Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 154: The Quirks of the CEL Challenge

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 154: The Quirks of the CEL Challenge

After generating hundreds of different combinations through the original CEL Challenge spinner wheel set (and doing the same for my take on it, which I called the CEL Challenge Remix), I realized that the various options in the Lucky and Unlucky wheel are reminiscent of the Design Quirks from BattleTech. Put simply, a Design Quirk in BattleTech is an optional rule that affects a unit's performance. In the CEL Challenge, the Lucky and Unlucky options (which are linked to where the Luck spinner lands on) have a similar effect when applied to cars made in Automation. 

Whereas a Lucky option generally benefits a car (much like a positive Design Quirk in BattleTech improves a unit's effectiveness in combat), an Unlucky option usually hinders it, just as negative Design Quirks in BattleTech reduces a unit's abilities. For example, in the CEL Challenge, the "Unlimited Fixtures" option ensures that there is no limit to how many fixtures you can place on a car (both on the exterior and interior), whereas the "Lowest Fuel" option forces you to use low quality unleaded fuel (85 RON); similarly, in BattleTech, the "Ubiquitous" positive Design Quirk makes it easier to find spare parts for a given unit (by virtue of it having been in mass production or centuries and/or having a manufacturer dedicated to making spares for it readily available), whereas the "Bad Reputation" negative Design Quirk halves a unit's resale value (without affecting its operability or purchase price). 

Some of the Luck options in the CEL Challenge are incompatible with others, much like BattleTech has a set of invalid Design Quirk combinations. For example, in the former, the "Unlimited Budget" (no maximum price) and "12k Costs" (maximum approximate price of $12,000 AMU as shown in the Markets screen in the Overview tab) contradict (and hence cannot be combined with) each other, whereas in the latter, the "Poor Targeting" negative Design Quirk cannot be combined with any positive Quirks related to targeting. Additionally, the "+15 Quality" and "-15 Quality" options in the CEL Challenge are incompatible with each other, but override all other quality-related options ("-5 Quality" and "+5 Quality"). Finally, just as Design Quirks in BattleTech have a point value (a positive amount for positive quirks and a negative amount for negative quirks), the various Luck options in the CEL Challenge generally affect a car's price when applied (although there are some exceptions, such as the "Change Class" and "Change Location" options, which require you to spin the Class and Location spinners, respectively, once more, thus replacing the previous result for the corresponding spinners).

In short, Luck options in the CEL Challenge are a nice addition to the game, just as Design Quirks add extra variety to the various units of BattleTech. In both cases, they may be optional, but when used, they make the game more challenging and rewarding, especially for more experienced players.

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 153: On the Road to Hell and Back

Confessions of an Automationeer, Part 153: On the Road to Hell and Back

My victory in CSC56 gave me all the motivation I needed to host CSC57. For this challenge, the theme would be about a replacement for the 1984-vintage SVM Hellblazer I submitted in the fourth and final stage of the second Journey of Ownership tournament. The premise was that the basic platform and engine for the new Hellblazer (which had been earmarked for the 1995 model year) had already been signed off, but none of the company's designers could agree on a suitable exterior design, which therefore had to be outsourced. Whatever it was, however, it would have to be front-engined and rear-wheel-drive.

Above, from top: The outgoing Hellblazer, introduced in 1984, had a strong following and a good reputation, but was showing its age by the time its replacement began development. 

I set a two-week submission period, and waited for others to submit their designs. As time went by, the entries started slowly trickling in, and within a fortnight, I had received nine entries - almost twice as many as were entered in the previous CSC. When I finally got around to ranking the proposals, I had to reject most of them for looking too outdated, having poorly proportioned features, or just not fitting the brief. However, three designs - a red design that modernized its predecessor's design language, a blue one that took a more minimalist approach, and a green one that used a different car body set and had a more dynamic appearance - stood out for nailing the brief more convincingly than anything else, and they duly advanced to the finals.

Above, from top: The top three design proposals I received during CSC57. The first one was pleasingly minimalist but needed a bit more flair; the second one was a conservative, yet successful modern interpretation of the previous Hellblazer's design language, and the last one (which I crowned the winner of this challenge) had an even more dynamic and curvaceous look - a by-product of using a different (and newer) body set that none of the other entries was based on.

In the end, I went for the car with the bright green exterior color and double-bubble roof - small details such as this helped it get the nod over the other two finalists. As a postscript, it went into production with very few changes, and would go on to have a long and successful life, boosting SVM's image in the process.

Above, from top: The production version of the new-for-'95 SVM Hellblazer as seen from various angles.

Overall, I was very satisfied with how I hosted a CSC for the first time, and was deeply impressed at the quality of design work present in most of the entrants' submissions. Here's hoping the next CSC maintains the high standard set by the current one, after the two previous rounds had an unusually low turnout with no more than five entrants each.