Island Cluster campaign
- Thread starter Frostvarg
- Start date
True, but as you stated above, giving everyone the same Pop multiple simply inflates the fleet sizes to no one's benefit. With different Pop multiples, there is gross disparity of force, requiring more diplomacy and more attention to objectives rather than a simple slugfest.
More difficult to do in a TCS game, though, when losses will not be replaced for decades, and the enemy's offensive is measured in weeks.
More difficult to do in a TCS game, though, when losses will not be replaced for decades, and the enemy's offensive is measured in weeks.
It's a long time ago and I may be misremembering, but I was told that the one TL advantage that New Home had did not compensate for its factor 10 disadvantage in population and the one TL disadvantage that TL11 world had wasn't enough to counterbalance its factor 10 population advantage. Giving New Home a pop multiplier of, say, 7 and the other world one of 3 might work better.
Hans
Hans
IIRC, pop modifiers for the Islands first appeared in one of DGP's many products for MT. Whoever came up with the modifiers doesn't matter however as it's rather obvious that the modifiers were created with no thought about their use in TCS or TCS at all. As others have commented, using the modifiers in TCS further unbalances a poorly balanced game and greatly increases the necessary bookkeeping.
Regarding New Home and Esperanza, the "advantages" both those worlds "enjoy" don't really amount to much.
I've often thought that a combination of the TCS setting with combat and building rules from T4's Pocket Empires would make for an interesting game. The detailed ship building and space combat rules of HG would be lost but I think the gains would be worth it.
Let's face it. HG has been out for over 30 years now and the building/combat system for each tech level was hacked long ago. We all already know what are the best build choices for each tech level and no one is going to surprise anyone with a design that hasn't been seen before.
Unlike HG, PE's build system was designed specifically for strategic level play and thus will fit the setting much better. The PE system also allows for ground forces and planetary invasions, something TCS attempted to handwave away.
Regarding New Home and Esperanza, the "advantages" both those worlds "enjoy" don't really amount to much.
I've often thought that a combination of the TCS setting with combat and building rules from T4's Pocket Empires would make for an interesting game. The detailed ship building and space combat rules of HG would be lost but I think the gains would be worth it.
Let's face it. HG has been out for over 30 years now and the building/combat system for each tech level was hacked long ago. We all already know what are the best build choices for each tech level and no one is going to surprise anyone with a design that hasn't been seen before.
Unlike HG, PE's build system was designed specifically for strategic level play and thus will fit the setting much better. The PE system also allows for ground forces and planetary invasions, something TCS attempted to handwave away.
I like PE, I wrote two spreadsheets that together set-up & run an sector (with a some cut & paste action each turn). Neat system, relatively well thought through, barring a couple of sections that are extremely poorly written. But complex, too complex for casual gaming. I can't remember when I last saw someone on these (or other forums) willing to try running a PE game. Errr, no I do, it was a year or two ago, I signed up and it never got started.
HG in comparison to PE is simplistic on several levels (ignoring that PE is simplistic on ship design and fleet creation), but it is true to its initial concept of developing an abstract ship design system for big ships and creating a playable strategic campaign game to put those big ships into context.
HG glosses over planetary invasion (& tactical combat & economics & ...) because it is outside the scope of the project (Strategic Naval combat). Likewise PE glosses over planetary invasion and naval combat because it is outside the scope of its project (interstellar economics and politics).
In essence every game makes its choices. I like PE, I like HG. I get to play HG far more often than I get to play PE and that alone IMO makes HG a more successful game.
On the "levels" of HG being hacked, there are many opinions on that, mostly held by those whom are deeply involved in Traveller, but have never applied themselves to playing a strategic game. The reality is that those who give it a go are always very surprised that preconceived ideas don't work out as well as anticipated. But thats part of the fun of trying something new.
HG in comparison to PE is simplistic on several levels (ignoring that PE is simplistic on ship design and fleet creation), but it is true to its initial concept of developing an abstract ship design system for big ships and creating a playable strategic campaign game to put those big ships into context.
HG glosses over planetary invasion (& tactical combat & economics & ...) because it is outside the scope of the project (Strategic Naval combat). Likewise PE glosses over planetary invasion and naval combat because it is outside the scope of its project (interstellar economics and politics).
In essence every game makes its choices. I like PE, I like HG. I get to play HG far more often than I get to play PE and that alone IMO makes HG a more successful game.
On the "levels" of HG being hacked, there are many opinions on that, mostly held by those whom are deeply involved in Traveller, but have never applied themselves to playing a strategic game. The reality is that those who give it a go are always very surprised that preconceived ideas don't work out as well as anticipated. But thats part of the fun of trying something new.
I wasn't suggesting that the entirety of PE be imported into TCS, just the parts which deal with building, supplying, and using military units. All the stuff about economic development, TL uplift, diplomacy, and the like would be ignored.
