FG: The Future of Galactic Overlord - Discussion

[Jamski]

Originally posted by 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.

1.) Its NOT a mutal protection pact. Player A might send Allied Defence on Player B, but there is nothing to guarantee that Player B doesn't simply build a Shield, or attack Player C, or even does Allied Defence with Player D.

2.) Several different fleets could get involved in an Allied Defence if they all sent orders to defend Player A, for example, and Player A was then attacked. Of course, Player A could only return the favour to one of them. And Player A would be very trusting to let multiple players know his OoB.

3.)It could also be a trap. Send Allied Defence, use a DIFFERENT OoB to the one agreed, and get a third party to frigate ping you. The Allied Defenders are then treated as a seperate attack, one that the defenders have the perfect OoB match for. Or vice-versa, the Allied Defender has made a deal with a third party and uses the OoB knowledge to launch the perfect strike.

-jam

[Spaced Cowboy]

Can't see that one coming into play very often.

[Kassiopeia]

1.) Its NOT a mutal protection pact. Player A might send Allied Defence on Player B, but there is nothing to guarantee that Player B doesn't simply build a Shield, or attack Player C, or even does Allied Defence with Player D.

I picked my words poorly. I fully understood the idea in the first place , I just referred to the general idea of having mutual allied defence work as a possible deterrent for allied attacks. (How daft do you think I am?) And besides, you can call it a pact, you can break a pact regardless It's just another word for "alliance".

[Sparrowhawk]

I thought when you were baseless you lost ALL specials (Spies, Shields and Anti-spies). In which case the anti spy wouldn't be an option for a player with no bases and a spy would kill them.

Or do you only lose Spies and Shields? In which case the anti spy would be the only option for a baseless player facing a spy.

Or am I missing something ?

/me

[Jonny]

Kylling D

Getting rid of nomads quickly

Allied defense

Getting rid of opponent based OOBs

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Jonny
Kylling D

Getting rid of nomads quickly

Allied defense

Getting rid of opponent based OOBs

Almost agreed.

Kylling D

Getting rid of nomads quickly

Allied defense

Getting rid of opponent based OOBs

[Kassiopeia]

The antispy SHOULD be useable and in store if you lose all bases, even if it isn't yet.

[Jamski]

Ok, let's roll with this:

The proposed changes (If its not mentioned then let's assume its not in need of any change)

1.) Spies
Spies need a slight modification. The aim of the game is to get more fights and more clear eliminations, right? With this in mind:

• A spy will now stop Disengage orders.
• If two players spy on each other, the spies cancel each other and their orders proceed as if no spies were used.

2.) Overlords With No Bases
Overlords with no bases need to shut up and die. Or at least die faster.

• A player with no bases cannot use or build any specials except counterespionage.
• A player with no bases at the beginning of a round must capture at least one base that round or be eliminated.
• It is possible to use a spy on an player with no bases.

3.) Captured Bases
If those overlords get back into the game by capturing someone's bases, they then often have to sit a few turns, unable to do much due to lack of home bases. So...

• A player who captures some bases when they previously had none at the beginning of that turn automatically trades the first 5 captured bases for one home base. If there are less than 5 bases captured, tough, play as before.

This allows the player to at least have the option of building ships or specials the next turn.

4.) Allied Defence
As his orders a player may instruct the GM that instead of attacking or shielding he wishes to perform an Allied Defence. This works exactly like an allied attack, except the target is a friendly planet.

• Both fleets must have the same OoB, or the defenders will treat the allied defenders as enemies!
• If player A sends orders to make an allied defence with Player B, it is possible both that Player B returns the favour and sends orders to make an allied defence with Player A, or that they trust Player A to defend their bases and attack a third Player.
• If a player orders an allied defence, but is themselves attacked at home that turn, their fleet will cancel the allied defence order and defend at home. Defending home bases has priority over rushing to assist a rival.
• Because of the above rule, it is always assumed that allied defence uses the whole fleet.
• Should the defence fail, the player that was attacked loses his bases as normal, but the assisting player(s) is safe.

