I didn’t realize loudness impacted sportiness as well, thanks for the tip. Yeah, I’d vote for option 3 if it were a vote, but I understand why that might be implausible. (I secondarily vote for option 1 if 3 can’t be.)
Edit: Also, have the game’s devs made any statement regarding this bug? I realize it’s impractical for them to talk about every small issue they’re dealing with, but it’d be nice to know if they’ve mentioned this one somewhere.
If someone else can find an easy way to go from noise (and some other small list of variables) to how much the % modifier in detailed stats is impacted, I’ll consider it. If I can simulate it on my spreadsheet, I’ll consider it. If I have to actually toggle settings on cars to find out… Nope.
So, what we have now is that engine loudness affects sportiness and comfort - I still can’t really see it as a problem, since less noise = more comfort, less sportiness, I presume. Bumps up one stat at the tradeoff of another. And the segment where you would find performance intakes is where sportiness is a prio over comfort. Again, I don’t see the problem, or rather, I don’t see it as any worse than any other problem you would encounter by running competitions in a rather crude and unpolished beta. Sorry if I sound harsh because I don’t mean to be it, just because my opinion is that this is barely a problem at all, and it feels like thinking too much about it makes a hen out of a feather.
Just taking things at face value can also mean: there are only quite loud performance intakes on the Aragan market in the 1960s, and everyone who picks one makes a deliberate design choice.
Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post
Reviews for:
@Arn38fr - Aileron Automobiles Carcane C60
@Bbestdu28 - BMA Somptueuse Break de Chasse
@ChemaTheMexican - Garland-Varion Majesty
@Conan - Brampton 3500S TC
@Executive - Hakaru 1000 Premium
@GassTiresandOil - Armor Valencia Country
@Interior - Schnell New 3000
@Knugcab - Saarland Adjunkt
@lotto77 - P&A Sportsman Mk.III Flat 6
@LS_Swapped_Rx-7 - Mercer Lancaster 365
@Madrias - Kasivah Vyrada 2600 + VFC3
@MrdjaNikolen - Kolondra 1400
@Texaslav - Arlington Alpha S64
@TheYugo45GV - IVERA 70 (4XT)
This round of reviews is all around commuter cars, family cars and the like. More specifically, everything that isn’t a coupe, van or a ute.
So… Let’s start with the entries which didn’t hold up, did we?
These two cars ran into the same big issue. Terminal oversteer. Now, one of the two entries, the Garland, is… kinda acceptable, I guess? On the one hand, it’s a rear-engined car. On the other hand… Well, it’s clear that you got most of the way there, and then you just sorta stopped. The car has all the hallmarks of a successful, driveable rear-engined car. The tyres aren’t square. The front wheels have positive camber, while the rear tyres have a lot of negative camber. It doesn’t have a ton of oversteer until it goes terminal - but it still goes terminal. If you look past the terminal oversteer, you run into two major issues. First of all, the car could be six km/h faster if it weren’t for the gearing. Just go a tiny amount longer, and you get more speed. Not great. Second of all, though, there’s the tyre situation. See, it’s running radials… With the fronts being 140mm wide, and the rears being 165mm wide. This is generally not great, because radials ending in 0 don’t usually exist. It’s not mentioned in the post, but it’s a thing that happens with realism. Even worse, that massive rear camber means the tyres wear out incredibly quickly, and you can’t rotate the tyres. If you ran 135mm tyres in the rear - just one click down - the terminal oversteer goes away and you are using more common tyres. Not great.
Okay, now to the Schnell, shall we? See, this is a case I just can’t excuse as much. It runs into terminal oversteer too… and it’s front-engined. Here, its issues arise from a simple issue: The roll bars. See, the Schnell has the default “2000/2000” rollbars… Which is bad here. The car ends up with too much front grip and nowhere near enough body roll. So, this means the car suffers in terms of, well, every stat. The terminal oversteer kills cornering performance, harming drivability massively and harming sportiness more than the low body roll helps. Comfort is harmed by the issues with body roll too. Not great. It gets worse though. See, the brakes are designed with an almost 50/50 brake bias. This means there is way too much force on the rear wheels and nowhere near enough force on the front wheels. This causes major issues with brake fade, and a missed opportunity for increasing sportiness and drivability by properly calibrating the brakes. Finally, we come to the third major issue: The engine. The block is made of aluminium, and the head is made of cast iron. This combination has the lowest reliability, making the overall car less reliable than any other car - despite having standard intakes, and a standard interior. The car is replete with other strange decisions, but these are the ones which really sink it.
