From: shafto@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Subject: Re: 3rd space guardian robots
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:25:48 GMT

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

Jim Ivey (jive@spanky.ssc.gov) wrote:
: 
:      Apologies for length of article.  Hit 'n' now to avoid small but long
: flames.
: 
: In article <1992Aug27.213155.8857@ils.nwu.edu> shafto@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto) writes:
: 
: >   Jim Ivey (jive@spanky.ssc.gov) wrote:

[calling all who disagree with you scum]

: >   Give me a break!  Neutral space adds an interesting dimension to the
: 
:      I believe I said (in the part of my message you deleted) that it does
: add something to the game.  Try reading the whole thing next time.  

Of course I read the whole damned thing.  I was pointing out OTHER
ways it adds to the game.  

: I said
: that it adds something after a genocide, when both teams have that initial
: fight to flatten (the larger team), or take (the smaller team).

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

: >   line.  It allows a winning team to open up a second front which must
: >   be defended.  
: 
: >   If you have never drawn a defender out into 3rd space, then YOU are a
: >   poor scout bomber.  If you have never snuck in from 3rd space to take
: >   a planet, why the hell haven't you?  It's not scumming, it's playing.
: 
: >   I will also assume that you have never been on the "winning" side of an
: >   unbreakable LPS, since you are such a good strategist, and only bad
: 

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.  

:      Wrong on all counts.  Been on all sides of LPS's.  Know the ins and
: outs fairly well.  Last night on bronco was a perfect example of both
: sides.  In the first game against Klis we took Klingus and their core fuel
: planets first.  After that, the game was a joke.  Two scout bombers kept
: them flat, and our planet takers roamed Klingon space, taking freely.  The
: defenders didn't have a small space to defend, so it was easy pickings.
: The next game we got lps'd (as roms) by the feds.  They fucked up and left
: us at Rom.  We had a starbase, held off oggs for half-an-hour, then made a
: comeback, taking the core back.  I had to leave at that point, but
: everything about our defense, with the exception of guarding against
: scout-takers, was excellent.  We counter-ogged heavily, bombed erratically
: but well, defended the starbase constantly.  You get the point (I hope).

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
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.)

: >   strategists could have a problem breaking an LPS.  While we are on the
: >   subject, I think that you meant "tacticians", not "strategists".  I
: >   don't really see much use for strategy in an LPS, while tactics can be
: >   supremely important.
: 
:      (Okay, enough clean response for me.  Time for insults...)

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

:      This is yet another stupid comment, in a post chock full of them.  Go
: pick up a dictionary and read the definitions of strategy and tactics.
: Then think about what I mean.  Nah, forget it.  You'd have a melt-down.
: I'll explain it.  Use strategy to _avoid_ an LPS.

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

:      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.)

:      strategy - 1. The science or art of military command as applied to the
: overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations.
:      (In other words, long-range planning)
: 
:      tactic - An expedient for achieving a goal; maneuver.
:      (In other words, on the spot reactions to implementing
:      strategy.

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

TACTICS:
1a: the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat.

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.

:      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
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.

: 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.

[more stuff deleted]

: >   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.
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. 

: >   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.

--
*Eric Shafto             * The excursion is the same when you go looking  *
*Institute for the       * for your sorrow as when you go looking for     *
*    Learning Sciences   * your joy.                                      *
*Northwestern University *                Eudora Welty, The Wide Net      *
Organization: Freshman, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA