Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » No comms games (Changes in play)
| |
| Re: No comms games |
Thu, 23 January 2014 12:52   |
|
 skoormit |
 | Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
In no-comms, it is up to each player to determine who to wage war with.
Typical victory conditions are "consensus vote" or some version of "exceed second place score by 100%." In other words, when a player has run away with the lead, the game is over and that player wins.
In a no-comms game with that type of victory condition, players must individually assess which player or players might be establishing a dominant position, and therefore are becoming a threat to win the game.
Assuming every player is trying to win the game (tangential debate of such point omitted), players not currently in a dominant position should prefer to attack the stronger players rather than the weaker players, all other things being equal.
For example, let's say I'm in a 12 player no-comms game. We are far enough into the game that a couple players have grown much larger than average, and a couple players have been squeezed nearly to extinction. Suppose I am in 6th place, and that I have three neighbors: Big, Medium, and Little. I don't know for sure what their ranks are, but let's say that my scanning tells me that Big has many more planets than the average, that Medium has about the same number of planets as the average (as do I), and that Little has about half the average number of planets.
In such a case, I should prefer to attack Big rather than the other two, based on relative current strength. In general, all players maximize their individual chance of winning by attacking the strongest player they can, so long as all other players are following the same reasoning.
Other factors must be considered, certainly.
If Big doesn't have any planets that are attractive to me, but the others do, that's a factor in favor of attacking someone else. I have to weigh the benefit to me of gaining something versus the benefit or merely thwarting the strongest player I can.
If Big's space is well defended with minefields and fat starbases, while one of the other players provides a much softer target, that's a factor in favor of attacking someone else as well.
[Updated on: Thu, 23 January 2014 12:53]
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: No comms games |
Sat, 25 January 2014 06:30 |
|
| m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
No comms = AI game, more or less. 
Tech can and will be exchanged unless it's expressly forbidden, and perhaps even then, because there's a lot less ppl comparing notes about weird behavior, and more ppl assuming it can't be done. Happens with the AIs too, so... 
NAPs and all kinds of nefarious agreements can and will happen unless expressly forbidden, and perhaps even then, because (see above) 
Most of the time, someone will run away with the game before the others can organize against, just like in AI testbeds, so all the effort of organizing a multiplayer game with real ppl goes to waste. 
Less talking, but far more scouting and guessing and paranoia and stupid mistakes. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme!  Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: No comms games |
Sun, 26 January 2014 08:44 |
|
|
|
My last game was a no-comm-game. Quite thrilling actually.
We were 4 players. Due to a low hab range and a bit of bad luck, 2 of the other 3 players had almost no green planets for me in their territory but the 3rd had a lot. But the map-location of that player was in a way that if I attacked him and conquered those planets, I'd actually cut off the other 2 players from each other... which meant all 3 players would had only 1 enemy to attack: me.
As I said, thrilling, basically I was playing 1 vs 3 and it worked out, well, fierce fighting and it took quite some time but the interesting thing: I doubt that this would had been possible with communications on. They would had talked with each other, allied, tech exchanged etc. The result would had been a very lenghty game. This way it was still long, 58 turns for a small/normal 4-player-game, but not dragging along because everybody allies against you. They all did fight me but only with the information they gained themselves. For a true warmonger like me this is refreshing and seems fairer than those diplo-games where players gang up.
Scouting and intel is very important, even more so than usual. Denying the other players information is more important, too. You might get away with completly conquering your neighbour if the others are lazy with scouting or you are succefully shooting down all the scouts and keeping out of the open space with your fleets.
Research: Well, my prefered way is to concentrate on con and weap and to get the rest from my neighbours by conquest of planets... which also means that all PRT that heavily rely on other tech (en for AR, PP, SD; el for S-S; bio for some CAs, SDs; prop for non-IFE-races etc.) are my favourite neighbours. On the other hand this doesn't necessarily mean that those races are easy prey.
If a super-stealth is in the game, paranoia gets really high because you never know what he knows, so you must assume that he knows everything... and attacks your right when you are busy with the other neighbour.
