Re: Galaxy 3.1 -- Routes and Upgrades

From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)

Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1992 22:45:12 +0000

Russell Wallace <rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie> writes:
>There was indeed no incentive to research cargo technology, so its cost
>has now been halved, to 2500 production points per level.

Unfortunately there was no incentive to research cargo technology even
in version 2.x.  At least, none of the leaders are doing it in the game
I am in.  In version 3.1, with the new nonlinear capacity to encourage
large cargo ships, there is even less incentive.  I don't think you are
going to get any takers even at 2500.

My suggestion, for what it's worth, is to decrease the mass of cargo.
Suppose you say that one unit of cargo (COL or CAP) weighs only 0.25
mass units, instead of 1.0.  [You might want to keep MAT at 1.0 for
consistency; you could justify this as raw materials being shipped in
the densest possible form, while people or manufactured goods are less
dense.]  For reasonable size ships, this would make the mass of the
cargo units much more significant, and thus encourage cargo research.

I would also, as someone else suggested, put the technology factor
inside the nonlinear cargo formula:

effective-cargo-number := cargo-number * cargo-technology
    cargo-capacity := effective-cargo-number * (1 + effective-cargo-number/10)

This would make technology useful by enabling smaller, more versatile
cargo ships.

David desJardins

References

Galaxy 3.1 -- Routes and Upgrades
sutin@helios.ucsc.edu (Brian Sutin)
Sun, 18 Oct 1992 22:17:00 +0000
Re: Galaxy 3.1 -- Routes and Upgrades
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Mon, 19 Oct 1992 11:57:12 +0000

Referenced By

Galaxy 3.1 -- Routes and Upgrades
sutin@helios.ucsc.edu (Brian Sutin)
Sun, 18 Oct 1992 22:17:00 +0000
Re: Galaxy 3.1 -- Routes and Upgrades
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)
Mon, 19 Oct 1992 11:57:12 +0000