Home » Primary Racial Traits » SS » SS ultimate strategy?
| SS ultimate strategy? |
Fri, 13 December 2002 15:37  |
|
|
|
.ZZZi mentioned this on SBD and I got nicely grilled by several members, I thought I'd post it on here.
Basic idea is u have 1 alliance, one secret alliance and a "mutual" enemy between yourself and your public ally who is actually the afore mentioned secret ally.
You offer your public ally a huge sum of minerals for a large number of warships with X piece of race specific tech.
You send 2 fleets together to the designated drop-off planet. One fleet is full of a huge bomber/warship combo with 98% cloak.
The other is freighters only 75%(minimum for SS) full of COLONISTS.
Upon arrival you bomb your now ex-allies planet and invade full throttle will colonists. The warships he/she gave you are used against him/her.
You now ex-secret ally and now public ally launches a full on assault on the outer lying worlds while your fleet eats away from the inside. with stargates theres also the possibility of your new found ally gating in ships to help with the internal assault.
Now this will cause you to lose alot of faith in the game and people wont trust you. But I can assure this tactic will do the following...
1. Liven up the game.
2. Weaken a potentially strong race.
3. Tip the balance of power. The game will definately move more after such an event.
4. May lose you friends in the stars community. But these are the people who take the game way too seriously so shouldn't be worried about.
5. Give you satisfaction if sucessful
6. Deal you a crushing defeat if it fails.
Thoughts - please post.
Feelings - please post.
Abuse for such a subject - please leave.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Fri, 13 December 2002 18:12  |
|
|
|
Like i said - some people take the game TOO seriously. After all it is just a game. There is nothing to actually gain or lose. To backstab is in human nature - if it is to our gain. To do it in a situation where there is nothing REAL to lose then why not? If the opportunity arises to win a game why not try it?
Anybody (like Blue Turbit) who will never ever ever ever ever trust me in a future game has not gained anything. He has however lost a potential ally, increased his early game difficulty and closed down one diplomatic relation... this is all before the game even starts!!!!
In a stalemate situation, which I have found fairly common, this tactic allows for the game to be taken in a direction it normally would not. Games are supposed to be fun. Grudges, personal vendetta and stalemates are not. To receive a backstab sucks, but to quit because of it shows only one thing...
when you were a child, if your team was losing then you took your ball and went home. Spoil sport.
I'd rather be backstabbed and beaten to a pulp than sit in a game that never ends, never changes and never moves.
I'm not saying by any case I would backstab anyone at every opportunity, this was actually a tactic myself and a friend worked in a game between a group of us who used to play regular. The victim as it happened was a guy who had never been beaten by that point and the tactic itself had been decided upon before the game started - we were tired of his monster CA and wanted to teach him a lesson - it worked. I tried it at a later date with other people - it failed and I got lynched by remaining players, including my supposed secret ally - turns out he backstabbed me and let out my whole plan - I got screwed.
As a secondary note - I don't play SS at all anymore. Only JOAT, AR (trying to learn), IT and IS... occasionally SD.
This was a tactic i have had sucess with and failure, something I thought I might share amongst players who when defeated by an unexpected event congratulate their enemy on their sucess rather tha
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Fri, 13 December 2002 19:30 |
|
|
|
Even in partners in time your partner can still betray you!!!
The game specifies you can only have one person set to ally, the person having already been predetermined.
I don't want to make MY partner paranoid because he should know by now my intentions are to take this partnership to the end, but anybodies partner could betray them. Think about it... your partnership is above most everyone else and the only race that could challenge your supremacy is your partner... double cross and bada bing... you're number 1. Granted it's against the theme and it's counter productive in virtually all situations... but it does make one point... no-one can be 100% trusted. 99% sure, but that 1% of doubt is required. It keeps you sharp and ensure you keep your wits.
It's like sending your race into a war. You have plan A, now u know plan a will work. Your confident in your superiority, you are 100% it will work. Thats fine and dandy if it works, but what if you were wrong???? Where's plan B? wheres the back up? Wheres the sodding cavalry??????????????
I trust all my allies to the same extent as to the damage they could do to me in a single turn. That way if the spit hits the fan then you don't take a hit as badly as it could be... and if they don't betray you then at least you got some defenses incase of a cloaked fleet or a wormhole event or some *other* unexpected surprise.
