning high prestige ships and using them to protect colonies or kill enemies would then give you influence on the closest planets.
- Each ship in orbit of a planet adds its Prestige value to the player's influence value for that planet.
- Each ship in the system adds prestige/(numplanets+1) to the player's influence over every planet in the system.
- Each ship not in a colonized system is treated as being in the nearest colonized system. (Divide evenly among all equidistant systems)
- Colonizing a planet will give a huge amount (1000000?) of starting influence points, ensuring the colonizing player doesn't lose control immediately.
- Direct influence gains from winning combat --> ?
- Combat generated influence will be divided up among the players involved in the battle. The share of influence gained will be proportional to the percentage of the total prestige provided by the player's involved ships. High prestige ships are assumed to be more responsible for winning the battle than low ones.

Notes:
- The warppoint network will have to be manually entered into the krsqk-bot, but each warp link would only have to be entered once, so it won't be a problem
- Planet locations will be the same.
- Locating each ship will be a bit of extra work, since the action of clicking on a ship in the shiplist, then searching the main window for the selection highlight will be a completely new type of action, but still doable.

- The combat influence gains would likely be done by analyzing the combat summary in the event log. The ships present can be identified by name. Cargo can be assumed to be whatever was on board at the beginning of the turn. Enemy designs should be identifiable by name as well, and which targets were destroyed is also available. Enemy fighters can't be counted in this manner, and would only contribute to the kill ratio of the ship design.

Having influence on the planets would in turn get control of a larger share of the income, population and cargo.
Loading units and population would cost influence (if you don't have enough, then you need to pay someone to load them for you), dropping them off would give influence.

- Each turn, the total influence of each player would decay by perhaps 5%. This allows one-time events such as colonization and combats to have a longer-lasting effect.
- Each turn, the players' control % of a colony will move towards their influence %. IE: if you have 50% of the influence thanks to a recent battle, but only 20% of the control, your control would nudge up to say 25%, then 30, and so on until it matches your influence % a number of turns later.

- Cost of population relative to units will be tricky to decide, and needs work.

The control % would directly correspond to how much of the planet's assets are the property of each player.
- The player's share of the resource generation (m/o/r/s) is equal to the actual production times their control %
- Same with resource storage space.
- Facility scrapping and construction could be voted on by the players with control, perhaps 2/3rds majority to scrap, 50%+1 to build. Such proposals and voting could be handled by the krsqk-bot.
- SY time (when not building facilities) would be auctioned off among all players, with the winner paying the bid amount to the owners of the planet, plus spending the actual build cost out of pocket. This means that somebody with 100% control can bid a million resources, and pay themselves so they win any bid they want for free. Someone with 50% control can bid double what they're willing to pay, and then get half the bid back. This would also be handled by the krsqk-bot.
- Constructed units would be treated as if they had been cargo dropped from a transport for influence calculations.


Back to top
Colonial
Space Emperor


Joined: Dec 21, 2009

PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:12 pm    Post subject: PBCV - Ownership/Taxation counter-proposal Reply with quote

So, I hadn't read this when I began thinking of an alternative economic system for PBCV and since I've already got it thought out, I will put it up here as an alternative proposal.

Basically while Suicide Junkie is bringing the economic system closer to the present, I'm dragging it further into the past. Very Happy so without further ado,

Colonial's proposal:

====================

So in this system there will be three types of players: System Barons, System Dukes and the Emperor. Every player can own an unlimited number of ships, and there is no distinction between military and civilian shipping. All players are Barons. Dukes possess a dutchy and a Barony. the king rules the kingdom, his Dutchy and his Barony. so there is a clear relation between your position and you're workload.

Barons:

Barons are the controllers of 1-3 star-systems. They control the production potential of these worlds, and get 70% of the resouces, technology and storage. you are obviously responsable for defending your territory to the best of your ability and should probably contribute to defending your neighbors if you don't border the foe. you control your ships no matter where they are in the quadrent, so everyone will contribute to the war.

All barons either have a Duke, or are themselves a duke.

