> > The technology (warp v hyperdrive, etc etc) is just story telling flavour. > > Exactly. Well, except that it has great bearing on the maps, and how the various societies interrelate. > > *Scope > > Hmm.. change the numbers by a factor - Don't know what yet. But > > remember we are playing societies, not necessarily races. What if someone > > wants to play a "jedi knight" like group? They would be a very politically > > powerful group, but have a very small size... (in the 100,000's?) > > We can keep the population det. but change the land area to planets, > systems etc. controlled, giving a rough boundary to the society if it has > one. This would obviously be different for an organization crossing > societal boundaries, such as religions, mercenaries etc. Population determinant should go up, but not by the same factor for everything. Think exponential. We can stick with the nation/organization split. How about, um, er... Society: Organization: -4 2,000 200 -3 200,000 50,000 -2 5 million 500,000 -1 500 million 1 million 0 5 billion 10 million +1 10 billion 100 million +2 50 billion 500 million +3 100 billion 1 billion +4 500 billion 2.5 billion There's a bias in this against over-high populations; I'm of the opinion that sane races would be much less crowded than Earth-born humanity is today. Still, I could be wrong, and the +3/+4 could be changed to have societal populations of 500 billion and 5 trillion accordingly. Or something less dramatic. For land area... societies only... how about: -4 Tiny part of one planet (less than a continent), single asteriod, rag-tag fleet of ships... (woah, battlestar galactica flashback) -3 Small part of one planet (small continent), entire small moon, less rag-tag fleet, several asteriods -2 One big continent (Asia), sizeable subset of planet (oceans, subterranean areas), large moon, asteroid belt, respectable space station and associated fleet -1 One planet (groundhogs) 0 One solar system, including colonies (at least mining colonies) on associated planets or belts. +1 2-10 inhabited solar systems, one major colony +2 11-50 inhabited solar systems, 3 major colonies +3 51-200 inhabited solar systems, many major worlds +4 201+ inhabited solar systems Kinda gets vague near the high end, I admit. Scale breaks down when trying to differentiate between (say) the Federation and the Trantorian Empire, but what can you do? > > *Subsistence > > No real change. > > > Could have aero-, hydroponics, space-based production, all yielding higher > output, increasing population and decreasing space needed for growing > food. I'd actually favor a bit of a more radical change; changing subsistence to be a -4/+4. You could then figure out the carrying capacity of a species by calculcating (subsistence efficiency + tech + land area) /2 -3 could be "only feed on free-ranging large predators", or something similar. +2 could mean highly efficient ocean farming, or space-based hydroponics, or whatnot. But the means of subsistence would become a special effect. Overshooting your carrying capacity is allowed, but will be punished by the laws of nature. (Let's see... -1 technology race, -1 land area, call it 0 subsistence... Earth is -1 carrying capacity, which means 500 million people at our current tech level... sounds about right. > > > *Economical system > > no real changes, although nearly everyone would be "credit" based. What about societies when they interact with each other? "Sorry, we don't accept credit from your kind any more... got any nickel asteroids?" > > *Military organisation > > No real change - Military Force and Military Size are all thats needed. > > Descriptions add flavor and could be taken into account for battles as per > case and GM. Really good descriptions could give bonuses (or penalties ;). > Have tech scale, magic scale, psionic scale, all as per society. What do > you mean use tech scale as humanity level? > > > ##Actions > > keep the same - 4 per turn, > > Boost the actions up to five, with sub actions in each if needed, since we > are using five-year turns. Governments can get more done in a five yr > span than one yr, and so should be allowed to have more opportunities to > act. What I would do is to keep with 4 actions w/no penalty, but to figure the IH scale that strategic actions which would take "five years" could instead be done in one turn, and so on. So-called "Tactical" actions would get a bonus (one year going to 5), or could be made "strategic" with no penalty, or whatnot. -- Sam Gorton sgorton@sandstorm.net Sandstorm Enterprises, Inc. http://www.sandstorm.net voice: 617-426-5056 fax: 508-696-8989 ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
