From: joshua@lclark.edu (Josh Rochester)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
Subject: Re: Looking For Spaceward Ho! 3.0 Suggestions
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:42:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: lclark.1992Jul29.164204.12804
Organization: Lewis and Clark College

In article <1992Jul29.143910.27715@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, jlarke@css.itd.umich.edu (Jason Larke) writes:
> 
> In article <meharg.712349217@sfu.ca> meharg@fraser.sfu.ca (Gersham William Meharg) writes:
> >2. All combat is very technology dependent, if you have one more tech
> >point than your enemy you will paste him/her. Make this a less          
> >significant factor. More randomness. And protect those colony ships
> >somehow in battles.
> 
> I don't agree. If a tech level means even 20 years of advances, that's
> a big deal in combat. Anyone think a force of F-4s could destroy an equal
> number of F-18's consistently? If anything, let's have less randomness.

I agree with your comment about randomness--after all, who wants chance to be
the ruling factor. But tech isn't the all important thing we think it is.
There are countless examples of great pilots using lesser planes to eliminate
pilots in more moder fighters . . . skill is a factor.

Similarly, skill in combat should be a factor. Not a simulated 'pilot' skill
that the computer handles for you, but your skill in deploying an effective
fleet of ships. What this requires, though, is specialized ships with
strengths and weaknesses. Fighters, carriers, battleships, star destroyers,
etc. Each type of ship would have a place in a battlegroup, and a good
player would know how to build a battle group capable of attacking well while
defending itself. (Different ships would be needed for attack and defense)
 
> >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 often use less than max to save money. Building 30 10/1 satellites
> is always a mean trick, and I also use low-weapons, long-range scouts
> for exploring in directions away from other players. I'm also not sure
> fighters would fit into the game- how do you represent casualties, etc,
> if the fighters are "part" of the carrier?

I guess I'll have to back down on the sliders a little bit, there are some 
uses--but much more interesting ship design could be done with different hull
types as have been mentioned. The sliders would become of less importance
under this scheme.

As far as 'fighters' go, I believe the concept of fighters that has been
voiced here is a small, well armed, highly manouverable hull type with no
FTL. They would still be separate ships, but they would need to be carried
around in transports. The transports would in turn need to be protected
by bigger cruisers, lest the defending ships just wipe them out. The fighters
would then jump out from behind the cover of the bigger ships and eliminate
the satelite defenses of the planet that (hopefully) can't track them fast
enough to knock em out. This whole concept of fleet actions adds a strong
element of planning to the combat in this game. Both attack and defense would
require more thought than just adjusting some sliders to the highest mark
and battles could be won by better thought out, but lower tech, forces.

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