"Gamey" tactics like "Rock, none" races

[PvK]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
Well, my objections to the moon training are mainly that 1) It makes no sense, and 2) it prevents me from modding an absolute limit of 1% per turn maximum rate, which I want for Proportions mod.

I understand your objections, and don't disagree it's gamey and should be fixed. I wouldn't even try to make the point that 20% training isn't tremendous, almost a requirement at some points in the game. The only point I was trying to make was simply that the 4 turns you save getting to the 20% isn't all that critical in most circumstances.

---

I agree. It's not a big balance problem. It's mainly annoying. It is a valuable thing to do if it's allowed, it tends to reduce the interesting need to spend time and maintenance resources training a fleet, and it doesn't make any sense and smacks of munchkinism. So, I'm simply saying I'd be well pleased to see it fixed, and I'd usually prefer to have a house rule in games I play to not do it. That's all. No big deal. I'm only posting repeatedly because some people said they didn't understand why it made no sense, etc.

As far as your desire to mod that 1% maximum, why not eliminate the sector training facilities and allow all races access to the system training facility the psychic races have in the stock game. IMHO it makes more sense for training to be system wide anyway, and you can limit those to one per system effective.

Good idea, although I kind of like the difference, and the need to sit in a particular sector while training, mainly because it's an interesting tradeoff during play (to move to a more tactical position, or two train up). So I think I'll just mention that I recommend players not use the exploit (if they're playing Proportions, presumably they are wanting more realism, and will be happy to comply), and hope it eventually gets patched out.

PvK

[Thei R'vek]

Originally posted by Puke:
okay, i admit, the moon training thing is really annoying. not so much in the standard game, but more so in games with more moons. like FQM games. when you have 5 or 7 moons in one sector, you can train ships to full in a single turn. THAT could be abusive. I would indeed like a per-sector limit on training. or even an optional per sector limit, in the form of another ability, or a variable, or somesuch.

I think I may do something about this in the USEF MOD. Make the training facilities one-per-sector effective and the psychic one-per-system effective and then making the psychic ones more expensive as all the racial techs have been moved into the standard tech tree in the USEF MOD.

[spoon]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Uh, spoon. The gameplay results are the reason for playing! It's what makes this a game, and not just a spreadsheet or a ship design program. It's the only thing that can keep someone interested in this game for going on two years now.

Agreed! But here we are in the Forum -- not playing the game, but discussing the game. When discussing the game, having statisitcs is better than having gameplay results, I'd argue.

If this is what you really believe, I feel sorry for you. Because you are missing the beauty and the challange of the game.

I have to like the game for the same reasons you do? That's a peculiar stance... Before you tell me more, I'll admit that I do in fact enjoy the game for the same reasons you list. However, I don't let my enjoyment of the game cloud my analysis of the game.

I don't disagree with you about your list of things that are smart choices. But they aren't the only choices. There are so many variables in this game that no one strategy can win every time, you said it yourself. And even a very good strategy is only as good as the paper it's printed on.

You were asserting that these sort of things didn't matter because they could be countered. I was claiming that they gave you an edge that could be difficult to overcome.

What separates the losers from the winners in this game is not the ones that design the best startegies. It's the ones that counter their opponents strategies the best.

True. However, having a strong race design is still significant, and a poor race design can all but guarantee failure.

- Having three ship-training facilities on a sector is better than having only one.
Well, duh! But is it better than what you could have used those extra facility spots for? Depends on the spefic game, but I can think of several cases where it wouldn't be.

hehe, yeah, obviously you don't want to squander facility spots on training in backwater regions of your empire. I meant on strategically important sectors, where having a triple spaceyard/fleet training/ship training configuration can be pretty important.

- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.
Slightly maybe. You might be able to design an PPB ship that would defeat an equal size and tech cost ship in one on one combat. But what would it prove in a real game? Not much. Very few combats are one on one involving empires with exactly equal levels of technical development.

Not sure what your point is here. I say PPBs are better than any other mid-game weapon. You agree(sorta), but say there are other factors. Of course there are other factors. I never tried to claim otherwise.

Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.
If you are playing against someone that doesn't understand how combat works, you are already unbeatable, combat bonuses or no.

- Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.
See previous answer.

Hehe. True, true. Thing is, there are a LOT of players that don't realize this... and that it can be discouraging to play a game for six months only to lose because you didn't realize the significance of race design options. I'd rather these sort of tactics be downplayed, and that a newish player can learn from his mistakes in time to make a difference in his current game(s).

-spoom

[Fyron]

Hehe. True, true. Thing is, there are a LOT of players that don't realize this... and that it can be discouraging to play a game for six months only to lose because you didn't realize the significance of race design options. I'd rather these sort of tactics be downplayed, and that a newish player can learn from his mistakes in time to make a difference in his current game(s).

That all depends on who you play against. I've won some PBW games with really crappy empire designs.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by spoon:
Agreed! But here we are in the Forum -- not playing the game, but discussing the game. When discussing the game, having statisitcs is better than having gameplay results, I'd argue.
There's logic in this. However I would contend that there are simply too many variables in this game to do a strict apples to apples comparison between techs. To do this what standard do you use? Damage to tonnage ratio? Or damage to cost? Or maybe damage to research cost? PPB doesn't come out on top with all three I know that. And there are other factors to consider. How far apart are your empires at game start? What is the political situation with the other empires? All of this has great impact and cannot be adequatly planned for in every instance, and does not fit easily into raw spreadsheet analysis.

