This thread is to discuss the proposed rule changes after the completion of games 6, 666, 7 and 9.

As Celestial Empire evolves we try to learn how the game can be modified to improve future experiences. Players in the just concluded games have provided a list of proposed changes that deserve serious consideration. We would like to hear your comments regarding these and other suggestions as we debate what changes to implement for the next round of games.

Here is the current set of proposals:

Celestial Empire
Proposed Rules Changes
25 July 2006


=====================================================================
=====================================================================

1. NEW FEATURE: ORE SHUTTLE
2. PDU HAVE TO GO FIRST
3. ALLIANCE CHANGES REORDERED
4. WHAT HAPPENS TO CARGO OF DESTROYED MULTIJUMP SHIP
5. SHIPS DO THEIR OWN ANTI-JUMP AUTOFIRE
6. TOW MULTIPLE SHIPS
7. EARTH UNBUILD
8. ELIMINATE PLAYER WHEN HOMEWORLD IS LOST
9. EARTH TAKEOVER MORE DIFFICULT
10. TIMING OF RP INVENTIONS
11. RP COMMANDS AFFECT FRIENDLY TOO
12. REPORT RP OWNERSHIP MORE APPROPRIATELY
13. REPORT EARTH ALLIANCES
14. CHANGE END TURN RANGE
15. RELAX THE 250 MAX
16. MAKE RP022 MORE FLEXIBLE
17. TRACTORING HAPPENS AT TIME OF JUMP, NOT DURING BATTLE
18. BATTLE REPORTAGE
19. RP INCREASE PDU A LA RP018
20. PDU GET FIRST-STRIKE
21. LIMIT POWER OF RP018

=====================================================================
=====================================================================
1. NEW FEATURE: ORE SHUTTLE

This invention would allow planets to shuttle ore to neighboring
planets without the use of cargo ships.

This proposal has variations. The simple case: Any planet can shuttle N ore to any other connected planet. An alternate proposal is to have the number of ore that can be shuttled diminish with distance from home: the home planet can shuttle N ore, ring-1 planets can shuttle N-1 ore, ring-2 planets can shuttle N-2 ore, etc.

The value of N is up for discussion too.

Example: 123 S 3 R8 P 234 ; Planet 123 shuttles 3 R8 to planet 234

We have studied this rule change and run simulations. The probable impact of this change: Players will build fewer cargo ships, and industry will run at 100% every turn. These two effects would change the very nature of the game. (We've done it before!)

=====================================================================
2. PDU HAVE TO GO FIRST

Currently you can attack anything on a planet, in any order.

The proposal is to require PDU to be eliminated first. If you attack a planet with PDU, your shots will go against the PDU first, regardless of your designated target.

Also, what if the shields of ships in orbit absorb shots (and shields get damaged) before shots hit the planet?

=====================================================================
3. ALLIANCE CHANGES REORDERED

The proposal is to change the turn sequence so that alliance decreases will occur before alliance increases.

Currently your alliance increases happen before your alliance decreases. This combined with the limit of the total number of allies prevents a player from changing who is declared ALLY in a single turn.

For example, you have two allies, A and B. Currently you can't drop player B to FRIENDLY and increase player C to ALLY in a single turn because alliance increases happen first, so the attempt to increase C to ALLY will fail (because you already have the maximum number of allies). Therefore, you have to drop B to FRIENDLY in one turn and raise C to ALLY in the next turn. The proposed rule change would allow you to drop B to FRIENDLY and then in the same turn raise C to ALLY.

=====================================================================
4. WHAT HAPPENS TO CARGO OF DESTROYED MULTIJUMP SHIP

Currently, if a ship executes a multijump and gets torched by PDU autofire along the way, the empty hull and ship's cargo continue through space and arrive at the specified destination. It's as if the player pays for a jump entirely at the beginning, giving the ship that initial impetus through space, and the hull and all contents get a momentum from this that is not interfered with by PDU autofire.

This is so even if a ship is partially destroyed and loses some capacity to carry all of its cargo.

There are several ways this could be changed.

First, what happens with jettisoned cargo:

A ) If a ship is crippled such that it can't hold all of its cargo, all manufactured cargo (PDU, industry and mines) are destroyed as well. Only the hull and ore survive.

B ) If a ship is crippled to the point where it can't hold all its cargo, all jettisoned cargo are destroyed, including ore. Only the hull survives.

