27-03-2005 06:54									#91
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Hmm. Thinking of ways to make 'defend' useable ... You'd either have to make it doable alongside making a special (which probably overpowers it), or make it doable alongside an attack (not sure if that works at all or not, most attack with nearly all their fleet anyway), or ...

... or make it doable through joint defense. This is also very powerful, possibly too much ... but if all players must use their action that turn (ie no action) to do it, it could be useful (and less powerful because there's no guarantee anyone will attack).

Or, what about making it like a counterspy? You can do it say three times the whole game, it doesn't count as an action (you can do it alongside making a special), but you can't increase the number of times you can do it? Or, make it a special itself - you must build it, start out with none - but if you use it, anyone who wants to can send ships to defend you? (Thus not as much disincentive to defend, as the defendEE must use the special).

	27-03-2005 07:00									#92
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

What about the ability to give ships to another player?

	27-03-2005 07:07									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I don't like teh idea of gifting ships, but I do think we should be able to gift BPs.

* Sparrowhawk puts his 2 cents in

	27-03-2005 07:54									#94
	Inflate your Upload Space

It is possible. You should just gift bases and that will transfer into gifted BPs.

	27-03-2005 07:56									#95
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Well, I would allow someone to send their fleet to defend another, but I still can't see anyone doing it. Gifting ships is a total no-no though. Gifting bases is still allowed under the current rules.

Joint defence (i.e. two fleets protect two empires) is not only too powerful, but goes against two basic concepts of GO, that of backstabbery, and that of the time involved in interstellar battle. We have to preserve the idea that an overlord sends an order, the ships go into hyperspace, and they emerge a week later, well beyond communication range. You have to decide in advance which empire your ships are attacking or defending. We can assume that some kind of hyper-gate technology combined with orbital defences and system ships allow you to defend all of your own bases, no matter the size of your empire, but to defend another overlord's empire MUST require the redeployment of your fleet to their territory.

-Jam

	27-03-2005 07:59									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: It is possible. You should just gift bases and that will transfer into gifted BPs.

By that messed up logic, it is possible to gift ships too (by gifting bases someone can build more ships) assuming they have self build bases, but that isn't what I meant (obviously).

Right now it is possible to gift bases.
It is not possible to gift ships.

I think it should be possible to gift BPs.

* Sparrowhawk

	27-03-2005 08:22									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

BP's represent the industrial production of entire planets or moons. You can't simply shift that across the galaxy.

Build a ship with those BPs and you can fly it there though.

-Jam

	27-03-2005 08:24									#98
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Jamski BP's represent the industrial production of entire planets or moons. You can't simply shift that across the galaxy. Build a ship with those BPs and you can fly it there though. -Jam

You can also transport your potentially huge stockpile over a great distance, apparently, since you do not lose stockpiled BPs in a baseswap as long as you have some kind of bases at the end of the turn.

	27-03-2005 08:44									#99
	Increase Your PM Length

I presume giving bases away is there for three reasons-
1) It's already technically possible, by two people attacking each other with 100% of forces (or just one person while the other person has D as his first order) ... les flexible perhaps, but technically possible

2) It's even more possible through allied attacks; just promise to only take 1 base out of the next 10 you take through attacking together, and that's giving 4 bases.

3) There should be *some* way to reward people for favourable actions; it increases the strategic options.

Transferring bases, if not particularly logical (it's easier physically to trade BPs than bases imo), is the least damaging to the fabric of the game. As said before, transferring BPs is identical to transferring ships, as they can be interchanged essentially (in one direction anywho). Transferring BPs and/or ships means you have the possibility of huge shifts in the balance of the game; Jamski and I for example each had >100 bps available in recent turns, and had we sent those to an ally, would have quite dissapointed someone who, say, was thinking Jonny an easy target, and suddenly found him with 250bps of ships and a target more difficult to kill than they thought.
It also imbalances the game, because it strongly *encourages* players to do this - say an alliance of four players, in a 20+ player game not unreasonable, the three players go out on attack, gain some bases; transfer half of their BPs to a fourth player, who builds up a huge army, and also transfer their bases to him primarily. He builds up a lot of spies, as he is undefeatable by any reasonable size force - he's basically 2.5 teams, plus the fact that he has more bases, and has no losses from shipbuilding. The only way to beat him is a larger alliance - or someone else with this strategy as well. It is quite unbalanced, and not good for the game.

Am I right, Jamski?

And why wouldn't anyone do it? I think the only issue is what are the penalties you might suffer from it - are you unable to build a special that turn, etc. I think the benefits/penalties can be managed effectively, to make it possible to do it. I don't think it should be *common* - and certainly if there's a better way to ensure more action in this game on both sides, i'm all for it - but there will be situations where it's used, i'm sure. (Well, fairly.)

One question - is it impossible that a defensive 'advantage' might be created - either a natural one or a 'special' - like fortifying in civ? That's the other way this could be handled; if you can set it up so a single player in theory has a chance against an attacker, either by strict numbers ie 150% strength on defense, or by some sort of OOB option only available to defenders (perhaps "F" can be used once during the battle, for example, which allows the defending general to adjust his tactics mid-battle eliminating bonuses from 'bunched-spread out' and 'close in-back off') for the rest of the wave?

