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

Rock/None is no advantage. It is not gamey. It is not cheating by any definition. It has advantages and disadvantages over other choices. It depends on your play style. Do you like lot's of little planets spread around, or a few huge ones? Are you a player that prefers a more centralized or a more diffuse empire?

When I lose a game, which I do quite often, rather than look for some reason why the other guy was cheating to explain my loss I try to learn from his tactic and devise a counter to it.

Since I have been on this forum the following have tried to claim the "Uber-tactic" crown.

Gas Giant Races
Fighter Races
Berzerker Culture Races
Phased Polaron Races
Religios Races

I have played a lot of games. I have lost to players using all these tactics, and I have won games agaisnt players usign all these tactics.

Three words.

Rock, Paper, Sizzors.

Geoschmo

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

Whereas I agree that there is no Ultimate Unbeatable Race Style, you have to admit that a warrior/bezerker religious race weilding PPBs (midgame) and APBs (late game) is more likely to win than an Artist/Gas Giant race that refuses to use those weapons...

I'm not saying the poor Artisans have no chance, but if you had to bet, I'd put my money on the bloodthirsty religious zealots.

Fortunately, teaming up with all your neighbors to defeat a power-hungry despot remains as the ultimate balancing factor...

-spoon

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

One tactic I have seen used / abused works like this:

Choose Ancient Race.

Claim the entire Galaxy.

Trade your claim of empty systems that you will never use because they are far, far away to naive computer races for home planets.

Watch your score climb like a rocket.

Make trade-savvy races surrender because your score is so much higher than theirs.

Enjoy unbeatable advantage over other human players.

This tactic is so unbalancing, we have actually outlawed ancient races and surrender in some of our games.

This is only a problem because the computer players were willing to make these ridiculous trades. Oh well, you can't have everything.

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

I don't think I've ever played in a PBW game with computer players.

I did see a player once take advantage of a another guy who missed a turn by geting the AI to trade him some his planets and grab his population. It was 'clever', but not the way the game should be played IMO, and I haven't played with the guy since.

I agree with Geo that none of these things are unbeatable. Especially planet/atmosphere combos. Talisman can be real tough, but they tend to attract anti-religious coalitions pretty quick. Having a good starting position always seems more important to me. I.e. room to expand, some good planets, a weak neighbour with different colonization/atmosphere breathers.

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Really? The facility text says, "only one effective per planet." If it was a bug exploit, I would think that text would read, "Only one facility effective per sector."

Definitely "gamey", though...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think it's so obviously senseless, that it counts as a bug. There is no reasonable explanation why moons should multiply the training rate. At best, it's an "idiotic design exploit", but I think it's actually kinder to call it a bug. I guess it's a good thing to discuss in the game introduction so players know whether it's not allowed, or if they should go hunting for moons... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

As for the talisman, it's a massive advantage, only balanced if the other players in the game realize it and organize to prevent it from ruling the quadrant before it's too late.

I would agree that the cultures and traits are not all well balanced in terms of cost, although this can be corrected in a mod (e.g., Proportions). Has no one made a mod that corrects this balance problem for the standard set?

PvK

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To avoid arguments, I don’t do this anymore. However, I do see it as plausible from a role-play point of view. Either it's non-stop intensive training, or the crew is split up into Groups so they all get a crack at the training. The end result is more rapid training -- not better training.

Training facilities is a technology a militaristic race would love. If Klingon's actually existed, I'm sure there'd be training facilities on every moon. Non-stop training, yeah.

[Insert you favorite Kligonese statement here]

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

gee, i always wondered what trading systems was for, or what it did.

planet types dont unbalance a thing. i used to have a huge advantage playing gas, because no one else did. then everyone started taking it. now its more of an even mesh, and i usually pick a planet type at random.

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

The multiple training facility thing is an exploit yes, but it's not a tremendous advantage. I am not positive that on balance it's much of an advantage at all. The player doing it has to waste extra facility spots, and the only benefit is faster training. It only take 7 turns as it is to fully train a ship or fleet, for the cost of two extra facility spots (6 extra if you want ship and fleet training facs) you get your crews trained in 3 turns. But the max training is still 20%. That 4 turns isn't going to turn the course of a game.

Do I wish the game would not allow it? Sure. It's kind of hinky, and the game isn't clear on what the rule should be. Any time you have stuff like this it can cause problems between players and I hate that. It's like the mines per sector thing was. Is it a major concern that would cause me to go hunting a players moons? Not a bit.

It's just not that big a deal.

Geoschmo

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Balderdash. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif If the tailsman were such a tremendous advantage, how come out of 6 original tailsman races in Furball 3, only 1 is still a viable empire and he is in trouble? And that was a ten planet high tech start. If ever a game was tailor made for the supremacy of the tailsman this was it. And they have performed dismally. No offense intended to the players that chose it. Just calling it as I see it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Come up with all your reasons and explanations, but in practice they just don't hold up.

Geoschmo

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

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This from the person who claims PPBs are balanced. Out with it, Geo, you're really Aaron, aren't you.