Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

So as not to clog up the Gamey Tactics thread, I wanted to start this thread to discuss the "gameyness" of said tactics.


18. Moving ships over enemy planets and then declaring war to bypass mine fields.

Now, in a multiplayer game, this may be considered a cheat, but I like it because it fits in with a plotline. If you are going to pearl harbor someone, you would hopefully wait until your fleet was past their defenses before slagging their planet, wouldn't you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

they are not the enemy until you declare war.

I feel this is an exploit of a hole within the game.

And if your going to use it. Include the ability to sweep the 100 mines... Then it is fine

But if your going... Man I have no minesweepers so i am going to attack and declare war at the same time to by pass the other guys mines then it is a gamey tactic.



Suprise attacks are fine.

As long as this little bug is not exploited.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

On the other hand, I consider it to be completely legit. If you are depending on your mines and diplomatic charms to stop the enemy, you get what's coming to you.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Its not like thats not a "real" tactic. A friend moves ships in past your mines then suddenly declares war? Whats the clue? how many ships? the size? True for realism it probably should only allow one small bombed "terrorist" ship.

Now if it was to be "fixed" Id like to see more treaty choices such as "my ships dont fire on your ships but you dont get pass codes for my satellites and mines". That would allow you to decide which systems your "friend" does or does not get to pass thru.

Or even an option menu:
Do my ships still alert and chase you on sight?
ships on sentry?
can our ships share the same spot?
limit by size?
limit by number?
shared refuel?
shared repair?
mine pass?
satellite pass?
weapon platform?
defense bases?

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Unless you know they are the enemy before they do!

Totally understandable. My point is that if it's a sneak attack, it's likely to get past your defenses anyway. They still have to deal with WPs and defense forces.

A spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Again, I can totally see this side of it. I just think it's a nasty trick instead of a gamey tactic!



I guess that's how I see this.

Don't know if I agree that it's a bug. More like a temptation.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

In my opinion the sneak attack is a classic move and well within the bounds of the rules. I wouldn't call it gamey or cheating to move your ships over an allies world in order to bypass his mines and then break treaty and attack.

This is not gamey anymore then mining an allies space while under treaty is.

On the other hand, you should expect to reap what you so if you employ these tactics. Don't pull them on someone, and then act all shocked when they don't trust you in the future. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Shouldn't mines detonate before any ship attacks the planet anyways? Why are the minefields around my planet _not_ active against ships that just happen to be in the sector already? Sectors are massive locations, so its not as if the mines would all be one the edge of the sector... Any time you attack a planet in a sector that has a minefield up, you should have to go through the minefield, regardless of whether you moved there as an "ally" or not... It would be the same thing as being able to ignore orbiting satellites just because you entered the sector as an ally. Would that make any sense?

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Poster: Gandalf Parker
Subject: Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread

Its not like thats not a "real" tactic. A friend moves ships in past your mines then suddenly declares war? Whats the clue? how many ships? the size? True for realism it probably should only allow one small bombed "terrorist" ship.



Actually it is a real tatic. Japan moved their entire fleet within airstrike distance of Pearl Harbor without detection. While Japan did not intend to attack without a declaration of war, they did make sure thier fleets and armies were in a position to strike as soon as war was declared.

You as the other nation seeing all these warships approach your planet/sector/territory should be screaming diplomaticly for them to remove their ships. If they do not then prior to them hitting the minefield you should cancel your treaty. Of course, some empires wont be strong enough and have to swallow the loss of the planet, but it is a real tactic. There are a number of times in history that a battle was fought and won or lost due to the ability to pre-position troops under the cloak of friendly relations.

Rasorow

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Except for the fact that mines don't ignore friends that turn enemies in a surprise attack in reality...

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Sure -- I mean, as long as you are making "reality"-based assumptions to how something as unrealistic as SE4 mines work, you can just go ahead and assume that all allies have either maps or IFF codes to bypass the mines, and that it takes exactly one turn to modify the mines positions/codes for them to work against the sneaky bastards who attacked you.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

And in reality they don't ignore anyone. A mine doesn't give a damn if you're a friend or an enemy- if you trigger it it WILL explode.

A better analogy would be your allies knowing the clear path through the mines- you having given them the knowlage so they could bring their ships through safely. When they betray you you haven't had time or reason to change the paths, and so they sail right through.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

I certainly wouldn't give a trade partner intimate knowledge of all of my mine fields... Someone with whom I hold a partnership, maybe.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Then how do their ships avoid your mines at all?

