The Orion Nebula

We thought here about a lot of things to help non-repulsive races. (Fixing navigator bug, DBs spy proposal etc.)

At moment almost anyone takes repulsive and only very few try charismatic funraces. But even then you rarely find any trading partner. Repulsive is simply too attractive and the key to change this (since tech trading is forbidden in our games) are IMO more attractive Research and Trade treaties.

Better Treaties --> Less repulsive --> More Diplomacy --> More 4way fun.

Further, I think that our old Star League rule regarding NA's is wrong.

NA's with (or between) repulsive races should be meaningless. Repulsive means repulsive. Period.

I think rep is a nice free chunk of points, perhaps it's time rep picks pay's the piper. And makeing some leaders not available for them.

Now ot juice up a 3 point pick to mincrease treaties, I think a switch for this might be worth trying, to set soem treaty increases.

N/A's, Location often dictates who you atttack, but it should not force you into fighting that front if you would rather seek another to attack. So I'm not certain that even though I cant stand the guy on my border and want to crush him that harming my total victory possiblity is worth attacking him. Also N/A's are not common, I might tend to leave a neighbor alone but leave my options open. N /A's have a way of being constrictive.

Over all I think rep ban games take a while longer but are fun, my preference is to take the next step and paly 2v2. verry fun.

step:

I think rep is a nice free chunk of points, perhaps it's time rep picks pay's the piper. And makeing some leaders not available for them.

I think we should increase the hire costs and mantaince costs for leaders if u r Repulsive !


siron:

Further, I think that our old Star League rule regarding NA's is wrong.

Most Players r Repulsive. And its very very rarely that there r two nonreps. I would says we should allow nonreps to share theyre techs. I ll made a poll for it viewtopic.php?t=113 !

And makeing some leaders not available for them.

I agree. There are some too powerful leaders sometimes on the map. (Kirsus, Kronos, Chug and Grogg should be removed from the map imo.)

I think a switch for this might be worth trying, to set soem treaty increases.

Yes. Treaty switch. This would be fine. When we have figured out how they are calculated .

Also N/A's are not common, I might tend to leave a neighbor alone but leave my options open.

I think they are not uncommon.

Over all I think rep ban games take a while longer but are fun, my preference is to take the next step and paly 2v2. verry fun.

I think 2v2s are a different story. True, you have techexchange there. But its not really diplomacy.

I think we should increase the hire costs and mantaince costs for leaders if u r Repulsive !

I always prefer to improve unused parts of the game. Harming Rep in that general way you propose here should always be the last resort. Dont think thats necessary for now.

Good thinking on cost and maintence of leaders for repulsive.

Maybee double cost and maintence for rep.
What would be realy neat is a % chance they would quit heeh , something like leader X demand $Y or placed in command of flag ship BB or he quits, note another leader might be on the same flag ship BB heeh. Same with colony leader be in charge of HW or $ or leave.

Good thinking on cost and maintence of leaders for repulsive. Maybee double cost and maintence for rep.

I thought about about +500% up to +1000% (hire and maintenance) instead of +100%.

So I think hireing colony leader´s isn´t a good economic idea. Only some ship leaders (navi ...) r a good choice, then.

5x is almost puting navi ldr out or reach for rep players, it should cost maybee more than 2x enough to make them save up bc and maybee sell sb at start but 5x means no navi for a long time 10x means no navi. how many time do you have 1000bc 10x is way to much I think 4x is about as far a streach to make that arround 400-500 bc for navi ldr and 120+ for colony.
Also must keep in mind famous ldr, no famous ldr should be with rep.

Many leaders are already very expensive for a repulsive player. I agree with Step that AlexD's proposed penalties are far too high.

Anyway, I still think that we should improve non-rep races instead of harming rep. Nice idea to discuss the techexchange topic again...in the other thread. This could help non-rep a lot...when we find a set of rules to include techexchange again.

5x is almost puting navi ldr out or reach for rep players, it should cost maybee more than 2x enough to make them save up bc and maybee sell sb at start but 5x means no navi for a long time 10x means no navi.

So I think hireing colony leader´s isn´t a good economic idea. Only some ship leaders (navi ...) r a good choice, then.

That was my idea, colony leaders near senceless to hire for reps and shipleaders very expensive to hire.

how many time do you have 1000bc

If u wanna have, as rep player this navi leader, u have to increase tax to be able to hire. I think getting 1000BC is not a problem in later game !

Anyway, I still think that we should improve non-rep races instead of harming rep.

Many ways lead to Rom, so we must find the balance. U can increase treaties for nonreps, or/and impaire reps. Both need to be mutually agreed with the other.

To decrease the power of repulsive, you could change muliple things:

1. Change the cost and maintenance for legendary officers
2. Decrease the frequency to get a leader or to get specific good leaders
3. Decrease spy rolls %
4. Highly increase the chance of revolts and the success chances
5. Change race pick value
6. Increase the trade bonuses
7. Decrease the loss for exchanging tech
8. Increase the chance for diplomatic status change
   - This includes getting from nothing to war or to an alliance
   - Charismatic races can suggest wars against a certain race (repulsive) more successfully
   - This causes any race to declare war on repulsive races more quickly
9. Increasing the chance of votes on galactical elections for nonrepulsive races
10. Allow charismatic races to get an alliance and therefore prevent "unalterable" wars with repulsive races