Print

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

[Nadaka]

Any thoughts on my other ideas for future rules?

[Brood]

I don't see any problems with any of them.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

*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.

Definitely good idea

*each player still gets 5 "votes" that can be used for new proposals, sub proposals, counter proposals or votes.

I'd prefer two proposals, two subproposals (but some rules regulating how far you can modify the original are required)  and 5 votes but you need to vote for your proposal\subroposal to make it count as +1

*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.

While I am not a big fan of BMA, I don't think that it is necessary

*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.

If you plan to update once per two days that's an ideal scheme for me. 16 and 16 hours probably can work too, as 16 hours are usually enough for all time zones to have chance to react

[Brood]

Depends, if he updates during the night for me and I'm working the morning it's 12-18 hours before I'd even see it.

5 votes plus proposals won't change anything we'd end up with to many things passing again each turn with what adds up to about 40 votes across the players.

[Taricus]

Guys, we need the simple upgrade for the radar. I highly doubt we'd able to get even half as many as we need if it's got the compact one instead (And we can make it more compact via research later too.)

[Nadaka]

Depends, if he updates during the night for me and I'm working the morning it's 12-18 hours before I'd even see it.

5 votes plus proposals won't change anything we'd end up with to many things passing again each turn with what adds up to about 40 votes across the players.

If I understand UR's suggestion, it would mean increasing the vote requirement per proposal to 3 because the proposal itself wouldn't count as a vote. That would be a max of 13 design proposals passing, which is probably to high.  But it may work if there is enough of an incentive to add votes beyond the minimum.

[10ebbor10]

Guys, we need the simple upgrade for the radar. I highly doubt we'd able to get even half as many as we need if it's got the compact one instead (And we can make it more compact via research later too.)

Nah we don't. Compact allows us to make mobile radar units, which are far better than installed locations. We plan to be fighting a war, in if all goes well, we'll be advancing into enemy terretory. we need a way to take radarcoverage with us.

We can always develop a cheap variant afterwards, which will be easier than design a smaller variant afterwards. (Simplifying a complex design is easier than having to make complex things out of a simple but spacious design).

I like adding the partially completed projects to the voting list, and UR's split of votes and proposals. I'd keep the limit at 5 though, and I propose not to divide between sub and main proposals. After all, those are mostly the same and we don't want people stretching definitions to get another proposal in. Besides, the more proposals that are votable, the further the votes are spread out, and therefore less proposals have to be worked out.

I'm still in favour of my limited amounts of slots idea for reasons, but that won't work anymore.

[Brood]

Hmmm, maybe but that could just recreate the previous to much work problem if you allow 5 votes, it was a bit better this turn since it forced people to be reasonable with proposals and votes.

[Taricus]

Eh, I'd prefer sub and counter proposals to take a proposal vote too, but that's my opinion. Adding the earlier proposals onto the list s a good thing though

Guys, we need the simple upgrade for the radar. I highly doubt we'd able to get even half as many as we need if it's got the compact one instead (And we can make it more compact via research later too.)

Nah we don't. Compact allows us to make mobile radar units, which are far better than installed locations. We plan to be fighting a war, in if all goes well, we'll be advancing into enemy terretory. we need a way to take radarcoverage with us.

We can always develop a cheap variant afterwards, which will be easier than design a smaller variant afterwards. (Simplifying a complex design is easier than having to make complex things out of a simple but spacious design).

Not really. The only thing we can mount the compact radar is on our ships. We can carry the parts for the simple radar on a couple of trucks, though they would need to stop to assemble it. But we aren't going to have mobile ground radar for a LONG time, and our ships haven't seen much aircraft attacks lately, so I doubt we're going to see Morovian naval bombers too.

The AA guns of the ship will still be useful combined with the Simple, precise radar though, providing they're in port and have AA weapons.

[Brood]

But if the enemy does then begin bombing our naval units they are forced to stay nearby at all times and our fleet becomes a sitting target.
It needs the radar to remain mobile.

[10ebbor10]

*Puppy eyes.

The not yet finished airship should have more than 20 ton cargo space.

_{And yes, I know all of the problems. Downtime, expenses, maintenance, but those aren't simulated, and even if they were, not our problem.}

Eh, I'd prefer sub and counter proposals to take a proposal vote too, but that's my opinion. Adding the earlier proposals onto the list s a good thing though

Same for me. Proposals and subproposals should be equal.

[Taricus]

True, but as I said, we could develop the compact radar next turn basic it off our existing design. This way we get the benefits of it being cheap, accurate and small enough to be mounted too.

@Ebbor: Look, sorry to tell you this, but the airship program is likely short-lived with the beginnings of the four-engine aircraft.

[Brood]

It's easier to take a machine and make it simpler then it is to take a machine and make it smaller.

[Taricus]

You forget about the fact we also want to keep it precise too. Just because we can make it cheaper doesn't mean it's going to be able to be done easily.

[Brood]

Maybe.
But Precise and Compact seems better then Precise and Simple.