After centuries of war and conflict, the people of Sol finally found the key to their civilisation's survival. A simple, elegant rule - only speak when you're spoken to. With all opportunities for misunderstanding removed, a golden age of quiet has spread across the system. But will this rule serve as well now that humanitiy is reaching for the stars?
Teams look OK to me. Six players was perhaps a bit crowded last game, I think I'd struggle for turn pace with only three, so with current numbers this looks good.
It may have looked easy, but that is because it was done correctly - Brian Moore
Quite a show of interest for a game this old. Almost enough for three teams, even, if we get one or two more people.
On the council voting rule, would it be simpler to just say we can never vote for anyone but ourselves? Unless a team wants to intentionally lose, or trigger a final war, isn't that pretty much what it amounts to? Vote for ourselves or abstain?
Maybe give it another 24 hours to get further feedback/sign-ups/etc, then start the games tomorrow? That would give us the weekend to get our first set rolling.
Just need to pick a turn order and starting player. Any thoughts on that? I can't think of anything that would matter except maybe 'don't have the vets play back-to-back' so we can't dig *too* deep of a hole for them . I guess I'd default to what you did in OSG-28: first round people jump in as available, then use that order going forward.
Edit: @ Haphazard1: I think what you're saying and Ref's proposal are basically identical. I'm comfortable phrasing it either way, whichever seems more clear.
I think I am saying the same thing as RefSteel on the council vote issue. If I am not, clarification would be most welcome.
I think not having the more experienced players back to back is a good idea. The troubles they are likely to face will be tough enough as is.
Teams as proposed sound OK to me. Have we decided whether we want to play from the same start, or different starts? That will affect how we get things started.
(May 18th, 2017, 09:28)haphazard1 Wrote: Have we decided whether we want to play from the same start, or different starts? That will affect how we get things started.
Votes:
Same Start:
RefSteel
Ianus
Thrawn
RFS-81
Different Starts:
Mardoc
No preference:
Haphazard1
Commented without talking about starts so probably no preference:
DaveV
Sullla
Shallow Thought
Not weighed in since I brought it up:
TheArchduke
It looks to me that I'm the only one who wanted separate starts; everyone else either wants to compare or just wants to play. So I think I'm outvoted here and we're going with duplicate starts. I'm definitely still looking forward to playing; it's nowhere near a dealbreaker for me.
How would we know how far the other team has played, though? I am not sure you could check the other team's thread without spoilers (worlds, tech tree options that will be present, even things like artifact world techs). But maybe something can be worked out. Have each team post in a general thread how many turns they have played, and have an occasional report on general progress -- "we are at 2375, control N worlds, and are at war with Y races" or something general like that?
Anyway, I think that can be worked out. Getting started sounds good to me.
I think it would be more interesting if both teams start from the same save. How are we going to organize the threads? Should we have one for each team, plus one for general, non-spoiler progress reports?
I'm fine with the voting rules. My personal rule for solo games has always been to vote for myself if I'm a candidate. (I do vote if I'm not a candidate, because abstaining will offend both candidates, but prohibiting that in order to increase the difficulty is fine by me.)
P.S.: Has RB ever hosted a Imperium for teams instead of individual players?
(May 18th, 2017, 14:36)RFS-81 Wrote: My personal rule for solo games has always been to vote for myself if I'm a candidate. (I do vote if I'm not a candidate, because abstaining will offend both candidates, but prohibiting that in order to increase the difficulty is fine by me.)
I don't know if you know or care about this, but voting for one candidate causes a MAJOR relations hit for the race you voted against. If you abstain there is a very slight relations hit to both, but it is so small to be practically non-existent. It is there, but it doesn't count for much and is usually the safer option. Just FYI.
I've rolled a start for OSG-29. It looks... interesting. Have a look and see if it meets the group's standards. In the interest of full disclosure I did use Alt-GALAXY and I can say that it looks to be a more challenging start than our previous game, to say the least.
Do you know the size of the effect of abstaining from a council vote, relative to voting for/against someone? I know it is much smaller -- often you can not see any real change in attitudes from abstaining. But any idea as to the actual size of the effect?
Also, could you explain Alt-GALAXY? I sense an opportunity for more learning.
Almost enough for three teams, even, if we get one or two more people.
. I guess I'd default to what you did in OSG-28: first round people jump in as available, then use that order going forward.
