Arcen Games

General Category => AI War II - Gameplay Ideas => AI War II => AI War II - Resolved Ideas => : x4000 September 07, 2016, 09:09:05 PM

: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: x4000 September 07, 2016, 09:09:05 PM
2.d. Power for Stationary, Fuel for Mobile: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdzU90psGas_3UFe23BLvsGQ8fclec49NmnbHfwkZ8w/edit#heading=h.2jx9ewlef8wg

2.e. Solar Systems and Planetary Orbits: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IdzU90psGas_3UFe23BLvsGQ8fclec49NmnbHfwkZ8w/edit#heading=h.sd2h6gyftkvl

I'll be very interested to hear what folks think.  Particularly on the idea of how to handle wormhole locations within planet wells.  In general I think there's a lot to be excited about here, and it's less drastic than some of the other changes I had proposed.

These are the last of the super huge changes for this game that I'm going to propose (that I am aware of at this time), although the background factions will be a neat thing that has a good effect but not an overwhelming one.  Those are 2.g and I need to write them up tomorrow.

Captain Jack, it's these bits that I've been waiting on for the story purposes.  If people accept the solar systems and background factions, then the story goes one way.  If not, it goes another. ;)
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Arnos September 07, 2016, 09:26:55 PM
Looks interesting, and I agree with all the changes to power and fuel. One question unanswered by the docs, how big are these solar systems going to be, and how long will they take to cross? eg. If I'm attacking planet 3 with my bombers, how long will it take the fighters on AI planet 5 to come and clobber me? I realize that it's far to early for an exact answer, but some sort of vague idea of how big the systems are supposed to "feel" would be a plus.

Can't wait for the new game :)
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: chemical_art September 07, 2016, 09:43:34 PM
It all looks good. I am tired so can only imagine so much how the solar systems will work but it sounds fun.
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Draco18s September 07, 2016, 09:58:11 PM
One note so far:

I want the AI to have some notion of power usage (not fuel, just power).  That way I can actually raid the AI's unprotected power generator, then laugh as the forcefields protecting the anti-bomber guard post falls down, allowing me to destroy it more easily.  i.e. strategic awesome sauce.
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Tridus September 07, 2016, 10:42:52 PM
It's late and I'll have to read it again in the morning for full thoughts. Short version is that it sounds good.

Can you move between any planets within a solar system, or do those have a defined path as well? (Eg, earth to mars to jupiter to saturn, or earth to saturn?)

I'm not sure about no fuel in neutral systems. It seems like a weird distinction. What is the AI doing that makes you burn fuel that doesn't exist anywhere else?
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Captain Jack September 07, 2016, 10:56:10 PM
Captain Jack, it's these bits that I've been waiting on for the story purposes.  If people accept the solar systems and background factions, then the story goes one way.  If not, it goes another. ;)
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/015/575/Gendo_Ikari_by_Darthval.jpg)
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Draco18s September 07, 2016, 11:15:31 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/icO4BlK.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/9QUARgX.png)
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Cinth September 08, 2016, 01:38:15 AM
I'm not sure about no fuel in neutral systems. It seems like a weird distinction. What is the AI doing that makes you burn fuel that doesn't exist anywhere else?

I'm thinking it may work like a modified extension of supply.  Logistically speaking, fuel usage at your planets could happen but it makes it fiddly in that you're able to refuel in those systems.  You can extend that supply line to neutral systems because the threat to the lines are low.  You can't extend into AI territory this way because those fuelers can't, or rather won't, travel through hostile space.


: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: skrutsch September 08, 2016, 01:47:43 AM
9  Solar systems themselves are owned by either:
I think there's a fifth possibility, namely  You the player :)

To claim a solar system, at least half of the planets in them must have a command station of that faction, and nobody else can have any command stations in that system.
In multiplayer, it might be best to ignore your teammate's command stations for this.

Overall there would be approximately 3-12 planets per solar system, most likely.  Usually more in the middle of that range.
Overall this means that the galaxy will have on average 5-9x more planets than in AI War Classic.

So a "medium-sized" AIW Classic game might have 50 or 60 planets, while a "medium-sized" AIW2 game might have 50 or 60 solar systems, so 250 to 500 planets?  That's a LOT more decision points to consider, I may need you to enable P10 through P99. :)

So if I want to protect a planet (or solar system) by gate raiding, instead of neutering say 4 adjacent planets, now I need to neuter 4 solar systems, say 24 planets?  That's 6x the busy work, hooray!

Looks like the orbiting mechanism might reward players for waiting till planets approach (or separate), could be gamey, might be unnecessary chrome.  (Unless one of the stretch goals is the Kerbal Space Program faction!)