Second, where does jettisoned cargo (and the empty hull if completely stripped) stop moving? Currently, the hull et. al. continue to the destination planet. A proposed change is that if a ship is crippled or destroyed, the hull and any surviving contents stop moving at the planet where the damage occurs.

=====================================================================
5. SHIPS DO THEIR OWN ANTI-JUMP AUTOFIRE

Currently a ship participates in a planet's anti-jump autofire only if the planet has PDU, and if the ship and the planet are owned by the same player. The ship contributes half its fire power to the autofire against ships doing multi-planet jumps.

There are two proposals.

1) Allow ships to perform anti-jump autofire whether or not the planet has PDU.

2) Allow ships to perform anti-jump autofire for ALLY planets as well as planets owned by the player.

=====================================================================
6. TOW MULTIPLE SHIPS

Currently a ship can tow only one ship. Should we change the system so that a ship with sufficient tractors could tow multiple ships?

=====================================================================
7. EARTH UNBUILD

Should we allow Earth to unbuild as well as build?

=====================================================================
8. ELIMINATE PLAYER WHEN HOMEWORLD IS LOST

Currently, you keep playing even if your homeworld is lost. Should losing your homeworld mean that you "cease to exist" and your planets and ships revert to neutral?

=====================================================================
9. EARTH TAKEOVER MORE DIFFICULT

Earth take-over is too easy when fighters get big, and too hard to defend against when takeover attacks are done in conjunction with RP commands.

Currently the plan is to launch no new games with Earth
takever as a win condition.

What should we do to make Earth takeover more difficult?

Some possibilities:

1) One has to own Earth for 3 turns (currently 2)

2) Earth never surrenders, which is to say it never lets the conqueror use the industry or ore and Earth constantly tries to build PDU to defeat its attacker

=====================================================================
10. TIMING OF RP INVENTIONS

Currently, RP inventions can happen mid-game. Should RP
inventions only happen between games?

=====================================================================
11. RP COMMANDS AFFECT FRIENDLY TOO

Currently, RP commands can be used to affect resources of self as well as an ALLY. Should we soften this limitation to allow RP influence level on FRIENDLY too? The chance for cooperation and subterfuge would increase dramatically, without allowing the madness that we saw when you could affect the resources of NEUTRAL or HOSTILE players.

=====================================================================
12. REPORT RP OWNERSHIP MORE APPROPRIATELY

Currently RP ownership is reported at the end of the turn, after gifting and battle.

Should we change RP reportage to occur at the beginning of the RP turn, to show which players owned the RP when they were used?


=====================================================================
13. REPORT EARTH ALLIANCES

After Earth is attacked it does not list the alliance of the attacking player as HOSTILE (though the attack is reported in the turn sheet). Should we change the reportage so that Earth's alliance status with players are listed?

=====================================================================
14. CHANGE END TURN RANGE

The ability to set your preference for the end turn (using the TURN command) disproportionately favors raising over lowering. The current minimum is 10, the current maximum is 100.

Proposal: the maximum should be lowered to 50.

=====================================================================
15. RELAX THE 250 MAX

Should we relax the 250 max increase restriction on RP018?

Currently, the RP increase to a ship's components is limited to 250 units. Should we set this number higher, or eliminate the cap completely?

This would mean relaxing the Warlus Restriction, which came into being after player Warlus created a "cinder maker," a ship that was capable of reducing an entire planet to a cinder in one shot.

=====================================================================
16. MAKE RP022 MORE FLEXIBLE

- Allow Battle or Deathstar rated ships to participate in the attack (currently it's Battle rated ships only).

- Allow Own or ALLY to participate, both in terms of ships and RP. (We especially like the subtle element of possible subterfuge that this introduces.)

- Include a specific minimum amount of fire power needed to accomplish the job--minimum of 13 shots is the proposal (currently the "unwritten" minimum is the 3 shots of the smallest Battle ship).

- One ship can participate in more than one RP 022 execution, as long as it has enough shots (currently a given ship can participate in only one RP 022 execution). Remember that the number of a ship's shots is diminished when the shots are spread over multiple targets (see Shot Calculation, section 13.2).

=====================================================================
17. TRACTORING HAPPENS AT TIME OF JUMP, NOT DURING BATTLE

Tractoring currently is defined as part of Battle. Tractors engage as the very last step of the battle phase, after all other battle is finished and after damage resolution has taken place. If a ship is successfully tractored during the Engage Tractors step of the Battle phase, then the ship is automatically towed during the Jump phase.

