BSE Digest v195 #225

From: kerry@freeside.fc.net (Kerry Harrison)

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 00:00:00 +0000

BSE Digest                 Saturday, 17 June 1995       Volume 195 : Number 225

Welcome to the BSE Digest, the place to discuss all the myriad aspects of
life Beyond the Stellar Empire with other denizens of the Greater Periphery.

In this issue:

+       Re: BSE: Buying Fissionables
+       Re: BSE:Colony Turns
+       Re: BSE: WCE Charges Against He-whose-n
+       Re: BSE:Colony Turns
+       Re: BSE: Buying Fissionables
+       Re: BSE:Colony Turns
+       Re: BSE:Colony Turns
+       BSE:Colony Turns
+       Re: BSE:Colony Turns
+       Re: BSE:Colony Turns
+       Re: BSE: Re: Space battle at Hammerfest
+       Re: BSE: New Update to GTT Profile 26.1
+       Re: BSE: WCE Charges Against He-whose-n
+       BSE: People v. Fat Boy, et al.

See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the bse-list
or bse-digest mailing lists.

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

From: ac217@detroit.freenet.org (Chip Charnley)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 20:00:41 -0400
Subject: Re: BSE: Buying Fissionables

>On Thu, 15 Jun 1995 LUDENDORF@delphi.com wrote:
>
>> Is there any way to remove this limit, I've always found it annoying.  The
>> limit also exists in the production Queue.
>
>I second this, remove the 30,000 limit!
>
>Kerry
>
>

Don't hold your breath for this change folks. You will find that the limit
is probably 32K and the reason is that much of the BSE code is in INTEGER
BASIC! Tese types of limits are not going to go away unless the code is
re-written in C or some other more modern language. Something that will
eventually happen but I think we'll see a new battle program first!

Chip

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

From: rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 17:34:32 -0700
Subject: Re: BSE:Colony Turns

>If we make it REAL easy to run multiple colony positions
>we will be one step closer to the old BSE.
>To much power in ONE persons hands is what strays this
>from a competitive "fun" game.

I've got to agree with Steve here.  Strategically, allowing minor colonies
to run only four times per year just concentrates power.  The alternative
is people being forced to trade (gasp!) for what they need.
- --Russ

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

From: rboggs@isisph.com (Russ Boggs)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 17:34:42 -0700
Subject: Re: BSE: WCE Charges Against He-whose-n

Steve,

>Yea, but fat-boy is still getting a share of our cash even today, so while
>not technically licensed, it is in practice.

This saddens me.  But what can an aspiring admiral do?

>p.s.
>I hope your IND captain is holding his breath waiting for an IC response
>to the Samms situation.... he's being ignored.

Actually, I noticed that your declaration on Samms was OOC.  I tried to
respond IC*, but the silence was deafening.  Both from you and the rest of
the Periphery.  Curious.

I guess if the Imperials are going to be targeting my ships anyway, I may
as well turn RIP and get some special abilities out of it (g).

- --Russ

* With the exception of the word 'rules,' for which one could substitute
'Legal Codes of the Capellan Periphery.'

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

From: ac217@detroit.freenet.org (Chip Charnley)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 22:29:44 -0400
Subject: Re: BSE:Colony Turns

>>If we make it REAL easy to run multiple colony positions
>>we will be one step closer to the old BSE.
>>To much power in ONE persons hands is what strays this
>>from a competitive "fun" game.
>
>I've got to agree with Steve here.  Strategically, allowing minor colonies
>to run only four times per year just concentrates power.  The alternative
>is people being forced to trade (gasp!) for what they need.
>--Russ
>

I don't agree with you. First off, it just means that fewer people can
concentrate that power. The one with DEEP pocklets.

However, of a more important issue to me is that I STRONGLY object to paying
$6.00 for a pile of paper that I throw in the trash can! I've already done
this twice this year because the all the damn colony was doing was producing
stuff. In both those cases I submitted a grand total of TWO(!) orders over
the 4 weeks between turns. To me, that is close to theft except that I
agreed to it. The ONLY reason I agreed to it is because the arguement was
that RTG needs the steady income. Well, if they need income, they can get it
as easily from one position as another. Stretching out the time on colony
turns will allow me to run more positions. And they WON'T necessarily be
COLONIES. I have 2-3 places already that I would like to run an additional
GP from time to time to investigate things.

