"Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by PvK:
I think we need a better explanation of the supposed abuse.

Assuming there is one atmosphere and planet type that offers more opportunities, it would be self-correcting if players know about it, because presumably more players would tend to pick that combination, resulting in more competition for it.

PvK

Rock/None has the most facility slots of its type, but is worse off in the long run because you can't get gas/none.

This thread describes this in more detail.

[spoon]

The main "gamey" reason I consider taking rock/none (or ice/none) is the ability to find a planet with two moons, and build 3 spaceyards, 3 Fleet Training Facilities, and 3 Ship Training facilities in that sector.

The disadvantage is that you have to rely on capturing/trading other pop types to maximize Gas Giant colonization (when you get that tech). This can be a hefty disadvantage, depending on the game setup and the disposition of your neighbors.

-spoon

[Taera]

rock/none can be dismissed as "gamey" tactic only because people seem to like it and more unique combinations (ice/methane was my Last one in single games) are very rare, thus you can get the most of these planets for your own while the rest will be fighting over the same none/rock moons.

[PvK]

Yeah, it seems self-balancing due to popularity, and of dubious advantage even if you have that combo all to yourself. There are pros and cons of moons versus larger planets, maps are randomized, etc.

I can see some people choosing it with gamey thoughts in mind, but they're probably wrong if they think it's a big (or any) advantage, except that if it helps them develop a strategy, it might help focus them on a plan.

However, building multiple training facilities in the same sector does seem to me like an obvious bug exploit.

PvK

[spoon]

Originally posted by PvK:

However, building multiple training facilities in the same sector does seem to me like an obvious bug exploit.
PvK

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...

[LGM]

I would say the None races, with Rock/None being generally better the Ice/None, have little advantage over other races, unless you play the players can only colonize their own atmosphere type (None). In this case, they have more potential sites for building shipyards than any other races (other races will need more orbital shipyards). However, the None player will have very few worlds that can utilize planet bonuses, because what good is +20% bonus if you have to give up one of your 5 facilities to get it. None worlds are smaller and thus easier to take out (fewer weapons platforms possible).

[ December 20, 2002, 12:50: Message edited by: LGM ]

[geoschmo]

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