Note that Battle occurs before Building. Therefore, the Engage Tractors phase takes place before any new tractors are built that turn. This means that new tractors can't be used in the next turn, similar to how new cargo units can't be used until the next turn (because Loading happens before Building), but dissimilar to how shields _can_ be used in the same turn that they are built (build shields, then jump through enemy territory).

The proposal is to make tractor engagement part of Jumping. Because Building happens before Jumping, the main effect of this change would be that tractor units built during that turn could be used in that same turn to tractor a ship and jump with it.

=====================================================================
18. BATTLE REPORTAGE

Battle reportage still isn't perfect. We need to set out the rules regarding who gets what reports, and then make sure those rules are implemented correctly. (Furthermore, the battle and reporting mechanisms in the code itself need a drastic overhaul.)

=====================================================================
19. RP INCREASE PDU A LA RP018

Should we create a new RP command, similar to RP018, that allows one to multiply the number PDU on a planet?

Same as RP018, the new command would increase the D of the RP by 50%, or the D of a distant planet by 20%. Also, same as RP018, you can use industry to increase the percentage by 10% per industry.

For example:
RP 123 / 026 P 234 I 1 ; RP 123 increases D of planet 234 by 30%

=====================================================================
20. PDU GET FIRST-STRIKE

Should PDU get "first strike" capability? Proposal: PDU attack, and attacks are resolved, before any other combat. The greatest strength is also the greatest drawback: This would makes defense even stronger, creating a less chaotic game.

Perhaps we could combine this and rule 19 about increasing PDU with a new rule that we start out with fewer PDU (say 50 or 25 instead of 100)? This would make PDU more powerful, but would make everyone have to build up to that powerful level.

=====================================================================
21. LIMIT POWER OF RP018

RP018 is the RP command that multiplies the F, C, S or T or a ship.

What if RP018 enhancements were temporary? What if the increases created by RP018 lasted only until the RP turn ended?

=====================================================================

THIS WAS EMAIL FROM ONE OF THE PLAYERS:

There are several related groups of suggestions, not all of which would be well implemented together. My recommendation is that we knock out the simple fixes first, and then discuss the ramification of the game changing items. For example if we chose to implement PDU first Strike (20) we probably would not need (or want) to implement 2, 8, 9, 15.

The PDU Set: 2, 5, 19, 20

The RP Set: 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21

The "changes the game" Set: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 20, 21

The Fixes Set: 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18


Some thoughts, under each heading, below:

> 1. NEW FEATURE: ORE SHUTTLE

This one is good. I recommend one ore unit per link, or if we want to go more towards a civilization building game, make it one per industry at the destination planet. As this would encourage players to expand their industrial base.

> 2. PDU HAVE TO GO FIRST

Ok, but I prefer #20

> 3. ALLIANCE CHANGES REORDERED

Yes, OMG yes, this cost us a potential win in game 666.

> 4. WHAT HAPPENS TO CARGO OF DESTROYED MULTIJUMP SHIP

Drop it at the point where the C was destroyed.

> 5. SHIPS DO THEIR OWN ANTI-JUMP AUTOFIRE

I'm not a big fan of ship auto-fire, yes it does give you another defensive option, but it seems so much more "powerful" than the orders we can give our own ships. of the two suggestions (1) seems better, as (2) could mess people up in multiple player pseudo alliances. One ally could end up messing up another ally inadvertently

> 6. TOW MULTIPLE SHIPS

Ok, sure!

> 7. EARTH UNBUILD

Sure, why not? When would this happen?

> 8. ELIMINATE PLAYER WHEN HOMEWORLD IS LOST

Yes please, but if #20 includes PDU shooting at anything that shoots at them, then this may not be needed, or desirable.

> 9. EARTH TAKEOVER MORE DIFFICULT

See #20, hold for 3 turns, Earth should start with full PDU, and build PDU as a player does. i.e. it should only build the turn after it is attacked, or on any turn when there exists an earth hostile species. Of course this might mean that someone would sacrifice a ship early in the game to induce earth into a frenzy of PDU construction!

> 10. TIMING OF RP INVENTIONS

Between games is better

> 11. RP COMMANDS AFFECT FRIENDLY TOO

Yikes! Having been on the receiving end of a screwing, I'd rather keep it as it is thanks!

> 12. REPORT RP OWNERSHIP MORE APPROPRIATELY

Yes please!

> 13. REPORT EARTH ALLIANCES

Yes please!

> 14. CHANGE END TURN RANGE

Sure, adds a bit more strategy, since once player can't affect it too greatly.

> 15. RELAX THE 250 MAX

OK, but did not find this to be a particular limitation, as we were able to make some pretty nice ships even with this in place. Especially since the ship movement (efficiency) is curtailed pretty badly by large numbers of units.

> 16. MAKE RP022 MORE FLEXIBLE

Yes Please. I'd like to be able to break links to neutral planets too. i.e. planets that are owned by NEUTRAL not those owned by another
player.

How much of the game would break if we could have more than 4 links to a planet?

> 17. TRACTORING HAPPENS AT TIME OF JUMP, NOT DURING BATTLE

Yes Please!

> 18. BATTLE REPORTAGE

Yes Please

> 19. RP INCREASE PDU A LA RP018

Seems like a good idea.

> 20. PDU GET FIRST-STRIKE

This is the biggie!

I'd suggest two additions to this list.

20.a/ PDU should return fire on ANY ship that attacks them, or the planet. This will help remove the abuse of home planet gifting.
20.b/ Starting homeworld PDU could be lower, say 25, thus allowing the player the strategic choice of allocating resources to increase defense or higher risk, as outlined.

> 21. LIMIT POWER OF RP018

It is possible to use this command (effectively too) for units other than Fighters, but those would be useless if only for one turn.

An alternative, perhaps, would be to have a F unit super-charger RP move, that gives you a +50% for one turn, and is non-cumulative.

So by combining multiple RPs one could still launch a single devastating attack, but without as much of the mess afterwards.

Quite a list you have there. So I'll take them point by point.

1. Ore Shuttle
(YES) I like this one. I'm all for adding new features that add to playability.

2. PDU go First
(N0) While this looks good it changes things too much. It take away some to the tactics, now you can send in a ship to take out industry or ore mines to get a tactical advantage this would cease if you had to take the PDUs first.

3. Alliances changes reordered.
(YES) These changes should all happen at the same time anyway with only the final step checked to see if it meets the no more than 2 allies criteria. So if this is how it needs to be implemented then do it.

4. Cargo of ship destroyed in jump
(???) I vote for all cargo destroyed and the hull continues to destination. I don't see PDU fire as being able to stop the momentum of the ship in flight.

5. Ships do own anti-jump autofire.
(YES) I'd like to see ships autofire even if the planet has no PDU but only for your own or allies planets.

6. Tow multiple ships.
(NO) Tractors are rarely useful now this would make them less so.

7. Earth Unbuild
(YES) Let Players contract with Earth to unbuild units on their ships, since they can already contract to build units it only follow that they be able to unbuild as well.

8. Eliminate player when homeworld is lost.
(NO) Losing the homeworld is harsh enough penalty.

9. Earth Takeover more difficult.
(YES) Seeing that Earth could be taken out as early at turn 14 was an eye opening experience. Earth needs to have an AI that growths the capacity of the planet as the game progresses to make it more difficult to take the longer the game progresses.

10. Timing of RP Inventions.
(YES) Discussion of proposed rules should happen before we try them, but this is only a change to the documentation as the admin aren't willing to implement in game changes now.

11. RP commands affect friendly too.
(NO) NO! NO! NO! I was against letting them affect allies but was overruled. So absolutely NO.

12. Report RP ownership more appropriately.
(NO) This one is one of the few that gets it right. I want to know who owns it at the end of the turn.

13. Report Earth Alliances.
(???) Earth should list the attacking player as hostile and this should show on all turn sheets, but the players allies should not be known to Earth and therefore not hostile.

14. Change End Turn Range
(???) Not sure this one even matters, when was the last time a game ended on "end turn reached".

15. Relax the 250 rule.
(NO) Bigger ships can still be built, it just prevents the RPs from being the source.

16. Make RP022 more flexable.
(YES) But make it any ship with the required fire power and let allies ships also be allowed.

17. Tractoring happens at time of jump not battle.
(YES) It should be part of jumping not battle, tractors have no purpose in battle.

18. Battle reportage.
(YES) Please straighten out these reports.

19. RP increase PDU.
(NO) There is already a RP command to add PDUs. If that one is not sufficient then we should talk about modifying it.

20. PDU gets first strike.
(NO) Instead of first strike, have PDUs automatically fire at hostile ships when they enter orbit.

21. Limit Power of RP018
(NO) This is really to only way to get to the larger type ships unless you ease up on the cost of building units.

6. Tow multiple ships.
(NO) Tractors are rarely useful now this would make them less so.

Are you sure? The intent is to make tractor units more powerful. For example, if you have a ship with two tractor units and there are two empty hulls in orbit, currently you can tow only one of them. This change would allow you to tow both.

20. PDU gets first strike.
(NO) Instead of first strike, have PDUs automatically fire at hostile ships when they enter orbit.

Interesting counter-proposal. I'm not in favor of PDU getting first strike either. But I am in favor of the requirement to attack PDU before anything else on the planet (proposed rule 2, "PDU Have To Go First").

I like the groupings described above. Good way to approach the rules party as well.

I suggest we address EARTH TAKEOVER before making many of below decisions.

Here are my comments.



1. NEW FEATURE: ORE SHUTTLE

(OK). It WILL change the nature of the game so much that should possibly be more testing. (i volunteer!) I am interested in the simulation details.

2. PDU HAVE TO GO FIRST
(NO) Eliminates too many of the subtlties we enjoy; would make battle one dimensional.

3. ALLIANCE CHANGES REORDERED

(Yes) Ooops! Sounds currently broken.

4. WHAT HAPPENS TO CARGO OF DESTROYED MULTIJUMP SHIP
(YES) Please Fix it. No way it can float thru space the distance of planet jumps! Stuff should fall to planet where cargoholds were destroyed.

6. TOW MULTIPLE SHIPS
(NO) Towing has been exceptionally useful, but I am concerned opening up to multiple tows would create grave robbing situations, strengthening the strongest disproportionately. Current grave robbing pace is entriguing and perfect.

8. ELIMINATE PLAYER WHEN HOMEWORLD IS LOST
(No). I can not think of any reedeming value for this.

9. EARTH TAKEOVER MORE DIFFICULT
(YES) This is a major open topic. MUST either not be an option, or must be harder than a HOSTILE homeworld take-over, not like KLAATU or NULLI. More like XOR10101 who lost his home in G7.

Better would be more aggressive defence. Remember Hostile home take-over includes constant ships returning to defend. I recommend Earth produce defending ships to equate to "more difficult than hostile home take-over". Furthermore Hostile take-over may include backlash or revenge, so I suggest those defending ships attack their attackers as well. It has to be real hard, and not without HOSTILE consequence!

What ever is determined for earth take-over needs to be clearly documented, atleast most of it.

10. TIMING OF RP INVENTIONS
(NO) Leave it alone. Who wants to wait to utilize their ideas? Getting to use it yourself first empowers us creatively. Out of 6 games, how much difference has this made? Please do not take this away until we are legitimately burned by it. We should be proud of our competitors creativity. Admin will naturally limit over-powerful inventions or too many inventions at once.

12. REPORT RP OWNERSHIP MORE APPROPRIATELY

(NO) Leave as-is, it IS most appropriate.

14. CHANGE END TURN RANGE
(YES) Either Eliminate this dimension of the game or fix it. Currently favors increase over decrease and becomes meaningless quickly with no means of regaining this dimenions' variance. If anyone is wondering, this DID decide game1 in a surprize ending, which we all seem to like. The way it is now, only likely to waste our energy unless it is fixed and would become a factor again.


15. RELAX THE 250 MAX
(NO) Encourage more warships not fewer cindermakers.

16. MAKE RP022 MORE FLEXIBLE
(YES to points 1,2,4. No to pt 3.) 3. is LESS flexible. Encourage 022 by adding flexibility.

17. TRACTORING HAPPENS AT TIME OF JUMP, NOT DURING BATTLE

(No) Part of the beauty of the game architecture.

It is, however documented as part of battle phase, making it hard to find in the manual. The timing, however is fine, even if it needs it's own mention in the game sequence.

18. BATTLE REPORTAGE
(YES) Can we agree on details? I recommend strawman idea be presented so we can see what are the contentius issues. One big question is: if your stuff is destroyed, do you have a right to see the details? Could be argued either way, so what enhances the game more? I am leaning towards greater disclosure of information.

19. RP INCREASE PDU A LA RP018

Take this off the table and allow someone to "invent" this, and surprize the rest of us. : ) Or, if already engineered, just document & do it & no one gets the free shot to use it before it is announced. I think this should be treated as an Invention - Admin's review & call, not rules party fodder.

20. PDU GET FIRST-STRIKE
(No) Would lead to conservatism, less volatility and boredom.

21. LIMIT POWER OF RP018
(No) Would only limit Fun and motivation.


BLACKROCK

What I meant was that if you implement this then I believe players would build even less tractors. You would only need one ship with multiple tractors to service the entire fleet.

To make tractors more powerful you should lower the cost to build tractors to 1 R7 and 1 I to build 1 T similar to how cargo is built. As it stands now very few tractors are ever built usually 1 to a ship to tow an empty hull and rarely 2 or more on a given ship just in case you might tie on number of tractors. So too the Mine for R7 is not built often with some players never even building one on their homeworld.

BLACKROCK said:
>8. ELIMINATE PLAYER WHEN HOMEWORLD IS LOST
>(No). I can not think of any reedeming value for this.


In one (or more) games recently, we had instance of players gifting their homeworlds to allies, to boost the allies score more rapidly. The trick was to destroy their own PDU, with friendly fire, and then gift the one ship orbiting the homeworld.. In effect gifting the HW.

This seems contrary to the spirit of the rules. Elsewhere there are limits on how much you can gift, else your own citizens revolt against you. Hence if you lose your homeworld, your citizens go into revolt.

Tau

---

...coming to subatomic particle near you...

Tau,

OK, at some levels of the game, one could see value in Homeworld Elimination "HE".

... my apologies. I fully support the results of the vote, and recognize we are all unique, with different viewpoints.

Therfore I put forth this explanation:

No one "gifted" home planets. It is not allowed, the manual says so, I tried it and did not work. This is an important point.

Pretend victory is unattainable solo for you. Diplomacy, Alliance, may be only avenue. What do you have to offer to secure alliance? Less than everyone else, let's say. You might be smallest and losing planets the fastest.

"Citizens revolt". They are going to, anyway. Especially if their home is impossibly gifted. But if a different story is told, on another level that is not strict empiric boundary lines, like a 3 way alliance, call it "Celes-slam". The peoples of 3 allied empires will come out in support of Celes-slam. Celes-slam may even be the more meaningful loyalty, because their faith in their empire government is nearly lost. The fact that their government secretly plots the ownership change of the home planet may not mean very much until you consider how favorable it became for the Celes-ites(not to be confused with the Celes-nni).

I think HE is brutal for a 6 month game, and would get my homeworld to an ally if I were in the situation above (and I did!). If you lived there, in an empire so Blue with hopelessness, you would understand.

* * * * * * * *

For HE, players must be willing to play a long game, knowing they may lose, well before the outcome of the game is determined. It is a turn-off, for many, to think you are just fodder for experts, and may not survive. Nicer to have that guarantee you can see the game to the end, like all those nice family games.

I LOVE RISK, a game of elimination. bloody, cut-throat, finite, testosterone filled wargame. Still learning RISK is not Celemp! Don't tempt me to turn Celemp in to RISK Celemp... too late!

A game must include HE or not. If we include HE, we shouldn't go part way, need to go all the way with it.

I put forth this Alternative idea: new "Celemp HE" or "Celemp Risk"

- HE - lets go for it. Only Winning condition: Single Alliance remains! Up to 3 players can win after eliminating every other player.

How long would it take? There are 11 VOTES for a 52 week 102 turn game, so there is tolerance for a longer game. What have you done in 25 turns? Imagine continuing ... HE leaves neutral RP's for the hoarding...

Other ideas for a Celemp RISK:
- eliminate the RP 250 cap
- "Buy" Hulls: 4,000 points or 1/3 the EC.
- "Buy" 1-turn-Industry: 250 pts or 1/3 the EC.

BLACKROCK

Actually, I want to argue for even more firepower than a mere 13 shots. We are talking about destroying a planet link! It doesn't seem right that a tiny ship should have the capability of destroying a link. I say: 100 shots to destroy a link. 16.3 should be 100 shots, not 13 as proposed.

I don't care about the class of the ship, whether Deathstar, Battle or Ship. All I'm arguing for is the amount of energy (i.e. the number of shots) required for the link destruction. I think it's wrong that you could destroy a link with only 3 shots. I think there should be some reasonable minimum.

Also, if we do the calculation using number of shots as our metric then it will be much easier to allow a ship to be involved in the destruction of more than one link. So setting a minimum number of shots (16.3) eliminates the need to consider the class of the ship (16.1) and makes it easier to allow multiples (16.4).

One more thought.

How about intellegent spacemines, by that I mean ones that will not attack the builder of the spacemines. And while you're working on that you can fix the reports from the spacemines.