From: macko@pilot.njin.net (Peter C. Macko)
Newsgroups: alt.games.gb
Subject: Re: Stale socks.
Date: 12 Aug 92 23:01:12 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


 rlewis@isi.edu (Roger Lewis) writes:

>I think that if Garrett actually limits resource availability like
>you wanted him too, that there won't be enough fuel around in the game
>to allow people to leapfrog past your front.  (I don't consider this
>a good thing though).

  Neither do I.  


>I think my problem with limiting resources is that I don't want
>resources any rarer at the beginning of the game than they are
>now.  *Perhaps* there is a surplus of res later in the game,
>but I feel that the amount of res at the beginning of the game
>(the first 35 updates or so) is just perfect.
>I still think that there isn't actually a surplus of res even
>later in the game, I think that it piles up for the
>two following reasons.
>
>One: There are so many newbies around that you rarely need all
>the res you can lay your hands on, the newbies that are getting
>wiped out DON'T have surplus unused res.  But the experienced players
>like Feep are swimming in it, because their opponents are too unskilled
>and you just don't need many ships to wipe out unskilled neighbors.

  I think I've had some of the largest res stockpiles (250K+) in gb 
history and never have I felt that I had a res "surplus".  You can't
build REAL fleet without at least 10-20K res.  By a real fleet I
mean 2-3 X's (filled with f's, ^'s, +'s, & s's), an O, 5-6 B's, and 12-20 
lesser ships like C's & d's.  What most people call fleets aren't 
well-balanced fleets but small squadrons of poorly equipped destroyers
or cruisers that are too easily lost since armor is almost worthless.  A
smart opponent can eliminate these easily at little cost to himself if
he knows the various inherant weaknesses in such squadrons.

  The reason why I've been able to gain such stockpiles is because
newbies and inactives are plentiful in most gb games.  You can usually
take a planet away from a newbie without causing signifigant damage to
it thus maintaining the efficiency of most if not all of its sectors.
Almost every battle I've won against an active experienced opponent has 
cost me copious amounts of time and resources while gaining me little 
except some shattered and burned out planets.  Turning a planetary 
wasteland into something habitable is an expensive proposition especially 
when the planet is drained of resources.  This is why experienced 
players tend to avoid fighting each other when possible.  There is little 
to gain and too much to lose.


>Two: It takes time to monitor and control all the ships you can
>build.  People don't have a surplus of res, they have a deficit
>of free time to order around all those ships.  They can't imagine

  I strongly agree with you here.


>building more ships when they're losing track of the ones they have.
>So I have to agree with people (including Feep) who propose larger
>ships.

  I'd rather have a smarter interface.  In the last few games I've played,
I wrote a battery of perl scripts to create macros depending on the
data output by different gb commands.  Unfortunately, wars and alliance
politicking still required too much of my real time.  So I haven't played 
much lately. (wistful sigh)  One of these days, when I find the time,
I'm going to have to take up Dan's offer and do some corroborating on
Robo-Hydra.  




					-Aes
-- 

  Peter C. Macko                      Internet: macko@pilot.njin.net
  LCSR/Network Research                         macko@cs.rutgers.edu
  Telecommunications/Network Services     UUCP: {backbone}!rutgers!cs!macko
  Rutgers Computing Services,  Rutgers University (Piscataway, NJ)