Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » NAP Violation
Re: NAP Violation |
Sat, 14 May 2011 14:49 |
|
|
vonKreedon wrote on Sun, 15 May 2011 00:06 |
nmid wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 10:50 | I have those 249 chaff and 1 main fleet on a planet in Year 1.
I have to merge them all into the lowest existing fleet number.
The opponent will target that lowest fleet number (the chaff) but when he engages me next turn (Year 2), he'll be hitting my main fleet.
|
If I understand your process correctly you are advocating chaff sweeping that ends with the battle fleet merging with the lowest number chaff at the end of the move. If my understanding is correct, then I believe that this will not work.
1) I calculate the number of chaff needed to sweep the MF to the target.
2) I create a fleet of that number of chaff and send it to the target and then Split All so that all chaff are in fleets of 1.
3) I then make sure that my battle fleet, also moving to the target, has a higher fleet number than all the chaff so that all the chaff move, and impact mines, before my battle fleet.
4) IF I than give the battle fleet merge orders with the lowest numbered chaff I think that I'm likely as not to end up at a piece of salvage in deep space rather than the target since I'm hoping that my chaff get blown up in the MF.
Am I incorrect about this? Will the battle fleet move to the target instead of to the salvage? Even if so, my battle fleet will not be able to merge with the lowest numbered chaff because that fleet number no longer exists and so my battle fleet will still have its high fleet number.
As has been noted by others, the fix to this is to have your sweeper chaff to all go beyond the target rather than to the target.
|
Ah, selective quoting got the better of me. My bad.
This discussion was about target list overloading at one's own planet.
Generally ppl talk about target list overloading on enemy planets or how it could expand into battle board overloading.
The reason we were talking about this varation (of target list overloading at one's own planet) was on account of a past game where a SS was building nubians and wanted to have them merged into an overcloaking fleet.
For more details, the exact post:
neogrendal wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 08:03 |
In another game I inadvertently did the same thing again. I was trying to hide my production of Nubians by maxing my available fleets to 512. By doing so any new production was being merged into overcloakers I had in orbit… but that posed a problem. How do I make sure my Nubians were being merged into the overcloakers. So I had 400 units of split chaff in orbit of a planet that I thought no one was paying attention too. Unfortunately someone noticed and thought I was trying to use the exploit. The host contacted me and I explained what I was doing, he was convinced but I had to move the chaff around. I did managed to hide 200 Nubians before anyone knew I even had the technology to do it. All the more reason not to trust me right?
Regards,
NeoGrendal
|
Also, my simpler explanation was what I understood from the host's mail that was posted here by Blueturbit:
BlueTurbit wrote on Sat, 14 May 2011 08:26 | Well, you can't keep saying "I didn't mean that." You've been playing many years. Especially when it is expressly forbidden by the rules. Lucky you didn't get set to "dead."
What you did twice in a row, at planets that were close together, was make it impossible for me or the Muppets to target your main battle ships at the planets. Only your chaff were visible to target.
Therefore the warning sent immediately to all players by host:
Quote: | Hi all!
If you receive duplicates of this mail, it is because you are playing in more than one of the three games.
One of the players has brought a possible infringement of the rules to my attention. I will not impose a punishment at this time, but I want to clarify the issues involved.
When attacking an enemy planet and crash sweeping the surrounding minefield with chaff, there are two possible rule infringements.
- The chaff arriving safely in orbit at the planet can cause battlefiel |
|
...
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Thu, 12 May 2011 02:56
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Thu, 12 May 2011 07:57
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: mlaub on Fri, 13 May 2011 13:18
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: mlaub on Fri, 13 May 2011 17:20
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Sat, 14 May 2011 13:50
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Sat, 14 May 2011 14:49
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Sat, 14 May 2011 16:10
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Sat, 14 May 2011 18:54
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Sat, 14 May 2011 08:10
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: Azrael on Thu, 12 May 2011 12:23
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Thu, 12 May 2011 18:44
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Thu, 12 May 2011 18:52
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Thu, 12 May 2011 19:09
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Thu, 12 May 2011 18:47
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Thu, 12 May 2011 18:50
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Thu, 12 May 2011 20:26
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Thu, 12 May 2011 21:19
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Thu, 12 May 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Re: NAP Violation
By: nmid on Thu, 12 May 2011 19:07
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat Jun 01 14:40:38 EDT 2024
|