Example map of dutchies superimposed on a PBCIV map: http://home.spaceempires.net/modules.php?set_albumName=misc&id=22_Barons&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php (Permalink: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/album.php?albumid=46&pictureid=492)


Dukes:

A dukes has 2-3 barons under his influence, their territory, plus his own Barony, makes up his Duchy. The duke exerts a tax of 20% on all resource and technology generation in his dutchy, and of 25% on storage. He only has the production capacity of his core barony. this means that a duke has a income approaching 2x that of a baron, if you include his personal and feudal holdings. Dukes are responsable for the defence of their Duchy, and the state of any wars that border their domain. They are also allowed to advise barons on the front, and are responsable for large scale stratagy.

Dukes should surve a function similar to the large mercs of the last game, such as dragonstar. they will have enough income for a slightly larger force in wars, as well as enough resources sloshing around to hire the production capacity and the services of Barons. they may also take on a role similar to higher ranking officers in the navy.

Same map as above, but with the hypothetical Duchys: http://home.spaceempires.net/modules.php?set_albumName=misc&id=5_Dukes&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php (Permalink: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/album.php?albumid=46&pictureid=493)


The Emperor:

Alongside his Barony and his Duchy, the Emperor also recieves 10% of all resources and research in the empire, and 5% of all storage. He is also Baron of the Homeworld. The buck stops with him on all military and productive policy. he also has an income, depending on the size of the empire, of 3x the average baron and 1.5x his fellow dukes, if you are assume his holdings are the same size. in practice his income will be higher than this.

The Emperor's personal fleet will be the equivalent of the navy, when it comes to responding to military crises. also his income is much higher than his productive capacity, which means he should be doing a fair bit of purchasing or comming up with economic incentives to keep the economy flowing and his vassels busy.

Since the Emperor's job would be a gread deal of work to swallow, he has the option of hiring or encorporating underlings from ammongst the rest of the nobility. position could be created and destroyed and his whim and could be anything from Commodore of the Navy to Minister of Research to Governer or the Royal Barony.

Emperor would be an obvious spot for Suicide Junkie if he wanted it, although any of you more experienced lads would I'm sure do well.

Same map but of the Emperors holdings: http://home.spaceempires.net/modules.php?set_albumName=misc&id=1_King&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php (Permalink: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/album.php?albumid=46&pictureid=494)

+++

Othewise, technology and senate voting would remain the same as the current system. Contracts would remain roughly the same except without the currents limits on space lords and corporations

========================

So two possible economic paradigms. I will, if a may, give a rundown of their strengths and weaknesses, from my perspective.

Suicide's Warlord-Libertarian model:

Strengths:


    -More inter-player conflicts
    -Should keep the empire more militarily active and less likely to get overrun
    -allows civil-war-esque senarios where two players scramble to bring influence to bare on a key point.


Weaknesses:

    -Your holdings are unreliable, might suddenly experience spoilage or inability to pay upkeep.
    -Less incentive to invest in infrastructure.
    -Incentive to leave military-grade ships mulling around far from the front accruing influence in prime real estate.
    -The possability of muscling players out of the game completely, and the corrisponding long-run trend towards fewer, more powerful spheres of influence.



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

Colonial's High-Feudal model

Strength:


    -more inviting to new smaller players, as barons
    -gameplay more similar to non-PBC, with correspondingly more chance of imperial success.
    -complete, nor partial ownership of planets, and therefore more incentive to invest in them


Weaknesses:

    -Lacking the potential for interplayer conflict
    -Rigid feudal higherarchies, and vasselage relations, might piss people off.
    -Relatively boring?



Ideally might be a mixed system which allowed for but didn't require conflicts, and allowed complete and long-term control of planets.


Last edited by Colonial on Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:43 am; edited 2 times in total


Back to top
SuicideJunkie
Leaky Guru


Joined: May 28, 2005
Location: Canada!