	27-03-2005 09:02									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Well, I toyed with the idea of allowing BP's to be spent on "system ships" at the cost of 1BP per ship. They would ONLY be able to defend if the bases were attacked, would have 1HP each, ALWAYS be the first killed and be equipped with 1 each of lasers, torpedoes and fighters.

i.e. No different types of system ships, just a flat number representing tonnage of these mixed smaller vessels and defence satellites.

Just a possible idea. They work out cheaply in terms of BPs per gun, but expensive in terms of BPs per HP, and cannot attack.

-Jam

	27-03-2005 09:04									#101
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

They'd be better if you could pick the weapons, I prefer all lazors on D.

	27-03-2005 09:10									#102
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Hmm... but would anyone build them?

It would have to be a pretty good deal - otherwise the flexibility lost is more valuable. (Although 3bp worth of firepower for 1bp is pretty sweet.) Also, it would have to be possible to build enough for safety from allied attack ... or at least very *expensive* allied attack.

Though it might be good for variety - you'd probably have some people build a lot of defense and hope to stick around for a long time, and some start out with tons of offense and try to get a lot of bases, shield for three turns, and then have a huge defense by the end of it

(Might be imbalancing there, though.)

But I like the idea, if it is balanced correctly.

	27-03-2005 09:12									#103
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy They'd be better if you could pick the weapons, I prefer all lazors on D.

That would be a bit stronger - which is not beneficial for balance, i think, 3x firepower for your money is worth a lot already. Also, i assume you get no tactics with them, automatically default-default, since they're immobile satellites.

	27-03-2005 09:35									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I think they whould still have tactics, you should be able to deploy them where you choose, even though they are immobile, you still can set them up for a defense, as opposed to an offiensive fleet that has to approach in the formation.

	27-03-2005 09:40									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

They would likely just boost your gun numbers in defence of the home planet, while using the same tactics your entire defence fleet would use.

	27-03-2005 09:43									#106
	Increase the size of your Attachments

As the would often have regular ships with them I think they would need to have tactics, it would seem to me a nightmare to not give tactics to the defense ships while having tactics to the regular ships on defense.

* Sparrowhawk

	27-03-2005 09:49									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sattelites can move too. Perhaps not closing in, but they can bunch up or spread.

	27-03-2005 10:10									#108
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I don't feel that boosting defenses would solve the problem- we'd simply have bigger alliances. It also adds complexity.

Instead, I'd suggest introducing a new special which would be used like a shield and would negate alliances and force them to fight individually. Thoughts?

Orders recieved are at 6/14, by the way.

	27-03-2005 10:11									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I think that's much too powerfull.

	27-03-2005 10:51									#110
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Lord Nuclear I think that's much too powerfull.

Which one?

quote: Originally posted by several of y'all I think they whould still have tactics, you should be able to deploy them where you choose, even though they are immobile, you still can set them up for a defense, as opposed to an offiensive fleet that has to approach in the formation. -- They would likely just boost your gun numbers in defence of the home planet, while using the same tactics your entire defence fleet would use. -- Sattelites can move too. Perhaps not closing in, but they can bunch up or spread.

The point is not the physics of it but the gameplay I could certainly suggest physics reasons why it wouldn't work - satellites don't have enough power to move very fast or far, so the opposing team chooses the distance; and the satellites must be deployed at normal distance, or they will not be able to cover the whole system effectively.

Anywho, at least from my point of view, if you could have all lasers and go close in, they would be way too strong. You'd have a x4 x3 = x12 strength per bp (and even higher relative, if you guess right on the bunched/spread factor). Making them as Jamski describes - TLF - makes tactics irrelevant for them, individually, and only would affect the sort of fleet opposing them, anyway; and it seems to me it would still be too much extra added on to the x3 you already get. (But, allowing partial or full tactics would be one way of ultimately balancing them, if they turn out not to be worth x3 alone.)

quote: Originally posted by Sparrowhawk As the would often have regular ships with them I think they would need to have tactics, it would seem to me a nightmare to not give tactics to the defense ships while having tactics to the regular ships on defense.

Not at all. In the spreadsheet, it would be one extra line, really - adding in the direct value of the defense platforms after the modified strength of the rest of the ships. Piece of cake.

(For those of you without a spreadsheet handy here is a breakdown of how it calculates: )
A: (Total raw strength of side with weapon X)
B: (Weapon factor: 2 or 1 depending on opp. weapon)
C: (Range factor: .25-4 based on both choices)
D: (Formation factor: .5 or 1 or 2 based on opp. choice)
E: (Maneuver factor: 2 or 1 based on last weapon)
F: A*B*C*D*E

You'd just add a line after F:
G: Defense Platforms
H: F+G

I'm assuming the defense platforms basically shoot at single power, but with all three weapons - ie, if I have 50 defense platforms, then regardless of which weapon I choose, I get +50 to my total; Maneuver would presumably not affect them either.

