|
| Re: Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping? |
Sun, 02 November 2008 14:45   |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
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? |
Wed, 05 November 2008 12:11 |
|
|
|
| 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 11:08 |
|
 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 |
|
| 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 |
|
| m.a@stars |
 | Commander |
Messages: 2765
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. 
Just regularly spaced clumps, like in a checkers game. 
Me I prefer chess. 
So many Stars, so few Missiles!
In space no one can hear you scheme!  Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
11 / 58%
All GC maps are exactly alike. 
