Re: Galaxy transporter design

From: bampton@cs.utk.edu (Howard J. Bampton)

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:10:20 +0000

In article <1992Jul29.164049.18493@uwm.edu> bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu writes:
>The other reason to make big cargo ships is to have all of your eggs in one
>basket in case of attack. Depending on what kind of defense you are using
>this may be a good or a bad idea.

Having had the (mis)fourtune to attack several planets where the enemy
had 100-200 unshielded cargo ships, I have this to say:
As an attacker, I would MUCH rather that they had built fewer ships,
even if they were heavily shielded. Do you have any idea how
frustraiting it is to have your warships spend several rounds
attacking unshielded cargo ships, while the enemy's warships are
pounding your warships? Had the Magi's original player built bigger
cargo ships, the Magi would have died on turn 40 in game 1. As it was,
the Southern alliance lost the battle and 2000 mass worth of ships.
Had we not had to deal with all the merchant ships (most of which we
shot up), the Southern Alliance would have removed the only
significant threat to its rear members.

On the big/little cargo ship debate, let me point this out: when
manufacturing things, it is generally cheaper to build them in volume.
Therefore, one could argue that it is more effient to build 50 mass 2
ships, than 1 mass 100 cargo ship....

Task Force Games Star Fire, which is somewhat similar to Galaxy,
allows you a 10% discount for building ships of the same design, at
the same shipyard, if it is done at the same time....

Howard, Galaxy junkie

References

Re: Galaxy transporter design
finn@convex.com (Tom Finn)
Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:19:29 +0000
Re: Galaxy transporter design
bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:40:49 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Galaxy transporter design
finn@convex.com (Tom Finn)
Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:19:29 +0000
Re: Galaxy transporter design
bruno@cerberus.csd.uwm.edu (Bruno Wolff III)
Wed, 29 Jul 1992 16:40:49 +0000