This'll probably sound like "sour grapes" to the Colonials, but I've actually put some thought into this.... I truly think there needs to be a size limit on Alliances next game. Say 3 or 4 members max. That way there will be more alliances with different agendas based on their membership, or at very least more independents. This will in turn bring a variety of conflicts to the game that are not seen currently, and raise the level of gamesmanship necessary for success in the game. Instead of having a Star Wars style galaxy (Empire vs. Rebels, Republic vs Separatists), we could have a Star Trek style galaxy (UFP, Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Ferengi, Tholians, Borg, etc....). Instead of waiting for a single "Extinction attack", there would be numerous skirmishes, a bunch of treaties of varying degrees, and a more constant flow of action to the game. I believe that such a change would have a positive impact on the game, make it more lively, and give more challenges.
I don't see much point in randomly limiting the size of alliances, it's a game and if that is how people want to play, let them. edit: the only change I'd suggest is reversing the shrinking of the galaxy. I was critical of that decision before this game started and I still think having a galaxy that one person can scan the entire length of in one day is a silly idea. I would alter it so that space is bigger (say 5000 sectors), engines need to be much more powerful to realspace anywhere, and get rid of the automatic warp links to adjacent sectors. That would make the game much more interesting as it would make it easier for people and alliances to hide while they build up their empires.
I think this honestly sounds like SLS, Sore Loser Syndrome, on your part Nautica. I didn't see anyone complaining last game even though the Romulan Star Empire had 9 members.
I agree on the bigger universe part, but the odd thing is that in the new smaller universe it took longer to realspace anywhere. As for automatic warp links to adjacent sectors, I don't know where the setting would be, so I'm not sure it would be plausible.
Don't dismiss my points so easily Nick! I put thought into this and made some salient points above--NONE of which you addressed. I'm trying to open up a constructive dialog here regarding the gameplay, and I DO NOT appreciate your flippant dismissal of my suggestions. I could just as eaily claim that you simply don't want to see your modis operandi threatened by the changes I've proposed. Instead, I'll simply point out that your RSE comment actually supports one of my points. In the first game the RSE had 9 members, and the UFP had a relatively similar number. And we had a very "Star Wars-like" galaxy, with two major sides and the original "extinction attack". Now, if you don't like my suggestion, maybe you should come up with arguments to refute my points, instead of .
Why should I? Bailey pretty much said what needed to be said. If people want a Star Wars type galaxy, then they can have it.
Wouldn't work anyway. If you limit the size of alliances then there'll be an "Colonial Squad One" and a "Colonial Squad Two" with the exact same thing happening that's happening right now. And if we decided we "don't want that" - well, than it's gonna happen in secret. I agree with your point though that it'd make the game more interesting - it's gonna be up to the players to make that happen though. Can't force them to.
I think that we could recommend limiting the size of the alliances to a percentage of the people in play. However, I agree with Pylades that even if we do that, it won't stop alliances from choosing to ally themselves with other alliances, but it would change the dynamic of the game, because mines and fighters will not attack people in your "alliance" as defined within the scope of the game. Same with trade posts, etc.
