Re: Galaxy

From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)

Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 21:45:43 +0000

Ingolf Markhof <markhof@ls12r.informatik.uni-dortmund.de> writes:
> Moreover, there is in fact no sufficient advantage if you attack someone
> else. As industrial development is very hard and time consuming, you will
> usually have enough uncontested planets to develop.  This development will
> need much time. Why should you attack someone else if you still have
> enough room? As you will in fact destroy any equipment on conquered
> planets by bombing, you may hit your enemy, but there is no economical
> advantage for this. (Although there may a strategic advantage, but you
> must keep in mind that other people will continue to build cap's while
> you're consuming you industrial power to kill just one of your
> neighbours).

This is exactly right!  I have been thinking about posting along exactly the
same lines.

If no one gains by attacking until all of the planets are colonized, this
takes a *very* long time.  And so an individual player can end up with well
over a hundred planets to run before the game is over.  Trying to run a
transport fleet and develop a hundred planets is practically impossible; it
is simply an immense amount of work.  Everyone I know who has reached this
point in a large game has said that it is unmanageable.

I would like to see the game at some point move from a "development phase"
to a "combat phase," where players don't have to worry so much about
shipping capital around and can concentrate on fighting.  Unfortunately in
order to reach that phase now one has to sacrifice a lot to those who just
keep producing.

> 1) "Bomb" the planet: This will remove all enemy populattion from the
> planet, but not destroy all the capitals: 30 % of the capitals will be
> left.

I have been thinking of something even more drastic: bombing could destroy
all of the population but none of the industry.  This means that as soon as
you can ship in new colonists, you have the full production of the planet.
But now that I think about it, perhaps 50% would be even better.  (I think
30% is a little low.)

Any of these versions does just what I want: it promotes combat later in the
game, but not earlier.  At the beginning of the game you can afford to ship
your colonists to your own planets.  It's only later that you have a surplus
of colonists which you can afford to drop on new planets.

It's worth noting that a change like this would have another good effect: it
would make shielded transports useful.  If you need to ship in your
colonists under fire in order to make use of your newly captured planet, you
are suddenly going to be willing to pay the price to shield them.

> 2) "Occupy" the planet: This will neither destroy col's or cap's, but
> you'll control the colony. The colonies IP output is reduced by 30%, enemy
> population will not grow any more and you cannot unload any of your col's
> on the planet. But besides of this changes, the colony behaves as beeing on
> of your colonies as long as you'll have at least one armed ships in orbit,
> i.e., you can choose the colonies production and may build ships or develop
> technology by using its IP's. - The original owner of the colony may,
> however, free his people by reconquering the planet.

This seems too complicated.  It also makes combat at the very beginning of
the game too profitable, so investment might never get off the ground.  I
would rather just have some version of option 1.

David desJardins

References

Galaxy
js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)
Mon, 01 Mar 1993 11:52:02 +0000
Re: Galaxy
markhof@ls12r.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Ingolf Markhof)
Mon, 01 Mar 1993 16:24:17 +0000

Referenced By

Galaxy
js138@cus.cam.ac.uk (John Sloan)
Mon, 01 Mar 1993 11:52:02 +0000
Re: Galaxy
markhof@ls12r.informatik.uni-dortmund.de (Ingolf Markhof)
Mon, 01 Mar 1993 16:24:17 +0000