| Coordinated-attack |
Thu, 27 August 2009 09:02  |
|
 Sully |
 | Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 39
Registered: January 2004 | |
|
What is the definition of Coordinated Attacks?
In my present game there is a limit of 3 players within any alliance.
Last turn I attacked an enemy planet & a player that I’m neutral with attacked the same planet.
My battle orders are to attack enemies only. The other player has 2 other allies & the same battle
orders.
The attack on this planet was not disused between myself & the other player.
I’m now being penalized do to a coordinated attack.
I’m not sure how to prosed? No coordination took place. I’m I supposed to stay away from my
enemies planets incase another player happens to show up?
What Constitutes a Coordinated Attack??
[Updated on: Thu, 27 August 2009 09:54] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Coordinated-attack |
Thu, 27 August 2009 19:16  |
|
|
|
I am the host of the game in question (All Quiet).
This is the explaination I gave to Sully in an email (Sully's post was before I sent the email):
The main reason for the penalty was the fact that the combined attack was predictable. Had I seen no evidence from your view that the Bugs were about to attack Slick my decision would have been different.
The evidence I saw was:
Most of the planets in the Slick cluster are green to you. Slick is not.
Judging on the approach trajectory of your fleet, Underdog was the original target & that is green.
The Bug fleet that was visible to the you was headed towards Slick so it would be tempting to join in that attack. The visible Bug fleet included only 18 nubs but there were a lot of bombers & chaff so an attack looked possible if not probable. Though I'm not saying that you deliberately decided to "support" the Bug fleet (maybe because it didn't look all that overwhelming), you should have seen what was likely.
I repeat that I'm not saying that your action was deliberate but:
It is quite possible to make a deliberate combined attack while making it look accidental.
In other cases an opportunity of convenience might be perceived whereby a combined attack would be of advantage with no discussion at all. A spontaneous decision.
There needs to be a deterent so that this is not considered to be something that people can get away with without a problem.
While we decided earlier in the game that planning the carving up of space was not allowable I suggest that, if you see the possibility that a combined attack is possible at a particular planet, you check with the other race(s). A message such as "It appears that you may be about to attack planet X. Can the confirm or otherwise?" would be fine. If in doubt, don't attack that planet. Of course this applies only to the "JOAT" alliance to you since that is the only 3-member alliance. You may also fight with JOAT alliance members if it's at your own planet.
Does that explain my decision & thinking?
Despite the fact that I saw no evidence of any Bug intention to combine with the Rancor in attack, they were also penalised (must move all ships 101ly+ from the cluster. Cannot attack that cluster for 4 years. Attacks currently occuring at planets outside the cluster but within the ban area may continue).
IMO the Rancor should have known better so were also banned for one year.
Hosting is usually not all that hard but this decision was (in fact this game has been a horror from a hosting pov).
Edit: in red-orange
[Updated on: Thu, 27 August 2009 19:20] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Coordinated-attack |
Fri, 28 August 2009 23:43 |
|
|
|
| slimdrag00n wrote on Fri, 28 August 2009 20:31 |
I shouldn't butt in but read everything... The host even said he didnt really have hard evidence that he coordinated his attack. So penalizing him I think is a bad call. Warning would have been better.
Just hope im never forced to make a decision like that..
|
Thx for your input Slim.
The warning is in the rule & has been repeated during the game. How many warnings is necessary?
If I warn one player then all players will expect to be warned again first (& thus get away with it once).
If I'd had hard proof of a coordinated attack the penalty would have been much harsher! 
[Updated on: Fri, 28 August 2009 23:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Coordinated-attack |
Sat, 29 August 2009 14:03 |
|
| Sully |
| Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 39
Registered: January 2004 | |
|
Three or four years before one of my dreads intercepted a Eagle Sweeper, the Alpheus did as well. I would consider this to be a predictable response on the Alpheus's part but I wasn't going to take it for granted that he would react that way. I would have never thought that this was a coordinated attack.
I guess the problem is that "I" have Never considered the possibility of a " coordinated attack " at all. I've never adjusted my attack plan to account for it. This has never happened before to me so it’s simply something I've never thought able.
So now I have to inform other neutral races in the area of possible attacks, another words: what my intensions are. This could greatly compromise my game if they feel they need to pass on this info (in theory).
also: wouldn't sharing this info directly have a more profound effect on the game & actually result in actual 'coordinated attacks'?
Which is the lesser of the two evils?? Which one has a smaller imprint on the game?
[Updated on: Sat, 29 August 2009 14:49] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Coordinated-attack |
Sat, 29 August 2009 22:25 |
|
|
|
| Sully wrote on Sat, 29 August 2009 14:03 |
So now I have to inform other neutral races in the area of possible attacks, another words: what my intensions are. This could greatly compromise my game if they feel they need to pass on this info (in theory).
also: wouldn't sharing this info directly have a more profound effect on the game & actually result in actual 'coordinated attacks'?
