PhaseDragon Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 I think it is more of an issue of intentions within said system. If you know the owner of the empire to be untrustworthy or warmongering then by all means take the appropriate action. If the owner of the empire is a peaceful trustworthy type then there should be no harm in letting him "pass through". Agreements can only be made after contact or by proclaiming territory on this board. Other players have to decide if the systems in question are off limits or not. The character of the other player can't be dictated by this board or any other means. Unless there is one empire (or group of empires) with the strength and ability to enforce a galactic policy...a sort of "police force" then chaos rules. Policy can be agreed to by other players but I for one don't like others telling me how to play my empire and I am pretty sure everyone else feels the same. Rules are for the fearful. I FEAR NO ONE! I deal fairly and keep to my word...if I give it. Of course that's easy to say, but it will all be proven in time. Happy gaming everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AKO Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 The United Republic of Scanners will publish the systems it regards as it's sovereign territory on the board. However, a claim is only valid when it is recognised by others. Hence I voted for the mutual agreement or military force, which is much like how it worked when European powers worked out their territorial claims in newly discovered lands. You can claim it, but it is only yours when others recognise the claim. Having some power to go with your claim usually helps in convincing your neighbours that it is a valid claim. Kind regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 This is a really interesting thread, and incredibly timely. I've completed code on System Beacons and thought I'd post what I have here. It can be tweaked as needed should you want something changed. Here's how it works: A new item called a System Beacon has been added to the master Items table. It costs 400 Electronics, 100 Transaluminum and masses 100 tons. No tech prerequesites and it takes only 1 Research Center over 1 turn to acquire (if you have a racial research penalty, it could take 2 turns). System Beacons are carried as cargo in Cargo Bays (100 tons each). Any fleet can deploy a System Beacon by using a JETT (Jettison Cargo) order. The System Beacon is destroyed and placed in an indeterminate spot in the system where the fleet is located. There is no point using any quantity greater than 1 when placing a System Beacon. The Beacon then broadcasts a fixed message whenever any alien fleet executes a WARP (Warp Movement), NM (Naval Movement) or MOVE (Move to Warp Point) order that terminates in that star system. System Beacons are automatically destroyed by any alien fleet that would have initiated combat against one of your fleets because of its ROE settings. An actual battle does not take place: the Beacon is eliminated if there would have been a battle. System Beacons, once deployed, cannot be voluntarily destroyed by their owner. The initial placement date is stored with the beacon, and is broadcast along with the Beacon message. Beacons last for 20 turns, after which time they decay and are destroyed as a result of cosmic radiation, micrometeorite strikes and general system failure. If you deploy another System Beacon in the same star system before your active one there decays, the old one will be replaced. The initial placement date is not changed, keeping your claim date intact, but the decay timer would be reset to zero and a new Beacon message would be generated (generally the same as before unless you had a change of Imperial leadership). Multiple empires can place System Beacons in the same star system. The initial placement dates would show who "got there first" and either side could show up and destroy the other's Beacon to wipe out all traces of the alien's presence. How you handle such situations, or indeed defending your Beacons to begin with, is up to you. Here is an example of a System Beacon placement response: A new System Beacon is placed in the Denver star system. Its activation date is set to 10/28/2003 with the following repeating broadcast message: 'RSL The Rascallian Star League [Gigantic Red Spear Impaling Flaming Homeworld] claims the Denver star system in the name of Ur-Lord Grognar'. This beacon will decay over the period of twenty turns as a result of cosmic radiation, micrometeorite hits and general system failure, after which it will cease to function. If you place another System Beacon here before that time, the activation date will not be changed but the decay timer will be reset to reflect the perfect condition of the new Beacon. The activation date will only disappear if the System Beacon decays completely without being replaced, and is displayed to intruders to show them how long you have claimed this star system. Other empires can place their own System Beacons here if they wish to try and 'claim jump' the system. Friendly System Beacons cannot be destroyed but alien ones are automatically eliminated by any ship that enters their system with a Rules of Engagement setting that would otherwise have triggered combat (an ROE setting of Papa or Quebec, for example, would never destroy a System Beacon, while Romeo would order the destruction of System Beacons owned by declared enemies). I was about to add code that would require you to have an actual colony with at least 1 Installation of some sort somewhere in the star system before you could place a System Beacon there, but this thread popped up and I figured I'd hold off and get your input. If this requirement were not in place, you could drop the things all over the place (especially in star systems already claimed by your neighbors). This would be okay with me, but would probably tend to start a lot of little wars over who really claimed the system first (the activation date on your Beacons is wiped when it is destroyed). Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternusIV Posted November 1, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 Fascinating! I personally think that a system beacon can be placed in any system you enter, regardless of whether you have a colony there. Its one thing to have a beacon that says you were there first...its another to hold that system and the requirement for a colony might only slow down what I see as an important function of the system beacon: to make it easier for empires to know who their neighbors are. Awesome idea, Pete! