In a normal game of Onlink, how many computers are there in the game? Including all ISMs, mainframes, LANs, file servers, special/hidden machines, etc. NOT including voice telephones?

I'm guessing it's not always a fixed number - in that case, what's the theoretical maximum for a normal game?

It's a bad idea to use the word "theoretical" with me.

4294967146. Remember that adding a custom LAN will cause Onlink to build a company with matching machines to match the company name. So, this is the theoretical maximum.

Now, for the typical game generation. I can only give a mean, because the max cannot reasonably be assigned. I'm also going to use the 0.2.x spec, not the 0.1.x. Here is the difference:

0.1.x:
Companies: 73
People: 50
*Generic* computer types: 8

0.2.x:
Companies: 140
People: 150
*Generic* computer types: 11

(Generic means typically found within normal companies, excluding InterNIC, the GCD, UISM, etc. Also includes storyline companies)

So, the 0.2.0 spec uses a bell curve from this point on a scale from 1 to 100 defining a company size. So let's break it down.

150 people -> 150 PCs
About 26.6% of people are both Uplink agents AND have aux gateways -> ~40 Aux Gateways
140 Companies -> 140 ISMs, 140 CMs, 140 PASs, 140 LANs, 140 NSs, up to 140 File Servers (always dynamically generated for missions from the company)
~60% companies have default gateways -> ~84 GSs
~40% companies have offsite backups -> ~56 BSs
~20% companies hold the cage -> ~25 LSs
~10% companies are listed -> ~15 ACs
And about 70 ATs and 16 special systems.

That makes about 1300 non-telephone systems.

Hm. I'm going to need to bar some of these systems. :/

Ok, so I won't use "theoretical" then, lol. And this all pretty much answers my question, thanks

You know, something that's always bugged me is the fact that, if you look at the way the Internet is structured today, the way Uplink presents it is a little unrealistic.

You probably read the backhistory of the game - Arunmor basically built the "Internet" (it's actually the AWAN) in which you hack and play. The thing is, they designed it for security - and I can't think of a logical reason to, for example, expose your central mainframe to the wider network.

Sure, you need to connect via a "trusted" source, but that's really just another bounce point. In the real world, I'm sure that companies would hide their central mainframes behind very well-protected LANs.

Also, they're called "Internal Service Machine" for a very good reason. Even in 2020, I'm sure that individuals would log on to their company's LAN router, authenticate, then connect to their ISM.

And realistically, any company's public access server would either be hosted from within the LAN (opening port 80 to the public), with the smaller companies making use of remote hosting.

So apart from Government systems (and banks), every company only really needs 2 "exposed" systems - a LAN, and a PAS. And in order to do anything to a company, you'll need to hack in to a LAN.

Missions like Steal The File would be structured pretty much the same, really. Connect to the LAN's IP, hack your way past the public frontend, and you're at the ISM.

Wouldn't structuring the game in this way reduce the number of systems required to create a realistic world? I'm guessing it could also allow for a few more companies & people, hence deeper game world. Just a thought.

Edit: Also, it makes little sense that someone's PC could be located in London, and their voice phone system located in southern Pakistan. In a VOIP-connected world, you should be able to phone someone by dialing their PC IP. And then hack in with PCForce.