Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[3_14159]

@10ebbor: I already did a proposal 16, yours would be 17 and 18.

[Nadaka]

Anyway,


Note: I can't vote for myself, right? Because a sad result of the current system is that later player's proposals are very unlikely to be chosen.

Right, it is probably a defect of the current system.

I will have to see how it turns out this time, but here are some rules I am considering for the future.

Potential future rules:
*partially completed projects from the last turn are automatically added to the list of proposals for the next turn, and may be voted on in order to continue development.
Why? It reduces the backlog and frees up votes so that people don't end up re-proposing the same thing over and over.

*each player still gets 5 "votes" that can be used for new proposals, sub proposals, counter proposals or votes.
Why? this is what the system is for the current round.

*but the maximum number of new proposals per turn per player is 3.
Why? The current round may see most of its proposals go unapproved as most players prefer to use the majority of their votes for new proposals. To few proposals being worked on can be almost as bad as to many.

*each proposal in the lottery pool has a number of "tickets" equal to its vote count.
*engineers/workers will be awarded to randomly selected projects in the pool in batches of 5.
Why? A voting block will remain beneficial, while being less dominant.

*Proposals should be made in the 24 hours after an update, the remainder of the time (typically 24 hours) until the next update will be reserved for voting.
Why? So that each proposal made has enough time to gather potential votes based on its merits.

[3_14159]

*Proposals should be made in the 24 hours after an update, the remainder of the time (typically 24 hours) until the next update will be reserved for voting.
Why? So that each proposal made has enough time to gather potential votes based on its merits.

Would you disallow voting during the first 24 hours?

[Ukrainian Ranger]

3_14159, why did you vote for 2 and not for 2.1? What do you dislike in my sub-proposal?

[10ebbor10]

*Proposals should be made in the 24 hours after an update, the remainder of the time (typically 24 hours) until the next update will be reserved for voting.
Why? So that each proposal made has enough time to gather potential votes based on its merits.

Would you disallow voting during the first 24 hours?

Would be logical. Otherwise, nothing chances, and it would make bureaucratic stuff much harder.

[Nadaka]

*Proposals should be made in the 24 hours after an update, the remainder of the time (typically 24 hours) until the next update will be reserved for voting.
Why? So that each proposal made has enough time to gather potential votes based on its merits.

Would you disallow voting during the first 24 hours?

At this point, I don't know. But possibly.

[Brood]

It would make some sense since it stops people going back to change votes later.

Have 24 hours for proposals but no votes then 24 for votes but no proposals.

[10ebbor10]

As a note, the intended operation for the Hunter submarine is to advance on the unsuspecting target submerged, (with our without snort) then fire a first volly of electrical torpedoes. These have a small shaped charge, but most importantly, are completely unnoticable till impact. This volly should immobilize or severly hamper the enemy, and will at least cause several breaches. This is then followed upon with a volly of conventional pressurized air torpedoes, with a substantially larger warhead. When detected, the submarine slinks away in the depths*.

*Lower speeds are harder to track, so hence no priority on speed.

*Proposals should be made in the 24 hours after an update, the remainder of the time (typically 24 hours) until the next update will be reserved for voting.
Why? So that each proposal made has enough time to gather potential votes based on its merits.

Would you disallow voting during the first 24 hours?

At this point, I don't know. But possibly.

I propose you do. Keeping all the votes in one place will make stuff a lot easier.

[3_14159]

3_14159, why did you vote for 2 and not for 2.1? What do you dislike in my sub-proposal?

Ah, I know I had forgotten something. Basically, it's a weighting between the cheapness and total ruggedness. Except it isn't, really. I don't actually know why I did vote like I did. I think I just like that the first proposal leaves a greater freedom to our engineers. So, yes... that vote is based more on chance than thought... ;-)

I agree with the voting suggestion.

[Nadaka]

Yes, I agree. It will be a lot easier to tally votes if there is one/few vote posts per user. And it reduces the amount of context switching that is necessary while creating the proposal list.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I suggest to have one limit for proposals\sub-proposals and separate limit on votes and do not count a proposal as a vote for yourself

Like, some player made a subproposal to my proposal that I like more than my original, I'd like to vote for the sub

Or, I decided that others offered more important projects than my own (secret votes are something to consider too, but that will flood GM's PM box)

Ah, I know I had forgotten something. Basically, it's a weighting between the cheapness and total ruggedness. Except it isn't, really. I don't actually know why I did vote like I did. I think I just like that the first proposal leaves a greater freedom to our engineers. So, yes... that vote is based more on chance than thought... ;-)

Problem for me is that 4800Kw is absurdly high total power for a plane, late B-17 had 3600kw. Such a large and heavy aircraft will require a huge runway and will  require too much  of expensive aluminum

[3_14159]

Ah, I know I had forgotten something. Basically, it's a weighting between the cheapness and total ruggedness. Except it isn't, really. I don't actually know why I did vote like I did. I think I just like that the first proposal leaves a greater freedom to our engineers. So, yes... that vote is based more on chance than thought... ;-)

Problem for me is that 4800Kw is absurdly high total power for a plane, late B-17 had 3600kw. Such a large and heavy aircraft will require a huge runway and will  require too much  of expensive aluminum

Well, that is a fair point. Considering the plane again, however, it wouldn't be required to use the 1200kW engine... we can actually use the Advanced Diesel Engine (400kW, 500kg, low maintenance) for a total power of 1600kW. While the power/weight ratio doesn't reach the V12 engine's, and doesn't reach the 5-engine ratio (1600kW vs 2240kW, 2000kg vs 2300kg), through the low-maintenance and proven parts it should work pretty well. I hope so, at least. Plus, the low maintenance should make using them near the field easier.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

I am afraid that using tank diesel in an aircraft will not work, very different RPM  requirements and tank diesel will never  work right at higher attitudes.

Diesels wasn't used for combat aircrafts, except few unsuccessful attempts  for the very same reasons why diesels aren't used in formula1 cars.

[3_14159]

Huh. That's what you get for only looking at the kW numbers. I'll leave my vote as it is for now, though, and head to bed. Thanks for the explanation.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

There are easier way to reduce power of the transport to reasonable level = just use 2 engines instead of 4 but I like my proposal more because I love to reuse older stuff in one form or another and as everyone should have noted I am in Sherman group, not kingtiger group