I'm sad I can't conquer you
No spirited fight back from you!
Edit: but I understand you
Moderator: Oberlus
It would be a very different game. Dumb question: are you also proposing no-in-game-communications?
No that seems pointless. It's extremely easy to communicate out-of-game (probably easier than communicating in-game).
Given that you can't gift during a state of war, this would be impossible.Even higher levels of trust would be required to work together on something. Gifting of planets might become important.
Yes (if peace/alliance).I forget: can we gift fleets?
Yes, I think that's called FFA (Free For All). I'd be interested in that type of game, though not necessarily every game.
Because the clever bugger arrived over one of my Etty colonies on the very turn he got the tech to see it, with enough cap ships to strip its defences AND enough troop ships to take it. So I had to choose between denying him the Etty or denying him the buildings, I didn't have an extra turn to do both ...
Yes I'm sorry, since both you and swaq put up such spirited defences in previous games. I did spend six or seven turns doing my utmost to do smash-and-grab raids while he couldn't see my cloakers, and reorientate my research and production to a guerilla footing, but he had 80RP - that I could see - to my 50 (and interestingly our production stats were almost identical), as well as 16 cap ships to my four, and once he got neutron scanners there was basically no way for me to have any real impact. In the previous games both you and swaq had much more mature tech and production before defeat was inevitable, so there was lots of fun to be had hitting back.
Idly curious: does this make you feel any of the following are true?
Stealth for ships gives you first strike: you attack 3 bouts, enemies with not enough detection attack only two, starting from the second one. That's more than +33% advantage for the stealth empire.
That's one of the problems with the current implementation of the "chat". But, if the person setting up the game includes a condition that there be no out-of-game communications, most players would honor the rule, and many would think badly of any player who didn't.
I wouldn't count on "honour", someone could say "it's suboptimal to not communicate out-of-game so you implement a way to avoid it or I will use it".JonCST wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:38 pm That's one of the problems with the current implementation of the "chat". But, if the person setting up the game includes a condition that there be no out-of-game communications, most players would honor the rule, and many would think badly of any player who didn't.
Fair enough, but the question was whether i was proposing no in-game-communications. No communications at all would be a reasonable proposal, but i don't think no in-game communications makes any reasonable sense.JonCST wrote: ↑Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:38 pmThat's one of the problems with the current implementation of the "chat". But, if the person setting up the game includes a condition that there be no out-of-game communications, most players would honor the rule, and many would think badly of any player who didn't.
*old geezer wanders off, mumbling about honor, integrity, honesty, and "kids these days..."*
J.
While that's true in theory, the times i've tried it against Real People, the RP required to get stealth has meant being at a disadvantage in armor, weapons, and production.
Until the opponent researches the next level of detection, and then they can see your planet, which has no defenses.
Guess i'm beating a dead horse here but i think that would be called "no communications" not "no in-game communications".
Much like the "no alliances" setting, it's a possible way to play the game. Only makes sense if there's no out-of-game communication as well, though.
Jon