Imperium 40 Opens Monday!

[Catwalk]

...
Moreover, if so, as always, I would be delighted to see other players come up with Imperium games

It transmogrified on line 2

[Ianus]

I suspect enough people are away on vacation right now that calling for interest (e.g. by making this thread ...oops) is a bit premature - my inclination is to wait about another week, and then probably post an Imperium on the 13th.

I hope that this is the reason that this forum is so quiet. It looks to me like activity in this forum is sporadic, but I really hope that we can get a group going for some Imperia.

Is there any interest in a Succession game of some sort? In reading some old forum games I like the opportunities to critique other players' styles, and to receive suggestions of improvements. I hope that I can get similar feedback from Imperium reports, but SG's seem much more immediate.

As for this threads' transmogrified purpose, lets discuss good (and bad) Imperium variant rules. In thinking about Catwalk's proposed colony ship variant I began to consider what makes MoO fun to play, and how variations could improve or hurt this. I like playing MoO in order to live out my fantasies of controlling a fledgling civilization and guiding its expansion to the stars (or something like that). Part of what makes the game so enjoyable (and re-playable) apart from the randomly generated map are the different race variations, each with strengths and weaknesses. Now these alone make Orion fun to revisit, and some of the best Imperia are those that cause the player to use different strengths, IE forbidding orbital bombardment and forcing use of Bulrathi ground combat bonuses to take planets.
On the other hand, overly restricted gameplay tends to make the game experience less fun, especially if there are tons of rules that must be followed, making play less natural and more "checking constantly to be sure the player stays within the rules of the game." It also sounded like the game where lots of stars around the Player's starting location were without planets was not a lot of fun. That was not a case of too many rules to follow, but the lack of habitable worlds didn't seem to add much to the game, and was simply an annoyance.
Thus it seems that the best games are the ones that provide a challenge to the players while being simple to implement (no researching Shield tech at any point in the game; lock your shield tech allocation at zero on the first turn and leave it there for the duration). I think that setting a single long term objective like "defeat the guardian for points" is a good simple point for a game as it leaves the rest up to the player.
Anyone else have thoughts about good or bad rules or what makes for a more or less fun game?

[Catwalk]

I agree with your notions Ianus:
1) Rules shouldn't be difficult to administer
2) Rules should provide interesting and varied challenges
3) Rules should together as a whole and make sense to players, both for sake of immersion and so it becomes easier to internalize the rule set and get a "full" game experience out of it

I agree that my first draft was somewhat of a potluck dinner of all my favourite rules. I still think they make sense and they're easy for me to remember, but I can definitely see others finding them a bit much. That said, we do have a set of rulesets applying to all imperia. I think the "no unarmed scout patrols" rule should be added

You mentioned in an earlier post that you'd have fun playing Bulrathi without ground invasions. That'd rank very highly for me on the unfunnometer That'd be like playing Darloks without spies, you're just playing a race without abilities. However, I can definitely see playing Darloks with limited tech espionage. That way you're encouraged (but not required) to use sabotage, which is a very underutilized game mechanic (because it sucks). It's of some use to a darlok player, but espionage is just far better. We could add a bit more computer tech to give the darlok player a massive spy advantage, and temper it with a restriction saying that you can only run espionage against 1 race at a time. Fairly easy to administer, and has a clear purpose.

[Arantor]

It's almost like we need some support for variant rules in the software itself so that we don't have to manually remember these things.

[Catwalk]

That would be ideal, but most of it isn't too hard. Are you up for trying my proposed ruleset Arantor?

[Ianus]

I agree with your notions Ianus:
1) Rules shouldn't be difficult to administer
2) Rules should provide interesting and varied challenges
3) Rules should together as a whole and make sense to players, both for sake of immersion and so it becomes easier to internalize the rule set and get a "full" game experience out of it.

I agree that my first draft was somewhat of a potluck dinner of all my favourite rules. I still think they make sense and they're easy for me to remember, but I can definitely see others finding them a bit much. That said, we do have a set of rulesets applying to all imperia. I think the "no unarmed scout patrols" rule should be added

You are right that your proposal had a number of variants, but I don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. I think that the problems occur when the list of rules conflict (for lack of a better term) or do not follow each other logically. Playing your ruleset I found myself concentrating entirely on the colony ship restriction which didn't leave me with a lot of attention left over to worry about war or finding Orion. My Final War was declared without any preparation on my part, and this is when rules start feeling overly constricting. I admit that this is a weakness in my own play as I find myself neglecting some aspects of the game when things get complicated.
You mention the exploits list, and yes those are a number of things to remember, but (as you say about your ease in remembering your own rules) those are applied to every game which makes them easy to internalize and also they follow each other logically (some of them at least are such egregious cheats that I find it almost more immersion-breaking TO use them than not) in the sense that they all fall under "No Cheating" in my mind.