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azuth Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 Wow, this is great! I was about to add code that would require you to have an actual colony with at least 1 Installation of some sort somewhere in the star system before you could place a System Beacon there, but this thread popped up and I figured I'd hold off and get your input. If this requirement were not in place, you could drop the things all over the place (especially in star systems already claimed by your neighbors). This would be okay with me, but would probably tend to start a lot of little wars over who really claimed the system first (the activation date on your Beacons is wiped when it is destroyed). I have one good reason why you SHOULD NOT have a requirement of a colony. Warp Nexus. There are no planets to colonize. I think you also need a Planetary Beacon. Why? Because, lets say I move into the Pepsi System and I find and destroy a System Beacon because of my ROE settings, and then place my on System Beacon. The whole system is claimed as mine, right? Nope, because one of the Planets/Moons could have a colony on it and would still be claiming it. Then again, they could stay quite and hope they don't get discovered. Just my 2 cents worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 Very interesting. I like how you merely JETT it into the sytem and it covers all moves in the system. Not needing one for every WP is nice. Someone with a colony in a system can simply build one at the colony, LC it to a cargo ship, and JETT it from the cargo ship. Hmmm.... is JETT allowed for Convoy's? You could set up convoy routes with small freighters that merely pick up a set of System Beacons, then move out, dropping a beacon in each system. Then head home, and start the whole thing all over. That is if you feel you have a need to keep one active beacon in everyone of your systems. Or just JETT it in the colony system, just to be safe. 20 turns seems short. But when you think on it, 20 turns if dropped in a star that's one of your border stars ... in 20 turns you should have completed all the WP surveys and have moved on to each next star (so the beacon may not be needed anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clan Elder 'Keen Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 Don't require a colony in place to activate a System Beacon. Let the players figure out everything after that. The use of force or politics can then deal with empires who spew beacons across the galaxy, or who ignore the beacons of others. One possible tweak is to make the System Beacon require more production materials so that it is non-trivial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternusIV Posted November 1, 2003 Author Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 One of the coolest features of the system beacon is the timestamp VERY cool..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ur Lord Tedric Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 I like! Not too fussed about needing a colony with something there - if you've a colony with something there then that means you've staked a claim to that world, not the system. This might also significantly assist with meeting people. Would like to have the JETT order added to convoy routes so we can make sensible plans and replacing them is not an unreasonable chore. And what's this? Pete's got spare time on his hands for completely NEW things! Wow, what will we find fixed or completed in the next game turn????!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha'thar of the Gosht Kohr Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 Sha'thar sits atop a mountain overlooking recently acquired hunting grounds, conversing with a younger pride sister. Sha'thar . o O { Remeber, everything the light touches belongs to the sisterhood. We all exist in a great circle of life... } Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galvorn Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 I don't mind the chaos which may be brought on by a beacon in any system you find, though I seem to feel it more realistic for a system with a colony. The comment on Nexus has merit though.... Galvorn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowKitsune Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 I concur with regard to Warp Nexus systems - you should be able to 'claim' them. Requiring a planetary colony (i.e. Imperial Flag) in system would preclude that, so I am against that restriction accordingly. How would one 'destroy' another empire's beacon if it is placed in indeterminate space? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Blair Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 I was about to add code that would require you to have an actual colony with at least 1 Installation of some sort somewhere in the star system before you could place a System Beacon there, but this thread popped up and I figured I'd hold off and get your input. If this requirement were not in place, you could drop the things all over the place (especially in star systems already claimed by your neighbors). This would be okay with me, but would probably tend to start a lot of little wars over who really claimed the system first (the activation date on your Beacons is wiped when it is destroyed). Thoughts? I don't think a colony should be required. After all this is a beacon not an actual installation. Just my two cents worth. Matthew Blair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zy'lar'isa Posted November 1, 2003 Report Share Posted November 1, 2003 We are of the "no colony" faction for placement of System Beacons. We look forward to the arguements and are always preparing Our discussion points. Queen Zy'lar'isa The Nest of Zylaria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Carpenter Posted November 2, 2003 Report Share Posted November 2, 2003 1) no Colony to claim 2) this is how i will claim systems 3) I would like a Mk X colony beacon gun, So I can shoot them into any system I know the name of :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.