So, here’s three cars with a few common features. First, they all have a post-tax purchase cost above 25 grand. Second, they all have comfort above 30. They also have top-tier prestige.
I honestly have no idea how the BMA Somptueuse’s engineering was handled. That top tier comfort? Yeah, it’s a case of brute forcing it, throwing money at the matter. It’s the second most expensive car - not just in the sector, but in the entire round. Barely. However, it’s clearly a step down from the other two entries here. This comes despite using a handmade interior, in contrast to the “mere” luxury interior of the other two. No, it comes due to the reduced-size rear seats, functioning as 2+3 rather than 5 seats. This is the only car beyond sporty coupes to use these types of seats. Sporty coupes use these reduced-size seats because, well, they don’t have a ton of space. This car, though? It has so, so much space back there. It’s a wagon, for crying out loud! Indeed, the engineering of the BMA is closer to one of those sporty coupes with a wagon grafted on, from the price to the performance intakes (complete with low reliability), to the sport compound tyres… But if you want sport, why not buy a sporty GT? As we will see in the next section, there are sportier, cheaper, more comfortable options in that sector. But hey, it looks groovy, and that orange is a nice colour that really pops.
Okay, so, moving past that, where to next? Well, now we get a legitimate contest between the P&A Sportsman and the Mercer Lancaster - and I do mean a contest. The pair both came out in 64, and they have exactly the same 36.6 points of comfort. Thanks to the displacement tax, the smaller engine of the P&A allows it to come in 2500 AMU cheaper. Annual costs are a bit of a wash. Servicing is the same, and the P&A’s better economy on premium gas is outweighed by the Mercer using standard. The P&A is harder on its tyres… I’d say the taxes put the P&A a little ahead, but it’s debatable. This brings us to driving. For normal driving, the two are super close. Trying to go fast, though? Well, the P&A lives up to its name this year, bringing actual sport to the Sportsman. The Mercer, meanwhile, takes the American route by having a massive engine and hoping you have bigger balls if you wanna drive it fast - zero sportiness score. It’s only a few seconds faster than the Mercer, thanks to shaving off a little bit of time while accelerating, handling just a little better on the skidpad. The P&A edges out the Mercer, but they’re both sweet cars.
In terms of aesthetics? Well… They’re both sweet. They both have intricate, ornate front fascias. The Mercer looks sporty, while the P&A doesn’t look anywhere near as sporty as it really is. I haven’t shown the rear of the two cars, but again, two different cars - one muscle, one sporty.
I swear this isn’t going to be a pattern, but we once more run into the same “two cars good, one car bad” pattern. We’ve swapped from the high end to the low end.
Ohh Kolondra, where to start? How about with the, uh, interesting seating layout? It’s modelled with staggered seats, which honestly would be less comfortable than a conventional bench, with the models’ legs clipping into one another. Not great, but hey, it seats six? Like the Schnell, it has nowhere near enough body roll. Also, the suspension is way too stiff for this category. The brakes are way too strong as well, which doesn’t help either. It’s also less reliable than the other two here, which really matters at this end. Crucially, though? Besides being bigger and seating six, it doesn’t offer much for the extra… Two grand? Oof. Where did the money go? Making the car lighter, way lighter. The sound insulation is stripped out and lots of work has been put into making the car light. Why? If you kept the weight slider in the middle, you’d have a cheaper, more comfortable and more interesting car.
Okay, so, battle of the bargains. Both these cars are the cheapest outside of the commercial sector. The Saarland is the most reliable entry… by 0.1 points. The Hakaru just barely gets beaten. Entertainment in the Saarland is cheaper and the seats aren’t quite as well-made, but it has such better suspension and such that it’s probably more comfortable. Indeed, if you only care about a car which gets you from here to there, well, the lower purchase price and the marginally better fuel economy probably wins for the Saarland. Of course, if you want fun or safety? Well, the Saarland is a slug with rather basic safety options, while the Hakaru has advanced, cutting-edge safety, and performs so well on the skidpad that it’s well and truly enjoyable. Cheap fun, or just cheap? Take your pick!
