Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 2/7  (Read 4440 times)

Khamsin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2017, 03:10:09 am »

There's no current way to add more labs. Admittedly, I forgot to add that in this draft like an absolute fool. Would you guys be interested in me adding that in by the end of this turn?

Money is both an endgame score and how you make money, so you're right there.

Revisions is correct.

Marketing has as many designs that you want to market, or don't want to market. You're not forced to being a terrible product to market and it may damage your reputation.

Trial/Combat phase will become way more important when the war itself starts, because there will be combat reports from both nations. The way either of them are going in the war will determine the needs they have- a winning faction might decide they don't need more help, whereas a losing nation will get desperate and pay for ANYTHING.
War phases are different in the ways above, but otherwise the same. Designs, revisions, marketing.
Logged

Shadowclaw777

  • Bay Watcher
  • Resident Wisenheimer
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2017, 03:25:42 am »

Getting new labs should be pretty expensive, at minimum make them like 200 million at start, and consecutively more expensive per new lab purchase, these things are the meat and bones of this game, having the ability to perform 3 designs/revisions compared to some other player company, is a massive advantage. Sure it's another massive financial investment to have to support another design and revision per turn, but with more designs means you get more income, because you will get more tools to market with.

Secondly, what's stopping me from putting all of my designs always to the marketing phase to both sides, if there effective enough for marketing? Is it possible that the competing nations during the war are using the same weapons/technology and get pissed off, once they realize their arm's employer is supplying both sides of the war. If the countries find and catch on to this, will this make it more difficult to market your new designs to them?

Conclusively, this is about the country's economy. Does each country or nation have a limit to the amount they will spend? If for example you keep giving them widely-different toys that perform different roles, wouldn't you always have a demand. Would this mean that never trying to make a "mark 2.0" or improved design ever a good idea because it obsoletes your previous design, which means you will lose income. The only scenario I see, is if you made a tank design and sold it to the country, another competitor provided a better tank to that country, you have the possibility of getting a better tank, to maybe attack the competing company.

The question I'm trying to ask here, is their a limit to the amount of "budgeting" each country has on spending money on these contracts for tech. Also are these designs one-time payments, or a continual source of revenue?
Logged

Khamsin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2017, 03:42:49 am »

There is effectively nothing stopping you from marketing it to both sides, but there will be issues in some situations. If a super cutting edge fighter is given to both sides, then the relative value of those fighters decreases and with further payments they'll want to pay less. They understand you wanna make money, and it's not outlandish for both sides to be armed similarly- however, what WILL cause loyalty and further marketing issues is if you market an upgrade kit or improved version to one nation and not another, it will cause some issues.

Designs are constant sources of revenue. Losses will have to be replaced, not necessarily right away. Designs will become obsolete, sometimes quickly, but if they had a good reputation, building off of those previous marks will be a good money making tactic. If your Tank Mk1 was good, but now it's just not up to the task anymore, Tank Mk2 will have a better reputation and potential bonuses.

As for budgeting, however, there is a limited amount. It's not going to be outright stated, more obfuscated and kept hidden. The amount a country is willing to spend is relative- as said before, a losing country has it's sovereignty to risk, so it'll be willing to go all out. Big ticket items may take in a hefty amount of coin, but they're not going to be constantly bought.
Logged

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2017, 03:46:47 am »

I kinda think Khamsin partially answered the marketing point--WE are competing against each other but dont know what :P
Hopefully we'll get demands and stuff that railroad give incentive of producing *this certain theme*.
Because I have a LOT of ideas that makes freeforming a bad idea in scale.

Also edited a point of mine because it was too vague in my post in my spoiler.
Logged

Khamsin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2017, 03:50:58 am »

Oh yeah, demands will be the BIG flash points where you can potentially make a big wad of money. Freeform designs are a good way to create a near monopoly on a new good and make your opponents play catchup- but it also gives whichever nation you didn't sell to a need for a counter, which could make your opponents money.

Any demands will either be given in the Trial phase or can be inferred from reactions to your Marketing.
Logged

Khamsin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2017, 04:41:04 am »

Design Phase Finished, Revision Phase

Spoiler: Arbores (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Oxalis (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Efficaco (click to show/hide)
Logged

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2017, 07:47:17 am »

This looks interesting, shame there's only three player slots though.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Khamsin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2017, 08:04:55 am »

Taricus, I'd be perfectly willing to have you in when the game is going to be a proper game and not a mechanics test.
Logged

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2017, 08:15:39 am »

Taricus, I'd be perfectly willing to have you in when the game is going to be a proper game and not a mechanics test.
I want alliances :P DO THAT TOO PLEASE because I am a support oriented person.

