🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic Bent C Dalager <b...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
> 
> Alternatively, you can find out which of the AIs has the tech that you
> need to win the current war and start buying warships off him. What
> the game then really needs is a diplomacy subscreen where you can
> negotiate the ship designs that you want them to build for you and
> then contract out the construction of n ships to them :-)

That would be really cool. And it's exactly what happens in many
multiplayer games like Stars!. There it's not uncommon that different
players specialise in building a different type of ship, and then
trade them with each other.

But this may not quite be what Brad is going for.

>>Although I like the idea, I'm afraid that forced specialisation in
>>technology may give close allies and/or tech traders a big advantage
>>over players in a more isolated position. (This may actually be
>>realistic, but it's also a bit unbalancing.) Instead, I think
>>encouraging specialisation in ships while allowing diversification
>>in research would be better.
> 
> I tentatively like the idea of somehow penalising players who try to
> specialize in multiple tech directions. It connects well with the idea
> that a technology isn't just a blueprint and a bunch of figures locked
> up in a safe somewhere, it's something that becomes very much part of
> your society. And society will only absorb so many different ways of
> doing the same thing.

Yes, but this also has an impact on tech trading. If you want to do
this, it should be impossible (or at least a lot harder) to trade
tech. Because at the moment, you do simply get a blueprint and you
can suddenly build a ship without ever having had to research even
any of the prerequisites.

Perhaps each time you get a tech, you still have to spend some time
researching it to adapt it to your own technology. And if you don't
have any of the prerequisites, you have to spend more time on it.

So if I wanted to trade my Mass Drivers XII for someone else's
Beam Weapons XI, without ever having researched beam weapons, I'd
still have to do quite a lot of research before I can use it.

> It does risk putting you in a position where a game is effectively
> lost, however, because you chose the wrong tech path for when the last
> alien race needs to be destroyed.

Exactly. It pays to pay attention to what kind of weapons each AI is using,
so you know who you need to pick as allies in order to defeat others, and
which route will eventually be the best one for you.

Also try to provoke wars between aliens that use different weapons than
you're using, so they'll both invest a lot in defenses that won't be of
any use against you. You get a whole new meta-game this way.

If Brad doesn't want that kind of meta-game, perhaps a bit more flexibility
would be better. How about, if you specialise in mass drivers, you still
improve your beams and missiles somewhat, just not as much as you would
have improved your mass drivers. So when you develop Mass Driver X, you
can build strength 10 mass drivers, but also strength 6 beams and missiles,
for example. So it pays to stick to your specialty, but if you really need
to, you can also use different weapons.

>>A way to encourage specialisation in ship designs is to have for each
>>weapon type also a component that increases that weapon's effectiveness
>>(either power or accuracy). Let's say that we have Missile Guidance
>>Systems that increase the power of your missiles by 10%, and Targeting
>>Systems that increase the power of your beam weapons by 10%. On a ship
>>with 10 missiles, each MGS would effectively add another missile, but
>>on a ship with 5 missiles and 5 beams, each MGS or TS would add only
>>half a missile or half a beam weapon.
> 
> This only encourages specialization in single ships, however, not in
> entire fleets. With such a system, you would have a fleet with a bunch
> of missile ships, another bunch of beam ships, etc.

You're right, but to be honest, I really like specialisation in single
ships. It adds a whole new level of combined arms. To take Stars! (again)
as an example, battleships there tend to be either slow, expensive, heavy
missile platforms that wreak terrifying destruction once the enemy's
shields are down, or cheaper, lighter beamers who's job is mainly to
bring down shields and remove other distractions and threats, so the
missile ships can do their job. I like that sort of cooperation between
ships, instead of having a single optimal ship-of-the-line that can do
anything.


mcv.
-- 
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
                                        -- Joss Whedon on his new film