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Sudden" changes is a relative term.
While other systems have no change other than aliens blowing stuff up, or the player building it, and somewhat varying tax refunds, the scheme as I see it would still take many turns to accumulate significant changes in planetary control.

Another possible advantage is that the system should automagically purge inactive players from control, since they won't keep their assets modernized and their influence will thusly decay away.

Global tax and cash redistribution as in the current system would give an advantage to smaller players, so it shouldn't end up as one giant monopoly.


Back to top
Colonial
Space Emperor


Joined: Dec 21, 2009

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fair enough, With more thought I would actually be up for trying your system, if we don't really advertise and keep the game to 5-6 vets at the beginning. my system I was thinking we would begin with a major recruitment campaign.

one thing I would like to see though is players have the option to use a particular ship's influence to support another players claim, and to opt out of exerting influence with a particular ship all together. I reckon this would enhance the political aspect. An influence ship componant would also be fun Razz.


Back to top
Skyburn
Space Emperor


Joined: Mar 12, 2008

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't really like the proposed warlord system. I'm willing to give it a shot, but I can't promise that I won't drop out after only a few turns. Merging military and civilian players into one just doesn't sound like much fun.

Back to top
dumbluck
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 22, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree. I think it will be a very interesting system. I'd be able to take over your planet by dumping a snot-ton of fighters on it... Fun. Smile

dumbluck
CEO, Fortuitous Investments, Inc.
Author: The Belanai Story


Back to top
Combat_Wombat
Space Emperor


Joined: Nov 04, 2003
Location: Minnesota

PostPosted: Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like it SJ and would be in

Co-Lead of the FrEee project an open-source Space Empires IV clone

Author of Invasion! for Space Empires IV


Back to top
Zastaver
Space Emperor


Joined: Feb 24, 2007

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dumbluck wrote:
I disagree. I think it will be a very interesting system. I'd be able to take over your planet by dumping a snot-ton of fighters on it... Fun. Smile


then id just order my PDF to kill all the hostile invaders dumped on my planet and start a civil war. or just before i lost control id abandon/dump all the pop. i think ANY system where you can take a planet form a player with out a vote in the senate to be bad and open to abuse and would lead to the afroementiond faggotry


Captan Zastaver Alcora F.W.S.N. FSL of the navy.
abord the FWS Lycoris.

For all who have fallen before us, may we stand firm.


Back to top
dumbluck
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 22, 2007

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zast: It's not an all or nothing control scheme. Say, on planet A, SJ has 45% influence, you have 35% influence, and I have 20% influence. Even though SJ controls just less than half of all the assets, if the two of us vote as a block we can over rule his wishes. If you want to dump all the pop and cargo, you can't. you can dump your 35% if you really wanted to, but I don't know why you'd want to do that.

In short, in SJ's system, NO ONE owns a planet outright. The original colonizer gets lots of initial influence, but a concerted effort by another player could steal that planet away from him if he chose. In the end, influence on Core worlds could easily end up split fairly evenly between the active players, while (newer) border worlds would be controlled by the colonizer (with some influence wielded by the guy with the awesome fleet he's defending the border worlds with).


dumbluck
CEO, Fortuitous Investments, Inc.
Author: The Belanai Story


Back to top
dumbluck
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 22, 2007

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SJ said
Quote:
Cost of population relative to units will be tricky to decide, and needs work.


In my opinion, that is like trying to compare the proverbial apples and oranges. The question is not whether population is more important than units, but how important is the population or units that are being moved. I suggest the following. Note: these formulas should work irrelevant of the direction of movement. The same formula should work whether taking something off a planet, or putting it on a planet.

The cost to move population on any given world should factor in:
-Ratio of the moved population to the total pre-move population on the planet.
-Ratio of moved population to the total population in the empire with that atmosphere type.

If you take 5M of the 6M on the planet, that should be a big hit. If in doing so, you load 3/4 of the empire's Methane breathers onto a ship, it should be an even bigger hit (risking the extinction of an "endangered breed", as it were).

The cost to move units on any given world should be a somewhat similar calculation, factoring in:
-Ratio of the raw Potential Value (from your formulas) of the moved units to the total pre-move Potential Value on the planet.
-Ratio of the Value of the moved units to the total pre-move Value in the System.
-Ratio of the Value of the moved units to the total Value within x distance from colony? (maybe, instead of the total Value in the system?)
-Fighters and Troops are separate in these formulas. (Troops Values don't count if moving fighters, and visa versa)

So, if you take 25 of the 30 fighters off a planet, you'll take a big hit. If there were also only 30 other fighters in the system, it should be a bigger hit. I had thought about making it be within x distance from the planet, but it seems too complicated...


dumbluck
CEO, Fortuitous Investments, Inc.
Author: The Belanai Story


Back to top
dumbluck
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 22, 2007

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A few other notes.
-How will Events affect Influence calculations. Things like Warp Point closings, Plagues, and suns going nova might mess with ol' Krsq-bot's fixed variables...

-Regarding votes about planetary build queues and the like: this should be set up as an oppositional vote instead of a pass only vote. Don't count all the influence that votes Yes, and see if it adds up to more than 50% of the total Control. Instead, count all the Yes and the No votes, and see which side ended up with more Controlling votes. Otherwise, idle players that happen to have 75% of the Control on a planet can freeze that planet's queue for quite some time.

-How would the Homeworld factor into this influence model? After all, If I spend my first few turns building some fighters, and then go drop them on the homeworld, wouldn't that give me a big advantage over my fellow players in both storage and income? I was thinking that the first few turns would be used to build a single colonizer for each player. then, fully load the colonizers, give each player an equal amount of influence on the Homeworld, and turn them lose.


dumbluck
CEO, Fortuitous Investments, Inc.
Author: The Belanai Story


Back to top
SuicideJunkie
Leaky Guru


Joined: May 28, 2005
Location: Canada!

PostPosted: Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The tricky part of population as I see it can be summed up as follows:

Say a planet has 10 population, and 10 fighters.

If you have 50% influence, would you be able to take 5 population, and have 0 influence left?
If you take 5 fighters do you have 0 influence left?

If there are 10 population, and 0 fighters, you shouldn't gain 100% influence for dropping 1 fighter.

How much is population worth relative to the units and stuff?



If population were directly worth control, while units were worth influence?
Then if you had 50% of the control you'd be able to take 5M pop, and lose all income temporarily.
Your influence due to units and fleets would remain, and you'd slowly regain control, eventually enough to take another 1M pop.
You'd sorta be trading your potential income for population.

Taking all your units would drop influence to zero, causing control to decay over time, but you could take your population at the same time for a full sell-out. If your influence was stable (not growing or waning), you'd get the same % of both people and units.

Dropping population would give you control and income, but not allow you to buy off all the units since you'd have no influence yet.

Might have to be a mechanic to limit sudden population drops from stealing control just long enough to buy a SY queue or something, then leaving. Perhaps control can only be added 1M or 5% worth per turn, so if you dump 20M people on a planet, it takes 20 turns to consolidate your new control percentage.

Thoughts?


Back to top
dumbluck
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 22, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another thought: that last 1M that can't be taken off of the planet shouldn't be figured into the formulas. Call them federal customs agents, or something. Smile With SJ's idea, if SJ and I each have 50% control of a 10M planet, we each have access to only 4.5M pop (it should always round down for the sake of fairness) instead of 5M. Also, you should only be able to move what you Control. Influence is how you gain/lose Control, but shouldn't DIRECTLY affect what can be moved.

Hrm. One could look at this pop/units balance a different way. Assume that pop movements and unit movements both affect Influence only. Since there are two types of ways to gain Influence (pop and units), then any Influence gains from one type should be divided by 2.

An example world. SJ and I each have 5,000 Influence on a world with 10M pop and 100 fighters. Assume that I came in with an additional 5M pop. My Influence gain should be something like 5/(10-1)/2=27.7%. So I gained 5,000x0.277=1,385 Influence, giving me 6,385 of the 11,385 total Influence (or about 56%, a gain of 6%).

If SJ then comes in and drops an additional 10M on that planet, then his gain would be 10/(15-1)/2=35.7%. That gives him 5,000x0.357=1,785 more Influence, or 6,785 of the 13,170 total Influence (or about 51%, up from his previous 44%).

I then bring an additional 100 fighters (assumed to be the same Value as the planetary fighters for this example). So 100/100/2=25% gain in my Influence, or 6,385x0.25=1,596. That brings my total to 7,981 of the 14,766 total influence (or 54%, a gain of about 5%).

Hmm. Why does that seem off? Doubling the fighters only gains me 5% of the total influence? My brain hurts from all this math. I gave it my best shot.

One last question: how will attrition of units due to combat losses factor into Influence? Will you take the double hit to Influence, from the combat loss on the one side and the loss of the units on the other?


dumbluck
CEO, Fortuitous Investments, Inc.
Author: The Belanai Story


Back to top
dumbluck
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 22, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it just occurred to me that adding either fighters or pop to an empty planet using my formulas will give you a divide by 0 error.

IE. I drop 20 fighters on a planet that has 0 to start with. My Influence gain would be 20/0/2=? Similarly, if a planet has only 1M pop on it, and I drop 10M on it, my Influence gain would be 10/(1-1)/2=?

My math = epic fail. Sad


dumbluck
CEO, Fortuitous Investments, Inc.
Author: The Belanai Story


Back to top
Skyburn
Space Emperor


Joined: Mar 12, 2008

PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good thing I never bought any Fii stock. Razz

Back to top
Zastaver
Space Emperor


Joined: Feb 24, 2007

PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

all i got to say is that if this is how planitary control is going to be done in PBCV then its good that i wont be joining

Captan Zastaver Alcora F.W.S.N. FSL of the navy.
abord the FWS Lycoris.

For all who have fallen before us, may we stand firm.


Back to top
Colonial
Space Emperor


Joined: Dec 21, 2009

PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zastaver would be quite a loss...

not to advertise myself, have any of you looked at my counter-proposal in post 2? it takes away the faggotry/infighting aspect effectively...


Back to top
Dead-Meat
Space Emperor


Joined: Jun 02, 2006

PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Colonial wrote:
Zastaver would be quite a loss...

not to advertise myself, have any of you looked at my counter-proposal in post 2? it takes away the faggotry/infighting aspect effectively...


I lean more towards your system than SJ's, but since I havnt played a PBC game in years ( I think I played in the second one) I'm sitting on the side line and seeing what happens.

Also I couldnt get your maps to show/work.


Back to top
Colonial
Space Emperor


Joined: Dec 21, 2009

PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

right, you might need an account on the forums thats hosting them to use them, the maps...

Links fixed (moved to this forum)


Back to top
Skyburn
Space Emperor


Joined: Mar 12, 2008

PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What would happen if a Duke or Baron went missing?

One thing that I'm curious about: if you think your system is relatively boring, why did you bring it up?


Back to top
Kana
Space Emperor


Joined: Jan 15, 2005

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also may be interested in play as well...following threads...

FSL Kana/CNO F.W.S.N/FNS Brawler (PBC IV)


Back to top
Colonial
Space Emperor


Joined: Dec 21, 2009

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, I origionally thought of it while we were still going on pbciv as a moment of history-geekery, and decided it needed to go up before I red suicides scheme. also 'boring' means less of a radical shift from last time which I figured, apparently correctly, that some people might prefer.

for people going missing: if a duke misses, say two months, give his duchy to one of his vassels. If a baren goes missing, hopefully there will be a player or two who are in the queue to join up. if he misses 2 give the spot to one of them, otherwise advertise the spot between missed turn 2-5, if noone takes it devide the holding amongst the neighbors after 5 turns have been missed...

thats just a system off the top of my head, someone else might have a better idea...