Anything can happen to anyone. Never be so secure you let your guard down.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Fri, 13 December 2002 19:59 |
|
 UAF commander |
 | Petty Officer 2nd Class |
Messages: 54
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
I think I agree with freakyboy on this one, backstabbing realistic, and can be fun.
If people won't hold grudges, and would know to trust AND keep a watchful eye on what they're doing, things would be more fun and interesting.
The only reason against backstabbing when it can help you win the game, is the next game, and I don't think it should be.
People shouldn't hold grudges from game to game, one play to achieve victory, and should remember that his ally play to achieve his own victory.
I think a more natural game would be one when every player consider backstabbing every turn, and decide in favor or against it, and it's also a much more interesting game  .
But, although all that, people DO hold grudges, and the player community is small. You'll probably play with those people again, and this (Unfortunately) makes backstabbing a very costly idea. I do think it's bad, because the game would be more interesting if people would act as the real race would act when playing, and won't think of their next game too.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Fri, 13 December 2002 21:06 |
|
| zoid |
 | Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| freakyboy wrote on Fri, 13 December 2002 12:37 |
I can assure this tactic will do the following...
1. Liven up the game.
|
I dunno, sounds like a game killer to me. I imagine those who just had their formerly hopeless position bettered by such an act might find this an interesting turn of events, while those who had outperformed everyone else and were winning up to that point would NOT suddenly find things more interesting. And I must say I can't imagine personally deriving satisfaction from sharing victory as the secret ally, knowing that I didn't really have a chance until it had been handed to me by someone elses betrayel. I'm inclined to believe such a game would only be more interesting henceforth to the perpetrator.
| Quote: |
4. May lose you friends in the stars community. But these are the people who take the game way too seriously so shouldn't be worried about.
|
While I think I might fall into the category you just described, I don't think I take the game too seriously. The point of the game is to win. I don't join a game with the intent to only be a spoiler, I actualy want to win. Moreover, if my race proves to be superior in design, and I play it well enough to be in the winning position, I think I'm ENTITLED to the satisfaction of a win, not suddenly be the first person ejected on account of trusting the wrong person who arbitrarily decided to hand the game to a lesser deserving person just to liven things up. And so, I think if I were personally the victim of such a thing, I could never allow myself to trust the same person again in any game. After all, anyone could be betrayed once, and it says nothing about them. But if that person ever trusts the perpetrator again, he MUST be some kinda tard who doesn't learn, IMHO. I'd have a hard time respecting myself if I allowed the same person another opportunity and they backstabbed me again.
I expect my ally to be the one person I can trust. An alliance without trust is a farce. I trust allies completely, and nobody else at all. The only instance I can
...
[Updated on: Fri, 13 December 2002 22:57]
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math?  Ummm, sure!  I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Fri, 13 December 2002 23:34 |
|
| tech25 |
 | Petty Officer 3rd Class |
Messages: 49
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
So, I have a question, a general hypothetical question. If one intends to break an alliance treaty, what are the steps one should follow to make this politicaly palatable? I mean so that you would still be ranked in the game community as a reliable ally? So, is ten turn notice that you are switching to neutral ok? Then how long from nuetral to hostile? Or can that never happen as in : Hey chump, I used you like a pack animal and now I don't need you for the win anymore. So I am going for it alone.
Or, you know what, we don't seem to be getting anywhere together, and JOAT the Fed has made me a better offer so it is time to say goodbye.
As far as Partners in Crime is concerned, we didn't pick our allies. They were picked for us. So, I don't belive that betrayal is a real option in that circumstance.
tech25
[Updated on: Fri, 13 December 2002 23:43]
Anyone can learn from loosing ...
an excepional individual learns from winning
David Drake
Email me: ---tech25@--yahoo.com---Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Fri, 13 December 2002 23:56 |
|
| EDog |
 | Lt. Junior Grade |
Messages: 417
Registered: November 2002
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA | |
|
| tech25 wrote on Fri, 13 December 2002 21:34 |
So, I have a question, a general hypothetical question. If one intends to break an alliance treaty, what are the steps one should follow to make this politicaly palatable? I mean so that you would still be ranked in the game community as a reliable ally? So, is ten turn notice that you are switching to neutral ok? Then how long from nuetral to hostile? Or can that never happen as in : Hey chump, I used you like a pack animal and now I don't need you for the win anymore. So I am going for it alone.