And aesthetics? They look cheap, to be frank, and I personally do not like the Saarland and Kolondra. Setting aside the rather boring colours which aren’t too popular in Araga… They both use the cliche, early 50s jet-inspired rear flares, in cars nowhere near the right shape for them. The Kolondra makes them extra flat and mounts the lights to them. Both these cars were made in the early 60s. The rear flares do not belong. The Hakaru, meanwhile? It’s cute cheap. Just simple enough to look like an inexpensive little car from the era.
Okay, now we come to the part where I have issues dividing cars into nice, easy chunks. Prices are all similar. They all use premium interiors, and all but one entry uses a premium AM radio. The big difference, though? Three are “sporty”, three are more comfortable. So, the sporty ones first. No, not as sporty as the P&A, but not zero. So, let’s start with… The Arlington.
The Arlington has some good elements. It’s the best to drive… if you know what you’re doing. If you’re going nice and fast, it comes as alive as a car in this segment can. Going slower? Well, even those budget options are easier to drive. It’s incredibly thirsty and uses premium fuel. It’s the sole car with a standard AM radio… But, due to using sportier tyres, it doesn’t quite need to rely on harder suspension to get decent sportiness. This makes it just a little more comfortable than the other two entries here. It’s blisteringly fast around the circuit, faster even than most of those sporty coupes. If you need two rows of seats, plenty of speed and you don’t want to spend tons of money on a high-end GT? The Arlington may be what you need. In terms of aesthetics, meanwhile? Maybe it’s the split grille. Maybe it’s the hood’s slope and scoop. It looks nice and sporty. It’s a proto-muscle, in looks and performance.
Okay, so we have the fast car… Now for the slow cars. Wait, what? Wasn’t this meant to be sport? Well, these cars are legitimately fun to drive fast… once they get there. Neither car is high on power, thanks to smaller, low-tax engines. The Aileron, thanks to weighing less, accelerates better - but even premium fuel can’t help it hit a higher speed from its tiny 1.2L engine. Throw hard tyres onto both cars, and they have issues on the track.
The Aileron, however, has a saving grace. See, that tiny engine has a couple of key benefits. Service costs are somewhat low. Tax is even lower. Tax and servicing is as cheap as those budget buys… While fuel consumption is positively modern, at just 6.7 L/100km. If you are fine spending a bit more now for a more comfortable car, it keeps all your other costs super low - and it costs roughly as much as all these other premium sedans. The Ivera, though? Well, its somewhat high purchase cost renders the low running costs a little moot. Being a hatchback is nice though, as it makes it nice and usable.
For aesthetics? Well… The Aileron is… fine? It certainly looks like a premium sedan. Yes, everything fits together well. It’s well made. It certainly looks like a 60s sedan. I guess I just don’t like 60s premium sedans, because it isn’t clicking for me. Perhaps my modern, hot hatch sensibilities are why I like the look of the IVERA so much. Bright, bold and oh so orange, with a boxy hatch shape that was snuffed out oh so quickly by CFD. What can I say? I’m biased.
From one too-expensive car to another, we come to the Armor Valencia Country. You know, the offroader that’s only an offroader for tax purposes. Except for the fact that, you know, it’s heavier due to being a wagon, so the engine is larger… Fuel eco suffers too, wheelspin isn’t too fun, but that nice powerful engine does help around the circuit, so… Good job, if you need to store stuff in your car, there’s really nothing like it. You’re paying an extra few grand, and paying more to run the car, but you get something legitimately good for your money. For aesthetics? Well… It feels a lot like a Volvo. It’s, uh… It’s a boring, sensible wagon for boring, sensible people who want a boring, sensible, practical wagon. What can I say? It looks like what it is. Good job.