You mentioned in an earlier post that you'd have fun playing Bulrathi without ground invasions. That'd rank very highly for me on the unfunnometer That'd be like playing Darloks without spies, you're just playing a race without abilities. However, I can definitely see playing Darloks with limited tech espionage. That way you're encouraged (but not required) to use sabotage, which is a very underutilized game mechanic (because it sucks). It's of some use to a darlok player, but espionage is just far better. We could add a bit more computer tech to give the darlok player a massive spy advantage, and temper it with a restriction saying that you can only run espionage against 1 race at a time. Fairly easy to administer, and has a clear purpose.

Yes I did say that, but in thinking about it I think that this is a bad example. The Bulrathi are pretty much a one trick pony as they don't get much else in the way of advantages, and also don't get any strong disadvantages. At least playing the Darloks without spies still forces you to contend with their diplomatic penalties. A better way to put it would be that I like playing races "differently" than they are designed or intended. Maybe something like play the Silicoids and ONLY colonize HOSTILE planets could be interesting. But in the case of the Bulrathi if you remove their ground combat advantage all you are left with is a "generic" race with some research strengths and weaknesses which could be fun once, but that's about it. So yes, I strongly favor variants which encourage using race strengths *differently* or force the player to use generally underutilized aspects of the game (say no beam weapons) which makes for a different play experience.

[WhiteMage]

Anyone else have thoughts about good or bad rules or what makes for a more or less fun game?

FINALLY! I think I found it. I was looking for a short list of self imposed rules that gives me about 50% chance of winning. After decades of search and taking careful notes, here is my finding:

Settings:
1. Play Kyrub's 1.40m
2. Random galaxy size, but smaller than huge. (I suspect large is best)
3. Impossible
4. 4 opponents
5. Random race
6. Scrap all ships in 2300.

Rules:
7. No cheat of any kind. No cheat load. (NO EXCEPTIONS!) [unlike Imperia]
8. Never use transport
9. All ship designs must have weapon, but no biological weapon.
10. Limit reserve infusion to 1 time per planet in each turn.

Winning:
11. Winning score = defeat guardian + final war start + game won. Lower the better. All other cases are losses.

(Anything not stated is allowed)

I rate my games on a scale of 0%-100% and I gave my last game a 99%. That is nearly pure fun. I have tons of save games in case someone wants to see.

I can write a book on how I arrived to this conclusion, but I only have 1 game so far, which is still unfinished, so more testing is needed. Hypothesis of 50% is to be tested based on many games.

I highly recommend for future tournament.

[Arantor]

@Catwalk: I'm up for trying it, but I don't expect to be posting an Imperium report because as much as I love MoO and keep coming back to it every couple of years for a renewed bash, I've never spent enough time to really get *great* at the game. I don't think I've ever beaten it on Impossible, I might win on Hard maybe a third of the time. I just have too many games that I'm modestly good at and too few I'm truly great at. Though I've spent enough time here to learn a few things that might shift the balance more in my favour

But I do also like experimenting with ideas and changing up the framework, especially as I'm developing a game at present with a strong MoO heritage but also incorporating all the other ideas I've had (some of which I've posted), and a strong modding facility into it to help with variantism.

[Catwalk]

A better way to put it would be that I like playing races "differently" than they are designed or intended. Maybe something like play the Silicoids and ONLY colonize HOSTILE planets could be interesting. But in the case of the Bulrathi if you remove their ground combat advantage all you are left with is a "generic" race with some research strengths and weaknesses which could be fun once, but that's about it. So yes, I strongly favor variants which encourage using race strengths *differently* or force the player to use generally underutilized aspects of the game (say no beam weapons) which makes for a different play experience.

I think our main difference is that your main priority is to play races differently. My priority is just to play the game differently, which is your second priority I guess. I think all races play more or less the same anyway, assuming normal rules. The methods are a little bit different (only really different with Silicoids), but it's all about sound expansion, good planetary development, wise tech choices and diligent attention to enemy weak spots. Changing the entire game dynamics is much more interesting IMO, and it doesn't matter much which race is used for it. It just needs to fit in with the vision of how the game is to be played.

In my example, the objective is to encourage early warfare. It makes sense to use a race with warlike bonuses in order to further stimulate early aggression. Similarly, I don't see the point in having a builder focused game with Bulrathi or Alkari.

