Re: Even MORE galaxy suggestions...

From: hall@kronos.arc.nasa.gov (Michael Hall)

Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1992 20:03:25 +0000

In article <13153@chalmers.se> d8ilvja@dtek.chalmers.se (Jakob Ilves) writes:

>3) Allow for planets to be evacuated. This means that all if its
>population is converted back to colonist canisters and all of its cap
>is stockpiled.

Yes, this is very much needed.

>5) Set ships on GUARD duty. A ship guardian will immediatedly jump to
>any planet of the same race which is within one jump range if enemy
>ships jumps to that planet this turn and reaches it in one jump.

This sounds very similar to the already existing intercept ("I") command.
I *hate* it.  If my race can detect the mass, speed, and destination of every
enemy group in transit even to worlds I don't own (for the intercept command),
then why can't I get this information on my print-out?!  Why do my
intercepting fleets act almost brainlessly when presumably the information
on the groups in transit was available to the emperor (me)? It just doesn't
make good science-fiction sense.

And it changes the tactics of the game.  After both sides have adapted
tactics, you *still* have the problem of the enemy sneaking into your
weakly defended worlds.  The defensive player adapts by having a large,
fast, balanced fleet that is ordered to intercept a potential attacking
fleet that has been spied within strike range of the defender's planets.
The offensive player adapts by breaking his attack into N pieces.  The
largest mass (but low tech) force is sent *away* from the real targets,
diverting the intercepting defensive forces.  Then the N-1 attack groups
pound the defender's planets senseless just like there were no interception
command at all.  The offensive player loses his decoy fleet, but the
defender loses N-1 worlds.  (I wonder if Cybers realized that this is
what Space Frogs was doing ;-)

Abolish the "I" command!

In another article, someone else suggested that the war status be
possibly different for each world with respect to each player.  The real
problem is that the turn sequence is 1) move then 2) fire automatically.
If instead the turn sequence were 1) fire under orders then 2) move,
this would give the players more flexibility than any imaginable
automatic firing orders.  Whenever possible, think about the fundamental
game design/mechanics, rather than introducing new commands.

--
Michael Hall            \
NASA Ames Research Center\
hall@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov \

References

Even MORE galaxy suggestions...
d8ilvja@dtek.chalmers.se (Jakob Ilves)
Wed, 05 Aug 1992 21:41:09 +0000

Referenced By

Even MORE galaxy suggestions...
d8ilvja@dtek.chalmers.se (Jakob Ilves)
Wed, 05 Aug 1992 21:41:09 +0000