.com.unity Forums - "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Space Empires: IV & V (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=8062)

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:
...

Quote:

The game should not be perfectly balanced, because then it becomes nothing more than a paper/rock/scissors matchup. That reduces all strategic decisions to the point where your ability as a player no longer matters. All that matters is that you play the game, because every decision is just as good as every other decision.

No.

Rock/Paper/Scissors is IMO a really bad term to express the idea that every tactic should have some sort of counter-tactic. I say this because Rock/Paper/Scissors is so pointless that IMO I almost wouldn't even call it a game. It's only about trying to intuit your opponent's pattern. It seems like this term is causing some real confusion, because here for instance you are equating "balance" with the pointlessness of rock/paper/scissors.

At its best, SE4 is about offering an extremely wide range of options, and a logic for how they interact. Players are free to develop interesting and novel strategies, and then to meet, observe, and try to counteract enemy strategies in ways that make sense. The more options available, the more they make sense, and are useful and viable, the more interesting the game. When some options tend to be the best in all circumstances, or some options are almost always inferior, the game becomes less interesting.

PvK

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

"Who is claiming there aren't balance issues? I think there is agreement there. What those balance issues are, and how significant they are, and how difficult it is to fix them, are, I think, the topics of debate."

Thank you for repeating my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

"If there is someone who claims the game is balanced, please compare:
Mechanoid Race Vs Advanced Storage (each cost 1000 points)"

This would depend on how often your opponent uses plague bombs! (or how high your random events are) Mechanoids is a very specialized trait.

"Repair vs Maint Reduction"

The only issue here is the weakness of armor in the standard game, combined with the lethality of fleet vs fleet action. In other words you don't often have much to repair! (see minerals vs organics..). Repair is MUCH less expensive than maintance reduction.

"Torpedoes vs. DUCs or PPBs."

Torps, at max:
1.25 damage/ton/turn
DUC V:
1.33 damage/ton/turn

Torps have the first-strike advantage, DUCs have a better damage over time (slightly). DUCs are cheaper to research since it requires half as many levels to get there (the initial mil sci is irrelevent because 99/100 you want that anyway). Torps have a longer range with no damage falloff. Neither has a to-hit bonus.

Cost is about the same, per ton, with the torps costing more radiactives.

Phoenix-D

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

I don't see any problem with maintenance. It helps a lot in long games but in short ones it is totally useless. For example if you meet a race with high maintenance reduction it only means that you have to attack fast so the race doesn't have time to benefit from the low maintenance cost.

The balance problems aren't an issue to me. There has to be some bad tactics and some good ones. If the game were in perfect balance it would be much less interesting.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

Quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

Thank you for repeating my point. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

I aim to please!

Quote:

"If there is someone who claims the game is balanced, please compare:
Mechanoid Race Vs Advanced Storage (each cost 1000 points)"

Quote:

This would depend on how often your opponent uses plague bombs! (or how high your random events are) Mechanoids is a very specialized trait.

It's not useless, by any means, but it is not as good as any of the Big Four (Adv. Storage, HI, Propulsion, Ancient Race). If it was cheaper - say 500 points - then it would see more use (but still not be ubiquitous)

Quote:

"Repair vs Maint Reduction"

The only issue here is the weakness of armor in the standard game, combined with the lethality of fleet vs fleet action. In other words you don't often have much to repair! (see minerals vs organics..). Repair is MUCH less expensive than maintance reduction.

Repair is not cheap enough, given the issues you list above. Maint Reduction is only really expensive above 110%. +10% (500 pts) of Maint Reduction is very much more valuable than +20% repair (500pts).

Quote:

"Torpedoes vs. DUCs or PPBs."

Torps, at max:
1.25 damage/ton/turn
DUC V:
1.33 damage/ton/turn

Torps have the first-strike advantage, DUCs have a better damage over time (slightly). DUCs are cheaper to research since it requires half as many levels to get there (the initial mil sci is irrelevent because 99/100 you want that anyway). Torps have a longer range with no damage falloff. Neither has a to-hit bonus.

Cost is about the same, per ton, with the torps costing more radiactives.

Phoenix-D

So why would you take Torps over DUCs? They cost more to research, do less damage, and are more expensive. The increase in range is too slight, and setting Torp Ships to Max Range is probably a recipe for disaster. Give those puppies a bonus to hit or increase their range or make them cheaper. Something. They are almost a redundant tech.

Now, compare torps to PPBs. Thank you.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Equating Se4 to Rock/paper/scissors is a compliment for Se4, not a criticism. It demonstrates that every strategy you could choose in SE4 will beat some strategy, and lose to some other strategy. There is no perfect strategy.

I agree. Calling it Rock/Paper/Scissors isn't supposed to imply that it removes all strategy, but that all strategies are valid and can be countered.

Balancing the game, in my opinion, just gives you more valid strategies to choose from.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

Quote:

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Actually I am not particularly in love with the PPB. I rarely if ever use them. So few people use standard shields because of the threat of PPB's that they have lost their real edge IMHO. Typically I will research DUCs to the limit and then switch over to APB's. Although that's simply habit. There are others that work just fine.

This leaves you vulnerable to mid-game attacks. The amount of research you save by not getting PPBs is trivial, and your opponent can use Shield V's to great effect.
If you aren't putting shields on your ships, you are even in bigger trouble, as you make yourself vulnerable to ship capture and engine destroyers.

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

Quote:

Originally posted by Zarix:
I don't see any problem with maintenance. It helps a lot in long games but in short ones it is totally useless. For example if you meet a race with high maintenance reduction it only means that you have to attack fast so the race doesn't have time to benefit from the low maintenance cost.

No, it still helps in short games - you can expand more quickly, and you can support bigger fleets. This is always advantageous. The only time it might not help is if you get rushed. But that is pretty rare, since rushing tends to hurt the rusher...
Everyone should take Maint Reduction to 110%. And you can't attack everyone you see on sight.

Quote:

The balance problems aren't an issue to me. There has to be some bad tactics and some good ones. If the game were in perfect balance it would be much less interesting.

I disagree. Balance doesn't take away strategic options, it gives you more. What you want are tactics that are good in situation 'X', but not so good in 'Y'.

[ December 26, 2002, 20:59: Message edited by: spoon ]

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

"No, it still helps in short games - you can expand more quickly, and you can support bigger fleets. This is always advantageous."

You can only expand more quickly with maintance reduction if your maintance is causing you to run out of resources. Unless and until the non-reduction player's shipyards have to sit idle for lack of cash, the player with it has no advantage.

Phoenix-D

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

Quote:

Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

You can only expand more quickly with maintance reduction if your maintance is causing you to run out of resources. Unless and until the non-reduction player's shipyards have to sit idle for lack of cash, the player with it has no advantage.

If you aren't running out of cash, you aren't expanding quickly enough (or you have a very nice starting position chock full of mineral planets (which I hear are best...)

Re: "Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

List of variables that will affect the outcome of a given Strategy
For both Yourself and Opponents
Experience
Starting Location
Intelligence and creativity
Allies, (this is influenced by starting location)
Any others?

I never try to �rationalize� a Feature / Limitation / Advantage that does not make logical sense. I use take advantage of it or not. I am open to a gentleman�s agreement not to take advantage of a feature in the game. Against the AI I do it all the time.
In my Opinion
Game Balance? Like Geo and others have mentioned:
Rock, Paper, Scissors