There's a MCr to RU conversion factor floating around the net. You'd determine how many MCr your world produces each year, convert that to RU, use the RUs to buy and supply military PE-style units, and then use them for that year's campaigns. The rest of PE would be ignored.
HG is not a strategic game whatsoever. It deliberately and completely ignores both strategic and operational issues. Supply is never mentioned in HG and the issue of maintenance is only briefly discussed in TCS
Apart from a small part of a single sentence in the section regarding using empty weapon bays for deadfall ordnance, HG doesn't touch on planetary invasions at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure the phrase planetary invasion isn't used in HG at all.
Huh? HG is about nothing but tactical combat.
Double huh? HG's only touches on economics when it lists how much things cost.
HG addresses nothing regarding strategic combat.
Huh again? PE has entire sections dealing with both planetary invasions and naval combat. While those sections use units best labeled fleets and armies, how to handle combat between them is described at length.
HG is a very successful game. We're still using it over thirty years after
it's release after all. The skimpy rules provided in TCS do not turn HG into a strategic game however.
First, the "noobs" involved in this game built tens of thousands of fighters which anyone with even a cursory understanding of HG could have told them were totally useless. You even tried to explain what is required for a successful fighter in HG only to be ignored.
Second, HG has no strategic rules so attempting to use it in strategic play will always fails unless those rules are provided. The previously posted comments regarding the complete lack of rules concerning missile reloads and magazines is a perfect example of this.
There are no surprises left to startle anyone who has taken the time to actually examine the rules instead of simply importing whatever movie fantasy they've fallen in love with. Fighters need the best computer they can carry, riders need cover to withdraw, the more spinals you bring to the battle the better, meson guns mean ships shouldn't be built over a certain size, and all the other basics are obvious to anyone to anyone who reads the rules.
PE in the Islands
Per PE, a general rule of thumb for MCr to RU conversion would be 5,000 MCr = 1 RU. With some effort, individual conversions could be made for each world.
As a side note, one thing that would be necessarto use PE in the Islands would be to inflate the conversion by some degree, perhaps a factor of ten, twenty, or maybe 100, in order to give worlds more than just 1 "counter" of something.
For example, Joyeuse's Pop 9 Gov't B gives it a MCr budget of 500,000 per annum, or 100 RUs (not including Quichotte's tiny economy). Over 10 years, that's 1000 RU.
A single Jump-3 Attack-1 Def-1 PE fleet would cost 150+150+300 = 600 RUs.
New Home's Jump-3 Attack-1 Def-1 PE fleet would cost 100+100+300 = 500 RUs, but would have a budget roughly 1/10th of that of Joyeuse.
And there would be some additional variation in total RUs if you worked out the Resources/Infrastructure/Culture of each world beforehand.
So, some careful balancing would still be necessary, is all I'm saying.
Per PE, a general rule of thumb for MCr to RU conversion would be 5,000 MCr = 1 RU. With some effort, individual conversions could be made for each world.
As a side note, one thing that would be necessarto use PE in the Islands would be to inflate the conversion by some degree, perhaps a factor of ten, twenty, or maybe 100, in order to give worlds more than just 1 "counter" of something.
For example, Joyeuse's Pop 9 Gov't B gives it a MCr budget of 500,000 per annum, or 100 RUs (not including Quichotte's tiny economy). Over 10 years, that's 1000 RU.
A single Jump-3 Attack-1 Def-1 PE fleet would cost 150+150+300 = 600 RUs.
New Home's Jump-3 Attack-1 Def-1 PE fleet would cost 100+100+300 = 500 RUs, but would have a budget roughly 1/10th of that of Joyeuse.
And there would be some additional variation in total RUs if you worked out the Resources/Infrastructure/Culture of each world beforehand.
So, some careful balancing would still be necessary, is all I'm saying.
Hi all, first of im sorry the game ended and it was not the workload that was the reason. even if the workload was heavy even with a accessdriven messagesystem. i was all of a sudden unemployed and had to commit most of my time to find some new work to do. My economy was hit like a destroyer by a battleship. i Had to give up on things like internetaccess and finaly even domainspace.
Some info from the game. The neubayern New home alliance was played by two of my friends. they where acting more or less out of a script. They knew beforehand that neubayern would be hit and crippled by a strange alien force. Most of neubayerns offensive fleet was in the new home system when that happened. My plan was to get most of the game to revolve around making a alliance where most players either fought against the aliens or were supporting the aliens. Only with new homes technology and the other nations resources could the aliens be defeated. A game that all first thought was about the standard powerstruggle in the old and new island subsectors would be a completly new game. The plan was to get new home to support the others with high tec changes to their fleets and that plan was soon on the way down like a sinking ship when several nations moved to kill of new home.
There where several things that i would have changed if i did this again.