Or, you know what, we don't seem to be getting anywhere together, and JOAT the Fed has made me a better offer so it is time to say goodbye.
|
A lot of players, myself included, will set up alliance pacts or non-aggression treaties with a 5-year or 10-year notification of intent clause. Generally, this means that if at any point you are going to change your relationship with a current ally/non-hostile neutral, you give them fair warning. As long as you abide by this clause, the player who's getting the shaft has no real reason to complain because you've followed the terms as mutually agreed upon. On the other hand, if gives them time to prepare for whatever you may be ready to dish out, so it can't be called a backstab. A notification is a great way to encourage an ally to give you further incentive not to act ("Hey, if I give you 10,000 kT of Boranium, can we still be friends?").
Although it would likely inconvenience me in a game where someone turned against me, I would never hold it against them if they followed the rules of a treaty. I'd even ally with them in a future game, because this method shows that a player can be trusted to act honorably.
EDog
http://ianthealy.com
Born, grew up, became an adventurer
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sat, 14 December 2002 01:46 |
|
| zoid |
| Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| tech25 wrote on Fri, 13 December 2002 21:34 |
A lot of players, myself included, will set up alliance pacts or non-aggression treaties with a 5-year or 10-year notification of intent clause. Generally, this means that if at any point you are going to change your relationship with a current ally/non-hostile neutral, you give them fair warning. As long as you abide by this clause, the player who's getting the shaft has no real reason to complain because you've followed the terms as mutually agreed upon. On the other hand, if gives them time to prepare for whatever you may be ready to dish out, so it can't be called a backstab. A notification is a great way to encourage an ally to give you further incentive not to act ("Hey, if I give you 10,000 kT of Boranium, can we still be friends?").
|
The first time I allied with another player in "Stars!" we worked out a detailed contract covering every obligation and termination details (like lawyers with a prenuptial agreement) in advance via email.  It was rather lengthy and took days of correspondence to hammer out the details, as memory serves. What can I say, it worked out fine, and it was in fact even fun, since we did it in roleplaying fashion. Anyways, if that's how you do it, it's all crystal clear to everyone what constitutes honourable behaviour. Stick to the rules and you're a good guy, abandon them and you're not.
| Quote: |
Although it would likely inconvenience me in a game where someone turned against me, I would never hold it against them if they followed the rules of a treaty. I'd even ally with them in a future game, because this method shows that a player can be trusted to act honorably.
|
True, but if a treaty ended prematurely in two or more games with the same person, I just MIGHT opt for trying a different ally if one was available, depending on my own needs. Would you? Not a manner of honor in such a case; it's more like preferring a committed marriage over shacking up for a while.
...
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math? Ummm, sure! I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| | |
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sat, 14 December 2002 07:59 |
|
|
|
I've said it before on the forum and i'll say it again. Primary goal in stars is to have fun, second is winning.
If you aren't having fun you generally don't play.
But lots of people who never win any games play lots.
Therefore you play for fun, but you'd like to win. If you set out solely to win and this opportunity arises why not grasp it if winning is so important?
Apelord was right - backstabbing is part and parcel. But everyone else is right too in that it shouldn't happen. But what IF the alliance you agreed to was the begginning of putting this plan into motion? i.e. Player C is under attack from player B. You offer player C help by performing this action on player B. Player B welcomes the supposed "help" and as such gets screwed because he played right into the hands of player A and C? Is that wrong? Player A and C made the alliance before a and b did.
Yeah sure if I backstab anyone I expect more caution from their part in the next game we played, but to outright say "no i dont trust you" is just childish. Sure if I got backstabbed I'd be miffed, but on the other hand my whole game would change and as such I'd be facing the same galaxy, new situation and would love the challenge. If I backstabbed I'd always say sorry. Anyone who I had an alliance with outside this pretence I normally set up a 5 year break down of the alliance and add any additional time for the removal of anything that should be removed from each others space. I wouldn't backstab anyone, only someone who was causing me crap. I've played games where I've had an ally declare war and cause such a rucas in the game that I ended up picking up after them and defending them and making enemies myself - he actually backstabbed me in the end (and in the next game our joint alliance won) and I lost very quickly, given a second chance I'd have cut the cord and let him rot.
I only suggested the strategy to the forum - I never at any point described the diplomatic circumstances around it. If never told the age of the
...
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
| |
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sat, 14 December 2002 12:19 |
|
| Apelord |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 99
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
| freakyboy wrote on Sat, 14 December 2002 05:59 |
Yeah sure if I backstab anyone I expect more caution from their part in the next game we played, but to outright say "no i dont trust you" is just childish.
|
Everyone has their own views, but bear in mind that a typical game of Stars! is an enormous investment in time. To refuse to ally with a known back-stabber is perfectly reasonable especially if you figure that you might get screwed by this individual out of 80 hours or more. Say you worked for someone for two weeks and they didn't pay you but rather screwed you out of it. Would you come back for another two weeks?
On the flip-side known back-stabbers actually make reasonable allies. 1) They can't generally find anyone else to ally with so will bend over backwards for any sort of help, 2) they don't expect as much due to #1, 3) you are pretty certain you know how they are going to behave and can limit your exposure accordingly, 4) and you know you should...
[Updated on: Sat, 14 December 2002 12:20]
"The object of war is not to die
for your country but to make
the other bastard die for his" -George PattonReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sat, 14 December 2002 12:40 |
|
| BlueTurbit |
 | Lt. Commander
RIP
BlueTurbit died Oct. 20, 2011 |
Messages: 835
Registered: October 2002
Location: Heart of Texas | |
|
| Quote: |
I've said it before on the forum and i'll say it again. Primary goal in stars is to have fun, second is winning
|
That is your opinion, others disagree. Primary goal in all games is to have fun winning, plan B, have fun losing.
| Quote: |
If you aren't having fun you generally don't play.
But lots of people who never win any games play lots.
Therefore you play for fun, but you'd like to win.
|
Some people play strategy games for the challenge. If they have fun doing this, this is great. It may be it is just an intellectual challenge to them. Some people try even harder to win if they lose all the time, as the challenge becomes greater.
| Quote: |
If you set out solely to win and this opportunity arises why not grasp it if winning is so important?
|
Some people prefer to maintain integrity. Backstabbing is not an ethical way to succeed. The greater challenge is to win with integrity.
| Quote: |
Apelord was right - backstabbing is part and parcel.
|
Apelord is lord of the apes. Myself, I generally do not listen to apes as they have "evolved" too slowly to keep up with the rest of the species. My Lord says to me, integrity counts for much. And he says he made the apes.
Part and parcel means - an essential or integral component. Backstabbing is not "essential" anymore than "cheating" or "quitting early" is. Backstabbing is a practice that is used by very few players and usually has negative results, as Apelord pointed out in another post.
| Quote: |
But what IF the alliance you agreed to was the begginning of putting this plan into motion? i.e. Player C is under attack from player B. You offer player C help by performing this action on player B. Player B welcomes the supposed "help" and as such gets screwed because he played right into the hands of player A and C? Is that wrong? Player A and C made the alliance before a and b did.
|
I would say player A is wrong. As player A made two alliances. In making an alliance with B he should have pointed out to B that he had
...
BlueTurbit Country/RockReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sat, 14 December 2002 13:44 |
|
| UAF commander |
| Petty Officer 2nd Class |
Messages: 54
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
| Quote: |
If a thief comes into your house and steals from you, you don't give him the keys to your house?
|
But you look at this the wrong way. It's not a case of a simple thief. You know the guy would backstab you if it pays off, BUT this mean that you just need to keep and eye on him and make sure that it won't pay off, OR maybe make it pay off to you and backstab him. This is why I think the idea can make the game more intresting. If people would realize that any ally would backstab them, and that they can backstab any ally, the game political and diplomatic manuvers would be much more intresting.
Winning won't only be good battle strategy and ship making, but good diplomacy and the ability to make the right political moves "dirty" or not, would also decide who win the game.
The real world is full of backstabbers, and you still see alliances everywhere, because you need allies, and if you need to keep and eye on them, then things are more intresting.
That is,at least my opinion.
But as I said before, unless most people would see things this way, and understand that doing what best for your race is more natural then dying with your ally, backstabbing is likley to condemn one forever.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sat, 14 December 2002 14:16 |
|
|
|
First, everyone is entitled to their opinion. But diplomatics are part and parcel of stars - as such alliances made and broke are too part and parcel.
Second, the player abc thing was to make the point that the alliance between A and B was never a genuine alliance, mearly a ploy between true allies to gain the upper hand in a situation that would normall be impossible.