Be that as it may, someone will have to prove to me that running a bunch of
smaller colonies vs a smaller number of larger ones concentrates power. I
just don't buy it. And running those extra colonies is not going to effect
trade nearly as significantly as making a REASON for trade like the new
research rules. Quite frankly I'm still not convinced that there is enough
shipping in the game to support that research. In addition, I'd dare say
that many of the additional colonies that might get started would be smaller
research colonies (which the rules seem to make a necessity) which, in turn)
would stimulate that trade everyone says they want more of (and is needed
for a viable economy in BSE).

Chip Charnley

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

From: chazz@cais.cais.com (Charles Meredith)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 22:58:07 -0400
Subject: Re: BSE: Buying Fissionables

>Don't hold your breath for this change folks. You will find that the limit
>is probably 32K and the reason is that much of the BSE code is in INTEGER
>BASIC! Tese types of limits are not going to go away unless the code is
>re-written in C or some other more modern language. Something that will
>eventually happen but I think we'll see a new battle program first!

Well, it could be bumped up to 60,000 (or 64k) if they went unsigned
integer.  I can't recall what they said it was programmed in; and I've just
checked and QuickBasic 4.0 does not have them.  I don't know what the
current version is; but it might....

Another option would be a varient on their standing order for
transfer.  Just like the regular market buy and sell; but it refreshes each
weekly adjustment.  I would suggest that it cap the actual quantity to sell
to what exists in the colony AFTER the production run.  To make it easier to
run the colony, an option could also include an auto-production-order value
like such:

Standing Buy:   ZB (item#) (quantity) (buy price)
Standing Sell:  ZS (item#) (quantity) (sell price) (Auto-Produce quantity)

If the quantity of (item#) is not equal to or greater than
(quantity) and the (Auto-Produce quantity) is greater than zero, then a
Factory Production order in the quantity of (Auto-Produce quantity) will be
put into the production queue.

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

From: chazz@cais.cais.com (Charles Meredith)
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 22:58:09 -0400
Subject: Re: BSE:Colony Turns

This would indeed be one possible outcome; and it is possible it is
what has gone before.  But that does not mean that it has to happen the same
way this time.
        Realism would say that there would be a small colony at almost every
place any activity would take place.  Even an outpost would have a
maintenance crew and their family.  The resultant network of colonies --
small and large -- would be like a sea of life that possibly would exist.
But this is not possible with the current PF 4 and $$$ limitation.
        I would say that all of the colonies for a given player should be
grouped together for printout and turn counting purposes.  Outposts should
be phased out completely.  This combined with some of the proposals for the
combat system, will generally make the individual colony more vunerable.

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

From: SBach11@aol.com
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 1995 23:50:50 -0400
Subject: Re: BSE:Colony Turns

Chip,

I can't believe you really put any thought into this reply by looking at
it from the other side of the fence.

>I don't agree with you. First off, it just means that fewer people >can
concentrate that power. The one with DEEP pocklets.

Wrong- By reducing the cost of concentrating power you will just end up
with more people past the "DEEP pockets" threshold.  There by yielding a
greater number of power concentrations as more players will be willing to do
it. They will then squash out play for the potential new players as before.

>However, of a more important issue to me is that I STRONGLY >object to
paying
>$6.00 for a pile of paper that I throw in the trash can! I've already >done
this twice this year because the all the damn colony was >doing was producing
stuff. In both those cases I submitted a >grand total of TWO(!) orders over
the 4 weeks between turns

Wrong- You paid RTG for the option of running as many as 30 orders between
print outs. If you choose not to use them because of a production you
decided, thats your problem.  You can't blame them for your play vs. their
lively hood.

> Stretching out the time on colony
>turns will allow me to run more positions. And they WON'T >necessarily be
>COLONIES. I have 2-3 places already that I would like to run an >additional
GP from time to time to investigate things.

Sure- IF YOU CHOOSE to run GP and ships instead of colonies.
         Guess we'll just have to trust you with game balance.<g>
         I don't think so Chip, I already got burned in one of your
               honorable deals this year, thank you.  I'm sure the QSN and
         WCE are just as ready to trust each others honor.
         It would never work this way across the board.

>Be that as it may, someone will have to prove to me that running a >bunch of
smaller colonies vs a smaller number of larger ones >concentrates power. I
just don't buy it

Wrong- Just what makes you think they're going to run "a bunch of small ones
vs. a smaller number of larger ones".  They're is nothing different in cost
from a size 1 colony to an 8 in this game.  It can be done with with the big
ones just as easy. One guy could run entire races  with relative ease from
the colony stand point.  That leaves the others running all the ships and him
with total control for years to come. Sound familiar?

