IMT Spindizzy

I agree with letting testing continue for now. Let's test it as designed.

As noted moving fleets has been possible with other devices such as
Chunnel for a long time. Fire* ships are much more available to Borg and
allies.

There has also been a change in what is expected to happen to the
Spindizzy. For long a GP has been useful as a giant transport using the
Grav Acc to transport logistics to forward fleets at high rates of
advance (like Banks theory of GSVs).

Had this rate of advance been extended to the fleets maybe a re-think
would have been needed. But the GA turns off when the Spindizzy comes on
(I suspect they had to integrate the devices that way, in retrospect the
GA would possibly shredded trying to form a fully closed warp *inside* a
Spindizzy field...what can we have been thinking?) so you can either
advance your fleet at Full Military Power or do logistics as 2X with the
GA on. This seems rather balanced.

Now if you will excuse me I am off to IMT Labs to motivate the lads to
look at forming a Spindizzy field that will form a fully closed warp.
Possibly a really hot cup of tea is required?


ashrangildowan.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:
> I had considered making the suggestion about increasing the cost
> myself now that the Spindizzy device is active, but had deferred for
> some more playtesting to see just how difficult it is to roll out the
> GPs once you build up the tech for them. They do require 5380
> minerals after all, about 3 times what it takes to build a Virgo, and
> that's nothing to sneeze at even for the IMT.
>
> As a minimum, though, I would endorse doubling it to 30k, and I think
> 50k would be reasonable if everyone agreed the MC cost should go up
> that high.
>
> I disagree on the one Pyramid idea, though. I think cost should be
> allowed to be the limiting factor on how many GPs are being built.
> After all, the UEA and Borg aren't artificially limited on the number
> of Paxes and Firestorms they can have running around, and these are
> each as much or more powerful at moving ships and bases than the
> Spindizzy at a fraction of the cost. It is only the ability to move
> planets that distinguishes the Great Pyramid, and though that is no
> doubt a powerful ability, it is one that I think will not prove to be
> a show-stopper once people get used to it and how to counter and
> accomodate for it.
 >> Stay informed about: IMT Spindizzy 

On Dec 6, 7:51 am, KlingonKommand <P... DeleteThis @nurk.fnord> wrote:
> Lord Lancelot writes
>
> >How about making the pyramid who has this device cost more than 15 000
> >mc ?
>
> >It should cost at the very least as much of a let say a Virgo 50 000
> >mc (for the hull).
>
> In my experience, CoM have much more cash than IMT. Although IMT was
> intended as a cash rich race, it tends to get left in the dust by high
> growth races and those with money making tricks like CoM.
> --
> Paul Honigmann

CoM's money making tricks are dependant on colonists population.

wheras IMT's money making tricks are based on Minerals being
exchanged. i think there are far more minerals in the universe than
CoM population. therefore i feel IMT can effectively manage the
increased expense.
 >> Stay informed about: IMT Spindizzy 

Lord Lancelot writes
>How about making the pyramid who has this device cost more than 15 000
>mc ?
>
>It should cost at the very least as much of a let say a Virgo 50 000
>mc (for the hull).

In my experience, CoM have much more cash than IMT. Although IMT was
intended as a cash rich race, it tends to get left in the dust by high
growth races and those with money making tricks like CoM.
--
Paul Honigmann
 >> Stay informed about: IMT Spindizzy 

On Dec 6 2007, 5:45 pm, protomatter <protomat....TakeThisOut@buckeye-express.com>
wrote:
> On Dec 6, 7:51 am, KlingonKommand <P....TakeThisOut@nurk.fnord> wrote:
>
> > Lord Lancelot writes
>
> > >How about making the pyramid who has this device cost more than 15 000
> > >mc ?
>
> > >It should cost at the very least as much of a let say a Virgo 50 000
> > >mc (for the hull).
>
> > In my experience, CoM have much more cash than IMT. Although IMT was
> > intended as a cash rich race, it tends to get left in the dust by high
> > growth races and those with money making tricks like CoM.
> > --
> > Paul Honigmann
>
> CoM's money making tricks are dependant on colonists population.
>
> wheras IMT's money making tricks are based on Minerals being
> exchanged. i think there are far more minerals in the universe than
> CoM population. therefore i feel IMT can effectively manage the
> increased expense.

Sadly IMT suffer not inconsequentially from the way Metals Exchanges
currently operate.
 >> Stay informed about: IMT Spindizzy 

> > CoM's money making tricks are dependant on colonists population.
>
> > wheras IMT's money making tricks are based on Minerals being
> > exchanged. i think there are far more minerals in the universe than
> > CoM population. therefore i feel IMT can effectively manage the
> > increased expense.
>
> Sadly IMT suffer not inconsequentially from the way Metals Exchanges
> currently operate.

Considering the combat value difference the Virgo and Pyramids have I
don't think makignt hem really expensive (and certainly not limiting
them) is a good idea.

Though I do think the "opt out" code for the Spindizzy should be
removed. Its all or nothing sort of a thing.

Though on a side note, I wouldn't mind seeing the "ridiculous" end of
the economic spectrum limited more than it is now for all races.
Basically, reduce the cash that "secondary" means (ship devices, crazy
buildings, etc) make.
 >> Stay informed about: IMT Spindizzy 

1. The IMT race designers agree that the opt-out code is against the
spirit of the Spindizzy, and the device should be a double edged sword.

2. Concerning limiting income from "specials". Balancing the economy of
races is a tricky part of race design. To take IMT as an example, the
race's ships are designed to be relatively weak / expensive and the
growth rate is low (despite the nominal growth rate, because they have
no farms and it takes many turns to get a reasonable amount of food, and
compound interest means your population falls way behind competitors'.)
This is counterbalanced by a deliberately high income from the Metals
Exchange. I find it surprising that people don't see high growth rate in
the same way, and don't seek to limit e.g. Scav or Crystal or Fed income
from cities. It's part of the race design. If you limit income from
special thingies, why not victimise all races equally?

Magik's recent limit on the amount of metals sellable at a given
Exchange per turn is rather frustrating as it just adds micromanagement
for IMT players - eg, you now need to build 2 on different planets and
think your shipping out a few turns in advance.

Paul Honigmann

>> > CoM's money making tricks are dependant on colonists population.
>>
>> > wheras IMT's money making tricks are based on Minerals being
>> > exchanged. i think there are far more minerals in the universe than
>> > CoM population. therefore i feel IMT can effectively manage the
>> > increased expense.
>>
>> Sadly IMT suffer not inconsequentially from the way Metals Exchanges
>> currently operate.
>
>Considering the combat value difference the Virgo and Pyramids have I
>don't think makignt hem really expensive (and certainly not limiting
>them) is a good idea.
>
>Though I do think the "opt out" code for the Spindizzy should be
>removed. Its all or nothing sort of a thing.
>
>Though on a side note, I wouldn't mind seeing the "ridiculous" end of
>the economic spectrum limited more than it is now for all races.
>Basically, reduce the cash that "secondary" means (ship devices, crazy
>buildings, etc) make.
 >> Stay informed about: IMT Spindizzy