Re: Galaxy

From: amead@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Alan Mead)

Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1993 23:07:36 +0000

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

>> [there are disincentives to wars]

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

I think followers of this thread have been thinking about two evenly
matched empires.  In fact, I think the agressor is often either part of
a coalition or much larger than the defender.  As such, it may be
relatively easier to develop captured planets.

I none-the-less like the idea of capturing some spoils (ie, besides the
planet).  From the POV of playability and modifying the code, I think
you could just attenuate the IND,POP,MAT,&CAP after bombing and then
change the ownership to the bombing player.  (Someone posted something
implying that the "conquered" POP should be seperate...  that doesn't
make any sense to me).  NOTE that you might not like the way the code
determines who bombs (ie, when there are multiple attackers).  It seems
related to how many groups each attacker has.

Also, I posted here before about this:  I still like the idea of
limiting the number of rounds that can occur.  This would, I think, be
a fairly simple change and would draw some attacks out over a number of
turns.  This would have the effect of making it easier to defend
oneself.  And...

I have to agree with the authors who say it is easier to attack than
defend.  Here's *my* argument:

In a nut-shell, I think this discussion has largely ignored (1) changes in
the way you play as empires become more mature; (2) the uncertainty of
"real life" (ie, you may not know who your enemies are until they appear
on your homeworld with blazing guns) and (3) the (correct but narrow)
argument that the driveless ships are one-on-one better than drived
ships misses the "big picture" (which I'm having trouble verbalizing).

Imagine that we both have 10 equivalent worlds.  I build drived ships
and you (foolishly?) build SOLELY driveless ships.  I simply attack
each one of your worlds in turn with all my ships.  No problem.
[Worse, when you get into the higher techs (where weapons tech has a
lot more impact than shield tech), the advantage of driveless ships is
lessened.]

But, of course, you would build some drived ships.  But I will have
more drived ships than you.  I divide my forces in two (so you cannot
intercept) and I attack your second and third most industrial worlds.
If I lose, I lose ships (perhaps a devestating loss if you had
sufficient drived ships to press the attack to my territory, but you
don't).  If you lose, you have one foot in the grave.  [In fact, maybe
its time -- while you can still do some damage -- to kamakazi my
(sparsely defended) worlds in spite or to dissuade me from attacking in
the future or whatever.]

Also, you never launch a suprise defense, do you?  Are you saying that
suprise plays no element in winning combat?  Or that appearing well
prepared to inflict damage on enemies won't dissuade potential
attackers?

There are a LOT of variables affecting combat.  I think that many
people decide to build types of ships for a particular purpose.  Like
driveless ships to defend or an invincible attacker to bomb their
neighbor's homeworld.

Clearly, when you have excellant ideas about who you are going to
fight, what kind of ships he -- I've played with, perhaps, 2 women --
is going to use, what his priorities are, etc, Then you will have an
advantage as a defender and you can tailor your ships to that battle.

But (at least when you get a sizeable empire) many wars are fought
between huge fleets that take many turns to build.  As a result, you
may have no idea where your next war will be or who it will be
against.  I think you need a general plan that can handle multiple
contingencies.  I think you need mobility for that.

Just my $0.02.

-alan mead

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
Re: Galaxy
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 01 Mar 1993 21:45:43 +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
Re: Galaxy
desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Mon, 01 Mar 1993 21:45:43 +0000