Should score be based on firepower?

raynor · #1 February 6th, 2001, 10:27 AM

Consider this:

If you build tons and tons of empty bases and ships, your score climbs very rapidly, and it is easy to convince the AI that they should surrender to you because you are so much more powerful. Of course, you aren't. But what does the AI know?

On the other hand, if you build tons and tons of fighters and other units, you can soon amass enough firepower to rule the entire galaxy. But since units have only a minimal (if any) effect on your score, you are never perceived as a threat. By the time, you *are* perceived as a threat, you are so powerful, the AI doesn't stand a chance.

What a crazy, crazy game!

How many of you think that units should have a greater impact on the score?

Maybe the calculation of the score should be based on firepower instead of on the mass of ships and bases. For example, the ship/base/unit component of the score could be calculated as the ratio of offensive firepower divided by the amount of damage which all of the bases/ships/fighters can take. I suppose to be completely accurate, this firepower estimate would have to include various to-hit modifiers based on Combat Sensors, ECM, Stealth Armor, ship/fighter size, etc.

But in general, don't you think that the score would be much, much more accurate if it were based on offensive capability divided by defensive capability instead of just the number/mass of ships and bases?

Daynarr · #2 February 6th, 2001, 01:54 PM

I think that the scoring should be based on the active maintenance total without race modifiers applied. That will make building empty hulls and mothballing ships useless since the mothballed ships don't count for maintenance and empty hulls won't have much of maintenance.

Nitram Draw · #3 February 7th, 2001, 02:22 AM

I think scoring should be divided into two parts. One part that the AI looks at to determine its actions and another part that includes everything.
Since the AI's actions toward other races seems to depend on the score, the military might,ships bases etc., should weigh more heavily when they decide how to act.
In determining a victor by score the overall strength of the empire should be considered, with more weight given to resources, research etc. This will encourage other types of winning strategies as opposed to just crushing everyone in sight. But I suspect most people play with total victory as the goal, so the score may not matter for victory.

raynor · #4 February 6th, 2001, 07:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Daynarr:
I think that the scoring should be based on the active maintenance total without race modifiers applied. That will make building empty hulls and mothballing ships useless since the mothballed ships don't count for maintenance and empty hulls won't have much of maintenance.

Given that you can unmothball a ship and deploy it the next turn, I would oppose any scoring system which doesn't consider mothballed ships.

But what about my suggestion to increase the effect of units on the score?

Nyx · #5 February 6th, 2001, 07:47 PM

Personally, I feel that alliances also should count, especially if the diplomacy gets tweaked enough to work more stably than it currently does. And I don't think it should be military scoring only, tech, resources, shipyard capacity, trade and so on are very much a part of a nation's power. If there were no non-military routes to victory, sure, firepower and ships alone would count for the score. But as long as this is an empire building game as much as a military one, empire building needs to be rewarded.

On the mothballing issue, yes you "can" unmothball ships... if you have enough resources to do so. Most people mothball because they're running low on resources or are tight. I've played against people who had three or four times as many ships mothballed as they could afford to return to service, had they started unmothballing, thier income would have gone negative. Those ships ought not have counted for much on thier score. Now they could, and did, unmothball a few at a time and go and get them killed in battle freeing up economic space to unmothball a few more, and so forth, making unmothballing cheaper and faster than building equivalent fleets, so even in a case like this they should be getting something as the ships were indeed working to protect thier territory. But they oughtn't get full value for the ships.

------------------
Compete in the Space Empires IV World Championship at www.twingalaxies.com.

rdouglass · #6 February 6th, 2001, 07:48 PM

Score? What score???? I just take it ALL.

No seriously, I kinda like the idea of score being more a function of maintenance costs which should be a more accurate representation of your firepower. The flaw with that is you'll have to assign some value for units which of course have no maint cost.

However, IMO the best way to score in human vs. human should be the number of systems controlled / owned. If you are the only empire present you get 1 point. If you've colonized that system 1 point. Otherwise, no points. The only difficulty that I can see is to account for uncolonized / unoccupied territory behind enemy lines - that could be a tough one to figure.

I think scoring should be based on territory primarily 'cause I see this game as a conquest type of game instead of a "get along with your neighbor" kinda' game - I think most do. IRL the "score" is kinda' figured on your real estate holdings isn't it!?