Now, we compare the last two cars. Anywhere else, the Kasivah would be more expensive - but hey, displacement taxes make it cheaper to buy. That higher tax cost, especially with worse fuel economy, makes the Brampton more expensive to run. Why does it have worse fuel economy? Well, it’s squeezing out more power from its engine. This makes it a bit faster, sure, and medium tyres do help it around the track… Just watch for wheelspin. The Brampton is a nice and drivable car, it’s a little more comfortable than the Kasivah. If it weren’t for the Kasivah, it’d be the easiest of our 5 seat sedan-like cars to drive, at 43.3. The Kasivah? 51.6. Yeah, I know. That’s a pretty high score, don’t you agree? Especially for 1962. Add in cutting edge safety, and yeah. It’s selling like hotcakes. It’s easy to drive, and both these entries are the most affordable premium cars.
Remember what I just said about not liking how I don’t love the Aileron because it’s a premium 60s sedan and it looks like a premium 60s sedan? Well, what do you know, there’s two more premium 60s sedans that look like premium 60s sedans. I like the way the Kasivah wraps its trim all the way around the car. I like the hood bulge and the vinyl roof of the Brampton. I just don’t like 60s sedans, I guess. What can I say?
Okay, so, OOC notes:
Ok, now onto the changes to market sentiment:
You may notice I haven’t mentioned modifications. Yeah, that’s coming too.
Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post
Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post
Reviews for:
@abg7 - Wolfram Wyvern 3.0
@AndiD - Mayster Triumf S0 1.6
@BannedByAndroid - Winsley Sydney 3800GT
@cake_ape - Collis Celer mk2
@donutsnail - Cabirou Bolero GT 313
@Karhgath - Phénix Nymphe 1.4L TRA
@Lanson - FMC Sabot 240 Coupe
@mart1n2005 - BSC 3800 Piste
@Maverick74 - CESMA Rossignol Coupe
@Petakabras - SAETA Montaraz 1400
@Quneitra - Munot 4C Berlinetta/9
@SheikhMansour - OMC Bonneville
This round is everything sporty, except for the P&A Sportsman as it’s been reviewed already and I don’t have much more to say.
So, let’s start right at the top end, the hypercars of the era, shall we? The BSC and OMC somewhat close. They’re the two moxt expensive cars. They both offer ample power. The both have lightweight, sports-oriented interiors, and they’re both blisteringly fast - both under 2:30 around the track, both hitting at least 240 km/h, pulling over .9 Gs on the skidpad and gettinbg to 100 under 7 seconds.
The only question is… at what cost? Well, the hip pocket will be first to feel it, as both these cars are rather dear - high purchase price, but also high tyre wear, high tax, high fuel consumption… Also, neither car runs the cutting edge of safety. The OMC, however, magnifies all this. It costs a little under 50 grand after tax, compared to the 37300 of the BSC. It’ll spend more time with the mechanic too. Why buy it?
Well, there’s a simple reason. It goes at 261 kilometers per hour. In 1964, when the car was released, the production car speed record was 259, set by the Iso Griffo. The record would be broken by the AC Cobra in 65, at 266 km/h, but it briefly held that record. And when the car is actually working, and you’ve left your accountants behind at high speed, with the wind in your hair? It’s worth it. Managing to eliminate brake fade is a nice touch too.
Beyond performance though? These cars both leave much to be desired. They both don’t deliver the comfort you’d like at this price point, sadly. They’re prestigious performance machines, real track thoroughbreds.
Turning our eyes to the aesthetics and… Honestly, the hidden headlamps on the OMC really don’t do it for me. They’re too square and narrow, rectangular projectors don’t really fit the car, and it just looks like an anachronism. Add in the squared-off rear end, in this year, and it feels cheap. The BSC, though? Drop-dead gorgeous, Enzo would be jealous. It looks every dollar as expensive as it is.w
Okay, so maybe an expensive car focussed so heavily on performance isn’t right for you. That’s fine, there’s still two more nice, expensive options… Just with an extra two seats in the back. The Collis Celer mk2 and the Winsley Sydney 3800GT are both expensive too, setting you back around 34k, although the Collis is a touch cheaper thanks to its smaller engine. The Winsley, with its luxury interior and medium-compound tyres, is a more refined and prestigious option, and it’s even one of the rare cars to have added sound deadening. All of this is great, but performance certainly leaves a lot to be desired. In the right hands, it can be handy around the track… But those hands have to be pretty adept, thanks to buckets of brake fade and mountains of wheelspin. The Collis, meanwhile? Well, there’s no major deficiencies in terms of comfort for sure but… Well, we’ll see why I am not heaping praise on it soon.
