Re: Galaxy transporter design

From: vic@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Glenn Dickins)

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:12:10 +0000

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

>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

This point where Your warships attack unprotected cargoships (or drones)
while you get beat up on, is really valid.
And i consider it to be yes a bug in the game. *shock horror oh no im gonna get flamed now*
So we used russells can_kill function to a nice effect, and now a ship looks for a ship it can kill
and can kill it first, then one it can kill and it cant kill it then whatever is left, more than likely
one it cannot kill and kill it , but if this is the case its prob been blown up by now.
Also we changed the combat system to be simultanous, whereas everyship at the battle gets to shoot
providing it has targets, this allows for the case of 1 real ship and 2000 drones at a planet.

So i dont think its a big/little ship debate i think the combat system is at fault, but
im sure other people have other ideas, but if anyone is interested in our version
If u mail me I am willing to redistrubute what we have added to russels kewl game,
I will have to ask my other cowriter but, should be ok.

Thanx Chuck.

Ps also in russels version i played b4 techs were waaaaaaay to easy to get i think if 1 home planet
produced tech it went up by 0.2, this is ridicoulous as it makes ships with low techs so much outof date
its not funny we also changed that to 0.02 just for fun.
At moment we are on turn 120 in our what would be 3 month game now, and we have
2 people on 17000 indust 2 on 12000 1 on9000 1 on 7600 1 on 3500 ans 1 on 1000 and 1 on 0.
all those < 10000 are under attck by those > 10000 so should dissapear soon.

Its a good game everyone play :)

References

Re: Galaxy transporter design
bampton@cs.utk.edu (Howard J. Bampton)
Wed, 29 Jul 1992 17:10:20 +0000
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