How do you move between planets in a solar system?  Drive off the screen?  Mini-wormholes?  All 12 planets are on the same big map and you just fly over there?

Now each solar system has several planets to control as well as "overall control of the solar system".  What does solar system control do for you?

Planet adjacency meant a lot in AIW Classic and was easy to see on the galaxy map.  How does adjacency work in AIW2? 

If adjacency is considered by ownership of each solar system, that could lead to some gamey decisions - I might want to control a solar system so adjacent solar systems are supplied, but then relinquish control to make adjacent-system raid engines stop producing (or something like that - I'm no expert!)

I like the idea of adding more "terrain" considerations, though…

Half-baked suggestion: 
Each solar system can have at most one command station.  Like in AIW Classic, you must destroy the AI command station before you can build one.  However, you may build your command station on any planet in the system, which will be the one that provides the gravity well size and receives economic boosts, military defense, etc. from the command station.  The rest of the planets are yours to exploit, but without turrets or force fields other "defensive" builds available, only ships, factories, metal extractors, etc.  (The "exploiting" could be too micro if not carefully considered.)

Also, the planet with the command station is the one where the wormholes point to. (Don't know what to do if there are no command stations in a solar system.)

Pros:
- Adjacency works like in AIW Classic.
- If you need to blow up 12 AI command stations to control a solar system, 11 of them are probably boring busy work anyway, so why make the player do that?  This way the AI can choose the most defendable/desirable planet to defend, and your FUN! is more concentrated.
- And do you really want to build and maintain 12 sets of defensive structures?
- This system has three planets with neat goodies, but I can strongly defend only one, hmm, and if I want to guard the others do I just use the Mark I ships I have lying around or do I need a stronger garrison here?
- Your command-station planet behaves like a mini-chokepoint, guarding the entrances to all the other planets in the solar system.  Who doesn't like chokepoints?
- I picture the AI sending a large raiding force, then splitting it into 11 directions...  >D

Cons:

Well, look at the time, I need to sleep. :)
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: kasnavada September 08, 2016, 02:05:16 AM
@Fuel & energy: why not. What it'll become is probably building a lot of fuel producer at the homeworld, but I see benefits from not having ship cost power. The removal of global energy cap is a good move, I like that part. 1 tank / planet will change the game in that deep strikes will be more and more possible as the game unfolds. Which is probably a good thing.

The power consumption was there to be a limitation for the parasite mechanic, as far as I could tell, and so the player could not abuse too much the zenith caches too. Also, not have to much spire & golems. I think it's a minor risk anyway, there was a thread somewhere about zombies which should have the idea to solve this issues.

@Planets: huge change here.
Each wormhole solution has pro & cons really. Not sure which is good or bad.



: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Sestren September 08, 2016, 02:35:49 AM
Mostly I'm unclear how the mechanism for moving between gravity wells works. Do you move your ships to the edge of the well and auto-magically have them appear another well over? (Like a short range ftl hop or something?) Can any well jump to any other arbitrary well or do you have to make your way through the system based on current proximity?

It would certainly be an answer to the 'AI always attacks me in a straight line, let me min-max my killzone' problem if they could show up from any side of your well (as a consequence of orbital mechanics). Though a static wormhole would make that particular planet defensible in the classic style, which might be desirable for 1.0. I feel like weirder options for wormhole placements directly affect how systems have to be defended, so its probably best to play with that during whichever version sees space platforms and leave it static for now.

Regarding gate raiding, it would make sense to either only have one warp gate per system, or one warp gate per planetary well w/ wormhole with the stipulation that it can only send waves through that particular wormhole.

Having more planets, most else being equal (as seems to be the case so far) is probably going to lead to longer games on average. Even if individual gravity wells are smaller, it might be better to strongly avoid systems with more than 5-6 planets, though I suppose that'll get hashed out during the balancing phase.

Will there exist units that can fire from one well into another within a system?

How does supply (for static defenses and beachheading) work with this? Does it propagate to adjacent systems as before or could it maybe require owning at least one of the planets in a system?

I could see a use case for a stealthy command station that lets you set up a small friendly area on a hostile system but with a whole bunch of "nothing to see here" for the AI. Metal upkeep cost of course just like the current warp jammer. Maybe have it be an alternate function of that station...

If you take one or more planets in a system still held by the AI, are they eligible to send a wave against their own system to clear out those planets?

Just to clarify, the doc seems to imply that the planetary level and galaxy level views are contiguous? Like, you can just zoom out to a desired level of granularity seamlessly? That'd be handy and visually impressive.