It’s a looker though, isn’t it, that Collis? A true Grand Tourer, with that classic shape and a refined bumper. It feels more coupe than sedan - unlike the Winsley. Another proto-muscle, the classic rear flares/spikes/whatever you actually call them obscuring the wonderful sloped back and giving it a boxier shape.
And here’s why the Collis didn’t get tons of praise. 3 other cars all doing 2:30s around the track.
Let’s start with the Sabot, shall we? It’s faster than both the Collis and the Winsley, thanks largely due to better handling - it doesn’t match the top speed or acceleration. Yes, the premium AM radio and sports interior is a step down from the two GTs. Yes, it’s not comfortable at all. Yes, it has a built-in speed limiter it will never reach… Wait, I was saying this was why the Collis didn’t get praise, wasn’t I? Ultimately, the Sabot just feels… Well, it’s caught between a rock and a hard place. Want 4 seats and comfort? The Collis is its equal. Want all-out performance? Maybe your budget can stretch the extra 9 grand to the BSC, you’re already heading towards premium money. Absolutely looks like a premium sports car though, all nice flowing curves and beautiful detail, with flared hips in the back… It’s a beauty.
Okay, how about we go cheaper? The SAETA Montaraz is a full 5.5k cheaper than the FMC, and it’s still delivering performance in the 2:30s at 2:36.84. The car is nice and sporty too, and it’s close to bulletproof with the best reliability for a sports car. Safety is… Well, the game dislikes the car for safety, because it’s so damn light, but I am ignoring that stat. It just commits a few major issues that really worsen it. First of all, there’s the tyres. It has an insane tyre wear multiplier thanks to a huge dose of rear camber, made even worse by the rather staggered tyres. Then, there’s the rest of the suspension, with the front being far more sporty than the rear. Add in a body roll figure that’d be more at home in a luxobarge and, well… It just feels like a miss to me. It’s a shame, because it’s the perfect mix of cute and sporty. If tuned better? It’d be a smash hit.
This, of course, brings us to the Cabirou. The “Too sporty to be a good ute” ute. And, if it’s not too ute to be sporty for you… It’s a steal. Yes, tax incentives do reduce the price, but it’s still cheaper than the FMC. It slots right between the Collis and the Winsley in performance terms (albeit with a lower top speed), and in comfort terms. And yes, being a ute, it’s hard to extract that performance thanks to the lack of rear grip but… The performance is there. And at least it’s easy to drive, and reliable. It sucks down fuel, but at least it’s only regular unlike the rest of the cars in this segment, right? And it’s, well… A ute. It was never going to be a sleek, aesthetically pleasing machine. So, it went for the brawny, tough look - and pulled it off.
Honestly, the Celer is probably still better than these 3. It’s just a very cluttered segment with other entries that seem almost as good, but make one or two mistakes. Being the total package is only impressive when you see what fails to hit all those marks. I could go back and edit the review, but I prefer it like this. The issue for the Celer is that, well… If you don’t need 4 seats and there’s something you can compromise? These will save some money.
The Phenix really belonged in the last group. It’s more expensive than that Saeta, by 100 bucks. I just couldn’t put it there, because it has the laptimes of a cheaper car. So why isn’t it cheaper? There’s cost savings all around, like the basic radio, the lack of power steering, the simple i4… But all of these were cost savings by coincidence, because they are really weight savings. The Fibreglass panels, the deliberate weight reduction and use of premium materials, it’s all made to get the car as light as possible. It has a small wheelbase for this reason too. The end result is, well… a car that is light, sporty, nimble and not much else. Reliability isn’t stellar. Comfort sucks. Staggered tyres push your costs up further. Not helping matters is the fact that the muffler is poorly-configured - a short run from the engine to the muffler, then a long run from the muffler to the tip. Reversing this would have granted a better flowing, quieter and even slightly more powerful engine, effectively for free. Even worse, it’s not even the lightest - the Saeta is a full hundred kilos lighter, and the CESMA is seven kilos lighter. It’s small, yes, but it looks more “bumper car” than “cute sports car”, largely due to the flat, rounded shape without much to break it up beyond flat, rounded bumpers.
