 Game Rules |
Tue, 28 October 2003 17:15  |
|
|
|
Global Settings:
Accelerated BBS Play: Enabled
No Random Events: Disabled
Rules:
No cheats/exploits are permitted.
Chaff is allowed
Split fleet 'abuse' is banned.
- Split your fleets whenever and wherever you like, just so long as the split fleet bug does not mess up the defenders targeting.
-- If your fleet ends up flying the wrong way chasing the wrong fleet *because of split fleet bug*, let me know and I will roll back & alter the turn IF I think it is necessary.
---Do not to let your orders get the game into a position where I have to make a ruling / roll back a turn.
Victory:
Rank 1 after 2525
PPS after 2510
Post any questions about the rules/settings here. I will be posting a clarification of what I will consider to be 'split fleet abuse' here in a moment.
[Updated on: Sun, 02 November 2003 01:37] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Split Fleet Rule |
Tue, 28 October 2003 17:31  |
|
|
|
The key idea is to prevent abuse that makes it difficult/impossible for a player to target the correct fleet.
The key idea is that ships cannot be split from the 'battle fleet' as they approach enemy territory.
I have been asked how this affects ships being split off to act as 'sweeper ships' to diminish minefields, or fuel transports being split off to retreat once they have served their purpose.
This would not be acceptable. The workaround is to have these ships in SEPERATE fleet tokens, which just happen to be in the same place. This way your fuel transports can keep pace with the attack fleet, transferring fuel between the fleets as you go, then retreat as desired, without needing to split up the fleet. Similarly with the sweepers, you just split them off fom the fleet nice and EARLY, so you don't have to split the fleet in/near enemy territory.
It IS acceptable to split your fleet as long as ALL the fleets involved retreat for at least one turn.
Phew, I think that covers it. Any questions?
The Observers will be watching!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Rules |
Wed, 29 October 2003 02:37 |
|
|
|
I think there are some vague areas left.
What is "retreating"? If you have a planet that you have captured deep in enemy territory, you may think of that planet as your territory and a fleet moving towards it as retreating to it. However the enemy may think different. Or the planet may have not been captured, just a distant outpost you have always had that got surrounded in a sea of enemy. Or it was captured from a third party who has been eliminated. I think we are left with agressives wishing to have outposts in other territories that they can "retreat" to. IT race especially will be happy.
Or a fleet moving approx parallel to the border may be considered "retreating" or "attacking" depending on who is drawing the border.
How about a fleet that "splits" but all moves to the same location? So it does not split dodge, but instead just reshuffles the arrangement, anyone targetting the fleet will still hit all his original target ships. If someone has cheap engines, they would they have to travel warp 6 or under when shuffling to avoid engine failure split when shuffling fleet assignments?
I think the shuffling of fleet assignments (while all still head to the same destination) becomes strategically important when dealing with multi-purpose hulls (privateers, etc) that the enemy does not know the design of. A player may wish to hide the nature of the ship (fuel transport, mine sweeper, unarmed transport, main attack ship, mine layer, cloaker, etc) for as long as possible and fleet arrangements may give clues, thus shuffling may be desired. Especially when nubs come out.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Rules |
Wed, 29 October 2003 11:42 |
|
 Downsider |
 | Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 35
Registered: June 2003
Location: Derbyshire, England | |
|
| multilis wrote on Wed, 29 October 2003 07:37 |
What is "retreating"? If you have a planet that you have captured deep in enemy territory...
Or a fleet moving approx parallel to the border may be considered "retreating" or "attacking" depending on who is drawing the border.
How about a fleet that "splits" but all moves to the same location? <snip> If someone has cheap engines, they would they have to travel warp 6 or under when shuffling to avoid engine failure split when shuffling fleet assignments?
I think the shuffling of fleet assignments [#ids Ed.] becomes strategically important when dealing with multi-purpose hulls that the enemy does not know the design of.
|
In my experience, retreating involves moving toward a planet you own. There are exception of course, such as skirting a minefield that your enemy laid to cut off a retreat, but if this has happened then you should be forced to fight with all your fleet as you have been strategically out-manuvered.
If a fleet splits and all moves to the same location then it is not a problem as all you forces will be present should there be a battle. The multi purpose hull design hiding tactic can be nulled by the fact that you can see design weights and follow those instead of #ID numbers, unless of course, you have 2 designs with exactly the same weight, as with some BB designs.
Just my 2 cents
Danny
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Rules |
Thu, 30 October 2003 14:55 |
|
|
|
If we tie retreating to a "star you own" then I think red planets will take on more meaning. Just send a 98% cloaked ship to colonize an uninhabited planet in enemy territory so you can retreat to it.
The 512 fleet limit is going to look much smaller when we start sending out lots of fleets to allow splits different ways depending on what we discover we need.
"make it illegal to change WP1 targets or speed" - that would be meaningless unless wp1 targets are required to be stars (otherwise wp1 targets are all points one turn away in space). Which also makes certain other types of refueling, fuel booster, salvage, etc. type operations difficult. And it may be hard to enforce in the beginning.
I think IT races like the strongest restrictions best. SD might be happy about their suprise minefields being more effective and their higher speed through minefields.