Which is the lesser of the two evils?? Which one has a smaller imprint on the game?
|
You only need to check with a 3-member alliance & there is only one, the JOAT alliance. If you turn up at a planet where the JOAT alliance is not present you have no problem since neither sides of the battle involves more than 3 players, including the participants' allies.
The alliance limit rule is for the purpose of balance as is the associated "no coordination" rule. As a privateer there is also a special rule exempting you when the battle is at your planet (an unallied race may seek help from other alliances for the purpose of defending their planets).
Slim,
I did penalise both attacking races. I studied the situation for around 3 hours, went for a couple walks while I made my deliberation & drunk a lot of coffee before making a very difficult decision. There was a fair bit of evidence that indicated one side (Rancor/Sully) should have predicted a possible combined attack but nothing at all to indicate that possibility on the other (Bugs/Raindancer). Hence a small additional penalty for the Rancor (a one year ban).
Anyway, whether I made a good or bad decision I did what I thought was right & proper. It's done now & the game has progressed. I hope I do not have to go through this anguish again.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Coordinated-attack |
Sun, 30 August 2009 08:29 |
|
| Eagle of Fire | 
 | Lt. Commander |
Messages: 809
Registered: December 2008
Location: GMT -5 | |
|
I think the reason why Alex did rule out something against those two races is because there is a whole lot of history which come from way longer before the incident.
First, one of the two races concerned already broke the rules once and got away with it. How many times can we expect -Rancor- to break the rules (even if it is unintentional) without getting rulled against him?
The Bugs are the main race who harbored -Rancor- in their territory to allow them to grow back their strenght and get back in the fight against the Fornaxians and the Lurkers. So far so good, you will say... And I'd say the same, except that there is a rule in the game which says "3 players alliance max"... And that since Bugs alliance since then grew to the size of 3, they can't participate in any battle in which -Rancor- also participate offensively without being flagged as a 4 players alliance.
The Bugs also offered to all other players not so long ago that we drop the alliance size rules. It always been clear for me that an intentional attempt to circumvent the problem(s) which just happened.
For me it is as simple as that. And I'm a fair player too: if it was another race than -Rancor- then I would myself give the benefit of the doubt to the Bugs. It is however not the case here and you can be sure that I would never have let this pass by without reacting if I was still playing.
[Updated on: Sun, 30 August 2009 08:35]
STARS! Wiki
STARS! Wiki Français
I am on a hot streak... Literally.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Coordinated-attack |
Sun, 30 August 2009 20:43 |
|
| neilhoward | 
 | Commander |
Messages: 1112
Registered: April 2008
Location: SW3 & 10023 | |
|
| Eagle of Fire wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 05:29 |
boo hoo
|
Are you still crying Eagle?  Every one has figured out that you are sore, but you bowed out. It is time for you to let it go. It is just a game(that you quit).
I highly doubt that AlexTheGreat's decision has anything to do with your wild accusations.
You do yourself a disservice by trying to find excuses for your failures Eagle. You played exceptionally well for your first game. With more experience you will see that skill is not the only factor to decide player position. I find that understanding how large a role circumstance plays in the game, better enables me to have the right attitude for getting the position I deserve. It also motivates me to stick with a game even when it looks like I am losing.
NeilHoward goes to make his daily sacrifice to the profane deities of randomization.
| m.a@stars wrote on Sun, 30 August 2009 03:03 |
Is he an unfair Host?
|
This has been a difficult game to host, and AlexTheGreat has executed the role judiciously. In many other games with alliance restrictions, you will see player relations set to either friend or enemy, but the nature of AllQuiet makes that inviable.
It looks as though Bug's fleet & trajectory was visible to Rancor before Rancor's fleet changed course. Seemingly, the original target of Rancor's fleet was an enemy world much more habitable to him than the world where the battle took place. The Bug fleet Rancor was able to detect was a support wing. If Rancors and Bugs had communicated about the battle, Rancor would have found that Bug also sent a highly cloaked main fleet to the same world(of a size and force negating any need for outside help). Rancor's presence, and subsequent change to the battle board placed the Bug ships farther from the enemy base. While these facts may suggest Rancor took a liberty, we cannot know his true intention.
I was the first to protest AlexTheGreat's ruling, but I cannot now think of a better solution. While the player's acts and omissions may not have been willful, the farrago could have been avoided entirely. Rancor was penalized for changing course after Bug's fleet and trajectory were visible. Bug received a lesser penalty for not changing course once Rancor's new trajectory was visible.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Dust off your -F SS so we can settle this the old fashioned way. I'll show you coordinated attack! 
)