Cold War 2 Alpha

derekiv · Post by **derekiv** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:07 am

I'm thinking of putting the game on extended hold. Between the BSF Wiki and my school work I don't have time to run the Cold War Beta. If someone volunteered to be a moderator I might be able to continue. But currently it is just going on hold.

Joss · Post by **Joss** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:10 am

Isnt this more important than the wiki?

mtheminja · Post by **mtheminja** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:58 am

Indeed. If a mod wants to take a break/quit, I think they should have to find a replacement first (We should have more mods, anyways. Any ideas on how to russle up more?). I don't think they should be able to just decide to put it on 'extended hold', considering that we all started this together. It seems to me that most of the work, especially the non-combat work, should be doable by volunteers from the players themselves. It's not as if they can be biased when they're updating the map, for instance. How about we rotate two players each turn being the mod's assistants? (not that I'm volunteering, I probably can't even access the forum again till Monday)

And isn't Comus helping you?

Normandy · Post by **Normandy** » Sat May 10, 2008 4:07 am

And so the game unwinds.

Lessons learned?

1) More automation. Macros in Excel, if you have to.
2) Longer period between game start and game initiation. More time to prepare, to optimize.
3) Slower turns. Turns require [human] processing power. A system must be devised to allow a larger independence from turns.
4) Fast-action on turn 1. Players have the attention span of... They don't.
5) More pure numerical things. Numerical values are infinitely easier to deal with.

It was a noble effort. Perhaps beta shall do better.

Chiiro · Post by **Chiiro** » Sat May 10, 2008 4:22 am

This was doomed to get too complicated as soon as you made it a turn based strategy game instead of an RP.

To fail is human, and your system is built up of human resources.
Rules and turns and all that would work if you had a non-human system taking care of it.

I suggest instead of getting too complicated you should just roleplay.
Trust me, you'll enjoy it more in the long run.

I appologize if anyone feels I'm butting in where I don't belong, but meh.

mtheminja · Post by **mtheminja** » Sat May 10, 2008 6:58 am

I always thought we should do it with everybody helping with the admin/non-RP tasks, so I've taken the liberty of going ahead with that. Everyone should be able to edit the new post in the thread (Take a look, if you haven't). This way, the mods only have to moderate, so they mainly do battles. This should focus things back on the RP since the admin will go by quicker, and player's posts can stick to the RP.

Let's at least give this a try, I think it will work! This is at least as good as getting another mod, so you should be able to handle it now, Derekiv.

derekiv · Post by **derekiv** » Sat May 10, 2008 7:33 am

now that someone has taken over moves and such I think I'll have time to run battles.

Edit: And the battleonly happens if mtheminja and Anarki are unwilling to negotiate

Edit2:Never mind. Need to read the diplomatic messages more throughly.

Anarki · Post by **Anarki** » Sat May 10, 2008 11:03 am

I want to blow up that 1 frigate with my 36 fighters...

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Sun May 11, 2008 6:33 am

Suggestion:

Espionage, RP only and between players, either make little threads or do it in the in-char topic or through pms, and have a spy try to get schematics on one or more ships (as in the .shp file), so they can run simulations with it and try to figure out what works best against them

mtheminja · Post by **mtheminja** » Mon May 12, 2008 6:56 am

Or you could do what I did and attack them with a single reconnaissance fighter to get data on them

(of course it's on autopilot, silly, I wouldn't doom one of my pilots!)

mtheminja · Post by **mtheminja** » Mon May 12, 2008 1:03 pm

Sorry for the double post, this is important.

derekiv wrote:
mtheminja wrote:Wait. So anything but a defense platform controls a system?
You can control it for one turn with anything, but you have to imediatly build a small station.

This is a rather major change to the rules; should we change to doing this (more complex, and I don't see how it's helpful) or stick with only Destroyer/Small Station and above?

Anty · Post by **Anty** » Mon May 12, 2008 3:48 pm

destroyer, why should we suddenly change it?

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Mon May 12, 2008 6:43 pm

Wait, how is that changing it? They said you control it with anything if you build a small space statino right away, but oyu need a destroyer or station to control it otherwise. Makes sense to me

mtheminja · Post by **mtheminja** » Mon May 12, 2008 10:46 pm

Because now you could send a lone fighter across the map taking over a system every turn with it without having to pay anything, for an example of the weird things this allows. 'if you build a station right away' is also likely to be an administrative pain, whereas before the rule was very simple. Destroyer/Small Station or above = control.

EDIT: Fixed the example, I seem to be a little stupid today...

falco1029 · Post by **falco1029** » Tue May 13, 2008 12:04 am

So you're saying you should need a destroyer there before you can build a small space station? Cus that's be annoying, since I sent 2 teams of fighters and a frigate to 2 systems. Maybe make it so you need 2 points worth of ships, rather than specifically a destroyer?