References: <1993Mar4.075051.15106@uvm.edu> <1n65k2$ehl@runner.ccr-p.ida.org>

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

Date: Fri, 05 Mar 1993 00:22:28 +0000

John Sloan has given me permission to quote his email to me, and post my
reply.

John writes:
> What you say may well be true if the empires are of size 60 or so, but
> the average size of an empire remains well below that for a large part
> of the game.  When you only have 11/12 planets, then the loss of one or
> two can be crippling, and leave you sufficiently smaller than your
> agressor that you have no chance of winning the war, though you started
> equal.  At this point you scream for help, but by the time it comes, you
> may lose 1/2 more planets, and be the smaller party of the alliance you
> then form.

I don't believe that one planet more or less makes or breaks the game.
Certainly I don't feel that as soon as I am 10% or even 50% larger than
the other players I have won the game.  So how can losing 10% of my
empire knock me out of the game?

Secondly, "screaming for help" is completely unrealistic.  The way one
defends is by taking advantage of slow and immobile ships.  Your ally
can't offer significant help in defending you, because your ally doesn't
have those advantages.  (Although your ally *can* counterattack your
enemy.)

> So there is a big advantage in attacking first, and defending second.
> I think it should be the other way around.

> If defense is better than attack, then defending first is obviously
> the way to go, and the only way to overwhelm someone is to have at
> least 2-1 odds (i.e. be in an alliance).  I think this would make it
> diplomatically a better game, and this is what I was trying to achieve
> with my suggestion.

Well, it's already the case that you need these kinds of odds to avoid
getting completely creamed in return.  Just try attacking someone
sometime who is well prepared to retaliate.  You may hurt him badly but
he will hurt you too.  Meanwhile everyone else is growing, growing,
growing.

> My great fear is this - two evenly matched players fight each other -
> the one who is more defensive will lose, as he is concentrating on
> defense, rather that on counterattacking.  Therefore, you always
> counterattack, and it ends up with both empires in ruins, and any
> neighbour stands to gain from it.

Yes.  This is what I am worried about too, and what I see happening.
The way I would like to fix it is to make attacking more profitable, so
the net change in power from a war is approximately constant (one player
gains as much as the other loses).

> So when you are attacked and scream for help, it isn't in anyone's
> interests to give you any, as they wait to step into the power vacuum
> created.

> And the winner of the game is the person who doesn't attack (unless to
> fill a vacuum, or squash a poor player) and who doesn't get attacked.

My proposal would "fix" this problem in the sense that they would want
to intervene to prevent your attacker from capturing all of your
planets.  (Of course, they might "fix" it by capturing some of them
themselves!  But that's diplomacy for you.)

> And if you neighbour is a screaming idiot, he can take you with him,
> though you may be as skilled as any player on the board.

Want to bet?

David desJardins