Slitherine

HI there BASPM folks.

I've just joined so i'm a bit of a noob. I just want to comment on some of the good/bad stuff about the game. First of all I should mention that i've been following BASPM for a while after i got hooked on BARIS about a year ago. I'm probably gona repeat a lot of stuff that other people have said but this is a gr8 idea for a game and if pulled off in the right way could be a lot more than a 'spiritual successor' to BARIS.

1. I put a vote in, in favour of 4 seasons. I didn't understand the idea of 3? call me crazy but aren't there 4 seasons in the year? ne way i think this lengthens the game just enough and unlike in BARIS 2 seasons is just not quite enough.

2. A lot of people have been talking about various rocket configurations. I think some are too technical or complicated to implement for you guys. I'm no expert but I have some novice experience in graphics and game design and i understand certain things are complicated or time consuming to implement. That said being able to research in catergories as follows: ROCKETS - CAPSULES/LEMS - PROBES - MISCELLANEOUS. Basically quite similar to BARIS, also it means you can build and assemble your missions more closely. Again I have seen this brought up but that would be a major thing to have, not missions with the components listed with no flexibility but instead more open ended choices.

3. This ties into (2) but when it comes to managing the missions you don't quite seem in control. Someone referred to it as being like a deptury director, which i agree with. I think it would be better to have rough missions categories rather than explicit ones. I liked the idea of splitting them into lunar, earth, sun etc. missions so you can focus on that place. Within those it should maybe be more like: LUNAR - FLYBY/ORBITAL/IMPACTOR/LANDER and so on. So then you could go to, say LUNAR - FLYBY, and then select components that had a relevant carrying capacity etc. (this would also make the assembly building pretty useful, kinda like your drawing board) I'm not talking about putting a Mercury capsule on a Saturn V or anything because that would just be pointless but obviously a bit more like the Thor-Able as an example. What was interesting was that there is a hint of that in the game already where it tells you what type of missions a certain rocket can be used in. So a Jupiter C is an early rocket only capable of launching Earth Orbital satellites, it's a bit vague though. Ok now I feel like I'm getting ahead of myself because I'm sure you've thought of this stuff but i think this might be a good way to organise things.

4. I need a bit of clarity on whether or not you guys are gona go down a 'space race' route with the campaign or at least have an aspect of it somewhere. Don't get me wrong the GSA thing is fine for the sandbox but the competitive edge of the space race would add so much to the game. I realise that some of my suggestions seem to be the same as BARIS but i think there are some things that worked on BARIS that just can't be left out of BASPM.

5. Input is my next thought. I think some of the interface is unnecessary, for example the construction button is mayb a little pointless. Wouldn't it be easier to have a right-click menu over the building? I think right-click menu's used for that kinda thing, as well as slide menu's in the program management screen so you can just flick through, would be easier. Also when your in the Earth menu you could have a sliding menu instead of those little tabs so you could go strait to another planet selection. This is more just me being lazy i think and i might not be explaining it too well but stuff like that could literally make setting up programs feel like a breeze.

6. Ok this is turning into a long list so I might make this the last thing. What are your plans are in terms of finacial management, you know like overheads and stuff? I think it would be good to have little events or options. For example if you want to R&D and buy an Atlas rocket but haven't got the cash then the military can research it for you, but you can receive a penalty in prestige. OR even a corporation that offers a contract for example. This ties into someone mentioning that some of these rockets were actually made by the army, airforce, navy and so on rather than by the agency itself. Also it ties in with the idea of random events. I think having that level of involvement in finances and bonus/penalties involved in certain potentially bad or good choices would be gr8. Plus stuff like R&D bonuses for putting extra cash into it like a 'rush buy' in civilization where, again, there can be penalties.

All in all i think some of the stuff I've mentioned might be a bit late to put in or mayb not workable but I've got more stuff i think would be good. I'd be interested to hear what people think. I think there's some things that don't work or make sense in the game but overall i'm pleased with the animations, R&D improvements and some of the things implemented based on suggestions. It looks like it could be pretty good with a few tweaks and i'm looking forward to the next patch!

Good comments!

I wonder if anyone has bought this who hasnt played BARIS, nearly everyone who comments are 'fans of BARIS' I include myself in this! I even have the Liftoff! board game in front of me(that BARIS was based off).

1. I put a vote in, in favour of 4 seasons. I didn't understand the idea of 3? call me crazy but aren't there 4 seasons in the year? ne way i think this lengthens the game just enough and unlike in BARIS 2 seasons is just not quite enough.

As you see had a pool acording this issue. If Ignacio follow the pool, will be 4 seasons soon.