The final decision may have a big impact on what race designs are effective. For example SS starts looking real good for being able to quickly sneak in colonizers/invaders to create planets to "retreat" to. Who cares if you lose a planet in enemy territory a turn after you capture it, while you had it you could pull off the split trick. As a defence, wide hab looks better, less unguarded reds. Cloaking looks better, suprises on defence are harder to react to.
On the other hand an SS might cry if it has to restrict movement to planets and can't change targets mid flight. Deep enemy territory spying/mine laying becomes much harder. Cloaked SD minelayers are also affected. Defenders are strengthened and warmongers hurt if it is known for sure which planet an attacking fleet will be hitting.
PP gets double bonus, his suprise packet attacks are stronger since harder to split off an intercept. AND everyone elses non-packet attacks are weaker.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Game Rules |
Thu, 30 October 2003 17:57 |
|
|
|
| multilis wrote on Fri, 31 October 2003 06:55 |
If we tie retreating to a "star you own" then I think red planets will take on more meaning. Just send a 98% cloaked ship to colonize an uninhabited planet in enemy territory so you can retreat to it.
|
This is fine... Once attacker is 'retreating' he is *locked* into that one world, so the defender could just post a large fleet there and wipe out everything the attacker has... I think this flaw heavily outweighs the advantage of this 'trick'.
If you are still worried about this trick (I certainly wouldn't be - if I were you I'd rub my hands in glee for this opportunity to annihilate the enemy fleet if they tried to do it to me!), then just colonise all your reds... From the mid-game onwards the cost of a coloniser hull is largely irrelevant...
| Quote: |
The 512 fleet limit is going to look much smaller when we start sending out lots of fleets to allow splits different ways depending on what we discover we need.
|
True, consider that the cost of tactical flexibilty...
note: the "illegal to change wp1 targets or speed" idea is NOT under discussion for this game, I just mentioned it as a possiblity for a FUTURE game
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Candidate 'Split Fleet' ruling |
Thu, 30 October 2003 17:57 |
|
|
|
So - This is the current version of the rule I would now like to discuss:
"Fleet split permitted only if you are at, or if both resulting fleets immediately lock in course to star(s) that you own. This course may not be altered."
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Candidate 'Split Fleet' ruling |
Thu, 30 October 2003 18:43 |
|
| Downsider |
| Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 35
Registered: June 2003
Location: Derbyshire, England | |
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Thu, 30 October 2003 22:57 |
So - This is the current version of the rule I would now like to discuss:
"Fleet split permitted only if you are at, or if both resulting fleets immediately lock in course to star(s) that you own. This course may not be altered."
|
I think we are taking this all a bit too seriously. In my experience, split fleet dodge has not been a big problem so long as players know it's illegal and I suggest that we play it by ear. If anyone sees anything which they object too then they inform the host. Most times it will not need more action than to tell the offending player to not repeat that action. Any more serious incedents can be solved by reloading the turn (and then only changing the offending move, e.g. no one else uploads). I would suggest that in these situations the host be the one who makes the changes (getting the *.x* file from autohost and ammending it).
A hard and fast rule does not suit the flexibility of this problem. There are too many exceptions. Instead, I would suggest we have a rule which is flexible.
For example, the 'planet you own' rule would mean that you can only retreat to a planet which has been in your possesion for a number of years and/or which has other purpose than just a place to retreat to. This would include red planets that an IT is developing into another node in his stargate network (for attack or transit purposes). It would not include planets that had been 'stolen' by colonising with no other purpose than to find a loophole in a rule (to cheat in other words).
What I'm trying to say is that each situation is different and that all considerations have to be taken into account. In the end, the host will decide if a rule has been infringed.
Danny
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Candidate 'Split Fleet' ruling |
Sat, 01 November 2003 12:01 |
|
| Downsider |
| Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 35
Registered: June 2003
Location: Derbyshire, England | |
|
| multilis wrote on Fri, 31 October 2003 06:58 |
Every simple rule I have thought of so far can be abused....
|
... which is why the host needs to make decisions. If a player cries foul then it is up to the host to sort it out. I usually play 'the host's word is law, and if you don't like it, tough'. Common sense is needed when interpreting any rule. That is the role of the host.
Danny
[Updated on: Sat, 01 November 2003 12:02]
"Violence is the last resort of the incompetent" - Salvor Hardin Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Candidate 'Split Fleet' ruling |
Sun, 02 November 2003 00:58 |
|
|
|
multilis -
| Quote: |
After a turn of retreating he is then free to attack with the new split
|
Actually this would not be possible, as the fleet would not be permitted to change course again until AFTER arriving at the friendly planet.
| Quote: |
Next turn, those fleet could combine in many different ways as a type of split fleet attack
|
I don't have an issue with that, this would be fine. I'm not trying to stop people using multiple fleets, I'm just trying to make ensure the defender has a fair opportunity to target all incoming fleets.
| Quote: |
Simple rules have a way of also changing the dynamics of the game.....Joys of being a host.
|
This is all true.
Downsider:
| Quote: |
I usually play 'the host's word is law, and if you don't like it, tough'.
|
This is certainly be true of me!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
Re: Game Rules