To not learn from experience IS foolish, but not childish. Children learn faster than adults.
Apelord may be lord of the apes - but apes are bigger and stronger than me so I generally wouldn't accuse them of being under-evolved.
I'd say sorry to someone who took offense from being backstabbed simply because they took offense. It's a game and if someone gets upset because of something I did I'd feel guilty.
But before everyone here jumps the gun and decides to pull out of every game they are playing with me...
how many of you who have read this and have played in game with me have known me to....
1) drop out
2) cheat
3) backstab
4) do pretty much anything indecent.
The reasons why are simple - too many people out there who would lynch me and leave me playing with the AI for a long time.
I just like to play devils advocate and say what shouldn't be said.
Cheers for the grilling though.
[Updated on: Sat, 14 December 2002 14:17] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sat, 14 December 2002 14:22 |
|
| zoid |
| Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| freakyboy wrote on Sat, 14 December 2002 04:59 |
I've said it before on the forum and i'll say it again. Primary goal in stars is to have fun, second is winning.
|
Well, I'm not sure this is entirely accurate, because I'm not sure winning and having fun are something you prioritize on the same level like that. Every game is played to have fun, but only if everyone has a common goal to win. Having fun is indeed the "point" of the game in the first place, but would it be fun if nobody (or perhaps only one) were trying to win? I can have fun in this FORUM without trying to win, but it's not a game. In a game you have fun by trying to win. Having fun happens, but I don't see that as the primary goal. Winning is the primary goal, and fun happens along the way whether you win or not.
| Quote: |
Therefore you play for fun, but you'd like to win.
|
I disagree. Everyone plays to win, therefore having fun so long as the playing field is level. Something eliminating your ability to win that you have no chance to prevent diminishes your fun. How fun would it be in a "One World Wonder" game if your homeworld went supernova? Not much, because such an event without warning doesn't provide any challenge to the victim.
| Quote: |
If you set out solely to win and this opportunity arises why not grasp it if winning is so important?
|
The golden rule, do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. I'm not religious, but I realize the wisdom of this philosophy. Without it, civilization is impossible. You want to have fun, you allow others to have fun by treating them the way you wish to be treated in return. I wouldn't assume the person you betray is having fun. He has no defense against betrayel other than not trusting you in the first place, which limits or defeats the point of the alliance in the first place.
| Quote: |
But what IF the alliance you agreed to was the begginning of putting this plan into motion? i.e. Player C is under attack from player B. You offer player C help by performing this action on player B. Pl |
...
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math? Ummm, sure! I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sat, 14 December 2002 14:39 |
|
|
|
ZZZid this strategy a couple of times a while ago. I don't play SS anymore - it's too weak a PRT.
Also regardless of who you are SS tends to get lynched anyway.
I'm totally not religious but believe in alot of the basic lessons. But there is a huge difference between games and reality. I tend to keep each one seperate.
I think everyone who has read this should do 2 things in every game they are in and every game they will play in the future.
1. keep an eye on your ally.
2. keep an eye out for opportunity.
I don't do this strategy because I'm beyond it. I'm do my damnedest to learn AR at the moe. But this was a strategy that became apparent during my time playing SS.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: SS ultimate strategy? |
Sat, 14 December 2002 16:55 |
|
| zoid |
| Ensign |
Messages: 348
Registered: December 2002
Location: Murray, KY - USA | |
|
| UAF commander wrote on Sat, 14 December 2002 10:44 |
The real world is full of backstabbers, and you still see alliances everywhere
|
Actually, I don't think it's that common, but that COULD be because I habitually jumped out the window after rolecall in middleschool history classes thinking it was cool to ditch. Name some such historical instances of treachery at the state level, please. As lame as I am in history, I'm thinking I could probably come up with five historical alliances (and probably many more) wherein there is complete trust that each party is on the same side, for every single instance of state treachery that you can provide.
And nobody would suggest that the governmental leader of any such state level treachery should ever be trusted by the victim state leader again. What keeps treachery rare at the state level is the very same thing that keeps it rare in "Stars". The prosecution rests. 
I'M NOT AN EXPERT AND I'M OFTEN PROVEN WRONG. TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU READ MY POSTS.
Math? Ummm, sure! I do FREESTYLE math.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 26 22:06:15 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: SS ultimate strategy?
