Galaxy: Suggestion: test idea re bombing planets? From: Simon Reed <simon@sandj.demon.co.uk> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0000 Some questions: a) has there previously been any discussion (probably in the *very* early days) about the idea of a bombed planet being destroyed, i.e. being removed from the list of planets for ever? b) does any GM fancy tweaking the code and trying a test game permitting this rule? c) does anyone fancy playing in such a game? (Defence would become *very* important) d) any ideas for what happens to ships heading for that planet? The thought behind this is that it is the result of a nuclear assault: a completely 'dead' planet. Perhaps an answer to d) is that the size is set to zero once it has been bombed. This thought presents another: a suggestion for a more permanent change to the rules: since the size of a bombed planet represents its ability to maintain a population rther than it surace area, should a bombed planet have its size (and resources?) permanently reduced by x% for each bombing? Next thought: as materials are produced from a planet's surface, reduce the resources factor by (for example) 0.1 (a homeworld would then still last 100 turns). I know it would make the calculations for ship design really messy since you could not rely on exactly n ships being produced each turn. Finally: quick question to all present and past Galaxy players: are the rules too complex or too simple? (If too complex I'll shut up, iff too simple - I've got loads more ideas!) -- Simon Reed, simon@sandj.demon.co.uk Really sad 'cos I only play Galaxy. :-) Referenced By Up