2. A lot of people have been talking about various rocket configurations. I think some are too technical or complicated to implement for you guys. I'm no expert but I have some novice experience in graphics and game design and i understand certain things are complicated or time consuming to implement. That said being able to research in catergories as follows: ROCKETS - CAPSULES/LEMS - PROBES - MISCELLANEOUS. Basically quite similar to BARIS, also it means you can build and assemble your missions more closely. Again I have seen this brought up but that would be a major thing to have, not missions with the components listed with no flexibility but instead more open ended choices.

Good point. I think there will be implemented when the game splites R&D in rockets and other stuff.

3. This ties into (2) but when it comes to managing the missions you don't quite seem in control. Someone referred to it as being like a deptury director, which i agree with. I think it would be better to have rough missions categories rather than explicit ones. I liked the idea of splitting them into lunar, earth, sun etc. missions so you can focus on that place. Within those it should maybe be more like: LUNAR - FLYBY/ORBITAL/IMPACTOR/LANDER and so on. So then you could go to, say LUNAR - FLYBY, and then select components that had a relevant carrying capacity etc. (this would also make the assembly building pretty useful, kinda like your drawing board) I'm not talking about putting a Mercury capsule on a Saturn V or anything because that would just be pointless but obviously a bit more like the Thor-Able as an example. What was interesting was that there is a hint of that in the game already where it tells you what type of missions a certain rocket can be used in. So a Jupiter C is an early rocket only capable of launching Earth Orbital satellites, it's a bit vague though. Ok now I feel like I'm getting ahead of myself because I'm sure you've thought of this stuff but i think this might be a good way to organise things.

This would be great also, IMHO. If you had a simple mission like Mars Flyby, you can put inside whatever mission type Mariner, Mars, etc. Or Mars landing and put there Viking and Mars II. After that you will choose the rocket to go there.

4. I need a bit of clarity on whether or not you guys are gona go down a 'space race' route with the campaign or at least have an aspect of it somewhere. Don't get me wrong the GSA thing is fine for the sandbox but the competitive edge of the space race would add so much to the game. I realise that some of my suggestions seem to be the same as BARIS but i think there are some things that worked on BARIS that just can't be left out of BASPM.

Same here. But i think in the actual state of the game will be very difficult to add.

6. Ok this is turning into a long list so I might make this the last thing. What are your plans are in terms of finacial management, you know like overheads and stuff? I think it would be good to have little events or options. For example if you want to R&D and buy an Atlas rocket but haven't got the cash then the military can research it for you, but you can receive a penalty in prestige. OR even a corporation that offers a contract for example. This ties into someone mentioning that some of these rockets were actually made by the army, airforce, navy and so on rather than by the agency itself. Also it ties in with the idea of random events. I think having that level of involvement in finances and bonus/penalties involved in certain potentially bad or good choices would be gr8. Plus stuff like R&D bonuses for putting extra cash into it like a 'rush buy' in civilization where, again, there can be penalties.

Again same here. But the random events will be in the game in the future.

Deadmeat1471 wrote:Good comments!

I wonder if anyone has bought this who hasnt played BARIS, nearly everyone who comments are 'fans of BARIS' I include myself in this! I even have the Liftoff! board game in front of me(that BARIS was based off).

Hi

elmo87 wrote:HI there BASPM folks.

I've just joined so i'm a bit of a noob.

We are all noobs, some of us are just more noobs than others

5. Input is my next thought. I think some of the interface is unnecessary, for example the construction button is mayb a little pointless. Wouldn't it be easier to have a right-click menu over the building? I think right-click menu's used for that kinda thing, as well as slide menu's in the program management screen so you can just flick through, would be easier. Also when your in the Earth menu you could have a sliding menu instead of those little tabs so you could go strait to another planet selection. This is more just me being lazy i think and i might not be explaining it too well but stuff like that could literally make setting up programs feel like a breeze.

I've seen it mentioned that the plan is to port the game to iPad and Android, so right clicking isn't an option without developing two completely different games.

6. Ok this is turning into a long list so I might make this the last thing. What are your plans are in terms of finacial management, you know like overheads and stuff? I think it would be good to have little events or options. For example if you want to R&D and buy an Atlas rocket but haven't got the cash then the military can research it for you, but you can receive a penalty in prestige. OR even a corporation that offers a contract for example. This ties into someone mentioning that some of these rockets were actually made by the army, airforce, navy and so on rather than by the agency itself. Also it ties in with the idea of random events. I think having that level of involvement in finances and bonus/penalties involved in certain potentially bad or good choices would be gr8. Plus stuff like R&D bonuses for putting extra cash into it like a 'rush buy' in civilization where, again, there can be penalties.

I remember random events being in Microprose's Civilization 1, but being culled in Civ2. I remember them fondly now, but they were probably all bad. Good and bad random events would be pretty cool. If they were period specific, that might help immerse the player in the time frame.

