Re: Galaxy: trading ?

From: tochen@mtu.edu (Tony Chen)

Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0000

TK Whipp (tkw100@york.ac.uk) wrote:
: On 18 Oct 1997, Tony  Chen wrote:
: > Mr D Lovett (phy3dxl3@sun1.bham.ac.uk) wrote:
: > Since we don't want newly colonized planets to be defenseless, we could
: > consider 1% of the planet's population as militia troop. This number
: > is added to the number of defending troop during battle. That way new
: > colonies is not defenseless and defending side gets an advantage which
: > could be explained as better supplies and knowledge of terrain and
: > the increased morale of people defending their home.
:
: This would lead to the tatic of letting my oponent colonise worlds I
: wanted... and then dropping my col down a turn later... I have my full COL
: ammount and he has only 1% (or whatever fraction you choose - make the
: number to high and it invalidates the idea of troops and civilians).

: Net effect I will win the ground battle... and get his people.

: Bingo - I get double pop expansion in the first few turns and my neighbour
: loses all of his.

You have a point, although in return your neighbour could simply send
another load of colonists/troops and take the planet back, ad infinitum.

Also, the way I play Galaxy, by the time we get to fighting for planets,
all major colonization attempt is always preceded by battle fleets clearing
the path. And that battle fleet does not go until either
- The planet has a good defensive fleet in place.
- No enemy battleships can get into my planet in one jump.
(In one game the first place empire was brought down by the second place
empire sending a small fighter to every planet. In that single turn over
twenty unprotected planets were lost. The next turn the fighters arrived
at the farther planets and bombed the rest of the empire. From a mighty
empire of 50+ planets, the first place empire went down to 6 planets
totaling 20% of its original industry and population. Then it's just
a matter of taking the major planets one by one.)
(If you're curious who I were, I was the third place empire picking off
the major planets.)

: Given the idea of using a varient of ship to ship combat.
: A possible solution would be to consider defenders to be:
:
: 	0	1	1	x+1	0
:
: and attackers to be
:
: 	0	1	1	x	0
:
: 	(I surgest x=1)
:
: Then allow half pop on a planet to be militia - the advantage to taking a
: world in this manner is that you keep the CAP that is there.

This suggestion gives huge advantage to the defender. I also have trouble
accepting half the population as militia. Realistically, if a country
is being invaded, do you think half of the adult population will actively
resist?

I suggest having either 12.5% (this will effectively convert the population
back into its original colonists amount) of the population as militia
and equal stats, or 10% (because it's a nice round number) with an x+1
shield advantage to the defender.

: And also allow shield and weapon techs to affect troops... thus highly
: advanced civalisations can take over worlds inhabited by barbarians with a
: handful of troops but the inverse is definatly not true.

Shield and weapon tech already affect troops under my suggestion.

: PS:
: What about allowing ships to be transported as cargo?  ie orbital shield
: flak being shifted over to a colony in a magafrieghter.

Too much effort. Having colonists as cargo does not involve creating new
cargo types. It simply requires coding a new battle phase, which is mostly
similar to the space battle phase. Lots of code reuse.

"ANIME-MANGA FOREVER!"
							Tony.

References

Re: Galaxy: trading ?
poing@luna.nl (Paul van der Valk)
Sun, 12 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Galaxy: trading ?
phy3dxl3@sun1.bham.ac.uk (Mr D Lovett)
Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Galaxy: trading ?
TK Whipp <tkw100@york.ac.uk>
Thu, 30 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Galaxy: trading ?
phy3dxl3@sun1.bham.ac.uk (Mr D Lovett)
Thu, 02 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0000