If you put down a command station by a planet, do you get scout coverage for just that planet or every planet in the system? Or maybe a proximity thing, either planets that are physically close enough by or one step in or out orbitways.

Can you think of any classes of units/structures that would be better off with a per-system cap rather than a per-planet or global? Or would you rather avoid capping things at that level?

Unlike some of the other proposals, none of the questions that come to mind with this one are not hard to solve, but there do seem to be a lot of little details to keep in mind.
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: PokerChen September 08, 2016, 03:03:25 AM
I don't have time at the moment, but will say 100% support on solar systems, and 60% support on fuel. Wormholes still benefit from dedicated thread, will come back with so l visual suggestions.
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: kasnavada September 08, 2016, 03:42:27 AM
The more I think about solar systems, the more issues I see.

I understand the extra place needed to put new factions in. However, I have issue with the scale & micro. AI war was already a very long game, and if each planet is defended on the scale that old "systems" where defended, games are going to last for 40+ hours. Without counting pause time.

I'm really not sure that a game with a high multiplayer focus like AI war classic had requires a sequel where multiplayer is basically impossible. That said, possibly I missed something, but somewhat of a faster game would be nice.

How could solar systems make the game faster ? That's what I'm wondering.

@wormholes, if the defensive style of the game as it is now is going to be kept, and planets are to be kept like written, the only sensible option I see is a fixed wormhole tied to a planet.
@About solar system, command stations is fine by me, but a system to autobuild will probably be required. In a "standard" AI war classic game you conquered less than 2 dozen planets. There you'd need to build up to 160 ? By hand ?


What I think is a more sensible solution is to ditch the "each planet is a map" part making the "system" bigger, and put the planets there.  Like star ruler does (see image). Then "cut" the "system" map into conquerable sectors / orbits, one per planet, and have the wormhole orbit too. Example : 8 planets, 8 orbits, with 3/3/4/4/5/5/6/6 sectors. This is not part of star ruler so don't look it up there. Or just have "core space" around planets, or forget about sectors, just keep orbits.

: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Pumpkin September 08, 2016, 04:21:09 AM
The Solar Systems stuff raises a lot of questions, indeed. Most of them have already been asked here. I reserve my overall judgment because I need to better see and understand how it would work.

Only considering the thematic addition of the game, having the notion of solar system would make the map much more believable; the isolated, lattice-wormhole-linked planets of AI War Classic made little sense in that regard.

However, mechanically, I'm afraid that would be very difficult for players to wrap their mind around that, and for once, I think "experienced" players would have more trouble un-learning the thing than new players just learning from scratch.

Anyway, zoomable galactic map: ultra-yay! I love that idea so much. I would even love to see a SupCom-like zoom where one can go from one base/fight/zone to the whole map in one big scroll. Aka, I would love to be able to go from planetary view to galactic view (and vice-versa) by just scrolling.


On the energy/fuel topic, I have something to say, however.

I'm completely in favor of a rework of the energy mechanism. I would be happy with simply removing it, but I understand there are several balance points that it must care of (secondary form of cap, interesting brownout situations). However I don't think that Energy is the best answer to these (cap for immobile defenses: return to a sort of galactic cap; brownout: defenses deactivated if OCStation destroyed -- sort of supply). But that local, per-planet energy and brownout kinda seduce me.

The Fuel part, however, I'm against. Not strongly; just against. It would add complexity where I feel no needs. There already are the reprisal mechanism for fleetwipes in enemy territory, the deepstrike threatening, the travel time itself, and for the resource itself we already have the energy brownout and the lack of supply. I believe it would be micromanagement and added complexity and frustration at worst, and barely no impact at best. What's the point of having a resource that only impact the game in very specific moments? It was a good idea to reduce the annoyance of energy and turn it into a more local strategical thing. I feel the addition of fuel just replace that gain with a different kind of annoyance.

But maybe I'm wrong and it would be interesting, not that much annoying, and yet impacting enough.

TL:DR:
* Global Power Is Bad: agreed.
* Power Is Bad For Mobile Ships: agreed.
* Fuel For Mobile Ships: against.
* Zoomable galactic view: ultra-yay.
* Solar systems: meh?
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Lord Of Nothing September 08, 2016, 04:28:42 AM
Quick note: The way power works in classic is no longer as described in the document- there's the generators for no metal cost, and the secondary smaller ones for a big cost, but no inefficiency setup now, and a hard per-planet limit. But the overall points about why it's bad still apply.

Overall, I really like the fuel/power idea. In particular, yay on a solution that makes it no longer optimal to deepstrike raid the entire galaxy before you do anything else because the AI is sleepy.

