just one battles per turn

[klausD]

maybe you misunderstood me. I meant not one battle per turn per player. I meant one battle per turn per stack a ships.

klausD

[Ragnarok]

Originally posted by klausD:
maybe you misunderstood me. I meant not one battle per turn per player. I meant one battle per turn per stack a ships.

klausD

No, I'm sure he understood you fine. As I did. Even once batter per turn per stack of ships is still not a good idea. Due to what GT said. If you want a quick defense just keep attacking that fleet with 1 little cheap ship till you build up a fleet of ships to take them out. It was be a major exploit that the players could use to win.

[klausD]

The tactic against this "defense" is easy. I just send out a small attack force in every of the sectors where the 1 ship defense fleets are lurking.
In this case small escort ships in the attacking fleets have an additional function. (building a vanguard which clears the path to the main attack objective)

The tradition of having just one attack per stack is very proofed in many games. I think such a rule will function very good in SE too.

[Grandpa Kim]

klausD, I can't for the life of me see why you only want one battle per turn. I can understand that it may seem odd if you are used to only one per turn, but tradition is one of the poorest reasons to keep anything.

In my opinion, multiple battles is much more realistic (if that word means anything in a game context) and opens up a whole new world of tactics. You must now plan multiple defenses and use your own ingenuity to limit your opponents attacks rather than rely on the game's coding to save you. Multiple battles encourages you to be an imaginative defender and allows you to be an amazingly creative attacker. What could be better?

[klausD]

The reason I am for just one battle is my preference for "conventional" gaming systems. The existing system with multiple battles is not that bad, but its not perfect for me. Its too much the way computer game designers develope their rules.

But there are alot of good rule (move/combat) systems out there in the board wargame culture. The Last 30 years have been very productive. Instead of developing in short time a medium quality rule system, computer game developers should rather look at systems which are proofed and playtested for several years and try to adapt them to the own computer game.

Eg: One of the advantage of just one battle/turn/fleet is the necessity of timing an system invasion. As it is now you can invade several planets with just one big fleet in one turn, without having an advanced plan. With just one battle/turn/fleet you have to divide your fleet and develope an advanced battle plan before the invasion to achieve the same result.

klaus

[Suicide Junkie]

You might be able to nuke a bunch of small and/or undefended colonies to glass in one turn with one massive fleet, but why not? If they have the speed to visit each planet in a month, they can easily drop 50 self-guiding nukes as they zoom past to slaughter each colony.

If there are reasonable defenses, however, your fleet will take some damage. Damage to a single ship can slow the entire fleet to a crawl, and wreck your "smash everything with one stack" plan.
If they have engine-disruptors on a weapons platform, your fleet is almost guaranteed to be unable to attack anything else that turn. Null-space and shield-skipping weapons are also particularily effective.

It is up to the defender to make his territory harder to sweep.

[Phoenix-D]

As it is now you can invade several planets with just one big fleet in one turn, without having an advanced plan. With just one battle/turn/fleet you have to divide your fleet and develope an advanced battle plan before the invasion to achieve the same result. "

One turn = one month. It's not unreasonable for a fleet capable of moving that far to hit several targets in a month.

Keep in mind that computers can process a LOT of numbers quickly, thus allowing rules in computer games that would bog down a board wargame.

Phoenix-D