Some hopefully-helpful comments...
> Spaceships are indestructible fixed assets. Ownership of Spaceships
> is restricted to players.
> If a Spaceship is Destroyed, its Sector switch CANNOT be flipped. At
> least 24 hours after a Spaceship's Destroyed switch becomes True,
> its owner CAN flip its Destroyed switch back to False by
> announcement. [todo: some way to make this not flippable except
> after a space battle, not sure how to word that]
So ... there's no particular reason for Spaceships to be assets (there's
basically one permanently per player). And these two bits together don't
work, because when you destroy an asset (as defined elsewhere), it
ceases to exist, as do all its switches. Redefining "destroy" for a
particular asset as being a Switch, when there's already a higher-powered
definition of what "destroying" an asset, is quite messy!
I'd suggest saying "each player has a set of Switches, collectively known
as Spaceship switches" and avoid the "spaceship=asset" all together?
(actually, better make it "each active player", this game is trivial if
you're allowed to fight against your zombie).
> Once 48 hours have passed since the beginning of the Space Battle,
> players can no longer increase the amount of Power they wish to
> spend,
So this game is basically an "whomever posts last before the deadline
has the advantage" game. I generally think games that come down to that
sort of race condition don't work particularly well. This is a really
good place for a Hash/secret move: each player submits a single, hashed
power they want to use, then reveal it after it can't be changed.
Another possibility is to make this a "finite hand set" game (there's
probably a better term for this mechanic). By that I mean, the sort
of game where you start with a set of Cards (e.g. 1-10) and have to
decide which card to play, so you aren't left later on with only low
numbers.
Also, "power" is used elsewhere in the rules so it would be better to
find a different term.
> either player CAN Resolve the Battle by announcement, and
> at least one of them SHALL in a timely fashion.
This sort of joint-responsibility for doing something is kind of hard
to enforce? Maybe make the challenger responsible for resolving.
> Enact a new rule entitled "Fame", with the following text:
> {
> Every player has a Fame switch, with possible values being all
> integers between -10 and 10. Players with positive Fame are Famous,
> and those with negative Fame are Infamous.
>
> If a player is the Winner in a Space Battle against an Infamous
> player, eir Fame is increased by 1. Likewise, if a player is the
> Winner in a Space Battle against a Famous player or one with a Fame
> of 0, eir Fame is decreased by 1.
> }
I like the concept of fame for dogfights, but please tie to an end goal
of actually Winning the Game! For that, I might do something like "wins
the game when Fame has been 10 continuously for a week, with Notice".
This means, when someone has enough Fame to win, others get warned and
have a chance to challenge the leader.
