Home World Forum
Stars! AutoHost web forums

Jump to Stars! AutoHost


 
 
Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping?
Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Sun, 02 November 2008 08:47 Go to next message
magic9mushroom is currently offline magic9mushroom

 
Commander

Messages: 1180
Registered: May 2008

Your thoughts?[ 19 votes ]
1. I like it. 11 / 58%
2. I don't like it. 4 / 21%
3. I think it's interesting, but don't have strong feelings on it 4 / 21%
4. Who cares? 0 / 0%

What do you think of the universe option?

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Sun, 02 November 2008 14:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
gible

 
Commander

Messages: 1343
Registered: November 2002
Location: Hamilton, New Zealand

Galaxy clumping is better for races with pen scanners or ramscoops (FM included)

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Sun, 02 November 2008 17:27 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mynd is currently offline Mynd

 
Crewman 1st Class

Messages: 35
Registered: June 2008

Galaxy clumping is also useful for helping to prevent someone from not getting any worlds nearby that are useable and having to overextend. Heaven knows I've gone through that, and it's not all that great.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Sun, 02 November 2008 17:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
AlexTheGreat is currently offline AlexTheGreat

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 661
Registered: May 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Gible's point is a good one but it also depends upon the game/scenario, particularly in regard to distance between stars/clumps.

All things equal I like clumping.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Sun, 02 November 2008 19:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Coyote is currently offline Coyote

 
Lt. Commander

Messages: 906
Registered: November 2002
Location: Pacific NW

I like it mainly for variety, it doesn't seem to get used much.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Mon, 03 November 2008 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
vonKreedon is currently offline vonKreedon

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA
I really like Galaxy Clumping for two reasons:
1 - I almost always use the FM, and with GC my scouts can pretty much go forever.
2 - GC creates more "terrain" features. There are more gaps and strategic choke points. It's easier/more important to take a cluster and try and hold it than it is w/o GC.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Mon, 03 November 2008 10:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altruist is currently offline Altruist

 
Commander

Messages: 1050
Registered: August 2005
Location: Berlin

I like to play IT, so I like galaxy clumping.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Tue, 04 November 2008 01:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Xardre is currently offline Xardre

 
Master Chief Petty Officer

Messages: 100
Registered: June 2005
Love it for SD minefeilds....nice clear channels of detinations.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Tue, 04 November 2008 16:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
skoormit is currently offline skoormit

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama
vonKreedon wrote on Mon, 03 November 2008 09:25

I
2 - GC creates more "terrain" features. There are more gaps and strategic choke points. It's easier/more important to take a cluster and try and hold it than it is w/o GC.


I disagree.

With GC, the only feature is a clump. The number of planets varies, as does the distance between clumps, but there is very little texture to the map.

Without GC, the map is more varied, and more strategic analysis is required.



What we need's a few good taters.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Tue, 04 November 2008 16:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
skoormit is currently offline skoormit

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama
I generally don't like GC for a couple reasons.

One is that the map is less interesting. The clumps make tactical strategy trivial, since planets are either in a clump you control or they are not. If they are, you can do what you want with the planet. If they are not, then you leave the planet alone. In order to gain ground, you must conquer clumps of planets. Without GC, the question of who can exert influence on a particular planet is a lot less binary.

The other reason I don't like GC is that it tends to reward already powerful race choices: JOAT, IT, and IFE. JOAT gets to use their penscanners more efficiently when scouting. The fuel mizer gets to refuel when planet hopping in a clump. IT benefits by needing only one gate per clump, since all other worlds in the clump will be a single year jump from the gate.



What we need's a few good taters.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Wed, 05 November 2008 12:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Altruist is currently offline Altruist

 
Commander

Messages: 1050
Registered: August 2005
Location: Berlin
skoormit wrote on Tue, 04 November 2008 22:31

I generally don't like GC for a couple reasons.

One is that the map is less interesting. The clumps make tactical strategy trivial, since planets are either in a clump you control or they are not.


Good point.
So, until the next good argument, I'll change my opinion to: GC is boring.
*grin

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Thu, 06 November 2008 07:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2755
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
skoormit wrote on Tue, 04 November 2008 22:22

With GC, the only feature is a clump. The number of planets varies, as does the distance between clumps, but there is very little texture to the map.

Without GC, the map is more varied, and more strategic analysis is required.