> In addition, I'd dare say that many of the additional colonies that >might
get started would be smaller research colonies (which the >rules seem to make
a necessity)

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT- These new research necessities are a must and we're going
to have to get NEW blood to play them or pay the price. I happen to like that
idea. Now not only does this new guy enter in the game but he can be
IMPORTANT to his AFF.
How about that!  This guy might even keep playing.

Your arguements seem to support an ideal where one man can do it all and
control it all. I'm sorry but thats bad for the game.
He who shall be nameless didn't completely destroy BSE through the years by
himself. As they say it takes two too tango and responsibility is to be
shared. We as a playing group turned blind eyes at key times or even forced
issues through ABM that were detremental to the GROWTH of the game. We at
times have made it a "power mad" atmosphere that smothered free play.  Even
now we're targeting ALL IND's due to power players, not free players.
There is no room for free players with the likes of us run amok.<g>

I like the hard RTG stance on the game rules.

Steve M.

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

From: "Richard A. Loutzenheiser" <76311.2317@compuserve.com>
Date: 17 Jun 95 01:11:56 EDT
Subject: BSE:Colony Turns

Re: Steve Messer's response.

Reconsidering it, I believe you are correct.  I am opposed to printout
frequencies of more than 4 weeks.  However I would like to see the queue's
lengthed.  10 items was great when 100 factories was a big colony.  Since there
must be 50 colonies with 1000 or more now 10 can be quite constraining unless
you like building more planet probes than you'll ever use.  Also can we change
the 30,000 mu limit.

Richard A. Loutzenheiser

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

From: ac217@detroit.freenet.org (Chip Charnley)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 01:39:58 -0400
Subject: Re: BSE:Colony Turns

>    I can't believe you really put any thought into this reply by looking at
>it from the other side of the fence.
>

Funny. I thought the same thing reading your reply.

>   Wrong- By reducing the cost of concentrating power you will just end up
>with more people past the "DEEP pockets" threshold.  There by yielding a
>greater number of power concentrations as more players will be willing to do
>it. They will then squash out play for the potential new players as before.
>

Exactly the point. MORE people have the possibility to be there, thereby
diluting the power. BUt that, I think, is the crux of the situation here:
the definition of 'power concentrations'. What is so all fired powerful
about a colony? MAYBE it controls a world. So what? Maybe it's huge and can
produce huge amounts of hulls. So what? It takes money to use those hulls
(those deep pockets),
 Maybe I AM dense but please explain (in detail), how someone having several
colonies SQUASHES out play for the potential new players. I truly DON'T
understand.

>>However, of a more important issue to me is that I STRONGLY >object to
>paying
>>$6.00 for a pile of paper that I throw in the trash can! I've already >done
>this twice this year because the all the damn colony was >doing was producing
>stuff. In both those cases I submitted a >grand total of TWO(!) orders over
>the 4 weeks between turns
>
>Wrong- You paid RTG for the option of running as many as 30 orders between
>print outs. If you choose not to use them because of a production you
>decided, thats your problem.  You can't blame them for your play vs. their
>lively hood.

Well, by that arguement, RTG should start charging $6.00 every 4 weeks for
EVERY ship and ground party as well. So what if you didn't issue it any
orders. It's just your bad play. Put this in to effect and I withdraw my
arguement about colony printout charges.

>
>> Stretching out the time on colony
>>turns will allow me to run more positions. And they WON'T >necessarily be
>>COLONIES. I have 2-3 places already that I would like to run an >additional
>GP from time to time to investigate things.
>
>Sure- IF YOU CHOOSE to run GP and ships instead of colonies.
>         Guess we'll just have to trust you with game balance.<g>

So what if it's NOT GP's. I reiterate, show me how a colony is so much more
powerful than a ship across the board. Yes, in a localized, combat sense it
is significantly more powerful but that power is difficult to project unless
you have the $$$ to run the additional positions. Why discriminate against
one type of position?

>         I don't think so Chip, I already got burned in one of your
>               honorable deals this year, thank you.

OK. That's a personal accusation. Up to now this has been a discussion of
ways to run the game. Please detail this one chapter and verse as I don't
have any recollection of MAKING any deals with anyone or personally burning
anyone either. If you are going to accuse me of something, at least have the
honor to be specific rather than smear by innuendo or print a retraction of
the insult.

>I'm sure the QSN and
>         WCE are just as ready to trust each others honor.
>         It would never work this way across the board.

This is an out of game discussion. Why suddenly bring in in game issues?
What's the point.