	27-03-2005 10:55									#111
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

One thought ... if they're just a single weapon that fires with each of them at one bp strength each time, that makes them ... somewhat less useful than 3x. Most defenders if aware they'll be facing superior firepower will leave a single weapon fleet behind (such as mine), or in any event the attackers will usually have one primary weapon (or certainly will after this anyway ). That means you're only getting 1.5bps worth of use much of the time, or less.

IE, my OOB last round was LML-xxx (single weapon). Even if I had defense platforms, they'd have only given me 1bp worth of value, as I was done after the first wave; a single laser ship would have been as valuable, in fact more so as close in would have been useful.

I'm starting to think you might need to make them more useful - for example:

1. Make them fire at strength 2 (or 3) with each weapon (probably too powerful)
   
2. Make them as requested single weapon types (but no maneuver, no other factors)
   
3. Make them fire, at 3 power, in their own weapon type - ie, your oob could be PPL-MTT
   

	27-03-2005 11:44									#112
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Smiley Instead, I'd suggest introducing a new special which would be used like a shield and would negate alliances and force them to fight individually. Thoughts?

What do you think the Ambush proposal I made earlier was all about?

quote: Originally posted by Smiley Orders recieved are at 6/14, by the way.

Aren't we on extended weekend rules, for it's Eastern?

	27-03-2005 11:52									#113
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Here's a way to force a bit more balanced fleets:

A player is not allowed to have a tonnage amount of a particular weapon to be in excess of the sum of both other weapon types.

It ensures that never more then half of ones fleet is built from the same weapon type. But the problem is that if after a battle a player lost tonnage mostly in one weapon category, his ship construction orders (if any) are pretty clear to other Overlords.

	27-03-2005 11:57									#114
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by GeoModder Here's a way to force a bit more balanced fleets: A player is not allowed to have a tonnage amount of a particular weapon to be in excess of the sum of both other weapon types. It ensures that never more then half of ones fleet is built from the same weapon type. But the problem is that if after a battle a player lost tonnage mostly in one weapon category, his ship construction orders (if any) are pretty clear to other Overlords.

Why would you want to do that? It's one thing to make rules or more accurately balances that take single weapon fleets out of the running as "obvious choice for everyone", but they should still be a viable strategic option, sometimes. As an occasionally used tactic, they're good for the game as far as I am concerned ... another strategic/tactical option, and certainly not harmful, as long as they are not *the* choice, but one of many. Which they have been in this round of GO, as some people choose single or nearly-single weapon fleets (ie, Paddy, Spaced Cowboy, etc.) in general, some people (ie, me) choose to leave behind single weapon fleets, and many (most) people choose a mixture. Proof that whatever Jamski did a few rounds ago worked.

	27-03-2005 11:59									#115
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm not a big fan of M. That's what's causing imbalanced fleets. But I don't have much long-term perspective on the evolution of this game.


I think the satellites thing is too drastic. I believe the reason for so many alliances is the size of the game. Once it gets smaller, backstabbery is more common.

	27-03-2005 12:00									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Smiley I don't feel that boosting defenses would solve the problem- we'd simply have bigger alliances. It also adds complexity. Instead, I'd suggest introducing a new special which would be used like a shield and would negate alliances and force them to fight individually. Thoughts?

Um, not too useful; problem with that (and with ambush, as Geo says it's similar in nature) is that you still have to fight *all* of them - so it is only useful when you have a massively superior fleet that won't take any losses, IE useful for people in the lead maintaining their lead. Admittedly, Defend wouldn't be used often except by leaders also, but it could help anyone, at least ...
Also, it's yet another special, and unless you're already winning, you probably can't waste the turn building it - why not build a shield instead and just have them bounce off of you, unless you are sure you can destroy them all without any damage??

	27-03-2005 12:02									#117
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar I'm not a big fan of M. That's what's causing imbalanced fleets. But I don't have much long-term perspective on the evolution of this game. I think the satellites thing is too drastic. I believe the reason for so many alliances is the size of the game. Once it gets smaller, backstabbery is more common.

M gives some incentive for a single weapon fleet, but as I said a post after (or simultaneous to) yours, it looks like single weapon fleets, at least by now, are a rarity rather than the rule - not a problem, in terms of game balance. In my mind, M is the only thing that actually is making defense competitive at all in this game - you can leave behind a small fleet of one weapon, and still hope to do a bit of damage.

	27-03-2005 13:38									#118
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

To me, defence platforms sound just right. On one hand people are saying they are too powerful, on the other hand people are saying they are not powerful enough. Its worth considering for next round.

Oh, and M makes single or dual weapon fleets much more powerful than balanced fleets.

	27-03-2005 14:36									#119
	Put an end to popups!

Single and dual weapon fleets were always more powerful in the opening rounds of the game. M possibly extended the period of application of these types of fleets.

I don't see any reason for defence platform, or boosting the defence in general. This is a game of offence and treachery. That's what makes it interesting. If everybody just turtled the game would become boring. If you want the defence stronger, increase the power of the shield.

	27-03-2005 16:17									#120
	Increase Your PM Length

Ok, some interesting thoughts for me to ponder there. We have a lot of GO 8 to play yet though, and the current rules are not broken (just a little biased towards attackers and diplomats)

-Jam