From: joshua@lclark.edu (Josh Rochester)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Looking For Spaceward Ho! 3.0 Suggestions
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:55:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1992Jul28.205511.22401
Organization: Lewis and Clark College

In article <meharg.712349217@sfu.ca>, meharg@fraser.sfu.ca (Gersham William Meharg) writes:
> 3. Technology isnt very good when building ships - who uses less than
> maximum shields or weapons when building ships. The only reason would
> be to adjust the mini if you are short on metal or cash. It makes those
> scroll bars useless if they are always put to maximum.  My suggestion 
> would be to only let the user set the mini technology and pick a hull
> type. Add some hull types replace fighters with frigates, destroyers,   
> battleships (and Deathstars!, maybe not).  They would differ in price
> metal and combat capability (possibly allieviate problem 2 above).

I agree wholly to this--NOBODY uses those sliders for less than full amount
(especially with development costs where they are!) I really like the idea
of different ship sizes, as I have expressed in my earlier postings. In naval
combat, the intelligent grouping of different types of ships is what wins
battles, not technology levels. Let us build corvettes, frigates, destroyers,
battleships, carriers (for the non-ftl satelite fighters I mentioned earlier),
and command ships. Let the stronger ships run interference for the weaker
while the weaker ships jump out from behind cover and use their special
talents to wreak havoc. At similar tech levels, a star destroyer vs a star
destroyer is an even fight. But how does a single star destroyer cope against
several corvettes? Can it track all those ships at once? Can they manouver
fast enough that they stay in the weaponry weak points near the rear of the
ship, while the star destroyer attempts to turn and bring the bigger weapons
to bear?
Or maybe the reverse is true . . . maybe the star destroyers are too geared
towards wading into big groups of smaller ships and are unable to deal with
a large-scale capital ship that is no bigger than it, but built for taking
a big ship head-on . . .

There are lots of possibilities here as long as we require each ship to
be specialized--have strengths and weaknesses.

(By the way . . . Star Destroyers???? I know it was meant in jest, but really
 . . . how about a ship that can actually destroy planets? After all, a bunch
of ships flying through the air are unlikely to eliminate a planets population
[remember 'nam?] is anybody interested in making there be costs to occupying
a hostile planet? costs that make it easier to sometimes just toast the place
and start over somewhere else? Or is that pushing the game somewhere we don't
want it to go?)

> 
> 4. Have a partial autoplay, let the computer place satelite defenses
> on needed worlds. You could allocate a defense budget in the spending
> area. This would let a player pay more attention to conquest in a big 
> galaxy rather than having to worry about defense. All of the algorithms for
> this allready exist im sure, it woulnt be as good as doing it yourself
> but it would be usefull with big fast expanding empires.

I also really like this idea. Probably just for satelites though. I think that
defense should be part of -strategy- not something automated, but putting
loads of supplementary satelites everywhere automatically is a good idea.

Previously, I voiced a dislike for the high power of satelites--I don't like
having my attack fleet decimated by a horde of floating gun-blobs that cost
one-tenth (or less!!) as much. After all, I'm interested in fleet battles, not
fighting automated defenses. Earlier, I suggested that the satelites be
weakened so that they aren't so cheap and powerful. I have partially
reconsidered that . . . I have been thinking that maybe an option to come out
of ftl in outer orbit might serve my purposes better . . . In outer orbit, you
aren't close enough to get any information on the planet or on the ships in 
close orbit--except that you can see that there -are- ships or that there
are just sats--but you have the option of going in and engaging, or not, and 
they have the option of coming out and engaging you (without their satelites) 
or not. The 'outer orbit' idea would allow organization of the fleet for an
attack--putting together an attack line or holding ships back in reserve. It
would also allow ships to be massed for an attack over several turns (now you
don't have to bother with the variable speed FTL mentioned). In short, it
would allow for a little more realism and flexibility while maintaining the
cheap and easy defense of satelites . . . WHILE allowing for ship to ship and
fleet to fleet combat to be the rule not the exception and making planet raids
only occurr when you're fleets are stipped away and you are strong enough to
handle the planetary defenses.

What do people think of all of that?

Josh Rochester
joshua@lclark.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games