>
>>Be that as it may, someone will have to prove to me that running a >bunch of
>smaller colonies vs a smaller number of larger ones >concentrates power. I
>just don't buy it
>
>Wrong- Just what makes you think they're going to run "a bunch of small ones
>vs. a smaller number of larger ones".  They're is nothing different in cost
>from a size 1 colony to an 8 in this game.  It can be done with with the big
>ones just as easy. One guy could run entire races  with relative ease from
>the colony stand point.  That leaves the others running all the ships and him
>with total control for years to come. Sound familiar?

Sure, eventually they may become large. However, there are several factors
that aren't being taken in to account here. First, there is a limit to the
available colonists to build and man those mega colonies. There is the issue
of moving said colonists. And then there is just the issue of building and
feeding those additional positions. Quite frankly, I would like to run 3
additional GPs and 3 additional colonies with what I currently have.
However, *IF* I did, I would probably be divorced and paying alimony in a
year. Hopefully people playing this game have a life (lord knows in 83-86
I'm not sure I did nor am I sure how I stayed married).

As to one guy running an entire race from a colony standpoint, so what. If
the guy is not supporting the players running the ships and/or they are not
getting the colonies they want to run, they can move to another AFF. There
are a LOT more AFFs to choose from compared to the mid-80's. I can't believe
that anyone would stay somewhere they were not happy. It was a lot harder to
find a compatable group and move in the mid-80's as there were a lot fewer
groups.

>
>> In addition, I'd dare say that many of the additional colonies that >might
>get started would be smaller research colonies (which the >rules seem to make
>a necessity)
>
>ABSOLUTELY RIGHT- These new research necessities are a must and we're going
>to have to get NEW blood to play them or pay the price. I happen to like that
>idea. Now not only does this new guy enter in the game but he can be
>IMPORTANT to his AFF.
>How about that!  This guy might even keep playing.

Well, if you find some of that new blood, let me know. I have two major
colonies I'll let him have right now if he wants the headaches that go with it.

>
>   Your arguements seem to support an ideal where one man can do it all and
>control it all. I'm sorry but thats bad for the game.

Sorry, I DON'T agree. If someone wants to do that, let him. He'll find
himself playing with himself. If he finds that enjoyable, so be it.
Personally, I doubt that there is anyone than can do this unless he/she is
independently wealthy and has nothing to do but write turn positions.

>He who shall be nameless didn't completely destroy BSE through the years by
>himself. As they say it takes two too tango and responsibility is to be
>shared. We as a playing group turned blind eyes at key times or even forced
>issues through ABM that were detremental to the GROWTH of the game.

Maybe this is true and maybe it isn't. I tend to feel that it wasn't very
true prior to 1986 but I have to admit to not being involved at a level
close enough to judge between then adn now.

>We at
>times have made it a "power mad" atmosphere that smothered free play.  Even
>now we're targeting ALL IND's due to power players, not free players.
>There is no room for free players with the likes of us run amok.<g>

Please define free players and what has targeting IND got to do with it?
Again, it's what the PLAYERS make of the game. If one player or group of
players in BSE trys to 'run it all' this game is big enough that another
group and form up and put down the other. Although we can debate whether it
should have happened the way it did, the best example I know of is the CPR.
There was a small group of players with a LOT of power. They were defeated.
Personally I maintain that BSE is a large enough, open enough game that no
one or small group can wield enough power to dominate they game unless we
get a Howard Hughes or J. Paul Getty playing the game.

>
>    I like the hard RTG stance on the game rules.
>
>Steve M.
>
>
>

We would you do me the courtesy of signing your full name so that I know who
I am talking to. I know 3 Steve M. in BSE and none of them correlate to your
internet address so you look to be a 4th whom I don't know.

Chip Charnley

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

From: ac217@detroit.freenet.org (Chip Charnley)
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 01:44:17 -0400
Subject: Re: BSE:Colony Turns

>Reconsidering it, I believe you are correct.  I am opposed to printout
>frequencies of more than 4 weeks.

WHY? Would someone explain in SPECIFIC terms what the problem here is. Call
me stupid if you like but I fail to see the problem. Give me some examples
of what has happened in the past that this artificial cost fixes. Damn. I
can disrupt BSE a whole lot more with a 10 ship fleet than I can with 10
colonies.

Chip Charnley

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

From: LUDENDORF@delphi.com
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 01:58:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: BSE: Re: Space battle at Hammerfest

> I thought if the ship had crew onboard it would not go DER?

That's the way the rules say, so I would guess RTG screwed up.
In any case, it was immediately recified with a faxed turn from one of the
other DN's topping off the crew so it could move, and a turn moving it out.