However, I am concerned about the size of the game with the number of planets and solar systems you are considering. In a single-player game it doesn't really matter to me, but I am concerned about multiplayer- it needs to be a priority for the game to still be balanced on a map where the total number of planets is something a bit closer to classic, I think.
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Captain Jack September 08, 2016, 04:40:43 AM
Okay so I'm looking over the planet change suggestion and I like it. It adds a lot of interesting considerations to a lot of player behavior. One caveat: most systems in AI War had multiple wormholes while this seems to assume that a solar system will just have one wormhole. With just one wormhole in a system, a player can jump from system to system with impunity, meaning the AI can't intercept an army on the way to a factory except in the system where the factory is. I don't think taking the strategy out of galactic travel is in the games interest, especially when the same is true of the giant threatball that just entered my home system from the AI homeworld.

I dislike fuel though because it adds a mechanic that is similar to one that already exists (energy and metal) without representing something very different.

Boding well, minor factions work a lot like I'd hoped they would.

Hm. I had more but it's late. I'll see about having the lore record proposition to you sometime tomorrow. Anything in particular you want me to note down, and do we want to keep it to the games that are connected? Or is AVWW something we want in this? How about Exodus?
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: PokerChen September 08, 2016, 04:54:53 AM
On (terra)train and planning suggestions now.

Having solar systems is emphatically good for the game:
- ceates more believability and context.
- creates two distinct levels of geographical interest, planets in a system are the hill-160s on a battlefield, systems represent battlefields worth fighting over.
- allows far more interesting wormhole mechanics than the three on the design doc.

Responses to negative player feedback (since I'm explicitly biased):
- the total number of planets and systems can easily be changed at will. This is not a hindrance to MP play.
- The new unit of ownership is entire systems, so please adjust your experience to compare the old planets with the new systems, and not to every planet in the system. Chris said explicitly in the design doc that the overall push is to streamline play, and that means but increasing overall playtime.
- This means, annoying strategic roadblocks like Grav Drills will NOT be present on every planet of the system. There will still be one per system,  which in AIW2 means less overall if the classic density is kept
- how travel works can also be discussed at length, there are many variations and I'm confident we can arrive at a satisfactory solution if we agree that in principle solar systems are interesting enough to talk about it
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: kasnavada September 08, 2016, 05:21:51 AM
@Zharmad, if you want to be the "answer", then IMO, "I'm confident that a solution can be found" if the mindset that failed SBR. So... either you have a solution or you don't. In any case, I'm all for making the game faster. I just don't see it happening with how the idea is presented here.
(solar system that is)

(fuel & energy, overall, I'm in favor).

About the subject itself, I now see more why platforms were thought of an idea. They solve a lot of issues related to systems / planets.
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Steelpoint September 08, 2016, 06:04:59 AM
If the concept of fuel serves to be a major issue then perhaps allow the player to toggle it off? 'Armageddon Empires' does something similar where armored units need energy as fuel but its a optional game modifier that can be turned off or on. Though I think the initial concept of fuel is sound as it encourages more tactical thinking in fleet deployments.

The Solar System concept seems great in concept. Also I really think the idea of making all incoming Wormholes to a system just go through a single wormhole is a positive change, since in the base AI War you're always trying to set your defenses up in a way that AI forces travel in one single line, making there being only a single entrance gets rid of some juggling of defenses and mines.

(I also imagine certain planets offer better advantages, like Gas Planets being better for Fuel Mining)

The implications of Human sub-factions along with the player at game start also gives a bit of a implication towards the early game and the plot. My theory seems to be that you start the game near the end of the AI's apocalyptic charge against the Human forces, whereas AI War 1 takes place three weeks later.



: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: PokerChen September 08, 2016, 06:36:20 AM
Hang on, I'm going to upload some thought on, e.g., how gate raiding can work. Will write description when I next get internet.
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Tridus September 08, 2016, 08:30:35 AM
If the concept of fuel serves to be a major issue then perhaps allow the player to toggle it off? 'Armageddon Empires' does something similar where armored units need energy as fuel but its a optional game modifier that can be turned off or on. Though I think the initial concept of fuel is sound as it encourages more tactical thinking in fleet deployments.