Also um :v
Can I use one of my Engineering double dice? Or does a revision 'edit' it instead, if I get a low-to-my-expectations roll?
Because it only affects 'designs'? Or can I do that...later on? Are there any consequences if I do it later on? o_O Because I kind of feel like seeing the results, THEN using that, is something doable rather than deciding to put a design token/reroll while doing it (...as it was never stated what is explicit)

Just asking in advance because I feel ambivalent about dat roll. But I can be okay with it as I can think of good flavor on why it's like that :P

...Also for example if someone gets a 10 on a design roll, can revisions 'upgrade' it or diversify it, with that as its base quality already?
Logged

Khamsin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2017, 08:22:31 am »

Even a perfect design is just a baseplate. You only thought of a few things. A perfect tank, 10 on a roll, could just as easily be repurposed with a revision to an anti-tank vehicle, or an APC.

You can't retroactively apply your bonus to a design, so you'll have to use the bonus next design phase.

As for alliances, I'm not quite sure.
Logged

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2017, 08:26:57 am »

You can't retroactively apply your bonus to a design, so you'll have to use the bonus next design phase.
You...could've mentioned that in the OP :P Because I was under the impression that you can. Because it also helps the expenditure of processing that way too, and adds to the power of the startup boon. But the end choice is for you to balance anyway. :)
Can we at least say 'spend x number of [these startup bonuses] on this stage'? Still has the same spirit to the idea but makes it more realistic or mouldable and beneficial as a startup because it applies to the WORST rolled design.

Also gonna post soon because I'm wondering if spending 100M on revisions is a good idea right now. :P
« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 08:29:49 am by Tiruin »
Logged

Taricus

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2017, 08:27:08 am »

Well, in a real game there's not much to stop a few players from co-ordinating designs to help one side win or something.
Logged
Quote from: evictedSaint
We sided with the holocaust for a fucking +1 roll

Maximum Spin

  • Bay Watcher
  • [OPPOSED_TO_LIFE] [GOES_TO_ELEVEN]
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2017, 08:27:47 am »


Is this acceptable?

Also, it seems like alliance is an inevitable possibility in any multiplayer game - we could just discuss our plans separately and work to make complementary designs, after all.
Logged

Tiruin

  • Bay Watcher
  • Life is too short for worries
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2017, 08:36:20 am »

Well, in a real game there's not much to stop a few players from co-ordinating designs to help one side win or something.
Fun stuff. The GM can then run fun NPC companies in secret.
But just telling us there are companies that are NPC is enough for me to willingly side with anyone else in helping one side. :P

Quote from: Maximum Revolution
Also, it seems like alliance is an inevitable possibility in any multiplayer game - we could just discuss our plans separately and work to make complementary designs, after all.
Nah. :v
I like working with people. :P
...Wait I misread "inevitable possibility".
Yeah, we can email snail mail each other :D

Oh!

You can't retroactively apply your bonus to a design, so you'll have to use the bonus next design phase.
You...could've mentioned that in the OP :P Because I was under the impression that you can. Because it also helps the expenditure of processing that way too, and adds to the power of the startup boon. But the end choice is for you to balance anyway. :)
Can we at least say 'spend x number of [these startup bonuses] on this stage'? Still has the same spirit to the idea but makes it more realistic or mouldable and beneficial as a startup because it applies to the WORST rolled design.

Also gonna post soon because I'm wondering if spending 100M on revisions is a good idea right now. :P
The same applies to ANY +1 being given and presented, and any + boosts overall, moreso for CEO picks but also in considering the company startups. Boosts a lot of our anything, and makes more an edge for picking what kind of CEO you have.

Which also means testing it out since this IS your game mechanics testing thread. See the results if you retcon it--and ask players if this is okay :) It's what I'd do if I ever made a game would be testing.

Also query! That price you gave us for the design--what does it mean? :-[ I don't know how to factor that into my current monies, that being 500M.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2017, 08:38:30 am by Tiruin »
Logged

Maximum Spin

  • Bay Watcher
  • [OPPOSED_TO_LIFE] [GOES_TO_ELEVEN]
    • View Profile
Re: Cold War Arms Race Test: Turn 1/7
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2017, 08:42:42 am »

Also query! That price you gave us for the design--what does it mean? :-[ I don't know how to factor that into my current monies, that being 500M.
It seems to be the price for every unit you produce, ie, you must sell them for at least that much to break even (and can only produce your-cash/that-number units in total).
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4