Galactic Overlord II Game Thread

[Kassiopeia]

On the bright side, turns will get processed a lot quicker now. Something tells me there's going to be quite a traffic jam over... Jam's bases the next round.

[joncha]

sent

[Jamski]

Jam's conquest?

?

You mean my gamble would have worked, had I been able to build ships?

Damn these rules I wrote!

As for entire fleets on both sides being destroyed... this is what happens with very one-sided fleet set-ups like all lasers. They hit VERY hard before going boom due to no defenses. A risk worth taking? Some would say so.

-Jam

[Skanky Burns]

You would have doubled your number of bases had you been able to build ships. Alas.

Combat 1.2
Damage is now done in real-time.
Each rounds damage destroys enemy ships before the next line is processed.

Comments?

We will continue to use combat 1.1 for this current round, and if no objections then 1.2 will be implemented for round 3 and onwards.

[GeneralTacticus]

Sounds good. It would certainly discourage people from building fleets armed with only one weapon type, as it would make their actions far mroe predictable.

[Jamski]

Actually Skanky, that was EXACTLY what I would have done in 1.2 - and not a rule more or less. I wouldn't reduce a fleet's capacity to attack after some ships are destroyed, as this gets complicated, but I would stop the combat short as soon as one fleet takes enough damage to be eliminated.

I don't suggest you try and keep track of which ships were destroyed in each round and adjust the combat values downwards as the death count goes higher. That way lies insanity.

Ok, it would be nice as a player, but it would be GM HELL.
(Unless you have a nice Excel program already?)

-jam

[Skanky Burns]

No, but I really should be building one.
Nice idea.

[Chaunk]

Skanky, did I lose a base for some reason?

[GeoModder]

Skanky, I should have a torpedo battleship, not a fighter battleship...

Btw, who did Jamski try to conquer?

I'm in favor of already 'destroyed' ships not being able to fire in the second round of battle. But perhaps let damaged ones retreat directly to some base...

Put in this way, if in a battle the attacker is a victor, he takes as many bases which are undefended by a defenders damaged ships from the first round. It sounds more balanced IMO that an empire is not completely overwhelmed in one strike. Also, if a second warlord pressed an attack on the same defender, he has a change of taking some lowly defended bases as well, and the choice of pressing attack regardless of the owner becomes more importantly.

Does this explanation makes sense?

[Ljube]

If combat is supposed to be fought in rounds then combat rules 1.2 are OK. But if combat is real-time as it is, then the damage is done not in phases but simultaneously, so a smaller fleet with superior tactics could in theory overcome a larger one.

I think we should keep riles 1.1, but rules 1.2 are also OK, although it’s a different ball game.

In other words, both solution are possible, so it's GM's choice.

[Skanky Burns]

Considering the number of errors each round so far, I think we will leave it at the current level of complication for a round or two at least.

Good thing I keep a copy of everyone's orders.

[Spaced Cowboy]

I think that we should go ahead and play this one as is, unless everyone agrees to the change. I think that realtime would be the best way to go about it, but would be extremely difficult for the GM even with an excel file to help.

I like the idea that a smaller fleet with superior tactics being able to take down a bigger fleet, but I do not suspect that it will happen often.

What does not make sense to me is that you do enough damage to wipe out your opponent on the first volley, but continue to give and take damage on the other 5 volleys.

[:) Smiley]

When I scripted it as GM, I thought of it as ships being mortally damaged, but still being able to put out a little more fight. Well, we'll give this new set of rules a try, see how it goes.

[Spaced Cowboy]

sent

[DrSpike]

Sent.