Re: galaxy battles From: jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Joshua Duffin) Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1993 13:07:56 +0000 Jesse.Taylor@launchpad.unc.edu (Jesse Taylor) writes: >[I've been following the thread of rewriting the format of battles in >galaxy, and have a few opinions (don't know if these have been stated before)] > >As the the arguement that galaxy turns take a year, and that ships only >shooting once for each attack during the battle was too slow for a year, >another point was made that solar systems are BIG places, and that a >battle would involve numerous skirmishes between the various ships, not >one HUGE engagement... Plus if you factor in ECM, ships might miss each >other in battle. Maybe each ship could fire twice in a turn for a battle? > >As to the arguement that the game could stalemate if two people made two >huge fleets of flack ships.... No, only until one of them made a ship with >about 50 attacks and sent it in to break the stalemate... > > I still disagree on the idea that ships could run out of time to shoot at each other. Turns *are* at least a year long, and while star systems are large, ships move faster than light, and even at lightspeed no planets are more than a few light-hours away from the local sun. It's also evident that finding enemy ships shouldn't be a problem, given that all ships at any system one of your ships is at are detectable, and from the map you can see that even ships in hyperspace can be detected at least approximately in location. If the two huge fleets of flack ships were actually huge fleets of fighters (1 1 1 1 0), it is very possible that many would be left after a couple rounds, and anti-drone ships are very much less effective against shielded vessels. inet: jduffin@pnet51.orb.mn.org | My other account is a Porsche. uucp: {crash, tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!jduffin | Referenced By Up