Home » Stars! 2.6/7 » The Bar » Your thoughts on Galaxy Clumping?
| 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
|
|
|
|
Current Time: Sat May 04 21:28:34 EDT 2024
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
