 |
| |
|
|
Jamski
|
 |
lol ED&D is officially full PvP LOL
May 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
Ok, the current game of GO is coming towards a climax, as soon as the two superpowers stop pussying about and actually get to grips with each other, so its time to look towards the future of Galactic Overlord.
The beta of GO2 has gone OK so far, but I have to admit that for the present GO2 will remain an interesting experiment. Instead I propose to clarify the rules of GO to come up with an Apolyton Gold Edition  I think most of you prospective overlords will be happy about that.
The proposed changes (If its not mentioned then let's assume its not in need of any change)
1.) Spies
Spies need a slight beefing up. The aim of the game is to get more fights and more clear eliminations, right? With this in mind:
- A spy will now stop Disengage orders.
- If two players spy on each other, the spies cancel each other and their orders proceed as if no spies were used.
2.) Overlords With No Bases
Overlords with no bases need to shut up and die. Or at least die faster.
- A player with no bases cannot use or build any specials.
- A player with no bases at the end of a round takes 20% attrition (rounded up) This is always at least 1 whole ship.
- It is possible to use a spy on an player with no bases.
3.) Captured Bases
If those overlords get back into the game by capturing someone's bases, they then often have to sit a few turns, unable to do much due to lack of home bases. So...
- A player who captures some bases when they previously had none at the beginning of that turn automatically trades the first 5 captured bases for one home base. If there are less than 5 bases captured, tough, play as before.
This allows the player to at least have the option of building ships or specials the next turn.
4.) Allied Defence
As his orders a player may instruct the GM that instead of attacking or shielding he wishes to perform an Allied Defence. This works exactly like an allied attack, except the target is a friendly planet. - Both fleets must have the same OoB, or the defenders will treat the allied defenders as enemies!
- If player A sends orders to make an allied defence with Player B, it is possible both that Player B returns the favour and sends orders to make an allied defence with Player A, or that they trust Player A to defend their bases and attack a third Player.
- If a player orders an allied defence, but is themselves attacked at home that turn, their fleet will cancel the allied defence order and defend at home. Defending home bases has priority over rushing to assist a rival.
- Because of the above rule, it is always assumed that allied defence uses the whole fleet.
- Should the defence fail, the player that was attacked loses his bases as normal, but the assisting player(s) is safe - Exception: Use of Disengage orders results in the loss of both defenders' bases.
5.) Domination Victory
If a player has more than 2/3 of the bases in the galaxy, or more than 75% of the shipping tonnage they may claim a domination victory. If this is accepted by the other players then the game ends. No player is forced to accept domination, and has a right to fight to the last.
6.) Base Trading
No longer to be allowed at all.
7.) Opponent-based OoBs
No longer to be allowed at all. You may submit seperate offensive and defensive OoBs. This should cancel the defensive advantages slightly.
Some clarifications:
Weapon values vs unusual orders:
Lasers x2 vs Unopposed
Torpedoes x2 vs Unopposed
Fighters x2 vs Unopposed
Lasers x1 vs Manouvre
Torpedoes x1 vs Manouvre
Fighters x1 vs Manouvre
-Jam
Last edited by Jamski on 05-05-2005 at 03:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hercules
|
 |
in Tir Na Og
Sep 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
Is there any way to restore a balance to the unallied player?
If attacked by a 2 faction alliance, overall defensive power is increased by 25%? (or for story purposes the allied attack is reduced by 25%- bureaucracy overlap)
if attacked by a 3 faction alliance, defence increased by 33% ( or attack, reduced by 33%)
if by 4 or more, defence increased by 50% (or attack, reduced by 50%)
Last edited by Hercules on 05-05-2005 at 03:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jamski
|
|
lol ED&D is officially full PvP LOL
May 2002
time: 05:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Good changes, but I can't be buggered to send in that many frakein OoBs...one for D, one for O.
