Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
Azdara Ace, on Oct 13 2005, 07:14 PM, said:
Why don't we figure out some basic rules and just start? The more we discuss possible strategies on here, the less a surprise the final result will be. View Post
Agreed. rmx, PM me your AiM SN so we can discuss things as judges do.
http://www.schlockme...d/20021229.html <- Planetary defense strat
Khoshin, I am rmx256 everywhere in the free world
I'll leave messenger running but I probably won't be on untill this afternoon.
Ye gods and little fishes (as my grandmother says), I nearly had a heart attack when I saw how many replies there were. I only started this five days ago!
Here's the scenario (thanks for the idea, Qaanol), sorry it isn't based on your map, Edwards, but the damned school computers block the host site.
2 - 4 / \ 1 6 \ / 3 - 5
There's a rough map - Team A starts in 1, B starts in 6. I'll borrow from the EVC plot here a little - Team B only has 6 to start off with, Team A gets everything else. B simply has to take control of 1 - A needs to hold them on to as much as possible.
To balance things, A can't move to 6. A and B start off with equal forces.
A few rules:
1)Team A is NOT allowed to destroy the HGs - for the moment, we're treating them as not HGs, but wormholes which can't be destroyed.
2)No FTL communication - all messages must be transmitted by messenger.
3)Reinforcements can be produced, but it will take time - ask the refs how many turns something will take to produce.
We'll try 6 turns for this - I'll give a week for the teams to plan. Then we'll be going for 2 days/turn - I can't go any quicker, I'm afraid.
I think that due to my position as controller of this, I should probably join the referees. Please send queries/tactics for the next 'turn' to ALL the refs - I think my email is not shown for some reason, so it is: chrome_falcon@yahoo.co.uk. rmx, Koshinn: I'm afraid I don't have IRC (or any variants of such) and the school (which is where I'll access this from most of the time) doesn't let me PM, so you'll have to email me. Final note about contacting me: I'll be away from Monday-Wednesday next week (I'm posting this on Friday, for anyone living in a different time zone).
Let the game commence!
Cool, lets see how this goes. The oversimplification is fine. And we will account for the disadvantages of an overextended infrastructure (and the needed effort to run a ("representative") dictatorship over multiple planets.
And call them rounds, not turns. Ship production should also be an ongoing process, and remember, we arent working in concrete units. Just guesses as to how much each person will have.
(We can make a turn/round equal to the time it takes to colonise a planet (ie convert/murder the population and get the infrastructure running again (somewhat))).
As for FTL communications and Shields, these are not internally part of the rules. The thing here is, if you can find ample scientific evidence that it is possible, you are welcome to use it. But you probably have to spend a turn "developing shields", where you explain the tech and why exactly it would work. If it is sufficiently grounded, you are allowed to use shielded ships next round. If it isnt, your side wasted that much rescources on research (and suggesting technology is extremely expensive).
The only thing that needs to be specified is, how big are the wormholes? Could we just assume they are centered around the stars, and you need to be going at a massive velocity in order to use them? We need to know how tight the chokes are.
This post has been edited by NebuchadnezzaR : 14 October 2005 - 10:21 AM
Good ideas, Qaanol. My map seems to have mucked up a bit, so here it is again:
2 - 4 | | 1 6 | | 3 - 5
Azdara Ace, on Oct 13 2005, 10:14 PM, said:
The way I see it, to have any sort of productive outcome whatsoever, we need to either decide to start completely blind (IE Stratego: you don't know what your opponent's up to) and figure it out as we go along, or completely open (IE Chess: you know exactly what they're doing) and try to overcome strengths and exploit weaknesses.
Itl be a combination. You know EXACTLY what the enemy did last round, but nothing about what hes doing this round (because that would mean you would have access to eachothers planning messages... so you could just make stuff up expecting the other team to build a fleet specifically designed to counter it, then just completely change it last minute).
Lets just see how this goes. So the system is just a loop? Put it in a codebox:
.2-4 / Â \ 1 Â 6 \ Â / .3-5
The first scenario will just be an interesting comparison between overextended defender versus compact, well equipt attacker.
Chrome Falcon, on Oct 14 2005, 09:44 AM, said:
3)Reinforcements can be produced, but it will take time - ask the refs how many turns something will take to produce. View Post
Instead of messenger, how about light-speed point-to-point encrypted transmission cones? Basically, you can see (via lightspeed detection) where friendlies are, so you send a cone of EM transmission directed at that point, taking into account all possible locations that the ship may have moved to in the time it took for EM radiation to bounce off of them (or get emitted, however your mechanism is for detecting them) and for your beam to get to them. Essentially, you're sending out a narrow beam that is unlikely to be intercepted by anybody but your target (and as long as they're still alive, it doesn't matter how or where they're moving), and is encrypted anyway just to be sure. Of course, messengers, while much slower, do provide the greatest security.
I'm not sure what I think about reinforcements, either they're a good idea, or they aren't. I do believe they should probably be already built somewhere, though. I find it hard to believe a side could produce massive numbers of starships in a very short period of time.
Everyone on Team Awesome, send me an email. It's my posting name here @Gmail.com. If you can't spell Qaanol then you're off the team.
Edwards, if you want to hold a Peace Summit and/or just surrender now, do likewise.
Mrxak: Messengers are for system-to-system communication, since hyperspace is in the game but other FTL is not, so if you want to tell the rest of your army what's up, or ask for help from your command center, you have to send someone back. Once they're in the system then they'll just use electro-magnetic (light, such as radio) comm methods.
Reinforcement fleets can be called in by messenger, but yes, they do have to already exist.
Question: Can I breed Uruk-Hai for my army and teach them to work with the Master-Chief, under the leadership of King Leoric? Please?
Apparently #wargame has been set up by the Apple Core...
Tactical lever communications should not be technologically signifigant- but a messenger should be used for system to system communication.
Each team should be alloted an equal number of roughly equivalent ship classes. Such as perhaps:
2 Battleship classed- heavy armor and weaps 2 Cruiser classed- faster with nearly battleship weaps but much less protection 2 Carrier classed, each with 20 or some other number of fighter/bombers- carriers have little weaps and little protection. Fighters can attack cap ships but only if they can get around the other side's fighters and are not vulnerable to capital ship weapons excepting specific AA fire from destroyers. Fighters may be used as messengers. 5 Destroyer/Escort classed- fastest cap ship, little in the way of armor or weaps but has AA guns. Destroyers may be used as messengers.
We should assume that each side has two supply ships. Any fleet must be resupplied each round. After one round of no supply the fleet's effectiveness should decline by 1/4 and continue to do so untill it reaches 0% effectiveness- at which point it must withdraw.
To call in reinforcements a messenger must first be dispatched, which will reach the reinforcement fleet the next round. They then may move to react. Since there are two approches between system groups this should require more strategy to think through
I kept the numbers low to prevent 'overwhealming force' attacks and to promote strategic thinking.
Fair and simplified to streamline
This post has been edited by rmx256 : 14 October 2005 - 05:07 PM
rmx256, on Oct 14 2005, 05:59 PM, said:
Apparently #wargame has been set up by the Apple Core... Tactical lever communications should not be technologically signifigant- but a messenger should be used for system to system communication.
Fair and simplified to streamline View Post
No, obligating certain ship classes is uneccisarily limiting. Or however you spell that ######ing word.
The point is that one team might go super huge class ships, and the other goes slow railguns to compensate, et cetera. We really dont need to work in numbers, more in general strategy. Remember Ender's game? The kind of stuff they were doing in shadow of the Hegemon. IM fairly certain they didnt use particularly precise numbers for those. Just write a general strategy of what kinds of ships you would build, using what technology, and generally how you would use them, and the other team does the same, then we estimate who would win, then both sides get a chance to adapt.
NebuchadnezzaR, on Oct 14 2005, 08:51 PM, said:
The point is that one team might go super huge class ships, and the other goes slow railguns to compensate, et cetera. We really dont need to work in numbers, more in general strategy. Remember Ender's game? The kind of stuff they were doing in shadow of the Hegemon. IM fairly certain they didnt use particularly precise numbers for those. Just write a general strategy of what kinds of ships you would build, using what technology, and generally how you would use them, and the other team does the same, then we estimate who would win, then both sides get a chance to adapt. View Post
I agree, limiting sides to certain numbers of ships makes it a chess game. That's not exactly what we're looking for here... Here's an example, the Brits used tons of smaller ships, the Spanish used huge ships, the Brits were faster and won. I think that's how it went at least but... as most of you know, American schools don't teach much about foreign history unless you specialize in it.
