Print

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

[Khamsin]

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.

[Shadowclaw777]

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?

[Khamsin]

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.

[Tiruin]

I kinda think Khamsin partially answered the marketing point--WE are competing against each other but dont know what
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.

[Khamsin]

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.

[Khamsin]

Design Phase Finished, Revision Phase

Spoiler: Arbores (click to show/hide)

Personnel Armour Roll: 10 Complexity: Complex Cost per Battalion: $12 Million
Arbores' engineers have created something truly revolutionary in the labs. While personal armour has existed since humanity first cured leather, the concept has fallen out of fashion. This might just change that. The first innovation in this design is a new synthetic fiber labelled Arblar- a lightweight weave that in the right configurations can stop pistol caliber bullets at close range and turn lethal rifle hits into wounds or even nonpenetrations at further ranges. The engineers have decided to deploy this in a basic set of vest + groin armour that's light enough to be worn by every infantryman. Revolution has it's costs, however. While it can be worn by everybody, it's expensive enough to justify issuing to specialists, aircrews, and officers. It's still a fantastic piece of kit, however.

Multipurpose Medkits Roll:6 Complexity: Moderate Cost Per Battalion: $3 Million
Lab B have seen somewhat less good results. The noble goal of a portable medkit that could be specialised into a number of different forms might still happen. The current medkit resembles a crash kit carried by paramedics in something the size of a duffel bag. It unrolls into a kit that can be used for field surgery and treatment of common battlefield ailments, but it suffers from a few problems. The size is something limited to combat medics, but field surgeons find the equipment too simple for more complex work. In addition, the proposed handbook has simple first aid listed, but less simple operations descend into jargon. It's still a fine medkit that is reliable and filled with options, but it'll take refinement.

Spoiler: Oxalis (click to show/hide)

Pontic-1 Roll: 5 Complexity: Moderate Cost Per Unit: 15 Million
The Pontic is a device suffering from feature creep. The inclusion of torpedoes, week-long survival and capacity for a small team has made it below-average in all categories. The electric engine of the sub works well, giving it a small profile and making it harder to detect than a conventional sub. The torpedoes, however, needed further and further miniaturisation until their only use is attacking the rudder of a craft is their only recourse. The target week-long time is a failure- a 5 man team can survive for two to three days there due to rebreathers, but there is simply no space for food or water with all the necessary space for equipment.
Nereid Roll:1 Complexity: Simple Cost per Unit: 18 Million
Oxalis's second design of 1960 has been plagued with horrific issues. What should have been a simple, unarmed boat to base submarine actions out of has suffered from terrible overreach on the part of engineers. The first things to fail were the electronics systems, radio and radar. What were originally going to be powerful arrays soon ended up as ridiculously expensive powerful arrays. While they did their job, the problem was getting them working. Finicky electronics, fire hazards, expensive materials... The problems with electronics soon spiralled out of control. In their current state, they work with terrible reliability. The midget sub basing capabilities work, barely. The mounting bracket can, if not secured properly, cause a sub to be left behind, or can damage the hull of the sub irreparably. The Nereid serves as a lesson to engineers as what not to do.

Spoiler: Efficaco (click to show/hide)

BFBAR Roll: (6,9) Complexity: Complex Cost: $5 Million per Battalion
The new concept of a Bullpup rifle combined with innovative Polymer construction heralds a new age in personal weapons design. Armed with a 30 round magazine packing 5.56, this rifle has an insane fire rate of nearly 1100 RPM, which signals one of the only problems with the design. In tests, full auto was used primarily for psychological reasons, but was found to be inaccurate due to the RPM. Semi-auto finds this rifle to be a quality and accurate piece. The build of the rifle is also substantial quality, with any reliability issues involved in bullpup having been mitigated by clever design. The only other problem with the rifle is cost- making it suitable for officers and special forces.

Bloodletter Class Destroyer Roll: (1+1) Complexity: Moderate Cost: $30 Million
There were many good ideas that went into this ship. Perhaps only a few good things came back out of the nightmare that was the design process for this vessel, however. The first few points of salvage are the guided missile capacity: while the company lacks a design, the lead engineer had a moment of genius and entirely through photos reconstructed the dimensions of a P-15 Termit launcher. This means that while you may not be able to buy missiles from Efficaco just yet, there are missiles on the market which can be used in the Bloodletter. And now comes the bad news. Everything about this ship is broken and dysfunctional. Cannons overheating and jamming. Fire control screwing up. Mounts for cannons giving them a limited range of turning, meaning that any aircraft protection the ship might have had is gone. Speed is slow and cost is high. The Bloodletter is an embarassing black stain on the company's record of R&D.

[Taricus]

This looks interesting, shame there's only three player slots though.

[Khamsin]

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.

[Tiruin]

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 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

...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?

[Khamsin]

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.

[Tiruin]

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 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.

[Taricus]

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.

[Maximum Spin]

Spoiler: Wow, that is some bad luck. (click to show/hide)

Well, there's nothing for it. The Nereid is going to have to be redesigned from the ground up. Only Success. Comms are a necessity for basing subs, but we'll have to be less ambitious with the recon systems; it'll have to largely rely on the Pontics themselves as its Lovecraftian swarm of creepy floating eyes. We're also including a redesigned electromagnetic mounting bracket that will hopefully leave less room for operator error. An improved design will be produced as quickly as possible.
The Pontic-1 is less overwhelmingly unsuccessful; some paring-down of the feature creep should bring it to acceptability. Scrap the torpedoes. Vessel-to-vessel was never the Pontic's purpose, and that space can be used for supplies instead. We'll attempt to improve the stealth capability even more to make up for this, but also, divers with limpet mines are a pretty effective way to take out ships, so it's not a huge loss. Scale back the design to suit the core purpose of amphibious assault.

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.

[Tiruin]

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.

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.
...Wait I misread "inevitable possibility".
Yeah, we can email snail mail each other

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 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.

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.

[Maximum Spin]

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).