5.) Domination Victory
If a player has more than 2/3 of the bases in the galaxy, or more than 75% of the shipping tonnage they may claim a domination victory. If this is accepted by the other players then the game ends. No player is forced to accept domination, and has a right to fight to the last.

6.) Base Trading
No longer to be allowed at all.

7.) Opponent-based OoBs
To be restricted. You may submit one seperate offensive OoB and up to 3 defensive OoBs. This should cancel the defensive advantages slightly of putting an OoB for every situation. Imagine if you like the unreasonable situation where an admiral desperately tries to identify the attackers while leafing through a huge sheaf of contigency plans.

Some clarifications:

Weapon values vs unusual orders:

Lasers x2 vs Unopposed
Torpedoes x2 vs Unopposed
Fighters x2 vs Unopposed
Lasers x1 vs Manouvre
Torpedoes x1 vs Manouvre
Fighters x1 vs Manouvre

-Jam

[Tassadar500]

That sounds very w00tly!

[Jamski]

I was thinking about the idea of Overlord Traits. Now, I don't know how serious this suggestion would be yet, but I was developing a vague idea that it would be kinda interesting if every player had some kind of fixed advantages/disadvantages thoughout the game, somewhat like faction bonuses in SMAC.

Industrialist - +10 extra BPs on the first round. Can build one extra homebase before the cost rises.

Defensive - +20% to lasers, torpedoes and fighters when defending.

Cautious - Fleet takes no damage when it runs into an opponent's shield.

Paranoid - Starts game with an extra shield generator.

Cunning - Starts game with an extra spy and a free counterespsionage use, applied automatically the first time they are spied on.

Agressive - +20% to lasers, torpedoes and fighters when attacking. May not build shield generators.

Communist - All captured bases count as home bases, but home bases only produce 3 BPs/turn. Cannot be combined with Enslaver.

Tactical Genius - May use M orders twice in their OoBs.

Enslaver - Home bases produce 6 BPs/turn, while captured bases only produce 1 BP/turn. Cannot be combined with Communist or Assimilator.

Alien - May not use spies or shields. Immune to spies and shields.

Assimilator - One captured base is converted to a home base each turn. Cannot be combined with Enslaver.

Laser Obssessive - May use Lasers 3 times in their OoBs.

Fighter Ace - May use Fighters 3 times in their OoBs.

Artillery Master - May use Torpedoes 3 times in their OoBs.

Long Ranged Weapons - Always counts as "Backed off" in combat (Lasers x0.5) Further "Back off" orders double the effect (Lasers x0.25), while "Close in" will counteract it (Lasers x1)

I would propose that each player could select any 2 before the game starts, and these would be kept secret untill used. Once used, the traits would be displayed in the normal update table for everyone to see. Some traits, like Industrialist and Communist, will automatically be revealed on the first round because they will affect the BPs available. Just an idea. The actual proposals for the next GO game are in the post above.

-Jam

[Kassiopeia]

The traits system will require quite a bit of dancing to make it balanced. My main concern is that like in Nascar there will be one specific trait that everyone will use. The killer traits (aggressive for instance) have been already nerfed quite a bit to make them less palatable, though

[Jamski]

I like to think they're prebalanced. And all players having the same traits to choose from means that even if unbalanced, it is at least FAIR. The first big choice of the game - which traits will be the best of the 102 possible combinations?

[Tassadar500]

That could be quite an interesting idea. However, I think it might be a better idea to assign two traits to each game character, and then we choose the character. That way, the GM could make sure it was balanced, and it would fit better if there was a back story.

[Jamski]

That would also be w00tly. I would quite like to see a return of many of the current characters though.

[Kassiopeia]

Ah, Nuke's idea is great But I too want to see General Ordin, among others, returning; an Aggressive Tactical Genius perhaps?