Print

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

[Tyrant Leviathan]

It does. Like a lot, as people could have their minds changed.

[Parsely]

Or maybe it would ensure that people read and discuss their choice before voting?

[RAM]

It's a nice idea, but I fear that it would slow things down a bit. Some people would want to wait until everything was out. Others would likely form voting blocks and try to rush a favoured idea into dominance and just leave everyone else giving up...

I would consider just ignoring votes that occur within, say, 12 hours of an update, or completely segregate design proposal and selection into two different phases, but that would also slow things down...

another option would be to do it all simultaneously. This could result in some confusion, but if you simultaneously proposed designs for future turns(and potentially obsoleted designs to keep the list small), voted to implement designs in the current turn, proposed revisions to already implemented designs, and voted on revision proposals from previous turns... well, then everything could happen all at once... It also seems like it would be an interesting bit of predictive effort. Participants would need to come up with proposals to suit the tattlefield of the future, rather than getting to go from situation to implementation immediately. Perhaps there could be a limited number of failed proposals persisting, so they would be culled based upon low votes or something, in an attempt to prevent proposal spam?

[evictedSaint]

The question is what are you trying to accomplish by locking votes?

[stabbymcstabstab]

Locking votes sounds like a excessively bad idea, since the large number of ties that would occur or people just wouldn't vote in any form of reasonable time frame.

[RAM]

The question is what are you trying to accomplish by locking votes?

An increase in discussion. If people can't vote then they can either wait or talk, and talking is interesting? Many designs can be improved with a little critique...

[Man of Paper]

I think it's unnecessarily restrictive. All that'd accomplish is the players keeping track of votes outside of a vote box at best, and frustration at worst.

[NUKE9.13]

Yeah, no, for all the above reasons that sounds like a terrible idea.

[evictedSaint]

Here's a question:
Resources and TC.  How should it be handled?

Personally I was never a fan of the TC aspect of AR's, and the snowball effect of holding land is hard to overcome for the disadvantaged side.  Is there a better way to do the expense aspect of an AR?

[Happerry]

Personally if I ever get around to actually doing an Arms Race I'm going to be replacing TC with Logistics Advantage as has been seen floating around in discussion for a while, which I think makes more sense then 'nah, you can not exploit that ore because you do not have enough cargo trucks' because the natural response to that feels like 'ok make double the amount of cargo trucks from now on'. And Logistics advantage lets you invoke 'ability to transport people around' and such too, which is often handled fuzzily.

Resources and alternatives to them are a hard one though, at least if you don't want to go into Spire Race level book-keeping.

[Talion]

You could measure Logistical Strain with a maximum limit. Taking more land and deploying certain designs increases Strain. Trucks and trains and so on work to immediately or gradually decrease Strain. You could also allow things like landing strips that reduces Strain for aircraft. Different lanes might have different Strain values, so defending the capital lets people deploy all the toys while attacking the enemy's capital leaves the other side overstretched and more limited in what they can bring.

[NUKE9.13]

Modeling logistics in some manner is important, I think, since it is a very important aspect of warfare.
As for territory providing resources being a snowballing feature, yeah, it does seem like it would lead to that. In practice, it tends to work out, though? I can't really think of a time when one side was at a major disadvantage due to a lack of resources, except towards the very end of Sensei's two ARs- in which case it's sort of justified, and a good thing, since you don't want the game to drag on forever. And you do want to provide some sort of incentive for taking territory.

[Man of Paper]

An idea I'm mulling over is having resource "nodes" that unlock at 1,2, and 4 turns of control of a sector with the controlling team voting on what resource to exploit from that point, with the ability to design installations or processes to exploit the resource further. The resources would remain unlocked permanently regardless of who winds up in control of the sector. This would let a team trailing behind still have the opportunity to field more expensive equipment while still providing the winning side with the ability to build upon a wider variety of resources.

[Tyrant Leviathan]

Honestly I have three systems for logistics depending on game scale.

1: Pangaea: Small community scale of no war but survival. It is very small scale of communities so the numbers are small, on purpose except for one I am designing. Instead of micro manage would be Macro manage (basically instead of tiny resources to combine, Have big, butnsimple numbers to follow.(

2: WH40k version where the only resources you manage/show are small traces of exotic research and units themselves. Arms Race factors are whipping said units, and assigning them missions. Certain SG/Contest stuff opens new units. And two kinds. Navy (space ship) and ground forces.


3: In my first war games, there was no arms Race factor of inventing new gear/units. Instead it’s a massive tech tree with branches in multiple fields.

Tech/magic is arming forces.

Society is how commoners feel about war effort and mind set.

Tactics is how smart they fight.

And a logistics branch. In that if you want said resource advantages/new ones. Got to invest in it.

[Parsely]

Maybe treat logistics like naval advantage and make it a factor of three things:
- Transport craft (in the context of the region's terrain)
- Communications
- General ability to defend transports (maybe ignore this part to keep things simple)

And just assign whichever side has superior logistics a Logistics Advantage on a region by region basis? Maybe it has an effect on battle reports.

An idea I'm mulling over is having resource "nodes" that unlock at 1,2, and 4 turns of control of a sector with the controlling team voting on what resource to exploit from that point, with the ability to design installations or processes to exploit the resource further. The resources would remain unlocked permanently regardless of who winds up in control of the sector. This would let a team trailing behind still have the opportunity to field more expensive equipment while still providing the winning side with the ability to build upon a wider variety of resources.

Maybe when you gain control of a resource node you don't get all the resources at once but instead you add a single point of the resource every turn until your resource potential is equal to your actual production, and it would work the same way if you lose a node. Since it takes time to exploit territories, if a territory keeps changing hands over and over no one has time to exploit it. If you have a logistics advantage in a territory you just took then you can exploit the resources faster and when you lose the territory and you're falling back you bleed the production more slowly.

You could measure Logistical Strain with a maximum limit. Taking more land and deploying certain designs increases Strain. Trucks and trains and so on work to immediately or gradually decrease Strain. You could also allow things like landing strips that reduces Strain for aircraft. Different lanes might have different Strain values, so defending the capital lets people deploy all the toys while attacking the enemy's capital leaves the other side overstretched and more limited in what they can bring.

This seems like an interesting idea as well.