StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Steve wrote:I have some conceptual objections to it, though. Mostly in how negative relations work. Dark orange being "border skirmishes" doesn't work if you have no border, and really it and "Minor War" should simply be something like "Hostile" and "Mutual Hate".

I can understand how "Border Skirmishes" should be changed to "Hostile", and don't mind changing it, but I don't quite follow how "Mutual Hate" is the appropriate phrase for the next level of aggression, as opposed to "Minor War". Can you explain, provide an example, or perhaps spell out a more clear grouping of negative relations?

I am of the opinion that there also needs to be a second layer of Unknown. First part of Unknown is that It is an actual policy of Unknown relations and the second is Where the player is undecided yet on how the relations should be and wants to play it by ear.

Agent Sorchus wrote:second is Where the player is undecided yet on how the relations should be and wants to play it by ear.

What, you mean white?

For my nation, I set a blanket policy of "neutral", and I change it where indicated.

Also, please note that the chart is supposed to be a rough guide to the current relationship between nations; I'm not trying to distinguish between "allies as in more than friends", "allies as in military alliance", or "allies only because both our diplomats are currently pursuing intimate relationships in the back rooms". I don't especially care if the "Unknown" is because the actual relationship is secretive, or because neither nation has an official policy towards the other. I just know it's unknown.

Dave wrote:What, you mean white?

Yeah but white is too close visually to the off-white neutral. I am adding a light purple for those who want to mark that they are uncertain in their position.

Dave wrote:

Steve wrote:I have some conceptual objections to it, though. Mostly in how negative relations work. Dark orange being "border skirmishes" doesn't work if you have no border, and really it and "Minor War" should simply be something like "Hostile" and "Mutual Hate".

I can understand how "Border Skirmishes" should be changed to "Hostile", and don't mind changing it, but I don't quite follow how "Mutual Hate" is the appropriate phrase for the next level of aggression, as opposed to "Minor War". Can you explain, provide an example, or perhaps spell out a more clear grouping of negative relations?

"Mutual Hate" is perhaps too awkward a term to use. But it shouldn't be "minor war". There should be two grades of outright hostility beyond "Suspicious" but short of active hostility (aka "War"). One grade reflects where powers openly dislike each other (instead of merely being suspicious and distrustful of each other) but are not indulging in outright skirmishing - this grade can mostly apply to players with antagonistic governmental/ideological systems who are yet on opposite sides of the map (for instance, New Anglia will be naturally antagonistic and hostile toward totalitarian states or militant, aggressive ones, but if we're not in the same region there is no constant contact to let this mutual enmity progress to low-level fighting). The second, higher grade of animosity is for states that are in proximity toward each other - the Sovereignty and the Bragulans for instance - and who are openly hostile to one another and often indulge in skirmishing and potshots, though with no outright state of war yet existing.

I suppose the first grade can be "Hostile" and the second can be something like "Rivals" or even "Enemies".

Agent Sorchus wrote:

Dave wrote:What, you mean white?

Yeah but white is too close visually to the off-white neutral. I am adding a light purple for those who want to mark that they are uncertain in their position.

....I think he means that if you're uncertain about relations with someone you simply don't mark the square for them in your column until you know how it'll go.

Steve wrote: I suppose the first grade can be "Hostile" and the second can be something like "Rivals" or even "Enemies".

OK, I've made some of the changes you suggested. Now I have:

1. Neutral

• Suspicion

• Dislike

• Hostile

• State of War

• War of Annihilation

Does that look better?

Steve wrote: ....I think he means that if you're uncertain about relations with someone you simply don't mark the square for them in your column until you know how it'll go.

Bingo.

God damn Wikia.....

Disregard this, I completely misread something. God damn wikia indeed. To avoid anyone else making my error, I formatted the rules page on the wiki. I don't know why I was thinking that the costs for sectors were above their listing instead of below...

I did not have a lot of time, but generally people should assume the Sassanids are isolationists, have a good relationship with the Bragulans (more to come there) and generally will trade with everyone.

So far the following players have yet to receive map placement:

Setzer - Chiron Sovereignty
Shep - Shepistani Republic
Bluewolf - United Corporate Front
Moby - Cevaucian Ascendancy
Dahak - Imperium of the Night
Lord Oskuro
Flameblade - Covenant of the Void

I also believe that none of these have actually posted national data.

Figured I'd bring it up since we've got less than three weeks before July dawns and we're at the time to start.

Thanas wrote:I did not have a lot of time, but generally people should assume the Sassanids are isolationists, have a good relationship with the Bragulans (more to come there) and generally will trade with everyone.

If 'a good relationship' means you entangle yourself with the Bragulan Star Empire that means it's all but guaranteed the Sovereignty will be hostile in words, and quite possibly in actions, towards the Sassanids. If it just means 'we don't kill the shit out of each other and occasionally trade' that's slightly more tolerable, but only just so. We don't like the Bragulans, and by extension we don't like anyone who gets into bed with them, either.