Okay, now onto the truly budget options. The Wolfram Wyvern 3.0, thanks to its, uh, 3.0L engine, is the most expensive in terms of tax - everything else runs under 1600 mL. It’s only a small difference, but it’s there, and the service costs are, similarly, the highest of our real cheap options. What does that get you? Well, the comfort is level with the Collis, and it just feels nice for the price point. The large engine is needed for the high footprint, high weight and premium interior - and it helps push the car around the track in a hair over 2:40. Cracking 200 km/h at this price point is nice too. In the more subjective elements, it just feels good to drive. Cruising down roads, it rivals the driving experience of more expensive options. Driving it fast, it doesn’t hold up quite as well, but it’s cheap. And it looks like the somewhat restrained, amicable cruiser that it is too. What you see is what you get. If you want to actually drive your car leisurely? It’s hard to go wrong with Wolfram. Unfortunately? It’s a bit downhill from here.
Okay, now for the slowest sports car in terms of top speed - and it’s just barely not the slowest around the track. The CESMA Rossignol. Just barely cheaper than the Wolfram, it’s the second lightest of the bunch. While this light weight could have meant high speed, the tiny 1.1L engine has it being outrun by even some sedans, and it is rather slow to 100 as well. Worse still, the driving dynamics don’t make the car a joy to drive slow or fast. It’s reliable, but largely because the very basic radio can’t break much. Its very much a design of the time, with odd taillights, and a very jet-age styling. Nice then, looks dated now. Not timeless like some of the others.
Okay, not for the slowest around the track - by three tenths. The Mayster Triumf is honestly what the CESMA should have been, because it takes a major step up in terms of driving dynamics. It is a cheap, slow car which you can drive slow, or fast, however you feel. Yes, some corners were cut in the interior, but at least you can put the top down. In terms of aesthetics… I can’t look past the headlights at all. The lack of a lip or any definition makes it hard to tell where the headlight starts and the panel ends. Couple that with the lemon paint not giving clues either… And it just doesn’t work. A shame, as I like the way the grille looks like it has a moustache.
Finally, we come to the cheapest of our cars, the Munot 4C Berlinetta/9. It’s the most drivable of all the sports cars, and it’s okay when you go fast. Reliability is decent too. You might think that less sporty, medium-compound tyres would mean you get more life out of them, but camber says no. It is, in many ways, a poor man’s Collis Celer - the same drivability-first dynamics, the same solid but not astounding comfort, the same 4 seats, just at almost half the price. Despite being cheap, it looks expensive. Plenty of chrome trim, a nice flow between elements on the front fascia, it’s just a nice car to look at.
Comments:
Market Impacts:
Wait a minute. I didn’t mention modifications or RPM strain once! Tune in next time, on… Dragon Ball Z! I mean ALC!
Edit: Oh, also - great job with paints, literal rainbow of cars. I know some people did tons of paints and wanted comments on alternate ones, but I will comment on that later.
Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post
At the start of this era, Aragans were hungry for cars to modify - and manufacturers delivered. Two thirds of the cars in the sports category and two thirds of the cars in the sedan category had the variant capacity lower than the family capacity. What does this mean for the end user? Well, it means they can just bore out the cylinder, swap some internals and get more power. Of course, many people had to swap the internals anyway - they didn’t follow the service intervals, stuff wore down and entered a wear spiral, because there wasn’t enough spare capacity. Add in those older utes needing new springs to carry stuff, and the MMOV needing progressive springs…
Well, Araga now has a vibrant modding scene. Put new filters on your car, change out the muffler, make it tougher, make it yours. Or get your local mechanic to.
What started out as a loophole in tax very quickly became sanctioned by the government. Let’s set the scene. Because many of these cars are imports, and they get modified domestically, money is flowing around the Aragan economy that wouldn’t otherwise flow. But, the taxation laws are all written around displacement according to manufacturer. If you go down to your local mechanic, add a litre to your engine? Government won’t see it. It was eventually decided that this was just how it would be, to support Aragan industry. This is a decision which will have zero ramifications or undesirable impacts going forward, I am sure.
Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post
Please note that, if you entered round 2 but did not yet lobby, you have 3 days to send in final lobbying; it will now close at 11:59 PM UTC, on Tuesday the 12th of July.
There will be an additional out of universe matter to lobby on, which will be followed by some in-universe lobbying. The additional matter is:
How unrealistic should design regulations be?
