Re: [GZG] Tech tree for campaign play [long] [sec=UNCLASSIFIED]

[mintroll-ft-list <mintroll-gzg-ft@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Brendan wrote: (lots)

>>Just started reading Steve Walmsley's Rigellian Empire Diary (from
>>an old VectorVerse discussion thread) combined with Simon White's new
>>campaign, I've decided to try reworking my old tech trees using a different
>>methodology.
>>	Basic premise is to use 10x pts cost of each system (smallest size
>>of basic system; ie without extra arcs) as the research cost of each system
>>(stacking into "tree" format).

Tech Trees are always a pain to sort out - balancing issues aside, you need to first partition things into a sensible Tree, backup up by some PSB. Though I like your divisions - good idea about the extra arcs. Not convinved about the increasing costs of beams though.

Perhaps you could work it on a cumulative idea. So Beam 1 [6arc] is 30 TP, but a Beam 2 [3arc] (the basic) is also 30 TP, ie the difference between class 2 and 1, not just absolute. crunches the beam tree down a lot though.

All this then of course depends on how common tech points are, but thats a balancing issue, so ignore it and it'll go away.

It's good and I like it in principle. For our campaign we didn't want a tech tree since everyone then starts out the same - we like the idea of having vastly varied starting powers. Since it's a trust based game, we 'theme' our designs without enforcing a specific tech tree or set of restrictions (eg. all my  ships of the line (my beta fleet) are thrust 5, no more no less).

Very interesting, I'll add it as an appendix someday if you don't mind.


Simon
-- 
Experience is the fool's best teacher; the wise do not need it.

http://fullthrust.2-72.co.uk

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l