From: jive@spanky.ssc.gov (Jim Ivey)
Subject: Re: 3rd space guardian robots
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX
	<1992Aug28.182548.26012@ils.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:00:09 GMT



In article <1992Aug28.182548.26012@ils.nwu.edu> shafto@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto) writes:

>   Jim, where do you get your attitude from?  If you want to continue
>   this, let's take it to email.

     Okay, you're right.  I'll clean it up a bit.

>   yeah, fine.  You may even be right about magniot lines.

     Maybe.  I'm not completely sure.  We'll have to try it sometime.

>   The question was, were you ever on the "top" side of an LPS where you
>   could hold them down, but not break them?  You have claimed that this
>   only happens to poor strategists.  

     Yes, to the question.  No, to the latter.  Even good strategists can
be forced into this situation.  They just make every attempt to avoid it.

>   Well, I'm not sure.  It seems that, in one game, you used good
>   strategy to force your opponent into an LPS.  In the second game, the

     We got lucky that a simultaneous 3 planet take near the beginning
worked nearly perfectly.  After that, we just kept them bombed and tore
them to pieces.

>   opponent forced you into an LPS, but were unable to break it due, in
>   part, to what might have been an earlier strategic error.  (IMO, it
>   would only be a strategic error to leave ROM for last if your team was
>   expending resources defending the other planets.  Facing a better
>   team, with two or three planets, no agris, I might start a home LPS defense
>   early.  In that case, there is no reason for the attackers to leave
>   the other planet.  See the recent discussion on this issue.)

     Agree completely.  Never said otherwise.  Was implying that you go for
the hard planets when there are 5-7 planets left.  Requires good bombing to
keep them, but the end result is worth it.

>   Is this supposed to be something new?  I found your first post quite
>   insulting.  But go on.

     Actually, I don't remember the first one being insulting to you at
all.  Apologies if it was.

>   You cannot win and avoid an LPS against a team of Lt. Cmdrs or above.

     Bzzt.  It does happen, as long as you keep the planet scum under
control.  If they go out and take the outer planets too quickly, the other
team is forced into a restricted area which is easier to defend.  It
happens to Admirals, just like Ensigns...  Just not nearly as often:)

>   You can use strategy to select a favorable LPS.  Since you are
>   winning, you are probably better than your opponent, and might well
>   succeed.  But my claim was that, once you are in an LPS, tactics are much
>   more important.

     Of course they are.  But my point was strategy is necessary to avoid
the LPS in the first place.  I think one unclear point we're dickering over
is that I think teams should start working toward avoiding the LPS when the
enemy is still at 7-8 planets.

>   :      1) Take their agris, so they don't repopulate so fast.
>   :      2) Take their fuel, so they can't orbit and lob torps forever
>   :      3) Destroy the starbase before you get near an LPS, so he doesn't
>   :         have so many defenders.
>   :      4) Take easily defended planets first (i.e. home, deep core)
>   Yes, yes, everyone knows these (although I don't think people take
>   them seriously enough.  It is rare to see a team leave a useless (and
>   defended) front-line planet and take the fuel planet behind it.)

     Everyone follows them to a certain extent.  People gun for agris and
fuel when they're picking between planets, but they'll go for the easy agri
on the border, instead of the one in the core.  And most people scream
defiance when I say 'ogg the sb' when he's at the home planet and the
opposing team still has 6 or 7 planets.  _Don't_ _wait_ _until_ _they're_
_in_ _an_ _LPS_ _to_ _ogg_ _the_ _SB_.  You're just a glutton for
punishment if you do.  Why wait until he has 7 defenders?  Hit him when he
has none.  Regardless of where he is (and no I won't debate the 6 vs SB
question again...  it's been proved in practice, if not in demonstrations).
     If you keep them bombed flat (i.e. 2-3 bombers at all times), it's
okay to take the inner planets very early.  Grab those first.  They'll be
geometrically harder with each outer planet you take.

