FG: Galactic Overlord 8, Part 5

[GeoModder]

I thought more in the area of Intercepting transfer of ships -and BP's between allies... piracy if you will.
(note that under the new GO rules transfering those is allowed again).

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by Atragon
And what does I do if there is no D opposite it?

Well, if it must be included in an OoB, a retreating fleet is intercepted from the point on the 'I' is used, if not, the attacker loses a weapon point (in case the 'I' is used for that as well).

[Jamski]

I think get rid of opponent based OoBs to encourage attacking

-Jam

[:) Smiley]

I like that idea, it would make data entry on my end easier. I won't point names here, but some have sent me orders with around 20 different OoB/tactic sets for different attackers and combinations of such.

Orders recieved fraction at 2/8 by the way.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Smiley
I like that idea, it would make data entry on my end easier. I won't point names here, but some have sent me orders with around 20 different OoB/tactic sets for different attackers and combinations of such.

Orders recieved fraction at 2/8 by the way.

Bah, my orders are clear. You just figure out who's attacking me, scroll down my OOB list to find them, and fill out that order. Numerous, yes - but not hard to read, and detailed. Nothing compared to a certain few people who's ORDERS in GO 2.0 are impossible to read, because they mix everything up ...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by joncha
and opponent-based OoBs.

Opponent based OOBs are one of the few things that hold back single weapon fleets. If I had to have only one OOB for everyone, that would be insane, and i'd be screwed if there were one person with an all-torpedo fleet, and one with an all-fighter fleet. My lasers would be soo confused ... and the D thing would be messed up too, since obviously most people you don't want to D against (unless you're tiny) ... it would be my D problem to the max

[joncha]

It's called strategy.

[Kassiopeia]

20 different OOBs?! Maybe that's why I tend to suck, very seldom do I provide more than one. ¨

Sent.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by joncha
It's called strategy.

Allowing multiple OOBs *is* strategy. Disallowing them decreases strategic options, making the strategic choice less meaningful, as there will always be myriad choices that, no matter what you do, mean you lose.

[joncha]

No. It's spreadsheetery and munchkinistic min-maxing of the worst kind. Having a single OoB forces you to actually think about which one to use.

[MORON]

Having a single OOB means that attackers gain a huge advantage and GO would be a game of allied base swaps as staying at home is effectively death. (unless you have JEBUS, but a spy generally prevents that)

The thing is that the attacker can choose an OOB and the defender can not is also a huge problem that give a edge to the attacker even in 1:1 odds fights.

Homogeneous fleet composition would also be far more effective in the single OOB case, especially all lasers. All lasers give a consistant performance and can match almost all other (or all other, if given M command) fleet composition in 1:1 odds with a single OOB. (LL/LML close, spread, type OOB)

and the D thing would be messed up too, since obviously most people you don't want to D against (unless you're tiny) ... it would be my D problem to the max

Not quite, as D could be useful against an equally sized opponent. If you have a huge fleet but a relatively small industrial base, together with trustworth allies, using D is great. One can back off from a heavy attrition battle and counter the next turn using spy + allied fleet to exterminate the attacker.

To prevent the 10% fleet loss from base losses, one can simply trade bases each turn so that everyone has a base at the end. (since those without bases can't "give" one, at least not the base being received at the same time, a mutual send base order ensures that everyone has bases at the end of the turn)

Losing a turn of production and a few home bases might hurt, but not as much as a heavy attrition battle that can eat up mutiple turns of production in one snap.

That said.....trust worthy allies are probably a oxymoron....

[:) Smiley]

Nothing wrong with more attacking though... this game has gone on for almost two months and is probably going to take at least three.

[Jaguar]

Encouraging people to attack won't fix that, though. Half of the reason why this game has gone on for so long is because of the attack/disengage combination.


We want to encourage people to fight each other, period. That generally means one on attack, one on defense. We had a turn earlier in the game where everyone but joncha and I attacked, and nobody was killed.

The lack of attacking is not the problem. It's wussy orders like D.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by joncha
No. It's spreadsheetery and munchkinistic min-maxing of the worst kind. Having a single OoB forces you to actually think about which one to use.

It is strategy - which is essentially what you are saying, but you are using insulting words instead of nice words about it. Munchkining, as far as i can understand, is strategically choosing the best possible outcome vis-a-vis statistical choices. And spreadsheetery should be given credit, not insulted - it means that those of us willing to do it are working hard to win, not just picking an OOB and hoping it works.

You haven't addressed my earlier point, anyway - single OOB means that single weapon fleets are superior much more so than they are now. It is quite apparent to me that few people want to increase the incentive for single weapon fleets ...

... and furthermore, it's just not strategic when you have the following potential enemies:

A: 100 bps lasers
B: 50 bps lasers 50 bps torps
C: 100 bps torps
D: 50 bps torps 50 bps fighters
E: 100 bps fighters
F: 50 bps fighters 50 bps lasers
G: 33 bps torps 33 bps fighters 34 bps lasers
H: 400 bps lasers 50 bps torps
I: 30 bps fighters

and you have:
J: 40 bps lasers 40 bps torps 40 bps fighters

You tell me what the single correct OOB is, and how it allows you a fighting chance against all enemies.

I realize you dislike D, but as long as it's available there's no way you can have a single OOB, as it would make D worthless except for a team playing with fleet I. Furthermore, a single OOB would make every team but H severely disadvantaged; while H can just go MLL-XXX or TLL-XXX or LLT-XXX etc., every other team a) can't D aganist H without Ding against every other team, many of which they can beat and b) is stuck for choices when 3 different single weapon fleets could come after them - A,C,E. Only A C and E really have easy choices - MLL-XXX or MTT-XXX etc. - but still they would want to D against their nemisis (E, with 100bps fighters, would want to D against A, as A would slaughter him, fighting at 100 to 25 strength after A bunches).

And don't tell me this is an absurd suggestion - this example has existed in this game, in two parts. The part about single weapon fleets of each type - that was early in the game before Paddy showed us why F fleets don't work. The part about the drastic difference between huge fleet and small fleet - why that's right now...

[:) Smiley]

There is an elegant solution to this: give the defender a bonus modifier.