Hojo's Idiot Shoulda Known Question Thread...

[WhiteHojo]

Well, I said if I came up with one more of these Q's I'd start a dedicated thread for all of them... and here it is... so from now on, please check here early & often to see what new and surprisenly silly & simplistic Q Hojo has that he should already know the answer to... (and yes, I ended that sentence w/a preposition)...

Q1) in Single Player games, which is more 'fun' and/or challenging to play - turn based or simultaneous turns?

I've never played simul games in SP (always thought it was for PBW games until Last nite) and wonder what the major differences are? (aside from the prose that is listed in the setup screen )...

thanks and more Q's to be forthcoming..

[dogscoff]

hmmm. turn based is more immediate and requires a bit less thought.

strategic requires you to plan ahead a little more and to be more careful with you orders.

It also forces you to use strategic combat mode, which is much much harder and requires obsessively careful ship design/ orders. It alsoi gives the AI more of a chance against you, since you can't do cheesy missile dancing and stuff like that.

Turnbased/tactical is alwaysd good for a quick wipe-the-floor-with-the-AI game, but generally i go for strategic. It's more of a challenge, and it feels a little more fair.

[WhiteHojo]

thanks - right now I've been doing turn based w/strategic combat only... gave up on tactical combat - too much micromanagement for me...

what specifically are the difference's in say strategic combat in simul games & strategic combat in turn based games?

what determines what happens first?

[Starhawk]

I have had some truely challenging tactical battles so I honestly don't get why so many people say it's cheesy...

And besides that to me most of the fun comes in SEEING my warships and theirs duke it out until the shields fail and a volley of fire blows the hull of the apposing ship to peices muahahahaha!!! ahem ^cough^ anyway...that's just me.

[dogscoff]

have had some truely challenging tactical battles so I honestly don't get why so many people say it's cheesy...

Well, it's challenging when you're up against a superior force, but tactical against an technically and numerically equivalent AI opponent is absurdly easy.

I've taken down fleets of cruisers with just a few frigates before now.

what specifically are the difference's in say strategic combat in simul games & strategic combat in turn based games?

I don't think there's any real difference, strategic combat is strategic combat. The differences are outside of combat, when moving ships around on the system map. Other orders, like stellar manip and cloaking are also stacked up rather than executed immediately, which makes things more difficult.

Launching/recovering satellites, mines, fighters and drones in simul games is a real bind as well.

However, i think it's fair to say that simultaneous play is what the game engine and the AIs were designed around, so it does make the game flow more logically.

[Suicide Junkie]

I have the most fun doing the tactical combats myself.

A healthy sprinkling of RP and some imagination goes a long way.
Especially given leaky shields/armor and relatively small fleets.
Blam! Fzzzt! Shield generators hit! SS Paladin, moving in to cover us. SS Waterloo moving to press the assault.

Its about being right there in the middle of things, where every move could mean the difference between victory and defeat. Its about feeling each hit, and dishing out some of your own

The empire building, and the fact that the results of the combat will have significant side effects, and have an importance beyond just the ships involved makes it even better.
Is the greater goal worth the sacrifice of your ship? Can you succeed without completely sacrificing your ship?

...

Man, an IRC team combat would be really good about now


PS:
In order to maximize the number of great tactical combats, you should play not to maximize your empire's power, but rather play a brinkmanship game where you try to survive with only a minimum of force.

I generally do a variation on that, where I build only a few ships, extremely heavily defended. I sacrifice economic efficiency and attack power for not losing any ships.

[ June 29, 2004, 16:34: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[WhiteHojo]

ok time for another Q hojo should already know the answer to...

1) AI & state of War... once the AI declares War on you does it EVER accept a end to the war that doesn't involve either Surrender or annialation? I can't ever seem to get any AI to accept a noo-aggression, non-interferce(or whatever it's called0 or any type of treaty that would end a war.

[Suicide Junkie]

It is possible to achieve peace, but you have to get them to move to a friendly demeanor first, and there is a minimum time IIRC of a year or five.

What you need to do:
- Not fight battles. Fighting lowers their friendliness. Try buffer zones, mines and black holes instead
- Give 'em trinkets. If they're accepting anything at all, you could give them a few resources to help them see you're not all evil.
- Out of sight, out of mind. Don't let them see your ships over their colonies, and try to avoid contested systems. Buffer zones help in this regard.

[Raging Deadstar]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
It is possible to achieve peace, but you have to get them to move to a friendly demeanor first, and there is a minimum time IIRC of a year or five.

What you need to do:
- Not fight battles. Fighting lowers their friendliness. Try buffer zones, mines and black holes instead
- Give 'em trinkets. If they're accepting anything at all, you could give them a few resources to help them see you're not all evil.
- Out of sight, out of mind. Don't let them see your ships over their colonies, and try to avoid contested systems. Buffer zones help in this regard.

I think it's in the AI's Anger.txt file that determines how long it will take the AI to be more pleasant to you. Unfortuantly I've never got an AI to ever accept a treaty after they declared war.