From: jive@spanky.ssc.gov (Jim Ivey)
Subject: Re: 3rd space guardian robots
Organization: SSC Laboratory, Dallas, TX
	<1992Aug27.213155.8857@ils.nwu.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 15:05:27 GMT


     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:
>   : 
>   : 
>   :      Sounds like a crutch, not a feature.  Seriously, looking back over the
>   : points people have made _for_ 3rd space.
>   : 
>   :      1) Easier to sneak in
>   :      2) Place for scout bombers to refuel
>   :      3) One way to avoid LPS
>   :      4) Taking it away would cause claustraphobia
>   : 
>   :      They fall into 4 quick categories.
>   : 
>   :      1) Planet scum
>   :      2) Poor scout bombers
>   :      3) Bad strategists
>   :      4) People who shouldn't be playing netrek from their room at the
>   :           mental hospital

>   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.  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).

>   game.  It gives takers and bombers a place to escape to when the
>   heat's on.  It keeps defenders from being able to create a Maginot

     'Maginot lines' are nearly impossible to keep in a game, unless you
have a starbase.  One good wave of attackers leaves the line either dead,
crippled, or fuelless.  The takers/bombers just skip through cloaked.

>   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

     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).

>   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...)

     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.
     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)

     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.

     If you have to resort to nifty tactics in an LPS, you've screwed up.
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.

>   As for the "claustrophobia" claim, the claimants are not simply
>   talking about their mental state.  It's not that they would *feel*
>   trapped, it's that they would *be* trapped. 

     See the comment about 'Maginot lines'.

>   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.

>   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.