>   Well, I hate dictionary wars, but mine (online webster) says:

     Apologies for that.  I hate them too.  I just wanted to say what
strategy and tactics were, and didn't want to make a mistake for anyone to
jump on.  So I used the dictionary.

>   I would take this to include things like sending in cloaked DD's to
>   waste their fuel, timing multiple attempts so you don't blow up on
>   each other, sending in AS's to det for the takers, drawing defenders
>   out of position, etc.  In short, the kind of things that are important
>   in breaking an existing LPS.

     Okay.  Obviously this has gone to a point where we're talking about
two completely different things.  I'm gonna have to go back to the original
and make sure what the first question was.  Yes.  In an LPS tactics are
much more important.  Strategy is almost non-existent at this point.  My
point from the beginning has been that you shouldn't get to a point where
strategy plays no role.  At the very least, it will reach a point where the
only strategy is to position counter-attackers between the enemy home
planet and the last planet to be taken.

>   :      If you have to resort to nifty tactics in an LPS, you've
>   :      screwed up.
>   Throughout all of your discussion, you are assuming that the winning
>   team is MUCH better than the opponents.  While you may pursue a

     No, I'm not actually.  Whenever I imagine a game, I think bronco.

>   strategy that you hope will make the LPS a piece of cake, your
>   opponents may deny you that opportunity.  There is a wide range in
>   relative team ability levels that can put you into a difficult LPS.

     They may deny it.  But not for my lack of trying.  I will use every
strategy possible to avoid it.  My point is that there are a number of good
ones, that can do it.

>   : Hence why some more experienced players just sit back in an LPS, let the
>   : defenders take a couple planets, then swarm over them to take the harder
>   : ones.  The coup-de-gras of the easy planets is rarely hard at this point.
>   Yes, this is one reasonable strategy to pursue in an LPS.

     This is practically the only time strategy has a place, once you've
reached the actual LPS.  The other I mentioned above.

   : >   Finally, four races allows four different games to be played.  This
   : >   adds variety.  I was very sorry to hear that Ray was set on a 2-race
   : 
   :      Four different games?  Except for this latest claim that some
   : directions are harder, this is inane.  A square is the same on all sides.
   : Minor differences in the planet arrangements (which make people tend
   : to choose some races over others... that's a bug, not a feature) is not
   : variety.

>   Then what is it?  While I agree that the planet arrangements could be
>   better balanced, having four different possible wars does provide
>   variety, and I enjoy it.  I suppose this makes me some sort of scum.

     My point was that _it's_ _not_ _variety_.  There are only _minor_
differences in the positions of the planets.  It has an almost negligible
effect on the game.  I made this point to attack the argument that 4 race
galaxies have more variety.  They do, but not for this reason (see earlier
post about post-genocide combat).

>   I am pleased to see that Ray will be allowing different wars to be
>   fought.  I imagine that each race will have a different planet
>   arrangement. 

     Likewise, though I hope the arrangements will be as drastically
different as they can be without giving unfair advantage to one side.  As
they are now, the differences are nearly only cosmetic.

   : >   galaxy.  I still hope he changes his mind.  If he does not, I suspect
   : >   that someone will take his code, hack in neutral space, and create
   : >   a very successful server.
   : 
   :      Feel free.  I'm sure you'll get 90% of the scum coming there.  Planet
   : scum, runners, defense scum, pizza scum, scum scum, spam spam spam spam.

>   You are absolutely insane.  If you really wish to continue the insult
>   fest, email me.  I'd just as soon you didn't, though.

     Maybe I am insane.  All these are just opinions.  I removed the
insults from this post, however, trying to continue the discussion in the
open where more people can contribute (and perhaps shoot me down).  My last
point wasn't really an insult towards you, though.  It was a statement that
if you provide the only galaxy where DI can be had easily, you will attract
the scum like Flies on Shit (tm).

     Again, my apologies for the insulting tone of the last post, and I
hope this one is better.  Please, anyone else feel free to insert into this
discussion...  or petition to have it ended, if you feel that way:)

     Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek