Gamey tactics discussion thread

[Phoenix-D]

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

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.

[Fyron]

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

[spoon]

Then how do their ships avoid your mines at all?

[Fyron]

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...

[spoon]

Imperator Fyron said:
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.

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.

[Caduceus]

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

[Fyron]

spoon said:
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.

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.

[spoon]

Imperator Fyron said:
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.

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!

[Rasorow]

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

[Fyron]

Rasorow said:
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

The US/British forces were part of the invasion force of Germany, you know. That example is not relevant. It would be like Germany surrendering to Japan. Or even some country like Spain.