labgnome wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:48 pm
First question, who call them Nomes (an unfamiliar name to most people) rather then Sectors? What makes "Nome" a better descriptor then "Sector", a staple of sci-fi and something most players are going to initially posses a basic grasp of. I think calling them Nomes is unnecessarily obtuse.
Well, Ancient Egypt historians call them Nomes, and maybe ancient egyptians did too, I'm not sure (I'm under the opinion that it's a greek name?).
I don't know if it's a better descriptor than Sector, I know that since you call yours Sector and I offer a slight variation it makes things clearer if yours and mine do not bear the same name (basically, Sectors are the elementary management unit of a unified bureaucracy, while Nomes are the elementary political unit of a fragmented Empire), at least until a choice is made of what is taken from both angles into the final FO design.
(and yes, I do like this "Space Pharaoh" ring, I admit it shamelessly)
I am weary of a "skyrocketing" price increase mechanic for Sector Capitols, as I am in favor of a constant sector size and the number of sectors you want to have is very dependent on galaxy size.
The number of sectors you want to have yes, but the number that you can have? I'm not sure the answer is the same...
And that may be another difference between going the Sectors way or the Nomes way.
Besides, with a great galaxy comes
a great responsability a great lot of ressources so it's still possible to have more Nomes than in a small galaxy, just not proportionnaly more.
Remember that my Nomes have effects, if not direct control, over planets outside their borders - so having more scattered Nomes allow to control more planets, even if it comes with a price.
So you are proposing constant loyalty/stability/happiness across Sectors?
English is not my first language, so I'm not certain whether "across Sectors" here means:
- "for all planets belonging to the same Sector", which I'm quite agnostic about (actually, I believe that one loyalty/happiness factor should be constant for all planets in the same Sector, while others - like the specie relation to the Empire and/or to the Capitol - should vary between planets of the same Sector).
- "for all sectors of the same Empire", about which I clearly wrote the opposite, namely that it should vary according to distance from the Imperial Palace (and other factors unrelated to distance, that I leave to the collective discussion).
This sounds overly complex and prone to micro-management. Those are both things we want to avoid in Free Orion.
Complex: a little bit, but I don't see how to make political decisions not complex at all.
Prone to micromanagement: I don't see how nor why, especially with the penalty described for changing autonomy status too often.
Are you proposing that sectors be immune to influence projects? Because I would have to give a hard no to that idea and say I am strongly opposed. That directly obstructs a potential angle of game-play that I am very interested in.
I do think that most of the influence/espionnage should occur in Frontier Space, yes. I am not opposed to have Influence projects work inside/against Nomes (except for those close to the Imperial Palace) but not as easily and maybe with different rules (especially in the sense that many actions allowed in Frontier Space would not be possible inside or against a Nome; and maybe that influence projects inside Nome space should target preferably the Nome itself rather than individual planets like in Frontier Space).
Basically, in Frontier Space you do shoot-outs, in Nomes you do shindigs : both can leave blood on the dancefloor but the later usually does it in subtler ways.