Makes sense to me. That seems like an easy toggle option. I'd leave it on, personally.
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: PokerChen September 08, 2016, 09:34:22 AM
(https://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19070.0;attach=10242)
In A, the wormholes do not orbit, but the planets do. Here, I think it is easiest to just make the entire system one playing field (kasnavada and many 4X). This is mostly identical to classic, except you replace mineral deposits with orbiting planets, and add in-system jumps. Wormhole generators here serve only to speed up AI jump speeds.
How this is faster than classic:

(https://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19070.0;attach=10240)
In B, the wormholes are tied to the planet. Here, we adopt Stellaris hyperlane mechanics, and complicate hate -raiding to slow it down (each wormhole connection is independent). We will keep the solar system as in the design doc, but make each planetary playing field much smaller: say smaller than a fortress's range.How this is faster than classic:

(https://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=19070.0;attach=10238)
In C, we try to develop a way to keep some reliability while still keeping the "arrive on nearest edge" philosophy. To prevent fleets from regularly scattering themselves across the system (because they aren't in the same place or jump at exactly the same time), travel within friendly territory is generally done by centralised wormhole anchors. So if you control one such anchor in the system, everybody jumps there, and jumps faster.
How this is faster than classic:
[/list]
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Pumpkin September 08, 2016, 09:36:13 AM
A small, additional bit of thought.

I realized why I'm rather... "timorous" with these ideas: they slightly shift the game toward the 4X genre, and I mainly appreciate it for its RTS and TowerDef aspects. I hope the game will stay "simple" and even become more coherent and easy to grasp. I'm afraid of seeing more "management" in its core gameplay. And fuel feels like management, at least as far as I understand it.
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Tridus September 08, 2016, 09:57:04 AM
I'm not sure about no fuel in neutral systems. It seems like a weird distinction. What is the AI doing that makes you burn fuel that doesn't exist anywhere else?

I'm thinking it may work like a modified extension of supply.  Logistically speaking, fuel usage at your planets could happen but it makes it fiddly in that you're able to refuel in those systems.  You can extend that supply line to neutral systems because the threat to the lines are low.  You can't extend into AI territory this way because those fuelers can't, or rather won't, travel through hostile space.

But that doesn't make any sense, logically, because the fuel is stored in tanks on planets. If I have supply lines and can resupply fuel, why is it not costing fuel?

It makes more sense to me only on your/allied worlds, because maybe the command station does something to stabalize the transit lanes and make them free to navigate. That wouldn't exist on neutral or AI worlds, so on those you need to expend your fuel.

Also creates a potential tech upgrade to reduce fuel costs for a ship/class of ships/ships being escorted by a transport, which would give those ships an effective range increase for deep strikes and neutral territory traversal.
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: kasnavada September 08, 2016, 10:00:10 AM
@pumpkin
Fuel as written there would only impact the player when striking / moving through enemy planets. Anything in neutral / allied / own territory = no fuel.
It's a mechanic that would limit the "island hopping" style of play to more reasonable level, "forcing" the player to have a more contiguous empire if possible, and deep strikes.
That's it.

Maybe it should be called supply, it would make a LOT more sense.

@planets:
I think the "best" mechanic there is to exploit them following how it's done in sins. Claim then build on it, via a "simple" upgrade menu, if upgrades are necessary (I don't think they would be, but why not). Setting buildings to "exploit" planets is the same thing but with more micro and clutter.

: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: kasnavada September 08, 2016, 10:12:40 AM
@Zharmad: A has my vote, and not because my name's in it.

I think it ties with some possibilities I placed in this thread:
https://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,19075.0.html
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: chemical_art September 08, 2016, 10:12:48 AM
I prefer supply myself  over fuel. Would fit terminology of other games me.

I view supply has any sort being delivered to ships via npc (invisible) civilians that happily resupply safe world's but ai world's also have invisible ships that act as raiders.

Taking a step back I do wonder if the work needed to develop this resource, both in making it and learning it, is worth the payout. It hurts the player in making deep strikes and can hurt the AI through astroglide trains. The former will trip up new players and the latter can use other existing resources (reinforcement points).
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Tridus September 08, 2016, 10:19:27 AM
Having read through it again, I like both of these. Solar systems will make the map look a lot more interesting and provide some neat things to try and do.

Making power local makes a ton of sense. Fuel/supply/whatever is something that could provide its own limitation on deep strikes, which might make it less necessary to have a special AI response just for that (which was always kinda weird).
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: Pumpkin September 08, 2016, 10:45:38 AM
I'm reading the design document as Chris edits it. I will love the new definition of solar systems.
 ;)
: Re: AI War II: Design Document Updates 5: Fuel and Solar Systems and Orbits
: x4000 September 08, 2016, 11:02:32 AM
Awesome!  Glad the new one is sounding more positive.  Thanks for all the discussion in this thread, folks -- lots of good thoughts in here, and they helped steer revised designs.  Since that's a breaking point in the discussion, I've created a new thread here: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,19077.0.html

Once again I'm locking a thread just to redirect the discussion, not to censor anything.  Thank you so much for all your help!