Prev: Re: Game balance (no longer really very VV-related) Next: Re: [VV] Gate defence

RE: Game balance (no longer really very VV-related)

From: Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@t...>
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2005 20:07:17 +0100
Subject: RE: Game balance (no longer really very VV-related)

Binhan Lin wrote:

>Probably the best method is to un-abstract point costs and make
different 
>portions of the ship utilize different resources.  For instance, FTL
and 
>normal engines require Unobtanium. Nation A is lucky and has a source
of 
>Unobtanium, Nation B has to import it's Unobtanium.  Therefore, Nation
A 
>could build a particular FTL/high maneuver design more cheaply than
Nation B.
>
>If Beam weapons require Quadlithium crystals as focusing elements and 
>Nation A has no indigenous supplies, while Nation B does, then Nation B

>can build beam weapons cheaper.
>
>On average, the Point costs for the same ship design built by the two 
>nations will be roughly the same (Nation A pays more for weapons,
Nation B 
>pays more for FTL)

...until A concquers B's Quadlithium mines and thus becomes able to
build 
both FTL drives *and* beam weapons cheaply, while the B survivors have
to 
pay extra for *both* resources (or vice versa). When this happens, you
get 
a Monopoly-style campaign: much gets more.

Regards,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

Prev: Re: Game balance (no longer really very VV-related) Next: Re: [VV] Gate defence