My applogies for I am about to post, a number, of posts, I've been away for several days, and as I said I am very strongly opinionated about this topic, I shall endeavor however to moderate myself. wish me luck *I'm sure you already have*
And, one might argue that the capital should be a capture the flag event anyway, but what about distributed conscientiousness races, who wouldn't need or have a capital, at least in late game.
This whole quoted portion is based on an assumption that capture of the capitol ends the game. I clearly said that was a possibility
, not that is was the official plan. It hasn't been (to my knowledge) much discussed, so start a new thread if you wish... it's off topic here. Other one-per-empire entities which could be included in the discussion are "Homeworlds" and "Empire Stockpiles".
First, I was not referring to it necessarily being a 100% capture the flag scenario, although that is a possible interpretation of my words. More simply that having all your eggs in one basket is never a good idea. In the event where that basket gets toppled, or briefly held out of range, your over a barrel. . . even if you don't loose the game RIGHT then, you're really hard pressed to recover from it. So all the arguments Still stand, simply because having flag, even if it's not a 100% instant loss flag, still isn't wise. That was the point i was trying to make, I would appreciate it if you read, rather then dismissed off hand what i wrote, thank you.
As for the rest, i will no longer re-explain this topic to people who don't demonstrate an understanding of the major ideas
behind planetary redistribution:
* in the preliminary v 0.4
* in my initial thread on the topic
* in this thread, itself.
Thank you once again for dismissing me off hand as an idiot. I'm not, but so be it.
I have re-read, now all off those post, again.
Re the first link, I know where the plan is, I'm disagreeing with the one stockpile rule. That page does not include any explanation, which was what i had asked for.
link 2; I noticed that you yourself dominate that link, which is fine, you started it. but i also noticed A LOT of people bringing up points similar, or even nearly identical to mine. (and that like me you mostly dismissed them out of hand without much thought, or explication, often referring to the link one, as if it were set in stone, and leafed with gold as not to be ever touched lest it's perfection be marred.) Maybe this is true, but i would like to know why it is true, which I've still yet to find an adequate reason.
I manged to find SOME reasoning, Geoff mentioned that
This might be too much extra information for players to manage, but it could provide a way to elegantly deal with sub-grids of planets that can share between themselves, but not with the rest of the empire, without needing to throw away any extra stockpilable resources in such situations for no apparently reason.
Which IS a valid reason not to move to Multi stockpiles. But if you read the suggested method, I explicitly handle this objection, I suggest a system where the user never needs to know or see more then one sub-empire stockpile at a time. These sub-empires May be one planet, or several planets disconnected from the capital, but since resources can't move (or if partial blockades are used they can be moved but it done in the same sense being consumed in one, and produced in the other, so as not to be difficult to understand).
You later say
If you considered the deliberate simplicity of the core game mechanics, it might become apparent that solidcordon's proposed level of complexity is out of place in a secondary aspect of gamplay.
Referring to a poster whom you managed to bully out of the subject. . . congratulations.
I don't know what his suggestion was, since he removed it after being scared off by you, but if complexity is the issue, I stand by my statement that my proposed system is not significantly more complex in any meaningful way, then yours, Simply that it is de-centralized, and allows rational empire management in times of need.
Quoting the second half of your most resent plan
* Excess food in the north is eaten or spoils.
* Excess minerals in the north are wasted. I don't have a plausible explanation for this, except that it prevents the micromanagy badness of mineral stockpiles springing up on various planets.
* Excess industrial production is, of course, wasted if there is not enough things to built in the north.
In short, divide and conquer is a very valid strategy in this proposal. If the Qew cannot reestablish the supply lines between the two halves, the north is vulnerable to conquest and/or rebellion.
The first two are precisely the type of problem I'm trying to avoid. Food is or is not savable from year to year, there is no reason to invoke magic fridges which can only be in one place to save food, If you can save food one place you can save it another,
if you can store minerals one place you can store them in another, This is admittedly a realism argument. . . and i don't put much/ and weight on it. But if your going to break realism you need a reason which remains unsolved, even a small one will do.
You do mention wanting to avoid the micromanagement of stockpiles, this is commendable. Please note that in my suggested method stockpiles are NOT micromanagable.
Re the divide and conquer;
yes, with your suggestion the divide and conquer strategy is stronger then in my *really quite limited* altered proposal. My point is that in your system the divide and conquer strategy is TOO powerful. Sit one blockade on one planet *granted a hard to blockade planet, but still one planet* and everything else is in *the 'vonerable part of the empire' mode since it can't draw from backup supplies.*
Moving on to the third link;
I shall limit myself to one comment, *I'll respond to more recent posts seperately*
one of the opening questions was
"** What share (if any) of the global stockpile does a planet have when a blockade begins?"
Your answer is none, ever, for any planet which is not the main planet, My *and several other people's* response is some. Both may be valid final answers, it would be nice if you acknowledged the possibility that both possibilities are possible, and additionally it would be nice if you provided reasons why your solution is better rather then referring to other documents as if the where final and only answer, simply because they agree with you.
It's a somewhat complicated topic, but an excessively large portion of the activity has been people repeatedly raising the same ideas and questions— which have already been thoroughly addressed.
This is a complicated topic, other ideas then yours might also be acceptable, Please keep an open mind...
As you might have noticed, I do feel slightly attacked by your response, an apology would be accepted heartedly. Additionally it would earn you one in turn for my implications that your behaving as an ogre. (although as member of the "Creative Team", you might consider being more open minded; both in this topic and in several others where I have noted you can come across often more forcefully then you perhaps intend. Just a thought.)
Best wishes to all, And hopefully we can achieve some form of mutual understanding and respect.