I agree, you say how many of each ship you want realistically, judges can and will modify the numbers.
No, obligating certain ship classes is uneccisarily(sic) limiting. Or however you spell that ######ing word. (That would be "unnecessarily". )View Post
I also agree. "Cruiser to A3. Cruiser takes destroyer." If you regimentize a war game too much, you will lose all hope of gaining useful information from it.
About the map: I don't really mind. I just had it lying around, with no place to use it, and decided to post it. Simpler maps do make sense for strategy-vs-strategy games- actually, having a fixed map might be little more than a formality, depending on how things go.
A few more points: How much trade is there within Team A's territory? They need to account for civilians coming through their gates, as well as enemies. Is there any trade between A and B, or has there been no traffic through system 6's gates for such a long time that we have no information at all about the defenses in A's systems? What sort of acceleration is reasonably possible for capital ships? 0.1c in an hour? A day? A week? Longer?
And, as this makes a tremendous difference in how strategies play out, how exactly do hypergates work? Permanent, one-to-one connections? How wide are they? How far from inhabited planets? How long is the tunnel between gates, if any? Is the opening two-dimensional (circle), or three (sphere)? If the former, is a gate one-sided, or two? Is there any maximum speed that you can go through them at? How fragile are the gate structures?
@Neb: I've had fun thinking through your stargates- they really start to, ah, shine if you don't put any cap on maximum distance you can travel.
@Qaanol: I send you a hologram of a message pod, lying on a stretcher, with an arrow sticking out of it.
@Team B: I can't get online more than once or twice a day, and only for long periods after 22:00 PDT, so I'm afraid email and/or PM will be the only way I can converse.
Edwards
Another Schlock link: http://www.schlockme...d/20001105.html (kinetic missiles and detection)
I've got good intentions but they seem to be totally contradictory to the overall group's goals and expectations for this; I am also having stumbling blocks trying to envision how this wargame is to be played out without rules as I understand them, a list of what team has what resources (and I don't mean x number of minable asteroids ) and a total lack of a strategic element of gameplay as I concieve of it- plus the initiator and leader of this idea cannot even look in on this for much of the next week (nothing personal, I am also seriously constrained by time so I'm not pointing a finger, really). So I am resigning from the position of referee- I can't moderate what I cannot understand. Surely noone is going to shead a tear:) I'll look in and take part in the discussion but this is out of my league to 'play'. I again stress that the problem is in my corner and noone else or anyone elses' ideas are at fault. I guess I just don't 'get' it.
I need to work on Kemet anyway...
This post has been edited by rmx256 : 15 October 2005 - 08:22 AM
rmx256, on Oct 15 2005, 06:19 AM, said:
I need to work on Kemet anyway... View Post
Actually I was the initiator, he's the one who made it a new post and is leading though.
Anyway... we need 1 more judge now, I don't wanna do this myself (although I will if I have to)
I agree that we shouldn't be limitted to specific ship classes. What if instead, both teams were allotted roughly so many kilometers of ships to build, the kilometer value of a ship being the measure of its longest side?
Azdara Ace, on Oct 15 2005, 09:20 AM, said:
What if instead, both teams were allotted roughly so many kilometers of ships to build, the kilometer value of a ship being the measure of its longest side? View Post
You get a bunch of spherical ships?
Joking aside, what you describe is a point system. Skip the "kilometer" thing and assign each ship class a point value based on it's strengths and weaknesses and give teams a number of points to spend.
What this game really wants is an ender's game type simulator.
i reccommend a system of percentages, where you decide what percentage of your resources you want to use to develop a certain thing. an example would be: 10% to fighters, 10% to defence platforms, 40% to cruisers, 40% to destroyers.
This post has been edited by phyco with power1 : 16 October 2005 - 10:33 PM