I have to like the game for the same reasons you do? That's a peculiar stance...
Not what I am saying at all. One of the greatest things about this game is that it has so many different things to offer. My point was only that a person that approaches the game from a strict cost/benefit/efficency analysis perspective is not likely to enjoy it for as long. Not that they wouldn't enjoy it just as much while they do.

You were asserting that these sort of things didn't matter because they could be countered. I was claiming that they gave you an edge that could be difficult to overcome.
On the contrary. If I ever asserted these things didn't matter, I didn't intend to. Of course they matter very much. But they aren't the only thing that matters. I am simply saying that there is no formula for success in SEIV that you do A then B then C and you will win. If there was then the AI could kick all our butts all the time. You appear to agree with me on that point. Not everybody does. Not everything I have said in these Posts is intended directly for you.


True. However, having a strong race design is still significant, and a poor race design can all but guarantee failure.
Can't argue with that. Good planning is crucial to victory. It's hard to overcome poor planning. But my contention is there are other plans that could be equally as effective as yours. A lot depends on a persons style of play. You need a plan that meshes well with your personality.

I'd rather these sort of tactics be downplayed, and that a newish player can learn from his mistakes in time to make a difference in his current game(s).
Nah, let 'em learn the hard way. The way we all did.

EDIT: By the way, why not put these theories to the test Spoon and join the King of the Hill league.

Geoschmo

[ December 22, 2002, 02:32: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[Skulky]

why don't the ppl thinking that there is a solution, or several indispensible traits, go for those, and then several others take the opposite and play a game, then we will see

[spoon]

Originally posted by Skulky:
why don't the ppl thinking that there is a solution, or several indispensible traits, go for those, and then several others take the opposite and play a game, then we will see

Ok, I'll take:
research 120
construction 120
defense 120
offense 120
minerals 120
maint reduction 110
Advanced Storage
Hardy Industrialist
Ancient Race

You get 80's in all those, and let's have at it!

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by spoon:
Ok, I'll take:
research 120
construction 120
defense 120
offense 120
minerals 120
maint reduction 110
Advanced Storage
Hardy Industrialist
Ancient Race

You get 80's in all those, and let's have at it!

Laf, so basically Spoon your point is that setup a game with you good at everything and the other guy bad at everything and you will win?

You were right, there is a way to guarantee victory in SEIV!

Geoschmo

[spoon]

(oops messed up the quotes, sorry about that...)

Originally posted by Puke:
this is just sillyness. everything can be countered by something else, there is no fixed way to win. there are some things that are not so usefull, but there are no things that are always best to use.

Well, that is the point I'm trying to make. There are "gamey" things you can do to give you an edge. I guess I have to repeat this in every post, but I never claimed that there was a way to guarantee a win. That's silly.

Originally posted by spoon:
- Using PPBs in the midgame is better than using anything else.

unless someone has APBs in the midgame, or unless someone has phased shields in the midgame, or unless on person was slowed down researching mines when the other was not, or unless null space weapons are used to effect, or unless missile swarms catch someone without PD off guard. the "PPBs are the best" statement is old, tired, and just plain silly.
[/qb][/quote]
If you have either APBs or Phased shields in the mid-game, you have pretty much used ALL of your research to get there. Those two components don't usually appear until the late game. Null Space weapons are less effective midgame, since Light Cruisers are the dominant ship, and don't have enough room for significant armor and shields (the latter being skipped by PPBs anyway). And using PPBs doesn't preclude using your own missile swarms as a surprise maneuvre.
PPBs are the best, but not overwhelmingly so. Other weapon choices will still work, but just not as well.

Originally posted by spoon:
Having 125% defense + bezerker will make you unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works.

ANYTHING is unbeatable against people unaware of how combat works. high defensive bonuses can be countered with the talisman, training, weapons with to hit bonuses, seekers, ramming (okay, maybe ramming isnt so good), or any number of other things.
[/qb][/quote]

Bezerkers aren't prevented from researching those things either. In the end, unless you purchased some Aggressiveness, you will be at -65% to hit (or whatever the amount is). PDCs defeat seekers and fighters, which are your next best option, and ramming, well, good luck!

Originally posted by spoon:
- Having 110% Maint Reduction is a huge advantage over people who don't realize how broken Maint Reduction is.

god, its so broken. it gives you an advantage in huge games, is worthless in small games, and is somewhat valueable to drop some points on in midsized games. I HATE those attributes that are worth spending points on, i wish spending points on maintenance reduction either did the same thing in any sized quadrant (or limited ship number, or short/long fixed-length game) or just didnt give you any benefit at all! DARN.

i appologize for my inflamitory remarks. i am a very small person. please moderate me down.[/QB][/quote]

hehe. I disagree with your conclusion that Maint Reduction is worthless in small games and only ok in medium games. It lets me support 5 ships to your 3. Unless I take Merchant. Then I get 5 ships to every 2 of yours. Tough to overcome those odds.

I think a game with balanced choices is better than a game with lopsided choices.

-spoon

[ December 22, 2002, 04:56: Message edited by: spoon ]

[SamuraiProgrammer]

OK... I'll bite

How is maintenance reduction broken. I have tried searching for threads on the subject and have not found anything interesting.

I found some other interesting things though....