Oh, and Welcome! Based on your first post, it looks like you'll fit right in!

"Political events" could be an interesting way to "replace" the space race aspect.

First the status of the GSA must be clearly defined. What is it ? Who is in charge ? Currently, you feel that the United States are running it, with some participation of the Soviet Union. From missions steps screenshots, it seems that the Spaceport is located on the Equator (makes perfect sense), somewhere in Indonesia. Has the GSA bought a piece of land, or does Indonesia rents it (much like Khazakstan rents Baikonur to Russia) ?

Now here are a few ideas :

1- Alternate History : after WWII and Hiroshima, USA & Soviet Union are a bit frightened by the escalation of the destructive power of weapons and realize that using nuclear warheads would destroy the World. So an big UN meeting is decided soon after the war. After long debates, it is decided that nuclear weapons must be banned, and that the rocketry technical knowledge developped by Germany during WWII should be developped but only for pacific applications. Rocketry in general gets under tight control of the UN council, that creates an international organism dedicated to that task : the Global Space Agency. The medium and long term objectives are the conquest of space by the human race. USA & Soviet Union of course both want to host the spaceport, but the scientific council states that, given that none of the two countries have suitable equatorial land facilities, the Spaceport will be built on a neutral ground, on the Equator in Indonesia.

2- As a well renowned & charismatic engineer and rocket scientist, you are elected by an UN scientific and political Council to the head of the GSA. You report to the UN Council, that collect the funds from participating countries and redistribute them to GSA. You are in charge of the personnel recruitement, strategical decisions and selection of the best programs proposals from both countries.

3- Various more or less random events will make some concurrent programs more interesting at a given time. Like Soviet rocket factories can suffer from a vast bureaucratic reform that make them unable to offer you projects for a given duration. A contractor might be involved in a financial scandal with some Congressmen in the USA, making some projects unavailable for a duration too. The death of a major engineer (like Korolev) could mean R&D setbacks for a while (that one was in BARIS). Sabotages by spies could exist too, but in an economical dimension (industrial spying), because both countries want their programs to be selected. A country could decide to make an additional effort to promote one or several programs (like the "50% off event" that was a true blessing in BARIS, provided you were careful enough to keep spare money). The sudden death of a leader and severe changes at the head of the Communist Party could mean less funds from Soviet Union for a while. Same for the USA, with an event like JFK assassination. Etc...

Also, it would be nice that once the countries of Europe, Japan, and China get developed, we could see more agencies pop up, led by different leaders. So now, instead of working with militaries and companies, you could now work on massive projects with other agencies. This could also mean that, for example, if the GSA needs money to unlock a certain part, and so does another nation, they could share in the programme together, each giving out a certain portion of their money and buying the program for less.

There should also be a mechanic giving you prestige for cooperating with more thane three agencies at once on massive international projects, as the Soviet Union (And after 1998 and a lapse in funding, the Russian Federation. It holds up another seven years due to US Support and aid.) and the US find this as a good way of cementing their status quo as world leaders,along with a prestige bonus for cooperation for the first time. But as time passes, the Prestige bonuses for international cooperation on probes will get smaller and smaller, while bonuses for manned space travel get larger and larger, before hitting a "hold line". Performing an international program is risky. Should a flight fail in another country, the prestige deduction applies to both agencies. If there is ecnomical turmoil in another country, you might find yourself facing heavy delays as the other agency apologizes for following an unsustainable plan and backs out of the project. If their R&D team doesn't come out fast, then your flights will be delayed. You won't have control over their scientists, yes, but you'll be able to assign your best scientists to an R&D team and hope for the best.

I just wrote a scifi story involving a chinese landing on Mars, therefore I approve the above post!

Nice, glad to get some feedback on this. There is a lot to think about when it comes to actually structuring the plot of the game. N_Molson i think you're right when you talked about defining GSA and i'm a particular fan of that area of sci-fi as I read alternate history and write my own stuff as well.

My background is history you see, I'm doin an MA in History atm so yeah i know wot some of you guys are talkin about. Admittedly BARIS does shape some of the ideas i have but i don't think it should necessarily be copied. It should be more like BARIS on steroids! for lack of another way to put it. Lets face it, for all the educational value of BASPM there has to be a challenge to it and also the 'oh my god the rocket just blew up and killed all my guys' horror to it.

I won't lie i want to get into this kind of work producing games and doin research for them but NASAisAwesome you had some kool thoughts that i've had myself so it seems we all have some thoughts on how the game should come across. Most of which I agree with.

I should also mention i'm ivolved in Kerbal too and although it's a bit less serious I think this genre has legs. BASPM has the strategy angle and some of the tweaks i mentioned to how the missions and assembly is categorised is one of the few things I don't quite get. Everybody's wired differently though. So yeah keep the thoughts coming guys!