FG: Galactic Overlord IV: Sign up

[:) Smiley]

Spies costing BPs would not have changed the situation in the last game. Would cost be scaled with empire size?

[Skanky Burns]

Perhaps we should just use an additional rule that when we are down to 2 players, they both just supply OOBs and shipping for that turn then both fight to the death.

I don't think spies or shields should cost BPs. There is already a limitting factor on their production.

In btw.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Oh and I say no fleet loans, but alliance attacks are still okay.

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Perhaps we should just use an additional rule that when we are down to 2 players, they both just supply OOBs and shipping for that turn then both fight to the death.

Yes to both of these, too.

[Kassiopeia]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Perhaps we should just use an additional rule that when we are down to 2 players, they both just supply OOBs and shipping for that turn then both fight to the death.

Yes.

[:) Smiley]

[GeneralTacticus]

In, btw.

As for the OOB rules - I'd be happy to go back to the old system, although I did like the mid-combat adjustments; the only problem was the restrictions on how you could arrange your OOB. However, it does require a lot of extra calculations for the GM, so I'd understand if Spaced or whoever is GMing this time wanted to dispense with it.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Perhaps we should just use an additional rule that when we are down to 2 players, they both just supply OOBs and shipping for that turn then both fight to the death.

That's the worst solution proposed. If someone has the ability and desire to wait a few turns before fighting then they should be able to.

Even just banning training and use on the same turn is better.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Originally posted by DrSpike


That's the worst solution proposed. If someone has the ability and desire to wait a few turns before fighting then they should be able to.

Even just banning training and use on the same turn is better.

I agree with this. Say you have 3 players left. P1 attacks P2 while P3 remains idle. P1 wins, but is left with half his fleet. He now has more BP than P3, but less ships. Smartly, he had a couple of spies or shields stored such that he can recover while he uses his BP to build a killer fleet.

The proposed solution does not reward agressive play.

[:) Smiley]

The lowest-impact solution would be to ban training and using spies on the same turn when there are only 2 players in the game. Or, have spies sent at each other cancel each others' orders. Now that I think about it, this is exactly what happened in the first game.

[DrSpike]

Well that's besides the point. If you have 1 spy and I have 2, and we both send them to sabotage whilst building a spy each, we end the turn with no spies for you (both builds was sabotaged) and 1 for me. Then I can ensure you never build one, and attack you when ready.

If the group decides this is a problem, then it also makes sense not to limit the change to when 2 players are left. GT and I used a form of the spy trick last game in beating Geo.

[:) Smiley]

When there are 2 people sending spies against 1 though, it's not a trick, it's a strategy. It is only when there are only 2 players left in the game that it can go into an infinite loop like the one I got Joncha in.

[Spaced Cowboy]

The solution is to make use spy only an option if you attack or shield, that is, you cannot train and use a spy on the same turn.

[joncha]

Yes. That is by far the more elegant solution.

[DrSpike]

Indeed so, and gets my vote.

[Ljube]

Well, it used to be a rule in the first two games.

You could only train a spy if you didn't use one that turn.