Re: Rules Question - contest
 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You leave your ships blockading their worlds for three or four turns and it's just as if you sent the demand isn't it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have never had an AI surrender to me without my demand. Although that doesn't prove it can't happen. I can't say I have ever waited around that long.

Re: Rules Question - contest
 

Well I tried it out. Blockaded the first opponent I found. Blew up all his ships and beat him down to the point where I am sure he would surrender if I demanded it. Then I waited 12 turns and nothing. Every couple of turns he pumps out another ship which I promptly destroy. He did offer me a Trade treaty which I turned down. He is now pretty ticked at me and I am sure he's about to declare war. But still no unilateral surrender. I just don't think it is written in to the code IMHO.

Anybody see this happen in a game?

BTW, count me as a vote AGAINST forbidding demanding surrender for the purposes of the contest. I don't think it could be qualified as a "cheat". It's not like the no maint thing or mothballed ships still counting in your score which everyone might not know about. Anybody who has played the game a few times I would guess has tried demanding surrender.

At some point we have to pick a set of rules and ride with it. Otherwise those people who have already turned in scores, or have games they have been playing for days/weeks are penalized. 150 turns takes a LONG time with the ammount of micromanagment that this game requires. If you have to play a few turns a day like me, then that's quite an investment to start all over like I have had to several times now.

Ok, I'm done whining now. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/images/icons/icon7.gif


[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 05 February 2001).]

Re: Rules Question - contest
 

I've come around to geoschmo's way of thinking on the matter. The way it works is really the way the game was designed. It's not a bug like the infinite retrofit, or an oversight like the maintenance issue might be. It'd would be like saying that taking over a homeworld with just a freighter and troops is too easy, so don't do that.

If the developers didn't want surrendering the way it is now, they could have changed more races to surrender at 50x score, like the Amon'Krie and Sergetti. If you don't nip those guys early, you may be sitting over their HW for a while, trying to strangle them to the point of surrender.

I guess I'm pretty much against any changes at this point that don't deal directly with obvious, serious bugs, or ways to maniuplate the scoring system.

Multiple retrofitting, mothballing ships, and bare bones ships can be problems. People who use these techniques can either build ringworlds from start to finish in a cpl of turns, maintain a massive fleet for scoring purposes for no maintenance cost (mothball), or minimal maintenance (bare bones).

Purchasing lower maintenance has trade-offs,(and I think the trade-off hurts you) so it isn't something you have to do to be competitive, even though it doesn't seem like the effect was intended.

Forcing surrender is just another tactic that can work well if you handle it correctly, not an exploit that should be Banned.

Just my opinion, of course. http://www.shrapnelgames.com/ubb/ima...ons/icon12.gif

-Drake

[This message has been edited by Drake (edited 05 February 2001).]