Where should I post my national info/background/fluff? Here? The wiki? The history compilation thread?

I'd stick it on the Wiki, Oskuro. Very easy to read there.

A question that came to mind when corresponding with Teleros about Altacaran-USS relations... What trade is likely to happen on the galactic scale anyway? We're all multi-system powers with absolute control over dozens of worlds and moons, equal to a staggeringly huge amount of resources -- shouldn't any halfway competent government commanding such vast economic wealth be effectively self-sufficient? As such I imagine the stuff the Sovereignty imports from outside its borders is mostly novelty items, artwork, specialized technological items, that sort of thing. More a luxury business than anything really important, in other words.

As per my response to Siege via PM, I suspect a lot will depend on relative efficencies: if I can get you all the titanium you need at 90% of what you'd pay your own people, trade seems like a good idea. There may also be rare resources - aside from good old unobtainium, some nations may just be unlucky in the amount of some real-world resource they have (or don't have, I should say). If you need rhenium for some super-tech and have next to none in your own systems*...

Edit: * Or indeed, mined it out in past centuries.

Yeah. There will be trade, primarily in specialty products, but also in fairly rare minerals not everyone has sufficient access to. What I do expect, though, is a general lack of basic foodstuff trade on the interstellar scale. Aside from any "independent" mining colonies on planetoids, moons, and asteroids in the unclaimed sectors, our own internal food production should mean nobody needs to import basic foodstuffs. Food that is exported will be exported because it is a specialty item (like a particular herd animal native to Solaria that has an enjoyable texture when cooked and eaten, or a fruit from New Anglia's tropical zone that has a unique flavoring).

BTW, with only a few players left unmapped so far, would anyone object to adding an NPC here or there? So far we only have the Mod State, a one-sector NPC that is a New Anglian protectorate, and the Tau Dead Sectors by the Imperium. I was thinking of adding a couple sectors of what I call "the Caliphal States" along one of the major shoal regions, who can act as shitholes for us to do cloak-and-dagger adventure stories in and the occasional Barbury Corsair-style activities to be remarked upon. Similar NPCs can be put near any of the major Shoal Sectors, if the locals request it.

Fine by me Steve. More nations = more people = more customers .
...
Oh yeah, and cloak & daggers stuff is always fun.

Sounds good to me, sure.

It'll be interesting to see what materials that some people will have access to that others won't. I hope that this knowledge won't necessarily be public to everyone, though? I can imagine some will want to keep a strategic reserve of certain rare minerals and such, after all...

PeZook wrote:Collectors are up on the Wiki. With (stolen) pictures!

They are? I can't find them.

Oho, is that a return of the fucking Libertopians I spot? Yeah, I think that should be fun; it gives us someone to spar with without having to immediately work through ten dozen PMs hashing out a storyline (or antagonizing other players with unforeseen dickeries, I suppose).

Thanas wrote:

PeZook wrote:Collectors are up on the Wiki. With (stolen) pictures!

They are? I can't find them.

http://worldsofsdn.wikia.com/wiki/The_Collectors

Why do we have two seperate STGOD wikis now?

Siege wrote:A question that came to mind when corresponding with Teleros about Altacaran-USS relations... What trade is likely to happen on the galactic scale anyway? We're all multi-system powers with absolute control over dozens of worlds and moons, equal to a staggeringly huge amount of resources -- shouldn't any halfway competent government commanding such vast economic wealth be effectively self-sufficient?

You just discovered what I tried to tell Steve months ago.

We'll just have to handwave it, I think.

I can see finished goods being traded a bit too, nobody needs to be able to select from multiple brands of spaceship for their interplanetary needs, or to choose from hundreds of virtual reality interfaces, or what have you, but as life has shown, people like variety anyway. However it isn't as if trade would be huge anyway so a blockade or embargo, if it could even be enforced, would likely have zero effect on most people's economy. The same goes for ship building really, there is very little to limit how fast you can crank out ships. My bottleneck is anti-matter, but if I wanted to go cheap then fusion powered craft could be produced in mass quantities, it's don't be a dick, but it shows that any nod to realism is a distant one at best.

EDIT: Just did the math and assuming you can capture 1% of the sun's energy out put and convert that at a rate of 10[sup]-10[/sup] you still create 3.9e14 J worth of anti-mater per second. 10[sup]-10[/sup] (or 1:10,000,000,000) conversion ratio is using our modern techniques, which for massive vessels like mine would be a huge bottleneck. However using say 10% output and a 1:1,000,000,000 ratio we instead get one monster ship per 3 years per star. Which I suppose would make a military like mine reasonable as some antimatter would need to go to smaller vessels, antimatter warheads, and civilian use with room to spare so that not all systems produce the same energy. It does go to show that stars are the most important resource though.