Return to Index  

Questions on timing

February 19 2004 at 10:03 PM
Zed  (no login)
from IP address 66.185.84.76


Response to Answering Zed's Point

 
If you were not indicating lack of interest, but that you didn't see a way forward, that wasn't what I got from your post. Sorry for any misunderstanding leading to a rush to jump in, but it appears I'm in good company.

If we are confident that enough of the major gameplay holes will be corrected by Stardock in the near term to merit waiting, AND that additional delays will not cause a still-birth of the tourney, I'd be happy to wait. Right now I don't think either of those conditions are necessarily likely to be true.

I'm fully aware that banning bct entirely is probably not the ideal answer; hence, my comment about it being a blunt instrument. It was aimed as much at Jaxom's "too much cash available" complaint as much as at the stable relations issue. But, it is a starting point - a rough thought that can be polished. Certainly we will need SOME kind of restriction on bct. I'm also fully aware of the problem with maintainance of stable relations equalling automatic victory. On the other hand, other players have developed other tactics for handling wartime with a minimum of fuss; for instance see Aviator's comments in SG3 about not caring whether he was at war, due to using a puppet-string equivalent to ensure such a war had no effect. Now, we certainly don't want to trade one overpowering gameplay element for another, but perhaps we need to re-examine the proposition that making stable relations hard to achieve is a bad idea.

Are we really sure that we have explored all options for handling war from a defensive position? We know about speed being king in GalCiv, is it not possible to wage guerilla war against enemy transports and otherwise attempt to retain combat effectiveness with light ships in the face of stronger but slower opposition, without crossing the line to puppet strings? The much-maligned frigates could be strong in this role due to their speed advantage. I haven't exercised that option sufficiently to say, perhaps it needs more testing or perhaps that testing has already been done and the results not yet published.

If we are creative with our rule generation and make it sufficiently hard to reach and maintain stable relations, while publishing sound non-exploitative strategies for surviving one or more early wars, perhaps reaching and maintaining stable relations will merit the "can't lose" status because it is hard to do. If buying relations with tech or cash is too easy, we can get out the red marker and strike those options out too. Forcing the player to spend more on real defense would make a farmer strategy an actual gambit instead of a sure-fire move and would help bring the player economy more (if not entirely) inline with the AI economy.

Anyway, that's one possible philosophy for approaching a ruleset. There are others, I'm sure, based around making stable relations not be so much of a be-all and end-all... for instance, we can add a rule such that an Alien tech victory means YOU LOSE. Not enough by itself, perhaps, but again, it's a start that can be built upon -- and if someone does reach the can't lose point, do we really want to take the quick options for finishing the game off the table? These approaches are not necessarily in conflict with one another, either. I think that even with the current state of the game, there are enough possible ideas floating around that someone with enough vision could latch onto the best ones, work them into a coherent framework, give it a spin or four, and polish it to a nice shine. Perhaps you can't do it alone, Sirian, but with enough input from others as a source of inspiration (not the same as rules by comittee,) maybe more could be possible.

Would it be better if we got more official fixes from Stardock? Perhaps. I'm not really certain we can afford the wait, however, and while they may be willing to throw us a bone or two if we ask them to, they don't really seem to be marching to our drummer on this one. If we want to have a tournament at all, I don't think we can afford to tie all our hopes to that particular flag.

 
 Respond to this message   
Responses

  1. Another thought - Zed on Feb 19, 2004, 10:16 PM
  2.  
  3. Reply - Sirian on Feb 20, 2004, 1:09 AM
    1. Thanks for the reply - Zed on Feb 20, 2004, 5:15 AM
     
  4. Self-nit and more thoughts - Zed on Feb 20, 2004, 5:28 AM
    1. Some comments - Jaxom on Feb 20, 2004, 7:36 AM
      1. Reply - Zed on Feb 20, 2004, 7:14 PM
      2. AP expansion availability - Kylearan on Feb 21, 2004, 2:05 AM
        1. The hacking incident - Jaxom on Feb 21, 2004, 3:01 AM
     
Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  

 
 




     



     
     
(reserved) Other Quick Links - FAQ, History, etc..