Absolutely. Nod Deal



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Thu, 06 November 2008 10:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
vonKreedon is currently offline vonKreedon

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA
I don't see the evidence that there is more "terrain" without GC than with. I just created to medium packed games, one with and one without GC just to be sure I'm not delirious. The GC map has far more empty spaces and choke points than the the much more homogenously spread non-GC map. Gaps give more definable/defendable borders, approximating rivers. The nearest planets on either side of sizable gaps create strategic choke points that one must hold in order to advance/defend. The clusters create strategic areas of operation. Without the gaps, choke points, and clusters one is left responding to just the enemies fleets and the quality (both hab and mineral) of individual planets. With all of those terrain features one can better strategically anticipate an enemy; the position of a planet may become as important as its quality. Clusters also make it much easier to draw up operational plans as one can target a cluster or mega-cluster as the operational axis and then maintain that focus even as the non-critical details of the ongoing operation change.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Thu, 06 November 2008 11:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
skoormit is currently offline skoormit

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 665
Registered: July 2008
Location: Alabama
vonKreedon wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 09:49

I don't see the evidence that there is more "terrain" without GC than with. I just created to medium packed games, one with and one without GC just to be sure I'm not delirious. The GC map has far more empty spaces and choke points than the the much more homogenously spread non-GC map. Gaps give more definable/defendable borders, approximating rivers. The nearest planets on either side of sizable gaps create strategic choke points that one must hold in order to advance/defend. The clusters create strategic areas of operation. Without the gaps, choke points, and clusters one is left responding to just the enemies fleets and the quality (both hab and mineral) of individual planets. With all of those terrain features one can better strategically anticipate an enemy; the position of a planet may become as important as its quality. Clusters also make it much easier to draw up operational plans as one can target a cluster or mega-cluster as the operational axis and then maintain that focus even as the non-critical details of the ongoing operation change.


Yes. Clusters give you clear gaps and choke points. That's kind of my point. Without clusters, you don't have such obvious "features," so your tactical analysis must be a lot less binary. Without clear choke points, you don't know where the enemy will come from. You must do more scouting, prepare for more contingencies. Without clear gaps, borders are not so easily defined. Maybe I can take that planet, maybe not. It's not nearly as clear cut.

The position of a planet is always more important than the quality, by far. With clusters, it's a lot easier to define a planet's position relative to opposing spheres of influence. It's either in a cluster you can control, or it's in a cluster your enemy controls. Without clusters, it's not that easy to decide. In your view, this simplicity increases strategical complexity, since the clusters "create strategic areas of operation." In my view, the clusters detract from strategical complexity precisely because they are creating these areas for you. Without those areas, you have a lot more interesting decisions to make about what potential choke points there are, what gaps are significant enough to defend across, etc.

Now, if non-clustered maps were purely homogenous and all planets were spaced evenly from all other planets, that would be boring. It would be like playing on a grid. But non-clustered Stars maps have plenty of variation among planet placements, giving plenty of opportunities for interesting decisions about how to go about consolidating influence over an area.



What we need's a few good taters.

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Thu, 06 November 2008 11:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
vonKreedon is currently offline vonKreedon

 
Lieutenant

Messages: 610
Registered: March 2003
Location: Seattle, WA USA
skoormit wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 08:08

Yes. Clusters give you clear gaps and choke points. That's kind of my point. Without clusters, you don't have such obvious "features," so your tactical analysis must be a lot less binary. Without clear choke points, you don't know where the enemy will come from. You must do more scouting, prepare for more contingencies. Without clear gaps, borders are not so easily defined. Maybe I can take that planet, maybe not. It's not nearly as clear cut.


Our difference of opinion on GC seems to come down to either liking the presence of well defined terrain features or preferring a more chaotic strategic environment. I, coming from a love of tactical to operational level gaming, really like terrain. I like that it forces choices on the combatants. I like that it creates predictable vectors for offensives. I like that while the vector may be predictable, a clever opponent may find a back door vector I didn't recognize in my focus on the obvious.

For me Stars! already has so much strategic micro-management that I almost need the reduction operational level micro-management that GC provides. Also, because diplomacy is one of my core strengths as a player, I like the clearly defined border features that GC provides.


[Updated on: Thu, 06 November 2008 11:41]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Fri, 07 November 2008 05:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2755
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
vonKreedon wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 17:39

Our difference of opinion on GC seems to come down to either liking the presence of well defined terrain features or preferring a more chaotic strategic environment. I, coming from a love of tactical to operational level gaming, really like terrain.

Sure, clumping gives you a "nicer" more regular terrain. Wide empty borders also help fend off planet-hoppers and surprise attacks (packets, cloaking). You got no backdoors, no bridges, no wide swaths of stars, no natural "routes", no neck-breathing neighbors, no nothing. Confused

Just regularly spaced clumps, like in a checkers game. Sherlock

Me I prefer chess. Twisted Evil



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? Fri, 07 November 2008 05:49 Go to previous message
m.a@stars is currently offline m.a@stars

 
Commander

Messages: 2755
Registered: October 2004
Location: Third star to the left
vonKreedon wrote on Thu, 06 November 2008 16:49

I don't see the evidence that there is more "terrain" without GC than with. I just created to medium packed games, one with and one without GC just to be sure I'm not delirious.

Your sample is too small. Create 20 of each. Every non-GC map will be unique, full of possibilities and challenges. Fire bounce All GC maps are exactly alike. Yuck

Of course it's all more evident for the larger size maps. Pirate



So many Stars, so few Missiles!

In space no one can hear you scheme! Deal

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic: Game concept: Clan Wars
Next Topic: Game idea: the Wormgate Corporation
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sat Jul 20 09:24:16 EDT 2019