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

They meet at trading stations outside the mine field. Their cargos are sold/unloaded there and they get money or have whatever they were trading for transfered to them, end of story. Or perhaps their trade vessels are escorted through the fields, and the mines change positions every so often, based on secret calculations which vary over time so as to eliminate the possibility of mapping the sequences. Warships certainly wouldn't be allowed near the planets... And if the local defense forces detect a massive fleet heading towards the planet, all civilian ships would be denied access and the mine fields would be remapped. There are many possibilities. Just because we sign a trade treaty doesn't mean I have to give your ships free reign to go wherever they want to... Yes, technically the game allows this silliness, but it should not. SE5 is going to have the ability to customize every treaty you sign, so we can trade and not give free access...

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Well, there's the rub. That is just your opinion. You are making up a story on how you think mines should work, and are then applying it to the game. Since the two don't match up, you blame the game for being wrong and say that people who don't interpret mines the way you do are exploiting the game.

Instead, you should look at how mines work in the game, and, if you are in need of justifications for role-play or whatever, come up with your story based on that.

I like how mines work in relationship with Trade Treaties. I think it makes the game-world a more dangerous place, and makes the threats of a backstab more dramatic and exciting.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

I think this is a fact of the game that can be exploited if you want. Like someone earlier said, if you do this, prepare to be cast in the Benedict Arnold suit for the rest of time.

Illegal? No.

Underhanded? Yes.

Effective? Probably.

But it won't win friends http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Umm... no. I never made up a story and applied it to the game then blamed anyone for exploiting the game. I was merely discussing an alternative method for the handling of planetary defenses that could have been or could be implemented. It makes no sense that a local military contingent would let their defenses down when they see a massive military force approaching just because the two empires have basic trade agreements. Ships, WPs, fighters, etc. don't stop working, why do mines that are a part of this same planetary defense? This makes no sense, but never once did I say that anyone was exploiting the game. Just because the game has a flawed mechanic doesn't mean that I absolutely look down on those that choose to utilize it. You are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 7... Further, you asked for a mechanism of how trade ships would trade with a planet if they are not given clearance of the mines, I provided it.

Luckily, SE5 will allow us to pick and choose the features of all treaties we sign. You can go ahead and only sign treaties with people that will allow you to stab them in the back when you so choose to do so, and those that do not wish to have such a threat can refuse SE4-like trade treaties and only accept those that do not include free rights of passage.

Also, keep in mind that the list was compiled from suggestions given by many people... It is not a list of what I consider gamey, but a list of issues that people may or may not consider gamey. That is all.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Oops, sorry, I thought you were defending that item on the list... I know what the list is for, and think it's a great idea. But I thought this thread was for debating the merits of items placed on the list (but not with the intent of having anything removed from the list. If one person thinks it's gamey, then that's enough for it to be listed, right?)

Carry on!

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

It sounds nice that you have these space trading stations and etc outside your mine field but to use a modern day analogy warships do infact go into harbors, past the mine fields, past all harbor mid and long range defenses and dock. Not to mention the possibllity of Q-ships.

It is reasonable that you could escort ships past a changing minefield - See Red Storm Rising for one method of implementation (Tom Clancy) but I think have trade stations when a space station is as expensive as it is (least early on) is stretching it.

Personal opinion is I think the game works as is and it is not a gamey tatic. Its not a nice tactic, your allies and your enemies will remember the tactic and wonder about ever trusting you, (and personally I would come after you with everything I had to take you down as much as possible even if I had no hope of winning, nor would I surrender to you)

Which touches on other things on the list

- surrendering to a preferred enemy or ally instead of a hated enemy, - not gamey - plenty of Real World happenings - WWII Germany preferred to surrender to US/British Forces instead of Russia

Rasorow

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

The US/British forces were part of the invasion force of Germany, you know. That example is not relevant. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif It would be like Germany surrendering to Japan. Or even some country like Spain.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Actually it is relevant, German forces went out of their way to surrender to US/British forces instead of being captured by the Russians. This is the exactly the same senario as me surrendering to Narf because I do not want to surrender my forces to Cyclops who detonated the sun in a remote but heavily populated system killing trillions in a murderous sneak attack.