1. less budget is better
2. a fully automated message system
3. a couriernetwork that didnt need any bookkeeping.
other than that it was good fun and im only sad that it ended that it did.
unemployment sucks big time.
Some info from the game. The neubayern New home alliance was played by two of my friends. they where acting more or less out of a script. They knew beforehand that neubayern would be hit and crippled by a strange alien force. Most of neubayerns offensive fleet was in the new home system when that happened. My plan was to get most of the game to revolve around making a alliance where most players either fought against the aliens or were supporting the aliens. Only with new homes technology and the other nations resources could the aliens be defeated. A game that all first thought was about the standard powerstruggle in the old and new island subsectors would be a completly new game. The plan was to get new home to support the others with high tec changes to their fleets and that plan was soon on the way down like a sinking ship when several nations moved to kill of new home.
There where several things that i would have changed if i did this again.
1. less budget is better
2. a fully automated message system
3. a couriernetwork that didnt need any bookkeeping.
other than that it was good fun and im only sad that it ended that it did.
unemployment sucks big time.
A good try
Hi Frostvarg!
I for one was quite enjoying the game. I hope you'll decide to do another when you get back on your financial feet again.
The idea of the game-changing event is fun to think about, but very tricky to actually implement in a game without losing internet players, I'm afraid, even when you have "ringers" there to help guide folks to the new storyline.
Perhaps, it would have been better to have the ANTS appear (in much smaller force) after we had exhausted ourselves. And appear in very small numbers at first, slowly growing as our assualts (and attempts to capture their tech) grew stronger.
Still, very much fun!
-Peter / Joyeuse
Hi Frostvarg!
I for one was quite enjoying the game. I hope you'll decide to do another when you get back on your financial feet again.
The idea of the game-changing event is fun to think about, but very tricky to actually implement in a game without losing internet players, I'm afraid, even when you have "ringers" there to help guide folks to the new storyline.
Perhaps, it would have been better to have the ANTS appear (in much smaller force) after we had exhausted ourselves. And appear in very small numbers at first, slowly growing as our assualts (and attempts to capture their tech) grew stronger.
Still, very much fun!
-Peter / Joyeuse
I've been pondering over the last few days on the "coordinated response" aspect. It would be remarkably difficult without a PC in charge of the response force.
It would take several weeks for us to get info, more weeks to swap ideas, lots more weeks to get a consensus and yet more weeks to get our forces to a predetermined point. Hopefully the ANTS are still there and haven't moved on to eat us instead.
As a PC (Serendip), my role would be to supply the response force with ships, hope the ANTS don't arrive here next, hope some of my ships come back and hope no-one engages in back-stabbing. Given the amount of hoping involved and the lack of self determination. I'd be one of the gamers dropping out.
Now if you took that idea, put all the PC's on the Response force (instant communications among PC's & all that), I think the PC's would have a great time. Of course the leadership of Serendip, Joyeuse and the rest would become self serving paranoiacs whom are reluctant to see that if only they released more ships to the PC's, everyone would be much safer...
In summary, great idea, but under the ICC format, the PC's are in the wrong place. Perhaps instead have them leading each Systems contribution to the coordinated Response Force.
It would take several weeks for us to get info, more weeks to swap ideas, lots more weeks to get a consensus and yet more weeks to get our forces to a predetermined point. Hopefully the ANTS are still there and haven't moved on to eat us instead.
As a PC (Serendip), my role would be to supply the response force with ships, hope the ANTS don't arrive here next, hope some of my ships come back and hope no-one engages in back-stabbing. Given the amount of hoping involved and the lack of self determination. I'd be one of the gamers dropping out.
Now if you took that idea, put all the PC's on the Response force (instant communications among PC's & all that), I think the PC's would have a great time. Of course the leadership of Serendip, Joyeuse and the rest would become self serving paranoiacs whom are reluctant to see that if only they released more ships to the PC's, everyone would be much safer...
In summary, great idea, but under the ICC format, the PC's are in the wrong place. Perhaps instead have them leading each Systems contribution to the coordinated Response Force.
Glad to see you are still kicking away frostvarg.
I like the *idea* of the modified game, but I am not sure, based upon the description you give, that it would have panned out.
I, for one, really did not consider that the attack on neubayern was not some sort of player ruse anyway, so wouls have held my planned course of action for some number of weeks before acting differently.
And yes, less money and smaller fleets would certainly have been more managable.
I would certainly be up for another go, should it happen.
I like the *idea* of the modified game, but I am not sure, based upon the description you give, that it would have panned out.
I, for one, really did not consider that the attack on neubayern was not some sort of player ruse anyway, so wouls have held my planned course of action for some number of weeks before acting differently.
And yes, less money and smaller fleets would certainly have been more managable.
I would certainly be up for another go, should it happen.
