Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » New Game Announcements » New Game - (Advanced) - "Enemies"
| New Game - (Advanced) - "Enemies" |
Tue, 21 February 2006 19:27  |
|
 Kang |
 | Senior Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 87
Registered: April 2003 | |
|
I have just finished a game, and as usual, at the conclusion of the game the grumblings over alliances and joint win/solo win discussion has again surfaced. We have all been there, and we all know that solo victories are virtually un-heard of.
How can we change this?
Well, I don't know for sure, but I do have an idea for a new game where alliances/cooperation would be much harder.
Here is the drawback... you need to be honest and you need to trust your enemies to also be honest.
The basic idea is you have NO private communications with your neighbors, and they are all set to enemy, and you must attack all races whenever you have a ship with a weapon at the same location. (Attack everybody orders)
Ideally you do not know who the other players are..
In-Game communications sent to "Everybody" are allowed.
Single player Victory ONLY! Winner by consent of majority of remaining players. Host to moderate this if required.
Game parameters:
HOSTED on AUTOHOST
Host will NOT be playing 
GENERATION:
2400 until 2440 - 5 generations/week at 0000 GMT (M-F)
At the request of one or more participants after 2440 - 3 Generations/week at 0000GMT
(M-W-F)
NUMBER OF PLAYERS: Up to 16
PLAYER SKILL LEVEL: Advanced (High intermediate and above)
UNIVERSE SIZE:
8-12 players -Small/Normal
Over 12 - Small/Dense
PLAYER POSITIONS: Distant
OPTIONS:
Slower Tech Advances
Accelerated BBS Play
Galaxy Clumping
No Public player Score* (See note on victory conditions below)
PRT: CA is banned
LRT: no limitations
VICTORY CONDITIONS:
(Victory conditions are being set to activate Public Player scores ONLY. They are not an indication of victory and races should not be constructed in order to meet these conditions!)
I want this to give players an indication where they stand if one player starts to pull significantly ahead, or at the latest when BB's can be expected from your neighbors.
OWNS 20% OF ALL PLANETS
ATTAINS TECH 13 IN 2 FIELDS
EXCEEDS SECOND PLACE SCORE BY 40%
Standard notes...
Cheating is not allowed... you should all be aware what constitutes cheating by now... 
Chaff is a tactic not a cheat, 
Splitting a fleet to avoid pursuit is a tactic,
Chaff sweeping is a tactic unless it allows a fleet to miss battle at it's destination.(Battle board overload) 
 Splitting fleets to a single destination to ensure the highest number cannot be targetted is a cheat, not a tactic. (i.e. - Having greater than 100 fleets at the destination so that the largest number is not able to be targetted..)
Now for the additional rules!
1st - Submit interest in this game to me via e-mail or PM, do NOT! post your interest in this game to this forum!
Do not send races until a call for races is received.
2) - All players must have all other players set as enemy at all times.
3) Battle orders on all armed ships must be Attack "Neutrals and enemies" or attack "everyone". (These are the same when everyone is set as enemy..)
4) - In-Game communication can be sent only if it is sent to "Everybody"
5) - E-Mail messages between players is NOT allowed. (Here is the “Trust” part.)
6) - Tech trade by Wolf/Lamb arrangement or by pop-drop is not allowed.
7) Race names which are identifiable to a single person (such as "Rush'n", "Happies" or "Litigators") are strongly discouraged, as is using common Nick names such as “Kang” “Sinicalidealist” etc are also discouraged to keep the identity of players secret.
I would like to start this by Mid-March.
Send me an e-mail if interested to: bchoitzATcybertrailsDOTcom
or send a PM to me.
Comments (and criticism) on this idea are certainly welcome.
Kang
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game - (Advanced) - "Enemies" |
Tue, 21 February 2006 19:46  |
|
|
|
| Quote: |
do NOT! post your interest in this game to this forum!
... Comments (and criticism) on this idea are certainly welcome
|
If I have misread this and you don't want comments at all here but rather emailed, suggest you ask for topic to be locked.
IMO trust is not a big issue, we already give same sort of trust to "no pre-game alliances".
With the size of your universe, planet draw/luck becomes a big issue.... one option I have been toying with is all players restricted to 3i or 2i with all planets green (with restrictions on HE and AR) giving much more consistant planet draws at cost of slow growth.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New Game - (Advanced) - "Enemies" |
Wed, 22 February 2006 00:57 |
|
| Sr.Seven |
 | Petty Officer 1st Class |
Messages: 67
Registered: January 2006 | |
|
Speaking for myself, I hate alliance victories. It is not that this is "wrong" in some moral sense, but rather it is anti-climactic when the no 1 and no 2 economies declare "we are allies" and then "we win as none dare oppose both of us". If you are the no 3 or no 4 economy and were looking to move up when the inevitable conflict between nos 1 and 2 occurred, you feel just a bit cheated. . .
Part of the problem is that the existing ranking system treats all members of a victorious alliance equally as winners, and so encourages alliance behavior. Part of the problem is that when games start to run long, players start to drop, and given some of the gen schedules (some generating less than 5 times per week) games can last a long LONG time.
Personally, I find small/dense to be a bit cramped, though it could lead to a quick resolution (pre 2490, though with the proposed gen schedule, the game is likely to last 6 mos.) The size makes 1WW hab settings _almost_ playable though. . .
Your rules do cut out some of the subtleties including especially cloaked tactics. . .
I like what you are trying to do with this, but wonder if perhaps there isn’t a better way?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game - (Advanced) - "Enemies" |
Wed, 22 February 2006 02:58 |
|
| iztok |
 | Commander |
Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Kang wrote on Wed, 22 February 2006 01:27 |
8-12 players -Small/Normal
|
That makes 10-15 planets per player - a very crowded game. The JoaT will have BIG advantage here, so I'd suggest handicaping them with mandatory no NAS.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Wed, 22 February 2006 02:58] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: New Game - (Advanced) - "Enemies" |
Wed, 22 February 2006 12:54 |
|
| Kang |
| Senior Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 87
Registered: April 2003 | |
|
| LEit wrote on Tue, 21 February 2006 19:55 |
Personally I don't see what's wrong with having an alliance in a strategy game. An alliance doesn't preculde having one winner only. But, that's not really the discussion here...
|
I do not think alliances are wrong, but the idea here is to get people with a race design and mindset of self reliance, and trust nobody.
| Quote: |
| Kang wrote on Tue, 21 February 2006 19:27 |
3) Battle orders on all armed ships must be Attack "Neutrals and enemies" or attack "everyone". (These are the same when everyone is set as enemy..)
|
This will prevent cloaked sweeping, where you send in a cloaked sweeper with orders to not sweep untill it gets very close, and then it pulls the whole field down with no warning. You might consider an exception to this rule: small fleets cloaked to over 80% are allowed to set orders to attack no one. (but should have primary target of armed ships, so if some one does attack them, they will fight back).
|
That is a good point that I had not considered. I'll think some more on that issue, but don't want to make the rules too complicated, or create a loophole for exploitation.
Perhaps something like "Ships may have alternate battle orders set to: None/Disengage, Minimize damage to self, and Attack Nobody
This will put them at a disadvantage while sneaking in to sweep down a field, but would not prevent this tactic.
| Quote: |
I would still suggest that victory require > 2/3 (or perhaps even more) of active players. Also, you could make things interesting, by requiring all votes to be sent as ingame messages to everyone. Then you know who is voting against you and can wipe them out to remove their vote.
|
Generally by the point that others are calling for a vote to end the game the winner is fairly well known, Certainly if the 1st ranked player is still being contested by the second ranked player it would be wrong to end the game for those two. How complicated does it need to be? Mutual consent of the 1-4th ranked players?
I really doubt this will be an issue.
Kang
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game - (Advanced) - "Enemies" |
Wed, 22 February 2006 13:03 |
|
| Kang |
| Senior Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 87
Registered: April 2003 | |
|
| iztok wrote on Wed, 22 February 2006 00:58 |
Hi!
That makes 10-15 planets per player - a very crowded game. The JoaT will have BIG advantage here, so I'd suggest handicaping them with mandatory no NAS.
BR, Iztok
|
Yep, with somewhat crowded universe, and slower tech and no allies it should get nasty quicker, and JOAT will have some definite advantages. I thought of banning them altogether, but in the end hoped that the players entering the game would evaluate their skills and set an appropriate challenge for themselves. So, if you enter the game, be forewarned that the JOAT's with NAS will probably be out there.
Kang
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Game - (Advanced) - "Enemies" |
Thu, 23 February 2006 04:21 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1207
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Kang wrote on Wed, 22 February 2006 19:03 |
...hoped that the players entering the game would evaluate their skills and set an appropriate challenge for themselves.
|
It is a single-winner game, and you hope I'd cripple myself with chosing non-optimal race, giving the victory to the one who doesn't 
OK,  I'm exaggerating a bit, but that's my strong opinion. I wouldn't expect lots of other players thinking any different.
| Quote: |
6) - Tech trade by Wolf/Lamb arrangement or by pop-drop is not allowed.
|
So the only tech trade permitted is scrapping at other's planet? IMO W/L would be more thematic with "all enemies" approach.
With such a small number of planets and "all enemies", they can not trade Orbital Adjusters of give free terra with them. Since you allow JoaT with NAS (IMO much stronger with these game settins than CA), you could allow also the CA. Maybe just demand no OBRM for them. Who would run remote miners in such a crowded game anyway?
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Thu, 23 February 2006 04:31] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| |
  |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon May 13 09:17:49 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
