By Omnae, in the last post of the R&D cap argument.
I hope you were just making a verbal point, and not actually suggesting a planet cap.
It almost makes you wish the Internet had a function or type setting which denoted non-serious talks or voice tone, as things can sometime be deceptive.
Personally, I have an idea that would allow the existance of poweful ships built at small meterage, like the Liberator cruisers. We got the idea of mantinence from a game called Star Wars Rebellion. Why not take the refined materiel cost from that game as well?
It was partly sarcasm but not really. I would not have thought about looking at the rules from that perspective if it wasn't brought up.
However, I think, Rico, that you dislike the "idea" of a cap rather than complaining over any obstacle it would present in a practical matter.
The only group a "cap" would affect is TNO.
The idea is to avoid restarting the galaxy from scratch. That is one thing it seems alot of people do not want and after thinking about it, I don't want either.
However, the "cap" I am thinking of is not so much a prohibition of not taking any planets after a certain amount but, rather, an incremental increase in planetary values after your group reaches a certain level.
Basically, what we're thinking is that once a group hits a certain point, the word cost per planet increases dramatically. So while TNO could continue to expand, it would take tens of thousands of words to continue to do so.
Personally, what I'm hoping is that such a measure would cause members of some larger groups to get bored, and start other (active) groups, all in all helping the TRF galaxy along.