Some examples of potential regulations would include laws on exhaust placement, restrictions on door handles, requiring wheel covers, extra wipers, special plates…
There are three broad responses to these:
As this will require further lobbying in future, I will be gatheting responses over the same timespan as the remainder of lobbying for ALC2. However, this will be open to everyone.
Similarly, I will be accepting another round of worldbuilding questions. Please submit these by 11:59PM UTC on the 16th of July
Now, on to spending tokens. If you participated in round 2, you get 10 spending tokens in addition to any left over from round 1. If you have tokens (either from participating in this round or having leftovers), you may allocate your tokens however you want, and up to 3 unused tokens may be carried forward to the next era. You can also cash in seven of your tokens now for doubled lobbying power during ALC3. If you submitted in round 2 but do not submit spending here, you will get 50% extra lobbying power and 2 tokens next round. Also remember that some of these projects may have ramifications that aren’t listed. Finally, no interactions between themes have been noted, but some may exist.
Token spending will be open until 11:59 PM on the 23rd, or 3 days after I answer worldbuilding questions, whichever comes last. (edited, initially said whichever comes first due to a typo)
Project Class 1: Cargo
Project 1.1: Aragan Truck Simulator
Project 1.2: I Like Trains!
Project 1.3: Bird Of Prey, Flying High
Project Class 2: Education
Project 2.1: Blinded By Science
Project 2.2: Support The Arts
Project 2.3: Trading Up
Project Class 3: Racing Time
(The three successful entries from before will now have their success determined by entries in bonus rounds.)
Project 3.1: A Quarter Mile At A Time
Project 3.2: Fender? I 'ardly Know 'er!
Project 3.3: To The Left, To The Left
Project 3.4: [Prototype]
Project 3.5: Baja Blast
Previous Post <<<>>> Next Post
OK, I don’t completely get this. Let’s say that I don’t want to do ANY lobbying for this round, I don’t really understand which of those alternatives that is the correct one?
A: I can save 3 tokens for round 3 lobbying and cash in the 7 remaining ones and double lobby power in round 3.
B: I can save 2 tokens for round 3 lobbying and cash in 7 of them for 50% more lobby power in round 3
C: Both of them are wrong
Option A is correct. You tell me you just want to cash in and use it for next round. Option B is for people who don’t give any reply at all. That’s why it’s worse.
Option A: 3 extra tokens for round 3 (or spent now), lobbying power x2 in round 3.
Option B: 2 extra tokens, lobbying power x1.5
Option B is a safety net in case you don’t reply, but you don’t get off completely free.
Oh, and just to be sure, is it “free” to vote for how realistic regulations should be?
Exactly what I expected. This first incarnation of the Wyvern is a relaxed cruiser, essentially a grand tourer in condensed form, but I am contemplating more performance-focused trims in addition to the original.
So what specifically about the entries determines a type of racing’s success? Is it based on the amount entries into a given type? Or the quality of said entries? or is there something more complicated about how bonus rounds work?
Is the bonus round on one of the race types listed in the lobbying post?
Will there be the possibility for foreign brands to set up factories in Araga?
It’s a mix of amount and quality of entries.
To take a real-world example… A field like the 2019-2020 WEC’s LMP1 division would hurt endurance racing. One super dominant team winning all the time, a couple of privateers only doing partial seasons, or 1-2 races… Not good. LMGTE, meanwhile, with a more diverse and competitive field? That does much better.
If all the cars look ugly (2014 Formula One, anyone?), it’ll hurt the series. If the cars look beautiful, it’ll help.
Yes, and there may be benefits and/or drawbacks for that.
I notice no worldbuilding questions have been posted in the forum yet. Is that because no one’s been asking, or because all the questions have been posted in DMs instead?
Well, I haven’t asked any, yet. Mostly because I’m kinda trying to think of one or two really good ones that will give me some useful information.
THB, I haven’t asked any because I haven’t seen much of the world building reflected in the reviews. My perception from the reviews is that they are more heavily weighted toward a regular “car against car” type comparison like other challenges without a lot of consideration for the Aragan lore that we were building. Perhaps my perception is not accurate, but that’s the feeling I have. So I admit to feeling a bit ‘meh’ about world building.