FG: Galactic Overlord 9 - The Golden Age

[Ljube]

I simply don't have as much time as I used to have. And I don't have a reserve place to coordinate alliances.

I don't see what is wrong with the formulation that Jamski introduced: "I give command of my fleet to NAME".

[Jaguar]

I deem that acceptable, actually.

[:) Smiley]

No "use my ally's OoB" is OK, but compound that with the no resending orders makes for difficult logistics.

On the other hand, it can be argued that less allied action is probably a good thing.

[Ljube]

No "use my ally's OoB" is OK. However my expression was and always will be "I give command of my fleet to NAME". This is radically different and must be allowed.

[snoopy369]

I don't think it takes THAT long, ljube ... heck, I manage to coordinate with Mr. "I'm on once a week" Jonny ... Just include a suggested OOB with the initial alliance suggestion, like I usually do. Then when they respond, they respond with agreement and/or a counterOOB... that's one send and one reply, more than enough.

On a second note, I can't see the pic with the standings ...

[Jaguar]

Yes, I can't see it anymore either.

[Spiffor]

Same here. Photobucket must not like the traffic

[Jamski]

Curious. I'll rehost it. Shame 'poly has such tiny limits on attachments.

-Jam

[Jamski]

Ok, here it is again.

Ljube, your complaints about orders would carry more weight if you were more in the habit of sending some.

Those having trouble arranging alliances, may I suggest instead of "I use the same OoB as X" or "I place my fleet under the command of X" you nominate a member of your alliance as the "leader" who sends orders with the OoB to me, and also to you. Then you can copy+paste the OoB if you wish and send it to me. Or backstab them horribly, or whatever.

You see the problem with "same OoB as X" when X doesn't send an OoB

As for resending orders, we now have few enough players that I can allow this again

-Jam

[Jaguar]

I think "use same OOB as ally" should not be allowed, for this reason. Suppose I want to be a bastard and tell my ally to attack someone with me, and then go steal his bases while he fights the defender 1-on-1. It's a classic betrayal plan, and it works well because it completely destroys the fleet of one player, and damages the fleet of the other.

But now, with the "use same OOB", the fleet just gets to leave the battlesite without fighting at all.


Turning over your fleet to your ally for a turn is fine. You'd better trust them, though.

[civman2000]

"Use same OoB as ally" is OK with me, but if the ally doesn't come through, the attack should still go on, but without an OoB your fleet should then be destroyed (or use a random OoB).

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by civman2000
"Use same OoB as ally" is OK with me, but if the ally doesn't come through, the attack should still go on, but without an OoB your fleet should then be destroyed (or use a random OoB).

If it's allowed, then it MUST be this way. It is not GO without this possibility. But i'd strongly prefer it not be allowed. You should figure out OOBs ahead of time, or you're not putting enough into this game.

[Hercules]

Ordres scent

[Jamski]

Its not a discussion. "Use same OoB as X" is not an option. I can't believe its not possible to agree an OoB in 48 hours. Get allies' work emails, mobile phone numbers (send 'em a text), send a PM, take control. I suppose I can run longer turns if its really an issue.

Random OoBs are not part of GO. One of the core beliefs of the GO design is that there should be no random element at all.

-Jam

[joncha]

Why not use the last turn's OoB as a default?