Back to top
Dead-Meat
Space Emperor


Joined: Jun 02, 2006

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Colonial wrote:

for people going missing: if a duke misses, say two months, give his duchy to one of his vassels. If a baren goes missing, hopefully there will be a player or two who are in the queue to join up. if he misses 2 give the spot to one of them, otherwise advertise the spot between missed turn 2-5, if noone takes it devide the holding amongst the neighbors after 5 turns have been missed...

thats just a system off the top of my head, someone else might have a better idea...


Just off the top of my head, your system seems to have a clear line of command (for lack of a better word) if their is a missing player for a long amount of time.

If a Baron is MIA, and their is no player to step in, the baron's duke should be able to 1) manage the Barony, 2) apoint a new baron 3) divide it between his other Barons or 4) absorbit into his (the Duke's) domain.

If a Duke is MIA the Emperor should be able to decide what to do with the missing Duke's Duchy: 1) manage the Ducky, 2) apoint a new Duke (either a new player or an existing Baron 3) divide it between the other Dukes or 4) absorbit into his (the Emperor's) domain.

If the Emperor is missing, then the Dukes can "fight" over who become the new Emperor.

I do have a question when i re-read your first post or perhaps I'm just checking to see if i read this right.
- A Baron has 1-3 systems under his contoral (which makes up a Barony).
- A Duke has his own Barony (1 to 3 systems that he personaly oversees) plus influence over his Barons (which makes up a Duchy).
- The Emperor controls the Homeworld.

Q: Would it not make more since for the Emperor to control the Homesystem instead of just the Homeworld? Or are you trying to limit the Emperor's personal control and have him rely on his Duke's more?
Q: What power does the Duke have over his Baron's if they decided not to listen to him. The same applies to the Duke's to the Emperor.


Back to top
dumbluck
Space Emperor


Joined: Sep 22, 2007

PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, I kind of LIKE the infighting that SJ's model has. Granted, it should be balanced so that I can't just come in and drop a few fighters on an active player's core world and steal 50% of his control, but I think most of those safeguards are in place. CONTROL (including income and storage) only changes a little bit each turn. I could gain a lot of INFLUENCE in a mass dumping of units on an active player's core world, but it would take time for that to convert into Control; time that the active player should be using to consolidate his own influence. Active players shouldn't have TOO much trouble with fluctuating assets. Just being active should be enough, what with all the building of units and moving of units.

I think that it would add another layer to the gameplay. One thought, though. Having a massive war effort, where a planet is a fighter factory, constantly shipping out units to the front, would quickly cause a player to lose all his influence on the planet. Hrm. I guess that plays into the whole "pop value vs fighters" dilema. I still think that dividing by 2 is a good idea, as long as it's applied to SJ's formulas instead of my own. Razz EDIT: A unit factory wouldn't lose influence RAPIDLY, but (depending on how influence and entropy are calculated) it might fall faster than entropy on a non-factory world unless the newly built units are loaded onto ships the same turn they are built. After all, the Influence lost from sending the units to war would be (almost?) equal to the Influence gained from building them.


dumbluck
CEO, Fortuitous Investments, Inc.
Author: The Belanai Story


Last edited by dumbluck on Fri Sep 23, 2011 3:32 am; edited 1 time in total


Back to top
Colonial
Space Emperor


Joined: Dec 21, 2009

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ Deadmeat:

Liking that system, actually. And yeah, I meant he manages the home system, including the homeworld. His barony includes the homeworld, therefore he controls it.

@ Dumbluck:

I kind of like SJs system too, which is why I called my own boring. apparently some people prefer to keep inter-player conflict to PBW though. We haven't had anyone refuse to play without influence fightly, but we have had some refuse to play with it, so...


Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Spaceempires.net Forum Index -> Technical Matters All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB
All logos and trademarks used on this site, all comments and stories posted for reading, all files hosted for download,
and all art work hosted for viewing are property of their respective owners; all the rest copyright 2003-2010 Nolan Kelly.
Syndicate news: SpaceEmpires.net News RSS Feed - Syndicate forums: SpaceEmpires.net Forums RSS Feed
Page Generation: 0.24 Seconds