|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Partners in Time |
Mon, 25 November 2002 16:31   |
|
 FurFuznel |
 | |
Messages: 437
Registered: November 2002
Location: New Brunswick, Canada | |
|
| UAF commander wrote on Mon, 25 November 2002 14:54 |
And this mean you know where we all are from start, while we don't...
Yeah, I think it's a bit unfair...
|
No, that is not what it means. What it means is that I would know who you are partnered with not where any of you are located. 
| Quote: |
BTW, although alliances and back stabbing are not allowed, none aggression pacts and such are allowed yes?
I would like to have diplomacy in the game.
|
Diplomacy is definitely allowed, you are simply not allowed to have any one other than your partner set to friendly. This means that people will not be able to travel through your minefields rapidly and, if my memory serves me correctly, not refuel at your starbases. Feel free to set up non-aggression-pacts, backstabbing events, plundering, etc. just do not set anyone other than your partner to friendly. 
FurFuznel
Shadallark <==> FurFuznel
Mental anguish is for those who choose to think - FurFuznel
running Mac OS X 10.6.7
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
 Re: Partners in Time |
Tue, 26 November 2002 14:02 |
|
| UAF commander |
 | Petty Officer 2nd Class |
Messages: 54
Registered: November 2002 | |
|
Why the hell is that a cheat??
People split their forces and/or send some forces to delay the enemy in the real world too. What's wrong with it???
This reminds me of players calling me a cheater in RA2 because I took over their ConYard early game with an engineer. It's a valid and logical tactic! What good commander won't exploit the enemy weakness and use whatever he can to win??
I'll be very disappointed if splitting fleets would be cheating, it's a logical move in some cases, and is totally realistic.
What would be next? banning surprise attacks, the use of packets and dreadnoughts?
Stars! is supposed to be "realistic" (in a science fiction way  ), this means that if something is possible according to the laws of physics, and is not totally unbalancing (like SS pop steal) it should be allowed.
Back stabbing, smart bombs and stuff like that might be considered dirty playing in our world, but they can happen, so stuff like that should be allowed in Stars! too.
So to sum it all, I think that splitting fleets should be allowed (isn't it amazing I can sum such a long post to this one line?  ).
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Partners in Time |
Tue, 26 November 2002 14:18 |
|
|
|
Well it's a bit more complex. It's another "bug" that can be exploited to specific gain.
more info http://library2.southern.edu/sahforum/index.php?t=msg&th =15&start=0&rid=74&S=03b590e673d3591d699d5503393 de8db
and http://www.starsfaq.com/bugs.htm
Its one of those bug/feature things. Chaff is in same league but way more widely used.
I think that split fleet dodge should have some form of limitation - i.e. max number of fleets to split into = 10 *if* some form of armed ship is sent into the chasing enemy (in a role playing mood this ship would be seen as the decoy while the main fleet changes formation and splits and then accelerates to warp, the fleet limit is in relation to time needed to get out of everyone's way)
Or only into say 2 fleets if NO warship is sent (thus representing how important that single KamiKaze ship would have been)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Partners in Time |
Tue, 26 November 2002 16:07 |
|
|
|
I voted yes but only if it follow some form of sensible reasoning.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Partners in Time |
Tue, 03 December 2002 09:54 |
|
| Ron |
 | Commander
Forum Administrator
Stars! AutoHost Administrator |
Messages: 1231
Registered: October 2002
Location: Collegedale, TN | |
|
This game has started, and this topic is now locked.
[Updated on: Tue, 03 December 2002 09:56]
Ron Miller
Stars! AutoHostReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
Re: Partners in Time
4 / 67%
- I am guessing not)