ACON

[Locklyn]

To add some more weight to diplomacy and having allies I suggest the following order be considered.

 

ACON (no of inst.) (Installation name) (Originating pop group) (Target popgroup)

Allied Construction

 

 

This order would allow you to construct an installation in an allies popgroup on the same world as your pop group. The materials would be taken from your (the originating) pop group so as to prevent over building an target pop group. Also pop is taken from free pop in target population so as to prevent population transfer that way...

 

 

This order would enable empires that have concentrated on technologies to build up their infrastructure rather than ship components to have something to trade with such Empires as they could build a coretap station for their ally and gain components in return.

 

Personally I think this would do much for diplomacy and alliance.

thoughts? Critique?

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

[Lord Xaar]

I like it. It seems that two races should be able to trade construction knowledge... (Though maybe a giant lizard race would have some trouble building for tiny aquatic plant life.)

 

 

 

 

Another thing to dicuss in Indy!

 

-LX

[Locklyn]

(Though maybe a giant lizard race would have some trouble building for tiny aquatic plant life.)

 

Only doing it very very carefully

 

Heck, if that would apply then I would like to see those tiny ship components traded to the giant dinosaur race...so let's not go there

 

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

[Lord Xaar]

Heck, if that would apply then I would like to see those tiny ship components traded to the giant dinosaur race...so let's not go there

Careful, Locklyn.

 

You might give those on this board that desire more "logistical realism" some bad ideas.

 

 

-LX

[Locklyn]

I think anyone who has redesigned their entire production queue after a windfall of new technologies and new needs understand the need not to add any more logistical elements to the game A zero too much or too little or in the wrong place and you are suddenly sitting with a million tons of mineral fertiliser that you really have no clue what to use them for....

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

[Ur Lord Tedric]

You might give those on this board that desire more "logistical realism" some bad ideas.

:lol:

 

"Bad" ideas - Wimp!!!!

 

Mx

 

(Role Play 'realism' & Logistical 'realism' - Yummy.......)

[Lord Xaar]

(Role Play 'realism' & Logistical 'realism' - Yummy.......)

This is why I buy "Rolaids" by the ton...

 

 

 

-LX

[Krelnett_of_Kraan]

I think anyone who has redesigned their entire production queue after a windfall of new technologies and new needs understand the need not to add any more logistical elements to the game A zero too much or too little or in the wrong place and you are suddenly sitting with a million tons of mineral fertiliser that you really have no clue what to use them for....

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

Why in the names of all Gods above and below were you building mineral fertilizer to begin with? It's the only item we've yet found with less use than coal.

Which reminds us, has anyone stumbled across the tech necessary to convert coal into diamonds so you can actually do something with it? All of our colonies (and HW) have plentiful hydroelectric power, so we're certainly not going to burn it.

[EternusIV]

Is this the example you perceive?

 

My ally is on a colony world with me.

I developed Improved Industrial Complexes, my ally has not.

So...according to your suggestion, I can build Improved Industrial Complexes in my ally's pop group using *my* stockpiles and *his/her* population...right?

 

Do you see a difference between swapping individual tech items and building installations for another empire?

 

In my view - swapping items has an inferior effect compared to swapping installations. If you take a look at the benefits and sacrifices it takes for high end installations and the cost to build/trade them - they seem more critical to game balance than the benefits and sacrifices it takes to build/trade high end weapons. 500 Improved CM can stretch a LOT more efficiently (especially since you can DISM the alien installation and recover the ICMs) than the components used to build an item (which cannot be reduced to the original resources)

 

I foresee an interesting dilemna - my ally does not have say...Advanced construction materials and I float over there and build a bunch of the installations that require Advanced CMs for him. The next turn he dismantles the installation and now has a fresh stack of Advanced CMs in his stockpiles. Well - thats odd - because had I just dropped off the Advanced CMs through a normal OC order, the ally wouldn't be able to build those same installations Would you advocate that allies get to pool their buildable infrastructure on the sole basis of being allies without regard to their actual technological capability to build installations?

 

REVERSE scenario....how if my ally found some Advanced CMs through exploration. Should he/she be allowed to transfer those to me so that I can 'convert' them to shiny new installations that they otherwise couldn't build? Sounds like 'ring around the tech tree.'

 

Another note - this can also allow an ally to rebuild your infrastructure if you get razed to the ground (a good or bad thing depending on your perspective)

 

A major problem - suppose I decide to issue an ACON order *without your permission* thereby sabotaging your planned production by absorbing population you might need elsewhere? :lol: Or the less nefarious circumstance: I issue an ACON order and simply make a mistake that (unintentionally) causes the same thing?

 

I personally don't see any need to invent game mechanics that reward players for being "ALLIES"

 

The only thing the PAP seems to affect is ROE settings....thats it. And thats fine...but I'm hesitant to see the "Alliance Status" affect much else.

 

Throw in the fact that Alliances (even Total Alliances) can be so easily broken.....

[T'Lariss]

Is this the example you perceive?

 

My ally is on a colony world with me.

I developed Improved Industrial Complexes, my ally has not.

So...according to your suggestion, I can build Improved Industrial Complexes in my ally's pop group using *my* stockpiles and *his/her* population...right?

 

Do you see a difference between swapping individual tech items and building installations for another empire?

 

In my view - swapping items has an inferior effect compared to swapping installations.  If you take a look at the benefits and sacrifices it takes for high end installations and the cost to build/trade them - they seem more critical to game balance than the benefits and sacrifices it takes to build/trade high end weapons.  500 Improved CM can stretch a LOT more efficiently (especially since you can DISM the alien installation and recover the ICMs) than the components used to build an item (which cannot be reduced to the original resources)

 

I foresee an interesting dilemna - my ally does not have say...Advanced construction materials and I float over there and build a bunch of the installations that require Advanced CMs for him.  The next turn he dismantles the installation and now has a fresh stack of Advanced CMs in his stockpiles.  Well - thats odd - because had I just dropped off the Advanced CMs through a normal OC order, the ally wouldn't be able to build those same installations    Would you advocate that allies get to pool their buildable infrastructure on the sole basis of being allies without regard to their actual technological capability to build installations? 

 

REVERSE scenario....how if my ally found some Advanced CMs through exploration.  Should he/she be allowed to transfer those to me so that I can 'convert' them to shiny new installations that they otherwise couldn't build?  Sounds like 'ring around the tech tree.'

 

Another note - this can also allow an ally to rebuild your infrastructure if you get razed to the ground (a good or bad thing depending on your perspective)

 

A major problem - suppose I decide to issue an ACON order *without your permission* thereby sabotaging your planned production by absorbing population you might need elsewhere?  :lol:  Or the less nefarious circumstance:  I issue an ACON order and simply make a mistake that (unintentionally) causes the same thing? 

 

I personally don't see any need to invent game mechanics that reward players for being "ALLIES"

 

The only thing the PAP seems to affect is ROE settings....thats it.  And thats fine...but I'm hesitant to see the "Alliance Status" affect much else.

 

Throw in the fact that Alliances (even Total Alliances) can be so easily broken.....

 

 

Eternus

Most of your "cheats" are meaningless. I can already "Give" anyone I want 5000 Advanced construcon materials, (it's called trade and I can trade you 5000 Advanced Con Mat for ohh say a 1 MK I Nuclear engine) and Dang thaere goes half your argument. You do, however make a good point about the use of the proposed ACON order to attack (accidentally of otherwise) the planed Population of a planet. My guess would be that it means you should pick very carefully who you are total allies with. You also make a good point about being able to break alliances easily, again I guess that it means one should be very carfull on who you totally ally with.

I have no problems with allies (especially total allies) having a limited number of things to do with one another other than just an ROE settings

 

T'Lariss

[Locklyn]

Eternus,

While I see your concerns I also see like T'lariss that there are already other ways in place to "cheat" in the way you state. What the ACON would primarily do is enable the solitary player who has concentrated on construction tech to have something to trade beside ship components that may be used against him. As for use of attack remember the whole concept of the ACON builds on the fact that you both have colonies on the same world, probably due to trade, which in itself shows a certain level of trust to be already in place, to build in the high numbers you were worried about, those would have to be in place on the homeworld and if you are prepared to let another player build a colony on your homeworld I guess you really really trust him and him overbuilding and taking 5-900 of your surplus pop in a malicious attack is the least thing that could happen.

 

No, I think the ACON order suggested is a balanced first step in repairing the diplomacy section of this game.

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

[EternusIV]

T'Lariss-

 

I can already "Give" anyone I want 5000 Advanced construcon materials, (it's called trade and I can trade you 5000 Advanced Con Mat for ohh say a 1 MK I Nuclear engine) and Dang thaere goes half your argument.

 

Well, thats what I alluded to here:

 

Well - thats odd - because had I just dropped off the Advanced CMs through a normal OC order, the ally wouldn't be able to build those same installations

 

The real issue is this (not an 'argument' really but a fairly critical question, in my mind):

 

Would you advocate that allies get to pool their buildable infrastructure on the sole basis of being allies without regard to their actual technological capability to build installations? 