Steve

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

From: LUDENDORF@delphi.com
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 01:58:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: BSE: New Update to GTT Profile 26.1

> >I remember the hull account thing and that wasn't anything to do with the
> >QSN/WCE war.  That was in reaction to the FOE invasion of Jovian.  The
> >account was repaid by myself a few months latter.   It wasn't refused.
> >So, for accuracy purposes, you should fix the thing about the QSN/WCE
> >war  (delete it) and add a part about the 3rd FOE invasion, and note that
> >the GTT did in fact support the IMP.
>
> I will delete the old and correct it. Thanks!

I can't remember for sure, it was either Baron Krieger (Jim G.) or
Dax Krieger (Wayne A.) who asked the GTT for hull help.  In any case,
Dax was ISP PD when the hulls were repaid from the Jax hull account.
Check  with Wayne as to who requested it, if you want to go into
detail.

Steve

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

From: LUDENDORF@delphi.com
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 01:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: BSE: WCE Charges Against He-whose-n

> I guess if the Imperials are going to be targeting my ships anyway, I may
> as well turn RIP and get some special abilities out of it (g).

Russ,

I understood you were already <g>.  Anyways, the IMP has basically been
shooting at IND for years.  Until RTG took over, IND was just another
word for RIP.  This is just the first time that a colony as public as Samms
will start shooting outside of the starport.

Steve

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

From: LUDENDORF@delphi.com
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 01:59:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: BSE: People v. Fat Boy, et al.

To: Everyone (OOC)

Okay, the trial is back on, but Wayne wants a complete list of all charges
from everyone.   Also, if someone wants to lead prosecutor, speak up...
I don't want the job.  One modification (sorry Wayne, I just can't go along
with your desire), Each individual prosecutor will still represent his own
race/affil.  Lead prosecutor will handle the general stuff that doesn't
pertain to any individual affil.

We need to know what affil. will be filing charges, and what the charges
are.  When fat-boy is found guilt...... er.... uh.... IF, yeah, that's it, IF
he's found guilty, the privelege of carrying out sentence goes to the highest

bidder, money to be donated to the Celtians so they can afford to
reconstruct after their planet is liberated <sorry Wayne, I couldn't keep
it, this is all supposed to be for fun>.

Steve
- ----------------------
IC:

<IMP prosecutor... before court is adjorned>: Objection your honor,
The Court has already ruled that each race has the right to present
it's individual case in accordance with Alliponian Law.

<Judge Wompner> Overruled! And shut up before I hold you in contempt.
The defendents have the right to know the full extent of the charges that
face them.  Their new council has petitioned the court for this, and I have
ruled.

<IMP prosecutor> Very well, your honor, here is the complete list,
including the additional charges we were reserving for an IMP court
if the defendents were found innocent. <hands papers to court clerk,
who passes them on to judge>.

[1] Mass murder of thousands <exact number shown> of colonists
from IMP colonies when they went inactive.
[2] Theft of thousands of mu's <exact numbers and items shown> of
items from IMP colonies when they went inactive.
[3] Destruction of the ISS Glynian.
[4] Altering the laws of physics to immobilize the Moonships.
[5] Destruction of numerous native races <exact races shown>
throughout IMP territory.
[6] Nuclear destruction of the <censored on public screens> race
from the <censored> system in IMP territory.  Only survivor of the
race is present in court as witness.
[7] Murder of thousands of Gregos by forcing the Canally Trinary
sun to go nova.
[8] Murder of hundreds of thousands of CPR lives, when the
accused altered the laws of physics in the battle of T-snit
(explosive decompression within the moonship).
[9] Enslavement of the persons known as Liz & Marti.
[10] Theft of technology from the IMP in 187, of Long Range Sensors,
Robotic Disrupters, Orbital Structures, Solar Collectors, RCH's,
Marker Beacons, RCH Excavators, Orbital Assault Suits, Neutron
Missiles, RSL's, and Ground Scramblers.
[11] Murder of every Imperial Marine in existance.
[12] Theft of the being known as the Master from his IMP prison.

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

End of BSE Digest V195 #225
***************************

BSE Digest - All items Copyright (c) 1995, by their respective authors,
permission is granted to redistribute as long as proper credit is given.

To subscribe to BSE Digest, send the command:

+       subscribe bse-digest

in the body of a message to "majordomo@fc.net".  If you want to
subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "bse@domain.net":

+       subscribe bse-digest bse@domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "bse-digest" in the
commands above with "bse-list".

An archive of BSE Digest back issues are available via anonymous ftp
<ftp://ftp.io.com/pub/usr/kerry/BSE/Digests>.