We are humans and thus we ALWAYS try to interprete the behaviour of those around us and this is communication without talking. And I am not hinting at cheating but the usual border situation. Usually no one can afford to be at open war with everyone. So, a common border with a neighbour and enough scouts and no side has warships nearby... seems to be kind of a peaceful border and allows you to concentrate on... mmmh, perhaps exactly on that border where there are no warships.
Hehe, no communication is fun!
[Updated on: Sun, 26 January 2014 08:45] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: No comms games |
Sun, 26 January 2014 20:17 |
|
| neilhoward | 
| Commander |
Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023 | |
|
skoormit wrote on Sun, 26 January 2014 09:46
Games last far more than long enough to justify the effort of organizing it. Plus you spend more time playing Stars and less time writing emails.
In my experience hosting no comms games (>12 in the last 5 years, four of which had at least 7 players), they more often than not last longer than comparable comms games (calendar time), and complete many more turns over any given period of play. Large battles tend to occur earlier and more frequently, while constant skirmishing and brush fire wars abound (in many ways more fun for an active host to watch, with 30-40% more battles over a standard 80 year average game span of a comms game). My observation as host and player in addition to feedback from other players indicate that in general more attention is paid to non-comm games. Player seem to universally up their mm game (maybe using the time they would otherwise be focusing on diplo), and there are enough fewer drops to overall make up for any early extinctions. The increased level of attention and activity does not allow many players to just sit and ramp their economies without being bothered. In many ways non-econ PRTs become more viable in no comms games.
skoormit wrote on Sun, 26 January 2014 09:46
I trust players not to cheat. (Besides, if players are going to cheat in a no-comms game, they will cheat in a comms game as well.)
Cheating is easy enough to discourage by giving players a greater incentive to report others initiating contact than to engage in communication. EX: host changes offending players upload PW, and builds some nice scrap/transport ships, spaces some pop, loads the reward fleet with minerals, and scraps them in orbit of of the reporting players planets...
skoormit wrote on Sun, 26 January 2014 09:46
Runaway winners do not happen most of the time. See my earlier post for an explanation of the strategic reasons for this. This is a thread about strategy implications, not personal preferences, isn't it?
No comms games take on a different kind of diplomacy in the late mid-game. The period before a leading player can break away from the pack is when they have to worry about getting dog-piled. While it might be tempting for players to hit the softest targets, that tactic is likely to paint a bullseye on their ship yards. Avoidance of, and preparation for, mult-front war fighting eats much of the leaders margin when other players are watching.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: No comms games |
Mon, 27 January 2014 10:58 |
|
| m.a@stars |
| Commander |
Messages: 2765
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left | |
|
skoormit wrote on Sun, 26 January 2014 18:46m.a@stars wrote on Sat, 25 January 2014 05:30<roughly: no comms games are terribly unplayable>
What? I said they're more like AI games, and as Altruist writes, those can be fun too. Everybody likes better AIs! 
Quote:Plus you spend more time playing Stars and less time writing emails.
Ahh, yes. That's better than games where lengthy diplomacy starts subtracting to the game instead of adding to it.
Quote:I trust players not to cheat. (Besides, if players are going to cheat in a no-comms game, they will cheat in a comms game as well.)
I used to trust too, with predictable results.  Still, when everybody thinks cheating won't/can't happen and nobody can compare notes, cheaters have it easier. 
Quote:Runaway winners do not happen most of the time.
In my experience the only games where there hasn't been a runaway winner were those with two or more runaway winners that then had to fight it out among themselves. And of course those where the lesser races united to successfully stop the runaway leader. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme! Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | | | | | |
| Re: No comms games |
Mon, 10 February 2014 13:59 |
|
| skoormit |
| Lieutenant |
Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama | |
|
Theory: No comms somewhat mitigates the HE disadvantage of lack of stargates.
Reasoning:
In +comms games, players with gates can focus all of their power on a small number of areas. The classic scenario is to sign NAPs with all of your neighbors except one, and then pound on that neighbor. Since HE goes not have gates, he cannot focus his power nearly as quickly as other players.
In -comms games, players are less able to focus their power in this manner. All borders are tense borders and require some power commitment. Therefore an HE faces less total resistance from any one opponent at any given time.
What we need's a few good taters.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue Apr 23 18:10:06 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