As for having a hard time keeping all game objectives in mind, I think that's an interesting challenge. Having both Final War and Orion on was too much, with just Orion I feel that it'll be a game where you're encouraged to always gear your efforts towards this one objective. Conquest is fine if it pays off, but there is no need to take out your enemies. It also doesn't matter much if you see a runaway AI, you won't have to take him down later. I think Mrrshans will be well suited for the simple reason that they're much better at taking down the Guardian. BC strength is a major obstacle to damaging the Guardian, +3 really shines here.

As for espionage, we can either allow it fully as an alternative to planetary conquest (for techs), or we can stifle it some in order to really push the envelope about conquest for growth. Same with tech trading, it's a fairly easy alternative to conquest that diminishes the relative value of conquest because you can get the techs you need through easier means.

@Catwalk: I'm up for trying it, but I don't expect to be posting an Imperium report because as much as I love MoO and keep coming back to it every couple of years for a renewed bash, I've never spent enough time to really get *great* at the game. I don't think I've ever beaten it on Impossible, I might win on Hard maybe a third of the time. I just have too many games that I'm modestly good at and too few I'm truly great at. Though I've spent enough time here to learn a few things that might shift the balance more in my favour

But I do also like experimenting with ideas and changing up the framework, especially as I'm developing a game at present with a strong MoO heritage but also incorporating all the other ideas I've had (some of which I've posted), and a strong modding facility into it to help with variantism.

Don't sweat it, there is pride in losing I may well lose myself if we make this one tough enough. That said, we definitely need to strike the right balance between "interesting challenge" and "masochistic display of inadequacy"

[RefSteel]

I hope that this is the reason that this forum is so quiet. It looks to me like activity in this forum is sporadic, but I really hope that we can get a group going for some Imperia.

I hope so too! Right now, I'm thinking it's best to give it another week in the hope of others turning up, because though the few of us here are talking a lot, it's still a very few of us (especially if at least 40% aren't planning on participating.)

I'm up for trying it, but I don't expect to be posting an Imperium report because as much as I love MoO and keep coming back to it every couple of years for a renewed bash, I've never spent enough time to really get *great* at the game.

Any chance we can convince you to post a report anyway? In case you're looking for inspiration: I've reported several losses of my own (including my Imperium 35 report of which I'm extremely proud - in fact, we had half a dozen or so great reports of losses in that game!) and Sirian posted a terrific report of a lost game on his site, among others. I love my (insanely long) Imperium 13 report, but the best report of that game on the site may well be KnTenshi's. He may have been thoroughly overmatched in the game itself, but that report was absolutely amazing!

I rate my games on a scale of 0%-100% and I gave my last game a 99%. That is nearly pure fun. I have tons of save games in case someone wants to see.

I'm glad you had such a gret time with it! I'd love to read a report if you want to write one, too.

7. No cheat of any kind. No cheat load. (NO EXCEPTIONS!) [unlike Imperia]

I think we're just working with wildly different ideas about what an Imperium (or a game of MoO for that matter) is or should be. By your definition, if someone's trackpad glitches or their cat jumps on their keyboard with results that completely wreck their game, if they load to the last save before it happened (which is - at worst - the beginning of the same turn if they're using kyrub's patch anyway) it's a "cheat load. (NO EXCEPTIONS!)" Also by your definition, relying on the exploitation of things like this bug and/or this one to win the game is not cheating. The reality is that no one on this site cheats even by your definition; accepting mistakes, including misclicks, and trying to recover from them, is just part of the way we do things. If anyone ever did reload to fix a misclick, I would expect them to report the fact that they did so and why ... but a line like "(NO EXCEPTIONS!)" has no place in a ruleset for a friendly game. Neither does accusing anyone of cheating.

If you're willing to play on those terms though - even if you don't want to worry about remembering all the exploit rules, and either find out after the game that you didn't break them anyway or are willing to post a "shadow" report, we'd love to have you!

Now, if an insane philanthropist (GNN: "A wealthy merchant has donated...") decides to start offering cash rewards to Imperium winners ... ... I was going to say I would have to think about tightening up the rules, but actually even in that case, I would propose the cash be used to help fund Zeraan's "Beyond Beyaan" and/or Arantor's new project instead. This site is about the game, the reports, and the community. The winning is really not the point.

Are you up for trying my proposed ruleset

I'm certainly happy with it - in fact, I think I was too heavy on the advice, too light on (in the sense of "completely leaving out for way too long") the "but regardless, let's try it!" earlier in the thread. Find a map that you think is a good fit, send me a save file, and I'll post it as an Imperium, okay?