FG: Galactic Overlord 8, Part 3

[Sparrowhawk]

As the would often have regular ships with them I think they would need to have tactics, it would seem to me a nightmare to not give tactics to the defense ships while having tactics to the regular ships on defense.

/me

[Skanky Burns]

Sattelites can move too. Perhaps not closing in, but they can bunch up or spread.

[:) Smiley]

I don't feel that boosting defenses would solve the problem- we'd simply have bigger alliances. It also adds complexity.

Instead, I'd suggest introducing a new special which would be used like a shield and would negate alliances and force them to fight individually. Thoughts?

Orders recieved are at 6/14, by the way.

[Tassadar500]

I think that's much too powerfull.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
I think that's much too powerfull.

Which one?

Originally posted by several of y'all
I think they whould still have tactics, you should be able to deploy them where you choose, even though they are immobile, you still can set them up for a defense, as opposed to an offiensive fleet that has to approach in the formation.
--
They would likely just boost your gun numbers in defence of the home planet, while using the same tactics your entire defence fleet would use.
--
Sattelites can move too. Perhaps not closing in, but they can bunch up or spread.

The point is not the physics of it but the gameplay I could certainly suggest physics reasons why it wouldn't work - satellites don't have enough power to move very fast or far, so the opposing team chooses the distance; and the satellites must be deployed at normal distance, or they will not be able to cover the whole system effectively.

Anywho, at least from my point of view, if you could have all lasers and go close in, they would be way too strong. You'd have a x4 x3 = x12 strength per bp (and even higher relative, if you guess right on the bunched/spread factor). Making them as Jamski describes - TLF - makes tactics irrelevant for them, individually, and only would affect the sort of fleet opposing them, anyway; and it seems to me it would still be too much extra added on to the x3 you already get. (But, allowing partial or full tactics would be one way of ultimately balancing them, if they turn out not to be worth x3 alone.)

Originally posted by Sparrowhawk
As the would often have regular ships with them I think they would need to have tactics, it would seem to me a nightmare to not give tactics to the defense ships while having tactics to the regular ships on defense.

Not at all. In the spreadsheet, it would be one extra line, really - adding in the direct value of the defense platforms after the modified strength of the rest of the ships. Piece of cake.

(For those of you without a spreadsheet handy here is a breakdown of how it calculates: )
A: (Total raw strength of side with weapon X)
B: (Weapon factor: 2 or 1 depending on opp. weapon)
C: (Range factor: .25-4 based on both choices)
D: (Formation factor: .5 or 1 or 2 based on opp. choice)
E: (Maneuver factor: 2 or 1 based on last weapon)
F: A*B*C*D*E

You'd just add a line after F:
G: Defense Platforms
H: F+G

I'm assuming the defense platforms basically shoot at single power, but with all three weapons - ie, if I have 50 defense platforms, then regardless of which weapon I choose, I get +50 to my total; Maneuver would presumably not affect them either.

[snoopy369]

One thought ... if they're just a single weapon that fires with each of them at one bp strength each time, that makes them ... somewhat less useful than 3x. Most defenders if aware they'll be facing superior firepower will leave a single weapon fleet behind (such as mine), or in any event the attackers will usually have one primary weapon (or certainly will after this anyway ). That means you're only getting 1.5bps worth of use much of the time, or less.

IE, my OOB last round was LML-xxx (single weapon). Even if I had defense platforms, they'd have only given me 1bp worth of value, as I was done after the first wave; a single laser ship would have been as valuable, in fact more so as close in would have been useful.

I'm starting to think you might need to make them more useful - for example:

1. Make them fire at strength 2 (or 3) with each weapon (probably too powerful)
2. Make them as requested single weapon types (but no maneuver, no other factors)
3. Make them fire, at 3 power, in their own weapon type - ie, your oob could be PPL-MTT

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Smiley
Instead, I'd suggest introducing a new special which would be used like a shield and would negate alliances and force them to fight individually. Thoughts?

What do you think the Ambush proposal I made earlier was all about?

Originally posted by Smiley
Orders recieved are at 6/14, by the way.

Aren't we on extended weekend rules, for it's Eastern?

[GeoModder]

Here's a way to force a bit more balanced fleets:

A player is not allowed to have a tonnage amount of a particular weapon to be in excess of the sum of both other weapon types.

It ensures that never more then half of ones fleet is built from the same weapon type. But the problem is that if after a battle a player lost tonnage mostly in one weapon category, his ship construction orders (if any) are pretty clear to other Overlords.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by GeoModder
Here's a way to force a bit more balanced fleets:

A player is not allowed to have a tonnage amount of a particular weapon to be in excess of the sum of both other weapon types.

It ensures that never more then half of ones fleet is built from the same weapon type. But the problem is that if after a battle a player lost tonnage mostly in one weapon category, his ship construction orders (if any) are pretty clear to other Overlords.

Why would you want to do that? It's one thing to make rules or more accurately balances that take single weapon fleets out of the running as "obvious choice for everyone", but they should still be a viable strategic option, sometimes. As an occasionally used tactic, they're good for the game as far as I am concerned ... another strategic/tactical option, and certainly not harmful, as long as they are not *the* choice, but one of many. Which they have been in this round of GO, as some people choose single or nearly-single weapon fleets (ie, Paddy, Spaced Cowboy, etc.) in general, some people (ie, me) choose to leave behind single weapon fleets, and many (most) people choose a mixture. Proof that whatever Jamski did a few rounds ago worked.

[Jaguar]

I'm not a big fan of M. That's what's causing imbalanced fleets. But I don't have much long-term perspective on the evolution of this game.


I think the satellites thing is too drastic. I believe the reason for so many alliances is the size of the game. Once it gets smaller, backstabbery is more common.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Smiley
I don't feel that boosting defenses would solve the problem- we'd simply have bigger alliances. It also adds complexity.

Instead, I'd suggest introducing a new special which would be used like a shield and would negate alliances and force them to fight individually. Thoughts?

Um, not too useful; problem with that (and with ambush, as Geo says it's similar in nature) is that you still have to fight *all* of them - so it is only useful when you have a massively superior fleet that won't take any losses, IE useful for people in the lead maintaining their lead. Admittedly, Defend wouldn't be used often except by leaders also, but it could help anyone, at least ...
Also, it's yet another special, and unless you're already winning, you probably can't waste the turn building it - why not build a shield instead and just have them bounce off of you, unless you are sure you can destroy them all without any damage??

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I'm not a big fan of M. That's what's causing imbalanced fleets. But I don't have much long-term perspective on the evolution of this game.


I think the satellites thing is too drastic. I believe the reason for so many alliances is the size of the game. Once it gets smaller, backstabbery is more common.

M gives some incentive for a single weapon fleet, but as I said a post after (or simultaneous to) yours, it looks like single weapon fleets, at least by now, are a rarity rather than the rule - not a problem, in terms of game balance. In my mind, M is the only thing that actually is making defense competitive at all in this game - you can leave behind a small fleet of one weapon, and still hope to do a bit of damage.

[Skanky Burns]

To me, defence platforms sound just right. On one hand people are saying they are too powerful, on the other hand people are saying they are not powerful enough. Its worth considering for next round.

Oh, and M makes single or dual weapon fleets much more powerful than balanced fleets.

[Ljube]

Single and dual weapon fleets were always more powerful in the opening rounds of the game. M possibly extended the period of application of these types of fleets.

I don't see any reason for defence platform, or boosting the defence in general. This is a game of offence and treachery. That's what makes it interesting. If everybody just turtled the game would become boring. If you want the defence stronger, increase the power of the shield.

[Jamski]

Ok, some interesting thoughts for me to ponder there. We have a lot of GO 8 to play yet though, and the current rules are not broken (just a little biased towards attackers and diplomats)

-Jam