BSE Digest V1 #4 From: kerry@io.com (Kerry Harrison) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 1994 06:27:29 +0000 BSE Digest Saturday, 29 October 1994 Volume 01 : Number 004 In this issue: + Re: Some Addendums to RTG's C... + Re: Some Addendums to RTG's C... + Ship Type Limits + Re: Economy, What ECONOMY?! + Re: Game Turns + Re: Suggestion for Political ... + Ship Type Limits + Some Addendums to RTG's C... + More on the Economy (rese... + changes to the combat system + Economy, What ECONOMY?! See the end of the digest for information on subscribing to the bse-list or bse-digest mailing lists. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: btb4@Lehigh.EDU (B T Braun) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 16:07:43 EDT Subject: Re: Some Addendums to RTG's C... Chip, That's the cool thing about science fiction - it's possible to come up with all sorts of plausible scenarios. The problem with a game is, of course, you only get to pick one. I've thought along similar lines, but explained the boarding (as it stands) to myself like this: A ship capable of manuevers could, when being boarded by troops limited to "real-space" movements (i.e., no TP/beaming/whatever), use it's acceleration & mass to crush incoming structures (be they extended docking bays/small assualt shuttles/soldiers on lines/whatever) and make boarding attempts too hazardous for anyone to seriously consider. Just my "take on the physics of the rules", do with it as you like. Be seeing you, Brad Braun btb4@lehigh.edu ///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ "We are here to rescue Bob the Baboon from the clutches of the evil shampoo and lipstick overlords!" -Nietzsche >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ------------------------------ From: ac217@detroit.freenet.org (Morton M. Charnley) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 16:34:47 -0400 Subject: Re: Some Addendums to RTG's C... OK, I guess I can buy that. However, how does the current rules handle the boarding by teleporter (or did MP remove them all from the game)? Chip > >Chip, > >That's the cool thing about science fiction - it's possible to come up with >all sorts of plausible scenarios. The problem with a game is, of course, you >only get to pick one. I've thought along similar lines, but explained the >boarding (as it stands) to myself like this: A ship capable of manuevers >could, when being boarded by troops limited to "real-space" movements (i.e., >no TP/beaming/whatever), use it's acceleration & mass to crush incoming >structures (be they extended docking bays/small assualt shuttles/soldiers on >lines/whatever) and make boarding attempts too hazardous for anyone to >seriously consider. > >Just my "take on the physics of the rules", do with it as you like. > > >Be seeing you, > > >Brad Braun >btb4@lehigh.edu >///////////////////*********************************************\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ > "We are here to rescue Bob the Baboon from the clutches of the evil > shampoo and lipstick overlords!" > -Nietzsche > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > > - -- Chip Charnley ac217@detroit.freenet.org ccharnle@ef0424.efhd.ford.com My opinions are my own and do not represent anyone but myself. ------------------------------ From: RIPLord@aol.com Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 18:19:59 -0400 Subject: Ship Type Limits Over on CI$, Thad said that there is a limit on ship types in BSE at 50, of which they are very close. This is a programming thing that the ABM people left RTG saddled with. Because of this, it may be difficult to get new ship types into the game quickly (Now we know the REAL reason that ABM ignored our pleas for new ships!). A quick solution would be to eliminate some of the ship types currently in the game. As I said on CIS, I can think of two right off the bat: The Suprafreighter and Megahauler. Both ships are very cost innefficent to run, compared to say, a Merchantman. If we all agree that some ships could "disappear" from the game, we could then get some new ships in asap. Comments? Neil Bradley ------------------------------ From: RTGames@aol.com Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:21:39 -0400 Subject: Re: Economy, What ECONOMY?! Steve, Yeah, I've found a few problem ships that I have had to clean up....if I have an id# and it's clearly a multi-affiliation problem (invariably a ship that hasn't run a turn in forever), then I can take care of it..... Pete ------------------------------ From: RTGames@aol.com Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:26:55 -0400 Subject: Re: Game Turns Steve, Thanks for the kind words....I'm swamped with turns, setups, etc right now, but I do try to inject roleplaying flavor whenver I can... Pete ------------------------------ From: RTGames@aol.com Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:30:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Suggestion for Political ... Phil, I'm planning on writing a utility to print out all affiliation positions (leaving anonymous positions anonymous of course)...that would make it a lot easier for pd's to hand out dead ships. Pete ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 19:56:11 CDT Subject: Ship Type Limits Neil, Allow me to suggest the following to be added to your proposed delete list: Light Freighter - no one's used 'em in years. Also, if some of the comic book aliens are deleted, then several ship slots will be freed up. Steve ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 20:03:28 CDT Subject: Some Addendums to RTG's C... Chip, ABM didn't remove the teleporters from the game, and to the best of my knowledge, hasn't changed the way boarding was done originally, however, there are only 4 teleporters left in existance... rest destroyed long ago. In regards to SAM teleporters, ABM did change the policy back around '93. You can no longer use them to transport lifeforms. They did this after I set up a system involving several SuperHaulers each with a SAM teleporter, and a Recieving GP with one. The fact that I could theoretically move thousands of MU's of hardware without any in-system movement (jump in, teleport, jump out), PO'd MP. Also, ABM modified SAM teleporters so that there is no longer matched pairs, but simply 2 teleporters needed. Steve ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 20:26:33 CDT Subject: More on the Economy (rese... Thad, Just some food for thought in regards to affiliation and colony tech. Under the old way, just as Chip was recommending, a colony had a choice of what it could do with it's techs. Some folks chose not to pass their research on to the Affiliation sometimes (myself included). Also, just as an example, when I thought I was gonna be ISP posted over my "disagreement" with the COM, I copied all affiliation techs to my colony's personal data tapes (just in case). Later, it turned out after the changeover, that mine was one of only a few colonies to actually have techs and was able to xfer most back. Now, my point is, there are 2 distinct levels of ownership here. A tech could be one, the other, or both. If an affiliation became hard up, it could always offer a tech for sale to another affiliation (providing it was within profile boundaries.... SAM & FGZ, for example would be prohibited by profile). An affiliation tech gives an affiliation another tool to be used, and adds to the enhancement of the differences between affiliations. Colony only tech only creates a bunch of independent cities, who happen to affiliate with one group or another, but can really be any affiliation (no true differences). Steve ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 20:41:09 CDT Subject: changes to the combat system Thad, The modifier being asked for, isn't a modifier based on the difference between the defending starcaptain's rank and the attacking starcaptains rank (the current modifier), but is one which is an experience modifier. Example: say Lt. John Doe has fought in 50 battles, while CMDR Joe Scmuck has only fought in 1 battle. Lt Doe has more battle experience and should have a better modifier than CMDR Schmuck. As MP explained it to me (please correct me if he lied, as usual), he had to input data manually for battles, that the system flagged potential battles for GM review only. If this is the case, an "attribute' could be easily added to the ship's file, which could be increased by 1 for each battle, and referenced before input, then input into the battle data. Steve ------------------------------ From: steve668@dallas.relay.ucm.org Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 20:54:12 CDT Subject: Economy, What ECONOMY?! > What would the BR be after all other modifiers... Brad, Sorry, you're asking me to remember something HS discussed for only a few weeks on CIS, back before Origins '93. Which I discussed with MP at Origins, privately, promptly had the idea shot down, and haven't thought about it since. Heck, it amazing that I even remember it at all. I've already got an email going to HS to try and get him to wander over here and divulge some of his ideas. They were always well thought out (IMHO), and had plenty of numbers to back-up his reasoning, for the number-crunchers in the crowd. Steve ------------------------------ End of BSE Digest V1 #4 *********************** To subscribe to bse-digest, send the command: subscribe bse-digest in the body of a message to "Majordomo@io.com". 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 "local-bse-list": subscribe bse-digest local-bse-list@your.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". Up