FG: The Future of Galactic Overlord - Discussion

[Kassiopeia]

That's probably because the amount of allying has been smaller in the Eventis GO2. I also think people have felt like experimenting and have thus built up their bases even though there's necessarily no reason to do so. Of course if you have the stuff built, it's going to have some sort of difference, especially if you don't have that many allied attacks, but it's not really comparable to the situation in a typical Poly GO. In the heart of it, it's just more meat to the grinder, only it's immobile and a bit cheaper.

[Skanky Burns]

The additional base defence makes payback periods for building a new base much quicker than that previously. The opportunity cost is lower as you get cheap extra defence, 15bp worth at a cost of 6bp.

[Jamski]

Opponent based OoBs are going. They're cheap, they're micromanaging, they suck. I myself didn't even realise people were sending them untill halfway through the current game.

Yes, the defender is at a disadvantage here. This is intentional. I feel that the possiblity that a defender has a third party using Allied Defence on them adds some uncertainty to the mix, however. Not to mention that the attacker has no idea what the defender may have built that turn, or if they are shielding. I'd argue that the attacker's advantage in being able to tailor their OoB to the opponent, although of some value, is not the most critical factor.

Joncha, D is cheap, yes, but if you can only post 1 defensive OoB, I expect people will be aware of the dangers of Disengaging from a frigate ping!

-Jam

[Jaguar]

There are NO redeeming qualities to D. Kill it. It is the worst single rule the game has ever had.

[Jamski]

Ok. D is kylled.

-Jam

[Jaguar]

SWEET.


No more 19BP fleets sitting out in space.

[Spiffor]

What happens in the following scenario?

MarkG and DanQ are sworn allies. On round 258, they expect their alliance to be attacked, but they don't know whom of them exactly will suffer. MarkG decides to defend DanQ's base. DanQ decides to defens MarkG's base.

What ahappens when Ming and Rah make an allied attack on Mark?

[Spiffor]

I've also seen an incompatibility:

A player will now die if he begins two consecutive turns without a base. Good. It means that a baseless player HAS to attack and succeed right after he went baseless, or he's toast.

However, since it is now possible to send spies on baseless players, it's fairly obvious that the baseless one will be crippled by enemy spies. As such, being baseless will be the equivalent of death, because you're sure somebody will prevent you from attacking (thus preventing you from surviving) next turn.

[Kassiopeia]

Oh. That's a very good point. Of course, if you retain your anti-spy measures and may use them even when baseless, then maybe we could just up their number to three or keep it at two to compensate. So you'd always have at least one anti-spy in the pocket in case you go nomadic.

[Jamski]

What happens in the following scenario?

MarkG and DanQ are sworn allies. On round 258, they expect their alliance to be attacked, but they don't know whom of them exactly will suffer. MarkG decides to defend DanQ's base. DanQ decides to defens MarkG's base.

What happens when Ming and Rah make an allied attack on Mark?

Ming and Rah would face the forces of MarkG and DanQ. It would be a big battle.

I've also seen an incompatibility:

A player will now die if he begins two consecutive turns without a base. Good. It means that a baseless player HAS to attack and succeed right after he went baseless, or he's toast.

However, since it is now possible to send spies on baseless players, it's fairly obvious that the baseless one will be crippled by enemy spies. As such, being baseless will be the equivalent of death, because you're sure somebody will prevent you from attacking (thus preventing you from surviving) next turn.

Not an incompatiblity. Intended. Spy = death. Another rival eliminated.

-Jam

[Tassadar500]

Couldn't you just use anti-spy?

[Jamski]

If you had one, I guess so.

[Kuciwalker]

What about:

A spies and attacks B. B spies C. C spies A.

[Kassiopeia]

Big battles I definitely like the idea of a mutual protection pact like that. Can several different fleets engage in Allied Defence? That is, more than two.

[Jamski]

In that case A would be prevented from attacking B. If B had spied on A instead of C, the two spies would have cancelled, but C's spy still prevents A from attacking.

Its not torpedo science.