I'm leaning with joncha on the M and D, but I'm willing to give it a shot with the spy negating a D. M is okay and adds some risk/variety to the standard.
Captured bases should be 3 instead of 5 to get the home. 5 is a bit to steep (theory is that you should alway have a home base).
I still like the one shot no base option. No attrition for one turn and that is all you get to get a base back, else bye-bye. |
Ok, so with the changes in principle, but you want to adjust variables, cool. Three captured bases --> 1 home base is a 6 BP for 5 BP swop, so pretty reasonable, I could buy that. I'll buy the one shot no base option too, but I'd like some kinda consensus.
I won't make a poll or anything, but I think I'm right in that the general feeling is that we want GO 1 Gold Edition rather than GO2 for the next game, right?
-Jam
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:19
|
|
I don't think you all understand the penalty you bring by removing opponent based OOBs, and D (and you essentially eliminate D by removing opponent based OOBs).
Jonny or Joncha could easily, assuming no shields, wipe the floor with everyone here, if it weren't for those two things. I'm certainly not going to put LD in my orders if it's my only defensive order; yet Joncha showing up would end my day.
Why would you make a rule change that allows a player, once sufficiently built up in fleet, to dominate like that? D allows a player to run away from a larger fleet, preventing a superfleet from just bullying around others. Sure, eventually attrition would kill me off - but it would be more of a chance than i'd have without D.
Reduce strategic options (joncha)? Huh? It increases the strategic choices involved in OOBs, and only slightly decreases, if at all, the strategic choices made in fleet building. Nonspecific OOBs means you have basically one choice for fleet makeup - balanced. It significantly discourages unbalanced fleets, as that makes you an easy target for someone who sees that your OOB will clearly be LL_ whatever, or at best LML (barring trickery, but if you can't specify against whom, trickery is generally a poor choice). And of course, at least for those of us who DO have specific OOBs, that's a huge element of strategy right there - just as Kassi says, except trying to argue against, you choose an OOB that is optimal against an opponent, BUT isn't too obvious (remember LN's OOB  ) ... and the same for the offense.
And what defensive advantage are we talking about here? The one that has led to attackers winning what, 80% or more of attacks undergone in this GO? Bah! Why exactly is Jamski bending over backwards to give defenders a chance - be it GO 2.0 (bases), or GO Gold (allied defense), if defenders have an advantage? Defenders NEVER have an advantage in GO, even 1v1, unless it is artificially created (via the base in 2.0). Offensive choice is all the advantage offense needs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:19
|
|
A second point, that deserves its own post, so you actually read it. 
Offenses already have unique OOBs - taking away defensive OOB choice is unreasonable.
When I choose what to send, I also choose an OOB specific to that enemy. Realistically there is little chance I will end up facing anyone else - I think we have had one or at most 2 spillover "attack all comers" attacks this game; only 1 so far in GO 2 through 9 rounds. Thus, the offense already HAS the choice of unique OOBs for each opponent (by choosing which opponent to attack).
So why are you taking it away from the defense, giving the offense a clear advantage? The equivalent for the offense, would be saying "You can attack with whatever OOB you want, but random chance will select *whom* you attack." That's precisely what you're saying when you suggest only a single defensive OOB.
Imagine if MORON attacked like that this past turn? He'd randomly be attacking anyone from Kassi's tiny fleet, to LN's 400bps (if they were at home), to Jonny's 1k fleet, and all sorts of different fleet compositions.
I realize it sounds absurd - but it's an apt comparison, if you really think about it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kassiopeia
Yes, but there's no reason to add, say, weaponry to the base, save for the good cost/firepower ratio of base improvements. But if someone attacks you and they make it a fight, either:
1) You are out, so the base is screwed anyway and the weapons are next to useless
2) It's an allied attack, and 1) applies even though your fleet is at home. |
All I can say, Kassi, is that bases have made the difference in more than one battle in GO 2.0, and have nearly made the difference in several others ...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-05-2005 22:15
|