An extremely silly question, buut...

[Baron Munchausen]

Actually, there's no need for a special 'trade federation' at all. Only one very small hard-code change is needed. We need some way to track how much of a given resource another empire has given you, and how much you have given to them. With a 'running total' of the positive or negative balance, of course. It ought to be on the diplomatic information screens somewhere. Then, everyone can 'trade favors' reliably -- if they feel like being reliable. Once the resources are in your hands, who knows what might happen?

I can see certain players deliberately building huge amounts of storage space and using their ability to store resources for diplomatic advantage just like you would use any other ability in the game.

[ June 06, 2002, 18:00: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[dmm]

Originally posted by Batman:
There isn't really much to stop this happening in a regular game ...

Of course you could do _some_ of these things just as a regular player. But no way could you set the whole thing up merely on trust, as a regular player with the same victory conditions as everyone else, unless you are playing against a bunch of morons.

One of the things that this role-playing idea would accomplish is to make Organics and Radioactives more important without modding the game. Currently, a 120% Organics planet is no big deal. Most of us would use it for research, intel, etc. Maybe put one farm on it. But if you have the TF player trying to collect Organics and using it as currency, then you've altered the game a lot (without modding anything). That 120% Organics planet is now much more valuable than a 10%-10%-10% planet, because you can use the organics to buy tech, info, ships, units, other resources, resupply and/or repair of your ships, etc. (depending on the TF rules and setup that everyone has agreed to).

The key is that the TF doesn't want to take over the galaxy. At least, not politically. In fact, in one scenario, they are trying to leave. You could easily have a game in which the TF leaves part way through (so they "win") and then the remaining players slog it out for control of the galaxy. (Although they might well ask themselves why the TF was so intent on getting out! )

[dmm]

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
Actually, there's no need for a special 'trade federation' at all..

See my Last post.

Originally posted by Baron Munchausen:
I can see certain players deliberately building huge amounts of storage space and using their ability to store resources for diplomatic advantage just like you would use any other ability in the game.

I don't see that happening in a regular game. I've never found resource storage to be a key factor in my games. And the storage player will become "ripe for the picking" as he amasses filled storage tanks at the cost of the 4 Xs, unless there is some other factor protecting him. Lots of countries try to be neutral but the only ones who succeed are protected by some formidable natural barrier, like high mountains or wide oceans. Just ask the Dutch.

[Gryphin]

I could see 2 FTs copeeting with each other with a totaly separate victory conditions.
It would require enormous Role Play, trust, and good sportmanship. I realize I'm someting of a loose cannon. I am also a man of integrity.

[Baron Munchausen]

Maybe we need something that's present in most other 4X games: money... If you could just sell surplus resources on an 'abstract market' and keep the money, then go to the same market when you were short of something and try to buy what you need it would amount ot more-or-less the same thing a the 'trade federation' idea. Supply and demand effects based on what all the empires are actually selling or buying would be nice.

[Pit Bull]

Well, if you have an abandon ship option then perhaps it would be good to have life capsules on your ships.

So, if you choose to abandon ship pre destruction the capsules contain your crew (i.e. the experience factor). You could then have a time period to pick them up with another ship, or a certain chance each turn that they expire or some such.

If you pick them up before they die, you could have some of the unhappiness factor, associated with ship loss, offset.

If the enemy pick them up, they could be held prisoner and traded.

Or you could use intelligence operatives to rescue them, raising your sides happiness.

Once picked or rescued, they could reappear at a central holding pool, the surviving crew could be available for reassignment to a newly contructed ship. You could pre-stock the pool by training crew in your military academies.

Perhaps you'd track the type of ship the crew came from, and if assigned to a different type there would be penalties for non type familiarity.
i.e. so you couldn't put an experienced frigate crew onto a dreadnought without loosing most of their experience.

I realise that would all require major coding changes, I'm just rambling.....

Pit Bull

[Lupusman]

What you can do is have the universe with almost no minerals, but high amounts of orgs and rads.
Then only give the FT access to a resource converter. But keep the FT tech levels really low for offense, so they cannot attack anyone.
Everyone will need minerals to build, but they'll have to buy them from the FT by exchanging other stuff.
The FT can be attacked, but then they might not trade to you anymore. At which point you would need to go through a second party to get your minerals.

Plus, like the Gryphin suggests, to avoid whomever playing the FT from making a deal with one other player (and ruining the game), you put two FT's. Then you'll have some nice competion. On top of that, then you can make victory conditions for the FT's as they compete directly against one another.

[ June 06, 2002, 22:18: Message edited by: Lupusman ]

[dmm]

HighGryphin, BaronM, and Lupusman:
I like all those ideas. Some comments to sharpen our focus:

BaronM:
Money would be cool, but even with money you still wouldn't have a galaxy-wide Trade Federation as I've been describing it, unless you were allowed to sell tech and info also. If money were important, then that would lead to some interesting decisions about tech. Do you keep it to yourself and retain your tech advantage, or sell it for much-needed cash (and thereby make it immediately available to anyone who can pay)?
Of course the problem with the money idea is that it requires a re-code by MM.

Lupasman:
It is TF, not FT, unless you're French. (Federation de Trade?)
I really like that scarce minerals idea. But do you think the game would work if the TF wasn't bound by a strict neutrality code and was trying to conquer the galaxy like everyone else? What is to stop them from colonizing a few planets and then cutting everyone else off from minerals?
Regarding allowing attacks on the TF: so a player could choose to become a "rogue state" by attacking the TF, huh? I don't mind the idea of letting someone seize stored minerals, but it would be a game-buster if someone got control over the TF's resource converters. Those had better be on Planet Fort Knox!
(BTW, if you capture a planet with Mineral Storage, do you get the minerals that were stored there?)

HighGryphin:
I like the idea of competing TF houses. That would give you a game within a game. Maybe could combine with Lupasman's ideas? Like maybe one TF house wants Rads and the other wants Orgs? Or maybe it's just that the neighboring galaxy isn't big enough for them both!

[Baron Munchausen]

Hmmm.... if tech were saleable then some people would not bother to research at all but would just buy their technologies.

Being on the 'cutting edge' woulf be very difficult because you'd have to research for yourself, keeping ahead of the 'public' tech level and preserving what you had accomplished.

I suspect most people won't like that style of game.

[Lupusman]

Actually, I am french-canadian. Thanks for pointing that out.

I was still holding the preconception that the TF would be nuetral, and that it should not be attacked by anyone. I only put that comment in if someone did decide to attack the TF, there are simple reprocussions.
But at the same time, if there are two TF's, one might finance a war against the other. For example if the victory of a TF is to get a monopoly, ie, no other TF's.

Neither is it in the interest of a regular empire to let only one TF monopolize, because the price of minerals would go much higher.

I'm sure a strange balance would eventually achieve itself in a game of this sort.

[ June 07, 2002, 01:59: Message edited by: Lupusman ]