 

It appears that you two guys seem to be willing to pool buildable infrastructure between 'allies'

 

I am not.

 

At first glance the coding would be crazy...and what happens if I break the alliance? Do the shiny alien installations simply crumble? Or do we all go around making ALLiances with each other (without making diplomatic contact - a CURRENT and existing bug) just to consolidate our buildable installation lists? Granted - we have to actually deploy the materials under your proposition....but still...

 

How can you guys not see this as an issue that affects balance? It almost penalizes empires for not choosing to ally with every empire they meet.

 

With all of that said - I can think of an alternative solution to Locklyn's aims (an alternative I still wouldn't support because I don't think that the "ALLY" status should get any little perks other than a somewhat reliable ROE guarantee with their neighbor):

 

If two empires occupy the same planet, one with superior installations than the other, the inferior empire will receive a bonus of some sort to similiar installations of theirs on that world.

 

Again - there would be a coding mess of some sort.

 

Sadly, guys - I just don't see anything like this happening in the future.

[Locklyn]

At first glance the coding would be crazy...and what happens if I break the alliance? Do the shiny alien installations simply crumble?

 

I assume the ACON order would work under the presumtion that the CONstructing race is sending over it's engineers to show how to assemble the weird materials in the correct order and not to push the "Core Overload Failsafe Disabled" button too often. If the alliance fails, then no more ACON could be permitted. The installations would still be in place. I'm at a loss how this would be crazy coding? A check towards diplomatic status to allow it or not, a check towards the pop group of the constructor to see that it has the materials and is located on the same world as the target and a final check to see that there is free pop in the target pop.

 

You HAVE to have met. You HAVE to have built colonies on the SAME world and you HAVE to put the needed materials on the SAME world in those popgroups and you can ONLY affect those popgroups where you are co-located. Thus you cannot ALLY with everyone since you'll never meet everyone. You'll only co-locate with people you trust and have an ingame alliance with. Primarily you'll only build on colonies since trust enough to build on homeworlds is a bit away and you still have to have the material carted to you. Ie if you are building real advanced installations on an allys world you still have to truck those building materials to your own popgroup to be able to build it since he cannot manufacture it himself. That is an inherent BRAKE in itself.

 

What is the problem with having some benefits to being allied to players you've met ingame other than not shooting at them automatically? (Which can be circumvented) This is supposed to be an Empire building game with all that entails. And Empire building without diplomacy has always been a failure. SNROE is currently without any diplomatic functions ingame, why should we just accept that and not work to suggest improvements?

 

Cheers

/Locklyn

[Mechanica]

You could always install a small computer chip next to the fuel tankage/power source just like the government installs on all fighter jets sold to foreign governm.....oops gotta go

[RTGPete]

I'll think about it.

 

Primarily you'll only build on colonies since trust enough to build on homeworlds is a bit away and you still have to have the material carted to you. Ie if you are building real advanced installations on an allys world you still have to truck those building materials to your own popgroup to be able to build it since he cannot manufacture it himself. That is an inherent BRAKE in itself.

 

I don't agree that this would occur primarily on colony worlds. In fact, I see it happening almost exclusively on homeworlds. Carting the materials becomes trivial when on the other player's homeworld - he would research whatever is needed for construction in order to make it all happen. It's not like Advanced Construction Materials, for instance, are all that hard to research. It's the ability to build a particular installation that is being traded.

 

There is a balance issue at stake because such an order would dramatically improve the ability of neighbors to ramp up their production.

 

I would hesitate to tie it to an alliance structure because political agreements are one-way and are used essentially to allow for a complex set of fleet ROE settings. This makes political agreements extremely useful already. Adding a Total Alliance or Alliance requirement for installation construction would have side-effects on fleet movement that I would not want to impose on either player. Instead, there would need to be some sort of system to limit the number that he could build for you (this value being set by you, by pop group). Then he could be an ally or enemy or whatever you like, and you'd have control over his ability to ACON for you.

 

The real issue is that there are no requirements for CON orders other than having the appropriate technology and construction needs (such as Improved CM). This would imply that what you are really asking for is to have an ally drop an empty pop group on your homeworld so that his no-population there can build superior installations there for you. He moves a tiny ship with a Colony Beacon to your homeworld, you research (for example) Improved CM, he builds as many Improved Industries as you can supply Improved CM for. Since he does not need to carry any population in, it becomes a de facto pop transfer by way of eliminating regular industries in favor of more pop-efficient Improved Industries. Or are you suggesting that he be required to bring in population and colonize, with the number of pop units he has present be a limiting factor in his construction ability? This would have the side effect of penalizing non-colonizers.

 

Is that essentially it?