Rasorow

PS - just throwing people out there that I have met on the Boards, not saying they would or would not do any of this.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

No, it is not relevant, because they were still surrendering to an _enemy_ involved in their conquest, not a random 3rd party.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

What is or is not gamey is hard to define, because there is no definition of "gamey". That said, I only play in games where surrender is Banned (or restricted to surrendering to the person stomping you (though I prefer a strict ban)). The reason? Because of the way surrender works in the game, it can completely ruin the fun. I've been in at least two games that were scrapped as soon as one player surrendered...

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

I wondered about that because to me it seemed worse to not surrender when you should. But your reason makes sense.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Agreed. Since surrender is instant, it can be a major problem in a game.
There should be AT LEAST a few months of chaos while supply lines are reformed, diehards refuse to surrender, planets rebel, etc.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

I totally agree. I was in one game where me and my ally were about to take over 2 seperate enemies, and they both 'surrendered' to our largest foe, who was their ally. That wasn't even the first time that happend that game, so we both left. (was about the 4th empire that surrendered to him just prior to being conquered/attacked in force)

I won't play in any game that surrender is allowed.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

I think of surrendering to allies like what Poland did. All the troops they could get out and all the Navy ships they had went to England. At least England from then on wrote their orders and paid their maintanace. Germany then got to keep all they had taken and whatever else they could keep or take later. France is kind of the same way. Even though they surrendered to Germany, some of their colonies at least somewhat supported the allies.

Of course this is not a exact match to what happens, but I use it as a possible approximation.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Except that Germany still got all of Poland's land and resources... that is not what happens in SE4. Very, very far from it. You can do what you describe by gifting your ships to an ally.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

ok, I will admit some valid points on the immediate surrender. What if surrender "gifted" ships and units on the ships, while planets went to nuetrals (units planetside were destroyed - the melting of the army before the aggressors). What military planets could form before being conquered would represent the resistance to the invader. The more time it takes the invader to get there the more resistance they would have. Additionally this would allow other empires to "fund" the resistance with gifts of ships and units.

Rasorow

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

It's just not in some people to hold out until the bitter end. I don't really understand that point of view, but I can see how it can happen. Hopefully, in SEV this will be addressed.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

But it is in a lot of people... Maybe not until the very bitter end, but most wouldn't go down without any fight at all, just because their government surrendered... SE4 surrender is just a smooth, senseless transition. There is no turmoil. At all. There should be massive chaos, rebels, etc. to deal with, but there is nothing. Surely, in some instances populations surrendered without incident, but in most historical cases, some sort of resistance formed, either immediately or a while later...

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Highly intelligent people of XXV century clearly understand that their resistance is futile http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

<pushes the send button on his hyperspace email transmitting the documents of surrender, as his starship denotates exploding the sun of his enemy's home system>



Sorry couldnt resist the mental image,

Rasorow

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Yeah but now a days we don't have battleships that can kill 100s of millions of people with a single assault pass on your planet lol.

Sorry but I think in an era where a single capital ship can kill millions of people they would not put up much resistance.

Though I do agree that the surrender needs to be neutered a little bit, maybe more like having the ships and space based army regiments turned over to your enemy while having the planets break up into single system or even single planet "republics" and governments. that pirvately fund the ground based "regiments".

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Yes we do. It is called the B2 stealth bomber, armed with hydrogen bombs. Just a couple of those would annihiliate any nation...

Just as in an era with nuclear bombs, those in Afghanistan and Iraq put up no resistance at all and just smoothly transition from the old government to the new without any fuss?

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

What? Fyron, up until this statement, I thought you were making sense. Where have you been the past coupla' years? I see nothing smooth at all in those two countries... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/redface.gif

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Exactly his point.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

...and often when a player surrenders, all his planets are rioting and you have to spend who knowns how many turns to end them, so that could be turmoil.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

Giving a real life example of how the threat of total annihiliation should have worked, if his proposition was true.

More often they have police troops and are still jubilant...

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

On a similar note to surrender, in a game I'm currently playing, with surrender disabled, my enemy was down to 2 systems, and he just gifted them all and all his ships to one of his allies to avoid being captured.

I'll still get them in the end, but I still think it's a cheap, or 'gamey' tactic.

Re: Gamey tactics discussion thread
 

That is why, in addition to disabling surrender, you need a house rule such as this: